Noma Vegetation Management Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Environmental Assessment Blackduck and Deer River Ranger Districts, Chippewa National Forest, Itasca County, Minnesota May 2017

2 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Document Structure Background Purpose and Need for Action Proposed Action Tribal Involvement Public Involvement Issues Alternatives Alternative Development Alternative Descriptions Mitigation Measures Comparison of Alternatives Environmental Consequences Vegetation Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Other Disclosures Wildlife Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Other Disclosures Plants i

4 Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Recreation Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Scenic Resources Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Aquatics Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Soils Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Fuels Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects ii

5 3.9. Non-native Invasive Species Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Economics Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Other Tribal Treaty Rights and Traditional Uses Heritage Resources Air Quality Environmental Justice Finding of No Significant Impact A. Context B. Intensity List of Preparers, Agencies and Persons Consulted Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team Other Forest Service Contributors Tribal Consultations Glossary Abbreviations References Cited iii

6 Chapter 1: Introduction 1. Introduction 1.1. Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) for the Noma Vegetation Management Project (VMP) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of implementing the project proposed action or alternatives. It consists of eight chapters, followed by appendices with maps, tables, and public comments. Introduction: Chapter 1 includes the project history, purpose and need, and proposed action intended to achieve the purpose and need. It also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the project and discloses any issues, concerns, and resource topics. Alternatives: Chapter 2 provides a description of the proposed action and any adaptation to it. It compares the proposed action with other alternatives, including the no action alternative, and it includes a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. There were no comments from the public driving the decision-maker to develop another alternative, so this project has only one action alternative, the proposed action. Environmental Consequences: Chapter 3 describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action. Analyses are organized by resource area, including resource topics, indicators, affected environment, and effects of the alternatives. The effects of the no action alternative, or Alternative A, provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison to the proposed action, or Alternative B. Finding of No Significant Impact: Chapter 4 provides information about the effect of the project proposed action on the human environment. List of Preparers, Agencies, and Persons Consulted: Chapter 5 provides a list of preparers, agencies, and other people consulted during the development of the EA. Glossary: Chapter 6 provides definitions of key terms or phrases not otherwise defined within previous chapters of the EA. Abbreviations: Chapter 7 defines key abbreviations in the EA. References Cited: Chapter 8 lists all references cited in the EA. Most references are also available electronically in the project record (PR 8.0). Maps: Appendix A includes maps of the project area shown with key landscape features and activities proposed within it. 1

7 Chapter 1: Introduction Alternative Activities: Appendix B includes summary tables of proposed activities and key information associated with them. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation: Appendix C includes a list of relevant standards and guidelines from the Chippewa National Forest (CNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (or Forest Plan) (USDA-NFS 2004a), best management practices (BMPs) from Minnesota s Voluntary Site-level Forest Management Guidelines (MFRC 2012), and other mitigation assigned to proposed activities. Response to Scoping Comments: Appendix D includes all comments received from the public during the designated scoping period, followed by Forest Service responses. The project record is located at the Blackduck Ranger District Office in Blackduck, MN. It provides additional documentation to this EA, including more detailed analyses of project area resources Background The Noma VMP is located in the northeast portion of the CNF in northern Minnesota, and it covers several sections within Township 149 North, Ranges West, and Township 150 North, Ranges West. It lies completely outside of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) Reservation and encompasses 71,840 acres, of which, 25,221 acres (35 percent) consists of National Forest System (NFS) lands, managed by the Forest Service. The project boundary generally extends south from the northernmost boundary of the CNF to the main stem of the Big Fork River, and west from County Highway 26 to State Highway 6. See Appendix A for maps of the project area. Landscape Ecosystems Activities proposed in the Noma VMP are located primarily in three landscape ecosystems (LEs): Boreal Hardwood/Conifer (BHC), Dry-Mesic Pine/Oak (DMPO), and White Cedar Swamp (WCS). About 106 acres of proposed activities also occur in the Dry-Mesic Pine and Mesic Northern Hardwoods LEs. These LEs were considered but not analyzed in detail for this assessment, because they represent only 1 percent of the NFS lands in the project area. Brief descriptions of the BHC, DMPO, and WCS LEs are listed below; for more detail about all LEs in the project area, refer to Appendix G of the Forest Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA-NFS 2004b). The Boreal Hardwood/Conifer LE covers 15,751 acres (62 percent) of the NFS lands in the project area, including 989 acres with proposed activities. It was historically dominated by mixed stands of aspen, paper birch, balsam fir, and northern white cedar. White pine, red pine, black ash, basswood, bur oak, white spruce, and American elm were also present, with minor components of red maple, sugar maple, and jack pine. 2

8 Chapter 1: Introduction The Dry-Mesic Pine/Oak LE covers 1,947 acres (8 percent) of the NFS lands in the project area, including 307 acres with proposed activities. It historically had a supercanopy dominated by jack pine, red pine, white pine, or mix of the three. Deciduous trees usually occurred in the subcanopy and included quaking aspen, paper birch, northern red oak, bur oak, red maple, and bigtooth aspen. The White Cedar Swamp LE covers 7,349 acres (29 percent) of the NFS lands in the project area, including 584 acres with proposed management activities. It consists of both a wetland and semi-terrestrial component. The wetland component was historically dominated by northern white cedar and balsam fir, and the semi-terrestrial component occasionally included paper birch. Areas of High Interest The entire CNF is important to the LLBO, but Areas of High Interest were identified as having a higher degree of interest. These areas are often along lake and river shorelines, and they support specific vegetation, wildlife, and forest settings that afford important cultural, spiritual, and historical meaning (USDA-NFS 2004b, p ). The Noma VMP boundary lies completely outside of Areas of High Interest; therefore, affects to those areas were not analyzed in detail for this assessment. Forest Plan Direction Including Management Areas The Forest Plan provides Forest-wide desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and Management Area (MA) direction applicable to the Noma VMP. Primary management areas within the project boundary include: General Forest, General Forest - Longer Rotation, and Eligible Scenic River. Riparian Emphasis MA also occurs in the project area, but there are no activities proposed within it. Brief descriptions of the primary MAs are listed below, but for more detail about all of the MAs within the project area, refer to the Forest Plan (USDA-NFS 2004b, Ch. 3). The General Forest MA covers 22,839 acres (90 percent) of the NFS lands in the project area, including 1,906 acres with proposed activities. It emphasizes land and resource conditions that provide a wide variety of goods, uses, and services (e.g. wood and other commercial products, scenic quality, developed and dispersed recreation opportunities, and habitat for a diversity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife). Numerous roads open to public travel in this MA provide access to resources and offer motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. The General Forest - Longer Rotation MA covers 676 acres (3 percent) of the NFS lands in the project area, including 31 acres with proposed activities. It has a similar emphasis as the General Forest MA; however, it differs in that harvests generally occur over longer rotations and consist of more uneven-aged and partial cutting treatments. 3

9 Chapter 1: Introduction The Eligible Scenic River MA covers 1,702 acres (7 percent) of the NFS lands in the project area, including 47 acres with proposed activities. It emphasizes land and resource conditions that provide for interim protection of the Big Fork River corridor. The Big Fork River corridor meets the eligibility criteria specified in Sections 1(b) and 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Under interim protection, management activities in this MA will protect the river s free-flowing condition, outstanding remarkable values, and classification. Overview of Forest Plan Consistency An interdisciplinary (ID) team comprised of CNF resource specialists developed a project proposal that works towards desired conditions and objectives and meets all standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan. Activities included in the proposed action and considered in detail in this assessment are described in Chapter 2. In addition to meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines, the proposed action includes mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate adverse environmental effects. Relevant Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, and other mitigation measures are listed in Appendix C Purpose and Need for Action The ID team compared the existing condition of the Noma VMP area with desired conditions and objectives in the Forest Plan. Using their analyses of the project conditions, the Blackduck District Ranger selected the following purpose and need statements. 1) Move toward achieving Forest-wide LE objectives for vegetation composition and age class. The existing vegetative conditions in the BHC, DMPO, and WCS LEs are inconsistent with some long-term objectives in the Forest Plan (USDA-NFS 2004a; Ch.2; pp , 74-76). Some of the greater inconsistencies are listed below. Forest-wide, current amounts of white pine in the BHC LE, red pine and white spruce in the DMPO LE, and white spruce in the WCS LE are less than Forest Plan objectives; while the amount of paper birch in the DMPO and WCS LEs and aspen in all three LEs is greater than Forest Plan objectives. There are opportunities in the project area to convert aspen and paper birch to white pine, red pine, or white spruce through evenaged harvest methods, followed by planting with or without mechanical site preparation and other post-harvest activities. Forest-wide, current amounts of the 0-9 year age class in the BHC, DMPO, and WCS LEs are less than Forest Plan objectives for upland and lowland forest. There are opportunities in the project area to increase the 0-9 year age class through even-aged harvest methods. 4

10 Chapter 1: Introduction 2) Improve forest diversity of tree species within the context of conditions more representative of native plant communities (USDA-NFS 2004a, p. 2-22). Forests diverse in composition and age may allow them to better adapt or improve their resiliency to the potential effects of future climate change (Swanston and Janowiak (Eds.) 2012, pp ; Hander et al. 2014, pp ). Conifer plantations within the project area lack both diversity of age and tree species composition. There are opportunities to improve the health, vigor, and age class diversity of conifer, specifically in red pine and white spruce, through thinning. Opening the canopy would also encourage further growth in diversity of other tree species in the understory. Forest-wide, there is a need to increase tree species diversity, specifically the component of white pine, white spruce, tamarack, and white cedar, within the BHC, DMPO, and WCS LEs (USDA-NFS 2004a; Ch.2; pp. 66, 69, 75). There are opportunities in the project area to increase this conifer component through uneven-aged harvest methods followed by planting with or without mechanical site preparation and other post-harvest activities. To minimize the potential impacts of an Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) outbreak within the project area, there is a need to diversify ash stands with other species suitable to site conditions. Uneven-aged harvest methods or thinning in ash would help release any existing understory diversity and allow for fill-in planting of other species where diversity is lacking; both of which would help maintain long-term forest cover following an EAB infestation, which would likely kill the vast majority of ash. 3) Manage for ecological conditions that support a range of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife populations, habitat, and sustainable human uses, in coordination with other fish and wildlife management agencies (USDA-NFS 2004a; Ch.2; pp. 26, 33). Forest-wide, in the BHC and DMPO LEs, the current amounts of mature or older red pine, white pine, and spruce-fir Management Indicator Habitats (MIHs) are generally less than Forest Plan objectives, yet one third of the CNF birds are conifer-dependent. There are opportunities in the project area to convert aspen and paper birch to white pine, red pine, or white spruce through even-aged harvest methods, followed by planting with or without mechanical site preparation and other post-harvest activities; whereby adding acres to MIHs over the long term. The Forest Plan includes an objective to decrease acres of maintained permanent upland openings and restore them to conditions more representative of native plant communities (USDA-NFS 2004a, p. 2-22), yet it also recognizes the need to provide an adequate array of habitat conditions that support human uses (USDA-NFS 2004a, p. 2-26). 5

11 Chapter 1: Introduction o Maintaining some of the higher quality permanent upland openings favored by wildlife viewers and hunters would also continue to provide edge habitat for game species such as deer, grouse, and woodcock in the project area. o Seeding or planting some permanent upland openings with native trees, shrubs, and wildflowers in the project area would better reflect the diversity of vegetation in native plant communities and improve habitat for native pollinators, which have seen recent population declines. The Forest Plan includes desired conditions within riparian areas to maintain a multilayered forest canopy, diverse in both age and tree species. Emphasis is placed upon increasing the amount of old forest and longer-lived species (USDA-NFS 2004a, Ch.2, pp ). There are opportunities in the project area to improve diversity of both forest age and species composition in riparian areas, specifically longer-lived species, through uneven-aged harvest methods and/or planting with or without other post-harvest activities. 4) Sustainably provide a range of timber products to the public in the context of meeting multiple resource objectives in the project area. The availability of wood products is important to local and regional economies (USDA-NFS 2004a, p. 2-19). 5) Manage the National Forest road system for the minimum amount needed to provide adequate public access and also meet current and future resource management objectives (USDA-NFS 2004a, p. 2-47). There is a need within the project area to improve hydrology, water quality, and aquatic ecosystem function by decommissioning road segments that cross or are adjacent to open water and wetlands (USDA-NFS 2004a, p. 2-12) Proposed Action The proposed action, shown in part on maps in Appendix A, would conduct a variety of resource management activities that directly address the purpose and need (P&N). The proposed activities listed below are followed by references to the purpose and need statements they link to in Chapter 1.3. Commercial harvest treatments would occur on 1,927 acres, with an estimated volume of 27,081 CCF (hundred cubic feet). Treatments include: o 838 acres of coppice cut with reserves (P&N 1, 4). o 312 acres of patch clearcut and clearcut with reserves (P&N 1, 3, 4). o 125 acres of single tree selection (P&N 2, 4). o 111 acres of group selection (P&N 2, 4). o 541 acres of thinning (P&N 2, 4). 6

12 Chapter 1: Introduction Full planting would occur following some harvest treatments to convert: o 244 acres of aspen and paper birch to red pine, white pine, and white spruce (P&N 1, 3). o 14 acres of mixed pine-hardwood to white pine (P&N 1, 3). o 62 acres of black ash to mixed tamarack and hardwoods (P&N 2). Partial planting would occur in harvest treatments to increase diversity of: o White pine in 15 acres of aspen and paper birch (P&N 2). o Red pine in 12 acres of white spruce and balsam fir (P&N 2) o Tamarack and hackberry in 50 acres of black ash (P&N 2). Wildlife opening maintenance would occur on 54 acres, including planting or seeding of native wildflowers. Three acres of wildlife openings would not be maintained open, but conifer would be planted for diversity (P&N 3). Uneven-aged harvest treatments, with or without planting, would occur on 15 acres within riparian areas to improve age class and tree species diversity (P&N 2-4). About 9.6 miles of road decommissioning would occur (P&N 5). Decision to Be Made This EA is not a decision document, but it discloses the environmental consequences of the alternatives. Based on the analyses documented in this assessment, the Blackduck District Ranger will decide whether or not to proceed with the proposed action, and if so, under what conditions or modifications. Related Documents that Influence the Scope of this EA This assessment is tiered to the Forest Plan FEIS and is within the scope of its Record of Decision. Applicable Regulatory Requirements and Required Coordination Compliance with several environmental laws is required in order for proposed activities within the Noma VMP to proceed. The Endangered Species Act, for example, requires consultation; so, a Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for this project has been sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a concurrence determination concerning threatened, endangered, and sensitive species affected by project activities. Other laws that the Forest Service is required to follow include NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Forest Management Act. In addition, consultation is required with the LLBO Tribal Historic Preservation Office and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. Results of this consultation are discussed in Chapter

13 Chapter 1: Introduction This EA also complies with and addresses the following list of laws and regulations: Forest Service Manual 2670 (USDA-NFS 2005b), regarding sensitive species; Archaeological Resources Protection Act; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; and Executive Orders and 12898, regarding wetlands and environmental justice Tribal Involvement The Blackduck District Ranger contacted the LLBO Division of Resource Management in June of 2016, and offered a meeting date prior to scoping. The Division of Resource Management declined, but they requested and received copies of the scoping letter on July 5, No meetings have been requested by the Division of Resource Management to date. There are no Local Indian Councils within the Noma VMP; however, scoping letters were mailed to several near the project area on July 5, The Forest Service met with the closest Local Indian Council, S. Lake, on August 15, 2016; comments specific to the project were not raised at that meeting. No comments specific to the project been received by the Division of Resource Management or Local Indian Councils to date Public Involvement The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions since July 5, 2016, and has been posted on the CNF website at Scoping was initiated by sending letters and s with details and maps of the proposed action to approximately 132 individuals, groups, and other agencies. A legal ad briefly explaining the proposed action and specifying a contact for further information was published in the paper of record, The Blackduck American, on July 8, Commenters responded with letters and . Ten comment responses were received or postmarked within the designated scoping period, between July 8 and August 6, All scoping input and Forest Service responses are available in Appendix D Issues Issues are defined as points of dispute, disagreement, or concern with a proposed action, based on an effect that action may cause, if implemented. Issues may lead the decision-maker to create an alternative to the proposed action, develop mitigation or protection measures, or they may warrant some level of effects analysis or formal response to public scoping comments. Not all comments received during scoping are considered issues. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require one to, identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (40 CFR ). Examples of non-issues include those beyond the scope of the proposed 8

14 Chapter 1: Introduction action; already decided by law, regulation, policy, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; irrelevant to the decision to be made; or not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Based on the ID team and Blackduck District Ranger review of public scoping comments received for the Noma VMP, there were no issues identified that drove development of an additional action alternative. There were, however, several comments addressed with responses in Appendix D and within the effects analyses in Chapter 3. Summarized comments addressed in the effects analyses are listed below, each followed by a reference to specific comment numbers they link to in Appendix D. 1) Proposed harvest treatments may reduce the amount of mature or older forest, especially in areas of contiguous blocks (Comments 7-1, 7-2, 7-5 and 7-6). 2) Proposed harvest treatments and temporary road construction may negatively affect recreation, scenic, or other natural resources (Comments 8-4 and 8-5). 3) The project fails to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives for the amount of 0-9 age class forest in the BHC, DMPO, and WCS LEs (Comments 10-4 through 10-9). The ID team reviewed the proposed action and identified some resource topics that address the summarized comments listed above. They are followed by a reference to the summary comments they link to above. Vegetation: Proposed vegetation management activities may affect vegetation composition and age class distribution in the project area (Summary Comments 1 through 3). Wildlife: Proposed activities may affect threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species and their habitats in the project area (Summary Comments 1 and 2). Plants: Proposed activities may affect sensitive plant species and their habitats (Summary Comment 2). Recreation: Proposed road decommissioning may affect motorized recreation within the project area (Summary Comment 2). Scenic Resources: Proposed vegetation management activities may affect scenic resources within the project area (Summary Comment 2). Aquatics: Proposed activities may affect wetlands, water quality, and other aquatic resources in or near treatment areas (Summary Comment 2). Soils: Mechanized, ground-disturbing activities may disturb soils in proposed treatment areas (Summary Comment 2). Fuels: Proposed harvest activities may affect the amount of hazardous fuels in the Wildland Urban Interface portion of the project area (Summary Comment 2). 9

15 Chapter 1: Introduction Non-native Invasive Species: Proposed activities may facilitate the spread of higher priority non-native invasive species of concern from known sites in the project area to undocumented locations (Summary Comment 2). Economics: Proposed activities may have some net value based on projected revenue from stumpage and costs associated with implementation. Other resources topics briefly discussed in Chapter 3 include Tribal Gathering and Traditional Uses, Heritage Resources, Air Quality, and Environmental Justice. 10

16 Chapter 2: Alternatives 2. Alternatives 2.1. Alternative Development Public scoping did not identify issues that drove development of an additional alternative to the proposed action other than the no action. The proposed action incorporates applicable laws, regulations, and policies that govern land use on National Forests, pertinent Chippewa National Forest (CNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (or Forest Plan) standards and guidelines, and best management practices (BMPs) from Minnesota s Voluntary Site-level Forest Management Guidelines (MFRC 2012). The decision maker will select the alternative for implementation based on analysis of the environmental consequences and effectiveness of meeting the purpose and need and Forest Plan management direction. Maps of the proposed action are included in Appendix A, and Appendix B identifies proposed activities by location and associated treatment acres or miles. Implementation is anticipated to start in mid to late Acreages shown in this assessment for proposed activities are approximations based on Geographical Information System calculations and other records in CNF databases. Numbers may vary slightly due to circumstances such as rounding and variations in spatial data. Climate Change The ID team, along with Stephen Handler, from the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, met in August 2015, to review the (VMP) with regard to climate change. The team assessed the project using tools developed in a report called Forest Adaptation Resources: Climate Change Tools and Approaches for Land Managers (Swanston and Janowiak (Eds.) 2012). The assessment reviewed projected changes in suitable habitat for tree species and other potential adaptation strategies and approaches responsive to climate change for the project. Efforts to promote healthy, resilient stands at the project-level during this entry may help to maintain diverse vegetation and species habitat in the future, under a range of projected climate change scenarios. The result of this ID team work is a proposed action that incorporates climate change adaptation strategies, some of which are mentioned below. Continue to maintain a healthy and vigorous aspen component in an area highly suitable to and currently dominated by the species. Although aspen may be a species at risk under future climate change (Handler et al. 2014), the project area may serve as a longer-term bastion for the species. 11

17 Chapter 2: Alternatives Put greater emphasis on managing for forest age class and species diversity, as well as planting species that may be more resilient to future climate change, such as white pine and northern hardwoods (Handler et al. 2014). In anticipation of an Emerald Ash Borer outbreak, maintain forest cover in black ash by diversifying the composition of tree species. These areas may be at a higher risk of deforestation under the effects of both Emerald Ash Borer and future climate change (Handler et al. 2014). More details, including other climate change adaptation strategies considered in the project area, are described in the project record (PR 1.3) Alternative Descriptions Alternative A There would be no new activities proposed in the Noma VMP area under this alternative; however, activities that have yet to be implemented under previous decisions would proceed as planned. In addition, natural ecological processes would continue to be shaped by anthropogenic disturbances such as development, fire suppression, recreation, and transportation infrastructure. This alternative provides a baseline upon which to compare the effects of Alternative B. If selected, Alternative A would not preclude consideration of future management actions in the project area. Alternative B Changes to Proposed Action after Scoping Stands were reevaluated by the ID team in September 2016, to verify if proposed harvest methods and planting or seeding intensities scoped with the public in July 2016, remained appropriate. As a result, both harvest, planting, and seeding acres changed based on a more intense review of current understory diversity within proposed stands. Some of these changes, shown in Table 2-1, also reflect edits to the database where harvest type and reforestation codes were not entered correctly. 12

18 Chapter 2: Alternatives Table 2-1 Vegetative Treatment Changes to the Proposed Action after Scoping Vegetative Treatment Current Proposed Action (ac) 13 Proposed Action during Scoping (ac) Change (ac) Coppice cut with reserves Patch clearcut and clearcut with reserves Single tree selection Group selection Thinning TOTAL HARVEST 1,927 2, Planting/seeding for forest type conversion Planting/seeding for diversity enhancement TOTAL PLANTING/SEEDING (for conversion/diversity) Wildlife openings maintained Wildlife openings planted with conifer Vegetation treatment changes to the proposed action after scoping include: Small reductions in treatment acres within some stands buffered to protect riparian areas. Removing nine stands from consideration, which consisted of: o An upland wildlife opening proposed for maintenance that was determined to be a sedge meadow. o A low basal area stand proposed for harvest that was within the Eligible Scenic River Management Area. o A stand proposed for harvest that is currently stressed by flooding from a nearby beaver dam. o Six mature and older upland conifer stands proposed regeneration or conversion. These treatments conflicted with the purpose and need to increase mature and older Upland Conifer Management Indicator Habitat (MIH). Minor changes were also made to proposed transportation management activities after scoping. Roughly 0.2 mile of temporary road construction was removed from the proposed action as a result of removing the three stands mentioned in the second bullet above. The partial closure of Forest Road 2222, about 2.2 miles, was removed as well. The Forest Service response to Comment 9.1, in Appendix D, describes why more information and public consultation is needed on Forest Road 2222 before considering any future motorized vehicle use change. Commercial Timber Harvest The intent of proposed commercial timber harvest in the Noma VMP area is to move toward Forest-wide LE objectives, enhance forest diversity and climate change resiliency, manage for ecological conditions that support a range of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, and continue to

19 Chapter 2: Alternatives meet local and regional needs for a range of timber products. Harvest activities by current forest type are shown in Table 2-2, for Alternative B. All harvest acres are an estimate and may be subject to slight changes as unit boundaries and operable areas are further defined prior to treatment on the ground. Table 2-2 Alternative B Commercial Timber Harvest Acres by Forest Type Forest Type Even-aged Harvest (ac) Clearcut Coppice w/ w/reserves or Reserves Patch Clearcut TOTAL Uneven-aged Harvest (ac) Single-tree selection Group selection TOTAL Thinning (ac) GRAND TOTAL (AC) Jack pine Red pine Other pine/ Hardwood White spruce Hard maple/ Basswood Aspen Balsam poplar Paper birch Black spruce Tamarack Black ash/ American elm/ Red maple TOTAL , ,927 Alternative B includes 1,150 acres of even-aged harvest, including coppice with reserves, patch clearcut, and clearcut with reserves. These treatments would reset stand age to zero, and regeneration would occur through natural (e.g. suckering from roots, sprouting from stumps, and seeding from cones) or artificial (e.g. manual planting or seeding) means. Some stands would be regenerated to the same forest type, while others would be converted to another forest type depending on current conditions and long-term objectives. Uneven-aged harvest methods in Alternative B include single-tree and group selection on 236 acres. These treatments are used to establish and maintain a multi-aged stand structure, and they would not reset stand age. Alternative B also includes 541 acres of thinning that also would not reset stand age. Thinning is intended to provide space for the remaining trees to grow in size, as well as establish conditions for other understory species to increase in size or area. Both uneven-aged harvest and thinning would maintain forest type in some stands, while others would be converted to another forest type after removing target species. More detailed descriptions of harvest methods used in the project area are located in the glossary in Chapter 6. 14

20 Chapter 2: Alternatives Vegetation Composition and Conversions Alternative B moves toward achieving vegetation composition objectives to meet the purpose and need for the Noma VMP. Forest type conversions, shown in Table 2-3, are means to achieving those objectives. The majority of conversions are intended to reduce aspen, paper birch, and balsam fir forest types across the project area, while increasing the amount of red pine, white pine, and white spruce. Table 2-3 Alternative B Forest Type Conversions Resulting From Harvest With and Without Planting or Seeding Current Forest Type Red pine White pine Desired Future Forest Type (ac) Mixed White upland spruce hardwood White pine/ Red oak Hard maple/ Basswood Tamarack TOTAL (AC) Other pine/ Hardwood Aspen Paper birch Black ash/ American elm/ Red maple TOTAL Mechanical Site Preparation and Planting or Seeding Mechanical site preparation activities are planned in some stands, where it s conducive to soil conditions and appropriate silviculturally, to help establish and maintain regeneration following harvest. Under Alternative B, mechanical site preparation would occur on 55 acres planned for natural regeneration and 204 acres planned for artificial regeneration. Alternative B includes planting of 455 acres and seeding of 44 acres after harvest to restock some stands with the same forest type, convert some stands from one forest type to another, or enhance the diversity of tree species within some stands. Table 2-4 lists these stands by current and desired future forest type. A more detailed description of mechanical site preparation is located in Chapter 6. 15

21 Chapter 2: Alternatives Table 2-4 Alternative B Planting and Seeding by Current and Desired Future Forest Type Seeding Desired Future Forest Type (ac) Planting Current Forest Type Black spruce Jack pine Red pine White pine White pine/ Red oak White spruce Aspen Tamarack Black ash/ American elm/ Red maple Non-stocked TOTAL (ac) Jack pine 4 4 Other pine/ Hardwood White spruce *12 12 Aspen * Paper birch Black spruce Tamarack Black ash/ American elm/ red maple 62 * Non-stocked *3 3 TOTAL * Species other than the current forest type would be planted for diversity enhancement, but the desired future forest type would not change. Permanent Opening Maintenance Under Alternative B, maintenance of 22 permanent openings (covering 54 acres) would occur in partnership with interested parties. The focus of maintaining these openings is to provide habitat components for grouse, deer, bear, and woodcock; which are species typically favored by hunters. Treatments would include mowing of woody shrubs, other than fruit-bearing species, to reduce encroachment into these grassy open areas. Roughly 3 acres of permanent openings would not be maintained, but they would include planting of conifer to add forest diversity. All openings may include seeding of native wildflowers, which would cover a maximum of 57 acres. The intent with wildflower seeding is to better reflect the diversity of ground flora in native plant communities, and also improve habitat for native pollinators, which have seen recent population declines. Riparian Area Vegetative Improvement Some of the proposed vegetation management activities in Alternative B incorporate specific objectives for riparian area improvement, where stands intersect the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ). In the absence of site-specific boundary delineation, the RMZ includes a Nearbank and Remainder Zone, each extending for 100 feet. The Near-Bank Zone is immediately adjacent to a waterbody or open water wetland and the Remainder Zone extends beyond the Near-Bank Zone (USDA-NFS 2004a, Glossary, pp. 17, 21). Treatments proposed in the RMZ 16

22 Chapter 2: Alternatives specifically address goals and objectives for riparian area management from the Forest Plan (e.g. improve forest age class and tree species diversity, specifically longer-lived species) (USDA- NFS 2004a, Ch. 2, pp ). They include the following activities on a total of 15 acres: Release the existing understory diversity in black ash through uneven-aged harvest on 3 acres, favoring retention of other conifer and hardwood species. Increase the component of long-lived conifer in aspen through uneven-aged harvest followed by planting red pine and white pine on 4 acres. Existing long-lived conifer species would be favored for retention. Increase the component of long-lived conifer in mixed pine-hardwoods through unevenaged harvest followed by planting white pine on 4 acres. Existing long-lived conifer species would be favored for retention. Improve the growth and vigor of red pine through thinning on 3 acres, favoring retention of hardwoods and other conifer for diversity. Introduce long-lived conifer into unmaintained wildlife openings by planting red pine and white pine on 1 acre. Temporary Road Construction Roughly 4.8 miles of temporary road construction would be necessary to access 16 out of 151 stands proposed for treatment in Alternative B. The bulk of the construction and use of these roads would occur during frozen soil conditions. Wetland and open water crossings would be avoided, but if avoidance is not feasible, temporary crossing options (Blinn et al. 1999) would be utilized. All of the temporary roads constructed would be decommissioned after proposed activities have been completed. Decommissioning, at minimum, would include removal of temporary drainage control structures, blocking motorized access, revegetating exposed soil, and placing signage (USDA-NFS 2004a, p. 2-49). Road Decommissioning About 9.6 miles of NFS road would be decommissioned and closed to all public motorized use. Treatments may include ripping the soil to break up compaction, but at a minimum, they would follow the same specifications mentioned previously for decommissioning temporary roads. The level of treatment on a given road segment would largely be dependent upon its current level of use and its impact on the surrounding natural resources. All decommissions would be designed to blend in with the natural landscape as much possible, yet remain functional enough to effectively restrict motorize use Mitigation Measures Appendix C contains tables that identify applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs, and mitigation measures for each stand proposed in Alternative B. These measures are 17

23 Chapter 2: Alternatives incorporated into the effects analyses in Chapter 3. Timing for implementation would vary, depending on the target species or resource area of concern Comparison of Alternatives The relevant outputs from proposed activities are displayed by alternative in Table 2-5, and Table 2-6 and Table 2-7 compare the alternatives by resource topic indicators. Table 2-5 Summary of Activities and Relevant Outputs by Alternative Activities Alternative A Alternative B Estimated Commercial Timber Harvest Volume (CCF) 0 27,081 Coppice cut with reserves Acres of Patch clearcut/clearcut with reserves Commercial Single tree selection Timber Group selection Harvest Thinning TOTAL 0 1,927 Acres of Forest Type Conversion (by desired future forest type) Hard maple/basswood 0 65 Mixed upland hardwood 0 11 Red pine 0 24 White pine/red oak 0 6 White pine White spruce 0 95 Tamarack 0 62 TOTAL Planting (ac) Seeding (ac) 0 44 Site preparation (ac) Release (ac) Animal damage control (ac) Wildlife openings maintained (ac) 0 54 Wildlife openings planted with conifer (ac) 0 3 Riparian area vegetative improvement (ac) 0 15 Temporary road construction (mi) Road decommissioning (mi)

24 Chapter 2: Alternatives Table 2-6 Comparison of Indicators for Resource Topics by Alternative Resource Topic Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Vegetation Acres of harvest affecting 0-9 age class 0 1,150 Acres of forest type conversion following harvest, with or without planting or seeding Wildlife Relative effects to Canada lynx No effect Not likely to adversely affect the species or its habitat Relative effects to northern long-eared bat No effect Likely to adversely affect Relative effects to gray wolf No effect Not likely to adversely affect the species or its habitat Relative effects to 5 sensitive wildlife species with moderate to high impact risk Relative effects to 21 sensitive wildlife species with low impact risk Plants Relative effects to 5 sensitive moonwort/grapefern plant species with moderate to high impact risk Relative effects to 12 sensitive plant species with moderate to high impact risk No impact No impact May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability of a population or species No impact May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability of a population or species No impact Relative effects to 15 sensitive plant species with low impact risk No impact No impact Recreation Miles of National Forest System roads decommissioned Scenic Resources Acres of even-aged harvest proposed in areas with moderate to high Scenic Integrity Objectives. Aquatics Acres of Riparian Management Zone disturbed during vegetation 0 15 management activities Number of potential wetland crossings needed for temporary access 0 12 Miles of road decommissioned Soils Direct and Indirect Effects Low Compaction Risk (ac) Moderate Compaction Risk (ac) High Compaction Risk (ac) 0 1,432 Low Erosion Risk (ac) 0 1,901 Moderate Erosion Risk (ac) 0 52 High Erosion Risk (ac) 0 31 May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability of a population or species May impact individuals or habitat but not likely to cause trend toward federal listing or reduce viability of a population or species 19

25 Chapter 2: Alternatives Table 2-7 Comparison of Indicators for Resource Topics by Alternative Issue/Resource Topic Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Soils Direct and Indirect Effects Low Nutrient Loss Risk (ac) 0 1,647 Moderate Nutrient Loss Risk (ac) High Nutrient Loss Risk (ac) Cumulative Effects (multiple entries) Low Compaction Risk (ac) Moderate Compaction Risk (ac) 0 92 High Compaction Risk (ac) Fuels Acres harvested within the Wildland Urban Interface 0 94 Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS) The potential to further spread higher priority non-native invasive plants from known locations in or near proposed treatment areas The potential to further spread exotic earthworms Less in the short-term without added ground disturbance or habitat change Continue at current levels without added ground disturbance Economics Present Net Value ($) 0 41,679 Cost-Benefit Ratio Not applicable 1.03 Likelihood greater in areas with added ground disturbance or habitat change Likelihood greater in areas with additional ground disturbance 20

26 3. Environmental Consequences This chapter discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental consequences from the alternatives analyzed in detail by resource topic. This analysis is organized by resource topic, including components of the ecological, social, and physical environments. Past present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the project area include: timber harvest that has occurred and is planned for stands throughout the planning area on federal, state and private parcels; recreational activities including hiking, hunting, ATV use and driving for pleasure; and installation and maintenance of utility lines. The resource topics discuss The forest GIS databases were used for the vegetation and roads information, and specialists' knowledge and field visit information. This analysis is tiered to the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-NFS 2004b) and the management direction in the Forest Plan (USDA-NFS 2004a) is incorporated by reference Vegetation Issues The public did not raise vegetation related issues during scoping that drove the decision-maker to create another action alternative. Effects of proposed activities on vegetation in the Noma Vegetation Management Project (VMP) are disclosed in this chapter as a resource topic that addresses Summary Comments 1 through 3 in Chapter 1.7. Resource Topic Proposed vegetation management activities may affect vegetation composition and age class distribution in the project area. Indicators Acres of harvest affecting the 0-9 year age class Acres of forest type conversion following harvest, with or without planting or seeding Affected Environment Vegetation analysis for the Noma VMP focuses on three landscape ecosystems (LEs) that cover the largest proportion of the project area: Boreal Hardwood/Conifer (BHC), Dry-Mesic Pine/Oak (DMPO), and White Cedar Swamp (WSC). Project activities proposed in the Mesic Northern Hardwoods and Dry Mesic Pine LEs were considered but not analyzed in detail, because they represent a very small portion the project area. Brief descriptions of the BHC, DMPO, and WCS LEs are listed in Chapter 1.2, but for more detail about all LEs within the project area, refer to Appendix G of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA-NFS 2004b). 21