environmental agriculture assessment

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service October 2016

Environmental Assessment

NFSR 300 Road Closure Project

Kimpton M. Cooper, Angelina/Sabine National Forest San Augustine County, Texas

For Information Contact: T. Dandy Jones

Angelina/Sabine National Forests

(936) 897-1068 or (409) 625-1940

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/texas/planning/nepa_index.shtml

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/texas/planning/nepa_index.shtml

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,

age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political

beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individuals income is derived

from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director,

Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment NFSR 300 Road Closure Project

Table of Contents

Summary ....................................................................................................................... i

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Document Structure ....................................................................................................................1

Background .................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................................3

Proposed Action ..........................................................................................................................4

Decision Framework ...................................................................................................................4

Public Involvement .....................................................................................................................5

Issues ...........................................................................................................................................5

Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ............................................................. 5 Alternatives .................................................................................................................................6

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 8

Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................. 8

i

SUMMARY

The Angelina National Forest proposes to install gates at two locations on NFSR 300 to

close the road to public use. Gates would be installed 0.5 miles south of State Hwy 83

and north of the intersection of NFSR 300 and NFSR 304. No vegetation removal would

occur, and the only ground disturbance would be the installation of the gates. Gates

would be constructed of steel pipe, have an 18 feet wide opening with 20 feet “wings”

extending to timberline.

To reduce road maintenance needs on stressed budgets for the Forest Service and

partners, the Angelina NF proposes to gate this section of NFSR 300, closing it to public

use. This section of NFSR 300, 1.7 miles, would also have the designation in the Motor

Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) changed to “closed”. The proposed gates would be installed

in cooperation with San Augustine County and adjacent private landowners. The project

is north of administrative Compartments 34 and 39, it will cover 0.01 acres of the

Angelina National Forest in San Augustine County approximately 4 miles East of

Broaddus, Texas.

The proposed action will eliminate public access to this section of road which does not

access public land. Forest Service, the County of San Augustine, law enforcement,

appropriate utility companies and private landowners will retain access.

1

INTRODUCTION

Document Structure ______________________________

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws

and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and

alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:

Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal,

the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that

purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the

public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a

more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative

methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on

significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also

includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table

of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of

implementing the proposed action and other alternatives.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may

be found in the project planning record located at the Angelina Ranger District Office in

Zavalla, Texas.

Background _____________________________________

This section of road was previously maintained under a cooperative agreement with San

Augustine County. Budget reductions for both the Forest Service and San Augustine

County have caused a need to assess maintenance needs and efficiency. This section of

road between the proposed gates does not provide access to public land, nor does it

service any private residence, but is a through road within the Angelina National Forest

administrative boundary (Figure 1). To reduce road maintenance needs on stressed

budgets for the Forest Service and partners, the Angelina NF proposes to gate this section

of NFSR 300, closing it to public use.

NFSR 300 Road Closure Project Environmental Assessment

2

Figure 1. Vicinity Map for the NFSR 300 Road Closure on Angelina National Forest.

3

Purpose and Need for Action ______________________

The purpose of this initiative is to install gates and close the section of NFSR 300

between State Hwy 83 and the community of White City. This action is needed, because

road conditions have become impassable and hazardous for the public. This section of

NFSR 300 is not a necessary route for public through traffic, residents or Forest Service.

Budgetary cutbacks have made it impractical for both the Forest Service and San

Augustine County to continue to maintain this section of road. This action responds to the

goals and objectives outlined in the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan,

and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan.

Figure 2. Photo of road damage on NFSR 300.


4

Figure 3. Photo of road damage on NFSR 300.

Proposed Action _________________________________

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need is installing

gates at two locations on NFSR 300 to close the road to public use. Gates would be

installed 0.5 miles south of State Hwy 83 and north of the intersection of NFSR 300 and

NFSR 304. No vegetation removal will occur, and the only ground disturbance would be

the installation of the gates. Gates would be constructed of steel pipe, have an 18 feet

wide opening with 20 feet “wings” extending to timberline. This section of NFSR 300,

1.7 miles, would also have the designation in the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM)

changed to “closed”. The proposed gates will be installed in cooperation with San

Augustine County and adjacent private landowners.

Decision Framework ______________________________

The responsible official will review the purpose and need, the alternatives, the

environmental consequences, comments received from the public in order to make the

following decision:

1) To gate the section of NFSR 300 between State Hwy 83 and the community of

White City, as proposed in alternative 2; or

2) To not gate the section of NFSR 300 between State Hwy 83 and the community

of White City, as proposed in alternative 1

5

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation __________

A meeting with the private landowner Mr. Kenneth Sutton, District Ranger Kimpton

Cooper and Engineering Technician Don Eddings was held on August 12, 2015.

Discussion was about granting access to Mr. Sutton for his private landholdings on the

section of NFSR that would be closed. In addition, as part of the public involvement

process, the agency met on January 22, 2016 with San Augustine County Judge, Sammy

Johnson; San Augustine County Commissioner Precinct 3, Joey Holloway; San

Augustine County Commissioner Precinct 4 David McEachern.

The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 22, 2016. The

proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping April

28, 2016. A comment was received from San Augustine County Judge Sammy Johnson

approving the proposed action. Tribes were consulted by formal letter in the scoping

period. One comment was received from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma stating that

the project was outside their area of interest, therefore they defer to the other Tribes that

had been contacted. One comment was received from the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma,

concurring with the project with a request to be kept informed of any discoveries during

the project. All public involvement documentation is in the project record.

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and federally recognized Native

American Tribes, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address (see

Issues section).

Issues __________________________________________

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant

issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by

implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1)

outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest

Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4)

conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7,

“…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or

which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…”

As noted above 3 comment letters were received. The comments received did not

describe any unresolved conflicts with the proposed action that would lead to alternative

development. In addition, there were no issues identified by the interdisciplinary team.

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the NFSR 300 Road

Closure Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This

section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the


6

differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options

by the decision maker and the public.

Alternatives _____________________________________

Alternative 1

No Action

Under the No Action alternative, the current Forest Management Plan would continue to

guide management of the project area. No gates would be installed to accomplish project

goals. The section of road would continue to be open and used by the public. The Forest

Service and the County of San Augustine would be obligated to provide repairs to the

road to bring it back up to standard and maintenance thereafter. Several culverts would

need to be replaced as well as road surface in several additional areas. This option would

be costly for both the county and the Forest Service. This cost would only benefit the

few landowners with privately owned land for which this section of road provides access.

Alternative 2

The Proposed Action

This project involves installing gates at two locations on NFSR 300 to close the road to

public use. Gates will be installed 0.5 miles south of State Hwy 83 and north of the

intersection of NFSR 300 and NFSR 304. No vegetation removal will occur, and the

only ground disturbance will be the installation of the gates. Gates will be constructed of

steel pipe, have an 18 feet wide opening with 20 feet “wings” extending to timberline.

This section of NFSR 300, 1.7 miles, will also have the designation in the Motor Vehicle

Use Map (MVUM) changed to “closed”.

7

Figure 2. Location of the Gates Proposed for NFSR 300 Road.


8

Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of

the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to

implementation of the alternatives.

Soils According to the Ecological Classification System (ECS) for the National Forests and

Adjacent Areas of the West Gulf Coastal Plain, this project area lies within the Sandy

Uplands Landtype Associations (LTA) (Van Kley et al., 2007). This LTA occurs on

gently sloping to strongly sloping uplands and some areas are considered as low ridges.

Soils are primarily loamy and somewhat poorly drained to moderately well-drained (the

Plan, Appendix A, p. 21).

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects: If normal use of the road is continued, it will continue to be

rutted and damaged. Therefore, soils will continue to erode from the road surface.

Cumulative Effects: There will be no expected cumulative effects to soils for this project.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects: The road bed will not have further rutting created, therefore

will be allowed to stabilize. Erosion will be at a minimum. At the gate locations, soils

will be affected minimally by machinery used for excavating post holes. Cumulative

Effects: There will be no expected cumulative effects to soils for this project.

Water Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects: Aquatic environments will be effected negatively by leaving

this section of road open. Road sediment will likely continue to erode into the streams

detrimentally affecting aquatic life. Water quality would degrade, reducing the capacity

of the stream to support aquatic life. Cumulative Effects: Degrading water quality will

contribute to decline in diversity of aquatic species in the streams transecting and near

this section of road.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action By removing non-essential traffic, water quality

will be protected from further degradation. For the gate locations, this project will not

disturb aquatic environments. Soil disturbance will be minimal and not near a body of

water. Direct and Indirect Effects: Since this project will not occur in the vicinity of a

body of water, no direct or indirect effects to water quality are expected. Closing this

road to public access will have positive effects on water quality by removing disturbance

that contributes to erosion and degrading water quality. Cumulative Effects: By

removing sources of water quality degradation, aquatic habitat will improve somewhat,

allowing the continuation of diversity in aquatic life.

Air This project will not reduce traffic rates in the geographical area. Traffic will detour

from using (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300 to traveling FM 2390 to NFSR

304. FM 2390 transects the Forest in Compartment 31, running parallel to (the proposed

closed section of) NFSR 300 just 1 mile away.

9


Direct and Indirect Effects: There will be no expected effects to air quality.

Cumulative Effects: There will be no expected cumulative effects to air quality for this

project.


Direct and Indirect Effects: There will be no expected effects to air quality during this

project. Minimal machinery will be used for a short amount of time to install the gates.

Cumulative Effects: There will be no expected cumulative effects to air quality for this

project.

Climate Change This project will not reduce traffic rates in the geographical area. Traffic will detour

from using (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300 to traveling FM 2390 to NFSR

304. FM 2390 transects the Forest in Compartment 31, running parallel to (the proposed

closed section of) NFSR 300 just 1 mile away.


Direct and Indirect Effects: There will be no effects to climate change. Cumulative

Effects: There will be no expected cumulative effects to climate.


Direct and Indirect Effects: There will be no effects to climate change during this

project. Minimal machinery will be used for a short amount to time to install gates.

Cumulative Effects: There will be no expected cumulative effects to climate change for

this project.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species No Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species occur at or near the gate sites or along

the proposed closed section of NFSR 300. No effects to TES Species are expected.


Direct and Indirect Effects: No Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species occur

along the proposed closed section of NFSR 300. No effects to TES Species are expected.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects to TES Species are expected.


Direct and Indirect Effects: No Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species occur at or

near the gate sites or along the proposed closed section of NFSR 300. No effects to TES

Species are expected. Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects to TES Species are

expected.

Non Native Invasive Species

No Non Native Invasive Species occur at the gate sites or along the proposed closed

section of NFSR 300. No effects to NNIS are expected.


Direct and Indirect Effects: No Non Native Invasive Species occur along the proposed

closed section of NFSR 300. No effects to NNIS are expected. Cumulative Effects: No

cumulative effects to NNIS are expected.



10

Direct and Indirect Effects: No Non Native Invasive Species occur at the gate sites or

along the proposed closed section of NFSR 300. No effects to NNIS are expected.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects to NNIS are expected.

Heritage Resources

The Forest Service is obligated, under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), to

consider the effects of all undertakings on historic properties (heritage resources) that

may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Consultation with

federally recognized tribes with ancestral ties to the National Forests and Grasslands in

Texas has been initiated by way of standard scoping for NEPA.

There should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effect of the project on heritage

resources. Regardless of what activity is ongoing on Forest Service lands, all known

historic and prehistoric heritage resources (sites) have been identified and are/would be

protected as required. In the event that historic or prehistoric heritage resources are

discovered during any of the tree removal operations, work within the immediate vicinity

of the discovery would stop and the Heritage Resources staff would be notified. The

heritage resource would be protected until consultation between NFGT, the SHPO, and

affected federally recognized tribes is completed and a treatment plan is developed and

implemented.

Visual Quality Alternative 1 – No Action

Public access will continue along (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300,

instead of detouring to FM 2390 to NFSR 304. FM 2390 transects the Forest in

Compartment 31, running parallel to (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300 just 1

mile away. Visual quality along these two sections of road are very similar. Direct and

Indirect Effects: No direct or indirect effects to visual quality are expected. Cumulative

Effects: There will be no expected cumulative effects to visual quality for this project.


Public access will detour from using (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300

to traveling FM 2390 to NFSR 304. FM 2390 transects the Forest in Compartment 31,

running parallel to (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300 just 1 mile away. Visual

quality along these two sections of road are very similar. Direct and Indirect Effects: No

direct or indirect effects to visual quality are expected. Cumulative Effects: There will be

no expected cumulative effects to recreation for this project.

Recreation This section of road does not provide access to public land. There will be no effects to

recreation during this project.


Direct and Indirect Effects: This section of road does not provide access to public land.

There will be no effects to recreation during this project. Cumulative Effects: There will

be no cumulative effects to recreation for this project.


11

Direct and Indirect Effects: This section of road does not provide access to public land.

There will be no effects to recreation during this project. Cumulative Effects: There will

be no cumulative effects to recreation for this project.

Forest Road System This section of road does not provide access to public land but rather is a through road

utilized by the public between State Hwy 83 and the community of White City on NFSR

300. There is very little utilization of this section of road by the general public. Use is

limited to private landholders (land which is only accessible by this section of road), the

County of San Augustine (for road maintenance only), appropriate utility companies (for

maintenance only), and the Forest Service (for ease of access to FS land, with

authorization through private land, to firelines for prescribed burning).


Public access will continue along (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300.

Direct and Indirect Effects: The Forest Service and the County of San Augustine will

have the cost of maintaining the road to standard. Since this section of road is

underutilized by the public, and the limited road maintenance budget of the agencies, it

will likely not be maintained to standard resulting in heavy damage during periods of

rain. The road will likely continue to be rutted and damaged. Cumulative Effects: The

maintenance cost of this section of road will reduce resources that could be used to

maintain other roads, which receive heavier utilization on the Forest.


Public access will detour from using (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300

to traveling FM 2390 to NFSR 304. FM 2390 transects the Forest in Compartment 31,

running parallel to (the proposed closed section of) NFSR 300 just 1 mile away. Direct

and Indirect Effects: By removing public access to this section of road, no further road

damage will occur. Erosion will be at a minimum. The section of NFSR 304 east of FM

2390 to the junction of NFSR 304 and NFSR 300 may see an increase in traffic.

Cumulative Effects: By removing the maintenance cost of this section of road, more

resources will be available to maintain other roads, which receive heavier utilization on

the Forest.


12

Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local

agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this

environmental assessment:

ID TEAM MEMBERS:

Kimpton M. Cooper, District Ranger

T. Dandy Jones, ID Team Leader

Ron Hasken, Biologist

Phyllis Wolfe, Archaeologist

Jamie Sowell, Fire Coordinator

Lanton Chumley, Timber

Don Eddings, Roads

Steve Lewis, Engineering

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES:

Angelina County Judge Wes Suiter

Jasper County Judge Mark Allen

Nacogdoches County Judge Mike Perry

Natural Resource Conservation Services

San Augustine County Judge Sammy Johnson

San Augustine County Commissioner, Precinct 3, Joey Holloway

San Augustine County Commissioner, Precinct 4, David McEachern

Texas A&M Forest Service

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Office of Texas State Representative Trent Ashby

Office of Texas State Representative Travis Clardy

Office of Texas State Representative James White

Office of Texas State Senator Robert Nichols

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sam Rayburn Reservoir

Office of U.S. Representative Brian Babin

Office of U.S. Representative Louis Gohmert

Office of U.S. Senator John Cornyn

Office of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz

13

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

TRIBES:

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma

Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma

OTHERS:

Audubon Society

The Conservation Fund

Forester Real Estate Group

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

Houston Sierra Club

Houston County Forest Landowner Association

National Wild Turkey Federation

The Nature Conservancy

Southeast Texas Off Road Riders

Stine Timber Management

Texas A&M University

Texas Conservation Alliance

Texas Forestry Alliance

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS:

Phil Brown

Kathleen Davis

Holly Erimas

Kent Evans

Sambo Farley


14

Jeff Hudspeth

Tom Philipps

Joe Plaza

David Renfro

environmental agriculture assessment

Documents