i Final Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Custer Gallatin National Forest, Hebgen Lake Ranger District, Gallatin County, Montana Responsible Official: Mary Erickson, Forest Supervisor Date: June 2017 For More Information, Contact: Teri Seth NEPA Team Leader Custer Gallatin National Forest Bozeman Ranger District 3710 Fallon St., Ste. C. Bozeman, MT 59718 406/522-2520 Or Jason Brey District Ranger Custer Gallatin National Forest Hebgen Lake Ranger District 330 Gallatin Rd West Yellowstone, MT 59758 406/823-6961
64
Embed
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impacta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Finding of No Significant Impact North Hebgen ... How well
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
i
Final Decision Notice
Finding of No Significant Impact
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Custer Gallatin National Forest, Hebgen Lake Ranger District,
Gallatin County, Montana
Responsible Official: Mary Erickson, Forest Supervisor
Date: June 2017
For More Information, Contact:
Teri Seth
NEPA Team Leader
Custer Gallatin National Forest
Bozeman Ranger District
3710 Fallon St., Ste. C.
Bozeman, MT 59718
406/522-2520
Or
Jason Brey
District Ranger
Custer Gallatin National Forest
Hebgen Lake Ranger District
330 Gallatin Rd
West Yellowstone, MT 59758
406/823-6961
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
ii
Table of Contents
Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... ii I. Introduction and Background .......................................................................................................... 1 II. Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................................ 2 III. Decision and Reasons for the Decision ............................................................................................. 5
A. Decision ...................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Reasons for the Decision ............................................................................................................ 8
1. How well the management actions analyzed in the Final EA address the purpose and need
of the project. ................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Responsiveness to public comments raised during the comment period, and other
collaborative phases of project development and the environmental issues identified in
association with this project ........................................................................................................... 10 3. Does the alternative comply with applicable laws, policy and direction? ................................. 19
IV. Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................ 38 V. Public Involvement and Scoping ................................................................................................... 41 VI. Finding of No Significant Impact .................................................................................................. 43 VII. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ...................................................................... 50 VIII. Administrative Review - Objection Process and Implementation ................................................ 54 IX. Contact Person ............................................................................................................................... 55
A. Appendix A – Selected Alternative Map and Alternative Comparison Tables ............................ A-1
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
1
I. Introduction and Background This Decision Notice (DN) documents my decision to select Alternative 2 with modifications (Selected
Alternative) from the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project Environmental Assessment (EA) for
implementation. The Selected Alternative includes up to 5,670 acres of treatment and 15.6 miles of
temporary road. My decision includes approximately 71 total acres of tree cutting in the inventoried
roadless area. Thirty nine acres includes hand cutting of trees (ie chainsaw) and 32 acres of mechanized
harvest is authorized. The decision eliminates approximately 230 acres proposed for treatment and five
miles of temporary road from alternative 2. Generally, the changes address concerns expressed by the
public related to the amount of temporary road and effectiveness of highway thinning for wildlife safety.
The purpose and need for the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project was identified during the Hebgen
Duck Landscape Assessment (GNF 20121) as a way to meet standards and move toward goals of the
Gallatin Forest Plan (USDA 1987 as amended) and to address national fire/fuels policy priorities
(Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group 2001) (National Fire Plan 2000)
(Gallatin County 2006). A Project Development Summary with background information from those
guiding documents is available on the Gallatin National Forest Webpage at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45491 2
This project area is in the Greater Yellowstone Area, abuts Yellowstone National Park and includes
extensive private land. The project area is located in the Tepee Creek drainage south of the Cabin Creek
Wildlife Management Area to the Madison Arm of Hebgen Lake, and from the Yellowstone National Park
Boundary west to the Horse Butte peninsula and the vicinity of Red Canyon on the North side of Hebgen
Lake. Treatments are proposed in portions of sections 24-26, 35, 36, T 11 S, R 04 E; sections 17, 19, 20,
29-34, T 11 S , R 05 E; sections 2, 11, 13, 15, 22-27, 35, 36, T 12 S, R 04 E; Sections 3-6, 8-10, 19-22,
27-34, T 12 S, R 05 E and Sections 3, 4 , 10, T 13 S, R 05 E. The project area also includes portions of
the Madison 1-549 Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). Figure 1 in the Final EA , includes a vicinity map
of the Project Area.
My decision is based on the analysis documented in the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project Final
EA , which incorporates response to comments received during the scoping comment period for the
project, as well as the 30-day comment period on the Draft EA and the objection process. The North
Hebgen EA was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA,
40CFR 1500-1508), the National Forest Management Act, and the 1987 Gallatin National Forest
Management Plan as amended.
This document includes my decision, the rationale for selecting alternative 2 with modifications,
Alternatives considered, Public Involvement, a Finding of No Significant Impact, Findings required by
law, regulation, or policy and information about the Administrative Review process. As the responsible
official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance
established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and considered the Final EA and
documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that the North Hebgen Multiple
Resource Project will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result,
an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.
1 All cited documents in this Decision Notice are available in the Project Record.
2 Reference to documents on the “Project Webpage” can be found on the North Hebgen Project Webpage on the
Gallatin Forest Webpage under Land Management/ Projects at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45491
Create a more resilient forest. The objective of these treatments is to maintain a diverse, vigorous,
and adaptable forest landscape by providing for a mix of species composition, stand structures,
and age distribution. This objective will maintain desired vegetative condition, reduce long term
losses caused by insects and diseases and actively control damaging agents. (FP II-2, 21, 25, III-
56). These proposed treatments were limited to areas that are identified as important for multiple
resource reasons, in addition to potential forest health risk.
Forest insects and disease are major disturbance processes in forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains.
There effects can range from small scale disturbances, killing individual trees, to wide spread outbreaks
causing extensive tree mortality. Native forest pests have been part of our forests for millennia and
function as nutrient recyclers, agents of disturbance, members of food chains, and regulators of
productivity, diversity, and density (Black, 2005). Forested stands within the project area are currently
being impacted, or are at risk of being significantly impacted by a variety of disturbance agents.
Mountain pine beetle, lodgepole pine (LPP) dwarf mistletoe, western spruce budworm (WSB), Douglas-
fir beetle, and white pine blister rust are specifically of concern. The objective of some forest health
treatments will be to reduce long term losses and actively control damaging agents in forested areas.
Some areas, managed in the past are losing vigor due to overcrowding. These stands will be thinned to
improve vigor while at the same time reducing ladder and crown fuels. These units are primarily along
evacuation routes and near private land. This treatment will be concentrated on small trees (less than 5”
in diameter) because small trees dominate the stands.
Douglas fir forest is minimally represented in the area due to stand succession, limited potential habitat
and ongoing attacks from Douglas fir beetle and WSB. Retention of Douglas fir forest is important
because this species is fire tolerant and presence of Douglas fir adds to species diversity, in a landscape
dominated by lodgepole pine forest. A diversity of species increases landscape resiliency in the event of
epidemic level attacks by insects or disease. One desired condition is to maintain or increase Douglas fir
forest. Although aspen and whitebark pine enhancement are discussed separately, those treatments also
increase vegetative diversity in a fairly uniform landscape, resulting in increased resiliency on the
landscape (FP II-21).
There is very little species or age class diversity in lodgepole pine stands in the slopes above Whit’s Lake
Road. A carpet of (LPP) lodgepole pine tends to dominate the slopes allowing very little sun to reach the
forest floor, the end result is little or no forage or age diversity. In these stands, the desired condition is to
create openings that will result in forage and age diversity (FP II-18, 21, III-54, 65).
Increase sight distance to reduce negative human/grizzly bear encounters around Rainbow Point
Campground due to dense forest cover.
The campground is one of the busiest campgrounds in the Northern Region of the Forest Service and is
located in the primary conservation area for grizzly bear. There have been numerous unintended
encounters near the campground that have ended in a range of outcomes from nuisance bear habits that
result in removal of the bear, to human fatalities. This area is to be managed for the safety and enjoyment
of users (FP-III-2). In 2014 the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC) ranked USFS
recreation sites in the GYE according to their relative risk to grizzly bears (2014 GYE campground risk
and infrastructure survey). Rainbow Point Campground ranked 3rd in risk to grizzly bear of the 164
USFS recreation sites assessed for the GYE. The treatment objective is to reduce the likelihood of a
surprise encounter between bears and humans by thinning trees to open up the stand.
The environmental assessment (EA) documents the analysis of three action alternatives to meet these
needs.
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
5
III. Decision and Reasons for the Decision Decision criteria:
How well the management actions analyzed in the EA address the purpose and need of the project.
Responsiveness to environmental issues identified in association with this project (Final EA , pp.
32-209) and to public comments raised during the Draft EA comment period, objection period and
other collaborative phases of project development (Final EA , Volume II - Appendix C).
Consistency with applicable laws, policy and direction.
As the project decision maker, I weighed potential benefits of the alternatives against possible adverse
impacts, and considered suggestions and concerns from the public. The design features incorporated in
the decision and changes made in the Selected Alternative result in an environmentally preferred
outcome. I am committed to incorporating all design features/mitigation and monitoring during project
implementation and have begun to seek funding as needed to effectively implement the associated
activities. I anticipate the availability of sufficient resources to ensure the performance of these design
features, mitigation and monitoring. Most of the design features do not require additional funding. They
are incorporated during project preparation and administration. The Finding of No Significant Impact (p.
40) supported the use of an EA as the appropriate level of NEPA analysis. I considered Forest Plan
standards and guidance for the project area, and took into account competing interests and values of the
public.
A. Decision Based upon my review of all alternatives, I decided to implement alternative 2 with a few modifications,
hereinafter referred to as the Selected Alternative. Table 1 summarizes the primary activities in the
Selected Alternative and the changes as compared to Alternative 2. The main changes between
Alternative 2 and the Selected Alternative are that units 33 and 34 (Highway Thin) were eliminated and
5.5 miles of temporary road have been dropped from the decision. Specific unit changes are documented
in the project file (Seth, 10/2016 - Selected Alternative Modifications).
Primary Activities
This alternative meets the purpose and need for action which will implement standards and move the
project area toward goals of the Gallatin Forest Plan as amended, addresses national fire/fuels policy
priorities and addresses concerns expressed during the comment period. Appendix A of the Decision
Notice (DN) includes maps that display the treatment units by treatment prescription and includes the
general location for proposed temporary roads for this Alternative. The map also shows changes from
alternative 2, including units that were dropped or modified and segments of temporary road that were
dropped from consideration. A comparison of all action alternatives by treatment and issus also in
Appendix A.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
6
Table 1. Selected Alternative – Primary Components of the Selected Alternative.
Purpose of Treatments Acres of Treatment
in the Selected
Alternative
Difference from Alternative 2 in
Acres4
Aspen enhancement
Improved forest resiliency/health
Fuels reduction in WUI, Evacuation
Routes, Powerlines and Fuel break
Whitebark Pine Enhancement
Increased sight distance and reaction
time for improved wildlife/human
safety at Rainbow Point Campground
652
991
2817
1,139
67
-49
+29
-81
+10
-138
Acres to be Treated (rounded) 5,670 -230
Methods or Treatments5 Planned Acres Acres
Daylight by Thinning around
Whitebark Pine
Precommercial Thin
Hand thinning
Post and Pole Thinning
Powerline Corridor Thinning
Group Selection
Intermediate harvest
Regeneration harvest
Highway Corridor Thinning
843
1,076
137
177
127
693
1,990
623
0
=
+56
+121
=
-13
-2
-298
+32
-138
Estimated Total Acres treated 5,670 acres (rounded) -240 total acres with 180 more acres of
precommercial and hand thinning and
an overall reduction in commercial
mechanized harvest of about 420 acres.
Design Features and Mitigation Common to Action
Alternatives Listed in Appendix A of the Final EA
Terms and Conditions added
Temporary Road construction, closure and rehabilitation
– 15.66 miles
-5.4 miles
Site specific Gallatin Forest Travel Plan Modification of
Standard E-4 - to allow treatments in the Little Tepee Creek
and Red Canyon Creek watershed to proceed despite existing
The same
4 Due to inconsistent rounding these numbers between tables vary slightly when comparing against the Alternative 2
estimates. However, the selected alternative estimate in this table represents the maximum levels of treatment. 5 Appendix C of the EA includes a more detailed description of the treatments and associated fuel treatment activity.
A detailed listing of treatment details by unit for the Selected Alternative called “2016_1028Selected
AlternativeTreatmentTableandSummary” is available on the Gallatin Forest webpage at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45491 along with maps that can be viewed at a larger scale.
6 Approximately 2 miles of temporary road included in this total is the Big Sky Trail #151. Under the Gallatin
Travel Plan (2006), the trail is currently motorized and the use will remain motorized after the North Hebgen
project. The trail is not designed for highway vehicles. The routes will be restored to standards that accommodate
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
7
instream fine sediment levels of 28.5 and 34% which exceed
the 26% standard for Category A streams.
Associated Activities.
Activities may include, but are not limited to, thinning with mechanized equipment, slashing small trees,
whole tree yarding, yarding unmerchantable material, hand and machine piling, pile and broadcast
burning, hauling of commercial material, firewood removal, biomass reduction such as chipping, erosion
control, construction of and rehabilitation of skid trails, landings and temporary road, creation of small
emergency pullouts along main roads, such as Rainbow Point. Emergency pullouts were requested during
the comment period. Monitoring of project activities and effectiveness is planned and described in
Appendix A of the Final EA .
An estimated 15.6 miles of temporary road will be needed to implement the proposed action. Temporary
roads, when prescribed, are intended to minimize the cost of transporting logs and fuel consumption by
transporting logs by more efficient log trucks rather than ground-based skidding. These roads also protect
resources such as sensitive soils and stream courses that would be adversely affected by repeated ground-
based skidding. Temporary roads, by design, are a single entry access and are not intended to be a
permanent part of the road system. As such, they will be located and constructed to minimize investment,
dirt moving, and disturbance. During the project, use of these roads is limited to administrative use and
will be gated, barricaded or signed as needed to prevent unauthorized use. Following use, these roads will
be permanently closed and rehabilitated to meet adjacent land management objectives with no regard to
future access; this obliteration could include a variety of methods such as recontouring, scarification,
seeding, and slashing of the corridors. The appropriate method will depend on the site specific level of
disturbance. Appendix A of the Final EA includes detailed road management information for system
roads to be used for implementation and design features. Temporary road management information and
intent was compiled in 20161221_Temporary Road Management Compilation which is available on the
project webpage.
Implementation
The project is estimated to take 8-12 years to implement. The activities proposed will be implemented
with Forest Service crews, service contracts, and through multiple timber sale contracts and/or
stewardship contracts. Value from the wood products removed and sold will be re-invested into the
project area through stewardship contracting and other mechanisms. All primary treatments, associated
activities, design features and other restoration projects will be considered for implementation with timber
receipts. Appropriated funding will also be available to implement treatments and associated activities.
Most of the restoration or protection activities will be included in the primary contracts. As a result, the
cost to implement commercial harvest and restorative measures in those contracts are factored into the bid
prices and do not require additional funding. For example, landing and temporary road construction and
closure have provisions in contracts. Other funding sources, such as grants or appropriated funds, will
also be considered for all project related activity.
Selected Alternative Mitigation
No other projects that affect secure habitat below baseline levels will be implemented in the
Madison #2 Bear Management Subunit (BMS) until those project activities affecting secure habitat
have been completed.
The total acreage of secure habitat affected below the baseline in a Bear Management Unit will not
exceed one percent of the acreage of the largest subunit in the BMU.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
8
Project roads that affect secure habitat below baseline levels in the Madison #2 BMS, collectively,
will be available for project use for no longer than 3 consecutive years and then closed to all
motorized travel. This includes temporary roads to units 23, 25, 36, 41, the units between the
Rainbow Point Campground and Rainbow Point Road and the Horse Butte Units. Project roads that
affect secure habitat below baseline levels in the Madison #2 BMS will be decommissioned, such
that secure habitat will be restored within one year after road closure.
Terms and Conditions from the US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion 5/17/2017.
Within secure habitat in the Horse Butte area of the Madison #2 subunit, mechanized project-
related activity shall not occur from March 1 through September 30 annually.
Prioritize project-related activity within the Madison #2 subunit in order to complete such
activities in the minimum time-frame as possible.
B. Reasons for the Decision
1. How well the management actions analyzed in the EA address the purpose and need of the project.
Central to making my decision was the extent and effectiveness of treatments toward achieving the
purpose and need for action. This of course is balanced with the direct and indirect effects on the array of
natural, physical, cultural and social resources. Table 1 and 2 in Appendix A is a comparison of the action
alternatives including acreages and issues/effects.
The analysis shows that there will be lower wildfire risks due to wildfire hazard reduction in the treated
areas. In the event of ignition there will be a change in fire behavior resulting in surface fire with low
flame lengths and as a result low resistance to control. (Final EA p. 35-36). The real indicator is whether
important areas are included in the alternative. Alternatives 2, 4 and the Selected Alternative effectively
reduce fuels in the WUI and WUI evacuation routes by reducing ladder, crown and surface fuels adjacent
to “values at risk” and along key evacuation routes. The Selected Alternative, alternatives 2 and 4
effectively provide for firefighter and public safety, which is not only my priority, but a priority
emphasized regionally and nationally (Final EA , p. 6). Alternative 3 does not address firefighter and
public safety objectives or achieve fuel reduction near “values at risk” near Horse Butte or Rainbow Point
Campground which for me, is a very undesirable trade off due to infrastructure, as well as the number of
homes and improvements. In addition to the residential setting near Rainbow Point Campground, it is
one of the busiest Forest Service campgrounds in the Northern Region of the Forest Service. In effect,
only 12 acres of fuels treatment in WUI in Red Canyon is eliminated in the Selected Alternative as
compared to the preferred alternative (2). In my decision, the other changes to units with a fuels
objective, place other resource objectives such as forest health or whitebark pine as a primary objective
by redefining the prescription, while still meeting fuel treatment effectiveness. The fuels treatment
effectiveness along Tepee Creek Road are the same in all action alternatives. Due to the hazard reduction,
an effective fuel break that promotes low severity surface fire will be created and firefighter and public
safety will be enhanced along the road. In addition to forest resources, US Highway 191 and Yellowstone
National Park are in the path of prevailing winds from the Tepee area, which reinforces the benefit of
increased management options in the event of wildfire in the vicinity of Tepee Creek Road.
The analysis also shows that the improvement cuts proposed to enhance aspen forest will improve
sprouting and vigor in treated aspen stands. Again, it is a matter of how much aspen forest is treated. The
Selected Alternative is as effective as alternative 2 except that the treatment in unit 147 is reduced by 49
acres, similar to Alternative 4. As a result, the Selected Alternative more effectively meets aspen
objectives than alternatives 3 and 4, and only slightly less than alternative 2. Alternatives 3 and 4 include
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
9
only 37% and 53%, respectively, of the aspen treatments included in the Selected Alternative and
alternative 2, which to me would be a missed opportunity and is very undesirable at a time when aspen
enhancement is a Forest and regional priority due to the loss of aspen across the landscape. In my
decision, the extent of existing aspen stands will be maintained or improved which will ensure aspen
persistence on the landscape for a wide suite of wildlife species. A more complete discussion is in the
Final EA , on pp. 8, 49, 58 and the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report (Konen 2015).
Again, the analysis shows that whitebark pine (WBP) enhancement by daylighting and small regeneration
harvests will improve growth and support establishment of WBP stands eventually reaching cone
producing age sooner than without treatments (Final EA , p. 9, 49, Konen 2015). Benefits to WBP are
virtually the same as in the Selected Alternative and other alternatives, but the treatment prescription in
my decision was modified in unit 180 to better meet WBP objectives, while at the same time meeting fuel
reduction objectives. Unit 201 was dropped in the Selected Alternative similar to alternatives 3 and 4 due
to the expense of helicopter logging and the inability to meet objectives through other treatment methods.
This change improves the overall cost efficiency while reducing WBP treatments by only about 16 acres.
I consider this a small trade off given the opportunity to enhance over 1,100 acres of this keystone species
within the project area and to enhance the value of these stands for wildlife in the long term. Alternatives
3 and 4 are less effective in comparison, though all action alternatives are very similar relative to WBP
forest. A more complete discussion is in the Final EA , on pp. 49-60. Most whitebark pine stands on the
Forest are in Wildernesss and Inventoried Roadless Areas which allow very limited active management.
The Tepee Creek area is accessible and in management areas designated for proactive management.
There are not many such opportunities in whitebark pine on the Custer Gallatin Forest. For these reasons,
this management opportunity is very compelling to me.
Analysis in the Final EA (pp. 10-12, 52-58) and the Forest Vegetation Analysis (Konen 2015) shows that
the treatments included for forest health will improve conditions in treated areas. Forest health is
enhanced on 29 more acres in the Selected Alternative. The overall effectiveness is very similar to
alternative 2. Alternatives 3 and 4 are less effective. As a reminder, these units were included only when
they were located near areas identified for other resource reasons, such as aspen enhancement or fuel
reduction. The intent of this design consideration was to use existing access routes and to provide
contiguous treatments. If beetles or disease are present in adjacent areas, then the risk of attack or
infestation is higher, which is why forest health treatments are most effective when a more contiguous
landscape is included. Management guidance associated with the Roadless Rule, Grizzly Bear
Conservation Strategy and the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction have sideboards in place to
protect those very important resources, which limited my ability to expand the forest health treatments to
a broader landscape.
All action alternatives improve wildlife and human safety near Rainbow Point Campground equally. The
Selected Alternative does not include the highway clearing units for wildlife safety along US 191 that are
in alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The rationale for this decision is discussed on page 12 of the DN.
The No Action Alternative does not address any of the purpose and need for action. However, it is useful
in comparing the effectiveness of action alternatives. Overall, Alternative 2 most effectively addresses
the purpose and need for action while the Selected Alternative is a close second. In an attempt to reduce
temporary roads, Alternative 4 does not include about 530 acres of valuable treatment toward achieving
project objectives. In the end, through the Selected Alternative design, my team was able to more
effectively reduce temporary roads needed while meeting project objectives on more acres of ground
compared to Alternative 4. Alternative 3 compromises the purpose and need too dramatically as it relates
to firefighter and public safety and aspen treatments, for me to select that alternative.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
10
2. Responsiveness to public comments raised during the comment period, objection and other collaborative phases of project development and the environmental issues identified in association with this project (Final EA, pp. 32-209).
In my decision, it was important not only to understand the effectiveness in meeting the intent of the
project, but also to understand and weigh overall environmental effects and consider key issues
surrounding the project. The EA issues were divided into two categories. The first group of issues was
used in alternative development to resolve conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.
They were the focus of alternative development to provide a range of potential impacts. The issues were
the focus of interdisciplinary action. The key issues are discussed below and they included fuels, forest
vegetation - aspen, whitebark pine, forest health, grizzly bear, invasive weeds and scenery. The remaining
issues listed in Table 2 identify other resource concerns that were mitigated equally in all alternatives
and/or there were no impacts or minimal impacts. For more information refer to the EA or specialist
reports. The key to the second category was that there was not a conflict between alternative uses.
During the Draft EA comment period, I received comments on numerous issues, and my staff spent
considerable time responding to comments in Appendix C of the Final EA (Volume II). No new issues
came up but the commenters wanted more explanation, more mapping and data, and wanted consideration
of various articles or reports. The response to comments is expansive; over 130 pages. My specialists
were diligent in attempting to address concerns raised. However, the intent of an EA is to determine
whether to prepare an EIS, so inclusion of extensive analysis and information requests that were generally
not relevant to the FONSI seemed most appropriate in the Appendix. When appropriate, additional
analysis was added to the specialist report and EA.
In general, temporary roads and the highway thinning units to improve wildlife visibility were of greatest
concern expressed by multiple commenters. Other themes related to funding availability to implement
the treatments and protective measures and whether the treatments were backed in science. The primary
issues raised are also discussed in this section.
Fire and Fuels
This issue was identified in the purpose and need for action and in my view, the importance of this work
cannot be overstated. Firefighter and public safety is emphasized in national, regional and local priorities
(DN p. 2). The need for hazardous fuel reduction is a Forest Plan standard. I believe that moving the
project area toward Forest Plan goals and addressing the multiple levels of policy emphasizing this
priority will help the Forest and other government agencies protect values and address safety concerns in
the event of wildfire. I have witnessed large and dangerous fires in the project area that reinforce the
inevitability of large fire and the need to adapt the WUI and evacuation routes in such a way that will
help agencies improve firefighter and public safety and reduce the risk to homes and infrastructure. The
fuel break along Tepee Road will give me and other line officers more management latitude to
compartmentalize and contain wildfire to specific drainages to better adapt to the situation whether it is to
suppress a fire or “herd” a fire to areas where there could be a resource benefit. To the north and east of
the fuel break is a large contiguous expanse of roadless lands, the Cabin Creek Wildlife Management
Area, US Highway 191 and Yellowstone National Park with many competing interests for the role of fire
and public and fire fighter safety. To the south is rugged lands and wildland urban interface. I view the
fuel break as an opportunity to have more influence and options in a wildfire situation. The Selected
Alternative will achieve those goals. For more information, see the DN, p. 2 and Final EA, p. 32-41.
The main comments I received about the fuels issue related to effectiveness of treatments, science based
comments and whether treatments are needed. See the Fire/Fuels section in Appendix C of the Final EA
for detailed responses. During the objection process the issue of whether we considered the best science
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
11
was again raised as it relates to an article by Tania Schoennagel and others called “The Interaction of
Fire, Fuels and Climate across Rocky Mountain Forests”. While the publication was considered during
analysis and discussed in Volume II of the Final EA, pp. C-14, the citations may not have been clear and
additional context may be helpful and is provided in a memo in the record, Direct Response to
Schoennagel (Jones, F. 2017). In short, the observations that the authors make do not contradict to
actions or intent of the North Hebgen proposal. The Fire/Fuels analysis acknowledges that the forest type
is indeed high elevation subalpine types that often experience infrequent, high severity crown fire.
However, the North Hebgen proposal does not purport to mitigate fire hazard across the landscape.
Rather, fuel reduction treatments are designed to modify fire behavior (reduce potential for crown fire) in
and around wildland urban interface areas near critical infrastructure and are strategically located to
provide a fuel break between distinct drainages. Schoennagel 2004 does not advocate delaying action
until all ecological questions have been answered in these landscapes; the authors acknowledge that in
many places there is an urgent need and a solid basis for restoration and fire mitigation efforts.
Typically WUI and critcal infrastructure is not prevalaent in high elevation subalpine forest, but that is not
the case in Hebgen Basin near the community of West Yellowstone, MT. This area is a gateway
community to Yellowstone National Park, receives high recreation use and 68% of local fires are human
caused. Eighty percent of the area is WUI as identified in the Gallatin County Wildfire Protection Plan
(CWPP) and all proposed fuel treatments are within designated WUI. In this particular location, I have
determined that there is an urgent need and a solid basis for fire mitigation due to the values at risk. The
purpose and need is clear that this is the intent, rather than landscape scale fire hazard mitigation.
Forest Vegetation
The elements of Forest Vegetation that are drivers for the project in the Purpose and Need were discussed
in section B. 1, relative to alternative comparison.
The objectives and treatments in the Selected Alternative move the project area toward goals and meet
several standards in the Forest Plan through project design and intent. I consider forest health and
resilience to be a fundamental goal in managing our national forest system lands especially in situations
like the North Hebgen Project where maintaining and improving forest resources achieves a wide variety
of objectives such as improved firefighter and public safety, providing for habitat persistence (aspen,
WBP) and landscape heterogeneity for wildlife species (including T & E species and their habitat). The
treatments will result in conditions that create and maintain a variety of species, size and age classes and
will increase stand vigor. These attributes increase resilience in the face of insect and disease activity,
drought, climate change and susceptibility to other natural disturbances. For this project we discuss
primary treatment objectives as the purpose and need, but secondary objectives are alsoidentified for most
units in the Treatment Unit Summary Table which is on the Project Webpage. Virtually all of the fuels
treatments provide a secondary benefit to forest health and vigor. Effectively all acres treated in the
Selected Alternative will improve forest health and resiliency whether by increasing stand vigor, reducing
susceptibility to insects and disease or by promoting the presence of preferred or underrepresented
species.
From the standpoint of forest vegetation management, the project intent is compatible with overarching
goals of the agency, as well as the Gallatin Forest Plan. There is extensive discussion in the purpose and
need section of the DN (p. 1-4) and Final EA (pp. 8-12) describing the need and importance of the
treatments. The analysis in the Final EA under forest vegetation and wildlife goes into great detail about
the expected impacts, outcome and consistency with the Forest Plan and the National Forest Management
Act. I considered the effects discussed in the analysis in both the Final EA (pp.41-60) and the forested
vegetation specialist report (Konen 2015) and determined that the treatments will have minimal negative
effects and that they address agency and Forest direction very effectively.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
12
Some commenters challenge the validity of the purpose and need and treatments. I consider these
management goals and associated activities fundamental to the Forest and Agency goals and they are
consistent with management intent. Several commenters were skeptical about whether whitebark pine
(WBP) treatments will be successful. This project includes many acres of treatment for WBP and I expect
that it will take several years to complete the work. The post treatment exams included will give us time
to see if there is an immediate response or an apparent need to modify the treatment prescription. The
Custer Gallatin Working Group (CGWG) is also working with the Forest to support long term monitoring
in the WBP thin units to validate effectiveness.
Old growth and mature forest structure were a concern for some commenters. I reviewed the estimates
and analysis related to old growth and over mature forest structure and determined that the project, as
designed, will meet these Forest Plan standards (Final EA, p. 47-49, 58, 60). In addition, the
composition of the successional stages of the trees in the project area indicates up to 78% of the trees are
in a mature size class indicating that recruitment of additional old growth should be readily available
(Final EA, p. 48 ). In November 2015 the Forest amended the Forest Plan relative to old growth and over
mature forest structure which caused some confusion for this project in the early stages. The Forest Plan
as amended in 2015 is the current direction. The amendment (Clean up Amendment) and supporting
NEPA documents are available on the Project Webpage. The Forest Plan standards were established to
ensure those habitat components were maintained at appropriate levels on the landscape, this project
meets or exceed Forest Plan levels. As a result, I believe that habitat needs of old growth and mature
forest reliant species will be maintained.
My staff thoughtfully responded to the comments on forest vegetation in Appendix C of the Final EA .
Several variations of analysis were requested during comment but the specialist report and Final EA
provided sufficient analysis for me to make an informed decision about whether the project was
consistent with applicable direction and whether potential impacts would be significant.
The purpose and need identifies vegetation management as a tool to move the project area toward desired
forested conditions. Emphasis areas include enhancement of aspen, WBP and increasing forest health and
resiliency. The Forest Plan identifies goals for unique habitats such as Aspen and WBP because of their
importance for wildlife and their contribution to species diversity across the forest. Actively managing
against insects and disease to maintain a healthy forest is identified to ensure trees remain on the
landscape and are available as habitat as well as forest products. Whitebark pine and aspen have been
singled out as featured species that are in decline in the Northern Region of the Forest Service. Forest
health treatments are located in areas near other treatments or in stands where multiple objectives can be
met. These treatments address the Gallatin Forest Plan, the Gallatin Forest Programmatic Aspen Decision
Memo (GNF 9/2014) and the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee Whitebark Pine Strategy
(2011). For more discussion about why these treatments are important review the following discussions
(DN, 5, Final EA, pp. 8-12, 41-60. I believe these are very important goals for the forest to pursue.
Wildlife Vehicle Collisions
The Selected Alternative does not include the highway clearing units for wildlife safety along US 191 that
are in alternatives 2, 3 and 4. A report from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) showed
that there were not an unusually high number of wildlife/vehicle collisions as compared to other “hot
spots” around the state; an important distinction. There were, however, a number of bison/vehicle
collisions in 2016 alone; numbering 16 collisions along a 7 mile stretch of Hwy. 191 north of West
Yellowstone. To begin to address the issue, representatives from Yellowstone National Park (YNP), the
Forest Service, Montana Highway Patrol and Gallatin County Commission met with MDT. A key
outcome from the meeting was agreement to implement a seasonal night time speed limit of 55 mph from
March 1 through May 31 along this stretch of US 191.
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
13
Stakeholders continue to have concern about the effectiveness of the highway clearing treatments,
because the Forest Service science behind the treatments was based on incident reporting and not more
rigorous monitoring. While research indicated that collisions could be reduced by clearing alone to an
extent, there was uncertainty whether the proposed thinning would increase foraging opportunities for
wildlife along the road, which could attract wildlife and negate or reduce any benefits resulting from
increased sight distances. In recognition of those concerns, I decided to drop units 33 and 34, which
included up to 138 acres of thinning. I believe the actions the stakeholder group identified to reduce
wildlife vehicle collisions move the project area toward the purpose and need for action. I am satisfied
with that effort until further studies can help to validate the effectiveness of thinning treatments for
wildlife safety.
The highway thinning units would have provided a secondary fuels benefit. The potential fuels benefit
was validated during the Maple Fire of 2016 when fuel reduction on National Forest System lands west of
the Yellowstone National Park boundary were recognized as effective fuel breaks during the suppression
effort that helped to protect the community of West Yellowstone and associated developments. Prior fuel
treatments to the south [of the project area] along the Park boundary afforded the incident management
team more options when managing the Maple Fire. The units to east of the highway thinning units will be
implemented and will create a fuel break similar to the treatments closer to West Yellowstone which were
implemented with the Hebgen Fuel Reduction Project. Comments were also received that perceived the
proposed treatments as an attempt to eliminate fire in the landscape. This is not the case. The proposed
fuels and forest health treatments are designed to alter fire behavior in areas adjacent to values at risk and
along evacuation and ingress/egress routes. Fire (and insect and disease activity) will continue to drive
succession of wildlife habitat in those areas outside treatment units where public and firefighter safety
was a primary concern.
Grizzly Bear
Grizzly bear population recovery began in the 1980’s, grew robustly in the 1990’s, and has slowed since
the early 2000’s. The slowing of population growth is believed to be a density-dependent phenomenon,
and may be indicating that grizzly bears are reaching some carrying capacity in the GYE (Interagency
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2015b). Grizzly bear demographic recovery occurred across the recovery zone
and within the Madison BMU in the context of past and ongoing actions that occurred in the BMU and
Recovery Zone (Interagency Conservation Strategy Team 2007 pg. 39). The actions included extensive
thinning, sanitation, salvage, and regeneration harvests, road building, and access management (Gallatin
National Forest Travel Plan) in the North Hebgen project area. The North Hebgen project will comply
with direction in the Conservation Strategy, which is recognized as incorporating the best and most
current science with respect to grizzly bear management. For these reasons, only minor impacts are
anticipated.
On June 22, 2017 it was announced that the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of the
grizzly bear would be removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. The US Fish
and Wildlife Service has determined that the population has recovered to the point where federal
protections under the Endangered Species Act can be removed and overall management can be returned to
the states (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho). The Final Rule to remove the grizzly bear from the list will be
published in the Federal Register in the near future. The Final Rule will take effect 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Existing Custer Gallatin National Forest management direction for the
grizzly bear and its habitat would not change in response to delisting. While the GYE grizzly bear would
be removed from the Endangered Species List, all existing Forest Plan standards for management of
grizzly bear habitat would be retained. The Secure Habitat, Developed Site, and Livestock Allotment
standards and application rules have their basis in the Conservation Strategy for the GYE grizzly bear,
which was designed to provide for the persistence of the recovered population into the foreseeable future.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
14
Delisting of the GYE grizzly bear would not change the analysis or conclusions made in the North
Hebgen Multiple Resource Project Environmental Assessment. Formal grizzly bear consultation with the
US Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed, and terms and conditions provided in the Biological
Opinion for the North Hebgen Project will be incorporated into the Final Decision Notice/Finding of No
Significant Impact. When the Rule takes effect, the procedural requirements associated with ESA are no
longer applicable but that will not change the protections or conclusions for this project.
The recent 2016 proposed delisting rule considered all of the available literature, old and new, in
examination of grizzly bear recovery. The revised Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy was signed in
December 2016. The FWS did not substantially change the content of the Conservation Strategy from the
2007 version with regard to the secure habitat standard because those habitat protections (baseline levels
and application rules) were recognized as a primary reason why the GYA bear population has recovered.
The 2016 Strategy provides for potential future changes to the developed site standard (largely due to
concerns regarding increased visitation within Yellowstone National Park); any future changes in the
developed site standard will not be applicable to this analysis, as no changes in the current number or
capacity of developed sites will occur. The new version provides for clearer interpretation of the secure
habitat standard application rules and also recognizes and endorses that the GNF adopted the Travel Plan
baseline for the 3 subunits in need of improvement in a Forest Plan Amendment. In addition, in its ruling
on the delisting of the grizzly bear in 2009, the 9th Circuit Court ruled on November 15, 2011 that the
regulatory mechanisms in place (i.e. the Recovery Plan and subsequent Grizzly Bear Conservation
Strategy for the GYE) were adequate to provide for the persistence of the population.
My decision is consistent with Forest Plan direction (p. 84-85) and ESA (p. 83-84). The decision
responded to concerns related to grizzly bear and habitat by reducing temporary road by about 5 miles
from teh preferred alternative. Only a portion of the temporary roads included in my decision will impact
secure habitat; temporary reductions in secure habitat levels below the “baseline level” will only occur in
the Madison #2 Subunit. Those road segments are in the Tepee Creek area (associated with the fuel break
and WBP treatment area), Whits area, Fir Ridge area, Rainbow Point Campground and Rainbow Point
Road area, and the Horse Butte area
I received extensive comments questioning the analysis for grizzly bear and the current grizzly bear
direction. In November 2015 I signed a decision that amended the Gallatin Forest Plan. The “Clean up
Amendment” (USDA GNF 2015) adopted direction in the Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy and
eliminated previous direction in the Plan. One commenter spent considerable time commenting on that
NEPA analysis, decision process and consultation process with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The
administrative process for that decision is complete and not within the scope of this site-specific project.
My specialist appropriately redirected the responses to the North Hebgen Project analysis and
conclusions. The Clean Up Amendment Direction related to grizzly bear habitat is based on the best
science available and informed this decision. To be responsive, I provided a document on the Project
webpage, which addresses the comments related to the Clean up Amendment and the Biological Opinion
associated with the decision (2017_0301ResponsetoNECComments outside the Scope of the North
Hebgen Project). However, because that decision was a separate administrative process from the North
Hebgen NEPA process, I did not include those responses in Appendix C of the Final EA .
With regard to grizzly bear, there will be less temporary impact on secure habitat and less human
disturbance with the Selected Alternative compared to Alternative 2 due to the fact that there will be less
overall treatment and less temporary road construction. Under the Selected, there will be 0.6% and 0.3%
more secure habitat available during implementation than under Alternative 2 in the Madison #1 and
Madison #2 Subunits. The temporary reduction in secure habitat below baseline in the Madison #2
Subunit will be less under the Selected Alternative than would occur under Alternative 2. This will likely
result in less displacement of bears during implementation. The potential for negative human-bear
interactions will also be reduced under the Selected Alternative because there will be fewer acres treated
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
15
and less temporary road construction and use. The Selected will continue to provide for a mix of potential
bear foraging habitat in aspen, whitebark pine, and conifer-dominated stands post-harvest.
The Selected Alternative improves wildlife and human safety near Rainbow Point Campground. In 2014
the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC) ranked USFS recreation sites in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) according to their relative risk to grizzly bears (2014 GYE campground
risk and infrastructure survey). Rainbow Point Campground ranked 3rd in risk to grizzly bear of the 164
USFS recreation sites assessed for the GYE. Past human-bear interactions at the campground (leading to
grizzly bear and human mortalities) and the dense nature of vegetation in and around the campground
prompted inclusion of the area in the vicinity of the campground as a potential treatment unit. Thinning
the vegetation around the campground and reducing cover in the understory will result in reduced hiding
cover for grizzly bears and increased sight distances from the campground. This condition will, in turn,
reduce the likelihood of a surprise encounter between bears and humans. I acknowledge that people are
drawn to the campground because of the forested environment. However, the thinning treatment will
leave a forested feel while addressing the safety concern. This treatment is a high priority to reduce risk
to both grizzly bear and humans. The Forest will continue to address other risk factors (food storage, etc.)
through infrastructure improvements and education associated with this recreation site to increase the
effectiveness of the thinning treatments.
Invasive weeds
I heard from the commenters and the CGWG that they were concerned about weed spread in the project
area because of existing weed infestation. While we have designed a project with minimal risk of weed
spread, it is likely that some weed spread will occur and that is where post treatment monitoring becomes
important. I included monitoring to locate new infestations. If needed, weeds will be controlled under
the parameters of the Forest Weed Management Decision (USDA, GNF 2005). I have already started to
identify potential funding to ensure the monitoring and weed control design features are implemented as
needed. I am committed to obtaining funds to complete the necessary work. As always, we will strive to
have no net increase in weeds as a result of the project.
In the analysis, the specialist assumed that mitigation that creates a buffer around weed infestation could
not be implemented along Highway 191 units without compromising the effectiveness of treatments.
That meant that weeds would spread from the highway corridor. (Final EA, p. 15) In the Selected
Alternative, I dropped units 33 and 34 which is a benefit to controlling potential weed spread from the
highway corridor because an undisturbed corridor with more shade will remain between the highway and
the powerline clearing units. As a result, the Selected Alternative will result in less weed spread than
anticipated in the other alternatives along that corridor. The Selected Alternative includes extensive
design features to minimize impacts to invasive weeds (Final EA, A-8). The reduction of temporary road
and overall less mechanized harvest will result in less risk of weed spread due to less disturbance overall.
The additional regeneration harvest in place of intermediate harvest that is included in the Tepee Creek
drainage is low risk overall whichever type of harvest is conducted. I reviewed the analysis and
conclusions from the (Final EA, p. 82-90) and the Invasive Weeds Specialist Report (Lamont 2016) and
agree with the specialist that the level of weed infestation anticipated is not likely to reach levels that will
significantly affect biodiversity and site productivity. The project includes design features to minimize
weed spread and infestation (DN, p. 6)(Final EA, A-8 to 12). Monitoring has shown that weed treatments
are effective at containing weeds (Lamont 2015b). Our goal is to prevent new infestations resulting from
the project and all projects. For these reasons I concluded that the potential impacts to weed spread are
acceptable and effectively mitigated.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
16
Scenery
During alternative development, I considered scenery concerns expressed by commenters and whether the
project is consistent with visual quality objectives in the Forest Plan. The project area is a popular
recreation destination and many people that live in the area are there for the natural amenities. Some
people would like the forest to look the same to them forever but forests are not static. They do not
remain unchanged. The Forest Plan standards for scenery allow for change, in fact they refer to the
degree of acceptable alterations from the characteristic landscape and not from the existing condition.
Further, the standards are geared to the “casual forest visitor” not professionals in the field or frequent
visitors. I believe this is a reflection of the emphasis on landscape character not day to day appearances,
honoring the fact that forests change whether we manage them or not. The action alternatives reflect a
sensitivity to potential scenery impacts, as well as the mandate/direction to manage the national forest.
The Selected Alternative includes extensive design features to minimize impacts to scenery and to
rehabilitate impacts especially in sensitive viewsheds (Final EA, A-17). The reduction of temporary road
and overall less mechanized harvest will result in fewer short term impacts to scenery due to less
disturbance overall. The additional regeneration harvest in place of intermediate harvest that is included
in the Tepee Creek drainage is consistent with modification standards for visual quality. No doubt the
short term impacts from the project will be visible to our neighbors, but as a steward of National Forest
System lands it is my responsibility to manage for multiple resources like firefighter and public safety,
preferred species composition and overall forest health identified in the Gallatin Forest Plan and agency
policy.
In order to maintain scenic integrity I am committed to implementing the design features which will be
integrated into project preparation and implementation. If additional rehabilitation is needed I have
allowed for that activity as well. Based on analysis in the Final EA (p. 91-97) and Scenery Report (Stiles
2016), I concluded that the Selected Alternative will maintain scenery consistent with FP direction. I
acknowledge that the area may look different to some. That is acceptable under our management
direction and to me as a decision maker.
Fish Species
It is expected that the project will not have negative effects to local fish populations from changes to
water temperature, stream bank stability, riparian cover and large woody debris recruitment because of
treatment unit layout and design (Final EA, p. 101, A-4 to 5). As a result, the effects analysis for
fisheries was focused on sediment delivery.
During scoping, my team identified a concern in the Little Tepee drainage related to an introduced
population of west slope cutthroat trout. Data indicated the natural instream spawning sediment levels in
Little Tepee Creek were high. Instream spawning sediment levels in Little Tepee Creek were projected to
exceed Travel Management Plan Standard (E-4) for Class A streams. To better understand the resource
condition in Little Tepee Creek, my staff completed a comparison study between Little Tepee Creek and
an unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek in the roadless area that had similar geology. The study involved
additional sediment data collection for Little Tepee Creek and the unnamed tributary, as well as macro
invertabrae collection. The habitat survey data indicated that habitat parameters along Little Tepee Creek,
especially those parameters closely related to sediment deposition, are similar or better than in the
unroaded reference reach. The monitoring indicated that existing habitat conditions along Little Tepee
Creek are not a result of past timber harvest and associated activities but rather are natural conditions.
Because of site specific knowledge of the drainage, the biologist and hydrologist concluded that the
majority of the model predicted sediment will not reach Little Tepee Creek due to various routing
obstacles. With or without the implementation of the action alternatives, the recently introduced
population of WCT will continue to increase in population size and continue to occupy the once barren
habitat upon which they were placed. (Aquatic Specialist report, Roberts 2016).
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
17
While the comparison study in Little Tepee was in progress, the IDT was proactive to minimize impacts
in Little Tepee Creek. First, the proposed action was altered in the Little Tepee drainage between scoping,
when this information came to light, and the formulation of Alternative 2. Units 180-187 were eliminated
or modified (Final EA, Appendix A-52). Design features are incorporated in all action alternatives (Final
EA, Appendix A, p. 4-5). The design features and mitigation measures are such that any of the action
alternatives will have minimal impacts on the existing WCT population and quality habitat will be
maintained. As a result, the project will meet the intent of the Forest travel management standard for
instream fine sediment which is to maintain quality habitat in streams.
In Red Canyon Creek, existing instream fine sediment levels are also high. I concluded that the project
will also meet the intent of Forest Travel Management standards for instream fine sediment to minimize
sediment delivery while maintaining quality habitat in Red Canyon Creek. My conclusion is based on the
facts that the project impacts are effectively mitigated (Final EA, Appendix A, p.4-5); instream fine
sediment levels are expected to increase only slightly (2.9%) along Red Canyon Creek; projected
instream sediment increases are very similar between the Selected Alternative, the other three action
alternatives and the no action alternative; few lacustrine trout use Red Canyon Creek for spawning; and,
the high level of natural sediment delivery from the upstream fault that totally masks projected project
generated sediment delivery.
Design features common to action alternatives (Final EA, Appendix A, p. 4-6) and the Selected
Alternative protect all drainages with stream buffers and other best managementpractices (BMP). The
BMP’s have been shown to be effective through monitoring (Final EA p. 153). All stream channels (both
perennial and intermittent) will be buffered from mechanized operations by at least 50’ with the exception
of those stream channels within the Little Tepee Creek analysis area which will buffer by at least 150 feet.
(Roberts 2016, p. 2) The selected alternative will result in less impact than alternative 2 and 4 due
predominately to less temporary road. The additional regeneration harvest in place of intermediate harvest
that is included in the Tepee Creek drainage incorporates the same BMPS’s for avoidance and protection
so impacts will essentially be the same in those units. I considered the aquatic and amphibian specialist
report (Roberts 2016) and the Final EA discussion (p. 98-107) in order to conclude that the project was
designed in a manner, including mitigation measures, that will result in minimal changes to habitat
suitability for either amphibians or fish. Although existing levels are higher than allowed in Little Tepee
and Red Canyon Creeks, the intent of the Travel Plan Standard is met so I am modifying the standard for
this project to allow the work to proceed in those drainages.
Temporary Roads
Temporary roads were a discussion point throughout the public involvement for this project.
Stakeholders were concerned with the amount of road, the level of closure and the related effect to grizzly
bear and the risk of invasive weed spread. I considered a range of alternatives from 0-21 miles of
temporary road evaluating the potential effects in each alternative.
The Forest has management discretion to build administrative roads. The project is designed to minimize
the need for temporary administrative roads and to minimize impact during construction and use. Further,
there are extensive requirements to fully reclaim the temporary roads. The Agency has contract language
available to incorporate reclamation directly into contractual requirements so that no additional funding
will be needed to accomplish the work. No reasonably foreseeable actions are proposed that will require
use of the proposed temporary roads in the future. The agency has experience that shows successful
reclamation and closure of temporary roads with virtually no visible long term impacts. The management
emphasis on whether to eliminate the footprint from temporary roads has changed over the years. For
North Hebgen and other current projects, management is committed to reclaiming temporary roads and
finishing the work of closing and rehabilitating legacy roads from previous decades. In response to
continued concern, in my decision I reduced the amount of temporary road needed to implement most of
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
18
the “preferred alternative” by approximately 5.5 miles. I provided a more thorough explanation of road
management plans and my commitment to effectively rehabilitate the temporary roads. I added a memo
to the project webpage that compiled all discussion related to temporary road management,
2016_1221TemporaryRoadManagementCompilation.
Consideration of Science
Long lists of literature cites were submitted for consideration relative to fire/fuels, climate change, water
quality-roads and wildlife. In virtually all cases the commenter did not explain the relevance of the
introduced science to this project or analysis, or what was different from the science specialists used to
support the analysis and conclusions. The comments simply stated that we needed to consider best
science. As a result, our review did not have the benefit of intended perspectives. We reviewed all science
presented and responded in Appendix C of the Final EA (VolumeII). One other document is posted on the
project webpage addressing science requests, 2016_1221CompiledResponseArtleyScienceRequest . The
“Artley” compilation is a summary of our consideration of the literature or memo or letter presented. The
response to Mr. Artley’s request is separated out from Appendix C due to the sheer number of citations
presented and general lack of a clear tie to the project or decision. The Native Ecosystems Council
(NEC) referenced best science on numerous occasions in their comment letter. No additional citations
were provided. My staff made attempts to obtain literature citations from NEC, but telephone calls and
emails went unanswered. During the objection process renewed challenges were introduced and in
response the Supplement to the Wildlife Report (Scarlett 6/17/2017) and an memo related to fire/fuels
science was developed (Jones 2017). The additional discussion provided additional perspective but did
not change the conclusion or effects related to the resources or the project.
My staff thoughtfully considered all science presented for consideration. In their analysis and conclusion
they presented the methodology and scientific basis for the various resource analyses. The conclusions
made are based on data, field review, modelling or other methods of analysis and science, some new and
some long standing, but all widely accepted in the field. I have been presented with no science that
contradicts agency findings. The Agency has implemented these or similar types of vegetation
management projects for decades. The Forest and Agency routinely monitor and study our work and
ongoing habitat conditions, which helps to validate the effectiveness and predictability of desired
outcomes. We employ experts in the field of forest and wildlife habitat management. The findings for this
project are informed by expert knowledge, valuable experience and are based on appropriate science.
Further, I have the latitude to evaluate and incorporate new information that could influence the project or
effects at any time in the future.
Best science has become the word of choice for opponents of forest management implying that any
science provided is better that the information the agency relies on. The NEPA requires that project
analysis have scientific integrity. The NFMA has no project level science requirements. As a practice,
the Agency considers all science presented during the NEPA process and when new information is
presented later on.
Other Issues
I considered several other issues that were either unaffected, mildly affected, or the effects could be
adequately mitigated for all alternatives. To reach this conclusion I relied on the assessment of these
issues in the Final EA starting on the referenced pages and the Specialist Reports referenced in the Final
EA . The following issues are discussed:
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
19
Table 2: Other Issues/Resources unaffected, mildly affected, or the effects could be adequately mitigated.
Design Features common to action alternatives includes practices that ensure compliance with
standards or laws and to minimize impacts to an acceptable levels associated with these resources
(Final EA , Appendix A for design features)7
Air Quality (Final EA , pp. 98)
Aquatic Species (Final EA , p. 98)
(EA P. Heritage (Final EA , pp. 114)
Inventoried Roadless Area Impacts (Final EA , pp.
118)
Recreation and Special Uses (Final EA , pp. 1264)
Scenery (Final EA , p. 91)
Sensitive Plants (Final EA , pp. 132)
Soils (Final EA , pp. 135)
Transportation (Final EA , pp. 140)
Water Quality (Final EA , pp. 143)
Canada Lynx(Final EA , pp. 156)
Bald Eagle(Final EA , pp. 172)
Elk (Final EA , pp. 182)
Northern Goshawk (Final EA , pp. 192)
Bison (Final EA , pp. 199)
Migratory Bird Species (Final EA , pp. 200)
The following resources are analyzed in the EA and either the impacts are very minimal and
acceptable or the analysis is informative for the line officer as a consideration but did not result
in the need for design features or mitigation
Climate Change and Carbon Flux (Final EA , pp.
108)
Economics (Final EA , pp. 111)
Range Allotment Impacts (Final EA , pp. 125)
North American Wolverine (Final EA , pp. 167)
American Peregrine Falcon (Final EA , pp. 170)
Bighorn Sheep (Final EA , pp. 176)
Black backed Woodpecker (Final EA , pp. 177)
Flammulated Owl (Final EA , pp. 178)
Gray Wolf (Final EA , pp. 178)
Harlequin Duck (Final EA , pp. 180)
Trumpeter Swan (Final EA , pp.180)
Townsend Big Eared Bat (Final EA , pp. 180)
Pine Marten (Final EA , pp. 199)
3. Does the alternative comply with applicable laws, policy and direction?
My decision to implement the Selected Alternative is consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and
policies. I present the primary direction in this discussion. More complete listings of applicable direction
are in the EA under each resource section and in Specialist Reports for each resource area. My decision
includes one Travel Plan modification to allow project activities in Tepee Creek and Red Canyon in spite
of high existing levels of instream fine sediment, which is discussed in the Fish Species Discussion above
(p. 14) and under the Travel Plan discussion in this section. There is also discussion under “Findings
Required by Other Laws” (p. 47).
GALLATIN FOREST PLAN as amended 2015
The Gallatin Forest Plan embodies the provisions of the NFMA, its implementing regulations, and other
guiding documents. The Gallatin Forest Plan as amended (2015), hereinafter called the “Plan”,
established Forest-wide goals and standards. The Forest Plan identifies standards at two geographical
levels, Forest-wide and Management Areas (MA). Forest-wide standards, which apply to NFS land that is
administered by the Custer Gallatin National Forests are intended to supplement, not replace, national and
regional policies, standards, and guidelines found in Forest Service manual and handbooks.
7 The issues discussed earlier: Fuels, Forest Vegetation, Invasive Weeds and Grizzly Bear also have design features
common to action alternatives included to minimize impacts, but they were central to alternative development and
are discussed in more detail in earlier sections.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
20
The following Gallatin Forest Plan forest wide standards provide the foundation for the purpose and need
for action and the proposed action for the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project and move the project
area toward the goals listed in this section.
Aspen and Whitebark Pine Treatments
Forest lands and other vegetative communities such as grassland, aspen, willow, sagebrush and
whitebark pine will be managed by prescribed fire and other methods to produce and maintain the
desired vegetative condition. (FP, p. II-21)
Big game habitat will be managed to meet the forage and cover needs of big game species in
coordination with other uses. (FP, p. II-18)
The decision includes approximately 1,800 acres of treatments with a primary objective of producing and
maintaining aspen and whitebark pine on the landscape. The species were identified as a desired species
that are a priority in this landscape.
The project will have long-term beneficial effects for elk and big game forage by removing encroaching
understory and overstory conifers and increasing understory production and/or enhancing aspen
production in the project area. Cover is abundant across the EAUs and the action alternatives will have
minor effects on hiding cover.
Forest Health and Resilience:
Use fire and other management tools to help achieve vegetative size and age class diversity. (FP, p.
II-21)
Long term losses caused by insects and diseases will be reduced by integrating forest pest
management into plans. (FP, p. II-25)
Silvicultural systems will be the primary tool for pest management and will be used to improve the
diversity of tree species and the size and age of trees in various stands. (FP, p. II-25)
A number of techniques will be employed to reduce long–term losses of lodgepole pine stands to
insects, while protecting other values. This includes increasing resistance to attack by harvesting
susceptible stands to gain diversity in age and size between stands, controlling the levels of planting
and the ages of trees in even-aged stands to maintain the vigor of the stand, and changing the
composition of the forest to favor species that are not susceptible to insects. (FP, p. II-25)
The decision includes WBP, aspen and forest health treatments that implement these standards. Forest
Health, is an element of the project purpose and need and project designs and focuses on lodgepole pine
dwarf mistletoe, mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle and western spruce budworm damaging agents.
The treatments utilize silvicultural systems that increase resistance to insect and disease impacts, harvest
susceptible stands to gain diversity in age and size across the landscape, and change the composition of
the forest to favor species that are not susceptible to insects (Konen 2015, pp. 65-76).
Fuel Hazard Reduction, Snags and down woody debris:
Treatment of natural fuel accumulations to support hazard reduction and management area goals
will be continued. (FP, p. II-31)
The proposed fuel reduction treatments in the action alternatives in the North Hebgen project will begin to
address national, regional and local fire and the fuels direction in the Plan. Approximately 4,900 acres of
treatments achieve this standard.
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
21
Forest-wide standard E.14 requires that activity created dead and down woody debris will be
reduced to a level commensurate with risk analysis. A wildlife standard states that 15 tons per acre
will be left for nongame wildlife species. (Final EA , p. A-13).
All treatments identified in the decision address this fuel standard because activity fuels will be reduced to
15 tons per acre. Wildland fire starts in an area that have 15 t/a or less of 3 inch plus dead and down fuels
will have less fire line intensity.
Treatments that are included in the proposed action were identified to achieve standards which help to
move the project area toward the following Forest Wide goals (p. II-1, 2). A “goal” is a desired condition
to be achieved over time.
Provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on suitability and capability of the
specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives. (p. II-1)
Provide a sustained yield of timber products and improve the productivity of timber growing lands.
(p. II-1)
Provide a fire protection and use program which is responsive to land and resource management
goals and objectives. (p. II-2)
Manage National Forest resources to prevent or reduce serious long lasting hazards from pest
organisms utilizing principles of integrated pest management. (p. II-2)
Other Forest Plan Standards
There is an exhaustive list of all other standards Forest Plan Consistency Compilation (CGNF 2017)
available on the project webpage. The standards are also summarized in the Final EA , from the
Specialist Reports. This discussion highlights the most relevant standards for the NHMRP.
Aquatic Species
The projected effects associated with sediment delivery from the Selected Alternative is less than the
effects anticipated in alternative 2 because the treatments are similar, but the decision includes 5 miles
less temporary road as compared to 2. All action alternatives will meet Forest Plan standard a-12 Habitat
for Regionally designated sensitive species on the Gallatin NF will be maintained in a suitable condition
to support these species (FP II-19) and a-14 stating that “the Forest will be managed to maintain and,
where feasible, improve fish habitat capacity to achieve cooperative goals with Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks and to comply with State water quality standards (FP II-20).” The effects associated with the
Selected Alternative will: 1) have minimal impacts to westslope sensitive species, and will not cause a
downward population trend staying consistent with the Forest Service’s Sensitive Species Policy; 2)
continue to allow for growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life as required by
the Clean Water Act; 3) maintain the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of
aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunity by evaluating the effects of Federally
funded as required by Executive Order 12962; 4) protect all pure and slightly introgressed (90% or greater
purity) westslope cutthroat trout populations as required by Memorandum of Understanding and
Conservation Agreement (MOUCA) for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana (Powell 2002); and 5)
have no measureable negative effects on populations of Management Indicator Species, because the
project was designed in a manner, including mitigation measures, that will result in minimal changes to
habitat suitability for either amphibians or fish. Forest Plan level monitoring will continue at the
programmatic level. (Roberts 2016)
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
22
Table 3: Biological Evaluation Determination for Aquatic Species
Species Determination Rationale
Yellowstone cutthroat
trout
Northern leopard frog
No Impact The project is outside the habitat range for these species.
Western pearlshell
mussels or their beds
No Impact Nothing is being proposed that will cause occupied stream
reaches to become less stable causing harm to western
pearlshell mussels or their beds.
Western Toads MIIH* High quality habitat surrounding Hebgen Lake will
compensate for loss of individual toads and toadlets.
Plains Spadefoot MIIH Few if any individuals will be directly impacted since they
predominately come above ground on rainy periods and
operations generally cease during rainy periods to avoid
soil damage. There is a slight chance that a few
individuals might be entombed in the ground as a result of
soil compaction related to heavy equipment. It is believed
that the project impacts to plains spadefoot will be very
minimal, if any at all.
Westslope cutthroat
trout population
MIIH Little Tepee creek was recognized for excellent habitat
conditions when the introduction of WCT was completed.
There was naturally high instream fine sediment levels at
that time. The introduction has been successful. Living in
isolation without other non-native trout, abundant food,
and quality habitat will help assure the long-term
persistence of this population. I conclude that the amount
of project-generated sediment delivered, if any, will be
much lower in quantity than what was predicted by
WATSED model for Little Tepee Creek analysis area.
Design features incorporated into the decision will reduce
sediment delivery from area roads and project impacts.
Therefore, impact from the project will be minimal and
will maintain quality habitat.
* May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal
Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species”
Forest Vegetation and Snags
Old Growth: The Forest Plan contains a vegetation diversity and Old Growth related standard:
“Use fire and other management tools to help achieve vegetative size and age class diversity. In
part, to achieve this vegetative diversity, strive to maintain a minimum 10% old growth forest on
lands classified as forested at the mountain range scale.
Vegetation management activities will achieve vegetative size and age class diversity by regenerating
stands or thinning stands to improve vigor or promote certain species. Two mountain ranges exist in the
project area. The minimum 10% old growth forest will be maintained in the Madison Mountain Range.
In the Henry Mountain Range the existing condition is approximately 6.2% old growth and there will be
no effect because old growth stands will be avoided. Surveys were completed to ensure that no proposed
units met old growth criteria (Final EA , p. 47, A-6). The area has extensive mature forest (78.7%)
available for future old growth (EA p. 48).
Snags: The Forest Plan contains the following standards (FP, p. A-14) for snag retention.
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
23
Standard A1a: For harvest units not scheduled for broadcast burning: During timber sale layout,
designate for leave an average of 30 snags (greater than 18 ft. in height and greater than 10 inch
DBH) per 10 acres within harvest units. If there are not sufficient dead trees meeting this size
criteria, the largest available dead trees will be left as snags.
Standard A1b: For harvest units not scheduled for broadcast burning: During timber sale layout,
designate for leave an average of 30 live snag replacement trees per 10 acres within harvest units.
For Douglas fir and Subalpine fir on rocky or shallow soils designate 60 trees per 10 acres as
replacement trees.
The North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project (NHMRP) project is consistent with these standards,
because design criteria are incorporated in the Decision (p. 8) to retain snags and snag recruitment trees
commensurate with these standards (Final EA , p. A-7).
Invasive Weeds
The applicable weed prevention activities identified in the FSM2080-Noxious Weed Management have
been incorporated into this project (p. 8, Final EA , p.A-8 to11). The treatment of weeds is consistent with
Executive Order 13112 (1999) which directs all agencies to prevent introduction of invasive species,
provide for their control, and to minimize economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive
species cause. With required mitigations in the Decision, all alternatives are consistent with Executive
Order 13112, The Federal Noxious Weed Act, the Montana County Noxious Weed Control Law; Forest
Service Manual (FSM) 2080- Noxious Weed Management Policy; Forest Service Northern Region Weed
Risk Assessment protocol and the 2005 Gallatin National Forest Noxious and Invasive Weeds
Management Plan EIS and the Forest Plan. The mitigation measures in this project will minimize the
spread of weeds by avoiding and treating weeds.
Scenery
Forest Plan Standard (p. II-17) - Environmental analysis and project designs for landscape
altering activities would be evaluated to determine if they are compatible with the assigned
VQOs. Landscape altering projects shall meet the assigned VQOs, or in locations where the
existing situation does not meet the VQO, shall not further degrade the visual condition. (GFP
amended 2015) A visual quality objective is “A desired level of scenic quality and diversity of
natural features based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area” and it[VQO] refers
to the degree of acceptable alterations of the “characteristic landscape.”
The EA includes evaluation of scenery impacts relative to VQO’s. The activities associated with the
Action Alternatives will meet the Forest Plan visual quality standard of retention when viewed from
Hebgen Lake and Partial Retention, when viewed from US Highway 191, 287 and the Rainbow Point
County Road. The VQO of “Modification” will be met in all other locations. These VQO’s will be met
by implementing design features incorporated in the Decision and listed in Appendix A of the EA (p. A-
17 to 21). The Selected Alternative will have similar effects to alternatives 2 and 4.
Sensitive Plants
Habitat for Regionally Designated species on the Gallatin National Forest will be maintained in a
suitable conditions to support these species (FP, p. II-19).
Suitable conditions will be maintained in the project area. Units with potential habitat for “sensitive”
plant species were surveyed in 2014 and 2015. No sensitive plants were located in treatment units except
whitebark pine (WBP). Although activity in the harvest units could damage individual WBP trees, the
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
24
treatments are intended to benefit WBP pine over the long term. Other sensitive plant species will not be
impacted either because they are not present or design features incorporated in the action alternatives will
avoid impact. Impact to sensitive species will be avoided or minimized in accordance with direction and
treatments will enhance WBP as directed in the Forest Plan. If any sensitive plants are found at a later
date, the site will be protected from disturbance. This is a common provision that is included in timber
contracts to require the site to be protected until a biologist determines the correct course of action (Final
EA , Appendix A-20). The decision will not have a detrimental impact on sensitive plants.
I included the findings from the Biological Evaluation for listed species that could have potential habitat
in the area. There will be NO IMPACT to the following species because suitable habitat is not present:
and administrative and non-recreational special uses. A letter of concurrence for the programmatic
BA was received on May 23, 2014; in it, the US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the Forest
Service determination that these types of projects are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the DPS of the North American wolverine.
The North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project will include activities that fall within several of these
categories, including timber harvest, mechanical equipment use, roads and road maintenance,
silvicultural activities, habitat maintenance and restoration, prescribed fire (activity fuels and pile
burning in units), and weed management (connected action). The programmatic BA determined that
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
50
these project types and associated activities are not considered a threat to the wolverine and are
therefore not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the DPS of the North American
wolverine. For this reason, formal consultation is not required for this species. Compliance with the
screening criteria for the included project types will be documented in the appropriate North
American wolverine Screens Compliance Summary Sheet and included in the project file. Individual
project activities and cumulative actions will result in relatively small-scale disturbances in relation to
the large wolverine home range size. Wolverines are capable of adjusting to and co-existing with
moderate levels of disturbance. Project and cumulative effects will not result in barriers to dispersing
individuals. Therefore, the action alternatives are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the wolverine. (See Final EA page 167-170)
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 Final EA (see Final EA pages
33-208) and summarized on pages 28-34 in this document. The action is consistent with the Gallatin
Forest Plan as amended 2015 (pp.17-28).
Based on the Final EA and project record, I determined that there will be no significant impacts as a
result of this decision.
VII. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations
NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT (1976)
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-588) governs the administration of
national forests, and was an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act
of 1974. NFMA requires that resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and
occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plan (i.e. the
Forest Plan). NFMA also requires public participation, including adequate notice and the opportunity to
comment on projects that affect NFS lands. The North Hebgen Decision to use vegetation management
tools to reduce wildland fuels, increase aspen and WBP and enhance forest health and resiliency is
consistent with the intent of the forest plan's long term goals and objectives listed on pages [II-2 to 6]. The
project was designed in conformance with land and resource management plan standards discussed on
pages 17-21 of this Decision.
On April 9, 2012 the Department of Agriculture issued a final planning rule for National Forest System
land management planning (2012 Rule) 77 FR 68 [21162-21276]). On the Gallatin National Forest, the
Gallatin Forest Plan was developed under a prior planning rule. The 2012 Rule explains, “[The 2012
Rule] supersedes any prior planning regulation. No obligations remain from any prior planning
regulation, except those that are specifically included in a unit’s existing plan. Existing plans will remain
in effect until revised” (36 CFR §219.17).
NFMA requires that several specific findings be document at the project level for forest management,
including the following:
Suitability for Timber Production
NFMA requires no timber harvesting shall occur on areas classified as not suited for timber production,
except salvage sales, sales necessary to protect other multiple-use values, or activities that meet other
objectives on such lands if the forest plan established that such actions are appropriate.
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
51
The silvicultural diagnosis process and the Forest Plan were used to determine that all areas associated
with this project are suitable for timber harvest using the following criteria:
Meet the definition of forestland
Technological feasibility exists to protect soil productivity and watershed protection. Forest plan
standards, project design criteria, and applicable Best Management practices will be used to protect
these resource values.
There is reasonable assurance that lands can be restocked within five years of final harvest.
None of the areas considered for harvest have been withdrawn from timber production
Where timber harvesting is proposed in Management Areas not classified as suitable within the Forest
Plan, all treatments are in response to protecting multiple-use values or meeting resource objectives
identified in the project purpose and need and/or the Forest Plan.
Maintenance of the Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities
Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines address maintaining a diversity of vegetation and
habitats across the forest to meet a variety of wildlife species needs and to provide for sustained yield of
timber products. This requirement is intended to be met at the forest scale through Forest Plan
Implementation. The purpose and need for the project incorporates a number of forest wide goals and
standards moving the project area toward the goals. Forest Plan consistency was discussed in a previous
section.
In addition to applying forest plan direction, project design/mitigation prescribed by the project
silviculturist, wildlife biologist, fisheries biologist and the sensitive plant specialist address plant and
animal community needs (Final EA , Appendix A).
Appropriateness of Even-Aged Management and Optimality of Clearcutting.
NFMA directs that clearcutting be used only where “it is determined to be the optimum method”. Other
even aged methods can be used where “determined to be appropriate”. Clearcutting is proposed on 200-
257 acres depending on alternatives. All of these areas are dominated by lodgepole pine. Clearcutting
was determined to be the optimum regeneration method for meeting management objectives for each of
these areas by the project silviculturist. Criteria used to make this determination included; species
composition relative to management direction and availability of desired species for seed sources, species
susceptibility to observed insect agents, presence of disease infections which would be transmitted to the
regenerated stand, and stands subject to wind throw if residual trees were retained. Other even aged
methods are proposed as they are most compatible with the disturbance regimes found in the analysis area
and the adapted silvics and regeneration strategies of desired tree species.
NFMA Findings for Vegetation Manipulation
All proposals that involve vegetation manipulation of tree cover for any purpose must comply with the
following requirements.
Best suited to the multiple-use goals stated in the Forest Plan for the area with impact. All proposed
treatments are consistent with multiple use Forest Plan direction and address the project purpose and
need.
Assure that the lands can be adequately restocked within 5 years. 3,352 acres of even-aged
regeneration harvests have occurred since the 1960’s in the analysis area. All of these acres have
been certified in FACTS as stocked following harvest either through natural regeneration or planting.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
52
There are no indications that with appropriate planning proposed regeneration treatments could not be
stocked within 5 years.
Not chosen because they will give the greatest dollar return. Although timber harvest associated with
this project will generate revenue, all treatments have been designed to meet project objectives and do
not have a primary goal of revenue generation.
Be chosen after considering the effects on residual trees and adjacent stands. The effects to residual
trees and adjacent stands were considered in the interdisciplinary development and the forest
vegetation analysis of this project. Residual tree protection measures are included in the design
features section of this report.
Be selected to avoid permanent impairment of site productivity and to ensure conservation of soil and
water resources. The Soils and Water resources section of the Environmental Assessment discuss the
effectiveness of design features that include protection and enhancement designs sufficient to ensure
conservation of the resources (Final EA p. 140, 153-155). Soil and water resources will be
conserved.
Be selected to provide beneficial effects to water quality and quantity, wildlife and fish habitat,
regeneration of desired tree species, forage production, recreation uses, aesthetic values, and other
resource yields. Following Forest Plan and management area direction, an interdisciplinary team
considered all of these resources in the context of the surrounding landscape and this project as
documented in the Environmental Assessment.
Be practical in terms of transportation and harvesting requirements and total costs of preparation,
logging, and administration. Standard logging systems and log hauling is prescribed for this project
and has been determined to be practical for this project and a sale feasibility analysis has been
conducted.
Prior to harvest, stands of trees throughout the National Forest System shall generally have reached
the culmination of mean annual increment of growth. This is the age at which average rate of annual
tree growth stops increasing and begins to decline. The regeneration harvests included in my decision
indicated serious declines in growth rate and were determined to have reached their culmination of
mean annual increment by the silviculturist. In addition, the Forest Plan states that the average age of
mean annual increment in lodgepole pine is 90 years. Stand data collected in 2014 and 2015 in some
of these stands suggests lodgepole pine (dominant species) trees with >6” DBH have ages ranging
from ~ 70-160 years old. The intermediate harvest also indicated that growth has slowed due to over
stocking.
NFMA Findings related to Roads:
Construction of temporary roadways in connection with timber contracts, and other permits or leases.
Unless the necessity for a permanent road is set forth in the forest development road system plan, any
road constructed on land of the National Forest System in connection with a timber contract or other
permit or lease shall be designed with the goal of reestablishing vegetative cover on the roadway and
areas where the vegetative cover has been disturbed by the construction of the road, within ten years after
the termination of the contract, permit, or lease either through artificial or natural means. Such action
shall be taken unless it is later determined that the road is needed for use as a part of the National Forest
Transportation System (16 USC 1608(b)).
Roads constructed on National Forest System lands shall be designed to standards appropriate for the
intended uses, considering safety, cost of transportation, and impacts on land and resources (16 USC
1608(c)).
Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
53
Finding: The Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan (2006) analysis and decision has rigorously
determined the management objectives of the entire road system throughout the Forest, including this
area. This fulfills the roads analysis requirements for project level analysis. In the Travel Plan,
disposition of “project roads” was left to the project level decision-making process. Project roads are
those roads not open for motorized public use or those open for administrative use.
No additional system roads will be constructed as part of this project. Proposed temporary roads will be
constructed and used for the life of the project and will be restored to surrounding area vegetation
management objectives as part of the project closeout and not added to the Forest road system. As
proposed in all action alternatives, the temporary roads to be constructed will be built to the minimum
standard needed to implement the alternatives. The need for temporary roads and restoration plans are
discussed in the description of the alternatives and design features common to the action alternatives.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, each Federal agency must ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
endangered species. If a threatened or endangered species, or species proposed for listing occurs in an
area where a project is proposed, a Biological Assessment (BA) must be prepared. If the action would
result in a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the species, formal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must occur and they would issue a Biological Opinion.
A Biological Assessment (BA)(Scarlett 2016) was submitted to the Service in December 2016. The
Biological Assessment for the project concluded that the project “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for
grizzly bear and Canada lynx. There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for either species in the
project area. Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.13 (a), formal consultation was completed on May 17, 2017 when
the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued their Biological Opinion (BO) for the project.
The proposed activities meet the definition of actions that are not considered a threat to this species in the
Programmatic Biological Assessment For North American Wolverine (USDA 2014), the Selected
Alternative is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of the wolverine. This determination and
the consistency of this project with the programmatic screening criteria for wolverine is documented in
the project file.
With regard to the Canada lynx, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that adverse effects were
adequately analyzed in the 2007 programmatic biological opinion and that the project conforms to the
2017 amended incidental take statement. It was the Service’s biological opinion that the North Hebgen
Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Canada lynx.
With regard to the grizzly bear, the US Fish and Wildlife Service found that the existing, baseline access
condition of the Madison #1 and Madison #2 grizzly bear subunits is consistent with the analysis of
effects on grizzly bears in the 2006 programmatic biological opinion (Travel Plan) and that the proposed
action will be in compliance with the 2013 amended incidental take statement associated with that
biological opinion. The amount of incidental take that is expected will be low and no mortality of grizzly
bears is anticipated. The North Hebgen Project is not likely to reduce the numbers, distribution, or
reproduction of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. The Service determined that
the level of anticipated take under the North Hebgen Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the grizzly bear. The USFWS provided non-discretionary terms and conditions for grizzly
bear that are incorporated in the Decision (page 7). These terms and conditions implement actions to
meet the reasonable and prudent measures identified by the USFWS by reducing general and site-specific
displacement of grizzly bears in the North Hebgen project area, specifically the Madison #2 Subunit.
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
54
On June 22, 2017 it was announced that the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of the
grizzly bear would be removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. The US Fish
and Wildlife Service has determined that the population has recovered to the point where federal
protections under the Endangered Species Act can be removed and overall management can be returned to
the states (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho). The Final Rule to remove the grizzly bear from the list will be
published in the Federal Register in the near future. The Final Rule will take effect 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Existing Custer Gallatin National Forest management direction for the
grizzly bear and its habitat would not change in response to delisting. The decision or conclusions in this
decision will not change. Procedural requirements associated with ESA would no longer apply to this
species.
The evolution of management direction for grizzly bear on the Gallatin portion of the Custer Gallatin
National Forest is summarized in a memo titled “Grizzly bear habitat guidance under the Gallatin Forest
Plan (2015), Gallatin Travel Plan (2006), and Travel Plan Amended Incidental Take Statement (2013)”
(Scarlett Memo 2017). The purpose of this memo was to ensure that the Forest Service and the USFWS
have a consistent understanding of current direction and Opinions and how the direction applies to
ongoing and future projects, inlucuding North Hebgen. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, agreed that the
interpretation was accurate, in keeping with their intent. (Dixon 2017, personal communication).
Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to integrate environmental justice considerations into
federal programs and activities. Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practical and
permitted by the law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are
rendered, or are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a
disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human
health or the environment (RO 13898 and Departmental Regulation 5600-002, “Environmental Justice”).
My decision will not have a discernible effect on minorities, American Indians, or women, or the civil
rights of any United States citizen, nor will it have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on
minorities or low-income individuals. The Final EA details the public involvement that occurred for this
project including outreach to the local community and Native American tribes. As the project will not
disproportionately impact environmental justice populations (Final EA , p. 114), my decision is consistent
with EO 12898.
VIII. Administrative Review - Objection Process and Implementation This decision is not subject to further administrative review. The project will be implemented
immediately.
Four entities presented pre-decision objections. The Objectors included the Alliance for Wild Rockies
and Montana Ecosystems Defense Council, the Native Ecosystems Council, Rob French and Vladmir
Kustanovich. None of the objectors responded to the invitation to meet with Objection reviewing Officer
(ORO). The objections were reviewed by a panel of specialists from the Northern Region of the Forest
Service. The ORO responded to Objectors on June 8, 2017. No instructions were presented to the Forest
as a result of the Objections recieved. However, in response to information presented from objectors,
some clarifications were incorporated in the final Decision. Minor errors were identified in the EA and
Wildlife Report and these were finalized in June 2017. A supplemental Wildlife Report (Scarlett,
6/17/2017) was prepared to respond to new information that was introduced from objections. The
North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project
56
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and
policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA
programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity
(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income
derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in
any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and
complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille,
large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET
Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-
3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter
addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the
complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C.
20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.