Lakewood Southeast Project USDA Forest Service Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Oconto County, Wisconsin

Transcription

1 Record of Decision Lakewood Southeast Project USDA Forest Service Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Oconto County, Wisconsin T30N, R16E, Section 1; T30N, R17E, Sections 1, 4-6; T30N, R18E, Sections 5, 6; T31N, R16E, Sections 1, 12-14, 23-27, 33-36; T31N, R.17E, Sections 1-36; T31N, R18E, Sections 6, 7, 18, 19, 30 31; T32, R17E, Sections 1-5, 8-17, 20-36; T32N, R18E, Sections 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, 31; T33N, R17E, Sections 33-36; T33N, R18E, Section 31; 4 th PM FOREST HISTORY The history of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is a story of restoration and conservation. In the mid 1800s, northern Wisconsin contained species such as maple, yellow, birch, hemlock, white pine, fir, and cedar. Contrary to popular belief, the forests were not homogenous, expansive tracts of old growth forest; instead, the landscape included barrens, early successional forests of aspen and paper birch, and mature forests of mixed hardwood and conifer. When America began evolving from an agrarian society to an industrialized nation, it created a timber demand for railroad ties, homes, fuel, barrels, and paper. Between 1890 and 1910, the once vast pine forests were cut and burned into near non-existence. The harvesting peaked in 1899 when Wisconsin led the world in lumber production. When the pine had been logged, the demand turned to hardwoods. By 1911, 60 to 70 percent of Wisconsin had been cut over. During the 1920s and 1930s, European immigrants came by the thousands to farm. The Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests were created in the 1930s from this over cut, burned, farmed out lands. During the Great Depression, hundreds of young men recruited into the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) planted thousands of acres of pine to reforest the barren acres. The massive reforestation efforts of the CCC and the careful stewardship of the US Forest Service have provided the people of this area with 1.5 million acres of beautiful forest albeit a young forest. By 1950, the cutover land was green again. Aspen became the dominant species and jack pine flourished. Today trees are mostly 40 to 100 years old, and many stands are still in an even-aged condition because they lack tree species and size diversity, and developed understories. In 1986, both the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests released their Land and Resource Management Plans. Prior to starting the plan revision process in the late 1990s, the Forest Service decided that the concept of ecosystem management would be the foundation of the next round of forest plans. Between 1986 and 1995, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) provided 1.4 billion board feet of timber. Although that may seem high, the tree growth exceeded removal by more than 10 percent during that time period. To this day, the CNNF is growing more than is harvested every year. The 2004 revised Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) is a template to provide the best opportunity to improve ecological conditions while providing a broad spectrum of recreational opportunities and a realistic level of commodity production. Plan implementation will help create larger continuous blocks of uneven-aged older forest as well as stands of aspen. It is important to note that the forest plan allocates 184,600 acres as Ecological Reference Areas (12 percent of the total forest) which are not in the suitable timber base and provide protection for high quality sites, refuge, potential recovery areas for rare species, and control areas for research and monitoring. In addition, 262,900 acres (17 percent of the total forest) are designated as Alternative Management Areas where landscape scale restoration of northern hardwood-hemlock forest, pine-oak forest, and Pine Barrens are emphasized. It is difficult to make a project decision that will please everyone when timber harvest is involved. The issue of timber harvest on national forests has entangled their management throughout the entire country for many years. In Wisconsin, some people see the role of the North Woods as contributing to a sustainable supply of wood products to the American people. Others see the CNNF as pristine and feel natural processes should dominate, much like the National Park system. Some people take issue with the amount of present timber harvest even though the acres harvested on this national forest have declined over the past five years. Others are advocates of no-harvest forest management.

2 The polarization of the two extremes between no timber harvest and aggressive timber harvest leaves me the middle ground to provide multiple uses. Nobody got everything they wanted with the 2004 forest plan. However, what the American public received is a 1.5 million-acre national forest with both active and passive forest management: timber harvesting and natural succession, motorized and non-motorized recreation, wilderness and developed recreation sites, and active and passive wildlife habitat management. I believe that the Lakewood Southeast Project embodies these management principles. PROJECT BACKGROUND This record of decision references the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) prepared for the Lakewood Southeast Project (LSE). The acres and locations of activities are approximate based on inventory and survey estimates. Actual figures could change slightly during sale preparation. Location The Lakewood Southeast Project Area (project area) is located in the southeastern portion of the Lakewood Ranger District (see vicinity map) Southeast of Mountain, Wisconsin. The legal description of the area includes lands lying within the National Forest boundary in T30N, R16E, Section 1; T30N, R.17E, Sections 1, 4-6; T30N, R18E, Sections 5, 6; T31N, R16E, Sections 1, 12-14, 23-27, 33-36; T31N, R.17E, Sections 1-36; T31N, R18E, Sections 6, 7, 18, 19, 30 31; T32, R17E, Sections 1-5, 8-17, 20-36; T32N, R18E, Sections 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, 31; T33N, R17E, Sections 33-36; T33N, R18E, Section 31. Vegetative Composition The Lakewood Southeast Project area is approximately 74% uplands and 26% lowlands. The primary upland forest types are red and white pine (33 percent), aspen (26 percent), and northern hardwoods (16 percent). The majority of the upland forest stands are classified as being a middle age class. The lowlands in the project area are about 54 percent lowland conifer swamps, 33 percent lowland hardwoods, and about 13 percent lowland openings. Forest Plan Management Areas The forest plan establishes multiple-use goals and objectives, and assigns a management area to each portion of the CNNF. The LSE Project area is comprised of eight management areas (MA): 2A, 2C, 3C, 4A, 4B, 8E, 8F, and 8G. The project area contains approximately 36,939 acres of National Forest lands. Within the project area, the forest plan allocated the majority of the lands to Management Areas (MA) 4A (Conifer: red-white-jack pine), 4B (Conifer: natural pine oak), 8F (Special management areas), and 8G (Old growth and natural feature complexes). Also included in the project area are MAs 2A (Uneven aged Northern Hardwoods), 2C (Uneven-aged northern hardwoods: mixed forest), 3C (Even-aged hardwoods: oak-aspen), and 8E (Existing and candidate research natural areas). Table 1: This table shows MA acres MAs MA 2A MA 2C MA 3C MA 4A MA 4B MA 8E MA 8F MA 8G Acres ,585 10, ,987 6,288 Changes between the DEIS and FEIS To improve readability the issue statements were rewritten. Also included was a statement that all issues were paraphrased from public comments and not internal issues, as this was a point of confusion in the DEIS. The original Need 1B MA 3C was removed, because this MA represents less than one percent of the area. 2

3 PURPOSE AND NEED, PROPOSED ACTION An ID team comprised of District and CNNF resource specialists assessed the existing vegetative conditions and management options within the LSE Project area. A variety of timber harvest, regeneration, wildlife habitat improvement, fuels treatments, and transportation management actions were developed by the ID team to respond to the project area needs. See section 1.2 of the FEIS. A number of Need for Change Worksheets were completed and later used to develop the Purpose and Need, and Proposed Action (FEIS, Chapter 1, section 1.2). In addition, a detailed roads analysis was completed in order to determine long-term access needs. The following needs for action and objectives were identified: Need 1. Move Composition by MA towards desired future condition (DFC). 1A. Move MA 4B toward DFC for composition by reducing aspen and increasing red/white pine 1B. Move MAs 2C and 4A toward DFC for composition Need 2. Move species age class distribution towards DFC 2A. Aspen 2B. Paper birch 2C. Northern hardwoods 2D. Jack pine 2E Red pine 2F White pine 2G Balsam Fir 2H Northern red oak Need 3. Selected trout stream management by converting aspen into long-lived species adjacent to the stream Need 4. Increase species diversity by increasing tree stand and species diversity Need 5. Decrease over stocked stands in uneven aged hardwood, mixed hardwood, red pine, and white pine. Need 6. Restore two ecosystems by reintroducing fire in the following ecosystems 6A. Northern Dry Forest 6B. Pine Barrens Need 7. Wildlife habitat 7A. Maintain upland opening habitat for wildlife. 7B. Improve habitat for red-shouldered and goshawks 7C. Create wood turtle habitat Need 8. Reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland urban interface Need 9. Provide a road system that meets the long-term transportation needs of the project area while reducing road density and blocking closed roads. CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Local tribes, concerned agencies, local governments, and the public were consulted with or notified about this project during the early stages of project development. Tribal representatives were consulted in a letter on March 31, 2011 and one response was received. Also on March 31, 2011, a 3

4 project information packet was mailed to interested publics, adjacent landowners, organizations, and government agencies. Summaries of these comments and the Forest Service responses to them are in appendix E of the FEIS. On April 7, 2011 a Notice of Intent to file a draft EIS was published in the Federal Register. The notice of availability for the comment period on the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2012 and a legal notice was placed in the Rhinelander Daily News on October 23, In addition on October 11, 2012, letters and s were sent out to those who either had commented during scoping or had otherwise expressed interest in the DEIS. A total of 70 comments were received on the scoping and DEIS. These comments and Forest Service responses to them can be found in appendix E of the FEIS. Public notification has been on the CNNF s web page since October 2010 and this project has been listed in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning with the October 2010 edition. ISSUES As a result of public comments on the proposed action, the following public key issues were identified. Loss of early successional forest/young aspen. The proposed action would cause a net decrease in the early successional habitat/young aspen. The project s proposed clearcutting of 815 acres is beneficial to early successional species, but the conversion of over twice that amount of aspen (1,796 acres) to other forest types would cause a decrease in early successional habitat/young aspen. Loss of mature aspen, which is habitat for forest raptors. The proposed action, which clearcuts 736 acres of older aspen, would create young forest. Increasing early successional habitat could reduce nesting habitat opportunities for goshawks that may nest in mature aspen stands. Road construction/reconstruction effects road density The proposed action would construct 2.1, reconstruct 32.8, close 3.9, and decommission 26.5 miles of roads. Road density within the project area exceeds the forest plan guidelines; the proposed action would reduce road density. Road construction/reconstruction can have pervasive and cumulative effects on resources Road construction and reconstruction can have pervasive and cumulative effects that increase sedimentation in waterways and the spread invasive species. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives Analyzed or Considered in the EIS Four alternatives were developed for this project three that wholly or partially meet the Purpose and Need, and a required No Action alternative. Alternative 1 is the no action and Alternative 2 is the original proposed action. Alternative 3 was developed at the request of commenters; in their opinion, it would decrease the loss of young aspen and early successional habitat. Alternative 4 was developed at the request of a commenter; in their opinion it would decrease early successional habitat which would come at the expense of mature forest dependent species. A more detailed description of alternatives can be found in sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and of the FEIS. Alternative 3 is described in the Decision section of this document. Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, none of the proposed activities including timber harvesting, tree planting, and road decommissioning would be implemented. Ongoing and permitted uses such as firewood cutting and routine road maintenance would continue to occur within the project area. Management activities approved by other decision documents would also continue. 4

5 Alternative 2 The Proposed Action (2) is the original alternative proposed by the agency. The IDT created this alternative to move towards the purpose and need, and meet the desired conditions in the forest plan. The IDT developed Alternative 2 to move the area toward desired conditions from the current conditions. Alternative 4 This alternative was developed at the request of a commenter. Their proposed alternative includes the components described below. See FEIS appendix A3, and Alternative 4 Maps in Appendix C of the FEIS for descriptions and locations of the proposed activities. The following items were requested by ELPC and included by the IDT in this alternative: Defer all proposed clearcuts or shelterwood harvests in white or red pine stands over 80 years of age Defer logging of any kind in red or white pine stands over 100 years old Defer all proposed logging in hardwood stands over 80 years of age Increase the number of large trees retained in cutting units Increase the size and number of large downed woody debris in cutting units, particularly near riparian zones and wetlands Incorporate timber harvest prescriptions that do not result in increases in soil temperature in cutting units Ensure that all logging activities for this project fully adhere to forest plan guidelines. Those guidelines are important for the protection and continued viability of red-shouldered hawk and northern goshawk. Eliminate proposed logging within 30 meters of any stream, lake, or other water body in the project area, except to facilitate succession to longer-lived species Defer all logging within 500 meters of historic or current northern goshawk or red-shouldered hawk nest sites, if any Other Alternatives Considered but Dropped From Further Analysis The only other alternative was to have a no road construction alternative. This was dropped because to complete the project and maintain a road system for the public and administrative use, roads would be needed (see section on transportation in the FEIS). DECISION Based upon my review of all the alternatives analyzed in the Lakewood Southeast FEIS, I have decided to implement Alternative 3. My decision includes all management requirements and monitoring provisions as described in the FEIS (sections 2.3 and Appendix D) and all Need For Change documents in the project record. I have based this decision on the analyses in the FEIS, the biological evaluation, and the associated project record. As the responsible official for this decision, I have carefully considered the environmental consequences disclosed in the FEIS. I believe the conclusions in the FEIS are supported by the analytical documents in the project record. The tables and maps attached to this document display the types and locations of the selected actions. Appendix A and the following narrative summarize the actions to be taken in order to remedy the needs described in the Purpose and Need and Proposed Action section above. Some characteristics of this alternative include the same wildlife, biomass, and fuel reduction management as Alternative 2. The following is a list of activities that are included in this alternative: This alternative proposes to harvest 10,752 acres of timber to manage species age diversity, species composition, and improve growing conditions, including: Thin 4,249 acres of pine, spruce, oak, northern hardwoods, and aspen (see needs 1 and 5) Shelterwood harvest 3,894 acres of pine, fir, birch, oak, and northern hardwoods (see needs 1 and 2) Clearcut 2,021 acres of jack pine, red pine, and aspen (see need 2) 5

6 Special cut 393 acres of pine, northern hardwoods, and aspen (see needs 6 and 8) Select harvest of 194 acres of northern hardwoods (see need 5A) Other vegetation management: Understory plant 1,768 acres (see needs 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7) Understory burn 2,733 acres (see needs 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8) including composition, species diversity, communities of concern, wildlife habitat, and WUI (see needs 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8) Reducing hazardous fuels on 6,758 acres (including the understory burn acres above) in the wildland/ urban interface (see need 8) Salmon blade treatments 97 acres (see needs 2 and 4) Precommercial thin 48 acres (see needs 1 and 8) Release seedlings in 850 acres (see needs 2 and 4) Full plant 598 acres (see needs1 and 2) Reestablish components and processes in the dry northern forests and Pine Barrens (burn up to 1,000 acres), (see need 6 A and B) Management of 217 acres of wildlife openings (see need 7A) Improve habitat for red-shoulder hawk, and goshawk with timber management activities by underplanting with white pine and hemlock, which provide nesting material and prey habitat (see need 7B). Improve habitat for wood turtle with design features (see need 7C) Biomass removal on 1,634 acres is in conjunction with timber harvest activities above. Access management of roads (see need 9): Construct 1.2 miles of road Reconstruction/maintenance of 30.7 miles of road Install barriers on the ground to block closed/decommissioned roads, which are not open to public motorized use from prior decisions, within the project area Decommission 23.4 miles of open roads outside of the non-motorized area. Decommission 3.1 miles of open system road and remove them from the MVUM outside the non-motorized area Close 3.9 miles of road outside the non-motorized area Management Requirements All applicable forest plan standards and guidelines, which include implementation of Wisconsin s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality Field Manual (BMPs), will be implemented during harvest, road construction, road reconstruction, and road decommissioning activities. In addition, the site-specific design features listed in the FEIS section 2.3 will be implemented as part of the selected alternative to further reduce or eliminate undesirable effects to soil, RFSS, and heritage resources. All applicable forest plan standards and guidelines are described in appendix D of the ROD. DECISION RATIONALE This section describes what I considered in making a decision to select Alternative 3 of the LSE Project FEIS. My main reason for choosing Alternative 3 is that it is the best in restoring northern dry forest and especially pine barrens communities (see FEIS reference to Northeast Sands Wisconsin Legacy Report and the Wisconsin s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need ). Alternative 3 has the least amount of road construction. Alternative 3 is also a better balance for both hawk species than Alternative 2. Alternatives 1 and 4 would be the farthest from meeting the forest plan DFCs, as well as purpose and need. I used the information and findings documented in the FEIS, the Biological Evaluation, specialist s reports, and other documents in the project record, I evaluated how each alternative responded to two criteria: meeting the purpose and need (objectives) of the project, and addressing issues. The following is a summary of the FEIS for Alternative 3. 6

7 Alternative 3 responds to concerns about the loss of aspen habitat while responding to the forest plan s DFC s. It moves the area toward the DFC s, but not as far as Alternative 2. However, it maintains more aspen on the landscape, responding to those public concerns, and maintaining future options. Criteria 1 Meeting the Purpose and Need for the LSE Project and forest plan direction The overall purpose of the proposed activities with the LSE Project is to implement land management activities consistent with direction in the forest plan by addressing the major gaps between desired future conditions and the current conditions in the project area. All of the vegetation needs identified are tied to Goal 1.4 of the forest plan provide terrestrial ecosystems in healthy, diverse, and productive conditions that support the diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species, and have a high likelihood of supporting the viability of native and desired non-native vertebrates and vascular plants well distributed in their ranges within the planning area over time (forest plan, p. 1-3). The following explains how well Alternative 3 meet each of the objectives for each identified need, and consequently forest plan direction. Need 1. Move Composition by MA towards desired future condition (DFC). Need 1A- Management Area 4B Composition: Alternative 3 reduces aspen composition, moving toward DFC. Alternative 3 is tied for the best at reducing jack pine equally in the short-term. Alternative 3 is the second best at increasing red and white pine composition in the short-term. Need 1B- Modify Composition in Other Management Areas: Alternative 3 reduces aspen in MA 2C in the long-term. It also reduces aspen in MA 4A in the short and long-term. Need 2. Move species age class distribution towards DFC 2A. Aspen-Improve the age class distribution: Alternative 3 moves aspen age class 0-10 toward DFC in the short-term and age class in the long-term. 2B. Paper birch- Improve the age class distribution: This was a minor need, but was analyzed in the FEIS. 2C. Northern hardwoods-improve the age class distribution: Alternative 3 almost achieves DFC for age class in the short-term and long-term. 2D. Jack pine-improve the age class distribution: Alternative 3 gets the closest to the DFC for age class 0-10 in the short-term and in the long-term. 2E Red pine-improve the age class distribution: Alternatives 2 and 3 are equally effective in moving red pine age class distribution towards the DFCs. 2F White pine-improve the age class distribution: Alternative 3 is the most effective in moving toward the DFCs. 2G Balsam Fir-Improve the age class distribution: All alternatives are the same. 2H Northern red oak-improve the age class distribution: Alternative 3 is the most effective in the short-term and closest for the 80+ age class. Need 3. Selected trout stream management by converting aspen forest into long-lived species adjacent to the stream. Alternative 3 would be the second best, planting 56 acres after treatment. Need 4. Increase species diversity by increasing tree stand and species diversity. All alternatives are the same, including underplanting with white pine and hemlock. Need 5. Decrease over stocked stands in uneven aged hardwood, mixed hardwood, red pine, and white pine. Alternative 3 responds well to reduce stocking. Need 6. Restore two ecosystems by introducing fire. 6A. Northern dry forest. Alternative 3 rates the second best at restoring this rare habitat. 6B. Pine Barrens. Alternative 3 rates the best in restoring this rare habitat. 7

8 Need 7. Wildlife habitat 7A. Maintain upland opening habitat for wildlife. All alternatives are the same for this need. 7B. Improve habitat for red-shouldered and goshawks. Alternative 3 is better for the hawks than 2. The suitable habitat loss will not be a long-term detriment to goshawks and redshouldered hawk populations. 7C. Create wood turtle habitat. Alternative 3 would create wood turtle habitat. Need 8. Reduce hazardous fuels in the urban interface. Alternative 3 prescribe burns more area and thins the second most acres in the wildland urban interface. Need 9. Provide a road system that meets the long-term transportation needs of the CNNF. Alternative 3 allows for all needed road work to work toward the DFCs. All alternatives reduce total and open road density. However, Alternative 3 has the least amount of road construction, and second for reconstruction. Criteria 2 Addressing Issues My decision to select Alternative 3 was also based on how each alternative addressed issues. Most of the concerns expressed in the comment letters received in response to the public scoping package were not identified as issues because they were determined to be one or more of the following: beyond the scope of the project; irrelevant or conjectural; resolved by law or regulations, forest plan direction, or mitigation measures; an issue indicator. The following is a summary of the analyses that can be found in Chapter 3 of the FEIS and in the biological evaluation. Loss of early successional forest/young aspen. Alternative 3 was created to address this issue. It has the least loss in aspen of the four alternatives. It increases the clearcuts; therefore, regenerating early successional habitat. See FEIS, section In the short-term, this alternative would move the aspen age class distribution much closer to the desired condition than the current condition. Because of the extensive regeneration harvests used to prevent conversion, this alternative would move the aspen age class distribution closer to the desired conditions than the other three alternatives analyzed. This alternative does not thin aspen stands in an attempt to push them towards conversion (Alternatives 2 and 4 do this); by regenerating as much as it does, it maintains aspen as a type in those locations. These are the two main reasons this alternative prevents the aspen loss. Loss of mature aspen, which is habitat for forest raptors. The IDT included the factors that the commenter asked for that was attainable into Alternative 4. Alternative 3 impacts less suitable habitat for the goshawk than Alternative 2. Early successional habitat is habitat for goshawk prey species. Salafsky et al (2008) noted that goshawks need a wide variety of prey availability to sustain reproductive levels and indicates that forest management that sustains prey abundance is important to management of goshawks. The result of not implementing any aspen timber harvesting activities would result in fewer habitats over time for prey species such as ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare. Alternative 3 would be the most beneficial for ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and golden-winged warbler by regenerating the most early successional habitat. Currently, only two percent of the aspen in the project area is within the age class of 0-10 years old and nine percent between age class years old. The lack of young aspen forest and correspondingly limited availability of productive prey habitat could be a factor in low numbers of goshawk nests in the project area. Road construction/reconstruction effects road density. All action alternatives reduce total road density by 24 percent and open road density by 29 percent in the project area. The amount of closures and decommissioning exceeds the road construction. Alternative 3 constructs the least road miles. Reconstruction does not affect density, since these roads are already included in the calculations. Road construction/reconstruction can have pervasive and cumulative effects on resources Alternative 3 has the lowest road miles being constructed and therefore a lower road impact. Since analysis has indicated negligible risks to aquatic resources (see FEIS, Chapter 3, sections and 3.9.3) when project design features are properly implemented, cumulative impacts to water quality near the project area would be minimal. Past, present, and future harvest activities occurring on National Forest, other Federal, State, County, Tribal, private industrial, private nonindustrial, and miscellaneous 8

9 corporate have been and would be occurring throughout the cumulative effects boundary. Based on WDNR Forestry BMPs for water quality monitoring results on all land ownerships in Wisconsin, effects to water quality would be negligible. The potential for erosion is slight for 97 percent of the treatment areas proposed in Alternatives 2-4, indicating little or no erosion (see FEIS, Chapter 3, section 3.8.2). Decommissioning the new temporary and existing roads, may involve discing to loosen compaction and/or allow natural processes to eliminate existing compaction over time, returning about 47 acres of land to productive forest. No detrimental soil erosion would be expected. No long-term detrimental displacement effects to the project area are expected from temporary road construction and use. Decommissioning roads would stop motorized traffic; reducing the spread of NNIS seed on those roads (see FEIS, chapter 3, section 3.7.2). Other vectors such as wind, animals, and birds would still exist. Road construction would need to avoid the infestations, and/or the equipment would need to be cleaned before moving on to the next project. All action alternatives create habitat conditions suitable for NNIS, which would potentially increase the risk of spread and establishment above the existing background level. Implementation of forest plan guidelines and project design features would eliminate direct spread due to project activities, so the existing trend in the project area would not increase. Conclusions I believe the temporary reduction of suitable RFSS/MIS habitat are justified in order to realize the longterm benefits of improving habitat for species, restoring rare ecosystems, and working toward the forest plan DFCs in the project area. After reading the BE and FEIS, I realized that Alternative 3 was best for wildlife, because: 1. Alternative 3 creates more Pine Barrens habitat then any of the other action alternatives. This is important due to there is currently no stands in the project area identified as Pine Barrens habitat. Pine barren communities are considered imperiled both globally and in the state of Wisconsin by the WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory program. There is great concern that Pine Barrens habitats in Wisconsin be maintained or restored because so many rare species of flora and fauna depend on barrens habitat (WDNR, The Northeast Sands Wisconsin Land Legacy Report, 2011). There are 20 bird, seven mammal, eight reptile/amphibian and 16 plant species that are associated with Pine Barrens habitat that are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need for the state by the WDNR (WDNR, 2005). This includes the following RFSS for the CNNF; sharp-tailed grouse, Connecticut warbler, black-backed woodpecker, spruce grouse, gray wolf, wood turtle, Missouri rock cress, large-flowered ground cherry, and dwarf huckleberry. 2. Alternative 3 creates the most regenerating aspen acres (early successional forests). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would add early-successional habitat with aspen regeneration on 736, 1,272, and 35 acres respectively. Aspen management will have impacts on many species including American woodcock, ruffed grouse, and golden winged warbler due to they are typically associated with early successional habitat (regenerating aspen). These species are also high public interest and shown some recent population declines at the regional and or state levels. 3. The increase of early successional habitat would provide habitat for goshawk prey species ruffed grouse and snowshoe hares. Currently, only two percent of the aspen in the Lakewood Southeast Project area is within the age class of 0-10 years old and nine percent between age classes. This very small percentage of suitable prey habitat could be a factor in low numbers of goshawk nests in the project area. T. Erdman et al. (1998) indicated that goshawk numbers can respond positively to increase in prey levels such as ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare. 4. While the selected alternative will temporarily affect more acres of suitable habitat for redshouldered and goshawk species than Alternative 4, it will not be a long-term detriment to goshawks and red-shouldered hawk populations. Suitable habitat in the form of large blocks of mature hardwood habitat remains in the project area and around existing nesting territories for each species. In addition, there is not a wide disparity between alternatives with availability of suitable habitat acres for both species at the District and NNF levels. 9

10 SUMMARY OF MY DECISION Purpose and Need The Lakewood Southeast Project was developed to address the major gaps between desired future conditions described in the forest plan and the current conditions in the project area. I did not choose Alternative 1 because it does not respond to any of the Purpose and Need components (FEIS, section 1.2), and therefore none of the identified project objectives would be met. Alternative 2 and 4 equals Alternative 3 in the species diversity (need 4), acres of wildlife openings maintenance and creating wood turtle nesting habitat (need 7), reduction in total road density and the miles of road decommissioned (need 9). However, Alternative 4 would not provide an avenue for maximizing the acres of upland forest communities maintained or restored to their desired conditions as described in Chapter 3 of the forest plan. Nor would Alternative 4 provide an effective road system that meets the long-term transportation needs. I believe that the selected alternative best meets the project objectives set forth in the purpose and need section of the FEIS (section 1.2) because it will restore two rare ecosystems, restore trout streams, reduce fuel in the wildland urban interface, maintain acres of wildlife openings, and work toward the forest plan DFCs for composition and age class management. Issues I think that the analyses conducted by the resource specialists adequately addressed direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives. Using the best available science, they have determined that there would be no significant effects on soil, water, NNIS, TES, or RFSS as a result of implementing the LSE Project. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects were considered where appropriate. Conclusions Since the expected effects of the proposed actions would be minimal under any of the action alternatives, and there is not a wide disparity between alternatives (FEIS section 2.2), I based my decision on which alternative would be the best to meet the objectives, and therefore the purpose and need of the project. When considering the benefits to the natural resources and negligible resource trade-offs, I believe that Alternative 3 is the best alternative for the project area. My conclusion is based on the project record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information. I have considered opposing views (appendix E of the final EIS, and the acknowledged incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk (FEIS, chapter 3). ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE When an environmental impact statement has been prepared, the Record of Decision must identify all alternatives that were considered, specifying the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable (CEQ, Section (b)). The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment. It also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. I have reviewed all four alternatives with respect to these criteria. Alternative 1 differs substantially from action alternatives in that it proposes no management activities. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need as defined for this project and therefore would not enhance the natural resources in the project area. The action alternatives were designed to minimize environmental damage and protect resources none of these alternatives would exceed forest plan thresholds and the FEIS did not identify any significant, adverse effects that would result from any proposed activities (FEIS, chapter 3). 10

11 Since Alternative 4 proposes the least amount of harvesting and road construction activities, it could be considered environmentally preferable. However, the analyses show the effects would be minimal under any action alternative. In addition, since the Alternative 3 will enhance the natural resources more than Alternative 4 because it will best meet the purpose and need for the project, I consider Alternative 3 to be to be environmentally preferable. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Recommendations During the 45-day notice and comment period, the EPA submitted a letter describing its support of alternatives and assigned a rating of Lack of Objections. They had no substantive comments on the proposed action and found the action alternatives consistent with the forest plan. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAWS AND REGULATIONS Consistency with the 2004 Forest Plan I have compared the objectives, proposed activities, and design features of the LSE Project with those in the 2004 Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and find them consistent as required by the National Forest Management Act Section 1604(i). I have reviewed all applicable requirements of the forest plan in conjunction with my selected action, and have found my selected action to be consistent with the forest plan Endangered Species Act, as Amended Species lists were provided to the Forest Service by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Analysis of these species indicated that actions authorized in the selected alternative will have no impact on any federally listed species (BE, Table 3). Clean Water Act No long-term detrimental water quality effects are expected to occur from sedimentation, water temperature increases, or lateral sub-surface flow in wetlands due to the nature of the project locations and the application of forest plan standards and guidelines, and Best Management Practices (BMP). As part of the 2006 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) BMP monitoring effort, three sales were located within the cumulative effects analysis area for the project. Monitoring results indicated that the District applied all BMPs correctly. Monitoring team comments indicated that the sale layout/activities implemented excellent stream protection; the District extended some areas the RMZ to the top of slopes. RMZ harvest activities also favored long-lived species and no equipment operation took place within 50 feet from the stream (FEIS, section 3.9). Based on this, I am confident that water resources will be protected during harvest treatments. National Historic Preservation Act A number of cultural resource sites occur within the LSE Project area and buffers will be created to eliminate the risk of direct or indirect impacts. Forest Service timber sale contracts contain enforceable measures for protecting any undiscovered cultural resource that might be encountered during sale operations. All sites will be protected until evaluation is completed. The State Historical Preservation Officer has been consulted, to make sure the project complies with provisions of 36 CFR part 800. The Forest Service has completed the Section 106 review for all timber harvest related activities displayed in the FEIS. I have determined, consistent with the Forest Service direction on cultural resources, that there will be no significant effects on cultural resources. Executive Order Executive Order requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the short and long-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. There are a total of approximately 10,883 acres of wetlands within the Lakewood Southeast Project area, not including small isolated wetlands. Wetlands will be protected in the project area through adherence to forest plan standards and guidelines, and Best Management Practices for water quality. Decommissioning one mile of roads located within wetlands and decommissioning two stream crossings in all action alternatives would help to improve hydrologic functions by restoring cross drainage, reducing 11

12 12

13 Citations Erdman, T. C., D. F. Brinker, J. P. Jacobs, J. Wilde, and T. O. Meyer Productivity, population trend, and status of Northern Goshawks, (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus), in Northeastern Wisconsin. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 112 (1): pp. Salafsky, et al Reproductive Responses of Northern Goshawk to Variable Prey Populations. The Journal of Wildlife Mgt. 71. US Government National Environmental Policy Act, as amended. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.(CEQ 1505). US Government Executive Order National Historic Preservation Act. Executive Office of the President of the United States. US Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. (36 CFR 800). US Government National Forest Management Act, as amended. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. US Government Executive Order Protection of Wetlands. Executive Office of the President of the United States. US Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. US Government Executive Order Environmental Justice. Executive Office of the President of the United States. Washington D.C. US Government CFR Notice, comment, and appeal procedures for national forest system projects and activities. US Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. WDNR Wisconsin s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. WDNR. Madison, WI WDNR The Northeast Sands Wisconsin Land Legacy Report: WDNR Best Management Practices for Water Quality-Field Manual. WDNR. Madison, WI. 13