Table of Contents. 1 Introduction. 2 Decision. 3 Rationale for the Decision. 4 Other Alternatives Considered

Transcription

1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Summary of the Decision 1.2 Project Area 1.3 Background 1.4 Purpose and Need 2 Decision 3 Rationale for the Decision 3.1 Overview 3.2 Purpose and Need 3.3 Significant Issue 3.4 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations 4 Other Alternatives Considered 4.1 Alternative Alternative Alternatives Considered and Not Carried Forward for Detailed Study 4.4 Environmentally Preferable Alternative 5 Public Involvement 5.1 Proposed Action Scoping Package and Draft EIS 5.2 Tribal Consultation 5.3 Agency Consultation 5.4 Changes Between DEIS and FEIS 5.5 Administrative Record 6 Implementation 6.1 Process for Change during Implementation 6.2 Authorizations Needed 7 Appeal Rights Attachments: 1. Vegetation Treatment Definitions and Information 2. Forest Plan Operational Standards and Guidelines 3. Stand Treatments and Stand Specific Implementation Direction 4. Monitoring Plan 5. Transportation System Activities Map ROD 1: Vegetation Treatments and Transportation Plan Map ROD 2: Transportation Plan ROD-1

2 Border Project USDA Forest Service Eastern Region Superior National Forest LaCroix Ranger District St. Louis County, Minnesota 1 Introduction This (ROD) describes the decision I have made to implement vegetation and transportation management activities in the Border Project Area on the LaCroix Ranger District, Superior National Forest. I provide some background information to help set the stage and explain how the purpose and need for the project was developed. In addition, I describe my rationale for selecting Alternative 2 Modified in relation to the project s purpose and need, significant issue, other alternatives considered, public input, and applicable laws, regulations and policies as they pertain to land management and project planning and implementation on a national forest. This concludes with information on implementation of the project and the appeal process available to members of the public who have established standing by commenting or otherwise expressing interest during the Draft EIS comment period. 1.1 Summary of the Decision In summary, my decision includes vegetation management and associated transportation system management activities on the Superior National Forest that meet desired resource conditions and objectives of the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) which was approved in Activities in the Selected Alternative 2 Modified would contribute to creating desired conditions of the Forest Plan by managing the age, composition, structure, and spatial pattern of forest vegetation. The proposed activities would also modify the transportation system both to facilitate vegetation activities and to address the short-term and long-term needs of various publics, private individuals, and agencies. Primary treatment activities in Selected Alternative 2 Modified would: Use final harvests (clearcuts with reserves, shelterwoods, and seed tree cuts) to create young forest stands (8,219 acres). Use intermediate and uneven-age harvests (thinning and group selection cuts) to improve stand structure and within-stand species and age diversity (2,822 acres). Restore stand conditions (without harvest) by planting long-lived tree species and releasing desired tree species for aquatic habitat (395 acres) and wildlife habitat (340 acres); by shearing lowland brush specifically to enhance moose and woodcock habitat (125 acres); and by removing brush or pre-commercially thinning stands to improve growth on desired tree species (975 acres). Restore stand conditions by conducting prescribed burns (or by using mechanical techniques) to reduce hazardous fuels and the future risk of wildfire (305 acres). ROD-2

3 Construct, close, decommission, and maintain National Forest System (NFS) roads in order to create the minimum transportation system needed administratively by federal, State, county, and tribal agencies. Modify and maintain the minimum transportation system needed for private access. This includes constructing 2.2 miles of new system road and decommissioning 9.7 miles of road for a net reduction of 7.5 miles; providing access to nonfederal land for a total of 1.9 miles; managing 12 gravel pits; improving the parking area at Johnson Lake; improving 5 road/stream crossings; and moving 2 gates. I worked with the representatives from the Tribes, Voyageurs National Park (VNP), State of Minnesota, and Voyageurs National Park Association in developing the proposal and/or the alternatives; I believe that I have incorporated their suggestions and addressed their concerns in my decision. The decision meets Tribal concerns. It incorporates measures such as maintaining overall motorized access, maintaining access to popular wild ricing areas, notifying Tribal representative of successful bidders to contact for collecting small forest products like birch bark, and shearing lowland brush to improve moose and woodcock habitat. The decision meets State of Minnesota suggestions such as oak stand enhancement, protection of the Goldmine State Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, and stand adjustments near the Echo River State Hunter Walking Trails to tie in with State management. Finally, measures in the decision address VNP and Voyageurs National Park Association concerns about harvest near VNP by feathering the edges of harvest stands, using winter access roads closed to public use, increasing NNIP monitoring/potential treatment measures, and agreeing to work together to monitor for potential illegal ATV activities. I considered the Forest-wide Travel Management proposals in design of the Proposed Action and selection of Alternative 2 Modified. Our analysis used the updated road and trail information developed with the Travel Management Project, and further updated for this project. To update the roads data for the Travel Management Project and this project, roads were measured in the field using GPS; maps and data (INFRA) were compared; and District personnel familiar with areas consulted. We based the analysis for this project on the assumption that the Forest-wide Travel Management decisions would be implemented. If a Forest-wide Travel Management decision is not final when the Border Project is to be implemented, the existing unclassified roads with decisions from Travel Management and needed for Border project implementation would be used temporarily for the purpose associated with the Border project. Once those purposes for the Border project are met, those segments would continue to be addressed through the Forest-wide Travel Management Project. If county or State access is needed using unclassified roads, those segments would also be used temporarily and left in their existing conditions until the Travel Management decision is final. The unclassified roads planned for decommissioning in Travel Management are not shown on the maps because these roads were confirmed not to be needed for Border Project implementation or any agency vegetation management access at this time. 1.2 Project Area The boundary of the Border Project area encompasses approximately 93,700 acres of land with mixed ownership. Of the total acreage of mixed ownership, approximately 57,600 acres (61 percent) of the Project area is National Forest System land. Activities described in this ROD are planned for National Forest System lands only, specifically on ROD-3

4 the LaCroix Ranger District, Superior National Forest in northern St. Louis County, in portions of Townships 65 to 68 North, and Ranges 16 to 19 West. The Vicinity Map (Map 1) in Chapter 1 of the EIS displays the general location of the Project area. As the Vicinity map illustrates, the Border Project area includes National Forest System (NFS) land south of Voyageurs National Park (VNP), west of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), and northwest of Echo Lake. The Project area is outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW); and no actions associated with this Project are being proposed to take place within the BWCAW. 1.3 Background A number of laws guide our land management practices and our Forest Service mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. A few highlights of some of these laws include: the Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 which set aside and reserved national forests for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flow, and to furnish a continuous supply of water and timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States ; the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 which states that national forests shall be administered for a variety of uses including timber, watershed and wildlife and fish purposes; and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 which states that national forests shall be administered for a variety of uses on a sustained basis to ensure in perpetuity a continuous supply of goods and services to the American people. The Superior National Forest (SNF) Land and Resource Management Plan which provides the framework for the Border Project embodies the provisions of these laws as well as the regulations on forest plan implementation. The SNF Forest Plan guides natural resource management activities on National Forest System land. The plan describes desired resource conditions, resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability of suitable land for resource management. The Forest Plan provides management objectives to ensure that ecosystems are capable of providing a sustainable flow of beneficial goods and service to the public. Each project on the National Forest begins with a review of the Forest Plan and an assessment of the existing condition of the land and resources within the project. So in 2006 and early 2007, I asked an interdisciplinary team of natural resource specialists to compare the Border Project area existing resource conditions with Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions. The resource specialists documented their comparisons in midlevel assessments. As a result of these comparisons, I saw that some existing vegetation conditions in the Border Project area do not meet Forest Plan desired conditions. I then asked the team to use the differences between the existing conditions and the desired conditions as described by the Forest Plan to develop the purpose and need for the Border Project. Members of the interdisciplinary team/resource specialists also made recommendations for possible management actions that would move the Border Project area toward Forest Plan desired conditions. The recommendations made by the resource specialists identified the need to address forest vegetation and the associated transportation system in the Border Project area. ROD-4

5 In general, the forest that exists today in the Border Project area evolved as a result of both natural and human processes. The pioneer logging that occurred during the late 19 th and early 20 th century, followed by widespread slash-fueled wildfires, altered the composition and structure of the original forests. The next era of logging started in the 1940s and has continued to the present. Recent timber management and fire suppression activities have contributed to current forest conditions. Past logging practices have fragmented the landscape, and the suppression of fire has created an artificial buildup of fuels within the forest. Natural disturbance and forest succession have also taken place to varying degrees on managed and unmanaged lands within the Border Project area. The forest that exists today is different from the forest that would have evolved under purely natural forest succession processes. The Border Project area can generally be described as having a large percentage of old stands, a large proportion of aspen stands, and few recently harvested areas. Jack pine, red pine, and white pine can be found within many stands. Over 55 percent of the forested stands in the Border Project area are at or older than the minimum allowable age for harvest (S-TM-5, Forest Plan page 2-21) and the majority of these stands are aspen. About 5 percent of the stands in the Border Project area are in a young (age 0 to 9 year) age class. In the past, harvest throughout the project area has been common. The most recent examples include the Echo River Timber Sale EA (1998), the Pothole Timber Sale EA (1999), and the Holmes/Chipmunk EIS (2003). The Echo River EA included harvest on the east side of the Border Project area. The Pothole Timber EA covered a northern portion of the Border Project area. The southern portion of the project area was included in the Holmes/Chipmunk EIS. Harvest activities from these projects are complete. Remaining fuels reduction projects (Holmes/Chipmunk) are listed in Appendix G of the EIS. Data from past timber sales is included in the Forest Combined Data System (CDS). In addition, District personnel updated the vegetation CDS information using field data ( walk-throughs ) and photo interpretation. I am confident that this data is reliable and allowed us to estimate potential effects. While developing the Proposed Action for the Border Project, the interdisciplinary team of resource specialists collaborated with and reviewed data from the State of Minnesota, St. Louis County, Tribal representatives, Voyageurs National Park, and Forest Capital Partners LLC. The primary reason for this collaboration was to take a landscape view and design similar forest management and to coordinate other activities that would occur across ownership boundaries. The interdisciplinary team also proposed road management activities that would address the multiple resource needs and social concerns of land owners and forest visitors. Collaboration extended from local agencies and tribal governments and included involving the public at various stages throughout the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Border Project. The interdisciplinary team identified about 925 individuals, landowners, and agencies considered to have potential interest in the Border Project based on their most current response to be on Forest mailing lists, or because they lived in or had business interests within or adjacent to the Project area boundaries. The Proposed Action was mailed to them on January 24, Other methods to inform the public included publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS (January 28, 2008), submitting news releases to local papers, publishing a legal notice in ROD-5

6 the Mesabi Daily News (February 2, 2008), and placing the information on the Forest web site (January 31, 2008). As a result of our collaboration and public involvement efforts, I received approximately 65 comments on the Proposed Action. I asked the interdisciplinary team to use these comments to develop the significant issue that in turn was used to develop Alternative 3 for the EIS. In addition, in order to promote a two-way dialog, I either personally met with, or I asked members of the interdisciplinary team to meet with representatives of the Little Johnson Lake Association and individuals concerned about the location of gates on FR 487A and 487AB. Our collaboration with tribal and State representatives began in the earliest stages, during mid-level analysis and continued through the Proposed Action and alternative development. On May 15, 2009, I distributed the Draft EIS to those who had requested notification. As a result of this distribution, I received six letters in response to the Draft EIS. I asked the interdisciplinary team to review these comments and then draft a response to each one. The interdisciplinary team response to comments can be found in the FEIS Appendix J. Since some of the public comments I received are related to the Voyageurs National Park (VNP), the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), the Echo River Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Area, and the Vermilion River, I am providing some brief location and management allocation information here for context. The entire boundary of the Border Project area is about 80 miles. Of these 80 miles, approximately 10 miles are shared with the BWCAW. The total length of the BWCAW boundary is 568 miles. Thus the Border Project shares a boundary just under two percent of the total BWCAW boundary. Management of the BWCA wilderness is directed by the Forest Plan. Of the 80 miles of the Border Project area, about 25 miles of boundary are shared with Voyageurs National Park (VNP); about two-thirds (about 15 miles) of that shared boundary is water (Johnson Lakes and Crane Lake). Management of VNP is directed by NPS policy and the VNP area adjacent to Border is managed as proposed wilderness. The Echo River Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless area is on the east boundary of the Project area adjacent to the BWCAW and is allocated to Forest Plan Recreation Use in a Scenic Landscape and General Forest Longer Rotation Management Areas (MAs). A portion of the Vermilion River flows through the center of the Border Project area within the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers MA. This context is important as I discuss potential effects of my decision on these areas in section 3 of this ROD. The Border Project area is covered by the St. Louis County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), June One of the primary purposes of the CWPP was to identify and prioritize wildland/urban interface areas within St. Louis County for hazardous fuels reduction treatment and recommend methods for achieving reduction of hazardous fuels. As fire history shows, large wildfires are not uncommon in St. Louis County. The threats to life and property, the assets lost, and the cost of fighting fires are continuously escalating. By identifying areas at risk, land managers at the US Forest Service can take actions that will reduce wildland fire risk to firefighters and communities, and improve forest health at a landscape scale. The St. Louis County CWPP gave the Border area a moderate overall vulnerability summary (CWPP, page 37). ROD-6

7 To help achieve fuel reduction identified in the St. Louis County CWPP, the Border Project purpose and need includes fuel reduction and states in section There is a need to restore forest health and reduce hazardous fuel levels in forest communities by changing the vegetative condition through vegetative management. The two overall goals are to: 1. Reduce the risk of wildfire to protect life and property. 2. Create landscape conditions that are similar to ecological conditions associated with the historical natural fire regime. Managing the Superior National Forest natural resources and in particular the Border Project area required complex integration of resource assessments, management actions, and collaboration. Within the Border Project area, I considered the full range of resources, other activities, current uses and existing conditions in making my decision. In addition, the Border Project helps the Agency provide a reliable supply of forest products, moves vegetation toward Forest Plan desired conditions, reduces wildfire risks to life and property, and helps sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Superior National Forest. 1.4 Purpose and Need As noted above in the Background section of this ROD, I had asked the interdisciplinary team to use the differences between the existing conditions of the Project area and the desired conditions as described by the Forest Plan to develop the purpose and need for the Border Project. Section 3 of this ROD includes the Border project purpose and need along with my rationale for the Selected Alternative (Alternative 2 Modified). I summarize the project purpose and need below. The activities in the Border Project are intended to implement some objectives of the Forest Plan. The activities would contribute to creating desired conditions of the Forest Plan by managing the age, composition, structure, and spatial pattern of forest vegetation. The proposed activities would also modify the transportation system both to facilitate vegetation activities and to address the short-term and long-term needs of various publics, private individuals, and agencies. Proposed activities would: Use final harvests (clearcuts with reserves, shelterwoods, and seed tree cuts) to create young forest stands. Use intermediate and uneven-age harvests (thinning and group selection cuts) to improve stand structure and within-stand species and age diversity. Restore stand conditions (without harvest) by planting long-lived tree species to enhance scenery and aquatic habitat. Restore stand conditions by conducting prescribed burns (or mechanical techniques) to reduce hazardous fuels and the future risk of wildfire. Construct, close, decommission, and maintain National Forest System (NFS) roads in order to create the minimum transportation system needed administratively by federal, State, county, and tribal agencies. Modify and maintain the minimum transportation system needed for private access. ROD-7

8 2 Decision This section describes the specific elements of my decision to conduct vegetation management and associated transportation system management activities in the Border Project area. My decision encompasses the following: What actions will be used to address the purpose and need; Where and when those actions will take place; Implementation direction, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements that will be used. Based upon review of all the alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative 2, Modified Proposed Action (Selected Alternative). The original Proposed Action provided to the public at the scoping stage of the project was developed to achieve the purpose and need for action in the Border Project area. The Modified Proposed Action, which has become Alternative 2, has the same intent as the original Proposed Action described in the Scoping Package and also reflects refinements made due to public comment, further evaluation of the existing condition and analysis of Forest Plan direction as well as minor corrections or edits. Please refer to the EIS, Section 1.5 and Section 2.4 for additional information about the original Proposed Action (Scoping Report Proposed Action) and the Modified Proposed Action. In summary, the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2 Modified, the Selected Alternative) would implement the Forest Plan; including moving the vegetation conditions towards the desired landscape ecosystem objectives for age class, species composition and management indicator habitats. Please refer to Tables ROD-1 and ROD-2 for an overview of the actions that I am deciding to implement, i.e. the amounts and types of activities in my decision. Maps ROD-1 and ROD-2 answer the question of where my decision will occur by depicting the approximate locations of the approved projects. For more vegetation treatment information, please refer to the EIS, specifically Chapter 1, Section For a fine visual representation of vegetation treatments, please refer to Figures ROD 1, 2, and 3 which depict typical examples of clearcut with reserves, thinning, and stand improvement treatments, respectively. Figure ROD 4 depicts an example of successful pine regeneration. For more information on transportation system activities such as gates, gravel pits, Johnson Lake parking/portage, special uses, easement, and stream crossings, please also refer to the EIS, Chapter 1, Section Please refer to Figure ROD 5 for a visual image and example of successful road decommissioning. The following list of attachments describes the site-specific projects, implementation measures, and monitoring that will be implemented as part of my decision. Please refer to these important details to my decision as needed. 1. Vegetation Treatment Definitions and Information 2. Forest Plan Operational Standards and Guidelines 3. Stand Treatments and Stand Specific Implementation Direction 4. Monitoring Plan 5. Transportation System Activities ROD-8

9 It is important to note that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the Selected Alternative have been adopted in my decision (40 CFR ). Implementation direction for vegetation management and transportation system activities (ROD Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 5) in the Selected Alternative will minimize potential adverse impacts. The purpose of this important implementation direction which is based on Forest Plan direction is to minimize or avoid adverse effects which could occur from management activities. Implementation direction includes established Forest Service policies, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Minnesota Forest Resource Council (MFRC) Forest Management Guidelines, and federal laws and regulation. The monitoring identified in ROD Attachment 4 includes specific actions Forest Service personnel will take to determine whether the Project is implemented as designed, and whether project implementation complies as intended with the decision made here. Implementation monitoring is designed to answer, Did we do what we said we were going to do and did it work? Effectiveness monitoring addresses how well management actions achieve desired outcomes or objectives that are identified in the Forest Plan. This kind of monitoring is conducted over the entire Forest on a periodic basis and the monitoring results are used on future projects. Forest Plan monitoring results can be found in the Annual Forest Plan Monitoring Report, available at the Superior National Forest Supervisor s Office in Duluth, Minnesota. Figure ROD 1. Typical example of clearcut with reserves type of treatment and successful white pine regeneration. ROD-9

10 Table ROD 1. Amount and Type of Vegetation Treatment Activities in the Selected Alternative (acres) Creating young forest stands with harvest: Treatments that create young forest stands with harvests such as clearcut with reserves and shelterwood cuts would create young forest in the 0-9 year age class. The majority of existing trees would be removed; however, some trees would not be cut and would be left standing for wildlife, aquatic, scenery, and other resource purposes. Such treatments are generally proposed adjacent to recent past harvests in order to create large patches of similar age classes. Creating young forest would likely result in commercial wood products or biomass. Improving stand conditions with harvest: Treatments such as group selection cut and thinning would improve stand conditions and maintain the existing age class of the stand. Improving stand conditions, would likely result in commercial wood products or biomass. Clearcut with Reserves 4,123 Coppice cut with Reserves 3,405 Shelterwood 691 Total 8,219 Thinning 755 Shelterwood 69 Sanitation (Salvage) 51 Group Selection 1,947 Restoring stand conditions without harvest: Restoration treatments without harvest would create conditions for either the existing trees, or trees proposed for planting, to grow under improved conditions based on the restoration activity. The restoration activity may include removing less desirable species, creating ground disturbance to establish a seedbed in order to enhance natural regeneration of long-lived tree species, creating enhanced conditions for existing desired trees to grow, and planting and/or seeding desired tree species to offset the on-going natural succession of older stands to less desirable young spruce-fir stands. The treatments include hand and mechanical methods as well as some prescribed fire. These treatments would generally not result in a commercial wood product but may have potential for resulting in woody biomass depending on market conditions. Total 2,822 Aquatic habitat (Inland Fish Tree Planting) 395 Wildlife habitat 340 Lowland brush shearing 125 Overall stand improvement 975 Primary Fuels treatments 305 Total 2,140 Total acres of vegetation management 13,181 ROD Attachments 1, 2, and 3 include detailed treatment tables. Harvest acres displayed in this table and in the EIS and ROD were calculated using estimated stand acreages. Actual treated acres would be less than those displayed in this table because of legacy patches and reserve islands remaining in the stand after harvest, and other resource mitigations. ROD-10

11 A key part of the preliminary prescription is whether or not the stand age would change. Nuances of the prescription could change during implementation based on site-specific conditions. For example, a clearcut with reserves treatment could change to a seed tree cut if further field reviews indicate it is the preferred treatment because the stand may have numerous young pine that could be left standing to increase conifer regeneration. Secondary treatments may also change if they still meet the intent. For example, site preparation may be done in a mechanical manner (crushing) or with prescribed fire. Table ROD 2. Amount and Type of Transportation System Activities in the Selected Alternative New system OML 1 winter roads (miles) 1.6 New system OML 1 all-season roads (includes the 0.1 miles of the unclassified existing road) (miles) 0.6 Road to be decommissioned (mostly winter roads) (miles) 9.7 Temporary road estimate (miles) 44 Special use authorizations: 11 permits, 13 roads (miles) 1.9 Existing gravel pits to maintain (3 potential expansions) 11 Potential gravel pit 1 Gravel pit to rehabilitate (i.e. landscape and revegetate) 1 Parking Area/portage improvement projects 1 Stream crossing improvements 5 Relocate gates (issue special use permit on gated road) 2 Easement (reciprocal on FR 484) 1 Figure ROD 2. Typical example of thinning type of treatment. ROD-11

12 Figure ROD 3. Typical example of a stand improvement treatment. Figure ROD 4. Typical example of successful pine regeneration. ROD-12

13 Figure ROD 5. Typical example of successful road decommissioning (An effective OML1 road closure over time.) ROD-13

14 3 Rationale for the Decision 3.1 Overview In this next section, I will discuss how the Selected Alternative addresses the Project purpose and need, significant issue, and applicable laws/regulations; thereby providing my rationale for this decision. Please refer to Table 2.2, Table 2.3, Table 2.7, Table 2.8, and Chapter 3 of the Final EIS as the information found there supports the following discussion, and provides a comparison of the Alternatives. In order to see a visual comparison between the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Selected Alternative (Alternative 2 Modified), please refer to Table ROD 3. As indicated, the data is shown projected into 2014 for both alternatives. This decision is based upon my knowledge of the Project Area; review of field information; consideration of public issues raised during scoping; study of the project file including the Draft EIS; comments submitted on the Draft EIS; review of the Final EIS along with the interdisciplinary team s response to comments received from the public on the Draft EIS; discussions with nonfederal landowners for access permits; discussions/meetings with tribal representatives; consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); review of relevant laws and regulations; and my twenty years of experience working on and managing National Forest System land in addition to the years that I too have used and enjoyed the national forests. In making my decision, I considered the environmental effects of the alternatives, and how well the alternatives would meet the purpose and need of the Border Project. I considered the significant issue and took into account the competing interests and values of the diverse public as reflected in the comment letters I received throughout this project. I know that timber harvest results in change changes in resource conditions and social conditions such as wildlife habitat, scenery, and sometimes human use of an area. I am aware of the interactions between the various resources; the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action on the different resources; and, I have taken these into consideration. Based on some of the comments I received, I recognize that this decision will probably not satisfy every individual or every group. While I know I considered all views and I know I may not satisfy any one view in particular, I believe that the decision I have made is reasonable. The Selected Alternative provides the best mix of benefits to the public for the short term as well as the long term within the framework of the existing laws, regulations, policies, public needs, public desires, and capability of the land. I believe the decision making process for land management is never straight forward and involves making tradeoffs. As a decision maker, I have to balance positive and negative effects with short-term and long-term outcomes. I would like to be able to say there are never any negative consequences, but the reality is there are always consequences. Whether they are negative or not depends on the perspective of the individual in many cases. As a District Ranger on the LaCroix Ranger District, I live near, work and recreate in areas within the Border Project area. I value the area as a place to relax, enjoy nature, and view birds and wildlife. I value the variety of habitats that I see and I appreciate the habitats knowing that they provide for a whole host of plants and animals, some that I never see but I know are there. I can also see the economic value- locally and regionally ROD-14

15 - in the wood products which can be produced from the trees harvested while also meeting our resource objectives in the area. I do understand that there are a number of tradeoffs, and I discuss these throughout this section. While Alternative 2 Modified and Alternative 3 met the purpose and need in varying ways; the Selected Alternative (Alternative 2 Modified) has several characteristics that led me to choose it for implementation. In my professional view, the Selected Alternative provides the best balance between resource use and resource protection, and best meets the project purpose and need while incorporating measures to address public comments and concerns. For example, when compared to the other action alternatives, the Selected Alternative provides the landscape with the greatest mix of small young and large mature forest patches which results in short-term benefits to species that prefer young forest patches while maintaining habitat for species that prefer mature/old forest patches. The majority of proposed treatments are designed to be implemented in winter due to resource conditions in some cases and to reduce potential effects to forest visitors in the area in other cases. I would first like to provide an overview of my rationale of key points that led me to choose Alternative 2 Modified as the Selected Alternative. Then I will specifically discuss my rationale in relation to the Project purpose and need, significant issue, and application of laws/regulations. As a result of comments received on the Proposed Action and/or Draft EIS, I visited areas proposed for changes that were of concern to some people. For example, after driving the Gold Mine refuge roads and thinking about the location of the gates, I met with local landowners, discussed the situation with State personnel and representatives of 1854 Authority. Although, some people would have preferred that gate locations not be changed, I decided that changing the gate locations would provide safe, fair access to the public while still protecting the refuge, and minimizing the District special use permit work load. I also had conversations with Voyageurs National Park (VNP) personnel and a Voyageurs National Park Association representative. I understand that they prefer no vegetation management/harvesting near the park. Once I understood their concerns however, I addressed their concerns by developing implementation measures such as feathering the harvest boundaries, including NNIS inventory/treatment in the most expeditious and effective manner, and planning for monitoring of potential illegal ATV use near the boundary. In addition I knew that the harvest treatment for the unit near the boundary would occur during the winter season, under frozen ground conditions, when the temporary road impacts and potential for NNIS would be much less than if it were an all season harvest unit. I also know that the Superior National Forest has monitoring data to show that illegal ATV intrusions into the BWCAW occurs on old roads or trails and is not associated with temporary roads in harvest units (Road/Motorized Recreation Inventory Adjacent to BWCAW, 2006). Based on the Forest monitoring data and my knowledge of the area, I believe this trend regarding ATV use on old roads versus recent temporary roads would be the same for the boundary with VNP. I also considered that the harvest unit shares a mere 0.4 miles of the total of 25 miles of the shared boundary with the park; that land management has not occurred on the national forest in this part of the Border Project area for several decades and will not likely occur for at least another decade; and most importantly, that I could address the identified concerns. In addition, I believe it is important not to simply avoid harvest in areas adjacent to parks and ROD-15

16 wildernesses; thereby managing a buffer. In any case, the creation of buffers adjacent to wilderness is prohibited by Forest Service Manual Instead, management in areas adjacent to wilderness is a matter of both achieving a variety of Forest Plan objectives and preserving wilderness character. Therefore, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I decided to keep the proposed harvest unit near VNP with design features to address identified concerns. Overall the result of implementing all of the Selected Alternative would change the percentage of stands in the young 0 9 age class from just less than 5 percent (4.7) to 16 percent. If no action were taken the percentage of stands in the 0 9 age class would continue to drop to less than 2 percent in the next ten years. The Selected Alternative would also reduce the overall percentage of stands that are at or above the minimum recommended age for harvest from 55 percent to 35 percent. Vegetation management activities would change the diversity of tree species within stands to be more representative of native vegetation by increasing the pines and white spruce, and decreasing the aspen component of forest stands; by thinning in red and white pine stands; and by enhancing conifers or other long lived species in stands not proposed for harvest. Vegetation management activities would also change the size, shape, and distribution of forest patches to be similar to patches created by large wildfires and windstorms. I asked the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to keep in mind the desired Forest Plan condition of emulating landscape scale patterns that would result from natural disturbances and other ecological processes. Forest Plan objectives include providing large mature or older patches, promoting maintenance or development of interior habitat conditions, creating temporary forest openings of up to 1,000 acres, increasing average size of temporary forest openings, and reducing amount of forest edge created through vegetation management while still retaining a range of small patches and edge habitat. This is a tricky mix of objectives which requires compromise and trade-offs, but is aimed at providing habitat for species which require old forest and mature patches as well as habitat for species which depend on young forest. The IDT looked carefully at the existing patches and potential future patches. The Proposed Action includes harvest in patches that would succeed to pole/sapling stages in the near future if no management activity were to occur and thus would no longer function as mature patches or interior habitat. The Proposed Action also includes harvest in areas of large patches that are not effective at providing interior habitat because of their shape. More specifically, numerous pieces of intact patches were also harvested. These were mainly forest stands that were odd in shape and size, and did not really contribute to the overall patch, or interior forest habitat. These stands often jutted out into adjacent regenerating stands. By harvesting the stands that jut out into regenerating stands, they can later be combined into a more functional patch than what currently exists. By eliminating some of these odd shapes and combining them with other adjacent young forest stands or stands proposed for harvest, they provide for better patch habitat (i.e. interior forest habitat in the long term). The Forest Plan allocates a majority of the Border Project area for management as a General Forest Longer Rotation MA. This means as a land manager, I emphasize land and resource conditions that provide a wide variety of goods, uses, and services. These goods, uses and services include wood products, other commercial products, scenic ROD-16

17 quality, developed and dispersed recreation opportunities, and habitat for a diversity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and fish species. In this management area, numerous roads are open for motorized travel to provide access to resources and roaded recreation opportunities. Non-motorized recreation opportunities are also available in some areas and some roads are not available to all motorized uses. In addition, timber production is a part of the management emphasis for some of the management areas in the project, but will generally have longer harvest rotations and more uneven-aged and partial cut harvests (Forest Plan, page 3-10). I believe the areas selected for management activities in this decision will help meet those objectives while still balancing other resource needs and objectives. I am confident in the vegetation and transportation data used in the Forest Plan Revision analysis and in the Border analysis. These data are reliable and have allowed us to estimate potential effects to resources. The data also helped us address public concerns and to design the Project in a way that will minimize adverse effects. The forest vegetation and wildlife habitat analyses that I asked the IDT to do are based on data contained in a Region 9 program referred to as CDS (Combined Data System). CDS includes vegetation information associated with stands that are identified in Geographic Information System (GIS) coverage. Stand type, size, density and many other attributes are contained in the CDS data base. Districts like LaCroix provide the Forest with their CDS updates on an annual basis. In addition, prior to developing project proposals such as for this project, District personnel make a concerted effort to update the CDS data using stand exams, walk-throughs, and photo interpretation. It is important to note that in Forest Plan revision, the Forest IDT did a Forest-wide road analysis that followed applicable rules, regulations, and policies (36 CFR 212, FSM 7700). Data are never perfect because the world is always changing. Therefore, we continually update our roads and trail information in order to maintain our roads atlas (Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Reports). To update the roads data for the Travel Management Project and this project, roads were measured in the field using GPS, maps and data (INFRA) were compared, and District personnel familiar with areas consulted. Following implementation, our Forest transportation inventory (INFRA) and GIS maps will be updated. 3.2 Purpose and Need A key point to remember is that the activities in the Border Project are intended to implement some objectives of the Forest Plan. The activities would contribute to creating desired conditions of the Forest Plan by managing the age, composition, structure, and spatial pattern of forest vegetation. The proposed activities would also modify the transportation system both to facilitate vegetation activities and to address the short-term and long-term needs of various publics, private individuals, and agencies. This section includes my rationale for the Selected Alternative as it relates to the Project purpose and need, which again is tied to Forest Plan objectives. Forest Plan desired conditions and objectives that tie to the purpose and need of the Border Project area are noted in the bulleted statements found below. Please also refer to the FEIS Chapter 1, section 1.4 which describes the purpose and need in detail. ROD-17

18 3.2.1 Vegetation Forest Plan vegetation Landscape Ecosystem (LE) Objectives include: Dry mesic Red and White Pine Landscape Ecosystem Decrease the amount of aspen (MIH 4). Increase the amount of spruce-fir (MIH 6). Increase the amount of red pine and white pine (MIH 7). Increase acres in the 0-9 age year class and decrease acres in the year age class. Jack Pine-Black Spruce Landscape Ecosystem Decrease the amount of aspen (MIH 4). Increase the amount of jack pine (MIH 8). Increase acres in the 0-9 year age class and decrease acres in the year and year age classes. Lowland Conifer within the Dry mesic Red and White Pine and Jack Pine-Black Spruce Landscape Ecosystems Increase acres in the 0-9 year age class and decrease acres in the year and 160 year plus age classes. Maintain and/or improve the condition of lowland black spruce forest types to increase forest health (MIH 9). Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, not only fails to contribute to the Landscape Ecosystem Objectives for species composition and age class, but conditions would result in moving further from Forest Plan objectives. For example, combining the 0-9 age class acres in the Dry mesic Red and White Pine and Jack Pine-Black Spruce LEs, Alternative 1 results in about only 1,000 acres in the young class, a drop from the 2,755 acres in the existing condition. The Selected Alternative would result in an increase of 0-9 age class to about 9,000 acres. When I compare Alternative 2 Modified and Alternative 3, I see that each alternative makes similar progress to the other by decreasing aspen acres and increasing pine and spruce-fir acres. I selected Alternative 2 Modified because it increases the 0-9 class and decreases the age class to the greatest extent. Tree Species Diversity Maintain and increase, where possible, tree species diversity (based on total percentage of trees, not total acres of forest type). Even though I understand that structural diversity may be slightly higher under Alternative 3 because fewer acres are treated using even-aged management, Alternative 2 Modified, the Selected Alternative, would increase species diversity due to inclusion of more acres for planting; thereby increasing tree species diversity. ROD-18

19 Soils Favor long-lived and/or conifer tree species on nutrient sensitive soils (D-WS-3, O-WS-1, O-WS-9, O-WS-10, Forest Plan page 2-10 to 2-12). As I examined the analysis associated with soil impacts, I saw that there is essentially no difference between Selected Alternative 2 Modified and Alternative 3 from a soil resource standpoint. Acres of landing and skid trails are nearly the same and in fact are less than 1 percent of areas treated. Both alternatives include decommissioning the same miles of road; thereby returning the areas to a more productive status. Given that the effects are essentially the same between Alternative 2 Modified and Alternative 3, I again selected Alternative 2 Modified because it meets the overall vegetation management purpose and need to a greater extent. Wildlife game species habitat Maintain habitat for game species (D-WL-2, D-WL-3g, Forest Plan pages 2-27 to 2-28 and O-WL-39, Forest Plan page 2-36): o Create young habitat within lowland brush areas to enhance moose and woodcock habitat along the Echo River. o Enhance uncommon oak/blueberry habitats found southwest of Crane Lake (red oak) and along the Vermilion River (burr oak) to improve habitat diversity and mast production (fruits and nuts) for wildlife. While both action alternatives include the enhancement of what is considered uncommon oak habitats in the project area, Selected Alternative 2 Modified also includes the lowland brush treatments. Alternative 3 does not include the lowland brush treatments. The lowland brush treatment was not included in Alternative 3 in order to address the significant issue. Therefore, the Selected Alternative 2 Modified more fully addresses the project s purpose and need. Public Information Provide forest management information at public areas with high visitation, such as the Vermilion Falls Recreation Area, to increase public understanding of forest processes and associated management. (O-SE-1, Forest Plan page 2-37) Since both action alternatives include providing interpretive information at the Vermilion Falls Recreation Area, they each contribute to the Project s purpose and need equally. Vegetation Spatial Patterns Create larger patches of young forest stands relative to the patches that currently exist; these patches would then provide for future mature/old patches (O-VG-21, Forest Plan page 2-26: Increase average size of temporary forest openings. Reduce amount of forest edge created through vegetation management activities, while still retaining a range of small patches and edge habitat. ) Strive to minimize reducing the number of patches greater than 300 acres in upland mature forest in Spatial Zone 3 within the Border Project area (O-VG-24, Forest Plan page 2-27). ROD-19

20 As noted previously in my overview of the rationale for my decision, the design of the Border project is intended to result in spatial patterns that emulate landscape scale patterns that would similarly result from natural disturbances and other ecological processes. Both action alternatives double the average size of young upland patches in comparison to Alternative 1 by 25 acres to 50 acres. The action alternatives also minimized the decrease in upland mature patches that are larger than 300 acres. I selected Alternative 2 Modified because while it creates the most young forest, it results in the same number of mature patches as Alternative 3. Scenery Enhancement Create or enhance views, or help accelerate the process of developing views of larger trees in the landscape along scenic corridors. As one would surmise with the No Action alternative, Alternative 1 does not have shortterm management impacts on the existing condition of the scenery resource within the project area. Results of the No Action alternative are such that the visual effects of natural succession that includes seeing dead and dying trees, especially dying balsam fir in the understory, would continue. Both action alternatives, Selected Alternative 2 Modified and Alternative 3, proactively move the forest toward the long-term Forest Plan desired conditions for the scenery resource. Selected Alternative 2 Modified and Alternative 3 propose treatments in the High SIO areas and Management Areas that would enhance scenery in the short-term (non-harvest release and underplanting) as well as long-term (even-aged treatments that maintain conifer stands or convert aspen type stands to conifer). Since the Selected Alternative 2 Modified includes more acres of harvest, I believe it better meets Forest Plan direction for scenery in the long-term as I do not think that dead and dying trees provide a scenic landscape; whereas, a managed landscape in the long-term would enhance the views along scenic corridors. In my professional view, the short-term visual impacts of a harvest operation are a minimal trade-off to the long-term visual enhancement. Fuels Reduction Reduce the risk of wildfire to protect life and property. Create landscape conditions that are similar to ecological conditions associated with the historical natural fire regime. Fire Risk Index provides a general characterization of fire risk over time by using a simple qualitative index that characterizes fire hazard based on species composition, age, and fuel characteristics. Stands were divided into three fire risk classes (high, medium, and low) based on species, age class, and treatment history. Low Fire Risk areas are lowland conifers and forest types more than forty years old that have been thinned. Medium Fire Risk areas consist of untreated grasslands, hardwoods, and mixed conifer/hardwood types that are more than forty years old. High Fire Risk areas consist of untreated upland conifer more than forty years old. Again, since the Selected Alternative 2 Modified includes more acres of harvest, this alternative responds best to reducing large wildland fire risk and maintaining a high level of safety for life and property while best meeting landscape ecosystem objectives. ROD-20