United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT MT. HOUGH SOUTH PARK PROPOSED TRAILS SYSTEM PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, MT. HOUGH RANGER DISTRICT PLUMAS COUNTY, CA LOCATION The Mt. Hough - South Park Proposed Trail System Project (MHSP Trails Project) includes motorized and non-motorized trail networks located between two and ten miles north and northeast of Quincy, California. The entire project area is located within the Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, in Plumas County, California. Figure 1 is a map showing all routes included in this project. The non-motorized trail network proposed in the South Park area is located in between State Highway 70 and Oakland Camp, north of Chandler Road and south of Spanish Creek. South Park encompasses all or portions of: T24N, R9E, sections 1 and 2; T24N, R10E, section 6; T25N, R9E, sections 25, 26, 35, and 36; and T25N, R10E, section 31, Mount Diablo Base Meridian (MDBM). The motorized trail network proposed in the Mt. Hough area is located between Spanish Creek east to Grizzly Ridge, north to Indian Falls Ridge, and south to Highway 70. Mt. Hough encompasses all or portions of: T24N, R10E, sections 1, 4-6, and 9; T25N, R9E, sections 1, 2, 11-13, and 23-25; T25N, R10E, sections 6-9, 14-24, and 28-33; T25N, R11E, sections 30-33; and T24N, R11E, sections 4, 9, 10, and 15, MDBM. BACKGROUND The Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest has proposed to create a network of motorized and non-motorized National Forest System (NFS) trails on the Mt. Hough Ranger District. This action is needed because the District is lacking a quality trail system close to Quincy, California. These non-motorized and motorized trails will provide a variety of trail use opportunities that will benefit local Plumas County residents as well as visitors who will help stimulate the local economy. Motorized and non-motorized user groups have expressed interest in creating and maintaining an official network of trails in this area and the Forest Service has worked closely with Sierra Access Coalition, Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship, the community of Keddie, and other interested individuals to design a project balancing the needs of multiple user groups. Furthermore, as envisioned by the Plumas National Forest Motorized Travel Management Record of Decision, the MHSP Trails Project was developed to continue to refine the Forest s transportation system to provide recreation opportunities and meet agency needs. Page 1 of 17

2 Figure 1. MHSP Trails Project map, including all motorized and non-motorized routes that will be included when the project is fully implemented. Page 2 of 17

3 DECISION Based on the analysis in the MHSP Trails Project Environmental Assessment (EA) and the associated planning record, I have decided to implement Alternative A as fully described in the EA (EA pages 10-23) and shown in Figure 1, with the following modifications: 1. Massack route deferred from implementation The 0.1 mile motorized route at Massack that was included in the proposed action will be deferred from implementation until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. There is a cultural site located at the end of this proposed route (formerly the Luman Cabin) that requires protection under the National Historic Preservation Act. After barriers are placed along the route to prevent off-road vehicle traffic and protect the cultural resource site, the route will be designated as part of the NFS network. 2. Cascade Trail recommended for hikers As described in the EA, all non-motorized trails in the South Park network will be managed as multiple-use trails, open to hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers with appropriate design as identified in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) , Section 23.13, Exhibit 01. After considering comments from the public, I have decided that the segment of the Cascade Trail from the trailhead to the cascades on Spanish Creek will have an additional designation. Because this section of trail is heavily used by hikers, including families with very young children and elderly hikers, the recommended use for this segment of trail will be hiking. While other nonmotorized uses will be allowed, high deference will be given to pedestrian use of this section of the Cascade Trail. This information will be clearly signed at the trailhead and we expect that other trail users (mountain bikers and equestrians) will abide by this recommendation and offer extra right of way consideration when encountering pedestrians on this segment of the trail. 3. Road obliteration/decommissioning As described in the mitigation section of the EA (EA, pages 26-28), several routes were proposed for either improvement or obliteration to improve watershed conditions in the project area. After considering comments from the public, I have decided not to obliterate one of the routes that was proposed for obliteration, the non-system route west of 25N18D in T24N R10E sections 24 and 25. The travel management status on this 0.8 mile route will remain unchanged (unauthorized for travel). This change is based on public input during this planning process, allowing for future consideration of this route as a system route. The interdisciplinary team has been consulted and no significant adverse impacts would occur as a result of this change. Also, the obliteration of 25N18D and 25N10YB will occur after they are no longer needed for implementation of the Empire Vegetation Management Project. Based on these modifications, this project will result in the obliteration of 3.0 miles of routes (changed from 3.8 miles in the proposed action) and the improvement of 4.75 miles of routes (unchanged). These changes and clarifications are shown in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 1. Page 3 of 17

4 Figure 2. Routes proposed for improvement or obliteration to mitigate impacts of the MHSP Trails Project. NOTE: The short segments proposed for obliteration east of the South Park Trailhead and north of the Spanish Creek Trailhead are secondary routes not discernible at the scale of this map (25N33Y is not proposed to be obliterated). Page 4 of 17

5 Watershed Routes proposed for Obliteration Routes proposed for Improvement Dry Taylor Creek Route ID Miles Route ID Miles Non-system route in T24N R10E Section 2 Berry Creek 25N73 & 25N Blackhawk Creek Non-system spur route off of County Road 416 in T25N R9E Section Flume trail 0.1 Gilson Creek 25N33Y ext N Taylor Creek Non-system route in T25N R10E Sections 34 & Taylor Creek 25N10YB 0.6 Taylor Creek 25N18D 0.4 Taylor Creek Non-system route west of 25N18D in T24N R10E Sections 24&25 Tollgate Creek 25N Cashman Creek 0.8* 25N19 Culvert upgrade Montgomery Creek 25N29 ext. 0.2 South Park South Park #3 re-route 0.15 Massack Creek 25N41/A, 24N20Y 1.6 TOTAL * The non-system route west of 25N18D in T24N R10E Sections 24&25 will not be obliterated Alternative A, as described in the EA, includes the following activities: 1. Designation of 16.6 miles of non-motorized trails in the South Park area and 35 miles of motorized trails in the Mt. Hough area (21.4 miles of singletrack, 11 miles of quad trails, and 2.6 miles open to all vehicles) as NFS trails as summarized in Table 2 below and shown in Figure 1. A total of 8.5 miles of motorized routes and 1.7 miles of nonmotorized trails are proposed for new construction. Note: the totals above include 0.1 miles of motorized route that is deferred from implementation at Massack, as described above and 2.9 miles of non-motorized routes on private land which are included in this decision and deferred from implementation until legal access is secured. The routes on private land are shown in the EA and were retained in this environmental analysis at the landowner s request (EA, Figure 2, page 13). Page 5 of 17

6 Construction Type Miles of route Motorized Existing routes proposed for inclusion as is 6.1 Existing routes requiring minor rehabilitation 9.7 Existing routes requiring rehabilitation 10.7 Routes proposed for new construction 8.5 Subtotal of motorized routes 35.0* Non-motorized Existing routes proposed for inclusion as is 8.3 Existing routes requiring minor rehabilitation 4.4 Existing routes requiring rehabilitation 2.2 Routes proposed for new construction 1.7 Subtotal of non-motorized routes 16.6** Total 51.6 * Includes 0.1 mile at Massack deferred from implementation ** Includes 2.9 miles on private land deferred from implementation 2. Designation of four trailheads as part of the NFS network (shown in Figure 1). Two trailheads will be unmodified (Four Corners and Spanish Creek), one will be modified (Cascade), and one will be newly-developed (South Park). a. The Cascade Trailhead will be modified to protect natural and cultural resources (map shown in EA, Figure 3, page 16). A restroom will be installed and the area will be designated as day use only; both of these actions will improve sanitation conditions in this area. The day use designation will also eliminate campfires and therefore decrease the risk of accidental ignition of a wildfire in this area. b. The South Park Trailhead will be newly-developed and will accommodate trucks towing trailers, providing equestrians with safe parking access for the South Park trail system. 3. Treatment of invasive plant infestations at approximately 49 locations along some roads and trails in the project area (EA, pages 19-23, map included in Appendix A, page 75). The potential to spread these invasive plant species from the areas of known infestations would increase by the authorization of motorized use of these trails. The treatment of invasive plants will aim to eradicate known infestations and will minimize the risk of spread. The total treated area would not exceed 75 acres. Treatment will consist of a combination of manual, mechanical, and chemical treatments. Chemical treatment of plants using herbicides will be considered where manual or mechanical Page 6 of 17

7 treatment is infeasible or ineffective. Herbicides would be applied on invasive plants as needed once or twice per season for two to five years. 4. Improving 4.75 miles of roads and obliterating 3.0 miles of poorly-placed, currentlyeroding roads and routes to mitigate the potential effects of the project activities (shown in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 1). Actions for improving routes would include replacing culverts, constructing armored rolling dips, and out-sloping route segments; actions for obliterating routes would range from physically blocking routes with boulders and scattering available woody material to full decommissioning including complete obliteration and supplemental planting of riparian vegetation at stream crossings. In summary, the selected alternative will reduce environmental impacts and improve recreational opportunities in the Mt. Hough and South Park areas through: a) Adoption of specific existing unauthorized trails (see Figure 1); b) Construction of new trails and trail segments to provide sustainable trail connections (Figure 1); c) Decommissioning and restoration of some unauthorized and authorized routes to protect resources and mitigate project-related impacts (Figure 2 and Table 1). d) Adopting and upgrading existing, undesignated parking areas to reduce resource impacts and provide sustainable parking and public access within the project area. e) Treatment of invasive plants using herbicide to minimize the spread of known infestations. DECISION RATIONALE In reaching my decision, I considered the purpose and need for action, resource specific issues, range of alternatives, environmental consequences, public comments and concerns (described below in the public involvement section), and the best available science. This project has evolved over several years, attempting to bring together various trail user groups, provide an opportunity for all user types, improve recreational experiences, and stimulate the local economy. I have personally worked extensively with the Sierra Access Coalition, Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship, and local neighbors to find a balanced decision. This decision has something for most of the interested parties involved and benefits the local community as well as the public at large. I have also considered the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision (SNFPA FSEIS ROD), documents incorporated by reference, including resource specialist reports and public comments submitted in regards to the MHSP Trails Project EA and proposed action. The MHSP Trails Project EA and specialist reports document the environmental analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is based. Page 7 of 17

8 I have decided to implement Alternative A, as modified, for the following reasons: 1. The selected alternative is responsive to the Purpose and Need (EA, pages 2-4). The ways in which this project addresses the specific components of the Purpose and Need are described in detail below (Achievement of Purpose and Need, pages 9-10). 2. The selected alternative meets the desired conditions (EA, pages 2-4). 3. The selected alternative provides a comprehensive, rigorous, and thorough set of project design features, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and Standard Management Requirements (SMRs) (EA, Tables 3-12 and Appendices B and C) that are specifically designed to minimize adverse environmental effects. When implementing this project, we will adhere to standards and guidelines to protect important natural and cultural resources, ensuring that any disturbance is eliminated or minimized and mitigated. These measures have been demonstrated to be effective in mitigating potential effects of the proposed activities. The selected alternative and the resource protection measures, BMPs, and SMRs reflect a cooperative effort by the Forest Service, other public agencies, and interested members of the public as to the appropriate actions to be taken in order to meet the need for action. Design criteria, BMPs, and SMRs are incorporated into Alternative A to minimize potential harm caused by this project (EA, Chapter 2, Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action, Design Criteria, pages 10-23; Appendix C, Standard Management Requirements). Tables 3 12 in the EA display design criteria for the proposed action and include criteria for actions such as trail development, trailhead development, treatment of invasive plants, and watershed improvement activities. The criteria identified in the tables include requirements for ground-disturbing actions, erosion control activities, trail monitoring specifications, trail design parameters, cultural resources site protection, invasive plant prevention measures, wildlife protection measures, and herbicide application regulations. Appendix B includes applicable BMPs. Appendix C includes SMRs for several resources including botany, heritage, hydrology and soils, and wildlife. The SMRs include items such as limited operating periods, BMPs, and invasive plant management procedures. Means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from this decision have been adopted. 4. The selected alternative best meets the need to address resource impacts and public demand for recreation opportunities for a diverse group of users by designating an environmentally-sustainable system of authorized NFS trails in the Mt. Hough and South Park areas. Environmental concerns that were raised by the public during the scoping and public comment period include concerns over erosion and soil compaction caused by trail users, noise and dust pollution associated with motorized use, the spread of invasive plant species, and impacts to wildlife in the Mt. Hough State Game Refuge. The selected alternative addresses these concerns by incorporating appropriate trail drainage features (water bars, rolling dips, or out-sloped trail segments) to minimize erosion; removing motorized trails within 0.5 mile of residences; implementing watershed improvement Page 8 of 17

9 actions (road and route improvement and obliteration) where erosion problems currently exist; treating invasive plants with a combination of manual, mechanical, and chemical treatments; and dropping some of the trails originally proposed within the Mt. Hough State Game Refuge. I also heard concerns regarding the potential for increased conflicts between user groups; safety hazards associated with the proposed multi-use trail designations; inadequate parking areas for equestrians towing trailers; safety hazards and sanitation violations associated with dispersed camping in the Cascade Trailhead area; the loss of routes through the decommissioning/obliteration of unauthorized routes; and adverse impacts certain user groups have on the recreation experience of other groups (impact of bicyclists on equestrians on the South Park trails as well as impacts of both equestrians and bicyclists on hikers on the Cascade Trail). I have considered those concerns along with balancing the recreation opportunity among user groups. As described above, I have personally met with the Sierra Access Coalition (125 s and at least 5 meetings), local residents, the President of the local Backcountry Horseman s chapter, members of the California Native Plant Society, and Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship to discuss concerns related to this project. The selected alternative responds to these concerns by designating the segment of the Cascade Trail from the trailhead to the cascades as recommended for hikers only; designing the South Park Trailhead to accommodate equestrians towing trailers; designating the Cascade Trailhead area along NFS road 25N48X as day use only and installing a toilet near the trailhead; not obliterating one 0.8 mile route that was proposed for obliteration; incorporating signage at trailheads and at key intersections to inform users of allowed uses, trail etiquette, and right-of-way; and by implementing exit surveys to assess trail user satisfaction. If user conflicts are found to be substantial, mitigation measures will be proposed. Achievement of Purpose and Need Provide a variety of trail use opportunities Alternative A, the proposed action, will provide a variety of trail use opportunities. The designation of 16.6 miles of non-motorized trails and 35 miles of motorized trails will increase recreation opportunities for a variety of users. These trails include loop opportunities and have been designed for user satisfaction. Adding 21.4 miles of motorized singletrack trails would increase motorized singletrack opportunities by over 600 percent on the Mt. Hough Ranger District, with the resulting total of 24.9 miles of singletrack trails. These 21.4 miles of additional, motorized singletrack trails will also be available for hiking, biking, and equestrians, thereby having positive effects on non-motorized recreation users as well. Currently, there are 20 miles of designated quad trails on the Mt. Hough Ranger District. Adding 11 miles of quad trails will increase the designated quad trails available to users by 55 percent, resulting in a total of 31 miles available. All recreationists will gain access to more miles of improved trails. Page 9 of 17

10 Construct new trails according to management area direction while providing utility and resource protection Alternative A, the proposed action, will construct new trails according to the direction of the PNF LRMP, as amended, while providing utility and resource protection. All trails proposed for inclusion in this project have been analyzed to eliminate or minimize and mitigate impacts on natural and cultural resources. To mitigate soil erosion concerns, watershed improvements have been proposed including improving 4.75 of routes and obliterating 3.0 miles of poorlylocated, actively-eroding road and trail segments. The elimination of these problematic routes in favor of a well-designed network is consistent with providing a quality trail system for recreation and access. Provide adequate public access and parking for recreational trails Alternative A, the proposed action, will improve parking and public access for the motorized and non-motorized trails proposed in the MHSP Trails Project area. Four trailheads will be designated. Two will be unmodified (Four Corners and Spanish Creek), one will be modified (Cascade) and one will be newly-developed (South Park). The Cascade Trailhead will be modified to protect natural and cultural resources: the area along National Forest System (NFS) road 25N48X will become a day use area, a restroom will be installed, and the trailhead will be moved 500 feet to protect cultural resources. A new trailhead will be developed for the nonmotorized South Park trail system and will accommodate trucks towing trailers, to provide parking opportunities for equestrians transporting horses. Improve recreation experiences and opportunities Alternative A, the proposed action, will improve recreation experiences and opportunities for a variety of trail users. As described above, more miles of trails will be available for all users. Designation of the total 35 miles of motorized trails and 16.6 miles of non-motorized trails will have beneficial direct impacts on the condition of these trails because it will become possible to spend maintenance dollars on these trails. There will also be indirect benefits because existing unsafe and substandard trail conditions will be improved. Trail development design parameter guidelines will allow for widening trails as needed and increasing sight distances, thereby improving trail safety for all users. Along the access road to the Cascade Trailhead, NFS road 25N48X, designation of the area as a day use area and installation of a toilet will improve safety and sanitation conditions. In addition to the benefit of additional miles of improved trails and the opportunity for appropriate trail design and maintenance, increased directional and rightof-way signage will improve the user experience because it will be easier to navigate the trails and users will be informed about allowed use and proper trail etiquette. The increased signage is expected to decrease the potential for conflict among various user groups. Page 10 of 17

11 Conclusion The benefits of implementing the MHSP Trails Project include providing a variety of trail use opportunities, providing adequate public access and parking, protecting natural and cultural resources, improving recreation experiences and opportunities, decreasing the spread of invasive plants, minimizing risk of erosion, and contributing to the economic health and stability of our local community. The current conditions within the project area include unmanaged, substandard trails with no signage, no maps, and no authorized parking areas for access. Existing infestations of invasive plants are untreated. The existing, incidental trails were created by users without any corresponding design or analysis of the potential impacts on natural and cultural resources. Because of these existing conditions, the no action alternative would be expected to result in the gradual and continual degradation of these trails and increased erosion because no trail maintenance or realignment would occur, increased possibility of user conflicts due to lack of signage and information on trail etiquette, and the continual spread of invasive plants along the trails from known, uncontrolled infestations. Because of these existing conditions, it is clear that the adverse impacts associated with no action are greater than the short-term impacts associated with implementing this project. My decision provides for treatments that will have beneficial effects and any potential negative resource impacts have been carefully considered. As described in the EA and specialist reports, the long term benefits to recreation and to cultural and ecological resources outweigh the short term impacts of this project. As stated above, my decision to implement Alternative A will meet the purpose and need for action, substantially improving resource conditions in the project area as compared to the status quo. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Plumas National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions on February 29, 2012 and was updated periodically during the analysis. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping which began on February 29, 2012 when legal notice of the scoping period was published in the Feather River Bulletin. In addition, the Feather River Bulletin published a cover story on this project on March 7, The agency participated in a public meeting held by Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship at the Quincy Public Library on March 12, As part of the public involvement process, the agency sent out a scoping letter on March 27, After this initial scoping period, the project was modified based on public comments as well as internal comments from the interdisciplinary team. A scoping update outlining the changes to the proposed action was sent out on February 5, In addition, the Responsible Official and members of the interdisciplinary team met on several occasions with individuals from the Sierra Access Coalition (125 s and at least 5 meetings), Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship, the California Native Plant Society, members of the local community, and with other interested individuals. Contacts were made with these interested parties to ensure full involvement and, Page 11 of 17

12 where appropriate, consultation early in the project. A total of 59 written and 131 electronic comments on the proposed action were received during the scoping period. A compilation of the scoping comments and a summary of the issues is located in the project record at Mt. Hough Ranger District in Quincy, CA. Using the comments from the public and other agencies, the IDT developed a list of issues to address. These issues are described in detail in the MHSP Trails Project EA, pages Several alternatives were developed based on these issues and these alternatives were eliminated from detailed study. An explanation of the rationale is found on pages of the EA. Furthermore, several features were adjusted in Alternative A to address concerns raised by the public during scoping. For example, approximately four miles of non-motorized trails and nine miles of motorized trails were dropped from consideration based on identified issues (noise disturbance near residences, resource concerns including potential effects on wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and cultural resources). Also based on issues raised during scoping, the proposed action was modified to include day use designation and the installation of a toilet at the Cascade Trailhead area along NFS road 25N48X. In addition, trailhead locations were specified, the South Park Trailhead was specifically designed to accommodate equestrians towing trailers, and the treatment of invasive plants with herbicide was added to the proposal due to concerns regarding the spread of invasive plants along trails. After incorporating these modifications and completing the analysis of impacts, the EA was distributed to the public and the comment period began on April 10, 2013 with a legal notice in the Feather River Bulletin. A total of 9 written and 36 electronic comments on the EA were received during the comment period. Two additional comment letters were received after the close of the comment period. All comments received and the responses to these comments are contained in the project record. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR ). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following: CONTEXT The local context of this action is limited to the MHSP Trails Project area, on the Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest (Figure 1). Project activities focus on improving motorized and non-motorized trails, improving and constructing trailhead areas, and reducing the spread of invasive plants in the project area (described in EA, pages 10-23). The ground disturbance caused by this project will be minimal because nearly 80 percent of the trails proposed for inclusion exist on the landscape in the form of compacted soil from prior management activities and user-created, incidental trails. The extent of ground disturbance Page 12 of 17

13 would be limited to 10.2 miles (2.7 acres) of new trail construction (primarily 2-foot wide singletrack) and trailhead development (1 acre). The total area impacted by the entire project, including the trails already existing on the ground and the trailheads, encompasses approximately 15.9 acres. This project is not indicative of significant impacts in terms of local effects on the Mt. Hough Ranger District, nor would it have significant impacts on the broader landscape of the Plumas National Forest. INTENSITY The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following: 1. Impacts 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. My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action (EA, Chapter 3). Project benefits include enhancing recreation opportunities and reducing the spread of invasive plants. No significant adverse direct or indirect effects to the environment from this project were identified during the environmental effects analysis. No significant irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, such a loss of soil productivity, water quality, wildlife habitat, or recreational opportunities, would result from this project. Resource protection measures, BMPs, and SMRs will mitigate adverse effects. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety and design features and mitigations specifically address public health and safety (EA, pages 20-22, 33-39, 64-65, and Appendix B). The project involves routine work that has occurred and continues to occur within and near the project area on NFS lands. Signs will be used to warn public users of project activities such as vehicles using roads, vegetation cutting, equipment usage, and use of herbicides (EA, Table 3). Trail construction and reconstruction will involve the use of mechanical equipment; parking lot modification at the Cascade Trailhead and construction at the South Park Trailhead will involve use of mechanical equipment and falling of trees; use of herbicides will involve limited exposure to chemicals all of which potentially pose risks to workers and to the public. Such risks will be reduced because treatments target specific plants and the public will be alerted to active management areas (EA, Tables 3 and 10-12). Areas of trail construction and reconstruction and herbicide treatment will be clearly signed and monitored as required in contract provisions to warn the public of potential hazards during project activities (EA, Table 3 and 10-12). The human health risk assessment evaluates potential hazards associated with herbicide use (project record). Roads, trails, and campgrounds within the project area may be closed to the recreating public on a temporary basis for safety reasons during project implementation (EA, Table 3). These closures are of limited duration (during trail construction, trailhead modification or construction, or herbicide application). Page 13 of 17

14 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. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers within the project area. Unique characteristic of the area include wetlands, riparian conservation areas (RCAs), historic and cultural resources and the Mt. Hough State Game Refuge (EA, pages 43, 51-53, and 54-58). By using Best Management Practices (BMPs), the MHSP Trails Project provides protection to wetlands and riparian conservation areas (RCAs) and meets the requirements of the 2004 SNFPA ROD (EA, pages 45, 48-49, and Appendix B). The MHSP Trails Project will have no significant effect to historic or cultural resources because sites will be avoided by flagging and requiring contractors to exclude these areas from any activity (see #8 below and EA, pages 15, 18, 22, 51-53, and Appendix C). Furthermore, mitigation factors include installation of barriers along the Massack route to prevent off-road travel, installation of interpretive signs at Cascade Trailhead and Apple Flat, and moving the Cascade Trailhead back 500 feet and installing a barrier to protect cultural resources. These mitigations will minimize the effect of the project on cultural resources such that none of the impacts will be significant. The MHSP Trails Project will have no significant effect to the Mt. Hough State Game Refuge because foraging habitat and hiding cover for deer would not be affected by proposed activities. Although disturbance to deer and other wildlife caused by motorized vehicles would be expected to increase as a result of this project, habitat would remain suitable (EA, pages 56-58). 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. The activities included in this decision are routine forest recreation management activities and there is no known credible scientific controversy over the impacts of the proposed action. Based on comments received during the public involvement process, there is no substantive scientific controversy related to the effects of the proposed treatment on the human environment (project record and summarized in the EA, pages 7-10). Public involvement with interested and affected individuals and agencies throughout the environmental analysis identified concerns regarding the environmental effects of implementing the proposed actions, particularly with regard to soil erosion, spread of invasive plants, and impacts on wildlife species. The EA adequately addresses these concerns and discloses the associated environmental effects. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Forest Service has considerable experience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The possible effects of implementing Alternative A are neither highly uncertain nor will they present unique or Page 14 of 17

15 unknown risks. The consequences of these actions are known, as described in specialist reports (project record and summarized in the EA, Chapter 3). 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. The action will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, because it conforms to all existing PNF LRMP direction and is applicable only to the project area (EA, pages 5-6). No significant effects are identified (EA, Chapter 3), nor does this action influence a decision in principle about any future considerations. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. There are no known significant cumulative effects between this project and other ongoing or planned projects in or adjacent to this project. The effects of other foreseeable future actions as well as past actions and ongoing actions were included in the specialists analyses (project record and summarized in EA, Chapter 3). 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed, 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 action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor will it cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources because all cultural resources will be avoided by flagging sites and requiring contractors to exclude these areas from any activity. (EA, pages 15, 18, 22, 51-53, and Appendix C). Furthermore, mitigation factors described above in #3 will minimize the effect of the project on cultural resources such that none of the impacts will be significant. 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 action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of 1973, because no federally listed terrestrial, or aquatic wildlife, or botanical species or critical habitat for such species exists within or adjacent to the project area (EA, pages 49 and 54) 10. Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA, pages 33, 48-49, 52, 54, and 65). The action is consistent with the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision. Page 15 of 17

16 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS In addition to the FONSI, I find that this project is consistent with the standards and guidelines for land management activities described in the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP) as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) FSEIS and ROD. Therefore, this project is consistent with the requirements of the National Forest Management Act of The interdisciplinary team process for identifying road system needs and roads with resource damage included a roads analysis consistent with legal requirements (36 CFR 212 Subpart A Administration of the Forest Transportation System, 16 U.S.C. 551, 23 U.S.C. 205). In addition, the MHSP Trails Project complies with the Endangered Species Act (EA, page 54), the Clean Air Act (EA, pages 65), the Clean Water Act (EA, page 48), the National Historic Preservation Act (EA, page 52) and other federal, state, and local laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. Individuals or organizations who provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in the proposal by the close of the comment period are eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR part 215 regulations. The notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, , hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at: Earl Ford, Forest Supervisor Plumas National Forest Supervisor s Office 159 Lawrence Street PO Box Quincy, CA appeals-pacificsouthwest-plumas@fs.fed.us Phone: (530) Fax: (530) The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a format such as an message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), portable document format (.pdf), or Word (.doc or.docx) to the address listed above [Subject: MHSP Trails Project EA]. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of this notice in the Feather River Bulletin, the newspaper of record. Appeals or attachments received Page 16 of 17

17