Pearl Project. Kawishiwi Ranger District, Superior National Forest Biological Evaluation
|
|
- Milton Bates
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Pearl Project Kawishiwi Ranger District, Superior National Forest Biological Evaluation Region 9 Regional Forester s Sensitive Species: Terrestrial Animals July 2014 Contents 1. Executive Summary Introduction Project Description Analysis Area and Methods Description Of The Affected Species Environmental Consequences Effects from Changes to Forest Overstory, Forest Age, and Spatial Patterns Effects from Other Management Activities Cumulative Effects Including Nonfederal Lands Determinations References..23 Prepared by: /s/ Kari Kirschbaum Date: July 22, 2014 Wildlife Biologist
2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alternative 1 would have no impact on the gray wolf, little brown myotis, tri-colored bat, heather vole, bald eagle, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, Connecticut warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, great gray owl, boreal owl, taiga alpine butterfly, Nabokov s blue butterfly, Freija s grizzled skipper, or wood turtle. For Alternative 2, the proposed activities would have no impact on Freija s grizzled skipper or wood turtle. The proposed activities in Alternative 2 may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the gray wolf, little brown myotis, tricolored bat, heather vole, bald eagle, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, Connecticut warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, great gray owl, boreal owl, taiga alpine butterfly, and Nabokov s blue butterfly. 2. INTRODUCTION This Biological Evaluation (BE) evaluates the effects of the proposed Pearl Project on Regional Forester-listed sensitive species (RFSS - U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Manual sections , (3), ). The species evaluated in this report include all terrestrial animal species on the revised R9 sensitive species list (USDA Forest Service 2011b). Sensitive aquatic animals and sensitive plants are covered in separate biological evaluations for this project. The Canada lynx (federally threatened) and the northern long-eared bat (proposed as endangered) are covered in a separate biological assessment. The Biological Evaluation (BE) is the tool used to consider the effects of a project on RFSS. The determinations in a BE address the question of how alternatives affect species viability at the local level, and resulting implications for species viability and distribution on the Superior National Forest. The analysis of effects results in one of the following determinations: No impact Beneficial effects used when the proposed alternative is determined to be wholly beneficial without potential negative impacts. May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability used when it is determined the proposed alternative may cause some negative effects, even if overall effect to species may be beneficial. High risk of loss of viability in the planning area (National Forest), but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or likely to result in a loss of viability and a trend toward federal listing. The management objective is to maintain viable and well-distributed representation of all native species that occur on the Superior National Forest (National Forest Management Act Regulation and , Secretary of Agriculture Regulation , USDA Forest Service Manual , , and , and Forest Plan p. 3-4). I used the following working definitions for viability and well-distributed from Iverson and René (1997): Viability - the likelihood that habitat conditions will support persistent and welldistributed populations over time; Well-distributed - species and habitat distribution are based on the current and historic natural distribution and dispersal capabilities of individual species, and dispersal includes the concepts of metapopulation dynamics and gene flow. Superior National Forest 2
3 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Pearl Project Area is located in portions of Lake and St. Louis Counties, Minnesota. The vicinity map (Figure 1) shows the general location of the Pearl Project Area. The project lies approximately five miles east of Babbitt, Minnesota and two miles south of Birch Lake. Its eastern edge is in the vicinity of Dragon and Gander Lakes. The southern extent is near Sand Lake along Hwy 2. The project area falls within Townships 59, 60 and 61 North and Ranges 9, 10, 11 and 12 West. It encompasses approximately 127,000 acres, of which approximately 75,000 acres (57 percent) are National Forest System lands. Proposed activities would occur only on National Forest System lands. The project area is outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). Figure 1. Vicinity Map Superior National Forest 3
4 The key objective of the Pearl Project is to promote healthy vegetation communities that are consistent with the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, incorporating the potential effects of climate change. Our monitoring and midlevel analysis has shown that there is need to promote diverse, productive, and healthy native forest communities; provide sustainable forest products; reintroduce fire into fire dependent ecosystems; reduce hazardous fuels; improve riparian function, moose habitat, habitat for sensitive plants, recreational opportunities; and provide an adequate road system. Activities proposed to accomplish these objectives include harvesting (thinning and regeneration) and reforestation activities (such as site preparation, planting, diversity planting, or release). Other non-harvest treatments include prescribed burning, mechanical fuel reduction, and clearing brush along trails and campsites. Additional proposed actions include constructing and obliterating temporary roads to access units and decommissioning roads no longer needed. Proposed activities also address changes to the transportation system associated long-term federal, nonfederal, and public access needs. The environmental assessment (EA) considers the No-action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the action alternative (Alternative 2). Alternative 2 is summarized below in the tables below. Table 2. Summary of Proposed Secondary Treatments and Reforestation Treatment Description Acres Post-harvest Treatments in Younger Forest TSI* herbicide hand application 490 Site Preparation Variety of methods 4,040 Site Preparation - Burn 260 Site Preparation - Herbicide broadcast application 500 Post-harvest Treatments in Older Forest TSI herbicide broadcast application 190 Prescribed Fire - Underburn 6,080 Riparian habitat improvement 100 Post-Nonharvest Treatments in Older Forest TSI herbicide hand application 10 Prescribed Fire - Underburn 44 Fuels Treatment 260 Reforestation and Planting Natural Regeneration 7,470 Diversity Planting 3,080 Conversion Planting and/or seeding 1,180 *TSI stands for Timber Stand Improvement Table 3. Summary of Transportation Proposed Actions-OML stands for Objective Maintenance Level. The Forest Plan (p. Glossary 17-18) defines OML 1, 2, and 3 as well as OHV (off-highway vehicle). Proposed Action Miles Add as long-term special use 0.3 Change from special use to OML 2 road 0.4 Add as OML1 road 0.5 Trail change from open to Class I ATVs to open to Class II ATVs 0.6 Decommission 0.8 Utilization of existing trails for management activities 4.6 Utilization of existing roads for management activities 12.4 Utilization of unclassified roads for management activities that were to be decommissioned under 1.17 Superior National Forest 4
5 Construction of temporary roads 50.3 In addition to the activities listed in the tables above, biomass removal could occur on harvest units with secondary treatments of slash disposal or site preparation and on nonharvest units with primary treatments of understory fuel reduction or site preparation. Biomass removal would not occur on units where soil mitigations call for retaining slash and would follow Operational Standards and Guidelines as described in the Forest Plan G-FW-1, p. 2-7 and in the MFRC document MFRC-BM-1 through 16, p The proposed action also includes improvements at two campsites at Beetle and Dunnigan Lakes. Improvements include the installation of a fire grate, latrine, and removal of brush to improve access. 2.2 ANALYSIS AREA AND METHODS This Biological Evaluation applies a coarse-filter and a fine-filter approach in evaluating sensitive species effects; similar to the process used in the Forest Plan BE (USDA 2004a). The coarse-filter approach uses broad-scale measures of habitat called Management Indicator Habitats (USDA 2004c). Management Indicator Habitats are groupings of forest cover types which are further divided by age classes (see flow chart, Figure 1). For example, we look at the distribution and availability of mature MIH 6 (spruce-fir forest types) as habitat for bay-breasted warbler. The coarse-filter approach for this project uses Management Indicator Habitats for the dominant landscape ecosystem (LE) within Pearl: Dry Mesic Red and White Pine, Jack Pine-Black Spruce, and the Lowland Conifer-A. Most changes to age class and forest type would occur in these LEs. Table 4. Landscape Ecosystems in the Pearl Project Landscape Ecosystem % of Area Jack Pine-Black Spruce 30 Dry Mesic Red and White Pine 40 Mesic Birch-Aspen 6 Lowland Conifer A 18 Lowland Conifer B 6 The site-level or fine-filter approach addresses species needs by managing specifically for high quality potential habitat or known locations of sensitive species. Existing databases and projectlevel surveys were used to identify important habitats in Pearl (see Description of Affected Species). This fine-filter approach is especially important for preventing or mitigating direct effects. For example, we apply a no-harvest buffer around known eagle nests to avoid direct harm or disturbance to individual nesting birds. These protection measures can be found in the design criteria and mitigation measures for Pearl (Appendix B, EA) and in Section 6 in this document. The other important step before making a viability determination for each of the sensitive species in Pearl was to consider natural history information, population size, and population trends. Natural history information has been covered in detail in other biological evaluations on the Superior National Forest and is not covered in this document (USDA 2011a, USDA 2004b). Information on population and population trends can be found in the 2009 Forest Monitoring Report on Sensitive Species (USDA 2011c). I have reviewed these documents and have added Superior National Forest 5
6 any new information on these species to the project record. A recent informational paper was written to summarize existing knowledge for the three new bat species added to the Superior National Forest RFSS list in 2011 (USDA 2011d). Figure 2. Management Indicator Habitats of the Superior National Forest Plan Wildlife Habitat Terrestrial Habitat Aquatic Habitat Forested Habitat Non-Forested Habitat MIH 9: Lowland Forests MIH 1: Upland Forest MIH 2: Upland Deciduous Forest MIH 5: Upland Conifer Forest MIH 3: Northern Hardw ood Forest MIH 6: Upland Spruce-Fir Forest MIH 4: Aspen-Birch and Mixed Aspen-Conifer Forest MIH 7: Red and White Pine Forest MIH 8: Jack Pine Forest The geographic boundary selected for analyzing the direct and indirect effects is the Pearl Project Area. This is appropriate because the area s large size contains known or potential populations, individuals, and enough habitats of many sensitive species to evaluate the effects of proposed activities. The direct and indirect effects analysis includes National Forest System land only while cumulative effects include activities on all ownerships. This boundary was chosen because activities on all ownerships in the project area would affect age class and composition at the project or local scale. The analysis time frame for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is between the years 2013 and This time span is an appropriate timeframe for the project area because most proposed actions would occur within this timeframe. In addition, most of the current acres of young age class would move out of the age class during this time. An analysis year of 2020 yields a clearer picture of what the relative contribution would be from both management treatments and succession but does not represent most existing young forest acres. Past management actions are accounted for in the existing condition. Projected forest conditions are compared to the ecosystem objectives for 2024, the second Decade s benchmark of the Forest Plan. Superior National Forest 6
7 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED SPECIES I reviewed existing reports and databases to determine which species are expected or known to occur in the Pearl Project Area. Attachment 1 for this BE lists species and whether there is a known occurrence or suitable habitat in the Pearl Project Area. The Forest Monitoring Report provides a summary of the methods and references used to monitor sensitive species populations and track individuals across the Forest (2011a). The Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Information Systems Biotics Database is the primary source for known occurrences but I also used survey results and incidental reports from the project area (MNDNR 2014). The decision to do project-level surveys was based on our level of knowledge about the species in the project area and the likelihood of effects from proposed actions. Additional animal surveys were completed for Canada lynx, bald eagle, northern goshawk, boreal owl, great gray owl, olive-sided flycatcher, and Connecticut warbler. Additional information on project level surveys is available in the Pearl Project Record. Table 5 lists the Regional Forester Sensitive species analyzed in this biological evaluation, the MIH and other habitat features or indicators used to determine potential effects from the Pearl project, the determination made, and a brief summary of the rationale for that determination. Superior National Forest 7
8 Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Rationale for Determination* Gray wolf MIH 1, 2, and 5 all ages Human disturbance ALT1: NO Deer density is high and not likely to be affected by this project; human activity in the woods would increase slightly. Little brown myotis or bat Tri-colored bat MIH 1 Upland forest all ages MIH 1 Upland forest all ages; MIH 2 Upland deciduous mature + Hibernacula. Abundance of suitable roost trees. Hibernacula. Abundance of suitable roost trees. ALT1: NO Mature and older upland forest (MIH 1) would decrease under Alt 2 but is expected to remain abundant under both alternatives. Mitigations would ensure that many live suitable roost trees are retained in addition to snags in the harvest units, and most of the project area would remain untreated. Summer harvesting may impact individuals. ALT1: NO Mature and older upland forest (MIH 1) would decrease under Alt 2 but is expected to remain abundant under both alternatives. Mitigations would ensure that many live suitable roost trees are retained in addition to snags in the harvest units, and most of the project area would remain untreated. Summer harvesting may impact individuals. Superior National Forest 8
9 Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Rationale for Determination* Heather vole MIH 8 Jack pine all ages Vaccinium sp. ALT1: NO Actions could create new habitat, enhance existing habitat, or disturb habitat and individuals. Bald Eagle MIH 7 Red and white pine mature + Large diameter white pine. Mature white pine within ½ mile of fishbearing waters Northern goshawk MIH 1 Upland forest mature + ; MIH 13 Mature upland patches High canopy cover, large diameter trees. Mature upland patches greater than 100 acres ALT1: NO No known active nests in project area. Mitigations to protect any known occupied sites would be applied. Riparian habitat improvement would release long-lived conifers and planting white pine would increase nesting habitat in the long term. ALT1: NO Habitat impacts expected to be within Forest Plan projections. Mature and older MIH1 expected to decrease under Alternative 2 but remain abundant and well distributed. Patches would also decrease but remain well distributed. Creation of young forest blocks would provide future mature patches for this species. Superior National Forest 9
10 Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Boreal owl Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class MIH 4 Aspen-birch mature+; MIH 9 Lowland conifer all ages MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Large diameter hardwoods with cavities. Lowland patches greater than 500 acres Rationale for Determination* ALT1: NO Upland nesting habitat would remain abundant under both alternatives. Suitable nest trees would be retained in accordance with mitigation RT-BO. Foraging habitat would remain abundant; increase under Alternative 2. While there are no nests known to occur, one boreal owl response was heard during project surveys. Olive-sided flycatcher MIH 9 Lowland conifer all ages Snags ALT1: NO Wintering grounds are likely cause of decline. Some harvest would occur in lowland conifer habitat, which may affect individuals but most stands should remain suitable. Minimal impact to riparian habitats. Bay-breasted warbler MIH 6 Upland spruce-fir mature+; MIH 9 Lowland conifer mature + Spruce budworm outbreaks. Mature upland and lowland conifer patches greater than 50 acres. ALT1: NO Mature and older upland spruce-fir forest (MIH6) and lowland conifer forest would decrease under Alternative 2 but would remain abundant in the project area. Individuals may be disturbed by project actions. Superior National Forest 10
11 Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class Connecticut warbler MIH 9 Lowland conifer mature + MIH 8 Jack Pine mature +; American three-toed woodpecker Great gray owl MIH 6 Upland spruce-fir mature +; MIH 8 Jack pine mature +; MIH 9 Lowland conifer mature + MIH 1 Upland forest young and mature + and young; MIH 4 -Aspenbirch mature + and young; MIH 9 Lowland conifer young MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Lowland conifer habitat within a matrix of large patches of lowland and upland conifer habitat. Insects; snags for nesting; fire; large lowland patches Large diameter snags for nesting; open areas for foraging. Large lowland patches Rationale for Determination* ALT1: NO Total amount of mature and older jack pine (MIH8) would increase slightly under Alternative 2; whereas the amount of mature and older lowland conifer (MIH9) would decrease. Some declining aspen stands would be converted to jack pine, providing future habitat in the long term. Project activities may impact individuals. ALT1: NO Mature and older upland spruce-fir forest (MIH6), jack pine forest (MIH8), and lowland conifer forest (MIH9) would decrease under Alternative 2, but would remain abundant in the project area. Individuals may be disturbed by project actions. Jack pine restoration would improve future habitat condition. ALT1: NO Upland nesting habitat would remain abundant under both alternatives. Foraging habitat would increase under Alternative 2. While there are no nests known to occur, great gray owls have been observed in the project area. Trees with large stick nests would be buffered. Superior National Forest 11
12 Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Rationale for Determination* Taiga alpine butterfly MIH 9 Lowland conifer all ages Sedges ALT1: NO Overall amount of habitat would not change, though age structure will shift. Proposed management activities would have little impact on nonforest habitats. Nabokov's (or Northern) blue butterfly Freija's grizzled skipper MIH 8 -Jack pine No MIH association Presence of dwarf bilberry; fire Upland acidic meadow, scrubby willow, barrens Wood turtle MIH 2 mature +; MIH 10 Riparian habitats with open sandy areas for nesting ALT1: NO Nearest occurrence is seven miles from project boundary. Not expected, but could potentially occur in project area. Timber harvest and fuel reduction could stimulate growth of host plant. Slight increase in jack pine forest type could provide additional suitable habitat. ALT1: NO ALT2: NO Known only from one location on SNF which is 16 miles outside the project area. Proposed management activities would have little impact to nonforest habitats. ALT1: NO ALT2: NO No impact to habitat: no records for project area. Only known to occur on Laurentian District. * NO = no impacts/effects, MINL = may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability, BI = Beneficial impacts (only), LFLV = likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Superior National Forest 12
13 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 EFFECTS FROM CHANGE TO FOREST OVERSTORY, FOREST AGE, AND SPATIAL PATTERNS Direct effects from Vegetation Management Activities Under Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would be expected. The proposed action (Alternative 2) includes many project activities that have the potential to cause direct effects to individuals if they occur in occupied habitat. These effects can range from minor disturbance to physical harm to individuals. For example, noise associated with a timber harvest, or smoke and noise associated with fuels reduction may cause disturbance to wildlife of many species that occur there. In many cases the individuals can leave the activity area and find alternate habitat nearby. However, in cases where individuals are not mobile, or nests or other non-mobile features are present, or the disturbance occurs during a critical time of year, such activities can cause harm to individuals. For example, the removal of an occupied bat roost tree has to potential to kill individuals, particularly if non-volant pups are present. Ongoing disturbance can cause breeding birds to abandon their nest. To minimize the risk of disturbance or harm, mitigations have been applied where there are known occurrences of RFSS species. For example, mitigation SR-BE restricts activities within 660 feet of known bald eagle nests during the nesting season. However, there are likely to be unknown occurrences of RFSS. In these cases, project implementations staff would apply mitigations where they become aware of locations of RFSS species. However, there would remain a risk of direct impacts to individuals from project activities occurring in suitable habitat. A complete list of mitigations is included in Appendix B Indirect and Cumulative Effects from Vegetation Management Activities Landscape Ecosystem and Management Indicator Habitats 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are analyzed below. The remaining MIH are either encompassed in the discussions of those MIH that are covered, or would include no treatments or such small amount of treatment that it would have discountable or insignificant effects. MIH 1 UPLAND FOREST Species: Gray wolf, northern goshawk, great gray owl, little brown myotis, tri-colored bat, and migrating birds. Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) 1 includes all upland forest types and encompasses many of the other indicators (Forest Plan, Appendix C). Forest types in MIH 1 include spruce-fir, aspen-birch, pines, and mixed hardwood conifer stands. Some of the sensitive species covered by this indicator have broad habitat requirements or more specific habitat requirements that have not been identified. Two bat species were recently added to the Superior RFSS list because of the recent threat of white-nosed syndrome and the alarming declines in bat populations in eastern states. Whitenosed syndrome describes the disease of bats which have been infected by the fungus, Pseudogymoascus destructans. Bats encounter this fungus in caves where they hibernate in the winter. The fungus was found in 2012 in the Soudan Mine, about 17 miles from the project area boundary. There are no known winter hibernacula in the Pearl Project Area. A small Superior National Forest 13
14 hibernaculum near Ely is approximately 13 miles from the project boundary. These two bat species will roost in a variety of tree species and ages, typically in cavities, cracks, crevices, or under peeling bark (USDA 2012e). Younger stands provide an abundance of insects and may be important as foraging areas (Taylor 2006). Young upland stands are also important to great gray owls and other avian predators as a place to find prey. Regenerating shrubs, aspen, and birch provide browse for deer and moose, important prey species for the gray wolf. These young stands also provide food and cover for fledgling songbirds. Mature upland forests provide large diameter trees and closed canopy conditions two habitat features preferred by the northern goshawk and great gray owls. Goshawks have a large home range and are generally associated with large mature patches of upland forest. The Forest Plan has objectives for maintaining large forest patches (greater than 100 acres) to provide quality habitat for goshawk and other interior forest species. Indirect and Cumulative Effects The overall amount of MIH 1 in the project area is not expected to change under either alternative. However, forest types and age classes will shift under both alternatives. Under both alternatives, the project area is expected to experience a slight increase in the amount of upland conifer forest, and a decrease in the amount of aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer forest. Within-stand diversity is expected to improve in Alternative 2 but not in Alternative 1. MIH 1 YOUNG FOREST One objective of the Forest Plan is to maintain a full range of forest age classes from young to old, including old-growth. There would be more young forest for early successional wildlife species under Alternative 2 than under the No-action Alternative or the current condition (Fig. 3). Under the No-action Alternative, the amount of young forest would decrease, though forests would continue to regenerate in small amounts from succession and natural disturbance events such as wind storms and fire. Under the No-action Alternative, tree species diversity would not improve as it would in Alternative 2. MIH 1 MATURE AND OLDER FOREST Mature and older forest in the Pearl Project Area would increase under the No-action Alternative, and decrease under Alternative 2 by 2020 (Figure 3). The Forest Plan FEIS concluded that mature and older forest acres would decrease (FP EIS Volume 2, p. D-11) and that sensitive species using these habitats would remain viable and well-distributed (FP EIS Volume 1, pp ). I have concluded that under both alternatives, mature forest would remain abundant and well-distributed in the project area, and sufficient mature upland habitat would remain for the RFSS species that use this habitat. Superior National Forest 14
15 Figure 3. Percentage of young, mature, and oldgrowth upland forest (MIH1) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Young % Mature % Old plus % Existing Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) For area-sensitive species such as the northern goshawk, there would be an increase in the number and acres of large upland patches (greater than 300 acres) in Alternative 1, and a decrease in the number and acres of mature upland patches in Alternative 2. However, under Alternative 2, the quality and number of patches is projected to increase over the long term. Project planners aimed to improve existing patches and create future high-quality patches by regenerating older stands that are degenerating and becoming brushy, and by consolidating harvest units adjacent to other recent harvests on federal and nonfederal land to create larger patches with less edge and better interior forest conditions. The Forest Plan FEIS indicated that by following forest type and age objectives, the Forest would likely lose acres and numbers of upland mature patches and connectivity (Forest Plan FEIS, Vol. 1 p to -61) in all three spatial zones for at least two decades. MIH 4/MIH 2 ASPEN-BIRCH AND MIXED ASPEN-CONIFER FOREST Species: Boreal owl, great gray owl, gray wolf, and tri-colored bat. Two RFSS bird species, boreal owl and great gray owl, are associated with older aspen, birch, and mixed aspen-conifer forest and adjacent lowlands. Boreal owls nest in tree cavities found in older, large diameter hardwoods. Cavities are created as aspen and birch grow older and become diseased and when these trees are discovered by primary excavators like the pileated woodpecker. Great gray owls use old stick nests in large diameter trees, often aspen or birch. The proximity of these nesting structures to upland and lowland foraging habitat is an important consideration for both of these owls. Gray wolf and tri-colored bat use a variety of forest types and ages, including some MIH 2 habitats. Because there is a negligible amount of MIH 3 northern hardwood forest in the Pearl Project Area, changes to MIH 2 will be the same as changes to MIH 4. As a result, the discussions MIH 4 below also apply to MIH 2 and the species that occupy the more general MIH 2 habitats. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Aspen-birch forest would make up a smaller percentage of the forest composition in the Pearl Project Area by 2020 under either alternative, decreasing slightly more under Alternative 2. Superior National Forest 15
16 There would also be a decrease in the proportion of mature and older aspen-birch forest under Alternative 2, compared to the existing condition and the No-action Alternative (Fig. 4). These older age classes would still be well-represented on the landscape. Under Alternative 2, the percent of mature and older forest in MIH 4 would fall below Forest Plan objectives in the project area, but remain above Forest Plan objectives in MIH 4 Forest-wide. Enough habitat would remain in these older age classes to provide a source of larger diameter aspen and birch as nesting and roosting structures. There would also continue to be scattered large aspen and birch across the landscape as a component of other forest types. Mature and old-growth MIH 4 stands in proximity to lowland foraging areas would decrease in the short term, though mitigations and operational standards and guides that require retention of riparian buffers and large suitable nest tree would minimize the effective reduction in nesting habitat. Under Alternative 2, the amount of young MIH 4 is projected to increase, providing additional foraging habitat for great gray owls. Figure 4. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth aspen-birch and aspen conifer forest (MIH 4) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Young % Mature % Old plus % Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) MIH 6/MIH 5 UPLAND SPRUCE-FIR FOREST Species: Bay-breasted warbler and American three-toed woodpecker Bay-breasted warblers breed throughout the spruce-fir forest of Canada and the northern-most parts of the U.S. following the range of spruce budworm (Maxson 1999). This species is associated with mature spruce-fir forests where disease outbreaks occur. Mature spruce-fir patches greater than 50 acres is an indicator for bay-breasted warbler in the Forest Plan Biological Evaluation. American three-toed woodpeckers typically inhabit mature or old-growth coniferous stands with abundant insect-infected dead and dying trees (Leonard 2001). In this region, they seem to nest mainly in spruce and balsam snags and mature trees. Dependence on insect-infected dead and dying timber frequently results in populations showing an association with forest disturbances such as fire, wind throw, floods, insect outbreaks, and disease. In particular, three-toed woodpecker populations often show an increased abundance in early post-fire successional seres. Superior National Forest 16
17 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Spruce-fir would make up a greater percentage of the Pearl Project Area by 2020 under both alternatives (Pearl EA 3-6). When compared to the existing condition, there would be a small decrease in acres of the mature age class under Alternative 2, and a smaller increase under the No-action Alternative (Figure 5). The percentage of MIH 4 in the mature age class would show a decline for both alternatives; however, this is due to the increase in total acres of MIH 4 more so than a decrease in mature MIH 4 acres. Patches of mature spruce-fir forest would remain well distributed under either of the alternatives. Alternative 2 would increase young spruce-fir forest. Habitat availability for bay-breasted warbler in the future would depend on factors that are difficult to predict such as spruce budworm abundance and climate change. If warming trends continue, the range of spruce-fir may shift northward and habitat may be less available on the Superior National Forest in following decades. The minimal change in mature and older age classes under both alternatives is expected to provide adequate habitat for late-successional forest species like the bay-breasted warbler and the American three-toed woodpecker. The percentage of mature and older spruce-fir forest at 2020 would exceed the 2024 Plan objectives under either alternative Figure 5. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth upland spruce-fir forest (MIH 6) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Young % Mature % Old plus % Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) MIH 7/MIH 5 RED AND WHITE PINE FOREST Species: Bald eagle Bald eagles use suitable habitat on the Forest during the spring and summer for breeding, nesting, and raising young. Suitable nesting habitat consists of stands dominated by mature and old growth timber or younger forest with a remnant component of older super (above) canopy trees located within 0.25 miles streams and lakes bearing predominantly shallow water fish species. On the Superior National Forest, 85 percent of nest trees selected by eagles are largediameter, old age, white pine (Lindquist and Rogers 1992). Superior National Forest 17
18 Indirect and Cumulative Effects The proportion of red and white pine forest in the project area would remain stable under Alternative 1 and increase slightly under Alternative 2 (Figure 6). The proportion of mature and older red and white pine forest would increase under both alternatives due to succession. Under both alternatives, the amount of suitable habitat for bald eagles is expected to increase. Under Alternative 2, a small amount of young red and white pine forest would be created, providing a source of future eagle nesting habitat Figure 6. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth red and white pine forest (MIH 7) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Young % Mature % Old plus % Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) MIH 8/MIH 5 JACK PINE FOREST Species: Heather vole, Connecticut warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, and Nabokov s blue butterfly. Heather voles are found in a wide variety of northern habitats, including coniferous forests, forest borders, heath shrublands, willow thickets, rocky hillsides, and moist meadows. Most sites where Jannett (2005) found heather voles contained jack pine and black spruce forest types. Vaccinium species (the blueberry genus) are often present where heather voles are found. Upland forests and openings with ericaceous ground cover and not far from water appear to be preferred habitat. Connecticut warblers breed in short-needle conifers with low ericaceous shrubs. They forage on the ground and in low shrubs. On the Superior National Forest, Connecticut warblers occur primarily in black spruce and jack pine forest types. American three-toed woodpeckers typically inhabit mature or old-growth coniferous stands with abundant insect-infected dead and dying trees (Leonard 2001). Additional description of the habitat preferences of American three-toed woodpeckers can be found in the MIH 6 section in this BE. Nabokov s blue butterflies prefer open sandy, grassy, jack pine areas with abundant blueberry and dwarf bilberry (Vaccinium ceespitosum) primarily on the Vermillion moraine (USDA FS 2002g, MacLean 2001). This habitat may be present in the project area. Habitat needs for Freija s grizzled skipper are less well understood on the Superior National Forest, but habitat is Superior National Forest 18
19 thought to be provided by upland grasslands, acidic meadows, and small grassy openings in boreal forest. Threats to both of these butterfly species include forest succession that results in suppression or exclusion of Vaccinium species and grasses. Our ability to analyze the effects of management actions is limited due to a poor understanding of population status and habitat relationships of both species. Indirect and Cumulative Effects The total amount of jack pine forest in the Pearl Project Area is expected to decrease by approximately 500 acres under the No-action Alternative, and increase by approximately 600 acres under Alternative 2. The amount of young jack pine forest would increase significantly under Alternative 2, whereas young jack pine forest would be absent from the project area by 2020 under the No-action Alternative (Figure 7). In the near future, habitat would remain available for these species under both alternatives. However, under the No-action Alternative, jack pine forest would become increasingly uncommon over the long term, and habitat availability would decline Figure 7. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth jack pine forest (MIH 8) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) 0.0 Young % Mature % Old plus % MIH 9 LOWLAND FOREST Species: Boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, Connecticut warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, great gray owl, and taiga alpine butterfly. Mature lowland conifer forest provides important foraging habitat for boreal owls and American three-toed woodpeckers, as well as breeding habitat for bay-breasted warblers, olive-sided flycatchers, and taiga alpine butterflies. Boreal owls use lowland conifer forests for foraging. Nest sites are usually within 200 yards of large areas of productive mature lowland conifer, primarily black spruce. American three-toed woodpeckers typically inhabit mature or old-growth coniferous stands with abundant insectinfected dead and dying trees (Leonard 2001). According to Green and Niemi (2002), black spruce/tamarack stands are the vegetation community most likely to contain three-toed woodpeckers in Minnesota. Additional description of the habitat preferences of American threetoed woodpeckers can be found in the MIH 6 section. Superior National Forest 19
20 Bay-breasted warblers breed throughout the spruce-fir forest of Canada and the northern-most parts of the U.S. following the range of spruce budworm (Maxson 1999). This species is associated with mature upland and lowland spruce-fir forests where disease outbreaks occur. Olive-sided flycatchers nest most frequently in larger (>50 acres) black spruce-tamarack bogs or in large openings with residual trees. Foraging habitat structure of live and dead snags is an important component in the breeding range of this species. Taiga alpine butterflies prefer shady, mature black spruce-tamarack forest. They may also occur in younger lowland conifer or more open lowland conifer with low site productivity. Young lowland conifer habitat can provide foraging habitat for great gray owls. Great gray owls use lowlands as important foraging habitat, including bogs, selective, and clear-cut logged areas with residual perches, natural meadows, and open forests within one and one-half miles of the nest. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) 9 includes all lowland conifer and lowland mixed conifer types dominated by black spruce or tamarack. The total amount of lowland conifer habitat in the project area is not expected to change under either alternative. However, the age distribution within this MIH is expected to shift under both alternatives (Figure 8). Under the No-action Alternative, young MIH 9 habitat would remain uncommon in the project area. The amount of mature lowland conifer would decrease as stands age into older age classes. Under Alternative 2, mature stands would also decrease as some are harvested to create young habitat Figure 8. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth lowland forest (MIH 9) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Young % Mature % Old plus % Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) 4.2 EFFECTS FROM OTHER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES The discussion below describes anticipated indirect and cumulative effects from nonharvest proposed activities throughout the project area. Changes to the understory: understory fuels reduction, timber stand improvement (herbicide and mechanical), browse shearing, underplanting, and reforestation. Superior National Forest 20
21 The composition, age, and structure of understory vegetation is equally or more important than the forest overstory for many RFSS animal species. For some species there may be a direct association with an understory plant. For example, the host plant for the Nabokov s blue butterfly is dwarf bilberry whereas the larval host plant for the taiga alpine butterfly is believed to be a sedge or grass. For other species like the Canada lynx, the understory can be a factor in determining whether their preferred prey, the snowshoe hare, is available. A dense understory of shrubs and young trees provides hiding cover for prey as well as being a food source. Nearly all of the treatments listed in Tables 1 and 2 would temporarily change the understory. Some treatments, like clearcut with reserves followed by mechanical site preparation or piling and burning, would remove a high percentage of the existing vegetation. In other treatments, like thinning or patch clearcut, much of the understory vegetation would remain. Some of the understory treatments, like underplanting and reforestation, are expected to benefit RFSS species by increasing the species and structural diversity of the forest. Alternative 2 includes hand and broadcast application of herbicides (Glyphosate, Triclopyr, and Sulfometuron methyl). Herbicides would be applied in some stands as a site preparation treatment for regenerating birch and converting aspen to jack pine. Herbicide would also be used to diversify the understory in red pine stands by reducing dense hazel brush. In some stands, herbicide may also be used to release individual long-lived conifers. Herbicide would be prepared and applied in conformance with label directions, MFRC guidelines for herbicide application, Forest Service Manual 2150 (Pesticide Use Management and Coordination), Forest Service Handbook (Pesticide Use Management and Coordination Handbook), the Forest Service Health and Safety Code Handbook Chapter 22.1 and all federal, State, and local regulations. Herbicide use would have no impact on most RFSS species because it will not be applied in suitable habitat, or because Best Management Practices would minimize the risk of individuals coming in contact with herbicide. Individuals of species that use recent clearcuts or mature red pine stands may have some risk of encountering herbicide. Herbicides proposed for use are generally considered to have low toxicities at the rates at which they are applied. Additional information on the herbicides proposed and their characteristics can be found in the Water Resources section (3.8). Proposed treatments in the Pearl Project Area would temporarily change habitat conditions for some of the sensitive species, and direct or indirect effects could occur to some individuals. I expect these effects to be insignificant due to the amount of undisturbed habitat remaining and mitigations to protect known sensitive species populations. Habitat changes would also be temporary since the understory generally begins to regenerate within a few years of a disturbance. Thinning and riparian habitat improvement Thinning dense closed-canopy spruce or pine plantations will increase the light reaching the forest floor and allow understory plants, shrubs, and trees to increase. The addition of deciduous shrubs and saplings can increase bird species richness by 20 to 35 species (Green 1995). Thinning red pine allows the trees to gain diameter and as the tree ages, there are increased opportunities for large cavities to develop or be created by woodpeckers providing nesting or roosting sites for little brown bats and tri-colored bats. Superior National Forest 21
22 Riparian habitat improvement involves the removal of small groups of deciduous trees and brush to release existing long-lived conifers to grow more freely, or to create an opening which is then planted to conifer. These activities would temporarily change habitat conditions for some of the sensitive species, and direct or indirect effects could occur to individuals. Human disturbance: road management RFSS terrestrial wildlife species can be affected by the human disturbance associated with new road building and road use. Large carnivores like the gray wolf hunt along road corridors where they are at increased risk from vehicle collisions and poaching. Bald eagle and northern goshawk are two RFSS bird species that are sensitive to disturbance near their nest. Some butterflies experience mortality along roads when they use roads as flight corridors or as places to find moisture and nutrients. Temporary roads proposed for this project are not expected to result in high mortality for any species since they would receive a low level of use and would be closed upon completion of activities. We will continue to monitor large stick nests and known eagle and goshawk nests in the project area and apply a buffer to active nests to minimize disturbance during critical nesting periods. Prescribed Burning The Superior National Forest is a fire-adapted landscape in which wildfires and prescribed fires play an important role in creating habitat for sensitive species. Fire-killed or damaged trees attract wood-boring insects that provide a food source for birds, such as the American three-toed woodpecker. Fire-damaged dead and dying trees are also used as nesting structures and perches. Fire can create openings in the canopy and remove competing vegetation, allowing species like dwarf bilberry (Vaccinium caespitosum), the larval host plant for the Nabokov s blue butterfly, to flourish. Fire is an important tool in the regeneration of jack pine forest (MIH 8) which is a habitat indicator for heather vole, American three-toed woodpecker, Connecticut warbler, and Nabokov s Blue Butterfly. Understory burning in red and white pine stands protects existing mature pine and creates a seed bed for young regenerating pine. The prescribed burning proposed in the Pearl Project Area includes underburning in older red and white pine forest to reduce the potential risk of high-intensity crown fires and allow for an increase in structural and species diversity in these stands. The proposed project also includes a small amount of prescribed burning in brush and grass systems to rejuvenate growth and improve wildlife habitat, along with a small amount of burning in harvested stands to regenerate jack pine. Introducing fire into these systems helps to maintain and increase these forest types on the landscape. Generally in these understory burns, materials that are consumed include small down, dead, woody material and live forbs, shrubs, and seedlings. Some live mature trees may be burned, but the intent is to maintain the existing canopy. There is the small possibility of disturbance to sensitive species during these activities; however, overall effects from the proposed burning treatments would improve habitat conditions and be beneficial. Superior National Forest 22
23 Climate Change Many of the sensitive species on the Superior National Forest are at the southern edge of their ranges and may be impacted by climate change as temperatures continue to warm and species of both plants and animals shift northward. Chapter 1 includes a summary of threats to northern Minnesota forests, and the adaptation actions that were incorporated into the proposed action to address some of those threats. The 2010 State of the Birds Report (National American Bird Conservation Initiative 2010) lists the three-toed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, and Connecticut warbler at medium vulnerability to climate change in boreal forest habitat. Habitat loss is the major factor affecting populations of all these birds. In addition to these bird species, many RFSS and non- RFSS species have the potential to be adversely or beneficially affected by the climatic and habitat changes that are predicted to occur. While this project cannot mitigate all of the potential risks posed by climate change, adjustments in the proposed action are intended to put some stands in a better position to adapt to climate change, reducing the potential impact to RFSS and other species. 4.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS INCLUDING NONFEDERAL LANDS Appendix C in the EA contains a full list of past, present, and expected future management projects contributing to cumulative effects. Most of these are expected to have little impact to RFSS in the project area, or to have impacts similar to those described above for Pearl Project activities. Changes to the vegetation from other federal projects or from activities on nonfederal land are expected to be minimal. State lands encompass approximately 19 percent (22,900 acres) of the project area. Based on discussions with State resource personnel there are approximately 1,200 acres that are proposed to be harvested in the next few years, with herbicide spraying on approximately 32 acres in Effects of these activities are expected to be very similar to those described for similar activities above, as the State and Forest Service follow the same MFRC guidelines. County land encompasses just one percent of the project area, while private lands encompass 15 percent of the ownership within the project boundary. These lands are not expected to experience much management since many of these properties are used for residential or recreational purposes such as private homes or resorts. Mineral exploration has been occurring to the north and west of the project area for several years. This exploration is expected to continue into the future, and may include some exploration in the north part of the Pearl Project Area. This exploration typically involves clearing of short temporary roads and small drill pads, both of which are generally used for a short period of time and then closed. While this activity results in some habitat loss and temporary fragmentation, the primary impact is disturbance, which is significant but temporary. Mineral exploration activities are reviewed by biologists and mitigations are applied to avoid impacts to known species occurrences and minimize impacts to unknown individuals DETERMINATIONS Alternative 1 would have no impact on the gray wolf, little brown myotis, tri-colored bat, heather vole, bald eagle, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, Connecticut Superior National Forest 23
SKIBO PROJECT SCOPING REPORT Laurentian Ranger District, Superior National Forest
SKIBO PROJECT SCOPING REPORT Laurentian Ranger District, Superior National Forest I. Introduction The Laurentian Ranger District of the Superior National Forest is proposing management activities within
More information3.1 Forest Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
3.1 Forest Vegetation Echo Trail Area Forest Management Project Forest vegetation and wildlife habitat analyses are based on data contained in a Region 9 program referred to as CDS (Combined Data System).
More informationBirch Project Scoping Report August 2010 Kawishiwi Ranger District, Superior National Forest
Scoping Report August 2010 Kawishiwi Ranger District, Superior National Forest I. Introduction The Kawishiwi Ranger District of the Superior National Forest is proposing management activities within the
More informationAppendix A Silvicultural Prescription Matrix Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response
Appendix A Silvicultural Prescription Matrix Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response Treatment objectives within the matrix are a combination of objectives for silvicultural, fuels,
More informationTable of Contents. 1 Introduction. 2 Decision. 3 Rationale for the Decision. 4 Other Alternatives Considered
Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Summary of the Decision 1.2 Project Area 1.3 Background 1.4 Purpose and Need 2 Decision 3 Rationale for the Decision 3.1 Overview 3.2 Purpose and Need 3.3 Significant
More informationPearl Project Biological Assessment
Pearl Project Executive Summary This (BA) documents the potential effects on federally proposed, candidate, threatened, or endangered species and designated critical habitat that could result from proposed
More informationAppendix F : Comment Period Input and Forest Service Responses
Appendix F : Comment Period Input and Forest Service Responses Appendix F: Comment period Input and Forest Service Response D - 1 1. Dick Artley We will be addressing here the issues identified in your
More informationBiological Assessment For the Mid-Temperance Environmental Assessment and Categorical Exclusions
Biological Assessment For the Mid-Temperance Environmental Assessment and Categorical Exclusions Prepared by: Peg Robertsen Wildlife Biologist Date: May 21, 2007 Tofte District, Superior National Forest
More informationProposed Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project At Walking Iron Wildlife Area August 6, 2015
Proposed Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project At Walking Iron Wildlife Area August 6, 2015 Walking Iron County Wildlife Area is 898 acres situated in the Town of Mazomanie between Walking Iron County Park
More informationEnvironmental Assessment
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service October 2016 Environmental Assessment Mesabi Project Laurentian Ranger District, Superior National Forest St. Louis County, Minnesota Townships 59-61
More informationChapter 13: Wildlife and Vegetation
Chapter 13: Wildlife and Vegetation Introduction and Setting Nevada County contains an extremely wide range of plants, animals and habitat types. With topographic elevations ranging from 300 feet in the
More informationRocky Mountain Regional Office
Forest Service File Code: 1570 Route To: Rocky Mountain Regional Office 740 Simms Street Golden, CO 80401-4702 Voice: 303-275-5350 TDD: 303-275-5367 Date: June 13, 2013 Subject: To: Recommendation Memorandum
More informationCHEAT MOUNTAIN WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Monongahela National Forest Greenbrier Ranger District Box 67 Bartow, WV 24920 304-456-3335 CHEAT MOUNTAIN WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT USDA Forest
More informationTelegraph Forest Management Project
Telegraph Forest Management Project Black Hills National Forest Northern Hills Ranger District Lawrence and Pennington Counties, South Dakota Proposed Action and Request for Comments March 2008 Table of
More informationEarly Scoping for Proposed Application for Incidental Take Permit and Habitat
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 11/12/2013 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2013-26950, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code 4310 55 DEPARTMENT OF THE
More informationHuron-Manistee National Forests Mio Ranger District 107 McKinley Road Mio, MI 48647
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Huron-Manistee National Forests Mio Ranger District 107 McKinley Road Mio, MI 48647 989-826-3252 (Voice) 989-826-6073 (Fax) Dial 711 for relay service
More informationBig Hill Insect and Disease Project Proposed Action
Big Hill Insect and Disease Project Proposed Action Project Background and 2014 Farm Bill The Big Hill Insect and Disease project on the Challis-Yankee Fork Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National
More informationPeter H. Singleton John F. Lehmkuhl. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Lab
Peter H. Singleton John F. Lehmkuhl USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Lab Talk Overview: Wildlife community associated with MMC Considerations for wildlife
More informationManaging Forests For Wildlife 3/13/2017 1
Managing Forests For Wildlife 3/13/2017 1 Why? Primarily Food. Acorns 142 calories/ounce. 9 grams of fat. 15 grams carbohydrate 2 grams protein Wildlife SuperFood Acorns can compose more than 75 percent
More informationNorthern deciduous forest as wildlife habitat. Tom Paragi Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fairbanks
Northern deciduous forest as wildlife habitat Tom Paragi Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fairbanks Boreal food webs Pastor et al. 1996 Biodiversity and ecosystem processes in boreal forest. Pages 33-69
More informationWildlife Conservation Strategy
Wildlife Conservation Strategy Boise National Forest What is the Wildlife Conservation Strategy? The Boise National Forest is developing a Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WCS) in accordance with its Land
More informationMechanical Site Preparation
Mechanical Site Preparation 1 Mechanical Site Preparation Introduction...3 CONTENTS The Benefits of Guidelines...3 Considerations...5 Design Outcomes To Maintain Soil Productivity...6 Planning...7 Planning
More informationWildlife Resources Report
Wildlife Resources Report Butte Mountain Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration Project Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Prepared by: Karen West, Wildlife Biologist, USDI Fish
More informationBiological Assessment For the Maple Hill Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment
Biological Assessment For the Maple Hill Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment Prepared by: Wayne Russ Wildlife Biologist Date: December, 2008 Gunflint and Tofte Ranger Districts, Superior National
More informationDeveloping forestry practices. Managing for Timber and Wildlife Diversity NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION PRE-HARVEST PLANNING:
Managing for Timber and Wildlife Diversity by Joe McGlincy NWTF WILDLIFE BULLETIN NO.15 RON BRENNEMAN NATIONAL WILD TURKEY FEDERATION Developing forestry practices that could potentially benefit all wildlife
More informationLow-intensity fire burning on the forest floor. High-intensity crown fire
Forest Fires: Answers to 12 Common Questions 1. Is wildfire bad for forests? No. Some forests need fire to be healthy, but it has to be the type of fire that the forest evolved with. Low-intensity fire
More informationThe Safe Harbor Program for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in North Carolina
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service The Safe Harbor Program for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in North Carolina Ralph Costa Provides assistance and benefits to private landowners The red-cockaded woodpecker is an endangered
More informationDecision Memo Tongass National Forest. Wrangell Ranger District. Pre-Commercial Thinning CE 2010
Decision Memo Tongass National Forest Pre-Commercial Thinning CE 2010 Decision It is my decision to authorize pre-commercial thinning (PCT) on approximately 7,500 acres of overstocked young-growth forest
More informationIntroduction. Methodology for Analysis
Scenic Report Prepared by: /s/gary Kedish Natural Resources Specialist for: Warner Mountain Ranger District Modoc National Forest January 20, 2016 Introduction This report focuses on the Visual Quality
More informationCATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION WORKSHEET: RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Developed Recreation/Trails, Wilderness & Roadless Jasper Mountain Priest Lake Ranger District Idaho Panhandle National Forest Description of the
More informationMANAGING YOUR WOODLAND FOR. White-tailed Deer
MANAGING YOUR WOODLAND FOR White-tailed Deer Managing Your Woodland for White-tailed Deer White-tailed deer are Minnesota s most abundant and popular big game animal with a population of approximately
More informationNew Mexico Forest Restoration Principles
New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles Preamble These principles were collaboratively developed by a team of dedicated professionals representing industry, conservation organizations, land management
More information8/5/2011. Lesson Overview. Disturbance/Fragmentation. Shifting Mosaic. Number one cause of biodiversity loss. Types of disturbance. - Scale, frequency
Lesson Overview Disturbances Fragmentation Types Measuring Corridors Effects Texas Example 1 Shifting Mosaic Landscape a shifting mosaic. - Made up of patches in different phases of successional development.
More informationAPPENDIX A VEGETATION RESTORATION TREATMENT SUMMARY ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE HARVEST TREATMENT SUMMARY TABLES
APPENDIX A VEGETATION TREATMENTS APPENDIX A VEGETATION RESTORATION TREATMENT SUMMARY This table provides information about the proposed treatment units including the existing conditions, the proposed treatment,
More informationRio Grande National Forest Update
Rio Grande National Forest Update Wildlife Movement Workshop: Connectivity in the Upper Rio Grande Watershed December 2016 1 2 Forest Background: 1.8 Million Acres encompassing the headwaters for Rio Grande
More information2/24/2009. The factors that determine what type of forest will grow in a region are temperature precipitation growing season soil land forms
FOREST FACTS Forestry 37% of Canada's land area covered by forests. Stretches in a continuous band from BC to NL. Commercial forests are forests that could be easily be harvested for timber. Non-commercial
More informationAppendix C. Activity Codes
Appendix C Activity Codes Activity Code Groupings 1000 Fire 2000 - Range 3000 Cultural Resources and Recreation 4000 Timber and Silviculture 5000 Soil, Air and Watershed 6000 Wildlife; Threatened, Endangered,
More informationForest Resources of the Black Hills National Forest
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station August 22 Forest Resources of the Black Hills National Forest Larry T. DeBlander About the author Larry T. DeBlander
More informationThe Galton Project Kootenai National Forest. The Galton Project
Introduction The Galton Project The Fortine Ranger District of the Kootenai National Forest is in the early stages of developing a project entitled Galton, named for the mountain range dominating the eastern
More informationPractice Plan for Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Stand 33: Restore Old Growth
Practice Plan for Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Stand 33: Restore Old Growth This practice plan addresses a general activity provided for in year 2017-2018 of the management schedule within
More informationProvince Integrated Resource Management Project
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service July 2012 Province Integrated Resource Management Project Township of Chatham, Carroll County, New Hampshire Scoping Report Prepared By Saco Ranger
More informationFontana Project Scoping Record August 2013
Fontana Project Scoping Record August 2013 The Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, is conducting an interdisciplinary analysis of a proposed project, called the Fontana Project, in Graham
More informationForsythe II Project. September 2015
Forsythe II Project September 2015 The Boulder Ranger District (BRD) of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests is proposing vegetation treatments on 3,840 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands
More informationLAND AND USE. Figure 2. Land cover in Rhode Island, Forest land. Nonforest land and smaller forest patches predominate in the area surrounding
Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia Figure 2. Land cover in Rhode Island, 1992. Forest land Developed land Agricultural land Other land Water Source: U.S. Geologic Survey, National Land Cover Data LAND AND
More informationProposed Action Report Big Creek WBP Enhancement Project
Proposed Action Report Big Creek WBP Enhancement Project USDA Forest Service Cascade Ranger District Boise National Forest Valley County, Idaho July 2013 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The encroachment
More informationManaging for a healthy sugarbush in a changing climate
Managing for a healthy sugarbush in a changing climate Vermont Maple Conference, Peoples Academy, Morrisville, VT January 28, 2017 Jared Nunery & Nancy Patch County Foresters Vermont Dept. of Forests,
More informationMANAGED FOREST LANDS STEWARDSHIP FORESTRY PLAN
Page 1 of 19 MANAGED FOREST LANDS STEWARDSHIP FORESTRY PLAN Landowner(s) as Shown on Deed: Name and Address of Contact Person: Entry Period: 25 years Starting January 1, 2014 Ending December 31, 2038 Municipality(s):
More informationPrinciples of Wildlife Ecology & Management Maryland Woodland Stewards Training Workshop
Principles of Wildlife Ecology & Management Maryland Woodland Stewards Training Workshop October 3, 2014 The Diversity of Wildlife in Maryland 97 Mammals 410 Birds 49 Reptiles 42 Amphibians 635 Fishes
More informationStands within MA 8.1 of Interior HFRP, and having major component of overstory being mature or decadent jack pine
Worksheet #1 Area of Interest: Location: Stands within MA 8.1 of Interior HFRP, and having major component of overstory being mature or decadent jack pine Silvicultural Cetification Stand/ Compartment
More informationGWINN FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT COMPARTMENT REVIEW PRESENTATION COMPARTMENT 277 ENTRY YEAR: 2010
GWINN FOREST MANAGEMENT UNIT COMPARTMENT REVIEW PRESENTATION COMPARTMENT 277 ENTRY YEAR: 200 Compartment Acreage: 967 County: 52 Marquette Revision Date: 8/07/08 Stand Examiner: Kevin LaBumbard Legal Description:
More informationClimate Change Specialist Report final
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Climate Change Specialist Report final La Garita Hills Restoration Submitted by: Trey Schillie R2 Climate Change Coordinator
More informationHabitat Stewardship Series n e w h a m p s h i r e w i l d l i f e a c t i o n p l a n
Hemlock-Hardwood-Pine Forest Habitat Stewardship Series n e w h a m p s h i r e w i l d l i f e a c t i o n p l a n Recognizing hemlock-hardwood-pine forest Hemlock-hardwood-pine forest is the most wide-spread
More informationA Case Study of Habitat Conservation Plans and the Protection of Snags and Coarse Woody Debris on Industrial Forest Lands 1
A Case Study of Habitat Conservation Plans and the Protection of Snags and Coarse Woody Debris on Industrial Forest Lands 1 Lorin L. Hicks 2 and Henning C. Stabins 2 Abstract Forest practices on private
More informationIntroduction. Methodology for Analysis
1 Medicine Lake Caldera Vegetation Treatment Project Scenic Report Prepared by: /s/gary Kedish Natural Resources Specialist for: Big Valley and Doublehead Ranger Districts Modoc National Forest February
More informationGENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES SURVEYS IN THE PINELANDS AREA. March 25, 2006 INTRODUCTION
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES SURVEYS IN THE PINELANDS AREA March 25, 2006 INTRODUCTION This document is intended to provide general guidance for use in conducting
More informationFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OWL CREEK GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION U.S. FOREST SERVICE
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OWL CREEK GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION U.S. FOREST SERVICE OURAY RANGER DISTRICT OURAY COUNTY, COLORADO BACKGROUND The Owl Creek Gravel Pit, also known as the Spruce Ridge Pit,
More informationPublic Rock Collection
Public Rock Collection Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District, White River national Forest Eagle County, Colorado T7S, R80W, Section 18 & T6S, R84W, Section 16 Comments Welcome The Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District
More informationWildlife Management Intensity Standards
Habitat Control Practices Required Intensity Description Grazing Management The planned manipulation of livestock numbers and grazing intensities to increase food, The planned manipulation of livestock
More informationDECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HOPKINS FIRE SALVAGE
DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HOPKINS FIRE SALVAGE DECISION U.S. FOREST SERVICE OCALA NATIONAL FOREST SEMINOLE RANGER DISTRICT MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA Based upon my review of the
More informationChase Red Pine Fuels Project
United States Department of Agriculture Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact USDA Forest Service, Huron-Manistee National Forests Lake and Newaygo Counties,
More informationWildlife Management Concepts
The Maryland Envirothon Wildlife Management Concepts Before an individual can evaluate wildlife habitat and make management recommendations, some basic concepts about habitat and its relation to different
More informationMixed Use of Forest Roads 459 and 457 Environmental Assessment
Mixed Use of Forest Roads 459 and 457 Environmental Assessment USDA Forest Service Superior National Forest Kawishiwi Ranger District St. Louis County, Minnesota February, 2014 For additional information,
More informationForest Restoration and Management in a Changing Climate: Implications for North Shore Watersheds
Forest Restoration and Management in a Changing Climate: Implications for North Shore Watersheds Mark A. White, Meredith Cornett The Nature Conservancy Matthew Duveneck and Robert Scheller, Portland State
More informationDraft Wildlife Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2017 Draft Wildlife Resource Report Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project Happy Camp/Oak Knoll District, Klamath National
More informationOchoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains
[3410-11- P] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION:
More informationTeton County Flammulated Owl Survey
Teton County Flammulated Owl Survey 2016 Teton Raptor Center Report Teton Raptor Center, funded by Teton Conservation District, initiated Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus) surveys in a portion of
More informationYankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact
Yankee Hill Fuel Treatment Project Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact USDA Forest Service Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests And Pawnee National Grassland Clear Creek Ranger District
More informationNorthern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of Decision
USDA Forest Service National Forests in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah March 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of Decision The United States Department of Agriculture
More informationThe province has been divided into six Fire Management Zones based on common management objectives, land use, fire load, and forest ecology.
Appendix A: Fire Management Zones & Zone Specific Direction The province has been divided into six Fire Management Zones based on common management objectives, land use, fire load, and forest ecology.
More information4.3 MA 3 Bullock Ranch Management Area. Summary of Use and Management
4.3 MA 3 Bullock Ranch Management Area Summary of Use and Management The Bullock Ranch opening is one of several large openings within the eastern Upper Peninsula (EUP) that are managed for a suite of
More informationSBEADMR Priority Treatment Areas Process and Results
SBEADMR Priority Treatment Areas Process and Results GIS Optimization & Interdisciplinary Validation, September & October 2015 Purpose Use GIS to focus and prioritize potential treatment areas within the
More informationElkhorn Project Proposed Action
Elkhorn Project Proposed Action PROJECT LOCATION The Elkhorn project area is defined by the Cache la Poudre River and Highway 14 to the south, the Manhattan Road (CR 69) to the east, the Deadman Road to
More informationCentral Texas vegetation: the role of fire
Central Texas vegetation: the role of fire or Why conservation land managers are pyromaniacs Norma Fowler, Professor Section of Integrative Biology University of Texas at Austin fire-controlled plant communities
More informationMany of Missouri s forest landowners are interested
NATURAL RESOURCES Integrating Woodland and Wildlife Management Practices on Your Property Many of Missouri s forest landowners are interested in managing their property for wood products and enhanced wildlife
More informationHunting Club, Lake County, and Wolf Land Parcels Fall 2010 Wildlife and Wetland Assessment Final Report
Hunting Club, Lake County, and Wolf Land Parcels Fall 2010 Wildlife and Wetland Assessment Final Report OCTOBER 2011 Prepared for: Prepared by: Hoyt Lakes, MN 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared
More informationLIVING LANDS Helping Land Trusts Conserve Biodiversity
LIVING LANDS Helping Land Trusts Conserve Biodiversity Habitat Restoration: Information for Land Trusts What is Habitat Restoration? Habitat restoration is defined as the process of assisting the recovery
More informationForest Biomes. Chapter 9
Forest Biomes Chapter 9 9.1 Objectives ~Describe the characteristics of the coniferous forest. ~Explain adaptations that enable organisms to survive in coniferous forests. 9.1 Coniferous Forests Coniferous
More informationBlanche Park Reservoir Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact
Blanche Park Reservoir Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact U.S. Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Delta County, Colorado INTRODUCTION The Grand Mesa
More informationChapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action
Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in
More informationJack and Rock Meadows
Jack Creek and Rock Creek Meadows Fuel Reduction and Meadow Restoration Project ---------- Chemult Ranger District Fremont-Winema National Forests Klamath County, Oregon Background Moist and wet meadows
More informationChapter 10 Natural Environment
Chapter 10 Natural Environment Existing Conditions The Natural Environment Element addresses the protection, conservation, preservation, and restoration of the natural resources the Bayview Ridge Subarea,
More informationForest Resources of the Ashley National Forest
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Research Station December 1997 Forest Resources of the Ashley National Forest Renee A. O Brien Ronald P. Tymcio This summary of the
More informationPRESCRIBED FIRE IN SOUTHWEST IDAHO
2016 PRESCRIBED FIRE IN SOUTHWEST IDAHO In southwest Idaho, public land managers work to: address public health and safety concerns; treat insect and disease infestations; reduce the risk of severe wildfires
More informationTRENDS IN DELAWARE S FORESTS
United States Department of Agriculture TRENDS IN DELAWARE S FORESTS Forest Service Northeastern Research Station NE-INF-150-02 Delaware Department of Agriculture Forest Service DELAWARE FORESTS Forests
More informationForest and climate change
Forest and climate change Seppo Kellomäki University of Eastern Finland School of Forest Sciences Joensuu Campus Finland 1 Contents Forests in the world Global climate change and impacts on forests Climate
More informationMANITOBA ENVIROTHON WATER AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
MANITOBA ENVIROTHON WATER AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS Outcome Water and Aquatic Ecosystems as Resources Properties of Water, Water Bodies and Watersheds, and Aquatic Species Identification A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
More informationORDER UNGULATE WINTER RANGE #U2-005
ORDER UNGULATE WINTER RANGE #U2-005 The following order applies to the area identified within the attached Schedule A and takes effect on the 28 th day of February, 2005. This order is given under the
More informationBird Response to Wildlife Enhancement Silvicultural Treatments
Bird Response to Wildlife Enhancement Silvicultural Treatments Daniel Twedt U. S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Forest Management Desired Forest Conditions for Wildlife Desired Stand
More informationCold Springs Project
Cold Springs Project Scenery Management Resource Report Prepared by: Nicole R. Hill Landscape Architect for: Northern Hills Ranger District Black Hills National Forest July 26, 2011 Scenery Management
More informationResponsible Forest Management IS Wildlife Management
FOREST WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA Daniel Ray Forest Stewardship Biologist NC Wildlife Resources Commission Forest Stewardship Values Timber or Wildlife What about the other forest resources?
More informationSummary Alternative 1 No Action
Summary The Sierra National Forest, Bass Lake Ranger District proposes to create a network of strategically placed landscape area treatments (SPLATs) and defensible fuels profiles near key transportation
More informationGRAY WOLF (Sensitive) Introduction. Analysis Area. Affected Environment/Existing Condition
Chapter 3 Gray Wolf GRAY WOLF (Sensitive) Introduction Effective May 5, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) removed gray wolves in a portion of the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population
More informationMosaic Forest Management Ltd.
June 24th, 2007 Protech Consultants Ltd., #200 1449 St. Paul St., Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 2E4 Attn: Grant Maddock Dear Grant: re: Wildfire Mitigation Assessment - Lower Peachland Area Structure Plan This letter
More informationPLANT AND ANIMAL DIVERSITY
by the planning rule team as of. These ideas are for discussion purposes and do not What we want to achieve PLANT AND ANIMAL DIVERSITY The Forest Service is committed to protecting species and sustaining
More information3-13 Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-13 Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3-13.1 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity NEPA requires consideration of the relationship
More informationHubbard Lake State Game Area Master Plan
Hubbard Lake State Game Area Master Plan MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE DIVISION BRIAN PICCOLO AUGUST 2017 Intended Purpose and General Management Direction Hubbard Lake State Game Area
More informationRecord of Decision. Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project. November 2016
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region November 2016 Record of Decision Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Project National Recreation Area Management
More informationPlantation Forestry: A Global Look
Plantation Forestry: A Global Look Forest Area: 3,952,025,000 ha Woodland Area: 1,375,829,000 ha Annual World Wood Removal + + 620,138,943 m 3 wood (USDA 2008) 620,138,943 m 3 wood (USDA 2008) 620,138,943
More informationField Sparrow. Appendix A: Birds. Spizella pusilla. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan Appendix A Birds-308
Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Federal Listing State Listing Global Rank State Rank Regional Status N/A N/A G5 S3 Very High Photo by Pamela Hunt Justification (Reason for Concern in NH) Populations of
More informationU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OKLAHOMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OKLAHOMA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE May 11, 2009 STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID, MINIMIZE AND MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF WIND ENERGY
More information