handy project #22820 decision notice and finding of no significant ...

United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Mark Twain
National Forest,
Region 9
October 2009
HANDY PROJECT
#22820
DECISION NOTICE
AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Eleven Point Ranger District
Doniphan Ranger Station
Mark Twain National Forest
Doniphan, Missouri
October 2009
For Information Contact: Mark Twain National Forest
Tim Bond
#4 Confederate Ridge Road
Doniphan, Missouri 63935
(573) 996-2153 ext.5735552111
www.fs.fed.us/r9/marktwain

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political
beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of
program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) Should contact USDA's target center
at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326w,
Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-
720-5964 (voice or TDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer
2

I. INTRODUCTION
An environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review from the Eleven Point
Ranger District at the Doniphan Ranger Station located at #4 Confederate Ridge Road,
Doniphan, Missouri. The Doniphan Ranger Station is located approximately 2 miles east
of Doniphan, Missouri, north of Highway 160. This document discusses the analysis of
proposed actions and the determination of environmental effects of proposed actions.
Proposed actions include a mixture of even-aged and uneven-aged timber management,
timber salvage, commercial and precommercial thinning, system road
reconstruction/maintenance, some system road decommission and non-system road
closure and obliteration. Copies of the EA are available for review upon request and
online at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/marktwain/projects/
The EA evaluates resource management alternatives on approximately 14,194 action
acres of National Forest land in the area identified as “Handy Project”, and managed
under Mark Twain National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Management
Prescription 1.1, Natural Community Restoration, Roaded Natural ROS. The Handy
Project area of Compartments 003, 004, 020, 021, 030, 120, 121, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141,
164, and 165 (23,435 National Forest acres) represents approximately thirteen (13)
percent of the acres of the Eleven Point Ranger District that are designated as
Management Prescription 1.1. Actual acres proposed for action represent eight (8)
percent of the acres of the Eleven Point Ranger District that are designated as
Management Prescription 1.1.
II. DECISION
I have decided to implement the actions described as Alternative 2 - The Modified
Proposed Action (EA, pp. 1-8 to 1-17). This Modified Proposed Action; modified from
the original proposal (Alternative 2) contained in the Scoping Report distributed for
review and identification of issues on March 3, 2008 was distributed for the 30-Day
Notice and Comment Period for review beginning July 1, 2009. This “modification” is
provided for per 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(iii) and occurred as a result of changes to some
even-aged stand treatments to restoration thinnings to accommodate the Ozark Trail’s
change to a “designated” National Recreation Trail and resulting change in management
emphasis and standards and in response to public comments. Any further reference to a
“Modified Proposed Action” or “Alternative 2” will be referencing this Modified
Proposed Action. I feel the modified proposed action best addresses the purpose and
need for the project, moves the project area towards the desired condition for
Management Prescription 1.1 and addresses concerns and issues identified during the
public involvement process and adheres to the management objectives and guidance of
the 2005 Mark Twain Forest Plan.
In view of the needs identified in the Environmental Assessment, Project Record and
public comments and concerns received during project scoping and the 30-day comment
period, I have decided to implement the following actions in the Handy Project Area:
3

In addition, field notes, CDS Compartment Records, stand tally sheets and stand
prescriptions for Compartments 003, 004, 020, 021, 030, 120, 121, 137, 138, 139, 140,
141, 164, and 165 are in the Project File and available on request and are “incorporated
by reference” into this analysis. For more detailed information regarding this project,
maps and tables can be found in the Handy Project EA, Appendix A for the identification
of compartments, stands and associated treatments.
Modified Proposed Action(s) That Address the Need for the Proposal (EA, pp. 1-8 to
1-17)
Improve Forest Health:
Salvage/Plant/Release – 2,038 acres
This treatment is needed to improve forest health conditions in areas where oak mortality
is occurring on approximately 2,038 acres. Salvage/plant/release would address an
unacceptable percent mortality due to oak decline. Oak decline and mortality threaten to
reduce natural regeneration potential due to loss of overstory seed-producing trees to
produce advanced regeneration from seed and suppression of sprouting potential. Table
3a identifies the Modified Proposed Action to improve forest health by need for
treatment, treatment type, compartment/stand and acres. Mortality is associated with oak
decline occurring within the project area as a result of extended drought conditions and
due to insect and disease infestations. If left untreated, natural regeneration processes of
oak species, such as sprouting, will be greatly reduced. These treated areas also represent
regeneration opening opportunities in open and closed woodland natural communities, as
well as opportunities to manipulate vegetation species composition toward that
distribution historically associated with the appropriate natural community type. (See EA,
Appendix A for Compartment Maps with treatment locations).
Compartments/Stands (C/S) involved in these treatments are as follows:
C3/S6, 15; C4/S102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 128, 129, 140, 146, 151, 156; C20/S6,
7, 12, 13, 25, 29, 45, 47, 48, 53, 86, 87, 148, 150, 152, 153, 155, 157, 160, 170, 173;
C21/S10, 13, 19, 22, 34, 57, 61, 91, 119, 142; C30/S1, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 67, 69, 70,
72, 76, 77, 100, 101, 105, 106, 110, 112, 124; C120/S22, 23, 30, 47, 49, 52, 90, 115;
C121/S18; C137/S26, 27, 31, 54, 57; C138/S69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 104, 105;
C164/S29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40.
Follow-up treatment will involve planting and release of shortleaf pine in heavily
salvaged areas to enhance pine composition.
Restoration of Natural Communities:
The treatments identified below are needed to improve plant communities to reflect
naturally occurring historic structure and composition by providing a variety of habitat
conditions that meet the needs of plant, fish and wildlife species (EA, Appendix C, Rapid
Ecological Assessment). There are a number of stands within the project area where
plant community composition and structure resembles that of a dense upland forest as a
result of past management practices, which does not meet desired conditions for open and
closed woodland communities as described in the Forest Plan (EA, pp. 1-4 to 1-7, pp
3/4-91-96, pp. 3/4-136-151). This includes stands that are heavily stocked where
thinning would reduce competition for light, water and nutrients and improve growth.
4

These stands present opportunities to regenerate open and closed woodland communities.
Structure and composition would be further developed with release and weeding
activities following restoration thinning in some stands. These intermediate cuts will
move stands closer to the desired condition for open and closed woodland communities.
The Desired Condition (DC) calls for regeneration openings to be distributed across the
landscape as part of a full range of variable conditions for represented communities (EA,
pp 1-3 to 1-7). Temporary openings resulting from regeneration will vary from about 85-
90% open (clearcuts) to 65-85% open in shelterwood and seed tree regeneration cuts,
with the seed tree cuts exhibiting the higher end of the percent range of temporary
openings. Temporary openings will meet the 40 acres size limit. Salvage harvests may
vary depending on the uniformity of marked salvage or variations in the density where
concentrated pockets occur and are proposed. Salvage removed in a uniform pattern may
leave a stand looking as if it has been thinned commercially. In this case, openings may
be only 15-25% over the entire area receiving the thinning. Stands with salvage
occurring in pockets may resemble group selection, although probably not as uniformly
distributed (openings) as would be done in a true group selection cut. In all cases, salvage
treatments will leave at least 10-15% of the affected area.
Even-aged methods regenerate and maintain a stand with a predominantly single age
class. The three types are: clear-cut, seed tree, and shelterwood. Forest-wide Standards
and Guides require a minimum of 7 to 10 percent of an even-aged harvest unit be retained
as reserve trees. According to the Dictionary of Forestry published by the Society of
American Foresters, even-aged management practiced on the Mark Twain is actually
two-aged management because of the amount of reserves. To avoid confusion, the Mark
Twain will continue to refer to clearcutting, seed tree, and shelterwood “with reserves” as
even-aged management. However, the resulting stand may be two-aged or trend towards
an uneven-aged condition as a consequence of both an extended period of regeneration
establishment and the retention of reserve trees that may represent one or more age
classes.
The following specific vegetative treatments will be utilized to meet the restoration of
natural communities in the following compartments and stands:
Clear-Cuts w/ Reserves – 443 acres
C/3/S20, 143; C20/S40, 105, 131; C21/S3, 83, 113; C30/S27, 82, 91, 94, 122; C120/S14,
57, 64, 108, 119; C121/S5, 11, 39; C138/S14, 78; C139/S6; C140/S7; C165/S26, 52
A Clear-cut w/ reserves, plant and release shortleaf pine would occur on 443 acres.
Clear-cut is optimum based on adequate advanced regeneration present, along with
coppice opportunities, to regenerate stand once the overstory is removed. Insufficient
basal area present of overstory species from which to sustain seed tree or shelterwood
systems. Leave at least 15 BA Overstory.
Seed Tree Seed Cut – 60 acres
C3/S25; C20/S143
A Seed tree seed cut is appropriate for these stands as sufficient pine sawtimber trees
exist in the stand to provide seed for the next stand (regeneration by seed) on 60 acres.
Plant and release shortleaf pine leaving at least 15 BA overstory.
5

Shelterwood Seed Cut – 560 acres
C3/S2, 33, 50, 148; C4/S120, 145; C20/S98, 99, 194; C21/S24; C30/S16, 128; C120/S18,
24, 98, 103, 111, 120; C121/S32, 42; C137/S12, C138/S38, 41, 64, 65, 96, 123, 124;
C139/S47, 62, 72; C141/S10, 18, 55; C164/S66
Shelterwood seed cut is the appropriate treatment as stands contain sufficient candidate
overstory trees for shelterwood to provide seed and moderate poor site index conditions
for the next stand (regeneration by seed) on 560 acres. Treatment also includes plant and
release of shortleaf pine, leaving at least 25 BA overstory to improve stand species
composition.
Restoration (Commercial) Thinning Only in Stands < 130 Square Feet Basal Area –
5,693 acres
C3/S3, 19, 28, 29, 34, 43, 137, 138, 139, 141; C4/S110, 115, 119, 121, 122, 125, 127,
130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 142, 148, 149, 150, 153, 154, 157, 161; C20/S27, 31,
33, 37, 54, 58, 69, 70, 76, 88, 108, 111, 113, 114, 119, 129, 133, 136, 137, 140, 182, 185,
187, 188, 189, 190, 191; C21/S14, 18, 28, 32, 35, 36, 37, 42, 45, 48, 56, 66, 75, 78, 79,
87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 104, 106, 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 134, 135, 138,
146; C30/S3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 26, 43, 44, 57, 58, 61, 75, 78, 81, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102,
103, 108, 109, 116, 121, 123; C120/S1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 21, 26, 29, 37, 53, 55, 59, 65, 68,
74, 80, 89, 125; C121/S3, 7, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 34, 41, 43, 44; C137/S6, 7,
13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 45, 49, 52, 53; C138/S4, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23,
24, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, S46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 60, 63, 77, 79, 80, 81, 89, 92,
98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 118, 121; C139/S3, 4, 5, 13, 27, 33, 35, 44, 46, 51, 56, 64, 78, 85;
C140/S10, 19, 33, 59, 74; C141/S6, 19, 23, 30, 53, 62, 64, 67, 68, 70, 74, 80, 81, 98, 99,
101; C164/S1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 27, 33, 35, 58; C165/S3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20, 24,
29, 42, 45, 58, 63, 69, 77, 83, 92, 93, 98, 99, 103, 120, 127
The Restoration Thinning would provide for meeting open woodland natural community
opportunity on 5,693 acres. This would be a single entry into stands at

C30/S18, 30, 33, 36, 41, 80, 84; C120/S7, 42, 45, 46, 66, 67, 73; C121/S6; C137/S1, 18,
42; C138/S36, 113; C139/S1, 37, 39, 65, 66, 67, 83; C141/S1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 24, 33, 34,
48, 100; C164/S10, 16, 22, 31, 32, 34, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65,
68; C165/S33
Restoration Thinning treatments would occur on 1,655 acres, leaving approximately 30-
50 basal area overstory. Understory hardwood control treatments will also occur to
provide better opportunities to meet the mid story and herbaceous needs for the natural
community restoration desired conditions.
Crop Tree Release (Non-Commercial Thinning) – 3,418 acres
C3/S12, 13, 16, 18, 27, 40, 145, 146; C4/S101, 114, 137, 143, 144, 147; C20/S4, 10, 17,
23, 32, 34, 38, 42, 56, 61, 67, 68, 71, 72, 75, 95, 102, 104, 130, 134, 147; C21/S9, 15, 21,
27, 31, 39, 46, 88, 90, 102, 109, 110, 117, 121, 125, 130; C30/S7, 12, 17, 19, 23, 24, 28,
60, 62, 71, 74, 90, 114, 118, 126; C120/S3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 20, 25, 43, 56, 63, 78, 83, 84, 86,
88, 91, 92, 95, 99, 100, 101, 107, 109, 112, 113, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124; C121/S17,
19, 21, 27, 28, 45, 47; C137/S4, 8, 34, 39, 47; C138/S3, 6, 10, 19, 31, 40, 43, 44, 46, 53,
54, 61, 83, 88, 90, 95, 110, 112, 117, 122; C139/S7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 28, 32, 38, 42, 43,
45, 59, 82; C140/S26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 36, 53, 62, 64, 67, 68; C141/S3, 13, 28, 32, 39, 41,
71, 75, 88, 91; C164/S21, 43, 44, 49; C165/S5, 6, 12, 30, 40, 48, 49, 61, 64, 65, 70, 71,
73, 78, 80, 86, 89, 91, 105, 116, 119, 121, 122, 124
A precommercial thinning to release individual trees from competition on an approximate
15’X15’ foot spacing will occur on 3,418 acres. Crop trees would be selected in the
following order of preference: 1) shortleaf pine; 2) white oak; 3) post oak; 4) black oak;
5) red oak; 6) scarlet oak; 7) hickory. This treatment provide for reduction of stems per
acre and allows for the selection of desired species necessary to create the vegetation
distribution pattern desired for the appropriate natural community type.
Prescribed Fire Application for Natural Community Restoration – 8,695 acres
Burn Units - Cotham #1 (519 acres), Cotham #2 (456 acres), Cotham #3 (436 acres),
Devils Horn #1 (155 acres), Devils Horn #2 (322 acres), Devils Horn #5 (349 acres),
Devils Horn #6 (477 acres), Cupola Pond #2 (268 acres), Hodo #2 (536 acres), Hodo #4
(1790 acres), Bridges #1 (446 acres), Bridges #2 (1768 acres), Bridges #3 (842 acres),
Bridges #4 (295 acres).
Treatment is needed to move towards historical natural community conditions, i.e.
increase open woodland conditions, and decrease closed woodland and upland forest
conditions. With ground open to sunlight through thinning, undesirable understory
vegetation needs to be controlled while grass and forbs establishment is enhanced (for
example, pine-bluestem grass natural community type). EA, pp. 3/4-91 to 3/4-96.
Prescribed Fire Application for Fuel Reduction – 4,803 acres
7

Burn Units - Cedar Bluff #3 (1135 acres), Devils Horn #3 (1095 acres), Devils Horn #4
(818 acres), Cupola Pond #1 (441 acres), Hodo #1 (656 acres), Hodo #3 (658 acres).
Reduce existing fuel loading indicative of Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 3 to
FRCC 1. Treatment is needed to move towards historical natural community conditions,
i.e. increase open woodland and savanna conditions, and decrease closed woodland and
upland forest conditions. With ground open to sunlight through thinning, undesirable
understory vegetation needs to be controlled while grass and forbs establishment is
enhanced (for example, pine-bluestem grass natural community type). EA, pp. 3/4 -91 to
96.
Safe and Efficient Forest Transportation System:
The analysis also focused on providing enhancement to the roads systems,
decommissioning of roads no longer needed for management or public use, closure of
non system roads, identification of potential special use permit roads, and road systems
that may need to be converted to easements to provide better long term management to
meet area management objectives, proposed management activities and resource
protection. The following activities provide to meet those objectives (EA, pp. 3/4 -96
to102):
Reconstruct approximately 12.0 miles of system roads to provide a safe and
maintained running surface. Individual road segments and associated miles (in
parentheses) are indicated, as follows: 3952 (1.4 miles), 3958 (0.6 miles), 3959 (1.0
miles), 4001 (0.2 miles), 4004 (0.6 miles), 4759A (0.8 miles), 4822A (0.4 miles), 4822B
(0.7 miles), 4823A (0.6 miles), 4854A (0.5 miles), 4875 (0.8 miles), 4879 (0.7 miles),
4881 (1.0 miles), 4921 (0.7 miles), 4994 (0.7 miles).
Maintain approximately 45.6 miles of system roads to safely handle the expected
traffic. Individual road segments and associated miles (in parentheses) are indicated, as
follows: 3142 (4.1 mi.), 3145 (14.5 mi.), 3147 (2.8 mi.), 3195 (0.6 mi.), 3222 (3.0 mi.),
3224 (3.3 mi.), 3951 (1.7 mi.), 4001 (0.4 mi.), 4004 (1.0 mi.), 4822 (3.4 mi.), 4823 (1.8
mi.), 4841 (1.3 mi.), 4846 (0.7 mi.), 4854 (1.7 mi.), 4868 (0.5 mi.), 4872 (0.8 mi.), 4873
(0.8 mi.), 4917 (1.3 mi.), 4998 (mi.).
Use existing non-system roads only as needed for management access and
decommission these roads and the remaining non-system roads. There are about
13.6 miles of non-system roads. Potential special-use permits, as applicable, will be
evaluated prior to decommissioning to ensure legal access to private property is
evaluated. Individual road segments and associated miles (in parentheses) are indicated,
as follows: 3142Y (0.1 mi.), 3142Z (0.1 mi.), 3145X (1.4 mi.), 3147 (1.0 mi.), 3147X
(0.1 mi.), 3221X (0.1 mi.), 3222X (0.1 mi.), 3222Y (0.1 mi.), 3224X (0.3 mi.), 3224Y
(0.3 mi.), 3951 (0.2 mi.), 3952 (0.2 mi.), 3958 (0.2 mi.), 4002 (0.2 mi.), 4004 (0.1 mi.),
4125X (0.1 mi.), 4822A (0.1 mi.), 4822X (0.2 mi.), 4823X (0.4 mi.), 4854 (0.2 mi.), 4868
(0.2 mi.), 4873 (0.4 mi.), 4875 (0.3 MI.), 4917X (0.3 MI.), 9670 (0.1 mi.), 9672 (0.4 mi.),
9674 (0.5 mi.), 9675 (1.1 mi.), 9676 (0.3 mi.), 9681 (0.7 mi.), 9685 (0.5 mi.), 9685A (0.3
mi.), 9713 (0.2 mi.), 9714 (0.4 mi.), 9715 (0.9 mi.), 9722 (0.1 mi.), 9729 (0.5 mi.), 9730
(0.3 mi.)
8

Decommission approximately 3.5 miles of system road no longer needed for
management: 3951 (1.0 mi.), 3959 (0.4 mi.), 4133 (1.0 mi.), 4841 (1.1 mi.).
Convert nonsystem road 4004 to system trail.
Construct approximately 5 miles of temporary roads, in addition to existing nonsystem
roads, subject to a determination and approval by timber sale
administration personnel.
Provide an estimated 20 miles of skid trails (This is the equivalent of 0.75 miles of skid
trail per square mile or approximately 6.2 feet of skid trail per acre) to provide access to
the commercial timber products made available through this decision.
The timber sale team members assigned to administer contracts that implement this
decision will monitor operations to ensure standards and guidelines will be met. At any
time that potential resource damage is occurring the project administrator will through
contract actions stop operations and inform the line officer and appropriate specialists to
address a particular resource issue.
Seek potential easements for Carter County on 5.9 miles of system road and 0. miles
of nonsystem roads: 4002 (0.7 miles), 4006 (0.8 miles), 4123 (1.6 miles), 4123X (0.1
miles), 4125 (1.7 miles), 4130 (0.4 miles), 4759 (0.7 miles), 9678 (0.3 miles)
Mitigation measures beyond the Forest Plan Standards and Guide are: SW1, SW2,
SW3, SW4, SW5, CR1, CR2, CR3, CR4, CR5 CR6 or as otherwise indicated for visual
quality, control of non-native invasive species management, excessive slope concerns in
timber sale layout and preparation and adherence to LRMP Standards and Guides. The
EA lists Mitigation Measures on page 2-32 to 3-37 for all action alternatives. This
section of the EA is incorporated in to this decision by reference.
The description of alternatives on pages 1-9 to 1-17 and 2-21 to 2-27 of the EA, reflect
any changes that have occurred to the original opportunity analysis proposals. Actions
listed on pages 1-9 to 1-17 of the EA reflect an opportunity analysis that attempted to
identify all conditions needing treatment to bring them to or towards a Desired Future
Condition. Actions listed did change, as issues/concerns were identfied/addressed in the
analysis process.
III. REASONS FOR THE DECISION
I have chosen the Alternative 2, because the analysis convinces me that it is the best
mixture of activities to move to or provide for, the following desired conditions for
Management Prescription 1.1. Those “Desired Conditions” (Forest Plan, p.3-3 to 3-5)
are:
Ecosystems are healthy, resilient, and resistant to diseases, insect infestations, and nonnative
species invasion. Natural communities are present in the amounts, distributions,
and variability characteristic of Missouri’s presettlement landscape. Management
activities mimic natural patterns and the range of variability of resident natural
communities, resulting in a natural-appearing landscape. Additional information is found
in Appendix A.
9

Plant species distributional patterns, abundance, and diversity increase following
management activities. Natural communities exhibit the desired composition, patch size,
canopy structure, understory, shrub layer, and ground cover characteristics.
Prescribed fire emulates historical fire regimes, creating variable patterns of vegetation
structure and abundance that meet habitat needs for associated wildlife.
The planning for the Handy Project within the Management Prescription 1.1 started with
identifying the currently existing natural community types within the project boundaries.
represented by Compartments 003, 004, 020, 021, 030, 120, 121, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141,
164, and 165. The National Forest System Lands are only within those boundaries were
considered for opportunities. The historical/desired condition indicated there should be
19,940 acres of open woodland as compared to the existing 881 acres. This indicates a
need to begin to change the area from a closed forest type to an open woodland type. The
activities identified are consistent with moving the existing condition to the desired
condition as identified for Management Prescription 1.1. (EA, pp. 1-4 to 1-17; EA, pp.
3/4-135, Table 28)
Within Management Prescription 1.1, there existed opportunities to begin the process of
restoring the identifiable natural community types and proposals were made that would
meet those opportunities. Management Prescription 1.1 emphasizes restoration of natural
community types. Although Management Prescription 1.1 gives more weight to restoring
natural community types, managing the timber resources is still an option on isolated
tracts that show low potential for ecological restoration. Prescribed fire is an integral part
of natural community restoration as a force that created and maintained these
communities prior to aggressive fire suppression. The activities identified for treatment
provides the best opportunity to move the project area towards the desired condition and
meet the purpose and need for the project. Other alternatives considered during this
analysis would not fully meet the purpose and need for the project.
In addition to addressing opportunities to restore the natural community types, the field
reviews also identified forest health needs to address the oak mortality within the project
area. There was an immediate need to address oak mortality through salvage treatments
which also provided for longer term management opportunities of moving these areas
towards the desired conditions. If left untreated, this would result in reducing
regeneration potential due to loss of overstory producing trees to provide advanced
regeneration from seed and suppression of sprouting potential (EA, p. 1-8). These
treatments represent regeneration openings in the open and closed woodland natural
communities. By performing these salvage treatments it presents future opportunities to
manipulate vegetation species composition toward that distribution historically associated
with the appropriate natural community type (EA, p. 1-8).
Providing a safe transportation system required a mixture of activities which included
construction and reconstruction of existing roads, maintenance of existing roads, closures
of system and non-system roads, identifying opportunities for conversion of some roads
to easements with Carter County and conversion of some roads to private land special use
permits. This was needed to ensure proper protection of soil, water, and wildlife
resources and well as providing for public safety. I realize some individuals will consider
this an inconvenience in some cases, but for the longer term management of the Forest
10

transportation system this is in alignment with the Forest Plan direction which provides
guidance on motorized vehicle use. This is also consistent with the updated motor
vehicle use map (MVUM) for the Eleven Point Ranger District. Motorized use is limited
to those roads designated for public motorized vehicle use (EA, p. 3/4-97). Related to the
non-system roads, the majority considered for closure were part of existing road systems
that have been extended beyond the specified road system. This decision will close that
portion that has been extended where no construction specifications exist.
Alternative 2 adheres to the 2005 Mark Twain National Forest’s Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) and its Goals (pp.1-1 to 1-4) and Standards and Guidelines
(pp. 2-1 thru 2-42 and 3-3 to 3-5) as they apply to the Handy Project proposed, analyzed,
and selected actions. Applicable goals, standards, and guidelines are repeated from the
Forest Plan with the corresponding EA page(s) and appendices cited (See Section VI.,
Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and previous NEPA Decisions of this Decision
Notice).
In my judgment, Alternative 2 provides the proper beginnings to restoration to
identifiable natural community types, improves overall ecosystem health, provides
opportunities to improve biological diversity in the area, and can provide a steady flow of
amenities and products to meet the human and social needs of the area.
A. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The Interdisciplinary Team’s range of alternatives developed demonstrates an extended
effort was made to design alternatives responsive to concerns/ issues identified during
scoping and the 30 day public comment period. Issues are divided into two groups:
Group 1 are existing issues due to other than implementing the proposed actions. These
issues would be: 1) Outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) Resolved by Forest Plan
direction, laws, regulations or higher level decisions; 3) That do not apply or are
irrelavant to the decision being made; or 4) Opinions unsupported by scientific fact or
factual evidence.
Group 2 are issues that require development of an alternative to the proposed action,
some mitigation (outside of Forest Plan Standards & Guides (S&G) and/or Best
Management Practices) applied to the proposed action since implementing the proposed
action is the driving force behind the issue, requires consideration of location in
alternative design or the analysis addresses the issue and its importance.
Group 2 Issues Addressed in Analysis, Mitigation Measures,or Alternative
Design/Development
Using comments from the public, other agencies and organizations, the ID Team
developed a list of issues to address (See Handy EA Appendix B for Response to
Comments, both in the Scoping and Notice and Comment periods of this project's NEPA
process). Based on the evaluation of comments through the Comment Sorting Matrix,
the ID Team and the Responsible Official (District Ranger) mutually agreed on the issues
to be addressed in analysis, mitigation measures,or alternative design and/or development
and are listed as:
11

Issue 1: An emphasis on restoring natural communities, such as shortleaf
pine/white oak woodlands (open or closed) will result in a removal of the black oak
group (i.e. black oak, scarlet oak, n. red oak) on which much of Missouri's forest
industry is based. Over time this will exclude these species and remaining
woodlands would have such low basal areas that future timber harvest
opportunities for Missouri timber producers would be drastically reduced. This
would put the Missouri forest products industry in decline; if not eliminate any
meaningful production all together.
• This issue addresses the current 2005 LRMP Standards & Guides, Management
Prescription 1.1 themes, goals, and desired condition described in this EA (page 1
to 1-14) that the project actions are intended to meet. In addition, this project
addresses the purpose and need associated with the existing condition to the
desired condition as described in the EA, pp. 1-4 to 1-17.
Issue 2: The closure of roads (system or temporary) that will limit access to the area
for forest users.
• This issue addresses the proposed closure of approximately 3.5 miles of system
roads and 13.6 miles of non-system roads, as well as temporary roads and skid
trails created in order to implement actions per silvicultural prescriptions and to
meet the purpose and need to provide a safe and reliable transportation system.
There were concerns identified during public scoping. The ID Team and myself
reviewed these concerns and addressed them during this analysis. There will be
consideration of options related to system roads such as potential county
easements and private land special use permits prior to any closure. This includes
Forest System roads 4004, 4006, 4123, 4123X, 4125, 4130, 4759 and 9678 where
easements will try to be obtained with Carter County which equates to 6.55 miles
of existing roads. In addition, any road that provides reasonable access to private
lands will be reviewed for a potential special use permit prior to closure (2.7
miles). The road closures are in compliance with guideance in the Forest Plan and
and are consistent with the purpose and need for this project. This issue was
addressed in the EA, pp. 1-16 to 1-17; pp. 3/4-96 to 3/4-102; DN, p. 2; EA,
Appendix B.
Issue 3: The placement of even-aged harvest treatments adjacent to private land or
any treatments along the (now designated “National”) Ozark Trail.
• This issue addresses the proximity of even-aged management units, particularly
clearcuts, to private land and all proposed treatments in the Handy project that
may impact the Ozark Trail, particularly with its recent designated as a National
Recreation Trail. This was addressed as part of the modified proposed action (EA,
pp. 2-28 to 2-29) to meet the National Recreation standards and guidelines as well
as address visual quality concerns.
The Scoping Report sent to the public asked for the comments that would identify
potential issues that might need to be addressed as part of this project proposal. The IDT
team and myself, as the Responsible Official, met to review all comments and reevaluate
issues during both the scoping and 30 day public comment periods. Of the 57 individuals or
12

groups that were mailed the letter of availability, there were 15 individuals or groups that
responded to the scoping report. Each of the comments received were addressed by the ID Team
and responsible official, specific responses to concerns, opportunities or issues was a addressed in
public participation section in Appendix B. There were no comments received during the 30 day
comment period. There were specific concerns related to road closures, scenery management
along the Ozark Trail and vegetation management activities that have been addressed in
responses to the public as well as in the environmental analysis.
B. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REASONS WHY THEY
WERE NOT SELECTED:
In making this decision, I considered a number of public issues and management
concerns. After considering these, the interdisciplinary team and I developed two
alternatives which were fully evaluated in the EA. The alternatives I did not select were:
Alternatives
Alternative 1 – No Action
The No Action Alternative proposed deferring all management activity in the project
area. This alternative was not selected because it fails to move the area toward a desired
condition defined in the Forest Plan. The Interdisciplinary Team and I determined site
specifically that existing resource conditions within the Westside area do not meet, or are
not progressing towards, the conditions described in the Forest Plan. These differences
provide opportunities to implement management activities consistent with expectations
developed through the Forest Planning process.
Having identified these needs for management activities, I would not be redeeming my
responsibility to enhance the potential of the Westside Project area’s existing natural
community types if I selected this alternative. It would not implement the Forest Plan by
failing to provide for oak-hickory or oak-pine forest management, failing to provide
wildlife habitat diversity, and failing to enhance of natural community types.
Additionally, it would not contribute to the LRMP Management Prescription 1.1 that
emphasizes “multiple use resource objectives while allowing for the enhancement of
natural communities, improvement of forest health conditions, and roaded natural
recreation experiences.
Additionally it would not meet, “Provide a variety of uses, products and values by
managing in support of desired ecological conditions.”
C. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD
FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
a. An Alternative to Display Minor Changes From The Proposed Action Distributed in
Scoping.
The ID Team discussed creating another alternative IF changes occur in the Proposed
Action distributed for 30 days during the Scoping period. This would result in three
alternatives: Alternative 1 - No Action, Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action, and
13

Alternative 3 - The Modified Proposed Action. The discussion lead the ID Team, which
includes the Responsible Official, to realize that given the lack of differences between
context (often same acres/different cut) or in intensity (one type of regeneration cut vs.
another type of regeneration cut) that displaying these minimal changes did not generate
the need for a new alternative. The Proposed Action may have minor changes made to it
based on interdisciplinary discussion and public comments without creating a "new"
alternative. This is provided for in 36 CFR 220.7(b) (2) (iii). The minor changes made
in the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) were as follows:
Change of prescription in the following stands to apply Forest Plan Standard and Guides
(page 2-25) for Visual Management of a Sensitivity Level 1 travelway foreground area
along the Ozark Trail per its designation as a National Recreation Trail (All will be “leafoff”
logging). For example, if a stand is currently prescribed as a shelterwood, the stand
will be changed to Hazard Tree Removal only for the first 100 feet from the trail and
restoration thinning for the next 100-30+feet from the trail.:
Compartment 165: All stands containing portions of the Ozark Trail with a Current
Prescription of Restoration Thinning will have Hazard Trees Only
removed from the trail tread path out to 100 feet. The Current
Prescription of Restoration Thinning will be in effect from 100 to
300+ feet. Stand 30, 40, 64, 65, 78, 80, 86, 105, 122 - Crop Tree
Release (No Change Necessary)
Compartment 138: All stands containing portions of the Ozark Trail with a Current
Prescription of Restoration Thinning will have Hazard Trees Only
removed from the trail tread path out to 100 feet. The Current
Prescription of Restoration Thinning will be in effect from 100 to
300+ feet. Stand 31, 19, 112 - Crop Tree Release (No Change
Necessary)
Compartment 137: Stand 26 (Salvage) – No change given distance from trail with
intervening stand portion without treatment proposed.
Stand 15, 20, 30 (Restoration Thinning) - No change given distance
from trail with intervening stand portion with restoration thinning
treatment proposed.
All stands containing portions of the Ozark Trail with a Current
Prescription of Restoration Thinning or Restoration Thinning w/
Understory Control will have Hazard Trees Only removed from the
trail tread path out to 100 feet. The Current Restoration Thinning
Prescription will be in effect from 100 to 300+ feet.
Stand 7, 13, 46 - Thinning with Hazard Tree Removal Only within
first 100 feet from trail and Restoration Thinning 100-300+ feet
from trail. NO SALVAGE.
Stand 47 - Crop Tree Release (No Change Necessary)
Stand 17 (Clearcut) – Dropped
14

Compartment 121
All stands containing portions of the Ozark Trail with a Current
Prescription of Restoration Thinning or Restoration Thinning w/
Understory Control will have Hazard Trees Only removed from the
trail tread path out to 100 feet. The Current Restoration Thinning
Prescription will be in effect from 100 to 300+ feet.
Stand 3, 26 - Thinning with Hazard Tree Removal Only within first
100 feet from trail and Restoration Thinning 100-300+ feet. NO
SHELTERWOOD.
Many of the changes made in the Proposed Actions, in past projects, have come from
interdisciplinary team discussion between resource managers and/or the responsible
official after consideration of public comments. Changes would be available for review
by the public when the pre-decisional EA is distributed for 30-Day Notice and Comment
with the Modified Proposed Action and in Appendix B – Public Participation. The cover
letter that distributes the EA (or is available on the website) would alert the reader to the
changes made in the proposal.
b. An Alternative to Change the Management Prescription of the Area
The ID team felt that this has been fully addressed by the completed forest plan revision
process and issuance (September 2005) of the Mark Twain National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (hereafter referred to as the “Forest
Plan”). This revision has addressed the significant reasons for changing management
prescription (e.g. new scientific information, new technology, new information on
demands and needs, and the results of ongoing monitoring and evaluation efforts).
c. Reduce Even-Aged Management (Using Only in Exceptional Circumstances)
An alternative considered minimizing even-aged management and/or using it only in
exceptional circumstances. The ID team felt that the appropriateness of the use of
silvicultural systems are best determined at the Forest Plan level and significant reasons
for eliminating their use need to be presented (e.g. new scientific information, new
technology, new information on demands and needs, and the results of ongoing
monitoring and evaluation efforts). The ID team felt that comments provided insufficient
information that indicated a reasonable or compelling need to evaluate an alternative that
virtually eliminates even-aged management. The Modified Proposed Action alternative
uses management where it is appropriate and will yield the desired results. Experience
and/or research exclude some management schemes (such as uneven-aged management)
from areas where it is clear it will not work. Since the action alternative will meet the
needs for restoration and existing conditions, no further consideration of additional
alternatives (including an uneven-aged alternative) were necessary.
d. A "No Commercial Logging" Alternative
A "No Commercial Logging" alternative considered but eliminated for the following
reasons:
15

The 2005 Forest Plan identifies 996,700 acres of land suitable for timber management.
This represents about 67% of the Forest’s land base. These are lands capable of
producing commercial volumes of timber on a sustained basis, where regularly scheduled
timber harvest may occur. The Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) for the first decade is
1,030 million board feet (which equates to an annual average of 103 million board feet
per year). The suitability analysis and ASQ calculations were derived using the best
available mapping techniques, updated vegetation data, and knowledge gained from years
of implementing and monitoring the 1986 Plan.
It is recognized that there are a high level of concern from the timber industry about the
level of the ASQ. However, the decrease from the 1986 plan ASQ (1,050 million board
feet) to the 2005 Forest Plan (1,030 million board feet) is less than one percent. Some of
this concern may be due to a misunderstanding of what ASQ means. ASQ is simply an
upper limit on harvest, not a commitment to sell that particular amount over the next
decade. The 2005 Forest Plan will provide the management direction needed to have an
effective timber management program that will continue to contribute to the economic
stability of local communities and the wood products industry both in Missouri and at the
national level.
While the Mark Twain National Forest has consistently provided timber to local
communities and industry for decades, it is also recognized that there are interest groups
and individuals who believe that the Mark Twain National Forest should stop all
commercial timber sales.
Timber sales are often an efficient, effective, and sometimes the only means to move
toward the desired conditions for vegetation on the landscape. This is the case in
restoration of natural communities, a primary emphasis for 438,000 acres (29%) of the
Forest. About 45% of the Forest will be managed with a primary emphasis on multipleuse
resource objectives, but using practices that will enhance the diversity of natural
communities and improve forest health conditions. Approximately 18% of the land base
will have limited management with an emphasis on providing semi-primitive recreation
opportunities, and the other 8% has an emphasis of Wilderness or other special area
designation.
Forest Plan developments address how the forest can be managed for commodity outputs,
such as timber products, and still protect the forest environment from unacceptable
impacts. That analysis indicates that the role of commodity-based natural resource
management has a place in supporting local economies, as well as making a contribution
to state and national economies through taxes of various types. The Forest Plan provides
standards and guides (S&Gs) ensure compatibility between resource use and resource
protection. These S&Gs require resource coordination and mitigation of potential
adverse impacts.
Although resource emphasis varies by management prescription, forestwide S&Gs apply
equally to all alternatives. A no commercial logging alternative could result in ecosystem
restoration only cutting, for example, but the trees would be left in the woods. This is
unresponsive to the public's demands for accountability and efficient use of the public's
tax dollars.
Overstocked conditions would result in stands with smaller trees and an increased
16

susceptibility to insect and disease. Stand improvement would be accomplished with
mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. An increase in shade and the buildup in leaf
litter would reduce current species diversity in most of the Forest. Utilizing commercial
logging to achieve healthy forests and a range of vegetative age classes meets certain
wildlife habitat objectives for the forest.
The absence of commercial logging could result in the extirpation of the Bachman's
sparrow from Missouri. The lack of management and lack of early successional habitats
could negatively affect more Management Indicator Species (MIS), T&E and sensitive
species (both Region Forester and Missouri species). Since the approval of the Forest
Plan, we have moved forward in its implementation, utilizing timber harvest as a means
to move toward the desired future condition described in the plan and described in the
purpose and need of this EA.
The No Action alternative is an alternative that does not include logging. The Preferred
Action (Alternatives 2) includes maintaining roads (enhancing opportunities for dispersed
recreation), provide opportunities for firewood gathering (to heat residents' homes),
reduce hazardous fuel accumulation in high probability wildfire areas, and improve
growing conditions for young pine and oak pine.
e. Fully Develop and Consider Single Tree Selection (Not Group Selection) for Unevenaged
Management
Although single tree selection may be feasible in the Ozarks, caution is advised regarding
wide spread application (Johnson, 1995). Its success appears to be linked to the presence
of numerous small diameter white oaks. The Handy Project does not propose either
group selection or single tree selection. The application of solely single tree harvest
throughout the project area would not create the conditions needed to restore natural
community types (Management Prescription 1.1 key objective). No further analysis for
this alternative is necessary.
f. Designation of Old Growth in relation to 2005 Forest Plan Goals, Objectives,
Standards and Guides.
The location of old growth-designated stands (isolated stands outside of contiguous
blocks) often results from the need to protect karst features, such as a sinkhole, cave
location, or the presence of some plant or animal T&E species.
The 2005 Forest Plan does require protection of all caves by 10 acres around the cave
entrance or 20 acres around caves known to have Indiana or gray bats. Due to the general
average size of stands both the 10 and 20 acre buffer effectively eliminates the stand the
cave is in from vegetation management considerations. Since this comment was
addressed in meeting Forest Plan standards and guides, the IDT and Responsible Official
determined that this comment falls within Group 1, described above, and was not
considered for further analysis.
17

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Letters (dated March 3, 2008) were mailed to 57 interested parties, including county
officials, local city mayors, businesses, members of the general public, industry,
environmental group and tribal representatives. These letters informed them that a
Scoping Report and maps were available for a proposed project called the"Handy
Project" in an area encompassing the community of Handy, Missouri. The letter
provided instructions on several ways the scoping could be obtained. One such way was
off the Mark Twain National Forest public website at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/marktwain/projects/
This public involvement strategy provides the information to everyone that wants it and
does not deny information to anyone. In both cases, the letters asked for any issues
relevant to the site-specific locations of the proposed Handy Project. Previous to the
Scoping Report mailing, the Handy Project had been on the Forest’s Schedule of
Modified Proposed Actions (SOPA) since January, 2008 (2nd Quarter FY2008). An
advertisement in the Wednesday/March 26, 2008 Prospect News also invited comments
to identify issues in the scoping of the Handy Project.
On June 26, 2008, the ID team met to discuss the 15 comments received from scoping,
identify issues in those comments and review the analysis to date to determine if there
any questions or issues that have developed. A summary of the responses received to the
request for comments in scoping are contained in Appendix B. There were no comments
received during the 30 day comment period. There were specific concerns related to road
closures, scenery management along the Ozark Trail and vegetation management activities that
have been addressed in responses to the public as well as in the environmental analysis.
The purpose of soliciting comments during the scoping period is to determine whether
there are any new or unresolved issues, concerns, or opportunities which affect the
Modified Proposed Action. All comments were reviewed and evaluated by the
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) in development of issues and consideration of alternatives
(if any) to the Modified Proposed Action. The response to scoping is documented in
Appendix B with the Forest Service’s Response to Comments matrix.
The public was also notified of the project in a Legal Notice published July 1, 2009 in the
Prospect News of Doniphan, Missouri that initiated the 30-Day Notice and Comment
Period. The pre-decisional Handy Project Environmental Assessment was made
available via a general "Dear Interested Citizen" availability cover letter dated June 30,
2009 and availability cover letter dated June 30, 2009 to specific individuals (Ben Wyatt,
Dee Dokken of Osage Group of Sierra Club, and Missouri Clearinghouse). The predecisional
Handy Project Environmental Assessment was mailed to group
representatives/individuals via cover letters as follows: (County Commissioners Leo
Warren - Oregon, William Kennon – Ripley and Gene Oakley - Carter, James Oesch,
Mark Grimmer, Hank Dorst of Mark Twai Forest Watchers, Dr. Andrea Hunter of the
Oasage Nation, Jerry Presley of Missouri Forest Products Association and Jim Bensman
of Heartwood).
18

V. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
I have determined that this project is conducted in a manner that does not exclude persons
from participation in, denying the benefits of, or subjects’ persons to discrimination
because of their racial, ethnic or economic status. The activities carried out by this
decision will not have disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations.
The EA states on pages 3/4-161 to 3/4-162 that Ripley, Shannon and Oregon counties, in
which the Handy Project is located, is an area of “persistent poverty”. This is defined as
a county in which persons with poverty-level incomes were 20% or more of the
population in each of the years surveyed; 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990. With an average
of about 25.2% of Carter, Ripley and Oregon County classified as low income, twice the
state average for Missouri, these counties qualifies as environmental justice counties.
Of the alternatives evaluated for the Handy Project area it is my opinion only Alternative
1 – No Action, would pose a disproportionately high and adverse impact on the economic
or social fabric of these counties. By generating no direct economic benefits to the area
this alternative would continue the existing economically depressed conditions.
Alternative 2 would generate products which would provide some level of economic
improvement to the area. The estimated value of these products from the Handy Project
would be $2,877,384.00. The estimated costs of the Handy Project would be
$3,788,045.00. Alternative 2 would generate an approximate present net value (PNV) of
a negative $910,661.00 return from timber harvesting, with Alternative 2 calculated out
at a benefit/cost ratio of 0.76 without the cost of environmental analysis (NEPA) and 0.69
with NEPA considered.
Initially, the disclosure of a negative PNV for the Handy Project may be of concern. This
may be valid if the only outcome from the Handy Project was the production of timber
products for industry. This is, however, not the case with the Handy Project. Based on
the 2005 Mark Twain Forest Plan and Management Prescription 1.1 for the Handy
Project, the objective of the Handy Project is, first and foremost, the restoration of the
appropriate terrestrial natural community for this area of the Eleven Point Ranger
District. In the implementation of the vegetative treatments (clear-cut, seed tree,
shelterwood and restoration thinning) to move towards this restoration goal; raw wood
products will be produced to be utilized by the forest products industry.
In my judgment, the increased reliance on commercial thinning to achieve the restoration
results long term generally reduces the volume of wood produced per acre. This is not
necessarily followed by a decrease in all the costs associated with timber sales. Some of
these costs would be NEPA compliance, sale prep (marking, preparation of timber sale
documents), sale administration, Handy Project area road design, reconstruction, and
maintenance, and reforestation (silvicultural contract preparation and administration).
These are not all the costs, but some of the most important costs. In Management
Prescription 1.1, the possibility of overall project costs exceeding project value may be
seen again in achieving the objectives of natural community restoration. Alternative 2
will not, however, have a disproportionate negative impact on these low-income counties.
I believe the projected economic outputs from the Handy Project area will be beneficial.
19

VI. CONSISTENCY WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PREVIOUS NEPA
DECISIONS
The actions to be implemented are consistent with the National Forest Management Act.
The Forest-wide Standards and Guides listed in the Forest Plan (Chapter 2), as well as
those listed for the Management Prescription 1.1 (on pages 3-3 through 3-5 of the Forest
Plan).
A) National Forest Management Act
Harvesting on Suitable Lands
I have determined that the land on which harvesting has been proposed is suitable for
timber production as described in 16 U.S.C. 1604(k) and NFMA.
1. The land is forest land which is at least 10% occupied by trees of any size. This
has been verified through on-the-ground examination of the stands proposed for harvest,
documentation of these examinations is found in the project file (Folder D).
2. Technology is available to ensure timber production from the land without
irreversible resource damage to watershed conditions. This is documented on pages 3/4-
38 to 3/4-90 of the EA in the section concerning the environmental effects on
Water/Riparian and Soil Resources.
3. There is reasonable assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked as
required by NFMA. The on-the-ground examinations of the stands proposed for final
harvest have confirmed that conditions are sufficiently similar to successfully regenerated
stands in the area that it is likely that the results will be similar. In the past, stands like
these have become adequately restocked with acceptable species within five years with
very few exceptions. Those stands prescribed for planting of shortleaf pine are similar to
areas where planting of this tree species has been successful in the past, beginning with
extensive tree planting by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930’s. The
silvicultural files maintained at the District Office contain records of these previously
treated stands.
4. An Act of Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest
Service has not withdrawn the lands proposed for timber harvest from timber production.
5. The land has not been deemed inappropriate for timber production due to
assignment to other resource uses or considerations of cost efficiency.
National Forest Management Act Requirements
All proposals involving the manipulation of the tree cover for any purpose comply with
NFMA. My reasons for making this determination follow:
1. The actions are best suited to the goals stated in the 2005 Land and Resource
Management Plan as discussed previously in this Decision Notice. The Forest Plan,
Appendix D (also the Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix D) describes the use of vegetative
manipulation as a means to achieving these goals.
2. The technology and knowledge exists to adequately restock lands per NFMA.
20

3. I describe in the Reasons for the Decision (beginning on page 9) of this
Decision Notice the combination of factors that I considered in selecting the Proposed
Action (Alternative 2). The choice of management practices was determined by a
combination of factors including protection of other resource values, improving forest
health, providing diversity of habitat types, and not because of a maximum dollar return
or output of forest products.
4. These activities were chosen after considering potential effects on residual trees
and adjacent stands. These effects are documented throughout the EA.
5. The selected activities will avoid permanent impairment of site productivity and
will insure conservation of water resources. These considerations are discussed on pages
3/4-38 to 3/4-90 of the EA in the section concerning the environmental effects on
Water/Riparian and Soil Resources.
6. The selected activities will provide the desired effects on water quality, wildlife
and fish habitat, regeneration of desired tree species, forage production, recreation uses,
aesthetic values, and other resource yields. These considerations are discussed on pages
3/4-38 to 3/4-173 of the EA.
7. The selected activities are practical in terms of transportation and harvesting
requirements and total cost of preparation, logging, and administration. I base this
determination on the fact that the selected activities are similar to those which have been
practiced, and are currently being practiced, on the Mark Twain National Forest and the
Eleven Point Ranger District in areas similar to those within the Handy Project area.
Appropriateness of Even Aged Management
Timber management in this project uses even-aged management (1,063 acres of evenaged).
Even-age management in this project consists of approximately 443 acres of
clearcutting, about 560 acres of shelterwood seed cut harvesting, about 60 acres of seed
tree seed cut harvesting, approximately 2,038 acres of salvage cutting, about 3,418 acres
of pre-commercial thinning (crop tree release) and commercial thinning (w/ one entry
leaving 30-50 sq. ft. of basal area) on approximately 7,348 acres, and commercial
thinning (w/ single entry leaving 70-100 sq. ft. basal area) on approximately 313 acres.
I have determined that the site-specific silvicultural prescriptions, contained in the Project
File (Appendix D, Stand Prescription Sheets), specifying even-aged management are
appropriate for restoration of natural communities purposes for the Management
Prescription 1.1, while at the same time meeting a timber management purpose on these
stands. Implementing even-aged management on these stands is consistent with Forest
Plan direction found in Forest Plan (Appendix D). This determination is in accordance
with the requirements of 12 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F)(i) and (ii).
Optimality of Clearcutting
On the 443 acres prescribed for clearcutting I concur that this is the optimum treatment to
achieve management objectives for these areas. The stand conditions identified for
clearcutting are consistent with the silvicultural treatment needed to meet the purpose and
need for the project as well as the desired conditions based on field inspections by the
certified silviculturalist (EA p. 1-10 and EA, 3/4-141 to 3/4-142). The Project File
(Folder D, Volume 3, Prescription Sheets) contains additional documentation of stand
21

conditions which indicates the optimal treatment needed. Clearcutting (with reserves) on
the 443 acres will receive planting of shortleaf pine to achieve stocking rates and move
the area towards the desired natural plant community. Clearcutting will contribute to
providing approximately 12.4% of the Handy Project area regeneration openings from
even-aged management when coupled with other openings created from shelterwood and
seed tree cuts, as well as salvage cuts. The advanced regeneration and expected stump
sprouting (coppice) can be manipulated to species representative of desired natural
community types and the restoration of these types.
B) Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines
The actions to be implemented are consistent with the Forest-wide Standards and
Guidelines listed in the Forest Plan, Appendix 2, as well as those listed for the
Management Prescription 1.1, on pages 3-3 through 3-5. The selected alternative applies
Management Prescription 1.1 of the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) that
"emphasizes restoration of natural communities, while providing a roaded natural
recreation experiences."
Additionally it would consist of "biologically distinctive ecological areas, each differing
with respect to flora, fauna, natural communities, watersheds, and landform. The desired
condition will vary based on the characteristics of respective natural community types as
described for each management area. The intensity of natural community management
may vary according to resource quality and type, access, land ownership patterns and
capability to respond to management activities."
I address only those Goals and Objectives directly related to the Handy Project
analysis.
Forestwide Management Goals (Goals not listed were not addressed in this decision.
These will be opportunities for future goal-specific projects).
Goal 1 – Promote Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
Goal 1.1 – Terrestrial Natural Communities
Maintain, enhance, or restore site-appropriate natural communities, including the full
range of vegetation composition and structural conditions.
This project is needed to improve plant communities which reflect naturally occurring
historic structure and composition by providing a variety of habitat conditions that meet
the needs of plant, fish and wildlife species. There are a number of stands within the
project area where plant community composition and structure resembles that of a dense
upland forest as a result of past management practices, which does not meet desired
conditions for open and closed woodland communities as described in the Forest Plan.
This includes stands that are heavily stocked (high basal area >100% sawtimber) with
thinning, would reduce competition for light, water and nutrients and improve growth.
Stand conditions including age and species composition warrant stand regeneration.
Structure and composition would be further developed with improvement cutting in
uneven-aged stands. These intermediate cuts will move stands closer to open and closed
22

woodland communities. A number of stands present opportunities to regenerate open and
closed woodland communities.
Salvage would address an unacceptable percentage of mortality due to oak decline. Oak
decline and mortality threaten to reduce natural regeneration potential due to loss of
overstory seed-producing trees to produce advanced regeneration from seed and
suppression of sprouting potential.
Restoration of Natural Communities
This project is needed to improve plant communities which reflect naturally occurring
historic structure and composition by providing a variety of habitat conditions that meet
the needs of plant, fish and wildlife species. There are a number of stands within the
project area where plant community composition and structure resembles that of a dense
upland forest as a result of past management practices, which does not meet desired
conditions for open and closed woodland communities as described in the Forest Plan.
This includes stands that are heavily stocked and thinning would reduce competition for
light, water and nutrients and improve growth. Stand conditions including age and
species composition warrant stand regeneration. Structure and composition would be
further developed with improvement cutting in uneven-aged stands. These intermediate
cuts will move stands closer to open and closed woodland communities.
The Desired Condition (DC) calls for regeneration openings to be distributed across the
landscape as part of a full range of variable conditions for represented communities.
Approximately 1,063 acres of openings resulting from regeneration and salvage harvests
(not including salvage/sanitation) are proposed. The 1.1 Management Prescription calls
for old growth to be represented on the landscape. Currently, one stand (Compartment
140/Stand 37) of approximately 16 acres represents acres where the predominant age is
25% greater than the rotation age used for timber management (Forest Plan, page 3-4).
Even-aged methods regenerate and maintain a stand with a predominantly single age
class. The three types are: clearcut, seed tree, and shelterwood. Forest-wide Standards
and Guides require a minimum of 7 to 10 percent of a even-aged harvest unit be retained
as reserve trees. According to the Dictionary of Forestry published by the Society of
American Foresters, even-aged management as practiced on the Mark Twain is actually
two-aged management because of the amount of reserves.
To avoid confusion, the Mark Twain will continue to refer to clearcutting, seed tree, and
shelterwood “with reserves” as even-aged management. However, the resulting stand
may be two-aged or trend towards an uneven-aged condition as a consequence of both an
extended period of regeneration establishment and the retention of reserve trees that may
represent one or more age classes.
Goal 1.3 – Soils, Watersheds, and Water Quality
Minimize erosion and compaction.
Handy Project EA, pages 2-32, 3/4-38 to 3/4-61 (Water), 3/4-61 to 3/4-90 (Soil), 3/4-96
to 3/4-102 (Transportation), 3/4-125 to 3/4-126 (Fisheries and Aquatics).
Restore and maintain soil productivity and nutrient retention capacity.
Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-61 to 3/4-90.
Protect the water quality and integrity of the watershed on Forest lands.
23

Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-38 to 3/4-61 (Water).
Maintain healthy, sustainable, and diverse natural communities.
Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-109 to 3/4-135 (Wildlife) and 3/4-135 to 3/4-149
(Vegetation)
Establish and maintain riparian management and watercourse protection zones to:
• Maintain, restore, and Enhance the inherent ecological processes and functions of the
associated aquatic, riparian, and upland components within the riparian corridor.
• Maintain streams in normal function within natural ranges of flow, sediment movement,
temperature, and other variables.
• Restore or maintain impaired waters as classified by the section 303 (d) of the Federal
Clean Water Act.
• Protect and improve state and national outstanding resource waters.
Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-38 to 3/4-61 (Water) and 3/4-61 to 3/4-90 (Soil):
Objective 1.3b
Goal 1.4 – Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat
Provide the range of natural habitats necessary to support populations of existing native
plant and animal species.
Restore and manage natural communities as the primary means of providing quality
terrestrial, karst, and aquatic wildlife and rare plant habitat.
Handy Project EA, 1-4 to 1-8, 3/4-38 to 3/4-61 (Water), 3/4-109 to 3/4-134 (Wildlife),
3/4-135 to 3/4-149 (Vegetation).
Support recovery of Federal and State listed species, protection and management of
habitat for regionally listed species, and protection and management of habitat for other
identified species of concern.
Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-110 to 3/4-136, See also EA Appendix D, Volume 4A &
4B.
Provide specialized habitats that are a healthy, functioning part of the larger landscape
and require no special protection or additional management considerations. Provide
specialized habitat components (such as standing dead trees, cavity and den trees,
downed woody material, temporary pools, ephemeral springs and seeps) across the
landscape in amounts and types commensurate with the natural communities in which
they occur.
Encourage habitat that responds to demand for both consumptive and non-consumptive
fish and wildlife use.
Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-109 to 3/4-134 (Wildlife).
Maintain native and desired non-native fish populations through habitat protection and
enhancement and stocking programs.
Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-124 to 3/4-125
Objective 1.4a
Improve open woodland conditions on at least 10,500 acres to provide habitat for
summer tanager, northern bobwhite, Bachman’s sparrow, and eastern red bat.
24

Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-116 to 3/4-117, 3/4-148 and 8,881 acres of existing
potential open woodland type on the Handy Project area. Regeneration openings do not
currently exist in the project area. Areas with potential old growth character (areas with
predominant age greater than 25% above rotation age) represent approximately

Goal 2.6 – Land Adjustment Program
Provide public access to National Forest System lands to allow the public to engage in a
variety of uses, values, products, and services.
Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-96 to 3/4-102
Goal 2.9 – Visual Management
Maintain or enhance the quality of scenic resources to provide desired landscape
character.
Handy Project EA, pages 3/4-149 to 3/4-160
Goal 2.10 – Heritage Resources
Support preservation of the cultural heritage of Missouri by identifying, protecting,
managing, and interpreting heritage sites on the Forest.
Handy Project EA, 3/4-102 to 3/4-106
VII. PROGRAMATIC DOCUMENTS TIERED TO THIS ANALYSIS
This decision to implement the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2) is consistent
with the programmatic documentation listed below and are incorporated as part of this
decision and analysis.
• The Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest
Plan) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (9/2005), as
Amended.
• Mark Twain National Forest Programmatic Biological Assessment (Mark Twain
National Forest, June 2005). This Biological Assessment addresses issues with
protection of Threatened and Endangered Species and associated habitat.
• Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 2005). The Biological Opinion
addresses issues involved with threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and
the formal consultation process and findings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
I have determined that these actions are not a major federal action, individually or
cumulatively, and will not significantly affect the quality of the environment. Therefore,
an environmental impact statement is not needed. This determination is based on the
context and intensity of the following factors (40 CFR 1508.27):
1. There will be no significant effects, beneficial or adverse, resulting from
implementation of this project. The Handy Project EA discusses the environmental
effects of implementing the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2) on pages 3/4-38 to
3/4-174.
2. Public health and safety are not significantly affected by the proposed actions.
Public safety will be slightly improved by measures to improve or restore roads. The
Handy Project EA describes effects of road reconstruction on pages 3/4-96 to 3/4-102.
26

3. There will be no significant adverse effects on prime farmlands, park lands,
floodplains, wetlands, historic or cultural resources, scenic rivers, ecologically critical
areas, civil rights, women or minority groups. The environmental effects section of the
Handy Project EA (pages 3/4-38 to 3/4-174) describes the anticipated effects of
implementing these actions.
4. Based on public participation and the involvement of resource specialists, I do
not expect the effects on the quality of the human environment to be highly controversial.
This does not mean that the decision to proceed will be acceptable to all people, as some
people will probably find that their needs and interests are not served by the selected
actions. The selected actions are similar to management activities that have been initiated
on forested lands in this vicinity previously and the anticipated effects are reasonably
predictable; therefore, these effects are not highly controversial. It is my professional
judgment that the significant biological, social, and economic issues have been
adequately addressed in the Handy Project EA.
5. There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain
or involve unique or unknown risks. The Handy Project EA (pages 3/4-38 to 3/4-174)
adequately evaluates the anticipated effects of this project.
6. These actions do not set a precedent for other projects that may be implemented
to meet the goals and objectives of the 2005 Forest Plan.
7. There are no known significant cumulative effects between this project and
other projects implemented or planned on areas separated from the affected area of this
project beyond those I have assessed. With the exception of routine maintenance
activities, all known connected actions associated with the selected activities which are
likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future have been identified in the assessment
and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects disclosed.
8. Based on surveys accomplished prior to this decision, I can state that this action
will not adversely affect sites or structures eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, or cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources.
The project file (Appendix D, Volume 1A and pages 3/4-102 to 3/4-106 of the Handy
Project EA) contain descriptions of the cultural resources in this area.
9. Based on the findings of the November 2008 Biological Evaluations of the
Handy Project EA prepared for this project, actions described, location of those actions
and subsequent review and concurrence, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) made the determination that the federally listed species (gray bats, Indiana
bats, and bald eagle) are the only federally listed species found in the project area. The
Handy Project is located on approximately 23,435 acres of National Forest system lands,
in Management Prescription 1.1. The proposed actions will address oak mortality that is
occurring on approximately 2,038 acres within the project area and improve wildlife
habitat and enhance natural communities. The Service concurs with the determination
that the Handy Project, may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle,
gray bat, and Indiana bat. There are no known occurrences of any of these species in the
project area (See BE for summary surveys searches conducted). Some suitable habitat
exists for each of the species. However, the potential adverse effect is insignificant
and/or discountable. The consultation requirements for this action have been met. It is
27

understood that, should the proposed project be modified or if the level of take identified
above is exceeded, it is required as outlined in 50 CFR 402.16 that consultation be
reinitiated.
10. The actions do not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.
X. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL
This decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.12(e) (2), as published in
the Federal Register of July 1, 2004. The legal notice of this decision will be published
in the Prospect News of Doniphan, Missouri.
/s/Timothy W. Bond October 21, 2009
TIMOTHY W. BOND DATE
District Ranger
Eleven Point Ranger District
28