APPENDIX A – GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
A.1 Glossary of Terms
Definitions for most terminology used in this document may be found in the Forest Plan glossary. A few select terms are described below for easy reference.
Advancing Front. The advancing front consists of that area where beech trees are infested with scale but not yet infected with Nectria . All of the east side of the Hiawatha is included in the advancing front. However, some stands in northwestern Chippewa County appear to have Nectria infection beginning on some trees. Nectria is not yet abundant, and no trees have died yet from Nectria, so these stands would not yet be considered to have entered the killing front. That transition may happen within as little as one year, or may take longer. These stands will likely be where the killing front arrives first.
Arterial Roads. Road that provides service to large land areas and usually connect with public highways or other Forest Arterial roads to form an integrated network of primary travel routes. The location and standard often are determined by a demand for maximum mobility and travel efficiency rather than specific resource management service. It is usually developed and operated for long-term land and resource management purposes and constant service (FEIS, p. 6-2).
Canopy. The continuous overhead formed from the uppermost spreading branchy layer of a forest.
Canopy Gap. A small opening created in the canopy.
Classified Road . Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to national Forest system lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access. It includes state roads, county roads, privately-owned roads, NFS roads and other roads authorized by the Forest Service 936 CFR 212.1).
Clearcut. A regeneration cut where all merchantable trees in the stand are cut.
Clearcut with Reserves. A variant of the clearcut method in which varying numbers of reserve trees are retained to attain goals other than regeneration. The number of reserve trees retained is sufficient to create a two-aged, two-storied stand.
Collector Road. Road that serves smaller land areas than an Arterial road and is usually connected to an arterial or public highway. It collects traffic from local roads. Its location and standard are influenced by both long-term multi-resource service needs and travel efficiency.
Compartment. A unit of land with boundaries delineated by geographical features such as rivers, creeks, roads, and property boundaries for administrative purposes. Compartments are approximately 500-2,000 acres in size.
Decommission Road. Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state (FEIS, 6-11).
Design Criteria. Site specific application of Forest Plan or other required standards or guidelines that are incorporated into the design of the project activity.
A - 1 Appendix A – Glossary and Acronyms
Desired Condition. A goal, as stated in the Forest Plan, as to what a specific area should look like in the future.
Ecological Landtype (ELT). A framework that allows natural resource managers to identify, describe and map units of land with similar physical and biological characteristics at scales suitable for natural resources planning and management. (FEIS, Appendix I).
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). A landscape classification that determines departure of the current landscape conditions from the historic landscape conditions using vegetation type and fire dynamics. The three classes describe low (FRCC1), moderate (FRCC2), and high (FRCC3) departure from historic conditions.
Fire Rotation (FR). The length of time necessary for an area equal to the entire area of interest to burn. Size of area of interest must be clearly specified. This definition does not imply that the entire area will burn during a cycle; some sites may burn several times and others not at all. In the Lake States, fires are generally more infrequent than those described by the national Fire Regimes. Cleland (2004) calculated replacement fire rotations at a scale more appropriate to Lake States landscapes. (FEIS, H-3)
Forest Type Groups. A group of forest cover types used to define seral classes. The forest type groupings differ by ecological land types.
Fuel Breaks. A break in the vegetation (Primarily the canopy) designed to stop, or slow a wildfire. A road corridor can be considered a fuel break because it has a wide corridor void of vegetation.
Intermediate Harvest. Any treatment or tending designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the stand after establishment or regeneration and prior to final harvest.
Intermittent Streams. A watercourse that flows in a well-defined channel for 20-90% of the year during normal rainfall conditions.
Issue. A point of discussion or debate related to the proposed action.
Landtype Association (LTA). An ecological unit that describes areas of common ecosystem characteristics and generally (but not always) numbering in the thousands of acres. Landtype associations are defined by similarities in general topography, geomorphic process, geology, soil and potential plant communities (FEIS, 6-7).
Local Road. Connects terminal facilities (resources) with a Forest collector, arterial, or state highway. Its location and standards are usually controlled by a single specific resource activity rather than travel efficiency.
Maintenance Levels (Roads). Each Forest System road is to be maintained to a level commensurate with the planned function and use of the road. The intended level of maintenance to be received by each road is termed the Objective maintenance level (OML), which are divided into five levels of maintenance intensity. OML-1 is the lowest level and OML-5 is the highest level (FEIS, 6-7).
Management Area. A specific geographic location on the HNF where specific management direction will be applied. The HNF is divided into 21 potential management areas (FEIS, 6-7).
A - 2 Appendix A – Glossary and Acronyms
Management Indicator Species (MIS). Species whose presence in a certain location or situation, at a given population, indicate a given environmental condition. Their population changes are believed to indicate effects of management activities on a number of other species.
Mitigation Measure. Includes avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part of an action; minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Modification. A VQO meaning human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but must at the same time utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in the foreground.
Monitoring. The collection of information over time, generally on a sample basis by measuring change in an indicator or variable, to determine the effects of resource management treatments in the long term.
New Road Construction. Activity that results in the addition of forest classified or temporary road miles (36 CFR 212.1).
Overstory Removal Cut . The cutting of trees constituting an upper canopy layer to release trees or other vegetation in an understory.
Overstocked Stand. Any stand having more trees per acre or basal area higher than the average stocking as shown on Table 2400-1 Stocking Levels for Northern Hardwoods.
Partial Removal Cut. Removal of only part of a stand for purposes other than regenerating a new age class.
Partial Retention. A VQO which, in general, means human activities may be evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape (Forest Plan, E-13).
Retention. A visual quality objective which, in general, means human activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor (Forest Plan, E-13).
Road (Forest). A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless classified and managed as a trail. A road may be classified or unclassified (FEIS, 6-11).
Road Closure. Process of closing a road to public vehicle traffic. Closures are used on system roads (roads intended for future use) to limit or prohibit particular types of travel (FEIS 6-11).
Road Maintenance. The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the approved road maintenance objective (FSM 7712.3).
Roaded Natural (RN). A classification of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum that characterizes a predominantly natural environment with evidence of moderate permanent alternative resource and resource utilization. Evidence of the sights and sounds of human is moderate but in harmony with the natural environment. Opportunities exist for both social interaction and moderate isolation from sights and sounds of humans (Forest Plan, E-9).
A - 3 Appendix A – Glossary and Acronyms
Scoping. Involving the public in order to identify and focus attention on important matters early in an environmental analysis, resulting in informed decisions, cost-effective analysis and decision making, and increased credibility.
Selection Cut. An uneven-aged regeneration cutting method where the objective is to maintain a multi- aged structure by removing some trees in all size classes either singly, in small groups or in strips (FEIS A-3).
Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM). A classification of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum that characterizes a predominantly natural or naturally appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present but are subtle. Motorized equipment is permitted (Forest Plan, E-9).
Seral Stage. The stage of succession of a plant community that is transitional. If left alone, the seral stage will give way to another plant community that represents a further stage of succession (climax) (FEIS 6-12).
Shelterwood Cut. A method of regenerating an even-aged stand in which a new age class develops beneath the partially-shaded microenvironment provided by residual trees. The residual trees also serve as seed trees. The sequence of treatment can include three distinct types of cutting: 1) an optional preparatory cut (prep. cut) to enhance conditions for seed production, 2) an establishment harvest (seed cut) to prepare the seed bed and to create a new age class, and 3) a removal cut (final removal cut) to release established regeneration from competition with overstory trees (FEIS A-3).
Silviculture. A combination of actions whereby forests are tended, harvested, and replaced.
Single Tree Selection Cut. A method of regenerating uneven-aged stands in which individual trees of all age classes are usually cut throughout the stand to establish new age classes and achieve desired stand structure characteristics. Regeneration is usually achieved by natural seeding or by coppice method.
Site Preparation. Preparation of the ground surface before planting and seeding or preparing a seedbed for natural regeneration, including removal of unwanted vegetation, slash, stumps, and roots from a site.
Size Class. Classification of tree stand size based on the dominate trees in the stand. • Size class 0: Open lands • Size class 1: Less than 4.5 feet in height • Size class 2: From 4.5 feet to 4.9” diameter at breast height (DBH) • Size class 3: From 5” to 8.9” DBH • Size class 4: From 9: to 17.9” DBH • Size class 5: Greater than 18” DBH (FEIS, 6-12)
Snag Tree. A standing dead tree, used by birds for nesting, roosting, perching, courting, and/or foraging for food and by many mammals for denning and foraging for food.
Stand. An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in composition, age arrangement, and condition to be distinguished from the forest on adjoining areas (Forest Plan, 6-13).
Suited Land. Land that is to be managed for timber production on a regulated basis (FEIS, 6-13).
A - 4 Appendix A – Glossary and Acronyms
System Road. Permanent managed roads that provide Forest access. They are located and built for long- term though not necessarily continuous use. System roads are inventoried and include arterial, collector, and local roads (FEIS, 6-11).
Temporary Road. Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation, not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management (FEIS, 6-11).
Thinning. An intermediate cut designed to enhance the growth and quality of the remaining trees (FEIS, 6-6).
Unclassified Road. Roads on NFS lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system. It includes unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designed and managed as a trail; and roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization (36 CFR 212.1) (FEIS, 6-11).
Visual Quality Objective. A desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area, and refers to degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape in five levels: Preservation, Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification (FEIS, 6-14).
Watershed Level. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): The United States is divided and subdivided into successively smaller hydrologic units which are classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions, accounting units and cataloging units. The hydrologic units are arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system. • Sixth level: HUC are watersheds between 10,000 to 40,000 acres (FEIS 6-6).
A.2 Acronyms Alt. Alternative Approx. Approximate BA Biological Assessment BBD Beech bark disease BBS Breeding Bird Survey BE Biological Evaluation BMP Best Management Practices BO Biological Opinion CEA Cumulative effects area CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations Comp. Compartment cRNA Candidate Research Natural Area DBH Diameter at breast height E Federal Endangered EA Environmental Assessment EAB Emerald ash borer EIS Environmental Impact Statement ELT Ecological Landtypes EO Element Occurrences & Executive Order
A - 5 Appendix A – Glossary and Acronyms
EPA Environmental Protection Agency EXD Excessively drained F Fall FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FH Forest Highway FR Forest Road FR Fire Rotation FRCC Fire regime condition class FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual FT Federally Threatened Forest Plan Land and Resource Management Plan for the Hiawatha National Forest GIS Geographic Information System GL Guideline GLO General Land Office H habitat HNF Hiawatha National Forest HUC Hydrologic unit code ID Identification IDT Interdisciplinary Team IRA Inventoried Roadless Area KW Kirtland’s warbler LAA May affect, likely to adversely affect LT Federally Listed Species LTA Landtype Association LWD Large Woody Debris MA Management Area MBF Thousand Board Feet MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources mi. mile MI-E Michigan Endangered MI-T Michigan Threatened MINLTF May Impact Individuals but Not Likely to Cause a Trend to Federal Listing or Loss of Viability MIS Management Indicator Species MI SC Michigan Special Concern (53, plants MI SC) MNFI Michigan Natural Features Inventory MWD Moderately Well Drained N North NA Not Applicable NCT North Country Trail NE No Effect NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NI No Impact NLAA May affect, not likely to adversely affect NNIS Non-native Invasive Species NWI National Wetland Inventory OHV Off-highway Vehicle
A - 6 Appendix A – Glossary and Acronyms
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCE Primary Constituent Elements PD Poorly Drained PL Public Law Prep Preparation R Range RA Reserve Area RACR Roadless Area Conservation Rule RARE II Roadless Area Review and Evaluation Rec. Recommendation Regen Regeneration RFSS Regional Forester Sensitive Species RN Roaded Natural ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Rx Prescription S Stand S Species Present (EA p.63) S Standard (BE p. 15) S Summer Sec. Section SFSC Spruce-fir/Swamp Conifer SHPO Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer SMU Soil Management Unit SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions SP Spring SPM Semi-primitive Motorized SQ Square SQS Soil Quality Standards State State of Michigan STD Stand SWEXD Somewhat Excessively Drained SWPD Somewhat Poorly Drained T Township T Federal Threatened TES Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive UP Upper Peninsula US United States USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of Interior Vol. Volume VPD Very Poorly Drained VQO Visual Quality Objectives W West W Winter WD Well Drained WO Winter Only WQS Water quality standards
A - 7
APPENDIX B – REFERENCES
Alban, D.H., D.A. Perala, and B.E. Schlaegel. 1978. Biomass and nutrient distribution in aspen, pine, and spruce stands on the same soil type in Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Forest Research V. 8 (3). Sept. 1978. pp.290-299.
Brown, Arthur A. and Kenneth p. Davis. 1973. Forest fire control and use. 2 nd edition. New York. McGraw-Hill. 686 pp.
Carey, Jennifer H. 1993a. Pinus banksiana . in: Fire Effects Information System , [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. [10/18/2001].
Carey, Jennifer H. 1993b. Pinus resinosa . in: Fire Effects Information System , [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. [02/13/2004].
Chen, Han Y.H. and Roman V. Popadiouk. 2002. Dynamics of North American boreal mixed woods. Environmental Review 10: 137-166.
Cleland, D.T., T.R. Crow, S.C. Saunders, D.I. Dickman, A.L. MacLean, J.K. Jordan, R.L. Watson, and A.M. Sloan. 2002. Characterizing Historical and Modern Fire Regimes in the Lake States : A Landscape Ecosystem Approach (DRAFT). USDA Forest Service. North Central Research Station. Rhinelander, WI. 49 pp.
Cleland, D.T., T.R. Crow, S.C. Saunders, D.I. Dickman, A.L. Maciean, J.K. Jordan, R.L. Watson, and A.M.Sloan, K.D. Brosofske. Characterizing Historical and Modern Fire Regimes in Michigan (USA): A Landscape Ecosystem Approach. Landscape Ecology 19:311-325. 2004. Kluwer Academic Publisher. Printed in the Netherlands.
Davis, R.L., C.J. Frey. 1984. Soil Resource Inventory , Sault Ste. Marie and St. Ignace Ranger Districts, Hiawatha National Forest. USDA Forest Service.
Ecomap. 1993. The National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. USDA Forest Service.
Fire (2003). www.fire.org/frcc. Fire Regime and Condition Class website. FRCC definitions. USDA, USDI, The Nature Conservancy and others.
Frawley, Brian J. 2006. 2005 Marten Harvest Survey . Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report No. 3455. June 2006.
Frey, B.R., V.J. Lieffers, S.M. Landhausser, P.G. Comeau, K.J. Greenway. 2003. An analysis of sucker regeneration of trembling aspen . Canadian Journal of Forestry Research . 33: 1169- 1179.
Gullion, Gordon W. 1984. Managing Northern Forests for Wildlife. Publication No. 13,442. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. St. Paul, Minnesota. 72 pp.
B - 1 Appendix B - References
Hann, W.J., D.L. Brunnell. Fire and Land Management Planning and Implementation Across Multiple Scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire . Volume 10, 2001. Brandon University. Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.
Henderson, Eric. 2006. Habitat Definitions Model [computer program]. Hiawatha National Forest. 17 October 2006.
Hiawatha National Forest. 2006 1. Sharp-tailed grouse monitoring results 1995-2006.
Hiawatha National Forest. 2006 2. Outcome monitoring of aspen prescriptions. 9 February 2006.
Howard, Rebecca J. and Joseph S. Larson. 1985. A stream habitat classification system for beaver. Journal of Wildlife Management . 49(1): 19-25.
Katovich, Steven, Manfred E. Mielke. 1993. How to Manage Eastern White Pine to minimize Damage from Blister Rust and White Pine Weevil NA-FR-01-93. [Radnor, PA] . U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Area State and Private Forestry.
Landwehr, Dennis J. 2005. Monitoring Report Summarizing Data from the 2002, 2003, and 2004 Calendar Years. January, 2005. Hiawatha National Forest Soil Scientist.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2006. 2006 Ruffed Grouse Drumming Survey Preliminary Results. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division.
Michigan, state of (MDNR). 1994. Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land . Michigan Department of Natural Resources Management Handbook.
Michigan, state of (MDQ). 1999. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water Quality Division. Administrative Rules, Part 4: (Promulgated pursuant to part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended). http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_7255-12711--,00.html.
Michigan, state of 2002. A Biological Survey of the Waiska River, Chippewa County, Michigan, July 19-20, 1999 and September 27, 2001. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water Division. April 2002.
Michigan, state of. 2006. Water Quality and Pollution Control in Michigan 2006 Sections 303(D), 305(B), and 314 Integrated Report. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau. July 2006.
Mladenoff, D.J. and J. Pastor. 1993. Sustainable forest ecosystems in the northern hardwood and conifer forest region: concepts and management. pp. 145-180 in G. H. Aplet, N. Johnson, J. T.
NCSI 2004. pp. 37, 38-44, 61-62.
Nyland, Ralph D. 2002. Silviculture Concepts and Applications . Second edition. McGraw- Hill. New York, New York
B - 2 Appendix B – References
Ohmann et al. 1978. Some harvest options and their consequences for the aspen, birch, and associated forest types of the lake states. General Technical Report NC-48. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. By L.F. Ohmann, H.O. Batzer, R.R. Buech, D.C. Lothner, D.A. Perala, A.L. Schipper, E.S. Verry. p. 4.
Olson, and V. A. Sample, eds. Defining Sustainable Forestry . Island Press. Washington, DC, USA.
Piehler, Kirk G. 2006. Forest-wide Policy for Implementing Northern Goshawk and Red- shouldered Hawk Territory Protection Guidelines. Letter for NEPA Project File. 4 pages.
Powers et al. 1990. R.F. Powers, R.E. Alban, E.A. Ballenger, T.J Brennan. 1991. Sustaining site productivity in North American forests: problems and prospects. “Sustained productivity of forest soils.” 7th Annual American Forest Soils Conference proceedings. 1990.
Range. 2007. Sand Clay Project, Watershed Resource Report. Daniel E. Range. August, 2007.
Snyder, S.A. October 1993. Great Lakes pine forest. In: Fire Effects Information System , [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. [10/18/2001].
Stone et al. 1998. Are We Maintaining Aspen productivity on Sand Soils? In: proceedings from workshop, Improving Forest Productivity for Timber…A Key to Sustainability. December 1-3. Duluth, Minnesota. Printed from web page: http://www.cnr.umn.edu/FR/conferenceinfo/proceedings/improving_forest_productivity pp. 119-120.
Trudell. 2003. Fiscal Year 2003 BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring. By Ruth Ann Trudell and Louise Congdon. 3 pages.
Uchytil, Ronald J. 1991. The Fire Effects Information System [Data base]. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory. Magnetic tape reels; 9 track; 1600 bpi, ASCII with common LISP present.
US Census Bureau. 2000. State & County QuickFacts. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html . Accessed 17 October 2005.
USDA Forest Service. 2006 1. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Hiawatha National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 2006 2. Land and Resource Management Plan - Hiawatha National Forest (Forest Plan).
Van Wagner, C.E. 1971. Fire and red pine in: Proceedings, annual tall timbers fire ecology conference. August 20-21. Fredericton, NB. No. 10. Tallahassee, FL. Tall Timbers Research Station: pp. 211-219.
Weetman, G.F. and D. Algar. 1983. Low-site class black spruce and jack pine nutrient removals after full-tree and tree-length logging. Canadian Journal of Forest Research . Vol. 13, no. 6 (Dec. 1983). pp.1030-1036.
B - 3 Appendix B - References
Weetman, G.F. and B. Webbers’. 1972. The Influence of Wood Harvesting on the Nutrient Status of Two Spruce Stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research . Vol. 2: pp. 351-369.
Wenger, Karl F. 1984. Forestry Handbook . John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York.
Wright, Henry A. and Arthur W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology, United States and Southern Canada . John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, New York. pp.501.
Zimmer, Gary. 2006. (Ruffed Grouse Society - Regional Biologist) Personal communication. 27 March 2006.
B - 4
APPENDIX C – LAWS AND POLICY
The following are the laws, regulations, policies, executive orders, and direction that provide guidance to the management of the resources on national forest system lands.
C.1 All Resources
The National Environmental Policy Act, 1970 (P.L. 91-190) requires fish and wildlife concerns to be assessed in environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.
The National Forest Management Act, 1976 (P.L. 94-588) provides for balanced consideration of all resources in National Forest land management planning.
C.2 Air Quality
Clean Air Act (PL 88206) . The purposes of this act are to protect public health and welfare from any actual or potential adverse effect which may be reasonably anticipated to occur from air pollution, to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality.
C.3 Fire Ecology and Fuels
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, H.R. 1904. The object of this Act is to improve the capacity to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other all-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and other purposes.
C.4 Soils/Hydrology
Organic Act, June 4, 1897. "No National Forest shall be established except to improve or protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flow...."
Clean Water Act, 1977 (P.L. 80-845). Sec. 101 (a). The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
Sec. 101 (a) (7). "It is the national policy that programs [BMPs], for the control of non-point sources of pollution, be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner...."
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act, 1977 (P.L. 95-192). "...it is the policy of the United States and the purpose of this Act that the conduct of programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the conservation of such resources be responsive to long-term needs of the Nation...."
Antidegradation Policy, Federal Register/Vol. 48, No. 217. Sec. 131.12 (a) (1). "Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected."
C - 1 Appendix C – Laws and Policy
USDA Forest Service Manual 2500 (effective 12/20/94). 2526.03 (2). Riparian Area Management. "...manage riparian area under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, while emphasizing the protection and improvement of soil, water, vegetation and fish and wildlife resources. Give preferential consideration to the riparian dependant resources when conflicts among land use activities occur."
2526.03 (3), "Delineate and evaluate riparian areas prior to implementing any project activity."
2526.03 (4), "Give attention to land and vegetation approximately 100 ft. from the edges of all perennial streams, lakes, and other water bodies."
USDA Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook 2509.22 (effective 12/86). 2509.22 (02), "Do not allow significant or permanent impairment of the productivity of the land. Protect streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water."
USDA Forest Service Soil Management Handbook (effective 9/31/91). 2509.18, 2 (2.03), "Design and implement management practices to maintain or improve the long-term inherent productive capacity of the soil resource. Use the results of monitoring to evaluate resource management actions and recommend adjustments to practices or mitigation measures to prevent significant impairment of long-term soil productivity."
Executive Order 11990. Sec. (1)(a). "Each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for ...(3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use...."
C.5 Silviculture
Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 states: "No National Forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States."
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, 1974 (P.L. 93-378) as amended by the National Forest Management Act, 1976 (P.L. 94-588) addresses many issues pertaining to timber management. Regeneration of timber harvest areas was addressed in Section 6(E) (ii) "...insure that timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands only where - there is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest." It continues with references in, Section 6, iv; and Section F, i and ii requiring "...the harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber; and insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an even- aged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on National Forest System lands only where - for clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimal method, and for the other cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan...."
USDA Forest Service Reforestation Handbook, 2409.26b 113.2 - Stocking Standards, Hiawatha Supplement No. 2 defines acceptable versus unacceptable stocking levels in regenerating stands. "The minimum stocking that will be considered satisfactory is 40% based on 1/700 acre quadrats....The 40% figure will be used as the point at which it is better to replant or reseed as opposed to fill-in. Stands
C - 2 Appendix C – Laws and Policy
between 40% and 70% will be identified as soon as possible and considered for fill-in treatment....Stands with stocking over 70% will generally not need fill-in work."
C.6 Wildlife
The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act, 1960 (P.L. 86-517) recognizes and clarifies Forest Service authority and responsibility to manage wildlife and fish.
USDA policy (Departmental Regulation 9500-4) for National Forest System Lands states that "Habitats for all existing native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife species will be managed to maintain at least viable populations of such species....Land and water management activities will integrate fish and wildlife habitat needs with other resources and programs and will, where possible, mitigate habitat losses, consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives as developed in the planning process."
The Endangered Species Act, 1973 (P.L. 93-205), National Forest Management Act, and Forest Service Manual (2670.1-2670.5) specify the need to protect endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. Biological Evaluations are the means for reviewing projects and documenting findings to comply with ESA.
C.7 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
Fish and Game Conservation Act, 1980 (P.L. 96-366). Sec. 2 (b) (2). "...to encourage all Federal departments and agencies to utilize their statutory and administrative authority, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with each agency's statutory responsibilities to conserve and promote conservation of non-game species and their habitats...."
C.8 Visual Quality
The National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2 provides the process used to develop VQOs.
C.9 Heritage Resources
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-95). Secure for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands.
National Historic Preservation Act 1966 (PL 89-665). Use measures to foster conditions under which our modern society and our prehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.
C - 3
Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
As part of the Sand Clay scoping process, the Forest Service received letters, faxes, e-mails and phone calls from 25 interested individuals, agencies, or organizations. Each of these scoping responses were broken into comments, and responded to by the ID team. The team determined whether the comments were relevant or non-relevant issues. Relevant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. These issues were identified as being addressed in either in alternative development, and/or effects analysis.
Non-relevant issues, while still important, were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) not part of the decision to be made; or 4) not supported by scientific or factual evidence.
Listed below are the public comments as a result of the Sand Clay scoping process, and the Forest Service responses to those comments.
Comments and Responses
1-1: Received your packet on the Hiawatha National Forest and the Sand Clay Project Response: This comment is a general statement.
1-2: I just want to inform you that we sold our property in this area about 5 months ago. Response: This comment is a general statement.
2-1: I am writing to voice my concerns about the action you plan to take around our property. Response: This comment is a general statement.
2-2: If we’re reading the map right you plan on putting a road just to the west of our property. I have attach a blown up section of your map with our property identified on it in section 31 also the legal description of our two 40’s. Response: The solid brownish colored line that abuts your property is proposed to be decommissioned, not to be constructed. There is a proposal to construct a new road about ¼ mile west of your property in order to access proposed vegetation management activities, and to rehabilitate the Clear Creek crossing. Access to your property would then be rerouted to the south along that new road.
2-3: We strongly urge you not to put in another road. Response: See response to comment 2-2 above.
2-4: When our dad and his brothers were alive they complained for years after you put in the road a quarter mile south of us. Response: This comment is not part of the decision to be made.
2-5: You keep taking away our privacy. We haven’t had anything stolen except some old silverware and that was back in the 40’s or 50’s I believe and we’ve felt this was due to the fact that there is only one road into our place from M-28 and not too many people know we’re back there.
D - 1 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
Response: The access road from the north would not be drivable past Clear Creek. The new access to your property would come from the south, where it would tie into your existing entrance to your property. There would still be only one road to your property, but it would be from a different direction.
2-6: As it is now locals trespass now and again with horses, quad runners, probably snowmobiles and a truck once when the neighbor left his chain down but, no one has done any damage yet. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Proposed Action.
2-7: Since you put that road to the south of us in we hear traffic on it all the time and if you connect our road to it we’ll have all that traffic into our place. Response: This issue will be used to develop a range of reasonable alternatives.
2-8: People driving around that road are all going to wonder where this new road goes and drive it to find out. Response: See response to comment 2-2 above.
2-9: We always had peace and quiet and a little security. Response: This comment is a general statement, and not part of the decision to be made.
2-10: Then you put the road to the south of us in and took some of that away and now you’re thinking about putting a road that goes from that around our west side and then the north side. We’ll be surrounded by traffic. Response: See response to comment 2-7 above.
2-11: Occasionally we get people up there in July probably staying at the State park in Brimley riding around in the woods and try to push our cable down to get in and that’s when we’re there. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Proposed Action.
2-12: What’s going to happen when we’re not there and you have people driving all around us? If you put that road in my Dad and his friends and brothers will be turning in their graves. Like I said, they complained for years on end about the road to the south of us. Response: See response to comment 2-2 above.
2-13: Then at one point you clear cut all the way up to our property line on the south side and a lot of our trees blew down because they had never been subjected to so much wind before. Response: This issue will be addressed in the Vegetation and Soils effects section in Chapter 3 of this EA.
2-14: This all happened after we had cut our line out and now there are so many trees down we can’t even go for a walk on our property line. Response: This comment is not part of the decision to be made.
2-15: So, it seems to me every time you make some changes up there it just brings us grief. Response: This comment is a general statement.
D - 2 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
2-16: Also, I have concerns about what and when you’re doing something to the culvert on Clear Creek on the road into our place. On your map you have S82C next to it. Response: The proposed action is to remove the existing culvert and rehabilitate the drainage. Access to your property would then be rerouted as described in responses 2-2 and 2-5.
2-17: If you plan on taking it out or doing something that makes the road unusable I need to know the dates so I’m not driving 300 miles in the middle of the night just to find out I can’t get into our place. Response: The proposed action is proposing to remove the drainage crossing, and reroute access to your property. This issue will be used to develop a range of reasonable alternatives.
2-18: His main concern is that a new road from the south will draw attention to his property and he feels it will result in increased vandalism. Response: This issue will be used to develop a range of reasonable alternatives.
2-19: He would like to see the road they currently use stay there in its current condition to dissuade people from getting close to his property. Response: With the resource concerns on the current road, we need to either fix the current access road to prevent resource damage or we need to remove the culvert and re-route to the south.
The re-route would meet USFS needs, would provide Mr. Armstrong access and would respond to resource concerns in a more economical way.
3-1: Wondering what type of management we are proposing in T45N, R3W, Sections 28, 29, or 32. Specifically if we were proposing aspen management, or if we had future plans for aspen management in those sections. Response: The proposed action does not identify any vegetation management activities in these sections. The team will review these areas for possible vegetation management activities during alternative development (Chapter 2).
3-2: He feels the deer are running out of food and the deer herd is dwindling. Response: This comment is an opinion.
3-3: He didn’t feel a need to review the EA Response: This comment is a general statement.
4-1: Wondering if we were planning to manage on his land. Response: The Hiawatha National Forest proposed management of National Forest System lands only. The Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over private lands, and will not propose management activities on them.
4-2: Wonder if he needed to do anything. Response: Your level of involvement is dependent on you.
4-3: Wondering if his access would be affected. Response: Access to your property would not be affected. We are not proposing to use your access to gain access to National Forest System lands.
D - 3 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
5-1: Wanted to make sure she is receiving a copy of the Sand Clay project. Response: Scoping package was sent. You are on our mailing list for future Sand Clay mailings. 5-2: The project has been developed using a Forest Plan not yet adopted. Scoping for the project should have been delayed until the proposed plan is in force. Response: The decision for the new (2006) Forest Plan has been made. This project has been reviewed to ensure it is consistent with the direction of this current Forest Plan.
5-3: This project will change the landscape; it will have an effect upon species that inhabit it now. What thought has been given to the disturbance it will cause? Response: This comment is already decided by law, regulation and/or policy. Effects to Federally listed, State listed, Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species and their habitat will be analyzed in the Wildlife effects and TES plants effects sections in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis, and in the BE.
5-4: The scoping information states “There is a need to provide areas of older secluded forests for habitat for species such as gray wolf, American pine marten and other species requiring these vegetative conditions.” Other than closing a few user created trails in the Fibre Roadless area, how does the project accomplish this? Response: This issue will be used to develop a range of reasonable alternatives. The effects of management on wildfire can be found in the Wildlife effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis and in the BE (Appendix F).
5-5: There is a conflict between this wildlife need and the proposed road construction and vegetation management in mature stands around White and Horseshoe Creeks as well as other areas. Response: Not every proposed activity is designed (nor can they all be designed) to meet every purpose of and need for action.
5-6: It is good to see the plan to encourage stands within riparian zones to move away from aspen toward late-seral species. This should be done in other forest areas also. Response: This project is already identified in the proposed action.
5-7: Perpetuation of aspen is keeping the forest in an unnatural early stage. Response: This issue will be used to develop a range of reasonable alternatives.
5-8: Greater emphasis should be given to habitat for species requiring older forests. Response: This issue will be used to develop a range of reasonable alternatives.
5-9: Yes, a trail between Monocle Lake Campground and Point Iroquois Lighthouse is needed. Response: This project is already identified in the proposed action.
5-10: User created trails should be obliterated wherever they are. It is good to see a plan to do this in the Fibre Roadless area. Response: This project is already identified in the proposed action.
5-11: Also, plans for closing 3434 and 3131F and S48B and the decommissioning S25C, D and A are a move in the right direction. Response: These projects are already identified in the proposed action.
D - 4 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
5-12: I do hope closings will be monitored frequently. Response: Monitoring of road closures would occur commensurate with the Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation, and within the budget. Informalized monitoring occurs as Forest Service employees travel throughout the forest.
5-13: More law enforcement is needed to prevent user created trails in the first place. Response: This comment is not part of the decision to be made. Law enforcement does not require a NEPA document.
5-14: Keep road construction at a minimum! Response: This comment is a general statement. The Proposed Action proposes the minimum needed to manage the proposed activities.
5-15: Why construct a new system road coming off 3352 between sections 31 and 36? The area in section 36 planned for partial removal can be reached by 3131C. Response: Access to this area from FR3131C was reviewed in the field by Forest Service engineers prior to public scoping. FR3131C does not have a stream crossing. The section of road to be obliterated to the south of FR3131C is not currently passable. Accessing the stand from FR3131E (from the west) would require an easement across private land.
5-16: Why create a new road coming off what appears to be 3342 to reach a small area for partial removal? Is it cost effective? Response: This comment is unclear, as there is no proposed new road coming off of FR 3342. There is a new road construction proposed at the end of FR3342B which would access a partial removal. The road would also serve to access a proposed selection harvest, a couple proposed clearcuts, and a couple proposed clearcuts with reserves.
The cost of road construction is identified as an issue, and will be addressed in the economic effects section in Chapter 3 of this EA.
5-17: Is the extension of 3132C across private land to reach 2 small areas planned for thinning a new road? Is it cost effective? Response: The easement would be pursued on already existing private roads in order to access suited timber. In addition to the stands to be thinned, the proposal would shelterwood harvest as well.
The cost of road construction is identified as an issue, and will be addressed in the Economic effects section in Chapter 3 of the environmental analysis.
5-18: Have water quality samples been taken from streams within and near the proposed projects? Response: Water samples have not been taken from streams near or within the project boundary in relation to this analysis. Collecting water quality samples is dependent on the results of the analysis, and whether it identifies a need to monitor a particular waterbody. See the water quality effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis for further information.
5-19: Water quality should be frequently monitored as proposed projects move along.
D - 5 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
Response: There is a possibility that water quality would be monitored, and is dependent on the results of the analysis. Water quality samples are expected to be taken every 1-5 years on various water courses throughout the forest, in order to determine if the forest is meeting the Clean Water Act requirements.
5-20: I’m pleased to see the sedge marsh restoration, the Canada yew and long-lived conifer plantings, the Clear Creek flood plain planting and the attention given to the achievement of self-sustaining brook trout populations in several creeks. Response: These projects are already identified in the proposed action.
6-1: Would like to be added to the mailing list and have the scoping package sent. Response: This comment is a general statement. A scoping package was sent to you, and you are on our mailing list for future mailings for this project.
7-1: Please allow me to comment on the proposed “Sand Clay project.” Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-2: I have a vested interest in this project as the owner of the 80-acre private holding within the Fibre roadless area T44N R4W Sec 12. I have considerable familiarity within the Fibre area as well as a moderate familiarity with most other areas considered. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-3: My observations of the vegetation in these areas prompts me to strongly agree with the proposed vegetative management objectives and means of reaching these objectives. My Biology degree gives me enough background to understand what you are proposing and why. Response: These projects are already identified in the proposed action.
7-4: I would respectfully differ only in my belief that much more of the area should be subject to action than is proposed. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-5: Much of the forest in the project area is either showing signs of disease, stand deterioration or undesirable seral stages for wildlife habitat or good timber harvest. Response: This comment is a general statement. Areas identified and proposed for harvest are silviculturally ready for harvest on NFS lands considered suited for timber, and meet the Forest Plan management direction and applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
7-6: Overall though I think it is a great plan—go for it with my support. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-7: The Fibre roadless area presents a management dilemma. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-8: I have witnessed a significant deterioration in the health of this area in the last 5 years. I have owned land here since 1983. The birches are dieing off. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-9: The spruce is drought stressed.
D - 6 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-10: The balsam fir has been turning brown in areas. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-11: A large variety of wildlife has declined in number (besides deer). Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-12: Sandhills once landed here by 200 – 300 + in full staging. Now they are around 40 – 80. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-13: Warblers to waterfowl are way off. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-14: Even the mice in my cabin have become so scarce I no longer bother to set traps for them. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-15: This is a sick forest crying out for fire. But of course life is not so simple. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action.
7-16: I am aware that running controlled burns in this area would require an extensive road system. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-17: That would be a logistical nightmare due to wetlands. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-18: And it would ruin the remote roadless characteristics. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-19: I bought this parcel and build a cabin back in on an island surrounded by beaver ponds just because I wanted a remote semi wilderness cabin. Response: This comment is a general statement.
7-20: I only ask that your staff consider means of vegetative management at Fibre that need no additional roads in the future (think outside the box). Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action. The Fibre Roadless Area is not appropriate for timber.
7-21: I support obliterating ORV trails in Fibre area. Response: These projects are already identified in the proposed action.
7-22: There should be signs, and more awareness by the DNR to enforce it. Response: Placement of signs to deter OHV use is already identified in the proposed action. Law enforcement does not require a NEPA document.
7-23: I hike all the way in to my camp, using an existing 2-track part of the way. Were it not for the other inholding owner using this road to access his camp I’d ask that it be blocked.
D - 7 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
Response: This comment is a general statement.
8-1: Cut the volumes of timber you are recommending. Response: These projects are already identified in the proposed action.
8-2: The net affect of road closures is unclear to me. I can’t compute how many total miles of road will be in the complex after new roads are built and then how many miles will be left after logging is complete and roads are “decommissioned” or closed. Response: This comment will be addressed in the Transportation effects section.
8-3: This is very important to the sportsmen and women using this area as well as the older sightseer and disabled person that only have partial mobility. THERE SHOULD BE NO NET LOSS OF ROADS! Response: This issue will be used to develop a range of reasonable alternatives.
9-1: Asked if property taxes would be going up as a result of this project. Response: This comment is a general statement. Property taxes are not under the Forest Service control or jurisdiction.
9-2: Would the Forest Service be doing anything on her land? Response: This comment is a question. The HNF proposed management of National Forest System lands only. The Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over private lands, and will not propose management activities on them.
9-3: Would there be any fill resulting from this project that she could have? Response: This comment is not part of the decision to be made. Gravel and other minerals would require a permit from one of our offices.
9-4: Asked about getting firewood from project area after activities are completed. Response: This comment is not part of the decision to be made. She will need to get a permit from one of our offices in order to get firewood.
10-1: Comments on the Sand Clay Project proposal that we received last week. We have some real concern over this projects proposed actions. Response: This comment is a general statement.
10-1: In particular under fisheries management the Forest Service talks about achieving a self sustaining brook trout fishery in Sullivan Creek. Improving habitat diversity along the streams, installation of log bank and spawning gravel as well as planting of long lived tree species in riparian zones which would enhance reproduction and survival of resident salmonids. Response: The fish management activities proposed in Sullivan Creek, as part of this analysis have been dropped from further consideration.
10-2: Of course this concerns us (USFWS) if the Forest Service plans on doing these improvements in Sullivan Creek above the hatchery, Response: The fish management activities proposed in Sullivan Creek, as part of this analysis have been dropped from further consideration.
D - 8 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
10-3: since this is the water source for the hatchery and increasing the populations of brook trout in this stretch of the creek could negatively impact the hatchery because of an increased risk to our broodstock from fish pathogens coming into the hatchery. Response: The fish management activities proposed in Sullivan Creek, as part of this analysis have been dropped from further consideration.
10-4: This upper stretch of Sullivan Creek needs to be left alone, Response: The fish management activities proposed in Sullivan Creek, as part of this analysis have been dropped from further consideration.
10-5: We do not want any increase in the resident brook trout population. Response: The fish management activities proposed in Sullivan Creek, as part of this analysis have been dropped from further consideration.
10-6: Or an increase in fish production in this stretch of Sullivan Creek. Response: The fish management activities proposed in Sullivan Creek, as part of this analysis have been dropped from further consideration.
10-7: Increasing the risk of disease to our disease free broodstock hatchery is not an option. Response: The fish management activities proposed in Sullivan Creek, as part of this analysis have been dropped from further consideration.
10-8: This also includes doing this type of work within a half mile below the hatchery also for these same reasons. Response: The fish management activities proposed in Sullivan Creek, as part of this analysis have been dropped from further consideration.
11-1: After reviewing the information we received on the Sand Clay Project, it doesn’t appear that our group would have any issues with it as far as Sharp-tailed Grouse are concerned. Response: This comment is a general statement.
11-2: Also, we do not have enough knowledge about the area to make any responsible comments and therefore decline to make any. Response: This comment is a general statement.
11-3: There is no need to send us any more information on the project, but we do want to remain on your list for other projects. Response: This comment is a general statement. You continue to remain on the master mailing list, but will be removed from the Sand Clay mailing list.
12-1: Having perused the data received I find the project very interesting and informative. Response: This comment is a general statement.
12-2: I have had ties to the Fibre area for 50 years, fish and hunting. Response: This comment is a general statement.
12-3: Have seen the near disappearance of trout fishing on the streams. Response: This comment is a general statement.
D - 9 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
12-4: I still maintain a camp on Forest Service Road 3137 and have a suggestion/request regarding #3137. A portion of that road becomes impassable in late October and November of each year due to the road’s clay base. Response: This road work has already been identified, is considered routine maintenance, and does not require a NEPA analysis.
12-5: That portion is approximately a ½ mile stretch and located 1.4 miles west of F.S. Road 3131 (Sullivan Creek Road). Response: See response to comment 12-4 above.
12-6: I would like to receive, when available, the CD copy of the EA. Response: This comment is a general statement. Your name has been added to the mailing list, and you will receive a CD copy of the EA.
13-1: Thank you for the information shared with me in your correspondence dated January 17, 2006 regarding the Sand Clay Project analysis. Response: This comment is a general statement.
13-2: I attempted to view the information on line but was unsuccessful therefore limited my observations to the information afforded me by mail. Response: This comment is a general statement.
13-3: The proposed Sand Clay Project land management activities appear to afford improvements to the National Hiawatha Forest and its surrounding environment near my residence on West Black Creek. Response: This comment is a general statement.
13-4: I would be most interested to learn of any improvements that may effect water elevations and flow paths. Response: This comment is a general statement. Watershed effects, including peak streamflow would be addressed at watershed level and included in the EA (MEASURE: watershed open acres). There generally are no changes surface flow paths from timber harvest (location of overland flows such as stream channels). Groundwater analysis is typically not analyzed for timber management actions as they are considered to be localized, short term effects unless issues are identified which require a more detailed analysis at a local level.
13-5: I entrust under your leadership the project will yield further improvements to wildlife… Response: This comment is a general statement. Effects to federally listed, state listed, Regional Forester Sensitive Species, and Management Indicator Species will be analyzed in the Wildlife effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis, and in the Wildlife section of the BE.
13-6: …while preserving the natural beauty of the area. Response: This comment is a general statement. Effects of the proposed management activities on the visual quality will be addressed in the Visual Quality effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
13-7: I am most anxious to receive the information CD and await further correspondences
D - 10 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
outlined in the proposed work. Response: This comment is a general statement. Your name has been added to the mailing list, and you will receive a CD copy of the EA.
14-1: I am writing this letter concerning two topics. The first is the “Sand Clay Project” Response: This comment is a general statement.
14-2: …and the second is the OHV use in the Hiawatha National Forest St. Ignace Ranger District. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action.
14-3: I am an owner of a 15 acre parcel which is approximately one half mile south of Sullivan Creek Fish Hatchery (FR3131). This parcel is listed under Sue’s Heartbreak Hotel, which is also owned, by my brothers and sister. This 15 acre parcel also has Sullivan Creek running threw a large portion of it. Response: This comment is a general statement.
14-4: Concerning the Sand Clay Project, it looks as if it will be a large undertaking and I support it. Response: This comment is a general statement.
14-5: The only reservations I might have would be the closing of some of the “two tracks” that would prohibit access to the forest. Response: This comment is a general statement. It is unclear if you are referring to “two tracks” prohibiting access for off-highway vehicle use, or “two tracks” prohibiting access for passenger vehicles.
Cross-country travel is prohibited for motorized uses except in designated snowmobile or OHV areas which would apply to two-track roads not on our system. There are no designated OHV areas within the Sand Clay project area. The trail obliteration and rehabilitation in the proposed action is to deter this illegal use in this area.
Closure of roads has been identified as a key issue and will be used to help develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
14-6: But I do understand your reasoning to enhance habitat through isolation. Response: This comment is a general statement.
14-7: I would also like to do something with our 15 acres that would complement your goals for this project. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action. The HNF does not manage private lands. For further information, we suggest you contact the local MSU extension office, or the MDNR Newberry Office.
14-8: We currently have a beaver problem; they have dammed up Sullivan Creek and have created a pond area. Response: See response to comment 14-7 above.
14-9: We also have a lot of deadfall in the Creek area. We are not professional forest managers
D - 11 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
as you are and would welcome any help or suggestions you would have. Response: See response to comment 14-7 above.
15-1: Please be advised that Lloyd Arnott is deceased and the property he owned which may be located within the boundaries of your Sand Clay Project has been sold. Kindly remove his name from your mailing list. Response: We apologize for the error in mailing and will remove Mr. Arnott from the mailing list.
16-1: In regards containing this project. I must write in strong opposition of it. Response: This comment is a general statement.
16-2: To loose another 1,000 acres of aspen or early succession forest is far more than distressing but a total loss. Response: This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
16-3: That will take decades to replace if ever. Response: This comment is a general statement.
16-4: Also to take the only oak stand and destroy it really makes me wonder where you are taking us in the future. Response: There are three oak stands in the Sand Clay project area. The proposed action is to thin one stand. Thinnings occur in stands with a narrow range in tree sizes and ages to remove undesirable stems, leaving more growing space for remaining trees, concentrating growth on the best trees and thus more rapidly increasing tree size.
The vegetation analysis in the EA will discuss the environmental effects of thinning.
16-5: Game species management must be part of the forestry plan. Response: Game species management is already identified in the proposed action. This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
16-6: A more balanced approach is needed here. Response: This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
16-7: Until this is done I can not or will not give support for this project. Response: This comment is a general statement.
17-1: In regards to the information we received on the Sand Clay Project, we have some concerns and requests. Response: This comment is a general statement.
17-2: As landowners and permanent, year around residents, we are asking to please Not clearcut the area in green on the map on road 3134. Response: The green area on the map proposes a clearcut with reserves. There would also be at least one ½-acre island left in this stand for resource protection.
This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
17-3: We would be exposed to the road and traffic.
D - 12 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
Response: Effects of the proposed management activities on the visual quality will be addressed in the Visual Quality effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
17-4: …and be subject to break-ins again as we have two times in the past. Response: See response to comment 17-2 above.
17-5: Please thin the area instead of clear cutting. Response: The purple area on the map adjacent to the green area (clearcut with reserves) proposes to thin.
This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
17-6: We can’t imagine looking at an open field and the road. Response: Effects of the proposed management activities on the visual quality will be addressed in the Visual Quality effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
17-7: Please send the response to comments as a paper copy. Not a CD. Response: This comment is a general statement. Your name will remain on the mailing list. A paper copy of the analysis will be mailed to you as it becomes available.
18-1: Thank you for providing the Ruffed Grouse Society the opportunity to comment on future management activities on the Eastside Administrative Unit of the HNF. These comments are in response to your 17 January 2006 request for input to the proposed activities for the Sand Clay project. Response: This comment is a general statement.
18-2: The Ruffed Grouse Society supports the general purpose proposed in the scoping document to regenerate mature to over mature stands of even-aged trees and improve the age class distribution of aspen and other species in the project area. Response: This comment is a general statement.
18-3: These treatments are long overdue and any further delay will reduce the opportunities to maintain these important species within the project area. Response: This comment is a general statement.
18-4: Other recent and proposed projects on the Hiawatha are showing additional declines in levels of aspen and other early successional communities important to a wide range of wildlife species including important prey for targeted species such as northern goshawk and bobcat in the project area. Response: Other proposed projects are outside the scope of the proposed action, and not part of the decision to be made.
This comment is already decided by law, regulation and/or policy. Effects to federally listed, state listed, Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species will be analyzed in the Wildlife effects section in Chapter 3 of the EA, and in the Wildlife section of the BE.
18-5: We are concerned that this project was developed using the Proposed Forest Plan direction of preferred Alternative 2 prior to any final decision being made.
D - 13 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
Response: The decision for the new (2006) Forest Plan has been made. This project has been reviewed to ensure it is consistent with the direction of this current Forest Plan.
18-6: We are aware that significant comments have been provided to the Forest staff regarding the preferred alternative, many of which could result in changes in the final Plan direction. Response: See response to 18-5 above.
18-7: While we understand that management activities can not be put on hold during this revision and anticipated appeal process, there are several pertinent Plan issues that directly relate to the Sand Clay Project proposal that should be considered (ie. Early successional habitat levels and riparian management guidelines). Response: See response to 18-5 above.
18-8: The Society disagrees with the proposed need to “move roughly 608 acres away from aspen” within project area riparian zones. Response: This need is based on the difference between the desired condition identified in the Forest Plan, and the existing condition. See response to 18-5 above.
18-9: The proposed Forest Plan guideline restricting aspen regeneration within 500 feet of cold and some cool water stream systems is excessive and ecologically unsound. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-10: Targeted to reduce “undesirable beaver activity,” the implementation of this guideline on 608 acres of riparian habitat will reduce opportunities for a wide array wildlife species associated with young forest, riparian habitat. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-11: The Eastside Unit of the Hiawatha National Forest is an important corridor for migratory birds due to its geographic location between three of the Great Lakes. Response: The effects of this project on migratory birds can be found in the Wildlife effects section of this environmental analysis (MIS), and the BE (TES).
18-12: Species such as the declining American woodcock and golden-winged warbler, both listed as High Priority birds on the Partners in Flight Watch List by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, are associated with these habitats. Response: See response to 18-11 above.
18-13: Dense young forest or shrub-dominated habitats on moist soils are essential for the American woodcock. Response: See response to 18-11 above.
18-14: Guidelines to manage forested riparian areas that preclude the removal of substantial overstory vegetation will unnecessarily limit development of important early successional habitat important to woodcock populations. Response: See response to comment 18-8 above.
D - 14 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
18-15: Consideration must be given on the effects that this proposal will have on other communities and wildlife species. Response: See response to comment 18-8 above.
18-16: This riparian guideline is being arbitrarily applied with little consideration given for the effects that this decision will have on other communities and species. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-17: It is doubtful whether the implementation of this broad brush guideline will obtain its objective of further reducing beaver populations. As noted by researcher Howard and Larson (1985), the availability of woody vegetation may be of secondary importance in habitat suitability for beaver. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-18: Stream width, stream gradient, soil drainage class and watershed size also are factors that determine beaver colony locations on streams. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-19: Increasing stream gradient and progressively well-drained soils had negative effects on beaver colony site selection. Responses: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-20: In this Massachusetts study, 17 of 19 colony sites were occupied longer than 10 years indicating a preference for beaver for specific sites. Responses: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-21: The implementation of this broad brush guideline in the Sand Clay Project Area fails to allow consideration of historic site use, stream width, stream gradient, and the water holding capacity of soils to determine if beavers would even utilize these sites. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-22: A copy of the research paper by Howard and Larson is included for your review. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-23: Guidelines that place unnecessary artificial mid to late successional 1,000 foot (500 ft. on each side of the stream) corridors along streams reduce habitat opportunities for wildlife species associated with young forest, riparian habitats. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-24: Data provided in the Forest Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) show that approximately 90 percent of high priority streams on the Forest are NOT (emphasis
D - 15 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
added) being impacted negatively by beaver at this time. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-25: This high figure does little to justify placing an additional 608 acres of aspen stands within riparian zones in the project area off limits to regeneration. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above. Forest Plan guidelines are followed unless rationale for deviation is provided. All of the stands in question had a site review and no deviation hwas proposed.
18-26: We encourage site by site analysis in this project area rather than the implementation of broad brush guidelines to deal with these riparian concerns. Response: Forest Plan related issues are outside the scope of this proposed action. See response to 18-5 above.
18-27: It is ironic that the Sand Clay Project proposal includes a proposal to maintain up to 104 acres of important sedge marsh habitat using prescribed burning to remove encroaching tag alder. Response: This comment is a general statement.
18-28: Beaver are an important “keystone” species that provides habitat for marsh species that may enhance diversity for the region over the long term. Response: This comment is a general statement. This comment is already decided by law, regulation and/or policy. Effects to federally listed, state listed, Regional Forester Sensitive Species, and Management Indicator Species will be analyzed in the Wildlife effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis, and in the Wildlife section of the BE.
18-29: Periodic flooding of sites by beaver is important for maintaining rare northern sedge meadow communities and most likely were the original crafters of the existing sedge meadows within the project area. Response: This comment is already decided by law, regulation and/or policy. Effects to federally listed, state listed, Regional Forester Sensitive Species, and Management Indicator Species will be analyzed in the Wildlife effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis, and in the Wildlife section of the BE.
18-30: The effects of this proposal and any additional alternatives on early successional wildlife species for consumptive and non-consumptive purposes need to be addressed. Response: This comment is a general statement. This comment is already decided by law, regulation and/or policy. Effects to federally listed, state listed, Regional Forester Sensitive Species, and Management Indicator Species will be analyzed in the Wildlife effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis, and in the Wildlife section of the BE.
18-31: Two wildlife species (ruffed grouse and American woodcock) potentially affected by this proposal are very important to one of the primary users of the Forest, the hunting public. Response: This comment is already decided by law, regulation and/or policy. Ruffed grouse is Management Indicator Species. Effects to the ruffed grouse and other species associated with similar habitat conditions will be discussed in the Wildlife effects section in Chapter
D - 16 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
3 of this environmental analysis.
18-32: Michigan has the largest number of hunters of any state in the US. The Forest Plan DEIS illustrates that hunting is one of the top five recreational activities of visitors to the Hiawatha National Forest. Response: This comment is a general statement.
18-33: A recent Forest Service survey reported that small game hunting on the Hiawatha National Forest alone generates $3.3 million dollars annually. Response: This comment is a general statement.
18-34: Obviously, the effects of proposed management activities on these species, which hunters spend over 1 million days hunting per year in the state of Michigan, should be made available to the decision maker as well as the public. Response: This comment is already decided by law, regulation and/or policy. Ruffed grouse is Management Indicator Species. Effects to the ruffed grouse and other species associated with similar habitat conditions will be discussed in the Wildlife effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
18-35: Discussed the alternative to promote more aspen/early successional management. Gary supported the idea of additional aspen/early successional management, Small blocks on about a 10 year rotation are preferred, However, if aspen would fall apart within the next 10 years, he supported management in larger blocks to maintain aspen on the site. Response: This comment has been identified as an issue and will be used to help develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
18-36: Gary expressed concern about 500 foot buffer around cold water streams, and the impact that it would have on early successional habitat for species such as woodcock. He realized that beaver should be controlled in some area, However, prescriptions should be more specific to selected areas and not be applied as blanket guideline throughout the entire project area. Response: See response to 18-26 above.
18-37: Discussed conifer retention within areas managed for aspen/early successional habitat. Conifer can be beneficial to grouse in some cases, but also may provide habitat for predators. Gary does not oppose retention of conifer, as long as it does not impede aspen regeneration below 5,000 stems per acre. Gary understands that conifer retention may not result in a uniform density (stems per acre) across the entire stand, but patches of heavy regeneration will still provide ruffed grouse habitat. Response: This comment will be used to help develop design the specifics of the alternatives.
19-1: Would like to know which sections you are proposing management activities in for T47N, R3W. Response: section 11: borrow source (yellow wheel barrow) - same one in section 12 thinning (lavender) - same one in section 12,13, and 14
D - 17 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
shelterwood (purple) - same one in section 12,13, and 14 section 12: borrow source (yellow wheel barrow) - same one in section 11 new system road construction (pink/black dashed line) - same one in section 14 thinning (lavender) - same one in section 11,13, and 14 shelterwood (purple) - same one in section 11,13, and 14 section 13: thinning (lavender) - same one in section 11,12,and 14 shelterwood (purple) - same one in section 11,12,and 14 section 14: new system road construction (pink/black dashed line) - same one in section 12 thinning (lavender) - same one in section 11,12, and 13 shelterwood (purple) - same one in section 11,12, and 13 section 35: close road (yellow/brown dashed line from yellow pentagon to yellow pentagon) selection harvest 2 stands (beige) section 36: construct 2 temporary roads(blue/black dashed line) clearcut (light green) clearcut with reserves (pea green)
19-2: Would like to know which sections you are proposing management activities in for T44N, R4W. Response: section 4: replace existing culvert (yellow/black star) section 5: new system road construction (pink/black dashed line) - same one in section 6 temporary road construction (blue/black dashed line) - same one in section 6 clearcut 5 stands (light green) clearcut with reserves 2 stands (pea green) partial removal cut 1 stand (burnt orange) section 6: construct 3 new system roads (pink/black dashed line) - one is same in section 5 construct 2 temporary roads (blue/black dashed line) - one is same in section 5 road maintenance (brown line) road decommission (brown dashed line) clearcut (light green) selection harvest (beige) section 15: temporary road construction (blue/black dashed line) - same in section 21 and 22 clearcut 2 stands (light green) - one is same one in section 22 section 16: construct 2 temporary roads (blue/black dashed line) new system road construction (pink/black dashed line) partial removal cut 2 stands (burnt orange) - two are same in section 17 clearcut (light green) - same as in section 21 clearcut with reserve (pea green) - same one in section 17, 20, and 21 section 17: temporary road construction (blue/black dashed line) - same one in section 20
D - 18 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
decommission road (brown) partial removal cut 2 stands (burnt orange) - both are same in section 16 clearcut with reserve (pea green) - same one in section 16, 20, and 21 section 20: road reconstruction (light brown line) - same one in section 21 clearcut with reserve (pea green) - same one in section 16, 17, and 21 section 21: temporary road construction (blue/black dashed line) - same in section 15 and 22 road reconstruction (light brown line) - same one in section 21 decommission road (brown) clearcut 2 stands (light green) - one is same as in section 16, the other is same as in section 22 clearcut with reserve (pea green) - same one in section 16, 17, and 20 section 22: temporary road construction (blue/black dashed line) - same in section 15 and 21 clearcut 2 stands (light green) - one is same as in section 15, the other is same as in section 21
19-3: Would like to comment, but knows there is a deadline for Friday. Response: This comment is a general statement. The scoping period does not have a deadline. We do request that comments be received by a certain date so that the interdisciplinary team can move forward with the analysis. Regardless, scoping comments received after the suggested date will be accepted and incorporated into the analysis as best as possible.
19-4: The Bay Mills Indian Community has concern that some of the tribal cultural and heritage sites are close to proposed activities, and that implementation of these proposed activities may compromise the integrity of the sites. Response: Specific locations were discussed. The Forest Service agreed that the Forest Service archeologist and a Bay Mills Indian Community representative would work with the implementers prior to ensure the integrity of the sites are not compromised.
Mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid any impacts to known cultural or heritage sited are identified in Chapter 2 of the EA. The location in question was flagged and the HNF archeologist conducted field tests to determine if sites were present.
20-1: The directions state that we must request paper copies of HNF documents. Please send them via regular mail Response: This comment is a general statement. Your name will remain on the mailing list. A paper copy of the analysis will be mailed to you as it becomes available.
20-2: Your writing style is so centered on yourself, it is amazing. Please take a course in letter- writing, and in the meantime reduce the usages of “I” and “my.” Response: This comment is not part of the decision to be made.
20-3: The purpose for the proposed action indicates that HNF personnel are trying to make work for themselves, rather than serve the public need. They lose track of whose money feeds them. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action.
D - 19 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
20-4: Thank you, however, for providing a due date Response: The scoping period does not have a deadline. We do request that comments be received by a certain date so that the interdisciplinary team can move forward with the analysis. Regardless, scoping comments received after the suggested date will be accepted and incorporated into the analysis as best as possible.
20-5: The map is not clear in that the colors for clearcuts, intermediate harvest and private property are too similar. Properly prepared maps do not confuse the reader this way. Response: This comment is a general statement. Copies of the map are also on the HNF website, and available for review.
20-6: The scale of the map is also too small, which makes it hard to analyze how actions might impact streams. Response: This comment is a general statement. Copies of the map are also on the HNF website, and available for review.
20-7: No where in the document are we told if the jack and red pine stands are natural- appearing or if they are in rows. This information has been requested previously on projects, forest wide. HNF rangers are aware of the desire to convert planted stands into natural-appearing stands, so these variables are needed to properly comment. Response: Red and jack pine stands proposed for treatment in the Sand Clay project that have a row appearance are in the table below. The remaining red and jack pine stands proposed for treatment do not have an evident row appearance because of past thinnings or they are of natural origin.
Red and Jack Pine Stands that are in Rows Comp/Stand # Species Acres 89/12 Red Pine 17 89/17 Red Pine 4 91/71 Red Pine 15 54/18 Red Pine 18 54/46 Red Pine 46 105/6 Jack Pine 10 105/43 Jack Pine 8 106/20 Jack Pine 20 20-8: The revised Master Plan will specify that no logging is to occur in roadless or semi- primitive areas, except where necessary for safety on adjacent roads. Response: This project is not proposing logging within the Fibre Roadless Area. Harvesting is allowed in semi-primitive areas.
20-9: There is no excuse to log these areas, in this day and age when the value of natural places is so evident. To enter these areas is to compromise on a compromise. Response: See response to 20-8 above.
20-10: Too little of HNF appears in a natural condition already. Response: This comment is a general statement.
20-11: Page 4 of the document mentions the planting of red pine and jack pine. Again it would
D - 20 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
be helpful to know if they’re referring to rows or planting that will eventually appear natural. Response: See response to comment 20-7 above.
20-12: Nature, however, typically does the best job planting. Response: This comment is a general statement.
20-13: Past public comments are obviously being ignored by ID Team members. Response: This comment is a general statement.
20-14: The public’s DFC is best-achieved by leaving the stands alone, except to make plantations look more natural. Response: The Desired Future Condition (DFC) for this project area has been taken from the Forest Plan. There are a number of ways to move toward the DFC. Each alternative reflects some movement toward the DFC.
Leaving the stands alone will be considered in the no action alternative.
20-15: Trees are more vigorous when they compete for their stature within the forest. Response: This comment is a general statement.
20-16: Once plantations have reassumed their natural appearances, nature is best-suited to determine the vegetation and species balance, not the types of logging activity or “desired” age class. Response: This comment is a general statement. Natural processes are considered in the No Action alternative.
20-17: Too many acres are dedicated to game species, instead of the species that would thrive in a natural forest. Response: This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
20-18: Is the 188 acres referred to on Page 5, in rows or do they appear natural? Response: Approximately 74 acres are in rows. See response to 20-7.
20-19: Are the trees indigenous to those acres? Response: Red, jack and white pines are part of the native communities found on the HNF. The table below shows the existing forest type of the stands proposed for treatment and the resulting forest type after treatment. The vegetation analysis in this environmental analysis will discuss the environmental effects. Stands Proposed for Planting: Comp/Stand # Existing Forest Type Resulting Forest Type Row Appearance 52/8 White spruce Red pine No 52/14 Jack pine Red pine No 52/15 Jack pine Red pine No 81/17 Red maple Red pine No 88/31 Jack pine Jack pine No 91/74 Red pine Red pine No 105/6 Jack pine Jack pine Yes
D - 21 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
105/43 Jack pine Jack pine Yes 106/20 Jack pine Jack pine Yes
20-20: Recovery efforts should focus on returning the forest to a natural condition, otherwise it’s a waste of time to cut those acres, just to replant them. Response: Design criteria will be identified to reduce the row appearance.
20-21: The 1,322 acres of aspen and hardwoods are of a greater concern. Hardwood acres are best left alone because too small a percentage of HNF is this condition for species that rely on older forest, and for visitors who seek a natural experience. Response: This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
20-22: For the 677 acres that are natural, why would we “need to thin these stands to remove poorly formed, suppressed, damaged diseased and crowded trees to concentrate growth on the best potential saw timber trees?” Response: The 677 acres in question are immature even-aged stands that include planted pine plantations in need of an intermediate treatment of thinning. One of the vegetation management goals in the Forest Plan is that vegetation communities are diverse, productive, healthy and resilient. Timber management is a way to achieve this goal and the Forest Plan goal of providing wood products.
The vegetation analysis in this environmental analysis will discuss the environmental effects of thinning.
20-23: This is certainly not the objective of the public HNF ownership. Response: See response to 20-22.
20-24: Leave natural stands alone, except where cutting is necessary for road safety. Response: This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
20-25: Nature takes care of the overstocking, while retaining the natural appearance. The prevailing mentality explains why so little of HNF appears natural. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action.
20-26: Under Fuels Management, why not leave the 216 acres alone, thus not need to burn the “post-harvest slash”, risking a larger fire? Response: This issue will be addressed in the Fuels and Fire Ecology effects section of Chapter 3.
20-27: Fuels reduction is not necessary in this remote an area. Response: This issue will be addressed in the Fuels and Fire Ecology effects section of Chapter 3.
20-28: Clear brush near the Sullivan Creek Fish Hatchery, but not across the vicinity, as proposed. Response: Sullivan Creek Fish Hatchery is not within the project area.
20-29: The entire timber proposal covers over six square miles, which would not appear natural for decades. Response: The entire timber proposal is located throughout the project area, and is not covering 6 continuous acres, as suggested.
D - 22 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
Effects of the proposed management activities on the visual quality will be addressed in the Visual Quality effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
20-30: How many of those six square miles are currently in rows, to be converted to natural- appearing forests? It’s hard to know what the stands are composed of by looking at the map—tree types, age, rows or not in rows, etc…. Response: See response to 20-7, 20-19 and 20-20 above.
20-31: The roads mentioned on Page 7 are costly, they cause sedimentation and spread NNIP species. Response: The effects of road construction will be addressed in the Economic, Soils, and NNIP effects sections in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
20-32: They’re too costly to construct, only to obliterate over the short life of a timber sale. Response: The cost of road construction will be addressed in the Economic effects section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
20-33: No road building ought to occur in natural-appearing stands. Response: This issue will be used to develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
20-34: No easements ought to be allowed either, to access natural stands or that involve construction over natural acres. Response: The proposed easements would not be for private use across national forest system lands. The proposed easements would be obtained for Forest Service use across private land. The easement would be pursued on already existing private roads in order to access suited timber.
20-35: Digging two pits is ridiculous for 22 miles of roads. Construction that is unnecessary is 100% inefficient. Response: The two “pits” would not be fully developed gravel pits, but rather local borrow sources consisting of no more than 2 acres each.
20-36: Is the terrain logged on the road between Monocle Lake Campground and Point Iroquois Lighthouse? It must be if the roads were built for logging. Response: The proposal is to thin adjacent to the campground, with a shelterwood adjacent to the thin. In order to haul the timber, a road would be built between Monocle Lake Campground and Lakeshore Drive near Point Iroquois Lighthouse. After the sale is complete, the road would be used as a non-motorized path between these two destinations.
20-37: Were the trees in rows? We need to know more about what the terrain is like, and a description of the appearance. Response: See response to comment 20-7 above.
20-38: Except where plantations are being converted to natural-appearing forests, I plan to appeal this proposal. Response: This comment is a general statement.
D - 23 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
20-39: The forest isn’t being used for the purposes that it was set aside for. Response: This comment is a general statement.
21-1: We feel it necessary to write and express our opinion on the proposed activities in this area of the Hiawatha National Forest. Response: This comment is a general statement.
21-2: Our opinions actually apply to ANY work in any Federal or State Forest areas. Response: All state forests, and any federal lands outside the project boundary are outside the scope of the proposed action.
21-3: First, in regards to the “Controlled Burns”, although it appears this is a minimal part of the entire scope of proposed actions, it is still cause for concern. Response: This comment is a general statement.
21-4: As seen in the past on many occasion, these so-called controlled burns rage out of control and end up causing more damage than good. Response: This comment will be address in the Fuels and Fire Ecology effects section.
21-5: You can take into consideration the incident along the Raco Grade between Raco and Bay Mills last year. Response: See the response to comment 21-4 above.
21-6: Another example would be the raging forest fire in the Western US just last week that was admittedly a controlled burn gone bad. Response: The Western fires are outside the scope of the proposed action.
21-7: As far as we are concerned, this is just not necessary – it’s not worth the risk it poses. Response: This comment will be used to address the effects of prescribed fire on the resources.
21-8: Second, in regards to any clear cut and regeneration work proposed, we feel this is many times done in a terrible manner. The clean up after the fact is very important. In many cases, the logging companies go through and just make a terrible mess of the forest, taking only what they want and just running over anything else. Response: Sale administration on national forest system lands ensures that the timber purchasers follow all requirements of the timber sale contract. The contract provides specifications for trees to be cut in each harvest and requirements for logging operations including clean up activities.
The effects of various types of harvests will be discussed in the Vegetation section in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
21-9: We have seen this all over the State. Response: All state forests, and any federal lands outside the project boundary are outside the scope of the proposed action.
21-10: The companies should be required to properly clean up after themselves. Response: See the response to comment 21-8 above.
D - 24 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
22-1: I think your Sand Clay project would probably work out OK except for some of your projects such as your Fisheries Management. Response: This comment is a general statement.
22-2: Back in the thirties, the CCC’s in Camp Raco had a so called stream improvement. They blew and tore out Beaver Dams on Clear Creek; also made so called log banks for the Fish. Response: This comment is a general statement.
22-3: I am seventy-eight years old and fished since around five – mostly for brook trout. Response: This comment is a general statement.
22-4: The Black, Clear, Sullivan, Biscuit, and other streams without beaver dams would be without trout except for small ones which when grow a little bigger would drift a long way down stream for deeper water. Response: This comment is a general statement.
22-5: Down stream on Black Creek about one half mile below Sweigers Road there was a beaver dam with some real nice trout in it. Probably in August 2004 my son-in-law and I went there. The dam was tore out, the brush and logs taken out of the creek and piles on the banks. The trout were gone. Its very simple…without beaver dams on these smaller streams there’s no fish. Response: This comment is a general statement.
22-6: I think your need to close roads is a good one. Response: This project is already identified in the proposed action.
22-7: On a road closed to off road vehicles, there should be a substantial fine if caught on them. Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action. Law enforcement doesn’t require a NEPA decision.
22-8: Also maybe we should close parts of the Hiawatha National Forest to logging. Response: This comment is not part of the decision to be made. There is no logging within the Wilderness areas.
22-9: I remember some law about no more logging in Hiawatha Forest by 1996, but I guess it was forgotten. Response: This comment is a general statement. There are several laws, regulations, and policies which direct the management of the HNF.
23-1: The map enclosed with the scoping package was extremely informative. Response: This comment is a general statement.
23-2: The table displaying management areas by acres is very helpful. I now request all analyses to include this type of table. It is easier for me to determine the magnitude of the project in relation to the project area by using percentages than it is to use acres. Response: This comment is a general statement.
23-3: It is nice to see that the district proposes to leave snag trees and other trees for wildlife
D - 25 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
purposes. It is beneficial to the decomposers that are often overlooked. Response: This comment is a general statement.
23-4: The proposal identifies a 25 year fire cycle. What mechanism do you have in place to ensure that you won’t have to go in and harvest in the project area in another couple of years? Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action. This project is moving us toward the desired conditions (DC) identified in the Forest Plan. The DC is a long range condition, in which it often takes two or more vegetation management proposals over 15- 20 years to obtain. While this project is moving us toward the DC, it will not meet all of the DC. Therefore, we recognize that we will most likely propose vegetation management in the area in the future.
23-5: The proposal identifies a need to decrease the potential for outbreaks and disease. If you remove all potential for outbreaks and disease, where would that put the decomposers? Response: We recognize that some infestations and disease are natural parts of the disturbance regime. This proposal is not going to eradicate insects and disease, but is attempting to be proactive in order to avoid an epidemic outbreak.
23-6: The proposal identifies concentrating on hardwood sawlogs for the future. Is this a conversion from what was historically in the area? Response: The concentration on hardwood sawlogs is identified in the desired condition. Our Forest Plan desired condition isn’t necessarily returning the land to its historical vegetation.
23-7: Are you proposing any harvesting in the riparian zones? Harvesting in these areas cause increased sedimentation into the adjacent water bodies. Response: We follow the State of Michigan Best Management Practices as they relate to harvesting in riparian areas. This proposal will also follow Forest Plan guidelines which would not harvest aspen within 500 feet of designated cold water and cool water streams on the HNF.
23-8: The roads you are creating, are they for future use? Response: The proposed road construction is tied to a proposed management activity. We are not proposing to build a road just to build it. Some roads are identified as a system road for various reasons. One reason could be that we anticipate future management in that particular area; although there is nothing identified.
24-1: Concerned about our proposal too close the access to his property. His access is a deeded easement. He wants to know if there is anything he can do to change that closure, in order to keep his access open. Response: The proposal is to close a road to the north and east of his access.
24-2: Was wondering if you are going to use my access road for logging access. Response: We are not proposing to use your access road for logging access.
24-3: There is a bridge crossing Sullivan Creek on my property in need of repair. Do I need any permits from the Forest Service to fix that bridge? Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed action. Since the bridge is not on National Forest System land and is not crossing a Wild and Scenic River, there is nothing
D - 26 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Comments and Responses
you need from us.
24-4: Someone contacted me a couple of years ago about using some sand from my property. If sand is needed for your proposed projects, I will be willing to consider selling some. Response: This comment is not part of the decision to be made.
25-1: It would be farther for him to access his property from the proposed access road to the south. Road improvements could lead to more people driving onto his property and could result in more potential vandalism. Response: This comment will be used to help develop a reasonable range of alternatives.
With the resource concerns on the current road, we need to either fix the current access road to prevent resource damage or we need to re-route to the south.
The reroute would meet USFS needs, would provide Mr. Sutton access and would respond to resource concerns in a more economical way.
26-1: Request field trip because we want the Forest Service to consider not harvesting Stand 2 in Compartment 88. Response: The No Action alternative in this EA will consider this and disclose the effects.
26-2: We would like the Forest Service to defer management in this stand with every alternative. Response: No Action alternative adequately addresses no management. The decision maker can select any alterantive, or an alternative with modification such as so action for this stand.
26-3: What other harvest could be considered for this stand other than an even-aged regeneration cut such as a shelterwood cut? Response: A commercial thinning cjould be considered to remove high risk and poor quality trees in the stand. A commercial thinning would also harvest merchantable hardwood trees and healthy pine trees leaving an older white pine stand. This harvest would improve the health and vigor of the white pine and capture timber volume that would be lost due to mortality.
Alternatives to the proposed action were identified for Compartment 88, Stand 2. Effects of the different treatments on this stand can be found in the vegetation and wildlife effects sections in Chapter 3 of this environmental analysis.
26-4: We do not like the idea of commercial thinning harvest. We would like the Forest Service to consider it as designated old growth.
Response: Old growth designation was completed as part of the Forest Plan. See response to 26-1.
26-5: Or defer management in this stand to promote older white pine forests. There is a need to provide forest products from older white pine trees. Response: The need for management has been identified in Chapter 1.
D - 27 Appendix D – Response to Scoping Comments
Commenter #1 Raymond & Catherine Plamondon #2 Randy Armstrong #3 Tim Maples #4 Bob Collia #5 Carol Ward #6 Carl Meyer #7 Karl Shaffer #8 Doug Scheuneman (Timber Products Company, Alger County Fish and Game Alliance) #9 Linda Vsetala #10 Curt Friez (Pendills Creek/Sullivan Creek National Fish Hatcheries) #11 John L. Ries (Michigan Sharptailed Grouse Association) #12 Gary Bennett #13 Lary Bannasch #14 Christopher Weed #15 Estate of Lloyd W. Arnott #16 Charles Geerling #17 Terry & Nancy Edney #18 Gary Zimmer (The Ruffed Grouse Society) #19 Wanda Perron (Bay Mills Indian Community) #20 Frank Jeff Verito #21 Michael and Candace Conat #22 Harold Rath #23 Cathy Cowal (US Environmental Protection Agency) #24 Mark Blaskowski #25 Tom Sutton #26 Carol Ward & Marv Roberson
D - 28
Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
E.1 Soils and Stream Protection Guidelines
1. Aspen regeneration should not be prescribed within 500 feet of designated portions of cool and coldwater stream systems tributaries and spring ponds.
Table E-1. Stands that Intersect within 500 feet of Streams.
District Comp. Std. Stand ID Acres HARVEST_RX 4 51 14 09100400051014 17 4220 4 51 15 09100400051015 26 4160 4 52 5 09100400052005 79 4151 4 52 8 09100400052008 40 4113 4 52 9 09100400052009 42 4151 4 52 10 09100400052010 41 4151 4 52 12 09100400052012 29 4200 4 52 14 09100400052014 34 4113 4 52 15 09100400052015 32 4113 4 52 24 09100400052024 38 4160 4 52 32 09100400052032 18 4160 4 52 60 09100400052060 37 4160 4 52 67 09100400052067 23 4160 4 52 72 09100400052072 18 4143 4 52 73 09100400052073 5 4200 4 52 74 09100400052074 9 4200 4 52 75 09100400052075 53 4220 4 52 77 09100400052077 21 4200 4 52 80 09100400052080 12 4160 4 52 86 09100400052086 16 4160 4 52 87 09100400052087 35 4151 4 52 90 09100400052090 45 4160 4 53 39 09100400053039 27 4160 4 53 40 09100400053040 34 4151 4 53 41 09100400053041 30 4220 4 53 71 09100400053071 50 4160 4 54 18 09100400054018 20 4220 4 54 42 09100400054042 50 4220 4 54 46 09100400054046 24 4220 4 54 49 09100400054049 7 4220 4 54 62 09100400054062 64 4117 4 82 3 09100400082003 41 4160 4 82 10 09100400082010 34 4113 4 83 16 09100400083016 35 4151 4 83 18 09100400083018 28 4117 4 84 6 09100400084006 12 4143 4 84 48 09100400084048 30 4160 4 84 49 09100400084049 25 4160 4 88 4 09100400088004 6 4131 4 88 27 09100400088027 9 4131
E - 1 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
District Comp. Std. Stand ID Acres HARVEST_RX 4 88 28 09100400088028 6 4131 4 88 31 09100400088031 8 4113 4 91 58 09100400091058 129 4220 4 91 67 09100400091067 21 4131 4 91 69 09100400091069 110 4220 4 91 72 09100400091072 19 4220 4 91 77 09100400091077 20 4131 4 125 14 09100400125014 29 4117 4 125 34 09100400125034 38 4160 4 125 66 09100400125066 9 4113
2. The state of Michigan “Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land” (BMPs) should be implemented as a minimum standard for managing forest resources on Forest System land. The state’s practices state that buffer strips along all streams and the bodies of water, both permanent and intermittent, is the most critical practice in the protection of forest land water quality. In buffer strips extra precautions should be applied to prevent disturbance. The width of the buffer strip is as follows.
Table E-2. Buffer Requirements from Each Side of the Stream. Slope above Minimum of Strip Waterbody or Stream 0-10 100 feet 10-20 115 feet 20-30 135 feet 30-40 155 feet 40-50 175 feet 50+ Activity Not Recommended
The buffer has to extend out on either side of any perennial or intermittent stream or lake to include non- forested wetlands and areas of instability.
Table E-3. Stands that Intersect within 100 feet of Streams. District Comp. Std. Stand ID Acres HARVEST_RX 4 25 1 09100400025001 60 4117 4 25 11 09100400025011 22 4113 4 25 21 09100400025021 23 4160 4 25 36 09100400025036 51 4160 4 25 37 09100400025037 13 4117 4 51 14 09100400051014 17 4220 4 51 15 09100400051015 26 4160 4 52 5 09100400052005 79 4151 4 52 8 09100400052008 40 4113 4 52 9 09100400052009 42 4151 4 52 10 09100400052010 41 4151 4 52 12 09100400052012 29 4200 4 52 14 09100400052014 34 4113 4 52 15 09100400052015 32 4113 4 52 24 09100400052024 38 4160 4 52 32 09100400052032 19 4160 4 52 60 09100400052060 37 4160 4 52 67 09100400052067 23 4160
E - 2 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
District Comp. Std. Stand ID Acres HARVEST_RX 4 52 72 09100400052072 18 4143 4 52 75 09100400052075 53 4220 4 52 80 09100400052080 12 4160 4 52 86 09100400052086 16 4160 4 52 87 09100400052087 35 4151 4 52 90 09100400052090 45 4160 4 53 71 09100400053071 50 4160 4 54 18 09100400054018 20 4220 4 54 27 09100400054027 56 4113 4 54 42 09100400054042 50 4220 4 54 46 09100400054046 24 4220 4 54 62 09100400054062 64 4117 4 81 12 09100400081012 35 4113 4 81 15 09100400081015 10 4151 4 81 54 09100400081054 6 4113 4 82 3 09100400082003 41 4160 4 83 16 09100400083016 35 4151 4 84 7 09100400084007 13 4117 4 84 48 09100400084048 30 4160 4 84 49 09100400084049 25 4160 4 88 4 09100400088004 6 4131 4 91 58 09100400091058 129 4220 4 91 67 09100400091067 21 4131 4 91 69 09100400091069 110 4220 4 91 71 09100400091071 15 4131 4 91 77 09100400091077 20 4131 4 103 55 09100400103055 2 4151 4 103 77 09100400103077 11 4113 4 104 26 09100400104026 12 4113 4 104 36 09100400104036 22 4151 4 125 34 09100400125034 38 4160
Table E-4. Stands that Intersect within 100 feet of Lakes.
District Comp. Std. Stand ID Acres HARVEST_RX 04 00052 070 09100400052070 12 4131 04 00088 002 09100400088002 345 4131 04 00052 005 09100400052005 79 4151 04 00052 077 09100400052077 21 4200 04 00052 009 09100400052009 42 4151 04 00052 008 09100400052008 40 4113 04 00052 087 09100400052087 35 4151 04 00052 010 09100400052010 41 4151 04 00084 006 09100400084006 12 4143 04 00084 052 09100400084052 7 4113 04 00054 038 09100400054038 44 4117 04 00084 007 09100400084007 13 4117 04 00054 027 09100400054027 56 4113 04 00082 011 09100400082011 40 4117 04 00082 068 09100400082068 6 4143 04 00081 030 09100400081030 23 4220 04 00104 036 09100400104036 22 4151
E - 3 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
3. The following table identifies by soil SMU the drainage class, preferred operating season, and category of recommendations for timber harvest for the Sand Clay project. Recommendations for timber harvest, by stand are in the second following table.
Table E-5. Soil Mapping Unit Recommendations.
Recommendation Sand Clay Project Harvest Area Soils. Category
Preferred SMU SMU Description Drainage Operating
Acres Season Approx. Summer Summer Winter only Precautions Winter or dry CH10F 6 Ontonogan silt loam, 25 to 50 % WD s,f,w W1 CH137A 63 Kinross-Wainola complex, 0 to 3% PD/SWPD s,w W2 CH13B 122 Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% MWD s,f,w S1 CH13D 23 Alcona loamy very fine sand, 6 to 15% MWD s,f,w S1 CH14A 33 Gaastra silt loam, 0 to 3 % SWPD s,w W2 CH15B 307 Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% WD sp,f,w CH15D 1 Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 6 to 15% WD sp,f,w CH17D 72 Deer park fine sand, 0 to 15% EXD sp,f,w CH18B 70 Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% EXD sp,f,w S2 CH18D 10 Rubicon sand, 6 to 15% EXD sp,f,w S2 CH19B 120 Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% SWEXD sp,f,w S2 CH20A 264 Croswell sand, 0 to 3% MWD sp,f,w CH21A 242 Au Gres sand 0 to 3% SWPD s,w W2 CH22 221 Kinross muck PD s,w W2 CH23 61 Roscommon muck PD s,w WO CH25B 10 Guard lake loam 0 to 6% WD yr CH29A 9 Solona fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% SWPD s,w W2 CH32A 6 Allendale loamy fine sand, 0 to 3% SWPD s,w W2 CH33 0 Pits, sand and gravel n/a n/a CH34 21 Entisols, flooded PD to VPD n/a n/a n/a n/a CH36 148 Markey and Carbondale mucks VPD w WO CH37 15 Dawson and Loxley peats VPD w WO CH48E - K 467 Kinross part (complex soils SMU) PD s,w W2 CH48E - R Rousseau part WD sp,f,w S2 CH48E - W Wainola part SWPD s,w W2 CH49A 327 Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% SWPD s,w W2 CH50 85 Deford fine sand PD s,w W2 CH52A 16 Ingalls loamy sand, 0 to 3% SWPD s,w W2 CH61A 80 Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% MWD sp,f,w CH68 103 Pinconning mucky loamy sand PD s,w W1 CH79B 19 Kalkaska-Manistee sands, 0 to 6% SWEXD/MWD sp,f,w CH83A - A 41 Allendale part (complex soils SMU) SWPD s,w W2 CH83A - C Croswell part MWD sp,f,w W1 CH84B - A 111 Alcona part (complex soils SMU) MWD/WD s,f,w W1 CH84B - R Rousseau part WD sp,f,w S2 CH85B 44 Kalkaska-Ocqueoc complex, 0 to 6% SWEXD/WD sp,f,w S2 CH86A - H 114 Halfaday part (complex soils SMU) MWD sp,f,w S2 CH86A - I Ingalls part SWPD s,w W2 CH87B 392 Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% MWD sp,f,w CH88A - A 89 Au Gres part (complex soils SMU) SWPD s,w W2 CH88A - C Croswell part MWD sp,f,w S1 CH91B 137 Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% WD s,f,w S2
E - 4 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Recommendations.
All Soils. Equipment operation (except in emergency operations or where the ground can be appropriately stabilized to avoid compaction, puddling or rutting), will only occur when soils are capable of supporting equipment without incurring detrimental compaction, puddling or rutting.
Management operations that occur during the spring thaw and rainy periods may necessitate the use of flotation equipment to prevent excessive rutting and compaction of the site.
Winter only. WO - Harvest should be planned for winter only within these soil management units. When winter logging operations occur, the soil will be frozen adequately to support logging equipment. This is normally judged to be compacted snow 12 inches thick or frost 6 inches thick.
Winter or dry summer. Winter logging or summer logging is recommended following the precautions listed in the following section.
W1 - When winter logging operations occur, the soil will be frozen adequately to support logging equipment. This is normally judged to be compacted snow 12 inches thick or frost 6 inches thick.
W2 - Operation of rubber-tired machinery and vehicles on very poorly, poorly, and in some instances, somewhat poorly drained soils will be limited to either i. Dry conditions, (water table at least 15 inches below the surface), or ii. Frozen conditions, (frost at least 6 inches thick, or compacted snow at least 12 inches thick).
Summer precautions. Precautions for summer logging such as equipment traction or wind erosion during drought apply. Precautions by soil type are also described in the county soils survey.
S1 - Steep slopes, sandy or fine textures, and/or surface stones may inhibit the use of some equipment. On-site examination should occur to evaluate equipment needs. Roads and trails should be located on the contour when and where feasible.
S2 – Equipment operation during dry periods should avoid soil displacement. Delaying operations, flotation logging equipment, or additional surface materials may be needed in heavy traffic areas. If adequate slash is left on site then operations need not be delayed.
Table E-6. Recommendations for Timber Harvest by Stand. Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00001 039 09100400001039 CH17D Deer park fine sand, 0 to 15% 10.0 4220 00001 039 09100400001039 CH19B Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 25.7 4220 S2 00001 073 09100400001073 CH17D Deer park fine sand, 0 to 15% 62.5 4131 00025 001 09100400025001 CH13D Alcona loamy very fine sand, 6 to 15% 6.2 4117 S1 00025 001 09100400025001 CH14A Gaastra silt loam, 0 to 3 % 6.1 4117 W2 00025 001 09100400025001 CH85B Kalkaska-Ocqueoc complex, 0 to 6% 1.7 4117 S2 00025 001 09100400025001 CH86A Ingalls-Halfaday complex, 0 to 3% slopes 46.7 4117 W2 S2 00025 011 09100400025011 CH10F Ontonogan silt loam, 25 to 50 % 5.8 4113 W1 00025 011 09100400025011 CH13D Alcona loamy very fine sand, 6 to 15% 0.5 4113 S1 00025 011 09100400025011 CH14A Gaastra silt loam, 0 to 3 % 13.0 4113 W2 00025 011 09100400025011 CH19B Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 2.0 4113 S2 00025 011 09100400025011 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 0.6 4113 00025 011 09100400025011 CH33 Pits, sand and gravel 0.4 4113
E - 5 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00025 020 09100400025020 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 9.3 4117 S2 00025 020 09100400025020 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 30.2 4117 W2 00025 020 09100400025020 CH84B Rousseau dark subsoil-Alcona complex, 0 to 6% 3.9 4117 W1 S2 00025 020 09100400025020 CH86A Ingalls-Halfaday complex, 0 to 3% slopes 1.6 4117 W2 S2 00025 021 09100400025021 CH14A Gaastra silt loam, 0 to 3 % 8.6 4160 W2 00025 021 09100400025021 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 14.1 4160 W2 00025 021 09100400025021 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 0.1 4160 00025 021 09100400025021 CH86A Ingalls-Halfaday complex, 0 to 3% slopes 0.3 4160 W2 S2 00025 028 09100400025028 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 11.4 4117 W2 00025 033 09100400025033 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 0.5 4151 S2 00025 033 09100400025033 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 7.0 4151 W2 00025 033 09100400025033 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 28.6 4151 00025 033 09100400025033 CH84B Rousseau dark subsoil-Alcona complex, 0 to 6% 5.6 4151 W1 S2 00025 033 09100400025033 CH85B Kalkaska-Ocqueoc complex, 0 to 6% 0.5 4151 S2 00025 036 09100400025036 CH14A Gaastra silt loam, 0 to 3 % 5.3 4160 W2 00025 036 09100400025036 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 5.4 4160 W2 00025 036 09100400025036 CH86A Ingalls-Halfaday complex, 0 to 3% slopes 40.2 4160 W2 S2 00025 037 09100400025037 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 0.2 4117 W2 00025 037 09100400025037 CH86A Ingalls-Halfaday complex, 0 to 3% slopes 12.9 4117 W2 S2 00025 039 09100400025039 CH85B Kalkaska-Ocqueoc complex, 0 to 6% 8.3 4151 S2 00025 039 09100400025039 CH86A Ingalls-Halfaday complex, 0 to 3% slopes 12.5 4151 W2 S2 00025 057 09100400025057 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 10.6 4131 S2 00025 057 09100400025057 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 8.1 4131 W2 00051 014 09100400051014 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 7.1 4220 00051 014 09100400051014 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 4.0 4220 S2 00051 014 09100400051014 CH52A Ingalls loamy sand, 0 to 3% 4.0 4220 W2 00051 014 09100400051014 CH68 Pinconning mucky loamy sand 1.6 4220 W1 00051 015 09100400051015 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 0.7 4160 00051 015 09100400051015 CH52A Ingalls loamy sand, 0 to 3% 2.3 4160 W2 00051 015 09100400051015 CH68 Pinconning mucky loamy sand 23.6 4160 W1 00052 005 09100400052005 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 6.4 4151 00052 005 09100400052005 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 45.3 4151 00052 005 09100400052005 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 6.4 4151 W2 00052 005 09100400052005 CH50 Deford fine sand 20.6 4151 W2 00052 008 09100400052008 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 32.8 4113 00052 008 09100400052008 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 7.5 4113 W2 00052 008 09100400052008 CH50 Deford fine sand 0.1 4113 W2 00052 009 09100400052009 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 0.3 4151 S1 00052 009 09100400052009 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 16.0 4151 00052 009 09100400052009 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 2.2 4151 WO 00052 009 09100400052009 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 14.4 4151 W2 00052 009 09100400052009 CH85B Kalkaska-Ocqueoc complex, 0 to 6% 8.8 4151 S2 00052 010 09100400052010 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 0.2 4151 S1 00052 010 09100400052010 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 3.4 4151 00052 010 09100400052010 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 16.0 4151 WO 00052 010 09100400052010 CH85B Kalkaska-Ocqueoc complex, 0 to 6% 21.7 4151 S2 00052 012 09100400052012 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 28.1 4200 00052 012 09100400052012 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 0.7 4200 W2 00052 012 09100400052012 CH50 Deford fine sand 0.4 4200 W2 00052 014 09100400052014 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 4.1 4113 00052 014 09100400052014 CH34 Entisols, flooded 0.1 4113 n/a 00052 014 09100400052014 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 5.1 4113 W2 00052 014 09100400052014 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 12.8 4113 00052 014 09100400052014 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 12.0 4113 S2
E - 6 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00052 015 09100400052015 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.3 4113 WO 00052 015 09100400052015 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 0.3 4113 W2 00052 015 09100400052015 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 20.4 4113 00052 015 09100400052015 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 10.9 4113 S2 00052 024 09100400052024 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 23.5 4160 00052 024 09100400052024 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 2.2 4160 S2 00052 024 09100400052024 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 0.1 4160 00052 024 09100400052024 CH34 Entisols, flooded 2.6 4160 n/a 00052 024 09100400052024 CH50 Deford fine sand 3.9 4160 W2 00052 024 09100400052024 CH68 Pinconning mucky loamy sand 5.3 4160 W1 00052 032 09100400052032 CH34 Entisols, flooded 1.0 4160 n/a 00052 032 09100400052032 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 2.4 4160 WO 00052 032 09100400052032 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 15.1 4160 00052 060 09100400052060 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 3.5 4160 00052 060 09100400052060 CH68 Pinconning mucky loamy sand 33.3 4160 W1 00052 067 09100400052067 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 3.8 4160 00052 067 09100400052067 CH34 Entisols, flooded 2.6 4160 n/a 00052 067 09100400052067 CH68 Pinconning mucky loamy sand 16.6 4160 W1 00052 070 09100400052070 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 10.4 4131 00052 070 09100400052070 CH50 Deford fine sand 1.9 4131 W2 00052 072 09100400052072 CH32A Allendale loamy fine sand, 0 to 3% 6.2 4143 W2 00052 072 09100400052072 CH34 Entisols, flooded 2.4 4143 n/a 00052 072 09100400052072 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 9.8 4143 00052 073 09100400052073 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 3.6 4200 S1 00052 073 09100400052073 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 1.2 4200 S2 00052 074 09100400052074 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 7.8 4200 00052 074 09100400052074 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 1.2 4200 W2 00052 075 09100400052075 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 42.9 4220 00052 075 09100400052075 CH50 Deford fine sand 10.5 4220 W2 00052 077 09100400052077 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 20.5 4200 00052 077 09100400052077 CH50 Deford fine sand 0.2 4200 W2 00052 080 09100400052080 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 9.0 4160 00052 080 09100400052080 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 0.1 4160 S2 00052 080 09100400052080 CH68 Pinconning mucky loamy sand 2.7 4160 W1 00052 086 09100400052086 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 2.5 4160 00052 086 09100400052086 CH34 Entisols, flooded 2.0 4160 n/a 00052 086 09100400052086 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 9.4 4160 W2 00052 086 09100400052086 CH50 Deford fine sand 1.8 4160 W2 00052 087 09100400052087 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 11.0 4151 S1 00052 087 09100400052087 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 3.9 4151 00052 087 09100400052087 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 1.6 4151 WO 00052 087 09100400052087 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 18.9 4151 W2 00052 090 09100400052090 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 25.4 4160 00052 090 09100400052090 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 2.4 4160 S2 00052 090 09100400052090 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 1.1 4160 W2 00052 090 09100400052090 CH50 Deford fine sand 16.0 4160 W2 00053 039 09100400053039 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 14.3 4160 S1 00053 039 09100400053039 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 9.0 4160 WO 00053 039 09100400053039 CH85B Kalkaska-Ocqueoc complex, 0 to 6% 3.3 4160 S2 00053 040 09100400053040 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 22.8 4151 S1 00053 040 09100400053040 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 7.8 4151 W2 00053 040 09100400053040 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 3.1 4151 W2 00053 041 09100400053041 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 28.5 4220 S1 00053 041 09100400053041 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 1.8 4220 W2
E - 7 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00053 062 09100400053062 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 1.7 4117 S1 00053 062 09100400053062 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 2.5 4117 00053 062 09100400053062 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 5.9 4117 WO 00053 062 09100400053062 CH50 Deford fine sand 6.0 4117 W2 00053 062 09100400053062 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 0.1 4117 00053 071 09100400053071 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 35.8 4160 S1 00053 071 09100400053071 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.4 4160 WO 00053 071 09100400053071 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 13.5 4160 W2 00054 008 09100400054008 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 11.2 4113 00054 008 09100400054008 CH23 Roscommon muck 4.4 4113 WO 00054 018 09100400054018 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 5.7 4220 S2 00054 018 09100400054018 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 14.4 4220 00054 018 09100400054018 CH23 Roscommon muck 0.1 4220 WO 00054 027 09100400054027 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 16.1 4113 00054 027 09100400054027 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 29.1 4113 W2 00054 027 09100400054027 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 9.9 4113 WO 00054 027 09100400054027 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 0.8 4113 W2 00054 028 09100400054028 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 4.8 4117 00054 028 09100400054028 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 0.1 4117 W2 00054 038 09100400054038 CH18D Rubicon sand, 6 to 15% 7.7 4117 S2 00054 038 09100400054038 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 6.6 4117 00054 038 09100400054038 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 20.0 4117 W2 00054 038 09100400054038 CH23 Roscommon muck 0.1 4117 WO 00054 038 09100400054038 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 9.5 4117 WO 00054 042 09100400054042 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 49.6 4220 00054 042 09100400054042 CH23 Roscommon muck 0.4 4220 WO 00054 046 09100400054046 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 22.2 4220 00054 046 09100400054046 CH23 Roscommon muck 1.8 4220 WO 00054 049 09100400054049 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 7.1 4220 00054 062 09100400054062 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 18.0 4117 00054 062 09100400054062 CH23 Roscommon muck 45.5 4117 WO 00081 004 09100400081004 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 0.7 4117 00081 004 09100400081004 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 30.1 4117 W2 00081 004 09100400081004 CH23 Roscommon muck 0.6 4117 WO 00081 009 09100400081009 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 3.1 4117 W2 00081 009 09100400081009 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 10.7 4117 00081 010 09100400081010 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 0.4 4117 00081 010 09100400081010 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 5.6 4117 W2 00081 010 09100400081010 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 11.5 4117 W2 00081 010 09100400081010 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 28.7 4117 00081 012 09100400081012 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 27.2 4113 00081 012 09100400081012 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 1.4 4113 W2 00081 012 09100400081012 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 1.7 4113 W2 00081 012 09100400081012 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 4.9 4113 00081 013 09100400081013 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 0.5 4117 W2 00081 013 09100400081013 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 3.6 4117 W2 00081 013 09100400081013 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 16.2 4117 00081 015 09100400081015 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.9 4151 WO 00081 015 09100400081015 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 1.2 4151 W2 00081 015 09100400081015 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 7.7 4151 00081 017 09100400081017 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 2.2 4117 WO 00081 017 09100400081017 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 0.8 4117 W2 00081 017 09100400081017 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 21.8 4117 00081 025 09100400081025 CH137A Kinross-Wainola complex, 0 to 3% 10.9 4220 W2
E - 8 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00081 025 09100400081025 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 10.7 4220 W2 00081 025 09100400081025 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 15.8 4220 00081 026 09100400081026 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 3.7 4117 W2 00081 026 09100400081026 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 14.3 4117 W2 00081 026 09100400081026 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 14.4 4117 00081 028 09100400081028 CH137A Kinross-Wainola complex, 0 to 3% 0.4 4131 W2 00081 028 09100400081028 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 4.9 4131 W2 00081 028 09100400081028 CH50 Deford fine sand 8.2 4131 W2 00081 028 09100400081028 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 11.4 4131 S2 00081 030 09100400081030 CH137A Kinross-Wainola complex, 0 to 3% 6.6 4220 W2 00081 030 09100400081030 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 16.2 4220 S2 00081 054 09100400081054 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.6 4113 WO 00081 054 09100400081054 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 0.4 4113 W2 00081 054 09100400081054 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 5.2 4113 00082 003 09100400082003 CH19B Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 36.9 4160 S2 00082 003 09100400082003 CH23 Roscommon muck 1.5 4160 WO 00082 003 09100400082003 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.7 4160 WO 00082 003 09100400082003 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 2.2 4160 00082 010 09100400082010 CH19B Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 0.5 4113 S2 00082 010 09100400082010 CH19B Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 1.8 4113 S2 00082 010 09100400082010 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 18.4 4113 W2 00082 010 09100400082010 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.3 4113 WO 00082 010 09100400082010 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 12.5 4113 00082 011 09100400082011 CH19B Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 28.5 4117 S2 00082 011 09100400082011 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 1.3 4117 00082 011 09100400082011 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 5.2 4117 W2 00082 011 09100400082011 CH22 Kinross muck 0.5 4117 W2 00082 011 09100400082011 CH23 Roscommon muck 2.9 4117 WO 00082 011 09100400082011 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 1.1 4117 WO 00082 012 09100400082012 CH19B Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 18.9 4160 S2 00082 012 09100400082012 CH23 Roscommon muck 1.9 4160 WO 00082 012 09100400082012 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 3.0 4160 WO 00082 012 09100400082012 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 10.6 4160 00082 012 09100400082012 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 5.4 4160 00082 017 09100400082017 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 2.5 4113 00082 017 09100400082017 CH19B Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 5.2 4113 S2 00082 017 09100400082017 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 7.8 4113 W2 00082 017 09100400082017 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 22.6 4113 00082 017 09100400082017 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 1.7 4113 00082 021 09100400082021 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 1.6 4151 00082 021 09100400082021 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 16.4 4151 00082 022 09100400082022 CH15B Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 0 to 6% 3.1 4113 00082 022 09100400082022 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 9.3 4113 W2 00082 022 09100400082022 CH52A Ingalls loamy sand, 0 to 3% 2.9 4113 W2 00082 022 09100400082022 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 24.7 4113 00082 035 09100400082035 CH23 Roscommon muck 1.3 4220 WO 00082 035 09100400082035 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.1 4220 WO 00082 035 09100400082035 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 7.1 4220 W2 00082 067 09100400082067 CH22 Kinross muck 0.5 4143 W2 00082 067 09100400082067 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 6.5 4143 W2 00082 067 09100400082067 CH52A Ingalls loamy sand, 0 to 3% 3.2 4143 W2 00082 068 09100400082068 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 1.5 4143 WO 00082 068 09100400082068 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 4.8 4143 00083 013 09100400083013 CH22 Kinross muck 0.3 4117 W2
E - 9 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00083 013 09100400083013 CH50 Deford fine sand 11.6 4117 W2 00083 016 09100400083016 CH22 Kinross muck 7.5 4151 W2 00083 016 09100400083016 CH29A Solona fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% 6.4 4151 W2 00083 016 09100400083016 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 1.9 4151 WO 00083 016 09100400083016 CH79B Kalkaska-Manistee sands, 0 to 6% 19.0 4151 00083 017 09100400083017 CH22 Kinross muck 18.4 4143 W2 00083 017 09100400083017 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 1.4 4143 W2 S2 00083 017 09100400083017 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 3.2 4143 W2 00083 017 09100400083017 CH50 Deford fine sand 1.1 4143 W2 00083 018 09100400083018 CH22 Kinross muck 6.9 4117 W2 00083 018 09100400083018 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 21.3 4117 W2 S2 00083 019 09100400083019 CH22 Kinross muck 9.4 4113 W2 00083 019 09100400083019 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 4.9 4113 W2 S2 00083 019 09100400083019 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 2.0 4113 W2 00084 006 09100400084006 CH13D Alcona loamy very fine sand, 6 to 15% 13.2 4143 S1 00084 007 09100400084007 CH29A Solona fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% 2.2 4117 W2 00084 007 09100400084007 CH34 Entisols, flooded 0.1 4117 n/a 00084 007 09100400084007 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 7.1 4117 W2 00084 007 09100400084007 CH52A Ingalls loamy sand, 0 to 3% 3.5 4117 W2 00084 022 09100400084022 CH68 Pinconning mucky loamy sand 10.1 4113 W1 00084 022 09100400084022 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 0.3 4113 00084 048 09100400084048 CH18D Rubicon sand, 6 to 15% 1.1 4160 S2 00084 048 09100400084048 CH34 Entisols, flooded 1.9 4160 n/a 00084 048 09100400084048 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 0.4 4160 WO 00084 048 09100400084048 CH68 Pinconning mucky loamy sand 9.6 4160 W1 00084 048 09100400084048 CH83A Allendale-Croswell complex, 0 to 3% 16.5 4160 W1 W2 00084 049 09100400084049 CH18D Rubicon sand, 6 to 15% 0.1 4160 S2 00084 049 09100400084049 CH34 Entisols, flooded 0.1 4160 n/a 00084 049 09100400084049 CH83A Allendale-Croswell complex, 0 to 3% 24.5 4160 W1 W2 00084 052 09100400084052 CH13B Alcona loamy very fine sand, 0 to 6% 3.6 4113 S1 00084 052 09100400084052 CH13D Alcona loamy very fine sand, 6 to 15% 3.2 4113 S1 00088 002 09100400088002 CH137A Kinross-Wainola complex, 0 to 3% 14.1 4131 W2 00088 002 09100400088002 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 13.3 4131 S2 00088 002 09100400088002 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 38.4 4131 00088 002 09100400088002 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 51.8 4131 WO 00088 002 09100400088002 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 110.3 4131 W2 S2 00088 002 09100400088002 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 13.7 4131 W2 00088 002 09100400088002 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 86.6 4131 00088 002 09100400088002 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 17.1 4131 S2 00088 003 09100400088003 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.7 4131 WO 00088 003 09100400088003 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 14.3 4131 00088 004 09100400088004 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.8 4131 WO 00088 004 09100400088004 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 1.3 4131 00088 004 09100400088004 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 3.7 4131 S2 00088 009 09100400088009 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 12.5 4113 WO 00088 015 09100400088015 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.1 4113 WO 00088 015 09100400088015 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 6.4 4113 W2 S2 00088 019 09100400088019 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 8.9 4143 S2 00088 019 09100400088019 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 0.7 4143 00088 021 09100400088021 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 2.1 4113 W2 S2 00088 022 09100400088022 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 1.9 4113 WO 00088 022 09100400088022 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 3.8 4113 W2 S2 00088 023 09100400088023 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 4.8 4131 WO
E - 10 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00088 023 09100400088023 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 3.9 4131 W2 S2 00088 027 09100400088027 CH22 Kinross muck 1.6 4131 W2 00088 027 09100400088027 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 7.4 4131 00088 028 09100400088028 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 4.6 4131 00088 028 09100400088028 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 1.4 4131 S2 00088 031 09100400088031 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 0.5 4113 S2 00088 031 09100400088031 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 7.2 4113 S2 00089 009 09100400089009 CH22 Kinross muck 4.8 4131 W2 00089 009 09100400089009 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 18.9 4131 S2 00089 012 09100400089012 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 1.5 4220 S2 00089 012 09100400089012 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 10.3 4220 00089 012 09100400089012 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 2.5 4220 W2 00089 012 09100400089012 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 2.3 4220 00089 014 09100400089014 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 1.8 4117 W2 00089 014 09100400089014 CH22 Kinross muck 1.2 4117 W2 00089 014 09100400089014 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 12.5 4117 00089 015 09100400089015 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 3.2 4220 00089 015 09100400089015 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 0.4 4220 S2 00089 018 09100400089018 CH22 Kinross muck 0.4 4220 W2 00089 018 09100400089018 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 4.1 4220 S2 00089 031 09100400089031 CH22 Kinross muck 1.4 4220 W2 00089 031 09100400089031 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 15.4 4220 S2 00089 032 09100400089032 CH22 Kinross muck 4.5 4220 W2 00089 032 09100400089032 CH91B Rousseau fine sand, 0 to 6% 16.9 4220 S2 00091 058 09100400091058 CH34 Entisols, flooded 0.4 4220 n/a 00091 058 09100400091058 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.6 4220 WO 00091 058 09100400091058 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 127.8 4220 W2 S2 00091 064 09100400091064 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.9 4220 WO 00091 064 09100400091064 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 8.0 4220 W2 S2 00091 066 09100400091066 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 28.9 4220 W2 S2 00091 067 09100400091067 CH34 Entisols, flooded 1.2 4131 n/a 00091 067 09100400091067 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 3.6 4131 WO 00091 067 09100400091067 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 16.4 4131 W2 S2 00091 069 09100400091069 CH34 Entisols, flooded 3.3 4220 n/a 00091 069 09100400091069 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 107.1 4220 W2 S2 00091 071 09100400091071 CH22 Kinross muck 1.0 4131 W2 00091 071 09100400091071 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 6.0 4131 W2 S2 00091 071 09100400091071 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 0.5 4131 W2 00091 071 09100400091071 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 7.7 4131 00091 072 09100400091072 CH22 Kinross muck 15.9 4220 W2 00091 072 09100400091072 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 3.5 4220 W2 00091 074 09100400091074 CH22 Kinross muck 2.6 4113 W2 00091 074 09100400091074 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 1.9 4113 W2 S2 00091 074 09100400091074 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 10.9 4113 W2 00091 077 09100400091077 CH22 Kinross muck 18.8 4131 W2 00091 077 09100400091077 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 1.3 4131 W2 S2 00103 003 09100400103003 CH84B Rousseau dark subsoil-Alcona complex, 0 to 6% 17.6 4151 W1 S2 00103 029 09100400103029 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 3.6 4113 W2 00103 034 09100400103034 CH15D Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 6 to 15% 0.3 4117 00103 034 09100400103034 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 2.1 4117 WO 00103 034 09100400103034 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 2.4 4117 W2 00103 036 09100400103036 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 8.4 4131 W2 00103 037 09100400103037 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 3.2 4131 WO
E - 11 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00103 037 09100400103037 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 29.2 4131 W2 00103 049 09100400103049 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 4.9 4113 W2 00103 050 09100400103050 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 1.3 4113 WO 00103 050 09100400103050 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 2.9 4113 W2 00103 055 09100400103055 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 2.3 4151 W2 00103 076 09100400103076 CH18D Rubicon sand, 6 to 15% 0.6 4131 S2 00103 076 09100400103076 CH34 Entisols, flooded 1.5 4131 n/a 00103 076 09100400103076 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.1 4131 WO 00103 076 09100400103076 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 5.1 4131 WO 00103 076 09100400103076 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 5.1 4131 W2 00103 077 09100400103077 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 6.1 4113 W2 00103 077 09100400103077 CH84B Rousseau dark subsoil-Alcona complex, 0 to 6% 5.0 4113 W1 S2 00103 103 09100400103103 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 0.9 4151 S2 00103 103 09100400103103 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 0.2 4151 W2 00103 103 09100400103103 CH84B Rousseau dark subsoil-Alcona complex, 0 to 6% 12.4 4151 W1 S2 00104 026 09100400104026 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 1.9 4113 00104 026 09100400104026 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 10.3 4113 W2 00104 031 09100400104031 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 0.8 4151 S2 00104 031 09100400104031 CH22 Kinross muck 46.5 4151 W2 00104 031 09100400104031 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 3.3 4151 W2 00104 031 09100400104031 CH84B Rousseau dark subsoil-Alcona complex, 0 to 6% 1.5 4151 W1 S2 00104 035 09100400104035 CH22 Kinross muck 0.2 4151 W2 00104 035 09100400104035 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 2.5 4151 W2 00104 035 09100400104035 CH84B Rousseau dark subsoil-Alcona complex, 0 to 6% 48.4 4151 W1 S2 00104 036 09100400104036 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 5.0 4151 W2 00104 036 09100400104036 CH84B Rousseau dark subsoil-Alcona complex, 0 to 6% 16.7 4151 W1 S2 00104 040 09100400104040 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 1.4 4113 00104 042 09100400104042 CH15D Rousseau fine sand, dark subsoil, 6 to 15% 0.4 4131 00104 042 09100400104042 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.4 4131 WO 00104 042 09100400104042 CH36 Markey and Carbondale mucks 0.5 4131 WO 00104 042 09100400104042 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 1.8 4131 WO 00104 042 09100400104042 CH49A Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 50.6 4131 W2 00104 042 09100400104042 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 0.3 4131 00104 050 09100400104050 CH61A Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 1.7 4113 00104 051 09100400104051 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 0.7 4113 WO 00105 006 09100400105006 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 0.6 4113 WO 00105 006 09100400105006 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 6.3 4113 W2 S2 00105 006 09100400105006 CH50 Deford fine sand 2.6 4113 W2 00105 012 09100400105012 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 0.8 4113 00105 012 09100400105012 CH21A Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 20.7 4113 W2 00105 012 09100400105012 CH22 Kinross muck 5.4 4113 W2 00105 032 09100400105032 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 7.5 4113 00105 032 09100400105032 CH22 Kinross muck 9.8 4113 W2 00105 033 09100400105033 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 7.5 4113 00105 033 09100400105033 CH22 Kinross muck 13.8 4113 W2 00105 034 09100400105034 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 10.6 4160 00105 034 09100400105034 CH22 Kinross muck 1.3 4160 W2 00105 035 09100400105035 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 3.8 4117 00105 035 09100400105035 CH22 Kinross muck 1.8 4117 W2 00105 043 09100400105043 CH37 Dawson and Loxley peats 0.1 4113 WO 00105 043 09100400105043 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 8.0 4113 W2 S2 00105 043 09100400105043 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 0.1 4113 00105 054 09100400105054 CH20A Croswell sand, 0 to 3% 2.6 4117
E - 12 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Harvest Rec. Comp. Stand STAND ID SMU Soil Description Acres Code Code 00105 054 09100400105054 CH22 Kinross muck 1.3 4117 W2 00106 020 09100400106020 CH48E Wainola-Kinross-Rousseau complex, 0 to 35% 0.9 4113 W2 S2 00106 020 09100400106020 CH87B Rousseau fine sand, moderately wet, 0 to 6% 15.3 4113 00125 014 09100400125014 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 4.6 4117 S2 00125 014 09100400125014 CH22 Kinross muck 24.2 4117 W2 00125 021 09100400125021 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 2.8 4160 S2 00125 021 09100400125021 CH25B Guard lake loam 0 to 6% 4.0 4160 00125 021 09100400125021 CH88A Croswell-Au Gres sands, 0 to 3% 30.0 4160 W2 S1 00125 034 09100400125034 CH22 Kinross muck 20.9 4160 W2 00125 034 09100400125034 CH34 Entisols, flooded 1.5 4160 n/a 00125 034 09100400125034 CH88A Croswell-Au Gres sands, 0 to 3% 15.2 4160 W2 S1 00125 046 09100400125046 CH137A Kinross-Wainola complex, 0 to 3% 7.1 4117 W2 00125 046 09100400125046 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 0.6 4117 S2 00125 046 09100400125046 CH29A Solona fine sandy loam, 0 to 3% 0.7 4117 W2 00125 046 09100400125046 CH88A Croswell-Au Gres sands, 0 to 3% 0.8 4117 W2 S1 00125 048 09100400125048 CH137A Kinross-Wainola complex, 0 to 3% 3.0 4160 W2 00125 048 09100400125048 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 1.0 4160 S2 00125 062 09100400125062 CH25B Guard lake loam 0 to 6% 1.2 4117 00125 062 09100400125062 CH88A Croswell-Au Gres sands, 0 to 3% 1.2 4117 W2 S1 00125 065 09100400125065 CH88A Croswell-Au Gres sands, 0 to 3% 6.8 4113 W2 S1 00125 066 09100400125066 CH88A Croswell-Au Gres sands, 0 to 3% 8.8 4113 W2 S1 00125 067 09100400125067 CH25B Guard lake loam 0 to 6% 3.9 4113 00126 018 09100400126018 CH137A Kinross-Wainola complex, 0 to 3% 20.5 4113 W2 00126 018 09100400126018 CH18B Rubicon sand, 0 to 6% 0.5 4113 S2 00126 018 09100400126018 CH88A Croswell-Au Gres sands, 0 to 3% 7.3 4113 W2 S1 00126 068 09100400126068 CH25B Guard lake loam 0 to 6% 0.5 4113 00126 068 09100400126068 CH88A Croswell-Au Gres sands, 0 to 3% 18.6 4113 W2 S1
E.2 Vegetation
Shelterwood harvests in MA 8.3 would not exceed 25 acres in size.
Table E-7. Alternative 2 Harvest, Site Preparation, and Planting Prescriptions by Stand.
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
1 39 Thin 1 73 Partial removal 1 73A Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 1 73B Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 1 73C Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 1 73D Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 25 1 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 11 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 20 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 21 Partial removal 25 28 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 33 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 36 Partial removal 25 37 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 39 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 25 57 Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 51 14 Thin Fill-in plant
E - 13 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
51 15 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 5 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 8 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 52 9 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 10 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 12 Intermediate harvest 52 14 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 52 15 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 52 24 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 32 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 60 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 67 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 70 Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 52 72 Overstory removal 52 73 Intermediate harvest 52 74 Intermediate harvest 52 75 Thin 52 77 Intermediate harvest 52 80 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 86 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 87 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 90 Partial removal Fill-in plant 53 39 Partial removal Fill-in plant 53 40 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 53 41 Thin 53 62 Clearcut with reserve trees 53 71 Partial removal Fill-in plant 54 8 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 18 Thin Fill-in plant 54 27 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 28 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 38 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 42 Thin Fill-in plant 54 46 Thin 54 49 Thin 54 62 Clearcut with reserve trees Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 81 4 Clearcut with reserve trees Prescribed burn site prep. for seeding Seed 81 9 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 10 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 12 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 81 13 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 15 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 17 Clearcut with reserve trees Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 81 25 Thin 81 26 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 28 Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen 81 30 Thin Fill-in plant 81 54 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 82 3 Partial removal 82 10 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 11 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 12 Partial removal 82 17 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 21 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration
E - 14 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
82 22 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 35 Thin 82 67 Overstory removal 82 68 Overstory removal Fill-in plant 83 13 Clearcut with reserve trees Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 83 16 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 83 17 Overstory removal 83 18 Clearcut with reserve trees Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 83 19 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 84 6 Overstory removal 84 7 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 84 22 Clearcut Seed 84 48 Partial removal Fill-in plant 84 49 Partial removal Fill-in plant 84 52 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 88 2 Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. Fill-in plant 88 3 Shelterwood harvest Fill-in plant 88 4 Shelterwood harvest 88 9 Clearcut Seed 88 19 Overstory removal Fill-in plant 88 22 Clearcut Seed 88 23 Shelterwood harvest 88 27 Shelterwood harvest 88 28 Shelterwood harvest 88 31 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 89 9 Shelterwood harvest 89 12 Thin 89 14 Clearcut with reserve trees Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 89 15 Thin 89 18 Thin 89 31 Thin Fill-in plant 89 32 Thin 91 58 Thin Prescribed burn control of understory Fill-in plant 91 64 Thin 91 66 Thin 91 67 Shelterwood harvest 91 69 Thin Prescribed burn control of understory Fill-in plant 91 71 Shelterwood harvest Fill-in plant 91 72 Thin 91 74 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 91 77 Shelterwood harvest Fill-in plant 103 3 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 29 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 36 Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 103 37 Shelterwood harvest 103 55 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 76 Shelterwood harvest 103 77 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 103 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 26 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 31 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 35 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 36 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 42 Shelterwood harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration
E - 15 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
104 42A Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 12 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 32 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 33 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 34 Partial removal 105 43 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 105 32A Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 106 20 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 125 14 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 125 21 Partial removal Fill-in plant 125 34 Partial removal 125 48 Partial removal 125 62 Clearcut with reserve trees Site prep. for natural regeneration 125 65 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 125 21A Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 126 18 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 126 68 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration
E - 16 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Table E-8. Alternative 3 Harvest, Site Preparation, and Planting Prescriptions by Stand.
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
1 39 Thin 1 73 Partial removal 1 73A Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 1 73B Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 1 73C Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 1 73D Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 25 1 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 11 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 20 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 21 Partial removal 25 28 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 33 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 36 Partial removal 25 37 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 39 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 25 57 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 51 14 Thin Fill-in plant 51 15A Clearcut 52 5 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 8 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 52 9 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 10 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 12 Intermediate harvest 52 14 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 52 15 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 52 70 Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 52 72 Overstory removal 52 72 Intermediate harvest 52 74 Intermediate harvest 52 74 Thin 52 77 Intermediate harvest 52 86 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 87 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 53 40 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 53 41 Thin 53 62 Clearcut with reserves 53 71 Clearcut with reserves 54 8 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 18 Thin Fill-in plant 54 27 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 28 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 38 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 42 Thin Fill-in plant 54 46 Thin 54 49 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 62 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. 81 4 Clearcut with reserves Prescribed burn site prep. for seeding Seed 81 9 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 10 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 12 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 81 13 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration
E - 17 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
81 15 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 17 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 81 25 Thin 81 26 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 28 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 30 Thin Fill-in plant 81 54 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 82 3 Clearcut with reserves 82 10 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 11 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 12 Partial removal 82 17 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 21 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 22 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 35 Thin 82 67 Clearcut 82 68 Overstory removal Fill-in plant 83 13 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 83 16 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 83 17 Overstory removal 83 18 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 83 19 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 84 6 Clearcut 84 7 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 84 22 Clearcut Seed 84 48 Clearcut 84 52 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 88 2 Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regen. Fill-in plant 88 3 Shelterwood harvest Fill-in plant 88 4 Shelterwood harvest 88 9 Clearcut Seed 88 19 Overstory removal Fill-in plant 88 22 Clearcut Seed 88 23 Shelterwood harvest 88 27 Shelterwood harvest 88 28 Shelterwood harvest 88 31 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 89 9 Shelterwood harvest 89 12 Thin 89 14 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 89 15 Thin 89 18 Thin 89 31 Thin Fill-in plant 89 32 Thin 91 58 Thin Prescribed burn control of understory Fill-in plant 91 64 Thin 91 66 Thin 91 67 Shelterwood harvest 91 69 Thin Prescribed burn control of understory Fill-in plant 91 71 Shelterwood harvest Fill-in plant 91 72 Thin 91 74 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 91 77 Shelterwood harvest Fill-in plant 103 3 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration
E - 18 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
103 29 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 36 Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 103 37 Shelterwood harvest 103 55 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 76 Shelterwood harvest 103 77 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 103 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 26 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 31 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 35 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 36 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 42 Shelterwood harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 42A Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 12 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 32 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 33 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 34 Partial removal 105 43 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 105 32A Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 106 20 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 125 14 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 125 21 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 125 34 Partial removal 125 48 Partial removal 125 62 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 125 65 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 126 18 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 126 68 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration
Table E-9. Alternative 4 Harvest, Site Preparation and Planting Prescriptions by Stand.
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
1 39 Thin 1 73 Partial removal 1 73A Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regeneration 1 73B Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regeneration 1 73C Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regeneration 1 73D Shelterwood harvest Mechanical site prep. for natural regeneration 25 1 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 11 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 20 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 21 Partial removal 25 28 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 33 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 25 36 Partial removal 25 39 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 25 57 Selection harvest 51 14 Thin Fill-in plant 51 15 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 5 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 8 Thin 52 9 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration
E - 19 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
52 10 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 12 Intermediate harvest 52 14 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 52 15 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 52 24 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 32 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 60 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 67 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 70 Thin 52 73 Intermediate harvest 52 74 Intermediate harvest 52 75 Thin 52 77 Intermediate harvest 52 80 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 86 Partial removal Fill-in plant 52 87 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 52 90 Partial removal Fill-in plant 53 39 Partial removal Fill-in plant 53 40 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 53 41 Thin 53 62 Clearcut with reserves 53 71 Partial removal Fill-in plant 54 8 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 18 Thin Fill-in plant 54 27 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 28 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 54 42 Thin Fill-in plant 54 46 Thin 54 49 Thin 54 62 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for natural regeneration 81 4 Clearcut with reserves Prescribed burn site prep for seeding Seed 81 9 Clearcut with reserves Site prep for natural regeneration 81 10 Clearcut with reserves Site prep for natural regeneration 81 12 Clearcut with reserves Site prep for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 81 13 Clearcut with reserves Site prep for natural regeneration 81 15 Selection harvest Site prep for natural regeneration 81 17 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 81 25 Thin 81 26 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 81 28 Selection harvest 81 30 Thin Fill-in plant 81 54 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration Fill-in plant 82 3 Partial removal 82 10 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 11 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 12 Partial removal 82 17 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 21 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 22 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 82 35 Thin 83 13 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 83 16 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 83 18 Clearcut with reserves Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 83 19 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed
E - 20 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
84 7 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 84 22 Clearcut with reserves Seed 84 48 Partial removal Fill-in plant 84 49 Partial removal Fill-in plant 84 52 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 88 2 Selection harvest 88 3 Thin Fill-in plant 88 4 Thin 88 9 Clearcut Seed 88 15 0 88 19 Overstory removal Fill-in plant 88 22 Clearcut Seed 88 23 Shelterwood harvest 88 27 Shelterwood harvest 88 28 Thin 88 31 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 89 9 Shelterwood harvest 89 12 Thin 89 14 Selection harvest 89 15 Thin 89 18 Thin 89 31 Thin Fill-in plant 89 32 Thin 91 58 Thin Prescribed burn control of understory Fill-in plant 91 64 Thin 91 66 Thin 91 67 Thin 91 69 Thin Prescribed burn control of understory Fill-in plant 91 71 Thin Fill-in plant 91 72 Thin 91 74 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 91 77 Shelterwood harvest Fill-in plant 103 3 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 29 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 36 Thin Mechanical site prep. for seeding Seed 103 37 Shelterwood harvest 103 55 Selection harvest Site prep for natural regen 103 76 Shelterwood harvest 103 77 Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 103 103 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 26 Shelterwood harvest 104 31 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 35 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 36 Selection harvest Site prep. for natural regeneration 104 42 Thin 104 42A Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 15 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 32 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 33 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 105 34 Partial removal 105 43 Clearcut Mechanical site prep for planting Full plant 105 32A Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 106 20 Clearcut Mechanical site prep. for planting Full plant 125 15 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration
E - 21 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Comp. Stand Harvest Site Preparation Planting
125 21 Partial removal Fill-in plant 125 34 Partial removal 125 46 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 125 48 Partial removal 125 62 Clearcut with reserves Site prep. for natural regeneration 125 65 Shelterwood harvest 125 16A Partial removal 125 21A Clearcut Site prep. for natural regeneration 126 18 Shelterwood harvest 126 68 Shelterwood harvest
E.3 Non-Native Invasive Species
Any mulch used should be non-seed bearing such as straw. Hay mulch would not be used.
Beech Bark Disease (BBD). The Hiawatha National Forest is in the process of finalizing management recommendations for addressing BBD. The following is the recommendation for beech stands in the area called the advancing front, which include all of the Eastside Administrative Unit:
Beech represents less than 20 percent of basal area: As with stands ahead of the advancing front, where beech already makes up less than 20 percent of basal area, there is little need to enter these stands specifically because of beech bark disease. The rate at which beech bark disease spreads tends to be slower in stands with a smaller component of beech. The intensity of scale infestation per tree also tends to be less in stands where beech makes up a smaller component of the stand.
The effects of losing the beech in these stands would be similar to those following a thinning or selection harvest. These stands would still be fully stocked even if most or all of the beech would die. Canopy gaps where beech had died would allow more light to reach the forest floor, stimulating regeneration of the various species present in the stand. The beech in these stands would continue to provide wildlife habitat benefits, of mast production while they live, and of snags, den trees, or large woody debris after they die. Some of the beech is likely to survive, though damaged and weakened by the effects of beech bark disease. Preliminary research suggests these trees will probably still produce seed crops similar to those of healthy trees, at least for some time.
If these stands are entered for other reasons, any beech that are near other heavily-infested trees, but are themselves either not infested or only lightly infested, should be clearly identified as reserve trees. Beech scale insects secrete a white waxy substance. From a distance, trunks of heavily infested beech will appear to be covered by white wool. Heavily infested beech that are retained in the stand should not be counted as part of the residual basal area, because they are unlikely to survive until the next entry.
Beech represents 20 percent or more of basal area: In these stands, the primary emphasis should be on identifying and retaining apparently resistant beech, and the secondary emphasis on salvaging infested beech.
In identifying trees to remove, again look first at the beech before removing other species. Discriminate strongly against beech that are heavily infested with beech scale, because these are the trees that will be most susceptible to Nectria infection.
E - 22 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Any beech that are near other heavily-infested trees, but are themselves either not infested or only lightly infested, should be clearly identified as reserve trees. All beech that appear to be at least partly resistant should be retained.
If the stand does not contain two to four snag and den trees per acre of other species, retain up to one to two large beech per acre for snag and den trees, even if these larger trees are heavily infested with beech scale. As much as possible, select these snag and den trees away from other beech that are currently not infested or only lightly infested. Do not retain any more than one to two heavily-infested trees per acre in these stands that also contain beech that are apparently at least partly resistant to beech scale. The greater the number of heavily-infested trees that remain, the more likely it is that trees only partly resistant to beech scale may succumb.
If all beech trees in a stand are heavily infested, consider retaining more snag and den trees per acre because there will be no healthy beech producing any mast in the stand.
Heavily infested beech that are retained in the stand should not be counted as part of the residual basal area, because they are unlikely to survive until the next entry.
Choose stand treatments that are likely to regenerate species other than beech.
Limit operating seasons to mid-August through breakup in all managed stands with a beech component to reduce logging-related root injury and the sprouting that may result. Exceptions may be made if site- specific conditions warrant, such as when soils are very dry, or when the operator uses low-PSI equipment. Operations should be suspended following heavy rain until soils dry sufficiently to protect roots from logging-related root injury.
Sale administration must take special care to ensure that operators do not damage residual beech. Any injuries will make residual beech much more susceptible to beech bark disease.
Where soils are appropriate, consider underplanting northern red oak as a future source of hard mast. This could be done in a shelterwood harvest area, or in a selection harvest area with canopy gaps of sufficient diameter.
Beech trees that are already dead are not suitable hosts for beech scale or for Nectria , so there is no benefit to the stand in removing these trees. However, retaining these dead trees, whether standing or down, provides substantial structural habitat benefits for a wide variety of wildlife.
The primary emphasis should be on identifying and retaining apparently resistant beech, and the secondary emphasis on salvaging infested beech.
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB). There is currently no known emerald ash borer (EAB) in the Sand Clay PA. The loss of American beech from BBD should be considered when managing EAB control measures. Conventional management practices to increase tree species diversity and decrease the ash and beech component would be implemented if they singly or in combinations exceed 10-25% of the basal area, depending on the tree size and within stand distribution. Harvesting should reduce, but not necessarily eliminate the amount of ash. Canopy gaps in stands that have proposed selection cuts would be located where there are concentrated pockets of ash trees, if possible.
E - 23 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
E.4 Wildlife Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species. Structural guidelines found in the Forest Plan would be implemented (Forest Plan 2-16 and 2-17). Listed below are stands with site specific reserve island and reserve tree prescriptions by alternative. Not all of the stands proposed for harvest would be found in these tables. For stands that are not found in these tables, Forest Plan guidelines would be implemented.
In stands to be clearcut, seedtree or shelterwood cuts retain 2-4 live trees with diameters greater than or equal to the average stand diameter per acre. Preference should be given to live den trees, or variable size reserve islands/clump that total up to ½ acre for every 10 acres.
In stands to be clearcut with reserve trees as an average, any number of reserve trees less than 10 square feet.
Seedtree cuts should have as an average, 5 reserve trees per acres to 10 square feet, depending on species and diameter of leave trees retained. Some or all of the seed trees may be retained after the new stand is regenerated.
Shelterwood cuts should have as an average, 11-40 square feet of reserve trees, depending on species and diameter of leave trees retained. Some or all of the seed trees may be retained after the new stand is generated.
Single tree and group selection cuts should have up to 5 live den trees per acre.
E - 24 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Table E-10. Alternative 2 Site Specific Structural Design Criteria. Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400025001 25 1 0 0.0 X X X >12" Layout in 2 blocks 09100400025011 25 11 1 1.0 X X 09100400025020 25 20 0 0.0 X X X >12" 09100400025021 25 21 0 0.0 X X X 09100400025028 25 28 0 0.0 X X X 09100400025036 25 36 0 0.0 X X X X X X X X 09100400025037 25 37 0 0.0 X X X >12" 09100400052008 52 8 2 1.0 09100400052010 52 10 0 0.0 X 09100400052014 52 14 2 1.0 X 09100400052015 52 15 2 1.0 X 09100400052032 52 32 0 0.0 X 09100400052060 52 60 0 0.0 X X 09100400052067 52 67 0 0.0 X 09100400052075 52 75 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400052090 52 90 0 0.0 X X 09100400053062 53 62 1 3.0 X 09100400053071 53 71 0 0.0 X X 09100400054008 54 8 1 0.5 X 09100400054027 54 27 0 0.0 Layout in 2 blocks 09100400054028 54 28 0 0.0 X X 09100400054038 54 38 2 2.0 X X X 09100400054062 54 62 0 0.0 X X Layout in 2 blocks 09100400081004 81 4 0 0.0 X Also retain 4 white pine per acre 09100400081009 81 9 0 0.0 X X X 09100400081010 81 10 0 0.0 X X X 09100400081012 81 12 2 1.0 X
E - 25 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400081013 81 13 1 1.0 X X 09100400081015 81 15 0 0.0 X X 09100400081017 81 17 0 0.0 X X 09100400081025 81 25 0 0.0 09100400081026 81 26 0 0.0 X X X 09100400081028 81 28 2 1.0 09100400081054 81 54 1 0.5 X 09100400082010 82 10 2 1.0 09100400082011 82 11 0 0.0 X 09100400082017 82 17 2 1.0 X 09100400082022 82 22 2 1.0 X X 09100400082068 82 68 0 0.0 X 09100400083013 83 13 0 0.0 X X 09100400083016 83 16 0 0.0 X 09100400083018 83 18 0 0.0 X 09100400083019 83 19 1 1.0 X 09100400084007 84 7 1 0.5 09100400084022 84 22 1 0.5 09100400084052 84 52 1 0.5 09100400088002 88 2 0 0.0 X 09100400088003 88 3 0 0.0 Retain aspen 09100400088009 88 9 0 0.0 X 09100400088019 88 19 0 0.0 X X 09100400088022 88 22 0 0.0 X X 09100400088023 88 23 0 0.0 X X 09100400088031 88 31 1 0.5 Retain 2 red/white pine per acre 09100400089012 89 12 0 0.0 X X 09100400089014 89 14 0 0.0 X X X 09100400091058 91 58 0 0.0 X X X 09100400091064 91 64 0 0.0 X X X 09100400091066 91 66 0 0.0 X X 09100400091069 91 69 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400091071 91 71 0 0.0 X X 09100400091072 91 72 0 0.0 X X 09100400091074 91 74 1 1.0 Retain 2 red/white pine per acre
E - 26 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400091077 91 77 0 0.0 X X 09100400103003 103 3 0 0.0 X X 09100400103029 103 29 0 0.0 Retain 2 red/white pine per acre 09100400103077 103 77 1 0.5 09100400103103 103 103 0 0.0 X X X 09100400104026 104 26 0 0.0 X 09100400104031 104 31 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400104035 104 35 0 0.0 X X X 09100400104036 104 36 0 0.0 X X X 09100400105012 105 12 0 0.0 X 09100400105032 105 32 1 1.0 09100400105033 105 33 0 0.0 X 09100400105034 105 34 0 0.0 X X X X X 09100400105035 105 35 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400105043 105 43 1 0.5 X 09100400106020 106 20 1 0.5 09100400125014 125 14 0 0.0 >12 09100400125021 125 21 0 0.0 X X X 09100400125034 125 34 0 0.0 X X X 09100400125048 125 48 0 0.0 X X X 09100400125062 125 62 0 0.0 X 09100400125065 125 65 1 0.5 09100400126018 126 18 1 1.0 09100400126068 126 68 1 1.0
Table E-11. Alternative 3 Site Specific Structural Design Criteria. Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X
E - 27 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400025001 25 1 0 0.0 X X X >12" Layout in 2 blocks 09100400025011 25 11 1 1.0 X X X 09100400025020 25 20 0 0.0 X X X >12" 09100400025021 25 21 0 0.0 X X X 09100400025028 25 28 1 0.5 09100400025036 25 36 0 0.0 X X X X X X X X 09100400025037 25 37 1 0.5 09100400025057 25 57 2 1.0 Also retain 2 white pine per acre 09100400052005 52 5 1 0.5 09100400052008 52 8 2 1.0 09100400052010 52 10 0 0.0 X 09100400052014 52 14 2 1.0 X 09100400052015 52 15 1 0.5 09100400052075 52 75 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400053062 53 62 1 3.0 X 09100400053071 53 71 1 1.0 X X >14" 09100400054008 54 8 1 0.5 X 09100400054027 54 27 0 0.0 Layout in 2 blocks 09100400054038 54 38 2 2.0 X X X X 09100400054049 54 49 1 0.5 Also retain 2 white pine per acre 09100400054062 54 62 0 0.0 X X Layout in 2 blocks 09100400081004 81 4 0 0.0 X Also retain 4 white pine per acre 09100400081009 81 9 0 0.0 X X X 09100400081010 81 10 2 1.0 X X X 09100400081012 81 12 2 1.0 X X 09100400081013 81 13 1 1.0 X X 09100400081015 81 15 0 0.0 X X 09100400081017 81 17 0 0.0 X X 09100400081026 81 26 2 1.0 X X X 09100400081028 81 28 2 1.0 Also retain 2 white pine per acre 09100400081054 81 54 1 0.5 X 09100400082003 82 3 2 1.0 X 09100400082010 82 10 2 1.0 X 09100400082011 82 11 2 1.0 X X
E - 28 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400082017 82 17 2 1.0 X X 09100400082022 82 22 2 1.0 X X 09100400082067 82 67 1 0.5 09100400082068 82 68 0 0.0 X 09100400083013 83 13 0 0.0 X X 09100400083016 83 16 0 0.0 X 09100400083018 83 18 0 0.0 X 09100400083019 83 19 1 1.0 09100400084006 84 6 1 0.5 09100400084007 84 7 1 0.5 09100400084022 84 22 1 0.5 09100400084048 84 48 1 0.5 09100400084052 84 52 1 0.5 09100400088002 88 2 0 0.0 X 09100400088003 88 3 0 0.0 Retain aspen 09100400088009 88 9 0 0.0 X 09100400088019 88 19 0 0.0 X X 09100400088022 88 22 0 0.0 X X 09100400088023 88 23 0 0.0 X X Layout in 2 blocks 09100400088031 88 31 1 0.5 Retain 2 red/white pine per acre 09100400089012 89 12 0 0.0 X X 09100400089014 89 14 0 0.0 X X X 09100400091058 91 58 0 0.0 X X X 09100400091064 91 64 0 0.0 X X X 09100400091066 91 66 0 0.0 X X 09100400091069 91 69 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400091071 91 71 0 0.0 X X 09100400091072 91 72 0 0.0 X X 09100400091074 91 74 1 1.0 09100400091077 91 77 0 0.0 X X 09100400103003 103 3 0 0.0 X X 09100400103077 103 77 1 0.5 09100400103103 103 103 0 0.0 X X X 09100400104026 104 26 0 0.0 X 09100400104031 104 31 0 0.0 X X X X
E - 29 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400104035 104 35 0 0.0 X X X 09100400104036 104 36 0 0.0 X X X 09100400105012 105 12 0 0.0 X 09100400105032 105 32 1 1.0 09100400105033 105 33 0 0.0 X 09100400105034 105 34 0 0.0 X X X X X 09100400105043 105 43 1 0.5 X 09100400106020 106 20 1 0.5 09100400125014 125 14 0 0.0 >12 09100400125021 125 21 1 1.0 09100400125034 125 34 0 0.0 X X X 09100400125048 125 48 0 0.0 X X X 09100400125065 125 65 1 0.5 09100400126018 126 18 1 1.0 09100400126068 126 68 1 1.0
Table E-12. Alternative 4 Site Specific Structural Design Criteria. Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400001073 1 73 0 0.0 X X 09100400025001 25 1 0 0.0 X X X >12" Layout in 2 blocks 09100400025011 25 11 1 1.0 X X X 09100400025020 25 20 0 0.0 X X X >12" 09100400025021 25 21 0 0.0 X X X 09100400025028 25 28 0 0.0 X X X 09100400025036 25 36 0 0.0 X X X X X X X X 09100400052008 52 8 0 0.0 X 09100400052010 52 10 0 0.0 X
E - 30 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400052014 52 14 2 1.0 X 09100400052015 52 15 2 1.0 X 09100400052032 52 32 0 0.0 X 09100400052060 52 60 0 0.0 X X 09100400052067 52 67 0 0.0 X 09100400052075 52 75 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400052090 52 90 0 0.0 X X 09100400053062 53 62 1 3.0 X 09100400053071 53 71 0 0.0 X X 09100400054008 54 8 1 0.5 X X 09100400054027 54 27 0 0.0 Layout in 2 blocks 09100400054028 54 28 0 0.0 X X 09100400054062 54 62 0 0.0 X X Layout in 2 blocks 09100400081004 81 4 0 0.0 X Also retain 4 white pine per acre 09100400081009 81 9 1 0.5 X X X 09100400081010 81 10 2 1.0 X X X 09100400081012 81 12 2 1.0 X X 09100400081013 81 13 1 1.0 X X 09100400081015 81 15 0 0.0 X X 09100400081017 81 17 1 1.0 X X 09100400081026 81 26 2 1.0 X X X 09100400081028 81 28 2 1.0 09100400081054 81 54 1 0.5 X 09100400082010 82 10 2 1.0 X 09100400082011 82 11 2 1.0 X X 09100400082017 82 17 2 1.0 X X 09100400082022 82 22 2 1.0 X X 09100400083013 83 13 1 0.5 X X X X 09100400083016 83 16 0 0.0 X 09100400083018 83 18 1 0.5 X X 09100400083019 83 19 1 1.0 X 09100400084007 84 7 1 0.5 09100400084022 84 22 1 0.5 X X 09100400084052 84 52 1 0.5 09100400088002 88 2 0 0.0 X
E - 31 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400088003 88 3 0 0.0 Retain aspen 09100400088009 88 9 1 0.5 X 09100400088019 88 19 0 0.0 X X 09100400088022 88 22 0 0.0 X X 09100400088023 88 23 0 0.0 X X 09100400088031 88 31 1 0.5 Retain 2 red/white pine per acre 09100400089012 89 12 0 0.0 X X 09100400089014 89 14 0 0.0 X X WH + FIR X X 09100400091058 91 58 0 0.0 X X X 09100400091064 91 64 0 0.0 X X X 09100400091066 91 66 0 0.0 X X 09100400091069 91 69 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400091071 91 71 0 0.0 X X 09100400091072 91 72 0 0.0 X X 09100400091074 91 74 1 1.0 Retain 2 red/white pine per acre 09100400091077 91 77 0 0.0 X X 09100400103003 103 3 0 0.0 X X 09100400103029 103 29 0 0.0 Retain 2 red/white pine per acre 09100400103077 103 77 1 0.5 09100400103103 103 103 0 0.0 X X X Clearcut patches. Keep 40 BA 09100400104026 104 26 0 0.0 X X + FIR X around. 09100400104031 104 31 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400104035 104 35 0 0.0 X X X 09100400104036 104 36 0 0.0 X X X 09100400105012 105 12 1 0.5 X X 09100400105032 105 32 0 0.0 X X X X 09100400105032 105 32 1 0.5 X 09100400105033 105 33 1 0.5 X X X 09100400105034 105 34 0 0.0 X X X X X 09100400105043 105 43 1 0.5 X 09100400106020 106 20 1 0.5 09100400125014 125 14 1 1.0 >12 09100400125021 125 21 0 0.0 X X X 09100400125034 125 34 0 0.0 X X X
E - 32 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Reserve Islands Species to Retain Stand ID Comp. Stand Size Red White Paper Additional Comments Number (Acres) Pine Pine Cedar Hemlock Oak Spruce Maple Birch 09100400125046 125 46 1 0.5 X 09100400125048 125 48 0 0.0 X X X 09100400125062 125 62 0 0.0 X X + Clearcut patches. Keep 40 BA 09100400125065 125 65 1 0.5 FIR around. Clearcut patches. Keep 40 BA 09100400126018 126 18 0 0.0 X X X X around. X + Clearcut patches. Keep 40 BA 09100400126068 126 68 0 0.0 FIR X around.
E - 33 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
E.5 Recreation
North Country Trail (NCT). For safety, signs would be posted on the NCT at both ends of the logging area while the following stands are being harvested.
Table E-13. Stands Containing the NCT. Compartment Stand 125 34 125 68 125 48
An informational sign will be posted at the Trout Brook Pond trailhead, identifying the anticipated dates of harvest activity. The Shore to Shore Chapter of the North Country Trail Association will be notified of these dates as well, so information can be posted on their website and shared with their chapter members.
The NCT will be clearly marked in the following stands by the standard tree blaze 5-6 feet high on the tree, painted with a blue 2" x 6" rectangle before sale area preparation begins, so that the trail tread can be adequately protected during harvest activities, and can be easily relocated after harvest activities.
To avoid the NCT's high-use season, harvest activities will not be permitted in these stands between May 15 and September 15.
No skidding will be allowed up and down the trail tread; crossings will be authorized by the Timber Sale Administrator.
Activity fuels or slash occurring from management activities should be completely removed from the edge of the trail for the first 25 feet. For the next 25 feet, materials should be reduced to 48 inches within one year.
Stands in which the NCT runs through and/or beside, lie in either retention or partial retention zones (Forest Plan - Appendix C, page 2). These stands are as follows:
Table E-14. Stands that Intersect or are within 1/8 Mile of the NCT. Through or Within Proposed Vegetation Visual Quality Compartment Stand 1/8 mile Management Objective 125 34 Through Partial removal (38 acres) Retention 125 14 Within 1/8 mile Clearcut with reserves (25 acres) Partial Retention 125 65 Within 1/8 mile Clearcut (7 acres) Partial Retention 125 66 Within 1/8 mile Clearcut (9 acres) Retention 126 68 Through Clearcut (19 acres) Partial Retention 125 48 Through Partial removal (4 acres) Partial Retention 125 62 Within 1/8 mile Clearcut with reserves (2 acres) Partial Retention 125 21 Within 1/8 mile Partial removal (37 acres) Partial Retention 126 18 Within 1/8 mile Clearcut (25 acres) Partial Retention 125 46 Within 1/8 mile Clearcut with reserves (9 acres) Partial Retention
E - 34 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
If crossing the NCT with logging equipment is necessary, the number of crossings would be limited and would be designated by the timber sale administrator. For safety, signs would be posted along the NCT when there was active logging.
Slash would not be allowed on the NCT.
Monocle Lake Campground to Pt. Iroquois Light Station Trail . The trail between Monocle Lake Campground and Point Iroquois Light Station would be constructed and maintained to a standard suitable for mountain bikes and other non-motorized uses. Trail clearing would be a minimum width of 4 feet and a minimum clearing height of 8 feet. Trail tread would be relatively smooth and maintained at a minimum width of 2 feet.
Snowmobile Trail . Should harvest activities occur on the state snowmobile trail, primarily on FR3352 during the snowmobiling season, the snowmobile trail may be temporarily relocated to avoid having snowmobiles and commercial logging trucks sharing the plowed, snowy road surface. If a reroute occurs, the most likely reroute would be FR3352F west to FR3359, north to the railroad grade/snowmobile trail.
Campgrounds. Harvest activities will not occur in the following stands between May 1 and October 15, which is when the highest recreation visitation occurs, to reduce the number of visitors impacted by the harvest activities.
Table E-15. Stands Limiting Harvest During Monocle Lake Campground High-Use Season. Compartment Stand 1 14 1 39 1 73
Educational signs will be posted in Monocle Lake Campground post-harvest, so that campground visitors can learn about the harvest activities.
E.6 Transportation New system roads would be closed except where access to private land would be necessary.
Caution signs would be used on roads with active timber sales to decrease the risk to public safety.
Aggregate and/or sand borrow used for road construction and maintenance would come from various pits. These include the Cad Soo pit, the Dollar Settlement pit, the H-40 pit the Big Spring pit, or from another Forest Service or private source. The determination as to which pit would be used to provide material for a particular road would be made by the designer based on location and availability of required material in the pit, or during contracting depending on proposals made by the contractor. Local on-site pits for sand or gravel would be used as appropriate if suitable material is located. This would reduce costs and limit the spread of noxious weeds.
Road Construction.
New Permanent Roads . Permanent roads are designed to Forest Service standards as described in Forest Service Handbook 7709.56. These roads would provide the needed access for vegetative management while minimizing effects on other resources. Any new, permanent, system roads constructed would be added to the inventory of system roads.
E - 35 Appendix E – Site Specific Activities and Design Criteria
Where new road construction is proposed, whether permanent or temporary, the first consideration in locating the new road would be given to existing corridors if available. These corridors could be old logging roads, skid trails, railroad grades, or fuel breaks that in their current condition do not meet the Forest Service Manual definition of a road.
Existing system roads will be properly signed. Roads will be signed to identify status of open or closed to off-highway vehicles.
Temporary Roads . Temporary roads would be located by Forest Service timber sale administration personnel with consideration of input from the timber sale purchaser. Consultation with Hiawatha National Forest resource specialists would be made if necessary. Locations and miles shown on the alternative maps are approximate, with final locations made on the ground. Temporary roads are not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and are not necessary for long term resource management. Temporary road construction typically includes clearing of trees, brush, and ground cover; grubbing of larger stumps; shaping; placement of fill, slash, mats, or rock drains across wet areas; and placement of temporary culverts to maintain drainage. Temporary roads would be decommissioned upon completion of management activities.
Road Maintenance. Road maintenance would be done to meet road management objectives.
Road Reconstruction. Road reconstruction would occur in the Sand Clay area where existing roads need to be realigned or upgraded to meet road management objectives.
Road Decommission. Road decommissioning of temporary, system, and unclassified roads, may include removing culverts, eliminating ditches, out sloping the roadbed, removing ruts and berms, seeding, tree planting, stabilizing the roadbed and slopes, and signing. Road decommissioning may also include piling slash and stumps on the abandoned roadbed to further discourage motor vehicle use. Decommissioning would be accomplished through timber sale work, during site preparation and treatment, by Forest Service maintenance crews, or through contracts. The work would be made effective through proper site evaluation, design, monitoring, and law enforcement.
Road decommissioning would restore unneeded roadways and discourage motor vehicle use.
Road Closure. Various road closure devices may be used in this project area. Where frequent access would be required for administrative or vegetative management activities, a gate type closure device would typically be used. For most closures, however, frequent access would not be required and a boulder type closure or an earth mound/stump closure would be used. Signs would be placed at the closures stating that the road is closed to all motorized vehicle use and that foot traffic is welcome. Location, design, monitoring, and law enforcement would make road closures effective.
E - 36 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
F - 1 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Draft
United States Department of Agriculture Biological Evaluation
For
Forest Sand Clay Project Service Eastern Region
St. Ignace Ranger District
Hiawatha September 2007 National Forest
Prepared by:______Derek Huebner, Wildlife Biologist
Date:______
Prepared by:______Sara Davis, Botanist
Date:______
F - 2 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
"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) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."
Printed on recycled paper
F - 3 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to document the effects of management activities identified in the Sand Clay Environmental Assessment (EA). In order to accomplish this, this document is separated into three main sections. This section (section 1) discusses potential effects on federally proposed, candidate, threatened or endangered species, and designated critical habitat. Section 2 focuses on the potential effects the Sand Clay project could have on Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). Finally, section 3 is a table that summarizes effects determinations for each species analyzed in this document.
I. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
This BE was prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (FSM) Directives sections 2670.31, 2670.5(3), and 2672.4, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.
A letter from United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Field Supervisor (Czarnecki June 29, 2006) confirms the species and critical habitat that should be considered for projects conducted on the Hiawatha National Forest. However, as of March 12, 2007, the gray wolf (in the Great Lakes region) has been delisted (Federal Register 2007 1), and is analyzed as an RFSS. Additionally, as of August 8, 2007, the bald eagle has been delisted (Federal Register 2007 2), and is analyzed as an RFSS.
Fauna : Canada lynx - Lynx canadensis (threatened) Hine’s emerald dragonfly - Somatochlora hineana (endangered) Kirtland’s warbler - Dendroica kirtlandii (endangered) Piping plover - Charadrius melodus (endangered) and designated critical habitat
Flora : American Hart’s tongue fern – Asplenium scolopendrium var americanum (threatened) Pitcher’s thistle – Cirsium pitcheri (threatened) Lakeside daisy – Hymenoxys herbacea (threatened) Dwarf lake iris – Iris lacustris (threatened) Houghton’s goldenrod – Solidago houghtonii (threatened)
A. CONSULTATION WITH USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Forest Service is initiating informal consultation with the USFWS seeking concurrence with the determinations of effects in this BE. We concluded the proposed activities (Alternatives 2-4) may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx and Kirtland’s warbler (KW).
The proposed activities would have “no effect” on piping plover, Hine’s emerald dragonfly, American hart’s tongue fern, pitcher’s thistle, lakeside daisy, dwarf lake iris, and Houghton’s goldenrod. In addition for federally listed flora species these species have no critical habitat in the project area therefore they will not be analyzed further in this BE. However, the Forest Service has analyzed and made determinations of effects on piping plover and Hine’s emerald dragonfly in this BE. This document is submitted to the USFWS East Lansing Field Office to document the analysis.
F - 4 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
In addition to consultation for Canada lynx and Kirtland’s warbler requested for this project, programmatic consultation was recently undertaken for Forest Plan revision. The history of this consultation is documented in the Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) for the revision of the Forest Plan (USDA 20061, p. 2) and associated Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) (USDI 2006). The relevance of program-level consultation to this project includes those agreements between the Forest Service and the USFWS reached on defining elements of species’ ecology and biology, risk factors and general effects, analysis parameters, monitoring, and management direction in the revised Forest Plan. This BE provides more specific information on how relevant information in the program-level BA is incorporated. Additionally, other factors relevant to this project not discussed in detail in program-level consultation will be discussed in detail in this BE. It is critical to note that this project-level BE is closely connected to and can only be viewed in concert with both the programmatic BA and BO.
Consultation specific to the Sand Clay project is documented in the project file. It includes emails, telephone calls, and meeting notes between the Forest Service and USFWS during the analysis process.
F - 5 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
B. PROPOSED ACTION
Table F - 1. Comparison of Alternatives by Vegetation Management Activity. Addressed in 2006 Proposed Actions Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Forest Plan BA (Yes/No) Clearcut and regenerate 0 acres 609 acres 619 acres 293 acres Yes Clearcut and regenerate (while reserving some trees) 0 acres 506 acres 672 acres 619 acres Yes Shelterwood harvest to establish regeneration 0 acres 569 acres 525 acres 197 acres Yes Overstory removal to release existing regeneration 0 acres 79 acres 58 acres 10 acres Yes Partial removal to capture some timber value and push stands away from early successional species primarily within 0 acres 612 acres 228 acres 622 acres Yes riparian zones Selection harvest to improve quality and establish 0 acres 505 acres 426 acres 765 acres Yes regeneration within canopy gaps Thin 0 acres 667 acres 660 acres 844 acres Yes Intermediate harvest (white spruce plantations) 0 acres 64 acres 64 acres 64 acres Yes Mechanical site preparation for planting 0 acres 194 acres 176 acres 154 acres Yes Mechanical and prescribed burn site preparation for seeding 0 acres 108 acres 108 acres 92 acres Yes Mechanical site preparation for natural regeneration 0 acres 377 acres 333 acres 64 acres Yes Site preparation for natural regeneration (handtools) 0 acres 1,295 acres 1,308 acres 1,094 acres Yes Prescribed burn control of understory vegetation 0 acres 239 acres 239 acres 239 acres Yes Full plant (red pine and jack pine) 0 acres 194 acres 176 acres 154 acres Yes Fill-in plant 0 acres 1,110 acres 767 acres 847 acres Yes Seed (black spruce and jack pine) 0 acres 137 acres 137 acres 121 acres Yes Prescribe burn a sedge marsh to remove encroaching tag Up to 104 Up to 104 Up to 104 0 acres Yes alder and invigorate the sedge species acres acres acres Underplant Canada yew in scattered patches to restore this Portions of Portions of Portions of native component and develop cover for wildlife within some 0 acres Yes 461 acres 461 acres 461 acres northern hardwood stands Plant long-lived conifer species (hemlock, white pine) in Portions of Portions of Portions of riparian areas along high priority streams to enhance conifer 0 acres Yes 844 acres 510 acres 848 acres component (scattered, supplemental) Underplant scattered oak in one stand to enhance mast 0 acres 10 acres 10 acres 10 acres Yes production
Table F - 2. Comparison of Alternatives by Transportation Management Activity.
F - 6 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Addressed in Proposed Actions Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 2006 Forest Plan BA (Yes/No) Maintenance 0 miles 3.6 miles 3.4 miles 3.6 miles Yes Decommission 0 miles 9.3 miles 9.3 miles 9.1 miles Yes Decommission after use 0 miles 0.5 mile 0.5 mile 0.5 mile Yes New system road construction 0 miles 14.9 miles 12.9 miles 14.2 miles Yes Temporary road construction 0 miles 6.5 miles 6.0 miles 6.3 miles Yes Reconstruction 0 miles 0.3 mile 0.3 mile 0.3 mile Yes Add unclassified roads to National Forest system 0 miles <1 mile <1 mile <1 mile Yes Construct permanent log landing (< 300 feet long) 0 landings 9 landings 7 landings 7 landings Yes Construct temporary log landing (< 300 feet long) 0 landings 8 landings 7 landings 7 landings Yes Close road 0 miles 12.4 miles 0.7 mile 12.4 miles Yes Number of new road closure structures 0 structures 15 structures 2 structures 15 structures Yes Reinforce existing road closures 0 structures 3 structures 1 structures 3 structures Yes Replace existing culvert 0 culverts 6 culverts 6 culverts 6 culverts Yes Rehabilitate drainage crossing 0 crossings 5 crossings 5 crossings 4 crossings Yes Obtain a right-of-way 0 miles 2.1 miles 2.1 miles 2.1 miles Yes Develop, use, and rehabilitate small borrow pits for 0 pits 2 pits 2 pits 2 pits Yes more efficient road construction and maintenance
F - 7 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 3. Comparison of Alternatives by Recreation Activity Table. Addressed in 2006 Proposed Actions Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Forest Plan BA (Yes/No) Construct a non-motorized recreation trail between Monocle Lake Campground and Point Iroquois Lighthouse, utilizing 0 miles 1 mile 1 mile 1 mile Yes roads built for timber harvesting
Table F - 4. Comparison of Alternatives by Aquatic Habitat and Watershed Restoration. Addressed in 2006 Proposed Actions Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Forest Plan BA (Yes/No) Maintain sediment basin along North Branch 0 basins 1 basin 1 basin 1 basin Yes Pine River Install large woody debris structures along 0 structures 60 structures 60 structures 60 structures Yes Clear Creek Install log bank cover structures along Biscuit 0 structures 60 structures 60 structures 60 structures Yes Creek Plant conifers in flood plain of Clear Creek 0 acres 20 acres 20 acres 20 acres Yes
F - 8 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the proposed affected environment for each species within the project area. The EA contains additional affected environment information for each resource area.
Table F - 5. Proposed Affected Environment (within the Sand Clay Project Area) of Animal Species Analyzed. Canada lynx Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Acres of hare habitat 29,584 28,168 28,246 28,547 Acres of squirrel habitat 17,144 16,689 16,497 17,034 Acres of denning habitat in patches > 5 acres 16,340 15,057 15,145 15,640
Compacted route density (mi per sq.mile). * Compaction information for the LTA, outside Sand-Clay North LTA: 1.0 mi/sq. mi. of the HNF boundary, is limited. Therefore, to minimize speculation, these calculations only include route density for the portion of Sand-Clay South LTA: 1.2 mi/sq. mi. the LTA located within the HNF boundary.
Piping plover Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Miles of Great Lake’s shoreline 2.5 Hine’s emerald dragonfly Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Acres of Hine’s emerald habitat No habitat in project area Miles of designated OHV routes 52 Kirtland’s warbler Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Acres of jack pine of all size classes 928 813 813 814 Acres of suitable KW breeding habitat 85 92 92 92 Data source: Habitat Definitions Model (Henderson 2006), and project file geodatabase layers.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
CANADA LYNX Species Ecology. The species ecology, including species description, life history, habitat, distribution, status, and threats are described under the “Status of the Species” section for Canada lynx in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006). To date, the Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the HNF.
Factors Affecting the Species. Pages 170-173 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006) address the factors, including lynx habitat (vegetation composition and structure), disturbance from human activities and competition from other carnivores. To date, the BO provides an accurate evaluation of these factors on the HNF. Features and activities that occur within the action area that affect or influence these factors are described in Tables F – 1 thru F - 4 of this BE.
Species Status within the Action Area. Pages 163-166 and page 170 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006) address the status of Canada lynx at various scales, including on the HNF. To date, the status of the species on the HNF has not changed.
F - 9 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Specific Sand Clay winter track surveys took place in 2001, and two 5-mile routes, run annually, are located within this project area. No lynx tracks have been found within this project area. However, as Table F - 5 indicates over half of the project area is considered potential lynx habitat. Additionally, Delirium Wilderness (11,870 acres) and the Fibre Roadless Area (7,800 acres) are located within this project area. These areas provide more seclusion (less snow compaction) than other areas of the forest. The southern boundary of the project area is about four miles northeast of where a lynx was trapped in 2003. Based on this information, lynx are either unlikely to be present in the action area or are present in so few numbers that they cannot be detected.
HINE’S EMERALD Species Ecology. The species ecology, including species description, life history, habitat, distribution, status, and threats are described under the “Status of the Species” section for Hine’s emerald in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006). To date, the Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the HNF.
Factors Affecting the Species. Pages 214-216 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006) address the factors applicable to Hine’s emerald, including presence of calcareous fen habitat, vehicle-related mortality, recreation (specifically OHV-use) and timber harvest. To date, the BO provides an accurate evaluation of these factors on the HNF. Features and activities that occur within the action area that affect or influence these factors are described in Tables F – 1 thru F - 4 of this BE.
Species Status within the Action Area. Pages 206-207 and pages 213-214 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006) address the status of Hine’s emerald range-wide and on the HNF, respectively. To date, the status of the species has not changed.
Dragonfly surveys have taken place within the project area (mainly in 2005). No Hine’s emerald locations or potential habitat were identified. The southern boundary of the project area is about 14 miles north of any occupied Hine’s emerald habitat. Based on this information, we believe that Hine’s emerald dragonflies do not occupy the action area.
KIRTLAND’S WARBLER (KW) Species Ecology. The species ecology, including species description, life history, habitat, distribution, status, and threats are described under the “Status of the Species” section for KW in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006). To date, the Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the HNF.
Factors Affecting the Species. Pages 193-194 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006) address the three factors applicable to KW in the project area, including presence of breeding habitat, disturbance from human activities and nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird. To date, the BO provides an accurate evaluation of these factors on the HNF. Features and activities that occur within the action area that affect or influence these factors are described in Tables F – 1 thru F - 4 of this BE.
Species Status within the Action Area. Pages 186-192 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006) address the status of KW range-wide and on the HNF, respectively. To date, the status of the species has not changed.
Specific Sand-Clay breeding bird surveys took place in 2001 and 2005, and one national breeding bird survey route runs through much of the Sand Clay project area. No KWs were identified during these surveys. However, this project area is adjacent to the Raco LTA, which is identified as a KW management area. During the 2006 KW census, two singing males were identified in a jack pine stand that borders the Sand Clay project area. However, the Sand Clay project area does not contain a large
F - 10 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
amount of jack pine habitat and does not contain MAs 4.4 or 4.2, which are Forest Plan for KW management emphasis areas. Based on this information, we believe that KWs do not occupy the action area.
GREAT LAKES PIPING PLOVER Species Ecology. The species ecology, including species description, life history, habitat, distribution, status, and threats are described under the “Status of the Species” section for piping plover in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006). To date, the Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the Forest.
Factors Affecting the Species. Pages 117-121 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006) address the five factors applicable to piping plovers in the project area, including nest protection, disturbance from human activities, habitat management, predators, habitat management and critical habitat primary constituent elements (PCEs). To date, the BO provides an accurate evaluation of these factors on the HNF. Features and activities that occur within the project area that affect or influence these factors are described in Tables F – 1 thru F - 4 of this BE.
Species Status within the Action Area. Pages 113-116 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006) address the status of piping plover range-wide and on the HNF, respectively. In 2006, there were 7 nesting pairs on the HNF. Of the 23 hatched eggs, there were 12 birds that made it to fledgling. These are the highest totals for the HNF (Vance 2006). To date, the status of the species has not changed.
The Sand Clay project area includes about 2.5 miles of Lake Superior shoreline. However, historic records do not indicate any breeding activity on the HNF Lake Superior shoreline, and this area is not designated as critical habitat (USDI 2003). Based on this information, we believe that piping plovers do not occupy the action area.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Fauna : The majority of management activities would take place within the Sand Clay North and Sand Clay South LTAs, which provide a variety of habitat types. Most of the direct and indirect effects would occur within areas proposed for harvest, road/trail construction, borrow pit development, etc. However, effects, such as increased traffic on surrounding roads due to hauling, would occur on a larger scale.
Therefore, the project area boundary was chosen as the direct and indirect effects boundary. This boundary generally follows LTA boundaries, but excludes lands that are located east of the HNF. Therefore, this serves as a reasonable, ecological boundary, which includes much of the surrounding landscape where impacts could occur . The time period for direct and indirect effects is based on the predicted time period within which proposed management activities would occur (about 15 years).
The Sand Clay North and Sand Clay South LTA boundaries extend outside of the HNF proclamation boundary. Landtype associations are drawn to delineate ecological boundaries that classify the unique habitat characteristics that an area provides for wildlife populations on and off HNF land. Therefore, the Sand Clay North and Sand Clay South LTAs were chosen as the cumulative effects area. Some information that is not available at the LTA boundary, such as human population trends, is applied from larger political boundaries.
The past and future time scale used for consideration of cumulative effects is about 15 years. On large projects, management activities can take 15 years before they are complete, so this is the time period during which direct and indirect effects from proposed management activities would result in cumulative
F - 11 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation effects. Therefore, projects (within the cumulative effects boundary) that have been implemented over the past 15 years are considered (Appendix G). Any reasonably foreseeable projects (applicable projects currently on the Schedule of Proposed Action 4/1/2007 – 6/30/2007) that are expected to contribute to cumulative effects over the next 15 years are also considered (Appendix G). After 15 years, habitat would continue to change, but predictions on habitat availability become increasingly speculative with longer timeframes.
CANADA LYNX Direct and Indirect Effects This section identifies and analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the action, interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects of other actions in the area. This includes documenting project compliance with standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and effects on the species.
Under Alternative 1 (No Action), natural succession would continue to occur and denning habitat would continue to develop. The creation of early successional forage habitat would depend on natural disturbance factors such as windthrow and fire. Alternative 1 is compliant with the Forest Plan management direction.
F - 12 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 6. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Applicable to Canada Lynx Management. Forest Plan Guideline Alts. in Management Notes/Specifics or Standard Compliance Activity S-2600: Protect known TE No information showing that lynx are NA NA populations present. GL-2600: Structural Vegetation Forest Plan structural guidelines would be guidelines implemented for Yes Management implemented. reserve trees/snags GL-2600: Survey prior to Wildlife TES Project surveys in 2001 and HNF/MDNR Yes implementing management Monitoring annual track survey routes. About 20,000 acres of quality GL-2600: Maintain habitat Vegetation connectivity will be maintained within connectivity to allow for Yes Management project area (Henderson 2006). Project lynx dispersal file map. GL-2600: After natural disturbance >20 acres retain No salvage harvest is proposed in any of NA NA minimum of 10% of the the alternatives. area on NFS GL-2600: If adding designated trails for winter No additional trails are proposed in any of NA NA activities in lynx habitat the alternatives. minimize impacts GL-2600: In lynx habitat reduce compacted route Recreation See Table F - 5. Densities are below 2 density if >2 miles per Management miles per square mile (within the portion Yes square mile (at the LTA Transportation of the LTA located within the HNF scale) w/closures, Management boundary). decommissioning GL-2600: Maintain denning habitat in patches > Vegetation 5 ac. comprising at least 10 Yes See Table F - 5. Management percent of lynx habitat on project area GL-2600: Closure orders may be used to protect NA NA There are no known breeding areas. known TE breeding areas, nests and denning sites GL-2600: Give deference to listed species where there NA NA There are no known conflicts. are conflicts with unlisted species GL-2200: Grazing should No grazing is proposed in any of the NA NA not occur alternatives. *This table presents those standards and guidelines that are both directly applicable to the species and most appropriately monitored at the project-level. Numerous other standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan are not discussed here because they are either only loosely connected to the species and/or are better tracked during periodic programmatic monitoring at the Forestwide level.
F - 13 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 7. Project Effects of Management Activities on Canada Lyns (Alternative 2) (USDI 2006 - Appendix H). Management Exposure Response Determination Activity Currently, reproduction is not known to occur in the Upper Peninsula. Based on this information, direct impacts to den locations are unlikely to occur from any of the Harvest treatments management activities proposed in this project. Harvest activities may indirectly (including skid road Indirect reduce den habitat, but creation of early successional habitat may increase potential NLAA and log landing forage habitat. However, based on the amount of available habitat and current construction) population information within the project area, measurable impacts to lynx are not expected. Increased human access could increase competition, impact forage activity, and New road increase compaction and trapping access. These activities may degrade lynx habitat. construction, road However, several existing roads and proposed new roads would be closed to reduce maintenance, and Indirect NLAA these effects. Additionally, blocks of roadless habitat (Delirium Wilderness and borrow pit Fibre Roadless Area) already exist and provide habitat seclusion, so measurable development impacts to lynx are not expected. Road Improve habitat conditions. Reduction in human presence and physical disturbance Indirect NLAA decommissioning may increase lynx survivorship. Non-motorized Increase in access may reduce habitat. However, this would be a non-motorized recreational trail Indirect trail that would follow roads already constructed during harvest, so measurable NLAA construction impacts to lynx are not expected. Indirect effects from disturbance and loss of vegetation cover may reduce habitat for Prescribed burning Indirect prey species. However, these effects would be temporary. Therefore, measurable NLAA impacts to lynx are not expected. Aquatic habitat and Potential impacts from noise and physical disturbance would be isolated. Therefore, Indirect NLAA watershed restoration measurable impacts to lynx are not expected.
F - 14 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 8. Project Effects of Management Activities on Canada Lynx (Alternative 3) (USDI 2006 - Appendix H). Management Activity Exposure Response Determination Alternative 3 would create the most early successional forage habitat, and Harvest treatments (including skid therefore reduce potential den habitat the most. However, based on the Indirect NLAA road and log landing construction) amount of available habitat and current population information within the project area, measurable impacts to lynx are not expected. The most emphasis would be placed on recreational access. Same effects New road construction, road discussed in Alternative 2, but to a higher degree. However, based on the maintenance, and borrow pit Indirect NLAA amount of available habitat and current population information within the development project area, measurable impacts to lynx are not expected. Road decommissioning Indirect Same as Alternative 2. NLAA Non-motorized recreational trail Same as Alternative 2. Indirect NLAA construction Prescribed burning Indirect Same as Alternative 2. NLAA Aquatic habitat and watershed Same as Alternative 2. Indirect NLAA restoration
Table F - 9. Project Effects of Management Activities on Canada Lynx (Alternative 4) (USDI 2006 - Appendix H). Management Activity Exposure Response Determination Alternative 4 would provide the most denning habitat and the best Harvest treatments (including skid road juxtaposition of denning and forage habitat. However, based on the Indirect NLAA and log landing construction) amount of available habitat and current population information within the project area, measurable impacts to lynx are not expected. New road construction, road maintenance, and borrow pit Indirect Same as Alternative 2. NLAA development Road decommissioning Indirect Same as Alternative 2. NLAA Non-motorized recreational trail Same as Alternative 2. Indirect NLAA construction Same as Alternative 2. Prescribed burning Indirect NLAA Aquatic habitat and watershed Same as Alternative 2. Indirect NLAA restoration *For additional discussion and detail regarding these effects, see the programmatic documents BA/BO (Canada lynx section) (USDA 2005 and USDI 2006)
F - 15 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Cumulative Effects The total size of the cumulative effects area is about 73,000 acres, and the HNF manages about 66% of the land within the cumulative effects boundary. There have been no confirmed lynx observations within the cumulative effects boundary. However, on a landscape scale, with the Raco plains to the west and private agriculture fields to the east, the cumulative effects area may serve as an important potential habitat corridor for lynx.
Past, present, and future forest management activities have occurred and are expected to occur on HNF land within the cumulative effects area. Several EAs (Appendix G) are currently being planned or implemented on the HNF in Chippewa County. However, most of the project activities from these past and future EAs do not overlap with the cumulative effects area.
Over the past 15 years, HNF management projects (Appendix G) have resulted in the creation of about 1,200 acres of early successional habitat (mainly aspen, red pine, and white pine) within the cumulative effects boundary. Additionally, about 40 acres of jack pine clearcutting ( Raco Plains Ecosystem EA ) overlaps with the cumulative effects boundary and is planned for harvest in the next five years. In the past, uneven-aged management (mainly selection harvest) also has occurred on HNF land within the cumulative effects area, and about 105 acres of hardwood thinning ( Lake Superior Highlands EA ) is planned for harvest in the next five years. These activities may result in a cumulative loss of potential denning habitat and habitat connectivity. However, many of the harvest activities may increase forage habitat. Additionally, the cumulative effects area also contains Delirium Wilderness, Fibre Roadless Area, Waiska Bay cRNA, designated old growth, and unsuited wetlands, so about 40% of the entire cumulative effects area is unsuited for timber harvest. Therefore, the cumulative effects area provides remote habitat for lynx.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) owns about 6% of the land within the cumulative effects boundary. A variety of even and uneven aged harvest activities on state land (Lake Superior State Forest) contribute to cumulative effects within this area. The amount of harvest varies by year, and acreage values are not available for each year within the cumulative effects temporal boundary, but, in 2007, about 3,700 acres is scheduled for harvest in Chippewa County. Within the cumulative effects area, harvest is scheduled to occur from 2011-2013. At this time, compartment reviews have not been written for this area, so the exact acreage amounts are not known. As mentioned above, these harvest activities can result in a cumulative loss of potential denning habitat and connectivity, but may increase forage habitat.
Human populations are increasing in Chippewa County (+11%) (US Census Bureau 2000), and about 28% of the cumulative effects area is privately owned. Of the 28%, Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. manages several thousand acres of corporate timber lands within this area. Within the last five years this land has been owned by a couple of different timber management corporations, so past management is difficult to quantify, and future management is somewhat speculative. However, timber harvest activities have occurred and are expected to be a large part of future management of this land. Additionally, within the cumulative effects boundary, some private landowners are enrolled in the Commercial Forest Program, a program in which the landowner agrees to manage land for timber production. Therefore, development activities (i.e. home construction) and timber harvest from private land can contribute to cumulative loss of habitat seclusion/connectivity and reduce potential habitat.
In addition to timber harvest, past projects have created and improved recreational facilities, snowmobile trails, and private easements (Appendix G). Additionally, future recreational development activities are anticipated ( Whitefish Bay Scenic Byway EA ) within cumulative effects area. Within the Sand Clay EA , the proposed non-motorized trail and road construction and maintenance activities may lead to cumulative
F - 16 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
impacts due to increased recreational access within the cumulative effects area. However, Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in a net decrease in road access, which may improve habitat seclusion. But, road construction, maintenance, or other development on state, Plum Creek, or other private land could cancel out any increased habitat seclusion. Increases in road density may lead to a loss of remote habitat and increase the likelihood of disturbance. Alternative 3 would have the greatest cumulative effect and Alternative 4 would cumulatively impact habitat the least. Determination At this time, the best available information indicates that there are likely a very low number of lynx present on the HNF. Specifically within the action area, lynx are either extremely unlikely to be present or are present in so few numbers that they cannot be detected. Each alternative complies with the Forest Plan direction for lynx management. According to the effects tables, road decommissioning is one action that may have a beneficial impact on lynx. Based on the amount of available habitat and current population information within the project area, measurable impacts to lynx are not expected to occur from the other proposed management activities. Therefore, the determination for Alternatives 2-4 is “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect.” Determination for Alternative 1 is “no effect.”
HINE’S EMERALD Direct and Indirect Effects This section identifies and analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the action, interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects of other actions in the area. This includes documenting project compliance with standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and effects on the species.
F - 17 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 10. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Applicable to Hine's Emerald Management. Forest Plan Guideline Alts. in Management activity Notes/Specifics or Standard Compliance S-2600: Implement federal recovery plan There are no known Hine’s S-2600: Protect known emerald locations and no TE populations NA NA suitable habitat has been S-2600: Known Hine’s identified within this emerald breeding sites project area. will be protected S-2500: Wetland roads BMPs and other Forest Plan or trail crossings will Yes Watershed management watershed guidelines would preserve cross drainage be implemented. GL-2600: Closure orders may be used to protect known TE breeding areas, nests and denning There are no known Hine’s NA NA sites emerald locations. GL-2600: Eliminate or control NNIS in TE occurrences GL-2600: Survey prior Wildlife TES Dragonfly surveys took to implementing Yes monitoring place in 2005. management GL-2600: Give deference to listed species There are no known NA NA where there are conflicts conflicts. with unlisted species GL-2500: Implement MI BMPs and other Forest Plan water quality best Yes Watershed management watershed guidelines would management practices be implemented. (BMPs) GL-2500: Clearcutting Forest Plan watershed should not occur adjacent Yes Watershed management guidelines would be to woodland ponds implemented. GL-2500: The number of Forest Plan watershed road and trail stream Yes Watershed management guidelines would be crossings should be implemented. minimized *This table presents those standards and guidelines that are both directly applicable to the species and most appropriately monitored at the project-level. Numerous other standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan are not discussed here because they are either only loosely connected to the species and/or are better tracked during periodic programmatic monitoring at the Forestwide level.
F - 18 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
For Alternatives 1-4, since no habitat for Hine’s emerald exists within this project area, there are no effects expected to occur (no effects tables were created). Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Hine’s emerald dragonflies are not known to utilize habitat within the cumulative effects boundary. Therefore, impacts from management activities on the HNF, state, or private land are not expected to cumulatively impact Hine’s emerald dragonflies. Determination Due to the lack of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, the determination for Alternatives 1-4 is “no effect.”
KIRTLAND’S WARBLER Direct and Indirect Effects This section identifies and analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the action, interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects of other actions in the area. This includes documenting project compliance with standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and effects on the species.
Under Alternative 1 (No Action), natural succession would continue to occur. The creation of early successional jack pine habitat would depend on natural disturbance factors such as fire. Alternative 1 is compliant with Forest Plan direction.
F - 19 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 11. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Applicable to Kirtland's Warbler Management. Forest Plan Guideline or Alts. in Management Notes/Specifics Standard Compliance Activity S-2600: Implement federal The project area is not in a KW recovery plan NA NA S-2600: Protect known TE management area. populations GL-2600: Maximum size of temporary openings for areas managed for KW should not exceed 1,100 acres - temporary opening guideline may be There is no KW management exceeded by harvesting adjacent NA NA proposed. blocks after the appropriate stocking density (determined with USFWS) is achieved and after the third-year stocking review GL-2600: Closure orders may be used to protect known TE nest NA NA There are no known nest sites. sites GL-2600: In areas managed for KW, strive to regenerate jack There is no KW management pine stands with the appropriate NA NA proposed. stem density and openings in consultation with USFWS GL-2600: Pre-commercial thinning or release of jack pine should not occur in areas managed for Kirtland's warbler There is no KW management NA NA prior to vegetation before or proposed. during suitable period unless activity maintains or enhances KW as determined with USFWS GL-2600: Structural guidelines Vegetation Forest Plan structural guidelines implemented for reserve Yes management would be implemented. trees/snags Project BBS surveys, National GL-2600: Survey prior to Yes Yes BBS surveys, Kirtland’s warbler implementing management census. GL-2600: Give deference to listed species where there are NA NA There are no known conflicts. conflicts with unlisted species *This table presents those standards and guidelines that are both directly applicable to the species and most appropriately monitored at the project-level. Numerous other standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan are not discussed here because they are either only loosely connected to the species and/or are better tracked during periodic programmatic monitoring at the Forestwide level.
F - 20 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 12. Project Effects of Management Activities for Kirtland's Warbler (Alternative 2 - 4) (USDI 2006 - Appendix I). Management Activity Exposure Response Determination Due to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, no measurable Harvest treatments (including skid negative response is expected. Creation of young jack/red pine Indirect NLAA road and log landing construction) stands may inadvertently provide a small amount of breeding habitat. New road construction, road maintenance, and borrow pit Indirect No measurable response is expected. NLAA development Road decommissioning Indirect No measurable response is expected. NLAA Non-motorized recreational trail No measurable response is expected. Indirect NLAA construction No measurable response is expected. Prescribed burning Indirect NLAA Aquatic habitat and watershed No measurable response is expected. Indirect NLAA restoration *For additional discussion and detail regarding these effects, see the programmatic documents BA/BO (Kirtland’s warbler section) (USDA 2005 and USDI 2006).
F - 21 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Kirtland’s warblers are not known to utilize habitat within the cumulative effects boundary. Additionally, this project area does not contain many large blocks of jack pine habitat. However, this area is adjacent to the Raco KW management area. Harvest activities on HNF, state, Plum Creek Timber Company Inc, and other private ownership could provide a small amount of habitat. Therefore, as populations increase, there is a slight chance that some individuals may utilize habitat within the cumulative effects area. Determination Due to the proximity to the Raco KW management area, there is a slight chance that management activities could impact habitat. Therefore, the determination for Alternatives 2-4 is “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect.” Determination for Alternative 1 is “no effect.”
PIPING PLOVER Direct and Indirect Effects This section identifies and analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the action, interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects of other actions in the area. This includes documenting project compliance with standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and effects on the species.
F - 22 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 13. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Applicable to Piping Plover Management. Alts. in Management Forest Plan Guideline or Standard Notes/Specifics Compliance Activity S-2600: Implement federal recovery plan No piping plovers have been S-2600: Protect known TE populations documented along the Lake NA NA S-2600: Known active piping plover Superior shoreline (within the nest sites will be protected with area HNF proclamation boundary). closures and predator control if necessary BMPs and other Forest Plan S-2500: Wetland roads or trail Watershed Yes watershed guidelines would be crossings will preserve cross drainage management implemented. GL-2600: Closure orders may be used to protect known TE breeding areas, There are no known piping plover nests and denning sites NA NA locations. GL-2600: Eliminate or control NNIS in TE occurrences GL-2600: Survey prior to Plover seasonal checked habitat Yes Yes implementing management along Lake Superior in 2005. GL-2600: Give deference to listed species where there are conflicts with NA NA There are no known conflicts. unlisted species GL-2600: Recreation activities should There are no known piping plover be discouraged near active and historic NA NA nesting sites. piping plover nesting sites GL-2500: Implement MI water quality BMPs and other Forest Plan Watershed best management practices (BMPs) at Yes watershed guidelines would be management minimum implemented. GL-2500: Determination of coastal zone consistency will be completed for Trail development activities are all activities occurring within one- Yes Recreation complaint. quarter mile from the Great Lakes high water mark *This table presents those standards and guidelines that are both directly applicable to the species and most appropriately monitored at the project-level. Numerous other standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan are not discussed here because they are either only loosely connected to the species and/or are better tracked during periodic programmatic monitoring at the Forestwide level .
For Alternatives 1-4, since no habitat for piping plover is known to exist within this project area, there are no effects expected to occur (no effects tables were created). Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Piping plovers are not known to utilize habitat within the cumulative effects boundary. Additionally, historic records do not indicate any breeding activity on the HNF Lake Superior shoreline, and this area is not designated as critical habitat (USDI 2003). Therefore, impacts from management activities on the HNF, state, or private land are not expected to cumulatively impact piping plovers.
Determination
F - 23 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Due to the lack of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, the determination for Alternatives 1-4 is “no effect.”
II. REGION 9 SENSITIVE SPECIES
The purpose of this section of the BE is to document the likely effects the proposed management activities (Tables F – 1 thru F - 4) may have on Regional Forest Sensitive Species (RFSS). A wide variety of federal legislative actions, including the National Forest Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act define national policy to preserve and protect Forest Service regionally listed sensitive species when managing public lands. To meet the intent of such legislation, biological assessments or evaluations are required as part of the environmental analysis for all planned, funded, or permitted federal activities.
The FSM requires the Forest Service to address the viability of RFSS to avoid any impacts that may cause a trend towards listing (USDA 1990). For RFSS, a determination is made as to whether the action would likely have “no impact,” “beneficial impact,” “may impact individuals but not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability,” or “likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.”
This BE provides the deciding official information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the potential risks and benefits posed by the project to RFSS animals and their habitat.
A. IDENTIFICATION OF RFSS
Using data obtained from review of background information, field surveys, and habitat requirements, the RFSS list was screened to identify species with potential to occupy the project area. The species were placed into one of the three groups listed below.
• Without suitable habitat ; species whose presence has not been documented and which do not have suitable habitat in the project area, or animal species not present and whose known range does not extend into the project area. • Unoccupied habitat ; species whose presence has not been reported but which have suitable habitat in the project area and ranges that extend into the Upper Peninsula region. • Occupied habitat ; species whose presence has been reported in the general project area.
Fauna : This phase of the analysis resulted in identification of twelve animal RFSS with occupied habitat within the Sand Clay project area. In addition, three species were identified as having unoccupied habitat , within the project area (Table F - 14). These species are addressed in the BE.
The Sand Clay project would have no effect and no impact on RFSS without suitable habitat in the project area (Table F - 14). The project would also have no effect on RFSS limited to habitats in the project area that would not be affected by proposed activities.
F - 24 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 14. Fauna Regional Forester Sensitive Species of the Hiawatha National Forest. Documented in Habitat in Scientific Name Common Name Project Area? Project Area? Accipite r gentiles Northern goshawk Yes Yes Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte’s sparrow Yes Yes Asio flammeus Short-eared owl No No Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Yes Yes Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Yes Yes Canis lupus Gray wolf Yes Yes Chlidonias niger Black tern No Yes Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan No No Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine falcon No No Gavia immer Common loon Yes Yes Lanius ludovici anus migrans Loggerhead shrike No No Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron No No Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler Yes Yes Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpecker Yes Yes Sterna caspia Caspian tern No Yes Sterna hirundo Common tern No Yes Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed grouse Yes Yes Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s turtle No No Catinella exile Land snail No No Euconulus alderi Land snail No No Planogyra asteriscus Eastern flat-whorl No No Vallonia gracilicosta albula Land snail No No Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo No No Vertigo morsei Six whorl vertigo No No Vertigo paradoxa Mystery vertigo No No Hylogomphus viridifrons Green-faced clubtail No No Lycaeides idas nabokovi Northern blue butterfly No No Somatochlora incurvata Warpaint emerald dragonfly Yes Yes Trimerotropis huroniana Lake Huron locust No No Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony boghaunter Yes Yes Williamsonia linteri Ringed boghaunter Yes Yes *Species further addressed in the BE are listed in bold .
Flora : The HNF has seventy-six RFSS plant species. Many of these plant species are inherently uncommon because of limited suitable habitat; they are at their end of range or are relict species from previous climatic conditions. Species having potential unoccupied habitat were determined using past field surveys in the project area, Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) plant community types 1, HNF ecological landtype classifications (ELT), and LTAs.
1 Descriptions of MNFI plant community types are found within the project file and are also available from Michigan State University website, under Michigan Natural Features Inventory, plant community type descriptions.
F - 25 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
A number of RFSS plant species have occupied habitat within the Sand Clay project area. The following HNF-RFSS occur within the botanical affected environment:
• Carex wiegandii (Wiegand’s sedge) occurs within proposed activities. Design criteria were developed in order to eliminate any negative impacts that could occur to known populations and occupied habitat. • One RFSS Botrychium minganense (Mingan’s moonwort) occurs within proposed activities, although Mingan’s moonwort is currently not designated as HNF-RFSS design criteria were developed in order to protect the population and its occupied habitat thereby reducing potential negative impacts. • Botrychium pallidum (Pale moonwort) and Botrychium spathulatum (Spathulate or spoon-leaf moonwort) are documented within access routes at multiple locations within the project area. Design criteria were developed in order to eliminate any negative impacts that could occur to known populations and occupied habitat. • Calypso bulbosa (Calypso orchid) occurs just outside a proposed activity. Design criteria were developed in order to protect potential change to occupied habitat in relation to proposed activities.
The following HNF-RFSS occur within the project area. However, they are outside of the botanical affected environment:
• Juncus vaseyi (Vasey rush), Oryzopsis canadensis (=Piptatherum canadensis) (Canada rice grass), and Cynoglossum virginianum) var. boreale (Northern wild comfrey) occur in the Sand Clay project area, but outside of proposed activities. Their locations occur within either the Delirium Wilderness, Fibre Roadless Area, or lands identified as unsuitable for project activities. Species with occupied habitat present in these parts of the project area will have “no impacts” occurring from any alternative.
Thirteen RFSS plant species were identified as having suitable unoccupied habitat present within the project area (Table F - 15). Species with suitable unoccupied habitat present in the project area are analyzed for effects in this document.
F - 26 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Table F - 15. Flora Regional Forester Sensitive Species of the Hiawatha National Forest. Documented Habitat in Scientific Name Common Name in Project Botanical Affected Area? Environment? Vascular Plants Adlumia fungosa Climbing fumitory No No Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchis No No Amoracia la custris Lake cress No No Asplenium rhizophyllum Walking fern No No Asplenium trichomanes ramosum Green spleenwort No No Astragalus Canadensis Canadian milk-vetch No No Astragalus neglectus Cooper’s milk-vetch No No Beckmannia syzigachne American sloughgrass No No Botrychium campestre Prairie moonwort No Yes Botrychium michiganense Western moonwort No Yes (=hesperium) Botrychium mormo Goblin moonwort No No Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobed grapefern No Yes Botrychium pallidum Pale moonwort Yes Yes Botrychium rugulosum Ternate grape fern No Yes Botrychium spathulatum Spathulate moonwort Yes Yes Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal water-starwort No No Calypso bulbosa Calypso orchid Yes Yes Carex concinna Beauty sedge No No Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge No No Carex novae-angliae New England sedge No No Carex richardsonii Richardson sedge No No Carex scirpoidea Bulrush sedge No No Carex wiegandii Wiegand’s sedge Yes Yes Crataegus douglasii Douglas’s hawthorn No No Cryptogramma stelleri Slender cliff brake fern No No Cynoglossum virginianum var. boreale Northern wild comfrey No No Cypripedium arietinum Ram’s head lady slipper No Yes Cystopteris laurentiana Laurentian bladder fern No No Drosera anglica English sundew No No Dryopteris expansa Expanded wood fern No No Dryopteris filix -mas Male fern No No Eleocharis compressa Flattened spike-rush No No Elymus glaucus Blue wild-rye No No Empetrum nigrum Black crowberry No No Erigeron hyssopifolius Hyssop-leaved fleabane No No Northern three-lobed Galium brevipes No No bedstraw Galium kamtschaticum Northern wild licorice No No Gymnocarpium robertianum Limestone oak fern No No Helianthus mollis Downy sunflower No No Huperzia selago Fir clubmoss No Yes
F - 27 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Documented Habitat in Scientific Name Common Name in Project Botanical Affected Area? Environment? Juglans cinerea Butternut No No Juncus stygius Moor rush No No Juncus vaseyi Vasey’s rush Yes Yes Leymus mollis Dune grass No No Listera auriculata Auricle twayblade No No Littorella uniflora American shoregrass No No Luzula parviflora Small flowered wood rush No Yes Northern prostrate club Lycopodie lla margueritae No No moss Malaxis brachypoda White adder’s mouth No Yes Muhlenbergia richardsonis Mat muhly No No Alternate leaved water Myriophyllum alterniflorum No No milfoil Omalotheca sylvatica (=Gnaphalium Woodland cudweed No No sylvaticum) Petasites sagittatus Sweet-coltsfoot No Yes Pinguicula vulgaris Butterwort No No Piptatherum canadensis (=Oryzopsis Canada rice-grass Yes Yes canadensis) Potamogeton confervoides Algal pondweed No No Pterospora andromeda Pine drops No Yes Ranunculus lapponicus Lapland buttercup No No Rubus acaulis Dwarf raspberry No No Salix pellita Satiny willow No No Scirpus (=Schoenoplectus) torreyi Torrey’s bulrush No No Senecio (=Packera) indecorus Ragwort No No Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie dropseed No No Stellaria longipes Stichwort No No Tanacetum huronense Lake Huron tansy No No Thalictrum venulosum v. confine Veiny meadow rue No Yes Vaccinium cespitosum Dwarf bilberry No Yes Non-Vascular No No Caloplaca parvula Lichen No No Cetraria (=athiana) aurescens Yellow ribbon lichen No No Frullania selwyniana Liverwort No No Menegazzia terebrata Port-hole lichen No No Pohlia lescuriana Spongy gourd moss No No Ramalina farinacea Dotted line lichen No No Schistostega pennata Luminous moss No No Stereocaulon condensatum Foam lichen No Yes Tetrodontium brownianum Little Georgia moss No No *Species further addressed in the BE are listed in bold .
B. SURVEYS
F - 28 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
The project file contains maps/records of the following surveys:
1. Woodland raptor surveys in proposed treatment areas in 2001 and 2005. 390 points, about 8,300 acres, were surveyed throughout the entire project area. About 1,800 (about 50%) of the total acres proposed for harvest were surveyed. Two northern goshawk nests and one red-shouldered hawk territory were identified. Goshawk nests were buffered and analyzed to make sure that the proposed activities would be compliant with nest protection measures. 2. Breeding bird surveys in 2001 and 2005. 82 points, about 158 acres, were surveyed throughout the entire project area. However, data also was used from one national BBS route, which runs through much of the project area, and a 2003 programmatic Le Conte’s sparrow survey. Additionally, any incidental observations also were used. Black-backed woodpecker, LeConte’s sparrow, Connecticut warbler, common loon, and sharp-tailed grouse have been recorded within the project area. 3. Winter track survey routes in or adjacent to proposed treatment areas in 2001. About 20 miles of surveys took place throughout the project area. Additionally, data was used from two 5-mile routes, run annually, within the project area, and any incidental observations. Gray wolves have been recorded in the project area. 4. Dragonfly surveys in 2005. About 1,000 acres of habitat were surveyed within the project area in 2005. However, data from past surveys and vouchers also were used. Warpaint emerald, ebony boghaunter and ringed boghaunter have been recorded in the project area. 5. Bald Eagle Monitoring 2004-2006. Each year, the MDNR conducts aerial surveys and monitoring throughout the Upper Peninsula (UP). Recent surveys (2004-2006) have not shown any known nest sites within the project area. 6. Rare plant surveys in 1990, 1992, 1993, 2001, and 2004. Sand Clay rare plant surveys of 2001 and 2004 (Jaunzems HNF) had approximately twenty-four meander routes in 1/3 of the proposed stands. The meander routes cover roughly thirty-four miles throughout the project area and no listed plant species were found occurring. Flow Timber Sale botanical survey of 1992 by White Water Associates, Inc. resulted in several locations of Botrychium species occurring within proposed activities areas. Rearing Sullivan Timber Sale botanical survey of 1993 resulted in a location of Carex weigandii occurring within proposed activities areas. Delirium Wilderness plant surveys of 1990 (Albert & Penskar. MNFI) were conducted by walking random transects of major natural communities as identified from aerial photographs. Rare species found during the survey consisted of species that are either Regional Forester Sensitive or State of Michigan listed. Locations for listed plant species were documented on topographic maps. All documented rare plant species occur outside of proposed actions. However, one RFSS (Calypso orchid) occurs close to proposed transportation actions and required design criteria for protection of habitat
C. DESIGN CRITERIA
In addition to the standards and guidelines found in the Forest Plan (which would be implemented) there are additional design criteria that would apply to all alternatives in the EA. Effects are disclosed under the assumption that these criteria would be implemented. If additional RFSS locations are identified, design criteria would be applied at that time. The design criteria measures are intended to mitigate potential negative effects on these species:
F - 29 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
1. Implement current goshawk and red-shouldered hawk conservation measures when and if necessary (Piehler 2006). 2. Harvest activities adjacent to warpaint emerald, ebony boghaunter, or ringed boghaunter habitat, will only occur during the winter (compacted snow 12 inches thick or frost 6 inches thick). 3. Carex wiegandii (Wiegand’s sedge) HNF-R9SS Location: Geocode 2 400113 If project activities would occur near the location, establish a reserve area (RA), which includes the entire population of Wiegand’s sedge. Reserve area should extend at a minimum one tree length (100 ft.) from the outside edge of the population.
No roadwork (blading, grading, or depositing of aggregate) will occur in the roadway, roadside, or ditches portion that lie in the RA of FR3131J that lies in the RA. No landings will be created within or adjacent to the RA. No skidding of cut trees will occur within the RA. 4. Botrychium minganense ( var Hiawatha) (Mingan’s moonwort) R9SS Location: Geocode 400043 If project activities would occur near the location establish an RA, which includes the entire population of Mingan’s moonwort. The reserve area should extend one tree length (100 feet) from the outside edge of the population and will include portions of an unnumbered Forest road identified for decommissioning.
No roadwork disturbance associated with the proposed decommission will occur in the portion of unnumbered Forest road identified in T44N, R4W, Section 8, Stands 53 and 8. 5. Botrychium pallidum (pale moonwort) HNF-R9SS and Botrychium spathulatum (spathulate moonwort) HNF-R9SS Location: Geocode: 400045, 40046, 400047, & 400048 If project activities would occur near the location establish an RA, which extends at a minimum one tree length (100 ft.) from the outside edge of moonwort populations and includes the entire population of moonworts. Reserve area will likely include portions of FRs: 3339, 3005, 3137, and 3338.
No roadwork (blading, grading, or depositing of aggregate) will occur in the roadway, roadside, or ditches portion that lie in the RA.
No potential landings will be created within or adjacent to the RA. 6. Calypso bulbosa (calypso orchid) HNF-RFSS Location: Geocode 400026 Although calypso orchid is within the Delirium Wilderness, the occurrence is just south of proposed actions that could impact wetland drainage. Due to calypso orchid’s habitat requirements, it is important to maintain the existing wetland function of its occupied habitat and not change any hydrological conditions that could in time negatively impact this rare plant’s habitat.
Maintain existing conditions for stands 69, 65, 63, and 25 that lie along FR3352.
Any potential culvert changes or placement will require Forest level botanist or plant ecologist to field review prior to implementation.
D. EFFECTS OVERVIEW Fauna :
2 Geocode is the identification number that corresponds to the GIS rare plant layer showing a specific species location. The Geocode is identified with the first number representing the Ranger District and the last 2-3 numbers representing the TES record number specific to the Ranger District.
F - 30 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
The project boundary was used as a boundary for the direct and indirect effects. LTA boundaries where used to document cumulative effects. The temporal boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is 15 years. These are the same boundaries used to disclose effects for federally listed species. Section 1- E, Environmental Consequences, gives rationale for the selection of these particular spatial and temporal boundaries.
Flora : The geographic area for botanical analysis for direct, indirect and cumulative effects included all proposed stands, stands immediately adjacent to proposed actions and established access routes for supporting proposed management activities. The time frame for short-term effects ranges from 0-5 years or during the implementation period and for long-term the time frame ranges from 5-15 years or until the next proposed entry.
Measurement Indicators : This BE must arrive at a finding of effects for species population viability, and must be one of the following determinations for RFSS: • No impact • Beneficial impacts • May impact individuals but it is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability • Likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability
E. ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES
Fauna Effects Analysis :
NORTHERN GOSHAWK. The northern goshawk is an aggressive, area-sensitive raptor that requires extensive mixed woodlands with large trees for nesting. It nests in both boreal and northern hardwood forests that are relatively free of dense understory, which allows them to maneuver in and below the canopy (Brewer et al. 1991). Habitat for prey species is also an important component of goshawk habitat. Goshawks prey on species associated with both mature forest conditions as well as species associated with younger forest and edge conditions. Two goshawk territories (one historic and one current) are located within the project area.
Standard HNF nest protection measures (Piehler 2006) are avaliable in the project folder and apply to all existing and future northern goshawk or red-shouldered hawk nests within the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. Natural succession would continue to occur and nesting habitat would continue to develop. Forage habitat would increase through continual snag, cavity tree, and downed woody debris recruitment. The creation of early successional forage habitat would depend on natural disturbance factors such as windthrow and fire.
Alternative 2. No direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing the measures listed above are implemented. However, since 50% of the stands proposed for harvest were not surveyed, there is a possibility that unknown nest sites could be impacted. On the HNF, goshawks have nested in a number of different mature stand types, including aspen, jack pine, maple, red pine, and white pine. In Alternative 2, nesting habitat would be lost by creation of early successional habitat. However, in some
F - 31 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation areas small blocks of early successional habitat, interspersed with mature stands may increase forage habitat.
In Alternative 2, one large (about 250 acres), mature (about 100 years old), white pine stand (compartment 88 stand 2) is proposed for shelterwood harvest (almost all mature trees would eventually be removed). This stand has been used as goshawk nesting and foraging habitat in the past. However, the nest is no longer present therefore nest mitigation measures would not be implemented (unless a new nest in found). Therefore, in Alternative 2, over 250 acres of known goshawk nesting habitat would be lost.
The proposed selection and thinning activities would increase understory growth, thus increasing habitat for prey such as small mammals and birds. Similar impacts are also expected within areas proposed for intermediate harvest and removal cuts. However, if stands were not harvested, woody debris recruitment, within maturing stands, would also increase forage habitat.
Potential impacts of roads and trail construction and maintenance include creation of edge habitat and increased disturbance. However, temporary roads would be obliterated following proposed management activities, and newly constructed roads would also be closed after use. Road decommissioning and additional proposed road closures also would decrease the potential for disturbance.
Other proposed activities may slightly impact goshawk habitat. Planting activities would increase species diversity, and may increase forage and future nesting habitat in some areas. Additionally, prescribed burning would maintain early successional forage habitat. Proposed aquatic habitat improvements are not expected to impact goshawks.
Alternative 3. Like Alternative 2, no direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing the measures listed above are implemented. However, since 50% of the stands proposed for harvest were not surveyed, there is a possibility that unknown nest sites could be impacted. Alternative 3, places the most emphasis on early successional habitat. Therefore, this alternative would result in the largest loss of nesting habitat. However, where small blocks of early successional habitat would be interspersed with mature stands, forage habitat may increase.
Like Alternative 2, Compartment 88, Stand 2 is proposed for shelterwood harvest. Therefore, unless a new nest is found, over 250 acres of known goshawk nesting habitat would be lost.
Impacts from the proposed selection, thinning, and intermediate harvest activities would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a lesser degree. Removal cuts to discourage early successional habitat in riparian corridors would be considerably lower in Alternative 3. Without harvest, these areas would naturally mature, and some early successional forage habitat may be created by beaver activity and windthrow. Additionally, some of the aspen mortality would produce woody debris habitat for prey species.
Since more emphasis is placed on recreational access, Alternative 3 has the highest potential for impact from road construction/maintenance activities. Therefore, impacts discussed in Alternative 2 would occur at a higher degree.
Other proposed activities are expected to have similar effects to those already discussed in Alternative 2.
Alternative 4. Like Alternatives 2 and 3, no direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing the measures listed above are implemented. However, since 50% of the stands proposed for harvest were not surveyed, there is a possibility that unknown nest sites could be impacted. Alternative 4, places the most emphasis on late successional habitat. Therefore, of the three action alternatives, Alternative 4 would result in the most nesting habitat. This alternative also places more
F - 32 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
emphasis on creating smaller blocks of early successional habitat interspersed within mature stands, to increase forage habitat.
In Alternative 4, Compartment 88, Stand 2 is proposed for thinning instead of shelterwood. Habitat would be altered and the reduction in forest canopy is expected to increase understory growth. However, unlike Alternatives 2 and 3, mature overstory would remain in the stand, and provide suitable nesting habitat.
Impacts from the proposed selection, thinning, removal, and intermediate harvest activities would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a higher degree. Impacts from recreational access and other proposed activities would be similar to Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects The condition of the cumulative effects area and summary of past, present, and future management activities is discussed in the Canada lynx section. Twenty-five current and historic nests have been recorded within the proclamation boundary of the east side of the HNF. Two of these nests are within the cumulative effects boundary.
Harvest activities throughout the cumulative effects boundary can lead to a loss of canopy cover, which reduces northern goshawk nesting habitat. However, nests located on non-HNF land would not have the same protection measures that are applied to nests on the HNF. Small blocks of early successional habitat could contribute to the positive cumulative effect of increase forage habitat. Cumulative impacts on nesting habitat would be higher for Alternatives 2 and 3.
Any road/trail construction and maintenance, within the cumulative effects boundary, may lead to cumulative impacts due to increased recreational access. However, the proposed road decommissioning and closures would help reduce this cumulative effect. Alternative 3 would have the highest cumulative effect from increased access. Determination Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the most disturbance to potential nesting habitat. Alternative 4 would result in lowest reduction in nesting habitat and would provide a better juxtaposition of nesting and forage habitat. Since protection measures would apply to all alternatives, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
BALD EAGLE. The species ecology, including species description, life history, habitat, distribution, and threats are described under the “Status of the Species” section for bald eagle in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006). To date, the Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the HNF.
Each year, the MDNR conducts surveys and monitoring throughout the UP. Recent surveys (2004-2006), have not shown any known nest sites within the project area (Weise 2004, 2005, and 2006). However, there is an eagle nest located within Delirium wilderness (within the project area) that has not been included in these annual surveys. Since the Forest Plan limits management within wilderness areas (p.3- 20 – 3-23), no management activities were proposed within 2 miles of this nest location. Nest success at this location has not been well documented, but eagles have been seen in the nest area for the last 2 years. Recent survey trends for the Eastside of the HNF and the immediate area surrounding the forest are summarized in Table F - 16. Table F - 16. Breeding Territory Data for Bald Eagles in and Around the Eastside of the HNF. Year Total Territories Active Territories Successful Territories Young
F - 33 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
2004 6 6 2 3 2005 8 6 5 6 2006 14 12 8 14
The project area does contain about 2.5 miles of Lake Superior shoreline and three lakes that are over 25 acres. Therefore, along with the one known nest location, additional potential nesting and forage habitat does exist within this project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. Natural succession would continue to occur and nesting habitat would continue to develop. Since no new roads would be constructed and no road decommissioning would occur, the amount of habitat seclusion would not change under this alternative.
Alternative 2. The potential impacts that timber harvest would have on bald eagle varies by harvest method. Even-aged management activities (clearcut and shelterwood) may reduce potential future nest habitat. However, much of the area proposed for harvest is not close enough to forage habitat (waterbodies) to serve as suitable nesting habitat. Additionally, Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be implemented to protect nests and forage habitat. Selection and thinning harvest activities would lead to noise and physical disturbance could temporarily reduce habitat suitability within areas proposed for management. However, these management activities may provide enough structure to serve as nesting habitat as they continue to mature. Partial removal activities are designed to reduce the potential for early successional management, which would increase future nesting habitat. However, the loss of early successional habitat in riparian areas may reduce beaver activity and subsequent forage habitat.
Newly constructed roads can reduce habitat seclusion and increase potential for disturbance during nesting and foraging. However, temporary roads would be obliterated following proposed management activities, and newly constructed roads would also be closed after use. Road decommissioning and additional proposed road closures also would decrease the potential for disturbance.
Other proposed activities also may impact bald eagle habitat. The proposed non-motorized trail would increase recreational access and reduce habitat seclusion. However, this trail would follow roads already constructed during harvest, and nest protection measures would be implemented. Due to Forest Plan standards and guidelines the proposed prescribed burning and planting is not expected to have any measurable impacts on bald eagles. The proposed aquatic habitat and watershed restoration activities may enhance forage and breeding habitat conditions.
Alternative 3. Like Alternative 2, no direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing Forest Plan protection measures are implemented. Alternative 3, places the most emphasis on early successional habitat. Therefore, this alternative would result in the largest decrease in potential future nesting habitat.
Impacts from the proposed selection and thinning harvest activities would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a lesser degree. Removal cuts to discourage early successional habitat in riparian corridors would be considerably lower in Alternative 3. Without harvest, these areas would naturally mature (provide future nesting habitat), and some forage habitat may be created by beaver activity.
Since more emphasis is placed on recreational access, Alternative 3 has the highest potential for impact from road construction/maintenance activities. Therefore, impacts discussed in Alternative 2 would occur at a higher degree.
F - 34 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Other proposed activities are expected to have similar effects to those already discussed in Alternative 2.
Alternative 4. Like Alternatives 2 and 3, no direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing the Forest Plan protection measures are implemented. Alternative 4, places the most emphasis on late successional habitat. Therefore, of the three action alternatives, Alternative 4 would result in most potential future nesting habitat.
Impacts from the proposed selection, thinning, removal, and intermediate harvest activities would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a higher degree. Impacts from recreational access and other proposed activities would be similar to Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects The condition of the cumulative effects area and summary of past, present, and future management activities is discussed in the Canada lynx section. There are twenty-one eagle nests within or directly adjacent to the Eastside of the HNF. One of these nests is located in the cumulative effects boundary.
Harvest activities throughout the cumulative effects boundary can lead to a loss of nesting habitat. Cumulative impacts on nesting habitat would be higher for Alternatives 2 and 3. Additionally, any road/trail construction and maintenance, within the cumulative effects boundary, may lead to cumulative impacts due to increased recreational access. However, the proposed road decommissioning and closures would help reduce this cumulative effect. Alternative 3 would have the highest cumulative effect from increased access.
Projects that improve fish habitat on HNF (Appendix G), state, and private ownership can improve forage habitat, but also can lead to increased recreational use. Therefore, projects could cumulatively increase bald eagle forage habitat, but also could increase the likelihood of disturbance while nesting and foraging. Determination Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the most disturbance to potential nesting habitat. However, since protection measures would apply to all alternatives, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
GRAY WOLF. Gray wolves utilize a variety of habitat types including forested and non-forested areas. The suitability of an area for wolves depends on availability of prey and minimal human contact. In Michigan, beaver and white-tailed deer are primary prey species. Wolf packs use large home ranges (20 to 300 square miles) and can travel over expansive distances (12 to 30 miles per day) (Kurta 1995). Therefore, extensive areas with low human activity are important components of suitable wolf habitat. In the Great Lakes region, approximately 40 percent of wolf mortality is related to human factors such as shooting, trapping, and vehicle-related injuries (Kurta 1995). Additional information on species ecology (species description, life history, habitat, distribution, and threats) can be found under the “Status of the Species” section for gray wolf in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI 2006). To date, the Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the HNF.
There are four packs (16 animals) present within or adjacent to the Eastside of the HNF (Roell 2007). Given observation information (from Forest Service staff), parts of the project area are being used by these packs. Additionally, Delirium Wilderness (11,870 acres) and the Fibre Roadless Area (7,800 acres) are located within this project area, which may provide important habitat seclusion for wolves.
Direct and Indirect Effects
F - 35 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Alternative 1. Natural succession would continue to occur. Since no new roads would be constructed and no road decommissioning would occur, the amount of habitat seclusion would not change under this alternative. The creation of early successional forage habitat would depend on natural disturbance factors such as windthrow and fire.
Alternative 2. The noise and physical disturbance could temporarily reduce habitat suitability within areas proposed for management. Since locations of den/rendezvous sites are not known, there is also potential for direct impacts, such as destruction of den locations. However, the Forest Plan requires the protection of any den/rendezvous sites that are located, so this reduces the possibility of direct effects.
Even-aged harvest activities (clearcut, sheltewood, etc) would create early successional habitat for prey species, which could indirectly increase wolf survivorship and population numbers. Additionally, uneven-aged habitat management (mainly selection harvest), also would increase understory growth and habitat for prey species. However, disturbance to existing habitat may lead to indirect effects. Wolves may avoid harvest areas, so alteration to forage behavior and movement may occur. Additionally, removal cuts in riparian corridors to discourage early successional habitat may reduce habitat for prey species such as beaver.
Increased human access could impact forage and den activity. Direct and indirect impacts from trapping access, illegal shooting, and vehicle mortality also may increase. However, several existing roads and proposed new roads would be closed to reduce these effects. Road decommissioning would reduce potential for disturbance, and improve habitat conditions. Additionally, the Forest Plan requires the protection of any den/rendezvous sites that are located. Therefore, measurable impacts to wolves are not expected.
Planting activities would increase species diversity, and may increase forage habitat in some areas. Additionally, prescribed burning would maintain early successional forage habitat. However, proposed aquatic habitat improvements are not expected to impact gray wolves.
Alternative 3. Like Alternative 2, no direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing Forest Plan protection measures are implemented. Alternative 3, places the most emphasis on early successional habitat. Therefore, this alternative would result in the largest increase in forage habitat.
Impacts from the proposed selection, thinning, and intermediate harvest activities would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a lesser degree. Removal cuts to discourage early successional habitat in riparian corridors would be considerably lower in Alternative 3. Without harvest, these areas would naturally mature, and some early successional forage habitat may be created by beaver activity and windthrow. Additionally, some of the aspen mortality would produce woody debris habitat for prey species.
Since more emphasis is placed on recreational access, Alternative 3 has the highest potential for impact from road construction/maintenance activities. Therefore, impacts discussed in Alternative 2 would occur at a higher degree.
Other proposed activities are expected to have similar effects to those already discussed in Alternative 2.
Alternative 4. Like Alternatives 2 and 3, no direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing the Forest Plan protection measures are implemented. Alternative 4, places the most emphasis on late successional habitat. Therefore, of the three action alternatives, Alternative 4 would result in lowest amount of early successional forage habitat. However, this alternative places more emphasis on creating smaller blocks of early successional habitat interspersed within mature stands, so forage habitat would still increase over the current condition.
F - 36 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Impacts from the proposed selection, thinning, removal, and intermediate harvest activities would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a higher degree. Impacts from recreational access and other proposed activities would be similar to Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Proposed harvest activities on HNF, state, and private land may increase forage habitat, but could result in a loss of potential den habitat and, since wolves may avoid harvest areas, alteration to forage behavior and movement also may occur. Impacts from road density and loss of habitat seclusion can also impact forage behavior and connectivity. Alternative 3 would have the greatest cumulative effect and Alternative 4 would cumulatively impact habitat the least. Determination Based on this analysis, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
LE CONTE’S SPARROW. Habitat for Le Conte’s sparrow is typically emergent wetlands. Nests usually are found on the edge of large areas of grass, sedge, and rush. Individuals are locally common in suitable habitat, but populations are limited by the availability of large sedge meadow habitat (Brewer et al. 1991). There is one area where Le Conte’s sparrows have been documented within the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. Woody vegetation would continue to encroach as sedge meadow habitat continues to succeed. Therefore, maintenance of sedge habitat would depend on natural disturbance such as wildfire or beaver activity.
Alternatives 2-4. No harvest activities are proposed in Le Conte’s sparrow habitat. Additionally, use of protection measures (BMPs) would help reduce any indirect impacts on habitat within the project boundary.
A sedge meadow burn is proposed in each of the action alternatives. The Le Conte’s sparrow occurrence, within the project boundary, is in a sedge meadow that was burned by a wildfire (Camp Faunce) in 1998. The size of the burn and the amount of woody vegetation regeneration would impact suitability. However, the proposed prescribed burn is expected to improve habitat, for Le Conte’s sparrow and other sedge meadow species. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other protection measures for harvest activities on HNF and state land would help reduce impacts on habitat. However, private lands are also present around occupied habitat. Harvest or development activities on private land may not be exposed to the same regulations as on the HNF. Therefore, cumulative impacts from private ownership could be expected.
Wildfire has been suppressed on HNF, state, and private lands within the cumulative effects area. Therefore, some areas that may have been suitable habitat in the past are becoming unsuitable due to encroaching vegetation and succession. This management direction is not expected to change in the future.
Timber harvest and the use of prescribed fire is part of all action alternatives proposed. Therefore, Alternatives 2-4 would have similar cumulative effects.
F - 37 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Determination Mitigation measures would reduce indirect impacts from timber harvest, and, prescribed fire is expected to improve habitat suitability. Therefore, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
RED-SHOULDERED HAWK. The red-shouldered hawk is associated with mixed coniferous- deciduous woodlands, lowland hardwood forests, swamp, river bottomlands, and wooded marshy areas. Prey species are highly varied, and include numerous kinds of small mammals, snakes, amphibians, small birds, frogs, toads, and also insects. Red-shouldered hawk habitat includes extensive areas of mature forests with wetland foraging areas nearby. Forest stands dominated by beech and sugar maple are frequently selected for nesting (Brewer et al. 1991).
Although individuals have been observed within the project area, there are no known Red-shouldered hawk nests in the Sand Clay project area. Conservation measures, as outlined above for northern goshawk, would be implemented for any future territories (Piehler 2006). Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. Natural succession would continue to occur and nesting habitat would continue to develop. Forage habitat would increase through continual snag, cavity tree, and downed woody debris recruitment. The creation of early successional forage habitat would depend on natural disturbance factors such as windthrow, fire, and beaver activity.
Alternative 2. No direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing the measures listed above are implemented. However, since 50% of the stands proposed for harvest were not surveyed, there is a possibility that unknown nest sites could be impacted. In Alternative 2, some nesting habitat would be lost by creation of early successional habitat. However, in some areas small blocks of early successional habitat, interspersed with mature stands may increase forage habitat. Additionally, the proposed selection and thinning activities would increase understory growth, thus increasing habitat for prey such as small mammals and birds.
In Alternative 2, about 612 acres of habitat would be harvested with the intent of moving riparian areas away from early successional habitat. This activity would be implemented to reduce the effects that beaver have on hydrology. However, beaver produce wetland forage habitat for red-shouldered hawks. Therefore, this activity may reduce forage habitat, but, as stands mature, nesting habitat may increase.
Potential impacts of roads and trail construction/maintenance include creation of edge habitat and increased disturbance. However, temporary roads would be obliterated following proposed management activities, and newly constructed roads would also be closed after use. Road decommissioning and additional proposed road closures also would decrease the potential for disturbance.
Other proposed activities may slightly impact red-shouldered hawk habitat. Planting activities would increase species diversity, and may increase forage and future nesting habitat in some areas. Additionally, prescribed burning would maintain early successional upland and wetland forage habitat.
Alternative 3. Like Alternative 2, no direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing the measures listed above are implemented. However, since 50% of the stands proposed for harvest were not surveyed, there is a possibility that unknown nest sites could be impacted. Alternative 3, places the most emphasis on early successional habitat. Therefore, this alternative would result in the largest loss of nesting habitat. However, where small blocks of early successional habitat would be interspersed with mature stands, forage habitat may increase.
F - 38 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Impacts from the proposed selection, thinning, and intermediate harvest activities would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a lesser degree. Removal cuts to discourage early successional habitat in riparian corridors would be considerably lower in Alternative 3. Without harvest, these areas would naturally mature, and some early successional forage habitat may be created by beaver activity and windthrow. Additionally, some of the aspen mortality would produce woody debris habitat for prey species.
Since more emphasis is placed on recreational access, Alternative 3 has the highest potential for impact from road construction/maintenance activities. Therefore, impacts discussed in Alternative 2 would occur at a higher degree.
Other proposed activities are expected to have similar effects to those already discussed in Alternative 2.
Alternative 4. Like Alternatives 2 and 3, no direct impacts would be expected as a result of project actions, providing the measures listed above are implemented. However, since 50% of the stands proposed for harvest were not surveyed, there is a possibility that unknown nest sites could be impacted. Alternative 4, places the most emphasis on late successional habitat. Therefore, of the three action alternatives, Alternative 4 would maintain the most nesting habitat. This alternative also places more emphasis on creating smaller blocks of early successional habitat interspersed within mature stands, to increase forage habitat.
Impacts from the proposed selection, thinning, removal, and intermediate harvest activities would be similar to Alternative 2, but to a higher degree. Impacts from recreational access and other proposed activities would be similar to Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects The condition of the cumulative effects area and summary of past, present, and future management activities is discussed in the Canada lynx section. Fifty-seven current and historic nests have been recorded within the proclamation boundary of the east side of the HNF. None of the nests are within the cumulative effects boundary.
Harvest activities throughout the cumulative effects boundary can lead to a loss of canopy cover, which reduces red- shouldered hawk nesting habitat. However, nests located on non-HNF land would not have the same protection measures that are applied to nests on the HNF. Small blocks of early successional habitat could contribute to the positive cumulative effect of increase forage habitat. Cumulative impacts on nesting habitat would be higher for Alternatives 2 and 3.
Any road/trail construction and maintenance, within the cumulative effects boundary, may lead to cumulative impacts due to increased recreational access. However, the proposed road decommissioning and closures would help reduce this cumulative effect. Alternative 3 would have the highest cumulative effect from increased access. Determination Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the most disturbance to potential nesting habitat. Alternative 4 would result in lowest reduction in nesting habitat and would provide a better juxtaposition of nesting and forage habitat. Since protection measures would apply to all alternatives, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
BLACK TERN. Black terns require small pools of water surrounded by dense emergent vegetation. Nesting usually takes place in colonies of up to 20 individuals on floating mats located in water more than 60 cm deep. In the Eastern UP, black terns are distributed along the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron
F - 39 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation shorelines, as well as some inland locations (Brewer et al. 1991). Breeding has occurred about 5 miles west of the project area, and Lake Superior provides a large amount of potential forage habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact black terns.
Alternatives 2-4. Black tern breeding activity has not been documented in the project area. Additionally, most of the proposed activities involve forest habitat management. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to breeding or forage habitat are anticipated.
Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Since breeding and forage habitat would not be impacted by proposed activities, none of the project alternatives would actively contribute to cumulative impacts. Determination Due to the lack of direct and indirect effects, the determination for Alternatives 1-4 is “no impact.”
COMMON LOON. Most of Michigan’s breeding loons occur from the northern Lower Peninsula northward. Breeding habitat of loons consists of lakes ranging from 10 acres to thousands of acres. The most suitable lakes have a reasonable abundance of fish, a large proportion of shoreline unoccupied by humans, a small island or bog mat for nesting, and freedom from frequent high-speed boating (Brewer et al. 1991). Loons have been documented on one lake within the project boundary, and along the Lake Superior shoreline. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact common loons.
Alternatives 2-4. Most of the proposed activities involve forest habitat management, and no direct effects on common loons are anticipated. There would be one recreational trail that may increase recreational traffic to the Monocle Lake. Breeding has not been documented on this lake, but loons have been seen foraging on the lake. If breeding does occur, the Forest Plan requires the implementation of seasonal restrictions (2-18). Therefore, if monitoring shows that recreation access is impacting loons, protection measures would be taken. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Within the cumulative effects area, there are two lakes over 25 acres (Monocle Lake and Spectacle Lake). As mentioned in the Canada lynx section, the Whitefish Bay Scenic Byway EA is also under development. This project was designed to increase recreational use at the north end of the cumulative effects area. Improvements to Monocle Lake campground are included in the EA. Within the Sand Clay EA , the proposed non-motorized trail may lead to cumulative impacts due to increased recreational access to Monocle Lake. Forest Plan protection measures would be implemented (2-18), but private development along Monocle Lake also contributes to this cumulative effect.
Breeding activity has occurred on Lake Superior. Additionally, Lake Superior provides a large amount of forage habitat. There are no activities proposed in the Sand Clay project, but the Whitefish Bay Scenic
F - 40 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Byway project and impacts from private development along the shoreline could contribute to cumulative impacts on loons (harassment during nesting/forage activities and loss of nesting habitat).
Past activities have impacted loons within the cumulative effects area. Loons made use of the Sylvester Impoundment, but the impoundment was taken out. There are a series of beaver dams within this area, but the suitability of loon habitat has been impacted.
Determination Due to the lack of breeding habitat within the project area and Forest Plan protection measures, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
CONNECTICUT WARBLER. The Connecticut warbler breeds in a wide variety of habitats including dry site aspen and jack pine, and wet site spruce and/or tamarack bogs with sphagnum moss and Labrador tea. The forest area is usually open, sometimes park-like, with a dense shrub and herb layer. Aspen is often a component of the nesting habitat. This warbler is widespread across the UP. However, it occupies only a small fraction of available habitat (Brewer et al. 1991).
According to National Breeding Bird Survey data, Connecticut warblers have been documented within the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact Connecticut warblers.
Alternatives 2-4. Due to the wide variety of habitats that are used by Connecticut warblers, much of the area proposed for harvest could be considered Connecticut warbler habitat. Any individuals within harvested stands during implementation would be displaced to adjacent habitat or killed. Due to this species apparent tolerance of a variety of habitats, if any action alternatives are implemented, a large amount of suitable habitat would still exist throughout the project area. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Harvest activities on HNF, state, and private land may result in loss of habitat. When added to potential management on state and private land, Alternative 3 would have the greatest cumulative effect and Alternative 4 would cumulatively impact habitat the least. Determination Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER. The black-backed woodpecker is closely associated with boreal forests. In Michigan, they occur in black spruce-tamarack bogs, cedar swamps, jack pine plains, burned areas with standing snags and conifer clearcuts. Disturbances that provide a mosaic of openings and an abundance of downed and standing dead timber are preferred foraging areas (Brewer et al 1991). There has been one documented occurrences within the project boundary. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. Natural succession would continue to occur. Therefore, natural disturbance factors, such as fire and disease may create snag cavity trees for forage and nesting.
F - 41 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Alternative 2. The Forest Plan protection measures (2-18), would reduce potential impacts of the project actions. In Alternative 2, nesting/forage habitat would be lost by creation of early successional habitat. The proposed selection, thinning, and removal harvest activities also are expected to reduce wood debris and impact habitat. Forest Plan structural guidelines and additional reserve trees (basal area >10 sq. feet) in clearcuts would help maintain some nesting/forage habitat, and the proposed prescribed fire activities may lead to some tree mortality and improve habitat.
Alternative 3 . Like in Alternative 2, Forest Plan breeding area protection measures would apply (2-18). Alternative 3 places the most emphasis on early successional habitat. Therefore, of the three action alternatives, this alternative would lead to a greater loss of potential breeding and foraging habitat.
Alternative 4. Like in Alternatives 2 and 3, Forest Plan breeding area protection measures would apply (2-18). Alternative 4 places the most emphasis on late successional habitat. Therefore, of the three action alternatives, breeding and foraging habitat would decrease the least. Additionally, more emphasis is placed on reserve trees within clearcuts. This additional structure would result in more breeding and forage habitat. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Harvest activities on HNF, state, and private land would result in a loss of snag and woody debris habitat. Additionally, state and private lands do not have the same structure or breeding area protection guidelines. Alternative 3 would have the greatest cumulative effect and Alternative 4 would cumulatively impact breeding and foraging the least. Determination Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the most disturbance to breeding and forage habitat. Alternative 4 would result in lowest reduction in nesting habitat and would provide the most structure within clearcut stands. Since protection measures would apply to all alternatives, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
CASPIAN TERN. Since 1960, Caspian tern population numbers have more than tripled, evidently due to increase in forage species such as alewives and smelt. Caspian terns forage on large bodies of water, and nest on open beaches with islands to reduce the risk of predation. Over 85% of Michigan’s nesting terns are found on Lake Michigan (Brewer et al. 1991). Caspian terns have not been documented within the project area, but Lake Superior is adjacent to the project boundary. Although Lake Superior historically has provided limited breeding habitat, it provides a large amount of potential forage habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact Caspian terns.
Alternatives 2-4. Caspian tern breeding activity has not been documented in the project area. Additionally, most of the proposed activities involve forest habitat management. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to breeding or forage habitat are anticipated. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Since breeding and forage habitat would not be impacted by proposed activities, none of the project alternatives would actively contribute to cumulative impacts. Determination Due to the lack of direct and indirect effects, the determination for Alternatives 1-4 is “no impact.”
F - 42 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
COMMON TERN. Common terns have undergone a 67% decline, since 1960, throughout Michigan. This decline is due to high water levels in the 1980s, higher ring-billed gull populations, and increased human use of habitat. To avoid predation, common terns nest in colonies mainly on bare sandy/gravelly parts of islands and peninsulas. Islands in the St. Marys River provide habitat for the greatest number of common terns, but the smaller colonies are found along the southern shore of Lake Superior (Brewer et al. 1991). Common terns have not been documented within the project area, but Lake Superior is adjacent to the project boundary.
Breeding activity does occur on Lake Superior, and a common tern breeding colony is located about 12 miles west of from the project boundary. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact common terns.
Alternatives 2-4. Common tern breeding activity has not been documented in the project area. Additionally, most of the proposed activities involve forest habitat management. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to breeding or forage habitat are anticipated. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Since breeding and forage habitat would not be impacted by proposed activities, none of the project alternatives would actively contribute to cumulative impacts. Determination Due to the lack of direct and indirect effects, the determination for Alternatives 1-4 is “no impact.”
SHARP-TAILED GROUSE. On the HNF, sharp-tailed grouse utilize open areas and early-successional jack pine habitat (USDA 2006). Sharp-tailed grouse inhabit large blocks of a variety of openlands including agricultural lands, pine barrens, savannas, shrubby grasslands, young pine stands and open wetlands. Sharp-tailed grouse have been documented to the west of the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact sharp-tailed grouse.
Alternatives 2-4. Sharp-tailed grouse utilize habitat within the Raco LTA, which is directly to the west of this project area. Due to the size and location of the clearcuts proposed, Alternatives 2-4 are not expected to increase sharp-tailed grouse breeding habitat. The Sand Clay area does contain upland conifer and lowland areas that sharp-tailed grouse may use as winter cover. However, due to limited potential for use, due to proximity to lek areas, the proposed management activities are not expected to impact sharp-tailed grouse habitat. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Although some winter cover may exist, this area does not contain breeding habitat. Therefore, none of the project alternatives would actively contribute to cumulative impacts. Determination Due to the lack of direct and indirect effects, the determination for Alternatives 1-4 is “no impact.”
WARPAINT EMERALD. Warpaint emerald dragonflies use bog/fen habitat throughout the eastside of the HNF. This species has three life stages (egg, larva, and adult). The egg and larva stage occur in
F - 43 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation bog/fen habitat, but, as an adult, the species forages in a variety of openings including roadways (NatureServe 2005). There are four documented occurrences of this species within the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact the warpaint emerald.
Alternatives 2-4. No harvest activities are proposed in warpaint emerald breeding habitat. Therefore, potential impacts on larva habitat would be minimal. Additionally, harvest activities adjacent to warpaint habitat would only occur in the winter, so adult mortality is not expected to occur. Forest Plan standards and guidelines (2-18 – 2-15), BMPs, and other protection measures are designed to reduce potential changes to hydrology that could occur from harvest and road construction activities.
A sedge meadow burn is proposed in each of the action alternatives. This burn is proposed to occur south of where warpaint emerald dragonflies were vouchered in 2005. Encroaching woody vegetation has made much of this area unsuitable for warpaint emerald dragonflies. The impacts of fire on dragonfly habitat are not well known, but in other parts of the project area, habitat created by wildfire (Camp Faunce 1998) is being used by warpaint emerald and ebony boghaunters. Therefore, as an attempt to improve habitat, this burn is expected to reduce woody vegetation in some areas and invigorate sedge species to improve the suitability of this habitat. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Use of BMPs and other protection measures for harvest activities and road construction activities on the HNF, state, and private land would help reduce impacts on habitat. However, private lands are also present around occupied habitat. Harvest or development activities may not be exposed to the same regulations as on the HNF. Therefore, cumulative impacts from private ownership could be expected.
Wildfire has been suppressed on HNF, state, and private lands within the cumulative effects area. Therefore, some areas that may have been suitable habitat in the past are becoming unsuitable due to encroaching vegetation and succession. This management direction is not expected to change in the future.
All of the action activities propose timber harvest around occupied habitat and the use of prescribed fire. Therefore, Alternatives 2-4 would have similar cumulative effects. Determination Mitigation measures would reduce impacts from timber harvest and road construction, and, although specific effects are not well known, prescribed fire is expected to improve habitat. Therefore, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
EBONY BOGHAUNTER. The ebony boghaunter dragonfly uses bog/fen habitat throughout the eastside of the HNF. This species has three life stages (egg, larva, and adult). The egg and larva stage occur in bog/fen habitat, but, as an adult, the species forages in a variety of openings including roadways (NatureServe 2006). There are three documented occurrences of this species within the project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact ebony boghaunters.
Alternatives 2-4. Ebony boghaunters utilize similar habitat as warpaint emeralds. Therefore, effects are similar to those discussed in the warpaint emerald section. Forest Plan standards and guidelines (2-18 – 2-15), BMPs, and other protection measures are designed to reduce potential changes to hydrology that
F - 44 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
could occur from harvest and road construction activities. Ebony boghaunters also utilize habitat created by the Camp Faunce wildfire. Therefore, the proposed prescribed fire, within sedge meadow habitat, is expected to improve suitability of this habitat. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Cumulative impacts for ebony boghaunter are similar to those discussed in the warpaint emerald section. Use of protection measures (BMPs), which may not apply to private land, would help reduce impacts on habitat within the cumulative effects boundary. Wildfire suppression and consequential loss of suitable habitat has occurred and is expected to occur into the future. Like in the warpaint emerald section, within all of the action alternatives, timber harvest around occupied habitat and the use of prescribed fire is proposed. Therefore, Alternatives 2-4 would have similar cumulative effects. Determination Mitigation measures would reduce impacts from timber harvest and road construction, and, although specific effects are not well known, prescribed fire is expected to improve habitat. Therefore, Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
RINGED BOGHAUNTER. The ringed boghaunter dragonfly uses bog/fen habitat on the eastside of the HNF. This species has three life stages (egg, larva, and adult). The egg and larva stage occur in bog/fen habitat, but, as an adult, the species forages in open woods (NatureServe 2006). There is one documented occurrence of this species within the project area. With only two occurrences on the entire eastside of the HNF, ringed boghaunters are not as common as warpaint emeralds and ebony boghaunters. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1. The no-action alternative would not directly or indirectly impact ringed boghaunters.
Alternatives 2-4. With a low number of occurrences, less is known about distribution and habitat requirements. However, the two ringed boghaunters locations are in the same area/habitat as warpaint emeralds and ebony boghaunters. Therefore, based on this information, effects are similar to those discussed in the warpaint emerald section. Forest Plan standards and guidelines (2-18 – 2-15), BMPs, and other protection measures are designed to reduce potential changes to hydrology that could occur from harvest and road construction activities. The only ringed boghaunter occurrence, within the project area, was 0.5 miles away from habitat created by the Camp Faunce wildfire. Therefore, the proposed prescribed fire, within sedge meadow habitat, is expected to improve suitability of this habitat, but with limited occurrence information this conclusion is more speculative. Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future management activities are summarized in the Canada lynx section. Cumulative impacts for ringing boghaunter are similar to those discussed in the warpaint emerald section. Use of protection measures (BMPs), which may not apply to private land, would help reduce changes to hydrology within the cumulative effects boundary. The one ringed boghaunter location, within the cumulative effects area, is adjacent to private ownership, so cumulative effects from harvest and development may occur. Like in the warpaint emerald section, within all of the action alternatives, timber harvest around occupied habitat and the use of prescribed fire is proposed. Therefore, Alternatives 2-4 would have similar cumulative effects. Determination Mitigation measures would reduce impacts from timber harvest and road construction, and, although specific effects are not well known, prescribed fire is expected to improve habitat. Therefore,
F - 45 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Alternatives 2-4 “may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” The determination for Alternative 1 is “no impact.”
Flora Effects Analysis :
Scoping Issues : One scoping issue pertaining to non-native invasive plants will be tracked through botanical analysis (“constructing and reconstructing roads increases the spread of non-native invasive plants”).
Management Direction for all Alternatives : • Under all alternatives, documented RFSS plant element occurrences (EO) are protected by design criteria measures applied prior to project implementation. • The Forest Plan (2006) provides NNIS direction and management guidelines. • Implementation of Forest Plan (2006) soil and hydrology standards and guidelines would assist in protection of some rare plants occupied and un-occupied habitat.
Common Effects for Alternatives 2, 3, & 4 : • Log landings are proposed for construction in all three action alternatives. Their development can increase NNIS concerns. However, it is proposed to re-seed landings after their use with native plant species in order to restore vegetation. • Thinning and selection cutting is proposed in all three action alternatives. This can mimic natural gaps in hardwood and pine stands by increasing sunlight to the forest floor. This can result in increased species diversity in the ground flora layer and improved overall habitat conditions for future rare plant recruitment. • Prescribed burning would occur in all three action alternatives. Prescribed fire use attempts to mimic natural ecological processes, and has the potential to enhance RFSS habitat for species that prefer early or mid seral conditions. • Seeding and planting of native species is proposed in each action alternative and would help maintain biological diversity. • Culvert replacement is proposed in all three action alternatives. This can restore wetland function and improve wetland rare plants habitat by restoring hydrological conditions. • Roads (user created, existing, and trails) are proposed for either obliteration or closure in all three action alternatives. User created roads and trails would be obliterated throughout the project area, and new road construction in support of timber harvest would be closed after operations are completed. Temporary roads would be obliterated after harvesting operations cease, and additional work such as road decommissioning would occur. The net effect from these actions is a decrease in the amount of disturbed habitat for NNIS to occupy. It also reduces opportunity for traffic along these corridors to vector NNIS to other locations. These effects will lower the risk of future NNIS impacts. In addition, seeding of native plants in these sites could reduce NNIS concerns by providing an opportunity to restore native plants back into the landscape.
Cumulative Effects Applicable to all Alternatives : Approximately 50% of the project area is within wilderness designation (Delirium), roadless areas (Fibre Roadless Area), candidate research area (Waiska Basin), designated old growth and wetlands identified as unsuited for timber harvest. These areas provide nearly 30,000 acres of undisturbed habitat for rare plants to occupy. Some RFSS plants including Calypso bulbosa , Carex wiegandii and Botrychium spathulatum occupy habitat in these areas.
F - 46 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Approximately 18% of the project area is in private lands including several thousands acres under the management of New Page Corporation which manages their corporate lands under timber harvesting activities. In addition, it is anticipated that new road construction or road maintenance in support of their timber harvesting activities could contribute to further NNIS concerns in the project area.
Past HNF timber management activities have also occurred in parts of this project area under previous environmental analysis for Interior Wetlands, Raco, Lake Superior Highlands, and East Red Pine EAs . All four of these EAs are currently being implemented and can contribute to cumulative effects such as increased NNIS along roadways.
The Whitefish Bay Scenic Byway EA occurs at the north end of Sand Clay project area, and may contribute to future cumulative effects in relation to increased recreational uses. Increased recreational actions would likely contribute to more NNIS introduction via motorized and non-motorized means of transportation.
Wildfire suppression efforts mainly by the HNF and private lands in the project area have contributed to reducing suitable rare plant habitat due to plant succession (encroaching vegetation). It is anticipated that fire suppression management direction will likely continue well into the future and contribute to continued change and loss of suitable habitat for early seral species.
Under all action alternatives, approximately 13 miles of existing roads would be closed. User created roads and trails would be obliterated throughout the project area, and new road construction in support of timber harvest would be closed after operations are completed. Temporary roads would be obliterated after harvesting operations cease. Additional work such as road decommissioning would decrease the amount of disturbed habitat for NNIS, and reduce the potential for future NNIS negative impacts. In addition, under all action alternatives, culvert replacement would allow for re-establishment of water flows. This can improve habitat for rare plants.
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Custodial management and protection such as fire suppression, resource surveys, road and trail maintenance, and management of non-native invasive species (NNIS) would continue. This alternative would maintain the project area in its present condition until the next proposed entry period.
In the short-term, 0-5 years, existing native vegetation conditions would not appreciably change from current conditions. The existing ground flora layer structure and composition would remain much the same as it is today.
In the long-term, 5-15 years, there would be effects occurring on rare plant habitat within early seral habitat from forest succession moving stands into more late seral conditions. Forest succession in conjunction with a lack of suitable disturbance such as minor scraping of the soil or fire suppression efforts could impact RFSS such as Oryzopsis canadensis (a fire disturbance dependent species) . Fire suppression efforts have been effective over the last 80 years by keeping wildfires to approximately 20 acres in size. This has resulted in a reduction of the amount of suitable habitat for Oryzopsis canadensis. (Refer to fire ecology and fuels analysis in Sand Clay EA .)
F - 47 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Over the long-term, there is the opportunity for positive effects to occur from forest succession by providing more dead and down material. This results in increased soil nutrients for some rare plants to utilize. This could be beneficial for Amerorchis rotundifolia, Calypso bulbosa, and Cynoglossum virginianum var. boreale.
Under this alternative, road use would not change. While there wouldn’t be any new construction, the net loss of roads would be eliminated because existing roads wouldn’t be closed or decommissioned. Therefore, in the short and long-term, NNIS impacts on rare plant habitats would remain high due to their continued spread despite custodial management control efforts. The Forest Plan (2006) provides NNIS standards and guidelines. However, the existing miles of roads, trails, and disturbed openings in the project area that occur in public and private ownership will make NNIS management problematic.
Cumulative Effects
Thirteen of the RFSS with suitable unoccupied habitat occurring (Table F - 17) favor late seral conditions. The no action alternative would result in more late seral habitat providing future beneficial effects to these species. In addition, no direct or indirect effects would result through an absence of ground disturbance. No cumulative effects are expected to occur to these species as a result of the no action alternative.
Oryzopsis canadensis is expected to have probable direct and indirect effects occur due to continued fire suppression efforts and subsequent plant succession within suitable unoccupied habitat. The reduction of future suitable habitat for occupation would contribute to negative cumulative effects from the alternative to this species.
Because past and present actions have contributed to the current populations of NNIS, cumulative effects would remain high under this alternative due to their continued future spread.
Determinations For all RFSS considered in this BE (Table F - 17), a determination of “no impact” was made, with the exception of Oryzopsis canadensis where a “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” was made for Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential effects are limited to unoccupied suitable RFSS plant habitat that is present in the botanical affected environment. This is because known RFSS locations shall be protected by implementing design criteria and past rare plant surveys in the project area did not find any new RFSS locations in stands proposed for treatment.
The following effects to unoccupied habitat are anticipated to occur:
• A direct negative short-term impact to the ground flora layer is expected to occur due to trampling, soil disturbance and soil displacement. The risk is higher in stands proposed for final harvest cuts because the entire stands would be impacted. Stands proposed for thinning or selection cuts would have fewer impacts to the ground flora layer as only portions of the stands would be treated. New road and trail construction and road reconstruction would contribute to direct short-term disturbance
F - 48 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
to the ground flora layer. In the long-term, impacted stands, roads 3 and trails will likely re-vegetate to conditions that are similar to present day. • A potential positive indirect effect from proposed final harvest actions and use of prescribed fire is the development of early seral stands providing habitat for RFSS such as Oryzopsis canadensis . • Because existing NNIS populations are already established, the accidental further spread appears inevitable. Therefore, direct and indirect effects are expected to occur due to new road and trail construction and road reconstruction, from equipment used during transportation and harvesting actions, and increased recreational use in the project area due to recreational trail development.
Cumulative Effects
Currently less than 1/10th acre of occupied habitat of RFSS flora occurs within the Sand Clay project area. In contrast, suitable unoccupied habitat occurs within a variety of plant community types in approximately 33,660 acres. The use of State of Michigan “Best Management Practices” (BMPs), Forest Plan (2006) applicable Standards and Guidelines, and design criteria provides protection measures for management activities within these 33,660 acres and can help reduce negative impacts to suitable unoccupied habitat. In addition, nearly 50% of the Sand Clay project area exists within roadless areas, wilderness, cRNA, or unsuitable land. This provides a large amount of undisturbed plant communities suitable for RFSS flora to potentially occupy.
Private ownership adjacent to suitable unoccupied habitat may contribute to negative cumulative impacts to rare plant habitat from their management activities since they are not required to follow the protective measures developed for forest management activities. Additionally, NNIS concerns would continue to increase on private lands adjacent to or with access from private lands into the Forest as no NNIS control measures would be implemented on private lands.
The net effect from NNIS populations is suspected displacement of some native plant species. In part, this is the result of past human actions that facilitated NNIS dispersal. In the future, NNIS will likely continue to occupy disturbed habitat. However, under this alternative there is an opportunity to implement native plant restoration work within roads identified for closure or decommissioning and user developed roads/trails identified for closure. This action would mitigate future NNIS concerns.
Wildfire has been suppressed on HNF and on private lands. Due to successful past fire suppression efforts, some areas that may have been suitable habitat in the past are becoming unsuitable now due to plant succession. This management direction is not expected to change in the future, and will likely contribute to less suitable rare plant habitat.
Determinations For all RFSS considered in this BE (Table F - 17), a determination of “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” was made for Alternative 2.
3 New roads constructed in support of timber harvest will be closed after sale activity.
F - 49 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
Alternative 3
The main differences in flora analysis between Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) are:
• Under this alternative, there is more emphasis on early seral habitat species than the proposed action provides. This could have some beneficial effects for RFSS that require early succession habitat for occupation. • Alternative 3 would close roughly one mile of road, whereas Alternative 2 would close approximately 13 miles. Fewer miles of road closure and subsequent reduced amount of habitat restoration can increase NNIS concerns. Direct and Indirect Effects
As stated in Alternative 2, potential effects are limited to unoccupied suitable RFSS plant habitat that is present in the botanical affected environment because occupied habitat is protected with design criteria.
The following effects to unoccupied habitat are anticipated to occur:
• Direct negative short-term impacts to the ground flora layer are expected to occur due to trampling, soil disturbance and soil displacement. The risk is higher in this alternative than Alternative 2 because more stands are proposed for final harvest cuts in order to create more early seral habitat. Even though more early seral conditions are provided under this alternative, the effects are short-term as they will likely only last a few years. The beneficial effects are short-term for species like Oryzopsis canadensis because in the long-term stands will reforest and re-vegetate to conditions that are similar to present conditions. • The potential positive indirect effect from prescribed fire is the same as Alternative 2 even though more stands are cut to establish early seral habitat under Alternative 3, the use of fire to treat logging slash would remain the same as Alternative 2. • Existing NNIS populations are currently established within disturbed environments. As a result the accidental further spread under this alternative could be greater than Alternative 2 because only 1 mile of road would be closed and allowed to re-vegetate. Therefore, indirect effects are expected to occur due to NNIS spread from more miles of disturbed habitat that will not be closed and re-vegetated with native plants.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects would remain much the same as Alternative 2, with the exception to NNIS concerns. Alternative 3 may have the highest risk for NNIS concerns due to lack of native plant restoration opportunities.
Determinations For all RFSS considered in this BE (Table F - 17), a determination of “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” was made for Alternative 3.
Alternative 4
The main difference in flora analysis between Alternative 4 and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) is:
F - 50 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
• Under this alternative, there is more emphasis on late seral successional habitat than the proposed action would provide. In time, this could provide more effects that are beneficial for some RFSS that require less disturbance and late seral forest conditions for occupation, such as Calypso bulbosa , Cypripedium arietinum , and Malaxis brachypoda. Direct and Indirect Effects
As stated in Alternative 2, potential effects are limited to unoccupied suitable RFSS plant habitat that is present in the botanical affected environment because occupied habitat is protected with design criteria.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects would be much the same as Alternative 2; however, there is the potential for Alternative 4 to provide more future habitat for RFSS requiring late successional forest characteristics for occupation.
Determinations For all RFSS considered in this BE (Table F - 17), a determination of “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” was made, with the exception of Calypso bulbosa , Cypripedium arietinum , and Malaxis brachypoda , where a “no impact” determination was made.
F - 51
III. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS
Table F - 17. Summary of TES Determinations for the Sand Clay Project. Habitat (H) or Species Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Species Status Present (S) Wildlife Species: Canada lynx T H NE NLAA NLAA NLAA Hine’s emerald dragonfly E - NE NE NE NE Kirtland’s warbler E H NE NLAA NLAA NLAA Piping plover E H NE NE NE NE Northern goshawk R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Bald Eagle R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Gray wolf R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Le Conte’s sparrow R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Red-shouldered hawk R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Black tern R9 H NI NI NI NI Common loon R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Connecticut warbler R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Black-backed woodpecker R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Caspian tern R9 H NI NI NI NI Common tern R9 H NI NI NI NI Sharp-tailed grouse R9 S NI NI NI NI Warpaint emerald dragonfly R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Ebony boghaunter R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Ringed boghaunter R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Flora: American Hart’s tongue fern T - NE NE NE NE Pitcher’s thistle T - NE NE NE NE Lakeside daisy T - NE NE NE NE Dwarf lake iris T - NE NE NE NE Houghton’s goldenrod T - NE NE NE NE Pale moonwort R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Spathulate moonwort R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Calypso orchid R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF NI Wiegand’s sedge R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Vasey’s rush R9 S NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Canada rice-grass R9 S MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Prairie moonwort R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Western moonwort R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Blunt-lobed grapefern R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Ternate grapefern R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Ram’s head lady-slipper R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF NI Fir clubmoss R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Small flowered wood rush R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF
F - 1 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
White adder’s mouth R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF NI Sweet-coltsfoot R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Pine drops R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Veiny meadow rue R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Dwarf bilberry R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF Foam lichen R9 H NI MINLTF MINLTF MINLTF NLAA: Not Likely to Adversely Affect NE: No Effect NI: No Impact MINLTF: May Impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.
References
Albert, D.A. and M.R. Penskar. 1990. A survey of the Natural Communities and Vegetation of the Delirium Wilderness Area. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1990-03.
Brewer, R., G.A. McPeek, and R.J. Adams, Jr. 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press. East Lansing, MI.
Czarnecki, Craig A. 2006. List of Threatened and Endangered Species for the Hiawatha National Forest. 29 June 2006.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. Interagency Cooperation. Section 7.
Federal Register. 2007 1. 50 CFR Part 17 – Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule. 72.26. 8 February 2007.
Federal Register. 2007 2. 50 CFR Part 17 – Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Post-Delisting and Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) and Proposed Information Collection; Notice. 72.130. 9 July 2007.
Henderson, Eric. 2006. Habitat Definitions Model [Computer program]. Hiawatha National Forest. 17 October 2006.
Jaunzems, M. 2001. Unpublished Botanical Survey Report to the HNF.
Jaunzems, M. 2004. Unpublished Sand Clay project botanical Survey Report to the HNF.
Kurta, A. 1995. Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, MI. 376 p.
Michigan State University Extension. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2007. Michigan Natural Community Types.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2007. Web Database Search for listed Michigan Species in Sand Clay Project Area.
F - 2 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation
NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.5. Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed 13 October 2005).
NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.0. Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer . (Accessed 6 November 2006).
Piehler, Kirk G. 2006. Forest-wide Policy for Implementing Northern Goshawk and Red- shouldered Hawk Territory Protection Guidelines. Letter for NEPA Project File. 4p.
Roell, Brian. 2007. Hiawatha Wolf Data. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 14 February 2007.
US Census Bureau. 2000. State & County QuickFacts. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html . Accessed 17 October 2005.
USDA Forest Service. 1990. Biological Evaluations. Forest Service Manual 2672.4. Washington DC.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Species. Milwaukee, WI. 5 October 2006.
USDA 2006. Land and Resource Management Plan - Hiawatha National Forest (Forest Plan). Escanaba, MI.
___. 2005 1. Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Revised Forest Plan – Hiawatha National Forest. Escanaba, MI.
___. 2005 2. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Forest Service Manual 2670. Washington DC.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ). Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. viii+141pp.
USDI 2006. Biological Opinion – Hiawatha National Forest.
Vance, Matt. 2006. Hiawatha National Forest Piping Plover Monitoring Program, 2006.
Weise, Tom. 2004. Preliminary 2004 Bald Eagle Nesting Survey in Eastern UP. 22 June 2004.
___. 2005. 2005 Bald Eagle Nesting Survey in Eastern UP. 26 May 2005.
___. 2006. 2006 Bald Eagle Nesting Survey in Eastern UP. 1 September 2006.
F - 3
Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside of the Hiawatha
G - 1
Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic
CHIPPEWA COUNTY PROJECTS Whitefish Bay Scenic Byway Project EA (T47N, R6W, S 7-18; T47N, R5W, S 7-9, 13-25; T47N, R4W, S X X X X X X X X 13, 18-20, 22-36; T47N, R3W, S 8-25, 30, Chip pewa County)
North Country Trail Relocation DM (Sept. 2006) X X X (T44N, R4W, S 7, 18; Chippewa County) Smithers Scientific Services, Inc. SUP Modification
EA (Sept. 2005) (T46N, R4W; Chippewa County) Raco Plains Ecosystem Management EA ` (Sept. 2004) (T44N, R4W, S 5-8, 18; T44N, R5W, S 1-5, 9-12; T45N, R4W, S 4-9, 17-19, 30; T45N, R5W, S 1-36; T45N, X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R6W, S 13, 24, 25; T46N, R3W, S 2-9, 16-19, 30, 31; T46N, R4W, S 1-34; T46N, R5W, S 12-15, 22-28, 32- 36; T47N, R3W, S 22, 23, 26, 27; Chippewa County) Jack Pine Blowdown DM (July 2004) (T46N, R3W, S 4, 7, 16, 17; T46N, R4W S 13; T47N, R3W, S 31-33, 35; X X X X X Chippewa County) Hiawatha Communication Fiber Optic Cable DM (May 2004) (existing right-of-way that parallels State Highway M-28, between Eckerman Corner and Raco, X beginning in S 35 of T46N, R6W and ending in S 28 of T46N, R4W; Chippewa County) Lake Superior Highlands Project EA (Dec. 20 03) (T45N, R6W, S 1-18, 23-26, 35, 36; T46N, R3W, S 6; X X X X X X X X X X X X T46N, R4W S 1-6; T46N, R5W, S 1-11, 15-19, 29-32;
G - 3 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic T46N, R6W S 1-6, 11, 12-14, 23-28, 33-36; T47N, R3W, S 14-33; T47N, R4W, S 31-36; T47N, R5W, S 21, 26-36; T47N, R6W, S 6-8, 17-22, 25, 36; Chippewa County)
Interior Wetlands Project EIS (July 2003) (T44N, R4W, S 19, 31; T44N, R5W, Sections 2-11, 13-27, 35, 36; T44N R6W, Sections 1-18, 21-24; T45N, R5W, S 8- X X X X X X X X X 10, 15-17, 19-22, 27-33; T45N, R6W, S 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, 34-36; Chippewa County) Clark Access Proposal DM (Ju ne 2003) (T46N, R5W, X S 11; Chippewa County.) Chippewa County Land Exchange EA (May 2003) (T46N, R6W, S 25, 26; T47N, R5W, S 28; Chippewa X County) Monocle Lake Log Cribs DM (Feb. 23, 2003) (T47N, X X X X X R3W, S 14; Chippewa County) Pendills Creek Dam Repair DM (Sept. 2002) (T47N,
R4W, S 29; Chippewa County) Timber Stand Improvement Project DM (July 2002) (T46N, R5W, S 34, T45N, R5W, S 11; Chippewa X X County) Roxbury Creek Spawning Habitat DM (Jan. 2002)
(T47N, R6W, S 11; Chippewa County) Sylvester Creek Dam EA (Jan. 2002) (T45N, R3W; X X X X X X X Chippewa County) Escanaba Paper Co. Access Road DM (Oct. 2001) X (T45N, R6W, S 16; Chippewa County) Point Iroquois Lighthouse Toilets and Parking Lot X X X X
G - 4 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic DM (April 2001) (T47N, R3W, S 12; Chippewa County)
North Country National Scenic Hiking Tail Trailhead Relocation Lake Superior Area DM (Aug, 2000) (T47N, R5W, S 17; Chippewa County) Raco to Paradise Snowmobile Trail DM (Aug. 2000) X X (T46N, R4W; Chippewa County) Sullivan Creek Road DM (July 2000) (T45N, R3W; X X X X X X X X X Chippewa County) Biscuit Creek Log Bank Cover DM (July 2000) X X X X X X (T44N, R4W, S 16, 17; Chippewa County) Lone Pine Road Culvert Replacement at Pine River Crossing DM (July 2000) (T45N, R5W, S 33; Chippewa X X County) North Country National Scenic H iking Trail Surface Hardening and Toilet Construction Lake Superior
Area DM (June 2000) (T47N, R5W, S 18; Chippewa County) Pine River Spawning Habitat DM (June 1999) (T45N, X R5W, S 33; Chippewa County) Escanaba Paper Co. Land Exchange EA (July 1998) X X X X X X (near Delirium Wilderness, Chippewa County) Mission Hill Land Exchange Proposal EA (July 1997) X X X X X X (T47N, R3W, S 13, 23, 24, 25, 36;Chippewa County) Brimley Grade Project EA (June 1997) (T47N, R 3W, S 22, 23, 25-28, 31-36; T46N, R3W, S 1-10, 15-22, 28-31; X X X X X X X X X X X X T46N, R4W, S 5-8, 12, 13, 17, 24-26, 36; T46N, R5W, S 1, 2, 11-14, 31, 32; Chippewa County) Raco Airfield Automotive Test Site SUP to Smither’s X
G - 5 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic Scientific Services, Inc. EA (Aug. 1996) (T46N, R4W; Chippewa County) Black Creek Fish Habitat Improvements EA (Aug. 1996) (T45N, R5W, S 24; T45N, R4W, S 19, 25; X X X X X Chippewa County) Raco to Bay Mills Snowmobile Trail DM (July 1996) X X X X X X X (T47N, R3W; T46N, R3W; Chippewa County) Betchler Marsh Project EA (June 1996) (T45N, R5W, S 8-11, 14-33; T45N, R6W S 3, 25, 36; T44N, R4W, S X X X X X X X X 5; Chippewa County) Cordell Timber Sale EA (June 1996) (T44N, R5W, S X X X X X X X 22, 23, 24; T44N, R4W, S 19; Chippewa County) County Road Timber Sale EA (Feb. 1996) (T47N, X X X X R3W, S 31, 32; T46N, R3W, S 6; Chippewa County) Mead Forest Road Use and Construction Proposal DM (Dec. 1995) (T45N, R6W, S 34, 35; Chippew a X X X X County) Zack Timber Sale EA (Nov. 1995) (T46N, R5W, S 7; X X X T46N, R6W, S 12; Chippewa County) Red Pine Thinning DM (Sept. 1994) (T46N, R5W, S X X X 33; Chippewa County) Jawbone DM (Sept. 1994) (T46N, R5W, S 3 3; T44N, X X X X R4W, S22; Chippewa County) Construction of Spawning Gravel Habitat Lumpson Creek, Bear Creek, and Pine River Seep DM (July X X X 1994) (T44N, R5W, S 3; T44N, R4W, S 26; T44N, R5W, S 12; Chippewa County) Speckled Alder Hinge Cutting DM (April 1994) X X X (T44N, R5W, S 2, 3; T44N, R4W, S 16, 17, 20;
G - 6 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic Chippewa County) Prescribed Burning DM (March 1993) (T45N, R4W, S 6; T45N, R5W, S 9; T46N, R4W, S 16, 17, 20, 27, 28, X X X 30 – 32; Chippewa County) Raco Plains Jack Pine Ecosystem Project EA (June X X X X X X X X 1993) (Raco Plains Area; Chippewa County) Elusive Crane & Clay Hill Timber Sales EA (Sept. 1992) (T45N, R6W, S 4, 7; T46N, R6W, S 28, 33; X X X Chippewa County) Forkhorn, 9-Point, Capital, Texas EA (Sept. 1992) X X X (T46N, R5W, S 2, -5; Chippewa County) Reshape Abandoned Borrow Pit/Silt Source for Asphalt Mix DM (March 1992) (T46N, R6W, S 26; X Chippewa County) Soldier Lake Fish Cover Structures DM (signed??)
(T46N, R5W, S 25; Chippewa County)
MACKINAC COUNTY PROJECTS Silver Creek Fish Habitat Project DM (June 2007)
(T42N, R5W, S 17; Mackinac County) Boedne Bay Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project DM
(Jan. 2007) (T42N, R5W, S. 19; Mackinac County) Limited Timber Harvest Near Brevoort Lake DM X X (Oct. 2006) (T42N, R5W, S 17, 18; Mackinac County) St. Ignace Gravel Pits EA (Oct. 2006) (T43N, R3W, S
19, 20, 21; T43N, R5W, S 11, 12, 33; Mackinac County) Brevoort Lake Log Cribs DM (Feb. 2006) (T42N,
R5W, S 34; Mackinac County) Edison Opening Maintenance Project DM (Sept.
G - 7 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic 2004) (T42N, R3W, S 5; T42N, R4W, S 1; Mackinac County) Walker Access Road DM (Sept. 2004) (T43N, R3W, S
24; Mackinac County) Cloverland Underground Electric Powerline DM (July 2004) (T41N, R5W, start S 11 and end S 26; Mackinac County) Burma Grade Hazardous Fuels Reduction Proje ct
DM (June 2004) (T42N, R5W, S 5-8; Mackinac County) Cloverland Electric East Lake Distribution Line DM
(Oct. 2003) (T43N, R4W, S 15, 21; Mackinac County) Relocation of the Red Creek Snowmobile Trail EA
(Aug. 2003) (T43N, R3W, S 34; Mackinac County) Eros Access Proposal DM (May 2003) (T43N, R5W, S
27; Mackinac County) Brevoort Lake Log Cribs DM (Jan. 2003) (T42N,
R5W, S 34; Mackinac County) Brevoort Lake Reef Modification DM (Oct. 2 001)
(T42N, R5W, S 27; Mackinac County) US Highway 2 Dune Stabilization DM (Sept. 2001)
(T41N, R5W, S 5, 9, 16, 22; Mackinac County) East Lake Access Road DM (Feb. 2001) (T43N, R4W,
S 22; Mackinac County) Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership Sault Looping Project EA (April 2000) (begin in T42N, X X R6W, S 22 and end in T43N, R4W, S 15; Mackinac County) Lamprey Weir Site Rehabilitation DM (May 2000)
(T42N, R3W, S 19; Mackinac County)
G - 8 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic Nunn’s Creek Snowmobile Bridge DM (Aug. 12,
1999) (T42N, R2W, S 16; Mackinac County) Boedne Bay Dock Replacement DM (July 1999)
(T42N, R5W, S 19; Mackinac County) Foley Creek to Horseshoe Bay Hiking Trail DM (July
1998) (T41N, R4W, S 13, 24; Mackinac County) Carp National Wild and Scenic River EA (Feb. 1998) (from west section line of S 30, T43N, R5W to Lake Huron; Mackinac County) North Country National Scenic Hiking Trail DM (July 1997)- - Lakeshore Boardwalk (T47N, R5W, S 7, 18; Chippewa County), Little Bear Creek Low Water
Crossing T44N, R4W, S 34; Chippewa County), Brevoort River Bridge (T41N, R5W, S 14; Mackinac County) Horseshoe Bay Research Natural Area EA (Jan. 1997 ) (T42N, R3W, S 9, 16, 20, 21; T41N, R3W, S 4-8, 18; T41N, R4W, S 1, 12, 13; Mackinac County) St. Ignace Administrative Site EA (Aug. 1996) (T40N,
R4W, S 8; Mackinac County) Sugarbush/Popular/Bissel Creek Timber Sales EA (May 1996) (T43N, R5W, S 26, 27, 34, 35; T43N, R4W, X X S 19, 23, 24; Mackinac County) Kenneth/HazelKill Timber Sales EA (Feb. 1996) X X (T43N, R5W, S 13-16, 21-23; Mackinac County) South Burma Timber Sale DM (Sept. 1995) (T42N, X X R5W, S 8; Mackinac County) Circle Pond Timber Sale DM (Sept. 1995) ( T41N, X X R4W, S 17; Mackinac County)
G - 9 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic Whatta Pine Timber Sale DM (Sept. 1995) (T42N, X X R5W, S 6; Mackinac County) 27 Mile Timber Sale DM (Sept. 1995 ) (T43N, R5W, S X X 9, 10, 15, 16; Mackinac County) Christensen SUP EA (July 1995) (42N, R5W, S 29, 30;
Mackinac County) Tyner Private Road Easement DM (June 1995) (T43N,
R3W, S 28; Mackinac County) Akrigg Area Timber Sale EA (May 1995) (T43N, X X R3W, S 2-4, 8-12, 14, 15, 17; Mackinac County) Sinkhole Timber Sale EA (March 1995) (T43N, R5W, X X S 28 – 33; Mackinac County) Crooked Creek Culvert Replacement Project DM (Oct. 1994) (T43N, R2W, S 30; Mackinac County)
Engadine Dolostone Samples on NF Land SUP MI Tech University DM (Aug. 1994) (T43N, R5W, S 16, 28; Mackinac County) Worth/Schaffer Road Timber Sale EA (Aug. 1994) X X (T42N, R5W, S 14-17, 20; Mackinac County) Lamprey Management in Carp River (SUP USFWS)
DM (July 1994) (T42N, R3W, S 19; Mackinac County) Construction of Spawning Beds within the Brevoort River DM (July 1994) (T41N, R5W, S 10; Mackinac County) Martineau Creek Timber Sale EA (May 1994) (T42N, X X R5W, S 20, 22, 23, 26 – 29; Mackinac County) Gas Guard Timber Sale DM (Nov. 1993) (T43N, X X R4W, S 14, 15; Mackinac County)
G - 10 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic Dukes Timber Sale DM (Nov. 1993) (T42N, R5W, S X X 31; Mackinac County) Summerby Timber Sale DM (Nov. 1993) T42N, R4W, X X S 34: Mackinac County) Porcupine Trailer Timber Sale DM (Oct. 1993) X X (T43N, R3W, S 18; Mackinac County) Platz Creek Sale (Oct. 1993) (T42N, R3W, S 17; X X Mackinac County) Small Sale Program 1994-1995 DM (Sept. 1993) (T43N, R2W, S 4; T43N, R5W, S 9; T43N, R3W, S 17; T43N, R3W, S 31; T42N, R2W, S 25; T42N, R4W, S X X 25; T43N, R3W, S 12; T43N, R4W, S 11; T43N, R2W, S 28; T42N, R3W, S 5; T42N, R2W, S 22; T41N, R4W, S 14; Mackinac County) Aux Chenes Timber Sale EA (June 1993) (T41N, X X R4W, S 18; T41N, R5W, S 13, 14; Mackinac County) Gasline Pine Timber Sale EA (April 1993) (T42N, X X R5W, S 4, 8, 9; Mackinac County) Maple Hill South Timber Sale EA (April 1993) (T43N, X X R4W, S 3, 10; Mackinac County) Vertz Timber Sale EA (Feb. 1993) (T43N, R4W, S 19; X X T43N, R5W, S 13, 23, 24; Mackinac County) FY 93 & 94 Small Fuelwood Sale DM (Nov. 1992) (T43N, R5W, S1; T43N, R4W, S 12; T43N, R5W, S 24; T43N, R2W, S 29;T43N, R4W, S 27, 28, 33, 34; T43N, R4W, S 33, 34; T43N, R3W, S 29, 32; T42N, R5W, S 8, X X X 17; T42N, R5W, S 19; T43N, R5W, S 10; T43N, R4W, S 11; T43N, R5W, S 10; T43N, R5W, S 17 ; T43N, R2W, S 29; T42N, R3W, S 5; T42N, R4W, S 14; T42N,
G - 11 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic R5W, S 19; Mackinac County) Deer Sale Program 1993 DM (Sept. 1992) (T43N, R4W, S 26, 35; T43N, R3W, S 32; T42N, R2W, S 26; X X T42N, R4W, S 34; Mackinac County) North Country Timber Sale EA (Aug. 1992) (T41N, X X R4W, S 14, 23, 26, 27, 34, 35: Mackinac County) 3 Point Wildlife and Timber Project EA (July 1992) X X (T42N, R2W, S 1-3, 11, 12; Mackinac County) Guard Lake Timber Sale EA (June 1992) (T43N, R3W, S 18, 19, 20; T43N, R4W, S 12, 13, 24; Mackinac X X County) North Gamble Timber Sale (May 1992) (T43N, R3W, X X S 18; T43N, R4W, S 13; Mackinac County) Sylvester Grouse Wildlife Project & Timber Sale EA (April 1992) ( T43N, R3W, S 5, 6, 7, 8; Mackinac X X County) Aspen Garden Timber Sale EA (March 1992) (T43N, X X R3W, S 23, 25, 26, 34, 35; Mackinac County) Duck Blind Timber Sale EA (Jan. 1992) (T43N, R4W, X X S 8, 16, 17; Mackinac County) Garden Hill Creek Cedar Sale DM (Jan. 1992) (T43N, X X R3W, S 23; Mackinac County) Simmons Settlement Timber Sale EA (Jan. 1992) (T43N, R2W, S 19; T43N, R3W, S 24; Mackinac X X County) McCloud Creek Snowmobile Bridge Repl acement
DM (T42N, R3W, S 4; Mackinac County)
Eastside Projects
G - 12 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic (Chippewa and Mackinac counties) East Red Pine 2 EA (Jan. 2005) (T42N, R3W, S 18; T42N, R4W, S 3, 13, 15, 16; T42N, R5W, S 3-5, 7, 8, 17-20; T43N, R3W, S 17, 18, 20; T43N, R4W, S 34; and T43N, R5W, S 16, 19, 27, 30-33; T44N, R4W, S 16, 19- X X X X X X X X X X 23, 27-32; T44N, R5W, S 11, 12, 14; T45N, R6W, S 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 14; T46N, R4W, S 3; T46N, R6W, S 13, 34- 36; T47N, R3W, S 21, 28-30; and T47N, R4W, S 36; Chippewa & Mackinac counties) SBC Underground Fiber Optic Cable DM (Sept. 2004) (T41N, R3W, S 25; T44W, R6W, S 19; Chippewa & Mackinac counties) Rudyard Project EA (Jan. 2002) (T42N, R2W, S 5, 6; T42N, R3W, S 1, 2; T43N, R2W, S 4-9, 17-20, 28-33; T43N, R3W, S 1-6; 8-16, 21-26, 34-36; T43N, R4W, S 1, 2; T44N, R3W, S 6, 7, 18, 27-34; T44N, R4W, S 1, 2, X X X X 11-14, 23-26, 35, 36; T45N, R3W, S 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27-29, 31, 32; T46N, R3W, S 27, 34; Chippewa and Mackinac counties) 5 Year Red Pine Thinning EA (June 2000) (T42N, R4W, S 14, 15; T42N, R5W, S 4-9, 17, 19, 20;T43N, R5W, S 31, 34; T44N, R5W, S 2; T45N, R6W, S 25, 36; T46N, R3W, S 29, 30; T46N, R4W, S 2, 3, 28; T46N, X X X X X X X X X X R5W, S 2, 9; T46N, R6W, S 21, 22; T47N, R3W, S 16, 17, 19, 30; T47N, R4W, S 34, 35; T47N, R5W, S 34, 35; T47N, R6W, S 7: Chippewa & Mackinac counties) Stream Sediment Basin Maintenance DM (March 1999) ( T43N, R5W, S 30; T41N, R5W, S 3; T45N, X X X X X R4W, S 24; T44N, R4W, S 26; T45N, R5 W, S 24;
G - 13 Appendix G – Past, Present, Foreseeable Future NEPA Projects Eastside Hiawatha
Signed NEPA Projects Air Soils Soils NNIS NNIS Water Visuals Visuals Ecology Wildlife Wildlife Fisheries Fisheries Wetlands Wetlands Vegetation Recreation TES TES Plants Fuels & Fire& Fuels Transportation Socio-Economic Mackinac and Chippewa counties) 1999 – 2000 Wildlife Program DM (March 1999)
(Chippewa and Mackinac Countries) FY 96-97 Wildlife Program DM (when signed ??) Pine River System Spawning H abitat Maintenance DM (T45N, R4W, S 24; T44N, R5W, S 12; T45N, R5W, X X X X X X S 33; T45N, R4W, S 25; Chippewa County) PROPOSED NEPA PROJECTS
CURRENTLY BEING ANALYZED US-2 Dune Maintenance and Management Project
EA (T41N, R5W, S 5, 8, 9, 16, 22; Mackinac County) Sprinkler Project EA (T 41N, R4W, S 1-27 & 34-36; T41N, R5W, S 1, 2, 11 & 12; T42N, R3W, S 7, 8, 17-19 7 30; T42N, R4W, S 1-36; T42N, R5W, S 1-30 & 32-36; X X X and T43N, R5W, S 5-8, 17-19 & 30-34; Mackinac County , Michigan. T44N, R5W, S 30 & 31; and T44N, R6W, S 21; Chippewa County, Michigan) Niagara Project EIS X X X X
G - 14 Appendix H - Alternative 2 - Maps
Appendix H – Alternative 2 Maps
See Folder: Appendices H – J, Alternative Maps.
H - 1
Appendix H - Alternative 2 - Maps
H - 3
Appendix I – Alternative 3 Maps
See Folder: Appendices H – J, Alternative Maps.
I - 1
Appendix J – Alternative 4 Maps
See Folder: Appendices H – J, Alternative Maps.
J - 1
Appendix K – Background Information
Appendix K – Background Information
K - 1
Appendix K – Background Information
Vegetation Table K - 1. MA 2.3 Desired Vegetation Composition and Size Class Goals by Ecological Landtype Compared to Existing Vegetation in the Sand Clay Project and Forestwide (FW). Yellow cells indicate where current vegetation composition is above the Forest Plan maximum goals and blue cells indicate where it is below the minimum goals.
Openings Aspen Jack Pine Mid Seral Late Seral FP FP FP FP FP
ELT Sand Goals Sand Goals Sand Goals Sand Goals Sand Goals
Size Class Class Size Clay FW Min Clay FW Min Clay FW Min Clay FW Min Clay FW Min % % Max % % % Max % % % Max % % % Max % % % Max % 0 0 0 1/5 1 0 2 0/1 6 2 3 1 10 2 2 5 1/3 1 1 1 2 20 3 3 8 1/4 4 1 10 4 1/5 10 12 10/20 4 18 12 0/5 8 5 4 3 2/5 26 40 20/30 5 0 0 10/20 0 1 0 0 0/2 2 0 1 2/5 1 0 2/5 2 3 5 2/8 0 0 4 7/15 1 1 7/15 30 3 0 4 2/10 0 8 7 6/15 5 3 6/15 4 29 8 0/5 2 2 8 36 11/20 29 23 10/20 5 2 0 0 4/10 1 2 3/10 40 0 0 0 0/1 50 1 0 0 0/1 2 1 90 2 3 4 1/3 1 1 3 0 2 1/4 9 2 9 47 4 30 5 0/2 0 4 5/10 36 24 20/30 5 0 0 50/60 0 1 1 2 2 2/5 1 1 1 2 8 9 8/15 0 5 6 1 1 60 3 1 6 10/20 0 6 8 12 11 4 32 18 0/5 3 1 11 16 10/20 3 5 15/25 5 1 1 5/10 0 0 15/25 0 1 1 0 0 1/2 3 1 2 6 3 5/10 2 2 70A 3 0 1 6/10 2 4 6 5/10 53 53 4 23 4 0/1 7 10 5/10 0 0 25/35 5 0 0 20/30 0 1 0 0 1/5 3 2 3 9 5/10 7 1 70B 3 0 1 6/12 1 9 5/25 7 4 2/10 4 60 16 0/5 6 21 5/25 17 22 12/30 5 0 0 6/20 0 1 1 2 3 6 80A 3 0 17 5/20 0 28 2/10 4 44 18 5/20 52 9 12/30 5 0 0 6/40 0 1 1 3 2 1 5 80B 3 33 12 5/30 5 12 2/10 4 21 30 5/30 31 30 12/30 5 0 0 6/40
K - 3 Appendix K – Background Information
Table K - 2. MA 8.3 Desired Vegetation Composition and Size Class Goals by Ecological Landtype Compared to Existing Vegetation in the Sand Clay Project and Forestwide (FW). Yellow cells indicate where current vegetation composition is above the Forest Plan maximum goals and blue cells indicate where it is below the minimum goals.
Openings Aspen Jack Pine Mid Seral Late Seral FP FP FP FP FP
ELT Sand Goals Sand Goals Sand Goals Sand Goals Sand Goals
Size Class Class Size Clay FW Min Clay FW Min Clay FW Min Clay FW Min Clay FW Min % % Max % % % Max % % % Max % % % Max % % % Max % 0 0 0 1/5 1 0 2 0/2 0 1 1/5 1 2 0/5 6 1 2/10 10 2 5 11 2/4 3 3 2/5 0 4 0/5 6 2 4/10 20 3 1 5 3/5 9 4 3/7 8 1 0/5 7 10 4/10 4 17 13 1/3 1 3 0/5 2 7 0/5 23 27 15/20 5 0 0 0/5 0 0 15/25 0 0 0/3 1 0 3 1/5 0 0 1/7 0 0 1/5 2 3 5 4/10 0 11 3/10 0 1 2/10 30 3 2 10 5/10 1 9 4/10 0 4 2/10 4 7 5 1/3 9 2 30 35 7/15 15 9 3/10 5 5 1 20/30 0 1 15/25 40 0 0 0 0/1 50 1 0 4 1/5 0 0 2/3 90 2 2 3 3/7 0 2 4/8 3 0 4 4/7 0 3 0 27 4/8 4 75 8 1/5 22 5 0 17 30/40 5 0 0 30/70 0 0 0 0/2 1 0 0 2/5 1 0 1 1/10 0 0 2/10 2 4 6 8/15 1 4 2/10 3 1 6/15 60 3 1 2 10/18 1 1 7 8 3/10 9 12 8/20 4 7 13 1/5 2 3 19 19 4/15 8 4 20/30 5 4 1 14 5 6/15 0 0 4/10 0 1 0 0 1/3 0 1 0 0 1/10 2 0 3 5/10 1 1 1 3 3 1 3/10 70A 3 2 0 3/10 2 2 5 8 5/20 67 57 10/20 4 6 6 1/2 2 6 7 5/20 1 5 25/40 5 1 0 0 5/10 0 0 0/1 1 0 1 1/5 0 3 1/5 0 0 1/7 2 0 7 6/10 2 3 3/10 10 2 2/10 70B 3 0 2 7/13 12 13 7/20 5 3 5/10 4 4 14 0/5 20 18 5/10 47 21 20/30 5 1 0 0 1/5 0 0 0/1 1 0 1 0/3 0 0 4/15 2 3 3 1/5 4 1 7/15 80A 3 17 11 3/10 36 44 10/20 4 11 10 3 2 5/10 5 0 0 0/1 1 0 2 0/3 0 0 1/5 2 1 4 1/5 1 1 2/10 80B 3 33 15 3/10 30 22 3/15 4 24 29 8 16 10/50 5
K - 4 Appendix K – Background Information
Figure K - 1. Windthrow Hazard.
K - 5 Appendix K – Background Information
Table K - 3. Windthrow Hazard Table. Wind Harvest Harvest Harvest Comp. Std. Soil Description Acres Throw Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4 Hazard 82 017 Rousseau fine sand, dark 2.5 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Slight subsoil, 0 to 6% reserves reserves 82 017 Kalkaska sand, 0 to 6% 5.2 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Slight reserves reserves 82 017 Au Gres sand 0 to 3% 7.8 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Severe reserves reserves 82 017 Halfaday sand, 0 to 3% 22.6 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Slight reserves reserves 82 017 Rousseau fine sand, 1.7 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Slight moderately wet, 0 to 6% reserves reserves 82 021 Rousseau fine sand, dark 1.6 Selection Selection Selection Slight subsoil, 0 to 6% 82 021 Rousseau fine sand, 16.4 Selection Selection Selection Slight moderately wet, 0 to 6% 82 022 Rousseau fine sand, dark 3.1 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Slight subsoil, 0 to 6% 82 022 Wainola fine sand, 0 to 3% 9.3 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Severe 82 022 Ingalls loamy sand, 0 to 2.9 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Severe 3% 82 022 Rousseau fine sand, 24.7 Clearcut Clearcut Clearcut Slight moderately wet, 0 to 6%
K - 6