Planting Project. Final Revised. Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Bearlodge Ranger District Planting Project Final Revised Environmental Assessment August 2006

2

3 Planting Project Final Revised Environmental Assessment August 2006 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 individual s 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) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment

4 Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment

5 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action Introduction Document Structure Project Area Location Management Areas Needs and Opportunities Forest Plan Goals and Objectives Purpose of and Need for Action Issues Public Involvement Identification of Significant Issues Decisions to be Made Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Alternative Development Process, Including Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Description of the Alternatives Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Consistency with the Forest Plan and Phase 2 Amendment Comparison of Alternatives Environmental Consequences Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Past Activities Ongoing Activities Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Biological Consequences Vegetation Wildlife Rare Plants Rangeland Noxious Weeds Physical Consequences Soil and Water Transportation System Fire Hazard and Fuel Loading Social Consequences Recreation and Travel Management Minerals Scenic Integrity Heritage Resources Environmental Justice Economics Acronyms and References List of Acronyms References List of Preparers Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment i

6 Table of Contents 6.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted FIGURES Figure 1-1 Planting Project Area and Management Areas Figure 2-1 Proposed Commercial and Non-commercial Treatments, Alternative Figure 2-2 Proposed Fuel Treatments and Transportation System, Alternative Figure 2-3 Proposed Commercial and Non-commercial Treatments, Alternative Figure 2-4 Proposed Fuel Treatments and Transportation System, Alternative Figure 2-5 Proposed Commercial and Non-commercial Treatments, Alternative Figure 2-6 Proposed Fuel Treatments and Transportation System, Alternative Figure th Level Watersheds Figure 3-2 Soils in Planting Project Area Figure 3-3 Fire Hazard Ratings Figure 3-4 Fire Hazard Ratings TABLES Table 1-1. Project Area Legal Description Table 2-1. Proposed Actions by Alternative Table 2-2. Response of Alternatives to Issues Table 3-1. Past Timber Sales Table 3-2. Current Grazing Terms and Numbers by Allotment Table 3-3. Current Structural Stage Distribution (Project Area) Table 3-4. Estimated Timber Volume by Alternative Table 3-5. Structural Stage Distribution after Implementation of Alternative 2 (Project Area) Table 3-6. Structural Stage Distribution after Implementation of Alternative 3 (Project Area) Table 3-7. Structural Stage Distribution after Implementation of Alternative 4 (Project Area) Table 3-8. Change from Current Structural Stage Condition by Alternative (Project Area) Table 3-9. Effects on Ponderosa Pine Structural Stage in MA 4.1 (Forest-wide) Table Very Large Tree Distribution in MA 4.1 (Forest-wide) Table Effects on Ponderosa Pine Structural Stage in MA 5.1 (Forest-wide) Table Very Large Tree Distribution in MA 5.1 (Forest-wide) Table Effects on Ponderosa Pine Structural Stage in MA 5.4 (Forest-wide) Table Very Large Tree Distribution in MA 5.4 (Forest-wide) Table Mountain Pine Beetle Risk by Alternative Current and 20 Years After Treatment (Acres and Percent of Project Area) Table Sensitive Wildlife Species Evaluated Table Management Indicator Species Table Species of Local Concern Table Sensitive Plant Species with Suitable Habitat in the Planting Project Area Table th Level Watersheds Table Road Management by Alternative (NFSR and unclassified) Table Road Work and Associated Fixed Costs by Alternative Table Road Density by Type and Alternative Table Fire Types by Alternative Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment ii

7 Table of Contents Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment iii

8 Table of Contents Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment iv

9 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION This chapter addresses six primary topics. First, it introduces the analysis and structure of the document. It then describes the project area and management areas within the project area. It lists the relevant goals and objectives from the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended). It describes the process used to involve the public and identifies the issues relevant to the analysis. Finally, it identifies the decisions that will be made. 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) proposes to harvest timber, thin dense forest stands, reduce hazardous fuel conditions, enhance habitat for big game and rare species, improve roads, and restrict motorized use of other roads in the project area. Parts of the project area would be closed year-round to motorized off-road travel. The project area is located north of Sundance, Wyoming and is within the Bearlodge Ranger District, BHNF. This action is needed to produce wood fiber, decrease the risk of wildfire and insect infestation, reduce open road density, and improve tree growth. The environmental analysis documented here incorporates by reference the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the BHNF. The analysis is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) associated with the Forest Plan, and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision for the Phase 2 Amendment to the Forest Plan. This environmental analysis also references the file titled Analysis and Evaluation of the Planting Project Area (project file). The project file documents the interdisciplinary team s evaluation of effects. The BHNF is implementing the Forest Plan as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA, P.L ) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA, P.L ). This EA documents the site-specific effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. The FEIS, Forest Plan, and Phase 2 Amendment are available for review at the Bearlodge Ranger District Office in Sundance, Wyoming, as well as at the Forest Supervisor s Office in Custer, South Dakota. Project History The Planting project was originally analyzed and released for public comment in January On April 26, 2005, the District Ranger signed a Decision Notice implementing Alternative 3 with modifications. An administrative appeal was filed and the Forest Supervisor reversed the decision based on procedural errors. The revised draft EA, released for public comment on March 30, 2006, reflected changes made in response to the appeal decision. The analysis also incorporated direction found in the Phase 2 Amendment to the Forest Plan, which was not in place at the time of the original analysis and decision. 1.2 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE The Forest Service has prepared this EA in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would be caused by the proposed action and Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-1

10 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action alternatives. This is not a decision document. The District Ranger will document his decision in a separate Decision Notice. This document is organized into six parts: Purpose of and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the history of the proposed project, reasons for the project, how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal, how the public responded, and the resulting issues that drove development of alternatives to the proposal. Proposed Action and Alternatives: This chapter provides a description of the agency s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. The chapter closes with a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Glossary: This section describes and explains terms, abbreviations, and acronyms used throughout the EA. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This chapter provides lists of preparers and parties consulted during the development of this EA. Appendices: The appendices provide detailed information that supports the analyses presented in this EA. Additional documentation, including detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project file located at the Bearlodge Ranger District Office in Sundance, Wyoming. 1.3 PROJECT AREA LOCATION The project area is located in Crook County, Wyoming, in the northern Bear Lodge Mountains (Figure 1-1). A legal description of the project area is shown in Table 1-1. The project area encompasses 14,603 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land and 2,348 acres of private land, for a total of 16,950 acres. Landmarks include Lone Tree Hill, Blue Ridge, Stoney Point, Harding Gulch, and Beaverdam Creek. Proposed activities would occur on NFS lands. Log hauling may occur across areas of private land on which the Forest Service has acquired rights-of-way. Table 1-1. Project Area Legal Description Township Range Section(s) 54 North 62 West 7, 8, North 63 West 1, 2, 6, 7, North 62 West 6, 7, 18, North 63 West 1-4, 6, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, 22-27, Sixth Principal Meridian Figure 1-1 Planting Project Area and Management Areas Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-2

11 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-3

12 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action 1.4 MANAGEMENT AREAS The Forest Plan assigns a management emphasis to each portion of the Forest to meet multiple-use objectives. For each designated management area (MA), Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan includes a description of desired future condition, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. The ID team reviewed the management area designations and found them appropriate. NFS land in the Planting project area is allocated to the following management areas (Figure 1-1): 2.2 Research Natural Areas (577 acres). The Phase 2 Amendment selected four areas on the Forest for designation as Research Natural Areas (RNAs) pending preparation of an establishment record. One of these areas is the Hay Creek RNA in the Planting project area. These areas form a long-term network of ecological reserves designated for non-manipulative research, education, and biodiversity conservation. 3.7 Late-Successional Forest Landscapes (663 acres). These areas feature stands of trees that contain late-successional forest structure across a landscape. Motorized travel is restricted to designated routes. 4.1 Limited Motorized Use and Forest Products Emphasis (1,036 acres). These areas are managed for non-motorized recreation, while providing for timber production, forage production, visual quality, and a diversity of wildlife. Roads provide intermittent commercial access, but are normally closed to other than administrative use Resource Production Emphasis (2,634 acres). These areas are managed for wood products, water yield, and forage production, while providing other commercial products, visual quality, diversity of wildlife, and a variety of other goods and services. Numerous open roads provide commercial access and roaded recreation opportunities, while closed roads provide non-motorized recreation opportunities. 5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis (9,693 acres). These areas are managed to provide highquality winter and transitional habitat for deer and elk, high-quality turkey habitat, habitat for other species, and a variety of multiple uses. 1.5 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES The actions proposed in the project area are based on objectives found in the Forest Plan and needs derived from a comparison of desired and existing conditions. This section reviews these site-specific comparisons and defines the purpose of and need for action in the project area Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The Forest Plan includes multiple-use goals and objectives for management of the BHNF. These goals and objectives are described in Chapter 1 of the Forest Plan. They include protecting basic resources, providing for a variety of life through diverse ecosystems, providing for sustained commodity uses, and providing scenic quality, recreational opportunities, and heritage resource protection. This section compares relevant Forest Plan goals and objectives to the conditions that currently exist in the project area. The comparisons show where needs or opportunities for action exist. Forest-wide Goals and Objectives Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-4

13 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action Goal 1. Protect basic soil, air, water, and cave resources. Objective 103: Maintain or improve long-term stream health. Achieve and maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems to provide stream channel stability and aquatic habitats for water quality in accordance with state standards. Objective 104: Maintain or enhance watershed conditions to foster favorable soil relationships and water quality. Objective 105: Prohibit motorized vehicle use in wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian areas, except at specified locations and times of the year. Objective 108: Manage for sustained or improved water flows. There are approximately 11 miles of perennial streams, including Beaverdam, Deep, East, and Pine Creeks, in the project area. These streams support beaver ponds, riparian areas, and wetlands. Sedimentation has occurred or could occur after rainstorms because of existing roads, damaged or inadequate drainage structures, and motorized vehicle use. Opportunities exist to improve conditions by repairing, reconstructing, re-routing, or closing roads and to sustain water flows through management of upland vegetation. Goal 2. Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse ecosystems. Objective 201: Manage for a minimum of 92,000 acres of aspen (double current aspen acres), and 16,000 acres of bur oak (approximately 33 percent increase) in current bur oak during the life of the Plan. The highest priority for hardwood restoration is where conifers (e.g. spruce and pine) have outcompeted aspen adjacent to riparian systems that once supported beaver. Increases in bur oak will be focused away from the Bear Lodge Mountains. Objective 203: Manage 30 to 50 percent of each bur oak stand for 100-plus year old trees. National Forest System land in the project area includes 522 acres of aspen, 76 acres of paper birch, and 2,626 acres of bur oak cover types. In general, these stands are not being overgrown by conifers, and oak is a major component of the understory of many pine stands. No action is required at this time to conserve existing hardwood communities. Many oak stands appear to have stagnated in a brush form, and there is an opportunity to perpetuate these stands by conserving the largest and oldest trees and encouraging growth of brush towards tree form. Objective 204: Conserve and manage birch/hazelnut, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and Douglas-fir. Birch/hazelnut plant communities are found in the understory of a number of stands in the project area, especially those on the north aspects of drainages. There is an opportunity to conserve these communities. Objective 205: Manage for 122,000 acres of prairie grassland and 3,600 acres of meadow during the life of the Plan. Restored acres will not be considered suitable for timber production. There are 1,971 acres of meadow in the project area. Edges of some meadows are becoming overgrown with pine. There is an opportunity to set back succession in these meadows by removing or burning encroaching pine. Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-5

14 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action Objective 211: Within a management area in conifer forested portions of the Forest, provide an average of 3 hard snags greater than 9 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) and 25 feet high per acre, well dispersed across the forest, 25 percent of which are greater than 14 inches DBH. Quantitative data on existing snags are incomplete. Since 2001, three wildfires have burned approximately 315 acres of forest in the project area, providing numerous snags in each burned area. There is currently little mountain pine beetle infestation in the project area, and no large areas have been damaged by storms in recent years. Field visits suggest that there are numerous snags of various sizes distributed across the project area. There is a need to provide snags for associated species and ecological processes and an opportunity to do so by leaving existing snags intact, providing a range of forest structures, and through application of prescribed fire. Objective 212: In conifer forested portions of a planning unit, provide at least once during a rotation (approximately 100 years) an average of 5 to 10 tons per acre of down, dead woody material at least 3 inches in diameter, provided there is no conflict with fire or pest management objectives. In the shelterwood silvicultural system, accomplish this through commercial and precommercial treatments. Provided this tonnage no later than the removal cut (overstory removal) or a combination of removal cut and precommercial thinning of the established stand (thinning to be accomplished within 10 years of the removal cut). Reconnaissance indicates the majority of the project area s stands are contributing towards this objective. There is an opportunity to continue to provide down woody material, though objectives for reducing fuel loading may limit down woody material in some locations. Objective 213: Maintain or enhance existing riparian area biodiversity, physical structure, and size. Riparian areas are associated with Beaverdam, Deep, East, Middle Fork Hay, and Pine Creeks, and Alkali Brook. Riparian communities are also found in certain tributaries to these drainages, such as Pearson, Geis, and Lost Draws. There is an opportunity to maintain or enhance the condition of these riparian areas. Objective 217: Maintain habitat for game and fish populations in each planning unit at the state objectives in effect in The project area provides habitat for game species such as deer, elk, and wild turkey. There are no fish-bearing streams or lakes in the project area. Moderate open road density and lack of forage in forested areas currently compromise habitat values in parts of the project area for deer and elk. There is an opportunity to increase habitat values by closing roads and creating forage. Objective 218: Conserve or enhance habitat for resident and migratory non-game wildlife. Increase habitat capability for species when recommended in project-level analysis. Objective 220: Conserve or enhance habitat for federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species. Objective 221: Conserve or enhance habitat for Region 2 (R2) sensitive species and species of local concern (SOLC). Monitoring will be conducted at a Forest-wide level, not at the project level, and will be done for habitats or populations. The bald eagle is the only threatened, endangered, or proposed species known to use the general area. Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-6

15 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action This species has been observed in the project area in winter. No other threatened, endangered, or proposed species or their critical habitats are known to exist in the project area. Six animal species and one plant species listed by Region 2 of the Forest Service as sensitive have been documented in the project area. Habitats for other sensitive species, species of local concern, and management indicator species exist in the project area. There is a need to conserve or enhance habitats for these species and an opportunity to do so through thinning, fuel reduction, prescribed fire, and changes to the transportation system. Objective 230: Eradicate or limit spread (acres) of new introductions of non-native pests (insects, diseases, plants) to minimize ecosystem disruption. Objective 231: Prevent new infestations and manage to reduce established noxious weed infestations. Treat at least 8,000 acres per year during the next ten years to limit noxious weed infestations. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed activities may increase the susceptibility of the project area to invasion and spread of noxious weeds. The potential for introduction and spread of noxious weeds could be reduced by application of standard resource protection, mitigation, and monitoring measures designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate noxious weed infestations in the project area. Objective 234: Create or maintain a moderate-to-low crown fire hazard adjacent to occurrences of R2 sensitive and species of local concern plants and botanical areas bordered by continuous, dense conifer stands where long-term persistence is at risk from a single high-intensity fire. No R2 sensitive plants have been located in the project area. One occurrence of a plant species of local concern, northern hollyfern, was found during surveys. This site is located on a steep, inaccessible slope adjacent to a drainage-bottom oak stand. Crown fire hazard is currently low. Objective 238: The following are objectives for management indicator species (MIS). MIS will be monitored using trends in habitat; however, when available, population trends may be used as a strong indicator of management response. Monitoring will be conducted at a Forest scale and not at the project level. Population monitoring will be discretionary as provided by 36 CFR (f). a. Maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse, beaver, song sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, white-tailed deer and brown creeper, as outlined in specific direction pertaining to aspen, other hardwoods, riparian areas, grasslands, spruce and ponderosa pine (e.g., Objectives 201, 205, 211, 239-LVD, ). b. Maintain habitat opportunities for black-backed woodpeckers across the Forest, as outlined in specific direction pertaining to conifer habitat, snags and recently burned habitat (e.g., Objectives 211, 11-03, , Standard 2301). c. Maintain habitat for golden-crowned kinglets, as outlined in specific direction pertaining to spruce habitat (e.g., Objective 239-LVD). d. Maintain or enhance habitat quality and connectivity for mountain suckers, as outlined in specific direction pertaining to aquatic resources (e.g., Objectives 103, 104, 215, Standards 1201, 1203, 1205, Guideline 1115). Habitat for ruffed grouse, beaver, song sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, white-tailed deer, brown creeper, and black-backed woodpecker exists in the project area. There are opportunities to maintain or enhance habitat for these species as described elsewhere in this section for the objectives listed above. The project area does not provide habitat for mountain sucker or golden-crowned kinglet. Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-7

16 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action Goal 3. Provide for sustained commodity uses in an environmentally acceptable manner. Objective 303: Offer 838 million board feet (MMBF) of sawtimber and 21 million cubic feet (MMCF) of roundwood per decade [across the National Forest]. This objective applies to the entire Forest and has not yet been met for the current decade. There is a need to provide sawtimber and roundwood and an opportunity to do so through timber harvest. Goal 10. Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce the occurrences of stand-replacing fire and insect-and-disease events, and to facilitate insect-and-disease management and firefighting capability adjacent to at-risk communities, sensitive resources, and non-federal land and generally across the Forest. Objective 10-01: Manage for 50- to 75-percent moderate-to-low fire hazard in the wildland-urban interface and reduce fire hazard within proximity of structures to current NFPA standards except in Management Area (MA) 1.1 Black Elk Wilderness, MA 2.2 Research Natural Areas, MA 3.1 Botanical Areas, MA 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, and MA 5.4A Peter Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Manage the remainder of the Forest for 50 percent moderate-to-low except in MA 1.1 Black Elk Wilderness, MA 2.2 Research Natural Areas, MA 3.1 Botanical Areas, MA 3.7 Late-Successional Forest Landscapes, MA 4.2 Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, and MA 5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Objective 10-04: Reduce or otherwise treat fuels commensurate with risks (fire occurrence), hazard (fuel flammability), and land and resource values common to the area, using the criteria in Forestwide Guideline Undesirable fuel profiles exist in parts of the project area. There is a need to reduce fuel accumulation in these areas and an opportunity to do so using prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. Risk of fire occurrence is rated as moderate in the project area, and fuel flammability is considered moderate. Years of fire suppression have increased the potential for intense, large-scale crown fires. There is a need to reduce this potential in order to protect sensitive species habitat, timber values, private land, and visual quality. There are opportunities to reduce fuels and large crown fire potential through timber harvest, fuel treatments, and prescribed burning. Objective 10-07: Where outbreaks of mountain pine beetle could present risks to management objectives for ponderosa pine, reduce acreage of ponderosa-pine stands that are in medium or high risk for infestation. Since the late 1990s, several thousand acres in the Black Hills have been affected by a mountain pine beetle epidemic. There are currently many smaller pockets of beetle infestation in the Black Hills, including an area near Warren Peak in the Bear Lodge Mountains. Beetle populations have generally been increasing since the late 1990s. There are currently no large beetle infestations in the project area, although trees that have been attacked or killed by beetles can occasionally be found in most pine stands. Mountain pine beetles are native to the Black Hills, so this type of low-level, endemic occurrence is to be expected. Large-scale infestations are more likely to occur where pine stands are in the high-risk category. Risk is calculated based on average tree diameter and stand density. In the project area, 3,127 acres (33 percent of the ponderosa pine acres) are at high risk of mountain pine beetle infestation, and another 2,614 acres (27 percent of the ponderosa pine acres) are at medium Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-8

17 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action risk. There is a need to reduce the potential for loss of timber and other values to mountain pine beetles. There is an opportunity to decrease the potential for infestation by thinning dense timber stands and conducting sanitation harvest. Management Area Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives apply only to the relevant Management Area. Goal (MA 4.1 only): Manage forest cover types to provide variety in stand sizes, shape, crown closure, age structure, and interspersion. Goal (MA 5.1 only): While meeting other objectives for this management area, provide variety in stand sizes, shape, crown closure, age structure, and interspersion. Goal (MA 5.4 only): Manage tree stands for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity. Objectives , , and : Manage for the following percentages of structural stages in ponderosa pine across the management area in a variety of sizes and shapes. SS1 5% SS4A 25%* SS2 5% SS4B 25%* SS3A 10% SS4C 5%* SS3B 15% 5 5%** SS3C 5% *10% of the structural stage 4 ponderosa pine acreage in the management area will have an average tree size of very large. Seek opportunities to increase understory shrubs in open-canopy structural stages. **Active management is allowed, and may be necessary, to provide desired late-successional characteristics. These objectives apply to MAs 4.1, 5.1, and 5.4 across the Forest. There is an opportunity in the Planting project area to contribute towards meeting these objectives on a Forest-wide basis. Objective (MA 3.7 only): Manage each contiguous unit within this management area as a late-successional landscape, so that late-successional structure is always present within some portion of each unit. Designation of the Hay Creek RNA reduced MA 3.7 in the project area to 663 acres. Stands remaining in MA 3.7 consist of mature mixed pine and oak forest and open-canopy pine forest, meadows, and hardwood-dominated drainages. Objective (MA 5.4 only): Manage for an open-road density of 1 mile of road per square mile or less for general public travel from December 15 through May 15. Winter open road density in MA 5.4 in the Planting project area is currently about 1.2 miles per square mile. There is an opportunity to reduce open road density. Goal (MA 4.1 only): Emphasize non-motorized recreational opportunities. The Forest Plan prohibits off-road motorized travel in MA 4.1, and states that roads in this MA will generally be closed to motorized vehicles. Most of the roads are open in MA 4.1 in the project area, and motorized off-road travel is not restricted. There is a need to bring this area into compliance with Forest Plan direction. Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-9

18 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action Objective (MA 2.2 only): Prepare establishment records and management plans following Forest Service manual direction for selected candidate research natural areas within 3 years of Phase 2 Amendment approval. An establishment record and management plan for the Hay Creek RNA have not yet been prepared. This process will be separate from the Planting project. The Planting project proposes no activities in the RNA and would have no effect on the RNA Purpose of and Need for Action The purpose of and need for action in the project area is to reduce hazardous fuels, improve timber stand productivity, reduce risk of infestation by mountain pine beetle and other pathogens, maintain or enhance big game winter range conditions, conserve habitat for a variety of plant and animal species, reduce road-related soil and water damage, reduce the need for maintenance of the transportation system, and manage motorized access. 1.6 ISSUES This section describes the public involvement process for the Planting project EA and lists the relevant issues as determined by the project ID team Public Involvement Public involvement in this project began in October 2001 when the Planting project was listed in the Black Hills National Forest s Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. Public scoping was conducted in August Chapter 6 of this document contains a list of individuals and organizations contacted during scoping. The revised draft EA was issued for public comment on March 30, 2006 following remand of the original decision Identification of Significant Issues The ID team identified issues relating to the proposed action based on input from Forest Service resource specialists, other agencies, organizations, landowners, and members of the public. The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant (as directed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR (g) and )) and non-significant issues. The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require this delineation in Sec : identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review Significant issues are 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) not related to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. A list of non-significant issues and the reasons they were categorized as nonsignificant may be found in the project record. The Forest Service identified five significant issues raised during scoping. These issues include: 1. Effects on Biodiversity Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-10

19 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action The proposed action may affect the area s biodiversity, especially in combination with the cumulative effects of past activities such as timber harvest, road construction, and fire suppression. Indicators: Condition of habitats for threatened, endangered, proposed, sensitive, and management indicator species, and species of local concern. 2. Timber Harvest Forest management can provide raw materials for the local wood products industry. Indicators: Volumes of sawtimber and roundwood that would be produced. 3. Travel Management Decommissioning of roads and closure of roads with berms, rocks, or other barriers could decrease options for future multiple-use management and increase wildfire suppression response time. Indicators: Miles of roads open, decommissioned, and closed using gates or other means; percentage of project area land base within 0.25 mile of an accessible road. Restrictions on road use could decrease opportunities for motorized recreation but increase opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Indicators: Miles and density of open roads. Existing open roads may negatively affect plant and wildlife habitats. Indicators: Condition of habitats for species affected by open roads. 4. Fuels and Prescribed Fire High fuel loading in some parts of the project area could facilitate the spread of wildfires and increase the difficulty of suppression. Indicator: Acres and location of proposed fuel treatments. Prescribed fire can escape and cause damage if not applied wisely. Indicator: Acres and location of proposed fire treatments. Mechanical treatment followed by prescribed fire could reduce crown fire probability more than mechanical treatment alone and could enhance wildlife habitat. Indicators: Crown fire likelihood; condition of habitat for sensitive and management indicator species and species of local concern. 5. Risk of Insect Infestation Lack of thinning and other forest management could increase the risk of infestation by insects such as mountain pine beetle. Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-11

20 1.0 - Purpose of and Need for Action Indicator: Acres of ponderosa pine stands at low, medium, and high risk of beetle infestation. 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE This EA does not document a decision. The purpose of this EA is to disclose the effects and consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. The District Ranger will make decisions based on consideration of this analysis. Decisions to be made for this project are: Whether resource management activities such as fuel reduction, timber harvest, timber stand improvement, transportation system management, and associated actions should be implemented in the project area at this time. If these actions should occur, where in the project area should they take place, and what design criteria and mitigation measures should be applied? Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 1-12

21 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes the proposed action, the no action alternative, two action alternatives, and several alternatives not considered in detail. Mitigation measures, design criteria, and monitoring common to all action alternatives are also described. This chapter also compares the alternatives in terms of their environmental effects and their achievement of Forest Plan goals and objectives. 2.1 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY The project planning team developed the proposed action to meet objectives identified from a comparison of existing conditions and Forest Plan direction. Alternatives to the proposed action were developed after public scoping. The alternatives include treatments that focus on promoting hardwood regeneration, creating wildlife habitat, and varying the harvest intensity. Each of the action alternatives includes these elements. Alternative 3 addresses issues of continual activity by maximizing harvest yield and lengthening the time until the next harvest. Concerns with new roads are reflected in Alternative 4, where no new roads would be constructed. All alternatives address issues regarding big game and cavity-nesting birds, as well as sensitive or rare plants. The team also considered other alternatives to the proposed action. These were primarily generated from comments provided by the public during the scoping period. In some cases, portions of these alternatives were used in the alternatives considered in detail. Following are brief descriptions of the alternatives not considered in detail and the reasons that they were eliminated from detailed analysis. For some of these alternatives, an explanation is given for how parts of the alternative were incorporated into the alternatives considered in detail. Reduce the total acreage of stands at moderate or high risk from mountain pine beetle within the project area to 20 percent. Each of the action alternatives would reduce the total acreage of stands at moderate or high risk of mountain pine beetle infestation. Unstable soils, difficulty of access combined with low timber value, and the need to provide conditions for a variety of species limited the number of stands that could be treated. The action alternatives represent a balance between reducing mountain pine beetle risk and increased risk of adverse effects to other resources. Reduce the total acreage of stands at moderate or high risk from catastrophic wildfire within the project area to 20 percent. Each of the proposed action alternatives would reduce the total acreage of stands at moderate or high risk of catastrophic wildfire. This alternative was not fully developed for reasons similar to those listed above for the mountain pine beetle alternative. Perform meaningful management in MA 3.7. Under each of the action alternatives, prescribed fire would be used in part of MA 3.7 to help meet the management objectives of this area. In addition, a short road segment that is currently closed and gated would be decommissioned. Additional commercial and non-commercial treatments are not needed at this time to allow management of this area as a late-successional landscape. Manage at least 20 percent of the planning unit for forage production, per Forestwide objective This objective was replaced by objective under the Phase 2 Amendment. Within MA 5.4 in the project area, 19 percent of NFS lands are in the grass/forb structural stage. Treatments proposed under alternative 4 would increase the proportion of MA 5.4 in grass/forb structural stage. Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 2-1

22 2.0 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Vary tree densities within stands on up to 20 percent of the area to create small-scale diversity, per Forestwide objective This objective was deleted under the Phase 2 Amendment. Stand density varies across the project area and each of the action alternatives would increase this diversity. Use professional judgment to balance the thermal cover, hiding/screening cover, and forage components of habitat effectiveness, as discussed in guidelines and These guidelines were replaced by objective under the Phase 2 Amendment. The effects analysis will examine habitat values for deer and elk achieved by implementing each of the alternatives. These values will be one of many factors used by the District Ranger in selecting an alternative to implement. Maintain sufficient road infrastructure to support recreational use, adequate response to wildfires, and future access needs. The roads analysis considered each of these factors in recommending the road management scheme that would be used under each action alternative. Do not harvest or thin any stands of structural stage 4B or 4C. Within the project area, 72 percent of the ponderosa pine stands are in structural stage 4B or 4C (mature with moderate to high density). Treatment of some 4B and 4C stands is necessary to achieve the primary goals of this project (reduction of fire and insect infestation risk). The commenting party gave no specific reasons why study of this alternative should be considered or is appropriate for the Planting project area. The responsible official is unaware of project-specific reasons or issues that would justify study of this alternative in detail and has elected not to do so. Address fragmentation concerns on the BHNF. Fragmentation is most appropriately addressed at the landscape scale, not at the project scale. Given the project s location at the forest/prairie ecotone, the existing forest condition of interspersed openings and a variety of structure is probably within the range of natural variability. Historic forest structure in the Black Hills is discussed further in the FEIS for the Phase 2 Amendment (pp. III-4 and III-5). Retain large-diameter trees that are more resistant to fire by not using overstory removal treatments. Improving resistance of stands to fire by altering potential fire behavior is part of the purpose and need for the proposed action. Overstory removal, which harvests larger-diameter trees, is one of many available silvicultural methods and may be used in stands where timber production is emphasized and release of the regenerated stand is the preferred option for treatment. Precommercial thinning of pine seedlings and saplings would follow overstory removal. Commercial thinning treatments prescribed under all action alternatives would retain the largest trees and increase stand resistance to fire, especially when followed by prescribed burning. Do not harvest trees more than 10 inches in diameter. Sawtimber usually consists of trees over 9 inches DBH. Limiting harvest of sawtimber to trees between 9 and 10 inches DBH would make any resulting timber sale unprofitable for potential purchasers and/or physically impossible to implement. Most stands in the project area include a mix of trees of various diameters. The cost of mobilizing logging equipment and construction or maintenance of access to cut only the scattered trees between 9 and 10 inches would outweigh the value of the extracted trees in most situations. Also, cutting only these trees would not accomplish most the objectives of taking action in the project area. Objectives focus on making a sizable reduction in fire hazard and mountain pine beetle risk. Silviculture and fuel specialists proposed the actions described in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 to achieve these ends. Selecting scattered trees across the project area strictly based on their diameter, regardless of overall stand conditions, would not accomplish objectives or compose a coherent approach to landscape-level forest Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 2-2

23 2.0 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action management. Cutting only trees less than 9 inches DBH is proposed under all action alternatives in stands proposed for precommercial thinning, products-other-than-logs thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments. There is a limited market for small-diameter material. Due to the lack of market, small trees are usually cut and piled, chipped, and/or burned under service contracts rather than sold as part of commercial timber sales. Decommission the maximum number of roads. The roads analysis report considered road decommissioning as one possible treatment for roads. Each action alternative includes a component of road decommissioning. Other roads would not be decommissioned because they support current or future access needs. Designate all MA 5.1 areas within the project area as MA 4.1. The primary difference between the current designation of MA 5.1 and MA 4.1 is travel management. Changing MA 5.1 areas to MA 4.1 would essentially prohibit on- and off-road motorized travel, except for administrative uses and on designated open routes. Currently, most roads in MA 5.1 are closed to motorized use. Therefore, this change in MA designation would primarily affect off-road motorized use, which is currently causing little resource damage in MA 5.1. Changing MA designation would have little effect on resources in the project area. Finally, MA allocation was determined during Forest Plan revision. In the absence of a clear reason for a change of this magnitude, the decision maker elected not to fully analyze this alternative. The ongoing Forest-wide travel management assessment is expected to address motorized travel issues at a broader scale. Designate all stands of structural stage 4C as MA 3.7. The intent of MA 3.7 is to manage a landscape-sized area featuring stands with late successional forest structure. The part of the project area already designated as MA 3.7 is composed mainly of late successional pine stands. Designating all structural stage 4C stands as MA 3.7 would not meet the intent of this management area because 4C stands are intermixed with openings and other forest stands in a variety of conditions. In addition, MA allocation was determined during Forest Plan revision; in the absence of a clear reason for a change of this magnitude, the decision maker elected not to fully analyze this alternative. Conduct only road decommissioning and closure, but no timber harvesting, thinning, or other vegetation treatments. Road decommissioning and closure would meet a portion of the purpose of and need for the proposed action, such as contributing towards maintaining or enhancing big game winter range conditions, conserving habitat for a variety of plant and animal species, reducing roadrelated soil and water damage, reducing the need for maintenance of the transportation system, and managing motorized access. However, this alternative would not reduce hazardous fuels, improve timber stand productivity, produce timber, increase diversity of forest structure, or reduce risk of infestation by mountain pine beetle and other pathogens. Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 2-3

24 2.0 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES This section describes the alternatives considered in detail. Table 2-1 summarizes and compares the activities proposed under each alternative. Table 2-1. Proposed Actions by Alternative Commercial Harvest Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Commercial thinning (acres) Commercial thinning/pol 1 thinning (acres) Overstory removal (acres) Overstory removal/shelterwood seedcut (acres) Shelterwood seedcut (acres) POL thinning (acres) Patch cut (acres) Total commercial harvest (acres) 0 2,061 3,206 1,667 Non-commercial Treatment Precommercial thinning (acres) 0 1,234 1, Cut pine encroachment (acres) Hardwood release (acres) Total non-commercial treatments (acres) 0 1,556 1,674 1,341 Fuel Treatments Mechanical fuel treatment (acres) 0 1,283 1,283 1,149 Prescribed fire after mechanical treatment (ac) Prescribed fire alone (acres) 0 2,750 2,446 2,458 Transportation System Road construction (new) (miles) Road construction convert unclassified to NFS road (miles) Road reconstruction (miles) Pre-use maintenance (miles) Decommission unclassified road (miles) Decommission NFS road (miles) Closed year-round (gated) (miles) Closed seasonally (gated) (miles) Stored (miles) Open year-round (miles) Open to off-road motorized travel (acres) 14,603 12,327 12,327 10,871 1 POL: Products Other than Logs Planting Final Revised Environmental Assessment 2-4