united states department of agriculture forest service red...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Red Spruce Restoration/Treatment of Diseased American Beech (Farm Bill) Project

Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impacts

Gauley Ranger District, Monongahela National Forest Greenbrier, Pocahontas, and Webster County, West Virginia

July 2017

Dying American beech infected with beech bark disease

(Photo courtesy of Kim Tarter, Wildlife Biologist, Gauley Ranger District, US Forest Service 2016)

i

For More Information Contact:

Richard Patterson

South Zone Environmental Coordinator

1079 Main St. E

White Sulphur Springs, WV 24986

Email: [email protected]

or

Kim Tarter

Gauley District Ranger

932 North Fork Cherry Road

Richwood, WV 26261

Email: [email protected]

USDA Nondiscrimination Policy, June 2, 2015

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] (link sends e-mail).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html


ii

Contents Contents____________________________________________________________________________ii Introduction _________________________________________________________________________1 Project Location _____________________________________________________________________ 1 Need for the Proposal _________________________________________________________________1

Public Involvement ___________________________________________________________________6 Proposed Action _____________________________________________________________________ 6 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action_____________________________________________ 8

Wildlife _________________________________________________________________________ 8 Botany __________________________________________________________________________8

Soil_____________________________________________________________________________8

Hydrology _______________________________________________________________________8

Heritage _________________________________________________________________________9

Finding of No Significant Impact _______________________________________________________10 Context ________________________________________________________________________ 10

Intensity ________________________________________________________________________11 Applicable Laws and Executive Orders __________________________________________________ 13

References ________________________________________________________________________ 14

List of Tables

Table 1. Red Spruce Restoration Proposed Units and Acre……..……………….……..…………………7

List of Figures and Photos

Figure 1. Red Spruce Restoration/Diseased American Beech Project Map ………………………….… 5

Photo 1. Young red spruce in understory .……….………………………………………….…………..3

Photo 2. Heavy scale on American beech …….…….………..……………………………………….....3

Photo 3. Neonectria fungus on American beech …………………………………………………………4

Photo 4. Mature red spruce in project area ……………………..………………………………………..4

Photo 5. Infected American beech sprouts on left, young red spruce on right…………………………..10

Gauley Ranger District, Monongahela National Forest

1

Introduction We are proposing to promote resiliency to insect and disease infestations through

the implementation of releasing young red spruce trees. Herbicide treatment of

diseased American Beech is proposed on approximately 3000 acres on the Gauley

Ranger District of the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. The project

will help reestablish red spruce in its high elevation pre-1930’s range and

additionally create snags for wildlife because the beech trees will not be felled. This

project does not involve timber removal, timber sales, new road construction, or

road reconstruction. These areas were designated as areas of emphasis for

increasing resilience to insect infestation and disease through section 602 of Title VI

of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003(16 U.S.C. 6591 et seq.).

Section 602 was created by an amendment to HFRA in the Farm Bill of 2014.

We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of this

project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the

preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency

policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more

details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

Project Location The Red Spruce restoration and treatment of diseased American beech project includes all the

Management Prescription (MP) 4.1 areas within the North Fork Cherry River and Cranberry River

drainages that are not within a Roadless Area Conservation area (RAC) also known as Inventoried

Roadless Areas. The small 4.1 area within the Williams River Drainage was not considered. The

project area is located within portions of Greenbrier, Pocahontas, and Webster Counties of West

Virginia. The project consists of multiple sites and is located entirely on National Forest System

Land. No activities for this project are proposed on private lands.

Need for the Proposal The Central Appalachian Spruce Restoration Initiative (CASRI) has modeled 19,196 acres within

the 4.1 areas being considered that have a high, medium, and low priority for spruce understory

release. Working with CASRI, the Monongahela National Forest has been reestablishing red

spruce in its high elevation pre-1930’s range. At this same time the forest is being impacted by

the beech bark disease. When a mature American beech is infected and begins to die it vigorously

begins to sprout new shoots from its roots that take up growing space, nutrients, water and light in

the stand at the expense of other understory seedlings and saplings, including red spruce. Using a

translocating herbicide on infested American beech will kill these trees and a large proportion of

the beech root sprouts associated with them. Thus, the understory red spruce will be released.

This type of tree-centered release has been shown to be an effective red spruce restoration

approach. This project involves reducing the risk or extent of disease infestation by removing

infected trees that if allowed to grow can help spread the disease. It also involves increasing the

resilience to disease infestation by leaving American beech that are not infected and may be


2

resilient to the disease. An additional benefit from this project will be the creation of beech snags

for wildlife because the trees will not be felled.

This project falls within Management Prescription (MP): 4.1- Spruce and Spruce-Hardwood

Ecosystem Management. Relevant management emphasis from the Forest Plan (FP) includes:

active and passive restoration of spruce and spruce-hardwood communities; research or

administrative studies on spruce restoration; and recovery of threatened and endangered species

and other species of concern associated with spruce and spruce-hardwood communities.

Non Native Invasive Species (NNIS) Mitigation

Project work has some potential to introduce non-native invasive species through dirty equipment

and contaminated materials, seed and mulch. This potential will be minimized by implementing

the measures below. These measures are necessary to maintain compliance with Forest Plan

standard VE22 and guideline VE23 (FP II-20).

• All construction equipment and tools will be free of soil, plant parts and other material

that could contain or hold seeds when such equipment arrives at the site. Equipment will

be cleaned prior to entering the National Forest at a location and in a manner that does

not contaminate soil or water and does not spread invasive plants to un-impacted sites.

• All materials will be free of seeds and other viable parts of non-native species. In

particular, the source of any gravel, fill material, etc. will be inspected to confirm that it is

free of high priority invasive species that could disrupt the ecosystem in which the

material is to be used.

• If seeding for stabilization is necessary, the seed mix cannot contain any invasive plants.

Seed will be accompanied by the vendor’s test results, which must demonstrate that the

seed is substantially free of noxious weeds. Any seeding proposals by contractors or

cooperators must identify the scientific names of all species to be planted and must be

submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval prior to implementation.

• Clean straw, wood or paper fiber, coconut fiber, synthetic mulch or other Forest Service

approved material that is not likely to contain viable parts of invasive species will be used

for mulching. Hay will not be used as mulch.

• Erosion barriers will be constructed of synthetic materials, clean straw bales or other

Forest Service approved material that is not likely to contain viable parts of invasive

species.


3

Photo 1. Young red spruce in understory

Photo 2. Heavy scale on American beech

(Photo courtesy of Jill A. Rose, Forest Pathologist, WV Dept. Agriculture)


4

Photo 3. Neonectria fungus on American beech

(Photo courtesy of Jill A. Rose, Forest Pathologist, WV Dept. Agriculture)

Photo 4. Mature red spruce in project area


5

Figure 1. Red Spruce Restoration/Diseased American Beech Project Map


6

Public Involvement The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies

during the development of this EA: WVDNR Wildlife, Bruce Donaldson, CASRI, Collins

Hardwood, Columbia Forest Products, Elk Conservation District, Greenbrier CVB, Laurel Creek

Hardwoods, National Wild Turkey Federation, Nicholas County Commission, Pocahontas CVB,

Pocahontas County Commission, Ruffed Grouse Society, Richwood Chamber of Commerce,

Sierra Club, Town of Richwood, Trout Unlimited, USDA State & Private Forestry, US Fish and

Wildlife Service, Webster County Commission, WV Highlands Conservancy, and the WV Rivers

Coalition,

There are no tribal trust lands or ceded lands located within the State of West Virginia. There are

also no federally recognized Indian tribes in West Virginia. There are several tribes historically

connected to land on the Monongahela, thus an interest in areas such as the proposed project area.

The NEPA Draft EA and finding of no significant impacts request for comments was sent for

publication in the Nicholas Chronicle (newspaper of record) on July 17, 2017. The NEPA Draft

EA request for comments (30 days) was published in the Nicholas Chronicle on July 20, 2017.

Proposed Action The project proposal includes the following actions:

• Injection method for the herbicide into the tree (following all the manufacturer’s

recommendations) is the ‘hack and squirt’ method for larger diameter infected beech

trees generally over 3 inches in diameter. Hack and squirt involves cutting into the bark

several times (typically with a hand held hatchet) around the tree to create a small wound

(frill) that will hold the herbicide. The basal bark treatment method to apply the herbicide

will be utilized on smaller diameter infected beech trees generally under 3 inches in

diameter. The basal bark treatment method generally involves spot spraying or wiping the

herbicide onto the cut surface or surface of the infected tree. These methods would not

require personnel to completely sever and fall any larger, infected trees.

• Apply herbicide (glyphosate, triclopyr or imazapyr) to beech bark infected trees and

associated suckers within a 15 feet radius around a well-formed red spruce tree with a

height of 4 to 20 foot. Both methods will follow all the manufacturer’s recommendations

including treatment and safety instructions. Treated trees will be inspected and re-treated

if needed to achieve the desired effect.

• Beech trees with no scale insects on the bark will be left for possible resistance to the

disease. (Some beech trees with potential resistance to the scale have been identified on

the forest and are currently being tested for resistance, and more such trees may be

found).

• Targeted spot spraying of new beech sprouts may be needed to ensure successful kill of

diseased infected beech trees.

• Project does not involve any timber removal or sales, road construction or road

reconstruction.

• There will be minimal soil disturbance with this project.

• Project will not exceed 3,000 acres.

• Leaving the treated beech standing will create wildlife snags.

• FP standard SW37 will be followed. No work will take place within 100 foot of perennial

streams, 100 foot of large intermittent streams, 50 foot of small intermittent streams, or

25 foot of ephemeral channels.


7

Non Native Invasive Species (NNIS) Mitigation

Project work has some potential to introduce non-native invasive species through dirty equipment

and contaminated materials, seed and mulch. This potential will be minimized by implementing

the measures below. These measures are necessary to maintain compliance with Forest Plan

standard VE22 and guideline VE23 (FP II-20).

• All construction equipment and tools will be free of soil, plant parts and other material

that could contain or hold seeds when such equipment arrives at the site. Equipment will

be cleaned prior to entering the National Forest at a location and in a manner that does

not contaminate soil or water and does not spread invasive plants to un-impacted sites.

• All materials will be free of seeds and other viable parts of non-native species. In

particular, the source of any gravel, fill material, etc. will be inspected to confirm that it is

free of high priority invasive species that could disrupt the ecosystem in which the

material is to be used.

• If seeding for stabilization is necessary, the seed mix cannot contain any invasive plants.

Seed will be accompanied by the vendor’s test results, which must demonstrate that the

seed is substantially free of noxious weeds. Any seeding proposals by contractors or

cooperators must identify the scientific names of all species to be planted and must be

submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval prior to implementation.

• Clean straw, wood or paper fiber, coconut fiber, synthetic mulch or other Forest Service

approved material that is not likely to contain viable parts of invasive species will be used

for mulching. Hay will not be used as mulch.

• Erosion barriers will be constructed of synthetic materials, clean straw bales or other

Forest Service approved material that is not likely to contain viable parts of invasive

species.

Table 1. Red Spruce Restoration Proposed Units and Acreage

Proposed Unit Acres Proposed Unit Acres

99SummitLake 410 23291FrostyGap1 80

39SummitLake2 100 731FrostyGap2 280

78dogwayDNRLiming Station 180 CarpenterRunRSRest 40

232Dogway1 8 BearRunRSRest 945

232Dogway2 30 GladieRunPocahontasTrailRSRest 325

232Dogway3 50 RabbitRunRSRest 320

259EagleCamp1 230

TOTAL ACRES 2,998


8

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action for each impacted resource.

Wildlife: The Gauley Wildlife Biologist reported the following determinations of effects to

threatened and endangered species have been made as a result of this Biological Evaluation:

Table 1. Threatened & Endangered Species Determinations Species Determination

Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi nettingi) NE

Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) NE

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) NE

Northern Myotis bat (Myotis septentrionalis) NE

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) NE

Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) NE

Running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) NE

Shale barren rock cress (Arabis serotina) NE

Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) NE

Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) NE NE (No Effect); NLAA (May affect, not likely to adversely affect); LAA (May affect, likely to adversely affect)

A U.S. Forest Service request for consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required

for a “No Effect” determination for this project.

Botany: The South Zone Forest Ecologist reported the project would have no effect on botany

resources as shown in Table 1 above.

Soils: A Forest Soil Scientist reported greater red spruce restoration success is expected on areas

underlain by the Pottsville geologic formation and associated soils series, Gauley and Mandy.

Lower red spruce restoration success is expected on areas underlain by Mauch Chunk geologies

and associated soil series, Cateache and Shouns. If the project is carried out as proposed, there

should be no adverse effect to the soil resource.

Hydrology: The Forest Hydrologist reported potential adverse effects to aquatic biota would be

limited because the proposed project does not involve ground disturbance or the removal of

timber. However, the proposal includes actions intended to manipulate vegetation in such a

manner that may increase risks to aquatic biota particularly if appropriate restrictions are not

required and properly exercised within stream channel buffers. Actions that may produce

unwanted risks to aquatic habitats and associated biota include the reduction of forest canopy

cover that protects against thermal loading by providing shade to streams/riparian areas, and

applications of herbicides that can increase risks associated with chemical contamination of

aquatic environments and their biotic communities.

Spruce release activities are proposed within 13 treatment units that are distributed among 4 sub-

watersheds within the Cranberry River, Cherry River, and Spring Creek watersheds. These sub-

watershed are known to be inhabited by wild brook trout (the Forest’s only aquatic Management

Indicator Species - MIS) and aquatic Regional Foresters Sensitive Species (RFSS) as indicated in

the following table. The analysis area for this proposal contains no known aquatic species that are

federally listed or proposed.


9

Sub-Watershed

Brook Trout

(Salvelinus fontinalis)

Appalachian

Darter

(Percina gymnocephala)

New River

Shiner

(Notropis scabriceps)

Candy

Darter

(Etheostoma osburni)

Eastern

Hellbender

(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis)

Headwaters Cranberry River X X X Outlet Cranberry River X X North Fork Cherry River X X X X

Forest Plan direction SW37 was incorporated as standard operating procedure for activities on the

Forest in recognition of the influential role that intact riparian areas play in effectively conserving

and providing for desirable conditions and trends for aquatic ecosystems. Based on the

information that is known or presumed at this time, this proposal does not appear to warrant

special consideration to be authorized within stream channel buffers. Incorporating channel

buffers as an essential design feature for this proposal can adequately address concern for

potential adverse effects to aquatic environments and likely reduce risks to an acceptable level.

Previous monitoring of herbicide applications on the Forest have failed to detect chemical

residues from herbicide applications in surface waters when channel buffers were followed in

accordance with SW37.

If the recommendations contained in this response are followed, the determination of effects

would be, “May impact individuals but is not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing”

for:

• Appalachian Darter (Percina gymnocephala)

• New River Shiner (Notropis scabriceps)

• Candy Darter (Etheostoma osburni)

• Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis)

Heritage: The Forest Archeologist reported the undertaking will have little or no potential to

affect historic properties. This undertaking has been reviewed in accordance with the

Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest, the

West Virginia Division of Culture and History, and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation. No further consultation is required. The review will be documented in the annual

report to the WV SHPO and tribal partners.


10

Photo 5. Infected American beech sprouts on left, young red spruce on right

(Photo courtesy of Jane Bard, Silviculturist, Gauley Ranger District)

Finding of No Significant Impact 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 EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined

that Red spruce restoration and herbicide treatments of diseased American beech trees on 3000

acres will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no

environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows,

organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above.

Context For the proposed action the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental

analysis in this EA. This decision is consistent with similar activities implemented in the past by


11

the Monongahela National Forest, which lead toward achieving the goals, objectives, and

requirements in the Forest Plan, while meeting the purpose and need of the environmental

assessment. The project is a site-specific action that does not have international, national,

regional, or state-wide importance. The physical and biological effects of the selected actions

were analyzed at appropriate scales, such as within the project area, adjacent to the project area,

or across a larger landscape. Even in a local context, my decision would not pose significant

short- or long-term effects in the negative. Design features included in my decision minimize and

avoid adverse impacts to the extent that such impacts for some resources are not measurable, even

at the local level. Although the insect and disease project is relatively small in scale

geographically and its negative effects on the natural resource values and uses are limited, the

vegetation management improvements are expected to have lasting positive effects on the

landscape.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information

from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this

project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to

concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental

effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained

from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and

intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. My finding of no

significant impact is not biased by the beneficial effects of the Selected Alternative. I have

considered the effects analyses provided by resource specialists and disclosed any potential

adverse impacts in my decision rationale. I did not use beneficial impact to "balance" out the

significance of adverse impacts. In fact, to ensure that these potential impacts brought forward

from resource specialists, partners, and the public are reduced or eliminated during project

implementation, an extensive amount of thought and collaboration was put into the proposed

action, review of the Forest Plan, and recommended design features, and mitigation measures.

The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. This type of action

has been used many times on the Forest with no impact to public health and safety. There are no

circumstances or conditions associated with my decision to indicate there would be unusual or

substantial risks to public health and safety. Standard provisions will be included in all timber sale

contracts to protect the safety of others.

Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or

cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or

ecologically critical areas. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the

area, because there are no parklands, prime farmlands, wild or scenic river sections, or

ecologically critical areas affected by the project. My decision includes project design features

for the protection of heritage resources. These features work in concert to identify known

heritage resource sites on the ground prior to project actions and avoid them. Risk of impacting

historic or cultural resources from the action would be low.

The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial. These activities have occurred in similar conditions in the past and the


12

effects are well known. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be

highly controversial. My decision provides no scientific controversy over the impacts of the

project. The best available science was considered in making this decision. The project record

demonstrates a thorough review of relevant scientific information, consideration of responsible

opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific

uncertainty, and risk.

The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks. Insect and disease projects have occurred previously on the

Monongahela and other national forests. The Agency has considerable experience with the types

of activities to be implemented. It is not a new or unique action. The analysis shows the effects

are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk.

The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. Insect and disease

projects have occurred previously on the Monongahela National Forest and do not establish a

precedent for future actions. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions

with significant effects. This action is within the scope of the Forest Plan and has occurred in

the past. There is no unusual circumstance associated with this action that would indicate it is

substantially different from actions in the past. The scope of my decision is limited to local

actions to be undertaken over a specified time period, and these actions do not establish a

decision for future actions.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a

cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by

terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. There

would be no significant cumulative effects as a result of this project. I have reviewed the impacts

of those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described in the environmental effects

section of the environmental assessment and find that this action will not have a significant

cumulative impact on the environment. The effects of the action are limited to the local area and

there are no other effects that would be additive to the effects of the proposed action.

The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures,

or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or

may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural

resource inventories have been completed. All identified sites have been excluded from the

project thus impacts from actions will be avoided. Cultural resources work for this project was

carried out pursuant to the terms of the Forest's Programmatic Agreement with the West

Virginia State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Since there is no ground disturbing activities planned this project would have no effect to

historic properties; therefore, under the terms of the Programmatic Agreement, no further

archaeological work or consultation with State Historic Preservation Office is required. Based

on this information, I conclude that this action will not cause loss or destruction of significant

scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of


13

1973. This action will not adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that

has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment. This action will not violate Federal, State, and

local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The action is consistent with the

2006 Forest Plan (updated 2011). This action will not have significant impacts on air and water

quality, wetlands, soil resources, threatened and endangered species, or cultural resources.

Therefore, this decision is in compliance with the National Forest Management Act, the Clean

Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. It is

consistent with the Executive Orders for Wetlands (11990), Floodplains (11988), and

Environmental Justice (12898).

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders The following is a partial list of federal laws and executive orders pertaining to project-specific

planning and environmental analysis on Federal lands that are addressed in this EA and in the

resource specialist reports in the project file:

• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960;

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended);

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986;

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended);

• Clean Air Act of 1977 (as amended);

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended);

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended);

• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended);

• Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended);

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978;

• Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (as amended);

• Antiquities Act of 1906

• Historic Sites Act of 1935

• Archaeological and Historic Conservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469);

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947;

• 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule;

• Executive Order 11988 (floodplains);

• Executive Order 11990 (wetlands);

• Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice);

• Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and recreational fisheries);

• Executive Order 13112 (invasive species);

• Executive Order 11593;

• Executive Order 13186 (migratory birds);

• Executive Order 13508.


14

References United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2006 (updated 2011). Monongahela

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

united states department of agriculture forest service red...

Documents