Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 2013 Environmental Assessment Blowdown Restoration Project Chippewa National Forest Cass, Beltrami, and Itasca Counties, Minnesota For Information Contact: Sharon Klinkhammer 200 Ash Ave. NW Cass Lake, MN

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need Document Structure Background Storm Related Decisions (separate from this EA) Purpose and Need for Action Proposed Action Decision Framework Tribal Involvement Public Involvement Issues Secondary Issues CHAPTER 2 - Alternatives Alternative Development Modification of the Proposed Action Alternatives Alternative A - No Action Modified Proposed Action - Alternative B Alternative C Description of Activities Commercial Timber Harvest Treatments Fuels or Fire Treatments Reforestation Tending Temporary Road Construction Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Comparison of Alternatives... 34

4 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Consequences Introduction Forest Plan Compliance Age Class Objectives Forest Plan amendment Vegetation Affected Environment Comparison of How Alternatives meet Purpose and Need Fuels Management Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Landscape Burning Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects P a g e

5 3.6 Tribal Interests and Traditional Resources Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Plants and Wildlife Issues Affected Environment TES Direct and Indirect Effects TES Species Cumulative Effects TES Species Management Indicator Species Soils Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Aquatics Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects P a g e

6 3.10 Recreation Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Visuals Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Heritage Resources Issues Affected Environment Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Economics Other Disclosures Non-native Invasive Species Roads Environmental Justice Air Quality P a g e

7 CHAPTER 4 List of Preparers, Agencies and Persons Consulted Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team Other Forest Service Contributors Tribal Consultation -- Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Other Agencies Consulted APPENDICES - Appendix A - Maps Appendix B - Mitigation Appendix C - Scoping Comments and Responses Appendix D - Alternative Tables Appendix E -Bibliography 7 P a g e

8 CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need 1.1 Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by [insert topic (i.e., resource area, significant issues, environmental component)]. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Supervisor s Office in Cass Lake, MN. 1.2 Background On July 2, 2012 a windstorm with mile per hour winds moved across the Chippewa National Forest creating a corridor approximately 10 miles by 40 miles wide parallel to Hwy 2. Total acres within this corridor are about 308,935 of which 68,439 acres is water and 240,494 is land. 8 P a g e

9 Table 1-1 Project area ownerships. Acres Percent Project Area (Total) 308,935 Land 240,494 National Forest 135, State 70, County 5,850 2 Other ownerships 28, Of the 240,494 acres, approximately 56% is National Forest lands, 29% State, 2% County, and the remaining 12% is in other ownerships. Early estimates were that approximately 43,000 acres on the Forest was identified as being moderately or severely damaged. This number was based on a course scale analysis that identified areas with 75% or more damage. This number has been replaced by better figures from a finer scale analysis using aerial photography. Using this photography, the Forest categorized forested stands on the National Forest based on the level of detectable damage: 0-20%; 20-40%; 40-60%; 60-80%; and %. Table 1-2 Storm damage classification and acres. Detectable Damage Storm Damage Acres Class 0-20% 1 74, % 2 14, % 3 10, % 4 6, % 5 2,154 Total 108,516 Based on this approach, 19,517 acres have 40% of more of the stand blown down or damaged. This does not include non-forested stands which explain the differences between 135,537 acres of National Forest land on the first table and the 108,516 on this table. Stands that are bowed/tipped were not readily identifiable on the photos so generally are not included in the above numbers. This classification, coupled with limited field verification, became the basis for determining stands most appropriate to treat. Extent of damage on non-national Forest lands was not determined or available. The project area is located through the heart of the Chippewa National Forest. It extends from Cass Lake to Deer River with the heaviest damage just east of Cass Lake, Pike Bay, and Lake Winnibigoshish. There are 102,833 acres in the project area. An insert of the storm damage area is included on the alternative maps in Appendix A. The storm damage area also includes the Pike Bay Experimental Forest and the Red Pine Retention Study area a portion of which is located on Tamarack Point. Landscape Ecosystems (LEs) Because of the extensive nature of the blowdown, the decision was made to focus on the upland LEs which sustained heavier damage than the lowland LEs (Tamarack Swamp, White Cedar Swamp, and Wet Sedge Meadow). Proposed activities would occur in the Dry Pine (DP), Dry 9 P a g e

10 Mesic Pine (DMP), Dry Mesic Pine/Oak (DMPO), Boreal Hardwood/Conifer (BHC) and Mesic Northern Hardwood (MNH) LEs. A short description of each is listed below. For full descriptions of all LEs refer to the Appendix G of the Chippewa Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Refer to the maps in Appendix A for the location of the project and proposed activities. Dry Pine (DP) Historically, jack pine and red pine were the dominant species in this LE; aspen, paper birch, white pine, oak, and white spruce and balsam fir were also present. Forests occurred in large patches of jack pine, with red pine and other species occurring scattered small pockets or individual trees. The LE experienced frequent stand replacement fires. Dry Mesic Pine/Oak (DMPO) Historically, this LE had a jack pine, red pine, and white pine supercanopy either alone or as mixed pines. Deciduous trees usually occurred as subcanopy comprised of aspen, paper birch, northern red oak, bur oak, red maple, and bigtooth aspen. Fire was a common natural disturbance factor in this ecosystem. Dry Mesic Pine (DMP) Historically, this LE has mature and older stands dominated by a supercanopy of red pine and white pine. The subcanopy is a mixed stand of red maple and paper birch. White spruce, balsam fir, aspen, northern red oak, bur oak and bigtooth aspen are found in the mixed subcanopy. Fire was the more common natural disturbance factor in this ecosystem. Boreal Hardwood/Conifer (BHC) Historically, this LE was dominated by mixed stands composed of aspen, paper birch, balsam fir, and northern white cedar. White pine, red pine, ash, basswood, bur oak, white spruce, and elm were also present with minor amounts of red maple, sugar maple, red pine and jack pine. Wind was the dominant disturbance factor in this ecosystem. Mesic Northern Hardwood (MNH) This LE usually occurs on fine-textured, well-drained, gently rolling till plains or stagnation moraines. Historically, the canopy was dominated by sugar maple, basswood, and paper birch. Often listed as associated species present is minor amounts are yellow birch, bur oak and northern red oak. Rare were balsam fir, red pine, white pine and northern white cedar, which are never abundant. Wind disturbance events created small gap-phase opening sizes of ½ to 10s of acres. Leech Lake Reservation and Areas of High Interest The storm damage area overlaps the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation and identified high interest areas including Ten Section. The Forest Plan delineates Areas of High Interest (Forest Plan, Figure TR-1, page 2-37) to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO). The following Indian communities are in the storm damage area: Ball Club, Winnie Dam, Bena, and Cass Lake. In addition, communities in the vicinity of the storm damage area were also 10 P a g e

11 included-- Inger, Oak Point, Sugar Point, and Deer River-- because of the potential for tribal members to use some of the areas. Their Local Indian Councils (LICs) were sent letters and contacted regarding meetings to explain the proposed activities. Under Forest Plan Tribal Rights and Interests standards and guidelines (S-TR-3, S-TR-4, page 2-36), forest management activities will be conducted in a manner to minimize impacts to the ability of Tribal members to hunt, fish, and gather plants and animals on Forest Service administered lands and, interests of the residents of local Indian communities will be addressed when planning and implementing vegetation and other resource management activities in close proximity to these communities. In addition, Forest Plan Desired Conditions (D-TR-1, D-TR-2, D-TR-3, p.2-35) provide direction for (1) sustaining American Indians way of life, cultural integrity, social cohesion, and economic well-being and (2) working within the context of a respectful government-togovernment relationship. The Forest met with Division of Resource Management (DRM) for the LLBO on numerous occasions since the storm. Early meetings consisted up updates on storm damage, Forest priorities to deal with safety and progress towards that end, and salvage of concentrations of blowdown. Since the inception of this project, meetings and site visits to discuss various aspects have occurred. Meeting notes are included in the project file. Management Areas and Forest Plan Direction The 2004 Forest Plan provides Forest-wide desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and Management Area (MA) direction applicable to the project area. Management Areas within the project boundary are General Forest, Riparian Emphasis, Longer Rotation, and Unique Biological, Aquatic, Geological, or Historical Areas, Recreation Use Scenic Landscape, and Experimental Forest. The following provides a brief summary of the management direction for each. General Forest Long Rotation The General Forest Longer Rotation MA emphasizes land and resource conditions that provide a wide variety of goods, uses, and services. These include wood products, other commercial products, scenic quality, developed and dispersed recreation opportunities, and habitat for a diversity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and fish species. Numerous roads that are open to public travel provide access to resources and roaded recreation opportunities. Non-motorized recreation opportunities also occur. Compared to the General Forest MA, this area, while still having timber production as a key emphasis, will generally have longer rotations and more uneven-aged and partial cut harvests. More detailed information can be found on Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines on pages 3-9 through 3-12 of the Forest Plan. General Forest The General Forest Management Area emphasizes land and resource conditions that provide a wide variety of goods, uses, and services. These include wood products, other commercial products, scenic quality, developed and dispersed recreation opportunities, and habitat for a diversity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and fish. Numerous roads open to public travel 11 P a g e

12 provide access to resources and roaded recreation opportunities. Non-motorized recreation opportunities also occur. More detailed information can be found on Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines on pages 3-5 through 3-8 of the Forest Plan. Unique Biological Area The Unique Biological, Aquatic, Geological, or Historical (UB) management area includes areas with outstanding biological, aquatic, geological, historical, and other special values. Although this management area preserves these values, the UB areas are primarily managed for interpretive purposes. More detailed information can be found on Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines on pages 3-23 through 3-28 of the Forest Plan. Treatments are proposed in the Ten Section Area and Mississippi River Corridor. Recreation Use in a Scenic Landscape The Recreational Use in a Scenic Landscape emphasizes land and resource conditions that provide a scenic landscape for recreational activities in natural appearing surroundings. More detailed information can be found on Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines on pages 3-13 through 3-15 of the Forest Plan. Norway Beach Campground and recreation area was heavily impacted by the storm. Experimental Forest The Experimental Forests are managed for research conducted by scientists assigned to the Northern Research Station. Silvicultural or other treatments appropriate to research and experimentation are used in these areas. More detailed information can be found on Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines on pages 3-32 through 3-34 of the Forest Plan. Pike Bay Experimental Forest was heavily impacted by the July storm. Protection of research plots with the Experimental Forest is important to maintain the integrity of past and future scientific studies. Riparian Emphasis Riparian ecological functions are actively restored, protected, and enhanced in areas where ecosystem processes are sensitive to degradation. This includes maintaining and restoring native vegetation communities; maintaining and restoring riparian/hydrologic functions such as shoreline stability, wildlife habitat, coarse woody debris recruitment to aquatic and riparian ecosystems, and temperature regulation; and controlling non-native invasive species. Restoration focuses on components of the ecosystem that are not functioning at or within the range of desired conditions. Those components that are functioning properly are protected. 12 P a g e

13 These areas are also managed for water based recreational opportunities and visual quality adjacent to bodies of water. More detailed information can be found on Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines on pages 3-29 through 3-31 of the Forest Plan. Pike Bay Experimental Forest In addition to the Experimental Forest Management Area direction cited above, this document was prepared in coordination with the Forest Service Northern Research Station. Experimental Forests are managed primarily for research projects and the Pike Bay Experimental Forest currently contains multiple study areas for long term monitoring and data collection. It is important to note that Experimental Forests are not managed like other areas of the Chippewa National Forest due to their special designation. The decision on how to respond to the blowdown event in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest will be a collaborative decision between the Chippewa National Forest and the Northern Research Station. Direction for the management of Experimental Forests is found in the Forest Service Manual at chapter 4060 Research Facilities and Areas; Forest Plans, and other policies. Tamarack Point and the Red Pine Retention Study Although not on the Experimental Forest and part of the General Forest MA, the Red Pine Retention Study located on Tamarack Point and administered by the Northern Research Station is of importance. The study was planned in the mid 1990s. Coordination has occurred with Northern Research staff to determine compatible activities and to maintain and continue research objectives. Overview of Forest Plan Consistency Harvest in response to storm damage is quite different than the typical vegetation management project on the Forest. The project objectives are met without the consideration of Forest Plan age class or species composition objectives. Stand selection is based upon the location of the storm damage, the extent of blowdown or damage within a stand, the presence of operable volumes of salvageable or commercial material, the need to regenerate the stand, and the suitability of the site for logging. The Forest Plan allows for salvage on timber suitable as well as unsuitable lands. The Forest Plan states On land identified as not suitable for timber management, allow timber harvest if necessary for salvage or to enhance or achieve desired conditions or multiple-use objectives other than O TM-1(G-TM-1, P. 2-19). The Forest is currently below the first decade standard for mature and older jack pine forest which states Maintain at least 5,300 acres in mature or older jack pine forest types during the first 10 years of plan implementation (FP, p. 2-32). A project level Forest Plan amendment is proposed. The effects of the storm and subsequent treatments will be compared to the age class, species composition, and MIH objectives for the appropriate LEs. With the exception mature and older jack pine, this project is consistent with the 2004 Forest Plan objectives, and meets the direction, objectives, standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan. Activities included in the Proposed 13 P a g e

14 Action and the other action alternative deal with the damage resulting from the July storm and move the project area toward Forest-wide Desired Conditions, and Objectives and were designed to meet Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. In addition to meeting the Forest standards and guidelines, the action alternatives considered in detail, include mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate adverse environmental effects. Mitigation measures are described in Appendix B. Tables of mitigation applied to each stands are posted on the Forest website or is available upon request. 1.3 Storm Related Decisions (separate from this EA) After the storm, the Forest identified several priorities that guided our actions for dealing with the blowdown. First and foremost was safety of our public, followed by opportunities to salvage merchantable trees, and finally focus on needed restoration activities. Safety and salvage activities were achieved through the use of categorical exclusions. 1. Safety The focus was on removing down and hazard trees around facilities, along high use roads, trails, and recreation sites. These activities fit under category (4) Repair and maintenance of roads, trails, and landline boundaries (6 CFR 220.6(d)(4)) or (5) Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities (36 CFR 220.6(d)(5). Two decisions were made. The first decision, signed August 6, 2012, provided for removing and decking trees. The second decision, signed on August 23, 2012 provided for merchantable timber that was decked or removed to be sold. The Chief of the Forest Service granted the Forest an Emergency Situation Determination which provides for an exemption from stay during the appeal process. This enabled the Forest to proceed with implementation in a timely manner. There have been two contracts to clear approximately 36 miles of road within the storm damaged area. Other contracts have resulted in trees being removed in Norway Beach and South Pike Bay Campgrounds, Birches picnic area, around numerous recreation residences, and along the Migizi Trail, a high use area. 2. Salvage of merchantable timber This was accomplished through two approaches modification of existing timber sale contracts and categorical exclusions. The objective of salvage projects was to recover the commercial value of timber products damaged in the storm in a timely way. The Forest sold merchantable blowdown and damaged trees considered to be salvage material while there was still value and marketable products a. Timber Sale Contracts There were 17 Timber Sales within the storm damage area at the time of the storm. Of those, 7 were considered to have catastrophic damage and 10 had minor storm damage. Agreements with purchasers on 7 sales with catastrophic damage have in contract modifications for salvage of down and damaged trees. Contract provisions allow for such modifications. b. Categorical Exclusions (CEs) - The Forest identified areas with concentrations of merchantable timber that were covered by CEs. Use of CEs allows the Forest to respond more quickly and reduces excessive paperwork. Fifteen CEs were proposed across the storm damaged area. 14 P a g e

15 Areas identified generally focused on pockets of the heaviest concentrations of down and damaged trees (at least 40% of stand had blowdown). Priority was given to stands with a significant pine and aspen component. These are the species that had the highest potential for marketability and pine had the greatest concern for pine bark beetles. The Purpose and Need included: Reduce fuel loads in an effort to reduce fire hazard and increase public safety. Reduce the amount of pine available for pine bark beetle habitat and ward off beetle infestations that would cause additional mortality of pine Capture timber volume that resulted from the storm. Although the purpose and need was generally the same for all the proposed projects, there were unique differences from project area to project area as a result of proximity to recreation residences, recreation sites or facilities; the need to clean up recreation areas prior to next year s recreational season; the amount of fuels especially in wildland urban interface areas; tribal use or gathering in areas; and the location and history of past human caused fires. Decisions were documented in Decision Memos using Category 13 (Salvage of dead and dying trees not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than ½ mile of temporary road construction) as listed in 36 CFR 220.6(e)(13). Site preparation and regeneration of some sites is included using Category 5 (Regeneration of an area to native tree species, including site preparation that does not involve the use of herbicides or result in vegetation type conversion.) as stated in 36 CFR (e) (5). In November and December 2012, 15 decisions were made. There were six decisions on the Deer River District, four on Blackduck, and five on Walker Ranger District. There was an estimated 3300 acres of salvage activity. Revenues received help pay for some of the fuels reduction and reforestation activities that could be accomplished through timber sales. An Emergency Situation Determination was granted on November 8, 2012 by the Chief of the Forest Service for 10 of the CE projects. An exemption from stay during the appeal process allows the Forest to implement the projects immediately upon publication of the decision legal notice. Salvage units covered by these decisions were all sold by late December The five CEs not covered by the Emergency Situation Determination were appealed in January A Regional review of the appeal found no violation of law, regulation, or policy. The decisions were upheld. 3. Restoration activities The restoration treatments and activities are addressed in this EA. This project entails a more comprehensive look across the storm damaged area that extends beyond the immediate need to reduce safety hazards or salvage timber. Completion of the Environmental Assessment is expected by early summer with implementation in late summer, By that time, it is recognized that there would be little merchantable value of trees down since the storm. Damaged, untreated stands Not all damaged stands would be treated. Highest priority stands to be treated were those with 40% or more damage. There are roughly 74,000 acres with 0-20% stand damage; of these at least 94% are 15 P a g e

16 untreated. Of the about 34,000 acres of stands with % damage; at most 45% of these acres would be treated. More detail is provided in Chapter 3 in the wildlife section. The Forest Plan identifies retaining an adequate representation of naturally disturbed forest that is not salvaged across the landscape. The Forest Plan (FP) states Retain an adequate representation of naturally disturbed forest that is not salvaged, such as burned, flooded, blowdown, or insect or disease killed areas. Maintain these in a variety of patch sized and distributions on the landscape. (FP, O-VG- 12, p. 2-23). This direction allows for reserving a portion of natural events on the landscape. Standing dead and dying and higher levels of down woody debris are desirable and consistent with this direction. 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action The overarching goal is one of ecological restoration and to move the stands and landscape towards desired conditions and objectives specified in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan recognizes the role of natural disturbance but also acknowledges the need to salvage and to treat both timber suitable and unsuitable lands to achieve desired conditions or resource objectives. Collaboration with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) is a priority. The purpose and need is as follows: 1. Restore conditions more representative of native vegetation communities, natural processes, and productive Forests. Maintain conifer stands, structural and species diversity. (FP; O-VG-2, D-VG-3, O-VG- 7, O-VG-9; p and 2-22). Red, jack, and white pine stands may regenerate to aspen or hardwoods if not treated. o Convert aspen stands to conifer where appropriate. Remove blowdown as necessary in order to regenerate stands to a productive timber condition consistent with Management Area direction (FP; D-VG-4, p. 2-21; G-TM-1, S- TM-5, p and 2-20). Site preparation, planting and/or seeding, natural regeneration, and timber stand improvement activities would be needed to promptly regenerate damaged stands to a productive condition. Restore sites historically jack pine to jack pine in the Dry Pine and Dry Mesic Pine/Oak LE, where feasible, through the application of harvest, prescribed fire or mechanical site preparation, and reforestation activities. (FP; O-VG-2 and O-VG-7; p. 2-22). o Convert red pine or aspen sites to jack pine where appropriate. o Create larger blocks of jack pine through conversion and regeneration. Restore fire to the landscape aggregating stands to create larger burning blocks. (FP; O- VG-11, p. 2-23; D-ID-5, O-ID-2, p. 2-18). Reduce the potential for bark beetle population increases within down and damaged trees that may spill over and kill trees in adjacent lands by removing down and damaged trees. (FP; D-ID-1; D-ID-3, O-ID-1, p. 2-18) 16 P a g e

17 2. Reduce Hazardous Fuels (FP; D-ID-1, D-ID-4, O-ID-1, O-ID-3 p. 2-18). Reduce the potential for destructive fires that pose a risk to life and property adjacent to residential areas and along transportation corridors. Reduce fuels to facilitate the regeneration of stands and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Reduce the fuel loadings and fire hazards adjacent to and within the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. 3. Salvage of wood products and provide for commercial wood for mills in support of the local and regional economy. Salvage down and damaged wood that is marketable (FP; O-TM-1, G-TM-1, p. 2-19). This includes stands with trees that are damaged but still standing, bowing/tipping trees, or trees with sprung roots. Some damaged stands warrant regeneration which would entail harvest of green trees in order to adequately regenerate the site to the appropriate species. 4. Manage treatments in areas of interest to maintain or enhance traditional Tribal and community uses (FP; S-TR-3, O-TR-4, O-SE-1, p. 2-35, 2-36). Of particular interest are activities within the Ten Section area. 1.5 Proposed Action The Purpose and Need is identified in bold statements. Activities identified to achieve the purpose and need follow each statement and make up the proposed action. In addition, consideration was also given to minimize effects on Threatened, Endangered, and sensitive species, to minimize impacts on patches, to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and direction for Management Areas. 1. Restore conditions more representative of native vegetation communities, natural processes, and productive Forests. Maintain conifer stands, structural and species diversity. Red, jack and white pine stands may regenerate to aspen or hardwoods if not treated. o o o 2162 acres of existing red, jack, and white pine stands would be harvested and regenerated to conifer 332 acres of aspen would be converted to conifer Total of 746 acres of conversion are planned. Converted to: Acres of Conversion Jack pine 349 Red Pine 21 White pine 218 Tamarack 140 Birch 18 Total P a g e

18 Remove blowdown as necessary in order to regenerate stands to a productive timber condition consistent with Management Area direction Merchantable trees would be salvaged; unmerchantable stands would be mechanically treated. Site preparation, planting and/or seeding, natural regeneration, and timber stand improvement activities would be needed to promptly regenerate damaged stands to a productive condition. o o 6591 acres of mechanical site prep for planting or natural regeneration 3201 acres for planting 3390 acres for natural regeneration planting, natural regeneration, and timber stands improvement activities 3447 acres of planting/seeding Restore sites historically jack pine to jack pine, where feasible, through the application of harvest, prescribed fire or mechanical site preparation, and reforestation activities. o o 349 acres red pine or aspen sites converted to jack pine where appropriate. Create larger blocks of jack pine through conversion and regeneration 5 blocks created ranging in size from acres Jack Pine Block Acres of Block Acres of Conversion to Jack Pine to create larger block Restore fire to the landscape aggregating stands to create larger burning units. Multiple burns may occur during a 10 year timeframe. o Size and acres in landscape burning units: Burn Unit Acres BD BD BD Total 819 Reduce the potential for bark beetle population increases within down and damaged trees that may spill over and kill trees in adjacent lands by removing down and damaged trees. o 1954 acres of damaged red and jack pine harvested 18 P a g e

19 2. Reduce Hazardous Fuels Reduce the potential for destructive fires that pose a risk to life and property adjacent to residential areas and along transportation corridors. Reduce fuels to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and facilitate the regeneration of stands. o o 6336 acres of prescribed burning or mechanical treatments (includes landscape burns) to reduce fuels BD-4 (Burn Unit 4) is an aggregate of stands totaling about 352 acres 3622 acres of piling and burning or other mechanical treatments Reduce the fuel loadings and fire hazards adjacent to and within the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. (This proposal is expected to be modified based on input from Research and comments from the public.) o 5 burning blocks o 120 foot fuels break (about 350 acres) along roads created through salvage or mechanical treatments o o o Multiple burn treatments may be required during a 10 year period Burns would occur in the autumn months over a several day period when fuel moistures typically increase and recreational activities decrease. Public access would be limited. Smoke may linger in the mornings but westerly winds typically dissipate it. Pike Bay Experimental Forest (EF) Burn Units Burn Unit Acres Acres in EF PB PB PB PB PB Total Salvage wood products and provide for commercial wood for mills in support of the local and regional economy. Salvage down and damaged wood that is marketable. This includes stands with trees that are damaged but still standing, bowing/tipping trees, or trees with sprung roots. Some damaged stands warrant regeneration which would entail harvest of green trees in order to adequately regenerate the site to the appropriate species. o 7326 acres of harvest 5060 acres of clearcut/coppice harvest 2235 acres of selection harvest 31 acres of commercial thinning 4. Manage treatments in areas of interest to maintain or enhance traditional Tribal and community uses. Of particular interest are activities within the Ten Section area. o 1013 acres of harvest 19 P a g e

20 o o o 303 of coppice/clearcut harvest 710 acres of selection 1531 acres of fuels treatments 967 acres of prescribed burning 564 acres of pile and burning or mechanical treatments 11 acres of aspen converted to jack pine Acres of landscape burning Burn Unit Burn Unit Acres in Ten Section Acres BD PB PB PB Total Decision Framework Decisions to Be Made This environmental assessment discloses the consequences of the alternative actions; it is not a decision document. Based on the analysis documented in this EA, the Walker District Ranger will decide whether or not to proceed with the Proposed Action briefly described in Section 1.5, and if so, under what conditions or modifications; or whether to meet the purpose and need by choosing another alternative described in Chapter 2. The Walker District Ranger will also make a decision on a project level Forest Plan amendment to S-WL-10 for mature and older jack pine. This amendment is discussed in Chapter 3. Related Documents that Influence the Scope of this EA This environmental assessment is tiered to the 2004 Forest Plan (Land and Resource Management Plan) and Chippewa National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement, and is within the scope of the Record of Decision. Applicable Regulatory Requirements and Required Coordination Compliance with several environmental laws is required in order for the proposed Project to proceed. The Endangered Species Act requires consultation the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for this project has been sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a concurrence determination concerning species listed as threatened, endangered, and sensitive affected by the project activities. Other laws that the Forest Service is required to follow include the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Forest Management Act. In addition, consultation is required with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Tribal Historic Preservation Office and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. Results of this consultation are discussed in Chapter 3 Section. This EA also complies with and addresses the following list of laws and regulations: Sensitive Species (Forest Service Manual 2670); Archaeological Resources Protection Act; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Wetlands (Executive Order 11990); and Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898). 20 P a g e

21 1.7 Tribal Involvement Members of the project s Interdisciplinary Team met with tribal Division of Resource Management (DRM) staff on October 31, 2012 prior to scoping. In addition, field trips on November 15, 16, and 20 th with Forest staff and the DRM were designed to discuss treatments in the Ten Section area, west of Sucker Lakes, and east of Cass Lake in the Lydick area. Notes are included in the project file. Scoping letter was sent to DRM and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer on November 14, Scoping and 106 consultation letters were sent to the following Local Indian Councils (LICs): Oak Point, Cass Lake, Bena, Ball Club, Winnie Dam, Inger, Sugar Point and Deer River on Novermber 14, The Project objectives and activities were presented to the following LICs: Oak Point (December 2012), Winnie Dam and Cass Lake (February 2013), Inger, Deer River (March 2013), Ball Club (April 2013). A summary of these meetings is provided in Section 3.6 Tribal Interests and Traditional Resources. Notes from all tribal meetings are in the project file. 1.8 Public Involvement The Project has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions since October 2012 and has been posted on the Chippewa National Forest website, Scoping was initiated by sending letters with details and maps of the Proposed Action to approximately 173 individuals and groups including recreation resident owners, resort owners, adjacent landowners, and other agencies. A legal ad briefly explaining the Proposed Action and specifying a contact for further information was published in the paper of record, The Pilot Independent on November 14, News Releases were also published in the local newspapers in eight surrounding communities. Using the scoping comments from the public; timber industry, other agencies; the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe; and Northern Research Staff, the interdisciplinary team developed two key issues. Scoping comments and FS responses are in Appendix C. 1.9 Issues Issues were separated into two groups: key issues used to formulate other alternatives and secondary issues that may or may not have been identified during the scoping process but are important in terms of disclosing effects. Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Secondary issues are discussed in Section 1.10 and will be addressed either in Appendix C, response to scoping comments, or Chapter 3. Two key issues were identified in the scoping process. Indicators were then chosen to measure the effects on the resources for each of the alternatives. Issue 1 Proposed treatments may potentially affect traditional resource gathering opportunities. Key tribal use areas are Ten Section, Lydick, Cuba Hill and Winnie Dam area. 21 P a g e

22 Indicators: Acres of change in treatments from Alternative B to Alternative C in the project area and Ten Section o Acres of harvest o Acres of mechanical treatments o Acres of prescribed fire (broadcast burning) o Acres of storm damaged stands not treated (for cumulative effects) Issue 2 -- Fuels reduction activities may result in undesirable damage to the standing trees and experiment plots in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. Indicators: Acres and geographic location of prescribed broadcast burning for fuels reduction Acres and geographic location of mechanical piling and burning Acres and geographic location of mechanical fuels reduction Total acres and percent of stands treated with > 20% damage 1.10 Secondary Issues Issues in this section were not used to formulate alternatives; yet resources that may be affected by the planned activities warrant some level of analysis and discussion. The following resource topics will be discussed in Chapter 3 and compared between alternatives. Additionally cultural resources, air quality and environmental justice are addressed in Chapter 3. Vegetation The effects of removing damaged trees and subsequent reforestation of affected stands is disclosed in 3.3 Vegetation. Fuels The reduction of fuels through mechanical treatment and prescribed fire, adjacent to residential areas and transportation corridors is evaluated in terms of acres of various fuel treatment activities (See 3.4 Fuels Management). Landscape Burning The objectives and effects of restoring fire to fire dependent communities are discussed in 3.5 Landscape Burning. Tribal Interests and Traditional Resources The effect of harvesting, prescribed fire, and mechanical site preparation on gathering opportunities are presented in Section 3.6. Plants and Wildlife The proposed harvest and treatment activities may affect threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species and their habitats, including mature and large blocks of interior forest. Effects of project activities on these resources will be assessed (see 3.7 Plants and Wildlife) by looking at the results of the Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation (BE). The BE will include consideration of current and cumulative effects to 59 sensitive species (including both plants and animals). Soils The impacts of harvesting, site preparation activities, and removal of fuels on soil erosion, compaction, and nutrient retention will be discussed (See 3.8 Soils) Aquatics The effects of treatments and activities on water quality, aquatic resources and wetlands will be assessed by looking at in Section 3.9. Recreational and visual qualities The impacts of harvesting and removing fuels created by the blowdown will be assessed in high use recreational areas such as Norway Beach, 22 P a g e

23 adjacent to recreation residences, and in visually sensitive areas (See 3.10 Recreation and 3.11 Visuals). Heritage The potential effects on heritage resources are discussed in Section Economics Relative comparisons of timber values, and costs associated with post harvest activities such as hazard fuel reduction, site preparation, planting, and release will be presented (See 3.13 Economics). Other Resources Non-native Invasive species, Roads, Environmental Justice are covered in Section Issues Dismissed These are concerns raised that were not used to develop alternatives. Refer to Appendix C response to scoping comments for details. 23 P a g e

24 CHAPTER 2 - Alternatives 2.1 Alternative Development This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Blowdown Restoration Project. It includes a description of each alternative considered in detail. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form displaying the differences in addressing issues, the associated effects, and in meeting the purpose and need for the project. For each action alternative, mitigation measures, design features, as well as Forest Plan Standards and guidelines, and Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines (MFRC (Gold Book) 2005) were identified (Refer to Appendix B). The interdisciplinary team used the following to develop the alternatives to the proposed action: The laws, regulations, and policies that govern land use on national forests, and pertinent Forest Plan desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines; The purpose and need as it relates to achieving restoration and fuels reductions within the storm damage project area; Issues derived from the public and internal comments. Maps of the alternatives are included in Appendix A. Activities by compartment and stand, and associated acres for each action alternative are in Appendix D. If not attached (because of their length), they are posted on the Forest website (fs.usda.gov/chippewa) or available upon request. Stand age on the alternative tables reflects the age prior to the blowdown event. Implementation of the proposed activities under each action alternative, dependent on availability of adequate funding, may begin as early as fall Acreages shown for the proposed activities are approximations based on GIS (Geographical Information System) and other stand records in the Chippewa National Forest databases. One of the challenges with this project is that there is limited stand data. Stand exam data collected prior to the storm no longer applies. TES and heritage surveys were used where they were available, but the timing and blowdown conditions precluded collection of additional data. Consequently, the best information and data staff had available to work with was based on photo interpretations of stand damage. As time allowed, some field verification was done for stands that came into question. The majority of the stands have not been field verified. Alternatives were designed to include the most potentially impactive treatments for the purposes of analyzing the effects on resources. Because of limited data, the large area of storm damage, and the Forest s desire to respond relatively quickly, treatment modifications are expected during implementation. Treatments may be modified to something less intensive and still be within the effects disclosed. Stand acres or treatment acres were used in the analysis depending on the resource. There is some variation in totals from resource to resource depending on the data source. For that 24 P a g e

25 reason, acres are estimates. Generally stand acres are used instead of treatment acres unless specified otherwise. Fuels activities generally reflect treatment acres. 2.2 Modification of the Proposed Action Based on comments received early in the scoping process, the proposed action was modified. The proposed action contained a landscape burning unit (BD-3) that was dropped. The original objective was to remove the mature red pine in this unit, apply prescribed fire, and regenerate the area to jack pine. Because of shoot blight in the red pine overstory which can kill red or jack pine in the understory, the overstory needed to be removed for the conversion to jack pine to occur. This burning unit is within and adjacent to the Ten Section Area which is important to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. DRM preferred that the red pine be retained. Consequently, the burning treatment was dropped and planting of white pine which is not susceptible to the shoot blight was planned instead. Another major adjustment resulted from coordination with Northern Research. Portions of burning units within the Pike Bay Experimental Forest were dropped to protect research plots. Table 2-1 Changes to the proposed action. Changes Proposed Action Modified Proposed Action Landscape burning unit BD acres 0 PBEF burning unit PB acres 600* PBEF burning unit PB acres 750 * These are stand acres. Portions of these stands extend outside the PB-2 boundaries. Actual burning acres are much less. Two jack pine blocks (1 and 2) were dropped as a result of dropping stands to meet other resource objectives. Throughout the remainder of the document, Alternative B or Modified Alternative B refers to the modified proposed action. 2.3 Alternatives Alternative A - No Action Under this alternative, no commercial harvest, prescribed fire, site preparation, planting would occur at this time. Regeneration efforts would not occur to return pine sites to pine or to quickly get sites stocked and productive. Because no restoration activities would occur, commercial salvage would not be utilized and the Forest would not offer wood products for sale. Temporary road would not be needed. This alternative provides a baseline that captures the effects of the storm on resources and compares the results to the effects of the action alternatives. 25 P a g e

26 2.3.2 Modified Proposed Action - Alternative B 1. Restore conditions more representative of native vegetation communities, natural processes, and productive Forests. Maintain conifer stands, structural and species diversity. Red, jack, and white pine stands may regenerate to aspen or hardwoods if not treated. o o o 664 acres of existing red, jack, and white pine stands would be harvested (clearcut or selection) and maintained as conifer 310 acres of aspen would be converted to conifer Total of 683 acres of conversion are planned. Converted to: Acres of Conversion Jack pine 265 Red Pine 21 White pine 239 Tamarack 140 Birch 18 Total 683 Remove blowdown as necessary in order to regenerate stands to a productive timber condition. o 6113 acres of mechanical site prep for planting or natural 2818 acres for planting 3295 acres for natural regeneration o Planting/ seeding and tree spading 3060 acres of planting/seeding 248 acres of tree spading o 3060 acres of stand tending (animal damage control and release) Restore sites historically jack pine to jack pine through the application of harvest, prescribed fire or mechanical site preparation, and reforestation activities. o 265 acres red pine or aspen sites converted to jack pine where appropriate. o Create larger blocks of jack pine through conversion and regeneration 4 blocks created ranging in size from acres Jack Pine Block Acres of Block Acres of Conversion to Jack Pine to create larger block Restore fire to the landscape aggregating stands to create larger burning units. o Size of landscape burning units: 26 P a g e

27 Burn Unit Acres BD BD BD-3 0 Total 356 Reduce the potential for bark beetle population increases within down and damaged trees. o 1871 acres of damaged red and jack pine harvested 2. Reduce Hazardous Fuels Reduce fuels to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and facilitate the regeneration of stands. o 3109 acres of prescribed burning to reduce fuels (may treat mechanically if burning doesn t occur) This includes BD-4 (Burn Unit 4) which is an aggregate of stands totaling about 350 acres o 3850 acres of piling and burning Reduce the fuel loadings and fire hazards adjacent to and within the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. o 5 burning units o 120 foot fuels break (about 350 acres) along roads created through salvage or mechanical treatments Pike Bay Experimental Forest (EF) Burn Units Burn Unit Acres Acres in EF PB PB PB PB PB Total Salvage wood products and provide for commercial wood for mills in support of the local and regional economy. o 7247 acres of harvest 4753 acres of clearcut/coppice with reserves 2463 acres of selection harvest 31 acres of commercial thinning o To access harvest stands, 13 segments of temporary roads (or skid trails) for a maximum of 2.1 miles would be needed. In addition, 4 decommissioned roads totaling <.3 miles may need to be reopened. Two accesses are required via State roads; and 2 approaches off of Hwy 46 may be needed. 4. Manage treatments in areas of interest to maintain or enhance traditional Tribal and community uses. Of particular interest are activities within the Ten Section area. o 1003 acres of harvest 281 of coppice/clearcut harvest with reserves 27 P a g e

28 o 722 acres of selection 1284 acres treatments to reduce hazardous fuels 797 acres of pile and burning 487 acres of prescribed burning Burn Unit Burn Unit Acres Acres in Ten Section PB PB PB Total o 0 acres of landscape burning (BD-3 was dropped) Alternative C Alternative C was developed in response to tribal, public and Forest Service internal comments. It responds to the two significant issues described in Section 1.9. This alternative incorporates recommendations from LLBO DRM. DRM submitted specific comments on individual stands. The coreidt reviewed the recommendations for each stand. In general, many of the concerns fell into the following categories: no treatments within the Ten Section Area; salvage of dead trees only, diversity planting, and consideration of other silvicultural treatments. Alternative C directly reflects many of these concerns. Harvest has been dropped for most stands within Ten Section. Mechanical treatment of fuels was prescribed north of PBEF and in Norway Beach to reduce severe fuel loadings. Outside the Ten Section area, some stands, but not all, were dropped for harvest. Many stands had treatments modified bsed on input provided. As a result of coordination with Northern Research, removal of fuels within buffers along some roads in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest was incorporated. Similar road buffers were also included west of the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. Two buffer widths were considered: 240 consisting of 120 on either side of main roads; 1320 (660 on both sides of roads). Also of importance is the protection of research plots from treatment activities within the PBEF. In response to concerns about burning timber resources, acres of burning in units BD-3 and BD-4 were reduced. This alternative was also designed to respond to comments to retain a contiguous block of untreated stands. A contiguous block was created west of Sucker Lakes by dropping a number of stands that were proposed for harvest in the modified proposed action. This alternative drops a number of stands on Walker District based on recommendations from district field recon crews. 1. Restore conditions more representative of native vegetation communities, natural processes, and productive Forests. 28 P a g e

29 Maintain conifer stands, structural and species diversity. Red, jack, and white pine stands may regenerate to aspen or hardwoods if not treated. o 624 acres of existing red, jack, and white pine stands would be harvested (clearcut or selection) and maintained as conifer o 310 acres of aspen would be converted to conifer o Total of 699 acres of conversion are planned. Converted to: Acres of Conversion Jack pine 236 Red Pine 49 White pine 194 Tamarack 103 Birch 0 White spruce 51 Aspen 66 Total 699 Remove blowdown as necessary in order to regenerate stands to a productive timber condition. o 3600 acres of mechanical site prep for planting or natural regeneration 2029 acres for planting 1571 acres for natural regeneration o Planting/ seeding and tree spading 2283 acres of planting/seeding 248 acres of tree spading o 2283 acres of animal damage control and release Restore sites historically jack pine to jack pine through the application of harvest, or mechanical site preparation, and reforestation activities. o 236 acres red pine or aspen sites converted to jack pine where appropriate. o Create larger blocks of jack pine through conversion and regeneration 4 blocks created ranging in size from acres Jack Pine Block Acres of Block Acres of Conversion to Jack Pine to create larger block Restore fire to the landscape aggregating stands to create larger burning units. o Size and acres in landscape burning units: Burn Unit Acres BD-1 87 BD BD Total P a g e

30 Reduce the potential for bark beetle population increases within down and damaged trees. o 1117 acres of damaged red and jack pine harvested 2. Reduce Hazardous Fuels Reduce fuels to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and facilitate the regeneration of stands. o 350 acres of prescribed burning to reduce fuels (mechanical treatments may be used if burning isn t done). Burning occurs in BD-4 (Burn Unit 4) an aggregate of stands. o 2816 acres of piling and burning o 996 acres of mechanical fuels treatment with biomass potential Reduce the fuel loadings and fire hazards adjacent to and within the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. o 0 acres of prescribed burning o 1385 acres of road buffers 1320 wide 3. Salvage wood products and provide for commercial wood for mills in support of the local and regional economy. o 4945 acres of harvest 3132 acres of clearcut/coppice harvest with reserves 1620 acres of selection harvest 193 acres of commercial thinning o Access requirements are the same as for modified Alternative B. To access harvest stands, 13 segments of temporary roads (or skid trails) for a maximum of 2.1 miles would be needed. In addition, 4 decommissioned roads totaling <.3 miles may need to be reopened. Two accesses are required via State roads; and 2 approaches off of Hwy 46 may be needed. 4. Manage treatments in areas of interest to maintain or enhance traditional Tribal and community uses. Of particular interest are activities within the Ten Section area. o o o 58 acres of selection harvest 1076 acres treatments to reduce hazardous fuels 131 acres of pile and burning 337 acres of mechanical fuels treatment 608 acres of road buffers 1320 wide 0 acres of prescribed burning Acres of prescribed landscape burning Burn Unit Burn Unit Acres Acres in Ten Section BD P a g e

31 2.4 Description of Activities Commercial Timber Harvest Treatments Clearcut with reserves or coppice with reserves These harvest treatments were generally applied in stands with 60% or more damage where the desired future stand lends itself well to even-aged management. The extent of damage automatically set the age of the stand to zero. Harvest was prescribed to remove the remaining residual (except for reserves) and regenerate the stand. Site preparation and planting is prescribed to regenerate conifer stands back to conifer. An aspen stand expected to naturally regenerate after harvest was tagged as a coppice with reserves. If an aspen stand would be converted to another forest type, then the harvest was identified as a clearcut. Included in these treatments are a number of stands, mainly aspen, that are less than 40 years old and heavily damaged. These stands were assigned a clearcut or coppice harvest code. If the product within these stands is not merchantable, then damaged trees would undergo a hydro-axe treatment to remove the trees, reforest the stand, and get the stand into production again. This treatment set the stand age back to 0. Selection harvest For the most part, this treatment is prescribed for stands with 40-60% damage, although there are some stands with storm damage less than 40% where selection harvest is prescribed. Harvest treatment would primarily remove green damaged trees. It is assumed that enough of the residual remains to adequately stock the stand. Spots within stands may have site preparation for planting or natural regeneration. This treatment retained the existing stand age and did not set it back to 0. Commercial thinning This treatment is prescribed for a small number of red pine stands that incurred some level of storm damage but still have enough residual to consider the stand to be intact. Damaged material would be removed by thinning to minimize the potential for further mechanical damage to residual trees, or damage by insects Fuels or Fire Treatments Landscape Prescribed Fire This treatment consists of applying low intensity fire to restore fire to the landscape by aggregating stands and creating larger burning units. Prescribed Burning for fuels reduction This treatment consists of applying low to moderate intensity ground fire to reduce the hazardous fuel loads adjacent to the East Pike Bay area and in BD-4 north of Hwy 2. Piling and Burning This activity includes mechanical piling and hand piling. Fuels may be piled by machine or hand. Piling and burning removes fuel from the site by removing the excess tons per acres. Piled 31 P a g e

32 concentration of fuels are then burned thus reducing the fuel loading on site. This allows for managed reduction of fuel loads. Road Buffers Buffers along some of the roads in the PBEF and lower Ten Section area were designed to reduce fuel concentrations within or adjacent to high use areas with high fire risk. Mechanical Removal of Fuels Mechanical fuels treatment is a general description of how fuels would be treated. Machinery would be used to treat damaged vegetation to reduce the amount of fuels present. Vegetation would be removed through a timber sale with a biomass utilization requirement. Material smaller than 4 in diameter, or not suitable for other commercial products, would be utilized for biomass and removed from the site. The sale contract would have other requirements and provisions for removal of other material as described below. More detailed descriptions are provided in the fuels section Reforestation Establishment of seedlings in this project area would be carried out using various methods. Site preparation Site preparation prior to seedling establishment would be achieved via harvest operations and/or post-harvest mechanical treatments. The intent of site preparation would be to expose and scarify mineral soil in irregular patterns over approximately 80% of any given stand. Equipment would go around residual trees, stumps, and small inclusions (varying in size and shape) within stands. Post-harvest residual trees of merchantable size would not be removed unless considered to be safety hazards. Mechanical site preparation could include brush raking, disking, scalping, biomass harvest, or other means. Site preparation may include treatments with a hydroaxe. There are numerous stands younger than 30 years that were extensively damaged. Many of these are aspen. Where no merchantable product exists, treatment of the stand with a hydroaxe would remove this material and prepare the site for regeneration. This treatment is included in the mechanical site preparation category. Planting Planting in clearcuts would be accomplished with about 900-1,000 trees per acre of mixed species. If stocking levels do not meet minimum standards within 3 years of harvest (400 trees/acre for conifers) in stands treated with clearcut treatments, fill-in planting may be necessary. Natural regeneration Natural regeneration with harvest would occur via suckering (aspen), sprouting (paper birch), and seeding from mature seed-producing trees (white pine, paper birch, balsam fir, northern hardwoods). 32 P a g e

33 Tree spading Tree spading would be prescribed in places where trees are desired for stand enhancement or recreational objectives. Larger white pine can be spaded into place and does not need protection from animal predation, or other tending to ensure establishment, as do seedlings Tending Tending is designed to enhance survival, growth, vigor and composition of each new stand. This project includes the following treatments: Release Release of desired seedlings/saplings from competing vegetation would involve the cutting of competing, nonconiferous stems. Aspen and hazel are the predominant species of competing vegetation. Animal damage control Animal damage control is needed to protect seedlings/saplings from deer browsing. This could include spraying repellant(s), bud capping, fencing, or other forms of control that become available. Diversity planting Planting of tree seedling to increase the species and structural diversity within stands. Diversity planting is limited in this project because of the large number of acres that require reforestation and tending. Funding and availability of planting stock is expected to be limited Temporary Road Construction Construction of short road segments would be needed to access some of the harvest units proposed. Decommissioned roads may be re-opened to provide access to some stands. Temporary roads would be decommissioned and re-vegetated following harvest and reforestation activities Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives Appendix B has a mitigation description table that identifies site-specific mitigation measures and design features to be applied to stands in each alternative. The description table also specifies the applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines (MFRC (Gold Book) 2005). These measures have been incorporated into the analysis disclosed in Chapter 3. They would be implemented during harvest and postharvest activities. Each of the mitigation measures is assigned to one or more stands; tables for each of the alternatives are included with Appendix B. If not attached, they are posted on the Forest website (fs.usda.gov/chippewa) or available upon request. 33 P a g e

34 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated A. Salvage Harvest on the Pike Bay Experimental Forest The Experimental Forest is not considered to be suitable for timber management. Direction contained within the Forest Plant states that silvicultural and other treatments appropriate to research and experimentation are used in this area (FP, p. 3-33). The use of salvage harvest to reduce fuel loadings associated with the blowdown was not considered to be a viable alternative given the management direction for the Experimental Forest and potential impact to research studies. B. Mechanical Fuels Treatments in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest Mechanical fuels treatments (as described in previous section) were considered in Pike BayExperimental Forest. Because of the potential disturbance to the understory and research studies, this was not a viable alternative. C. Stands with less than 40% damage should be evaluated for harvest /salvage. All stands that meet minimum rotation ages with 40% or more blowdown should be treated. Inclusion of these stands would take a considerable amount of work and time to evaluate and analyze which would delay project implementation. The objective of the Forest was to identify the highest priority stands in need of treatment and to conduct the analysis and implement while there was potentially value left in the salvage material. Recognizing that there are limitations in funding and personnel, the Forest expects to be at or exceed our capacity to prepare, sell, and administer all the acres included in this project and other salvage harvest decisions. Deferring treatment in lower priority stands at this time would make them available for consideration in the next entry into the project area. D. Landscape burning and conversion of sites best suited for jack pine Larger blocks of stands for burning and conversion to jack pine were not available. The IDT looked at the opportunities to restore landscape burning and planting or seeding of jack pine in an effort to restore jack pine communities that have been lost over the decades. Opportunities were limited because past harvesting has converted many of the jack pine stands to red pine; immature red pine stands and past investments in these stands do not warrant conversion at this time; stands with a mature red pine overstory, the LLBO prefers to retain rather than harvest and convert to jack pine. Soil types best suited for conversion to jack pine was examined in the storm damage age. None of the damaged stands occurred on sites best suited for jack pine. 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Acres are estimates. 34 P a g e

35 Summary of Outputs and Activities Table 2-2 Summaries of Output and Activities by alternative tied to purpose and need. Activities Alt A Mod Alt B Alt C Estimated Total Harvest Volume (Ccf) 0 103,337 75,723 Acres of Commercial Timber Harvest Clearcuts/ Coppice with Reserves Selection Commercial Thin Total Acres of existing red, jack, and white pine maintained as conifer Acres of aspen converted to conifer Acres of Conversion to (proposed Forest type) Stand acres of mechanical site preparation for Jack pine Red Pine Eastern White pine Tamarack Birch White Spruce Aspen Total Planting Natural regeneration Total Acres of tree planting (stand acres) Acres of tree spading for visuals or watershed Acres of animal damage control Acres of release Number of blocks/range in size (acres) of larger jack pine blocks created 0 4/ / Acres of conversion to jack pine to create larger block Acres of damaged red and jack pine harvested to reduce beetle potential Restore Fire: size in acres of landscape burning blocks Acres of treatments to reduce hazardous fuels BD BD BD Total Prescribed broadcast burning 0 BD-4 (350 acres included) Piling and burning Mechanical fuels treatment Road buffers (1320 /240 ) /504 Total P a g e

36 Activities Acres of Fuels Treatments (treatment acres) in or adjacent to Pike Bay Experimental Forest (NF/EF) Acres of treatments in Ten Section Area Alt A Mod Alt B Alt C PB-1 precribed burning 0 566/555 0 PB-2 precribed burning 0 590/306 0 PB-3 precribed burning 0 311/78 0 PB-4 precribed burning 0 591/380 0 PB-5 precribed burning 0 701/659 0 Total acres (NF/EF) / Road Buffers (1320 /240 ) PBEF /289 Clearcut/coppice with reserves Selection harvest Total Harvest Piling and burning Mechanical fuels reduction Road Buffers (1320 /240 ) /143 Acres of prescribed burning BD PB PB PB Total Temporary road construction: number of segments/total miles 0 13/ < / < 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Table 2-3 Alternative Comparison of Indicators for Key Issues Issue 1: Proposed treatments that may potentially affect traditional resource gathering opportunities. Indicators Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of Treatment in Ten Section Area Clearcut/coppice with reserves Selection harvest Total Harvest Mechanical site preparation Piling and burning Mechanical fuels reduction Road buffers (1320 /240 ) Total Mechanical Treatment Acres P a g e

37 Issue 1: Proposed treatments that may potentially affect traditional resource gathering opportunities. Indicators Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of prescribed burning (Landscape and fuels reduction) BD PB PB PB Total Issue 2: Fuel reduction activities may result in undesirable damage to standing trees and experimental plots in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. Indicator Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres of broadcast burning (includes landscape burning) Acres of mechanical piling and burning Acres of mechanical fuel reduction Acres in road buffers (240 /1320 ) /2390 Total acres treated (240 /1320 ) 0 14,120 10,911/12,479 Percent of stands with > 20% damage treated (240 /1320 ) /36 Percent of stands with > 20% damage untreated(240 /1320 ) /64 Table 2-4 Alternative Comparison of Indicators for Secondary issues Issue Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Relative effects shown in BA Canada Lynx BE Determinations for Sensitive Species Large Patches No. / Acres Soil disturbance due to treatment activities by stand acres Plants and Wildlife No Effect Not Likely to Not Likely to adversely affect adversely affect Generally May impact May impact, No Impact See table See table > / 119, / 118, / 119,594 > / 65, / 65, / 65,466 Soils Site Preparation Woody Material Removed Potential impact on soil productivity Stand acres with potential for multiple entries Fewer acres treated & fewer acres high risk soils More acres treated & more acres high risk soils P a g e

38 Issue Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Aquatics Percentage of upland in young and open conditions Riparian Acres--Conversion of short lived conifer to long-lived conifer Riparian acres--addition of longlived conifer diversity Riparian acres reforestation of long-lived conifer Riparian acres other treatments focused on reforestation and hazardous fuels reduction Total Riparian acres treated <60% <60% <60% Recreation Sites adjacent to Dispersed harvest units Developed Number harvest Uneven-age stands next to Dispersed Sites Even-aged Number harvest Uneven-age stands next to Developed Sites Even-aged Uneven-age 27 5 Number harvest stands next to trails Even-aged 19 5 ROS 0 No change No change Visuals Acres regeneration High harvest in high and Mod moderate SIOs Total Access Points/Road Re-opening 2/1 2/1 in High SIO 0 Piling & burning High 0 2,158 1,352 slash in High & Mod moderate SIOs Total 0 2,693 1, P a g e

39 Acres of potential soil-disturbing treatments not subject to prior heritage resource survey. Acres of potential soil-disturbing treatments not subject to prior heritage resource survey and located in areas having good potential for the presence of precontact archaeological sites. Present Value of Timber Removed/Harvested Heritage 0 1, Economics $512,537 $387,512 Present Value Costs for all activities associated with 0 $ -8,720,557 $ -6,450,011 harvested stands Present Net Value 0 $ -8,208,020 $ -6,062,499 Benefit/Cost Ration N/A Cost to remove hazard fuels from 240 : $ 403,000 0 road buffers : $1,670,000 Potential of introduction of new or further spread of invasive species Non-native invasive species 0 minimal minimal 39 P a g e

40 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction Environmental Consequences contains assessments of the affected environment and analysis of the No Action and all the action alternatives described in Chapter 2. This chapter is the scientific and analytical basis for the comparisons of the alternatives. It describes probable consequences and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative on selected environmental resources. This chapter is organized by resource. Each technical area develops its own discussion and its own methodologies. All acres listed are approximate and are based on GIS and other databases. The Alternative B and Alternative C are consistent with Forest Plan objectives, desired conditions, and management direction, as well as other Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. For cumulative effects, the focus is on treatment of stands affected by the wind event that incurred blowdown and damage. For most resources, overlap in time and space does not occur. However, the Forest felt it was important to capture other actions to remove blowdown and treat stands. The ensuing discussion focuses on acres treated and effects of other decisions since the July windstorm. These include the salvage CEs and modified timber sale contracts. For the purposes of analysis, where applicable, stands with more than 60% damage were considered to have their age set back to Forest Plan Compliance Questions were raised both internally and externally as to whether or not the Forest Plan objectives are being met as a result of the storm and the potential need for a Forest Plan amendment. Effects of the storm on age class objectives were analyzed. The Forest is currently below standard S-WL-10 for mature and older jack pine and proposes a Forest Plan amendment Age Class Objectives The tables below are a summary of the analysis for 0-9 and mature and older (80+ years) age classes for each of the LEs. These were the two age classes most impacted by the July storm. The current condition after the storm (Post Storm Dec 2012). The numbers from 2011 were included because they provide a snaphot of conditions prior to the storm. They serve as a potential indicator of the effects caused by the storm. 40 P a g e

41 Landscape Ecosystem Uplands Numbers for alternatives A, B and C represent future conditions (2018). Numbers include all the planned even-aged harvest activities from previous decisions that are currently unaccomplished and assumes they would be accomplished in 5 years. This should cover all the vegetation projects with recent decisions on them. For this project, the numbers should be compared to Decade 2 objectives since that is when this project would be implemented. Table Amount of age class 0-9 for each LE. Current Condition 2011 Post Storm Dec 2012 Decade 1 Objectives Decade 2 Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres % Acres % % % Acres % Acres % Acres % Dry Pine Dry Mesic Pine Dry Mesic Pine Oak , , , Boreal Hdwd Conifer Mesic No. Hdwd Tamarack Swamp White Cedar Swamp Acres needed for a 1% shift: Dry Pine 120; Dry Mesic Pine 840; Dry Mesic Pine Oak 1580; Boreal Hardwood Conifer 1030; Mesic Northern Hardwood 650;Tamarack Swamp 200; White Cedar Swamp--130 For the 0-9 age class, the current condition column reflects the amount of 0-9 on the Forest resulting from management activities and the storm. It includes stands 0-9 years old resulting from previous harvest. Any even-aged regeneration harvest (clearcut, coppice, seedtree, and shelterwood) that occurred in the last 9 years would contribute to the amount of 0-9 on the landscape. The current condition also took into consideration the storm damaged stands. It assumed stands with more than 60% damage would set the stand age back to 0 and contribute to the 0-9 age class. Stands with damage less than 60% were not set back to 0 unless a clearcut or coppice was planned. Note that the Forest is below Decade 2 objectives for all the LEs except Dry Pine. The Dry Pine is a small LE (12,000) acres, so a 1% change is 120 acres. This difference can easily be compensated for by the end of Decade 2. With regard to the amount of mature and older forest (over 80+ years), the following table indicates that Forest Plan objectives are being exceeded for all of the LEs. 41 P a g e

42 Table Amount of mature and older (80+ years) forest by LE. Current Condition Objectives 2011 Post Storm Dec 2012 Decade 1 Decade 2 Alt A Alt B Alt C Acres % Acres % % % Acres % Acres % Acres % Dry Pine Dry Mesic Pine Dry Mesic Pine Oak Boreal Hdwd Conifer Mesic No. Hdwd Tamarack Swamp White Cedar Swamp In summary, storm damaged stands, planned and unaccomplished activities, and proposed activities with this project are consistent with Forest Plan objectives and direction. There is no immediate need for a Forest Plan amendment to adjust age class objectives as a result of the storm damage. Species composition objectives Numbers were also reviewed for species composition objectives for each of the LEs. As with the age class objectives, the Forest looked at pre-storm (2011) post-storm (2012) numbers. For the most part, changes include a decrease in the jack pine forest type and an increase in the red pine forest type. These changes are most likely a reflection of decadent mature and older jack pine dropping out of stands. More detailed information is available in the project file and available upon request Forest Plan amendment The Forest Plan requires retention of a specified amount of mature and older jack pine through the first decade with Forest Plan Standard S-WL-10. Currently there is not enough mature and older jack pine on the Forest to meet that standard. The Forest proposes a project specific amendment that would provide an exception to this Standard. The amendment would apply to just the Blowdown Restoration Project. Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan states (p. 2-32): MIH 8: Mature and older jack pine forest S-WL-10 Maintain at least 5,300 acres in mature or older jack pine forest types during the first 10 years of plan implementation. 42 P a g e

43 Jack pine is a component of management indicator habitat (MIH) 8. The Forest Plan defines mature jack pine as 40 years or older. This standard is in effect until early August The Chippewa Forest Plan was signed in July The Forest Plan does not provide direction for jack pine for decade 2. Status of Jack Pine The table below shows the amounts of mature and older jack pine forest on Chippewa National Forest at the time the 2004 Forest Plan was signed, in 2007, 2011, and in 2013 pre-blowdown and the current condition. Table Acres of Mature and Older Jack Pine Forest on Chippewa National Forest Forest Plan Preblowdown Current Condition Acres 7,700* ,113* 4,968 4,617 * From Barrett 2011, p At the time the Forest Plan was signed, there was an estimated 7,700 acres of mature and older jack pine on the Forest. In an analysis conducted in 2007, there were 5630 acres of mature or older jack pine on the landscape. These acres included and accounted for treatments in jack pine stands in projects with decisions through In 2011, according to our records, the Forest had 5,113 acres, roughly 200 acres less than the 5300 acres specified in the standard (project file). Despite forest aging from 2004 to 2013, there is less than 5,300 acres of mature and older jack pine forest in 2013 prior to consideration of storm effects for the reasons described below. The acres are further reduced through the effects of the July 2012 storm. Current condition acres are the result of setting the age class back to 0 years old for forest stands classified as damage class 4 or 5 (>60% detectable damage). The Forest is unable to meet the standard because the amount of mature and older jack pine on the landscape at the time of Forest Plan revision was over-estimated due to limited or outdated stand exam data; mature and older jack pine stands are decadent, senescent, falling to the ground, and shifting to another forest type; there was not a balanced age class within the jack pine forest type at the time of the plan revision resulting in insufficient acres to replace the mature and older component that is being lost. Blowdown Restoration Project Alternatives B and C Both Alternatives B and C involve clearcut harvesting in mature and older jack pine stands with >60% detectable damage. Because of the extensive wind damage in these stands, their age class has been set back to 0 years old and they are not counted towards S-WL-10. Most of these stands are treated in one manner or another, through timber harvest or fuels reduction, in the Blowdown Restoration EA, preceding Categorical Exclusions, modifications to existing timber sales, or a combination of these treatment mechanisms. See the table below. 43 P a g e

44 Table Treatment of Mature and Older Jack Pine with >60% Detectable Damage in project area Damage class Damaged Acres of Treated Acres Jack Pine Alternative B Alternative C 68-80% % Total acres Alternative C was constructed with the intent not to clearcut harvest any mature or older jack pine stands with a damage class less than 4 (<60% damage), so as not to exacerbate the departure from S-WL-10 through proposed timber harvest. Under alternative B, about 154 acres of mature and older with <60% is proposed for harvest. If all of these acres were harvested in 2013, 4463 acres of mature and older jack pine would remain. Project specific Forest Plan amendment The Forest proposes a project specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment that would provide an exception to meeting Forest Plan Standard S-WL-10 for the Blowdown Restoration Project. The amendment would apply just to this project. It would not change any Forest Plan goals, objectives, desired conditions or any associated outputs. 44 P a g e

45 3.3 Vegetation The vegetation section addresses the various components of the Purpose and NeedThere were no issues raised during the scoping period Affected Environment The primary driver in the Blowdown Restoration Project EA is the wind event of July This project is also somewhat influenced by objectives set forth in the Forest Plan for Management Areas (MA) and Landscape Ecosystems (LE) which are explained in Chapter 1. Age Class One of the most notable results of the blowdown event was the resetting of stand ages from older age classes to the 0-9 year age class. For analysis, the Forest assumed that stands with damage classes 4 and 5 (greater than 60% stand damage) were affected to such a degree that their age classes were reset to 0-9 years. Therefore, even-aged regeneration harvests proposed in these damaged stands would not further affect the 0-9 age class. Based on this assumption, a comparison of age class conditions for the project area, pre- and post-blowdown, is shown in Table For all forest types the 0-9 age class has increased by nearly 8% in the project area. Most of these acres (5.9%) have moved to 0-9 from age classes and years. The aspen forest type had the most acres move from older classes to the 0-9, followed by red pine, maple/basswood, mixed uplands hardwoods, white pine, paper birch and jack pine. In all, 8,780 acres were moved into the 0-9 age class within the project area as a result of the blowdown event. Analyses of alternatives use the post-blowdown condition as the starting point. Table 3.3-1: Age classes on National Forest (NF) lands in the project area before and after the blowdown. Age Class in Years Total Percent Pre-blowdown percent % 100 Post-blowdown percent % 100 Forest Types Aspen represents nearly 28% of the forested Forest Service lands in the project area. This is followed closely by red pine, which represents 27%. Jack pine, black spruce, tamarack, mixed upland hardwoods, maple/basswood, and paper birch are common, with more than 3% each. All other forested types are relatively rare in the project area. Unless otherwise stated the forest type aspen is considered a hardwood and is included in the term hardwoods when aggregating forest types. Refer to the project file for more detail. 45 P a g e

46 Table Percent forest types in the project area. Forest Type Percent Aspen, Red pine % Jack pine, black spruce, tamarack, mixed upland hardwoods, maple/basswood, and paper birch 3-8 White pine, balsam fir, white spruce, northern white cedar, white pine/red oak, other pine/hardwood, northern red oak, bur oak, black ash, sugar maple/yellow < 3% birch, red maple, balsam poplar Comparison of How Alternatives meet Purpose and Need Scope of Analysis Spatial Framework: The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative vegetation effects is the boundary of the project area. This boundary is appropriate for the vegetation analysis since the main driver for this project is the restoration of forest health, and regenerating stands to maintain productivity. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis looks at the effects of each alternative on NF lands. For the cumulative effects analysis, effects of each alternative coupled with the actions taken in categorical exclusions (CE) and activities under catastrophic timber sale authority are assessed. No data is available for other public or private ownerships regarding activities to mitigate damage resulting from the wind event. Timeframe: Direct and indirect effects consider the results of actions proposed in each alternative over the next five years. Cumulative effects analysis considers all activities planned over the next five years that are a result of the 2012 blowdown event. Some conditions resulting from proposed actions, such as age class, would result in effects lasting for one or two decades, but would change over time as stands age. Other results, such as forest type, could be in effect for an entire rotation. Still, other variables, such as stand composition, would be set in motion by this decision but change continually over time. For analyses, stand acres are being used throughout unless otherwise stated. There is little difference between stand acres and treated acres with the exception of one stand ( ) where just the south half is being treated in Alternatives B and C. Maintain conifer stands, structural and species diversity Management Direction O-VG-2: Increase acres of red, white, and jack pine, spruce/fir, and northern hardwood vegetation communities. Decrease acres of aspen vegetation communities. O-VG-9: Restore structural diversity and ecosystem processes within stands when harvesting or burning by retaining: a diverse mix of trees, shrubs, and herbs; live and dead standing trees; earth and tree root mounds caused by uprooted trees; coarse woody debris from fallen trees; and patches of live trees. 46 P a g e

47 O-VG-7: Restore the diversity of tree species within stands to conditions more representative of native vegetation communities D-VG-3: Vegetation (live and dead) is present in amounts, distributions, and characteristics that are representative of the spectrum of environmental conditions... Affected Environment Conifer stands that were blown down may regenerate to aspen or other hardwoods if not treated. Aspen (Populus tremuloides and P. grandidentata) and balsam poplar (P. balsamifera) have prolific sprouting ability, and are fast growing (USDA, 2008). Regeneration of red and white pine stands is of particular concern. In pine stands severely damaged by wind, a few aspen stems/acre mixed into the pine, may cause sites previously dominated by pine to regenerate to aspen. This would mean a loss in acreage of pine in the project area. Stands that are severely damaged would have increased light and higher soil temperatures where a shading overstory has been removed. Both these changed conditions create a situation favorable for aspen suckering and growth (Strothmann & Zasada, 1965; Maini & Cayford, 1968; Perala, 1990). Analyses assume that conifer stands that have a damage class of > 60% would regenerate to aspen if not treated with reforestation activities to set their regeneration trajectory to pine or other conifers. There is only one stand where this assumption is not made. This is stand , which is a white pine stand with a damage class 5 (> 80% damage). This stand has had previous harvests with regeneration intervention. Most residual overstory pine blew down resulting in a damage classification of 5. However, the established white pine understory regeneration resulting from prior harvest and reforestation activities, is the featured stand. The forest type would therefore remain white pine, so no conversion would occur. This stand is 26 acres in size, and is left out of any conversion analyses despite the damage classification of 5. Because of the known established understory, this stand would not regenerate to aspen or hardwoods. Indicators Acres of existing red, jack and white pine regenerated to pine. Acres of aspen converted to pine. 47 P a g e

48 Direct and Indirect Effects Table Comparison of stand acres. Shifts in pine forest types with and without treatment, and acres of conversion of aspen to pine. Direct & Indirect Effects Alt A Alt B Alt C Total Pine in Project area with damage > 60% 3,058 3,058 3,058 Pine with storm damage > 60% with regeneration treatments Conversion of aspen to pine with regeneration treatments Cumulative Effects Catastrophic Sale Pine with storm damage > 60% regenerated to pine Salvage CE Pine with storm damage > 60% regenerated to pine Total cumulative pine acres w/damage > 60% regenerated to pine ,672 2,336 2,296 Total cumulative pine acres w/damage > 60% + aspen conversions regenerated to pine 1,672 2,646 2,606 Pine in project area with storm damage > 60% receiving no treatment and regenerating to hardwoods through natural regeneration 1, No Action Alternative No intervention in the form of regeneration activities would occur under the No Action Alternative. Pine stands with aspen associates that have been most severely damaged (damage > 60%) would be likely to regenerate to aspen. Hazel brush, which has a high frequency on many of these sites, would also be a factor in limiting natural conifer regeneration. There are 3,058 acres of severely damaged pine in the project area (damage > 60%). Without intervention, these stands would likely reset from mature pine to early succession, short lived hardwoods. In the No Action Alternative no actions are taken to ensure severely damaged pine stands re-establish to pine, or to convert any acres of aspen to pine (Table 3.3-3). Alternative B and C Alternative B would result in over 650 acres, respectively, of severely damaged pine regenerating back to pine. This number is slightly less with Alternative C about 600 acres. Deliberate establishment of pine would be accomplished through planting of conifers, combined with various other treatments that would prepare the sites, and culture the planted stock, until it was established. 48 P a g e

49 Both alternatives would result in over 300 acres of damaged aspen stands being converted to pine, but not all the stands are the same. Alternative B would result in the establishment of nearly 1,000 acres to pine (between aspen conversions and severely damaged pine being regenerated to pine). This number is closer to 900 acres for Alternative C. Cumulative Effects No conversions of aspen to pine occur under the catastrophic sale authority or the CEs. Only under the Blowdown Restoration EA would aspen be converted to pine. No Action The no action alternative would cumulatively result in nearly 1,700 acres of heavily damaged pine being regenerated to pine (Table 3.3-3). No acres are contributed through this EA. Catastrophic Sales (CS) contribute over 700 acres and CEs contribute over 900 acres. With over 3,000 acres of severely damaged pine in the project area, this would mean that close to 1,400 acres of pine would likely convert to hardwoods through natural regeneration. Alternative B and C Alternative B would cumulatively regenerate over 2,300 acres of heavily damaged pine back to pine. This number is slightly less than 2,300 acres with Alternative C. Cumulatively more than 700 acres of heavily damaged pine to likely regenerate to hardwoods with Alternative B and slightly more than 750 acres with C. Indicator Total acres of conversions In Table is a summary of stand forest type conversions (more detailed information is in the project file). These are acres for where the future forest type is being changed, either by activities to ensure a change, or by passively not managing pine stands with damage greater than 60%. In these cases it is believed hardwoods already present would become dominant and represent the future forest type. Table Stand acres of conversions from one forest type to another from the proposed treatments in this project and from other salvage activities covered by CEs and modified timber sale contracts. Direct & Indirect effects Cumulative effects Changes in forest type Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt A Alt B Alt C Hardwood to conifer Conifer to hardwood , Conifer to conifer Total Acres Conversions ,203 1,476 1,551 Direct and Indirect Effects No Action Alternative In the No Action Alternative no acres of conversions would occur. 49 P a g e

50 Alternative B and C In Alternative B, around 450 acres of hardwoods would be converted to conifers (Table 3.3-4) compared to 400 acres for C. At the same time 18 acres would convert from conifers to hardwoods for Alternative B and 66 acres for C. This would mean a net of about 430 acres converting from hardwoods to conifers for Alternative B and about 350 acres for C. Both alternatives would also have a shift of a little over 200 acres of conifers to a different species of conifers, but the stands in which this shift occurs varies with alternative. Cumulative Effects No Action The No Action alternative would yield no acres of conversions of hardwoods to conifers. There would be about 1,200 acres of conifers however that would convert to hardwoods (over 1,000 acres are pine to hardwoods). Alternative B and C Alternative B would have about 450 acres of hardwoods converting to conifer whereas with C just over 400 acres. B would also have just over 800 acres of conifers converting to hardwoods, for a net conversion of conifers to hardwoods of around 350 acres. With C, these numbers are slightly higher, 900 and 500 acres, respectively. For B and C, just over 200 acres of conifers would also be converted to another species of conifer. Remove blowdown as necessary in order to regenerate stands to productive timber Management Direction D-VG-4: Tree vegetation is present in amounts, distributions, and characteristics that allow contribution to a sustained yield of timber and pulpwood products. S-TM-5: Even-aged regeneration harvest (clearcutting, seed tree, shelterwood) is allowed after a stand has reached at least 95% of culmination of the mean annual increment. This does not preclude salvage using even-aged harvest after natural disturbances such as fire, wind, insects, or disease or to meet other resource objectives. Affected Environment The blowdown event of July, 2012, reset the age class on many stands. In other stands, where damage was less severe, regeneration may still be necessary to meet Forest Plan objectives or to restore stand productivity. Salvage is conducted to utilize downed and damaged wood, make the sites accessible, limit insect and disease problems, reduce fire hazards, etc. Follow-up harvesting may be needed beyond salvage to meet silvicultural requirements of the desired 50 P a g e

51 species for a site. Other actions may also be required to control how a site regenerates. In these cases, site preparation, planting, and/or tending activities are prescribed. Tending includes animal damage control measures and release activities. These are planned where ever planting is prescribed. Animal damage control most often consists of bud capping and is specific to white pine and jack pine, in an attempt to discourage deer browsing. Release most often consists of individual tree release, usually from aspen or hazel regeneration by hand cutting, until a planted conifer seedling is established and free to grow. Many stands are proposed for treatments of harvest, site preparation, planting and tending. Some stands being salvaged under a categorical exclusion or treated under the catastrophic timber sale need further treatment so are included in the alternatives B or C. For the cumulative effects analyses, some assumptions are made: Storm damaged stands under CEs or sales are being regenerated back to the same forest type. Conifer stands need to be planted to regenerate to conifers. Hardwood stands (including aspen) would be naturally regenerated. Pine stands with a damage class of 4 or 5 (> 60% damage) in CEs and Sales, would be regenerated to pine. Indicator Stand acres of harvests where sites are being artificially regenerated by planting. Table 3.3-5: Harvests where tree planting is prescribed. No Action Alternative Alternative B Alternative C Harvest Type Stands Acres Stands Acres Stands Acres No Harvest Clearcut Selection , EA Totals , ,283 Catastrophic Sale Pine with storm damage > 60% regenerated to pine Salvage CE Pine with storm damage > 60% regenerated to pine Cumulative Total , , ,996 In Table 3.3-5, stands that are being harvested under a CE or an existing sale with catastrophic damage, but being planted under the Blowdown Restoration EA, are not counted twice. The 51 P a g e

52 acres planted are attributed to the EA. In this case the Harvest Type would be No Harvest because the harvest has already occurred under a CE or catastrophic sale. Direct and Indirect Effects No Action Alternative There would be no harvests or tree planting occurring in the No Action Alternative. Alternative B and C In Alternative B there would be a little more than 3,000 stand acres planted to conifers. These acres represent 13 hardwoods and conifers forest types. Over 650 acres would be converted from one forest type to another. The remaining acres would be regenerated to type, with about 230 acres of hardwoods being planted to increase diversity with conifers. The 2300 acres planted to conifer in C is considerably less than B. C includes 12 forest types. Over 600 acres would be converted from one forest type to another. Remaining acreage would be regenerated to type, with 142 of the hardwood acres being planted only for diversity. In B over 500 acres would have no harvest in this project prior to planting, because these have already been harvested under a CE or catastrophic sale. For C, almost 700 acres are being harvested in a CE or a catastrophic sale or are being planted without a harvest. Forty-one acres in C are being treated with a mechanical fuels treatment. Nearly 1,000 acres would be clearcut in B; over 700 acres in C. Over 1,500 acres would be selectively cut prior to planting in Alternative B; this number drops to 900 acres for C. Cumulative Effects No Action The No Action Alternative would have a cumulative total of almost 1,750 acres, which would be planted following some kind of harvest, under a CE or catastrophic sale. No planting would occur under the EA in the No Action Alternative. Alternative B and C Alternative B would have a cumulative total of over 4,700 acres which would be planted. Alternative C has a total of 4,000 acres. Over 750 acres are from catastrophic sales and more than 950 acres under CEs. For Alternative B, over 650 acres would be converted from one forest type to another. Two hundred thirty acres of hardwoods would be planted to increase diversity with conifers. For C, 32 stands would be converted from one forest type to another under this EA. Remaining acreage would be regenerated to type, with 142 of the hardwood acres being planted only for diversity. Indicator Acres of site preparation for planting or natural regeneration 52 P a g e

53 Affected Environment Site preparation for planting or for natural regeneration is prescribed in both Alternatives B and C. The type of site preparation would vary depending on the desired outcome and the condition of individual sites following harvest. For planting, site preparation is often used to set back woody competition and improve the success of establishing planted stock. This may consist of hydro-axing, disking, scalping, or other methods of mechanical treatment. Site preparation for natural regeneration is needed less frequently than for planted sites. When needed, it usually consists of hydro-axing. This may be done, as an example, where there are excess non-merchantable stems that are highly damaged, or where an entire non-merchantable stand is highly damaged, before the establishment of an even-aged aspen stand. Because it is not known what the condition of a site would be following harvest, site preparation is often planned for natural regeneration. During the post-harvest assessment, it is often determined that site preparation is not necessary and is then not done. Table Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Site preparation summary for Planting and natural regeneration. Site Preparation No Action Alternative B Alternative C For Planting Stands Stand Acres Stands Stand Acres Stands Stand Acres EA Site Prep , ,029 Catastrophic Sale Salvage CE Total for Planting 65 1, , ,742 For Natural Regeneration EA Site Prep , ,571 Catastrophic Sale Salvage CE site prep Total for Natural 46 1, , ,014 Direct and Indirect Effects No Action Alternative There would be no site preparation for the No Action alternative. Alternative B and C There would potentially be up to about 2,800 acres of site preparation for planting in alternative B; 2,000 acres in Alternative C. For natural regeneration there would also be almost 3,300 acres which could receive site preparation in Alternative B. Roughly half 1,600 acres, is planned for C. Totals of site preparation for B and C are over 6,100 acres and 3600 acres, respectively. 53 P a g e

54 Cumulative Effects No Action Alternative Cumulatively there would be over 1,700 acres of site preparation for planting, and over 1,400 acres of site preparation for natural regeneration as a result of CEs and catastrophic sales. Alternative B and C There would be a cumulative total of over 4,500 acres of site preparation for planting that would occur in Alternative B. Over 4,700 acres would occur for natural regeneration for a total of over 9,200 acres, Alternative C would have a cumulative total of nearly 3,800 acres of site preparation for planting, just over 3,000 acres for natural regeneration for a total of about 6,750 acres. Restore sites historically jack pine to jack pine Management Direction O-VG-2: Increase acres of red, white, and jack pine, spruce/fir, and northern hardwood vegetation communities. Decrease acres of aspen vegetation communities. O-VG-7 Restore the diversity of tree species within stands to conditions more representative of native vegetation communities by increasing the component of white pine, red pine, paper birch, white cedar, upland tamarack, and in some areas, white spruce and black spruce. Many sites that were historically jack pine have been converted over time to red pine and other species. There is a desire to convert these back to jack pine as opportunities present themselves. Table 3.3-7: Acres of conversion to jack pine. Forest Type No Action Alternative B Alternative C Stand Acres Stand Acres Stand Acres Red Pine to Jack Pine White Spruce to Jack Pine Aspen to Jack Pine Totals Indicator Acres converted to jack pine. Direct and Indirect Effects No Action Alternative No acres would be converted to jack pine in the No Action alternative. 54 P a g e

55 Alternatives B and C Both alternatives B and C would convert over 200 acres to jack pine from aspen, white spruce and red pine. Alternative B would convert about 30 acres more than Alternative C. Cumulative Effects There are no conversions occurring in any stands associated with catastrophic sale authority, or under any CE. Cumulative effects would therefore be the same as direct and indirect effects regarding this indicator. Indicator Number and size of larger blocks created/expanded by conversions to jack pine. Affected Environment Historically, jack pine was found in large blocks on the Forests landscape. All forest types have become fragmented over time from management practices and infrastructure development. There is therefore a desire to create larger blocks of jack pine, when possible, to represent more historic conditions. For this indicator a block is defined as an aggregation of stands that are immediately adjacent. If they are divided by a forest road, they are considered immediately adjacent. If they are separated by a wider county, township or state road, they are not considered a part the same block. Blocks of 40 acres or more are considered large. Table 3.3-8: Large blocks of jack pine being created or enlarged by conversions. Alternative B Alternative C Acres of Block Acres converted to create larger block Acres of Block Acres converted to create larger block Block Block Block Block Total 200 Direct and Indirect Effects No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would neither create, nor expand, any large blocks of jack pine. Alternatives B and C Alternatives B and C would have the same results concerning the expansion or creation of large jack pine blocks. Block 3 would be expanded from 599 acres to 651 acres. Enlarging this block would be accomplished by converting three aspen stands, totaling 42 acres, to jack pine. These conversions would also tie another existing jack pine stand (13 years old) into the block. Block 4 would be created by converting two aspen stands. Block 5 would be created by converting a 59 acre aspen stand to jack pine, which is adjacent to an existing 9 acre, 75 year old jack pine stand. To create block 6, a 46 acre red pine stand would be converted to jack pine. 55 P a g e

56 Cumulative Effects Since there are no conversions occurring in stands being treated under the catastrophic sale authority or under any CE, these have no effects on the creation, or expansion of, large blocks of jack pine. Restore fire to the landscape aggregating stands to create larger burning units. Management Direction O-VG-11: Increase amount of a variety of prescribed burning practices to restore the ecological process of fire and provide habitat for threatened and endangered species and other wildlife that benefit from or require burned vegetation. D-ID-5: Fire is present on the landscape, restoring or maintaining desirable attributes, processes, and functions of natural communities. O-ID-2 Establish, maintain, or improve the condition of vegetation conditions using prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and other tools. Burning is being proposed both for the purpose of re-introducing fire to the landscape as a process, and for the purpose of hazardous fuel reduction. Because broadcast burning for the purpose of fuel reduction also serves as re-introducing fire to the landscape, all proposed broadcast burning will be evaluated with regard to vegetation. There are nine burn units in all, between the two action alternatives. These vary in size as shown in Table They also differ between the two alternatives. Burn block BD-1 is 212 acres in Alternative B, but is reduced to 87 acres in Alternative C. Block BD-2 occurs, and remains the same size, in both alternatives. Block BD-3 contains 134 acres that would only be burned in Alternative C. Likewise, burn blocks PB-1, PB-2, PB-3, PB-4 and PB-5 are all only burned in Alternative B (See Table 3.3-9). The forest types and age classes that would be affected by broadcast burning are shown for each alternative in Table Since younger trees have less ability to withstand fire, age may be more important than type in assessing fire effects. Concern: To create large burn blocks on the landscape, some young stands have been included which the FS has invested both time and money to establish. Burning these would destroy the regeneration and cause the need to invest once again to re-establish regeneration on these sites. Indicator: Number of large burning units and size. 56 P a g e

57 Direct and Indirect Effects Table 3.3-9: Prescribed broadcast burning by purpose and alternative. No Action Alternative Alternative B Alternative C Block Purpose Acres Acres BD-1 Re-introduce Fire BD-2 Re-introduce Fire BD-3 Re-introduce Fire Totals BD-4 Fuel Reduction PB-1 Fuel Reduction PB-2 Fuel Reduction PB-3 Fuel Reduction PB-4 Fuel Reduction PB-5 Fuel Reduction Totals Total 3, No Action Alternative No prescribed burning is proposed. Alternative B and C There would be eight large prescribed burns proposed in Alternative B, totaling over 3,450 acres There would be four burn units, totaling nearly 700 acres, in Alternative C. 57 P a g e

58 Table Age class distribution (expressed in treated acres) by forest type for all burn units combined. Nonstocked types are not included. Ages are prior to blowdown event. Alternative B Age Class (years) Total aspen black spruce white pine maple/basswood jack pine mixed hrwd red oak other pine/hrwd paper birch red pine Total Acres ,583 3,272 Alternative C Age Class (years) Total aspen black spruce white pine jack pine paper birch 7 7 red pine Total Acres The 0-20 year age class was little affected by the blowdown event. There were residual trees left following harvest on the sites that blew down, but the featured stand, the regeneration, was generally unaffected. In this age class the conifer forest types have been established by planting, followed by cultural activities. The aspen/hardwood types originate from natural regeneration following harvest. There may or may not have been additional planting on these hardwood sites and/or cultural activities. Burning is likely to reset stands in this age class. Where conifers types are desired following burning in these age classes, reforestation activities would be required, meaning repeated investments of time and money on these sites. The year age class is also very vulnerable to fire. Depending on fire intensity, stands in this age class could also be severely damaged or replaced. Trees in the older age classes (40+ years) are increasingly likely to be able to withstand burning. The most probable impact to these trees would be char to the stems, and scorch to the crowns. 58 P a g e

59 Secondary health effects, such as insect attack, can result, but this also depends on environmental factors for several years following burning. Regeneration in stands of all age classes is likely to be killed. Hardwoods have the ability to resprout or sucker from roots that survive fire. Conifer seedlings and saplings do not regenerate this way and would depend on planting or seeding to be re-established. There are over 270 acres in the 0-20 year age class in Alternative B that would be burned; only 26 acres in Alternative C. Alternative B also has nearly 350 acres proposed to be burned in the year age class; whereas C has 130 acres. More than 200 of these acres would be conifers in Alternative B; 150 acres for C. Mitigation Because of the investment made in establishing young conifer stands, a mitigation measure would be put in place to protect them (see Appendix B mitigation table). This measure would require that conifer stands up to 40 years old be protected from broadcast burning. Cumulative Effects No broadcast burning occurs under the CEs or the catastrophic sales. However, broadcast burning and under-burning activities have been planned under other decisions within the project area. There are 154 stands scheduled to be treated with broadcast burning or under-burning within the project area that are yet unaccomplished. These are planned for burning from the present time through fiscal year Stands were aggregated to make 46 burn blocks totaling over 3,100 acres. These burn blocks range in size from 1 acre to 373 acres, with a mean acreage of 68. There are 11 blocks greater than 100 acres in size. The three largest blocks are 374, 279, and 211 acres. 59 P a g e

60 Table : Age classes of forest types (expressed in planned acres) planned for broadcast burning or under-burning in FACTS database. Age Class (years) Total Acres Aspen Balsam fir Black ash / American elm / red maple Black spruce Bur oak 8 8 Eastern white pine 5 5 Hard maple / basswood Jack pine Northern white-cedar Paper birch Red pine ,270 1,910 Tamarack White spruce Non-stocked 463 Total Acres ,551 3,113 The forest type most frequently planned for burning in the project area is red pine, with over 1,900 acres scheduled. The next vegetation type most frequently planned is non-stocked. These non-stocked types are represented by shrub swamp (~175 acres), sedge meadows (~120 acres), deep marsh (~70 acres) and shallow marsh (~60cres). Non-forested upland areas total over 30 acres and are a mixture of upland grass, forb and shrub types. Aspen and jack pine are the third and fourth most frequently planned forest types for burning with close to 300 and 200 acres respectively. Minor acreages in other forest types are also included in burning units. The majority of the acres planned for burning in the project area are in age class 80+ years. However, there are cumulatively over 1,000 acres planned and proposed in Alternative B in the 0 40 years old age classes. In Alternative C there are nearly 600 cumulative acres planned and proposed in 0 40 age classes. Alternative C would therefore damage fewer acres of young forest than Alternative B. Overlap: There are 59 acres of Burn Block 2 (in Alts. B & C), and 102 acres of Burn Block 3 (in Alt. C) which also have planned broadcast burns under the Lydick EA, which are yet unaccomplished. 60 P a g e

61 Reduce the potential for bark beetle population increases within down and damaged trees Management Direction D-ID-1 Resource conditions minimize undesirable fire, insect, and disease outbreaks. When such events do occur, healthy ecosystems are resilient and able to recover. D-ID-3 Native insects and diseases are present and fulfilling their ecosystem function. Epidemics, when they occur, do not last longer than would be expected in a healthy ecosystem. O-ID-1 Increase the amount of forest restored to or maintained in a healthy condition, with reduced risk of, and damage from, fires, insects, and diseases. Affected Environment In natural forest situations pine bark beetles play a role in succession by selectively removing mature, senescent, stressed or damaged pine trees. Bark beetle infestations often begin with damaged and/or stressed trees (Douce, 1998). Slash created from March 1 to August 1 is ideal bark beetle habitat (DNR, 2000). Once populations build on damaged material beetles move to nearby standing live pines during the same year and can overwinter and build populations the next year (DNR, 2000). When conditions are favorable beetle populations can build up rapidly and cause extensive damage (Douce, 1998). Favorable conditions would include situations that created or maintained pine trees in a stressed condition. These could include storm damage, over-crowding, and drought, as examples. Pine bark beetles are primarily a pest of red and jack pines. Since the blowdown event occurred on July 2, 2012, and was followed by a dry summer and fall, material that is broken and separated from its roots is not likely to be bark beetle brood habitat in the spring of 2013 (J. Albers, personal communication, March 22, 2013). Bark beetle populations that built up on downed material last summer over-wintered in duff under the snow. In the spring these beetles would immerge and seek stressed material that is still connected to root systems ( live snags with broken crowns, trees that are tipped or completely blown over with roots still attached to the ground, etc.). Beetles breeding in this material would produce a second boom population that could go on to attack healthier trees. This is especially true if environmental factors, such as continued drought, create further stress (J. Albers, personal communication, March 22, 2013). Indicator Acres of damaged red and jack pine harvested. 61 P a g e

62 Harvest Type Table : Stand acres of red and jack pine harvests. Red Pine Acres Alternative B Jack Pine Acres Red Pine Acres Alternative C Jack Pine Acres Clearcut Selection Thinning Direct & Indirect Acres 1, Catastrophic Sales 3, , Categorical Exclusions 2, , Total Cumulative Acres 7,237 1,065 6, Direct and Indirect Effects Harvests are being conducted to improve the condition of both red and jack pine stands. The goals are to remove downed material and to recover, or improve, stand vigor. Thinnings, selection harvests and clearcuts are all being applied, depending on individual stand conditions. In some cases, stands have been so badly damaged there is no other option than to re-establish a new stand following a clearcut. Where there are still a significant number of trees that are undamaged, a selection harvest is usually prescribed, followed by regeneration treatments for the multiple benefits of improved stocking and increased structural and species diversity. In a few younger stands that have damage, but where the stand would also benefit from lowering stocking levels, thinnings have been prescribed (Table ). No Action No harvests are occurring in the No Action Alternative. Alternative B and C In Alternative B, there would be over 1,400 acres of red pine harvests and over 450 acres of jack pine harvests proposed. Proposed red pine harvests would total over 900 acres, while jack pine harvests would total more than 200 acres for C. Alternative B would potentially protect about 750 acres more acres from bark beetle build-up in red and jack pine than Alternative C. Cumulative Effects No Action In the No Action Alternative, over 6,400 acres of red and jack pine are cumulatively treated under catastrophic sales, and categorical exclusions. No acres would be treated under the Blowdown Restoration EA. 62 P a g e

63 Alternative B In this alternative about 8,300 acres of red and jack pine would be cumulatively treated under the Blowdown Restoration EA, catastrophic sales, and categorical exclusions. For Alternative C this number is less at 7, 550 acres. Indicator Acres of red pine and jack pine proposed for broadcast burning Concern: Prescribed fire can stress live standing trees. Stressed pine trees may provide brood habitat for bark beetles (Douce, 1998). The acres of red pine and jack pine stands where broadcast burning is being proposed therefore warrants review. The more acres burned, the greater the potential for creating brood habitat for pine bark beetles. Jack and red pines in the 0-20 age class may be killed outright by broadcast burning. Even if they are not killed, their small stem diameters would not contribute much to bark beetle brood habitat. Therefore, only stands 21+ years old are considered in the following analyses. Direct and Indirect Effects No Action Nothing is proposed for burning in the No Action Alternative. Alternative B and C There are almost 800 acres of red pine that would be burned between all the burn units (Table ), and around 130 acres of jack that would be burned. In Alternative C, there are over 400 acres of red pine and about 70 acres of jack that would be burned. Alternative C would stress fewer acres of red and jack pine from broadcast burning than Alternative B. Cumulative Effects No Action Alternative In age classes of 20+ years, there are a total of 1,270 acres of red pine planned to be broadcast burned or under-burned in projects with other decisions within the storm damaged area. These are planned but not yet accomplished. There are additionally 39 acres of jack pine planned in the project area. Alternative B and C Under Alternative B there would be a cumulative total of nearly 2,700 acres of red pine, and about 175 acres of jack pine planned for prescribed burning. Under Alternative C there are fewer acres than B--nearly 2,300 acres of red pine and more than 100 acres of jack pine planned for prescribed burning. Appropriateness of Even-aged Management and Optimality of Clearcutting As a result of the blowdown event that occurred on July 2, 2012 thousands of acres in the project area have already been reset from older age classes to 0-9 years. Since harvesting is being used 63 P a g e

64 as a tool to restore these stands and prepare them for regeneration of appropriate species, and because age classes have not been reset as a result of harvest activities, the requirement to restock within five years does not apply Even-aged management is appropriate and clearcutting is optimal given the species treated and Forest Plan direction. These methods are considered to be appropriate for these stands because they best meet the silvicultural requirements for regenerations and growth of primary and/or associate species. More detail is available in the vegetation report in the project file. 64 P a g e

65 3.4 Fuels Management Over 108,000 acres of National Forest were affected by the July 2012 wind event. Roughly 34,000 acres have a hazardous fuels resulting from down and broken trees Issues Within the project area, due to the high fuel loading and the potential for catastrophic wildfire, fire management s goal is to reduce the fuel loadings to provide for public safely, minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and restore the forest to desired conditions. In the Purpose and Need, the following statements were included: Reduce the potential for destructive fires that pose a risk to life and property adjacent to residential areas and along transportation corridors. Reduce fuels to facilitate the regeneration of stands and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Reduce the fuel loadings and fire hazards adjacent to and within the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. In response to scoping comments on the proposed action, the following issue was developed. Fuels reduction activities may result in undesirable damage to the standing trees and experiment plots in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. Indicators: Acres and geographic location of prescribed broadcast burning for fuels reduction The evaluation of broadcast burning provides indicators to the type of fire behavior that would result if a wildfire were to occur. Flame length, fire intensity, rate of spread, and spotting distance are resulting fire behavior characteristics that can indicate a wildfires potential for successful suppression or its resistance to control. Acres and Geographic location of mechanical piling and burning The effectiveness of mechanical piling and burning is determined by the area treated and the amount of acres in which fuel loads were reduced. Acres and Geographic location of mechanical fuel reduction Mechanical fuel reduction removes fuel from the site by manipulating the fuel load in the area and removing the excess tons per acre. The effectiveness of Mechanical fuel reduction is determined by the area treated and the amount of acres in which fuel loads were reduced. 65 P a g e

66 Total acres and percent of stands treated with > 20% storm damage This indicator would provide context with respect to how much of the hazardous fuels are being treated with this project and the amount remaining on the landscape Affected Environment Of the roughly 108,000 acres affected by the July storm, over 34,000 acres had 20% or more damage within stands. Blowdown and damaged trees created a hazardous fuels environment and increased the risk for catastrophic fire. A large portion of the affected area is within close proximity to residential/recreation areas and infrastructure such as roadways, power lines, and oil pipelines. This increased hazardous fuel load may increase the probability for catastrophic large scale fire and heighten the risk to property and personal safety. This high fuel loading relates to an increased risk of loss of resource values (forest growth, special scientific areas, recreation) in the event of a fire start due to increased fire intensity and potential fire behavior. Concentrations of the most severely damaged areas occur on the, east side of Pike Bay, in and adjacent to the Pike Bay Experimental Forest, and the east side of Lake Winnebigoshish (East Winnie). These areas are considered to be in the Wildland Urban Interface and have the greatest fuel hazards and risk concerns: Pike Bay-Cass Lake: West Pike Bay, East Pike Bay, South Pike Bay and South-South East Cass Lake has private property with structures, camp grounds, infrastructures such as electrical transmission lines, railroads and oil and natural gas pipelines, Hwy 2. The Pike Bay Experimental Forest (PBEF) is also included in this area. East Winnie: This area has private property with structures, recreation residences, a picnic area, resorts, a research study area (Tamarack Point) administered by Northern Research, and a network of forest roads. The risk of catastrophic wildfire in the wildland urban interface areas within the project area is high. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is defined as area within 1½ miles of residence, high value infrastructure, high use recreation areas, and within ½ mile of major transportation corridors. A large percentage of the most damaged stands (stands with damage greater than 60%) fall within these areas. The heaviest concentrations of hazardous fuels occur east of Pike Bay and in the northern portions of the PBEF. On the average there are 53 wildfires annually on the Chippewa National Forest. Within the Blowdown Project area there have been approximately 437 wildfires over the past 34 years. The majority of fire starts are human caused (Fuels report). Consequently, concerns for fire hazards and safety are elevated in the Wildland Urban Interface. 66 P a g e

67 Based on the stand damage classification, a crosswalk was developed that linked stands to fuel models that had the following general characteristics. This is a generalization for ease of understanding. Technical details are contained in the fuels report and are available upon request. Table Fuel loading descriptions and response of fire in high or extreme weather conditions. Fuel Loading Stand Tons Rate of Flame Fire General description Description/fuel model damage per acre spread (mph) length type High Load Blowdown/sb4 > 60% > 14 ¾ crown Fires too intense for direct attack, Moderate Load Blowdown serious control problems, & major fires 20-60% crown /sb3 runs are common. Desired Condition (Fuel Firefighters with hand tools could surface Model 9) direct attack and hold fire. Fuel loadings in tons per acre are conservative estimates used in the absence of actual measurements. In reality, estimates based on professional judgment indicate fuel loadings between 9 tons/acre in areas of sparse blowdown to 66 or more tons per acre in heavy blowdown areas. From a wind storm on the Superior National Forest in 1999, fuel loadings were measured that exceeded 110 tons per acres. With time, existing fuel loadings would increase as leaning and other damaged trees fall to the ground. Roughly 34,000 acres have moderate or high fuel loadings--close to a third of the project area. Table Acres of moderate and high fuel loadings. Fuel Loading Description/model Damage classification Estimated Acres High Load Blowdown/sb4 > 60% 25,332 Moderate Load Blowdown/sb % 9,000 Total 34, 332 The increase in fuel load associated with the 2012 wind event has dramatically increased the potential fire behavior on the landscape. Both rate of spread and flame heights have increased to a threshold that would make controlling a large scale wildfire very unlikely within high or extreme weather conditions. The desired condition is fuel model 9 (FM9), long needle pine/hardwood litter, which was representative of the fuel loadings and conditions on the majority of the Forest prior to the wind storm. The goal is to restore sites to fuel loadings of 3 to 4 tons per acre. Should fire occur, anticipated fire behavior under high or extreme weather conditions would be flame heights of four foot lengths or less and a rate of spread of.1-.2 miles per hour at the head of the fire. Lowered rates of spread would result in a smaller, more manageable fire once firefighters arrive on scene. The historical average response time on the Forest is around one hour. Low spread rates and flame lengths of four foot or less would present firefighters with a higher probability of bringing a wildfire under control and protecting the public safety. 67 P a g e

68 Management Direction Fire and fuels management analyses are driven by Forest Plan Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines. Desired conditions, objectives, or guidelines as stated in the Forest Plan are: Accumulations of natural and activity fuels are treated to enhance ecosystem resiliency and to maintain desired fuel levels (D-ID-4, p 2-18). The objective is to reduce hazardous fuels that pose a threat to public and employee safety in the event of catastrophic fire in the area due to increased fuel loads. Treat areas of highest fire risk (based on Fire Regime and Condition Class) to minimize the effects of unwanted wildland fire. (O-ID-3, p. 2-18) Reduce fuels and control vegetation in the understory of stands that have historically had naturally occurring low intensity surface fires. (O-ID-4, p.2-18) Provide a program where firefighter and public safety are the highest priority with every fire management activity. (O-ID-5, p.2-18) Areas that are identified as Wildland Urban Interface and have vegetation conditions that are in Condition Class 2 or 3 will be given highest priority for hazardous fuels treatment. (G-ID-4) Direct and Indirect Effects The effects disclosed here are summaries supported by a much more detailed and technical analysis that is part of the project file. Scope The scope of the analysis focuses on the fuels loads created in stands with more than 20% damage by the July 2012 windstorm and the effects of reducing the fuel load in the treated areas. Based on observations of a July1999 wind storm on the Superior National Forest, fuels would remain a viable threat for at least the next years. Therefore, the timeframe for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis is from July 2012 through the foreseeable future, and may significantly contribute to an increase in fire intensity for decades, lending to the increased threat of catastrophic wildfire. Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, the build-up of fuels caused by the blowdown would remain a catastrophic fire risk for the foreseeable future. Alternative A does not propose hazardous fuel treatment in the project area, therefore additional fuel loadings would likely increase due to dead, dying, natural pruning, and/or wind thrown trees of damaged stands. 68 P a g e

69 Desired future conditions, objectives for the landscape, and guidelines set forth in the Forest Plan and Chippewa Fire Management Plan would not be met. With no management activities, the cost and complexity of wildfire containment around the wildland urban interface would increase. With Alternative A, over 34,000 acres of forested land, about 32% of the project area could support uncharacteristically intense wildfire in the wildland urban interface or critical infrastructure. Alternative A supports a more continuous fuel profile of surface, ladder, and canopy fuel loads. This detracts from the ability of natural and human made barriers to serve as fuel breaks and provide safe escape routes for fire personnel, recreational users, and land owners in the event of a wildfire in the area. Alternative A would require reliance on existing road corridors, and natural lakes, rivers, and wetlands only, as defensible space to aid in protecting values at risk. The potential for large catastrophic wildfires would be high. Wildfires burning in areas with continuous heavy fuel loads can exhibit flame lengths that exceed17 feet. Heavy blowdown fuel loads coupled with fire receptive fine fuels can exhibit extreme behavior with flame lengths and fire intensities too intense for direct attack by ground resources. Analysis shows that a wildfire would likely convert to a crown fire in the blowdown areas. High intensity fires can result in spotting, torching, and crown fires. There is a 74% chance that fire brands would spot ahead of the main fire at a minimum of a quarter of a mile and ignite additional areas with blowdown. Under extreme weather conditions a wildfire is expected to travel more than a mile in an hour. The ability for existing fire suppression resources to control this type of fire would be low in probability and exceed the ability for the crews to fight and control it with hand tools. Based on average response time of about an hour and resources available, five hours after the initial start, resources would not have containment. These conditions ensure that wildfire suppression efforts would be more difficult, dangerous, and costly. In the event of a catastrophic large scale fire there would be an obvious threat to life, investments, and natural resources. Pike Bay-Cass Lake and East Winnie areas would continue to be at risk from wildfire and over time, the fuel load in the area would increase, further increasing the threat of a catastrophic wildfire. There has been some fuels reduction work accomplished within the affected area since the July 2012 wind event. Treatments were conducted in order to provide safe access for the public and firefighters. Treatments were done on a small scale and conducted mostly along roadways and trail systems of high public use. Due to the narrow width of these treatments they offer no real protection from large scale wildland fire. The fire behavior that is predicted far exceeds the capabilities of these treatments to control or minimize large scale catastrophic fire. Some areas that were harvested within the past few years may have reduced fuel loads. However, they are scattered across the project area and some are not placed on the landscape in conjunction with natural and human made barriers in order to create large areas of defensible space. It is 69 P a g e

70 unlikely that these small pockets of treated area would have any effect in minimizing the spread of a large scale fire. Effects Common to alternatives B and C Both alternatives were designed so that the location of planned treatments on the landscape is in accordance with the Forest Plan for protecting values at risk. Treatments reduce the hazardous fuel loadings to desired levels and to reduce the risk of severe fire behavior and its consequences. Table Treatments by alternative that contribute to fuels reduction. Treatment Alt B Alt C Harvest Broadcast burning (includes landscape burning) Piling and burning Mechanical fuels treatment 996 Road buffers Acres in road buffers Acres treated with > 20% damage 14, ,911 12,479 Percent treated with > 20% damage Percent untreated with > 20% damage Many of the forest stands in the Blowdown Restoration EA are proposed for more than one treatment. For instance, a stand may be proposed for harvest, mechanical pile and pile burning, or site preparation. Each of these activities reduces fuel loadings. In order to evaluate the actual acres of proposed treatments, all proposed treatments were overlaid geographically to eliminate duplication and inflation of actual acres treated. This process allows for the analysis to be conducted in a manner that evaluates potential hazardous fuels on a landscape level. The treatments of harvest, broadcast burns, mechanical fuels removal treatments, mechanical piling and burnings, and road buffers reduce hazardous fuels. The fuels treatments decrease ladder fuels, reduce fuel loadings (tons per acres), and break up horizontal continuity of fuels. This affects fire behavior by reducing the rate of spread, flame heights and potential for spotting and starting new fires. Additionally, when fuel treatments occur in wildland urban interface, the fire hazard is substantially reduced in high use areas. Pike Bay-Cass Lake and East Winnie areas have the highest priority for hazardous fuels treatment. Treatments in the East Winnie are generally the same in both alternatives. The amount and types of treatments vary by alternative for the Pike Bay-Cass Lake area. Description and effects associated with Alternative B and C treatments Harvest Harvest of trees creates more open stands with fewer trees. The space between crowns is less likely to support the spread of fire through the crowns or tree tops. Harvest also reduces ladder fuels and redistributes fuels on the ground so they break down more quickly. Generally, fuel conditions would be more representative of desired conditions for fuel model P a g e

71 Broadcast Burning There are several areas identified for broadcast burning. Units PB1- through PB-5 and BD-4 have large concentrations of fuel loadings (stands have > 60% damage) and thus require fuels treatments due the threat of catastrophic fire. To ensure that desired conditions (3-4 tons per acre) are obtained and to limit undesired fire effects, prescribed burns are conducted under circumstances that produce low to moderate fire behavior. This low to moderate fire behavior eliminates fuels at a reduced rate as compared to fire behavior that occurs under high and extreme weather conditions. Each re-occurring treatment would further reduce the fuel load until desired conditions are met. This would eventually result in a substantial cumulative reduction in wildfire and increased public safety. Prescribed fire lowers hazardous fuel loads while promoting the natural ecological processes of native vegetation by contributing to biodiversity, species interactions, nutrient cycling, and vegetative succession on a landscape scale. Piling and Burning This activity includes mechanical piling and hand piling. Piled concentrations of excess fuels are gathered into collection points and disposed of by burning the piles under predetermined weather conditions thus reducing the fuel loading on site. This allows for managed reduction of fuel loads. In visually sensitive areas and where smaller sized fuels occur, hand piling may be done. Potential areas are around Pike Bay, Norway Beach campground, and along some roads. Treatments unique to each alternative Alternative B Broadcast burning east of Pike Bay This treatment consists of applying fire to stands in burn units (PB-1 through PB-5) east of Pike Bay including the Pike Bay Experimental Forest. One of the areas of the highest fuel loading and concentration of hazardous fuel is the East Pike Bay/Pike Bay Experimental Forest. Goals are to apply low to moderate intensity ground fire to reduce the hazardous fuel load adjacent to the East Pike Bay area. Accomplishing this objective and reaching the desired condition may require multiple entries of low to moderate intensity fire (flame lengths of 2-3 ). This would be accomplished in the early spring or autumn months over a several day period when fuel moistures are typically higher and recreational activities are at a minimum. Public access would be limited. Smoke may linger in the area, mostly during the morning hours, but then dissipate with westerly wind flow. Multiple treatments may be required to reach the objectives of the burn over a 10 year treatment period. This would be expected to reduce the currant fuel load as follows: 1000 hr. fuels by 50-70%, 100 hr. fuels by 60-80%, 10 hr. fuels by 65-85%, and 1hr. 71 P a g e

72 fuels by 80-95%. These outcomes would be quantified after the final treatment as this would be a cumulative affect over the treatment period. A roadside buffer would be required as a control line for preplanned ignition operations. This buffer is designed to assist fire personnel implementing a controlled low-moderate intensity prescribed fire. Under these conditions a buffer of 120 ft. would allow the opportunity for fire personnel to observe and hold a low-moderate intensity ground fire. The 120 ft. buffer would need to be cleared of all dead and down material in excess of 1 as well as live brush types, ladder fuels, and snags. There are 2328 acres proposed for prescribed broadcast burning with no other treatments proposed within the same stands. Of these, 1978 acres are within the Experimental Forest. These proposed areas of treatment are critical to be treated because of their location in the Wildland Urban Interface and in providing for firefighter and public safety. Potential negative effects associated with prescribed broadcast burning may be mitigated by conducting prescribed fire activities under conditions that minimize the potential for undesirable fire behavior. Alternative C Road Buffers Buffers along some roads east of Pike Bay, lower Ten Section area, and in the Pike Bay Experimental Forest were designed to reduce fuel concentrations within or adjacent to high use areas with high fire risk. Two widths were considered: 240 ft. and 1320 ft. Within the road buffers, material to be removed consists of: 1. All down trees from the storm would be removed from the stands. This may be accomplished with whole tree skidding or slash piling with removal. 2. Very limited green trees would be removed. Remove green trees only when needed to facilitate the operation (building of temp roads, skid trails, landings, safety trees) foot strip along each side of the road would meet the above mentioned requirements with the addition of all material larger than 1 inch in diameter would be removed along with live brush and ladder fuels. Both road buffer widths were evaluated with respect to effectiveness in containing, limiting, or stopping the spread of large scale catastrophic fire. The acres treated by the buffers have no other proposed treatment options associated with the same acres. Buffers would reduce fuels loadings to desired levels of 3-4 tons per acre. This would lower fire behavior, spread rates and intensity of wildfire within the buffer. Fire behavior in the adjoining untreated areas may still greatly affect the ability for fire management resources to contain large scale fire. Spotting distances from untreated areas may exceed the width of the buffer and render it ineffective. Average time response to wildland fire may also render this treatment ineffective as fire may 72 P a g e

73 spread out of the treated area before suppression resources arrive. As fire transitions from treated areas to untreated areas fire behavior would increase and may pose threats to life and safety. Regardless of the buffer size, continued maintenance would be required. Areas of hazardous fuel loads would continue to be a viable threat for least 10 to 15 years. Road buffers would need to be maintained for several years to come in order for them to achieve the desired management goals. 240 foot buffer The 240 foot buffer would be constructed with the specifications of 120 feet off either side of the proposed road systems and treats 504 acres. This option offers the fewest treated acres and provides for the narrowest buffer. The 240 ft. buffer option leaves several large untreated areas of hazardous fuels adjacent to high public use areas in the East Pike Bay area foot buffer The 1320 foot buffer would be constructed with the specifications of 660 feet off either side of the proposed road systems and treats 2390 acres. The 1320 ft. equates to ¼ mile. This option offers the most treated acres in alternative C and provides for the widest buffer. The 1320 ft. buffer option leaves several isolated moderately sized areas and one large area of untreated hazardous fuels adjacent to high public use areas in the East Pike Bay area. Fire behavior modeling has shown that under high and extreme weather conditions a wildfire would travel from ½ mile to more than a mile in one hour. The Forest s average response time to a reported wildfire is near one hour. Based on predicted fire behavior, if an ignition were to occur, a wildfire could burn through the width of the proposed buffers and into untreated hazardous fuel prior to firefighters arriving on scene. Flame lengths predicted in the buffer zones are 4 ft. or less and are generally able to be controlled by ground resources as compared to flame lengths predicted in the untreated areas which range from 10 to 18 ft. Spotting distances from wildfire associated with high and extreme weather conditions vary from.2 to.4 miles. Fire under high or extreme weather conditions may spot across the buffer area into receptive fuels and spread into untreated hazardous blowdown areas. Once fire is established in untreated fuels, fire behavior magnifies and produces flame lengths and rates of spread that may not be readily controlled by ground resources. This would continue to pose a threat to firefighter and public safety. Comparison of buffers The 1320 foot buffer is the better option in alternative C. When compared to the 240 foot buffer, the 1320 foot buffer treats over 4 time the hazardous fuels acres, provides firefighters with a wider area of desired condition fuels in which to control wildfires, and creates a wider buffer that wildfire would have to spot across from untreated fuel on one side to untreated fuel on the other. Both options leave areas of untreated fuel adjacent to high public use and wildland urban interface areas. However, the areas that remain untreated under the 1320 ft. buffer are more isolated and much smaller in size as compared to the 240 ft. buffer. The areas that remain untreated under the 240 ft. buffer would continue to threaten firefighter and public safety. Due 73 P a g e

74 to some areas remaining untreated under both proposed buffers there would be some degree of threat to recreation residence, wildland urban interface, high public use areas, and public evacuation routes. The hazardous conditions are mitigated more under the 1320 ft. buffer and as a result make this the better option. The 240 ft. buffer does the least to: Provide a program where firefighter and public safety are the highest priority with every fire management activity (O-ID-5 p. 2-18). Mechanical Removal of Fuels The mechanical fuels reduction activity is included in Alternative C. This activity is proposed in the wildland urban interface and includes the north portion of the Pike Bay Experimental Forest and extends north of Hwy 2 through the Norway Beach area. Some stands in Ten Section are included. Entire stands were included on the alternative map even when only portions of the stand would receive treatment. Only the damaged acres would receive the mechanical fuels reduction treatment. Undamaged portions of stands would not be treated. Mechanical fuels treatment is a general description of how fuels would be treated. Machinery would be used to treat damaged vegetation to reduce the amount of fuels present. Vegetation would be removed through a timber sale with a biomass utilization requirement. Material smaller than 4 in diameter, or not suitable for other commercial products, would be utilized for biomass and removed from the site. Material to be removed consists of: All down trees as a result of the storm would be removed from the stands. Any trees that are tipped more than 45 degrees from vertical would be removed. Biomass associated with the removed trees would be taken off site (full tree utilization). Very limited green trees would be removed--only when needed to facilitate the operation (skid trails, landings, and safety trees). Material to be retained consists of: All standing dead trees (snags) would be left on site. All green or damaged trees that are standing and leaning less than 45 degrees from vertical would be left on site. Enough untreated acres and biomass material would be left onsite to meet Voluntary Site- Level Forest Management Guidelines (MFRC (Gold Book) 2005) and Forest Plan direction. Alternative C proposes mechanical fuels treatments on 996 acres that have no other proposed treatments associated with those acres. 74 P a g e

75 Comparison and Summary of alternatives Alternative B Under Alternative B, 14,120 acres of hazardous fuels have been identified and are proposed for treatment on the landscape. These treatments include commercial harvest, prescribed broadcast burning, and mechanical piling and burning. About 41% of the roughly 34,000 acres would be treated leaving 59% of the affected area (20,212 acres) remaining in a hazardous state. Alternative B treats large areas of continuous hazardous fuels while also targeting areas that would be at risk from large scale catastrophic fire. The types of treatments, the number of acres treated, and the location of these treatments serve to assist in reducing the probability of a large scale catastrophic wildfire. Proposed areas of treatment are located in and adjacent to Wildand Urban Interface areas, areas of high public use and recreation, major transportation corridors, recreational and permanent residence, infrastructure and public evacuation routes in order to provide for a greater possibility of public and firefighter safety. Proposed treatments in Alternative B utilize existing road corridors, natural lakes, rivers, and wetlands magnifying these features abilities to provide defensible space and mitigate large scale wildfire and aid in protecting values at risk. The treatment options in Alternative B all accomplish the desired objective of returning the hazardous fuel treatment areas to conditions representative of fuel model 9 with a fuel load of 3-4 tons per acre. Many stands in this alternative have been selected for more than one treatment option, this provides for a broad spectrum of treatment possibilities that would ensure for the lowest negative impacts. Alternative B treats areas that Alternative C does not; these areas are South of Pike Bay and East of Cass Lake. These areas are of a high fuel load and are adjacent to campgrounds, public evacuation routes, and transportations corridors. The analysis for Alternative B shows that the proposed treatments in the blowdown areas would reduce the fuel loading and alter fire behavior to a more manageable level in the event that a wildfire was to occur. Areas that remain untreated are remote and fractured, being broken up by treated areas that are of large scale and able to restrict high intensity fire to these isolated areas. Areas left untreated are located away from high use public areas and would pose limited threat potential to life, safety, property, and infrastructure. Some areas that were harvested within the past few years may have reduced fuel loads, in conjunction with the proposed fuel treatments in Alternative B. These previously harvested areas may contribute to the overall effectiveness of reducing the risk of large scale catastrophic wildfire. Although they are scattered across the project area, the proposed Alternative B treatments tie these previously harvested areas together with natural and human made barriers in order to create large areas of continuous fuels treatments. Alternative C For Alternative C, treatments include reduced amounts of harvest, prescribed broadcast burning, and mechanical piling and burning compared to Alternative B. This alternative differs from 75 P a g e

76 Alternative B in that it includes almost 1000 acres of mechanical fuels treatment and evaluates the effectiveness of two road buffer widths. With the 240 ft. buffer, 10,911 acres of hazardous fuels have been identified and are proposed for treatment; 31% of the 34,000 acres would be treated leaving 69% of the affected area (23,411 acres) remaining in a hazardous state. With the 1320 ft. buffer, 12,479 acres of hazardous fuels have been identified and are proposed for treatment; 36% of the 34,000 acres would be treated leaving 64% of the affected area (21,843 acres) remaining in a hazardous state. Alternative C treats fewer acres than B. Fewer acres are treated to the east of Cass Lake and south of Pike Bay. These areas are located adjacent to campgrounds, public evacuation routes, and transportation corridors. Treatments in Alternative C are successful in lowering the hazardous fuel loads to desired levels in the treated areas and reducing the fire behavior. Areas that are proposed for prescribed broadcast burning, piling and burning and mechanical fuels treatments all are successful in achieving desired fuel loadings. Alternative C is the least effective treating fuel on a continuous landscape scale. The road buffer treatments do not provide for the same level of treatment as compared to the mechanical fuels treatments in Alternative B. The buffer treatments create a fractured treatment area that contains areas of large untreated areas that may still present a hazard to public and firefighter safety. Of the two buffer treatment options the 1320 ft. buffer is much more effective in treating the hazardous fuels on the landscape scale that the 240 ft. buffer. The majority of stands treated under Alternative C have only one treatment option associated with them, this limits the treatment capabilities when compared to Alternative B. In summary, the combination of proposed treatments in Alternative B are more effective than the treatments proposed in Alternative C. Alternative B treats more acres and creates a more continuous fuel treatment pattern on the landscape than Alternative C. Alternative C treats fewer acres, creates a more fractured fuels treatment pattern, and not all the proposed treatments are as effective in altering fire behavior (fuels report) Cumulative Effects In addition to the treatment activities proposed in this project to reduce fuels, there have been salvage CEs and modified timber sale contracts (refer to Chapter 1, Section1.3) that have been completed or are close to being completed. There has been some work to reduce fuels loads and safety risks from the blowdown along travel corridors and infrastructure. These treatments have been relatively small in nature and alone do very little to limit the potential for large scale catastrophic fire. In conjunction with the proposed 76 P a g e

77 actions outlined in this analysis, these treatments would assist in magnifying the overall functionality of any further treatment options. There has been some fuels reduction in the East Pike Bay recreation area, Mi-gi-zi trail, some degree of road side clearing, and commercial timber salvage sales. These areas are relatively small in scale, are fragmented across the landscape, and do little to alter the fuel load that would contribute to large scale fire under high or extreme weather conditions. By themselves there is little effect on slowing the spread of large scale wildland fire. The objectives of these treatments were to remove hazard trees and provide safe conditions in high public use areas. Under Alternative B and C these areas of treatment where evaluated and considered in the evaluation process and contribute to the overall fuels treatments. Small areas of private, county, or state lands are within the storm damage area on the Chippewa National Forest. However these areas are de minimis in nature and have minimal effect on the proposed treatment areas associated with this analysis. Much of the areas of other ownership are isolated form the lands that were affected and under administration by the Chippewa National Forest. Much of the blowdown on lands administered by the Minnesota DNR was under contract for salvage harvest by August Areas that have not yet been harvested are expected to be completed in the next few months. Lands administered by Cass County received very little damage resulting from the storm. Most of their jack pine lands had recently been harvested resulting in a younger age class that was more storm resistant. Trees along some road corridors and GIA snowmobile trails received damage. These have been cleared and are open. Treatments on other ownerships to reduce blowdown fuel loadings that are adjacent to CNF blowdown project sites would be a positive effect. The reduction of fuels would reduce the effects of wildfire and lower the potential for catastrophic wildfires. The proposed treatments in Alternative B and C treat between 41% and 31% of the 34,332 acres that are evaluated as being in moderate to high fuel loadings. There would still remain a large area of untreated hazardous fuels on the landscape (over 20,000 acres) and further fuels reduction plans may be recommended in the future. A large portion of the untreated area lies in more remote area of the Forest or is of lower public use. There would continue to be an overinflated fuel load associated with these untreated areas for years to come. Potential large scale fire is still probable within these untreated areas, however the proposed treatments in Alternative B and C attempt to isolate untreated areas and provide a treated layer of protection to provide for public and firefighter safety. 77 P a g e

78 3.5 Landscape Burning Issues Landscape burning was not part of the key issues identified during scoping. However, the purpose and need for the project stated the following: Restore fire to the landscape aggregating stands to create larger burning blocks. Indicator: Acres of landscape burning With the extensive nature of the storm damage, it appeared that there might be opportunities to restore the ecological process of fire to larger areas on the landscape. A couple of commenters asked the Forest during scoping to look for additional opportunities to do so, particularly in the Lydick area where fire dependent communities, especially jack pine, predominate Affected Environment The primary area for low to moderate intensity fires is in the Lydick area north of Hwy 2 which was historically dominated by jack pine. The LEs here are predominantly the Dry Mesic pine/oak or Dry Pine, both of which historically experienced fires. Several areas were identified: BD-1, BD-2, and BD-3. Table Landscape burning units by alternative. Burning unit LE Alt B acres Alt C acres BD-1 Dry Mesic pine/oak BD-2 Dry pine BD-3 Dry Mesic pine/oak Total acres Burn units BD-1 through 3 are in the Dry Mesic pine/oak or Dry Pine LE. According to Native Plant Communities of Minnesota (2003), fires were common with mild surface fires occurring about every 30 years and catastrophic fires about every 110 years. A brief description of fire disturbance process for each LE is provided. Dry-Mesic Pine/Oak Surface fires appear to be the most common process effecting species compositions and structure. These fires removed the understory species, setting mature and older vegetation growth stages back one growth stage. There was typically a mixture of 2-3 pine species with numerous deciduous species. A hardwood tree species age class was created, dominated by sprouting, creating a mixed aged stand. Pine species would regenerate in patches where surface fire burned hotter. Beaked hazel is the dominant shrub. (FEIS, Volume II, Appendix G, p. G-9). 78 P a g e

79 Dry Pine Surface fires provided opportunities for periodic bursts of jack pine and red pine regeneration. These fires also reduced fuels before they reached a point where highintensity fires resulted in significant main canopy tree mortality. Dense stands of jack pine dominated this LE. Surface fires provided a seedbed for red and white pine regeneration. Under natural conditions, fire probably kept this ecosystem from succeeding to spruce-fir. Beaked hazed is the dominant shrub and can achieve high coverage that prevents tree regeneration. Bracken fern is almost always present, A good potential for blueberries exists. (FEIS, Volume II, Appendix G, p. G-5). The IDT reviewed the project area for additional areas adjacent to damaged stands that could be aggregated to create larger units for burning. Because of past harvest that created stands 40 acres or less in size, and costly investments made to regenerate and establish stands, opportunities were limited. Several other units are proposed for burning (BD-4, PB-1 through PB-5) but the primary objective is for hazardous fuels reduction. These units are discussed in the Fuels section. Boundaries of the burn units as mapped reflect stand boundaries. These need to be modified to tie into natural features or roads for control during burning. The burning units generally include some younger regenerated stands that would be excluded during burning. The vegetation section discusses this in more detail. Management Direction The Forest Plan identifies several desired conditions with regard to prescribed fire: Fire is present on the landscape, restoring or maintaining desirable attributes, processes, and functions of natural communities. (D-ID-5, p. 2-18) Fire naturally promotes diversity and change in the vegetation through disturbance. to restore the ecological process of fire and provide habitat for threatened and endangered species and other wildlife that benefit from or require burned vegetation. (O-VG-11, p. 2-23). Vegetation constantly changes through management activities and through naturally occurring disturbances such as wind, fire, flooding, insects, disease, and vegetation succession. These fluctuations are within an ecologically and socially acceptable range of variability. (D-VG-5, p. 2-21) This process is to be done on landscape scale; fire has the ability to fill this role. The ecological processes of native vegetation communities are maintained, emulated, or restored at multiple landscape scales to provide representation of their natural range of distribution and variation within context of multiple-use goals and ecosystem sustainability. These include: processes such as disturbance from fire, wind, flooding, insects and disease; biological community and species interactions; nutrient cycling; and vegetation succession. (D-VG-8 p.2-22) 79 P a g e

80 3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Effects Scope of the Analysis Spatial Framework Effects are tied to the acres to which fired is applied, consequently the indicator for analysis is acres. It assumes that there is a beneficial response from the plant community tied to fire; that plants that adapted to fire regime would respond, and that the response of mechanical treatments would be somewhat different. Timeframe Duration of effects would be at least 5 years perhaps longer depending on specific plant species. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that any vegetative responses and benefits would occur within 5 years of treatment and last at least 5 years although the benefits could potentially last for a decade or more. Alternative A Landscape burning would not occur. Past harvesting and blowdown opened the stands to some degree which would result in increased response by some plants requiring more sunlight. Species richness would not change perceptively from the current condition in the next five years. Alternatives B and C Both alternatives apply fire to roughly the same acreage although the configuration of the units is different in the alternatives. In alternative C, BD-1 was reduced in size to eliminate a portion of the stand it would be difficult to burn through. A portion of BD-3 that was in the original proposed action, was dropped in Alternative B, and added to Alternative C. The expectation is that fire would stimulate a response of native plant communities, increase species richness and abundance, and potentially increase blueberry where it occurs. Timing of burning is important to obtain the desired blueberry response and limit the increase of hazel density on the site. The presence of blueberry was noted in BD-2. Blueberry response to fire is expected to be an increased number of stems and production. Plants pruned by fire, exhibited increases in stem numbers over unpruned controls (Tirmenstein, D. 1990). Hazel is present and is recognized as a dominant shrub in all the stands. Hazel response to fire is minimized by burning after bud break and during the active growing season. To mimic natural fire, these would be low to moderate intensity ground fires applied after harvest is completed. The goal is to meet the burn objectives in the first burn; however the effectiveness of the burn would be evaluated and a determination made about a possible second burn. Follow up burns would need to be conducted within 3 years after harvest in order to meet regeneration timeline requirements. Burning of units with the primary objective of removing fuels (PB-1 through PB-5, and BD-4) would also have some ecological benefits. Alternative B and C include BD-4, a 350 acre burning unit, which is on the Dry Pine LE. Burning would be a one-time application or short 80 P a g e

81 term multiple-entry (1-3 years) because the stands are planned for regeneration in the next 5 years. Alternative B also included another 2759 acres of burning within and adjacent to the Pike Bay Experimental Forest (PB-1 through PB-5). The western and northern portions of this area are in the Dry Mesic Pine or Dry Mesic Pine/Oak LEs. The eastern portion is in the Mesic Northern Hardwood LE where fire was not a primary disturbance factor Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects occur when there is an overlap in time and space. The effects of multiple low intensity burns were discussed in the direct effects. There have not been any past burns or planned future burns in the units proposed. 81 P a g e

82 3.6 Tribal Interests and Traditional Resources Generally the Forest as a whole is important to members of LLBO. Sites and larger areas that support specific vegetation, wildlife, and forest settings are important for a number of reasons including: cultural, spiritual, gathering, and historical meanings associated with the area Issues Recognizing the importance of tribal interests and traditional resources, the following purpose and need statement (Section 1.4) was included for this project. Manage treatments in areas of interest to maintain or enhance traditional Tribal and community uses. From comments received during scoping, a key issue (Section 1.9) was identified that drove the development of Alternative C. Proposed treatments may potentially affect traditional resource gathering opportunities. Key tribal use areas are Ten Section, Lydick, Cuba Hill, and the Winnie Dam area. Indicators: Acres of change in treatments from Proposed Action (Alternative B) to Alternative C in the project area and in Ten Section o Acres of harvest o Acres of mechanical treatments mechanical site preparation, mechanical piling of fuels, mechanical fuels reduction, road buffers (1320 ) o Acres of prescribed fire (broadcast burning) o Acres of storm damaged stands not treated (for cumulative effects) Affected Environment This project s area lies within the boundaries of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) Reservation. Much of the storm damage area overlaps with areas of high tribal interest around Pike Bay, the Lydick area north of Hwy 2 and east of Cass Lake, Lake Winnibigoshish, Cuba Hill which is between Pike Bay and Sucker Lakes, and the Ten Section area. The Leech Lake Band regards the Ten Section area as a critically important location. It has an important history for the tribe and was protected from timber cutting and settlement during the logging era in the early 1900s. Ten Section is also designated as a Unique Biological area on the Forest. The Forest has a role in maintaining ecosystem health so as to have the overall effect of allowing for continued resource use through Ojibwe hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. Leech Lake Band members rely upon a wide array of plant and animal resources. Many places on the 82 P a g e

83 landscape are visited annually to collect food, medicines, and other resources. Based on information in the traditional resources database, the project areas most common uses are bough cutting, birch bark gathering, hunting, berry picking, and gathering pine cones and firewood. The traditions of gathering these and other natural resources are economically and spiritually important. The Forest needs to assure the availability of resources to support the continued exercise of treaty right and cultural practices. There are no road closures or decommissioning decisions to be made with this project. Consequently, access routes, other than possibly building some short segments of temporary road that would be decommissioned after use, would not change with this project. Management Direction Law, Policy, FP Direction Tribal interests and uses on the Forest are protected through various statutes. The federal trust doctrine requires that federal agencies manage their lands with full consideration of tribal rights and interests. The Forest Plan also contains several items that deal indirectly or directly with gathering and traditional uses. Lands within the Forest serve to help sustain American Indians way of life, cultural integrity, social cohesion, and economic well-being. (FP, D-TR-1,p. 2-35) Forest management activities would be conducted in a manner to minimize impacts to the ability of Tribal members to hunt, fish, and gather plants and animals on Forest Service administered lands. (FP, S-TR-3, p. 2-36) The Forest Plan also provides specific management direction for the Ten Section Area, a Unique Biological Area. Management practices that alter important values are not appropriate unless necessary for public health and safety. (FP, D-UB-2, p. 3-26) manage to maintain, restore, or enhance old-growth forest characteristics as were generally present when the area was reserved from sale or settlement in (FP, D- UB-9. p. 3-27) Proposed Action modification using tribal input The Forest met with LLBO Division of Resource Management (DRM) on numerous occasions since the storm. Early meetings consisted of updates on storm damage, Forest priorities to deal with safety and progress towards that end which included salvage of concentrations of blowdown. Meeting notes are included in the project file. Since the inception of this project, meetings and site visits to discuss various aspects have occurred. Members of the Interdisciplinary Team met with DRM staff on October 31, 2012 prior 83 P a g e

84 to scoping. As a result of input received at that meeting and a follow-up field trip, the Forest dropped and changed some activities within the Ten Section area specific to BD-3. BD-3 is a landscape burning unit within and adjacent to the Ten Section Area. Early input from DRM was that they wanted to see more jack pine communities/ecosystems on the landscape with a natural (variable density and spacing) rather than a plantation look. To achieve this, the original plan was to harvest the mature red pine in this unit, apply a low intensity prescribed fire, and regenerate the area to jack pine. Because of potential shoot blight in the red pine overstory which can kill red or jack pine in the understory, the overstory harvest was planned to prepare for conversion to jack pine. DRM preferred that the red pine overstory be retained. Consequently, the harvest treatment was changed from clearcut to selection, the prescribed fire treatment was dropped, and planting of white pine which is not susceptible to the shoot blight was planned instead. Red pine and jack pine seedlings would be planted in hopes that some would survive and provide for some species diversity. This change is reflected in modified Alternative B. Scoping Input In addition to office meetings, field trips on November 15, 16, and 20 th with Forest staff and the DRM were designed to discuss treatments in high tribal use areas that included Ten Section area, Cuba Hill area between Pike Bay and Sucker Lakes, and the Lydick area north of Hwy 2. DRM also submitted written comments on the proposed action on December 14, Included in their letter was a list of about 225 stands each with a recommendation based on field visits by their personnel. Within the Ten Section area, DRM requested that the Forest not use heavy handed treatments; leave some untreated areas, retain red pine and not lose sites to aspen, retain structure in the form of snags and large down material because it creates diversity and provides microsites for mushrooms, etc.; minimize ground disturbance from harvest and site preparation activities to reduce impacts to traditional plants (more ground disturbance disrupts more plants and takes longer for plants to recolonize a site). Overall, DRM is interested in a different look with much more variability and diversity. In the Cuba Hill area between Pike Bay and the Sucker Lakes chain, DRM requested retention of a large block of down and damaged stands to allow for natural processes and wildlife species such as snowshoe hare. Since there is too much aspen on the landscape, they identified an opportunity to allow some stands to convert naturally to hardwoods. In addition, DRM noted concern about creating another heavily cutover area similar to that which exits north of Hwy 2. In the Lydick area, since much of the area consists of younger age classes; DRM requested retention of isolated mature or older stands for wildlife and other resource values. Here also applying fire in stands with blueberry plants; increasing the acres of jack pine communities on sites best suited for jack pine, and intensive site preparation treatments were identified as concerns. DRM also specified the following for the project area: salvage only the down and damaged trees; retain and protect shrubs and herbaceous species during harvest and post-harvest activities; plant mixed conifers at spacing/densities that result in more open stands better suited for 84 P a g e

85 gathering; increase blueberry in stands where blueberry exists by applying prescribed fire; precommercial thin dense, young red pine stands to create more open sites for gathering; and create brush piles. The Forest also met with several of the Local Indian councils (LICs). The Project objectives, activities, and input provided by DRM were presented to the following LICs: Oak Point (December 2012), Winnie Dam and Cass Lake (February 2013), Inger, Deer River (March 2013), Ball Club (April 2013). Interest was expressed in the availability of berries, firewood, and employment. Lots of opportunities for firewood exist given the extensive nature of the blowdown. The Forest has ongoing discussions with regard to employment of tribal members but it is not analyzed here Direct and Indirect Effects Scope of Analysis Spatial Framework Effects occur in the Blowdown Restoration Project area (See appendix A for maps) where treatments are located with focus on the Ten Section Area. Although the tribe identified several areas of interest, the Ten Section area is used for analysis because of its importance to the Tribe and because it has a defined boundary. Harvest acres, mechanical treatments, and prescribed fire (broadcast burning) are compared among alternatives for the project area and the Ten Section area. Differences in acres between action alternatives are indicative of how the Forest used input provided by DRM in developing Alternative C. Acres harvested by harvest treatment is used as an indicator to reflect acres modified or dropped for Alternative C, primarily but not entirely, in response to DRM comments. In addition to DRM s comments, some changes also occurred as a result of FS field verification. To further respond to the concern about minimizing ground disturbance, acres treated using mechanical piling and burning, mechanical fuels reduction, and mechanical site preparation are compared and discussed. Prescribed fire (broadcast burning) is included because burning units in the PBEF have boundaries in the Ten Section area. There is interest in burning because it is a natural process that generally has a beneficial response from shrub and plant communities, especially blueberry. The effects of burning are discussed in the Fuels and Landscape Fire sections. Storm damaged acres that are not being harvested are included with cumulative effects to provide context. 85 P a g e

86 Some of the discussion is qualitative in that it addresses how the input received is addressed in each action alternative. The most intensive or impactive treatments are covered in the analysis recognizing that less intensive treatments or fewer acres may be implemented after field review. Timeframe Tribal resources have a long timeframe and traditional use areas shift overtime; however, this analysis considers a 5 year timeframe and looks at minimizing, mitigating, or avoiding impacts within this window. The spatial framework and timeframes are the same for direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Comments provided by DRM and how the FS used this information As a result of meetings, field trips and correspondence with DRM, a number of concerns were raised. Some of these concerns are presented below and are followed by the analysis of effects. Table Comments provided by DRM and FS response to those comments. DRM comment FS response List of stand recommendations Each stand was reviewed by the IDT. A number of stands were dropped; some of the treatments were modified, others remained the same. A stand by stand listing in included in the project file. Concerns raised about treatments in Ten Section were addressed by dropping harvest and reducing mechanical treatments in stands for Alternative C. Salvage removing only the down and In many instances, salvage only treatments would not be economical because damaged trees there would be little or no market value by the time stands are harvested. For many stands, the damage level and extent of damage suggests that treatment of the entire stand would be appropriate. Upon review, treatment was sometimes changed from clearcut to salvage in alternative C. Other stands were not Increase within stand diversity by planting white pine or white spruce to Keep isolated mature and older stands in the Lydick area. Maintain a large block of untreated stands between Pike Bay and Sucker Lakes. Re-establish jack pine communities/ecosystems. Increase number of jack pine stands in the Lydick area. included in Alternative C. Diversity planting is prescribed within riparian or recreational areas to meet specific objectives. In general, because of the anticipated shortage of seedlings to plant and limited funding for tending, diversity planting was not included in proposed treatments. Many, if not all, of these stands are not included in Alternative C. Modified Alternative B has an untreated block of damaged stands east of the Pike Bay Experimental Forest between roads 2133 and 2135 (Sec 4, T144N R 30W). This area was enlarged by dropping a cluster of stands to the north in Section 34 (T145 R30W). Opportunities to convert stands to a jack pine forest type were limited given that retention of the mature red pine overstory is desired. Based on Native Plant Communities, best sites for jack pine communities did not coincide with stands damaged by the storm. Nonetheless, an estimated 250 acres in both action alternatives have been identified to convert to jack pine. The IDT looked for opportunities to apply fire on the landscape and create larger blocks of jack pine but these were limited given past harvest activities. Several larger blocks were created (no prescribed fire opportunity) but are the same for both alternatives. Refer to the vegetation section for a more detailed discussion of jack pine blocks. 86 P a g e

87 Increase blueberry Retention of shrubs and herbaceous species Precommercial thin young dense stands of red pine to create gathering opportunities Create brush piles In site visits to BD-1 in the Lydick area, blueberry plants were noted in some of the stands. In both alternatives, selection harvests and prescribed fire would be applied which should stimulate blueberry and result in an increase. For Alternative A, blueberry response may occur if the overstory is open enough to create adequate light for blueberries to respond. A mitigation measure requiring retention of fruiting shrubs is included. Precommercial thinning is not included as part of this project. The Forest had not done precommercial thinning in young stands. Funding generally is not available to thin stands. Brush piles are not considered to be limited across the landscape, especially in light of the storm damage and the thousands of acres that remain untreated. Effects by Alternative The table below presents the indicators for the project area and within Ten Section. Activities Acres of Commercial Timber Harvest in Project Area Acres of mechanical treatments in Project Area Table Comparison of indicators. Alt A Mod Alt B Alt C Clearcuts/ Coppice with Reserves Selection Commercial Thin Total Mechanical site preparation Piling and burning Mechanical fuels reduction Road buffers (1320 ) Total Acres of Treatment in Ten Section Area Clearcut/coppice with reserves Selection harvest Total Harvest Mechanical site preparation Piling and burning Mechanical fuels reduction Road buffers (1320 ) Total Mechanical Treatment Acres Acres of prescribed burning (Landscape and fuels reduction) BD PB PB PB Total P a g e

88 Alternative A Under this alternative, no commercial harvest, prescribed burning, site preparation, piling and burning, mechanical fuels reduction, or road buffers would occur at this time. With no harvest or regeneration treatments, conifer stands would potentially shift to aspen and result in a loss of conifer in the project area. No treatment in hardwood stands would result in hardwoods or a shift to aspen. These species shifts are discussed in more detail in the vegetation section. There would be no mechanical treatments to pile, reduce fuel loadings, or achieve site preparation for regeneration. All damaged trees, snags and down woody materials and the structural diversity they provide would remain. Microsites for mushrooms or habitat for certain wildlife or other plant species would be available. Shrub, herbaceous, and traditional plant communities would not be disturbed. Availability of birch bark, balsam bough, and pine cones would change in areas with substantial amounts of blowdown. Given the concentration and distribution of down material within stands and the short term safety hazards associated with standing damaged trees, potential users may find it difficult to move through stands to hunt, pick berries, or gather resources of interest. Firewood on the other hand abounds and can be found in many areas within the project area. Alternative B and Alternative C Project Area In the project area as a whole, Alternative C has about 2300 fewer acres of harvest than Modified Alternative B, 4945 acres as compared to 7247 acres. Approximately 34% of the acres of clearcutting and selection harvest in Modified Alternative B were dropped in Alternative C resulting in a decrease from 4753 acres to 3132 acres of clearcutting, and 2463 acres to 1620 acres of selection harvest. Alternative C also shows an increase in commercial thinning acres from 31 acres in Alternative B to 193 acres. This analysis treats the extent and intensity of the disturbance of all mechanical methods (site preparation, piling, mechanical fuels reduction, and road buffers) as roughly equal when in reality there are some differences. Extent of disturbance from mechanical site preparation depends on equipment used. Generally most of the regeneration harvest acres need to be treated to obtain a mineral soil substrate for the desired conifer regeneration. Mechanical piling of fuels focuses on piling where concentrations of fuels occur and usually impacts a smaller portion of the stand. Exposure of mineral soil typically occurs but is not an objective when piling fuels. Mechanical fuels reduction would occur where dead or down trees are found and disturbance level would depend on the amount of material to be removed, equipment used and operator. Road buffer treatments would remove the majority of the dead, damaged, and down trees and result in ground disturbance of varying degrees depending on amount of fuels to be removed, equipment, and operator. Because it is difficult to quantify variations in extent and intensity of disturbance with each method, treated acres are summarized and presented. The fewer harvest acres in Alternative C has a corresponding decrease in acres for mechanical site preparation. Mechanical site preparation dropped from 6113 acres in alternative B to 3600 acres in alternative C, a difference of about 2500 acres. Mechanical piling of fuels is planned on 88 P a g e

89 3850 acres in Alternatives B. There is a reduction of almost a thousand acres (2816) in Alternative C. Instead of 2759 acres of prescribed (broadcast) burning within and adjacent to the PBEF, mechanical fuels reduction and road buffers are planned in Alternative C. There is about 1000 acres of mechanical fuels reduction and an estimated 2400 treated acres of road buffers up to 1320 wide in Alternative C. In harvest areas, birch bark, balsam boughs, pine cones may not be available due to the removal of trees. Gatherers may be displaced to other areas. Depending on the sites, berries may respond to the increased light. The project file contains a listing of common traditional reources and the potential response to harvesting and burning. Ten Section Area Within Ten Section, harvest treatments were substantially reduced from about 1000 acres in Alternative B to 58 acres in Alternative C. These 58 acres are selection harvest; all clearcutting was dropped. Mechanical site preparation followed by planting is planned on over half (~30) of the harvest acres in Alternative C. Because of the amount of activity in the Ten Section area, in particular east of Pike Bay with its recreation residences, roads, pipeline corridor and railroad tracks, fuel loadings and fire hazards are a concern (refer to details in the Fuels section). In an effort to reduce fuel concentrations, mechanical pilings of fuels, mechanical fuels treatments, or road buffers up to 1320 wide were considered in the Ten Section Area. In alternative B almost 800 acres of piling with burning of these piles was planned; this number was reduced to 130 acres in Alternative C. In lieu of prescribe burning in Alternative B, mechanical fuels reduction was planned for 337 acres in Alternative C. Buffers along roads would treat another 608 acres in Ten Section. Potential total acres of mechanical disturbance for Alternative B are 1384 compared to 1166 for Alternative C. With regard to disturbance to herbaceous and traditional plant communities and the time for plants to recolonize or recover, Alternative B has about 200 more acres with disturbance. Consequently, slightly more of the understory plant community would be disturbed in Alternative B. In Alternative B, harvest and mechanical treatments would disrupt the understory, remove material that would contribute to future microsites, and potentially disturb traditional plants resulting in a year or more for plants to recolonize the sites. On the other hand, with the removal of standing and down fuels, gatherers would be able to more easily and safely move through the treated stands. Conifer planting in more open spots would ensure sites would be occupied by pine species in the future and not regenerate to aspen. In the absence of harvest and mechanical treatments in those stands not treated in Alternative C, users may find walking around in stands to gather resources difficult because of the amount of down material. There may also be some safety issues for 2-3 years until standing damaged trees fall to the ground. However, for the most part, shrubs and traditional plants would be undisturbed and microsites created by the retention of down woody debris for mushrooms, etc. would be available in the short and long term. Where there are concentrations of pine that were 89 P a g e

90 blown down, without site preparation and planting, these sites would likely be colonized by aspen or hardwoods, if present, or shrub species such as hazel. Prescribed (broadcast) burning was also planned for the Ten Section area. For alternative B, stands adjacent to the PBEF that extended into Ten Section or that extended to a logical burning boundary, such as a road, were included in the burn units. As a result, an estimated 500 acres of broadcast burning was identified within the Ten Section area. In Alternative C, burning in and adjacent to PBEF was dropped. There is still 73 acres of burning in Ten Section for Alternative C but the objectives are for an ecological burn that restores fire to a fire dependent landscape and native plant communities. This treatment should be beneficial for fruiting shrubs and the herbaceous understory. Lydick area Just outside the Ten Section area, there is another estimated 300 acres of landscape burning (BD- 1, BD-2 and BD-3) in the Lydick area. Some of these stands are known to have blueberry, are of interest to the Tribe, should benefit from the burning. Isolated mature or older stands that were surrounded by young stands were dropped based on input from DRM. Winnie Area Based on input provided by DRM, a number of stands in Alternative B were dropped or modified in Alternative C. Fuel treatments which consist of mechanical piling and burning did not change between alternatives. Cuba Hill area A large area of blowdown between Pike Bay and Sucker Lakes was left untreated in Alternative C at the request of DRM and for protection of a number of sensitive species. Residual hardwoods are expected to restock these stands. Mitigation measures For alternative B and C: Protect berry producing shrubs, where feasible, during harvest, site preparation, or release activities. Within Norway Beach and around Pike Bay, retain snags and coarse woody material representing the range of diameters of down trees, leave pockets of untreated areas Cumulative Effects Included in the cumulative effects are timber salvage activities as a result of the storm from modified Timber Sale contracts and Decision Memos. These previous decisions provided for salvage only of damaged and down trees. Prescribed burning activities, mechanical piling and burning, and mechanical fuels reduction were not included with those decisions. The modified Timber Sale contracts did not include site preparation activities whereas some of the Decision 90 P a g e

91 Memos (DMs) did. Consequently, cumulative effects take into consideration salvage harvest treatments and mechanical site preparation activities planned or implemented since the storm. It is assumed all of these activities would be accomplished within the 5 year timeframe. Table Acres of harvest treatments resulting from the July Storm. Project Area Ten Section Mod Alt B Alt C Mod Alt B Alt C Harvest acres in Blowdown Restoration Project Salvage from Modified Timber Sale Contracts* (stand acres) Salvage from Decision Memos* (treated acres) Total salvage from contracts & DMs Total acres of harvest treatment 14,711 12, Estimated storm damaged acres: 108,516 Damaged acres with no harvest planned 93,805 95,880 Percent of damaged acres planned for harvest *Some of the salvage acres from these decisions were also included in Alternative B or C because of the need to do additional harvest to adequately regenerate the stands. This explains why these numbers vary between the alternatives. Salvage harvest acres from modified contracts plus decision memos vary depending on the alternative from acres. When added to the potential acres to be harvested in this project, a total of about 14,700 acres (Alternative B) or 12, 600 acres (Alternative C) could be harvested. Given that there are an estimated 108,516 damaged acres on the National Forest, at most 13.6% of the damaged acres are planned for harvest. When considering acres with more than 20% of the stand damaged (34,140 acres), harvest was/is proposed on 14,700 acres or 43% of the acres. Table Summary of mechanical treatments planned with post storm activities. Acres of Mechanical Treatments Project Area Ten Section Mod Alt B Alt C Mod Alt B Alt C Mechanical site preparation Mechanical piling of fuels Mechanical fuels reduction Road buffers (1320 ) Total acres of mechanical treatments Mechanical site preparation from DMs Total Acres of mechanical treatments 11,357 11, For the Project area, ground disturbance from mechanical activities ranges from almost 11,400 acres for Alternative B to 11,200 acres for Alternative C. 91 P a g e

92 3.7 Plants and Wildlife Issues Plants and wildlife were not part of the key issues identified during scoping. Yet activities planned have the potential to affect species and their habitats. Effects of project activities on TES species and their habitats, including mature and large blocks of interior forest was considered a secondary issue. Indicators: Relative effects on TES shown in BE and BA for this project Affected Environment TES The Blowdown Restoration project area occurs within 8 Landscape Ecosystems (LE s), the description of which is provided in Chapter 1 of the EA. Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Landscape Ecosystem (LE) objectives of the Forest Plan set forest-wide objectives for forest vegetation composition, structure, age, and tree diversity. Movement toward these long-term desired vegetative conditions helps move the Forest towards desired conditions for amounts, quality, and distribution of important wildlife species and their habitats. Conservation objectives for threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species and their habitats are interwoven into the LE objectives. The analysis of these conditions relative to the Blowdown Restoration project is contained in the Biological Assessment (BA), Biological Evaluation (BE), and MIH reports (project file), and summarized in this EA. The BA and BE are available upon request. A look at forest-wide LE-MIH trends was completed following the July 2, 2012 storm, and in association with the Blowdown Restoration EA (project file). Although the storm created considerably more 0-9 age class habitats at the expense of older habitats, most MIH trends were not altered by the storm or the Blowdown Restoration EA alternatives. Most LE objectives are on track with Forest Plan objectives. MIH trend analysis for the period , which includes planned but not yet implemented forest management projects, includes the following aspects (project file): About 3/4 of the mature and older upland forests on the Chippewa are deciduous forests. The amount of mature and older upland deciduous forest has increased somewhat since Mature and older northern hardwoods have increased somewhat. Mature and older aspen/birch forest has decreased somewhat, but still occurs at very high levels. Coniferous forests comprise roughly 1/4 of mature and older upland forests on the Chippewa National Forest. 92 P a g e

93 The current (2013) amount of mature and older upland coniferous forest has decreased (3%) since It is predicted to increase by 2018 due to forest aging. In a general sense, what this means for wildlife is that habitats are abundant for early successional- and young forest-associated species, such as white-tailed deer and ruffed grouse. A reflection of widespread current habitat conditions, these species are generally quite common in the modern landscape. Species more typical of upland conifers and mature forests have far less available habitats, and as a result, are less common. Some of these species are listed as Regional Forester s Sensitive Species. In addition to composition and age objectives, the Forest Plan (USFS 2004) provides guidance regarding spatial distribution of forest vegetation (pp ). Particularly important to a variety of TES species are objectives and guidance related to development of large forest patches, providing opportunities for interior forest habitat conditions. Of particularly high value to some TES species are objectives for large, mature forest patches. Forest-wide spatial pattern trend analysis for the period , which includes planned but not yet implemented forest management projects, includes the following aspects (Barrett 2011, pp ): There has been an increase in the numbers and acres of large, mature upland patches. There has been an increase in acres of forest interior habitat. There has been a reduction in forest edge created through vegetation management activities. The large, mature upland patch analysis has been examined following the storm, and continues to exhibit the increase in numbers and acres described above Direct and Indirect Effects TES Species This section discloses estimated effects in terms of Issue: Effects on TES (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species) described in Section 1.10 Secondary issues. Scope of the Analysis Spatial Framework The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to TES varies by species, and is included within the BA and BE for this project. Timeframe Unless otherwise indicated, the direct, indirect, and cumulative analyses consider activities that have occurred in the past 10 years and are projected to occur in the next 5 years. These activities include those proposed by previous vegetation management EA s, storm-related adjustments to existing timber sales, and storm-related CE activities. The past 10 years were used for past effects in order to be consistent with age class distributions and to allow adequate time for past 93 P a g e

94 regeneration harvests and reforestation activities to be completed. The duration of most Federal timber sales is usually about 3-5 years, plus potential extensions. Information about projects beyond 5 years into the future is not readily available from any agency. Therefore, the 5-year future timeframe seems to be the most reasonably foreseeable one. Conditions resulting from this current decision (e.g. age class distribution, vegetation composition, etc.) would be in effect until the next entry. Effects by Alternative Alternatives A, B and C Threatened Species Effects Summary The Biological Assessment (BA, project file) documents the potential effects on federally proposed, candidate, threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat that could result from proposed activities in the Blowdown Restoration Project. The BA was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Forest Service Manual Directives sections , (3), and , the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and the National Forest Management Act of Consultation specific to the Blowdown Restoration project BA was conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS concurs with the effects determinations as shown in the table below (project file). The BA is available upon request. The Blowdown Restoration BA evaluates Alternative B for effects on Canada lynx, listed as a threatened species, because this is the alternative of greatest impact to the species. A summary of BA findings is presented in Table Table Canada lynx effects determination. Management Activities Determination Summary of Rationale Alternative B Not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx or its habitat. This project will maintain snowshoe hare habitat over the long-term. Changes are within Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy None of the alternatives would result in an adverse effect to threatened species. Alternatives A, B and C Sensitive Species Effects Summary Sensitive species are plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by (FSM ): Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution. The Biological Evaluation (BE) of the Blowdown Restoration project evaluates all proposed project alternatives for effects on Regional Forester s Sensitive Species (RFSS). A summary of findings of the Blowdown Restoration BE is presented in Table The full analysis of effects on RFSS is contained within the BE (project record). The BE is available upon request. 94 P a g e

95 None of the Blowdown Restoration project alternatives would result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability to a population or species. Of the 59 sensitive species on the Chippewa, the Blowdown Restoration project would have no impact to 40 species. A finding of may benefit is associated with 1 species for action alternatives and 3 species for the no action alternative. A finding of may impact is associated with 19 species for action alternatives, and 1 species for all alternatives. For many species, some proposed activities may benefit the species, while other activities may be to their detriment. Standards, guidelines, and required mitigation measures associated with these findings are presented in the body of the BE, and in stand-specific tables in Appendix B (If not attached, they are posted on the Forest web page or are available upon request). Table Summary of effects determinations for Sensitive Species Species No impact May benefit May impact* Northern goshawk A B, C Red-shouldered hawk A B, C Spruce grouse A B, C Bald eagle A B, C Black-backed woodpecker A B, C Great gray owl A B, C Bats: Little brown, Northern myotis A B, C White adder s-mouth orchid A B, C MNH Sensitive Plants Guild: blunt-lobed grapefern, goblin fern, lanceleaf grapefern, one-flowered broomrape, Goldie s A B, C wood fern, triangle moonwort, squirrel corn, white trout-lily Upland Disturbed Sensitive Plants Guild: pale moonwort, ternate grapefern A B, C Ram s-head lady s-slipper A, B, C Canada yew A B, C *May impact but will not contribute to a trend to federal listing or loss of viability to population or species Alternatives A, B and C Key Points from Biological Evaluation (BE) Following are key points of interest from the analysis used to develop findings for sensitive species. The full evaluation is contained in the body of the BE (project file). The BE is available upon request. Proportion of Storm Damage Treated and not Treated: For some sensitive species, relative amount of untreated storm damage is an important habitat component. Proposed storm damage treatment varies by Alternative, forest type, and degree of damage. More details about how this information was used in analysis of potential project impacts to sensitive species is contained in the BE, but a generalized sense of treatment can be seen below. Many of the forest stands in the Blowdown Restoration EA are proposed for more than one treatment. For instance, a stand may be proposed for harvest, pile/pile burning (fuels treatment), site preparation, and planting. Thus, it is difficult to get a picture of how much of the storm 95 P a g e

96 damage is proposed for treatment. The table below provides an estimate of the non-overlapping, cumulative treatment acres when all of the current treatment avenues (i.e. Blowdown Restoration EA, Categorical Exclusions, and adjustments to existing timber sales) are considered. In this table, treatment is defined as harvest, mechanical fuels reduction, prescribed burning, or pile burning. (Note that total acres differ slightly with the table above due to estimation techniques used. These differences are inconsequential.) Alternative Total Acres In Damage Class Alt. B 74, (6%) Alt. C 74, (6%) Table Cumulative treatment of storm damage. 0-20% Detectable Damage % Detectable Damage (Damage Class 1) (Damage Classes 2 5) Acres Acres Total Acres Acres (%) (%) In Damage (%) Treated Not Treated Class Treated 69,362 (94%) 34,206 15,463 (45%) 69,384 (94%) 34,206 14,009 (41%) Acres (%) Not Treated 18,743 (55%) 20,197 (59%) A total of 108,195* forested acres occur within the Blowdown Restoration project area. About 68% (74,055) of these acres have 0 20% damage; about 32% (34,206) of these acres have % damage. The total non-overlapping, cumulative treatment (i.e. harvest, mechanical fuels reduction, prescribed burning, or pile burning) acres are similar between Alternatives B and C. About 6% of damage class 1 acres are being treated; about 41-45% of damage class 2-5 acres are being treated by one or more of the following avenues: adjustment to existing timber sale, Categorical Exclusion, or Blowdown Restoration EA. Conversely, about 94% of damage class 1 acres are not being treated, and about 55-59% of damage class 2-5 acres are not being treated. It is possible that future NEPA efforts will propose treatment in an unknown number of acres, but this NEPA is currently not being planned. Although cumulative treatment acres are similar between project alternatives, what varies between Alternatives B and C is the method of treatment. Key differences include more timber harvest, broadcast burning, pile burning, and harvest of green (undamaged) trees within damaged forest stands in Alternative B. Alternative C proposes more mechanical fuels reduction activity. Spatial Distribution of Forest Vegetation: A consolidated analysis of spatial distribution of forest vegetation was performed. Patch size and habitat fragmentation are elements of spatial distribution which affect a variety of sensitive species. The analysis examined differences between project alternatives with respect to these factors, and also revealed the effects of the July 2012 storm on these metrics. A comparison was made to Forest Plan guidance. Large, mature upland patches: Forest-wide, there are currently (2013) 109 large, mature upland patches containing a total of 106,718 acres, as shown in the table below. These figures reflect damage from the July 2, 2012 windstorm, with age of forest stands incurring damage classified as 4 or 5 being set back to 0 years old. Hence, those mature forest stands that previously were counted as part of a large, mature upland patch that incurred this level of damage are no longer 96 P a g e

97 counted as part of that patch. Due to forest aging, despite the windstorm, number and acres of large, mature forest patches has increased since inception of the 2004 Forest Plan. Table Large, mature upland forest patches on Chippewa National Forest Pre- and Post- Storm 2004 Forest Plan 2011 Existing (2013) Acres No. Acres in size class No. Acres in size class No. Acres in size class , , , , ,468 Total > 300 ac ,718 Total > 1000 ac ,550 The tables below provide comparison of all of the alternatives analyzed to the year Alternatives A, B and C also include the effects of past decisions (including Storm salvage CE s) that are not yet fully implemented (i.e. regeneration harvests not yet implemented). Forest aging would result in an increase in the number and acres of patches, as seen in Alternative A (below). Table Mature, upland patches across Chippewa National Forest, by Alternative. Patch size class Existing (2013) Alternative A (2018) Alternative B (2018) Alternative C (2018) Acres in Acres in Acres in Acres in Size Acres No. size class No. size class No. size class No. size class , , , , , , , ,170 Large , , , , , , , , , , , , ,394 Total > , , , ,594 Total > , , , ,466 Alternatives B and C propose new harvest treatments within these patches. These include harvests which will maintain the canopy closure as much as possible following the storm, such as single-tree or group selection cuts, as well as even-aged regeneration harvests. Even-aged regeneration harvests reduce patch acres; treatments which maintain a minimum of 50% canopy closure do not reduce patch acres. Alternative C proposes the least even-aged regeneration harvest within patches, and would reduce patch acres by about 122 acres, or less than 1% compared to Alternative A. Alternative B proposes the most even-aged regeneration harvest within patches, would eliminate 2 large mature patches and would reduce patch acres by about 1057 acres, or roughly 1%. All alternatives meet forest-wide standards and guidelines establishing minimum amounts of large, mature upland patches. Forest wide, there has been an increase in the number and acres of 97 P a g e

98 large, mature upland forest patches since the inception of the Forest Plan in 2004, despite the July 2, 2012 storm and storm-related treatments. Species Evaluated in Detail: Following are some key points of interest from sensitive species evaluated in detail. Full analysis is contained within the BE (project record). Northern goshawk: A high amount of goshawk habitat was damaged as a result of the windstorm. Within the project area there are 17 known and historic goshawk territories, 3 of which have been active in recent years and have project activities proposed within them. Stands proposed for treatment are primarily in heavily damaged stands which provide only marginal habitat for goshawks due to the amount of damage and overall reduction in canopy closure. Details of analysis of nesting, post-fledging, and foraging habitat are contained within the BE. Alternative C would maintain more foraging habitat in the 3 known goshawk territories than would Alternative B. Bald eagle: Bald eagle nests occur throughout the Blowdown Restoration project area. There are about 193 known and historic nests in this area. Multiple bald eagle nests/nest trees were lost due to the windstorm. It is suspected that some of these eagles may re-build their nests in the remaining suitable habitat within their territories. There are 2 existing nests that may be affected by the project. All remaining known nest trees are protected from proposed project activities by implementation of the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Application of these measures can be seen in EA Appendix B. Red-shouldered hawk: No project activities are proposed in the nest or post-fledging zones of any known red-shouldered hawk nests. At the landscape scale, the Chippewa provides important northern hardwood habitat for red-shouldered hawks (USFS 2004a, p. 49). Hardwooddominated, large mature patches are particularly important for this species. Within the project area, the amount of available mature northern hardwood habitat would increase slightly from current conditions under all Alternatives. Across the Chippewa National Forest, acres of mature and older northern hardwood habitat have increased from 2004 to 2013, and are predicted to increase when considering all previously planned projects and the alternatives from the Blowdown Restoration EA, as shown in the table below: Table Acres of Mature and Older Northern Hardwood Habitat (MIH 3) on Chippewa National Forest Forest 2011 Preblowdown Current Alt. Alt. B Alt. C Plan 2004 Condition A 55,000* 79,004* 74,451 73,096 73,724 73,724 73,724 *From Barrett 2011, p. 22. The forest-wide acres of large, mature upland patches would also increase under all Blowdown Restoration Alternatives. Looking across the Chippewa s landscape, amounts of red-shouldered hawk habitat are increasing in comparison to the inception of the Forest Plan (2004), despite the July 2012 windstorm. 98 P a g e

99 Spruce grouse: The table below indicates there would be increases in spruce grouse habitat components due to forest aging into older habitat components, and an increase in younger habitat components from both the storm and regeneration harvesting of jack pine and balsam fir. Therefore, more spruce grouse habitat is present following the July 2012 storm than there was prior to it. There would also be more spruce grouse habitat present in Alternatives B and C than there would be in Alternative A. Alternatives B (340 acres) and C (231 acres) also involve conversion from non-habitat forest types (red pine, white pine and aspen) to forest types (jack pine) that may provide spruce grouse opportunities. Alternatives B and C propose to restore larger blocks of jack pine to the project area through conversion of other forest types adjacent to existing jack pine stands. Both alternatives propose to create 4 blocks of jack pine, ranging in size from acres. Habitat quantity and distribution are primary concerns for the spruce grouse on the Chippewa National Forest (USFS 2004a, pp ). The proposed modest increases in spruce grouse habitat components contribute to achieving Forest Plan LE composition objectives, and are of potential short- and long-term benefit to spruce grouse when considered cumulatively with other increases across the Forest. Great gray owl: Amounts of upland nesting habitat after implementation of proposed activities is shown in the table below. Table Spruce Grouse Habitat Indicators (Acres) Habitat component Preblowdown Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C (Forest type/age) Condition Jack pine < 40 years Fir-aspen < 40 years Black spruce > 80 years Tamarack > 80 years White spruce/fir > 60 years Total acres 11,648 11,876 11,941 12,569 12,182 Table Great Gray Owl Habitat Indicators (acres) in Project Area Habitat component Preblowdown Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Condition Aspen-birch (MIH 4) mature + stages 15,760 13,224 12,802 11,934 12,298 Upland conifer (MIH 5) mature+ stages 23,273 20,517 22,987 22,550 22,946 Total 39,033 33,741 35,789 34,484 35, P a g e

100 Mature aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer forest (MIH 4) is currently believed to be well above RNV (range of natural variation) on the Chippewa, and predicted to remain so over the long-term (USFS 2004a, p. 82). Mature upland conifer, however, is below RNV and likely to stay that way, indicating it would provide very limited amounts of suitable upland nesting habitat for the great gray owl. The July 2012 storm reduced mature upland conifers within the project area by about 12%. Within 5 years, forest aging will bring this habitat component back up to within about 1% of pre-blowdown acres (Alternative A). Alternative C would maintain most of that habitat. Availability of suitable nesting sites in the form of large broken-toped snags and large abandoned nests probably plays a key role affecting owl abundance. The July 2012 storm resulted in large amounts of broken-toped snags across the project area. Many of these snags will remain, under any of the action alternatives. Application of Minnesota Forest Resource Council (MFRC) sitelevel forest management guidelines would help to ensure that snags, reserve trees, and down wood are provided in harvest stands (USFS 2004a, p. 77). These are shown as mitigation measures in Appendix B. Black-backed woodpecker: The black-backed woodpecker is a specialist that forages on woodboring insect larvae in dead/dying conifer trees. The July 2012 blowdown event created a substantial amount of potential high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat across the project area. As shown in the tables below, the storm created over 13,000 acres of high quality habitat where the storm impacted (>20% detectable stand damage) jack pine, white pine, red pine, balsam fir, white spruce, black spruce, tamarack, and cedar. Most of this disturbance habitat is in upland conifers, especially red pine. If left in place, these wind-damaged conifers would host wood-boring beetle larvae. The tables below indicate what amount of this disturbance habitat created by the July 2012 storm would remain after all cumulative treatments are accounted for. In this case, treatment includes timber harvest (all harvest types), mechanical fuels reduction, prescribed burning, or pile/pile burning when all of the current treatment avenues (i.e. Blowdown Restoration EA, Categorical Exclusions, and adjustments to existing timber sales) are considered. Alternative A would leave all of this habitat, B would leave about 50% (6,479 acres), and C would leave about 53% (6837 acres). 100 P a g e

101 The value of this habitat for black-backed woodpeckers would be substantially reduced through activities which remove the dead and dying timber. Mitigation measures to retain snags and reserve (green) trees and reserve areas within treatment areas (as shown in EA Appendix B) would somewhat reduce impacts to treated habitat. Forest-wide trends in black-backed woodpecker habitat can be drawn from a forest-wide analysis of Management Indicator Habitats (*Barrett 2010, p. 23). The table below displays these habitats for the entire Chippewa National Forest, and includes a consideration of all planned and not yet accomplished timber harvests in the predicted habitat amounts shown for All habitats are mature/older age groupings. Table Treated and Untreated Black-backed woodpecker Disturbance Habitat in project area Acres Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Habitat component damaged Acres treated Acres not treated Acres treated Acres not treated Acres treated Acres not treated Jack pine White pine Red pine Balsam fir White spruce Total Upland Conifers 11, , Black spruce Tamarack No. White Cedar Total lowland sprucetamarack Total Acres 13, , Table Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat Indicators (Forest-wide acres) MIH Forest 2011* Preblowdown Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Plan* Condition Upland conifer 60,500 60,669 61,627 58,871 65,289 64,852 65,248 (MIH 5) Lowland black 54,900 53,027 69,892 69,808 70,057 70,057 70,057 spruce/tamarack (MIH 9) Total Acres 115, , , , , , ,295 In the table above, acres of total black-backed woodpecker habitat increases from 2004 to 2013 and 2018 due to forest aging, and despite timber harvest and the July 2012 windstorm. This is primarily due to aging of MIH 9 Lowland black spruce/tamarack, but also would occur in the Upland conifer MIH 5. The best quality habitat available for the black-backed woodpecker is forest habitat with large amounts of dead and dying conifers. The July 2012 storm added a pulse of this kind of high quality habitat, half of which at most (Alternative B) is proposed for treatment. 101 P a g e

102 Forest Plan Guidance O-WL-25 Maintain/improve nesting/foraging habitat by managing towards LE objectives for mature/older conifer forest O-WL-26 Amount/distribution of dead/dying trees represent patterns/amounts that would result from natural disturbances. If not, may need to emulate through prescribed fire or other treatments. G-WL-20 Retain 6-10 jack pine/acre in regeneration harvests in mixed conifer stands S-WL-10 Maintain at least 5300 acres of mature/older jack pine during the first 10 years of plan implementation Compliance Met? By Alternative Mature/older conifer forest shows an increasing trend Yes, all alternatives Yes, all alternatives. No. See BE for calculations. Comments Project meets species need for disturbance habitat with substantial concentrations/amounts of tree mortality, to provide for population irruption. This guideline is applied through mitigation measure W7. Pre-blowdown, current conditions, and all alternatives are below Forest Plan standard. Standard is in effect until A summary of Blowdown Restoration project compliance with applicable Forest Plan conservation measures for the black-backed woodpecker is presented below. Little brown bat and northern myotis: Forest-wide trends in little brown bat and northern myotis habitat can be drawn from a forest-wide analysis of Management Indicator Habitats (*Barrett 2010, p. 22). The table below displays these habitats for the entire Chippewa National Forest, and includes a consideration of all planned and not yet accomplished timber harvest in the predicted amounts shown for All habitats are mature and older age groupings. (Note: MIH report did not include an assessment of lowland hardwoods and oak.) Table Little brown bat and Northern Myotis Summer Roosting Habitat Indicators (Acres) (forest-wide) MIH Forest 2011* Preblowdown Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Plan* Condition Lowland Not Not 22,541 22,389 22,448 22,448 22,366 hardwood available available Aspen-birch 92,900 90,545 90,921 88,565 85,503 84,636 85,000 Northern 55,000 79,004 74,451 73,096 73,724 73,724 73,724 hardwood Oak Not Not 6,032 5,984 5,806 5,806 5,806 available available Total Acres 193, , , , ,896 Mature northern hardwoods have increased substantially since the inception of the Forest Plan (2004); aspen-birch has declined somewhat, but still remains in large quantities. The July 2012 storm reduced total habitat by about 2%. Clearcut (including coppice) harvesting from previously planned but not yet implemented projects further reduces aspen-birch and oak habitat components. Alternatives B and C of the Blowdown Restoration project would further reduce aspen-birch habitats. Other proposed project activities would also result in the alteration of some 102 P a g e

103 suitable foraging and roosting habitat. However, abundant unaltered habitat would remain in the project area. Roost site availability has been enhanced by the increase in snags and damaged live trees created by the storm, substantial quantities of which would not be treated by proposed activities. Both within the project area and across the larger landscape, suitable roosting and foraging habitat will remain abundant and relatively well distributed. Secure winter habitat, which may be a more limiting factor for these bat species, would not be affected by the proposed project. It is not known to exist on the Chippewa. Ram s-head lady s-slipper: Lowland white cedar forests have probably historically been primary habitat of this sensitive plant, but upland jack pine, red pine, and white pine forests now serve as secondary habitat. Losses (718 or 1048 acres, depending on alternative) in the upland pine habitat would occur if heavily damaged (>60% damage) upland pine stands are not regenerated to type with reforestation activities. Without treatment, these forest stands are likely to regenerate to aspen Cumulative Effects TES Species Spatial Framework Analysis area varies by species and guilds considered. Spatial framework is contained in the BA and BE for each respective species in the project file. Timeframe Time frames for each respective species are delineated within the BA and BE in the project file. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Effects Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects for each species are identified and analyzed in detail in the BA and BE in the project file. The following are noteworthy conclusions relating to the cumulative effects for TES species. Alternatives A, B and C None of the alternatives would result in an adverse effect to threatened species (Canada lynx). The purpose of a BE is to ensure that Forest Service actions (1) do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or animal species, (2) do not cause any species to move toward federal listing, and (3) to incorporate concerns for sensitive species throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts to species and enhancing opportunities for mitigation. None of the Blowdown Restoration project alternatives would result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability to a population or species. Of the 59 sensitive species on the Chippewa, the Blowdown Restoration project would have no impact to 40 species. A finding of may benefit 103 P a g e

104 is associated with 1 species for action alternatives and 3 species for the no action alternative. A finding of may impact is associated with 19 species for action alternatives, and 1 species for all alternatives. For many species, some proposed activities may benefit the species, while other activities may be to their detriment. The primary difference between Alternatives involves levels of treatment of storm damage and residual, undamaged green trees. Cumulative effects of all alternatives include activities developed through other decisions (CE s or modification of existing timber sale contracts) in order to treat damage resulting from the July 2012 storm. These differences between the alternatives result in different effects to sensitive species. Often the difference between Alternative B and C is in terms of the loss of mature forest habitat available for some sensitive species. Since Alternative B proposes more harvesting of lesser-damaged stands and more harvesting of green, undamaged trees within damaged forest stands, it often would result in somewhat more of an affect than would Alternative C. For some sensitive species, storm damage to forest stands represents a loss in habitat. Failure to treat heavily damaged (>60% damage) red pine, white pine, and jack pine could result in longterm habitat losses to species like the Ram s-head lady s slipper. For other sensitive species, the storm enhanced some habitat components, the removal of which may be detrimental. For example, although the great gray owl experienced a loss in total acres of potential habitat (mature aspen-birch and upland conifers) due to the storm, the broken-topped snags created nesting structure, and the toppled trees created cover for fledglings. The little brown bat and northern myotis are bat species with abundant and widespread summer habitat on the Chippewa. The addition of snags and damaged live trees to their world increases the availability of maternity roost sites for the female bats. The black-backed woodpecker is a specialist that forages on wood-boring insect larvae in dead/dying conifer trees. The July 2012 storm created a pulse of high quality habitat for black-backed woodpecker, the removal of which would be a negative effect. Potential beneficial impacts to spruce grouse would come from regeneration harvesting of key habitat components (jack pine and balsam fir), conversion from storm-damaged forest stands that do not serve as spruce grouse habitat into forest types that do serve as habitat (jack pine), and restoration of larger blocks of jack pine habitat. The July 2012 storm resulted in a reduction in mature forest habitats across the Blowdown Restoration project area. Clearcut and coppice cuts proposed in alternatives B and C of the Bowdown Restoration EA would further reduce those habitats. However, the larger picture is that these habitats are cumulatively a part of a trend in MIH habitats seen across Chippewa National Forest since the inception of the Forest Plan in Relatively small changes in amounts and ages of MIH s have occurred since that time, and forests on the Chippewa National Forest are relatively young, but the oldest age groups are slowly increasing. The amount of mature and older upland deciduous forest has increased somewhat on a forest-wide basis since Mature and older northern hardwoods have increased somewhat. Mature and older upland coniferous forest has decreased forest-wide since 2004, but is expected to increase by Despite the effects of the July 2012 storm, the general trend since 2004 across Chippewa National Forest has been an increase in the number and acres of large, mature upland forest patches, and increase in acres of forest interior habitat. From a forest-wide perspective, 104 P a g e

105 conditions for wildlife species that require large, mature forest patches or interior forest, or those that are sensitive to edge, continue to gradually improve Management Indicator Species MIS are defined as species monitored over time to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs. MIS were identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Forest Plan Revision for the Superior and Chippewa NF. Species selected include the gray wolf, bald eagle, northern goshawk and white pine. All of these species are discussed elsewhere in this EA. The gray wolf, bald eagle and northern goshawk (RFSS) are discussed in the section on TES Species. White pine is not specifically discussed as an MIS but is included in the objectives to maintain conifer stands, structural and species diversity (Vegetation Section). 105 P a g e

106 3.8 Soils Issues No key issues related to soils were raised during public scoping of this project. Effects to soils are disclosed in this section as a secondary issue. Issue: Proposed activities may impact soil productivity within the project area Indicators The risk of soil disturbance due to fire, harvest, and mechanical site preparation and fuels reduction by stand acres; stand acres with potential for multiple harvest or mechanical fuels treatment entries within a 10-year period Affected Environment Inherent soil characteristics such as texture, drainage, and nutrient status were used to assess the potential impacts of proposed activities on soils within the project area. Presence of earthworms and vectors of earthworm expansion were also part of this assessment. Over 10% the project area consists of fine-textured soils with poor drainage. These soils are most susceptible to compaction because they remain moist or saturated for much of the year. Past research has indicated that following timber harvest, compaction and its impact on site productivity is generally highest following multiple passes of heavy equipment on unfrozen, finer-textured soils (Berger et al. 2004; Powers et al. 2005; Han et al. 2009). Steep terrain with erodible soils covers less than 1% of the landbase in the project area. The potential for accelerated erosion and soil displacement is primarily a function of topography, soil texture, ground cover, and precipitation (USDA 2010); therefore erodible soils in steep terrain with potential for exposure due to land use are most susceptible. Soil deposited in nearby waterbodies may detrimentally affect water quality and aquatic habitat. About 40% of the landbase within the project area consists of excessively to somewhat excessively well-drained soils that are inherently low in nutrient content. Revisions to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Timber Harvesting and Forest Management in Minnesota, suggest that removal of woody material in excess of the tops and limbs of trees harvested in a typical Minnesota roundwood harvest generally would not exceed natural nutrient inputs in an average Minnesota soil (Grigal 2004). Removing an excessive amount of material from poor nutrient soils however may deplete available nutrients over time and affect soil productivity. Both the CNF Plan and Minnesota forest best management practices (BMPs) developed by the Minnesota Forest Resources Council (MFRC) recommend minimizing additional removal of woody material on these soils (USDA 2004a and MFRC 2005). 106 P a g e

107 The intensity and areal extent of soil disturbance currently on CNF lands within the project area is uncertain. Past monitoring of FS harvests by both the CNF and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) revealed that soil disturbance has occurred as a result of forest management activities, but it was generally infrequent and did not appear to affect overall site productivity (Dahlman and Phillips 2004, Dahlman 2008, Dahlman and Rossman 2009, Rossman 2011, and Morley 2011). Earthworms found on the CNF are all exotic species. In their absence, decomposition of leaf litter in mixed northern hardwood forests is controlled by fungi and bacteria. In this situation, decomposition is slow and leaf litter accumulates to form a thick forest floor. A thick forest floor is where most nutrients are found and where most understory plants and tree seedlings grow and germinate. When earthworms invade, they consume the forest floor and mix it into the upper mineral soil layer. Organisms that live in the forest floor lose habitat and food and either leave to find new suitable habitat or die trying. Without the forest floor as an insulator, the soil gets warmer in the summer and colder in the winter, making it difficult for understory plants adapted to more natural forest floor conditions to survive (GLWW 2012). Roughly one-third of the landbase in the project area is currently mixed northern hardwood forest or consists of soils that support a mixed northern hardwood forest community. Although earthworm surveys are not yet available for much of this area, past observations elsewhere indicate a high likelihood of earthworm infestation in much of the mixed northern hardwood forest types and native plant communities across the CNF. A map of locations on the CNF where visual signs of earthworms were present at or near the soil surface is in the project record (PR 3.6). Management Direction and Forest Plan Consistency The Forest service follows all applicable laws, including the following: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Forest Management Act (NFMA) Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act National Forest Service Manual (FSM) states that soils should be managed to sustain ecological processes and function so that desired ecosystem services are provided in perpetuity. Assessments, analysis, and monitoring are processes used to determine if desired soil quality conditions have been achieved. Standards are developed to provide a baseline from which to measure change (USDA 2010a). The Chippewa National Forest (CNF) is currently in the process of developing soil quality standards through implementation of the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009a and 2009b). Until new standards have been developed using this protocol, management activities on the CNF are guided by its Forest Plan. The CNF Plan states in guideline G-WS-9 that management activities should strive to have no more than 15% of a treatment area in a detrimentally compacted, eroded, rutted, displaced, or severely burned condition (USDA 2004a). 107 P a g e

108 All management activities in this project comply with relevant CNF Plan standards and guidelines (S&Gs) for soils: G-FW-1, G-WS-8 through 14 (USDA 2004a) Direct and Indirect Effects Scope of Analysis: Spatial Framework and Timeframe Impacts to soils are inherently site specific. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soils were analyzed within the proposed treatment areas. Currently it is not certain what the actual acres treated would be, therefore the analysis is based on stand acres. The time necessary for soils to recover from disturbance may range from as little as one growing season to several decades depending on disturbance intensity and inherent soil characteristics (Table a). Table Range of recovery times for disturbances of greatest concern to soils within the project area (Greacen and Sands 1980, Grigal and Bates 1992, Grigal 2004, and Voldseth et al. 2011). Disturbance General Recovery Period Soil Compaction or Nutrient Depletion One or more decades Soil Erosion or Displacement One or more growing seasons No Action Alternative Soils would not be not be directly or indirectly affected by this alternative because no new activities would be proposed. Preexisting soil disturbance from past management activities would remain on the landscape for a few years to several decades depending on disturbance intensity and inherent soil characteristics. Direct and Indirect Effects of Vegetation Management Alternatives The broadcast fire proposed in both alternatives, portions of roughly 3,468 stand acres in B and 714 stand acres in C, would occur primarily within fire dependent landscapes. Fire would be well controlled and generally low in intensity. It would creep across areas, burning some portions and not others. This mosaic of burned and unburned area may provide some heterogeneity in habitat, benefiting soil microorganisms and native plant communities that depend upon them. Nutrients such as ammonium and nitrates would become more available for plant uptake (Erickson and White 2008). As long as burn plans are written to incorporate BMPs, CNF Plan standards and guidelines, and soil mitigations in Appendix B, it is unlikely there would be long-term soil productivity impacts under either alternative. A range of soil disturbance would occur as a result of proposed harvest and mechanical site preparation and fuels reduction in both alternatives (Table 3.6.4). 108 P a g e

109 Table Soil disturbance risk from harvest and mechanical site preparation and fuels reduction by stand acres (actual treatments would occur on only a portion). Alternatives are compared by the risk of soils to compact, erode, or become nutrient depleted. Soils were ranked low, moderate, or high based on CNF and county soil interpretations (USDA 1987, 1997a, 1997b, and 2004a). Alternative Compaction Risk Erosion Risk Nutrient Depletion Risk Low Mod. High Low Mod. High Low Mod. High B 6,635 3, , ,926 2,466 4,491 C 8,050 3,657 1,185 12, ,737 3,057 4,545 Soil compaction, erosion, and displacement are likely to be greatest in portions of treatment areas devoted to infrastructure (e.g. temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings). Past monitoring of CNF harvests by the MDNR has shown that infrastructure has consistently remained below recommended guidelines for forest management in Minnesota (Dahlman and Phillips 2004, Dahlman 2008 and Dahlman and Rossman 2009, Rossman 2011). Outside of established infrastructure, the general treatment area, operational restrictions would minimize the area and intensity of impact to soils by heavy equipment (Appendix B). Studies on Great Lakes National Forests have shown that winter harvest, when soils are frozen, effectively minimizes soil disturbance and impacts on site productivity for a range of various soil types (Range and Gries 2008 and Voldseth 2011). Where rutting, a visual cue commonly used to assess soil compaction, was found in CNF harvests, it was generally small and isolated (Dahlman and Phillips 2004, Dahlman 2008, Dahlman and Rossman 2009, and Rossman 2011) having little impact on soil productivity within the treatment area (Morley 2011). Monitoring efforts to this point have been rather short term, so more observations will be necessary to determine long-term effects on soil productivity. A portion of roughly 2,855 stand acres in Alternative B and 2,121 stand acres in C may be treated by brush raking, disking, or scalping in preparation for natural seeding or artificial planting. These treatments would heavily disturb soils through mixing and displacement in order to establish more ideal conditions for seedling establishment. The Hiawatha National Forest monitored the chronosequence of jack pine sites that had undergone site preparation and found that sandy, well-drained soils recovered from disturbance within 5 years. Within 25 years, horizonation and other soil processes had reestablished with the range of natural variation (Gries 2013). Most of the site preparation proposed in both alternatives would occur within soil types similar to those observed in the Hiawatha National Forest study, consisting of native plant communities adapted to frequent and sometimes intense disturbance. As long as BMPs, CNF Plan standards and guidelines, and soils mitigations from Appendix B are applied, it is unlikely these treatments would have any long-term negative impact on soil productivity. Woody material in excess merchantable bolewood may be harvested or consumed in burn piles in portions of roughly 3,850 stand acres in Alternative B and 7,526 stand acres in Alternative C. Retention of woody material is important to maintaining nutrients and overall site productivity, with rates dependent upon the inherent nutrient content of the soils. Appendix B identifies minimum retention guidelines in these areas based on soil nutrient content. Based on estimated nutrient budgets of average Minnesota soils (Grigal 2004) and findings from soil nutrient and 109 P a g e

110 biomass removal studies (Voldseth 2011, Berger et al. 2012, Donner et al. 2012, and Klockow et al. 2012), woody retention requirements should satisfy short-term soil nutrient needs with little negative impact on site productivity. Out-year monitoring will be necessary to better ascertain any long-term effects. The results of surface observations for signs of earthworms have not been made available for this project area. Absent this data, all equipment is required to be clean prior to intital timber sale, reforestation, and prescribed burn area. This would not eliminate the risk of earthworm spread, but would provide a reasonable amount of control until populations have been more accurately mapped on the CNF. Overall, Alternative C has a higher potential to impact soil productivity than B because more acres may be treated. In addition, more acres occur on high risk soils in C. Despite the risks, it is unlikely that disturbance in either alternative would exceed the detrimental threshold for a treatment unit (USDA 2004a ) as long as BMPs, CNF Plan standards and guidelines, and soil mitigation in Appendix B are appropriately implemented. Results of Forest Plan implementation monitoring over the last five years help confirm this assessment (Morley 2011) Cumulative Effects Some of the treatment areas proposed for harvest and mechanical site preparation and fuels reduction have had other treatments in the past five years or will have other treatments within the next five years, under other NEPA decisions. As a result, portions of 2,573 stand acres in Alternative B and 2,747 stands acres in C may be affected by multiple heavy equipment entries within a 10-year timeframe (Table b). Ten years was held as an indicator of potential for cumulative effects based on project area reentry and timber sale implementation rates and short-term recovery rate results from several monitoring efforts and studies in the Great Lakes region (Morley 2011, Voldseth 2011, Berger et al. 2012, Donner et al. 2012, and Klockow et al and Gries 2013). Repeated entries by heavy equipment within a short timeframe would likely increase the amount soil compaction than what may occur during a single entry treatment. Of particular concern, would be sites where some of the forest floor woody material would be removed in addition to harvest of damaged or undamaged trees. The addition of forest floor removal to whole-tree harvest has been shown to have greater negative impact on soil productivity, in the short-term (10-years), than harvest alone. Less slash on the ground would expose soils to greater pressure from heavy equipment during harvest activities. More frequent entries, passes with heavy equipment, and forest floor woody material removal, would likely have greater detrimental effects on soil productivity that may or may not exceed disturbance thresholds (USDA 2004a). Multiple treatments within a short timeframe, would not allow soils sufficient time to recover from disturbance. In order to minimize these impacts, mitigation in Appendix B specifies single entry treatments to extent possible and winter harvest operations under frozen soil conditions. It also specifies what and how much material may be 110 P a g e

111 removed in order to minimize the effect of heavy equipment traffic and overall nutrient removal from a site. These specifications are site specific based on proposed activities and limitations of the soil types. The mitigation along with implementation of BMPs and CNF Plan standards and guidelines should be sufficient to maintain soil productivity in the short-term; however long-term effects would remain uncertain. There are few studies that have assessed the long-term impacts of these activities both individually and as combined treatments, and there is little base-line information for comparison of cumulative impacts on subsequent vegetation growth (Page- Dumroese et al. 2006). As mentioned in other portions of this analysis, long-term monitoring of these treatment areas will be necessary to provide more substantive conclusions. 111 P a g e

112 3.9 Aquatics Issues No key issues related to aquatic resources were raised during public scoping of this project. Effects to aquatic resources were disclosed in this section as a secondary issue. Issue: Proposed activities may impact aquatic resources within Hydrologic Unit Code 12 (HUC12) watersheds that cross the project area. Indicators: Percentage of young forest and open area by HUC12 watershed; acres of riparian area treated Affected Environment There are thirteen HUC12 watersheds that cross the project area, with nearly one-half that total watershed area consisting of open water and wetlands. The amount of young forest and open area within these watersheds and the health and function of riparian areas were of greatest concern to assessing the potential impacts of proposed activities on aquatic resources (Table 3.5.3). Table Measures of greatest concern to aquatic resources within HUC12 watersheds that cross the project area. The health and function of riparian management zones (RMZ) and riparian emphasis management areas (RE) was assessed through comparison of current conditions to long-term projections in the CNF Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 2004b). Watershed Name % Young Forest and Open Area Riparian Health and Function RMZ RE Pike Bay 25 Fair Cass Lake 18 Fair Fair Cass Lake Outlet-Mississippi River 25 Fair Fair Lake Winnibigoshish 10 Fair Fair Little Winnibigoshish Lake-Mississippi River 20 Fair Fair Ball Club Lake 28 Fair White Oak Lake-Mississippi River 23 Fair Fair Steamboat River 30 Fair Crooked Lake 23 Fair Sucker Creek 34 Fair Poor Portage Creek 17 Fair Leech Lake 10 Fair Fair Sixmile Brook 18 Fair Poor In watersheds that are predominantly forested, harvest rates that result in two-thirds or more of a watershed in young forest (0-15 yrs.) and open area (i.e. roads, farmland, and pastures) can 112 P a g e

113 nearly double peak flow in stream channels. The increase in peak flow can result in flooding and excessive stream channel erosion (Verry 2000 and Sebestyen et al. 2011). No HUC12 watersheds that cross the project area currently exceed this threshold. The FEIS characterized riparian health in forested areas by tree species longevity and age. Favoring diversity and management of longer-lived, older tree species in forested riparian areas adequately provides for several ecological functions (USDA 2004b). Long-lived species, least of which is white pine, dominate the forested riparian area in all but two of the watersheds that cross the project area. Forest age distribution had weighed more heavily toward the mature age class prior to the windstorm in July of As a result of the damage many of the watersheds now consist of more young. More detailed information on the existing condition of aquatic resources for each watershed that crosses the project area is available in the project record (PR 3.5). Management Direction and Forest Plan Consistency The Forest Service follows all applicable laws, including the following: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Forest Management Act (NFMA) Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act Clean Water Act Executive Orders and All activities proposed within the project area are consistent with national FSM policy of maintaining or improving watershed conditions through management of riparian areas within the context of the surrounding landscape, preservation and restoration of wetlands and floodplains (USDA 2004c), and management of habitat for a full range of plant, fish, and wildlife species (USDA 2005). All management activities proposed in this project comply with relevant CNF Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for aquatic resources: G-FW-1; S-WS-1, 4, 6, 9, and 11; G-WS-1, 3 through 14; G-TM-6; S-TS-3, G-TS-9, 10, and 13 (USDA 2004a) Direct and Indirect Effects Scope of Analysis Spatial Framework and Timeframe Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to aquatic resources were analyzed at the HUC12 watershed scale. Changes were assessed at the HUC12 (or 6 th Level HUC equivalent) scale because it is most relevant for analyzing the effects of forest management activities on aquatic resources within the Chippewa National Forest (CNF) (USDA 2004b). The time necessary for aquatic resources to recover from forest management related disturbance may range from as little as one growing season to several decades depending on the type and intensity of disturbance (Table 3.5.1). 113 P a g e

114 Table Range of recovery times for various disturbances of greatest concern to aquatic resources within HUC12 watersheds that cross the Blowdown Restoration project area (Verry 2000, Sebestyen et al. 2011). Disturbance General Recovery Period Creation of Young Forest or Open Area Riparian Treatments Up to 16 years following regeneration harvest Several years to decades to achieve desired future conditions No Action Alternative Aquatic resources would not be not be directly or indirectly affected by this alternative because no new activities would be proposed. Young forest would continue to age and over time reduce the amount of young forest and open area within watersheds. Existing timbersale infrastructure (i.e. roads, skid trails, and log landings) may continue to alter natural hydrology or impact water quality until native vegetation recovers. Most of the forested riparian vegetation would continue to grow older and shift toward plant communities comprised of long-lived, late successional species. Some areas dominated by longlived species such as pine, may shift to early successional, short-lived species such as aspen, as a result of severe damage from blowdown. Action Alternatives The amount of forest regeneration (i.e. clearcut and coppice cut harvest) proposed in either action alternative would not cause watersheds crossing the project area to exceed 60% of their total watershed area in young forest and openings. The percentage of young forest and open area created would be highest in Alternative B, gradually decreasing over time in both alternatives as forests mature (Table 3.5.4a). Table Estimated 2027 young forest and open area (Y and O) percentage of HUC12 watersheds that intersect the project area by alternative. Numbers reflect changes due to planned harvest only on Forest Service lands. Watershed Name % Young Forest and Open Area Alternative B Alternative C Pike Bay Cass Lake Cass Lake Outlet-Mississippi River Lake Winnibigoshish 5 5 Little Winnibigoshish Lake-Mississippi River Ball Club Lake White Oak Lake-Mississippi River Steamboat River Crooked Lake Sucker Creek Portage Creek Leech Lake 7 7 Sixmile Brook P a g e

115 A portion of roughly 797 acres of riparian area, within the riparian management zone (RMZ) or Riparian Emphasis Management Area (RE), would be treated in Alternative B, and 769 acres in C. A range of harvest, site preparation, prescribed fire, and reforestation methods (Table 3.5.4b) would maintain or enhance riparian health and function and meet a range of watershed, vegetation, and fire disturbance objectives of the CNF Plan (USDA 2004a). Table Acres of riparian area treated, by alternative, within the project area. Treatment Acres of Riparian Area Alternative B Alternative C Conversion of short-lived species to long-lived conifer Addition of long-lived conifer diversity Reforestation of long-lived conifer Other treatments focused on reforestation and hazardous fuels reduction Proposed vegetation management activities within riparian areas would have some influence on water flows or yields; however the magnitude of hydrologic response would be driven mainly by landuse change at the watershed scale (RSTC 2007). Earlier this was mentioned to not be an issue for either alternative. Water quality effects have largely been addressed through past implementation and effectiveness monitoring of Minnesota forest best management practices (BMPs) (MFRC 2005). Implementation of most water quality BMPs, across all ownerships, has been on the rise since Where impacts were observed they were generally small in size and isolated rather than dispersed throughout the treatment area (Dahlman and Phillips 2004, Dahlman 2008, Dahlman and Rossman 2009, Rossman 2011). Several CNF timber sale units were reviewed by CNF staff post-harvest in 2007, and all were found to meet filter strip disturbance and RMZ width and basal area guidelines. Where soil disturbance was found it was limited in extent and was not an impact to water quality (Rutten and Morley 2007). Fire was monitored along the Mississippi and Boy rivers before, during, and after prescribed burns in 1997 and 2004, having little effect on water chemistry and streambank erosion (Morley 2004). As a result of past monitoring, it is not likely that proposed activities would negatively impact water quality as long as BMPs, CNF Plan Standards and guidelines, and soils and aquatics mitigation in Appendix B are implemented. The greatest impact proposed activities would have is on aquatic habitat and associated terrestrial and aquatic species (the wildlife section goes into greater detail on effects to terrestrial wildlife species). In both alternatives, more so in Alternative B than C, reestablishing or introducing a greater component of long-lived conifer to riparian areas would maintain or improve stand longevity and windfirmness over time. It would also discourage beaver activity, particularly in aspen or birch dominated stands, by reducing the amount of favorable forage. Reduced forage would also have a positive effect on stand reforestation and windfirmness as well as better maintain the adjacent aquatic habitat and connectivity (Verry 2006). The importance of woody debris in riparian ecosystems is well-known, providing energy, nutrients, and structure to streams and lakes and habitat for a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic 115 P a g e

116 wildlife species (Dolloff and Webster 2000). In both alternatives, more so in Alternative B than C, some of this material would be removed in order to reduce hazardous fuels built up following blowdown and facilitate forest regeneration. It would be done so in a manner that achieves multiple objectives of hazardous fuels reduction, habitat maintenance or improvement, and minimal physical impact. Basal area and species retention requirements for standing live trees would maintain older vegetative characteristics in riparian areas only partially damaged from blowdown. In areas more heavily damaged, the older, larger trees that are retained would be a source of seedstock for future woody recruitment. Retention requirements of fine and coarse woody debris, including both blowdown and preexisting material, would maintain sufficient nutrients and provide structural habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic species. Appendix B identifies soils and aquatic mitigation measures, by treatment unit Cumulative Effects All previously planned and proposed forest regeneration on CNF, State of MN, and county lands over the next 15 years would not cause watersheds crossing the project area to exceed 60% of their total watershed area in young forest and openings (Table 3.5.4c). Table Estimated 2027 young forest and open areapercentage of HUC12 watersheds that intersect the project area by alternative. Numbers reflect changes due to planned harvest on Forest Service, County, and State lands. Watershed Name % Young Forest and Open Area Alternative B Alternative C Pike Bay Cass Lake Cass Lake Outlet-Mississippi River Lake Winnibigoshish 6 6 Little Winnibigoshish Lake-Mississippi River Ball Club Lake White Oak Lake-Mississippi River Steamboat River Crooked Lake Sucker Creek Portage Creek Leech Lake 9 9 Sixmile Brook Despite the lack of forest cover and management data on tribal and private lands, it is unlikely that planned harvest in these areas would contribute to exceeding the young forest and open area threshold. Tribal and private ownership covers a smaller percentage of total watershed area than the remaining public lands, and the projected young forest and open area percentages on the remaining public lands are well below 60%. The forest management approach on other public lands is consistent with some of the goals and objectives of the CNF Plan (Cass County 2003, USDA 2004a, Beltrami County 2007, Itasca 116 P a g e

117 County 2009, and MDNR 2008). Although riparian management is not as explicitly defined in these plans as it is in the CNF Plan, they contain enough management guidance to indicate similar desired conditions. 117 P a g e

118 3.10 Recreation This section includes a discussion of ROS, trails, developed, and dispersed recreation Issues Recreation resources were not part of the key issues identified during scoping. Recreation resources are considered a secondary issue not used to formulate alternatives, yet resources may be affected by the planned activities. The impacts of harvesting and slash/fuels treatment within the Blowdown Restoration Project area will be assessed in regarding recreation facilities (trails, campgrounds, picnic areas), or designated dispersed areas. The indicators are as follows: Indicators: Number of designated dispersed sites in and/or adjacent to stands proposed for treatment (harvesting, slash/fuels) Number of developed campgrounds within and/or adjacent to stands proposed for treatment (harvesting, slash/fuels) Number of stands proposed for treatment (harvesting, slash/fuels) adjacent and/or surrounding trails The Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is qualitatively described. The above were selected as indicators because they relate directly to an individual s recreational experience in terms of affecting access to the general forest, dispersed and developed recreation sites and trails. Additional detail can be found in the recreation report in the project file Affected Environment The project area encompasses approximately 308,935 acres that is encircled by rivers, lakes, forest and roads. Within the area are private, county, state, and federally-owned lands. The project proposal only addresses management on National Forest administrated lands and recreational aspects that would be affected by the proposed activities. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum The Chippewa Forest Plan utilizes the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, (ROS), as a recreation land management tool. (The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management and Research, 1979) National Forest lands in this project area are ROS classified as Roaded Natural (91% ) and Semi-Primitive Motorized (9%). (Percentages are based on the assigned ROS by Management Area). The only classification with treatment activities within or adjacent to it is Roaded Natural. Consequently, Semi-Primitive Motorized will not be 118 P a g e

119 discussed further. Lands classified as Roaded Natural provide predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Recreational Activities Annually there are more than 610,000 visitors to the Chippewa NF. This area s lakes and woods are used for a wide variety of recreation activities. The top three recreational activities in terms of numbers of participants on the Chippewa NF are viewing natural features, hunting and hiking/walking (Visitor Use Report, 2011). Other activities include visiting historic sites, camping in campgrounds and non-developed areas, snowmobiling, boating, fishing, and driving for pleasure. Developed Recreation Developed recreation sites include facilities that result in concentrated use of the area, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, boat landings and parking lots. There are five campgrounds and one developed picnic site within the project area. Norway Beach Recreation Area (four campground loops, two boat access sites, Visitor Information Center, interpretive trail, paved bike trail, designated beaches), South Pike Bay Campground (one campground loop, paved bike trail, boat access site) and Birches Picnic/Boat Access Area have proposed activities within the recreation area. Knutson Dam, West Winnie and Tamarack Point campground areas do not have any activities within or adjacent to them and will not be discussed further. Dispersed Recreation Dispersed recreation are recreational activities that occur outside of developed recreation sites and includes activities such as hunting, scenic driving, trapping, fishing, and general forest use. There are also designated dispersed camping sites. These sites usually are located along the shores of lakes and rivers. There are 44 designated dispersed recreation sites in the project area. These sites are minimally maintained by the Forest Service and include remote campsites and boat landings. Most sites are related to water-based recreation and can be accessed by forest roads or water. The majority of dispersed camping occurs in the summer for fishing, with some camping in the fall during the small and big game hunting seasons. Trails There are 7 trails for hiking, snowmobile, biking, interpretive and ATV use within the project area. The following table indicates the miles per trail type. Table Trail Mileage within the Blowdown Restoration Project Area Trail Type Miles Snowmobile: Avenue of the Pines, Pipeline, Soo Line and Winnie 45.5 ATV: Soo Line 21.8 Bike: MiGiZi 11.1 Interpretive: Norway Beach Nature 1.7 Hiking: Star Island P a g e

120 The Star Island Hiking Trail was not affected by the blowdown event and will not be discussed further. Forest Road Access: Off Highway Vehicles and Licensed Highway Vehicles: There are no proposals for change of motorized access within the project area on existing roads. At least one decommissioned road would be reopened for harvest access and then decommissioned again. Temporary roads and approaches are not open for public vehicle use, including OHVs (Off-Highway Road Travel Vehicle Access Project, 2007). Wilderness/Roadless Areas/Wild and Scenic Rivers There are no Wilderness Areas, Roadless Areas, or Wild and Scenic River corridors within the Blowdown Restoration Project area. Management Direction Policy, Law, Forest Plan Direction The 2004 Forest Plan guides all natural resource management activity and establishes management standards and guidelines for the Chippewa NF. Direction specific to the proposed activities is as follows: Recreation activities continue to occur with little or no disruption when forest management activities are near or adjacent to public use areas and facilities (D-REC-7 (FP, p. 2-39)). Remove hazard trees, retain dead or dying trees not posing a hazard to people or facilities if they provide ecological benefits. (S-REC-1(FP, p. 2-40)). Forest management activities will generally reflect recreation objectives while minimizing conflicts with recreation users by: 1) Avoiding use of system trails for skidding logs, 2) Minimizing crossing skid trails over system trails, 3) Placing safety signing to warn recreationists of activities in an area, 4) Piling slash and other logging debris out of view of recreation sites and system trails, 5) and scheduling activities during low recreation use periods (G-REC-2 (FP, p. 2-40)). Vegetation will generally be managed to remove hazards, improve scenic quality, control insects, or diseases or meet other recreation purposes (G-REC-5 (FP, p. 2-39)). In regards to trails, during timber sale activities, combined use of roads or trails by logging trucks and motorized or non-motorized recreationists will generally be avoided when other routes are available (G-RTL-2 (FP, p. 2-42)) Direct and Indirect Effects Scope of the Analysis Spatial Framework The Blowdown Restoration Project area is used because it allows consideration of project wide effects within Forest Service administered public lands and associated recreation facilities. 120 P a g e

121 Timeline Direct and indirect consequences are considered in the short term for a period of five years. This timeframe was selected because the effects on visitors having the most impact occur within five years of the sale awards. Common to All Action Alternatives The existing condition of the forest within the project area includes areas with a range of wind effects from no discernible wind effects to severely damaged areas. In light to severely damaged areas, trees continue to stand unaffected and other trees may have been blown over to the ground, tipped, permanently bowed, and/or broken off in a variety of intensities and quantities throughout the corridor. The result is a natural creation of openings of a variety of sizes within the forest. ROS No change in the ROS would occur in the short or long term. The proposed project does not in any alternative create changes in the built landscape of roads and facilities. After the proposed project completion no alternative will change the potential number of contacts people may have with others while in the forest. All Action alternatives would provide for similar roaded natural and semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities that currently exist. Current levels and types of recreation opportunities would be maintained. In the short term (over five years) as harvesting occurs, there would be a change in the amount of temporary access roads and mechanical harvesting activity in the forest. More people would be working in the woods and there would be additional sounds of equipment. Upon completion of the proposed project, any new temporary road corridors would be decommissioned and tree regeneration would be established. The changes in the forest have occurred naturally as a result of the wind. The proposed projects of additional harvesting and/or fuel/slash treatment will continue a natural environment (forested) setting within the project area. Opportunities for hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing in the project area would not change substantially over the short term. The quantity or type of developed recreation areas would not change. As a result, there would not be a major change in the amount of visitors and visitor encounters would not change. The re-opened decommissioned roads, FR 2930 and FR 2132O will be closed and decommissioned after the project. The two access points along Highway 46 are also temporary in nature. These roads will not be open to OHV use. 121 P a g e

122 Harvest treatments There are two categories of harvest treatments; even-aged (clearcuts/coppice harvests) and uneven-aged (selection). The effects of harvesting on developed, dispersed sties, and trail would effectively be the same and are described as follows: Uneven-aged forest management would create a continuous forest cover that has trees of many different ages and sizes creating a diverse forested landscape and a mostly shaded area. Even-aged management would create in the short term open areas in the forest with none to few trees. Tree size and age would be very similar, creating a uniform forest adjacent to the sites or trails. Shade would be in short supply; vistas would open up into the forest for the first decade. Trails Snowmobile trails-- Avenue of Pines, Soo Line, and Winnie -- all had varying amounts of trees blown down on the trail. The snowmobile trails are managed as Grant-in-Aid trails, resulting in local snowmobile clubs working in conjunction with the counties to provide maintenance. Clearing has been both completed on some areas and is on-going if necessary on the trails. Slash lines the trails that have been cleared of trees. Mitigation Mitigations addressing resource management actions include: 1. Access Decommission and Signage: New access points, temporary roads, and re-opened roads will be decommissioned once the harvesting/fuel treatment is completed. 2. Access Signage: Temporary, new access points and re-opened roads opened for harvesting access will be signed as closed for OHVs. 3. Operations Timing: Limit all operations adjacent to dispersed sites, developed campgrounds and picnic area; and trails, (excluding snowmobile trails), when feasible and reasonable, to the period of September 10 th to the Minnesota May fishing opener to avoid operations during the late spring and summer recreation season. 4. Operations Timing: The MN Department of Natural Resources Grant-In-Aid snowmobile trail season is from December 1 to April 1. If harvesting operation must occur during the annual GIA Snowmobile Trails Season, then a minimum of four inches of snow will be left on the trail. If snowplowing, avoid leaving large snow berms perpendicular to either the haul route or snowmobile trail route. Coordination with the contractors and Unit staff specialists would be required prior to operations. 5. Signage: Dispersed sites and non-snowmobile trails adjacent to harvesting and fuel units will be signed closed during active operation. 6. Slash Treatment: Slash will not be left within 100 feet of a dispersed site, campsite, picnic area, or trail to reduce hazardous fuels. 7. Hazard Trees, Developed Sites: Do not leave hazard trees within 100 feet or the tree height if greater surrounding a campsite, fee station, toilet facilities, or picnic facility. 122 P a g e

123 8. Hazard Trees, Trails: Within 100 feet of either side of the trail remove hazard trees based on whether the individual tree is of a height that it would fall on the trail. 9. Project Access: Haul routes and skid trail locations within campground areas, trail corridors and dispersed sites to be determined after coordination with the Unit Recreation Specialist, sales administrator, contracting officer/representative and forest engineering staff prior to project implementation. 10. Regeneration, Developed Sites: Regeneration within even aged harvest units within the developed recreation areas will include tree spading trees of a variety of sizes to supplement seedling planting and/or natural regeneration. Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternative Alternative A No Action Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites Use of campsites within campgrounds; boat accesses, dispersed camping sites, and other dispersed uses, such as opportunities for fishing and hunting would not be affected since there are no activities proposed within or adjacent to these areas in this alternative. Some general forested areas with a large amount of trees blown down within the Forest may not be accessible. Trails Some trails have limited accessibility as a result of the blowdown. Portions of the MiGiZi Bike Trail and all of the Norway Beach Nature Trail have been closed and are not accessible. The MiGiZi through the Norway Beach Recreation Area has been cleared and open. The MiGiZi south of MN Highway 2 and along Pike Bay is not open for use. No action would mean that continued trail clearing would occur as implemented through the blowdown and hazard tree removal projects and also as CNF funding permitted. The trails may not re-open for an undefined time. Slash/Fuels No additional large amounts of fuels reduction would occur adjacent to trails, developed recreation sites or dispersed sites, except as implemented within the existing contract for hazard tree and blowdown projects. This would create potential unsafe conditions due to wildfire hazards. Alternative B and C Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites Dispersed campsite recreation would generally continue to occur at similar levels and type of use. Individuals camping at designated dispersed campsites may be impacted by active harvesting in the forest surrounding the campsite in the short term. For some members of the public, these are negative impacts, and people may move to a location where they may again enjoy a remote dispersed recreation experience unaffected by current forest management. Some general forested areas with a large amount of trees blown down may not be accessible as a result of the blown down trees and/or harvesting operations as proposed by this project. Opportunities for fishing and hunting may be affected during project operations if areas are 123 P a g e

124 actively being harvested. Individuals participating in activities that use the general forest, such as bird/wildlife watching, localized cross-country skiing, and gathering plants, would experience short term impacts associated with management activities, but over time (five to ten seasons) would not be affected. These recreationists may also choose a different location or continue to use the area if safe. The following tables indicate the number of developed and dispersed designated recreation areas in the project area and the number of adjacent proposed harvest units by type of harvest. Table Number of stands by HarvestType Adjacent or Within Dispersed and Developed Recreation Sites Dispersed Sites Developed Sites Harvest Type Alt B Alt C Uneven-aged: Selection 8 1 Even-aged 1 1 Uneven aged: Selection 5 3 Evenaged: 13 1 Types of harvest will affect some sites. Generally, in an uneven-aged forest setting, shade and visual diversity would continue to enhance the sites. Even-aged management would have considerably less shade, have vistas into the forest for the first decade and would not be visually diverse. Dispersed sites For Alternative B, of the nine dispersed sites within the proposed harvest area, eight would remain in an uneven-aged forest setting. For Alternative C, of the two dispersed sites within a proposed harvest area, one would remain in an uneven-aged forest setting. Developed sites Norway Beach Recreation Area, South Pike Bay Campground and Birches Picnic/Boat Access Area have proposed activities within the associated area that vary by alternative. Table Harvest units adjacent to developed sites. Developed Site Alt B Alt C Norway Beach X X South Pike Bay Campground X Birches Picnic Area X X For Alternative B, there are three developed recreation sites (Norway Beach Recreation Area, South Pike Bay Campground and Birches Picnic area), within/adjacent to proposed harvest areas. There are five uneven-aged harvest units and thirteen even-aged harvest units adjacent to the recreation sites. For Alternative C, of the two developed sites within/adjacent to a proposed harvest area, there are two with adjacent uneven-aged harvest units and one with an adjacent even-aged harvest unit. The potential uneven-aged harvest unit within Norway Beach Recreation Area would leave 124 P a g e

125 a variety of ages and sizes of trees. The Birches Picnic area also has a proposed harvest unit. It is an uneven aged harvest, leaving a diverse forest setting. Compared to Alternative B, Alternative C would have less harvesting occurring in the Norway Beach Recreation Area and South Pike Bay Campground area. Some trees affected by the blowdown have been removed, while the remainder would stay creating a forest with large to small openings. Trails Some trails have limited accessibility as a result of the blowdown. Portions of the MiGiZi Bike Trail south of Minnesota Highway 2 continue to be inaccessible. The MiGiZi trail will be cleared through the existing contracts for hazard and blowdown tree removal sale(s). The Norway Beach Nature Trail has been closed and is not accessible. The MiGiZi through the Norway Beach Recreation Area has been cleared and is open. Alternative B would clear trees on the Norway Beach Nature Trail, whereas Alternative C would clear trees along a small portion of the Norway Beach Nature Trail. Both alternatives would allow for the removal of hazard trees within harvest units along the MiGiZi and Norway Beach Nature Trail. The opening of trails not cleared with contracts related to the blow down would be closed indefinitely until the CNF can open them using allocated budget. For both alternatives, the snowmobile trails Avenue of Pines, Soo Line, and Winnie Snowmobile Trial all had varying amounts of blowdown trees. Clearing has been both completed on some areas and is on-going if necessary on the trails. Hazard trees along the trails would be removed if within adjacent harvest units. Slash remains along the trail portions were trees have been cleared. The following tables shows the trails in the project area affected by harvest activities and the number of adjacent proposed harvest units by type of harvest. Table Harvest units adjacent to trails. Trail Name Alt B Alt C MiGiZi Bike X Norway Beach Nature Trail X X Winnie X X Soo Line X X Avenue of the Pines X Table Number of Stands by Harvest Type adjacent to Trails Harvest Type* Alt B Alt C Uneven-aged: Selection 27 5 Even-aged 19 5 *A trail may have more than one type of adjacent harvest along the trail length. 125 P a g e

126 Fuels/Slash Slash/fuels treatments vary by alternative and include using fire as well as mechanical methods to reduce the slash and thus reduce the wildfire hazard. The trails include Winnie, Soo Line, MiGiZi and Norway Beach Nature Trail. For alternative B. there are 65 fuel treatment units along the trails. Alternative C has 16 fuel treatment units along the trails. For Alternative B, there are nine dispersed and three developed sites that have 19 stands proposed for fuel treatments adjacent to them. For Alternative C, there are five dispersed and two developed sites of that would be treated for slash/fuel reduction. The total stands proposed for fuels treatments within these areas are Cumulative Effects Spatial Framework The area is within the boundary of the Blowdown Restoration Project Area. The effects on recreation developed and dispersed sites, ROS, and trails are analyzed for the project area for past, present and future on Forest Service administered lands. Harvest activities on lands that are not administered by the Forest Service (private, state, and county) are not considered. These harvest activities do not have to meet the same recreation management standards. Past, Present, and Future Impacts The CNF has implemented salvage sales and hazard tree and blowdown removal along roads and facilities infrastructure since the wind event in July 2012 (refer to Chapter 1 for an overview). Some of these operations are currently on-going. Operations have included removing blowdown and hazard trees along or around system trails, administrative sites, and campgrounds. Some slash removal from sites was also done. Developed and Dispersed Recreation Sites The campsites within campgrounds; boat access and dispersed camping sites have been cleared of blowdown tree damage and hazard trees. The clearing has occurred though contracts and by Chippewa NF employees. There are and will be additional hazardous trees that will be dealt with through annual recreation operations and maintenance work. Slash will continue to exist. Other dispersed uses, such as opportunities for fishing and hunting would not be affected. Some general forested areas with a large amount of trees blown down within the CNF may not be accessible. Trails Some trails have limited accessibility as a result of the blowdown. Portions of the MiGiZi Bike Trail and all of the Norway Beach Nature Trail have been closed and are not accessible. The MiGiZi through the Norway Beach Recreation Area has been cleared and open. The MiGiZi 126 P a g e

127 south of Highway 2 and along Pike Bay is not open for use. Continued trail clearing would occur as implemented through this project, the blowdown and hazard tree removal project, and also as CNF funding permitted. The trails may not re-open for an undefined time. The snowmobile trails Avenue of Pines, Soo Line, and Winnie Snowmobile Trial all had varying amounts of trees blown down on the trail. Clearing has been both completed on some areas and is on-going if necessary on the trails. Slash lines the trails that have been cleared of trees. Over the next one to ten years forest regeneration will occur in the even-aged managed units and the uneven-aged trees will increase in size creating visual diversity and shade within the recreation sites and along trails. The ROS designation will remain the same, with new roads not being constructed and Forest Plan Management Areas remaining the same. Slash/fuels treatment may reduce the risk of wildfire. Over the next 50 years, the CNF recreation facilities would continue to evolve. Some may be decommissioned, new facilities may be opened. More people may use the area, creating ROS changes. In summary, there have been no recent decisions within the Blowdown Restoration Project Area that have created individual or cumulative changes to developed, dispersed recreation areas, ROS inventory or trails. 127 P a g e

128 3.11 Visuals Issues Scenic quality resources were not part of the key issues identified during scoping. However, scenic quality is considered a secondary issue not used to formulate alternatives, yet resources may be affected by the planned activities. Impacts of harvesting, fuels treatments, and road access within the Blowdown Restoration Project area will be assessed in visually sensitive areas along identified road corridors, lakes, and river shorelines. Indicators: Acres within high and moderate scenic integrity objective (SIO) areas proposed for regeneration harvest activity. Miles of decommissioned roads to be reconstructed by SIO and number of new access points along highways by SIO. Acres of pile and burn slash treatment areas within high and moderate SIO areas. Differences in acres treated, miles of decommissioned road or new access points by alternative indicate the quantity of change in the scenic quality in areas of high and moderate SIO areas. Regeneration harvests, (coppice and clearcut), may effect visual quality within high and moderate scenic integrity areas. Management actions such as regeneration harvests of coppice and clearcuts will be analyzed because these harvests create temporary open areas. Temporary open areas (harvested areas in this project) are discussed within G-SC-1 (FP, p. 2-45) and primarily describe regeneration harvest expectations. Because selection harvest does not create temporary openings, this harvest method will not be analyzed. Miles of decommissioned roads to be reconstructed and number of new accesses needed along highways would create visual impacts, alter the landscape, and are noticeable to visitors. Slash (remaining unmerchantable stems and branches and/or other woody debris) that is proposed to be treated to mitigate wildfire hazard is an issue potentially affecting visual quality. The slash remaining in the woods, either from harvesting or from the wind effects may be treated by fire or by mechanical means. Fuel treatments of slash include broadcast burning within a landscape prescribe fire, and piling and burning. Slash may also be piled by machine or hand piled. Machine piled slash would be in large piles and noticeable to forest visitors. Hand piled slash would be in smaller piles and less noticeable to forest visitors. 128 P a g e

129 Slash piled in preparation for burning will be analyzed within the high and moderate scenic integrity areas within the project area. Slash piled to heights of more than five feet would be noticeable to the casual observer. The indicator is acres of piling and burning of slash. Slash scattered across the harvest unit in preparation for broadcast burning will not be analyzed within this section. Slash is scattered across the harvest unit at depths of one to five feet, remaining unobtrusive to the view over the short term. Mechanical fuels reduction also leaves an area without a substantial component of slash. The treatment is done within a short time after harvesting and would not have a short or long term effect on the visual quality. Therefore, mechanical fuels reduction will not be analyzed within the Visuals section Affected Environment Nature, cultural influences and directed landscape management have combined to create an appealing environment within the project area. This area is characteristic of northern Minnesota, providing a northwoods experience for local residents and for visitors to the Chippewa National Forest. The landscape character of the project area can be described as diverse ranging from rolling to relatively flat terrain with numerous lakes and the Mississippi River, which are a source for many recreational activities. As a result of the July storm, a variety of wind effects occurred within the project area including no discernible effects to severely damaged. In light to severely damaged areas, trees were blown over to the ground, tipped, permanently bowed, or broken off in a variety of intensities and quantities throughout the corridor. The result is a natural creation of openings of a variety of sizes within the forest. The following photo illustrates severe blowdown along the access road into the Norway Beach Recreational Area. Trees are left standing, tipped, broken off and laying on the ground, creating a forest opening. The numerous lakes, stately mature red pine stands, diverse vegetation, and colorful fall foliage make the area a popular choice for visitors wanting to experience the scenic qualities the area has to offer. Many roads, river, and lake shores offer notable scenic quality within the project area. Panoramic views are present most notably along the shorelines of Winnibigoshish, Little Winnie, 129 P a g e

130 Cass, Pike Bay, Ball Club, Portage and Six Mile lakes and the Mississippi River. High quality viewing opportunities exist along the Avenue of the Pines Scenic Byway (County Highway 9); Lady Slipper Scenic Byway (County Highway 39) and the Great River Road (MN State Highway 2). There are a number of Forest and County roads that also provide high quality viewing opportunities. Many people travel through this area because of the natural beauty and to reach their destination of area resorts, campgrounds, and boat accesses. The following map indicates many of our forest scenic byways. Figure 1: Scenic Byways : Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO s) were used and considered in the development and design of the proposed action and the subsequent alternatives. SIO boundaries lie at least one-quarter mile from the actual location of travel ways, recreation sites, and bodies of water with access. High SIO corridors are located along Winnibigoshish, Little Winnibigoshish, Cass Lake, Pike Bay, and Leech lakes; the Mississippi River; and portions of the shorelines of Six Mile and Ball Club lakes. The Lady Slipper, Avenue of the Pines, and Great River Road Scenic Byways, County Road 9 are designated as a high SIO. The higher the scenic integrity objective, the more emphasis is placed on maintaining desirable scenery by making management activities less evident. The remainder of the project area is managed with moderate and low SIOs. The following table indicates the existing SIO inventory condition of the Blowdown Restoration Project area. Table Scenic Integrity Objectives for Blowdown Restoration Project Area SIO Percent High 24% Medium 22% Low 54% 130 P a g e