White Mountain National Forest

Transcription

1 White Mountain National Forest United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Eastern Region Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Waterville Valley, Grafton County, NH Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Pemigewasset Ranger District May 2013 For Information Contact: Justin Preisendorfer White Mountain National Forest 71 White Mountain Drive Campton, NH Phone: Fax:

2 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District This document is available in large print. Contact the Pemigewasset Ranger District White Mountain National Forest TTY The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on Recycled Paper 2

3 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI Table of Contents 1 Introduction Purpose and Need Decision and Rationale...6 Decision...6 Reasons for the Decision...9 Alternatives Considered but not Selected Public Involvement...11 Issues Findings Required By Other Laws and Regulations...13 National Environmental Policy Act...13 Forest Plan Consistency (National Forest Management Act)...14 Clean Water Act...14 Executive Orders (Wetlands) and (Floodplains) Finding of No Significant Impact...14 Findings...14 Context...15 Intensity Administrative Appeal, Implementation Date and Contact

4 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District 4

5 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI 1 Introduction This document announces my decision to implement the Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project (Greeley Project) and my finding that this project will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. This Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact incorporate by reference the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Greeley Project dated May 2013 and its supporting project record. The Greeley Project is located in the upper Mad River watershed located in the town of Waterville Valley, Grafton County, New Hampshire. The project focuses on a number of hiking trails between the Livermore Road and the Greeley Ponds. Some of these trails double as Nordic ski trails and/or administrative roads providing access to areas for resource management. 2 Purpose and Need Tropical Storm Irene arrived in New England on August 28, 2011 and by the time the storm passed some sections of the White Mountain National Forest had recorded as much as 10 inches of rain. The Project Area (shown in the attached map) was one of the locations of greatest rainfall and Irene s storm surge quickly exceeded the capacity of the stream and river banks. Waterways were choked with gravel, boulders and trees that had been washed downstream. With their banks full the overflowing water carved new channels, spilled onto nearby trails and overwhelmed bridges and culverts. Those trails that crossed waterways or ran alongside watercourses were the most severely damaged. Damage from the storm is described in the EA and project record. In short, the storm erased multiple sections of trail, damaged a number of bridges, and caused massive erosion to many of the area s most popular trails. The Project Area includes a portion of what is considered to be the nation s oldest hiking trail network. Waterville Valley has served as a popular destination for outdoor recreation since these trails were first constructed more than 150 years ago. The Greeley Ponds Trail also doubles as a Nordic ski trail and is one of the few of its type in the local area that is neither groomed nor operated under special use permit requiring a fee for public use. A section of this trail along with the entire Flume Brook Trail is currently closed to the public due to 5

6 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District the storm damage. Repairing the trails is important to maintaining a range of recreation opportunities on the Pemigewasset Ranger District and ensuring those opportunities are reasonably safe for visitors. An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists evaluated the storm s impacts to recreation infrastructure and assessed options for restoring safe and sustainable trails in the area. During this process they identified trail segments that were poorly located in relation to waterways or where adequate drainage could not be achieved due to topographical constraints. These trail segments and their associated erosion issues pose a threat to water quality whether they were severely damaged by Tropical Storm Irene or not. As an example much of the lower Greeley Ponds Trail is built in an alluvial fan of the Mad River. When the trail was constructed and later improved to be used as a road the river s overflow channels were filled to provide a smooth travel surface. Where culverts were installed they were often too small for even normal high flows to pass unimpeded. Substantial work is needed to restore natural hydrology and allow aquatic species to travel into tributaries from the Mad River. This project has its roots in the White Mountain National Forest s Land and Resource Management Plan, also known as the Forest Plan, which is based on extensive environmental analysis and collaboration with the public. The Plan documents the agreed-upon balance of uses and activities desired to meet society s needs while protecting, restoring, and enhancing our natural resources. This project will help the Forest maintain a full range of recreational opportunities and implement Forest Plan direction to restore riparian and aquatic habitats, including moving roads and trails within 100 of perennial streams (Riparian and Aquatic Habitats G-7, p. 2-25). 3 Decision and Rationale Decision I have seen on-the-ground conditions in the project area, considered input from the interdisciplinary team and the public, and reviewed the Environmental Assessment and Forest Plan direction. Based on all this information, I have decided to implement the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) as it is described in the EA. 6

7 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI This project will: relocate sections of the Greeley Ponds Trail, Flume Brook Trail, and Kettles Path, decommission a highly eroded section of the lower Scaur Trail, repair sections of all four previously mentioned trails and restore appropriate drainage features where the trails will be maintained in their current alignments, restore connectivity in overflow channels for the Mad River where blocked by existing trails, replace a substandard culvert on the Livermore Road with a structure that meets Best Management Practices (BMPs) for aquatic organism passage and unimpeded water flow, and rehabilitate sections of trail that are being decommissioned. A total of four sections of the Greeley Ponds Trail will be relocated. The two relocations closest to the Livermore Road (0.4 miles when combined) will be constructed to move the trail to slightly higher ground within the alluvial fan and allow for better connectivity within the existing network of drainage channels. The third relocation for the Greeley Ponds Trail will begin at its junction with the Timber Camp Trail, 100 yards before the crossing of the Mad River at the former site of Knight s Bridge. The realignment will coincide with the existing Timber Camp Trail (TCT) for its first 0.6 miles up an old roadbed which is currently in excellent condition. The trail will then leave the TCT at a sharp turn but continue to follow the old roadbed which contours across the hillside. As it approaches Greeley Brook the relocated trail will descend on the south side of the brook in the general location of a former TCT alignment from a time (ca s) when it was managed as an intermediate level Nordic ski trail. When the Greeley Ponds Trail relocation reaches the Mad River it will cross on a new bridge suitable for ski traffic and gain the existing trail on the far bank (0.7 miles after leaving the TCT). The existing trail from this point down to Flume Brook (0.6 miles) was relatively unaffected by Tropical Storm Irene and will continue to be maintained for winter travel only as an extension of the Kancamagus Brook Ski Trail. The section between Flume Brook and Knight s Bridge (0.2 miles) was heavily damaged and will be decommissioned. Above the 7

8 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District new bridge site the existing Greeley Ponds Trail suffered significant damage and water continues to run down the trail in a number of locations. The fourth relocation (0.4 miles) will avoid this area by climbing up the river s east bank above the confluence with Greeley Brook, paralleling the existing trail on higher ground, and then rejoining the existing route above the damage. The entire Greeley Ponds Trail will continue to be managed as a Nordic ski trail and as such the corridor and treadway will be constructed to meet Forest Service trail standards. This will allow for an average width of eight feet with opportunities for a wider corridor in those sections where a skier would need more room to navigate. Fill will be imported on the lower section to elevate the treadway within portions of the alluvial fan and to provide a more uniform surface consistent with the higher level of development and use that this section receives. Any culverts or bridges installed will meet Best Management Practices for aquatic organism passage and unimpeded water flow. This includes a substandard culvert that will be replaced with a new crossing structure on the Livermore Road just west of its junction with the Greeley Ponds Trail. The Flume Brook Trail will be decommissioned in its entirety (1.6 miles) with the exception of the last 0.1 mile which leads from a junction with the Old Skidder Trail to the mouth of the Flume. A relocation of this trail will follow the general alignment of an abandoned trail shown on a map accompanying Arthur L. Goodrich s 1915 edition of Waterville Valley: A History, Description and Guide. The trail connected the Scaur Trail (first constructed in the late 1880s by Goodrich) to the Flume Brook Trail near its modern-day junction with the Old Skidder Trail. The section of relocated trail to be constructed is 1.2 miles long. In anticipation of the changing use patterns and shifting impacts associated with the previously described relocations, two closely connected trails must be addressed as well. The Scaur Trail is formed by two distinct segments, one above its junction with the Kettles Path and the other below the junction. The lower section (0.4 miles) includes a difficult crossing of the Mad River and two very steep and eroded sections connected by a terrace. This section of trail has a large amount of deferred maintenance, is plagued by an unsustainable alignment, and will be decommissioned. The section of trail above the junction with the Kettles Path will be retained and will receive additional drainage work and soil retention structures to handle the increased traffic that is expected to occur when it becomes the primary access to the Flume. The same is true with the Kettles Path 8

9 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI which provides access to the upper Scaur Trail. The Kettles Path will receive additional drainage work and soil retention structures to address its deferred maintenance and one section (0.2 miles) will be relocated to avoid a steep eroding hillside with few opportunities for water diversion. All sections of trail that are decommissioned will have drainage structures improved and the entrances/exits will be blocked to prevent continued use. Any culverts will be removed and channels reshaped to approximate natural conditions. Trees that are removed during the construction of new segments will be moved to decommissioned segments where possible to slow any flowing water, catch suspended sediment and naturalize the site. My decision includes application of all mitigation measures identified in the EA. Reasons for the Decision The Greeley Ponds Trail and the Flume Brook Trail provide popular hiking routes of light and moderate difficulty to natural features that have served as destinations for more than 150 years. The former is also a popular Nordic ski trail as well as a primary artery for the historic trail system of the Waterville Valley s Tropical Storm Irene caused significant damage to these trails, creating public safety concerns and forcing area closures that remain in effect today. It is important that we manage all system trails to applicable Forest Service standards including those concerning public safety. In order to manage the area s desired recreation opportunities according to these standards the current condition of the Project Area trails must be addressed. Repairing damaged trails will restore public access to a wide range of outdoor recreational activities. Storm damage in the Project Area has also brought a number of resource concerns to light. Historic trails are often poorly located on the landscape in terms of sustainability and their designs make them more susceptible to damage during extreme weather events. Soil erosion is accelerated on many trail segments in the Project Area due to steep grades and/or proximity to watercourses. Adverse impacts on water quality result from these unsustainable sections of trail thereby impacting proper watershed and riparian functions. These functions are critical to maintain healthy ecosystems and are important goals in the Forest Plan. My decision to relocate several trail sections and decommission the Lower Scaur Trail is based in part on my desire to strike a balance between retaining the historic character of the trail network, planning for 9

10 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District their long-term management and addressing unacceptable resource impacts. Additional impacts to ecological functions stem from inadequate consideration for the natural flow of water during the construction of the lower Greeley Ponds Trail where it crosses the alluvial fan of the Mad River. During flood events water is unable to flow naturally and dissipate energy. In some areas aquatic species are unable to access side channels and tributaries due to barriers such as inadequate culverts or excess fill from the trail construction. Restoring connectivity within this network of channels and replacing inadequate culverts with crossing structures that meet BMPs will improve ecological functions. Realigning the trail in the alluvial fan with consideration for future flood events will help limit its exposure thereby protecting the infrastructure while minimizing adverse resource impacts. The EA demonstrates that the Proposed Action will meet these goals without adversely affecting biological or cultural resources. Although the trails are historic in nature the trail system has been dynamic over its 150-year life and my decision incorporates resurrecting two abandoned trail segments that were once part of the area network. The trail relocations will affect the user s experience, sometimes taking them farther from the Mad River or Flume Brook than they may have desired. The tradeoff is that they gain vistas and pass interesting natural features that they would not encounter on a trail in the bottom of a valley. When the trail is completed, a trip to the Flume will visit an impressive gorge, massive granite boulders, large glacial kettles, and sweeping vistas in two directions. I believe the trails will continue to provide an enjoyable a range of outdoor recreation opportunities with improved safety and resource conditions. This decision is based on my review of the project EA and the supporting documentation in the project record, including input from the public and appropriate resource specialists. I am satisfied that the interdisciplinary team conducted a thorough analysis of the two alternatives and that we effectively involved the public. Alternatives Considered but not Selected The interdisciplinary team evaluated one other alternative in detail in the Environmental Assessment. Alternative 1 Analysis of this alternative provides a baseline for evaluating the effects of action 10

11 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI alternatives. Under this alternative, none of the activities proposed in the Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project would occur at this time. Custodial resource protection, such as law enforcement and periodic trail maintenance would be the only management occurring in the project area. I did not select Alternative 1 because it would not meet the purpose and need for the project. Sections of trail would need to remain closed and there would be no trail access to the Greeley Ponds Scenic Area from Waterville Valley. Several area trails that would remain open would continue to provide recreational opportunities but visitor experiences may be diminished by the condition of these trails. Large storm events would pose a continued threat to the trail system and it is likely that additional segments of trail would need to be closed due to damage. Erosion issues would be addressed in a minimal fashion through basic maintenance of the trail but this would be ineffective at dealing with any of the sections that have unsustainable alignments. Impacts to water quality would continue at or close to the same degree. The natural flow of water would continue to be impeded in the alluvial fan putting recreation infrastructure at risk, preventing passage of aquatic organisms and adversely impacting ecosystem function. This alternative would not move the Forest toward the desired condition for our trails or water and riparian resources. Alternatives Considered but Not Fully Evaluated Several other alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail for reasons explained in the EA: repair all trail segments in their current alignments, eliminate all crossings of the Mad River by relocating the Greeley Ponds Trail so that it stays on the west side of the river all the way to the Greeley Ponds, and reroute the Greeley Ponds Trail as described in the decision but utilize the undamaged section between Greeley and Flume brooks to provide access to the Flume Brook Trail which would be repaired in place. 4 Public Involvement This project was listed on the quarterly White Mountain National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning in July 2012, and will remain on 11

12 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District the SOPA until after this decision is signed. The 30-Day Comment Report was posted to the Forest s website on January 2, The report or notification of its availability online was sent to three people who had asked to be on the project mailing list, state and local agencies, local partners, and others known to have an interest in this project. On January 4, 2013, a legal notice announcing the availability of the 30-Day Comment Report was published in the New Hampshire Union Leader. Prior to the formal distribution of the 30-Day Comment Report the proposed action was shared with a number of interested parties to obtain feedback and identify issues that the interdisciplinary team may have missed. A secondary objective was to share the project s timeline and alert interested parties to their future opportunities to provide additional comments. An example of this occurred on October 3, 2012 when a Forest Service led field trip visited the project area as part of an event hosted by the National Forest Foundation. Over 45 people attended this event including local partners, state agencies and media representatives. Maps of the project area were shared displaying all of the components of the project that were eventually included in the 30-Day Comment Report. The event was summarized in print (NH Union Leader), on television (WMUR Channel 9) and online (both media outlets websites). Two members of the public called for clarification on different aspects of the project and after discussion with the project leader they provided general comments in support of the project. Two members of the public sent comments electronically. The first was supportive and commended the Forest Service for its research into and eventual use of abandoned trails and roads. He also mentioned that the only drawback that he could see was that there would be additional mileage added to those who want to ski a loop from Waterville and use the Kancamagus Brook Ski Trail. This was considered in the project proposal and determined to be a reasonable trade-off considering the Kancamagus Brook Ski Trail is already a remote expert-level backcountry ski trail and the additional length (1.1 miles) will add enjoyable terrain for skiers of that ability. The other person who commented via urged the Forest Service to consider leaving the Timber Camp Trail farther south and descend northeast toward the junction of Greeley Brook and the Mad River to allow for a shorter trail that would avoid what he perceived to be an unnecessary climb. This option was investigated early in the reconnaissance phase but determined to be 12

13 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI unsustainable due to topographical constraints. While the area adjacent to the Mad River does provide room to locate a trail away from its banks this area is prone to flooding and any trail would be at risk of damage on a regular basis. Once you climb out of the flood plain the hillside is extremely steep and extensive engineering would be necessary to construct a bench of sufficient width for a ski trail. Most of the slope connecting the flood plain to the bench housing the Timber Camp Trail approaches or exceeds 50%. The roadbed that will house the relocated trail was constructed at the top of this steep slope where the angle generally lessens. Although a shorter trail with less elevation gain would certainly be desirable for most visitors, sustainable relocations of existing trails often require additional mileage to lessen the grades and avoid natural features of concern (e.g. floodplains). Issues An issue is a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticipated effects of implementing the proposed action. Issues are usually identified by the interdisciplinary team based on comments from the public or other agencies. Occasionally issues arise within the interdisciplinary team if the concerns of all resources cannot be addressed in a proposal. For this project, the only public comment that suggested a change to the proposed action was considered but not fully evaluated because it would have violated Best Management Practices for trail construction by building a trail on an excessively steep slope that could have been avoided through another alignment. All resource concerns were addressed in the proposed action, therefore no issues were identified. 5 Findings Required By Other Laws and Regulations My decision will comply with all current, applicable laws and regulations. I have summarized some pertinent ones below. National Environmental Policy Act This Act requires public involvement, and consideration and disclosure of potential environmental effects. The Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project environmental analysis was conducted following the procedures and requirements contained in this Act. An interdisciplinary team fully evaluated and disclosed the environmental effects of the proposed project based upon field study, resource inventory and survey, the best available science, and 13

14 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District their professional expertise. The entirety of documentation for this decision demonstrates compliance with this Act. Forest Plan Consistency (National Forest Management Act) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that all site-specific project activities be consistent with direction in the applicable Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). This project implements the White Mountain National Forest Plan. As required by NFMA Section 1604(i), I find this project to be consistent with the Forest Plan including goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and Forest-wide and Management Area standards and guidelines. Clean Water Act The beneficial uses of project area streams would be maintained during and following project implementation. As the soil and water resources and aquatic species and habitat sections of the EA make clear, application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and project design features will ensure protection of water resources. In fact, this project is designed to reduce erosion and sedimentation in the long-term. Executive Orders (Wetlands) and (Floodplains) As discussed in my decision rationale and several sections of the EA, this project is designed to move existing trails out of the floodplain, restore natural hydrology to several streams, and improve the ability of local streams to deal with high flows during future storm events. During implementation, wetlands and floodplains would be protected through the use of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and best management practices. Therefore this decision is in compliance with these Executive Orders. 6 Finding of No Significant Impact Findings Based on my review of the Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project EA and documentation, I have determined that the activities included in Alternative 2 will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required. This finding is based on the 14

15 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI context and intensity of the actions (40 C.F.R ) as explained below. Context The significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts and varies with the setting. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends on the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant (40 CFR ). This decision and the project EA are tiered to the Forest Plan Record of Decision and incorporate by reference the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which analyzed and disclosed effects of potential Forest management at a larger scale. The activities planned in the Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project are similar to others completed on the White Mountain National Forest and are within the range of effects anticipated in the Forest Plan FEIS. The environmental effects of this project are analyzed at varying scales (e.g. the project area, watershed, or town), as described for each resource in Chapter 3 of the EA. I have reviewed the cumulative effects of past management, combined with this project and reasonably foreseeable future actions as they are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA, and feel that the context of this decision is limited to the land in and adjacent to the project area. The project s relatively small scale limits its effects. The analysis in Chapter 3 indicates that project design and application of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and best management practices will minimize negative impacts to all resources. Given the short-term and localized nature of impacts described in the EA, the Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project will have no measurable effects at the regional or national levels and consideration of significance will focus on the local setting. This decision, and the environmental assessment and effects analysis on which it is based, applies only to this local area. After a thorough review of the effects analysis contained in the EA, I find that this project does not establish a local, regional, or national precedent, nor does it have any substantial applicability beyond the bounds of the White Mountain National Forest. Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from Chapter 3 of the EA and the project record. I have determined that the interdisciplinary team considered the effects of this project 15

16 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District appropriately and thoroughly with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. They took a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and their knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from numerous field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR b. 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. As described in the EA (Chapter 3), there are likely to be both beneficial and adverse effects to certain resources from taking the actions proposed in Alternative 2. In reaching my finding of no significant impact, I did not ignore or trivialize negative effects by offsetting them with beneficial effects. The EA demonstrates that, due to careful project design that incorporates protective measures (Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and site-specific design features), the possible negative effects are minor and of short duration, and are not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively significant. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. As discussed in the EA, this project was designed, in part, to reduce an existing risk to public safety. The current condition of the Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook trails is such that portions of both are closed to all public use due to safety concerns. Though backcountry trails are not controlled environments they are managed to provide a reasonably safe experience based on agency standards and visitor create expectations that are generally well aligned with these standards. These trails currently contain hazards that would not be expected by visitors such as unbridged river crossings that cannot be safely forded under normal conditions during the season of peak use. Alternative 2 will relocate the trails so that only one crossing is needed rather than two and this crossing will be outfitted with a bridge in a location that is more sustainable than either of the two current crossings. Other sections of area trails have extensive erosion that creates unstable footing beyond what would be expected especially on a trail that has been a destination for novice hikers and those with accessibility issues. Alternative 2 will rebuild the section of the Greeley Ponds Trail from Livermore Road to the Timber Camp 16

17 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI Trail so that it meets our agency standards for accessibility. All other sections of trail will be repaired or reconstructed to return them to safer and more enjoyable experiences closer to what a visitor would expect on a hiking trail in the White Mountains. The closed sections of trail will remain closed while repairs are taking place to provide for public safety. Repair of the sections that are currently open to the public and construction of the relocated sections will be timed and implemented in a way to minimize hazards to trail users. Temporary closures may be implemented when heavy equipment is working on site. These closures will be designed in such a way as to meet our objectives for public safety while simultaneously considering their impacts on recreation opportunities. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. This project area borders the Sandwich Range Wilderness but all of the work planned occurs more than ¼ mile from the wilderness boundary. All construction requiring heavy equipment (excavators or dump trucks) will be more than a mile from the boundary so the associated noise should not alter the wilderness experience. Much of the project area is within a Roadless Area Conservation Rule inventoried roadless area and areas that were included in the Forest Plan revision roadless inventory. Noise from construction activities may be audible in inventoried roadless areas, but it would be short in duration and would not alter the potential for these areas to be part of the next inventory. Nor would trail tread repair or construction, which would occur in the inventoried roadless area, affect consideration of the area in future inventories. The Mad River is identified in the Forest Plan as eligible for designation under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. The stretch of river in the project area is considered eligible for classification as either a recreational or wild river. As discussed in the EA, this project will not adversely affect any resource and will result in benefits to the Mad River and its floodplain. Therefore I find that my decision will not affect the eligibility of this river for designation under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. 17

18 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District The project area is adjacent to but not within the Greeley Ponds Scenic Area. The project will not adversely affect the Scenic Area or the Forest Service s ability to manage it as such. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, research natural areas, or ecologically critical areas in or near the project area, and therefore none would be adversely affected. The interdisciplinary team spent many days in the project area and designed the project to protect wetlands, riparian areas, and cultural resources. As a result, the EA clearly demonstrates there will be no significant effects to any of these resources (EA Chapter 3). The selected alternative will not violate standards set for Outstanding Resource Waters for New Hampshire (EA, Soil and Water Resources section). 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act, controversy refers to a substantial dispute in the scientific community regarding the effects of an action, not social opposition. Our contacts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Historic Preservation Office did not identify any scientific controversy regarding the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of this project (see project record). The interdisciplinary team for this project considered available scientific literature (see project record) and found no controversy related to the predicted effects. Based on these factors, and the analysis provided in the EA and project record, I have concluded that the effects of Alternative 2 on the quality of the human environment are not controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The White Mountain National Forest has considerable on-the-ground experience with the types of activities to be implemented in this project, under similar conditions. The range of site characteristics are similar to those taken into consideration and disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS, Chapter 3, and the effects of this project are within the range anticipated in that FEIS and the Forest Plan Record of Decision. The effects analysis (EA Chapter 3) demonstrates that the effects of these activities are not uncertain or significant and do not involve unique or unknown risks. The body of knowledge gained through years of project-level and programmatic monitoring, contract inspections, and review of applied research (see project record) provides a basis for the effects analysis in 18

19 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI the EA and supports my determination that there will be no highly uncertain effects or unique or unknown risks associated with this project. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This is not a precedent-setting decision. Similar actions occur regularly across the Forest. The effects of implementing Alternative 2 disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA are within the range of effects of these similar actions. They also are within the range of effects disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS. The implementation of Alternative 2 does not make a commitment to do anything in other areas on the White Mountain National Forest or any other national forest. It will not set a regional or national precedent. For these reasons, I have determined this action does not establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts. All actions are consistent with the Forest Plan so this is not a decision in principle. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Chapter 3 of the EA discloses the combined effects of this project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. None of the actions included in the Proposed Action would create significant impact alone or when considered with other actions. The interdisciplinary team chose cumulative effects analysis areas and timeframes that would most thoroughly examine and predict effects (see project record). Based on the analysis in the EA, and incorporating by reference the range of effects predicted in the Forest Plan FEIS, I have determined that implementing the Proposed Action will not result in significant cumulative effects. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The WMNF heritage program manager visited the project area and surveys were conducted for archaeological sites and historic properties or areas that might be affected by this decision (project record). One previously documented cultural resource site is located within the project area but not in an area of proposed 19

20 White Mountain National Forest Pemigewasset Ranger District ground disturbance so no adverse effects are anticipated. The findings and recommendations from the inventory and report were submitted to the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office, and they concurred with our finding that there would be no adverse impacts to any cultural resources. Therefore I find that this decision complies with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities not jeopardize the continued existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered, or result in adverse modification to such species designated critical habitat. As required by this Act, potential effects of this decision on listed species have been analyzed and documented in a Biological Evaluation (see project record). As disclosed in the Biological Evaluation, this project will have no impact on any federally-listed species nor would it have an impact on any of the Regional Forester s Sensitive plant or animal species. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. All applicable laws for the protection of the environment are incorporated into the standards and guidelines in the White Mountain National Forest Plan. Alternative 2 complies with the Forest Plan. I find that none of the actions in this decision threatens to violate applicable Federal, State, or local laws or other requirements to protect the environment. 20

21 Greeley Ponds and Flume Brook Trail Repair Project Decision Notice and FONSI 7 Administrative Appeal, Implementation Date and Contact In accordance with 36 CFR (e)(1), this decision is not subject to appeal. Therefore implementation of this decision may begin immediately. For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Justin Preisendorfer at jpreisendorfer@fs.fed.us, or by phone at ( ), or by FAX ( ). Additional information about this decision also can be found on the White Mountain National Forest web page at: 21