DECISION NOTICE And FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT For The Blowdown Restoration Project

Transcription

1 DECISION NOTICE And FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT For The Blowdown Restoration Project USDA - Forest Service Chippewa National Forest Beltrami, Cass, and Itasca County, Minnesota I. INTRODUCTION This decision notice documents my decision regarding implementation of the Blowdown Restoration Project on the Chippewa National Forest. The project consists of fuels reduction treatments; timber harvesting, site preparation, planting, and some landscape prescribed burning. The project is in response to July 2012 windstorm that damaged an area about 10 miles by 40 miles that parallels Hwy 2 across the Forest. This decision also includes a project specific Forest Plan Amendment that exempts the Forest from meeting Forest Plan Standard S-WL-10. The reasons for my decision and my finding regarding whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR Parts ) are included in this decision notice. The proposed activities analyzed in the environmental assessment were designed to implement the management direction contained in the Revised Forest Plan (2004 Chippewa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan), as required by NFMA Section 1604 (i). The analysis follows the regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Forest Service regulations for preparing environmental assessments. An interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource specialists prepared the May 2013 EA (Blowdown Restoration Project). The environmental assessment documents the purpose and need for action, public involvement in the process, alternatives considered, the affected environment, and discloses the environmental effects of implementing each alternative. The project file contains background information and original documents used in the analysis. II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of the project is to respond to a July 2012 windstorm which resulted in damage to the timber stands along a 40 mile corridor across the middle the of Forest. The purpose and need for action in the Blowdown Restoration Project (Section 1.4) is summarized below: 1. Restore conditions more representative of native vegetation communities, natural processes, and productive Forests. Maintain conifer stands, structural and species diversity. Red, jack, and white pine stands may regenerate to aspen or hardwoods if not treated. o Convert aspen stands to conifer where appropriate. Remove blowdown as necessary in order to regenerate stands to a productive timber Page 1 of 14

2 condition consistent with Management Area direction. Site preparation, planting and/or seeding, natural regeneration, and timber stand improvement activities would be needed to promptly regenerate damaged stands to a productive condition. Restore sites historically jack pine to jack pine in the Dry Pine and Dry Mesic Pine/Oak LE, where feasible, through the application of harvest, prescribed fire or mechanical site preparation, and reforestation activities. o o Convert red pine or aspen sites to jack pine where appropriate. Create larger blocks of jack pine through conversion and regeneration. Restore fire to the landscape aggregating stands to create larger burning blocks. Reduce the potential for bark beetle population increases within down and damaged trees that may spill over and kill trees in adjacent lands by removing down and damaged trees. 2. Reduce Hazardous Fuels Reduce the potential for destructive fires that pose a risk to life and property adjacent to residential areas and along transportation corridors. Reduce fuels to facilitate the regeneration of stands and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Reduce the fuel loadings and fire hazards adjacent to and within the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. 3. Salvage of wood products and provide for commercial wood for mills in support of the local and regional economy. Salvage down and damaged wood that is marketable. This includes stands with trees that are damaged but still standing, bowing/tipping trees, or trees with sprung roots. Some damaged stands warrant regeneration which would entail harvest of green trees in order to adequately regenerate the site to the appropriate species. 4. Manage treatments in areas of interest to maintain or enhance traditional Tribal and community uses. Of particular interest are activities within the Ten Section area. III. TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT Members of the project s Interdisciplinary Team met with tribal Division of Resource Management (DRM) staff on October 31, 2012 prior to scoping. In addition, field trips on November 15, 16, and 20th with Forest staff and the DRM were designed to discuss treatments in the Ten Section area, west of Sucker Lakes, and east of Cass Lake in the Lydick area. Notes are included in the project file. Scoping letter was sent to DRM and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer on November 14, Scoping and 106 consultation letters were also sent to the following Local Indian Councils (LICs): Oak Point, Cass Lake, Bena, Ball Club, Winnie Dam, Inger, Sugar Point and Deer River on Novermber 14, The Project objectives and activities were presented to the following Page 2 of 14

3 LICs: Oak Point (December 2012), Winnie Dam and Cass Lake (February 2013), Inger, Deer River (March 2013), Ball Club (April 2013), Bena (May 2013). Notes from all tribal meetings are in the project file. Scoping comments and FS responses are included in Appendix C. The environmental assessment for this project was made available for a 30-day public review and comment from May 1, 2013 through May 31. It was sent to 9 tribal contacts for LICs and DRM. One response was received in June after the close of the comment period. Comments and the Forest Service responses are in the attached Appendix F. A summary of meetings, Forest s response to tribal concerns which includes the development of a key issue and Alternative C, the modification of stand prescriptions or dropping of stands is provided in the EA, Section 3.6, Tribal Interests and Traditional Resources. I met with DRM staff on several occasions including both office and field trips. The following issues have been discussed repeatedly which I believe are forestwide issues where DRM and the Chippewa National Forest should engage together in a consultative manner. These issues include: mitigation for trust responsibilities; bald eagle management direction; and jack pine ecotype objectives. At DRMs request, these issues may be the focus of continued consultation. I believe this project reflects many of DRMs concerns, but that the government to government relationship will be best served by discussing these issues at the forest scale. IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Project has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions since October 2012 and has been posted on the Chippewa National Forest website, Scoping was initiated by sending letters with details and maps of the Proposed Action to approximately 173 individuals and groups including recreation resident owners, resort owners, adjacent landowners, and other agencies. A legal ad briefly explaining the Proposed Action and specifying a contact for further information was published in the paper of record, The Pilot Independent (Walker) on November 14, News Releases were also published in the local newspapers in eight surrounding communities. Using the scoping comments from the public; timber industry, other agencies; the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe; and Northern Research staff, the interdisciplinary team developed two key issues (EA, Section1.9). Scoping comments and FS responses are in Appendix C. The environmental assessment for this project was made available for a 30-day public review and comment from May 1, 2013 through May 31. It was also sent to 22 entities that either commented during the initial scoping period or requested a copy. It was also posted on the Forest Internet website. Five responses were received. A summary of these comments and the Forest Service responses to them are in the attached Appendix F. V. COORDINATION WITH NORTHERN RESEARCH The Pike Bay Experimental Forest is within the Blowdown Restoration Project Area. Experimental Forests are managed primarily for research projects. The Pike Bay Experimental Forest currently contains multiple study areas for long term monitoring and data collection. Experimental Forests are not managed like other areas of the Chippewa National Forest due to their special designation. This decision pertaining to the Pike Bay Experimental Forest is a collaborative decision between the Chippewa National Forest and the Northern Research Page 3 of 14

4 Station. Consultation and support have been obtained through the Northern Research Station for the decision presented here. VI. DECISION Upon review of public comments; consultation with Forest specialists; and a thorough review of the analysis, applicable laws and the Forest Plan, I have decided to implement Alternative C as described in Section with the following modifications. In brief, this includes: Pike Bay Experimental Forest (PBEF) Based on collaboration, the following treatments pertain to the units in and near the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. The attached map reflects the agreed upon treatments. Unit 4 (PB-4) will receive the wide buffer treatment. There are ongoing experiments located within this unit. When the road intersects an experiment within Unit 4, the area will be treated with a narrow buffer. Unit 3 (PB-3) will receive the narrow buffer treatment and will also be prescribed burned. Unit 3 (PB-3) is primarily outside the PBEF and contains no experiments. As shown on the attached map there are is an area approximately a mile long and 660 feet wide within the PBEF in unit 3 (PB-3). Unit 1 (PB-1) will receive the narrow buffer. Units 2 and 5 (PB-2 and PB-5) won t receive any treatment. Buffers are described in the Blowdown EA on page 72 as follows: Buffers along some roads east of Pike Bay, lower Ten Section area, and in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest were designed to reduce fuel concentrations within or adjacent to high use areas with high fire risk. Two widths were considered: 240 ft. and 1320 ft. Within the road buffers, material to be removed consists of: 1. All down trees from the storm would be removed from the stands. This may be accomplished with whole tree skidding or slash piling with removal. 2. Very limited green trees would be removed. Remove green trees only when needed to facilitate the operation (building of temp roads, skid trails, landings, safety trees) foot strip along each side of the road would meet the above mentioned requirements with the addition of all material larger than 1 inch in diameter would be removed along with live brush and ladder fuels. There is a required mitigation, contained in Appendix B on page B-2, pertaining to the entire PBEF: Protect research plots from damage resulting from any project activities by collaborating with Northern Research Station staff on site-specific mitigation or elimination of areas from fuels treatments. This mitigation will be followed during implementation of the treatments described above. Vegetation Management The following activities and acres incorporate modifications to Alternative C detailed in the subsequent section. Page 4 of 14

5 Commercial timber harvest of about 4,709 acres with an estimated volume of 72,100 CCF. Refer to the attached maps for locations of harvest units. A limited amount, 2.1 miles, of temporary road would be built to access some of the cutting units. o 3089 acres of clear-cutting or coppice with reserves o 1427 acres of selection harvest o 193 acres of commercial thinning Aspen acres would be reduced by 395 acres in the project area by converting to other forest types Forest type conversions: A total of 788 acres would change forest type as a result of project activities. Reforestation activities consisting of mechanical site preparation will occur on 3618 acres; planting or seeding, animal damage control, and release for a total of about 2500 acres Tree spading of approximately 248 acres for visuals or watershed objectives Landscape burning (prescribed fire) is planned for 365 acres (BD-1, 2 and 3) and burning for hazardous fuels reduction on 350 acres (BD-4). Burning of PB-3 for hazardous fuels reduction adjacent to Pike Bay Experimental Forest on a total of about 310 acres with roughly 78 acres on the PBEF. A variety of fuel reduction treatments are planned depending on location o Piling and burning (mechanical and hand piling) on up to 2800 acres o o Mechanical fuels treatments on about 1000 acres Road buffers on roughly 706 acres. Widths vary as described in the previous section on PBEF. All sale design and mitigation measures pertinent to Alternative C-Modified will be applied as identified in Appendix B of the Blowdown Restoration Project EA. These will be applied in addition to all applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines (MFRC, 2005). Because project planning began shortly after the blowdown event, there was little time to field verify stand damage or collect data. For planning purposes, activities included are the most intensive and potentially impactive to the resources. Based on stand conditions at the time of implementation, less intense treatments with fewer acres may be applied. Changes and rationale for changes will be documented as implementation occurs. Modifications to Alternative C The following modifications to Alternative C were made as a result of a consultation with LLBO- DRM. All treatment activities were dropped from the following stands: Compartment/Stand Acres Alt C Harvest Activity 2068/27 10 Coppice 2017/26 32 Selection 2067/54 28 Selection 2067/05 18 Clearcut 2067/62 30 Selection 2067/27 41 Selection Page 5 of 14

6 2031/35 10 Clearcut 2068/9 16 selection 2062/28 27 No harvest; hydroaxe stand Stand 2031/35 will be monitored with DRM staff for species composition and stocking density. Harvest was dropped from these two stands but site preparation, planting, and tending remain the same. Compartment/Stand Acres Alt C Harvest Activity 2055/22 18 Clearcut 2056/19 38 Selection The following stand from the proposed action was added for treatment. Compartment/Stand Acres Alt C Harvest Activity 2065/35 5 Coppice Harvest prescription changed in the following 2 stands. Compartment/Stand Acres Alt C Harvest Activity New Prescription Harvest 126/17 4 Selection Clearcut 126/72 4 selection clearcut Planting of white pine was added to the following stands which will result in their conversion from the existing aspen or birch stand to white pine. Recognizing the huge reforestation program as a result of the blowdown event, and the large, long term investment in dollarsr needed to successfully convert these stands, other sources of funding, such as partnerships or stewardship contracts, may be critical in successfully converting these and the other stands identified for conversion in Alternative C. Compartment/Stand Acres Existing Forest Type Desired Forest Type 2062/ Aspen White pine 133/29 48 Birch White pine 135/37 40 Aspen White pine 135/30 15 Aspen White pine 125/4 20 Aspen White pine 126/72 4 Birch White pine Total 137 Page 6 of 14

7 As a result of dropping the following stands the following conversions will not occur. Compartment/Stand Acres Forest Type 2067/05 18 Balsam Fir was to be converted to White spruce 2067/62 30 Lowland hardwood was to be converted to tamarack The following treatments are being added to stands 2056/ 18, 20, 21, 35 at the entrance of Norway Beach: to facilitate planting and survival of fruiting shrubs, spot hand scarification will occur at the time of planting, if needed, release and weeding will be done up to two times. In summary, modifications to Alternative C resulted in the following changes: 236 fewer acres of harvest will occur o 193 acres of selection harvest was dropped o 43 acres of clearcut was dropped Mechanical site preparation for planting increased 66 acres Mechanical site preparation for natural regeneration dropped 48 acres Planting increased 204 acres with the potential need for tending these acres Conversions from aspen or birch to white pine will occur on 137 acres Acres of road buffer treatments decreased about 1700 acres Prescribed burning increased about 310 acres due to adding PB-3 These changes are within the scope of the analysis disclosed in the EA and do not change the intent of the project. Project Specific Forest Plan Amendment I have also decided to implement a project specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment that provides an exemption to meeting Forest Plan Standard S-WL-10 for the Blowdown Restoration Project. The Forest Plan states (p. 2-32): MIH 8: Mature and older jack pine forest S-WL-10 Maintain at least 5,300 acres in mature or older jack pine forest types during the first 10 years of plan implementation. Currently there is not enough mature and older jack pine on the Forest to meet the standard. The amendment only applies to the Blowdown Restoration Project. It does not change any Forest Plan goals, objectives, desired conditions or any associated outputs. More details are included in the EA, Section and in the project file. VII. RATIONALE FOR DECISION I have carefully read and considered the effects discussed in the environmental assessment, the Biological Evaluations, and the comments received during scoping and the 30-day comment period. I also considered applicable laws, the Forest Plan, the MOU requirements on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and how well each alternative met the purpose and need for the project. My decision implements the Chippewa National Forest Plan. As required by NFMA Section 1604 (i), I find this project to be consistent with the Plan. 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 Page 7 of 14

8 appropriate, the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. I am selecting Alternative C as modified to move toward the desired conditions in the 2004 Forest Plan, to meet the purpose and need, to better address the key issues identified during scoping, and to incorporate input from those that provided comments. Overall, Alternative C-modified Reduces hazardous fuels in key areas such as the Pike Bay area, the Pike Bay Experimental Forest, East Winnie area and in high use areas and along transportation corridors. Provides wood fiber in support of the area s timber industry. Removes blowdown to regenerate stands to a productive timber condition yet maintains conifer stands, structural and species diversity, and restores conditions more representative of native vegetation communities. Restores fire to the landscape through prescribed burning. Reponds to tribal input for areas of interest to maintain or enhance traditional and community uses. Responds to Northern Research concerns with regard to fuels reduction treatments in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest which is managed exclusively for research. VIII. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The key issues influencing the development of alternatives to the proposed action are described in Section 1.9 of the environmental assessment. In addition to the selected alternative, I considered one other action alternative (Alternative B) in detail. A comparison of the alternatives considered in detail can be found in Tables 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 in Section 2.6. of the EA. The following discussions explain why these alternatives were not selected. Alternative A (No Action) Rationale for Non-Selection This alternative provides a baseline upon which to compare the effects of the action alternatives. Under this alternative, no harvesting, fuels reduction treatments, or other activities would occur. I did not select this alternative because it did not meet any of the purpose and need items for the project. More specifically: Severely damaged stands, especially conifer stands would not be treated which would result in a short and long term loss of conifer on the landscape. WUI areas with heavy concentrations of fuels would not be treated resulting in fire hazards in high fire risk areas for roughly the next 10 years, depending on weather conditions. Wood fiber would not be provided. Prescribed fire would not be restored on the landscape. Alternative B Rationale for Non-Selection This alternative was developed to meet the purpose and need of the project but does not address the issues raised during scoping as well as Alternative C. It includes areas with treatments that are important to tribal members that were modified or dropped in Alternative C. Page 8 of 14

9 This alternative includes prescribed burning in the Experimental Forest as an approach to reducing hazardous fuels that is not supported Northern Research staff. Four other alternatives were considered by eliminated from detailed study. These are discussed in the EA, Section 2.5. IX. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) A. Context This decision is consistent with the activities implemented by the Chippewa National Forest, which lead toward achieving the goals, objectives and requirements in the Forest Plan identified for the management areas within the project area (Forest Plan, Chapter 2 and 3), while meeting the purpose and need of the EA. This project is tiered to the Forest Plan, and all of the expected impacts from this project are consistent with the expected impacts disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan. B. Intensity I have determined the following with regard to the intensity of the project. Bold items are directly from 40 CFR ): 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes the effect will be beneficial. The beneficial effects of the action do not bias my finding of no significant environmental effects. Impacts associated with my decision are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. The environmental assessment provides sufficient information to determine that this project will not have a significant impact (beneficial or adverse) on the land and its natural resources, air quality, or water quality (EA pages ). 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The chosen alternative would not degrade public water supplies. Considering the effects disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA, and the information contained in the project file, I conclude that implementing the chosen alternative with mitigation would not significantly affect public health or safety. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There are no parklands, prime farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers affected by the Blowdown Restoration Project. In addition, the supporting documentation located in Chapter 3 of the EA and the project file provides sufficient information to determine that this project will not affect any known unique characteristics of the geographic area such as cultural resources (pp ) or wetlands (pp ). Treatments are consistent with Forest Plan direction (EA, pp 40-44). 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The degree of controversy with regard to effects on the quality of the human environment are limited and considered not significant based on comments received during the scoping and the comment periods (EA, sections 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9, and Appendices C and F). Differing opinions do not indicate controversy. Page 9 of 14

10 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Timber harvest, planting, temporary road construction, fuels reduction, and prescribed burning have occurred previously on the Chippewa and other national forests. No impacts to the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks have been identified in this analysis. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. Timber harvest, fuels reduction, and prescribed burning are wellestablished practices on the Chippewa National Forest and do not establish a precedent for future actions. The Chippewa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocates areas scheduled for activity to management areas that allow for such activities (EA, section 1.2). 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. There would be no significant cumulative effects as a result of this project beyond those discussed in the Chippewa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. I have reviewed the impacts of those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions described in the Environmental Effects Section of the EA (pages ) and find that this action will not have a significant cumulative impact on the environment. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. A complete heritage resource inventory will not be completed for this project before implementation because of the difficulty of surveying areas with concentrations of blowdown. Mitigation identified includes: All inventoried heritage sites identified will be protected through avoidance; all treated stands that have not been surveyed will be surveyed following treatment for the purpose of identifying heritage resource sites. Also, shore land areas adjacent to lake basins that now, or once likely did contain open water, will be excluded from mechanical treatments for a distance of 150 ft. inland from the edge of the uplands adjacent to the basin. The Heritage Resources Report and EA disclosure (Sections 3.12 and project file), Tribal Historic Preservation Office and State Historic Preservation Office consultation indicate that no properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places are within the project s area of effect, based on current survey information. Based on this information, I conclude that this action will not likely cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of Based on the information disclosed in the EA (section 3.7), the Biological Evaluations, no adverse effects are anticipated as a result of implementing this decision. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also concurred with the Biological Evaluation determinations that the project may affect, but will not likely Page 10 of 14

11 adversely affect, the federally threatened Canada lynx (EA, page 93-94). A letter of concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service was received and dated May 1, Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Laws imposed for the protection of the environment provided the framework for the 2004 Chippewa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. From the documentation provided in the EA, the project file, and Other Findings Required by Law (below), I find that the proposed activities do not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law imposed for the protection of the environment. C. Finding Based on the context and intensity of the environmental effects documented in the EA and project file, on my experience with similar projects, and factors in 40 CFR , I have determined that the project does not constitute a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The project is in a localized area with effects expected to remain in this same area. This decision affects a very small portion of the Chippewa National Forest. Alternative C-modified would implement projects on about 4710 acres. The Chippewa National Forest contains 660,000 acres. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. X. OTHER FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW The selected alternative will not have significant impacts on air and water quality, wetlands, soil resources, threatened and endangered species, or cultural resources. Therefore, this decision is in compliance with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. It is consistent with the Executive Orders for Wetlands (11990), Floodplains (11988), Migratory Birds (13186), and Environmental Justice (12898) (EA, Chapter 3; Biological Evaluations). Resource Protection: Alternative C modified will result in protection of TES species (EA pages ). Mitigation measures and management requirements will aid in the protection of water and protection of cultural resources (EA pages and , respectively, and Appendix B). Harvest and fuels prescriptions are designed to address fuels hazards and achieve vegetation management objectives described in the EA (pages and 45-64, respectively). National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1600 ET SEQ.) All actions meet the National Forest Management Act requirements including those for: Consistency (16 USC 1604 (i)): The actions are consistent with the goals and direction stated in the 2004 Forest Plan (EA, Section 1.2). Suitability for timber production (16 USC 1604 (e)(2)): This project focuses on restoration of stands damaged during a 2012 windstorm. Harvesting of some unsuitable acres may occur in order to adequately reduce hazardous fuels, regenerate sites, or achieve other resource objectives. Clearcutting and even-aged management (16 USC 1604 (g)(3)(f)(i)and (ii): As a result of the July 2012 wind event, thousands of acres were blowdown resetting the age of some stands to 0 years. Harvesting is being used as a tool to restore these stands and prepare them for regeneration of appropriate species. Where storm damage in stands was greater Page 11 of 14

12 than 40%, clearcutting or coppice harvest is proposed. However, where adequate undamaged overstory occurs in the desired species, stands may actually reflect other evenaged treatments such as seed tree or shelterwood. Forest types impacted include aspen, balsam fir, mixed aspen/hardwood, jack pine, paper birch, red pine, and white spruce forest types. The use of clearcutting was also analyzed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA 2004b Chapter 3.4, and USDA 2004a p. 2-20). Where stands had damage less than 40%, selection harvest is proposed and un-evenaged stands are anticipated. More detail is available in the vegetation report in the project file. Vegetative Manipulation (16 USC 1604 (g)): All vegetation manipulation in the project area will comply with the requirements of 16 USC 1604 (g). My reasons for making this determination are: a. The actions are consistent with the multiple use goals stated in the 2004 Forest Plan (EA, Section 1.2). b. Stands regenerated are generally expected to be stocked within 5 years. Because of the blowdown, for severely damaged stands, age classes were reset to 0. Since this did not result from harvest activities, the requirements to restock within 5 years does not apply. (Refer to vegetation report, Project File) c. These activities were not chosen primarily because they will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest output of timber. The choice of management practices was determined by a combination of factors including the restoration of severely damaged stands, management to achieve Forest Plan objectives, and by commodity output needs. d. These activities were chosen after considering potential effects on residual trees and adjacent stands. These effects are documented in Section 3.3 of the EA. e. The activities will avoid permanent impairment of site productivity and will ensure conservation of soil and water resources (EA, mitigation measures in Appendix B, and effects in Sections 3.8 and 3.9). f. The selected activities will provide the desired effects on water quality and quantity, wildlife and fish habitat, species and structural diversity, fuels reduction, aesthetic values, and other resource yields. These considerations are addressed in the environmental effects section in Chapter 3 of the EA. The project is designed to meet the purpose and need. g. The selected activities are practical in terms of transportation and harvesting requirements and total costs of preparation, logging and administration (EA, Section 3.13). I am basing this determination on the fact that the selected activities are similar to those that have been or are currently being practiced on the Chippewa National Forest (soil type, slope, etc.) XI. APPEAL RIGHTS This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR dated June 4, The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, , hand-delivery, or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer. An appeal may be filed by individuals or organizations who have submitted comments or expressed interest during the 30-day notice and comment period for the Blowdown Restoration Project. The appeal must have an identifiable name attached or verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature may serve as verification on electronic appeals. Page 12 of 14

13 To appeal this decision, a written Notice of Appeal must be postmarked or received within 45 calendar days after the date of publication of the legal notice for this decision in the Pilot Independent (Walker, MN). However, when the 45-day filing period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, then filing time is extended to the end of the next Federal working day. The publication date of the legal notice is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. At a minimum, an appeal must include information as specified in 36 CFR The Notice of Appeal should contain a subject line Blowdown Restoration Project. Written Notice of Appeal on the project must be delivered (via mail or by hand) to: USDA, Forest Service, Eastern Regional Office; ATTN: Appeals Deciding Officer: Darla Lenz; 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue; Suite 700; Milwaukee, Wisconsin The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are: 7:30 am-4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The Notice of Appeal may alternatively be faxed to: ; Attn: Appeals Deciding Officer: Darla Lenz USDA Forest Service; Eastern Regional Office. The Notice of Appeal may be submitted electronically to: appeals-eastern-regional-office@fs.fed.us, Attn: Appeals Deciding Officer: Darla Lenz; USDA Forest Service; Eastern Regional Office. Acceptable formats for electronic appeals are text or html , Adobe portable document format, and formats viewable in Microsoft Office applications. It is the appellant s responsibility to provide sufficient project-specific or activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official s decision should be reversed. At a minimum, an appeal must include information as specified in 36 CFR (b). It is the responsibility of interested parties to respond within the established time period. No means of communication is perfect. Please contact our for further information address if a document is not available or delivered at the expected time, to ascertain its availability, and if necessary, arrange an alternate delivery method. XII. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, five (5) business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for fifteen (15) business days following the date of appeal disposition. Implementation means conducting ground disturbing actions. Field project preparation work may proceed (timber marking, contract preparation, etc.). XIII. CONTACT The Blowdown Restoration Project is available for public review at the Supervisor s office, 200 Ash Ave NW, Cass Lake, MN It is also on the Chippewa National Forest website ( then tab to Land & Resource Management and Projects ). For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact the Responsible Official, Carolyn Upton District Ranger at (218) ; or Sharon Klinkhammer, Team Leader, at (218) Page 13 of 14

14 Carolyn Upton Walker District Ranger Date The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, 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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC or call (202) (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Page 14 of 14