Chase Red Pine Fuels Project

Transcription

1 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, Michigan July 2016 Forest Service Huron-Manistee National Forests Baldwin- White Cloud Ranger District Lake and Newaygo Counties, Michigan

2 For More Information Contact: Pamela Repp, District Ranger Baldwin/White Cloud Ranger District 650 N. Michigan Ave. P.O. Box Drawer D Baldwin, MI DR USDA Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy (June 2, 2015) 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 Introduction... 3 Location of the Proposed Project... 3 Public Involvement... 4 Decision... 4 Details of the Selected Alternative... 4 Measures Designed to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Effects... 7 Reasons for My Decision... 7 Other Alternatives Considered... 8 Alternative 1 - No Action... 8 Finding of No Significant Impact... 8 Context... 9 Intensity ) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial ) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety ) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas ) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial ) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks ) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration ) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts ) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources ) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act ) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations National Forest Management Act (NFMA) Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended Executive Order Migratory Birds Clean Water Act Clean Air Act Executive Order Floodplain Management, and Executive Order Protection of Wetlands National Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Executive Order Environmental Justice Administrative Review Final Decision Contact Information References Huron-Manistee National Forest - i Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

4 Appendix A Maps Appendix B Measures Designed to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Effects Measures Related to Reducing Hazardous Fuels Measures to Protect Water Resources Measures to Protect Soil Resources Measures to Protect Rare Plants Measures to Protect Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Measures to Protect Cultural Resources Appendix C Changes to the EA after the 30 day comment period List of Tables Table 1. Proposed vegetation management activities in the Chase Red Pine Fuels project... 5 Table 2. Proposed connected activities in the Chase Red Pine Fuels project... 7 List of Figures Figure 1. Overview of activities proposed in the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Figure 2. Activities proposed in the northern portion of the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Figure 3. Activities proposed in the southern portion of the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Figure 4. Prescribed fire activities proposed in the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Huron-Manistee National Forest - ii Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

5 Introduction In January of 2016, the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The environmental assessment was made available for review and public comment for 30 days. An interdisciplinary team conducted the environmental assessment according to Council on Environmental Quality regulations 1 which state: Briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. This draft decision notice describes my decision to proceed with the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project, background information about the project, which alternative I selected, and the rationale supporting my decision. This document also includes my Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to the human environment, which means no further environmental analysis is necessary in order to proceed with this project. The Chase Red Pine Fuels Project EA and supporting resource reports are incorporated by reference in this document. The environmental assessment and this draft decision are available for download from the Huron-Manistee National Forests website at under the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project listing. The primary focus of the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project is to promote desired vegetation distribution, composition and age, reduce hazardous fuel loading, and enhance wildlife habitat. We designed the project proposal to maintain and/or improve resource conditions so they more closely meet the objectives and desired on-the-ground conditions specified in the Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for management areas 2.2, 4.2 and 4.4. Specifically, the project is proposed to: Reduce life-threatening and property-damaging wildfire potential; Produce high volumes of timber products and improve growing conditions for timber stands; Increase age class diversity in red and jack pine plantations, and in aspen and oak forest types; Manage permanent openings for fuels reduction and wildlife benefits; and Restore barrens and oak savannas and provide habitat for wildlife species dependent on these communities. Location of the Proposed Project The Chase Red Pine Fuels Project is on the Baldwin/White Cloud Ranger District of the Huron-Manistee National Forests in T. 18 N., R.12 W., Section 36; T. 17 N., R. 12 W., Sections 1, 12, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36; T. 17 N., R. 11 W., Section 6 in Lake County, Michigan; and T. 16 N., R. 12 W., Section 4 in Newaygo County, Michigan. The Project is located east of Baldwin and primarily south of U.S. Highway 10 (see maps, appendix A). The project area is 16,507 acres in size and includes approximately 7,659 acres of National Forest System lands. Approximately 4,706 acres are proposed for treatment within the project area. 1 (40 CFR (a)) Huron-Manistee National Forest - 3 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

6 Public Involvement To inform the public, interest groups, tribes and agencies of this project, we used different methods of communication. We listed the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project in the Huron-Manistee National Forests Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions, sent a letter of our proposal to interested parties, and posted information on our Forest Service internet site. The Council on Environmental Quality directs agencies to concentrate on analyzing issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail. The primary concerns we identified were analyzed in the EA to evaluate effects and determine the effectiveness of the alternatives in addressing the purpose and need and consistency with the Forest Plan. Other concerns raised were not site-specific or not relevant to the project, or we were able to address them in our design of the project. Please refer to the project record for a complete description of concerns and how we used and addressed public concerns in the planning and analysis process. On May 26, 2016, we published a notice and comment opportunity in the Lake County Star and notified interested individuals, organizations, and agencies that the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Environmental Assessment was available for a 30-day comment period. We received one letter in support of the project and comment letters from two other individuals. We considered whether we had adequately addressed the topic of each of the comments and prepared a response to each one. One comment letter included attachments with opposing views supported by website links that point to literature references. Responses to comments and to the opposing views attachments are available in the project record. Based on the analysis of comments, I concluded there were no new issues raised that might add a new alternative or warrant additional analysis in the environmental assessment. Decision After careful review of the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Environmental Assessment and all public comments and input received, I have decided to select alternative 2, the proposed action, for implementation. I have selected alternative 2 (selected alternative) because it meets management direction provided in the Forest Plan and is responsive to the specific purpose and need that I initially identified for this project, as well as the public comments and issues. Appendix C describes changes made to the EA after consideration of public comments. My reasons for choosing alternative 2 are explained in more detail in the Reasons for My Decision section on pages 6 and 7. Details of the Selected Alternative We developed the selected alternative to respond to Forest-wide management objectives, as stated in the purpose and need for action (EA pp. 2-3). It is designed to be consistent with the Forest Plan and Forest Service law, regulation, and policy. Table 1 and table 2 outline the proposed vegetation management activities and their connected actions. The project maps, located in appendix A, display the proposed activities. Huron-Manistee National Forest - 4 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

7 Table 1. Proposed vegetation management activities in the Chase Red Pine Fuels project Proposed Activity Acres 1 Activity Description Aspen Clearcut 145 Non-commercial Aspen Clearcut 40 Fuel break 22 Regenerate aspen by harvesting the mature stands of trees. Scattered overstory trees and clumps of trees will be left to provide mast and snags for wildlife. Natural regeneration of aspen is the objective. Regenerate aspen by manually cutting or masticating stands of immature trees and leaving the residual material on site. Scattered overstory trees and clumps of trees will be left to provide mast and snags for wildlife. Natural regeneration of aspen is the objective. Create fuel breaks by harvesting trees and removing brush. If present, scattered overstory trees (preferably hardwood) will be left to provide visual esthetics and mast for wildlife. Residual slash will be lopped and scattered or piled and burned. The fuel breaks will be maintained periodically using chainsaws, prescribed fire, and/or mowing. Roadside Fuel break 86 Same as description as Fuel break. Jack Pine Convert to Opening Jack Pine Oak Regeneration Jack Pine Clearcut 261 Jack Pine Removal 30 Karner Blue Butterfly Management 195 Oak Savanna 11 Oak Shelterwood 231 Remove failed jack pine plantings from former openings. The residual stand will be an opening. Planting of desirable trees, shrubs and grasses may be implemented for diversity of wildlife habitat within the openings. The openings will be maintained periodically using chainsaws, prescribed fire, and/or mowing. Regenerate jack pine-oak by harvesting mature stands of trees. If present, scattered overstory trees and clumps of trees will be left to provide mast and snags for wildlife. Natural regeneration of jack pine-oak type is the objective. Supplemental planting of jack pine may be necessary. Regenerate jack pine by harvesting mature stands of trees. If present, scattered overstory trees and clumps of trees will be left to provide mast and snags for wildlife. Natural regeneration of jack pine is the objective or jack pine-oak mix would be acceptable. Supplemental planting of jack pine may be necessary to meet stocking requirements. Remove jack pine from an aspen stand and regenerate the aspen. The residual stand will be aspen. Reduce tree and shrub density to an average of 50 percent canopy cover using a combination of mechanical equipment, hand tools, prescribed fire and herbicides 2, as necessary, to restore a mosaic of desired trees and shrubs throughout the stand. Seed or plant native wildflowers and grasses on approximately 10 percent of the stand. Retain large open-grown oak and white pine. Remove all slash and brush from the area or leave in small piles not to exceed 10 percent of the stand. If necessary, install signs and barriers to protect occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat. Harvest trees and encourage the establishment of native grasses; maintain scattered overstory oaks for mast. Prescribed burn on a regular basis to encourage native grass production. Reduce overstory density to allow understory seedlings to develop and establish a new stand of oak trees under the shelter of the overstory trees. Planting a mix of red, white and jack pine may be necessary for adequate understory stocking and species diversity. Huron-Manistee National Forest - 5 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

8 Proposed Activity Acres 1 Activity Description Opening Maintenance 158 Prescribed Burn Up to 3,483 Red Pine Thinning 924 Red Pine Regenerate to Hardwood Red Pine Thin and Opening Expansion Red Pine Thin and Regenerate 25 percent Red Pine Thin and Regenerate Hardwood 25 percent , White Pine Thinning 132 White Pine Thin and Regenerate 25 percent 112 Remove unwanted encroaching vegetation from existing openings by manually cutting, masticating, or using prescribed fire. Planting desirable trees, shrubs and grasses may be implemented for diversity of wildlife habitat. The openings will be maintained periodically using chainsaws, prescribed fire, and/or mowing. Implement low to moderate intensity prescribed fire to reduce fuels and restore ecological processes to the fireadapted ecosystem. Up to 2,908 acres of prescribed fire would be used in combination with other vegetation treatments, and up to 575 acres would be prescribed fire only. Harvest individual trees or rows of trees to reduce tree density in red pine plantations. Large oaks and snags will be left for wildlife mast and dens. Harvest mature red pine stand to allow advanced hardwood regeneration to grow. Residual stand is hardwoods. Harvest individual trees or rows of trees to reduce tree density in red pine and expand wildlife openings within the plantations. Large oaks and snags will be left for wildlife mast and dens. Planting desirable trees, shrubs and grasses may be implemented for diversity of wildlife habitat within the openings. The openings will be maintained periodically using chainsaws, prescribed fire, and/or mowing. Harvest individual trees or rows of trees to reduce tree density in plantations. Large oaks and snags will be left for wildlife mast and dens. To diversify age-classes, harvest15 to 20 acre regeneration patches that total approximately 25 percent of the thinned stand. Planting a mix of red, white and jack pine in the regeneration patches may be implemented for adequate stocking and species diversity. Harvest individual trees or rows of trees to reduce tree density in plantations. Large oaks and snags will be left for wildlife mast and dens. To improve species and age-class diversity, harvest 15 to 20 acre patches that total approximately 25 percent of the thinned stand. The objective for the harvested patches is natural regeneration to hardwoods. Harvest individual trees or rows of trees to reduce tree density in white pine plantations. Large oaks and snags will be left for wildlife mast and dens. Harvest individual trees or rows of trees to reduce tree density in plantations. Large oaks and snags will be left for wildlife mast and dens. To diversify age-classes, harvest15 to 20 acre regeneration patches that total approximately 25 percent of the thinned stand. Supplemental planting of white pine may be necessary to meet stocking requirements. 1 - Acres are based on GIS mapping and are approximate 2 - Strip, patch or spot application of glyphosate, triclopyr, or imazapic would be completed using hand tools and would occur on less than10 percent of treated stands; glyphosate include POEA as a surfactant will not be used within 100 feet of any wetland. Huron-Manistee National Forest - 6 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

9 Table 2. Proposed connected activities in the Chase Red Pine Fuels project Proposed Activity Miles 1 Activity Description Fire line Construction (Miles) Forest Service Road Construction Forest Service Road Reconstruction County Road Reconstruction Up to 9 miles 1 - Miles are based on GIS mapping and are approximate Construct fire line using a bulldozer or hand line/wet line to create a mineral soil barrier to contain low to moderate intensity prescribed fire. Constructed fire line would be rehabilitated following prescribed fire. Roads would be used for fire line where possible. Construct roads to Forest Service standards on existing historic roads. Minor reconstruction of roads could include improving the road surface, alignment, and/or drainage. Minor reconstruction of County road segments may occur as agreed to by the Lake County Road Commission. Measures Designed to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Effects The selected alternative is designed with a variety of measures intended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate known or potential adverse effects to various resources. Project design measures and best management practices applicable to project activities are listed in appendix B. Reasons for My Decision My decision is based on a thorough review of the environmental assessment and its supporting documentation. In making my decision, I considered the purpose and need, consistency with the 2006 Huron-Manistee Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, and all public comments and resource issues identified during the planning process. There were divergent opinions expressed by the public through the analysis. My decision will likely not satisfy any one group or individual completely. However, I have considered all views and believe my decision is reasonable. The selected alternative provides the best mix of benefits for the public within the framework of existing laws, regulations, policies, public needs and desires, and capabilities of the land while meeting the stated purpose and need for the project. In making my decision, I recognize that less than complete knowledge exists about many relationships and conditions of forests, wildlife, jobs and communities. The ecology, inventory and management of a large forest area is complex, and our knowledge and public perceptions are continually developing. Perfect knowledge and absolute guarantees are not attainable, but we believe we used the best available science at this time to analyze potential effects of the actions and meet the varied needs of the public. Based on my review of the selected alternative, the affected environment, and guidance contained in the Forest Plan, I have made the following determinations: The selected alternative provides for increased protection of the public, firefighters, public resources and private property in the event of a wildfire by establishing fuel brakes and reducing crown fire potential of forested stands; The selected alternative provides for increased acreage, distribution, and connectivity of suitable Karner blue butterfly habitat through the establishment of new Karner blue butterfly habitat; Huron-Manistee National Forest - 7 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

10 The selected alternative provides for improved tree vigor and increased diversity in forest age, species, and structure, leaving forested stands more resistant to insect and disease attacks and less susceptible to wind damage and drought; The selected alternative provides wood products, contributing economic benefits to the local economy; The selected alternative is consistent with the rationale for choice of vegetation management practices (described in terms of appropriateness) as defined in appendix B of the Forest Plan; I have carefully reviewed the analysis framework and environmental consequences for each affected resource. Because the selected alternative is typical of other multiple-use management projects on the Baldwin/White Cloud Ranger District, I am confident that resource specialists on the interdisciplinary team are familiar with potential effects. No evidence was revealed in any of the comments submitted during the designated 30 day comment period for the environmental analysis, nor is any evidence in the project record that indicates any substantial uncertainty or unknown risks regarding effects of the selected alternative. The effects of the various elements of the selected alternative have been studied (from past projects) for at least a decade. The interdisciplinary team considered the best available scientific information as well as opposing viewpoints to complete all components of the environmental analysis and support a Finding of No Significant Impact (pp. 7-12). Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered a no-action alternative. No other action alternatives were proposed by the interdisciplinary team based on potential resource conflicts, and none were generated by unresolved resource conflicts revealed thorough review of public scoping comments. A request was received during the scoping comment period to analyze a prescribed fire only alternative, without mechanical fuels treatments. This alternative was considered, but not fully analyzed in the EA. The EA (p. 7) includes rationale describing why the alternative was not advanced for full analysis. I have determined this range of alternatives is adequate and follows Forest Service environmental analysis regulations at 36 CFR for consideration of alternatives. Alternative 1 - No Action The no-action alternative proposed no vegetative treatments or other management activities in the project area. Some activities, such as resource protection and routine maintenance, would continue. This alternative helped us compare existing environmental conditions and trends in the project area with how they would change if we implemented the action alternative. I did not select this alternative because it does not support the purpose and need for this project and does not address the goals, standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan (EA pp. 1-2). Finding of No Significant Impact I have reviewed the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for significance (40 CFR ) and have determined that this decision is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, either individually or cumulatively. Preparation of an environmental impact statement pursuant to Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required. This determination is based on the following factors as outlined in 40 CFR Huron-Manistee National Forest - 8 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

11 Context This project is limited in scope and duration. Activities associated with my decision will be confined to selected treatment areas within the Baldwin Ranger/White Cloud Ranger District. Project treatments will be limited to those actions disclosed in this decision, the EA, and their respective appendices. Further, this action is consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for vegetative and age diversity, fire hazard reduction, fiber production, wildlife habitat diversity, and endangered, threatened and sensitive species viability (EA pp. 1-2). Short-term negative effects are addressed through implementation of project design measures developed specifically for this project (see EA, appendix B for design measures and EA pp for effects to resources). There are approximately 16,507 acres of federal and non-federal lands within the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project planning area and approximately 1,321,429 acres of federal and non-federal lands within the Manistee National Forest proclamation boundary. The Chase Red Pine Fuels project area, which is the cumulative area of influence for effects analysis, comprises 1.2 percent of the acreage within the Manistee National Forest proclamation boundary. Approximately 4,706 acres, or approximately 28 percent of the planning area is within a designated treatment unit. The total area encompasses by the proposed activities is 0.35 percent of all lands within the Manistee National Forest proclamation boundary. The project lies within the Pease Creek-Little South Branch Pere Marquette River, the Middle Branch Pere Marquette River, and the Sanborn Creek 6th level watersheds. The selected alternative will implement treatments on about 2.7, 12.3 and 1 percent of the watersheds, respectively. Given the area affected by the project at the project area, treatment area, and watershed scales, I find the effects of the project are not significant as disclosed throughout the environmental consequences section of the EA (pages 7-60). Effects are local in nature and are not likely to significantly affect regional or national resources. Intensity Intensity refers to the severity, extent, or quantity of the expected project impacts. I have thoroughly considered any adverse and beneficial effects to each resource area as per 40 CFR The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions. The following factors were considered to evaluate intensity. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the 10 factors identified in 40 CFR (b). 1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial. I considered the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in conjunction with beneficial and adverse impacts associated with activities as presented in the EA, resource reports and project record. These impacts are within the range of effects identified in the Forest Plan. I conclude that the specific direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the selected alternative, alternative 2, are not significant and this action does not rely on beneficial effects to override adverse environmental effects. Because my selected alternative incorporates the design measures listed in appendix B of the environmental assessment; there will be some resources where the project as designed will have little to no measurable effects; such as with water resources (EA pp ) and soils (EA pp ). Project design measures and best management practices for limiting soil and groundwater effects include Huron-Manistee National Forest - 9 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

12 restrictions on activities within the riparian management zone, avoiding conditions that might lead to soil and water contamination, and restoring areas following use (EA pp ). For some resources, implementing the selected alternative will exhibit both beneficial and adverse effects, which were discussed in sufficient detail to make my determination. The environmental assessment focuses more effort on those resource areas where there were some type of predicted adverse effect and provides sufficient information to determine that this project will not have a significant impact (beneficial or adverse). There are examples of this in the wildlife resource sections where you will see some adverse short-term effects such as short-term disturbance to foraging or dispersing individuals, along with some long-term indirect beneficial effects such as habitat and community stability (wildlife report and EA pp ). 2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. It is my determination that the selected activities will have no significant effects on public health and safety. Spot application of herbicide using hand tools would occur on at most 10 percent of treated stands according to the product label (FSH , 52.11), the specifications in the Forest Service Manual 2150, Pesticide Use Management and Coordination, and in the Forest Service Handbook , Pesticide Use Management and Coordination Handbook. Also, compliance with all Federal, State, and local regulations regarding herbicide use would be followed. Herbicide application would be conducted by State of Michigan pesticide applicator certified personnel. Areas treated with herbicides will have public warning signs posted in compliance with all pertinent regulations (EA appendix B p. 81). The selected alternative is designed to reduce flame lengths and slow rates of spread in the event of a wildfire, which would enable firefighters to employ aggressive initial attack strategies and establish defensible space to protect egress routes and structures (EA pp ). 3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. Cultural resource sites considered unevaluated or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be protected with a buffer or mitigated according to the determination of the forest archaeologist. If previously undocumented cultural resources are encountered within the area of potential effect during project implementation, work should cease in the area until mitigation measures can be determined by the forest archeologist (EA appendix B p. 83). This process provides for a NEPA determination of No Effect and full compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (EA p. 59). There are no park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas within the project area. Project design measures and best management practices, including riparian management zones on streams, riparian areas and wetlands, would be applied to prevent or limit sediment introduction into streams and to protect riparian zones and wetlands. No long-term measurable negative effects to riparian areas or wetlands are expected (EA appendix B, EA pp ). 4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. I have concluded the effects of the selected alternative on the quality of the human environment are not highly controversial. This conclusion is based on the project record that shows a thorough review of Huron-Manistee National Forest - 10 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

13 relevant scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. The project file includes relevant literature citations, references to science, and monitoring results that were used in the project analysis to support this decision as well as consideration of other scientific information as provided from other scientists, organizations and agencies. 5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. No evidence was revealed in any of the components of the environmental analysis, nor is any evidence in the project record that indicates any substantial uncertainty or unknown risks regarding effects of the selected alternative actions. The planned actions are similar to mechanical and prescribed fire treatments implemented for many years in other areas on National Forest System, state, county and private lands. Effects will be similar to those in the other areas where treatments have been implemented. The potential effects have been scientifically documented in many studies (project record literature cited and individual resource reports). The conclusions of local resource experts are described in the EA effects discussion. It is my conclusion that there are no unique or unusual characteristics of the area, which have not been previously encountered, which will constitute an unknown risk to the human environment. 6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The planned management actions are similar to actions implemented without significant impacts in other areas on National Forest System, state, county and private lands. The selected alternative is not setting a precedent for future actions of significant effects. Management practices are consistent with management direction in the Forest Plan. This action does not represent a decision in principle about future considerations. 7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The combined effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered and are summarized in each resources cumulative effects analysis. No cumulatively significant impact on the environment is anticipated based on environmental analysis. The proposed action is related to other actions with individually insignificant effects in the context of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions on both federal and private land within the project area. 8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources. Cultural resource sites considered unevaluated or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be protected with a buffer or mitigated according to the determination of the forest archaeologist. If previously undocumented cultural resources are encountered within the area of potential effect during project implementation, work should cease in the area until mitigation measures can be determined by the forest archeologist (EA appendix B p. 83). This process provides for a NEPA determination of No Effect and full compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (EA p. 59). Huron-Manistee National Forest - 11 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

14 9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act. No designated critical habitat exists for any federally-listed endangered or threatened species in the project area. The project area is within the range of and provides suitable habitat for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides Melissa samuelis), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus). The Forest consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding impacts on threatened and endangered species. A biological opinion was issued from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in June 2016 (16-R3-ELF0-01) covering effects of project treatments to federally threatened, endangered and proposed species. The selected alternative will meet the terms and conditions of the biological opinion that addresses project activities. The determination within the biological assessment for Karner blue butterfly is May Affect and Is Likely to Adversely Affect this species (EA, pp ; Reitz 2016). Although there is a determination of May Effect, Likely to Adversely Effect and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a take statement in their biological opinion for Karner blue butterfly, the EA and project record support a Finding of No Significant Impact for the implementation of the proposed action because: conservation measures limit the amount of occupied habitat that may be treated annually by burning or any other method; treatments will be planned for outside of the flight periods to avoid take of adult butterflies; no critical habitat has been designated for Karner blue butterfly, so none would be impacted; proposed activities play a role in creating and maintaining suitable habitat conditions for Karner blue butterfly; practices such as prescribed burns, mowing, cutting, manual and chemical vegetation removal, soil scarification, and seeding and planting mimic natural disturbances that are necessary to preserve, enhance, and create habitat for the Karner blue butterfly; the selected alternative is consistent with all Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2006), the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003) and the DRAFT Management Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2004a); annual monitoring for Karner blue butterflys in the action area will inform management to minimize incidental take; and the amount of incidental take anticipated for this project (364 acres) does not cumulatively exceed the 20,300 acres of incidental take anticipated in the Level 1 Programmatic Opinion. The selected alternative May Affect and Is Likely to Adversely Affect the northern long-eared bat (EA, pp ; Reitz 2016). The Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project identified the selected alternative is consistent with the framework set forth in the January 5, 2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Final 4(d) Rule for the northern longeared bat and activities exempted from Take Prohibitions and Section 7(a)(2) responsibilities have been met in respect to the northern long-eared bat. The proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the eastern massasauga, a proposed species, based on the following rationale: No eastern massasaugas have been documented within the project area; with the exception of prescribed fire, management activities within 0.5 miles of waterbodies or wetlands will occur between September 15 and May 15; if prescribed fire occurs between May 15 and September 15, control lines and/or firing techniques will be used to result in a low intensity flame; disking of upland habitat will be completed during the time period when snakes are not present (Oct 1 - May 15); and if an eastern massasauga is discovered in the project area, work will be suspended until the Forest can coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if any additional conservation measures may be needed to avoid all adverse effects to the species. Huron-Manistee National Forest - 12 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

15 10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The selected alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan and applicable laws, regulations, and policies (see individual resource reports). The Forest Plan was developed in accordance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA - 16 U.S.C.1604, et seq.) and the 1982 planning regulations. The selected alternative also supports the National Forest Management Act, which gives the Forest Service statutory responsibility to provide the ecological conditions to both maintain the diversity of plant and animal communities and support the persistence of most native species in the plan area. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations Each resource analysis report provides a section on how the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project is consistent with the laws and regulations relevant to that resource. After reviewing each report and the environmental assessment, I find my decision to implement alternative 2 complies with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. See discussions below. National Forest Management Act Project activities are consistent with the National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1604 (i)) and the Forest Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests (2006) and will provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area to meet overall multiple-use objectives (16 USC 1604 (g)(3)(b)). The selected alternative was designed to be implemented in a manner that will provide for a diversity of vegetation, plants, wildlife, soil and water resources on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. (See EA pp. 7-60; refer to resource specialist reports and the Wildlife Biological Assessment and Evaluation in the project file). Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC et seq. 1988) provides for the protection and conservation of threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The selected alternative was assessed to determine effects on threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The selected alternative is consistent with the Endangered Species Act (EA pp ). See item 9 (p. 11) in the Finding of No Significant Impact section. Executive Order Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful. On January 10, 2001, President William Clinton signed E.O , directing executive departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FR Vol. 66, No. 11, January 17, 2001). The U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have entered into a memorandum of understanding to promote the conservation of migratory birds as a direct response to E.O (USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). The effects of agency actions on migratory birds were evaluated within the NEPA analysis process, focusing on species of management concerns along with their priority habitat and key risk factors (EA p. 55). Considering Forest Plan standards and project design measures will reduce impacts to migratory birds, and that declining habitats of regional species of concern species would be maintained in the short term and increased over the long term, the selected alternative is in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Huron-Manistee National Forest - 13 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

16 Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is a federal statute administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with state governments. Its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation s waters (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq., Title I, Section 101). This project incorporates Forest Plan standards and guidelines for protection of riparian resources and includes project design measures and best management practices to ensure management activities maintain watershed conditions to the extent possible (EA appendix B pp ). Project activities would not produce measurable impacts to watershed function, water quantity, and timing of flows because the amount of open land and immature forest vegetation would not exceed a level where a significant change in these parameters is measurable (EA pp ). Clean Air Act There are no air quality nonattainment areas within 30 miles of the project, meaning that all current sources of pollution, including emissions from prescribed fire, are not causing air quality to exceed the thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect human health and welfare (EA p. 12). Site specific burn plans will be developed prior to prescribed burning activities (EA appendix B p. 74) detailing management objectives and conditions that provide for public safety and maximizing smoke dispersal. Executive Order Floodplain Management, and Executive Order Protection of Wetlands Wetlands and floodplains are located within the project area. Effects analysis shows there would be no downstream adverse effects that will modify wetlands or floodplains (EA pp ); therefore, the selected alternative is consistent with these executive orders. Forest Plan standards and guidelines and project design will minimize the impact to floodplains and wetlands in accordance with E.O and E.O National Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their activities and programs on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment on all agency undertakings. Cultural resource sites considered unevaluated or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be protected with a buffer or mitigated according to the determination of the forest archaeologist. If previously undocumented cultural resources are encountered within the area of potential effect during project implementation, work should cease in the area until mitigation measures can be determined by the forest archeologist (EA appendix B p. 83). This process provides for a NEPA determination of No Effect and full compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (EA p. 59). My decision is consistent with provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Huron-Manistee National Forest - 14 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

17 Executive Order Environmental Justice Executive Order Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low- Income Populations (59 FR 32), issued in 1994, ordered Federal agencies to identify and address the issues of environmental justice (i.e., adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations). Public involvement did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. My decision is not expected to adversely impact minority or low-income populations (EA p. 58). Administrative Review This decision is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B. This project was originally proposed in February 2015 during a scoping period and an opportunity for public comment on the environmental assessment was provided in May For this project, individuals or organizations who submitted timely and specific written comments about the proposed project in response to either the designated scoping period or the comment period will be considered to have standing to object under 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B. The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in 218.8(d) and incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in 218.8(b). It is the objector s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer pursuant to All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process. The objection must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 218.8(d), and include the following information: The objector s name and address, with a telephone number or address, if available; A signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for may be filed with the objection); When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector as defined in 36 CFR (verification of the identity of the lead objector shall be provided upon request); The name of the project being objected to, the name and title of the responsible official, and the name of the national forest and ranger district on which the project will be implemented; A description of those aspects of the project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the project and, if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; and supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; A statement that demonstrates the connection between prior specific written comments on the particular project or activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity for formal comment. Incomplete responses to these requirements make review of an objection difficult and are conditions under which the reviewing officer may set aside an objection pursuant to 36 CFR Huron-Manistee National Forest - 15 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

18 The following address should be used for objections sent by regular mail or by private carrier or hand delivery: Objection Reviewing Officer USDA Forest Service Gaslight Building, Suite East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI Office hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, except on federal holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted via an to with Chase Red Pine Fuels Project typed in the subject line. Acceptable formats for electronic comments are text or html , Adobe portable document format, and formats viewable in Microsoft Office applications. The telephone number for faxed objections is , Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer, Region 9, USDA Forest Service, Eastern Regional Office. Final Decision If no objections are filed within the 45-day time period for this draft decision, then a final decision may occur on, but not before, the 5th business day following the end of the objection filing period. If an objection is filed, a final decision will not be signed until all concerns and instructions (identified by the reviewing officer) have been addressed (36 CFR [b]). Contact Information For additional information concerning this decision, please refer to the Huron-Manistee National Forest s web site for the project - Questions regarding this decision should be sent to District Ranger Pamela Repp at the Baldwin/White Cloud Ranger District, 650 N. Michigan Ave., P.O. Box Drawer D, Baldwin, MI 49304, or by phone or (pamelamrepp@fs.fed.us). Huron-Manistee National Forest - 16 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

19 References Reitz, Scott Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Biological Assessment. 67 pp. USDA Forest Service 2006a. Land and Resource Management Plan; Huron-Manistee National Forests (as amended). U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Final Recovery Plan for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, Fort Snelling, MN. Huron-Manistee National Forest - 17 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

20 Appendix A Maps Huron-Manistee National Forest - 18 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

21 Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Figure 1. Overview of activities proposed in the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Huron-Manistee National Forest - 19 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

22 Figure 2. Activities proposed in the northern portion of the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Huron-Manistee National Forest - 20 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

23 Figure 3. Activities proposed in the southern portion of the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Huron-Manistee National Forest - 21 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District

24 Figure 4. Prescribed fire activities proposed in the Chase Red Pine Fuels Project Huron-Manistee National Forest - 22 Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District