BLOCKHOUSE PROJECT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service August 2014 BLOCKHOUSE PROJECT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HURON MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS MIO RANGER DISTRICT OSCODA AND ALCONA COUNTIES, MICHIGAN Township 26N, Range 4E, Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12 Township 27N, Range 4E, Sections 25, 26, 34, and 35 Township 26N, Range 5E, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, and 17 Township 27N, Range 5E, Section 31 Decision and Reasons for the Decision This notice documents my decision and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Blockhouse Project located on the Mio Ranger District of the Huron Manistee National Forests. I have reviewed the analysis presented in the Blockhouse Environmental Assessment (EA) and the supporting documentation. I am satisfied that the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) conducted a thorough analysis of the three alternatives. In addition to applying standards and guidelines from the Huron Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan as amended January 2012 (Forest Plan), the IDT carefully considered and applied site specific project design features and Best Management Practices developed by the State of Michigan. The IDT has effectively involved the public and carefully considered and responded to their comments. Purpose of Project The Blockhouse Project is designed to move the area towards the desired future condition set forth in the Forest Plan by meeting the goals and objectives for specific Management Areas (MA) 4.2, 4.2KW, and 9.1. The Mio District determined the need to: 1. Reduce fuel loading to protect public and firefighter safety. (FP II 3, III 4.2 2) 1

2 2. Create breeding habitat for the federally endangered Kirtland s warbler. (FP II 4, III 4.2 2) 3. Remove Kirtland s warbler essential habitat designation from lands that do not meet habitat requirements for the species. 4. Produce a diverse mix of timber products. (FP II 3, III 4.2 2) 5. Create and maintain early successional habitat. (FP II 4, III 4.2 2) 6. Reduce non native invasive species and prevent new invasive species from becoming established. (FP II 4) 7. Close Forest Road 4866 due to impacts to wetland areas (FP II 39) Objectives (Need) for the Blockhouse Project The objectives of the Blockhouse Project are to: Reduce life threatening and property damaging wildfire potential. (Objective 1) Create breeding habitat for the federally endangered Kirtland s warbler. (Objective 2) Produce a diverse mix of timber products. Move the project area towards the desired future condition set forth in the forest Plan, particularly in regards to vegetative composition. (Objective 3) Create and maintain early successional habitat. (Objective 4) Reduce non native invasive species (NNIS) and prevent new invasive species from becoming established. (Objective 5) Eliminate adverse impacts to a wetland by closing Forest Road (Objective 6) The Blockhouse Project s EA documents the analysis of three alternatives to meet the listed objectives. The EA clearly describes the frequency of life threatening and property damaging wildfires on the Mio Ranger District and the need to treat hazardous fuel loading around developed areas. The EA documents the need for creation of early successional habitat including regenerating jack pine for the endangered Kirtland s warbler as well as other game and non game species. The Kirtland s warbler s survival is dependent on management actions such as clearcutting with planting or prescribed fire to provide suitable habitat. Management of timber stands with rotation age based on the Forest Plan is necessary to maintain timber stand age class diversity and produce timber products. The EA also describes the need to close Forest Road 4866 to protect wetland areas and reduce NNIS populations. Decision Based on the EA and in accordance with the direction provided in the Forest Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan (2006), it is my decision to implement Alternative 3 as follows: 1. Create and maintain approximately 116 acres of permanent fuelbreaks adjacent to private property through timber harvest, mechanical or manual cutting, and prescribed burning. Approximately 41 fewer acres would be treated than what is in Alternative 2 because the fuelbreak of 300 feet around Armstrong subdivision would not be created. 2

3 2. Thin approximately 33 acres of jack pine within 300 feet of the Armstrong Subdivision, and within 200 feet of Forest Road 4568, rather than creating a permanent fuelbreak as proposed in Alternative 2 (EA, Figure 11). Approximately 8 acres northeast of the subdivision would not be treated because of the presence of aspen, oak and other hardwood vegetation. This vegetation exhibits lower intensity fire behavior compared to jack and red pine forest types. 3. Create a 5 acre shaded fuelbreak along the east side of the private land in the NE 1/4 of section 4. The shaded fuelbreak would be approximately 100 feet wide by 2140 feet long (EA, Figure 12) 4. Create approximately 118 acres of Kirtland s warbler breeding habitat through clearcutting and planting. This is a reduction of 5 acres from Alternative 2 because of the shaded fuelbreak described in Item 3 above. 5. Create approximately 125 acres of temporary fuelbreaks to be utilized as control areas for prescribed burning and would then be planted with jack pine to create Kirtland s warbler breeding habitat. 6. Remove ladder fuels on approximately 5 acres to reduce fire behavior potential from adjacent proposed prescribed fire. 7. Conduct prescribed burning, with low to moderate intensity fire on approximately 2,610 acres to restore fire into fire adapted ecosystem, reduce fuel loading, stimulate oak regeneration, and maintain fuelbreaks and wildlife openings. The maximum manageable area (MMA) for these prescribed burns is 5,373 acres. 8. Create approximately 1,001 acres of Kirtland s warbler breeding habitat through the use of high intensity prescribed fire to naturally regenerate jack pine and restore fire into a fire adapted ecosystem. The maximum manageable area (MMA) for these prescribed burns is 5,373 acres. 9. Remove approximately 309 acres from designation as Kirtland s warbler essential habitat. Field review of these areas indicates they are not ecologically suited for the development of breeding habitat. 10. Thin approximately 1,002 acres of oak and pine oak forests to promote oak regeneration, growth of the residual stand, produce timber products, and improve wildlife habitat. 11. Thin approximately 168 acres of red pine to improve growth of the remaining trees, provide timber products, reduce hazardous fuels, and improve wildlife habitat. 3

4 12. Create and maintain approximately 372 acres of forest openings to provide early successional wildlife habitat and provide for species viability needs. Treatments would include cutting encroaching vegetation by mechanical or manual means, commercial harvest, and/or prescribed burning. Treatments would be repeated as needed to achieve desired management objectives. 13. Close and rehabilitate 1.5 miles of Forest Road 4866 to repair and eliminate further resource damage. FR 4866 would remain open to a point approximately 0.4 miles east of the T intersection with FR 4013 and FR 4867 to retain hunter access. The section of the road through the wetland would be decommissioned. The remainder of FR 4866 and unclassified road to the north would be closed and classified as Level 1 roads. The unclassified dead end road to the south of FR 4866 would be decommissioned (EA, Figure 13). 14. Control or eradicate non native invasive plant species (NNIS) within the treatment areas where necessary, and as funding permits. Treatments would not exceed 200 acres per year. NNIS would be treated by hand spraying herbicides, introducing approved biological controls, hand pulling, cutting with a chainsaw, tilling, planting native vegetation, or using other mechanical and/or manual means. Locations of project areas are displayed in Figures 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Blockhouse EA. The actions in this alternative would be implemented through a combination of timber sales, service contracts, and by agency personnel. Specific design criteria have been identified to address resource concerns. Design Criteria The following design criteria would be applied to Alternative 3: Wildlife Protection Measures General Regional Forester s Sensitive Species (RFSS) will be protected within all project areas to the greatest extent possible. New sensitive species locations discovered within a project area may result in all actions being delayed or interrupted within the area. The appropriate district wildlife biologist or botanist will be consulted to determine effects of the action on the species. A Supplemental Information Report (SIR) to the Biological Evaluation may be prepared and would include recommendations regarding protection of the species. The SIR may include modification of the action(s). 4

5 Bald Eagle Prescribed burning between February 1 and July 15 would not be conducted when weather conditions would carry smoke into an active bald eagle nest area. This conservation measure would be included in prescribed burn plans created as a result of this EA. Kirtland s Warbler Where Kirtland s warblers are found to be actively nesting within ¼ mile of any stand proposed for timber harvest and/or prescribed burning, harvest and/or burning activities in that stand would only be permitted between August 16th and April 30th. Herbicide application in occupied habitat would only be permitted between August 16th and April 30th. Northern Goshawk and Red Shouldered Hawk The following design criteria for northern goshawk and red shouldered hawk apply to all actions (USDA Forest Service 1993): Management actions, such as timber harvest or thinning, would be prohibited within 645 feet of an active northern goshawk or red shouldered hawk nest (Nest Protection Area) at all times. Minimal human presence would occur in active nest areas during the nesting season, from March 1st to August 31st. Prescribed burns that would include all or portions of the Nest Protection Area would be prohibited during the critical nesting season, from March 1st to August 31st. Burns outside of this period would be of low intensity to protect nesting habitat integrity. Management actions would not reduce crown closure below 60% within 300 feet of the Nest Protection Area. Timber harvest would be prohibited within approximately 0.5 miles of the nest (a.k.a. Postfledging Area) from March 1st through August 31st. Activities that involve minimal human presence, such as timber marking, would be permitted within the Post fledging Area during this period [See Nest Protection Area measures above]. Dusted Skipper Any treatments that create dusted skipper habitat would be monitored to detect colonization by dusted skippers prior to additional activities such as prescribed fire, mechanical maintenance, or herbicide treatments. If a site becomes occupied, biologists will develop a site specific plan to manage habitat while minimizing impacts on local populations. 5

6 Plant Protection Measures Heavy equipment will be excluded from an area within 10 feet of marked Hill s thistle, and any other RFSS plant locations as they are discovered within the Project Area, unless specified otherwise by district botanist. Alleghany plum, which is not an RFSS, will be identified and avoided whenever possible during implementation of project activities. These RFSS plants will also be protected from ground disturbing activities (temporary roads, landings, skid trails, furrowing, fire line creation, etc.). Measures to Prevent the Spread of Non Native Invasive Species (NNIS) Off road equipment such as logging equipment, OHV s, and fire plows will be cleaned of seeds, soil, vegetative matter and other debris that could hold NNIS seeds and/or propagules. Contractor s off road equipment will be inspected by a Forest Service representative to prevent NNIS introduction or spread in the project areas. Timber landings, skid trails and plow lines will be placed and rehabilitated in a way that limits the spread of existing non native invasive species from roads, trails, or power line corridors into stand interiors. Landings, skid trails and plow lines will be closed and rehabilitated after they are no longer needed. Where needed, infestations adjacent to timber harvest will be treated with the most appropriate herbicide immediately prior to the production of NNIS seed during the growing season preceding timber harvest and/or replanting activities. NNIS Treatment Protection Measures Treatment of NNIS in the Project Area will be consistent with the Huron Zone NNIS Treatment Protocol, to assume the least risk and incidental environmental effects when treating for NNIS. All herbicide application will be done in accordance with label direction (FSH , 52.11) and the specifications in the Forest Service Manual 2150, Pesticide Use Management and Coordination (USDA Forest Service 1994), and in the Forest Service Handbook , Pesticide Use Management and Coordination Handbook (USDA Forest Service 1994). Also, compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations regarding herbicide use would be followed. Herbicide application would be conducted and/or overseen by certified personnel (FSM ). Monitoring would occur on a daily basis during periods of herbicide application to assume the least risk and incidental environmental effects when treating for NNIS. 6

7 Cultural Resources Protection Measures All cultural resource sites will be protected by avoiding ground disturbance treatments at the site(s) or reserve area(s), either through sale design alteration, or through designation of a buffered reserve area. For cultural resource sites, a buffered Reserve Area will include at least a 30 meter (100 feet) buffer or other area determined by a Forest Service archaeologist which will be adequate in size to protect the site. There are 10 cultural resource sites located within the Area of Proposed Effect (APE). Specific protection measures are as follows: Utilize a Forest Service Archeologist or Para archeologist to identify cultural resource(s) for avoidance by establishing (flagging) a 30 meter Reserve Area around features. Keep all mechanical equipment and vehicles out of Reserve Area to eliminate ground compaction and accidental structural damage to features. Avoid establishing fire control line within buffered cultural resource boundary. Do not broadcast burn the sites. No pile burning allowed within buffered cultural resource boundary. Do not cut, drag, or otherwise remove timber from within the identified cultural resource boundary with mechanical equipment. Do not construct traps, berms, blockades, drainage trenches, or other ground disturbances within the identified cultural resource buffer. With archeologist consultation/presence, clear deadfall and brush off cultural resource by hand and scatter outside of cultural resource buffered boundary. The use of pick up trucks is allowed, only within the existing roadbeds. Any cultural resource sites found during implementation of the project will be reported immediately to a Forest Service Archaeologist and work will stop in the area. Project work will not be allowed to resume until the cultural resources have been documented, the sites are preserved from any potential impacts, and required consultation is completed. Vegetation Management Aspen To maximize aspen sprouting, timber harvest activities will be conducted during dormant season from September 30 May 1 in stands that are being managed for aspen. 7

8 Oak In stands that are being managed for oak, timber harvest is prohibited from April 15 to July 1 to prevent oak wilt. This includes fireline construction which would require cutting of oak or potential damage to oak tree boles or roots. Logging Slash Measures Slash in harvested red pine stands prescribed for underburning will be treated by the contractor to lie within 24 inches of the ground and kept away from the boles of residual trees to facilitate burning and minimize damage. Slash will be treated according to Forest Plan guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2006). Healthy Forest Protection Measures Underburning in red pine stands will be prohibited from May 1 to July 15 to reduce the stress on the red pine during the period of active bud growth and leader development. In lands that are designated as Land Suitability Class (LSC) 500, B level stocking or higher will be maintained throughout the burning cycles in live trees of desirable or acceptable commercial species (excludes rough, culls, and dead trees). If stocking falls below B level, burning and harvesting will be postponed until stand recovers to B level. Information regarding stand density and stocking levels can be referenced in the Revised Managers Handbook for Red Pine in the North Central Region (Gilmore and Palik 2006). Acceptable mortality, including post mortality caused from prescribed burning in red pine plantations should not exceed 5%. Recreation Protection Measures The following measures apply to the proposed treatments that would cause noise near trails and communities, affect public safety, visitor comfort, or cause impacts to recreation infrastructure: Post signs at all trailheads that the trail/road system will be temporarily closed. Be on the lookout for trail/road system users and verbally inform them of closure. Cut lower limbs off trees next to signs. Trim vegetation or wet line/treat around all signposts on the trail/road system to prevent loss and/or damage. Minimize fireline construction. Mowing is acceptable; avoid creating furrows or using equipment that would damage trail/road surface. Rehabilitate the area as soon as possible after the burn activity to reopen the trail/road system to the public. Snags created by the burn activity will be monitored and/or felled to protect public safety. 8

9 When possible, avoid implementation activities on busy weekends, holidays and other known high use forest visitor periods. Refer to Blockhouse EA Visual Report for guidance along scenic viewsheds. Visual Protection Measures Schedule treatments to appropriately disperse visual impacts spatially in the landscape and over time. Where possible, minimize cut stump and slash heights. Locate burn piles out of foreground views along travel routes used regularly for scenic viewing by travelers. Where feasible, locate temporary roads on existing roadbeds to minimize new ground disturbances, and locate temporary access routes (i.e. skid trails), landings or staging areas beyond foreground views near residential areas and trails, and beyond views of major travel routes (i.e. F 32 and Aspen Alley). Prevent post treatment establishment of user created routes within treatment areas by closing and rehabilitating temporary access routes. Along roads regularly used for scenic viewing use aesthetically pleasing barriers (i.e. rustic wood rail fence or native vegetation). Rehabilitate impacted areas at completion of project. Provide cover (i.e. logging slash or seed) for landings, temporary roads, or other cleared areas to blend these areas visually into the surrounding landscape. Perpetuate desired scenic integrity by creating scenic viewing opportunities from or within expansive fuel breaks and large cleared areas. For example: take advantage of hilly terrain to compensate for the removal of vegetation; a dip in a roadway or trailway may have less remaining vegetation than at the crest of the hill; plan a section of an opening for the high point of a road to provide for panoramic or distant scenery views; leave random hardwood trees or shrubbery at variable densities or spaciously scattered within a fuel break to provide a park like/shade tree setting; retain a vortex strip of small and large trees within the foreground to hinder viewing a large opening all at once; create irregular spacing and clumping distribution between trees and groups of trees within foreground views; edge line of clearings would be curved instead of straight; prescribed surface fires would be managed to reduce scorching of trees within the foreground views, as well as retain the established pattern of selected vegetation following biomass removal activities; where possible, retain a few large non hazardous snags per acre, this enhances natural scenery characteristics valued for viewing wildlife; distance between retained vegetation would be based on fuel specialists prescription required to enforce ample wildfire protection for the community and provide for firefighter safety. 9

10 Road and Trail System Resource Protection Measures Non system (user developed) motorized travel routes and natural areas damaged by the illegal Off road vehicle (ORV) use known or discovered during the implementation of this project will be closed and/or obliterated. These non system travel routes will be left to naturally rehabilitate; or rehabilitation will be enhanced by seeding or planting of trees and grass. Open pit areas that are no longer useful and sparsely vegetated and appear to historically incur random illegal dumping will be cleaned up, closed and rehabilitated. Soil and water restoration Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be applied for rehabilitation work. Timber or prescribed fire operations and other vegetation treatments impacting or using designated roads or recreational trails will post the designated travel route closed at either end of the effected section and at any intersection prior to that location. Timber or prescribed fire operations and other vegetation treatments that are not using a designated route for access, but are crossing the road or trail will post signs warning of localized area operation activity 350 feet on either side of the affected travel route. Logging equipment crossing a Forest road or trail must have the crossings spaced 660 feet apart and adequately signed to warn road or trail users. Roads and trails will be graded or stabilized and returned to Forest Service standards, if needed, after timber or prescribed fire operations and other vegetation treatments are completed and prior to re opening the designated travel route. Travel routes, designated open for public use, will be kept clear of equipment and maintained for motorized vehicle/public use. No timber hauling operations will be permitted during weekend hours (5:30 pm Friday to 12:00 am Monday) on motorized National Forest roads or trails designated open for public use. No use of ATV or snowmobile trails will be permitted from December 1 through March 31, accept in rare circumstances requiring winter harvesting operations. Non permitted system or non system Forest Service motorized travel routes within the project area that are needed for access to private in holdings will be addressed on a case by case basis, and may require a Special Use Authorization (SUA). Reasons for the Decision My decision to implement Alternative 3 is based on its effectiveness in achieving the stated purpose and objectives for the project (EA, Chapters 1.4 and 1.5) and addressing public concerns. Alternative 3 represents a site specific application of the goals of Management Areas (MA) 4.2, 4.2KW, and 9.1 as described in the Forest Plan (Chapters III 4.2 and III 9.1). Detailed responses to comments made during the project planning period can be found in the Blockhouse Project Record. In evaluating the effects of the alternatives as stated in Chapter 3 of the EA, it is my judgment that Alternative 3 is most effective in achieving the stated purpose and need for action for the following reasons: 10

11 1. Reduce life threatening and property damaging wildfire potential: The EA demonstrates the need for fuels management within the project area to protect life and property. Residents concerns for impacts to existing visual aesthetics were clearly voiced and heard in regards to the fuelbreak around the Armstrong subdivision. Alternative 3 was developed to try to provide the best compromise between retaining as much forested condition around the subdivision, while still providing significantly improved defensible space for evacuation and fire protection. In 2013, 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots were killed fighting a wildfire threatening a town in Arizona. This tragedy highlights the need for defending both the people and places we care about, knowing they will be threatened by wildfire at some point in the future. Alternative 3 creates that defensible space, but does not provide the highest level of fuels reduction that Alternative 2 would have provided for the Armstrong subdivision. However, numerous residents have expressed they are aware of the risks presented by a wildfire and accepted those risks when purchasing property in this area. Alternative 1, no action, does not provide fuels reduction and does not meet the objective. Failure to act to manage these fuels is equivalent to transferring maximum risk to emergency responders and citizens from a safety and property loss standpoint. I consider Alternative 1 an unsafe and unacceptable alternative in the long term. 2. Create breeding habitat for the federally endangered Kirtland s warbler: Creation of breeding habitat through timber harvest and planting over the past 50+ years has been essential to the recovery of the Kirtland s warbler. The success of this program primarily on state and federal lands has brought the population back to record high levels. The amount of timber harvested over those decades has reduced the amount of merchantable timber for future harvests. Use of prescribed fire to directly regenerate jack pine and create habitat has not been attempted in recent history on the Huron National Forest, primarily due to safety concerns with controlling the high intensity fire needed to regenerate jack pine. The successful implementation of the Maple Ridge prescribed fire on the Mio District recently demonstrated that this treatment can be safely implemented, even within the wildland urban interface. Maple Ridge was a high intensity jack pine regeneration prescribed fire immediately adjacent to the Mack Lake subdivision with objectives to reduce crown fuel loading and create KW breeding habitat. Jack pine has been shown to successfully regenerate after only 20 years of growth. Burning areas of jack pine on a 30+ year rotation will double the amount of habitat created per acre over time as compared to harvesting when timber stands are 60 years old. Use of prescribed fire in certain areas where the fire can be controlled will allow other jack pine stands, where timber harvest is the appropriate treatment, to mature and provide higher quality, merchantable timber. This will produce more revenue from stands that are harvested and reduce planting costs due to the natural regeneration from prescribed fires 11

12 The use of prescribed fire also eliminates almost all soil disturbance from site preparation for planting, retains most of the forest s biomass on site compared to extracting through harvest, and provides the early successional habitat that many species require. Timber harvest does not provide these ecological benefits to the extent a prescribed fire can. The east unit high intensity prescribed burn, area (EA, Figure 8) in the Blockhouse Project is 603 acres. This exceeds 550 acres and requires Regional Office review under the Forest Plan as amended. The larger size of the prescribed burn was selected to make control of the high intensity fire behavior more manageable by bringing the project boundary to natural and manmade control features. The north and west boundary of this burn unit is along a topographical, vegetation type, and fire regime (FR) change (EA, Figure 20) which will greatly reduce fire behavior and spread potential. Vegetation changes from jack pine to hardwoods including oak and aspen forest and the fuel model changes from Fuel Model 4 to Fuel Model 9. Fire Regime changes from FR1 to FR3 (EA, Figure 20). The northwest boundary of the unit is Blockhouse Swamp which also provides significantly reduced fire behavior and spread potential of the prescribed burn, shown as FR3W (EA, Figure 20). The southern boundary of this unit is McKinley Road, which is the most efficient control feature to utilize for the treatment boundary. Because of the intense surface fire behavior and short range spotting, attempts to limit the size of the treatment to 550 acres would not have been efficient and would have a lower probability of success, likely leading to the use of these natural or manmade features to hold the fire. The use of natural and manmade control features reduces the need to construct fuelbreaks and reduces project expense significantly for preparation, implementation, and administration. The Eastern Regional Office has reviewed this project and given approval to exceed the 550 acre limit for creation of Kirtland s warbler habitat. Alternative 1, no action, does not provide fuels reduction and does not meet the objective. Failure to act to manage these fuels is equivalent to transferring maximum risk to emergency responders and citizens from a safety and property loss standpoint. I consider Alternative 1 an unsafe and unacceptable alternative in the long term. Alternative 3 creates Kirtland s warbler habitat in the most ecologically sound and cost effective manner, while providing the fire control features that will provide for safe implementation. Alternative 2 is equivalent in meeting this objective but is not optimum in meeting other stated project objectives. Alternative 1 does not meet this objective and could have a negative cumulative effect on the amount of habitat available for the Kirtland s warbler. 3. Provide a diverse mix of timber products: Both Alternatives 2 and 3 meet the management direction for MA 4.2 of providing high volumes of timber products (Forest Plan, page III 4.2 2). Alternative 2 would generate an estimated 17,214 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of timber; Alternative 3 will generate slightly less timber 17,045 CCF, due to 12

13 the changes made in fuelbreak creation (EA, Table 39). Alternative 1 (No Action) would provide no timber products for the local economy. 4. Maintain and Improve Wildlife Habitat, Including Early Successional Habitat. Provide for Species Viability Needs: Alternatives 2 and 3 provide improvements for wildlife habitat through the various vegetative treatments analyzed in the EA. Both action alternatives meet the forestwide goal of improving wildlife habitat particularly in regards to maintaining and creating early successional habitat. Thus, Alternative 3 has an overall positive benefit to wildlife, with some insignificant short term negative effects to some wildlife species. Alternative 1 does not provide any early successional habitat in any Forest or vegetation type. This alternative does not meet the objective of improving wildlife habitat above current conditions and does not meet Forest Plan direction in regards to creating or maintaining wildlife habitat within the project area. Mid to late successional habitat would continue to increase, further reducing habitat availability for species that are dependent on early successional habitat. 5. Reduce non native species and prevent new invasive species from becoming established: Proper identification and treatment of NNIS is critical to maintaining overall ecological health with in the project area. 6. Eliminate adverse impacts to a wetland by closing Forest Road 4866: Alternative 3 was selected as it provides the maximum amount of public access to the area, while continuing to protect wetland areas where road construction is not suitable for the soil types. Closure of the road through areas with wetland soils, while retaining vehicle access for recreation and future forest management activities is the best alternative. Alternative 1 would have allowed resource damage to continue along the length Forest Road Alternative 2 would have closed approximately.5 miles of road that was not impacting wetland areas and is being used by the public for camping and other recreation activities. In developing the EA, DN, and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), I recognize that less than complete knowledge exists about many relationships and conditions of wildlife, fish, forests, jobs, and communities. The ecology, inventory, and management of a large forest area are complex and constantly developing sciences. The biology of wildlife species prompts questions about population dynamics and habitat relationships. The interaction between resource supply, the economy, and communities is not an exact science. Perfect knowledge and absolute guarantees are not attainable, no matter how much we wish it to be otherwise. As required by 36 CFR , I have considered the best available science in making this decision. The project record demonstrates a thorough review of relevant scientific information, consideration of responsible opposing views, and, where appropriate, the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. 13

14 The management actions in Alternative 3 are routine and have been continuously analyzed and successfully implemented for many decades on the Huron National Forest. Numerous environmental assessments have been conducted for similar projects on the Forest. Examples specific to the Mio District include the Big Chase, Lost Creek, and F 32 projects. Based on analysis of the current project and many previous projects it is my decision to implement Alternative 3 to achieve the stated objectives of the project. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two other alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2). Alternative 1: Deferred Harvest (Baseline Condition) Vegetation and wildlife management would be deferred. No timber commodities would be produced. Routine use and maintenance of roads, trails, and other facilities in the project areas would continue. Current uses of the area would continue until such uses were prohibited by changes in environmental conditions. Alternative 2: Proposed Action This alternative is identical to Alternative 3 except minor variations in fuelbreak construction and road closure mileage. Alternative 2 would construct 41 more acres of fuelbreaks, create 5 more acres of KW habitat through clearcutting and planting, close an additional.5 miles of Forest Road 4866, and thin 33 acres less, as compared to Alternative 3 (EA, pages 47 48) Public Involvement A thirty day initial public scoping for the Blockhouse Project was initiated December 13, Notice was published in the December 19, 2012 edition of the Oscoda County Herald, posted on the Huron Manistee National Forests website and on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), and 270 letters were mailed to interested parties. Letters were mailed to the Forests standard mailing list for parties interested in proposed project. In addition, a tax record search was conducted for property owners immediately adjacent or near the proposed projects. Scoping letters were mailed to those property owners. A public meeting was held for the Blockhouse Project at the Mio Ranger Station on January 9, Twenty four people attended the meeting. Several informational inquiries were received throughout the scoping period and at the public meeting. These included s, telephone calls, and in person meetings to clarify the proposed activities and to ask about anticipated implementation timelines. Informational requests were responded to in the same form as they were received (i.e. inquiry was addressed by response). A complete discussion of the issues studied for this project can be found in Chapter 1.8 of the EA. On February 26, 2014 the Blockhouse EA was made available for a 30 day comment period. Letters along with the EA were sent to individuals and organizations on the District s and 14

15 Forests mailing list, NGOs, Tribes, and other parties known to have an interest in this project. The EA was also posted on the internet. Three comments were received. One was a general project inquiry and two comments were supportive of the project. All documentation related to the public involvement process can be found in the Blockhouse Project Planning Record. In making this decision, I have taken into account public concerns and comments about the proposed project. I have evaluated the adequacy of the issue resolution, in the EA, determining design criteria, and evaluating the effects of alternatives. I also took into consideration the disposition of issues raised during the scoping and comment periods, which is found in Chapter 1.8 of the EA. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) I have reviewed the significance criteria of both context and intensity as defined by 40 CFR After considering the environmental effects described in the EA along with past experience with similar forest management activities, and in accordance with 40 CFR , I have determined that implementation of Alternative 3 is not a major federal action and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts. My determination is based on a review of the project record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. This determination was based on the following factors: Context of Effects This project, and the environmental assessment on which it is based, applies only to the area in which it is located. The context for this Decision Notice is only within the aforementioned project area within the Huron Manistee National Forests. Neither the effects analysis nor this Decision Notice applies to decisions that may be made elsewhere, either Regionally or Nationally. After a thorough review of the effects analysis contained in the EA, I can find no basis for concluding that this project has significance (both short term and long term) beyond the bounds of the Huron Manistee National Forests. The reasons for my conclusions are more specifically described in the paragraphs that follow. Intensity of Effects This refers to the severity of impact, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR The following ten factors are considered in evaluating intensity: 1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered in the analysis. The beneficial impacts will outweigh expected short term, adverse impacts. 15

16 The selected alternative achieves the project need and objectives outlined in Chapters 1.4 and 1.5. Design criteria will be implemented to minimize or eliminate potential effects of proposed activities. Implementing Alternative 3 will not have a significant effect on the quality of the environment (EA, Chapter 3). My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. The EA demonstrates that the effects of this alternative are relatively minor and impacts generated are not directly, indirectly or cumulatively significant. 2. Public health and safety are minimally affected by the proposed actions. The EA lists project design criteria for the proposed activities. Design criteria are intended to minimize or eliminate potential impacts from proposed activities. Alternative 3 will not significantly impact public health and safety. Alternative 3 greatly reduces long term safety risk to the public and emergency responders of high intensity jack pine fires by using prescribed fire and clearcutting to manage fuel loading. 3. The project is not expected to impact any unique geographic area. Design criteria will be implemented to minimize or eliminate potential effects of proposed activities. Alternative 3 will not affect any unique characteristics of the geographical area (EA, Chapter 3). 4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. The project treatments are standard management activities and are not considered technologically controversial. There has been public interest in this project and Alternative 3 was developed to address specific public concerns that were raised during initial scoping efforts. Of the three comments that were received during the 30 day comment period for the Blockhouse Project, one was a general inquiry and two were supportive of the project. Based on the level of response, I have determined that the effects on the quality of the human environment from this project are not highly controversial. 5. There are no known effects that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Huron Manistee National Forests and the Mio District have considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented in this project. The Mio Ranger District has successfully carried out prescribed activities in many similar projects for decades. The treatments are routine and proven to be highly effective especially in regards to timber harvest, wildlife habitat 16

17 improvement, prescribed burning, and maintaining transportation systems. The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks (EA, Chapter 3). High intensity burning of jack pine is a relatively new treatment. The Maple Ridge Prescribed burn is an example of this treatment type being successfully implemented. The requirements for controlling fires of this type are well known from a fire control perspective and have been applied in the design of this project. Alternative 3 does not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks 6. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. This decision does not set a precedent for future actions with significant effects because it is similar to projects that have previously been implemented and it is consistent with the direction put forward by the Forest Plan. This decision will not direct or limit future management actions. 7. The action does not cumulatively reach a level of significance, even when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on public and private lands in the area. The effects of other foreseeable future actions as well as past actions and ongoing actions were included in the analysis (EA, Chapter 3). There are no undisclosed or related actions that would produce cumulative significant effects on the physical or human environment. 8. The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The action will also not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historic resources. Analysis of the cultural resources of the project area has been completed (EA, Chapter 3) and a cultural resources report was completed for the Project. If during implementation historic properties are found, design criteria have been developed to help protect sites from potential adverse impacts. Management activities are excluded from historic sites through sale design or designation of a reserve area that includes a buffer area adequate in size to protect the known site. There a no sites within the project area that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 9. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical for these species under the Endangered Species Act of

18 Alternative 3 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Kirtland s warbler. Alternative 3 would have a beneficial impact on the red shouldered hawk, American bittern, dusted skipper, tawny crescent. Alternative 3 may impact individual bald eagle, northern goshawk, northern flying squirrel, little brown myotis, northern myotis, and Michigan bog grasshopper but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability (see Biological Assessment for the Blockhouse Project). 10. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were incorporated into the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (Forest Plan, I 4 to I 6). None of the actions in Alternative 3 threaten to lead to violations of federal, state or local environmental laws, or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (EA, Chapter 3). Additionally, the actions comply with the Forest Plan. Findings under NFMA and Other Laws and Regulations The management actions in this decision to implement Alternative 3 of the Blockhouse Project are appropriate to meet the Standards and Guidelines that apply to all Management Areas (MA) of the Forest Plan, (Forest Plan pages II 8 through II 40), as well as the Standards and Guidelines for MA 2.1 and 4.2 (Forest Plan pages III through 8 and III through 15). Other applicable regulatory requirements and laws are listed below. National Forest Management Act The Blockhouse Project implements the Forest Plan. As required by NFMA Section 1604(i), this project is consistent with the Forest Plan. Additionally, I find that: All stands to be harvested under Alternative 3 are suitable for timber sales. Alternative 3 includes measures to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts (40 CFR (c)) (EA, Chapter 2.3 Design Criteria). The prescribed actions which alter vegetation comply with NFMA. The actions in Alternative 3 were not chosen primarily because they will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest output of timber, although these factors were considered (EA, Chapter 3 Socio economic Assessment). 18

19 The actions in Alternative 3 include design criteria to avoid impairment of site productivity and ensure conservation of soil and water resources (EA, Chapter 3.7 Water, Air, and Soil Resources). The actions in Alternative 3 are expected to achieve the desired effects on regeneration of desired species, wildlife and fish habitat, water quantity and quality, recreation, aesthetic values, and other resources (EA, Chapter 3). Harvesting and transportation requirements as well as total estimated costs of preparation, logging, and administration are practical. Endangered Species Act A Biological Evaluation (BE) and Biological Assessment (BA) were prepared for the Blockhouse Project (see Project Record). Findings from the BE/BA for this project are that: o Alternative 3 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Kirtland s warbler. o Alternative 3 would have a beneficial impact on the red shouldered hawk, American bittern, dusted skipper, tawny crescent. o Alternative 3 may impact individual bald eagle, northern goshawk, northern flying squirrel, little brown myotis, northern myotis, and Michigan bog grasshopper but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with these findings (Scott Hicks, USFWS East Lansing Field Office; letter dated June 18, 2013). Clean Water Act This Act is designed to restore and maintain the integrity of water resources. Project activities comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for water resources and State of Michigan Best Management Practices (EA, Chapter 3). Any necessary federal, state and local permits would be obtained prior to implementation. National Historic Preservation Act, Archeological Resources Protection Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The Archeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic properties that are excavated or discovered on federal lands. Site specific surveys identified cultural and historic sites within the project area and specific mitigation measures have been 19

20

21 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 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326 w, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC or call (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 21