Huron-Manistee United States Department of National Forests Agriculture
Forest Service Eastern Region
Huron-Manistee National Forests
March 2006 Final
Environmental
Impact Statement
To accompany the 2006 Land and
Resource Management Plan
Cooperating Agencies: United States Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management United States Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service United States Environmental Protection Agency
Final Environmental Impact Statement Huron-Manistee National Forests
Eastern Region Milwaukee, Wisconsin March 2006
Responsible Agency: USDA-Forest Service
Responsible Official: Randy Moore, Regional Forester 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-297-3600
For Further Information Jeffery G. Pullen, Forest Planner Contact: Huron-Manistee National Forests 1755 South Mitchell Street Cadillac, MI 49601 231-775-2421 TTY: 231-775-3183
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
PREFACE - UNDERSTANDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ix STATEMENT (FEIS) Introduction ix Organization of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ix Forest Niche x
CHAPTER I – PURPOSE AND NEED AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I-1 Purpose and Need for Action I-1 Decisions to be Made in the Forest Plan I-3 Proposed Action I-4 Public Involvement I-6 Significant Issues I-8 Nonsignificant Issues I-12 Relevant Issues Not Considered in Detail I-13
CHAPTER II – THE ALTERNATIVES II-1 Introduction II-1 Developing Alternatives II-1 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study II-2 Alternatives Considered in Detail II-5 Alternative Comparison II-11 Preferred Alternative II-17
CHAPTER III – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES III-1 Affected Environment – Physical Resources III-1 Environmental Consequences – Physical Resources III-10 Affected Environment – Biological Resources III-31 Environmental Consequences – Biological Resources III-48 Affected Environment – Recreation, Social and Economic Resources III-257 Environmental Consequences – Recreation, Social and Economic Resources III-272 References III-351
CHAPTER IV – PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS IV-1
CHAPTER V – FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT V-1 DISTRIBUTION
Huron-Manistee National Forests i Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Description Page
APPENDIX A – DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS A-1 APPENDIX B – SPECIES VIABILITY EVALUATION B-1 APPENDIX C – RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS C-1 APPENDIX D – ROADLESS/WILDERNESS INVENTORY D-1 APPENDIX E – WILD AND SCENIC RIVER INVENTORY UPDATE E-1 APPENDIX F – FEDERAL THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES F-1 APPENDIX G – MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES G-1 APPENDIX H – LAND SUITED FOR TIMBER MANAGEMENT H-1 APPENDIX I – RELEVANT STATUTES, REGULATIONS, POLICIES I-1 AND AGREEMENTS APPENDIX J - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS J-1 APPENDIX K - REFERENCES K-1 APPENDIX L - GLOSSARY L-1 APPENDIX M - INDEX M-1
Final Environmental Impact Statement ii Huron-Manistee National Forests
Table of Contents List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES
Description Page
CHAPTER II – THE ALTERNATIVES II-1. Steps for Developing Alternatives for Forest Plan Revision II-2 II-2. Alternative Comparison II-13
CHAPTER III – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES III-1. Water Quality Concerns within the Forests’ Boundaries III-6 III-2. Biomass Removal for Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis III-11 III-3. Biomass Removal for Cumulative Effects Analysis III-12 III-4. Acres Available by Category of Restriction – Alternative A III-28 III-5. Acres Available by Category of Restriction – Alternatives B and C III-30 Vegetative Type Composition by Percentage on Huron-Manistee III-6. National Forests III-39 III-7. Present Vegetation Types and Age Classes III-40 III-8. Distribution of Old-Growth by Vegetative Type III-44 III-9. Distribution of Old-Growth by Management Area III-44 III-10. Kirtland’s Warbler Management Acreage, by Alternative III-60 III-11. Comparison of Barrens Restoration by Decade III-65 III-12. Habitat Groups for Aquatic Species of Concern III-71 III-13. Habitat Classes for Ruffed Grouse III-171 III-14. Habitat Quantity for Decades 1, 4 and 9 III-173 III-15. Habitat Quality for Decades 1, 4 and 9 III-173 III-16. Deer Emphasis Area: Acres and Percents Available for Management by Alternative III-190 III-17. Acres and Percents of Wildlife Emphasis Areas Available for Management by Alternative III-192 III-18. Wildlife Emphasis Areas – Acres by Alternative III-192 III-19. Estimated acres of each Vegetative Class for Alternative A III-209 III-20. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 10 years III-211 III-21. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 30 years III-213 III-22. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 50 years III-216 III-23. Age-class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 100 years III-218 III-24. Estimated acres of each Vegetative Class for Alternative B III-223 III-25. Estimated acres of each Vegetative Class for Alternative C III-228 III-26. Percent of Designated Old-Growth Areas occurring within Management Areas with surface occupancy restrictions. III-245
Huron-Manistee National Forests iii Final Environmental Impact Statement
List of Tables Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Description Page
III-27. Characteristics of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes III-259 III-28. Acres by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class III-262 III-29. Miles of Trail by Recreational Use III-264 III-30. National Forest Road Miles by Maintenance Level III-266 III-31. Output Values for Timber Products from the Huron and Manistee National Forests III-268 III-32. National Visitor Use Monitoring Summary (Annual RVDs) III-273 III-33. Comparison of Wild and Scenic and Legislatively Designated Study Rivers by Alternative III-278 III-34. Miles of Nonmotorized and Motorized Trails III-284 III-35. Mountain Bike Trail Access Provided III-285 III-36. Miles of Roads and Trails Open to Snowmobiles III-287 III-37. Nonmotorized Trail Density by Management Area III-288 III-38. Motorized Trail Density (miles per sq. mile) by Management Area III-289 III-39. Scenic Class Matrix III-292 III-40. Acres Currently Allocated Semiprimitive Nonmotorized, by Forest III-296 III-41. Areas Currently Allocated Semiprimitive Motorized, by Forest III-297 III-42. Proposed Forest Semiprimitive Motorized Area Identified but not Amended into the Forest Plan III-297 III-43. Semiprimitive Areas by Alternative III-299 III-44. Acres of Semiprimitive Areas by Alternative III-301 III-45. Maintenance Level of National Forest Roads III-304 III-46. National Forest Lands by County III-308 III-47. Hunted Species Population Ranking Short Term and Long Term III-316 III-48. Semiprimitive Nonmotorized and Semiprimitive Motorized Management Areas III-318 III-49. Current Role of Forest Service-Related Contributions to the Area Economy III-320 III-50. Employment by Program by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1) III-326 III-51. Labor Income by Program by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1; $1,000,000) III-327 III-52. Employment by Major Industry by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1) III-327 III-53. Labor Income by Major Industry by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1; $1,000,000). III-328 III-54. Forest Service Revenues and Payments to Counties (Annual Avg., Decade 1; $1,000,000). III-328 III-55. Present Net Value III-332 III-56. Households and Household Income by County and Economic Impact Area III-333 III-57. Household Earnings and Income Sources by County, 2000 III-335
Final Environmental Impact Statement iv Huron-Manistee National Forests
Table of Contents List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Description Page
III-58. Population by Race and Percent Non-white in the United States, Michigan, Wisconsin, and National Forest Impact Areas, 2000 III-338 III-59. Percentage of Minority Populations in Michigan III-338 III-60. Michigan’s Population Below Poverty III-339 III-61. Timber Volume Produced Per Decade III-341 III-62. Vegetation Class Conversions under Alternatives B and C III-342 III-63. Hunted Species Population Ranking Short Term and Long Term III-342
APPENDIX A – DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS
A-1. Identification Levels Used to Classify the HMNF Land base for Analysis A-5 A-2. Level 1 Identifiers for Alternative B – Location on the HMNF by Forest and Management Area A-6 A-3. Level 2 Identifiers – Vegetation Classes A-7 A-4. Level 3 Identifiers – Age Class Groups A-8 A-5. Level 4 Identifiers – Old Growth A-8 A-6. Level 5 Identifiers – Suitability of Land for Timber Production A-8 A-7. Spectrum Constraints Related to Species Viability Concerns, Acres of Forest types Converted or Succeeding to Other Types A-12 A-8. Spectrum Constraints Related to Species Viability Concerns, Acres of Old Growth Conversion to Barrens A-13 A-9. Spectrum Constraints Related to Management Indicator Concerns A-13 A-10. Spectrum Constraints Related to Fuel Hazard Reduction Concerns A-14 A-11. Priced Output Values Used in the Spectrum Model A-14 A-12. Costs of Activities, Regeneration and Vegetative Class Conversions A-15 A-13. Spectrum Benchmark Runs by Present Net Value and Allowable Sale Quantity A-18 A-14. Spectrum Model Results A-19
APPENDIX B – SPECIES VIABILITY EVALUATIONS
B-1. Forest Ranks (F ranks) for Species Considered in the Species Viability Evaluation B-6 B-2. Aquatic Species Groups B-12 B-3. Species Viability Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Groups B-13 B-4. Species Viability Evaluation –Botanical Habitat Groups and Communities of Concern B-15 B-5. Standards and Guidelines Developed to Protect the Viability of Species or Natural Communities B-16
Huron-Manistee National Forests v Final Environmental Impact Statement
List of Tables Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Description Page
APPENDIX C – RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS
C-1. Existing Candidate Research Natural Areas C-1 C-2. Proposed Candidate Research Natural Areas or Unique Areas C-1 C-3. Areas Carried Forward as Proposed Candidate Research Natural Areas C-3
APPENDIX D – ROADLESS/WILDERNESS INVENTORY
D-1. Contiguous Areas Greater Than 2,000 Acres D-2 D-2. Contiguous Areas Greater Than 2000 Acres Which Could be Managed for Roadless Values (Shape and Ownership) D-3 D-3. Potential Inventory Areas D-3 D-4. Summary of Potential Areas Evaluated for Roadless Inventory on the Huron-Manistee National Forests D-5
APPENDIX E – WILD AND SCENIC RIVER INVENTORY UPDATE
E-1. Huron-Manistee National Forests Eligible Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers E-2 E-2. Huron-Manistee National Forests Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers E-3 E-3. Huron-Manistee National Forests Study Rivers E-4
APPENDIX F – FEDERAL THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES
F-1. Federally Listed Species F-2 F-2. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and Other Species of Concern F-2
APPENDIX G – MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES
G-1. Potential Management Indicator Species (MIS) Evaluated Against Four Criteria for Ideal MIS as Listed on the R9 Website G-1 G-2. Species Determined to be Potentially Suitable as Management Indicator Species (MIS) as Shown in Table G-1 and Rationale for the Final Decision Regarding Their Suitability G-3 G-3. Huron-Manistee National Forests Historic Michigan Department of Natural Resources Stream Sampling Sites (“Index Sites”) for Long-Term Salmonid Population Monitoring (Gowing and Alexander 1980)1 G-7
Final Environmental Impact Statement vi Huron-Manistee National Forests
Table of Contents List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Description Page
G-4. Huron-Manistee National Forests Current Michigan Department of Natural Resources Stream Sampling Sites (“Index Sites”) for Long-term Salmonid Population Monitoring G-8
APPENDIX H – LAND SUITED FOR TIMBER MANAGEMENT
H-1. Timber Resource Land Suitability H-3 H-2. Timber Productivity Classification1 H-4 H-3. Age Class Distribution Acres on all National Forest System Lands for Lands Where Data are Available H-4
LIST OF FIGURES
Description Page
CHAPTER III – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
III-1. 5th Level Watersheds for the Huron-Manistee National Forests III-4 III-2. Forest Service Definition of Riparian Area (FSM 2526.05) III-34 III-3. Plan View Representation of a Riparian Corridor III-35 III-4. Relationship of Riparian Corridor to Streamside Management Zone III-36 III-5. Presettlement Vegetation of the Huron-Manistee National Forests III-38 III-6. Acreage of Barrens Creation, by Alternative III-65 III-7. Golden-winged Warbler Habitat, by Decade III-114 III-8. Aspen/Birch Age Classes – Current Condition III-172 III-9. Grouse Management Area Aspen/Birch Age Classes – Current Condition III-172 III-20. Total Acres of All Aspen/Birch and Grouse Management Areas by Decade III-174 III-31. Aspen/Birch Age Classes – End of Decade 1 III-175 III-42. Aspen/Birch Age Classes – End of Decade 4 III-176 III-53. Aspen/Birch Age Classes – End of Decade 9 III-176 III-64. Grouse Management Areas Aspen/Birch Age Classes – End of Decade 1 III-177 III-75. Grouse Management Areas Aspen/Birch Age Classes – End of Decade 4 III-177 III-86. Grouse Management Areas Aspen/Birch Age Classes – End of Decade 9 III-178 III-97. Streamside Management Zone under S&Gs for Alternative A III-194
Huron-Manistee National Forests vii Final Environmental Impact Statement
List of Figures Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
III-108. Streamside Management Zone location for Alternatives B and C III-198 III-119. Michigan National Forest Impact Areas and Proclamation Boundaries III-269 III-20. Origin of Huron-Manistee National Forests Visitors Based on National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Samples III-271 III-21. Median Incomes, 2000 III-334 III-22. Percentage of Households Receiving Retirement Income Compared to the State of Michigan, 2000 III-336 III-23. Percent of Non-white Populations in Michigan and Within Michigan National Forest Boundaries III-337
APPENDIX A – DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS PROCESS
A-1. Timber Harvest Schedule Model – Process Overview A-4 A-2. First Decade Alternative and Benchmark Comparisons of Average Annual Harvest A-18 A-3. Economic Impact Area for the Huron-Manistee National Forests A-21
APPENDIX B – SPECIES VIABILITY EVALUATION
B-1. Species Viability Evaluation Process Flow Chart B-4
APPENDIX H – LAND SUITED FOR TIMBER MANAGEMENT
H-1. Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Land Suitability Classification acres).Species Viability Evaluation Process Flow Chart H-1
Final Environmental Impact Statement viii Huron-Manistee National Forests
PREFACE -
UNDERSTANDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) Preface - Understanding the Final Environmental Impact Statement Introduction
Preface - Understanding the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Introduction
Under the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, National Forest System lands are managed for a variety of uses on a sustained yield basis to ensure a continued supply of goods and services to the American people in perpetuity. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 specifies that land and resource management plans be developed for all national forests.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests' Land and Resources Management Plan was signed in 1986.
The National Forest Management Act regulations state that forest plans should be revised at least every 15 years. The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies' Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation Act, H.R. 2691, P.L. 108-108 was signed by the President on November 10, 2003. Section 320 states, "Prior to October 1, 2004, the Secretary of Agriculture shall not be considered to be in violation of subparagraph 6(f)(5)(A) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 [(16 U.S.C. 1605(f)(5)(A)] solely because more than 15 years have passed without revision of the plan for a unit of the National Forest System," as long as the Secretary is acting expeditiously and in good faith, within the funding available.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared following procedures established by Forest Service regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. It documents the effects of implementing various management options on the Huron- Manistee National Forests and evaluates the effects of implementing the revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests, 2006 (Forest Plan).
The Final Environmental Impact Statement is the basis for determining what changes will be made to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended. The revised Forest Plan is a companion document to this Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Organization of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter I describes why the Forest Service will revise the Forest Plan. It explains the following: • What is proposed? • Why change is needed? • What decisions are made in Forest Plans? • How were the public; tribal governments; and other Federal, state, and county agencies involved?
Huron-Manistee National Forests ix Final Environmental Impact Statement Organization of the Final Preface - Understanding the Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Statement
• What issues are addressed? • What issues are not addressed?
Chapter II describes and briefly compares alternative ways of managing the Huron-Manistee National Forests. With public input, an interdisciplinary team developed the alternatives to provide a reasonable range of different ways to respond to issues that were identified through public comment and internal review. Chapter II briefly compares the potential environmental and social effects of each alternative.
Chapter III describes the current condition of resources that could be affected by the alternatives. It also discusses in more detail the environmental and social effects of implementing each alternative.
Chapter IV lists the Huron-Manistee National Forests' personnel who prepared and contributed to the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Chapter V lists the officials, agencies, public and libraries who received a copy of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement or were notified of the availability of the final documents.
Appendices: A. Description of the Analysis Process B. Species Viability Evaluation C. Research Natural Areas D. Roadless Inventory E. Wild and Scenic River Inventory Update F. Federal Threatened, Endangered and Regional Forester Sensitive Species G. Management Indicator Species H. Lands Suited for Timber Management I. Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Agreements J. Response to Comments K. References L. Glossary M. Index
Forest Niche
Introduction:
Lying between the shores of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron in the northern half of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, the approximately one-million-acre Huron-Manistee National Forests are located in a transition zone between forested lands to the north and agricultural lands to the south. Formed by glaciers thousands of years ago, these lands are characterized by relatively low relief, abundant sand, clear water and diverse forests. The Huron-Manistee National Forests
Final Environmental Impact Statement x Huron-Manistee National Forests Preface - Understanding the Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Niche
contain rare ecological features, such as dry sand prairie remnants, coastal marshlands, dunes, oak savannahs, fens, bogs and marshes.
In the late 19th Century, many of the lands that presently make up the Forests were sold by the United States government to lumber companies, while homesteaders claimed other lands. These lands were exploited by wholesale clearcutting, burning, and poor farming practices around the turn of the 20th Century. The diverse, maturing forest ecosystems that exist today are the result of nearly a century of forest management by the Forest Service and its conservation partners.
American Indians have used these lands for thousands of years, and treaties ensure their continued use. The Huron-Manistee National Forests have a special relationship with the tribes who are consulted on the uses and management of the National Forests.
The Forests serve as a “backyard” playground for many Midwest residents. Much of the Forests’ lands lie adjacent to private and state lands and other recreational facilities. Over 60 million people live within a day’s drive of enjoying the Forests’ recreation opportunities.
Programs, Activities and Uses:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests’ physical location serves to “link lands and people together.” One example of this link is the Forests’ trail system, including the North Country National Scenic Trail, which crosses multiple administrative boundaries and land ownerships. The nationally-known “Friends of the Forests” group links people together to participate in the determination on how the Forests should be managed. Cooperative partnerships in fisheries, wildlife, and recreation programs are critical to the management and stewardship of the Forests.
Water resources on the Huron-Manistee National Forests include approximately 2,000 miles of streams and about 17,000 acres of lakes. The Forests contain legendary high quality, cold water river systems of national significance, including the Au Sable, Manistee and Bear Creek, Pere Marquette and Pine Wild and Scenic Rivers and tributaries. These rivers and tributaries provide a nationally-recognized network of premier “blue ribbon” fishing opportunities, as each spring and fall thousands of steelhead and salmon migrate to the Forests’ streams and rivers.
Diverse recreational opportunities across the Forests range from the tranquil solitude found in the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to the more developed settings found at the Lake Michigan Recreation Area, Lumberman’s Monument or along the River Road National Scenic Byway. The Forests experience extensive year-round use for many outdoor activities, including hunting, fishing, Off-Highway Vehicle use, biking, driving for pleasure, camping, hiking, snowmobiling and river use. “Special places” for berry picking, mushrooming and plant gathering can also be found.
Ensuring long-term forest health is a management priority. Healthy forests enable the Forests to continue to provide a variety of benefits to the people who use them. The vegetation management program is the primary tool for restoring and providing a diverse range of sustainable habitats for many species, supporting forest health and providing wood fiber.
Huron-Manistee National Forests xi Final Environmental Impact Statement Preface - Understanding the Final Forest Niche Environmental Impact Statement
The Forests provide unique habitats for a variety of rare and sensitive fish, plant and animal species. The Huron-Manistee National Forests contains approximately one-half of the known breeding habitat in the United States for the endangered Kirtland’s warbler. Populations of this songbird have increased six-fold statewide in the last 15 years. The Forests also provide critical habitat for other threatened and endangered species such as piping plover, Pitcher’s thistle, bald eagle, and Karner blue butterfly. In addition the Forests also provide habitat for a variety of game species such as grouse, deer, and turkey. Approximately 35 percent of the licensed hunters in Michigan hunt on the Forests.
The Forests have initiated a program to reduce the fire risk within the wildland-urban interface. Jack pine forests, one of the most volatile fuel types, dominate areas of intermingled private and National Forest ownership. This forest type creates the potential for fast moving, intense, wind- driven crown fires.
Publicly owned mineral resources such as oil and gas, sand, and gravel are found on the Forests. The Forests provide opportunities for the development of these resources, where such use can be made in an environmentally safe and technologically sound manner.
Challenges:
The increasingly urban setting and intermingled private land ownership of Michigan's Northern Lower Peninsula make it difficult to integrate the Forests’ management objectives with those of the local users. Increasing populations, development and use put pressure on the Forests’ resources and creates challenges to maintain the expected characteristics of a national forest. Under federal law, the Forests provide a variety of uses and sustain a supply of goods and services to the public in an environmentally sound manner.
Some specific challenges facing the Forests include:
• Managing the Forests’ lands for the wants and needs of many people, while maintaining ecological biodiversity. • High road densities fragment National Forest System lands and provide easy access to virtually all of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Disregard for road closures, unauthorized Off-Highway Vehicle use, and other activities, such as trash dumping, affect resources such as water quality, botanical and heritage resources and sensitive soils. • Fire prevention and suppression in the wildland-urban interface.
The Forest Service remains confident that with the participation and cooperation of the tribes, other agencies, Friends of the Forests and the public, the high quality management and stewardship of the Huron-Manistee National Forests will continue for future generations.
Final Environmental Impact Statement xii Huron-Manistee National Forests
CHAPTER I -
PURPOSE AND NEED AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Chapter I - Purpose and Need and Public Involvement Purpose and Need for Action
Chapter I - Purpose and Need and Public Involvement
Purpose and Need for Action
This Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared to document the revision of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The Forest Plan was approved in 1986 and amended 25 times.
Since 1986, the Huron-Manistee National Forests have successfully implemented site-specific projects with management direction provided in the Forest Plan, as amended. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires Forest Plans be revised at least every 15 years.
• The Huron-Manistee National Forests began this process by soliciting input from the public, employees, other government agencies and tribal governments to determine areas of the Forest Plan that needed to be changed. An interdisciplinary team reviewed the list of comments and then developed a list of potential need-for-change items. The Huron- Manistee National Forests' Leadership Team reviewed the proposed changes and recommended the proposal in the Need for Change document that was published in September 2003.
• The three Michigan National Forests (Hiawatha, Huron-Manistee and Ottawa) published a joint Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on September 18, 2003. The Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests (2003) indicated that much of the information and direction in the Huron-Manistee National Forests' 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, was still appropriate and would be carried forward into the revised Forest Plan with little or no change.
The following indicators direct the need to revise the Forest Plan:
• When conditions of the land or demands from the public have changed significantly. There have been no significant catastrophic changes to forest landscapes since the Forest Plan was written (Huron-Manistee National Forests, Analysis of the Current Management Situation 2003). However, public demand for forest products and services has changed. Public interest in management of the national forests has increased since 1986. Comments received from the public helped identify the need-for-change topics published in the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Notice of Intent.
Conditions of the land or demands from the public that have changed significantly since 1986 include:
o The demand for semiprimitive recreation, both motorized and nonmotorized, has increased.
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I - Purpose and Need Purpose and Need for Action and Public Involvement
• When changes in Agency policies, goals or objectives have a significant effect on Forest programs. The Agency goals and objectives, federal laws and initiatives, and national guidance for strategic plans and programs have changed since 1986 and must be incorporated into the Forest Plan. The United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2008 explains the Forest Service’s many areas of responsibility, as captured in the Agency’s mission statement: “The mission of the United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” Six goals are identified in the Strategic Plan:
1) Reduce the risk from catastrophic wildland fire. 2) Reduce the impacts from invasive species. 3) Provide outdoor recreation opportunities. 4) Help meet energy resource needs. 5) Improve watershed condition. 6) Perform other mission-related work in addition to that which supports the agency goals.
Changes in Agency policies, goals or objectives having a significant effect on Huron- Manistee National Forests' programs include:
o The Forests recognized the need to incorporate fire and fuels management considerations, including the National Fire Plan and the recently enacted Healthy Forest Restoration Act into the Forest Plan revision process.
o The Forests recognized the need to incorporate measures to control non-native invasive species during the Forest Plan revision process.
o The Forests recognized the need to incorporate regulatory requirements under the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act into the Forest Plan revision process.
o The Forests recognized the need to update aquatic Standards and Guidelines based on new direction.
• When an interdisciplinary team recommends a revision as the result of a monitoring and evaluation process. Specialists reviewed data, information, and monitoring and evaluation reports to prepare assessments of forest resources, then recommended changes to the Forest Plan. Evaluations were completed for the following resources: aquatic, fire ecology, heritage, botanical, recreation, socio-economic, soil, transportation, vegetation, visual quality, Wild and Scenic Rivers and wildlife.
Species Viability Evaluations revealed a need for the following changes to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended:
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter I - Purpose and Need and Public Involvement Purpose and Need for Action
o There is a need to have large-scale openings of grassland, prairie, savannah and oak- pine barrens of approximately 500 acres in size in up to 10 percent of the sandy hills and plains landtype associations.
• When new information suggests that a revision is necessary. Land acquisitions and exchanges have changed ownership patterns of National Forest System lands on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. New scientific information on topics, such as ecological information, species viability, soils, insects and diseases and water resources, has become available. This new information will be used to revise Standards and Guidelines and goals and objectives in the Forest Plan. New technology has also helped identify needed changes to the Forest Plan.
New information suggesting a change is needed include:
o Utilizing the most current scientific information, the Species Viability Evaluations revealed a need for change.
o The Scenery Management System represents the most up-to-date assessment tool available to identify important landscapes and prioritize the scenic value they represent to the public. The Scenery Management System replaces the Visual Quality Objective methodology, and is tied to landtype associations. The Scenery Management System assists the Forests in identifying and stratifying landscapes into scenic integrity classes. It identifies visual concerns in an area not just by number of users, but type of use and level of user-expressed concern, and measures changes to landscapes based on a desired future condition instead of the level of modification of the view.
o New information and evaluations revealed a need to evaluate the potential for new Research Natural Areas.
o The Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team issued a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 12, 2002, to amend the 1985 Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Plan. This letter identified the need for additional habitat and larger opening sizes for the Kirtland’s warbler.
Decisions to be Made in the Forest Plan
The National Forest Management Act provides direction for the six decisions made in a Forest Plan. The 1982 Forest Planning Rules were used for Forest Plan revision.
The six Forest Plan decisions are:
1. Forest-wide multiple use goals and objectives [36 CFR 219.11 (b)]. A goal describes a desired condition of the land to be achieved in the future. An objective is a concise, time- specific statement of measurable, planned results that responds to pre-established goals.
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Decisions to be Made Chapter I - Purpose and Need In the Forest Plan and Public Involvement
2. Forest-wide management requirements (36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27). The Forest Plan establishes forest-wide management requirements in the form of Standards and Guidelines which establish the “bounds” or “rules” which are applied to management practices designed to achieve the Forest Plan’s goals and objectives.
3. Management area direction (36 CFR 219.11). Management areas are “subdivisions” of the forest with their own sets of goals, objectives, desired conditions, and Standards and Guidelines.
4. Determining Lands Suited for Timber Management and the Allowable Sale Quantity (36 CFR 219.14 and 36 CFR 219.16). Land Suitability: Forest lands are analyzed for suitability for timber management. Allowable Sale Quantity: The maximum level of timber that may be harvested from suited lands covered by the Forest Plan.
5. Monitoring and evaluation requirements [36 CFR 219.11 (d)]. Monitoring and evaluation determines the progress in meeting Forest Plan direction.
6. Recommendations for Wilderness Areas or Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Forest Service makes recommendations to Congress regarding designation of lands as wilderness areas [36 CFR 219.17 (a) or Wild and Scenic Rivers 16 USC 1271-1287, 36 CFR 297 and 47 FR 36454].
Proposed Action
The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1986 Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). In conjunction with Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks, the revised Forest Plan would establish direction for managing natural resources on National Forest System land for the next 10 to 15 years.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests' revised Forest Plan will:
• Meet the objectives of federal law and regulations. • Respond to the public’s needs and desires. • Manage ecosystems to provide for long-term sustainability.
The Notice of Intent proposed the following changes to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended:
• Sustaining Ecosystems, Conditions, and Uses
o Increase ruffed grouse emphasis areas. o Increase Proposed Candidate Research Natural Areas. o Decrease sandy hill and plains management areas. o Decrease deer and wildlife emphasis areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter I - Purpose and Need and Public Involvement Proposed Action
o Establish desired conditions, goals, and objectives for aquatic and riparian resources, undesirable invasive species, fire and hazardous fuels management, and oil and gas resources. o Update the desired conditions, goals and objectives for vegetation, wildlife, fish, rare plants, soils and semiprimitive recreation areas. o Manage according to the Eastern Region Regional Forest’s Sensitive Species Framework. o Restore and maintain large-scale openings for grassland, prairie, savannah and oak- pine barrens up to approximately 10 percent of the sandy hills and plains land type associations, approximately 58,600 acres. The size of openings may be up to approximately 500 acres. o Restore Kirtland’s warbler nesting habitat area up to approximately 550 acres in size. o Protect resource values by managing landforms such as coastal plain marshes, bogs, swales, fens and mesic prairies consistent with ecological processes. o Improve habitat conditions for species such as: American ginseng, northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, red headed woodpecker, Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, cerulean warbler and common loon. o Change Nordhouse Dunes North Semiprimitive Area to a grouse emphasis area. o Assess and revise management indicator species and monitoring requirements. o Recalculate the long-term sustained yield. Add an objective/outcome for timber derived from lands classified as unsuited for timber production. o Incorporate the aquatics ecological classification and inventory system into the desired conditions, goals and objectives for aquatics. o Categorize lakes in the desired conditions, goals and objectives in terms of baseline trophic status and morphological/hydrological sensitivity. o Incorporate the terms and conditions of applicable Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license orders as Standards and Guidelines. o Update guidelines on vegetation management in riparian areas to better mimic natural disturbance regimes.
• Recreation, Semiprimitive Areas and Access
o Increase semiprimitive areas. o Increase rural areas. o Implement the National Scenery Management System. o Update Wild and Scenic River boundaries for the Au Sable, Pine and White Rivers. o Drop the Little Muskegon and Muskegon Rivers from further study due to limited federal ownership and changes in condition due to development.
• Wildland Fire and Fuels Management
o Add goals, objectives, and desired conditions. o Incorporate the National Fire Plan and the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Fire Management Plan. o Identify and address fire risks. o Identify standards and effectiveness monitoring of the fuels management program.
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I - Purpose and Need Public Involvement and Public Involvement
• Minerals
o Document the reasonable foreseeable oil and gas development scenario for the next 10 to 15 years. o Identify National Forest System lands that may be considered available for leasing and, if available, under what conditions and those lands not available for leasing.
Public Involvement
The Huron-Manistee National Forests have involved citizens and federal, tribal, state and local government agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations throughout the revision process. Outreach efforts have included newsletters, news releases, open houses, informational meetings, and Internet postings.
Initial Outreach:
Efforts to involve the public began in 1996 when Forest Plan revision efforts were initiated on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Comments received in 1996 were reviewed and analyzed, under contract with Michigan State University staff. After three years of inactivity due to Congressional mandate, Forest Plan revision activities resumed in 2001. In addition to working with Forest Service resource specialists, the three National Forests in Michigan, Huron-Manistee, Hiawatha and Ottawa, collaborated in efforts to contact legislators, government and tribal officials, and public organizations regarding Forest Plan revision efforts. Informational packets were mailed to individuals, organizations and government agencies in August 2002. These packets included informational brochures and a scoping letter which explained the revision process, timelines and an invitation to become involved in these activities. Additionally, listening sessions were held throughout Michigan to receive comments prior to issuance of the Notice of Intent.
Analysis of the Management Situation:
A critical step undertaken during the Forest Planning process involved reviewing the present management situation to assess how well the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended has worked. Some questions asked included:
• What has been successfully implemented? • What has been unsuccessful? • What has changed since the time the Forest Plan was developed? • Must those changes be addressed now? • What did the Forest Plan project, and how accurate were the projections? • What is the capability of the Huron-Manistee National Forests to provide goods, services and other values?
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter I - Purpose and Need and Public Involvement Public Involvement
To address these questions and establish the basis for future planning, regulations to implement the National Forest Management Act require an Analysis of the Management Situation. The Analysis of the Management Situation identified the need for changes to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended. The maximum production benchmarks were identified and the sustainability of the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended was assessed. Species Viability Evaluations were completed. The Analysis of the Management Situation established the range of possible alternatives and information necessary to assess the need for changes to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended. The Huron-Manistee National Forests completed the Analysis of the Management Situation in September 2003.
Need for Change Document:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests solicited comments from the public, employees, other government agencies and tribal governments to determine areas of the Forest Plan that needed changing. An interdisciplinary team, comprised of Huron-Manistee National Forests’ employees, reviewed the comments and the proposed changes, then developed a list of potential need-for-change issues. The Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Leadership Team reviewed the proposed changes and recommended the proposal as published in the Need for Change document, dated September 18, 2003.
Notice of Intent:
The three Michigan National Forests published a joint Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on September 18, 2003. The Notice of Intent indicated that much of the information and direction provided in the Huron-Manistee National Forests' 1986 Forest Plan, as amended was still appropriate and would be carried forward into the revised Forest Plan with little or no change.
Public Outreach:
During the 60-day public comment period following issuance of the Notice of Intent, 10 public meetings were held throughout Michigan to update citizens on the revision process and hear comments. Press releases and letters were distributed to inform citizens of upcoming meetings and methods to participate. Following publication of the Notice of Intent, informational meetings and hearings were held in each of the Ranger District locations. Additionally, the three National Forests in Michigan held joint public meetings in several of the larger communities in the Lower Peninsula. Internet mailboxes were established to accept comments during the revision process.
Comments:
During the Notice of Intent comment period, the Huron-Manistee National Forests accepted comments concerning the proposed changes. Citizens, agencies and interest groups submitted their comments by mail, e-mail, faxes and phone calls and during public meetings.
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I - Purpose and Need Significant Issues and Public Involvement
Issue Development:
Following the 60-day public comment period on the Notice of Intent, comments were analyzed by experts from the USDA-Forest Service Content Analysis Team. The Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Interdisciplinary Team used this information to identify significant issues and the range of alternatives as presented in this Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Newsletters:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests distributed Forest Plan Revision Newsletters to over 1,200 citizens, employees, Tribal governments, other governmental agencies, and public and private organizations throughout the revision process; June 2003, April 2004 and August 2004.
Web Site:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests maintained a Forest Plan Revision website at www.fs.fed.us/r9/hmnf/pages/planning.htm. The website contained the Notice of Intent, resource assessments, monitoring and evaluation reports, the summary of public comments, old- growth and management area maps, a glossary and list of acronyms, newsletters, the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement and other relevant information.
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests accepted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Proposed Forest Plan during a 90-day public comment period which started March18, 2005. Comments were analyzed and changes were incorporated into this Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Revised Forest Plan. The selected Forest Plan Revision alternative is published in the Record of Decision.
Significant Issues
Many of the topics proposed for change, as stated above, were incorporated in the revised Forest Plan. These topics reflect regulation changes; changes in Agency policies, goals or objectives; federal laws and initiatives; and national guidance.
Issues are defined as points of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects of the Proposed Action. Significant issues are used to formulate the range of alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures or analyze environmental effects. Issues are “significant” because of the extent of their geographic distribution, the duration of their effects or the degree of uncertainty about effects on the human environment.
Issues determined to be significant are:
• Something within the scope of the purpose and need for action.
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter I - Purpose and Need and Public Involvement Significant Issues
• Something within the Forests' authority to address. • Something not already addressed by law, regulation or agency policy. • Something relevant to the decisions being made. • Something having sufficient scientific data and information available to conduct a meaningful analysis and make a reasoned decision. • Something related to Forest Plan direction, not implementation.
Five significant issues were identified in this Final Environmental Impact Statement:
• Management for wildlife and rare plants. • Timber management. • Management of riparian and aquatic resources. • Recreation, semiprimitive areas and access. • Wildland fire and fuels management.
Following is an explanation of each issue, a description of how the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, addresses the issue, a summary of public comments and the range of alternatives developed to respond to these issues. Evaluation criteria, or indicators, were identified to measure the Forests’ response to each issue in each alternative were identified. These indicators were selected to ensure an adequate range of alternatives was evaluated during analysis.
Proposed Need for Change - Wildlife and Rare Plants:
In response to the Forests' proposed changes to management for wildlife and rare plants, the public identified the following issue: The amount, distribution and types of habitat, such as early successional versus late successional, necessary to maintain minimum viability of all native and desirable non-native species while providing other wildlife resources to benefit social, economic and ecological systems.
Public Response to the Notice of Intent Proposed Change:
Many comments were received that address this issue, including the desire to:
• Maintain a variety of diverse forested ecosystem types and manage for a diversity of species and communities. • Manage certain areas to emphasize game species, such as white-tailed deer and grouse. • Designate or manage areas for a variety of species, not individual species. • Ensure viable populations of threatened, endangered, sensitive and rare species through various management approaches and consider reintroductions of extirpated species. • Reduce restrictions on human activities in habitats protected for threatened, endangered, sensitive and rare species. • Create additional early successional forest to benefit species dependent on this habitat. • Reduce artificially high levels of early successional habitat, such as aspen. • Expand the amount of northern hardwoods on the Forests. • Increase old growth for biodiversity, habitat, ecosystem and tourist related reasons.
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I - Purpose and Need Significant Issues and Public Involvement
• Decrease old growth to enhance habitat, fire and fuels, insect and disease, environmental management, for example, carbon assimilation, and recreational management.
Evaluation Criteria:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests used the following indicators to evaluate the species viability issue and develop variations between the alternatives:
• Age of stand entry. • Acres of deer, grouse and wildlife emphasis areas. • Acres of Kirtland’s warbler management. • Acres of aspen/paper birch early successional habitat. • Mix of forest types under management. • Acres of barrens, savannahs and prairies managed. • Acres of shrub/scrub managed.
Proposed Need for Change - Timber Management:
In response to the Forests' proposed changes to management for timber, the public identified the following issue: What mix of timber products, by timber type, will be produced? How does non-chargeable volume impact the available timber supply?
Public Response to the Notice of Intent Proposed Change:
Opinions varied about how the Forests' vegetation should best be managed. A range of opinions was received on the mix of timber products by timber type that should be produced on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Comments ranged from a desire to emphasize more early seral vegetation to those emphasizing older-aged late seral forest. Components of this issue include the amount and distribution of aspen and jack pine, old growth, late seral species and determining the ecological conditions needed for species viability.
Evaluation Criteria:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests used the following indicators to evaluate the vegetation management issue and develop variations between the alternatives:
• Species composition, size structure and objectives. • Mix of forest types under management. • The chargeable and non-chargeable timber volumes.
Proposed Need for Change - Riparian and Aquatic Resources:
In response to the Forests' proposed changes to management of riparian and aquatic resources, the public identified the following issue: The extent to which riparian zones are managed for early successional habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter I - Purpose and Need and Public Involvement Significant Issues
Public Response to the Notice of Intent Proposed Change:
Comments generally supported watershed protection. Some requested timber harvest, mineral exploration, oil and gas development and Off-Highway Vehicles and other heavy recreational uses, such as canoe liveries, be restricted to protect watershed values. Others requested watershed and stream corridor management policies be revised to allow for management of early successional habitat and other resource values in riparian areas.
Evaluation Criteria:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests used the following to evaluate the riparian and aquatic resource management issue and to develop variations between alternatives:
• Acres of riparian habitat in early successional stage.
Proposed Need for Change - Recreation, Semiprimitive Areas and Access:
In response to the Forests' proposed changes in recreation management, the public identified the following issue: How many acres will be designated in the semiprimitive motorized and semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas?
Public Response to the Notice of Intent Proposed Change:
Comments on this issue were diverse, with suggestions for either increasing or decreasing semiprimitive motorized or nonmotorized areas, backcountry or other use allocations. Others suggested improving or increasing developed recreation facilities, increasing motorized recreation opportunities and increasing restrictions on motorized recreation. Others emphasized the need to decrease roads and designate separate trails for different uses. Still others desire to improve visual quality along travel routes through logging restrictions.
Evaluation Criteria:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests used the following to evaluate the recreation, semiprimitive areas, and access management issue and to develop variations between alternatives:
• Acres of semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized areas.
Proposed Need for Change - Wildland Fire and Fuels Management:
In response to the Forests' proposed changes to wildland fire and fuels management, the public identified the following issue: Whether the management activities proposed for the Huron- Manistee National Forests are adequate and appropriate to maintain the biological integrity of fire-dependent ecosystems, provide for public safety, and protect public property from wildfire.
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter I - Purpose and Need Nonsignificant Issues and Public Involvement
Due to the highly fragmented land ownership pattern, a considerable portion of the Huron- Manistee National Forests lies within a rural-urban interface. The Forests contain large areas of fire-dependent ecosystems with aging forests, increasing hazardous fuels and, at times, dry conditions. This situation may place communities, private landowners, and natural resources at risk from large-scale wildfire. The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended contains only general guidance on fire and fuels management.
Public Response to the Notice of Intent Proposed Change:
Those who commented on this issue generally recognized the importance of fire in some ecosystems. Some suggested the use of prescribed fire to ensure continuation of fire-dependent communities, while others favored increased thinning, prescribed burning or both. Many suggested concentrating fuel reduction activities in urban interface areas and educating the public. Other commenters suggested using the frequency of historic disturbance regimes to plan disturbances for optimal social and environmental benefit.
Evaluation Criteria:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests used the following to evaluate the wildland fire and fuels management issue and to develop variations between alternatives:
• Fuels treatment acres. • Fuelbreak creation acres. • Mix of forest types under management. • Acres of prairies, savannahs and barrens. • Age of stand entry.
Nonsignificant Issues
Regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act developed by the Council on Environmental Quality allow forests to “…identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3).” The Huron-Manistee National Forests received comments on many issues during the comment period which fell outside the definition of what was considered significant. These “non-significant issues” may be addressed through other means and were either not considered in the analysis or were not used to develop alternatives or mitigation measures. Issues considered nonsignificant were:
• Outside the scope of the proposed action or beyond the authority or mission of the Forest Service. • Already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan or other higher level decisions. • Irrelevant to the decision to be made. • Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-12 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter I - Purpose and Need Relevant Issues Not and Public Involvement Considered in Detail
• Something having insufficient scientific data and information available to conduct a meaningful analysis and make a reasoned decision. • Not related to Forest Plan direction, but rather how the Forest Plan will be implemented. • A comment, opinion, or position statement.
Relevant Issues Not Considered in Detail
Old Growth:
Background/Current Direction:
The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, allocated approximately 173,000 acres to old growth. Following extensive public involvement, Forest Plan Amendment 24 was issued in 2003. This amendment defines the Standards and Guidelines for old-growth management.
Subsequent to amending the Forest Plan in 2003, the Huron-Manistee National Forests did not identify changes to the old-growth direction in the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended.
Timber Output:
Background/Current Direction:
The National Forest Management Act requires that projected timber outputs be reviewed and evaluated during Forest Plan revision. Timber output is directly related to the outcomes derived as a result of moving toward the desired condition in any management area, as well as the amount of suited acres available.
The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, identified a maximum allowable sale quantity of 82.2 million board feet per year for the first decade.
The allowable sale quantity is an outcome of vegetation management activities rather than an objective. The Huron-Manistee National Forests recalculated the allowable sale quantity using updated volume information.
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER II -
THE ALTERNATIVES
Chapter II - The Alternatives Introduction
Chapter II - The Alternatives
Introduction
The National Forest Management Act mandates the development and analysis of a broad range of reasonable alternatives to respond to issues and concerns identified during the planning process. This chapter describes alternative forest management strategies and summarizes the environmental consequences of each. Chapter II is divided into the following sections:
• Developing alternatives. • Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. • Alternatives considered in detail. • Descriptions of each alternative. • Comparison of alternatives. • Preferred alternative.
Alternatives must also address the purpose and the need for change topics as identified in the Notice of Intent. When developing the alternatives in this draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Huron-Manistee National Forests used the following criteria:
• Alternatives must respond to issues raised during the planning process. • Alternatives must respond to agency management direction. • Alternatives must provide a range of outcomes and outputs.
Three alternatives were considered in detail. Seven other alternatives were considered but dropped from detailed study. Each has a different approach to managing the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ natural resources over the next 10 to 15 years.
Developing Alternatives
Three alternatives were developed to address the resource topics identified in the Notice of Intent and to respond to the significant issues. Alternatives include proposed changes to the Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan, such as goals and objectives, Standards and Guidelines, Management Area delineations, monitoring and evaluation strategies, and reasonable foreseeable oil and gas development.
The three alternatives are Alternative A: the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended; Alternative B: the proposed action; and Alternative C. All alternatives provide a range of multiple uses, goods and services.
Each alternative was developed with the intent of being in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and Agency policies and guidelines. The steps used in the development of alternatives are summarized in Table II-1.
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Developing Alternatives Chapter II - The Alternatives
Table II-1. Steps for Developing Alternatives for Forest Plan Revision. 1. What did people say? The Huron-Manistee National Forests received public comments throughout the forest plan revision process. These comments were Public Comments used to determine need for change topics and define the range of alternatives. 2. What are the issues? Issues were identified from public comments, concerns of other agencies, tribes Issue Development and internal evaluations. 3. How do we address the issues? An interdisciplinary team comprised of Huron-Manistee National Forests’ resource specialists, managers and Preliminary Alternatives planners developed the preliminary alternatives. These alternatives were presented to and approved by the Forest Leadership Team. 4. What are the ecological objectives of the alternatives? Objectives were developed using Ecosystem Objectives information, such as the minimum requirements for plant and wildlife species viability. 5. What management activities should be used? Direction was developed for a range of management Management Areas activities on the forest. 6. What management approaches are considered? Three alternatives were developed with an analysis Alternatives of the environmental effects of each alternative. 7. How do the alternatives relate to the proposed forest plan? The preferred alternative was used to develop the proposed forest plan. When the final Environmental Impact Statement is issued, the Proposed Forest Plan Regional Forester will select the alternative that will become the Huron-Manistee National Forests' revised Forest Plan and publish the Record of Decision.
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study
Results of evaluations associated with the Need for Change, Notice of Intent, and Analysis of the Management Situation were used to create nine initial alternative sketches. These initial alternatives were subjected to qualitative evaluations aimed at understanding how each might respond to various issues in comparison to the Current Direction. Two of these sketches and the current plan direction (no action alternative) were carried forward. The other seven initial alternatives, Minimum Management, Passive Management, Maximum Timber, Maximum Revenue, No Mineral Leasing, Maximum Multiple Use, and Maximize Range of Response were eliminated from detailed study. The remainder of this section briefly discusses each of the alternatives eliminated from detailed study.
Final Environmental Impact Statement II-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Alternatives Considered But Chapter II - The Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study
Minimum Management:
This alternative minimized management activities wherever possible. As such, candidate Research Natural Areas, Study Wild and Scenic Rivers, Semiprimitive areas, habitat and timber management activities, and trails were all reduced in size, extent, or number compared to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended direction. The alternative was dropped from further consideration because it failed to effectively respond to Forests' issues or to public comments received. Further, many of the potential changes contained in this alternative were covered by the minimum level benchmark.
Passive Management:
This alternative promoted “passive” management where possible, allowing “natural” processes to dictate future conditions on the Forests. Activities, such as fuels treatments, creation of early successional habitat, game species emphasis areas, and motorized recreation development, were de-emphasized in favor of mature forested habitats, nonmotorized recreation, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. This alternative was dropped from consideration because intensive management of some early successional habitat is necessary to maintain species viability, lack of fuels treatment would result in unacceptably hazardous conditions, and it failed to effectively respond to Forests' issues or to public comments received.
Maximum Timber:
This alternative maximized the production of timber products. Activities which resulted in increased timber production, such as timber harvest or creation of early successional habitat in aspen or jack pine, were emphasized. In contrast, management that would limit timber harvest, such as establishment of candidate Research Natural Areas and Wild and Scenic Study Rivers, was restricted or eliminated. This alternative was dropped from further consideration because it failed to effectively respond to Forests' issues or to public comments received. Further, many of the ideas contained in this alternative were covered by the maximum timber benchmark.
Maximum Revenue:
This alternative promoted forest management to maximize Present Net Value. Activities that generate dollars to local economies (for example, timber harvest, game species management emphasis areas, mineral development, and motorized recreation opportunity development) were emphasized. The alternative was dropped from further consideration because it failed to effectively respond to Forests' issues or to public comments received. Further, many of the changes contained in this alternative were covered by the maximum present net value benchmark.
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study Chapter II - The Alternatives
No Mineral Leasing:
Documentation and environmental analysis of a reasonably foreseeable development scenario for oil and gas is required in accordance with the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 prior to making a leasing decision. The plan revision process provides the opportunity to bring the Forest Plan into compliance with this Act. The Act’s implementing regulations state that the agency shall also identify an alternative of “not allowing leasing”. The Huron-Manistee National Forests considered such an alternative but it was not analyzed in detail for the following reasons:
The range of alternatives formulated during Forest Plan revision address the issues identified during the “Need for Change” and scoping processes. Since oil and gas was not determined to be an issue that would be used in formulating alternatives, it was considered unnecessary to analyze such an alternative, in detail, for the sake of analysis. Oil and gas leasing/development have occurred on the Forests since the mid-1960s. The existing 32 producing oil and gas wells over the nearly million acres of National Forest System lands can be considered a modest amount of development. Foreseeable development over the next 10-15 years is projected to include an additional 88 wells drilled on National Forest System lands with 64 wells being productive. This projected level of development is consistent with historic drilling on the Forests and is insignificant when considered in context of all other resource activities. In addition, ownership of the mineral resource across the forests is split between the Federal government, State government, and private entities. Approximately 50 percent of the mineral resources are controlled by either the State or private entities. It can be estimated that roughly half of the total 88 wells projected to be drilled over the next 10-15 years would be drilled into state or private ownership. Control over leasing and development of the non-federal mineral estate under National Forest System lands is very limited and full analysis of an alternative which, in essence, only minimally decreases the already insignificant amount of projected development is not reasonable.
The production, transmission, and conservation of energy are national priorities as reflected in the National Energy Policy and the Forest Service Energy Implementation Plan. The fourth goal of the Forest Service Strategic Plan calls for us to “help meet energy resource needs.” A “no lease” alternative is not consistent with current Forest Plan direction or the agency minerals policy. No comments or information were provided during the Notice of Intent/Need for Change comment period that identified a need to change current Forest Plan direction for oil and gas. Therefore, this was not considered a reasonable alternative.
Maximum Multiple Use:
This alternative maximized outputs from the Forests. It differed from the Maximum Revenue Alternative in that emphasized outputs were not required to generate revenue. As such, the Alternative sought to maximize a diverse array of outputs, such as game species habitat management, candidate Research Natural Areas, semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized areas, habitat management for rare and sensitive species, and fire and fuels treatments. The alternative was dropped from further consideration because it failed to effectively respond to
Final Environmental Impact Statement II-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter II - The Alternatives Alternatives Considered in Detail
Forests' issues or to public comments received.
Maximize Range of Response:
This alternative aimed to respond to the fact that many of the issues the Forests face are very polarized, for example some publics ask for more timber harvest while some ask for less. This alternative increased acres, designations, or activities where the preferred alternative decreased them and vice versa. The alternative was dropped from further consideration because it would not meet requirements for a variety of species and habitats dependent on early successional conditions.
Alternatives Considered in Detail
Alternative A (The 1986 Forest Plan, as Amended):
This alternative is designed to simulate the current management direction, or “no action alternative.” It moves the Forests toward the desired conditions, goals and objectives in the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended. Under this alternative, habitat for a wide variety of game and non- game species would be maintained or improved. It would also provide diverse recreation opportunities and a mix of forest timber products. Some modifications to the desired future conditions, goals, objectives, and Standards and Guidelines of the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended would be made to make them consistent with current national policy.
Wildlife and Rare Plants:
• Provides habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. • Provides opportunities to improve fish and wildlife habitat. • Emphasizes a mix of forest types, related vegetative conditions and timber products. • Maintains or increases wildlife habitat diversity. • Protects riparian areas. • Identifies approximately 109,000 acres for Kirtland's warbler management and allows for treatment blocks of up to 370 acres. Habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desirable non-native plant and animal species. • Establishes 16 Management Prescription Areas (Management Areas) based on Landtype Associations and the Recreation Opportunity spectrum. • Identifies approximately 37,100 acres as deer emphasis areas to be managed intensively to provide quality deer habitat with special emphasis on providing winter thermal cover; approximately 33,700 acres are identified for wildlife emphasis; and about 62,300 acres for grouse emphasis. • Identifies a goal of approximately 2,400 acres of aspen regeneration harvests annually to create early successional habitat for a variety of species. • Includes 3 designated Research Natural Areas, 3 candidate Research Natural Areas, and 33 potential candidate Research Natural Areas. • Sixteen Management Indicator Species (MIS) are recognized. They are: white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, squirrel, chestnut-sided warbler, black-throated green warbler,
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives Considered in Detail Chapter II - The Alternatives
Lincoln’s sparrow, Eastern bluebird, pileated woodpecker, ducks, Kirtland’s warbler, bald eagle, beaver, brook trout or brown trout, steelhead, bluegill, and walleye.
Timber:
• Provides a variety of commercial forest products. • Uneven and even-aged systems are used. • High volumes of softwood and hardwood timber products are produced. • The Forests provide a component of aspen-early successional habitat. The goal is to harvest approximately 2,400 acres of aspen annually. • Red pine harvesting was planned at approximately 18.6 million board feet for the first decade, mostly from thinnings. • Softwood clearcuts are expected mostly in jack pine for Kirtland’s warbler. • Recognizes a need for dry sand prairies for Karner blue butterfly and was permissive on activities for this species. It also provided for this species in the standards and guidelines but did not establish specific goals and objectives. • Quality hardwood sites and opportunities for intensive management will be identified. • Uneven-aged systems will normally only be used in northern hardwoods. • Stands are harvested after achieving culmination of mean annual increment. • The allowable sale quantity is approximately 858 million board feet for the first decade.
Riparian and Aquatic Resources:
• Maintains water quality and protects riparian areas. • Provides opportunities to improve wildlife and fish habitat. • Habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native plant and animal species. • Activities are restricted in all riparian areas with the stated objective of managing all riparian areas for late seral conditions.
Recreation, Semiprimitive Areas, Aesthetics and Access:
• Provides opportunities for dispersed and developed recreation use, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, berry picking, Off-Highway Vehicle use, and bird watching. • Provides a mix of roaded natural, semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized recreation environments and developed and dispersed recreation opportunities. • Post closed areas and gate roads where necessary. • Manage National Recreation trails in accordance with the designation. • Roads and motorized trails may be designated for new trail uses. • Approximately 59,600 acres are designated as semiprimitive nonmotorized, and 11,400 acres are designated semiprimitive motorized.
Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers and the North Country National Scenic Trail:
• Nordhouse Dunes is Congressionally designated as Wilderness. • National Wild and Scenic Rivers:
Final Environmental Impact Statement II-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter II - The Alternatives Alternatives Considered in Detail
o Currently, sections of five rivers on the Forests are designated; the Pere Marquette National Scenic River, the Au Sable National Scenic River, the Pine National Scenic River, the Manistee National Recreation River and Bear Creek National Scenic River. • North Country National Scenic Trail crosses through the Manistee National Forest.
Wildland Fire and Fuels Management:
• Wildfires will be suppressed under the established management direction for the area. • Fuels treatment will be commensurate with other resource objectives. • Fire Mobilization Plans are developed with local Volunteer Fire Departments to protect Forests’ resources.
Alternative B (Preferred Alternative):
This alternative is designed as the proposed action based on the Notice of Intent and identified as the preferred alternative for the revised Forest Plan. The Forests are managed similar to Alternative A. This alternative would maintain or improve the habitat for a wide variety of game and non-game species, and it would provide diverse recreation opportunities and a mix of forest timber products. Emphasis would be placed on managing hazardous fuels in fire-dependent ecosystems and at-risk rural-urban interface and intermix areas. In addition, this alternative incorporates recent mandates, current research, and monitoring and evaluation results. Vegetation management will be similar to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, with increased emphasis on the needs associated with hazardous fuels treatment, barrens and prairie restoration, and species viability. Desired future conditions, goals, objectives, and Standards and Guidelines would be updated.
Activities for Alternative B are the same as those listed for Alternative A with the following changes:
Wildlife and Rare Plants:
• In addition to Alternative A, this alternative adds objectives based on the Species Viability Evaluation and increases early successional habitat. o Restore Kirtland’s warbler nesting habitat areas in blocks up to approximately 550 acres in size and increase the totals acres identified for management to approximately 136,000 acres. o Protect resource values by managing landforms, such as coastal plain marshes, bogs, swales, fens, and mesic prairies, consistent with ecological processes. o Improve habitat conditions for species, such as American ginseng, northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, red headed woodpecker, Eastern massasauga rattlesnake, cerulean warbler and common loon. o Increase the amount of ruffed grouse emphasis areas by approximately 1,200 acres, wildlife emphasis by about 1,900 acres and decrease deer emphasis areas by approximately 13,500 acres. o Manage according to the Eastern Region Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Framework.
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives Considered in Detail Chapter II - The Alternatives
o Restore and maintain large-scale openings including: grasslands, prairies, savannahs, and oak-pine barrens up to approximately 10 percent of the sandy hills and plains land type associations (approximately 58,600 acres). The size of openings may be up to 500 acres. This activity, coupled with fuelbreak creation, is expected to produce non-chargeable volume of about 25 million board feet annually. o Allow stands to be harvested prior to culmination of mean annual increment (achieving maximum growth) for resource needs, such as species viability and fuelbreaks. o Update the desired conditions, goals and objectives for vegetation, wildlife, fish, and rare plants. o Increase the number of candidate Research Natural Areas to 18 and identify 5 Research Natural Area-equivalents. o Assess and revise management indicator species to Kirtland’s warbler, Karner blue butterfly, ruffed grouse, brook trout, and mottled sculpin, and update the monitoring and evaluation requirements for these species.
Timber:
• This alternative would increase softwood, decrease management of quality hardwoods and maintain aspen harvests at current plan levels. • Recalculate the long-term sustained yield. Add an objective/outcome for timber derived from lands classified as unsuited for timber production up to approximately 25 million board feet annually. • The allowable sale quantity is approximately 910 million board feet for the first decade.
Riparian and Aquatic Resources:
• Include Standards and Guidelines based on the Species Viability Evaluation to allow vegetation management for early successional habitat in riparian areas to better mimic natural disturbance regimes. Management in Streamside Management Zones (100 feet from each side of the stream) will be permitted in response to species viability concerns. Activities now permitted in the riparian area, but outside of the Streamside Management Zones, will be performed to benefit a variety of species and protect sensitive areas. • Incorporate the aquatics ecological classification and inventory system into the desired conditions, goals and objectives for aquatics. • Categorize lakes in the desired conditions, state goals and objectives in terms of baseline trophic status and morphological/hydrological sensitivity. • Incorporate the terms and conditions of applicable Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license orders as standards and guidelines.
Recreation, Semiprimitive Areas, Aesthetics and Access:
• Areas classified as Rural in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum are increased to approximately 128,500 acres to reflect changes in private land use within and adjacent to the forest proclamation boundary
Final Environmental Impact Statement II-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter II - The Alternatives Alternatives Considered in Detail
• Combine all semiprimitive motorized areas into a single management area, Management Area 6.2 (currently there are three semiprimitive motorized management areas). Increase the area of semiprimitive motorized to about 17,150 acres. • Update the desired conditions, goals and objectives for semiprimitive recreation areas. • Combine all semiprimitive nonmotorized areas into a single management area, Management Area 6.1 (currently there are three semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas). Increase the area of semiprimitive nonmotorized to about 64,300 acres. • Include forest wide standards and guidelines to implement the National Scenery Management System. • Evaluate and incorporate into the Forest Plan, as needed, new trail uses as they are identified.
Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and the North Country National Scenic Trail:
• Wild and Scenic Rivers o Adjust the Au Sable River Management Area boundary to the existing roads, except where Kirtland’s warbler essential habitat exists. o Change the designation of the area between the western boundary of the Pine River Wild and Scenic Area and M-55 from “lands in holding” to Management Area 9.2, Wild and Scenic Study Rivers, for addition to the Pine National Scenic River. o Suitability of the Little Muskegon and Muskegon Rivers for national Wild and Scenic River designation will be determined outside the Forest Plan revision process. These rivers will be managed under Management Area 9.2, Wild and Scenic Study Rivers.
Wildland Fire and Fuels Management:
• Add goals and objectives for Fire Management since large portions of the Huron- Manistee National Forests are fire dependent ecosystems located in urban-rural interface and intermix areas. • Incorporate the National Fire Plan and the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Fire Management Plan. • Describe desired condition, goals and objectives for each management area. • Identify and address fire risks. • Fire suppression is commensurate with the values of the resource to be protected. • Develop and include fire response strategies for the urban-rural interface and intermix. • All management area prescriptions have been developed with the following considerations: fire history frequency, forest type, fuel loadings, and site factors. Fire Management direction is integrated with other resource management direction.
Fuels Management:
• Fuels management activities will be designed to emulate natural fire regimes. • Hazardous fuel loadings will be identified and reduced to avoid catastrophic fires. • The Forests will maintain a hazardous fuels risk map that identifies fire dependent ecosystems and at-risk urban-rural interface and intermix areas.
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Alternatives Considered in Detail Chapter II - The Alternatives
• Allow stands to be harvested prior to culmination of mean annual increment (achieving maximum growth) for resource needs, such as species viability and fuelbreaks. • The hazardous fuels program consists of: Fuelbreaks, approximately 2,000 acres created or maintained per year; individual fuelbreaks may be up to approximately 8 miles in length and wide enough to create a change in fire behavior; hazardous fuels reduction of approximately 8,000 acres treated per year; temporary and permanent openings in fuel treatment areas may be up to approximately 500 acres in size in high risk fuel types. • Integrate natural resources and other program objectives with fuels management. Some examples are barren, prairie and opening creation, and maintenance activities will be coordinated, as will a variety of silvicultural treatments. • Conduct, as needed, project-level hazard fuel reduction effectiveness monitoring.
Other Changes:
Minerals:
• Conduct required analysis of reasonably foreseeable development for oil and gas as required by Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987. • Identify conditions under which National Forest System lands may be considered for oil and gas leasing.
Alternative C:
This alternative provides a widened range of response to the three issues and related comments by either decreasing or increasing the management intensity of some activities in a number of program areas. While the management activities proposed under this alternative are similar to Alternative B, the quantity and/or implementation rate are different. Vegetation management for barrens and prairie restoration, to address species viability, will increase in this alternative. As with Alternative B, desired future conditions, goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines would be updated.
Activities for Alternative C are the same as those listed for Alternative B with the following exceptions:
Wildlife and Rare Plants:
• Increase restoration activities beyond those identified in alternative B for a variety of species and habitats. The most noticeable impacts will be for activities associated with barrens and prairies. • Incorporate conservation measures developed through the species viability evaluation into the revised Forest Plan goals, objectives, and Standards and Guidelines. Increased rate of implementation for barrens compared to Alternative B. • Increase openings including: barrens, prairies and savannahs and oak/pine barrens will result in an increase in non-chargeable timber volume to approximately 52 million board feet annually.
Final Environmental Impact Statement II-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter II - The Alternatives Alternatives Considered in Detail
• Increase the amount of ruffed grouse emphasis areas by approximately 1,200 acres, but increase the rotation age in these areas to 50 years. • Decrease the totals acres of aspen harvest to approximately 1,500 acres annually. • Designate 3 new Research Natural Areas and identify 15 candidate Research Natural Areas and 5 Research Natural Area-equivalents.
Timber:
• Provide a variety of both hardwood and softwood timber products. Manage less aspen compared to Alternatives A and B (see table II-2).
Recreation, Semiprimitive Areas, Aesthetics and Access:
• Reclassify all semiprimitive motorized areas to semiprimitive nonmotorized management. There will be no semiprimitive motorized areas.
Wildland Fire and Fuels Management:
• Hazardous fuels reduction will occur on approximately 6,000 acres annually; temporary and permanent openings in fuel treatment areas may be up to approximately 500 acres in size in high risk fuel types. • Create or maintain approximately 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks annually.
Alternative Comparison
Table II-2 displays a summary of the alternative comparisons.
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter II - The Alternatives Alternative Comparison
Table II-2. Alternative Comparison. Evaluation Alternative B Alternative A Alternative C Criteria Issue(s) Preferred Alternative Age of Stand Entry 1. Wildlife and Current standards and guidelines are applied on a Allow stands to be harvested prior to Allow stands to be harvested prior to Rare Plants stand level basis when vegetation treatments occur. reaching rotation age for resource needs, reaching rotation age for resource 5. Wildland Fire such as species viability and fuelbreaks. needs, such as species viability and and Fuels The Forest Plan currently allows for retention of a fuelbreaks. Management variety of structural components to meet viable population objectives. Deer Emphasis 1. Wildlife and The Forest Plan identifies areas to be managed Overall reduction in deer emphasis areas A further reduction in the number of Rare Plants intensively to provide quality deer habitat with (total of 24,051 acres). Habitat management proposed deer emphasis areas to 2. Timber special emphasis on providing winter thermal cover at same intensity as Alternative A. 15,173 acres. Management (deer yards). 37,105 acres were identified as deer emphasis areas. Wildlife Emphasis 1. Wildlife and Approximately 242,000 acres will be managed Slight increase in wildlife emphasis areas Same as Alternative B. Rare Plants intensively to improve wildlife habitat. (total of 35,901 acres). 33,728 acres are designated for wildlife emphasis. Grouse Emphasis 1. Wildlife and Early-successional forest habitat is necessary to Overall increase in grouse emphasis acreage Lengthen aspen rotation age to 50 Rare Plants maintain woodcock and grouse populations within (total of 63,494). years in proposed grouse emphasis their range. areas. Acres in grouse emphasis 62,291 acres were identified as grouse emphasis areas will be the same as Alternative areas. B. Kirtland's Warbler 1. Wildlife and Approximately 109,000 acres were identified as Increase in the acres of essential Kirtland's Same as Alternative B. Rare Plants Kirtland’s warbler habitat. warbler habitat to 88,300 acres. Direction will be found in MA 4.2(KW – Kirtland's Management for Kirtland’s warbler is established warbler). under standards and guidelines for Management Area 4.5. Aspen/Paper Birch 1. Wildlife and The Forests will provide a component of aspen-early Same as Alternative A-2,410 acres Reduce acres of aspen managed Rare Plants successional habitat. harvested annually for decade 1. outside of grouse emphasis areas. 2. Timber 1,500 acres treated annually in the Management The existing Forest Plan goal is 2,410 acres annually first decade. 5. Wildland Fire of aspen early-successional habitat. and Fuels Management
Final Environmental Impact Statement II-12 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Alternative Comparison Chapter II - The Alternatives
Table II-2. Alternative Comparison (Continued). Evaluation Alternative B Alternative A Alternative C Criteria Issue(s) Preferred Alternative Short Lived 1. Wildlife and Increase activity and intensity due to Increase implementation rate for Conifer (SLC) Rare Plants Species Viability Evaluation for Kirtland’s barrens according to Species Viability 2. Timber warbler and through conversions for Evaluation as compared to Management fuelbreaks, savannahs and barrens. Alternative B. 5. Wildland Fire and Fuels Management Lowland Conifer 1. Wildlife and No Change, very little activity in this type. Decrease in activity, compared to Same as Alternative B. (LC) Rare Plants Alternative A, due to slight decrease in 2. Timber acres of deer emphasis areas and Species Management Viability Evaluation for cedar swamps. Lowland 1. Wildlife and No Change Decrease intensity of management due to Further decrease in activity as Hardwood (LH) Rare Plants reduction in acres of deer emphasis areas. determined by the decrease in acres in 2. Timber proposed deer emphasis areas. Management 5. Wildland Fire and Fuels Management High Site Oak 1. Wildlife and No aspen or oak conversions are projected for No change from Alternative A. Decrease intensity of management (HSO) Rare Plants Decades 1-3. compared to Alternative B, resulting 2. Timber in conversion to northern hardwoods. Management The Forest Plan allows for management of northern 5. Wildland Fire hardwoods on the Forests' most productive land type and Fuels associations. Management Low Site Oak 1. Wildlife and Fire is a tool that can be used to regenerate oak, and Decrease acres of low-site oak and increase Species Viability Evaluation (LSO) Rare Plants the Forest Plan does not preclude its use. activities to allow for increased activities will increase compared to 2. Timber management for Species Viability Alternative B, fuel treatment activity Management Prescribed fire/fuels and wildfire suppression have Evaluation, fire management and fuels will be less, and fuelbreaks will be 5. Wildland Fire new direction via the National Fire Plan since the reduction. the same. and Fuels approval of the current Forest Plan. Management
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter II - The Alternatives Alternative Comparison
Table II-2. Alternative Comparison (Continued). Evaluation Alternative B Alternative A Alternative C Criteria Issue(s) Preferred Alternative Northern 1. Wildlife and Generally northern hardwoods are managed under Decrease intensity to meet Species Viability Ginseng habitat same as Alternative Hardwoods (NHW) Rare Plants uneven-aged silvicultural systems. Evaluation for Ginseng. B, uneven-aged management only in 2. Timber this type group. Management Northern hardwoods should only be managed on Slight increase in acres of northern 5. Wildland Fire sites ecologically capable of sustaining this hardwood due to conversions. and Fuels vegetation group. Management Early Successional 1. Wildlife and Current Situation Increase acres for golden-winged warbler Same as Alternative B. Vegetation (scrub- Rare Plants according to Species Viability Evaluation. shrub) 5. Wildland Fire Increased management activities due to and Fuels Standards and Guidelines changes for Management Streamside Management Zones. Barrens and 1. Wildlife and The Forest Plan recognizes the need to identify and Increase acres due to Species Viability Increase implementation rate from Savannahs in LTAs Rare Plants protect dry sand prairies, which provide key habitat Evaluation for dependent species. Alternative B. Implement barrens 1 and 2 5. Wildland Fire for the Karner blue butterfly, but does not have Implement barrens creation in the first 5 creation in the first 3 decades. 26,217 and Fuels specific management objectives or standards and decades. 9,318 acres restored in decade 1. acres restored in decade 1. Management guidelines for this species or its habitat. Non-chargeable 2. Timber It should be noted that other timber products should Increase for short- and long-lived conifer Increase implementation rate from volumes Management be expected from non-chargeable allowable sale and low site oak due to fuelbreaks, Alternative B for barrens. 52.2 quantity management activities, such as opening openings, savannahs, and barrens. 25.0 MMBF projected annually for decade creation; old growth, wetland and habitat restoration; MMBF projected annually for decade 1. 1. fuels treatments and fuelbreaks. 4.2 million board feet projected annually for decade 1.
Acres Manipulated
Early Successional 3. Riparian and Limited management activities are permitted in Increase acres for golden-winged warbler Same as Alternative A but activities Riparian Habitat Aquatic Resources riparian areas. (5,000). Increased management activities can occur for Species Viability due to Standards and Guidelines changes Evaluation (5,000 acres). for Streamside Management Zones.
Final Environmental Impact Statement II-14 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Alternative Comparison Chapter II - The Alternatives
Table II-2. Alternative Comparison (Continued). Evaluation Alternative B Alternative A Alternative C Criteria Issue(s) Preferred Alternative
Acres Change in Management Areas
Semiprimitive 4. Recreation, 11,375 acres of semiprimitive motorized areas Complete the designation of semiprimitive There will be no semiprimitive Motorized Semiprimitive designated. motorized areas proposed in the existing motorized areas in this Alternative. Areas, Access Forest Plan. A total of 17,148 acres of All areas will be semiprimitive semiprimitive motorized areas designated. nonmotorized. Semiprimitive 4. Recreation, 59,626 acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas Complete the designation of semiprimitive Increase in the number and acres of Nonmotorized Semiprimitive designated. nonmotorized areas proposed in the existing semiprimitive nonmotorized areas Areas, Access Forest Plan. A total of 64,397 acres would compared to Alternatives A and B. A be semiprimitive nonmotorized. total of 81,545 acres would be semiprimitive nonmotorized.
Acres of Activity
Acres Treated for 5. Wildland Fire The Forest Plan provides little or no direction for Increase fuelbreaks (create or maintain Fuelbreak activity will be the same as Fuels and Fuels wildland fire and fuels management. 2,000 annually). Increase hazard fuels Alternative B, acres of fuel treatments Management treatment to 8,000 acres per year. will be reduced by 25% to 6,000 The National Fire Plan provides recent direction for acres per year. wildfire suppression and hazardous fuels management.
Scenery Management System
Scenery Other The Forest Plan includes information on Scenic Replace Visual Quality Objectives with Same as Alternative B. Management Classes but does not provide direction on Visual Scenery Management System. Quality Objectives. The Settlement Agreement called for the establishment of Visual Quality Objectives through Opportunity Area Analysis. Some work has been completed by the Ranger Districts.
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-15 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter II - The Alternatives Alternative Comparison
Table II-2. Alternative Comparison (Continued). Evaluation Alternative B Alternative A Alternative C Criteria Issue(s) Preferred Alternative
Minerals Management
Minerals Other Forest Plan direction specifically addresses Complete foreseeable development analysis Same as Alternative B. objectives and standards and guidelines for common for oil and gas on National Forest System variety (sand and gravel) and energy (oil and gas) lands to comply with current regulation and minerals. identify lands which may be considered for lease. The Forest Plan provides the framework for management of oil and gas resources by identifying areas available and not available for leasing.
There is no forest-wide programmatic level analysis of foreseeable oil and gas development and its associated effects to meet current direction.
Final Environmental Impact Statement II-16 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter II - The Alternatives Preferred Alternative
Preferred Alternative
The Huron-Manistee National Forests submitted three Forest Plan alternatives to the Regional Forester for the Eastern Region. The Regional Forester considered the comments and the analyses, and selected Alternative B, as amended, as the Preferred Alternative. The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, (the “no-action alternative”) remains in effect until the Regional Forester signs the Record of Decision for the revised Forest Plan.
Huron-Manistee National Forests II-17 Final Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER III -
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Affected Environment – Physical Resources
This chapter describes the existing environment on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that will be affected by implementing either the preferred alternative or one of the other alternatives.
Location:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests are two distinct units in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Huron unit on the east side of the state is approximately 60 miles wide east to west and from 12 to 30 miles long north to south. It touches Lake Huron near East Tawas and north of Harrisville. The Manistee unit on the west side of the state is approximately 40 miles wide east to west and 75 miles long north to south. A portion lies alongside Lake Michigan near Manistee. Together the Forests contain about 970,000 acres of National Forest System lands within proclamation boundaries which encompasses approximately 2,021,090 total acres. The Huron and Manistee National Forests were combined for administrative purposes in 1945. Ranger station offices are located in Mio, Oscoda, Manistee and Baldwin; the Forests’ headquarters is in Cadillac.
History of the Huron National Forest:
The original reservation of the lands which today comprise the Huron National Forest occurred in 1902. The Forest was formally established in 1909. The Forest boundary includes approximately 692,000 acres, of which approximately 435,000 acres, or 63 percent, are National Forest System lands. About 50 percent of the National Forest System ownership includes federal mineral rights.
Most land was acquired through purchase and land-for-land exchanges with the State of Michigan. Other lands were aquired through purchases with private individuals.
History of the Manistee National Forest:
The Manistee Purchase Unit was created in 1933, and the Forest was proclaimed in 1938. The Forest boundary encompasses approximately 1,328,000 acres. Of that amount, about 535,000 acres, or 40 percent, are National Forest System lands. About 30 percent of the National Forest System ownership includes Federal mineral rights. The majority of the Manistee National Forest System lands were purchased from private owners. However, a significant amount was acquired through state and private land-for-land exchanges.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
Physical and Geographical Setting:
The lands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests have a history of glaciation. The topography varies from level, associated with swamps and lakes, to undulating and broken, associated with pitted outwash and moraines. The soils and drainage pattern of the Forests are typical of a glaciated area. Sand and gravel soils are characteristic of both glacial outwash and till deposits. Loamy and silty soils occur in glacio-lacustrine and ground morainal systems. Peats and mucks are associated with lowland organic deposits. The abundance of rivers, lakes and wetlands is also a result of recent glacial action. The Forests are well known for quality cold water streams.
About 95 percent of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ land is forested, of which 92 percent is capable of commercial timber production. Common hardwood trees include red and black oak, aspen, sugar maple, white and black ash and red maple. Common softwood trees include red, jack and white pine; balsam fir; northern white cedar and tamarack. Hardwood trees are the most common trees Forest-wide.
Climate:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests receive an average annual precipitation of approximately 30 inches. About 30 percent of this falls during the summer recreational season (June, July and August). The summers are considered short and mild with rare, extremely warm temperatures. Average temperatures during the summer range between 60 and 65oF (Fahrenheit). Daytime temperatures occasionally reach 90oF or more, while night temperatures often go below 60oF.
There is an average annual snowfall of 57 inches–20 percent of the total precipitation–ranging throughout the Forests from 42 to 82 inches. This snowfall, coupled with moderate winter temperatures, provides ideal conditions for winter sports. This is especially true in the northern part of the Manistee National Forest and eastern half of the Huron National Forest, which are influenced by Lakes Michigan and Huron. The season for winter sport activities runs from December to March. Average daily temperatures during these months range between 20 and 40oF.
Soil Resources:
Sandy soils underlie 90 to 95 percent of the uplands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The development and structure of these soils are closely related to the source, composition and time of deposition by glaciers. Soils on the Huron-Manistee National Forests have been formed in deep glacial deposits, less than 12,000 years old, and can exceed 600 feet in depth. No rock outcrops exist on the Forests.
An ecological classification system has been developed for the Forests which combines soil, landform and vegetation into ecosystem classification units. The limits for ecological components are defined by mutual relationships and their ability to affect or predict the response of vegetation to a variety of treatments. This classification system provides a statistically sound
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
basis to predict ecosystem or soil potentials important to multiple-use land management and planning.
Due to their sandy nature and gentle topography, most soils on the Forests pose only slight to moderate constraints on management activities. Low compaction and high water permeability potentials help minimize adverse impacts associated with most management activities. Sandy soils with low organic matter content, low available water holding capacity and low cation exchange capacities may have nutrient management problems if intensively managed.
Although the soils of the Forests are sandy, vegetation production differs as much as eightfold, depending on the ecosystem and soil type. Timber volume production values range from 20 to 150 cubic feet per acre per year, depending on soil properties, species and stocking levels. Quality and quantity of timber outputs are affected by ecosystem, soil and management relationships.
Water Resources and Wetlands:
Water is a major feature on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, hence the motto, "United by Rivers." Surface water features, such as rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands, provide important habitat for waterfowl, fish, amphibians and a variety of wildlife species, as well as exceptional recreational opportunities. Groundwater recharges within the forestlands and the resulting discharge into springs, seeps, wetlands and streams create some of the most stable stream flows in the world. Surface water topographical features include:
• Rivers and Streams • Watersheds • Wetlands • Lakes • Riparian Areas
The overall quality of flowing stream water is good to excellent as indicated by the Forest Water Quality Index. Presently there appears to be an ample supply of both surface water and groundwater to meet the present demands for various uses. Although, low stream flows during summer droughts are a concern for some recreational users. Increasing demands for groundwater use has prompted the State of Michigan to begin to draft policy and legislation regarding groundwater use. Ground water quality is also mostly high.
There are four major river basins that have their headwaters within the Huron National Forest boundary, and eight major rivers within the Manistee National Forest. The major basins on the Huron National Forest are the Au Sable River, Pine River, Au Gres River, and Tawas River. The Manistee, Little Manistee, Pine, Big Sable, Pere Marquette, Pentwater, Muskegon and White Rivers are on the Manistee National Forest. The river basins are further divided into 5th level watersheds, about 40,000 to 250,000 acres in size. The Huron-Manistee National Forests are located within 30 different 5th level watersheds (Figure III-1). There are 12 watersheds of the Huron National Forest that drain to Lake Huron, while there are 18 watersheds of the Manistee National Forest that drain to Lake Michigan.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-1. 5th Level Watersheds for the Huron-Manistee National Forests (National Forest System lands delineated by the shaded areas).
National Forest System lands within these 5th level watersheds range from about 1 to 75 percent of the watershed. There are three watersheds with greater than 40 percent, eleven watersheds with 15 to 40 percent, four watersheds with 5 to 15 percent, and twelve watersheds with less than five percent of National Forest ownership. With this mixed ownership pattern, the Huron- Manistee National Forests rely heavily on partnerships to improve watershed conditions.
The lands comprising the net ownership of the Huron-Manistee National Forests contribute an estimated 1,200,000 acre-feet of water yearly to these systems–an acre-foot of water covers 1 acre with 12 inches of water. There are 10 major hydro-electric impoundments within the Forests’ proclamation boundaries. They are Croton and Hardy on the Muskegon River; Tippy and Hodenpyl on the Manistee River and Mio, Alcona, Five Channels, Cooke, Loud and Foote on the Au Sable River.
The climate, soils, vegetative cover and low relief combine to minimize erosion on the Forests. The climate is temperate, with 26 to 34 total inches of precipitation annually. The precipitation is evenly distributed throughout the year, which encourages stable vegetative communities and aids rapid revegetation of disturbed sites.
The water courses within National Forest boundaries consist of approximately 2,100 miles of perennial and 1,200 miles are intermittent rivers and streams. The majority of these perennial streams are designated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources as coldwater trout streams. The stream systems on the Huron-Manistee National Forests lie above porous sandy
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
loam. These stream systems’ flows are predominated by groundwater discharge resulting in an extremely stable flow regime from year to year (Velz and Gannon 1960). The streams are geologically youthful, entrenched into sandy glacial outwash and moraines. Evidence of past meandering is present in river terraces at levels above the present streambed. Most are relatively low gradient stream systems.
A fluvial characteristic related to gradient and stream flow is stream power, or the ability of the stream to transport sediment. Thus, given the low gradient and stable flow regime of our stream systems, they have low stream power and are stable systems with low lateral migration rates. However, due to the predominance of sandy soils within the watershed, streambank erosion potential is high. Sediment transport ability is relatively low due to the low stream power; once sediment is introduced into the system it takes a relatively long time for it to move through. This excessive sediment bedload can result in relatively wide and shallow channels.
Soils of the Forests tend to be porous with textures ranging from fine silts and clays to coarse sands. Forest vegetation and soil permeability discourages overland water flow which contribute to very stable land and water systems.
There are approximately 1,500 lakes totaling about 17,000 acres, and an estimated 3,300 miles of rivers and streams within the Forests' proclamation boundary. The lakes are mesotrophic– moderately productive–and “warm water” in nature, with summer temperatures reaching well into the 70oF range. The lakes were formed during the last glaciation , for example, ice blocks left lakes on the landscape in association with the retreat of the glaciers and morainal formation, and are fed either by groundwater or small stream systems. The impoundments associated with the 10 hydroelectric projects range from 200 to 3,000 surface acres in size. Most lakes on the Forests are hard water, high alkaline systems that are well buffered against the effects of acid rain.
The overall water quality of inland waters is good to excellent in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, which includes the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division 2004). However, exceptions occur within the Forests’ boundaries. There are concerns with: polychlorinated biphenyls in various water bodies; excessive nutrients; sedimentation; increasing numbers of aquatic nuisance species; highly physically modified water systems and a state-wide mercury advisory on inland lakes (Table III- 1).
Table III-1. Water Quality Concerns within the Forests’ Boundaries. Waterbody County HUC1 Pollutant2 Comments Hypereutrophic; Hess lake Newaygo 4060102090 Excessive nutrients FCA-PCBs Alcona Fish Tissue - Alcona 4070007060 Pond Mercury Au Sable FCA-PCB; Fish From Foote Dam to Lake Iosco 4070007060 River Tissue - Mercury Huron Fish Tissue - Bills Lake Newaygo 4050006040 South of Croton Mercury
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-1. Water Quality Concerns within the Forests’ Boundaries (Continued). Waterbody County HUC1 Pollutant2 Comments Croton Fish Tissue - Croton and Croton Newaygo 4060102090 Pond Mercury Heights Hamlin Fish Tissue - Mason 4060101120 Lake Mercury Lake Fish Tissue - Wexford 4060102040 Mitchell Mercury Muskegon Newaygo/ FCA-PCBs; Fish Croton Dam to Lake 4060102100 River Muskegon Tissue - Mercury Michigan Pere One mile upstream of Mason/ FCA-PCB; Marquette 4060101090 Scottsville Road to Lake Lake Mercury River Michigan Fish Tissue - Pine Lake Manistee 4060103050 Southwest of Wellston Mercury Untreated Small Creek sewage to Hunters Alcona 4070007060 discharge, Lake pathogens Antler Oscoda 4070007040 Highly modified3 To Au Sable River Creek Beaver Newaygo/ North and South Branch 4060101100 Highly modified Creek Oceana of Beaver Creek Big Springs To confluence with North Oceana 4060101060 Highly modified Creek Branch Pentwater Blockhouse Alcona 4070007040 Highly modified To Au Sable River Creek Brayton Muskegon/ Up stream of Wilkes 4060101030 Highly modified Creek Newaygo Road Cushman Oceana 4060101030 Highly modified Up stream to Evans Lake Creek Nine Mile Oscoda 4070007040 Highly modified To Au Sable River Creek Tuttle Drain Iosco 4080101040 Highly modified To Silver Creek 1 U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Code. 2 FCA=Fish Consumption Advisory, PCB=Polychlorinated Biphenyls. 3 Channel characteristics have been highly modified by management activities such as straightening, dredging or ditching to facilitate drainage.
Point sources of pollution are regulated, permitted discharge sites, such as landfills, power plants and industry. Watersheds with the most point sources tended to occur around the cities of Muskegon, Baldwin, Cadillac, Manistee and Tawas.
Non-point sources of water pollution include pollutants such as sediment, temperature, pesticides, nutrients and pathogens. Much of the Huron National Forest has relatively low potential of non-point pollution sources due to land ownership patterns. In contrast, much of the Manistee National Forest is highly susceptible to non-point pollution because of the intermingled land ownership pattern of agricultural and urban lands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
Transportation systems–roads, trails and road-stream crossings–are a major source of sediment on the National Forests. The Forest Service has begun addressing this problem by focusing on improving stream crossings within watersheds which include National Forest System lands to reduce sediment delivery to the rivers and streams. The estimated number of stream crossings within each 5th level watershed range from 62 to 472.
Air Quality:
Air quality over the Huron-Manistee National Forests is generally good (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2003). However, mercury deposition remains a problem over the Forests and the Great Lakes Region due to on-going air emissions and deposition to the water. Major sources of mercury occur from off-Forests' activities such as coal combustion, chlorine alkali processing, waste incineration and metal processing (Michigan Department of Agriculture 2000). Muskegon and Mason counties on the Manistee National Forest have an 8-hour non- attainment for ground level ozone (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2004). This means the ozone is associated with long-range atmospheric transport and is not a result of forest management activities. Acid rain is a potential air pollutant, but it originates from sources outside of the Huron-Manistee National Forests and is, therefore, not attributable to the Forests’ management activities. The mean pH of rain as measured by the Forests’ National Atmospheric Deposition Program station located in Wellston is 4.7. In 1986 it was measured at 4.3. The pH trends of precipitation over the Forests are becoming less acidic.
Minerals and Geology:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests are located in the Michigan Basin, a sedimentary basin having a fairly complete stratigraphic record with the majority of rocks of marine origin. The bedrock under the Forests is buried by deposits left from repeated glaciation during the Pleistocene Epoch. The glaciers came down the Great Lake basins then up onto Michigan, piling as much as 1,000 feet of sand, gravel and clay in places. Average thickness of the unconsolidated glacial deposits is about 400 feet. There are no known bedrock outcrops on the Forests.
This geologic environment provides a variety of minerals that are economically important. Common variety minerals like borrow sand, clay and gravel are found in the glacial deposits. There are also deposits of industrial sand and reported traces of placer gold.
Gypsum, anhydrite and coal can be found under the thick covering of glacial deposits. While these deposits exist, their depth under the Forests presently makes them uneconomical to mine. Deeper in the bedrock are deposits of salt, potash and associated chemical stocks. Some could be extracted by solution mining or as natural brines.
In general, lands of the Huron-Manistee National Forests are open to mineral exploration. Exploration, development, production of mineral and energy resources and reclamation activities, are part of the Forest Service’s management responsibility. The Forest Service administers its minerals program to provide commodities for current and future generations commensurate with the need to sustain the long-term health and biological diversity of
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
ecosystems (Forest Service Minerals Program Policy). The Forest Service policy is consistent with the federal government’s policy outlined in the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970.
The Michigan Basin contains oil and gas in commercial quantities. Currently, Michigan ranks 17th of the hydrocarbon-producing states (Michigan Oil and Gas Association website). There are approximately 480,000 acres of federally owned oil and gas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Almost all of this acreage has, at one time or another, been leased, and much of this acreage has also been explored or developed. Currently, there are 77 authorized federal leases on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, covering approximately 60,000 acres. Pending federal lease applications across the Forests total approximately 18,000 acres. In addition to federal mineral leasing, there are currently 758 State of Michigan oil and gas leases covering approximately 33,000 acres of state mineral interest on the Forests. Currently, there are 32 producing oil and gas wells on National Forest System lands within the Forests’ boundaries. These wells are producing federal, state and/or private oil and gas resources. Sand and gravel production from several pits on the Forests is sporadic, averaging approximately 10,000-20,000 total cubic yards per year.
In making lands available for mineral exploration and development, reasonable stipulations– Standards and Guidelines–are used to protect resource values. The Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines identify what areas are and are not available for exploration and development, and if available, under what conditions. Certain lands are statutorily withdrawn from oil and gas leasing. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is the only area that falls in this category. Lands may also be identified as administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing. Currently, with the exception of Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area, there are no lands in the Forest Plan that are considered to be admnistratively unavailable. All other lands are considered available in accordance with specified Standards and Guidelines.
Mineral management on the Huron-Manistee National Forests is complicated by the mineral ownership patterns. Approximately 50 percent of the oil and gas resources found under National Forest System lands within the Forests’ boundary are administered by the federal government. Approximately 50 percent are considered to be split-estate with 40 percent being administered by the State of Michigan and the remaining 10 percent being owned by private entities. Regulation on the development of these mineral rights varies depending upon the mineral owner and the date on which the minerals were severed from the surface estate. For exploration and development of federal minerals, operators must acquire federal and state drilling permits, and operations are regulated at both the federal and state levels. Operations for exploration and development of state and private minerals are controlled by state regulations, non-discretionary federal laws, for example the Endangered Species Act, and the mineral severance deed language. Depending upon the date and status of the mineral reservation, a permit from the Forest Service may or may not be required.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
Environmental Consequences – Physical Resources
Effects on Soils:
A productive soil is able to support a healthy and growing vegetative community. It also plays a role in buffering the impacts of other environmental concerns, such as changes in stream chemistry, poor air quality or acting as a repository of bound nutrients, such as carbon. For these reasons, and to meet the requirements of the National Forest Management Act, permanent impairment of forest soil productivity is to be avoided. A net long-term loss in productivity is undesirable.
The productivity of a site can be altered in two ways; by either changing the physical or chemical characteristics of the soil, or losing the soil itself through the erosion process. The productivity of the land is a combination of the soil’s inherent productive capacity; a result of the materials it forms in, the environmental processes that shape it, the vegetation that grows on it and the history of events that affect these over time.
Soil productivity is the result of very complex processes and can fluctuate over time. It is dependent on the rate of nutrients flowing in and out of the soil, and the reserves of nutrients in the soil and the vegetation. Nutrients can be added to the system by fertilization, dust, precipitation, weathering of the soil minerals or the creation of nutrients through biological processes, such as photosynthesis or nitrogen fixation. Nutrient losses to the system can occur through leaching of dissolved nutrients in percolating water; losses to the air by respiration, such as carbon dioxide or nitrogen; volatilization by burning, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen; or physical removal as in timber harvesting, mineral development or soil erosion.
Changes to the physical properties of the soil can also have effects on soil productivity. Increasing bulk densities–compacting soils–can lead to reduced root growth, lower percolation rates, lower porosity and increased runoff rates. Changing micro-pore space can alter the water holding capacity in soils, which can influence soil droughtiness. Since many physical and chemical properties are interrelated, a negative effect to one property can be offset by a positive effect of another property; for example, moderate increases in bulk densities of sandy soils increase the micro-pore space in some soils which can increase the soil’s water holding capacity which, in turn, can result in an increase in soil productivity–more available water and reduced plant stress during droughty periods.
The resilience of a soil system is dependent on the reserves of nutrients within the soil and vegetation, the rate in which nutrients are added or can be recycled within it, and the time it takes to recover from changes to soil physical properties. Of primary interest are those practices that, when applied to National Forest System lands and in combination with other natural processes, may lead to a change in site productivity.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects on soil productivity is all National Forest System lands. Management impacts on soil productivity are generally restricted to the specific site where the treatment occurs. Activities on National Forest System lands are not expected to have measurable impacts on other lands nor are activities on adjacent lands of other ownership expected to have measurable impacts to the soils on the the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Effects on soil productivity will be analyzed in terms of biomass removal and soil disturbance.
For direct and indirect effects analysis, the annual volume outputs and acres treated, as depicted in Table III-2, represent the biomass removal from traditional stemwood harvesting practices.
Table III-2. Annual Biomass Removal for Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis - Decade 1. Alternative Alternative Alternative Activity A B C Allowable Sale Quantity Volume (MMBF/Year)1 85.80 91.00 91.00 Non-Chargeable Volume (MMBF/Year) 4.20 25.00 52.22 Total Merchantable Volume (MMBF/Year) 90.00 116.00 143.22 Average Acres/Year - Decade 1 Clearcuts 4,622 4,514 3,619 Shelterwood 1st Entry 956 826 298 Shelterwood 2nd Entry 0 0 0 Selection (Uneven-aged Management) 569 0 0 Thinnings (Includes Old Growth) 3,260 6,581 8,771 Create Barrens from Forested Lands 0 773 2,542 Create Openings from Forested Lands 0 809 806 Total for Harvests (Acres/Year) 9,407 13,503 16,036
Maintain Openings and Barrens 1,500 1,500 1,500 Fuels Treatments Not Accounted for in Harvests 3,000 8,000 6,000 Total for Harvests (Acres/Year) 4,500 9,500 7,500
Grand Total for Treatments (Acres/Year) 13,907 23,003 23,536 1/ MMBF=Million board feet.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
For cumulative analysis, Table III-3 lists selected activities with their average annual outputs over the period of the model analysis, 150 years.
Table III-3. Average Annual Biomass Removal for Cumulative Effects Analysis - Decades 1-15. Alternative Alternative Alternative Activity A B C Allowable Sale Quantity Volume (MMBF/Year)1 132.0 116.1 113.0 Non-Chargeable Volume (MMBF/Year) 0.8 7.5 7.5 Total Merchantable Volume (MMBF/Year) 132.8 123.5 120.5 Average Acres/Year - Decades 1-15 Clearcuts 6,255 6,047 5,150 Shelterwood 1st Entry 355 423 528 Shelterwood 2nd Entry 181 215 331 Selection (Uneven-Aged Management) 1,310 841 101 Thinnings (Includes Old Growth) 3,206 4,208 4,850 Create Barrens from Forested Lands 0 441 436 Create Openings from Forested Lands 0 54 54 Total for Harvests (Acres/Year) 11,307 12,229 11,450
Maintain Managed Openings and Oak/Pine Barrens, Savannahs, Prairies and Grasslands 1,706 1,713 1,741 Fuelbreak Maintenance and Fuels Treatments Not Accounted for in Harvests 3,000 8,000 6,000 Grand Total for Treatments (Acres/year) 16,013 21,942 19,191 1/ MMBF=Million board feet.
Since the impacts to soils can have measurable impacts decades into the future, cumulative effects must consider events that occurred decades in the past. Cumulative effects must consider early land use–forestry, agriculture and fires–long-term changes in atmospheric deposition– sulfate, nitrate and particulate matter–and future land uses. Early land use information dates to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Future harvesting can be reasonably considered for about a 50- year time frame. Forest health issues, such as repeated defoliations and drought, must be also taken into account because these factors decrease rate of plant growth. Because plant growth is used as a general indicator of site productivity, these factors may suggest a lower site productivity than actually exists.
Effects Common to All Alternatives:
For all alternatives, the effects to soil productivity from biomass removal and soil disturbance would be the same. Therefore, the analysis for the alternatives was combined. The major difference amongst the alternatives is in the acres treated and miles of roads and trails.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
Biomass Removal:
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Vegetative management generally results in the removal of organic matter from the site. This is either through a physical removal of a product as in timber harvesting, haying, bough cutting, or miscellaneous collecting of berries or fruit; or the burning of the organic matter on-site, which converts the organic matter to gases and lifts particulates into the atmosphere. When the removals exceed the ability of the site to recover them, a loss in soil productivity will occur. This can be the result from a single removal or number of periodic removals that occur before the site has had a chance to recover.
Removal of organic matter from the site either by harvesting or through fire disrupts the nutrient cycling processes. Nutrient pathways and fluxes shift in an attempt to adjust to the changes in nutrient pathways and the losses of nutrients and substrates. These would be short-term disruptions to the systems, which would recover over time, generally one rotation. When the removals significantly disrupt a critical pathway or they exceed the ability of the site to recover from the removals, a long-term loss in productivity would occur.
The amounts and timing of biomass removal need to be within the site’s capability to recover. Site-specific project analysis would be done to ensure long-term soil productivity is maintained.
Significant losses of key nutrients can lead to a total breakdown in some pathways. For example, in sandy soils the organic matter acts much as clay minerals do in heavier soils. It provides exchange sites for dissolved nutrients, buffers the soil water solution, and plays a critical role in water holding capacity. If the organic matter content decreases in the soil, the loss of exchange sites can lead to increased leaching losses of nutrients, a loss in buffering capacity which in turn could lead to decrease in soil pH, and it could even lower the water holding capacity of the soil.
The volume outputs and acres treated depicted in Tables III-2 and III-3 represent the biomass removal from traditional stemwood harvesting practices. The use of above-ground whole tree harvesting methods would remove at least an additional 25 percent of wood fiber from the crowns. However, substantially more of the above ground nutrients would be removed, when compared to conventional stemwood harvesting methods. For example, in 34-year average-aged red and jack pine stands, the crowns made up 23 percent of the total biomass, but contained 52 percent of the total tree nutrients (Alban 1988). Current studies are indicating that the removal of the above-ground biomass could cause a long-term loss in soil productivity on sandy or low productivity sites.
Though there may be short-term losses in soil productivity from biomass removals, long-term site productivity would be maintained under all alternatives in accordance with federal regulations and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-12 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The analysis area for cumulative effects on soil productivity is all National Forest System lands. Management impacts on soil productivity are generally restricted to the specific site where the treatment occurs. Activities on National Forest System lands are not expected to have measurable impacts on other lands nor are activities on adjacent lands of other ownership expected to have measurable impacts to the soils on the the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
The cutting of the pre-Euro-American forests started in the mid 1800s and continued through to the early 20th Century. The timber was usually removed in stages, and only the most valuable portion of the tree was removed from site. It was followed by attempts to farm the cleared land. Land clearing for farming usually involved the burning of the residual trees and slash. Many areas of the forests were subjected to devastating wildfires in the early 1900s, as the result of the clearing of land for farming and from other wildfires. By the 1930s most attempts to farm the poor sands were abandoned, and the reforestation of the land started with the Civilian Conservation Corps camps, and continued well into the 1960s. Though much of the Forests are now composed of stands of less than 80 years of age, commercial logging has been occurring on the Forests throughout their history. There are stands on the Forests that are now undergoing their third commercial harvest.
Prescribed fire was often used to remove slash and prepare sites for planting. About 20 years ago there was a shift on the Forests to above-ground whole tree harvesting methods and less of a reliance on prescribed fire for site preparation for planting. Into the future, it is expected that the Forests will continue to harvest with similar methods and prescribed fire will again be increasingly relied upon for restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems, and for fuels reduction to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires.
Over the 100- to 150-year history of a particular stand on the Forests, a tract of land may have been harvested, burned, farmed, abandoned, burned, replanted, thinned, thinned again, harvested, burned and replanted. Any one of these events, in and of themselves, may not have had any long- term effect on the tract’s productivity, but when taken in their entirety a loss in productivity may have occurred.
Under the alternatives, it is unlikely that organic matter removal using conventional stemwood harvesting practices occurring at normal rotation ages would cause a loss in potential productivity on most sites (Wells and Jorgensen 1979). Published results are much more conflicting in their findings at higher rates of organic matter removal or if accelerated rotation ages are utilized (Stone, et al. 1998; Wells and Jorgensen 1979). These treatments have resulted in a long-term loss in soil productivity.
Nutrient modeling and static nutrient budgets of forested stands on low productivity sites with short rotations–less than 50 years–indicate a very high probability of a loss in site productivity when organic matter is removed at rates comparable to above-ground whole tree harvesting (Bhatti, et al. 1998; Stone, et al. 1998; Weetman and Algar 1983). The implication is that unless otherwise documented, above-ground whole tree harvesting should be avoided on these sites (Weetman and Algar 1983).
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
The loss of organic matter through burning is somewhat different. Burning releases some nutrients–nitrogen and sulfur–into the atmosphere through volatilization, but metallic nutrients remain on site as oxides in the ash. There is much evidence that single-event light to moderate burns do not cause long-term detrimental effects to either soil chemical or physical properties on most soils. However, results become more conflicting when periodic burns occur with little or no recovery of the site between burns. When periodic burns are less than seven years between burns, results become variable and more dependent on localized conditions. At project implementation, site-specific analysis will be used to determine the appropriateness of fire and the time interval necessary to maintain site productivity. On average the Forests will be doing prescribed burns on about 6,000 acres annually.
On National Forest System lands, long-term soil productivity would be maintained under all alternatives.
Soil Disturbance:
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
A range of management activities can cause soil disturbance, including logging, site preparation for burning, landings, and silvicultural practices for planting or site scarification and construction of facilities, such as roads and trails, recreation sites and buildings. Facility construction exposes bare mineral soil and results in soil compaction. This results in decreased infiltration rates that lead to increased runoff and accelerated erosion rates. Road and trail crossings at streams or facility construction adjacent to permanent water bodies can result in an increase of runoff directly to the water bodies. The delivery of the suspended solids and dissolved nutrients into these bodies of water would be at levels well above that from undisturbed areas. The miles of trails and roads are expected to remain fairly constant over the first decade in all alternatives. Reconstruction and maintenance of existing roads, trails and facilities will occur; levels of activities will be dependent upon available monies.
Cuts and fills associated with facility construction can destabilize soils and increase the risk of slope failures and the potential for accelerated erosion. Use of best management practices would mitigate this effect.
It is expected that some compaction will occur on all lands harvested. During logging operations or other activities that use heavy equipment on unfrozen soils, increases in bulk density, disturbance to the soil surface, exposure of mineral soil or ruts and soil puddling may occur. Portions of the area, especially landings, temporary roads and skid trails, may become heavily compacted and site productivity can become impaired. Infiltration rates can be reduced to the point where ponding occurs. It is assumed that these areas make up a small percentage of the treatment area, are relatively narrow or localized, and do not impact the total site productivity significantly. It has generally been believed that soil compaction would recover quickly following the harvest, without the need for additional ameliorative treatments; however, recent studies indicate this may not be the case. Using established protocols, monitoring of treatment sites will determine if detrimental effects thresholds are being exceeded. Amelioration
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-14 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
treatments will be prescribed to bring sites back into compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
Difficulty in establishing vegetation is often associated with the removal of the surface soil horizons or with heavily compacted areas. Areas of heavy soil compaction include road surfaces, parking lots, temporary roads, log landings, trail surfaces and heavily used recreation sites. In addition, mining operations–gravel pits or borrow pits–or cut areas, such as road cuts, during construction will be difficult to regenerate. They lack organic matter and local seed sources that normally facilitate revegetation following disturbance. In areas of heavy soil compaction, plant root tips cannot exert enough force to push through the soil. Since the force exerted by root tips varies by plant species, soil compaction can lead to changes in species composition or, at extreme levels, to non-vegetated areas.
Increased runoff rates and accelerated erosion rates are associated with heavily compacted soils. When this is associated with roads and trails, it can lead to the washing away of the tread surface or deep incising of ditch lines. This can lead to sediment delivery to streams and other permanent water bodies, causing degradation of the water quality.
Disking, roller-chopping or chaining used for mechanical site preparation for reforestation or wildlife opening creations mixes the surface of the soil and may expose mineral soil over extensive areas. The sites are vegetated within one growing season following treatment, and treated sites appear to be similar in percentage vegetative cover as compared to non-treated sites. There are no apparent soil erosion losses. Machine planting exposes the mineral soil; depending on the width of the furrow and planting densities, more than 20 percent of the land area may have the mineral soil exposed during planting. About 1,070 acres of jack pine will be machine planted each year in first decade for restoration of Kirtland’s warbler habitat in Alternative A and about 1,600 in Alternatives B and C.
Wildfire or prescribed fire consumes the forest litter layer and may expose the underlying mineral soil. Hot fires or hot spots can over-heat soils altering physical and chemical properties and potentially creating hydrophobic soils–non-wettable. Most prescribed fire activities will be in association with wildlife opening maintenance, fire dependent ecosystem restorations, and fuels projects to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Regardless of which alternative is chosen, the number of acres that will be burned annually through prescribed burning will be dependent on available opportunities–likely to range between 3,000 and 6,000 acres annually during the first decade. Prescribed fires will be of low to moderate intensities.
Mixing or exposing the mineral soil alters the micro climate of the soil. Mixing soils tend to warm them, and accelerates microbial activities, which leads to more rapid decomposition rates. Soils without a litter layer tend to lose water faster and are droughtier.
Exposed mineral soils have lower infiltration rates, and are subject to higher erosion rates from runoff. Increased soil losses can result from exposing the bare mineral soil to the wind, especially when they are dry. Similarly, wind events immediately following fires can blow ash, and the nutrients they contain, off the site.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-15 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
All roads, trails and facilities may incur localized surface soil erosion during construction, reconstruction, reopening or use. However, oversight provided by administrators of timber sales and special use permits or the maintenance crews at trail and recreation sites minimizes erosion. The generally deep, moderately well-drained soils, road grade limits and timely installation of drainage structures to manage surface water will help avoid soil erosion.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The analysis area for cumulative effects on soil productivity is all National Forest System lands. Management impacts on soil productivity are generally restricted to the specific site where the treatment occurs. Activities on National Forest System lands are not expected to have measurable impacts on other lands, nor are activities on adjacent lands of other ownership expected to have measurable impacts to the soils on the the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
As described under Cumulative Effects for the Biomass Removal section, soils of the Huron- Manistee National Forests may have been subjected to numerous activities over the past 100- to 150-years that may have caused soil disturbances. These activities may have included combinations of logging, burning, farming, abandonment and replanting. Any one of these events, in and of themselves, may not have had any long-term effect, but when taken in their entirety a change in soil productivity may have occurred.
The Forests have a history of machine planting back to the 1940s. Bare soils exposed in the planting furrows grow closed with time, but some bare soil may still be visible 5 to 10 years following planting. The machine planting furrows are still readily discernable at the end of the rotation, but do not appear to affect productivity. There have been no reports of observed soil movement–erosion–associated with machine planting. No long-term effects from erosion associated with machine tree planting are expected.
Motorized and nonmotorized trails, dispersed recreation sites and other structures or facilities, while they may occur throughout the Forests, are expected to be hardened or well-worn and are not meant to return to productivity, at least in the foreseeable future. During decommissioning of facilities, evaluations are made to determine if amelioration treatments, such as ripping, top soiling, seeding or mulching, are needed to return the areas to acceptable productive levels.
Much of the Forests are criss-crossed with old railroad grades, left over from the first logging operations. Many of these grades became the first roads, with many more added over the years. Total road densities continue to climb as private lands become subdivided and developed. Road densities on the National Forest System lands reached their peak in the 1980s. Since then, Forest Service road densities have been relatively static or declining as unused roads are decommissioned. The implementation of Best Management Practices, good engineering designs and improved maintenance practices have helped to reduce most of the undesirable effects of the roads system on National Forest System lands. The forests also work cooperatively with county road commissions to improve and reduce sediment and runoff delivery at all road stream crossings.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-16 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
Forest policies direct that disturbed soils are returned to a vegetated condition as soon as possible. This generally occurs within a single growing season or sooner, depending on the time of year that the site is rehabilitated. There are no known long-term effects to soil productivity when this practice is followed.
Therefore, the proposed activities in all the alternatives would have minimal cumulative increase in soil disturbances and a negligible effect on soil productivity.
Effects on Water Resources:
Introduction:
Forest management activities have the potential to affect the quality and quantity of water within the watersheds of the Forests. Water quality concerns associated with forest management activities include potentially excessive erosion or sediment delivery, nutrient loading, increases in water temperature, chemical inputs and unhealthy amounts of bacteria. Water quality on the Forests is managed to the “fishable and swimmable” standard of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq).
Water quantity concerns associated with forest management activities are related to potential changes in the amount and timing of runoff which can cause increases in sediment delivery, changes in channel morphology and aquatic habitat loss or degradation.
Historical records and photographs suggest that wood in streams played an important role in the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems of the watersheds of the Forests (Bassett 1988; Rozich 1998). This wood plays an important role in channel morphology, being one of the channel-forming agents. It provides habitat diversity, cover for fish, habitat for invertebrates, reptiles and other components of the aquatic food chain. Wood also adds nutrients to the aquatic system and protects streambanks during high flow events. Hicks et al. (1991), Bisson et al. (1987), Verry (1992), Verry and Dolloff (2001) and Hilderbrand et al. (1997) all provide excellent synopses of the various functions that large wood plays in stream systems. Peffers (1995), Newbry et al. (2000, 2001) and Achuff et al. (2001) describe the importance of large wood in lakes. Current-day levels of large wood in aquatic ecosystems on the Huron-Manistee National Forests are much lower due to: (1) historic, wholesale removal to facilitate log transport (log drives); (2) cutting of the pre-Euro-American forest (removal of the source for future recruitment); (3) reduced levels of recruitment from second growth riparian forests and (4) to facilitate passage of recreational watercraft.
Given the predominance of sandy soils within the watersheds, sand bedload is a major factor in channel-forming processes, and streambank erosion has the potential to contribute significantly to the sand bedload levels in northern Michigan stream systems (Hansen 1971). However, while erosion itself is a natural process, erosion on the river systems of the Huron-Manistee National Forests has been accelerated by historical land uses (Bassett 1988; Verry and Dollof 2001).
Lateral channel adjustments into the alluvium can be an important source for gravel entrainment (Schmetterling et al. 2001), which is the case for the streams on the Huron-Manistee National
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-17 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
Forests. This has produced elevated sand bedload levels which in turn has adversely affected aquatic habitat. Hansen et al. (1983) and Alexander and Hansen (1986) demonstrated that relatively small sand bedload concentrations of 80 to 100 parts per million can adversely effect aquatic life through a variety of mechanisms. Unstable sand substrate, bank erosion, and a lack of large wood are conditions associated with many streams in northern Michigan.
Existing water quality concerns that have been identified within the Forests' boundaries have been determined not to be attributable to forest management activities (Table III-1). These concerns have resulted from activities such as atmospheric deposition of mercury or the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls in the water. Implementing any of the Forest Plan alternatives would not contribute to these water quality concerns.
In addition to elevated instream sand bedload levels previously described, transportation systems–roads, trails and road-stream crossings–are also a source of sediment on the National Forests. The Forest Service has begun addressing this problem by focusing on improving stream crossings within watersheds on National Forest System lands to reduce sediment delivery to the rivers and streams. The estimated number of stream crossings range from 62 to 472 per 5th level watershed.
The following proposed and probable land use practices were evaluated for direct, indirect and cumulative effects to water resources. These practices were condensed from Appendix D of the Forest Plan and the Need-for-Change. They include:
• Manage stream and lake habitat. • Manage terrestrial habitat. • Manage non-native invasive species. • Manage rangeland production. • Hazardous fuels reduction. • Maintain and improve watershed condition. • Decommission roads. • Improve transportation systems – roads and trails. • Establish and improve forest vegetation. • Provide recreation opportunities. • Wildlife and rare plants. • Timber management. • Riparian and aquatic resources. • Recreation, semiprimitive areas and access. • Wildland fire and fuels management. • Mineral resource management.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-18 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
Water Quality:
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
All of the alternatives would require the use of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Best Management Practices (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1994) to mitigate potential negative effects to water quality from forest management activities. Best Management Practices are a combination of practices designated as the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (Forest Service, 1980). All forest management activities use Best Management Practices. Therefore, there are no expected direct, indirect or cumulative effects to water quality in Alternatives A, B and C from forest management activities. For example, road construction and other surface-disturbing activities may cause short-term increases in sediment. By using Best Management Practices, the amount of sediment reaching the stream would be greatly reduced and short term.
Watershed restoration activities are expected to improve the overall water quality. Activities, such as improvement of road-stream crossings, streambank stabilization, addition of wood and management of the riparian corridor, are expected to improve water quality by reducing sediment inputs, reducing in-channel bank erosion and reducing stream temperatures.
While off-Forests’ impacts to the water quality of lakes are of concern, there is little the Forests can do via management activities to control sources such as atmospheric deposition of mercury or the acidity level in precipitation.
Recreational activities can result in elevated amounts of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria in rivers lakes and streams. Elevated levels of E. coli in swimmable water can result in associated gastroenteritis of the swimmers, a concern for public health. Under all alternatives the Forests’ monitor 15 swimming beaches for E. coli. Concentrations of E. coli that exceed state standards trigger an immediate re-sampling of the area. If the second sample exceeds state standards, the area is posted with a warning to users until concentrations no longer exceed state standards.
Effects to water quality from mineral exploration and development are mitigated through existing regulatory controls, including Federal and state oil and gas regulations and application of Best Management Practices. Prior to permitting surface-disturbing activities, a site-specific analysis would be conducted and effects to specific resources, including water, would be documented.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
River basins are divided into 5th level watersheds–about 40,000 to 250,000 acres in size–as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Huron-Manistee National Forests are located within 30 different 5th level watersheds (Figure III-1). The cumulative effects area follows the Forest Service protocol for watershed analysis and includes all land within 5th level watersheds across the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-19 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
While the amount of acres that will burn by wildfire is unknown, the cumulative effects of wildfires on water quality are expected to be minimal because fires are suppressed.
The cumulative effect of prescribed burning on water quality is expected to be negligible because of the use of Best Management Practices when implementing all burns. Use of Michigan’s smoke management plan will mitigate potential effects of mercury deposition resulting from the smoke of prescribed burns.
Unmanaged–illegal, recreation on the Forests–specifically user-created roads and trails–can be a major source of sediment delivery to the water courses of the Forests. The Forests' transportation system is designed and managed such that authorized recreation activities do not result in stream sedimentation. However, unauthorized, user-created roads and trails may be poorly located on National Forest System land and on private lands, and not maintained. The compaction, erosion, and runoff associated with these features contribute to lake and stream sedimentation. Excessive sedimentation can lead to undesirable channel forms, such as braided streams or wide and shallow channels.
Changes in land use practices within a watershed have the potential to affect water quality. On private lands within the cumulative effects analysis area, increase in agricultural lands and development, particularly in loamy or clayey soils, without the application of Best Management Practices has the potential to have negative cumulative effects on water quality. The resulting increase in water yield in the form of runoff may cause shorter times to peak stream flows– flashier systems. The increase in surface runoff energy can result in rill, sheet and/or gully erosion and lead to sedimentation. Overland flow can also increase nutrient transport directly to the water courses. Excessive nutrient loading degrades water quality. Higher water temperatures can be expected for overland flows when compared to groundwater flows which tend to be cooler. The cumulative effect of overland flow can result in higher river and stream temperatures causing adverse effects on cold water species. Adverse impacts associated with stream sedimentation are difficult to mitigate and may be long term–decades. Impacts associated with increased stream temperatures from overland flow are likely to have a shorter duration, for example, days or seasons.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is National Forest System Lands because the Forest Service does not manage other private and public lands within watersheds where the Huron-Manistee National Forests occur (Figure III-1).
Wildfires have the potential to affect water quality when they burn to the water edge or when runoff from the burned areas reaches the water course. Depending on the scale of the wildfire, nutrient inputs and resulting erosion may have detrimental effects on water clarity, elevated potassium, nitrates and phosphorus. Again, Best Management Practices, such as unburned filter strips, are used to reduce these effects.
Improving transportation systems, specifically road stream crossings, and decommissioning certain roads will have a positive cumulative direct and indirect effect on water quality by
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-20 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
reducing sediment delivery from roads to water courses at the road stream crossings within a watershed.
Prescribed fires burn with less intensity than wildfires. The duff layer may be blackened but generally is still intact. Best Management Practices are used to mitigate the effect of the burn on water quality runoff. The effect of prescribed burning in this alternative is considered minimal.
Riparian zones are key areas in water quality protection and maintenance. They may prevent sedimentation by “filtering” overland and groundwater flow, and providing for streambank stability (for a discussion of adverse impacts associated with stream sedimentation refer to the Aquatic Species Management Indicator Species section in this document). Riparian zones may also prevent other non-point source pollutants from entering surface waters. Riparian vegetation plays a key role in the nutrient dynamics of surface and groundwater systems both by using nutrients for growth and by providing nutrients to the stream system. Further, riparian vegetation provides shade that helps maintain water temperatures within biologically appropriate ranges.
The management of riparian areas under Alternative A is likely to maintain or improve water quality. Under this Alternative, riparian vegetation is to be managed for late seral stages and most resource professionals consider this successional stage desirable with respect to protecting water quality. Also, under this alternative the Forest will follow Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1994) within a Streamside Management Zone (see Effects on Riparian and Wetlands section of this document for a detailed discussion of the Streamside Management Zone ). The Best Management Practices in this guide call for maintenance of base shade level, restrictions on ground disturbance, and protection of stream banks and streambeds.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative B and C:
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is National Forest System Lands because the Forest Service does not manage other private and public lands within watersheds where the Huron-Manistee National Forests occur (Figure III-1).
In addition to the effects in Alternative A, the increase in the use of prescribe fire has the potential to affect water quality. Direct effects are mitigated with the use of Best Management Practices, and any increase in nutrients from overland flow from a burn area would likely be temporay–less than a few months–and recoverable. The potential for increased atmospheric deposition of mercury from “re-suspension” of mercury resulting from prescribed burns are much less than that of a wildfire. The annual prescribed burning will have a negligible effect of mercury with regards to water quality.
The management of riparian areas under Alternative B and C is likely to maintain water quality. Under Alternatives B and C, conservation measures for sensitive species do call for maintenance of approximately 5,000 acres–2,500 acres on each Forest–of early successional habitat within riparian vegetation. Based on a Forest-wide Geographical Information System analysis, there are 35,500 acres within the 100-foot Streamside Management Zone. Natural processes, such as beaver, fire, windthrow and flooding, create early successional vegetation within riparian zones.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-21 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
Standards and Guidelines for riparian corridors state that the Forest Service will allow these successional processes to continue without interference, provided other resource values are not being adversely impacted, even if they occur within designated old growth. Up to 5,000 acres of the Streamside Management Zone could be managed for early successional habitat to provide for species identified in the Species Viability Evaluation. Determining the early successional habitat needs within the riparian corridor will be done on a site-specific basis, with the 6th level watershed serving as the analysis unit. Such site-specific analysis will include a cumulative analysis of all lands within the 6th level watershed, not just National Forest System lands. If a determination indicates that early successional habitat management within the riparian corridor is warranted, management will occur. Because of the contribution of natural processes to early successional habitat in these areas, the extent of actual management to produce this condition is expected to be small. This management is not felt to be a threat to water quality because Best Management Practices described under Alternative A will be implemented to protect water quality and maintain aquatic habitat integrity.
Water Quantity:
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is National Forest System Lands because the Forest Service does not manage other private and public lands within watersheds where the Huron-Manistee National Forests occur (Figure III-1).
Water yield is the quantity of water that comes off a watershed. Generally water yield changes with changes in vegetation type or land use. For example as vegetation changes from deep rooted species–trees–to shallow rooted species–grasses and forbs, the water yield can be expected to increase (Brooks et al. 1997). Likewise, as the watershed cover changes from forest to agricultural land, water yield would increase. Verry (2001) determined that in the Great Lakes Region, stream channels begin to be adversely impacted by flow levels–timing or quantity of water flow–when greater than 66 percent of the watershed is open land, which includes agricultural lands, development and/or forest cover less than or equal to 15 years of age (Verry 2001). In accordance with desired future conditions for Forest-wide management area direction, Forest management activities will not cause the land cover of a 6th level watershed to exceed 66 percent in open land and/or forest cover younger than 15 years of age.
Effects to water quantity from mineral exploration and development are mitigated through existing regulatory controls, including federal and state oil and gas regulations and application of Best Management Practices. Prior to permitting surface-disturbing activities, a site-specific analysis would be conducted and effects to specific resources, including water, would be documented.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative A:
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is National Forest System Lands because the Forest Service does not manage other private and public lands within watersheds where the Huron-Manistee National Forests occur (Figure III-1).
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-22 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
There are 30,000 acres of upland openings dispersed across the Forests. Because these openings do not exceed 10 acres in size and are dispersed in the landscape, the direct and indirect effect from increases in water yield is minimal as the excess water is absorbed by the surrounding forest vegetation.
Direct and Indirect and Effects for Alternative B and C:
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is all National Forest System Lands with the 5th level watershed of the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Figure III-1).
Prairies, barrens and savannahs restorations are on excessively well-drained soils, and any restoration of large acreages of prairies, barrens and savannahs is expected to affect the water yield as there would be a shift from deep rooted forest cover to more shallow rooted cover. The amount of water used in transpiration by a forest is much greater than that of a prairie, barren or savannah. The amount of prairies, barrens, and savannahs restoration and maintenance in these alternatives would be much greater than Alternative A. The timeline for restoration varies between alternative B and C. In the first decade of Alternative B, approximately 9,300 acres of prairies, barrens and savannahs would be restored. In the first decade of Alternative C, approximately 26,200 acres of prairies, barrens and savannahs would be restored. The restoration efforts would occur on well-drained to excessively well-drained, relatively deep soils. Increased water yields would be expected to result in greater ground water recharge. Depending upon the amount and spatial arrangement of the restoration efforts within watersheds, the increases may be enough to increase stream flows, with potential positive effects to the aquatic community by increasing low flows.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
River basins are divided into 5th level watersheds–about 40,000 to 250,000 acres in size–as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Huron-Manistee National Forests are located within 30 different 5th level watersheds (Figure III-1). The cumulative effects area follows the Forest Service protocol for watershed analysis and includes all land within 5th level watersheds across the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Changes in land use practices within a watershed have the potential to affect water quantity. On private lands within the cumulative effects analysis area, increases in agricultural lands or impervious surfaces associated with urbanization have the potential to change the timing and magnitude of stream flows. Under forested conditions, precipitation and snow melt is generally absorbed into the soil and moves through the watershed as groundwater. This contributes to stable stream flow throughout the year. However, under some agricultural and urbanized conditions, precipitation and snow melt are not able to infiltrate the soil. Water or precipitation is converted to overland flow which may result in unusually high stream flows directly after precipitation and during snow melts. Further, because this precipitation did not enter the soil, the contribution of groundwater is lost resulting in low stream flows during dry periods.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-23 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
The Huron-Manistee National Forests participate in multiple watershed partnerships that promote wise land use. This is a mechanism to maintain watershed health, including protection of riparian and aquatic habitat.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B and C:
Combinations of the 30,000 acres of dispersed upland openings and up to 68,550 acres of prairies, barrens and savannahs restorations are planned over the next 30 to 50 years. This will result in approximately 10 percent of the Forests' lands being in an open condition. As described under Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C, water yield on the Forests will be affected. Depending upon the amount of National Forest System lands and spatial arrangement of the prairies, barrens and savannahs restoration efforts, within a given watershed, there may be positive effects to the aquatic community by increasing low flows. However, activities within the analysis area that result in watershed hardening, such as urbanization and agricultural activities, may overshadow the positive effects associated with the restoration efforts.
Effects on Air Quality:
Air resource management includes the protection of existing air quality, controlling and minimizing air pollutants from land management activities, and cooperation with regulatory agencies to prevent significant adverse effects of air pollutants and atmospheric deposition on forest resources. Air quality is regulated in terms of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Air quality in turn affects water and soil characteristics by way of atmospheric deposition. The overall affected environment of the airshed includes air quality, emission sources, atmospheric deposition and trends. This section discusses the changes in air quality resulting from implementation of each alternative.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests will participate in the formulation of a State of Michigan Smoke Management Plan and will comply with the final plan. Smoke management plans consist of policies and practices implemented by natural resource managers and air specialists to minimize public health and welfare impacts of smoke from fires that are managed for resource benefits. Smoke management programs are typically developed by states and tribes with the cooperation and participation of many stakeholders. In general, smoke management programs require:
• Knowledge of the fuels to be burned, such as the location, type and amount of the biomass. • Evaluation of air quality and meteorological conditions to predict smoke dispersion– elevation and direction–and airshed effects. • A process to authorize specific fires if conditions are appropriate. • Tools to monitor and respond to impacts.
Smoke management plans for prescribed burning are equivalent to Best Management Practices for air quality. Prior to burning, site-specific plans analyze site conditions and identify mitigation to protect public health and safety. Best management practices will be applied in all prescribed burning efforts under all alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-24 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
Potential sources of air pollution on the Forests include smoke from wildfires and prescribed burning, vehicle emissions, oil and gas operations and dust from unpaved roads. Other sources, including industrial emissions, will not be analyzed for direct and indirect effects but will be included for cumulative effects analysis. The analysis area of direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The dispersal of air pollutants is complicated and dependent on many factors. However, even locally, dispersal of any air pollutants originating from activities on the Huron-Manistee national Forests is unlikely to have discernable effects. At distances greater than the airshed including Northern Lower Michigan, these effects would be neglible.
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
One of the main recreational activities on the Forests is driving for pleasure. Exhaust emissions from passenger vehicles cause or contribute to air quality concerns. Primary exhaust emissions include carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds. Dust created from traveling unpaved roads also results in air quality concerns. Due to existing topography and atmospheric conditions, dust and emissions are quickly dissipated, and no concentrated or long-term effects are created.
Motorized recreation use on the Forests is projected to increase. Recreational vehicles using spark ignition engines, such as off-highway motorcycles, Off-Highway Vehicles and snowmobiles, may cause or contribute to air quality concerns. Engines used in these vehicles emit large quantities of fine particulate matter, unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. In addition, oxides of nitrogen are also emitted. Nitrogen oxides may chemically react in the atmosphere to form ground level ozone. The amount and type of emission varies by the type of engine utilized by the vehicle. Four-stroke engines emit large quantities of carbon monoxide; however, they tend to emit considerably lower levels of hydrocarbons and particulate matter when compared to the two-stroke engines. Exhaust hydrocarbon emissions also include toxic air contaminants including benzene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Most motorized recreation is dispersed across the Forests’ landscape, and emissions are dissipated due to existing topography and atmospheric conditions. Effects are considered to be minimal. In areas of concentrated use, for example, Bull Gap Hill Climb Area or large-group riding events, one would probably see and smell the effects of vehicle emissions for the duration of activity. Effects would be localized in the vicinity of the vehicles and only for the duration of the event.
In general, oil and gas operations generate gaseous compounds, particulate matter and odors. The gaseous compounds include sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. Nitrogen oxides may chemically react in the atmosphere to form ground- level ozone. The amounts of emissions vary with the phase of the oil and gas operations. In the drilling phase air quality impacts are short term and localized. Primary exhaust emissions are oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds from vehicle emissions and equipment. In the production phase, emission of oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds from wells and vehicles are minimal. Odors from hydrocarbon vapors from storage tanks are localized and long term. It is estimated that 139 productive oil and gas wells will be drilled within the Forests’ proclamation boundaries over the life of the Forest Plan. Of the 139 productive wells within the proclamation boundary, it is
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
estimated that 64 of these will be on National Forest System lands. There are currently 32 oil and gas operations on National Forests lands. The production facilities are dispersed across the landscape and overall effects of these operations on air quality are negligible. Localized odors may occur in the general vicinity of the facilities. Depending on the product being stored, weather conditions and topography, odors could be detected from 150 feet to one-quarter of a mile away.
Burning forest fuels produces smoke emissions that have potential health and safety effects. The air pollutant of most concern that is generated by fire is total particulate matter. Smoke decreases visibility and could potentially be a health hazard for people susceptible to breathing difficulties.
Wildfire is a random event. Conditions under which wildfires occur are not controlled and thus tend to generate more smoke and particulate matter than planned events. They occur during non- snow periods from April through November and can have visibility, health and safety effects on nearby communities and residents. The extent of the effects will depend upon the size of the area burned and fuel type. Typically, effects will be localized and short term due to topography and atmospheric conditions.
Burn plans are prepared for prescribed burns. These plans outline a range of conditions under which a burn would be conducted in order to minimize the volume of particulate matter produced. In addition, these plans mitigate effects to smoke-sensitive areas. Particulate output from prescribed fire activities is usually below Environmental Protection Agency thresholds. Prescribed burns normally produce fewer particulates than wildfire because of the controlled conditions under which they are ignited. The Forests will participate in the formulation of a State of Michigan Smoke Management plan and will comply with the final plan. Effects on air quality resulting from prescribed burning activities are expected to be short term and localized.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
In addition to activities occurring on National Forest System lands, air quality is affected by regional environments and activities beyond the Forest Service’s control. Effects of mercury deposition and polychlorinated biphenyls result from industrial activity occurring outside the Forests’ boundaries. Air pollutants from large urban areas, for example, Chicago, are carried by wind across Lake Michigan and affect the air quality within the analysis area. Motorized vehicle use on adjacent state or private lands contributes to the emission levels in the analysis area and it is expected that motorized recreation will increase over the planning period. Random wildfires and prescribed burning will occur on lands adjacent to the Forests.
Effects on the Availability of Mineral Resources:
This section discusses the effects of applying the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and management area direction for each alternative on the availability of minerals for exploration and development. Environmental effects from mineral activities on other resources are analyzed for each alternative within the respective sections. The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is National Forest System land. The analysis area for cumulative effects includes land within the Forests’ administrative boundary. This area was chosen because decisions relating to availability
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-26 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
of mineral resources should be done at the programmatic level and should consider land use and resource values of adjacent property as well as the immediate National Forest System lands.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
The modest common variety mineral, such as sand and gravel, program that exists on the Forests is expected to continue at its current level under Alternative A. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines permit the use of common variety mineral deposits in most management areas subject to the environmental limitations of the site. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness area is not available for common variety mineral development because of its Wilderness designation. Prior to any decisions relating to new development of common variety minerals, a site-specific environmental analysis would be completed and the effects documented. Decisions on development would be made following appropriate analysis.
Under Alternative A, less than one percent (1%) of the mineral interest on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be classified as “not available” for oil and gas exploration and development. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area and Bear Swamp are not available for leasing consideration. Of the remaining “available” acreage, the Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines would dictate how, when and where oil and gas exploration and development could occur. The following table shows the percentage of National Forest System Lands that are considered available by category of restriction.
Table III-4. Acres Available by Category of Restriction – Alternative A. Alternative A Percent Category of Restriction (acres) Restricted Not Available 5,495 <1% No Surface Occupancy 155,068 16% Other Restrictions: Controlled Surface Use 1:640 39,757 Controlled Surface Use 1:160 8,631 Kirtland Warbler Restriction 62,424 Old-Growth Restriction 60,150 Total for Other Restrictions 170,962 18% Standard Stipulations 641,582 66% Total National Forest System Lands 973,107
Approximately 16 percent of the Forests would be classified as “no surface occupancy.” This restriction would preclude use or occupancy of these lands for oil and gas exploration or development in order to protect resource values. Most of the areas included in this category are wetlands, Wild and Scenic River corridors, experimental forests, proposed candidate Research Natural Areas or areas within 300 feet of a stream or body of water. Approximately 18 percent of the Forests would be restricted by “other restrictions.” These include restrictions on density of development for semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized areas, for example, one surface location per 640 acres, restrictions for Kirtland’s warbler management areas and restrictions for areas designated as old growth. Approximately 66 percent of the Forests’ acreage would be subject to standard stipulations. No special stipulations are deemed necessary for protection of sensitive resource values on these lands.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-27 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
The Forest Service has authority to impose Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines on only those National Forest System lands that include federal mineral interest. For severed mineral rights, including state and private minerals, the Forest Service acquired the land with knowledge that the mineral rights were not included in the original acquisition, and development of this mineral interest could be conducted under a different set of operating regulations. Any proposed development would be done in accordance with the mineral severance deed language, lease terms, applicable Secretary’s Rules and Regulations, non-discretionary federal laws and State of Michigan oil and gas operating regulations. For leasing of state minerals, the State of Michigan generally accepts the Forests’ recommendations for lease stipulations on National Forest System lands. For private minerals, the Forest Service has less control. Because application of the Standards and Guidelines for state or private minerals is not absolute, it puts the agency in a position of negotiating operating conditions with the lessee.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The variation in Standards and Guidelines between Alternative B and Alternative C, as they relate to the availability of the mineral resource for development, differs only slightly. Therefore, effects to mineral resources under the two alternatives will be discussed together.
Under Alternatives B and C, existing production and processing of common variety mineral proposals would continue as outlined under Alternative A. Prior to any decisions relating to new development of common variety minerals, a site-specific environmental analysis would be completed and the effects documented. Decisions on development would be made following appropriate analysis.
Under these alternatives, less than one percent of the mineral interest on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be classified as “not available” for oil and gas exploration and development. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is withdrawn from leasing consideration due to its Wilderness designation. Of the remaining “available” acreage, the Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines would dictate how, when and where oil and gas exploration and development could occur (see Chapters II and III of the Forest Plan, Forest-wide and Individual Management Area Direction). The following table shows the percentage of National Forest System lands considered available by category of restriction.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-28 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Physical Resources
Table III-5. Acres Available by Category of Restriction – Alternatives B and C. Alternative Percent Alternative Percent Category of Restriction B (acres) Restricted C (acres) Restricted Not Available 3,380 <1% 3,380 <1% No Surface Occupancy 204,631 21% 204,631 21% Other Restrictions: Controlled Surface 44,376 56,802 Use 1:640 Controlled Surface 12,426 0 Use 1:160 Kirtland Warbler 66,676 66,676 Restriction Old-Growth Restriction 86,952 86,952 Wildlife Area/Karner 208,836 206,841 Blue Butterfly Total for Other Restrictions 419,266 43% 417,271 43% Standard Stipulations 345,830 36% 347,825 36% Total National Forest 973,107 973,107 System Lands
Under Alternatives B and C, approximately 21 percent of the Forests’ acreage would be classified as “no surface occupancy.” There would be a slight increase in this acreage from Alternative A, 5 percent, due to changes to the boundaries of certain management areas, for example, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and the addition of some “no surface occupancy” areas such as 300-foot buffers along certain scenic trails. Approximately 43 percent of the Forests’ acreage would be restricted by “other restrictions.” In addition to the restrictions identified under Alternative A, a lease notice associated with wildlife emphasis areas and Karner blue butterfly metapopulation areas would state that operations would be subject to more restrictive controls. However, this would still permit occupancy and would not be a constraint that would further limit exploration and development. The change in acreages associated with semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized areas would not affect mineral resource development due to the relatively small acreages involved, approximately 1 percent of National Forest System lands, and the location of identified moderate and high development potential areas. While the total acreage in “other restrictions” would increase from 18 percent (Alternative A) to 43 percent of the Forests under these alternatives, the proposed increase should not affect the Forests’ ability to provide access to the mineral resource. Approximately 36 percent of the Forests’ available acreage would be subject to standard stipulations under Alternatives B and C.
Based on the analysis above, reasonably foreseeable development for oil and gas would not be expected to vary between Alternatives A, B and C. Projections as outlined in the Forest Plan Appendix D, such as number of wells and acres disturbed, would be the same for Alternatives A, B and C.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
A reasonably foreseeable development scenario for oil and gas was prepared predicting potential development over the next 10 to 15 years (Forest Plan Appendix D). The total number of wells
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-29 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Physical Resources Environmental Consequences
projected to be drilled within the administrative boundary under Alternative A would be 194, with approximately 88 of those wells being drilled on National Forest System lands. Foreseeable development is described in more detail in Appendix D of the Forest Plan.
The cumulative effects analysis area for the availability of mineral resources includes the lands within the Forests’ administrative boundary. This area was chosen because decisions relating to availability of mineral resources should be done at the programmatic level and consider land use and resource values of adjacent property as well as the immediate National Forest System lands. Management area direction and Standards and Guidelines included in the Forest Plan specifically apply only to National Forest System lands with federal minerals within the Forests’ administrative boundary. The reasonably foreseeable development scenario predicted that a total of 194 oil and gas wells would be drilled within the boundary. Eighty-eight (88) of those wells would be drilled on National Forest System lands, and a total of 106 drilled on private land within the administrative boundary.
The Forests’ Standards and Guidelines would not restrict or affect the ability of operators to develop oil and gas resources on non-federal lands within the Forests’ administrative boundary. Exploration and drilling activity would continue on these lands. Operations would be conducted in accordance with terms of the lease terms, private surface-use agreement, and state oil and gas operating regulations. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines restricting surface use for operations on National Forest System lands with federal minerals could cause operators to locate proposed wellheads on adjacent non-federal lands, if available, or on National Forest System lands with non-federal minerals. The process for leasing and permitting on non-National Forest System lands and/or non-federal minerals is less complicated and often more expedient because there are fewer entities involved in the permitting process.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-30 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Affected Environment – Biological Resources
Range:
Background:
Livestock grazing is common within the proclamation boundary of the Huron-Manistee National Forests, but is uncommon on the Forests. Range management is permitted in areas only where it is appropriate with the area’s management objectives. Where livestock grazing has been identified as an appropriate activity, the Forest Plan provides direction and Standards and Guidelines for managing the range.
In 1978, a range overview of the Huron-Manistee National Forests was completed. The report indicated that livestock operations occur in most of the 14 counties within the Forests’ boundaries. However, it also indicated that the potential for grazing is low throughout the Forests due to the lack of grassland areas and the cost of converting forest areas to productive range.
Current Condition:
Currently there are four range grazing allotments on the Forests: one allotment is on the Huron National Forest and three are on the Manistee National Forest. These allotments currently consist of approximately 1,600 acres, with 927 acres identified as suitable for livestock grazing. They have the potential to produce approximately 1,000 animal unit months.
Livestock grazing is permitted in allotted grasslands under authorized grazing permits, which maintain habitat for the grassland bird species as well as other wildlife species. The Forests have issued permits to implement sustainable grassland management strategies. These permits require range management activities to adhere to Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan, Allotment Management Plans, and annual operating plans. Management activities include providing access to water sources, fencing, gates, holding areas, salt licks or other sites for grazing purposes. The locations, stocking rates and movements of grazing herds are managed to achieve grassland habitat management goals.
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Animals and Plants:
"Endangered" and "threatened" are legal terms used to describe the relative potential a species has of becoming extinct. Sensitive species are those species identified by the Regional Forester for which National Forest management programs and activities may or may not have an adverse effect. These species may have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed or under review for official listing as an endangered or threatened species, are on an official state list, or are recognized by the Regional Forester as needing special management in order to prevent the need for their placement on federal or state lists
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-31 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
In the period of time between the retreat of the last glacier that covered Lower Michigan some 12,000 to 15,000 years ago and the arrival of Europeans, there is evidence that six mammals became extinct: the giant beaver, American mastodon, Jefferson mammoth, flat-headed peccary, Scott’s moose and woodland musk ox. Other life forms, including plants, also became extinct. Their extinction is believed to have been in response to natural environmental changes and the inability for these species to compete with better adapted species.
During the first 150 years of European expansion into the Great Lakes Region–1650 to 1800– there were few settlers, settlements were sparse and settlers engaged in trade, mainly for fur. Little was done to alter the environment during this time. Trapping and hunting of fur and game animals had adverse effects on local wildlife populations, but not species. Settlement and exploration later became extensive. Logging, agriculture, mining and other pursuits caused abrupt and extreme environmental alterations. Heavy exploitation of game and fur animals reduced the numbers of these species. Within the succeeding years of settlement and growth, seven species of mammals and two species of birds were extirpated in Michigan. The mammals were: American marten, fisher, wolverine, mountain lion, elk, caribou and bison. The birds were the passenger pigeon and wild turkey. The numbers of many other species, including beaver and deer, declined drastically.
With the advent of modern resource management, the populations of many species, such as deer and beaver, were brought back from near extinction or to greater abundance. Some species that were extirpated from Michigan, such as elk, American marten and wild turkey, have been reintroduced. However, a number of species still face extinction in Michigan because of continuing environmental changes. A listing of the Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species can be found on the Forest Service, Region 9 website (http:\\www.r9.fs.fed.us.html).
Plants:
Several Endangered, Threatened and Regional Forester’s Sensitive species and plant communities that are key or important parts of the ecosystems comprise the communities of the Forests. Emphasis is placed on these species and communities through management of individual species across the landscape or management of communities in Research Natural Areas.
Wildlife:
There are 382 species of breeding vertebrate animals, including fish, which inhabit the Huron- Manistee National Forests. These include 168 species of birds, 54 species of mammals, 24 species of reptiles, 18 species of amphibians and 118 species of fish species. In addition, there are numerous numbers of invertebrates, primarily insects found on the Forests. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species are part of the ecosystems that make up the communities of the Forests. The Huron-Manistee National Forests also provide habitat for numerous migratory species in addition to those species breeding on the Forests.
The wetland, lake and stream borders provide habitats for waterfowl and a wide variety of other water-oriented species. The sandhill crane is a wetland species that has reestablished itself in the bogs and marshes of these Forests. A number of predatory birds–raptors and owls–inhabit the
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-32 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Forests, from the bald eagle to the tiny saw-whet owl. A number of heronries are found in wooded swamps. Streams and lakeshores provide habitats for shore birds, such as the spotted sand piper and piping plover. A variety of woodpeckers, including the pileated woodpecker, inhabit the mature and old-growth stands in the Forests. Many species inhabit the portions of the Forests where timber has been harvested in the past 10 to 15 years and new growth now exists. Species such as the chestnut-sided warbler, ruffed grouse and golden-winged warbler inhabit areas covered with young deciduous trees. The Lincoln’s sparrow prefers young conifers, and the Kirtland’s warbler nests only in young jack pine stands found on the dry sand plains within and adjacent to the Huron National Forest. The brilliant scarlet tanager prefers the maturing hardwood stands, while the black-throated green warbler nests in maturing conifer stands.
Various mammals also are found in the wide variety of habitats and habitat conditions within these Forests. White-tailed deer inhabit all areas, but are most abundant where a significant portion of the forest is in young stands of aspen, in jack pine, and in oak, or where there are grassy or brushy openings. Beavers inhabit the streams. Gray and fox squirrels are found in the maturing hardwoods, especially where there are some oaks in the stand. The northern flying squirrel is found in the mature and old-growth stands where tree cavities provide dens and dense canopies permit a growth of arboreal lichens in the upper portion of the trees.
Reptiles and amphibians are primarily associated with aquatic and wetland habitats, but a few seek drier conditions, and some use both wetland and drier uplands, such as the Eastern massasauga rattlesnake. The hognose snake and blue racer may be found in dry woodlands and brushy areas.
Herbaceous openings are common and are purposely maintained throughout these Forests. They provide forage for deer, rabbits and other grazers. They also provide habitat conditions necessary for woodcock, wild turkey, bluebirds, field sparrows and other species that would be far less abundant or would not exist without this habitat.
Vegetative diversity is the key to managing the habitats for the great variety of wildlife species found on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Wildlife management provides diverse communities and vegetative types, including herbaceous openings, savannahs, barrens, prairies, aspen, oak, hardwood, pine and lowland conifers, and habitat conditions ranging from regenerating stands to old-growth stands that contain declining trees and snags.
Fish and Mollusks:
There are 118 fish species and 16 mollusk species inhabiting the Forests’ lakes and perennial streams within the Forests’ boundaries. Large mouth bass, small mouth bass, northern pike and walleye are the Forests’ major warm-water game fish species. Bluegill and yellow perch are common pan fish found in most of the Forests’ warm water lakes and streams. Common cold water species include brook, brown and rainbow trout. Most cold water streams that are free flowing to Lake Michigan or Lake Huron have populations of anadromous salmonids, including chinook and coho salmon and steelhead–anadromous rainbow–trout.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-33 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Riparian Areas:
Riparian systems are the interface between aquatic and terrestrial systems. Riparian systems support a variety of plants and animals; they enhance water quality, attenuate floods and reduce erosion and sediment transport (Brooks et.al. 1997). The Forest Service Manual provides for the identification and delineation of riparian areas based on soil characteristics, hydrology, landform and vegetation (Forest Service Manual 2526.05). The following definitions apply:
• Riparian Areas - Geographically delineable areas with distinctive resource values and characteristics that are comprised of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems. • Aquatic Ecosystems - Stream channels, lakes, estuary beds; water; biotic communities and the habitat features that occur therein. • Riparian Ecosystems - A transition area between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial ecosystems identified by soil characteristics or distinctive vegetation communities that require free or unbound water.
Riparian areas consist of perennial streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands and adjacent lands with soils, vegetation and landform indicative of high soil moisture or frequent flooding. These areas have variable widths determined by ecologically significant boundaries rather than arbitrary distances (Figure III-2).
Figure III-2. Forest Service Definition of Riparian Area (FSM 2526.05).
Terrestrial Riparian Area Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecosystem Riparian Riparian Ecosystem Ecosystem
Aquatic Ecosystem
Riparian areas often need to be managed in a broad, ecological context. The ecological function of riparian areas is complex. They extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward across the floodplain, up the near-slopes that drain into the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and longitudinally along the watercourse at a variable width (Ilhardt et al. 2000). Additional terminology is useful in explaining management activities in the riparian ecosystem.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-34 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Riparian Corridor - The Riparian Corridor includes the Riparian Area along all perennial and intermittent streams with defined, recognizable channels. It also includes areas around ponds, lakeshores, wetlands, springs and seeps (Figure III-3). Where necessary, the Riparian Corridor also includes any adjacent terrestrial areas needed to protect or restore riparian function.
Figure III-3. Plan View Representation of a Riparian Corridor.
Ephemeral Stream Spring Intermittent Stream
Riparian Corridor
Riparian Pond Ecosystem
Intermittent Stream Wetland
Perennial Stream Aquatic + Riparian + Upland Riparian Corridor Downstream
Streamside Management Zone (Figure III-4) – Streamside Management Zones are referred to in the State Best Management Practices as filter or buffer strips and are areas directly adjacent to streams and water (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1994). Provisions within the Streamside Management Zones typically contain sediment filter strips, a base shade level, restriction on ground disturbance and protection of stream banks and streambeds.
For the purposes of vegetative community analysis, riparian plant communities were divided into two main community types: riparian forested and riparian non-forested plant communities. The remaining wet habitats are listed under the wetland section.
For a discussion of the effects of management for early successional habitat within the Streamside Management Zone on aquatic management indicator species see the Effects on Aquatic Management Indicator Species section of this document. For a discussion of the effects of management for early successional habitat within the Streamside Management Zone on riparian areas and wetlands see the Effects on Riparian Areas and Wetlands section of this document.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-35 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-4. Relationship of Riparian Corridor to Streamside Management Zone.
Riparian Streamside Management Zone ------
Spring
Steep Slope
Wetland Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
Wetlands:
Wetland areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests occur within all Landtype Associations, but are most common in Landtype Associations 4 and 5. Lowland conifers and swamp hardwoods are the predominant timber types. They comprise 75,062 acres, or 7.7 percent, of the Forests. Other major classifications of wetlands include sedge meadow, marsh, open water, shrub swamp, wooded swamp and bog. These non-forested wetlands comprise approximately 29,000 acres or 3 percent of the Forests. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that more than 50 percent of Michigan’s original wetlands have been drained or filled (Dahl 2000). Comer (1996) did a preliminary assessment of wetland trends since the 1880s for Michigan. He estimated on average 28 percent loss of wetlands in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Additionally, many conifer swamps that were not drained were converted to lowland hardwoods or shrub swamp. In the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan approximately 76 percent of the conifer swamps have been lost to drainage, flooding or conversion. Comer’s estimates of wetland loss for those counties congruent with the Forests range from 7 to 58 percent. Over 90 percent of shallow wetlands in Michigan have been lost since pre-Euro-American conditions (Kashian 1995). Cwikiel (1998) reports that the percentage of loss for Michigan’s coastal wetlands is
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-36 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
about 70 percent. In addition, 75 percent of wetlands in the state are in private ownership. The National Wetlands Inventory for Michigan is currently in draft form. When finalized, this inventory should provide better estimates of wetland trends across the Forests. Evidence of historical and active agricultural drains across the Forests indicates that there are opportunities for wetland restoration. Verry (2001) found that when 33 percent or more of a watershed is drained–wetlands or agricultural lands–the bankful flow frequency doubles, altering the stream channel.
Wetland habitat classification has been standardized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al. 1979). Using this classification system, wetland vegetation on the Forests falls into 6 major wetland classes; Aquatic Bed, Unconsolidated Shore – Vegetated, Moss-Lichen Wetland, Emergent Wetland, Shrub-Scrub Wetland and Forested Wetland.
Within the wetland classes, specific wetland communities on the Forests were also identified as being of particular concern. These rare wetland plant communities include: coastal plain marsh, intermittent wetland, southern floodplain forest, cedar swamp, Great Lakes marsh, interdunal wetland, northern wet-mesic prairie, northern fen and poor fen. These communities are addressed further in the endangered, threatened and sensitive communities, animals and plants section in this document.
Vegetative Diversity:
This section describes the past and present vegetative diversity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Vegetative diversity is defined in this section as the distribution of vegetation by age, type, structure and spatial pattern.
Vegetative Diversity (Mid-1800s):
The best quantitative data on early vegetation of the area of the present Huron-Manistee National Forests are found in the notes from the General Land Office surveys of 1816-1856. This information has been gathered and interpreted by numerous researchers. Figure III-5 provides an estimate of the vegetation of the Huron-Manistee National Forests, as it may have appeared before the mid 1800s.
The oak/pine type was dominant and covered 65 percent of the area. The species composition of this type varied from red oak and white and red pines on the more productive sites to black and white oaks and jack and red pines on the less productive sites. Aspen occurred in small pockets throughout the area. The oak/pine type was found on sites ranging from the sand plains to gravelly ridges and morainal hills. About 20 percent of the area was in the hardwood type. This type included primarily sugar maple, beech, yellow birch, hemlock and white pine. This type was found on productive soils in the morainal hills.
The pine type was found on about 10 percent of the area. The primary species were white, red and jack pines. This type generally was found on sandy soils.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-37 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
The lowland conifer and lowland hardwood types were scattered throughout the Forests along rivers and streams. These types covered less than 10 percent of the present Forests’ area.
The entire area was not covered by a continuous forest, even though most early explorers describe it that way. Unstable, scattered dunes bordered Lake Michigan (Santer 1977), and the interior contained openings created by fire, insect, disease and windthrow. Some areas along the southern boundary of the Manistee National Forest contained open prairie.
The majority of the mid-1800s timber stands were old growth. Wildlife species associated with old growth flourished. Many large cavity or snag trees, woody ground debris and an understory structure associated with old growth were features which dominated most stands. Wildlife species associated with the early successional communities were present in small numbers.
Figure III-5. Pre-Euro-American Vegetation of the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-38 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Vegetative Diversity (1909 to 1938):
The northern Lower Peninsula area was drastically altered between 1840 and 1938. The old- growth timber had been harvested, and post-logging fires had killed many second growth stands. About one-third of the area was now open. Farming had been tried, but farms failed in most areas because of sandy soil conditions. Early successional vegetative types covered most of the area. Aspen, jack pine, birch and other short-lived species were common. Many of the areas which once had been dominated by mature northern hardwoods now contained young stands of the same type. Much of the area previously covered by the pine and oak/pine types had been so damaged by post-logging fires that only open sand blows and scattered trees remained. Many of these areas were planted to jack and red pine soon after the National Forests were established. Fire prevention, which followed the establishment of the National Forests, was an essential element in shaping today’s Forests.
Vegetative Diversity Present (2003):
The following table (Table III-6) depicts the vegetative type composition, by percent, on the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ area during the mid-1800s, Forests’ establishment, and present time periods.
Table III-6. Vegetative Type Composition by Percentage on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Forests Present Vegetative Type Forests Established (2003 from CDS)* (Mid-1800’s) (1909/1938) Aspen/Birch < 1~20 ~17 Pine ~10 < 7~32 Oak-Pine ~65 <15 0** Hardwood ~20 ~20 ~36 Mixed Swamp Hardwood < 5 < 5 ~5 Lowland Conifer < 5 ~ 5 ~3 Open, Prairies and Barrens < 2 ~35 ~7 * CDS = Combined Data System, September 2003. ** Not inventoried as a separate type.
The following table (Table III-7) shows the present vegetation types and age classes and percent of each on the Forests (CDS - September 2003, rounded to 1,000 acres).
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-39 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-7. Present Vegetation Types and Age Classes. Vegetation Types Low-Site High-Site Northern Lowland Short-Lived Aspen Oak Oak Hardwoods Hardwoods Conifer Age M 1/ M M M M M Classes Acres % 2/ Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % None 3/ 0.0 0 0.3 40 0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0-9 9.0 27 6.7 20 1.4 4 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 13.7 40.9 10-19 22.4 40 12.1 22 2.9 5 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.5 14.3 25.5 20-29 32.5 43 21.7 29 2.2 3 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 12.3 16.2 30-39 32.7 38 12.6 15 2.8 3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 11.4 13.3 40-49 21.6 33 4.1 6 1.0 2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.4 9.7 14.7 50-59 6.8 13 3.7 7 0.6 1 0.6 1.2 0.7 1.3 12.0 23.0 60-69 8.2 6 14.1 10 5.0 4 3.7 2.7 3.0 2.2 23.0 16.9 70-79 16.7 12 22.9 17 27.9 21 23.6 17.6 7.9 5.9 13.3 9.9 80-89 9.4 7 27.6 21 37.3 28 29.0 22 14.0 10.6 4.9 3.7 90-99 1.9 3 14.2 19 24.1 33 11.3 15.4 10.4 14.2 0.8 1.1 100+ 0.3 50 16.3 27 21.0 35 3.0 4.9 5.7 9.4 0.1 0.2 Total 161.5 156.3 126.2 74.2 44.2 115.6 Percent 17 16 13 8 4 12
Vegetation Types Long-Lived Lowland Totals by Percent of Conifer Conifer Open 4/ Other 5/ Age Class Total Acres Age M M M M by Age Classes Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % M Acres Class None 3/ 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 65.1 97.7 0.3 0.5 66.6 6.8 0-9 2.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 3.4 10-19 3.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 56.0 5.8 20-29 5.8 7.7 0.1 0.1 75.8 7.8 30-39 24.9 28.9 0.5 0.6 86.0 8.8 40-49 27.8 42.1 0.5 0.8 66.0 6.8 50-59 27.2 52.3 0.4 0.8 52.0 5.3 60-69 78.0 57.3 1.1 0.8 136.1 14.0 70-79 19.5 14.5 2.7 2.0 134.5 13.8 80-89 3.9 3.0 5.6 4.3 131.7 13.5 90-99 1.6 2.2 9.0 12.2 73.3 7.5 100+ 3.6 5.9 10.9 17.8 60.9 6.3 Total 198.2 30.8 65.1 0.3 972.4 100 Percent 20 3 7 0 100 1/ M Acres = Thousand Acres. 2/ % = Percent. 3/ None = No age class assigned or age data missing. 4/ Open includes lowland brush, upland brush, non-forest, non-vegetated and water. 5/ Lands with no stand data available.
The vegetation found on the Huron-Manistee National Forests today, to a large degree, is the result of the fire control efforts and the extensive reforestation program carried out between 1920 and 1960. Many of the open areas were planted to red, white and jack pine. These trees, and the young stands that existed when the Forests were established, are maturing and provide a variety of timber products. The present mixture of vegetative types and age classes provides diverse habitats for a variety of wildlife species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-40 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Non-Native Invasive Species:
An organism is considered non-native when it has been introduced by humans to a location outside its natural or native range. This designation applies to a species introduced from another continent, another ecosystem and even another habitat within an ecosystem. Many non-native species exist in apparent harmony in environments where they were introduced. A relatively small number of non-native plants, for example, corn, wheat, rice and oats, form the basis of our agricultural industry, and pose little to no known threats to natural ecosystems. The most important aspect of a non-native species is how it responds to a new environment. An invasive species is one that displays rapid growth and spread, establishes over large areas, persists and replaces native species. Invasiveness is characterized by high reproductive rates, abundant seed or offspring reproduction, high germination or survival rate and longevity in the ecosystem. Some invasive species are considered desirable, such as the brown trout. Examples of highly impacting, non-desirable invasive species that exist on the Forests are Norway rat, brown-headed cowbird, sea lamprey, zebra mussel, gypsy moth and purple loosestrife. Emerald ash borer, Asian long-horned beetle, butternut canker and beech bark disease are non-native invasive insects and diseases which are discussed in the Insect and Disease section below.
Insects and Diseases:
Insects and diseases are a naturally occurring part of the forest ecosystem. In the unmanaged forest environment, native insects and diseases affect forest growth by killing the weaker trees, thus providing growing space for more vigorous trees. Non-native insects and diseases can have a much more dramatic effect, in some cases eliminating a native tree species from the forest environment. Both native and non-native forest pests affect species composition and age classes of the forest.
Native forest pests and diseases that have recently caused mortality include fungus pine tip blight (Sphaeropsis sapinea), jack pine budworm, oak wilt and oak decline.
In 2000 through 2002 there was an increase in the incidence of pine trees infected with the pine tip blight. The fungus attacks all native pines, but red pine is most susceptible. The fungus readily kills seedlings, but large trees can be killed or deformed by repeated attacks. The disease is spread by water-borne spores. A common situation is infection of planted red pine under a jack or red pine overstory. The overstory trees act as an infection source and the spores are spread by rain. In recent years the disease has impacted young jack pine on droughty sites. Droughts, from the mid 1990’s through 2001, stressed young jack pine, making them more susceptible to the fungus. Jack pine regeneration on poor sandy soils had lower than normal survival. The return of normal rainfall since 2001 has led to a cessation of mortality attributable to Sphaeropsis sapinea.
The jack pine budworm population has been on the increase since 2001. The budworm is cyclic: populations buildup in stands with a high percentage of staminate flowers, poorly stocked stands and in mature and over-mature jack pine. The population is expected to decline within a few years.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-41 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
The oak resource on the forest is being impacted by several forest pests. Gypsy moth became established across the entire lower peninsula of Michigan during the 1990s. The gypsy moth has not caused significant damage on the Huron-Manistee National Forests since that time. It is unknown when the population will begin an upward trend.
Oak wilt (Ceratocystis fagacearum) is a fungal disease that is widespread in eastern North America. The red oak group is most susceptible to this disease. Infected red oak may die within a month of infection. White oaks are less susceptible and usually do not suffer mortality but may have dieback on branches. Several pockets of oak wilt have been identified on the Mio Ranger District, most of them associated with residences and subdivisions in the Loon Lake, Mio and Fairview areas.
Oak decline has occurred over widespread areas of the Forests. Oak decline is caused by the interaction of stresses and pests. Drought and other environmental factors stress the trees and make them susceptible to attack by insects and diseases. The two pests most commonly associated with oak decline are the two-lined chestnut borer, Agrilus bilineatus, and armillaria root rot, Armillaria mellea. Both red oak and white oaks are susceptible to oak decline, but may not be affected at the same time due to variation in stressors and forest pest populations. Northern pin oak on the Huron National Forest showed significant decline in 2003 and 2004.
Several non-native insects and diseases have the potential to impact the Huron-Manistee National Forests during this planning period. Chief among them are the emerald ash borer, Asian long-horned beetle, beech bark disease and butternut canker.
Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) is a wood boring beetle that was introduced to Michigan in the late 1990s. Larvae feed in the cambium of ash trees, eventually girdling the tree and causing mortality. The known natural controls have not checked the spread of the emerald ash borer, and all ash species (Fraxinus sp.) appear to be susceptible. This pest has the potential to significantly reduce the ash component in the forest environment.
The Asian long-horned beetle (Anaplophora glabripennis) was first discovered in the United States in 1996. This beetle has the potential to dramatically impact the maple resource on the forest, but has not yet been detected in the State of Michigan.
Beech bark disease, first discovered in Michigan in 2000, has been found in several locations on the Manistee National Forest. It affects both American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica). Beech bark disease may negatively affect wildlife populations that rely on beech for mast production.
Butternut-canker (Sirococcus clavigignti-juglandacearum) is a fungal disease that affects butternut (Juglans cinerea) throughout its range. Efforts are underway to identify canker resistant trees and use them as a seed source for planting. In the interim, the butternut on the forest is expected to continue to decline.
Numerous other insect and disease problems are present, but do not represent a high potential for widespread damage. Pest management requires a comprehensive systems approach to achieving
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-42 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
economical pest control in an environmentally acceptable manner. This concept is known as integrated pest management. Individual components of integrated pest management include cultural, mechanical, manual, prescribed fire, biological, chemical and regulatory means of control.
Old Growth:
In 1986, the Forest Plan projected approximately 173,000 acres would be managed as old growth. Following a long period of public involvement, an Old-Growth Amendment to the Forest Plan (Amendment Number 24, March 2003) was incorporated to clearly define the Standards and Guidelines by which an estimated 176,000 acres of designated old growth would be managed. The estimated acres were determined based on current ownership and best information on land anticipated to be acquired by the Huron-Manistee National Forests as part of the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust. After acquistition of these lands was finalized, it was determined that some of the land was not eligible to be designated old growth because final parcels or land acquired were located outside the old-growth design and final parcels of land acquired were already being managed for another use, such as powerline corridors, and were, therefore, not appropriate for old growth. Figures III-6 and III-7 display the general outline of designated old- growth areas on the Huron National Forest and the Manistee National Forest. Table III-8 displays the distribution of old growth across the Forests by vegetative type.
Table III-8. Distribution of Old Growth by Vegetative Type.
Vegetative Types Acres of Old Growth
Aspen/Birch 21,672 Low Site Oak 21,268
High Site Oak 21,147 Northern Hardwoods 18,465
Lowland Hardwoods 23,051
Short Lived Conifer 11,962 Long Lived Conifer 23,977
Lowland Conifer 18,541 Openings 14,036
Total Acres of Old Growth 174,119
The following (Table III-9) displays the distribution of old growth across the Forests by management area:
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-43 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-9. Distribution of Old Growth by Management Area - 1986 Forest Plan, as Amended. Management Prescription Area Acres of Old Growth Semiprimitive Motorized Areas (1.1, 3.1) 7,529 Roaded Natural Rolling Plains and Morainal Hills (2.1) 14,015 Roaded Natural Sandy Plains and Hills (4.2) 36,183 Roaded Natural Wetlands (4.3) 39,122 Rural (4.4) 2,907 Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat (4.5) 2,272 Wilderness (5.1) 3,372 Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Areas (6.1, 6.2, 6.3) 43,489 Special Areas (8.1) 25,226 Others (Stands with Management Area information missing) 4 Total Acres of Old Growth 174,119
Figure III-6. Old-Growth Areas on the Huron National Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-44 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Figure III-7. Old-Growth Areas on the Manistee National Forest.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-45 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Fire:
The vegetative composition of northern Michigan’s forests was shaped by large-scale disturbances over thousands of years since the last ice age. Other than the glaciers, wildland fire is thought to have affected the forest vegetation more than any other disturbance. Fire has been one constant affecting Michigan's vegetation communities. Wind events, floods, insects and disease have also affected the vegetation of the state. Wildfire occurrences from lightning and Native Americans shaped the natural vegetation present at the time of European settlement of Michigan in the 1800s. Many present natural communities and their associated biota are dependent on fire to maintain their viability.
The northern Lower Peninsula was drastically altered between 1840 and 1938. The old-growth conifer timber was harvested and post-logging fires killed many second-growth stands. About one-third of the area was treeless. Farming was tried, but farms failed in most areas. Early successional vegetative types covered most of the area. Aspen, jack pine, birch and other short- lived species were common. Many of the areas that once had been dominated by mature northern hardwoods now contained young stands of the same type. Much of the area previously covered by the pine and oak/pine types had been so damaged by post-logging fires that only open sand and scattered trees remained.
Fire suppression since the 1930s–coupled with other impacts caused by European settlement such as overgrazing and extensive logging–has also dramatically changed Michigan’s historical vegetation. Densely stocked mixed jack pine/oak woody vegetation has invaded the once open canopy, oak/pine dominated savannahs, woodlands, prairies and forests across the state. Prior to Euro-American settlement, the northern Lower Peninsula’s estimated 37 million acres of forested land included large tracks of red and white pine that were kept in that condition by periodic low intensity surface fires. The vegetation found on the Huron-Manistee National Forests today, to a large degree, is the result of the fire control efforts and the extensive reforestation program carried out between 1938 and 1960. Many of the open areas were planted to red, white, and jack pine. Areas of light to moderate stocking naturally regenerated to oak and oak/pine forests. Northern hardwoods naturally regenerated where soil conditions were favorable.
From 1800 to present, human activities have altered the role of natural fires on the Forests. For example; in the long-rotation conifer stands (red/white pine) low intensity fire burned all red/white pine stands on the average of once every 100 years. With the current–1985 to 2000– fire frequency it would require 1,200 years to burn an area of equivalent size (Cleland 2002). This change in fire intervals has allowed different vegetation to flourish in these fire dependent forest types.
The net effect of the alteration of historic fire regimes has increased fuel accumulations above historic levels over large, continuous areas. The possible consequences of this, coupled with the increase of the wildland/urban interface, include the risk of large, severe fires. This could cause the loss of key components that define ecosystems and the increased risk of serious injury or loss of life to firefighters and the general public. These conditions also increase the risk of property loss and damage to landscapes that have economic value to people.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-46 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Weather plays the major role in the ignition and spread of wildfire in Michigan. Fire danger is the highest from late April through May. Spring is a time when low rainfall, high temperature, low relative humidity and high wind speed combine to dry out surface fuels. September, October and November can also experience a period of high fire danger because of periods of high wind, low humidity and low fuel moisture associated with the changing of the seasons.
Wildfire in jack pine results in high intensity and fast moving fires. This tree species is widespread throughout the forest protection zone. During the spring, jack pine’s volatile chemical composition and low moisture content in the needles make it easy to ignite. By late April, the jack pine live fuel moisture on the forest may drop to 125 percent, the threshold that results in rapid fire spread and crowning. Under these conditions, even moderate winds promote running crown fires in jack pine stands. The forest’s flat terrain tends to promote unrestricted spread of a wind-driven fire. Jack pine’s propensity to support crown fires leads to long-range spotting ahead of the main fire front, often over one-half mile. Rates of spread and spotting distance observed on past incidents, such as the Mack Lake fire and the Stephan Road Bridge fire, indicate that major breaks in fuel, such as the Au Sable River drainage, may be insufficient to stop a jack pine crown fire.
The lower peninsula of Michigan is experiencing a period of significant economic growth. As a result, new homes are being constructed throughout the rural areas of the Forests. With a checkerboard-type ownership pattern, the Forests are witnessing a major increase in risk from person-caused fires. A quick response time of fire suppression resources is critical to providing public safety and preventing the loss of property. Because of the proximity of wildfires to homes, initial attack firefighting forces sometimes do public evacuation, until law enforcement arrives.
The Forests are now engaged in a hazardous fuel reduction program that includes prescribed burning and mechanical fuel reduction methods. Large areas are burned under strict controls to reduce fuel accumulation and re-introduce fire’s role in ecosystem functioning. Fuelbreaks that provide a break in the continuity of flammable vegetation are also being constructed and maintained. These activities result in forest conditions that can reduce the intensity of wildfires and allow fire suppression efforts to be more successful.
Prescribed fire is one of the most effective and efficient practices for fuel reduction programs to reduce wildfire severity. Prescribed fire is also used to prepare sites for natural regeneration, and for special wildlife management needs for species such as the Kirtland’s warbler and the Karner blue butterfly.
Research Natural Areas:
Research Natural Areas serve as a national network of unique or representative areas which provide baseline or reference information on natural conditions. This network also helps protect biological diversity at the genetic, species, ecosystem and landscape levels.
Currently, three established Research Natural Areas exist on the Forests:
1) Hayes Tower, designated in 1998 on the Huron National Forest,
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-47 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
2) Newaygo Prairie, designated in 1998 on the Manistee National Forest, and 3) Nordhouse Dunes, designated in 1987 on the Manistee National Forest.
There are 1,363 acres under Research Natural Area management. An additional three areas have been identified as candidate Research Natural Areas, and 33 areas have been identified as potential candidate Research Natural Areas that were considered for establishment as Research Natural Areas on both Forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-48 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Environmental Consequences – Biological Resources
Method of Disclosure of Effects:
The following discussions of direct and indirect effects of forest management activities were limited to those with more than minimal effects. Unless specifically discussed below, the following management activities (See Forest Plan Appendix D) would occur under Alternative A. They would have minimal, discountable or beneficial effects on the resource of concern and would not vary measurably among the alternatives. Therefore, they will not be discussed further:
• Management of stream habitat. • Management of lake habitat. • Management of terrestrial habitat. • Management of non-native invasive species. • Management of rangeland vegetation. • Management of hazardous fuels. • Maintaining and improving watershed condition. • Decommissioning classified and unclassified roads. • Improving road transportation system. • Improving trail transportation system. • Establishing forest vegetation. • Improving forest vegetation. • Providing recreational opportunities. • Mineral resource management.
In addition to the management activities listed for Alternative A, changes in objectives and Standards and Guidelines occur for Alternatives B and C. Unless specifically discussed below, these changes would have minimal or discountable effects on the resource of concern and would not be discussed further.
• Wildlife and Rare Plants o Changes in acres of emphasis areas. o Changes in guidelines for roads and trails to protect riparian areas. o Increase in snags and den trees to improve habitat for the black-backed woodpecker. o Increase in acres and sizes of savannahs, prairies, barrens and other openlands. o Changes in management and protection of lakes, wetlands and aquatic resources. o Timber harvest restrictions to protect species of concern and habitats. o Increase in acres of Kirtland’s warbler habitat and early successional jack pine. o Management of non-native invasive species.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-49 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
• Riparian and Aquatic Resources o Changes in management of Streamside Management Zones and early- successional habitat. o Changes in management of wood in rivers and streams. o Changes in sediment basin management.
• Recreation, Semiprimitive o Changes in management, miles and levels of motorized and nonmotorized trails. o Implementation of the Scenery Management System. o Changes in Wild and Scenic River status. o Changes in mountain bike access on roads.
• Fire and Fuels o Increase acres and size of prescribed burns and fuel reduction. o Establish priorities for fire suppression and fuels reduction. o Decrease effects of suppression activities. o Implement rehabilitation activities in burned areas. o Treat fuels, encourage native vegetation and use smoke management practices.
• Administrative o Changes in Management Prescription Areas. o Restrict gathering of fuel wood or special forest products in old growth. o Changes in minerals Standards and Guidelines for species of concern and Research Natural Areas. o Changes in lands Standards and Guidelines. o Changes in Management Indicator Species.
• Law, Regulation and Policy o Changes in Standards and Guidelines regarding heritage resources, minerals and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations.
Effects on Range:
Introduction:
Analysis Area:
The demand for use of the Huron-Manistee National Forests for range allotments is limited and localized. Pastures and range allotments represent a very limited amount of National Forest System lands. Therefore, the analysis area for direct and indirect effects includes only National Forest System lands managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The analysis area for cumulative effects includes all Huron-Manistee National Forests’ lands and lands adjacent to the Forests in other ownerships because this area provides a broad analysis of range management on both National Forest System and non-federal lands, which allows the Forests to determine if their
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-50 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
range management goals are being achieved, and how range management on non-federal lands affects the achievement of those goals.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would provide range opportunities in Management Areas 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 8.1 (except Research Natural Areas) and 9.1. These Management Areas represent approximately 741,000 acres, or 77 percent, of Huron-Manistee National Forests lands, yet livestock grazing would only occur on approximately 1,000 acres, less than 1 percent, of the Forests. This reflects the limited availability of lands on the Forests in a suitable open land condition with appropriate vegetation and structural conditions for range management.
The current range areas would be managed to achieve desired vegetation and structural conditions for a variety of wildlife species that require large open land conditions. Wildlife species would realize direct and indirect benefits from these open land conditions. Range management activities, such as prescribed burning, may create some short-term adverse effects through increasing nutrient availability in surface waters and from smoke affects to air quality. These effects can be mitigated through application of Best Management Practices and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
Within the existing allotments, the activities proposed in Alternative A would not affect timber management, minerals management or the Forests’ transportation system. However, there would be effects to recreation, wildlife and special uses within these areas. Managing the existing allotments for an openland condition provides the public opportunities for wildlife watching, especially in the Walkinshaw wetland area because of use by sandhill cranes and waterfowl. Some economic benefits would be gained from issuing range permits.
Where permitted, livestock grazing under Alternative A would maintain and/or improve large openland habitats, benefitting species within the wetland, riparian and large grassland habitat groups. These beneficial effects would likely decrease over the long term since the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines state that all riparian and wetland areas, which includes wet meadows and mesic grasslands, would be managed for late seral stages and that only natural disturbances would be expected to occur. This would likely result in the gradual loss of large openland/grassland habitats on the Forests.
Alternative A’s Standards and Guidelines would provide protection to water quality; therefore the alternative’s affects on water quality would be insignificant.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
All of the existing range allotments are within management areas where grazing objectives are permitted. Therefore, there would be no direct effect on existing allotments. However, implementation of Alternatives B or C would result in a minor reduction in potential range management opportunities on National Forest System lands because the acres within management areas where livestock grazing is permitted would be reduced by 3 percent to approximately 729,000 acres, or 74 percent of Huron-Manistee National Forests lands.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-51 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
The effects are similar to Alternative A except the Standards and Guidelines for Alternatives B and C, where compatible with regulations and the management objectives for the area, would allow livestock grazing to be used to maintain open land conditions in wetland and riparian habitats.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
There are numerous actions within and outside the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ boundary that affect grazing and open land conditions. In general, there is an overall decline in the availability of range resources in the cumulative effects analysis area. This decline includes reduced economic viability of grazing and farming operations, and the continued conversion of open land, including cropland, grassland, and native vegetation remnants, to residential, commercial or industrial uses. The loss of grazing and farming operations reduces disturbance frequencies, and many sites are succeeding to non-open land conditions. These changes are resulting in the loss of open lands for grazing and grasslands that provide wildlife values. Since there are limited additional opportunities on National Forest System lands for livestock grazing, implementation of Alternative A would result in only minor cumulative impacts in the area.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The cumulative effects of Alternatives B and C are similar to those described under Alternative A. While there would be a minor reduction in the total management area acreage available for livestock grazing, there are only limited additional opportunities on National Forest System lands. Therefore, the alternatives would not result in a negative cumulative impact in the area.
Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species:
Introduction:
The ecological conditions that contribute to the long-term abundance and distribution of habitat for species listed as federally endangered and threatened have been a concern to the Forests. This section discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for these federally-listed species and discloses their determinations.
A review of current conditions and current management direction(s) for these species are discussed in detail in the Forest Plan biological evaluation and biological assessment. They discuss species description, life history, habitats, threats, status of the species, factors effecting the species, effects of the alternatives, cumulative effects and makes determinations for each alternative. This detailed information has not been carried forward in the Final Environmental Impact Statement section.
The Forest Plan incorporates specific Standards and Guidelines that afford special attention to the needs of federally listed species. The direction will be incorporated at project-level planning, analysis, and implementation to avoid or minimize potential negative impacts and to promote proactive management to benefit the species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-52 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
The Biological Evaluation for the Forest Plan provides additional information for endangered and threatened species, and for species of concern. Findings from the Biological Evaluation are presented in Appendix F: Federal Threatened, Endangered and Regional Forester Sensitive Species.
Indiana Bat:
Standards and Guidelines and conservation measures for the Indiana bat provide considerable protection for the species and its habitat from effects due to the implementation of Alternative A. These conservation measures are expected to avoid or reduce the potential for direct or indirect impacts to the species throughout its range on the Manistee National Forest. Nonetheless, the potential for adverse effects on Indiana bats from management activities on the Forest still exist.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
The following management actions under Alternative A would have no effect or are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat because Standards and Guidelines would provide protection to Indiana bat: range management, recreation, wilderness and related resource management, watershed management, forest pest management and the Forests’ transportation system Standards and Guidelines.
Alternative A would have a beneficial effect by addressing the following draft revised Indiana bat recovery plan actions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999):
• Conduct research as necessary for survival and recovery. • Obtain information on population distribution, status and trends. • Protect and maintain Indiana bat populations. • Provide information and technical assistance outreach. • Coordinate and implement the conservation and recovery of the Indiana bat.
Over the long term, implementation of Alternative A is expected to increase the amount of suitable habitat. Habitat suitability for roosting and reproduction would be improved through vegetation management, opening of the forest canopy and by designing stands with irregular borders and openings to increase exposure of individual trees to solar radiation. Proposed vegetation management methods would increase the overall tree size and proportion of hardwoods in a stand, thereby increasing the potential for large dead trees or snags that are suitable for roosting. Prescribed burning would maintain roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat by increasing the number of dead trees or snags for roosting, by maintaining an open canopy by killing smaller trees, and by clearing the understory vegetation. Creation of additional suitable foraging habitat through other forest management activities, for example, the creation of water sources in wildlife openings and as roads are decommissioned, would also be expected to have beneficial effects.
The following management actions under Alternative A are likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat: timber harvest; minerals and geology; fire management and wildlife, fish and sensitive plant management. These management activities may result in adverse effects if vegetation
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-53 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
management or prescribed fire activities within potential Indiana bat habitat occurred at a time and location where the species may be present. Potential direct effects to the species could result from the removal of roost trees used by a maternity colony–although no colonies have been documented on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, the potential for such colonies exists given the proximity to the hibernaculum and the extent of suitable habitat present–and by migrants during spring and fall migration. These risks would be increased in areas of highly suitable habitat, such as the Tippy Management Zone, and, therefore, pose a higher risk of adverse effects, such as direct mortality or injury, lower reproductive success and higher young mortality, to the Indiana bat.
Vegetation management and prescribed burning may also result in the temporary loss and degradation of roosting and foraging habitat.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area includes counties that border Lake Michigan in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan from Leelanau south to all of southern Michigan because this area encompasses the full extent of Indiana bat habitat that could be impacted through federal and non-federal actions within Michigan. The Indiana bat does not occur on the Huron National Forest.
Historically, Indiana bat habitat was believed to occur only in the southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Recent data has shown that Indiana bats are hibernating in the spillway at the Tippy dam hydro-electric plant located within the proclamation boundary of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Based on surveys conducted from 1994 to 2002, Indiana bats are consistently present, albeit in low numbers, within the Tippy dam hibernaculum. This Federal Energy Regulatory Commission facility is expected to continue to serve as a hibernaculum into the foreseeable future. On the Huron-Manistee National Forests, approximately 440,000 acres have been identified within the potential range of the Indiana bat, and includes lands within the Manistee National Forest. Of this potential habitat, approximately 40 percent, or 178,000 acres, is on National Forest System lands. This is a significant amount of land and should provide adequate habitat for the Indiana bats that may summer in the analysis area.
No major non-federal actions are reasonably certain to occur within the analysis area. It is expected that some activities, particularly on private lands, could have a progressive negative effect on Indiana bats. Human populations in the counties within potential Indiana bat habitat have been rapidly increasing in recent years (Forest Service 2003a). Human population growth is typically accompanied by increased urbanization, including road construction and land development. These activities could result in the permanent loss of potential Indiana bat habitat. Additional actions on private lands that may adversely affect the Indiana bat in the future are fire suppression, application of pesticides and timber harvest.
Privately owned mineral rights may be developed on private, state and federal lands. Mineral rights on federal lands are subject to an environmental analysis, review, oversight and permit. In some cases, the Huron-Manistee National Forests may not be able to impose a “no surface occupancy” stipulation in a permit for mineral extraction in potential Indiana bat habitat. Mineral
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-54 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources developments are reasonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future, and they have the potential to cumulatively affect the Indiana bat.
While there would be some negative effects from activities within the analysis area, overall Alternative A would have positive cumulative effects for the Indiana bat. Implementation of the Recovery Plan objectives and Huron-Manistee National Forests conservation measures are expected to produce long-term beneficial cumulative effects and improve the overall status of the species within the action area.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B and C:
The Forests would be managed under these Alternatives similar to Alternative A and would therefore have similar effects on the Indiana bat to those previously described. Alternatives B and C would differ from Alternative A with regard to the emphasis on the treatment of hazardous fuels, barrens and prairies, and species viability recommendations. The following effects discussion addresses these differences.
Under Alternatives B and C, approximately 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks would be created on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, with some of the fuelbreaks likely to occur within potential Indiana bat habitat. This action has the potential to benefit and adversely affect Indiana bat habitat. Fuelbreaks reduce the canopy and create travel corridors and foraging areas thereby benefiting the bat, but they also remove trees which may reduce roosting sites, although roost sites are not considered a limiting factor on the Forests. These alternatives would also increase the acres receiving fuel treatments. These actions would also have beneficial and adverse effects as described previously.
Under Alternatives B and C, 37,500 acres of barrens habitat would be created on the Manistee National Forest with approximately one-half of that assumed to fall within potential Indiana bat habitat. These barrens are expected to improve habitat conditions for the bat by improving foraging opportunities and increasing the number of snags for roosting over the long term. Short- term adverse effects may result from removal of trees and timber harvest activities as described previously.
Species viability recommendations would likely have both beneficial and adverse effects on the Indiana bat. Some recommendations, such as retaining snags created by wildfire for black- backed woodpecker and increasing the number of snags for red-headed woodpecker within savannahs and barrens, would improve habitat conditions for Indiana bat. Other recommendations, such as the creation of large openlands, would adversely affect the species by reducing habitat because Indiana bats tend to avoid these areas.
Determinations:
Based on the analysis of effects of the alternatives on the Indiana bat, it is determined in the biological assessment that Alternatives A, B and C are likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat in its known range on the Manistee National Forest because some unavoidable direct adverse
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-55 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
effects to individual Indiana bats could occur. Such effects, however, are not anticipated to impair the Indiana bat population on National Forest System lands within the planning area.
Bald Eagle:
Direct and Indirect Effects of All Alternatives:
Since the direct and indirect effects of Alternatives A, B and C on the bald eagle would be the same, all three alternatives will be analyzed together.
Under all three alternatives there are Standards and Guidelines in place that would protect bald eagle nesting habitat.
Alternatives A, B and C would have no direct effects on the bald eagle as a result of range management. Indirectly, the alternatives would provide beneficial effects by increasing foraging opportunities.
Watershed management objectives that would improve or maintain aquatic ecosystems and fisheries would improve foraging opportunities for eagles. Implementation of these management activities, however, would affect the bald eagle and would likely occur within a significant amount of bald eagle essential habitat. However, the alternatives’ Standards and Guidelines would place restrictions on potential direct impacts during the breeding period. Therefore, watershed management actions would be generally beneficial to essential habitat and would not likely adversely affect the bald eagle. Any effects would likely be beneficial, insignificant or discountable within nesting areas.
In all alternatives, conservation measures for the bald eagle would further ensure that any proposed pesticide application would only result in effects that would likely be insignificant or discountable.
Prescribed fire and fuels treatments would not generally occur in areas occupied by eagles and therefore would not likely affect the species. Wildfires could have both direct and indirect effects on the bald eagle, direct by causing the death of individuals and indirectly by destroying nest trees, perch trees or roost trees and essential habitat. Fire suppression would directly affect eagles through human-related disturbances. Fuels treatments and prescribed burning would benefit the bald eagle by reducing the potential for catastrophic wildfire.
Standards and Guidelines for all alternatives would restrict the timing of road construction activities and distances that roads can occur from nest sites in order to minimize direct effects to eagles. Therefore, transportation system management activities on the Forests would not be likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
All alternatives include Standards and Guidelines for recreational activities that would likely occur within essential habitat for bald eagles. These activities would have the potential for both direct and indirect adverse effects as a result of human-related disturbances and management of recreational activities. However, the Standards and Guidelines and conservation measures for
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-56 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
bald eagle under all alternatives would limit or minimize direct and indirect effects to eagles through restrictions of the timing of activities and distances that activities can occur from nest sites.
The alternatives include general management directions that would avoid or minimize potential negative effects from timber, wildlife and fisheries management activities and would promote proactive management to benefit the bald eagle.
Standards and Guidelines would protect bald eagle nesting sites and ensure suitable roosting habitat would be maintained. Additional essential nesting habitat has been identified in the Bald Eagle Management Plan that provides future nesting areas.
All alternatives include conservation measures for the bald eagle that would provide protection for the species and its habitat. These conservation measures would avoid or reduce the potential for direct or indirect effects to the species throughout its range on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Nonetheless, the potential for adverse effects on bald eagles would still result from activities on the Forests.
Cumulative Effects of All Alternatives:
To evaluate cumulative effects, the analysis area is the proclamation boundaries for the Huron- Manistee National Forests and areas adjacent to the Forests because the bald eagle is relatively common within the proclamation boundary, and actions on both federal and adjacent non-federal lands could impact the bald eagle. For Alternatives A, B and C, the cumulative effects on the bald eagle would be the same.
It is expected that additional impacts, particularly from continued urbanization on private lands, could have a progressively negative effect on bald eagles in the action area. Land use practices and human disturbance could reduce the suitability of habitat conditions within potential bald eagle habitat, such as white pine forests. Increased urbanization, including road construction and land development, would likely result in the permanent loss of potential bald eagle habitat in the short term, 10 years, and long term, 100 years, and are expected to increase levels of human disturbance.
Privately owned mineral rights would likely be developed on private, state and federal lands within the action area, and therefore the potential exists for the bald eagle to be adversely affected. While mineral developments are reasonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future, they would not be expected to have cumulative effects that would jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle.
For all alternatives, a considerable amount of essential bald eagle habitat would be designated on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Under Alternatives B and C, riparian forested habitat outside of designated old growth could be managed to provide early succession riparian habitat for species, such as the golden-winged warbler. This would reduce the amount of potential bald eagle roosting, perching and nesting riparian habitat available on the Forests. However, since the treated riparian forest would regenerate and the retained forest continue to mature over time the
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-57 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
reduction would have minimal effects on the bald eagle. Under these alternatives, the riparian forest available would continue to provide roosting, perching and nesting habitat over the long term. Unlike the non-federal activities mentioned above, the alternatives would have positive effects on the bald eagle on Huron-Manistee National Forests lands. All alternatives include Recovery Plan objectives and Huron-Manistee National Forests conservation measures that would produce long-term beneficial cumulative effects and maintain the status of the bald eagle within the action area. These Standards and Guidelines have proven to be effective at preventing or reducing disturbance and are likely to continue to provide protection.
Determinations:
Based on the analysis of effects of the alternatives on the bald eagle, it is determined in the biological assessment that Alternatives A, B and C are likely to adversely affect the bald eagle in its known range on the Huron-Manistee National Forests because some unavoidable direct adverse effects to individual bald eagles could occur. Such effects, however, are not anticipated to impair the bald eagle population on National Forest System lands within the planning area.
Kirtland’s Warbler:
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would benefit the Kirtland’s warbler over the short and long terms because it would provide direction for producing 1,070 acres of quality breeding habitat annually, and includes protective measures for the Kirtland’s warbler. Under Alternative A, approximately 109,000 acres would be identified in Kirtland’s warbler management prescription areas (4.5). Of this, approximately 70,000 acres of jack pine, designated as essential habitat, would be managed specifically for the warbler. However, this alternative would likely adversely affect the species over the short and long terms because the development of habitat is insufficient to support the Forests’ goal of a minimum of 420 pairs of warblers. Wildfires would continue to be suppressed, and when considered with managed habitat, insufficient breeding habitat would be created. Alternative A would permit activities such as guided tours, the annual census, and limited professional photography and the recording of its song. While these activities have substantial benefits to the Kirtland’s warbler information and education program, a small direct risk to individual Kirtland’s warblers exists.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
When compared to Alternative A, Alternatives B and C would have greater benefit to the Kirtland’s warbler over the short and long terms because they would provide direction for producing 1,600 acres of quality breeding habitat annually, sufficient acres of essential habitat to meet the Forests’ goal of a minimum of 420 pairs, and provide protective measures for the Kirtland’s warbler. These alternatives would increase the acres identified in Kirtland’s warbler management prescription areas (4.2KW) to approximately 136,000, and essential habitat to approximately 88,300 acres (Table III-10). Unlike Alternative A, these alternatives would increase the maximum treatment block size to 550 acres, and eliminate the need for Regional Forester review for projects 550 acres or less. Additionally, treatment blocks up to 550 acres
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-58 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
could be placed adjacent to one another, and harvesting of immature stands would be permitted to create large treatment blocks. These alternatives would occasionally provide high quality, naturally regenerated jack pine habitat through management for black-backed woodpeckers. These alternatives may also provide breeding habitat on the Manistee National Forest because one objective is the harvest and regeneration of 200 acres of jack pine annually.
Alternatives B and C would also increase the number of snags and down wood, improving structural diversity for the Kirtland’s warbler. They could provide additional habitat in pine barrens, dry grasslands and large openings.
As with Alternative A, Alternatives B and C could have an adverse or beneficial effect on the Kirtland’s warbler because the Huron-Manistee National Forests would continue to suppress wildfires. However, unlike Alternative A, Alternatives B and C would provide sufficient managed habitat for the species over the short and long terms.
Like Alternative A, Alternatives B and C would permit activities such as guided tours, the annual census, and limited professional photography and recording of its song. While these activities have substantial benefits to the Kirtland’s warbler information and education program, a small direct risk to individual Kirtland’s warblers would still exist.
Table III-10. Kirtland’s Warbler Management Acreage by Alternative. Huron-Manistee National Forests - Alternative (Acres) Kirtland’s Warbler Management A B C Total acres of essential habitat: 70,000 88,300 88,300 Acres required for Kirtland’s warbler:1/ 53,500 79,800 79,800 Required annual habitat objective: 1,600 1,600 1,600 Forest plan annual habitat objective: 1,070 1,600 1,600 Maximum size of treatment blocks: 370 550 550 Annual habitat available between 10 and 100 years: 10,700 16,000 16,000 1/ Based on the Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team recommendations and the analysis in the Biological Assessment completed in 2005, Alternative A identifies 53,500 acres required for Kirtland's warbler. This is derived by multiplying 1,070 acres/year (the average acres of jack pine harvested annually for Kirtland's warbler habitat creation) by 50 years (the rotation age of jack pine). So, over a 50 year period, the Forests are providing 53,500 acres of potential Kirtland's warbler habitat. Alternatives B and C identify 79,800 acres required for Kirtland's warbler. This is derived by multiplying 1,600 acres/year (the average acres of jack pine harvested annually for Kirtland's warbler habitat creation) X 50 years (the rotation age of jack pine).
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
To evaluate cumulative effects, the analysis area is the species' known breeding range, the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan and the eastern half of the Upper Peninsula because it encompasses both federal and state habitat management efforts for the Kirtland’s warbler.
Historically, Kirtland’s warbler breeding habitat developed as a result of wildfires. Wildfire suppression that has occurred since the early 1900s has reduced the creation of breeding habitat.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-59 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
As a result of this loss of habitat, the Kirtland’s warbler was listed as federally endangered. Currently, management of habitat occurs primarily on public lands managed by the Forest Service, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Through this management and wildfires, the population has increased substantially since 1990. However, as a result of a review of the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Plan (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 1985) and new data, the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team determined that more essential habitat is needed to meet the recovery objective of a minimum of 1,000 pairs (USFS, Biological Assessment 2005). Currently, approximately 151,000 acres are managed for the Kirtland’s warbler on state and federal lands in the northern Lower Peninsula. To meet the recovery objective, approximately 190,000 acres are needed for management within the species known breeding range.
Alternative A would not create sufficient breeding habitat to meet the recovery objective of 1,000 pairs throughout its known range over the short and long terms. Therefore, Alternative A would not contribute to reducing the shortfall of approximately 39,000 acres of essential habitat. At present, no other land management agency has committed to allocating additional habitat to be managed for the species. Consequently, Alternative A, when combined with future federal, state, tribal, local or private actions in Michigan, would likely have adverse cumulative effects on the Kirtland’s warbler.
It is also assumed that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would continue to suppress wildfires in the northern Lower Peninsula. Under Alternative A, the Forest Service would also suppress wildfires within its protection boundaries. Therefore, Alternative A would have an adverse cumulative effect on the Kirtland’s warbler because insufficient natural breeding habitat would be created over the short and long terms.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Unlike Alternative A, Alternatives B and C would designate and manage additional essential habitat to meet the recovery objective of 1,000 pairs throughout its known range, based on the new assumptions that approximately 190,000 acres are required. However, a shortfall of approximately 30,000 acres of essential habitat would still exist across all ownerships, at least over the short term. Consequently, these alternatives, when combined with future federal, state, tribal, local or private actions in Michigan, would likely have adverse cumulative effects on the Kirtland’s warbler.
Like Alternative A, Alternatives B and C would also suppress wildfires. Wildfires in jack pine usually create Kirtland’s warbler breeding habitat. However, fire suppression could be beneficial to the Kirtland’s warbler if a wildfire occurred in developing or occupiable breeding habitat. Nonetheless, these alternatives would have an adverse cumulative effect on the Kirtland’s warbler because an insufficient breeding habitat would be created over the short and long terms to sustain a minimum of 1,000 pairs range wide.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-60 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Determinations:
Based on the analysis of effects of the alternatives on the Kirtland’s warbler, it is determined in the biological assessment that Alternatives A, B and C are likely to adversely affect the Kirtland’s warbler in its known range on the Huron-Manistee National Forests because some unavoidable direct adverse effects to individual Kirtland’s warblers could occur. Such effects, however, are not anticipated to impair the Kirtland’s warbler population on National Forest System lands within the planning area.
Piping Plover and Piping Plover Critical Habitat:
Direct and Indirect Effects of All Alternatives:
All alternatives would have direct and indirect effects on the piping plover and designated critical habitat by protecting, managing and monitoring known occurrences and essential habitat.
For all the alternatives there would not be any direct or indirect effects on the piping plover or designated critical habitat from range management, timber management, minerals and geology, fire and fuels management or transportation management due to the fact that these activities do not occur in beach/dune habitat. There is the potential that there may be a limited amount of direct and indirect affects from wildlife, sensitive plant, noxious weed, and watershed management activities. The direct effect of these activities would be disturbance. Standards and Guidelines in the three alternatives would help to alleviate these affects.
While Standards and Guidelines are designed to provide protection, adverse effects from recreation and related resource management are expected to occur. These activities have the potential to reduce the suitability of existing habitat and to cause disturbances that may lead to harassment, harm or direct take. These activities could also contribute to predation of eggs and chicks by attracting predators and scavengers–birds such as gulls and crows and mammals such as skunks, opossums, raccoons and foxes–with litter and trash.
Nest protection and related activities such as population surveys and monitoring, would likely also adversely affect piping plover. While these activities are intended to benefit the species, they still introduce the risk of harassment, harm or direct take.
None of the three alternatives is considered better than the others for the beach/dune community.
Cumulative Effects of All Alternatives:
Historically, piping plover habitat was found along the Great Lakes shorelines. Habitat destruction and modification, predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, disturbance by humans and pets, small population size and contaminants threaten the continued existence of the species. An increase in the piping plover populations has been documented in recent years. Currently piping plovers are broadly distributed along isolated patches of Great Lakes shorelines. Piping plovers are known to nest immediately adjacent to National Forest System lands and
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-61 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
forage within designated critical habitat on the Manistee National Forest. Designated critical habitat provides the opportunity for breeding piping plovers to occur on the Forests in the future.
The cumulative effects analysis area is the Great Lakes beaches because they provide habitat, both historically and currently, for the species. Human disturbances and a lack of protective measures on non-federal lands adjacent to the action area contribute to adverse cumulative effects for piping plover and critical habitat. Management activities that control human and animal disturbance reduce impacts to the species. However, it is likely that over time there would be increases in the numbers of people using beaches; use of Off-Highway Vehicles; loud noises; and other activities which are likely to increase disturbances to birds or cause an increased loss of eggs or individuals. Active management within critical habitat units would provide protection into the foreseeable future. Since an increase in the piping plover populations has been documented in recent years, a continuation of this population increase is anticipated into the future.
Determinations:
Based on the analysis of effects of the alternatives on the piping plover, it is determined in the biological assessment that Alternatives A, B and C are likely to adversely affect the piping plover in its known range on the Manistee National Forest because some unavoidable direct adverse effects to individuals could occur. Such effects, however, are not anticipated to impair the piping plover population on National Forest System lands within the planning area.
Alternatives A, B, and C would have no effect on piping plover on the Huron National Forest because there is no designated critical habitat nor any known occurrences.
Karner Blue Butterfly:
Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The following management actions would have no effect or are not likely to adversely affect the Karner blue butterfly where they occur in unoccupied Karner blue butterfly habitats: range management, watershed management, minerals and geology, vegetation management, fire and fuels management, transportation system and recreation management and wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant management.
Beneficial effects are expected from Alternative A by contributing to the following recovery plan actions for the Karner blue butterfly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001c).
• Protect and manage the Karner blue butterfly and its habitat to perpetuate viable metapopulations. • Develop range-wide and regional management guidelines. • Develop and implement information and education program. • Collect important ecological data on the Karner blue butterfly and associated habitats.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-62 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Two indicators are used to evaluate direct and indirect effects of the alternatives. They include 1) acres of barrens restored and 2) whether or not the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan objectives are met. Karner blue habitat was historically associated with landscapes composed of sandy soils which supported oak and oak-pine savannahs or barrens ecosystems. It is now associated with remnant barrens and savannahs, highway and powerline rights-of-ways, gaps within forested stands, young forest stands, forest roads and trails and areas that are open and contain wild lupine. Therefore “acres of barrens restored” are being considered as indicators of quantity and quality of habitat for Karner blue butterflies. All alternatives retain the existing amounts of upland openings.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area includes the potential Karner blue butterfly habitat within Michigan because federal and non-federal actions in potential Karner blue habitat within the Manistee National Forest’s proclamation boundary could affect the species’ population and, therefore, recovery in Michigan. On the Huron-Manistee National Forests, the Karner blue butterfly is only known to occur on the Baldwin-White Cloud Districts of the Manistee National Forest. Throughout its range, the Karner blue butterfly was historically associated with landscapes composed of sandy soils, which supported oak or oak-pine savannah barrens and savannah ecosystems. It is now associated with remnant barrens and savannahs, highway and powerline right-of-ways, gaps within forest stands, young forest stands, forest roads and trails, airports, military camps and old fields that occur on the landscapes previously occupied by native barrens and savannahs.
Currently, approximately one-half of the total land acreage and approximately 18 percent of the known occupied acreage in the Karner Blue Butterfly Management Areas within the Forests’ Proclamation Boundary is in non-federal, mostly private, ownership (Forest Service 1994, 2003a). Although no major non-federal actions are reasonably certain to occur within the analysis area, it is assumed that some activities, particularly on private lands, would have a progressive negative effect on the Karner blue butterfly in the action area. Human populations in the counties with Karner blue butterfly habitat have been rapidly increasing in recent years (Forest Service 2003a). Human population growth is typically accompanied by increased urbanization, including road construction and land development. These activities may result in the permanent loss of Karner blue butterfly habitat.
Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect the Karner blue butterfly in the future are fire suppression, mowing and grazing, Off-Highway Vehicle use, application of pesticides, and timber harvest. Additionally, the development of privately-owned mineral rights is possible on both private and Huron-Manistee National Forests lands. Mineral rights on federal lands are subject to an environmental analysis, review, oversight and permit from the federal agency. The Forest Service, however, may not be able to condition a permit in a manner that would preclude the development of the resource. In such cases, the Huron-Manistee National Forests may not be able to impose a no-surface-occupancy stipulation in the permit for mineral extraction in Karner blue butterfly habitat, and the species may be adversely affected.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-63 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Given that a significant portion of potential Karner blue butterfly habitat is federally owned, the positive effects of Alternative A should help mitigate potential negative effects of non-federal activity in the action area. Therefore, the overall net long-term cumulative effect of the restoration treatments, other protective measures and planned activities in the action area should be beneficial to the species.
Cumulative effects due to additional actions on private lands would be the same as described in Alternative A. However, Alternatives B and C would create significantly more habitat in the future and, therefore, in the long term additional beneficial effects to the species would be expected.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
The following management actions from Alternative A would likely adversely affect the Karner blue butterfly: habitat restoration activities that include timber management, fire and fuels management and wildlife and sensitive plant management. Restoration efforts are designed to maintain suitable habitat using actions such as planting and propagation of nectar plants, mowing, cutting, scarification and burning on occupied sites to maintain or improve Karner blue butterfly habitat. Adult Karner blue butterflies would not likely be directly affected because treatments would not be planned during their flight periods; however, there could be adverse direct effects via crushing or burning of eggs and larvae.
Management for the Karner blue butterfly could be detrimental to the species if the actions were not planned and executed correctly. Restoration activities, particularly burning, would have the potential to eliminate a sub-population of Karner blue butterflies if there was no source of individuals outside and near the treated areas to allow for repopulation.
Alternative A would have established Standards and Guidelines to provide maximum benefits to the species. These Standards and Guidelines include, but are not limited to the following: 1) planning, both annually and cumulatively, for the term of the project, for the appropriate amount, spatial arrangement, and rotation schedule of restoration sites to maximize habitat recovery and recolonization potential; 2) seasonal timing restrictions for each restoration technique to minimize the potential for direct effects and to maximize effectiveness; 3) minimization of incidental habitat damage due to equipment or methodology and 4) pre- and post-treatment monitoring for Karner blue butterfly and habitat responses. Monitoring of the results and progress would allow for any necessary adjustments to be made.
The U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan identified the need for spatial distribution and connectivity of occupied habitats to preserve genetic variations and to buffer against large-scale stochastic variations. Occupied sites are broadly distributed but restricted to the Baldwin-White Cloud Ranger District of the Manistee National Forest. Currently there are 2,467 acres of known occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat within the boundary of the Manistee National Forest. This is composed of 2,026 acres of National Forest System lands and 441 acres of non-federal land. Alternative A would provide for a total of 30,000 acres of upland openings across all of the Huron-Manistee National Forests and would allow for the creation of 10,000 acres of barrens and prairies within the old-growth design. Currently these 30,000 acres
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-64 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
of existing openings are broadly distributed among the four administrative districts and are being managed to provide a variety of benefits to wildlife species. While this alternative and associated direction would provide some opportunities for habitat management and conservation, it would not meet the spatial distribution and connectivity criteria identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan.
Additional barrens restoration under Alternative A would be associated with habitat within the old-growth design, primarily forest succession. By decade two –2015–it is projected that approximately 800 acres of barrens would exist and would increase to approximately 2,400 acres by decades 5 and 10 on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Furthermore, the distribution of barrens under this alternative would likely have 38 percent on the Manistee National Forest and 52 percent on the Huron National Forest, which is outside the known range for the species. Only the southern portion of the Manistee National Forest is within ecosystems that are potential Karner blue butterfly habitat, therefore the potential for restoration ranges between 150 to 460 acres under this alternative. The specific barrens habitat projections are identified in Table III-11. This net acreage, existing openings and barrens restoration, would not meet the estimated acreage needed for Karner blue butterfly recovery. The estimated acreage needed for Karner blue butterfly recovery totals approximately 20,000 acres and consists of four metapopulation areas, described in the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan, plus additional potential barrens that would benefit Karner blue butterfly.
Table III-11. Comparison of Barrens Restoration by Decade. Alternative A Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 10 Huron-Manistee 796 1,462 2,390 2,390 2,390 National Forests Huron 493 985 1,478 1,478 1,478 Manistee 303 477 912 912 912 Alternative B Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 10 Huron-Manistee 9,318 28,722 60,693 64,500 68,501 National Forests Huron 986 5,371 20,277 23,106 24,700 Manistee 8,332 23,351 40,416 41,394 43,801 Alternative C Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 10 Huron-Manistee 26,217 52,431 67,763 67,763 67,763 National Forests Huron 8,231 16,464 24,700 24,700 24,700 Manistee 17,986 35.967 43,063 43,063 43,063
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-65 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-8. Acreage of Barrens Creation by Alternative. Graphic Representation of Barren Restoration
80000
70000
60000
50000 s 40000 Acre 30000
20000
10000
0 End of Decade End of Decade End of Decade End of Decade End of Decade 1 2 3 4 5 Viable 58600 58600 58600 58600 58600 Alt A 796 1462 2390 2390 2390 Alt B 9318 28722 60693 64500 68501 Alt C 26217 52431 67763 67763 67763 Decade
Note: Figure III-8 does not portray the existing acreage of known occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat (2,000 acres). The figure does display differences between the alternatives for future barrens restorations.
The transportation system, recreation and related resource management have the potential to directly adversely affect the Karner blue butterfly. Habitat degradation via roads and trails and trampling, removing, or otherwise damaging wild lupine and other desired vegetation would indirectly affect the suitability of occupied habitat.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan identified the need for spatial distribution and connectivity of occupied habitats to preserve genetic variations and to buffer against large-scale stochastic variations. Occupied sites are currently broadly distributed. There are 2,467 acres of known occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat on the Manistee National Forest. This is composed of 2,026 acres of National Forest System lands and 441 acres of non- federal land. Four metapopulation areas have been identified in the “Draft Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Management Strategy for the Huron-Manistee National Forests.” This strategy identifies the criteria to meet the recovery goals for viable metapopulations within the Newaygo and Muskegon Recovery Units. Within these four metapopulations there are approximately 630 acres of known occupied sites. These sites currently contain only 31 percent of the known occurrences on National Forest System lands. The remaining 69 percent (1,398 acres) are outside the four metapopulation recovery areas identified in the strategy. These essential Karner blue butterfly habitats are generally small open areas and are considered a part of the Forests' upland openings and would likely continue to exist into the foreseeable future through Forest Plan upland opening management. The occupied sites within the four metapopulation areas represent approximately three percent of the barrens objective established for these recovery units.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-66 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Alternative B would restore or manage an additional 10,600 acres of barrens habitat within the four Karner blue butterfly metapopulation areas over two decades. Alternative B would also restore 9,400 acres ofessential Karner blue butterfly barren habitat. These areas would be associated with sites that have known occurrences of Karner blue butterfly.
Table III-11 displays the rate of implementation of barrens restoration on each Forest. Alternative B would have less than half (46 percent) the amount of barrens created by decade two as in Alternative C, though more than Alternative A.
Additional barrens restoration would occur in decades 1 and 2 and be fully implemented by decade 3 (20,300 acres). Of the 8,332 (89 percent) acres of barrens to be restored on the Manistee National Forest during the first decade, approximately 7,332 acres of habitat restoration will occur in metapopulations and essential Karner blue butterfly barren habitat. Of these acres, approximately 6,000 acres would occur within the four metapopulation areas, which is approximately 56 percent of the barrens restoration objective for the four metapopulation areas. An additional 1,332 acres of barrens restoration would occur in essential Karner blue butterfly barren habitat. During decade 2, approximately 12,968 acres of habitat restoration would occur in the four metapopulation areas and essential Karner blue butterfly barren habitat. Approximately 4,832 acres would occur within the four metapopulation areas. By decade 3, 100 percent of the acreage identified to meet recovery objectives would be met within the four metapopulation areas. An additional 8,136 acres of barrens restoration would occur in the essential Karner blue butterfly barren habitat.
The following management actions from Alternatives B are likely to adversely affect the Karner blue butterfly: habitat restoration activities that include timber management, fire and fuels management and wildlife and sensitive plant management. Restoration activities, particularly burning, would have the potential to eliminate a sub-population of Karner blue butterflies if there was no source of individuals outside and near the treated areas to allow for repopulation. Restoration efforts are designed to maintain suitable habitat using actions such as planting and propagation of nectar plants, mowing, cutting, scarification and burning on occupied sites to maintain or improve Karner blue butterfly habitat. Adult Karner blue butterflies would not likely be directly affected because treatments would not be planned during flight periods; however, there could be adverse direct effects via crushing or burning of eggs and larvae. Barrens restoration activities to sites are expected to create conditions favorable to non-native invasive species. Spotted knapweed, a non-native species, could occur in these disturbed areas. While spotted knapweed does provide a nectar source for Karner blue butterfly, restoration efforts will strive to minimize its occurrence and favor more desirable native nectar species.
Alternative B has established Standards and Guidelines that provide maximum benefit for Karner blue butterfly. These Standards and Guidelines include, but are not limited to the following: 1) planning, both annually and cumulatively, for the term of the project, for the appropriate amount, spatial arrangement, and rotation schedule of restoration sites to maximize habitat recovery and recolonization potential; 2) seasonal timing restrictions for each restoration technique to minimize the potential for direct effects and to maximize effectiveness; 3) minimization of incidental habitat damage due to equipment or methodology and 4) pre- and post-treatment
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-67 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
monitoring for Karner blue butterfly and habitat responses. Monitoring of results and progress would allow for any necessary adjustments to be made.
The transportation system, recreation and related resource management have the potential to directly adversely affect the Karner blue butterfly. Habitat degradation via roads and trails and trampling, removing, or otherwise damaging wild lupine and other desired vegetation would indirectly affect the suitability of occupied habitat.
Under Alternative B, the creation of fuelbreaks and hazardous fuels treatments on the Manistee National Forest would have the potential to create additional habitat for Karner blue butterfly by opening up the canopy, increasing the opportunity for establishing herbaceous species, especially lupine and nectar sources. These activities would also likely have adverse affects, however, if eggs or larvae were destroyed during maintenance activities, such as mowing and/or burning.
Therefore, Alternative B would provide for the restoration of barren habitats for Karner blue butterfly within the 20 year timeframe identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan. Habitat benefits are limited during the first decade since only 36 percent of the recovery goals would be met and there is an approximately five-year time delay between project implementeation and development of suitable habitat characteristics.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Alternative C differs from Alternatives A and B because it restores barren conditions on the Manistee National Forest for Karner blue butterfly at a more aggressive rate. At the second decade, barrens restoration, within the four Karner metapopulation areas, would be approximately 80 percent of the Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Management Strategy objective as compared to approximately 40 percent under Alternative B. This alternative also provides approximately 20 percent more acres for barrens restoration than in Alternative B in essential Karner blue butterfly barren habitat areas. Alternative C would provide for 100 percent of the restoration objective for areas within the four metapopulation areas and essential Karner blue butterfly barren habitat areas by the third decade. Due to the faster rate of barrens restoration, Alternative C provides more opportunities to adapt restoration activities beneficial to Karner blue butterfly habitat within the timeframes identified.in the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan. Table III-11 describes the rate of implementation for barrens restoration.
Management activities likely to benefit and/or adversely affect Karner blue butterfly are similar to those described in Alternatives A and B. However, while the acres of fuelbreak creation would be the same as Alternative B, the fuels treatment acres would be reduced under Alternative C. This reduction in fuels treatments would also reduce both beneficial and detrimental affects to the species.
Alternative C, like Alternative B, would meet the metapopulation recovery goals and objectives within the timeframes specified in the Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-68 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Determinations:
Based on the analysis of effects of the alternatives on Karner blue butterfly, is it determined from the biological assessment that Alternatives A, B and C are likely to adversely affect Karner blue butterfly in its known range on the Manistee National Forest. This determination is due to unavoidable direct adverse effects to individuals that may result from the barrens restoration activities in occupied Karner blue butterfly habitat. However, these effects are not anticipated to impair the survival and recovery of the Karner blue butterfly population within the action area. Alternative A does not meet the Recovery Plan objectives, but Alternatives B and C do meet the Recovery Plan objectives by the third decade.
Alternatives A, B and C would have no effect on Karner blue butterfly on the Huron National Forest, because the Forest is outside the known range of the species and its host plant, wild lupine.
Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcherii):
Direct and Indirect Effects of All Alternatives:
All alternatives would have the same direct and indirect effects on Pitcher’s thistle through protecting, managing, and monitoring known occurrences and potential habitat, and therefore the alternatives will be analyzed together.
There would be no direct or indirect effects on Pitcher’s thistle or Pitcher’s thistle habitat from range management, timber management, minerals and geology, fire and fuels management or transportation management since these activities would not occur in dune habitat.
While the alternatives’ Standards and Guidelines are designed to provide protection for the species, adverse effects from recreation and related resource management would likely occur. These activities would potentially reduce the suitability of existing habitat and cause disturbances that may lead to harm or direct take. Recreation and related resource management could also contribute to increased infestations of non-native invasive plant species.
There would likely be a limited amount of direct and indirect adverse effects from non-native invasive plant control activities. Pitcher’s thistle monitoring activities would likely have an adverse effect. The effect of both of these activities would be related to disturbance. While controlling non-native invasive species and monitoring Pitcher’s thistle populations would ultimately be likely to benefit the species, they would still introduce the risk of harm or direct take.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is dune habitat along the shorelines of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron because the area encompasses the full extent of Pitcher’s thistle habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through the Forests’ management actions. Human activities, including development; sand mining and other resource extraction
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-69 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
activities; recreation and roads providing access to the shoreline are present and may be expected to continue in areas outside the Forest boundary. In Pitcher’s thistle habitat, these activities would have a progressively negative impact on the species within the analysis area.
Pitcher’s thistle occurrences on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be protected through Standards and Guidelines identified in the Forest Plan. However, the Pitcher’s thistle and its habitat on private lands within the analysis area are threatened by residential development, large numbers of visitors and Off-Highway Vehicle use. Residential pressures also result in an increase in Off-Highway Vehicle and foot traffic, resulting in the destruction of plants and the loss of habitat. Pesticides/herbicides used by private landowners within or adjacent to Pitcher’s thistles are expected to adversely affect Pitcher’s thistles populations.
Although the reasons for population decline of Pitcher’s thistle are not fully understood, it is likely that disturbance, competition from non-native invasive species and the dynamics of dune ecosystems all affect this species. As recreation and residential development continue along the Great Lakes shoreline, loss of individuals by trampling, Off-Highway Vehicle use, trail maintenance and other activities are possible causes of adverse effects on current populations and potential habitat. As populations of Pitcher’s thistle decrease or are extirpated, there is a reduced possibility of recolonization or genetic exchange between populations.
Determinations:
Based on the analysis of effects of the alternatives on the Pitcher’s thistle, the biological assessment documents that Alternatives A, B and C are likely to adversely affect the Pitcher’s thistle in its known range on the Manistee National Forest because some unavoidable direct adverse effects to individuals could occur. Such effects, however, are not anticipated to impair the Pitcher’s thistle population on National Forest System lands within the planning area.
Alternatives A, B, and C would have no effect on Pitcher’s thistle on the Huron National Forest because there is no designated critical habitat nor any known occurrences.
Effects on Species of Concern:
Introduction:
The three Michigan National Forests have completed Species Viability Evaluations to address effects to species of concern. A detailed description of the process to select species of concern is contained in the Species Viability Evaluation documentation. The Biological Evaluation discusses species description, life history, habitats, threats, status of the species, factors effecting the species, effects of the alternatives, cumulative effects and makes determinations for each alternative. The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the species of concern and discloses their determinations as described in the Biological Evaluation. The Species of Concern section is divided into three parts: 1) aquatic habitats and species; 2) botanical communities, habitats and species and 3) terrestrial habitats and species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-70 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Aquatic Habitats and Species of Concern:
Introduction:
For the purposes of species viability analyses, the 10 aquatic species of concern have been aggregated into four habitat groups presented in Table III-12. Much of the following information is taken from Species Viability Evaluations (Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B) prepared for the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan. The Species Viability Evaluation analyses also contain the references upon which the evaluations are based.
Table III-12. Habitat Groups for Aquatic Species of Concern. Habitat Group Associated Species State Rank1/ RFSS2/ F Rank3/ Lake sturgeon S2 Yes F2 (Acipenser fulvescens) Greater redhorse sucker Group 1: large river (Moxostoma S3 Yes F3 species and a mussel valenciennesi) species that is a sessile River redhorse sucker year-round resident. S1 Yes F2 (Moxostoma carinatum) Snuffbox mussel S1 Yes F1 (Epioblasma triquerta) Group 2: two species of Channel darter (Percina small resident fish that copelandi) S2 Yes F2 prefer deep, fast-flowing riffle sections with gravel/cobble substrate in River darter (Percina S1 Yes F1 medium to large sized shumardi) streams. Creek heelsplitter SNR Yes F3 Group 3: a small fish, a (Lasmigona compressa) mussel species and a riffle Redside dace S1S2 Yes F1 beetle that prefer clear, (Clinostomus elongates) cool headwaters of river Douglas stenelmis riffle systems. beetle (Stenelmis S1S2 Yes F1 douglasensis)
Group 4: Small minnow that usually occurs over sand and mud in clear Pugnose shiner (Notropis S3 Yes F2 vegetated lakes and anogenus) vegetated pools and runs of creeks and rivers. 1/State Rank: S1 = Extremely rare, S2 = Rare, S3 = Rare and local, SNR = Not Ranked. 2/RFSS = Regional Forester Sensitive Species. 3/F Rank = Forest Ranking: F1 = Extremely rare, F2 = Very rare, F3 = Rare and Uncommon.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-71 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Large River Species:
Current distribution of the lake sturgeon on the Manistee National Forest is limited to the larger, Great Lakes-accessible rivers, such as the Manistee and Muskegon Rivers, with the species occasional straying into the Pere Marquette and White Rivers. The lake sturgeon also occurred historically in the lower Au Sable River on the Huron National Forest, with present-day anecdotal reports of sightings.
Actions beyond the jurisdictional authority of the Forest Service can be implemented to assist with recovery of the lake sturgeon. Additional population enhancements can be made through stocking programs. In addition, policing and enforcement can deter poaching, and regulations that prohibit commercial harvest of this species must remain in place until viable populations can be re-established in the Great Lakes. Stocking, enforcement and regulations are under the jurisdiction of the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources and, in some instances, the tribes.
Greater redhorse suckers have documented occurrences in the Au Sable, Manistee, Pere Marquette and Muskegon river systems on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The only known occurrence of the river redhorse sucker on the Forests is from the Muskegon River below Croton Dam (O’Neal 1997); this is a 5th level watershed within National Forest System lands. The greater redhorse sucker's historic range on the Huron-Manistee National Forests also included the Muskegon (O’Neal 1997), Manistee (Rozich 1998) and Au Sable (Zorn and Sendek 2001) River systems.
The snuffbox mussel also occurs in the same 5th level watersheds as the river redhorse sucker. The mussel may be present in other river systems on the Forests where its host fish, the log perch (Percina caprodes), occurs in the Muskegon, Manistee and Au Sable Rivers (O’Neal 1997; Rozich 1998; Zorn and Sendek 2001). All of the large river fish species occupy deep runs and pool habitats of these rivers and use gravel and cobble substrate for spawning. The preferred habitat for the snuffbox mussel is also sand, gravel, or cobble substrate with a swift current. Historic and current land uses (Bassett 1988; Verry 2001) have led to sedimentation and elevated instream sand bedload levels, impacting the preferred habitat types of the large river species.
Medium to Large Streams:
The channel darter and river darter are two resident species of small fish that prefer deep, fast- flowing riffle sections with gravel/cobble substrate in medium to large sized streams. The channel darter has only been observed in the Au Sable and Pine Rivers on the Huron National Forest. The river darter has a documented historical occurrence in the Au Sable River, but surveys in 1986 and 1994 found no present-day occurrences. As with the large river species, habitat for these species is currently impacted by excessive sand bedload levels.
Clear and Cool Headwaters of River Systems:
Of those aquatic species of concern that prefer clear, cool headwaters of river systems–the creek heelsplitter, redside dace, and Douglas’ stenelmis riffle beetle–only the creek heelsplitter, a
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-72 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
mussel, has been documented to occur on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. It was found in the Big South Branch of the Pere Marquette River in 2004. Present-day depressed levels of large wood (Verry 1992; Verry 2001) and elevated sand bedload levels impact these species.
Clear Vegetated Lakes and Vegetated Pools and Runs of Creeks and Rivers:
One of the rarest minnows in North America, the pugnose shiner is a small minnow that usually occurs over sand and mud in clear vegetated lakes, vegetated pools and runs of creeks and rivers. It has been documented to occur within the Manistee (Rozich 1998) and Au Sable (Zorn and Sendek 2001) River watersheds. It has not been documented to occur in any lakes on the National Forests. The primary cause for the loss in pugnose shiner populations is thought to be increased turbidity and, at least in part, a reduction in aquatic vegetation. National Forest lakes with mixed ownership are subject to removal of vegetation on private lands. Siltation, boating and development may all be contributing to the decline in potential habitat for the pugnose shiner.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have minimal effects to all four habitat groups. Implementation of the Alternative's Standards and Guidelines for riparian and stream ecosystems would provide protection from other land use activities. The emphasis on old-growth management in the riparian corridor would also contribute to the protection and, in some cases, improvement of existing stream and lake habitat.
Implementation of conservation measures associated with stream and lake improvement practices would also contribute to the protection of these habitats and associated species. Spawning stream protection and restoration would be promoted through practices such as sand trapping, introduction of spawning gravel and cobble and other practices employed to reduce levels of non-point source pollution, for example, sediment. Recreational access improvements within riparian corridors of heavily fished streams would reduce sediment delivery, thereby also protecting adjacent riverine habitat for aquatic species of concern. Lake management activities such as shoreline stabilization; restoration of degraded riparian areas from recreation use; management of noxious weeds, for example, Eurasian milfoil; and improvement of nearshore cover areas would contribute to the protection of lake habitat for the pugnose shiner. Improvement of transportation systems and decommissioning of certain roads that are degrading aquatic habitat would also benefit aquatic species of concern. For a more in-depth description of the effects of these conservation measures, please refer to the “Effects on Riparian Areas and Wetlands” section.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Direct and indirect effects for Alternatives B and C would be the same as Alternative A with the exception of effects related to vegetation management within riparian corridors. The conservation measures for riparian-dependent species of concern specify that 5,000 acres of shrub/scrub habitat would be provided within riparian corridors on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Additional acres of early- to mid-successional habitat in marsh, riparian, lowland
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-73 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
hardwood, and floodplain communities would be needed for other species of concern. Based on a Forest-wide Geographic Information System analysis, there are approximately 59,500 acres of riparian habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Of this, 35,500 acres, or 60 percent, are within Streamside Management Zones. Thus, approximately 8 percent of the riparian habitat would need to be in an early successional habitat state to provide for the needs of these other riparian dependent species.
Recruitment rates for large wood to adjacent aquatic ecosystems would be slightly less than Alternative A. However, this is not felt to be significant as early successional habitat creation within the riparian corridor is an ongoing process through natural disturbances. In other words, there is always some level of early successional habitat occurring within riparian corridors even under a predominantly old-growth regime.
It should be noted that active management for early successional habitat within Streamside Management Zones would only occur when natural disturbance processes were not providing adequate amounts of this habitat type to meet the stated needs of other riparian-dependent sensitive species. A Forest-wide Geographic Information System analysis of vegetation stand data was conducted for the Streamside Management Zone. Streamside Management Zones, equivalent to filter strips in the state’s Best Management Practices, are defined as areas of special management concern directly adjacent to streams and water. Provisions within the Streamside Management Zone typically contain sediment filter strips, a base shade level, restrictions on ground disturbance, and protection of streambank and streambeds. Designated old growth currently comprises 40 percent, or 14,000 acres, of the total acreage in the proposed Streamside Management Zones. Of the remaining 60 percent, or 21,500 acres, approximately 30 percent, or 6,100 acres, is in aspen/birch, lowland brush, and brush/shrub vegetation types. It is presumed that natural disturbance processes within these stands, and the designated old-growth’s other vegetation types within the Streamside Management Zone, would make some contribution to the early successional habitat needs of other species of concern within riparian corridors. Standards and Guidelines for Alternatives B and C for Streamside Management Zones state that the Forest Service would allow these successional processes to continue without interference, even if they occur within designated old growth.
Determining early successional habitat needs within riparian corridors would be done on a case- by-case basis. Monitoring and measuring the effects of management within riparian areas would be done at the 6th level watershed. Site-specific analysis would include a cumulative effects analysis of all lands, not just National Forest System lands. If it is determined that early successional habitat management within the riparian corridor is warranted, implementation of Best Management Practices (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1994) within the 100- foot Streamside Management Zone would ensure protection of habitat for aquatic species of concern. The following Best Management Practice specifically pertains to early successional habitat management within the Streamside Management Zone to ensure that water quality and aquatic habitat integrity would be maintained:
• Harvesting/cutting specifications should be modified to retain a sufficient number of trees to maintain shading to the stream and to leave a stable, undisturbed forest floor.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-74 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Implementation of conservation measures would contribute to the protection of aquatic habitat and associated species. Population structure assessments and additional study of habitat requirements of all known aquatic species of concern on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would enable land managers to make well-informed decisions in the conservation and management of these species. Measures to protect and restore spawning areas within streams would be promoted through practices such as sand trapping, introduction of spawning gravel and cobble, and other practices employed to reduce levels of non-point source pollution, for example, sediment. Improvements in access for recreation within riparian corridors of heavily fished streams would reduce sediment delivery, thereby protecting adjacent riverine habitat for aquatic species of concern. Lake management activities such as shoreline stabilization, restoration of degraded riparian areas from recreation use, management of noxious weeds, for example, Eurasian milfoil, and improvement of nearshore cover areas would contribute to the protection of lake habitat for the pugnose shiner. Improvement of the Forests’ transportation systems and decommissioning of certain roads that are degrading lake and stream aquatic habitat would also benefit aquatic species of concern.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Huron-Manistee National Forests contain a variety of riverine ecosystems that are interconnected to river systems throughout the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The analysis area was chosen because federal and non-federal actions within the proclamation boundary may impact river systems throughout the Lower Peninsula.
Wholesale logging that began in the 1840s cleared much of the landscape, resulting in in-channel stream erosion, accelerated streambank erosion and sedimentation. River and stream cleaning– removal of wood and rocks–splash damming and log rafting furthered the accumulation of land use impacts to streams in northern Michigan. Sediment delivery after the catastrophic fires that followed the original logging exceeded the ability of the systems to transport it, resulting in aggradation, or build-up of instream sand bedload (Verry 2001). Much of this bedload is still present today (Bassett 1988). While riparian forests have largely recovered, instream levels of large wood are still depressed, as recruitment from second growth forests is far less than from the old-growth forests that once prevailed upon the landscape. Removal to facilitate recreational watercraft also contributes to these depressed levels.
The introduction of non-native invasive species, such as round goby and zebra mussels, could have detrimental effects on some aquatic species of concern. For example, round goby in the Great Lakes and in the lower section of large rivers could feed on the eggs of lake sturgeon. Zebra mussels can smother native mussel populations in lakes and streams and can filter water so efficiently as to cause a reduction in overall nutrient level through the system, thereby reducing growth rates of fish.
While implementing Alternative A would have beneficial effects for the four aquatic habitat groups for species of concern, problems with recovery exist from a cumulative perspective from factors that are beyond the jurisdictional control of the Forest Service. Barriers to migration and loss of habitat from dams on the Manistee, Muskegon and Au Sable Rivers are still significant
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-75 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
impacts to the recovery of the first three groups’ recovery. Removal of these barriers and/or establishment of fish passages could enable migrations of large river fish and the darter species to viable spawning and rearing habitats in the river systems that are currently fragmented. Removal of dams or passage of fish at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-licensed hydroelectric dams on these rivers is under the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Passage is prescribed by the Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act. Barriers to migration of host fish and loss of habitat from dams on private property within the watersheds on the Huron-Manistee National Forests are still providing significant impacts to the mussel species’ recovery. Regulations of such dams on private property are beyond the jurisdictional control of the Forest Service; the State of Michigan has the authority. Development of private lands on lakes within the National Forests may increase turbidity and reduce aquatic vegetation in nearshore areas, impacting the pugnose shiner. Herbicide treatments of aquatic vegetation adjacent to private land may also degrade potential habitat if it is not coordinated with aquatic habitat management objectives of adjacent National Forest System lands. Aquatic vegetation control is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Stocking of large predator fish has the potential to impact local populations of pugnose shiners if such predator species were not historically present in a lake system. However, stocking of fish is under the authority of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and the state has sovereign authority over the surface waters of the state.
Other cumulative factors that affect these aquatic species of concern are described in detail for Alternative A in the “Effects on Riparian and Wetlands” section. These are:
• “Holdover” cumulative effects of historic land use practices. • Private land development and its effect on peak flows. • Drains and their effects on peak flows and riparian/wetland habitat. • Non-native invasive species effects on native riparian biota. • Illegal Off-Highway Vehicle use within riparian corridors.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for aquatic habitats and species of concern, it was determined that individuals of species occurring within these habitats may be impacted but the viability of the population will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-76 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Terrestrial Habitats and Species of Concern:
The Species Viability Evaluation conducted for wildlife species included evaluating 30 habitat communities. Determinations of the potential habitat available were made.
The following effects analyses disclose, by habitat community, the expected direct, indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative. To facilitate the analyses, “surrogate” or “representative” species were analyzed. The surrogate species for each habitat community are described at the beginning of each section. It is important to note that some species may be able to survive in multiple habitat communities. For all species, if a viable population exists in at least one habitat community, then the species is considered viable.
Beach and Dunes Habitat Group – Piping Plover:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) Lake Huron Locust (Trimerotropis huroniana)
A detailed evaluation of effects on the piping plover for all alternatives can be found in the federally-listed species section of this document. Habitat quantity and quality is expected to remain the same under all alternatives.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, piping plover, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the beach and dune community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-77 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Rivers and Streams Habitat Group – Wood Turtle:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A incorporates a number of Standards and Guidelines that are likely to improve habitat or otherwise benefit the wood turtle and associated species. They include public education, and the management of vegetation, recreation, rivers and streams, transportation, and erosion.
However, Alternative A would have detrimental effects caused by the expected increase in recreational use over the short term and long term, 10 to 100 years. This increased use would likely amplify the risk of road mortality due to increased traffic and road construction. Increased recreational use would also likely result in increased illegal collection and an increase in mammalian predators associated with human activities.
Some changes in habitat could occur under this alternative’s management direction. Many stands adjacent to rivers and streams on the Huron-Manistee National Forests have been designated as old growth, or would be managed for late seral stages. This generally encourages the development of suitable wood turtle habitat - partially shaded forest with numerous sunlit openings - both in and adjacent to rivers and streams. However, Alternative A would permit the restoration and maintenance of up to 10,000 acres of prairies, savannahs and oak-pine barrens within the old-growth design, but outside of riparian areas. Since wood turtles will move a quarter mile or more when on land, the development and maintenance of these habitats adjacent to or within one-fourth mile of rivers and streams would create habitat conditions–individual trees to widely scattered patches of forest with minimal to no shading–that is less suitable for the wood turtle.
Prescribed burning near rivers may directly affect the wood turtle because fire could result in mortality of individuals if implemented between late spring to early fall. However, prescribed burning would generally improve forage, provided burns were implemented in early spring and late fall when wood turtles were in the rivers.
Placing wood in rivers would improve wood turtle habitat because it would provide structure for resting and basking.
Alternative A includes guidelines to improve and maintain bank stability along rivers and streams which may reduce the number of potential nesting sites.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-78 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
The effects of Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A. Alternative B also includes a new guideline that would maintain or improve passage for aquatic organisms at road crossings. This guideline would benefit wood turtles by reducing inhibition of movement within aquatic ecosystems, providing access to additional areas of suitable habitat and by improving genetic flow and exchange between subpopulations within the Forests.
Like Alternative A, Alternative B would have detrimental effects on this habitat group and associated species due to the expected increase in recreational use over the long term. However, Alternative B would increase the number of areas designated as semiprimitive motorized, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and candidate Research Natural Areas. These allocations would have a beneficial effect on the wood turtle when they are adjacent to, or include rivers and streams. These areas generally have few or no open roads, which would reduce the risk of road mortality and habitat fragmentation.
Alternative B would include guidelines that substantially increase the creation of barrens, savannahs, fuelbreaks and early successional riparian habitats. If these habitat changes occurred near rivers or streams, they would likely reduce habitat quality for the wood turtle. Alternative B would have a slightly greater adverse effect on the wood turtle than Alternative A because it would encourage more of these types of vegetative manipulations within wood turtle habitat and would permit management in Streamside Management Zones.
Alternative B would increase prescribed burning and potentially increase the likelihood of mortality of individuals if implemented near rivers between late spring to early fall. However, prescribed burning would generally improve forage, provided burns were implemented in early spring and late fall, when wood turtles are in the rivers.
Under Alternative B, restricting the gathering of fuel wood and special forest products in old growth would benefit the wood turtle, because it would maintain ecosystem integrity and provide structure for thermal regulation and protection from predators.
Like Alternative A, Alternative B would place wood in rivers, improving wood turtle resting and basking habitat.
Alternative B includes guidelines to improve and maintain bank stability along rivers and streams, which would have an adverse effect on wood turtle nesting sites.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B. Like Alternative B, Alternative C incorporates Standards and Guidelines that would likely improve habitat or otherwise benefit the wood turtle and associated species.
Like Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would have detrimental effects on the wood turtle from increased recreational use over the short term and long term. Alternative C increases the number
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-79 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
of areas designated as semiprimitive nonmotorized and candidate Research Natural Areas, which would reduce the risk of road mortality and habitat fragmentation. However, Alternative C would have greater benefits for the wood turtle than Alternative B because all semiprimitive areas would be designated nonmotorized, further reducing risks to the wood turtle.
Alternative C would include guidelines substantially increasing the creation of barrens, savannahs, fuelbreaks and early successional riparian habitats. However, Alternative C would have a greater adverse effect on the wood turtle because barrens and savannah creation would occur at an increased rate. The rate of fuels treatments would be reduced by 25 percent. Like Alternative B, Alternative C would permit management in Streamside Management Zones which may be detrimental to the species. Alternative C would likely reduce habitat quality for the wood turtle and would have more of an adverse effect than Alternative B.
Alternative C would have slightly greater adverse effects on the wood turtle than Alternative A because it would encourage more vegetative manipulations within wood turtle habitat. Alternative C would have slightly greater adverse effects on the wood turtle than Alternative B because vegetative manipulations would occur over 30 years under Alternative C, rather than 50 years under Alternative B.
Alternative C would increase prescribed burning, potentially increasing the likelihood of mortality of individuals if implemented near rivers between late spring and early fall. However, prescribed burning would generally improve forage, provided burns were implemented in early spring and late fall, when wood turtles were in the rivers.
Like Alternative B, Alternative C would restrict the gathering of fuel wood and special forest products in old growth, providing structure for thermal regulation and protection from predators.
Like Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would place wood in rivers, improving wood turtle resting and basking habitat. However, Alternative C would include guidelines to improve and maintain bank stability along rivers and streams which would have an adverse effect on wood turtle nesting sites.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects area for this species includes the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because 1) the Upper Peninsula’s population is isolated from the population in the Lower Peninsula and 2) actions, both federal and non-federal, within and outside the Forests’ proclamation boundary could affect the Lower Peninsula’s wood turtle population.
All alternatives would have an adverse cumulative effect on the wood turtle. When combined with an increase in recreational use on private and state lands adjacent to rivers and streams, this alternative would contribute to the slow reduction in wood turtle populations on the Forests over the short term and long term. When combined with habitat destruction and fragmentation due to development on private and state lands, this alternative would contribute to an overall reduction in habitat quantity and quality for the wood turtle. Increasing human use brings an increase in predators like raccoons and opossums since these opportunists feed on garbage when available.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-80 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
An increase in predator numbers would increase predation on wood turtle nests, hatchlings and adults.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, wood turtle, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the rivers and streams community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-81 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Large Ponds and Lakes Habitat Group – Common Loon:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Common Loon (Gavia immer) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalu) Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The amount of large lakes and ponds which provides habitat for common loons is expected to remain stable, and the quality of habitat is likely to remain stable or increase under all three alternatives. Implementation of the objectives and Standards and Guidelines for all alternatives would improve current and potential habitats within the Forests for the species.
Human disturbance is a significant threat to the species within this habitat group. The Forest Plan objectives and Standards and Guidelines would reduce these impacts by restricting human activities near water’s edge of lakes and rivers and within essential habitats. Additional protection would be provided by requiring new activities to consider potential effects from increased human use. These restrictions would minimize both direct and indirect effects to common loon.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Any new wetlands expected to be created under this alternative are not likely to provide suitable habitat for loons but are likely to improve habitat conditions for other species within the group. Implementation of existing objectives and Standards and Guidelines for Alternative A could improve current and potential habitats within the Forests for the species.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The amount of large lakes and ponds habitat is expected to remain stable and the quality of habitat is likely to remain stable or increase. Like Alternative A, implementation of existing objectives and Standards and Guidelines could improve current and potential habitats within the Forests for the species. However, Alternatives B and C would implement new objectives and Standards and Guidelines that would further improve habitat for the common loon and associated species. Specifically, these alternatives would improve or maintain habitat conditions by providing high-quality nesting areas and forage base; providing artificial nesting rafts; providing consistent water levels; specifying distances for new developments and managing competing species, such as mute swans.
Effects from human disturbance are similar to Alternative A. However, Alternatives B and C specify that motorized watercraft could be prohibited, or no-wake zones established, on lakes completely surrounded by National Forest System lands where appropriate. Alternatives B and C
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-82 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
would have beneficial indirect effects because they specify that fisheries management activities on lakes would not harm, catch or capture these species.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan because common loon breeding habitat in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan occurs almost entirely within the northern half of the Lower Peninsula.
Within the cumulative effects analysis area, the likelihood of ecological conditions, large ponds and lakes, contributing to the long-term abundance and distribution of common loons is predicted to remain at its present level under this alternative. This alternative would provide significant levels of protection for these species for habitats only where National Forest System lands completely surround loon lakes. The majority of large lakes and ponds within the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan do not adjoin National Forest System lands, and these Standards and Guidelines do not apply. Many of these lakes are highly developed, with houses adjacent to the shorelines. These developments fragment habitat and reduce nesting opportunities. These lakes also have significant levels of human disturbance from motorized watercraft use during the periods when species are likely to be present. This disturbance could lead to nest desertion, nest destruction, or the separation of chicks from adults.
Michigan’s Best Management Practices are designed to minimize adverse effects on water quality. Best Management Practices apply to activities such as timber harvesting and road building within wetlands, streams and riparian areas on all ownerships and are expected to maintain or improve conditions in these habitats.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Cumulative effects for these alternatives are similar to Alternative A. Even though Standards and Guidelines from Alternatives B and C would provide more protection than A, the majority of suitable loon lakes in northern Michigan are surrounded by private or state ownership. Therefore, Forest Service Standards and Guidelines would not apply.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, common loon, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the large ponds and lakes habitat community on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-83 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Small Lakes and Ponds Habitat Group – Blanding’s Turtle:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A’s objectives and Standards and Guidelines for wetlands and riparian areas combined, with closures for eagles and common loons are likely to continue to protect this habitat type. Small lakes and ponds would be managed for late seral stages into the foreseeable future and would therefore continue to benefit Blanding’s turtle and associated species.
While these same Standards and Guidelines tend to limit Forest Service activities within suitable Blanding’s turtle habitat, there is still a potential for adverse impacts. Blanding’s turtles spend the majority of their time in water but they are also known for long treks overland, either while dispersing or searching for suitable nest sites (females). Blanding’s turtles are slow moving and subject to direct impacts from the operation of motor vehicles and other large equipment, fire management and road and trail construction adjacent to a water body as well as illegal collection and poaching.
Under this alternative, the species would continue to slowly decline.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The fuels treatment program on the Forests would increase under Alternatives B and C. Fuels treatment in Alternative C would increase compared to Alternative A, but decrease compared to Alternative B. The overall increase in treatments and sizes of treatment areas, fuelbreaks and prescribed burns, would likely increase opportunities for direct mortality from operation of equipment, prescribed fire, and mowing. Fuels treatments would reduce dead and down wood and potentially reduce suitability of terrestrial habitat for Blanding’s turtles.
The creation of barrens in landtype associations 1 and 2 would generally have the same terrestrial effects as the fuels treatment described previously. However, Alternative B would implement barrens creation on the Forests over a 50-year period, while Alternative C would implement over a 30-year period. Based on this implementation rate, Alternative B would have less adverse effects than Alternative C on the species, although each alternative would have an overall detrimental effect on Blanding’s turtles.
Creation and maintenance of early successional habitat adjacent to riparian corridors would alter existing habitat and has the highest potential for direct and indirect adverse impacts to Blanding’s turtle. The potential for direct effects would be reduced somewhat by the Guideline stating that equipment should not be operated within the Streamside Management Zone when soils are saturated or when rutting is likely to occur. Under this Guideline, the creation and maintenance of early successional habitat would be limited to periods when the soils in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-84 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
riparian corridor were frozen, such as winter. This would correspond to the turtle’s inactive period.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because the species has been found and habitat occurs in nearly all of the counties in the Lower Peninsula, including those counties with National Forest System lands. Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships are likely to result in the most adverse impacts to these species. Development of shoreline for recreation and the resulting adverse habitat fragmentation and/or conversion from wooded habitat to lawns results in an irreversible loss of habitat. This development also results in increased density and use of roads, resulting in direct mortality of turtles. Recreational use on all water bodies is expected to continue to increase into the foreseeable future. While state regulations protect Blanding’s turtles from collection, increased exposure to people would likely increase their vulnerability to illegal poaching for the commercial trade and incidental collection or persecution by the general public. Blanding’s turtles’ slow growth and sexual maturity rates combined with the high predation of this species' hatchlings, up to 93 percent in Michigan (Lee 1999a) and increased development and recreational activity would likely contribute to a cumulative decrease in the quality of habitat over time and cause a downward trend in the Blanding’s turtle’s population into the foreseeable future.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, Blanding’s turtle, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the small lakes and ponds habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-85 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Marsh Habitat Group - American Bittern and Northern Harrier:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) King Rail (Rallus elegans) Yellow rail (coturnicops noveboracensis) Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Although wetlands occupy approximately 3 percent of National Forest System lands, emergent marshes of suitable size, greater than 25 acres for American bittern and greater than 250 acres for northern harrier, are extremely limited. While Alternative A would not directly adversely impact marsh habitats or associated wildlife species because Standards and Guidelines protect wetland areas, insufficient habitat is available to meet the viability needs of associated species. Under Alternative A, these areas would be managed only for late successional stages, so there would be no maintenance or creation of new marsh habitat. The effect would be a stable or slowly decreasing quantity of existing, albeit insufficient, habitat, with a slow loss of quality, habitat degradation, over time, due to invasion of non-native invasive species and encroachment of woody species. Under Alternative A, there is nothing specifically identified to ensure the conservation of American bittern, northern harrier or associated species across the Forests, or to maintain and improve marsh habitat quantity and quality. Therefore, Alternative A would not provide for the viability of American bittern, northern harrier and associated species in the Planning area.
Human-related disturbances, particularly the unauthorized use of Off-Highway Vehicles in wetland areas, would continue to degrade habitat and adversely affect the bittern and northern harrier.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Under Alternatives B and C, direct adverse effects would be minimized due to Standards and Guidelines that protect wetland areas, similar to Alternative A. In addition, Alternatives B and C have the added benefit of providing for maintenance and creation of additional habitat to meet the viability requirements of American bittern, northern harrier and associated species. Increased ability to maintain and enhance marshes would also increase quality of existing areas that are threatened by woody encroachment and non-native invasive species. Alternatives B and C would therefore have more beneficial effects compared with Alternative A.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-86 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is the State of Michigan because marsh habitat occurs throughout the state of Michigan, and actions on both federal and non-federal lands could influence the species’ populations across the state.
Historically, marsh habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests was likely limited, isolated and occurred in small patcheswith wide gap distances. Since that time, habitat quantity has diminished, and habitat quality has significantly declined. Currently large marsh habitat is completely isolated and exists at very low abundance providing little or no possibility of population interactions among suitable habitat patches. While some subpopulations may be self- sustaining over the long term, greater than 50 years, the potential for extirpation at the Forest level is high due to this significant isolation. Populations are self-sustaining across the state, however, especially in areas with an abundance of wetlands.
Cumulative effects from all alternatives include continued residential, commercial and agricultural development and associated drainage of existing wetlands, pesticide use and pollution from adjacent private lands, disease and land use practices including draining wetlands, mowing mesic grasses and marshes for hay and fragmentation. These activities would have adverse cumulative effects through direct mortality and reduction in suitability/loss of habitat, mortality from vehicles and increased vulnerability to predators. The number of predators would also likely increase and have the greatest depredation on nests and young. Under Alternative A, existing habitat is likely to become further fragmented and populations would become more isolated resulting in the potential for a decline in survival rate of offspring. Under Alternatives B and C, existing habitat and poulations on National Forest System lands would likely remain stable or slightly improve due to maintenance and enhancement activities. However, marsh habitat is expected to continue to decline across the state due primarily to the development described above.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, American bittern and northern harrier, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the marsh habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide for additional habitat creation. The population viability of species represented in this habitat group remains globally secure. Alternative B and C may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a loss of viability due to the creation and maintenance of marsh habitat. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-87 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Bogs and Fens Habitat Group – Olive-sided Flycatcher:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) Michigan Bog Grasshopper (Appalachia arcana)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would continue to provide protection of this habitat group and associated species because of the alternative’s objectives and Standards and Guidelines. Management direction under Alternative A for old growth, riparian areas and wetlands would provide further protection of these resources and would allow natural processes to occur in these areas. Riparian guidelines in this alternative may also have negative impacts to this species groups as it limits management options to late seral stages. Human-related disturbances, particularly the illegal use of Off- Highway Vehicles in wetland areas, would continue to degrade habitat and directly adversely affect the olive-sided flycatcher. Under this alternative, olive-sided flycatcher populations would likely remain stable on the Huron-Manistee National Forests as the amount of the bog and fen habitat types would remain the same over the long term.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The amount of bog and fen habitat types would be similar to that in Alternative A. The only significant increases would come from an emphasis in acquisition through land purchases which is an objective of Alternatives B and C. Alternatives B and C could provide benefits through increased emphasis in snag densities in certain areas of the Forests and increased options for managing riparian habitats. Human related disturbances, particularly illegal use of all-terrain vehicles in wetland areas would continue to degrade habitat and directly adversely affect associated species through disturbance. Under Alternatives B and C, olive-sided flycatcher populations would likely remain stable on the Huron-Manistee National Forests as the amount of this habitat type would remain the same over the long term.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The analysis area was chosen because breeding habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher is very limited in the northern Lower Peninsula, and both federal and non-federal actions could affect the species’ northern Lower Peninsula population. The cumulative effects analysis area did not include the Upper Peninsula of Michigan since the species and its breeding habitat is fairly common in the UP, and it didn’t include the southern Lower Peninsula because the species has not been documented to breed there (Brewer et al. 1991).
This species was historically and is currently at the fringe of its range on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Historic loss of wetlands and wildfire suppression beginning in the early 1900s likely has reduced the amount and quality of habitat for this species. Currently, cumulative
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-88 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships to the Huron-Manistee National Forests would affect this habitat group. Wetland alteration, destruction or nearby development would reduce the amount of habitat available on private lands, and this may increase the effects of fragmentation and decrease the amount of olive-sided flycatcher habitat. This magnifies the importance of National Forest System lands to this species.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, olive-sided flycatcher, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the bogs and fens habitat community on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-89 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Shrub/Scrub Wetland Habitat Group – Golden-winged Warbler:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) Golden-Winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) Kirtand’s Snake (Clonophis kirtlandii)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have negative impacts on this habitat group and its associated wildlife species because the alternative’s objectives for Wild and Scenic Rivers, old growth, semiprimitive areas, and riparian areas promote late successional forest types. Management of early successional habitats within wetlands and riparian areas is further limited by the alternative’s Standards and Guidelines, which would manage only for late seral stages. The effect would be diminished quality and loss of some shrub/scrub wetland habitats due to woody encroachment and natural succession to longer-lived species over the next two decades.
Under Alternative A, some areas of suitable habitat would continue to occur on the landscape, such as small wildfires, beaver ponds and windthrow, but they would likely remain small in scale and highly isolated. Golden-winged warblers would occur in small numbers as disjunct sub- populations with limited opportunity for interactions.
Under this Alternative, older-aged forest conditions and late successional forest types would likely dominate riparian areas into the foreseeable future, resulting in further isolation and reduction of suitable patches of shrub/scrub wetland habitat.
Overall, Alternative A is unlikely to provide sufficient shrub/scrub habitat to meet the viability needs of the golden-winged warbler and associated species. However, this alternative would provide early-aged aspen habitat for the golden-winged warbler, as discussed in the Aspen/Birch Habitat Group analysis, although the aspen habitat by itself would not maintain the viability of the species within the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B and C:
Under these Alternatives, the Forests would be managed similar to Alternative A and would therefore have the similar effects to those previously described. However, Alternatives B and C would incorporate the conservation measures for creating and/or maintaining shrub/scrub habitat. Alternatives B and C would therefore be more beneficial than Alternative A, because they provide direction to maintain species viability through maintenance of existing habitat or creation of new wetland habitat. The effect would be improved quality and increased availability of suitable habitats in riparian areas.
Under Alternatives B and C, areas of suitable habitat would be naturally created on the landscape through disturbances, such as small wildfires and beaver ponds, and would meet some of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-90 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
needs of associated species. Naturally occurring suitable habitat would preclude management and would contribute cumulatively with managed habitat and reduce isolation and gap size between patches. Golden-winged warbler and associated species would have increased opportunities for interactions between sub-populations.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the proclamation boundary of the Huron- Manistee National Forests. This area was chosen because although the golden-winged warbler is a fairly common, widespread species in Michigan during the breeding season, federal and non- federal actions would be most likely to impact the species and its shrub/scrub habitat within the Forests’ proclamation boundary.
Historic habitat of golden-winged warbler was known only in brushy, early successional habitat areas in the southern Lower Peninsula, where golden-winged warblers are now mostly uncommon. Reports from that period described them as fairly numerous, where today there are few to none. Similar fluctuations have occurred range-wide, with increases at northern range limits and decreases at southern limits. Distribution of golden-winged warblers in shrub/scrub habitat is unknown. Declines across the known species range are significant; Nature Serve, (2004) describes the current status as "Headed toward extinction if current trends continue.”
Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships may adversely affect this habitat group. A change in land use on private lands from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels with more development is occurring and is expected to continue; these factors may increase the negative effects of fragmentation and decrease the suitability of existing habitat. Over exploitation of beaver and removal of beaver dams by state and county road commissions has led to further degradation of habitat.
Management of private and state lands for early-successional habitats adjacent to riparian areas to promote hunting opportunities would have a beneficial cumulative impact on habitat availability.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, golden-winged warbler, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the shrub/scrub habitat community on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide for additional creation of early successional shrub/scrub habitat. Population viability of species represented within this habitat group remains globally secure, except for Kirtland’s snake which will remain globally rare. Alternative B and C may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a loss of viability to due the creation and maintenance of shrub/scrub habitat. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-91 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Riparian/Lowland Hardwoods/Floodplain (mid to late) Habitat Group – Cerulean Warbler:
Within riparian/lowland hardwoods/floodplain (mid-late) habitat group, two surrogate species were identified. This mid-late riparian/lowland hardwood/floodplain group has a wide range of habitats and ecological conditions, therefore the red-shouldered hawk and cerulean warbler were selected. The cerulean warbler is primarily associated with mixed hardwood habitat along larger rivers and lakes, and the red-shouldered hawk is generally associated within riparian and lowland hardwoods that are interspersed with small ponds or wetland areas.
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Eastern Pipstrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have beneficial effects to this habitat group because it would provide a stable amount of habitat for the associated species with broad spatial distribution on the Huron- Manistee National Forests. Alternative A objectives and Standards and Guidelines for Wild and Scenic Rivers, old growth, Wilderness, semiprimitive areas, and riparian areas would protect a large percentage of this habitat type from vegetation management. Approximately 23,000 acres of this type are in the old-growth design, out of approximately 26,000 acres existing on the Forests. The quality of these stands would likely increase as tree diameters increase, large wood and snags increase, and canopy gaps develop. The Indiana bat harvesting restrictions per the Biological Opinion (2003) provides some protection for the western half of the Manistee National Forest during the cerulean warbler breeding period. Riparian guidelines in this alternative may also have negative impacts to this species group as it limits management options to late seral stages.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B provides more benefits to this habitat group and associated species than Alternative A. An additional approximately 4,600 acres of lowland and riparian hardwoods would be protected by semiprimitive allocations and candidate Research Natural Areas under this alternative compared to Alternative A. These designations within this habitat group would decrease habitat fragmentation as there would be fewer roads and less vegetation manipulation. There would also be reduced disturbance from motorized recreational activities in these acres. Also, Alternative B provides for the protection of occupied nesting areas of the cerulean warbler. This Standard and Guideline would allow for protection of the species during breeding season by
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-92 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
prohibiting any actions that would disturb nesting. Riparian management guidelines may be beneficial to this species group; however, this alternative would also increase the number of options for vegetative management within riparian habitats that may have negative indirect impacts on this species group. For example, managing for early successional habitat within riparian corridors would result in a loss of mid to late riparian forested habitat. While this would adversely affect the species group at the local level, it would not affect the cerulean warbler or associated species’ viability on the Forests.
Management adjacent to this habitat group is expected to have greater impacts than those expected in Alternative A. The increase in grouse emphasis acres, 1,200 acres; Kirtland’s warbler management, approximately 18,300 acres of essential habitat; prairie and barrens restoration, 68,500 acres; fuelbreaks, 2,000 acres and fuels treatments could cause localized effects from fragmentation, such as cowbird parasitism, to this habitat group, depending upon site specific locations. However, at a broad scale, these effects would be local and not affect the viability of the cerulean warbler or associated species.
All other changes in objectives and Standards and Guidelines in this alternative that differ from Alternative A would have no effects on this species group. Little change would occur in the amount of this habitat group under the management direction of Alternative B in the foreseeable future. In the long term, the overall quality of habitat in this group would increase as stands mature. Riparian and lowland hardwood forest types would continue to provide a stable amount of habitat for associated species under this alternative on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C would be similar to that in Alternative B as the additional acres of lowland and riparian hardwoods that would be protected by semiprimitive designations and candidate Research Natural Areas are the same. Active nesting areas for the cerulean warbler would be protected. Management adjacent to this habitat group would likely have fewer impacts on this group than that of Alternative B as there is less vegetation manipulation. The total amount of acres harvested will be less, and there would be fewer acres of early successional habitat created.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because Michigan’s cerulean warbler breeding population occurs almost exclusively within the southern half of the Lower Peninsula. The northern half of the Lower Peninsula was included since this area has scattered records of and suitable habitat for the species. While the species occurs in the Upper Peninsula, these scattered individuals are thought to be from Wisconsin’s breeding population (Brewer et al. 1991).
Historic vegetation for the cerulean warbler was generally identified as hardwood types within approximately ½ mile of rivers and the Lake Michigan shoreline. Cerulean warblers were locally abundant in the southeastern part of the state during the late 1800s. Payne (1983) described the
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-93 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences species as an "uncommon transient and summer resident in the lower third of the state," which was confirmed by the results of breeding bird atlas surveys. The presence of the species in parts of the Huron-Manistee National Forests may be the result of an expansion of its range due to the development of southeast Michigan. There are only a few records of this species currently on the Forests, and the breeding status is unknown. Cerulean warbler populations currently occupy only a small percentage of available habitat, largely due to the Huron-Manistee National Forests being on the northern fringe of its range in Michigan. At this time, it is uncertain whether the cerulean warbler would continue its range expansion northward. Alternative A would provide adequate habitat for this expansion if it occurred.
Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships would affect this habitat group. A change in land use from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels with more development is occurring and is expected to continue; therefore, these factors would increase the effects of fragmentation and parasitism.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, cerulean warbler, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the riparian/lowland hardwoods (mid to late) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-94 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Riparian/Lowland Hardwoods/Floodplain (mid to late) Habitat Group – Red- Shouldered Hawk:
Within the riparian/lowland hardwoods/floodplain (mid-late) habitat group, two surrogate species were identified. This mid-late riparian/lowland hardwood/floodplain group has a wide range of habitats and ecological conditions; therefore, the red-shouldered hawk and cerulean warbler were selected. The cerulean warbler is primarily associated with mixed hardwood habitat along larger rivers and lakes and the red-shouldered hawk is generally associated within riparian and lowland hardwoods that are interspersed with small ponds or wetland areas.
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulean) Canada Warbler (Wilsonia Canadensis) Red-Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have beneficial impacts on this habitat group and associated species. Management under the alternative’s objectives and Standards and Guidelines for Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, semiprimitive areas, and riparian areas would protect significant amounts of this habitat type through reduction of roads and vegetation management. The designation of approximately 24,000 acres of lowland hardwood stands as old growth will protect this habitat type over the long term.
Riparian guidelines in this alternative may also have negative impacts to this species group as it limits management options to late seral stages. The alternative’s Standards and Guidelines for viable beaver populations of 500 breeding pairs of adults would assist in creating favorable foraging habitat for the red-shouldered hawk. Protection of raptor nests benefits the red- shouldered hawk, and the management guidelines for bald eagle territories and essential habitat provides for the protection of this species’ habitat in specific areas of the Forests. Little change would occur in the acres of this habitat group under Alternative A in the foreseeable future. The quality of these stands would likely increase as tree diameters increase, large wood and snags increase, and canopy gaps develop, over the next five to ten decades. Riparian and lowland hardwood forest types would continue to provide a stable amount of habitat for associated species that is spatially distributed on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests. Under this alternative it is expected that red-shouldered hawk populations would remain stable or increase slightly into the foreseeable future, greater than 50 years.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-95 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B provides increased benefits to this habitat group and associated species when compared to Alternative A. Primarily, an additional approximately 4,600 acres of lowland and riparian hardwoods would be protected by semiprimitive allocations and candidate Research Natural Areas under these alternatives compared to Alternative A. These designations would decrease habitat fragmentation, as there would be fewer roads and less vegetation manipulation. There would also be reduced disturbance from recreational activities in these areas. Secondly, Alternative B also provides for additional protection of occupied nesting territories for the red- shouldered hawk. The management recommendations include nest site protection zones and seasonal restrictions for activities during the breeding season. There are recommendations to improve habitat conditions for home ranges of this species which provides for nesting habitat, cover for fledglings, and foraging habitat for important prey species. Also, Standards and Guidelines to provide 1,250 acres of riparian shrub/scrub habitat per Forest would benefit this species by providing a diversity of foraging habitat. Riparian management guidelines may be beneficial to this species group; however, this alternative would also increase the number of options for vegetative management within riparian habitats that may have negative indirect impacts on this species group. For example, managing for early successional habitat within riparian corridors would result in a loss of mid to late riparian forested habitat. While this would adversely affect the species group at the local level, it would not affect the red-shouldered hawk or associated species’ viability on the Forests.
Management adjacent to this habitat group may have some impacts that are greater than that expected in Alternative A. The increase in grouse emphasis acres, 1,200 acres; Kirtland’s warbler management, approximately 18,300 acres of essential habitat; prairie and barrens restoration, 68,500 acres; fuelbreaks, 2,000 acres and fuels treatments could cause localized increases in fragmentation effects, such as increased competition from red-tailed hawks or predation from raccoons, to this habitat group, depending upon site-specific locations. However, at a broad scale, these effects would be local and not affect the viability of the red-shouldered hawk or associated species.
All other changes in objectives and Standards and Guidelines in this alternative that differ from Alternative A would have no effects on this species group. Little change would occur in the amount of this habitat group under the management direction of Alternative B in the foreseeable future. In the long term, the overall quality of habitat in this group would increase as stands mature. Under this alternative, it is expected that red-shouldered hawk populations would remain stable or increase slightly on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Riparian and lowland hardwood forest types would continue to provide a stable amount of habitat for associated species under this alternative on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C would be similar to that of Alternative B as the additional acres of lowland and riparian hardwoods that would be protected by semiprimitive allocations and candidate Research Natural Areas would be the same. Management adjacent to this habitat group would likely have fewer impacts on this group than that of Alternative B as there is less
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-96 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
vegetation manipulation. The total amount of acres harvested will be less, and there would be fewer acres of early successional habitat created.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because the majority of the species population and breeding habitat in Michigan is in the Lower Peninsula. However, within the Lower Peninsula, the species’ breeding habitat and population is concentrated in the northern half, with the southern half having a small population due to limited habitat availability (Brewer et al. 1991). The entire Lower Peninsula was analyzed since federal and non-federal actions in the northern half will affect the species’ ability to repopulate the southern half if and when habitat is available.
The distribution of breeding red-shouldered hawks has apparently shifted from their historical range in the southern Lower Peninsula to their present concentration in the northern Lower Peninsula. This shift was likely due to forest conversion for agriculture, predation and competition from other species. Breeding records are known from 42 Michigan counties. Currently, however, most breeding activity occurs mainly in two Lower Peninsula regions. High concentrations of nesting red-shouldered hawks with good reproductive success have been documented in the Manistee County area of the Manistee National Forest.
Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships could be expected to affect this habitat group. A change in land use from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels with more development is occurring and is expected to continue; therefore, these factors could be expected to increase the effects of fragmentation and decrease the amount of red-shouldered hawk habitat. Effects from forest fragmentation on the species include increased human disturbance near the nest wich may cause nest abandonment and loss of reproductive efforts and providing habitat for competitor raptor species, such as great horned owls and red-tailed hawks, that are more aggressive and better adapted to smaller blocks of forest. Great horned owls especially are noted for reducing the numbers of red-shouldered hawks where the two species are found together (Crocoll 1994). This magnifies the importance of National Forest System lands to this species.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships may affect this habitat group. A change in land use from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels with more development is occurring and is expected to continue; therefore, these factors may increase the effects of fragmentation and decrease the amount of red-shouldered hawk habitat. This magnifies the importance of National Forest System lands to this species.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, red-shouldered hawk, it was determined that
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-97 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences for species that can be found only within the riparian/lowland hardwoods (mid to late) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-98 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Riparian/Lowland Hardwood/Floodplain (early to mid successional) Habitat Group–Eastern Massasauga:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) Kirtland’s Snake (Clonophis kirtlandii)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have negative impacts on this habitat group and associated wildlife species because the objectives and Standards and Guidelines for Wild and Scenic Rivers, old growth, semiprimitive areas, and riparian areas promote late successional forest types in all riparian and wetlands areas. No management for early successional habitats within riparian and wetland habitats will occur in these areas. Availability of early successional habitat within riparian areas is currently limited, highly isolated, and generally created only through natural disturbances. Little change would occur in the management of this habitat group under Alternative A in the foreseeable future, greater than 50 years. The resulting effect would be diminished quality as forest types mature or sequence into longer-lived species and late seral stages.
Suppression of wildfires would also negatively affect habitat quality because wildfire is the major natural disturbance process causing regeneration of habitats and maintenance of early successional stages at the landscape level. Under Alternative A, areas of suitable habitat would continue to occur on the landscape, such as small wildfires and beaver ponds, but they would likely remain small in scale and highly isolated, providing habitat for localized individuals at the site-specific level only. Naturally occurring disturbances would not create enough habitat to meet the viability needs of associated species and would not maintain connective corridors between suitable habitat patches. Existing early successional riparian habitat would continue to diminish in quantity and quality over time. Under this alternative, the eastern massasauga and associated species would occur in small numbers as disjunct subpopulations with restricted opportunity for interactions between populations. While there is adequate potential habitat at the Forest level, there is insufficient suitable habitat and no opportunity to manage for early successional riparian habitat under Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative A would not provide for the continued viability of eastern massasauga or associated species.
In addition, the eastern massasauga and Kirtland’s snake would be affected by the following actions:
Under Alternative A, threats from vegetative management on upland habitats adjacent to riparian and wetlands and manipulation of water levels would have the potential to result in direct adverse affects through injury or death of individuals, as well as indirect adverse effects to habitat suitability and hibernacula. For example, removal of beaver and beaver dams removes pond habitat and forage and can prove fatal to hibernating snakes in winter. Mitigations to reduce adverse effects on adjacent upland areas would likely be made at the project and site level. Standards and Guidelines, such as protection of riparian areas and Best Management Practices,
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-99 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences would reduce adverse effects to existing conditions within riparian habitats in the inactive season–winter.
Under this alternative, old-growth conditions and late successional forest types would likely dominate riparian and lowland floodplain areas into the foreseeable future, creating further isolation and reduction of suitable patches of habitat. The eastern massasauga also utilizes upland habitats in dry sandy outwash plain ecosystems, adjacent to water bodies to meet a portion of its yearly life requirements.
While there are opportunities to improve conditions for eastern massasauga outside of the early successional riparian habitats at the local level, Alternative A would not provide for the viability of eastern massasauga at the landscape level, and would likely result in a loss of viability over the next decade.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Under Alternative B, the objectives for Wild and Scenic Rivers, old growth, semiprimitive areas and riparian areas would still promote late successional forest types. However, Alternative B would incorporate the Management Recommendations for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (USDA-Forest Service 2004) and designate Massasauga Management Units for protection and conservation. The intent of this direction is for increased early successional habitat within and adjacent to riparian areas to increase and complement existing habitat created by natural disturbances, thereby improving overall habitat quality and meeting the viability needs of the eastern massasauga and associated species. Overall, Alternative B provides the opportunity to manage for sufficient early successional riparian habitat to meet the viability needs of species associated with riparian/lowland hardwood/ floodplain–early to mid successional–habitat group.
Under Alternative B, wildfires would continue to be suppressed to protect lives and property. However, the Management Recommendations for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (USDA-Forest Service 2004) provide direction for utilizing prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce the risks to people and property while increasing habitat suitability for the snake. Under Alternative B, some areas of suitable habitat would continue to occur on the landscape, such as small wildfires and beaver ponds, and would contribute cumulatively with managed habitat to increase patch size and reduce isolation and improve connectivity of patches, over the long term, greater than 50 years. Eastern massasauga rattlesnakes would have increased opportunities for interactions between sub-populations.
Alternative B provides similar opportunities as Alternative A to reduce the threats from persecution of the snake. The effects, therefore, would be the same as Alternative A.
Under Alternative B, threats from vegetative management; transportation management and road mortality; fire and fuels treatments and manipulation of water levels would have the potential to result in direct adverse effects through injury or death of individuals, and indirect adverse effects to habitat suitability and hibernacula. Alternative B would implement the Management Recommendations for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake on the Huron-Manistee National
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-100 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Forests (USDA-Forest Service 2004) which establishe conservation measures to eliminate or reduce adverse effects from management activities. Mitigations to reduce adverse affects would likely be made at the project and site level. Standards and Guidelines, such as protection of riparian areas and Best Management Practices, would reduce adverse affects to existing conditions within riparian habitats. Therefore, Alternative B would provide more protection to massasauga than Alternative A, because the Management Recommendations for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (USDA-Forest Service 2004) specifically identify conservation measures to ensure the conservation of eastern massasauga across the Forests or to maintain or improve habitat quantity and quality of early successional habitat.
Alternative B proposes additional changes from Alternative A that have the potential to affect early successional habitat in riparian areas as well as eastern massasauga and associated species. Management adjacent to this habitat group may have some negative impacts that are greater than those expected in Alternative A. The increase in Kirtland’s warbler management (approximately 18,300 acres of essential habitat) would result in more intensive management on the land, resulting in increased potential for direct mortality, injury or harm to snakes. Increased fuelbreaks, 2,000 acres, and increased fuels treatments, 8,000 acres annually and 80,000 acres treated per decade for 50 years, would result in increased size of prescribed burns and fuels treatments that would also increase the potential for direct mortality, injury or harm to massasauga. Standards and Guidelines from the Management Recommendations for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (USDA-Forest Service 2004) should reduce or eliminate direct risks from this increased activity. These activities could, however, cause a loss of habitat or habitat quality–removal of wood and change of forest type– adjacent to riparian areas. These effects are likely to be considerable and would diminish the suitability of habitat for the massasauga or other associated species. These same actions can improve habitat conditions when they open the existing canopy and increase the amount of native warm-season grasses which would have beneficial impacts for eastern massasauga.
Overall, Alternative B would increase opportunities to provide early successional habitat for eastern massasauga and improve habitat quality within Massasauga Management Units.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Alternative C is similar to Alternative B with regard to objectives and Standards and Guidelines so the effects would be the same. Alternative C differs from B with regard to implementation rates.
The increase in acres for Kirtland’s warbler habitat management is the same under Alternatives B and C, so the effects would be the same. Alternative C proposes the same amount of fuelbreaks, 2,000 acres, but reduces fuels treatments, 6,000 acres annually and 60,000 acres treated per decade for 30 years, compared to Alternative B. These treatments would result in increased size of prescribed burns and fuels treatments and also increase the potential for direct mortality, injury or harm to massasauga and associated species. Standards and Guidelines from the Management Recommendations for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake on the Huron- Manistee National Forests (USDA-Forest Service 2004) would reduce or eliminate risks from
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-101 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
this increased activity. As described under Alternative B, these activities would cause a loss of habitat or habitat quality–removal of wood and change of forest type–adjacent to riparian areas. These effects are likely to diminish the suitability of habitat for the massasauga or other associated species, which would have an adverse impact on this species group. These same actions improve habitat conditions when they open the existing canopy and increase the amount of native warm-season grasses, which would have beneficial impacts for eastern massasauga.
Overall, Alternative C would increase habitat quantity and quality across the Forests in the first decade and into the foreseeable future. The overall quality of habitat in this group would increase as stands are managed and the Standards and Guidelines for specific habitat requirements for the massasauga are achieved under this alternative. These actions would further enhance existing conditions where natural disturbances provide habitat.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because in Michigan the massasauga occurs only in the Lower Peninsula, including documented occurrences on the Huron and Manistee National Forests. While the majority of Michigan’s population is found on non-federal lands, actions on both federal and non-federal lands could affect the eastern massasauga not only at the local level but throughout the Lower Peninsula.
Historically, habitat was likely broadly distributed, highly abundant and well connected. Since that time, habitat quantity has drastically diminished, and habitat quality has significantly declined. Currently, habitat is frequently isolated and exists in low abundance. While some populations may be self-sustaining, there is limited opportunity for population interactions due to significant isolation. This high separation and low abundance, with little opportunity for population interaction, may result in strong potential for extirpations within patches.
Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships may affect this habitat group. A change in land use from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels with more development and roads is occurring and is expected to continue; therefore these factors may increase the adverse effects of fragmentation.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B and C:
Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships may affect this habitat group. A change in land use from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels with more development is occurring and is expected to continue; therefore, these factors may increase the effects of fragmentation and decrease the suitability of existing habitat. State regulations currently protect the eastern massasauga in Michigan.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-102 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources catenatus), it was determined that for species that can be found only within the Riparian/Lowland Hardwood/Floodplain–early to mid successional–community on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide for additional creation of necessary habitat. Population viability of species represented within this habitat group remains globally secure, except for Eastern Massasauga which will remain globally rare. Alternatives B and C may impact individuals but are note likely to cause a loss of viability. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-103 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Lowland Conifer/Boreal Habitat Group – Black-backed Woodpecker:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. American Marten (Martes americana) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Spruce Grouse (Dendragapus canadensis) Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Under Alternative A, lowland coniferous forests would continue to provide a stable amount of habitat for the black-backed woodpecker and associated species on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests. Little or no harvest would occur in this habitat group. However, limited salvage of dead trees in cedar swamps would still be permitted.
The amount of mid-late upland coniferous forests would increase, particularly on the Huron National Forest, because wildfires would be suppressed and timber growth would exceed harvest. Decadent upland coniferous forests would provide some potential habitat for the black- backed woodpecker and associated species.
Alternative A contains a number of Standards and Guidelines that would provide habitat for the black-backed woodpecker and associated species. These Standards and Guidelines include providing old growth, thermal cover, balanced age-class distribution and snags. Although this alternative would only permit timber salvage under specific circumstances, this practice further reduces habitat availability for the species. Timber salvage has been common under the 1986 Forest Plan as amended, and suitable habitat is currently limited.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
The effects of Alternative B on this habitat group would be similar to Alternative A. Lowland coniferous forest would continue to provide a stable amount of habitat on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests. However, limited salvage of dead trees in cedar swamps would still be permitted.
For the black-backed woodpecker, the amount of mid-late upland coniferous forests would decline when compared to Alternative A because of the increase in acres of Kirtland’s warbler clearcuts, fuels treatments and barrens creation. Barrens and fuels treatment areas would likely lose snags and down wood within 20 years due to recurring burning and mechanical maintenance, creating large acreages of unsuitable habitat. The effects of barrens creation in the short term would be minor, with about 9,000 acres being created in the first decade. However, the more than 68,000 acres of new openlands would be created by the fifth decade, substantially reducing potential habitat for the black-backed woodpecker.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-104 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
However, when compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would have an objective of providing post-fire habitat specifically for the black-backed woodpecker. Alternative B would also provide an increase in snags and down wood in the jack pine plains when compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative B, restrictions on the gathering of fuel wood and special forest products in old growth would benefit the black-backed woodpecker, because it would maintain ecosystem integrity and improve foraging and nesting structure. Therefore, Alternative B would provide more habitat for the black-backed woodpecker than Alternative A.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C would be very similar to Alternative B. Lowland coniferous forest would continue to provide a stable amount of habitat on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests over the short and long terms. However, limited salvage of dead trees in cedar swamps would still be permitted.
For the black-backed woodpecker, the amount of mid-late upland coniferous forests would decline substantially when compared to Alternative A because of the increase in acres of Kirtland’s warbler treatments, fuels treatments and accelerated barrens creation. Like Alternative B, barrens and fuels treatment areas would create large acreages of unsuitable habitat. However Alternative C would create openland habitat in 30 years, a shorter timeframe than Alternative B.
Like Alternative B, Alternative C would have an objective of providing post-fire habitat specifically for the black-backed woodpecker and would also provide an increase in snags and down wood in the jack pine plains when compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would restrict the gathering of fuel wood and special forest products in old growth, benefiting the black-backed woodpecker.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
To evaluate cumulative effects for all alternatives, the analysis bounds include the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because northern Lower Peninsula is the southern extent of the species range in Michigan and includes suitable habitats, such as jack pine plains and coniferous swamps. Since these habitats are present throughout the northern Lower Peninsula, actions on both federal and non-federal lands have the potential to affect the species in the analysis area.
Alternative A would have an adverse cumulative effect on the black-backed woodpecker. When combined with similar vegetative management activities occurring on state and private lands, this alternative would contribute to the reduction of mature coniferous habitat through timber harvest. When combined with fire suppression activities on state and private lands, this alternative would contribute to the reduction of newly created areas of dead trees.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B would also have an adverse cumulative impact on the black-backed woodpecker. When combined with similar vegetative management activities occurring on state and private
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-105 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
lands, this alternative would contribute to the reduction of mature coniferous habitat through timber harvest in the short and long terms. When combined with fire suppression activities on state and private lands, this alternative would contribute to the reduction of newly created areas of dead trees. However, Alternative B would have less of an adverse cumulative effect than Alternative A because of the creation and maintenance of habitat for the species.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative C:
Alternative C would also have an adverse cumulative impact on the black-backed woodpecker, substantially more than Alternatives A, and slightly more than Alternative B. When combined with similar vegetative management activities occurring on state and private lands, this alternative would contribute to the reduction of mature coniferous habitat through timber harvest. When combined with fire suppression activities on state and private lands, this alternative would also contribute to the reduction of newly created areas of dead trees. Alternative C would have more of an adverse cumulative effect than Alternative B because barrens creation would be completed in 30 years versus 50 years, respectively. Like Alternative B, Alternative C would have less of an adverse cumulative effect than Alternative A because of the creation and maintenance of newly created areas of dead trees.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, black-backed woodpecker, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the Lowland Conifer/Boreal habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide guidance to retain newly created areas of dead trees, post-fire conditions or insect and disease, for the black-backed woodpecker. The population viability of species represented in this habitat group remains globally secure. Alternative B and C may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a loss of viability because both alternatives have objectives and Standards and Guidelines that provide for retention of newly created areas of dead trees for the black-backed woodpecker. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-106 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Oak/Pine (late) Habitat Group – Red-headed Woodpecker:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would maintain and/or create red-headed woodpecker habitat through timber harvesting activities such as clearcuts, shelterwoods and seed trees, and the creation of fuelbreaks. Ten thousand acres of prairie, barrens and savannahs would be created within old- growth areas. However, timber harvest activities in occupied habitat during the nesting season may adversely affect the species through disturbance and mortality. This alternative would not meet the snag requirements for the species, 10 per acre, because it establishes four snags per acre as a minimum in harvest units and a minimum of nine snags per acre in the Indiana bat management zone on the western portion of the Manistee National Forest. Prescribed burning would benefit the species by providing a more open forest condition with the potential for snag creation.
Wildfire suppression and beaver control would adversely affect this species by reducing opportunities for snag creation. Firewood gathering, hazard tree removal and fuel reduction projects could have a negative effect by removing nest sites and foraging habitat for the red- headed woodpecker. Because the red-headed woodpecker is susceptible to mortality through vehicle collisions, maintaining the current high density of roads on the Forests in red-headed woodpecker habitat would result in an increased potential for vehicle-caused mortality. While Alternative A would allow the Forests to close and obliterate unneeded roads, road density and the subsequent habitat fragmentation on the Forests would remain high.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Alternatives B and C would be similar to those in Alternative A, with the following exceptions. Under Alternatives B and C, an additional 68,500 acres of barrens, savannahs and prairies would be created over the long term (50 years). However, Alternative B would have minor beneficial and detrimental short-term effects on the species since about 9,000 acres of barrens habitat would be created during the first decade. Benefits to the species include retention of oak/pine habitat during the first decade, while detriments include less barrens habitat being created during this same period. Under Alternative C, approximately 26,000 acres of barrens habitat would be created the first decade.
The additional 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks that would be created each year and the increase in snag densities on all forest types would further improve habitat for the red-headed woodpecker. Using prescribe fire for ecosystem restoration on a landscape scale under these alternatives would also increase the availability of snags and provide open forested conditions on a large scale. Alternatives B and C would also benefit red-headed woodpeckers by decreasing road densities in
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-107 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
semiprimitive areas, Wild and Scenic River, rare plant areas, and candidate Research Natural Areas and thereby reducing road mortality compared to Alternative A. However, habitat quality would likely decrease as well, since less timber harvesting would occur in these areas.
Objectives and Standards and Guidelines for the savannah, pine barrens, and mixed hardwoods habitat groups would benefit the red-headed woodpecker through the creation of open forest conditions, late seral stage habitats and snag retention. The grassland and dry prairie habitat group’s objectives and Standards and Guidelines would also benefit this species if the openings were small, less than 40 acres, and located adjacent to red-headed woodpecker habitat.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because the majority of the species’ population and habitat that could be impacted through federal and non-federal actions in Michigan is found within the Lower Peninsula
Past management activities, such as the conversion of oak/pine forest to pine plantations, pasture lands or subdivisions in northern Lower Michigan, including the Forests, have had a negative cumulative effect on this species by contributing to the loss of habitat. The changes in land use from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels due to urbanization and roads are occurring and are expected to continue. Fire suppression efforts on state and federal lands in the cumulative effects analysis area have also negatively affected the species by not allowing fire to maintain an open forested condition and create snags. Continued firewood cutting on private and state lands combined with firewood gathering on federal lands would result in fewer snags being available for potential nest sites.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B and C:
Cumulative effects on red-headed woodpeckers from Alternatives B and C would be similar to those listed for Alternative A. The restoration of pine barrens and savannahs, although at different implementation rates for each alternative, and the large-scale use of prescribed fire under these alternatives would provide additional habitat for the species. However, fire suppression, habitat fragmentation, high road densities and firewood gathering on private, state and federal lands would continue to have adverse cumulative effects on the red-headed woodpecker.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, red-headed woodpecker, it was determined that for species found only within the oak/pine (late) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-108 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Oak/Pine (early-mid) Habitat Group – Whip-poor-will:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) Sprague’s Pygarctic (Pygarctic spraguei)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would maintain and/or create whip-poor-will habitat through timber harvesting activities, such as clearcuts, shelterwoods and seed trees; prescribed fire and establishing fuelbreaks. These actions would benefit the species by creating even-aged or an open-forest habitat and maintaining or creating openings. The reduction or elimination of vegetation management in Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, semiprimitive areas and old growth would adversely affect the species by providing large blocks of maturing to mature habitat spatially distributed across the Forests–whip-poor-wills tend to avoid mature forests. The suppression of wildfire would continue to have adverse effects on this species since wildfires can create large blocks of even-aged regenerating forest and/or large openings adjacent to oak/pine habitat.
Maintaining the current high density of roads on the Forests, especially rural roads in whip-poor- will habitat, would result in an increased potential for vehicle-caused mortality. While Alternative A would allow the Forests to close and obliterate unneeded roads, road density on the Forests would remain high. The use of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) for gypsy moth control on National Forest System lands would not directly affect the whip-poor-will, since the species is immune to the pesticide. However, Bt is known to be toxic to more than 40 lepidopteron species, a primary whip-poor-will food source.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Direct and indirect effects to whip-poor-will from Alternatives B and C would be similar to those listed for Alternative A. Alternatives B and C would benefit the species by increasing timber harvest in grouse emphasis areas; providing for prairie, barrens and savannah restoration; creating or restoring mesic grassland; creating additional fuelbreak; and increasing fuels treatments. However, Alternative B would provide less whip-poor-will habitat from barrens restoration than Alternative C during the first decade. Both alternatives would provide similar acreages within these habitats over the long term, greater than 50 years. The use of prescribed fire under these alternatives would benefit whip-poor-wills by using larger burns on a landscape scale for ecological restoration of ecosystems.
The alternatives would also protect additional acres of forest, including oak/pine in semiprimitive areas, rare plant areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and candidate Research Natural Areas compared to Alternative A. This would result in less vegetation manipulation within these areas, resulting in less early- to mid-successional habitat being created for the species.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-109 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Objectives and Standards and Guidelines for the aspen/birch and jack pine habitat groups would benefit the whip-poor-will through the creation of early to mid seral stage habitats. The grassland and dry prairie habitat groups’ objectives and Standards and Guidelines would also benefit this species if the openings were located adjacent to whip-poor-will habitat.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be northern Lower Michigan. This area was chosen because the whip-poor-will is more common and widespread in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan than in the southern Lower Peninsula and Upper Peninsula (Brewer et al. 1991). Therefore, in Michigan, the species could be most impacted through federal and non- federal actions within the northern Lower Peninsula.
Past management activities, such as the conversion of oak/pine forest to pine plantations, pasture lands or subdivisions in northern Lower Michigan, including the Forests, have had a negative cumulative effect on this species by contributing to the loss of habitat. The changes in land use due to urbanization are occurring and are expected to continue. Fire suppression efforts on state and federal lands in the cumulative effects analysis area have also negatively affected the species by not allowing fire to create or maintain an even-aged open forested condition.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, whip-poor-will, it was determined that for species found only within the oak/pine (early-open) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-110 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Mixed Hardwood (late) Habitat Group – Northern Goshawk:
Within mixed hardwoods (late) habitat group, two surrogate species were identified. This late mixed hardwood group has a wide range of habitats and ecological conditions, therefore the northern goshawk and wood thrush were selected. The northern goshawk is primarily associated with Landtype Associations 1-3 hardwood systems with an open understory and the wood thrush is generally associated with Landtype Associations 3-7 hardwood systems with moderate sub- canopy layer.
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. American Maten (Martes americana) Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) Wood Thrush (Hylocichia mustelina)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have beneficial impacts on this habitat group and associated species because of the objectives and Standards and Guidelines. The Species Viability Evaluation analysis showed that there are approximately 190,000 acres of this habitat type currently available. Management direction in Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness and semiprimitive areas have reduced the amount of vegetation management in these areas, providing large blocks of maturing habitat spatially distributed across the Forests. The old-growth designation has provided approximately 29,000 acres of planned old growth in the northern hardwood and long- rotation oak type. Under Alternative A’s direction, the mature long-rotation hardwood type is projected to increase in acreage by about 40,000 acres on the Huron-Manistee National Forests over 50 years. The quality of these stands would likely increase as tree diameters increase, large wood and snags increase, and canopy gaps develop. The Indiana bat harvesting restrictions per the Biological Opinion (2003) provides some protection for the western half of the Manistee National Forest during the northern goshawk breeding period. Management of the hardwood forest types would continue to provide a stable to increasing amount of mature habitat for associated species that was spatially distributed on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests and would also provide adequate amounts of regenerating hardwood types for prey habitat for the goshawk. Direction for the protection of raptor nests has generally provided protection for this species during active nesting. Under this alternative, it is expected that northern goshawk populations would remain stable or increase slightly on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Little change would occur in the amount of this habitat group under the management direction of Alternative B in the foreseeable future. In the long term, the overall quality of habitat in this group would increase as stands mature. Under this alternative, it is expected that northern goshawk populations would remain stable or increase slightly on the Huron-Manistee National
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-111 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Forests. Mature hardwood forest types would continue to provide a stable amount of habitat for associated species under this alternative on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests.
Alternative B provides some benefits to this habitat group and associated species that are greater than Alternative A. Additional acres of hardwoods would be protected by semiprimitive, Wild and Scenic River designations, rare plant areas and candidate Research Natural Areas compared to Alternative A. These allocations within this habitat group would decrease habitat fragmentation, greater than 50 years, as there would be fewer roads and less vegetation manipulation. There would also be reduced disturbance from recreational activities in these areas. Alternative B also provides for the protection of occupied nesting territories for the northern goshawk. The management recommendations include nest site protection zones and seasonal restrictions for activities during the breeding season. There are recommendations to improve habitat conditions for home ranges of this species, which provides for nesting habitat, cover for fledglings, and foraging habitat for important prey species.
Northern hardwood acreages are expected to increase over the long term, 100 years. Vegetation management activities in other habitats may have some impacts to northern goshawk however, that are greater than those expected in Alternative A. The increase in grouse emphasis acres would benefit northern goshawk by indirectly increasing foraging opportunities for grouse. The increase in essential habitat managed for the Kirtland’s warbler would similarly increase foraging opportunities by increasing habitat for snowshoe hare and red squirrels. Prairie and barrens restoration would reduce habitat for snowshoe hare and red squirrels in jack pine areas so these activities would reduce foraging opportunities. Fuelbreaks and fuels treatments would cause a decrease in the availability of dead and down trees and would reduce coniferous understory and mid-canopy, thereby reducing the availability of prey species. These activities may also create conditions that would increase competition or predation from other predators, such as red-tailed hawk or raccoons. However, at a broad scale, these effects would be local and would not affect the viability of the northern goshawk or associated species.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C would be similar to that in Alternative B, as the additional acres of hardwoods that would be protected by semiprimitive allocations and candidate Research Natural Areas would be the same. Management within this habitat group would likely have fewer negative impacts, such as habitat loss or fragmentation, on this group than that of Alternative B, as there is less vegetation manipulation. For example, there would be 2,000 fewer acres of fuels treatments under Alternative C compared to Alternative B. The total amount of acres harvested would be less, and there would be fewer acres of early successional habitat created. This would decrease the amount of foraging habitat for some localized breeding pairs.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because during the breeding season, the species is more common in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan than in the southern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula (Brewer et al. 1991). Impacts from federal and non-federal actions on
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-112 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
goshawk habitat within the northern Lower Peninsula could affect the species’ population in Michigan.
Very little historical information is known on both distribution and abundance of goshawks in Michigan, or the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The distribution of breeding goshawks has likely increased within the Lower Peninsula since the late 1800s when the deforestation of the state likely reduced populations. More than half of the total occurrences of the goshawk in the state are currently recorded from the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships may affect this habitat group. A change in land use from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels with more development is occurring and is expected to continue; therefore these factors may increase the effects of fragmentation and decrease the amount of northern goshawk habitat on private lands. This magnifies the importance of National Forest System lands to this species.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, northern goshawk, it was determined that for species found only within the mixed hardwood (late) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-113 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Mixed Hardwoods (late) Habitat Group – Wood Thrush:
Within mixed hardwoods (late) habitat group, two surrogate species were identified. This late mixed hardwood group has a wide range of habitats and ecological conditions; therefore, the northern goshawk and wood thrush were selected. The northern goshawk is primarily associated with Landtype Associations 1-3, hardwood systems with an open understory, and the wood thrush is generally associated with Landtype Associations 3-7, hardwood systems with moderate sub-canopy layer.
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have beneficial impacts on this habitat group and associated species because there are approximately 146,000 acres of this habitat type currently available, and objectives and Standards and Guidelines would ensure that this habitat continues toward an older aged condition. Lands designated as Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness and semiprimitive areas have reduced the amount of vegetation management and provide more large blocks of maturing habitat with broad spatial distribution across the Forests. The old-growth allocation has provided approximately 19,000 acres of planned old growth in the northern hardwood type. Under Alternative A, the mature long lived hardwood type is projected to increase in acreage by about 40,000 acres on the Huron-Manistee National Forests over 50 years. The quality of these stands would likely increase as tree diameters increase, large wood and snags increase, and canopy gaps develop. The Indiana bat harvesting restrictions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinion, 2002) provides some protection for the western half of the Manistee National Forest during the wood thrush breeding period. Management of the hardwood forest types would continue to provide a stable to increasing amount of mature habitat for associated species that are spatially distributed on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests and would also provide adequate amounts of regenerating hardwood types for post-breeding and migratory habitat for the wood thrush. Under this alternative, it is expected that wood thrush populations would remain stable or increase slightly on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
The objectives of Alternative B and its associated Standards and Guidelines provide benefits to this habitat group and associated species. Primarily, additional acres of hardwoods would be protected by semiprimitive, Wild and Scenic River designations, rare plant areas and candidate Research Natural Areas compared to Alternative A. These allocations within this habitat group would decrease habitat fragmentation, as there would be fewer roads and less vegetation manipulation. There would also be reduced disturbance from motorized recreational activities in these areas. Projections for this habitat group would likely show an increase in the amount of this habitat over time.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-114 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Vegetation management activities may have some impacts that are greater than that expected in Alternative A. The increase in grouse emphasis acres, prairie and barrens restoration; fuelbreaks; mesic grasslands; uneven-aged management of northern hardwoods and fuels treatments could cause a decrease in the amount of this habitat type through conversion to another habitat type and localized increases in fragmentation effects to this habitat group, depending upon site-specific locations. However, at a broad scale, these effects would be local. Regeneration harvests or uneven-aged management would cause only temporary, short-term habitat fragmentation and not affect the viability of the wood thrush or associated species. The management activities that would create early successional habitat in this habitat group would also benefit the thrush by creating habitat favorable to post-fledging juveniles, molting adults, and migrating individuals (Kilgo et al. 1999, Anders et al. 1998, Vega Rivera 1999).
All other changes in objectives and Standards and Guidelines in this alternative that differ from Alternative A would have no effects on this species group. Small increases of mature hardwood habitat would occur under the management direction of Alternative B in the foreseeable future. In the long term, the overall quality of habitat in this group would increase as stands mature. Under this alternative it is expected that wood thrush populations would remain stable or increase slightly on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Mature hardwood forest types would continue to provide a stable to increasing amount of habitat for associated species under this alternative on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C would be similar to that in Alternative B, as the additional acres of hardwoods that would be protected by semiprimitive allocations and candidate Research Natural Areas are the same. Management adjacent to this habitat group would likely have fewer negative impacts, such as habitat loss or fragmentation, on this group than that of Alternative B, as there is less vegetation manipulation. The total amount of acres harvested will be less, and there would be fewer acres of early successional habitat created, which could limit the amount of post- fledging, molting, and migration habitat available for the wood thrush.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area would be the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Although the wood thrush and its habitats are common and widespread in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Brewer et al. 1991), the analysis area was chosen because the species can occur locally in large numbers that could be impacted from federal and non-federal actions.
The historic wood thrush habitat was believed to occur only in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Logging and subsequent large wild fires during the late 1900s largely eliminated suitable habitat in Michigan. Since that time, Michigan’s deciduous forests are largely restored and continue to mature. Recent data has shown that wood thrush occur throughout Michigan but are more abundant in the northern Lower Peninsula.
No major non-federal actions are reasonably certain to occur within the analysis area. It is expected that some activities, particularly on private lands, could have a progressively negative
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-115 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
effect on wood thrush as larger parcels are divided into smaller parcels and lands are subdivided and developed. Human populations in the counties within wood thrush habitat have been rapidly increasing in recent years (USDA-Forest Service 2003a). Human population growth is typically accompanied by increased urbanization, including road construction and land development. These activities could result in the permanent loss of potential wood thrush habitat.
While there would be some negative effects from activities within the analysis area, overall Alternative A will have positive cumulative effects for the wood thrush. Implementation of the Standards and Guidelines and objectives and the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ conservation measures are expected to produce long-term beneficial cumulative effects and to improve the overall status of the species within the action area.
The wood thrush is a common species in Michigan and locally common on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. For the period 1966-2003, Breeding Bird Survey data indicates a nonsignificant increase in the populations in Michigan (Sauer et al. 2004).
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, wood thrush, it was determined that for species found only within the mixed hardwoods (late) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-116 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Aspen/Birch (early) Habitat Group – Golden-winged Warbler:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have mostly beneficial effects on this habitat group and associated species. Under this alternative’s management direction, a slight increase in habitat would occur in the first 10 years, increase substantially after 50 years, then decline moderately after 100 years. Based on current model data, it is assumed that approximately 24 percent of the aspen stands proposed for harvest under Alternative A would be between 25 and 40 acres. However, the model data does not include a substantial amount of aspen that cannot be managed because it is considered riparian vegetation. A complete delineation of riparian and wetland vegetation would be needed to conduct this analysis but is not available.
Aspen clearcutting and occasional wildfires would continue to provide habitat for the golden- winged warbler and associated species on both the Huron and Manistee National Forests. In the short term (10 years), approximately 8,000 acres would occur in stands between 25 and 40 acres in size, providing habitat for the golden-winged warbler. After 50 years, habitat would increase to approximately 13,000 acres, and then decline to approximately 10,000 in the long term (100 years) (Figure III-9).
Figure III-9. Golden-winged Warbler Habitat by Decade. (habitat is defined as aspen 0-19 years old, in stands between 25 and 40 acres in size)
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000 Acres 6000
4000
2000
0 Current Condition End of Decade 1 End of Decade 2 End of Decade 3
Alt A 7539 7955 13440 10202 Alt B 7539 7955 13440 11568 Alt C 7539 5771 7200 7408 Decade
Figure III-9 does not take into account aspen that cannot be managed because it is considered riparian vegetation.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-117 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Despite the limitations imposed by some Standards and Guidelines, Alternative A would provide substantial early-aged aspen habitat for the golden-winged warbler and associated species.
Cowbird control in Kirtland’s Warbler Management Areas would likely benefit golden-winged warblers occupying young aspen habitat near these areas because it would reduce potential parasitism of golden-winged warbler nests.
Road closures in golden-winged warbler habitat would benefit the species by reducing the potential disturbance during the nesting season and eliminate travel corridors for mammalian predators.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
The effects of Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A for the first five decades. However, Alternative B would provide a slightly greater amount of habitat in the long term (see Figure III-9). Of all the alternatives, Alternative B would provide the greatest amount of habitat for the golden-winged warbler.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Of all the alternatives, Alternative C would provide the least amount of habitat for the golden- winged warbler and associated species. This alternative provides fewer habitats in all decades (see Figure III-9). The greatest difference is in the fifth decade, when Alternative C provides 6,200 acres less habitat than Alternatives B and C. However in the long term (100 years), Alternative C would provide about the same amount of habitat as in the first decade.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects analysis area would be the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because although the golden-winged warbler is a fairly common, widespread species in Michigan during the breeding season, federal and non-federal actions would be most likely to impact the species and its early successional aspen/birch habitat within the Lower Peninsula.
Alternative A, when combined with past, present and potential federal, state, tribal, local or private actions in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, would have both adverse and beneficial cumulative effects on the golden-winged warbler.
Historically, habitat for the golden-winged warbler was frequently isolated and occurred at very low abundance. Extensive logging and subsequent wildfires in the late 19th and early 20th Century greatly expanded aspen, and habitat for the golden-winged warbler. Subsequently, the suppression of wildfires has and will continue to contribute to a decline in habitat from those high levels. Without management, the potential exists for the natural conversion of aspen to other forest types.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-118 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Based on past land management, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is expected to continue to clearcut aspen on state lands. Many of these harvests have been greater than 25 acres, contributing to the creation of early-aged aspen habitat for the golden-winged warbler.
Increased urbanization is likely to result in the permanent loss of potential golden-winged warbler habitat on private lands.
The positive effects of Alternative A, in addition to habitat management by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, should help offset potential negative effects on private lands. It is expected that the net long-term cumulative effect of the habitat management and other planned activities in the action area would be beneficial to the species.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B:
Like Alternative A, Alternative B would have both adverse and beneficial cumulative effects on the golden-winged warbler. The positive effects of Alternative B, in addition to habitat management by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, should help offset potential negative effects on private lands. It is expected that the net long-term cumulative effect of the habitat management and other planned activities in the action area would be beneficial to the species.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative C:
Like Alternative A, Alternative C would have both adverse and beneficial cumulative effects on the golden-winged warbler. The positive effects of Alternative C, in addition to habitat management by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, should help offset potential negative effects on private lands. It is expected that the net long-term cumulative effect of the habitat management and other planned activities in the action area would provide sufficient habitat for the species.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, golden-winged warbler, it was determined that for species found only within the aspen/birch (early) habitat community on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-119 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Red and White Pine/Spruce (late successional) Habitat Group - American Marten:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. American Marten (Martes americana) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Imperial Moth (Eacles imperialis pini)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A is anticipated to have beneficial impacts because it would continue to provide a stable to increasing amount of habitat for the associated species with broad spatial distribution on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Forests currently provide approximately 197,700 acres of mature long-rotation conifers, and this amount is expected to remain constant over five decades under Alternative A. The quality of these forest types for this species group would increase through natural processes and through vegetation treatments. Objectives in Alternative A for riparian and old-growth areas would provide approximately 23,000 acres of old-growth, long-rotation conifers spatially distributed across both Forests that would benefit this species group.
American marten populations currently utilize only a small percentage of available habitats. Generally they occur on the primary and secondary marten habitat areas of the Manistee National Forest (USDA-Forest Service 1996). The objectives of this alternative would continue to provide a stimulus for further reintroductions of the species and management of this habitat type for diversity. However the Standards and Guidelines developed under this alternative for snags, den trees and down material would provide only minimal levels for the marten.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B would provide slightly less mature conifer habitat than Alternative A through the first five decades, since approximately 30,000 acres of potential habitat for this group would be converted to openlands during this period. At a broad scale, these effects would be local and not affect the viability of the marten or associated species. Alternative B would also protect additional acres, approximately 5,535 acres broadly distributed across the Forests, of mature conifers from fragmentation and road densities through semiprimitive designations, Wild and Scenic Rivers designations, and candidate Research Natural Areas. This alternative recommends utilizing the conservation approach for American marten and northern goshawk to maintain or improve habitat conditions with site specific project areas within most Management Areas. Standards and Guidelines for snags, den trees and downed woody material are specified and are at higher recommended minimum levels than in Alternative A, which would be a benefit to this species. Standards and Guidelines for black-backed woodpecker habitat would benefit this species by providing areas of snags and downed wood that would increase prey availability and cover. The overall quality of habitat in this group would increase as stands mature and the Standards and Guidelines for specific habitat requirements for the marten and goshawk are
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-120 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
achieved under this alternative. Large scale fuel treatments could reduce structural diversity in specific areas that would have short-term negative impacts to the American marten.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C on the American marten would be similar to that in Alternative B. However, the creation of barrens and fuelbreaks which would cause a loss of 30,000 acres of this habitat group would occur over three decades. This may have a negative impact on this species if this activity occurred in or near currently occupied habitat. However, management of this habitat group under Alternative C would likely have fewer adverse impacts on the marten than that of Alternative B as there is less vegetation manipulation from timber harvesting and fuels treatments. The total amount of acres harvested will be less, and there would be fewer acres of early successional habitat created and approximately 2,000 acres less in fuels treatments per year.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of American marten habitat in Lower Michigan, including the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions.
Historically, American marten were found throughout Michigan and probably across all the areas now designated as Michigan National Forests. The marten was extirpated from Michigan due to over harvest and loss of mature forest habitat from logging and fire by the late 1930s. Currently, the population is considered recovering in portions through reintroductions in Michigan. In Michigan, the species has recovered enough in the Upper Peninsula that it has been removed from the state endangered species list. The species has recovered more slowly in the Lower Peninsula and on the Forests. It is believed that the population is sustaining itself, based on Forests’ monitoring results. There has been a slight expansion beyond the release site, but not extensive. The Lower Peninsula population may be suffering from genetic issues.
Cumulative effects relating to land use on adjacent private ownerships may affect this habitat group. A change in land use from larger forested parcels to smaller parcels with more development is occurring and is expected to continue; therefore, these factors may increase the effects of fragmentation and loss of travel corridors. State regulations currently protect the American marten in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan by prohibiting trapping or other harvests of this species.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, American marten, it was determined that for species found only within the red and white pine/spruce habitat community on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-121 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-122 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Jack Pine (open-early) Habitat Group - Michigan Bog Grasshopper:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Michigan Bog Grasshopper (Appalachia arcana) Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have beneficial and detrimental effects on the Michigan bog grasshopper. Benefits under Alternative A include creating temporary Michigan bog grasshopper habitat through management for the Kirtland’s warbler on the Huron National Forest, 1,070 acres annually, and jack pine regeneration on the Manistee National Forest on an annual basis. Maintaining filter strips in wetland communities, such as bogs, would maintain habitat for the species in the vicinity of the bog, a beneficial effect; however, without jack pine regeneration, other forest types would likely replace the jack pine over time, greater than 100 years, creating an adverse effect.
Fire suppression under Alternative A would have an adverse affect on the species since wildfires usually created early-open habitat for the Michigan bog grasshopper. However, fire suppression could benefit the species if a wildfire occurred in occupied habitat. Prescribed fire would not likely be used to create early-open jack pine habitat because of the risk to human safety and property associated with burning jack pine. Where prescribed fire would be used, the prescribed burn could have detrimental effects on the Michigan bog grasshopper through direct mortality of eggs and/or individuals. Temporary road and new trail construction on the Forests would have an adverse effect on the Michigan bog grasshopper through increased habitat fragmentation, and the potential for direct mortality or injury via automobile and recreational vehicles. However, roads determined not needed could be closed and obliterated under this alternative, decreasing fragmentation and the potential for mortality.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Under Alternatives B and C, 18,300 additional acres of jack pine, essential habitat, would be managed for the Kirtland’s warbler, an average of 200 acres per year of regenerating jack pine would be provided on the Manistee National Forest, and an additional 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks would be treated annually. Alternatives B and C would allow early successional habitat to be created in Streamside Management Zones adjacent to wetlands and bogs in Landtype Association 1. The complete removal of jack pine around a bog from a single treatment would likely create unsuitable habitat for the species, but if the jack pine was harvested over time, for example, if one-third of the jack pine was removed from each treatment over several years, suitable habitat would be retained while providing future habitat.
As with Alternative A, the Huron-Manistee National Forests would continue to suppress wildfires and conduct prescribed burns under Alternatives B and C. Effects to Michigan bog
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-123 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
grasshopper from these actions would be the same as those listed for Alternative A. Although prescribed fire could be landscape in scale for ecosystem restoration under these alternatives, the volatile nature of wildfire in a jack pine ecosystem would likely preclude its use to create early- open habitat.
Objectives and Standards and Guidelines in Alternatives B and C for the bogs/fens and pine barrens habitat groups would benefit the Michigan bog grasshopper since these areas would provide additional early-open habitat for the species. However, under Alternative B, fewer acres of early-open jack pine habitat would be created as pine barrens, approximately 9,000 acres, compared to Alternative C, approximately 26,000 acres, during the first decade. Based on the limited amount of pine barrens habitat being created during the first decade, Alternative B would have less of a beneficial effect over the short term on the species than Alternative C. Both alternatives however would have similar long-term benefits to the species from pine barrens habitat restoration.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be northern Lower Michigan. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of Michigan bog grasshopper habitat in Michigan that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions.
Alternative A would have both beneficial and adverse cumulative effects on the Michigan bog grasshopper. When combined with similar vegetative management activities on state and private lands, timber harvest would have a beneficial cumulative effect on the species through the creation of early successional habitat. However, suppression of wildfires, construction of temporary roads and trails, and increased human development in the northern Lower Peninsula would contribute to the loss and increased fragmentation of jack pine (early-open) habitat.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, Michigan bog grasshopper, it was determined that for species found only within the jack pine (open-early) habitat community on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-124 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Jack Pine (mid) Habitat Group – Kirtland’s Warbler:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)
A detailed evaluation of effects on the Kirtland’s warbler for all alternatives can be found in the federally listed species section of this document. Habitat quantity and quality is expected to remain the same under Alternative A and increase in Alternatives B and C.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, Kirtland’s warbler, it was determined that for species found only within the jack pine (mid) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-125 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Jack Pine (mid-late) Habitat Group – Spruce Grouse:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Spruce Grouse (Dendragapus canadensis) Imperial Moth (Eacles imperialis pini) Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) American Marten (Martes Americana)
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Suppression of wildfires would occur in all Alternatives. Wildfire suppression within existing spruce grouse habitat would benefit the species because it would protect the habitat from destruction. However, natural regeneration of jack pine through wildfire has historically sustained spruce grouse habitat. Therefore, wildfire suppression would also have a detrimental effect on the spruce grouse.
Under all Alternatives, roads closed in spruce grouse habitat would benefit the species because closures would eventually eliminate travel corridors for mammalian predators, coyote and fox, and improve habitat conditions by permitting jack pine to grow in the road corridor.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have both beneficial and detrimental effects on the spruce grouse. Little or no change in spruce grouse habitat would occur over the short or long term, 10 to 100 years, under the management direction of the 1986 Forest Plan as amended.
Jack pine management and occasional large wildfires would continue to provide a large amount of habitat for the spruce grouse and associated species on the Huron National Forest. An average of 1,070 acres of jack pine harvest and reforestation would occur to create breeding habitat for the Kirtland’s warbler and later spruce grouse habitat as it grows older.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B would have both beneficial and detrimental effects on this habitat group and associated species. Some changes would occur over the short or long term in this habitat group under Alternative B.
An increase in jack pine management for the Kirtland’s warbler from 1,070 to 1,600 acres per year would occur immediately. After approximately 10 years, the amount of spruce grouse habitat would begin to increase. Despite fire suppression, occasional large wildfires would provide some habitat for the spruce grouse and associated species on the Huron National Forest. In the short term, Alternative B would create about 9,000 acres of barrens on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, approximately 2,000 of this on the Huron National Forest, potentially reducing a small amount of habitat for the spruce grouse. However, Alternative B would create a substantial acreage of barrens and fuelbreaks in Landtype Association 1, outwash plains, over 50
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-126 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
years. After 50 years, approximately 19,000 acres of Landtype Association 1, outwash plains, would be open and in an unsuitable habitat condition for spruce grouse on the Huron National Forest. The creation of these large openlands could also fragment spruce grouse habitat, limiting opportunities for individual interactions.
Alternative B would increase the amount of prescribed burning and fuel reduction. These actions would likely reduce the amount of habitat for the spruce grouse.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B. However in Alternative C, the creation of barrens and fuelbreaks would occur over a shorter period than in Alternative B. Alternative C would create the substantial acreage of barrens and fuelbreaks in Landtype Association 1, outwash plains, over the first 30-year period, rather than over 50 years. However, from 30 to 100 years, approximately 10 to 15 percent of Landtype Associations 1, outwash plains, and Landtype Association 2, ice-contact features, would still be open and in an unsuitable habitat condition for spruce grouse on the Huron National Forest.
Alternative C would increase the amount of prescribed burning and fuel reduction. These actions would likely reduce the amount of habitat for the spruce grouse.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
To evaluate cumulative effects for all alternatives, the analysis boundaries include the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of spruce grouse habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions.
Alternatives A, B and C would have both beneficial and adverse cumulative effects on the spruce grouse. When combined with similar vegetative management activities occurring on state and private lands, these alternatives would contribute to the creation of mid-late successional jack pine habitat through timber harvest and reforestation. However, fire suppression in the northern Lower Peninsula would contribute to the loss of habitat and the potential for existing habitat to convert to other forest types.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, spruce grouse, it was determined that for species found only within the jack pine (mid-late) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-127 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Pine Barrens Habitat Group – Dusted Skipper:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Migrant Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus migrans) Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) Henry’s Elfin (Incisalia henrici) Dusted Skipper (Atrytonopsis hianna) Michigan Bog Grasshopper (Appalachia arcane)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Although Alternative A would maintain the pine barrens habitat currently available on the Forests, the amount and distribution of this habitat is insufficient to maintain viability of the dusted skipper. Alternative A would therefore have short- and long-term adverse effects on the species, since the quantity and quality of the current barrens habitat would not provide for species viability. Alternative A would also have a detrimental effect on pine barrens-associated species by not facilitating the creation of large areas of pine barrens habitat, due to the alternative’s fire suppression direction for the Forests. Establishing fuelbreaks that would create barrens habitat-like conditions, maintaining permanent openings through prescribed fire and/or mechanical means, and producing an average of 1,070 acres of temporary openland habitat annually for the Kirtland’s warbler, only on the Huron National Forest, would benefit the dusted skipper, but would not provide suitable habitat for species dependent on large areas of pine barrens. The Manistee National Forest would also provide temporary openland habitat for dusted skippers by regenerating stands of mature jack pine, although on a much smaller scale than the Huron National Forest. Under the old-growth design, 10,000 acres of savannahs, prairies and oak-pine barrens would be restored and maintained across both Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B would benefit the dusted skipper over the long term, 50 plus years, since approximately 68,500 acres of prairie, savannah and barrens habitat would be restored. While approximately 9,000 acres of barrens would be restored under Alternative B in the first decade, the majority of this habitat, approximately 6,000 acres, would be used to create habitat for the Karner blue butterfly in southern Manistee National Forest. Only approximately 3,000 acres would be restored on the Huron National Forest. Management for the Karner blue butterfly would benefit the dusted skipper, but would not benefit species requiring large areas, greater than 250 acres, in the short term–first decade. This would not significantly increase habitat availability for species requiring large areas and could adversely affect the dusted skipper’s viability on the Huron National Forest over the short term. While increasing the acres being managed for fuelbreaks would benefit the dusted skipper by creating barrens-like conditions, this objective would provide only limited to no habitat for species associated with large areas of pine barrens habitat.
Alternative B’s objectives for prescribed fire would allow large blocks of barrens habitat to be maintained and/or created on a landscape scale. This alternative would add an additional 18,300
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-128 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
acres of essential habitat for Kirtland’s warbler management; increase the maximum treatment block size from 370 acres (Alternative A) to 550 acres; and increase the average annual harvest from 1,070 acres (Alternative A) to 1,600 acres. Although the habitat created would still be temporary, these increases would have a greater benefit to the dusted skipper and associated species than Alternative A. The Manistee National Forest would be directed to regenerate an average of 200 acres of jack pine annually for species associated with early-, mid-, and late-stage jack pine.
Alternative B would continue the Forests’ direction of suppressing all wildfires with the resulting adverse effects on the dusted skipper. However, management area objectives and a Forest Risk Assessment would be considered during suppression efforts, resulting in a potential benefit for the dusted skipper. Suppression crews would also be directed to minimize ground disturbance, such as the use of tractor plows and wheeled vehicles on fires. These tactics would enhance the site’s ability to recover after the fire and would lessen the potential for invasive species, such as spotted knapweed, from becoming established. This would be especially beneficial for the dusted skipper since less desirable non-native invasive species may replace the species’ native plant resources, potentially leading to the extirpation of local subpopulations.
Alternative B’s objectives and Standards and Guidelines for the savannah, grassland and dry prairie habitat groups would also benefit the species associated with the pine barrens habitat group by creating blocks of openland habitat.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Alternative C’s direct and indirect effects on dusted skipper would be similar to those described in Alternative B. The major difference between the two alternatives regarding the pine barrens habitat group is an increase in the implementation rate of barrens restoration under this alternative. Alternative C would restore the 68,500 acres of prairie and barrens habitat in three decades versus 50 years under Alternative B. Alternative B would restore only 9,000 acres of habitat would be created in the first decade, approximately 26,000 acres of habitat would be created during the first decade under Alternative C (Figure III-10). This would provide for the dusted skipper’s viability over both the short and long terms.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects analysis area would be the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of dusted skipper habitat on the Huron- Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions. Management for the Kirtland’s warbler on state land would have a temporary beneficial cumulative effect for the dusted skipper and associated species when considered with warbler management on federal lands. Lands in private ownership, for example, agricultural fields, provide openland habitat for some barrens-associated species, such as upland sandpiper. However, these lands are heavily managed and do not provide for the long-term viability of barrens species in the cumulative effects analysis area.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-129 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B’s cumulative effects would be similar to those outlined for Alternative A. While Alternative B would provide for species’ viability over the long term, the alternative’s low acreage of barrens habitat being created on the Forests during the first decade, when combined with the lack of barrens habitat being created on non-federal lands would likely have a detrimental cumulative effect on the species’ viability over the short term. The increase in acres managed for Kirtland’s warbler on the Huron National Forest would have a greater beneficial cumulative effect for dusted skippers and associated species than Alternative A.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative C:
Alternative C’s cumulative effects would be similar to those outlined for Alternative B. However, the creation of approximately 26,000 acres of barrens habitat during the first decade under Alternative C would provide for the species viability over the short term.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, dusted skipper, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the pine barrens habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individual dusted skippers and may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide for creation of the additional habitat determined necessary for the species’ viability over the long term. Alternative B and C may impact individual dusted skippers and would create and maintain barrens habitat that would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Proposed actions for Alternatives B and C would not impact global status. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-130 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Savannah (Oak - Pine Barrens) Habitat Group – Red-headed Woodpecker:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) Michigan Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus migrans) Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina) Hill-prairie Spittlebug (Lepyronia gibbosa) Frosted Elfin (Incisalia irus) Persius Duskywing (Erynnis persius) Henry’s Elfin (Incisalia henrici) Regal Frittilary (Speyeria idalia) Dusted Skipper (Atrytonopsis hianna) Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe) Doll’s Merolonche (Merolonche dolli) Sprague’s Pygarctic (Pygarctic spraguei)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Under this alternative, there is the opportunity to create temporary openland habitat for the red- headed woodpecker and the associated wildlife species through timber harvesting activities, such as clearcuts, shelterwoods and seed trees, fuelbreaks and savannahs. Ten thousand acres of pine barrens and prairie would also be created within old-growth areas. These areas have the potential of providing habitat for this species group; however, there are no timeframes for this creation. Under this alternative, four snags per acre in harvest units can be left but this does not meet the habitat requirements for the red-headed woodpecker. On the western half of the Manistee National Forest, the potential summer Indiana bat roost management area Standard and Guidelines provide for a minimum of nine snags per acre. This guideline better provides for the needs of the red-headed woodpecker. Therefore, this alternative would not provide the quantity and quality of habitat needed for the red-headed woodpecker and associated species to maintain viable populations.
The suppression of wildfire and control of beavers has an indirect effect on this species by reducing the opportunity for snag creation. Firewood gathering, hazard tree removal and fuel reduction projects can also have a negative effect by removing nest sites and foraging habitat for the red-headed woodpecker.
The potential for disturbance and mortality to the species can occur as a result of timber harvest activities or prescribed burns of savannahs during the nesting season.
Areas with high road densities adjacent to suitable habitat can result in direct mortality.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-131 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Under Alternative B, there is an increase of about 68,000 acres of barrens, savannahs and prairies that would be created over five decades. This is a significant increase in potential habitat over Alternative A. However, only approximately 9,000 acres would be created the first decade. This timing and amount of savannah habitat creation would likely not maintain viable populations of the woodpecker and associated species. Approximately 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks would be created under this alternative. These areas would potentially provide additional habitat for the red-headed woodpecker and associated species, but it would be poorer quality habitat due to the proximity to urban areas and would likely not have the required snag densities. There are also Standards and Guidelines established for the improvement and creation of open savannah habitat type and snag retention/creation. The creation of the savannahs and an increase in snag density to 10 snags of 9 inch diameter at breast height or greater will further improve habitat for the red- headed woodpecker and associated species. An increase in prescribed fire to reduce fuels will potentially result in an increase of snags.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Under Alternative C, there is an increase of about 68,000 acres of barrens, savannahs and prairies that would be created over three decades. This is a significant increase in potential habitat over Alternative A. This alternative would create approximately 26,000 acres of barrens and savannah habitat over the first decade and would likely provide habitat necessary for viable populations of the woodpecker and associated species. Approximately 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks would be created under this alternative. These areas would potentially provide additional habitat for the red-headed woodpecker and associated species, but it would be poorer quality habitat due to its proximity to urban areas. There are also Standards and Guidelines established for the improvement and creation of open savannah habitat type and snag retention/creation. The creation of savannahs and an increase in snag density to 10 snags of 9 inches diameter at breast height or greater will further improve habitat for the red-headed woodpecker and associated species. An increase in prescribe fire to reduce fuels will potentially result in an increase of snags.
Alternative C would have greater beneficial effects than Alternatives A or B because of the increased habitat that it would create in the first and second decades.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ proclamation boundary. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of red- headed woodpecker savannah habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions
Historically, the savannahs/barrens on the Huron National Forest were well distributed and relatively well connected. This habitat group contained approximately 12 percent of the forest ownership. Additional openlands were originally found on what is private land today. Currently the Forests maintain approximately 1 percent of the Forest ownership in habitat suitable for the
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-132 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources red-headed woodpecker. The habitat is well distributed across the landscape, but the patch size has become much smaller.
Past management activities, such as the conversion of openlands to pine plantations, pasture lands or subdivisions in northern Lower Michigan, including the Forests have had a negative cumulative effect on this species by contributing to the loss of habitat. Urbanization is expected to increase. County and state roads will continue to be maintained and upgraded, resulting in increased vehicle mortality.
Fire suppression efforts on state and federal lands in the cumulative effects analysis area have also negatively affected the species by not allowing fire to maintain an open forested condition and create snags. Continued firewood cutting on private and state lands combined with firewood gathering on federal lands would result in fewer snags being available for potential nest sites.
The creation and/or restoration of pine barrens and savannahs and large-scale use of prescribed fire would provide additional habitat for the species; however, fire suppression, habitat fragmentation, high road densities and firewood gathering on private, state and federal lands would continue to have adverse cumulative effects on the red-headed woodpecker.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, red-headed woodpecker, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the savannah (oak-pine barrens) habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individual red-headed woodpeckers and may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide for creation of the additional habitat determined necessary for the species’ viability over the long term. Alternative B and C may impact individual red-headed woodpeckers and would create and maintain savannah habitat that would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Proposed actions for Alternatives B and C would not impact global status. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-133 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Large Open Grasslands Habitat Group – Henslow’s Sparrow:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowi) Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) Upland Sandpiper (Bartamia longicauda)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would adversely affect the Henslow’s sparrow on the Forests. The approximately 2,000 acres of large openland grassland habitat currently available on the Forests would be maintained as highly isolated patches with large gaps between patches. Alternative A would not facilitate the restoration or creation of suitable Henslow’s sparrow/large openland habitat of 75 acres or larger by limiting maintenance and creation. Over time, fire suppression and natural succession would reduce habitat quality, increase habitat isolation, and decrease connectivity for the Henslow’s sparrow and associated species. Although prescribed fire would continue to be used, the burns are typically not large enough to benefit grassland-dependent–large openland– species. Management for the Kirtland’s warbler would not provide suitable habitat for the Henslow’s sparrow due to the absence of a dense, tall vegetation layer and a general lack of residual standing dead vegetation in the treated blocks.
Livestock grazing, specifically overgrazing, has the potential to affect the Henslow’s sparrow through the removal of standing dead residual vegetation, such as grasses, and shrubs and small trees–less than 3 feet tall–for song perches. However, the number of permitted allotments and the intensity of grazing on the Forests are currently low and would not be expected to increase under this alternative. Therefore, any detrimental effects to the Henslow’s sparrow habitat group from livestock overgrazing would be minimal.
Alternative A’s riparian Standards and Guidelines specify that all riparian and wetland habitats would provide for late seral stages. Therefore, some of the existing large grassland habitats that currently would provide for late seral staged habitat within the permitted allotments would no longer be allowed. Over time, this would detrimentally affect habitat suitability of the large grassland habitats in these allotments for the Henslow’s sparrow habitat group through natural succession. In summary, Alternative A would adversely affect grassland-dependent–large openlands–species.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Alternatives B and C would benefit Henslow’s sparrow and associated species since they would provide direction for the creation of up to 2,500 acres of grassland habitat, with the habitat in blocks of 250 acres or more or as multiple 75-acre patches found in close proximity. Although an
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-134 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
additional 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks would be created per year, most fuelbreaks provide limited to poor habitat conditions for grassland-dependent–large openlands–species, depending on location, configuration and size. Alternative B’s objectives for prescribed fire would allow large blocks of grassland habitat to be maintained and/or created on a landscape scale. However, frequent prescribed burns of Henslow’s sparrow habitat could have detrimental effects on the species by not allowing for the development of a litter layer, removing the residual vegetation, and reducing the availability of song perches for the species. The increase in acres managed for the Kirtland’s warbler under both alternatives would benefit large openland species but not the Henslow’s sparrow. Although wildfire suppression would remain the same as that for Alternative A, management area objectives and a Forest Risk Assessment would be considered during suppression efforts. This could result in less aggressive suppression efforts being employed on low risk fires - a potential benefit for the Henslow’s sparrow and associated species.
The available acres for permitted grazing in management areas would be reduced under these alternatives by 2 percent; however, the alternatives’ change in the Streamside Management Zones would still allow for the continued grazing within some of the current grazing allotments. Despite this change, the overall effect on the Henslow’s sparrow habitat group due to livestock overgrazing from the alternatives would be less than those described for Alternative A.
Overall, Alternatives B and C would benefit grassland-dependent–large openlands–species in the first decade and continuing over the long term, 100 years.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area will be lands contained within the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ proclamation boundary. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of Henslow’s sparrow habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions. Cumulative effects on Henslow’s sparrow are primarily associated with private lands adjacent to National Forest System lands. Large openland grassland-associated species found on private lands are subject to habitat loss and/or degradation from human development, urbanization, changes in farming practices, harvesting hayfields during the nesting/breeding season, and by allowing openland or grassland habitat to convert to a shrubland or forested landscape. The loss and degradation of Henslow’s sparrow habitat on private lands would be cumulative with the lack of habitat creation and the gradual loss of existing large openland grassland habitat on the Forests. However, the effects to the species from activities on private landownership would be ameliorated somewhat through the creation and restoration of habitat on National Forest System lands.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, Henslow’s sparrow, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the large openland grassland habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individual Henslow’s sparrows and may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide for creation of the additional habitat determined necessary for the species’ viability over the long term.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-135 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Alternative B and C may impact individual Henslow’s sparrows and would create and maintain large openland grassland habitat that would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Proposed actions for Alternatives B and C would not impact global status. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-136 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Large Open Grasslands Habitat Group – Bobolink:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowi) Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Under this alternative, open mesic grassland habitat greater than 25 acres on National Forest System lands would occur only in a few large isolated patches. Alternative A does not allow for upland opening creation of greater than 10 acres. Over time some of the current habitat would become less effective due to encroachment of woody species. However, some large mesic grasslands are currently managed through the Forests’ range program and are being maintained in an open grassland condition. Currently, there is approximately 2,000 acres of suitable habitat for this species on National Forest System lands.
Livestock grazing is currently permitted on limited amounts of large grassland habitats, including potential bobolink habitat on the Forests. On the Manistee National Forest, there are currently two grazing allotments, and the Huron National Forest has one grazing allotment but it is not currently being utilized. Grazing, specifically overgrazing, has the potential to affect the bobolink through the removal of standing dead residual vegetation, such as grasses and shrubs and small trees–less than 3 feet tall–trees for song perches. However, the number of permitted allotments and the intensity of grazing on the Forests are currently low and would not be expected to increase under this alternative. Therefore, any detrimental effects to the bobolink habitat group from livestock overgrazing would be minimal.
However, Alternative A’s riparian Standards and Guidelines specify that all riparian and wetland habitats would provide for late seral stages. Therefore, some of the existing large grassland habitats that currently would provide for late seral staged habitat within the permitted allotments would no longer be allowed. Over time, this would detrimentally affect habitat suitability of the large grassland habitats in these allotments for the bobolink habitat group through natural succession.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Under Alternatives B and C, a minimum of 2,500 acres of large mesic grassland habitat would be acquired or managed for the benefit of this species group. There are also several conservation measures, Standards and Guidelines established for the improvement and creation of open grassland habitat type.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-137 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
While livestock grazing would still be permitted on the Forests under these alternatives, the changes in available acres for permitted grazing in management areas would be reduced by 2 percent under these alternatives. However, the change in the Streamside Management Zones proposed for Alternatives B and C would still allow for the continued grazing within some of the current grazing allotments under these alternatives. Despite this change in Streamside Management Zones, the overall effect on the bobolink habitat group due to livestock overgrazing from the alternatives would be less than those described for Alternative A.
Alternatives B and C would have more beneficial effects than Alternative A.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
Cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of bobolink habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions.
The original distribution of bobolinks was mainly in the Great Plains region, but European settlement expanded its range east and north. Michigan distribution was likely limited to the prairies and oak savannahs in the southern counties. At present, bobolinks breed state-wide and are generally widespread in North America. Under this alternative, it is unlikely that there will be much of a change in habitat in federal ownership for this species group over time.
Most of the cumulative effects for this species are related to private lands adjacent to National Forest System lands. Mesic grasslands on private lands are subject to habitat conversion due to development, changes in farming practices and hayfield harvesting when the birds are still nesting or raising fledglings. Over time the amount of habitat on private lands will decrease, and the suitability of the habitat will also decline.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Adjacent private land practices may affect this habitat group. Most of the species in this habitat group are associated with open fields under some form of agricultural practice. Early hay cropping will negatively impact this species. Conversion of fallow fields to shrublands or woodlands eliminates mesic grassland habitat effectiveness. Fragmentation of agricultural fields or urbanization will also have a negative cumulative impact on this habitat group.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, bobolink, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the large open grassland habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individual bobolinks and may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide for creation of the additional habitat determined necessary for the species’ viability over the long term.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-138 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Alternative B and C may impact individual bobolinks and would create and maintain large open grasslands habitat that would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Proposed actions for Alternatives B and C would not impact global status. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-139 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Grassland (small openlands) Habitat Group – Eastern Box Turtle:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) Migrant Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus migrans) Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina) Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have beneficial effects to this habitat group because the approximately 30,000 acres of small grassland openings would continue to be provided and maintained with a broad distribution across the Forests. However, Alternative A would allow a variety of management activities which would potentially result in disturbance and/or mortality to the eastern box turtle and associated species. These activities would include timber harvesting, site preparation, prescribe fire, mechanical opening maintenance and road and motorized trail construction. Timing restrictions and avoiding habitats near water and nesting areas would reduce the potential for direct effects.
Alternative A’s indirect effects would include both positive and negative effects on habitat for this species. While prescribed burns would remove cover, burning would also improve the species’ foraging habitats. Creating waterholes near openings or creating openings near wetlands in known box turtle habitat would have a positive impact. The loss of small openlands to natural succession within old-growth areas and within and adjacent to riparian areas would have a negative effect on this species. The creation of up to 10,000 acres of barrens within old-growth designated areas under Alternative A would provide some habitat along edges; however, large open areas would have a negative overall effect due to increased habitat fragmentation. Additional threats to eastern box turtle include vehicle mortality caused by increased road use or road construction. High road densities are known to cause disproportionately high male to female sex ratios, since females have a higher rate of mortality along roads while they are searching for suitable nesting areas. While Alternative A would allow for reducing road densities across the Forests, the alternative’s Standards and Guidelines for road management does not include specific measures for reducing road density or traffic speeds in known eastern box turtle habitat. Recreational activity encourages use of the forest which could result in collection of this species as pets.
Eastern box turtle are habitat generalists, so overall Alternative A would provide and maintain adequate habitat; however, it would not reduce the threat of vehicle mortality from high road densities. Eastern box turtle populations are expected to continue to decline under this alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-140 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Alternatives B and C would have beneficial effects to this habitat group because small grassland openings, 30,000 acres, would continue to be provided and maintained with broad distribution across the Forests. Unlike Alternative A, Alternatives B and C would allow openings to be created adjacent to wetlands.
The types of direct effects of these alternatives will be very similar to the types of direct effects in Alternative A. However, the potential for mortality is greater in these alternatives due to the increases in prescribe fire and mechanical treatment, 8,000 acres annually for Alternative B and 6,000 acres annually for Alternative C. The increase in both is due to an increase in fuel treatment acreage and the increase in the creation and maintenance of barrens, savannahs and prairies. However, site-specific project analysis and project design criteria, such as timing restrictions, would likely reduce these impacts.
Fuel treatments would have positive effects by increasing small openlands adjacent to wetlands and increasing berries for forage. Negative indirect effects include dozer operations during fireline construction and a loss of cover for both adults and hatchlings. The creation of large openlands will provide some habitat for this species along edges but overall will have a negative effect by increasing fragmentation of the habitat. Fuelbreaks created adjacent to urban development will be increased under these alternatives. Turtles being attracted to this open habitat may be more vulnerable to collection, predation, pesticides and road mortality. Maintaining small grassland openings adjacent to wetlands in known eastern box turtle habitat can provide additional forage and deter woody encroachment into the opening. Under these alternatives, herbicide use to control non-native invasive species will increase; this potentially will have a negative effect on the species.
Recreational activity encourages use of the forest which could result in collection of this species as pets. Alternatives B and C would have more beneficial effects than Alternative A.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects analysis area is the proclamation boundary for the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of box turtle habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non- federal management actions. Cumulative effects include urbanization, pesticide use on private lands, land management practices such as forest clearing and draining wetlands and habitat fragmentation. Urbanization will directly impact the species through mortality from vehicles and predators. The increase in predators includes both pets and species such as raccoons, opossums and skunks that can benefit from urbanization. These predators have the greatest effect on nests and young. The potential of turtles being collected and introduction of diseases will increase with urbanization. Habitat will become further fragmented and populations will become more isolated, resulting in the potential for a decline in fecundity. Although the majority of the adverse cumulative affects occur outside of National Forest System lands, Alternative A would still have an adverse cumulative effect on the species since the majority of the Alternative’s direct and indirect effects would be detrimental to the species.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-141 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The cumulative effects of these alternatives include continued urbanization, pesticide use on adjacent lands, disease and historical practices including forest clearing, road construction, draining wetlands and forest fragmentation. Urbanization will directly impact the species through mortality from vehicles and predators. The increased predators include both pets and species such as raccoons, opossums and skunks that can benefit from urbanization. These predators have the greatest effect on nests and young. The potential of turtles being collected and introduction of diseases will increase. Habitat will become further fragmented and populations will become more isolated, resulting in the potential for a decline in fecundity. The majority of adverse cumulative effects occur outside of National Forest System lands.
Due to the time it takes for eastern box turtle to mature, low reproductive rates and the potential problems with direct impacts from motorized use, this species will continue to decline.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, eastern box turtle, it was determined that for species found only within the small openlands habitat community on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, individuals may be impacted but viability will be maintained. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives may impact individuals but will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-142 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Large Dry Grasslands Habitat Group – Upland Sandpiper:
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Currently open areas are highly scattered and occur only as isolated patches of habitat. Under Alternative A, suitable habitat would occur primarily as temporary openings resulting from Kirtland’s warbler management and large-scale wild fires but these areas are transient and short- lived. While upland sandpiper have been observed foraging in these areas, it is unknown if these areas meet all the life requirements of upland sandpiper throughout the breeding season. Under Alternative A, upland opening size cannot be greater than 10 acres. This opening size does not meet the habitat requirements for upland sandpipers of areas larger than 250 acres. Over time, existing habitat would diminish and suitability would decrease as woody encroachment and non- native invasive species move in. Currently, the Manistee National Forest has only one area of potential habitat. Under Alternative A’s direction, this habitat will likely not increase. Existing habitat does not meet the viability needs of upland sandpiper and associated species, and under Alternative A it is unlikely that any more would be created.
Wildland fire suppression has allowed woody encroachment into the open grasslands within the Forests’ boundaries. While current management practices use prescribed fires as a management tool, these areas are generally not large enough and the fires are not hot enough to provide habitat for this species. Reforestation efforts have also limited the expansion or creation of dry grassland habitat.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B would establish several Standards and Guidelines for the improvement of dry grassland habitat for this species group. These alternatives will establish dry grasslands greater than 250 acres in size within the appropriate landtypes. This habitat has been included in the barrens restoration acres. Under Alternative B, approximately 9,000 acres of barrens habitat would be created during the first decade, with a total of 68,500 acres being created over five decades. Priority of implementation of these acres would likely serve to meet the needs of listed species first, so it is unlikely that any portion would be managed as large dry openings during the first decade. All 68,500 acres would be created by the end of the fifth decade. Therefore, Alternative B would have the same affect as Alternative A, and would not meet the viability needs of upland sandpiper and associated species in the first decade.
While fuelbreaks and fuels treatments under Alternative B would create open lands, these areas would not meet the size requirements, configuration, and spatial distribution for associated species.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-143 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Increased Kirtland’s warbler management would increase the availability of temporary, though likely sub-optimal habitat.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Alternative C would establish several Standards and Guidelines for the improvement and creation of 5,000 acres of dry grassland habitat for this species group through barrens restoration. A portion of the approximately 26,000 acres of barrens and openings proposed during the first decade would be in large openings. Under Alternative C, approximately 68,000 acres of barrens would be created over three decades. Fuelbreaks and fuels treatments under Alternative C would not provide suitable habitat as described in Alternative B. Timber management in jack pine for the Kirtland’s warbler will increase under Alternative B and C, so the effects are the same.
Alternative C is more beneficial to upland sandpiper than Alternative A or B because it provides suitable habitat for the species in the next decade and would therefore meet their viability needs of associated species.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is the proclamation boundary for the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area was chosen because it encompasses the full extent of upland sandpiper habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions.
Historical vegetation for the upland sandpiper consisted of large dry open expanses of grasslands, prairie habitat, old fields, sand plain barrens or short grass prairies. Historically upland sandpiper was reported as abundant throughout the State of Michigan, but it had become scarce by the early 1900s. Market hunting contributed to this decline, as well as succession of field habitats. The species is now mostly absent from south and south-central Michigan, well distributed in the northern Lower Peninsula and widely scattered in the Upper Peninsula. Apparently numbers have increased in the north, as have those of other grassland birds, while declining in the southern part of the state.
Private lands adjacent to National Forest System lands typically provide some habitat. Urbanization is fragmenting potential sandpiper habitat on private lands within the Forests’ boundary. Grasslands and hayfields on private lands are being converted to row crops; these activities are eliminating habitat for upland sandpipers.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the surrogate species, upland sandpiper, it was determined that for species that can be found only within the large, dry grassland habitat community on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individual upland sandpiper and may cause a loss of viability because Alternative A does not provide for creation of the additional habitat determined necessary for the species’ viability over the long term. Alternative B and C may
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-144 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources impact individual upland sandpiper and would create and maintain large, dry grassland habitat that would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Global status of species represented in this habitat group remains secure. Proposed actions for Alternatives B and C would not impact global status. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-145 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Dry Prairie Habitat Group – Ottoe Skipper:
This habitat type group refers specifically to the dry prairie areas that are part of the Sparta soil series. There are approximately 2,300 acres of this unique habitat type on the Manistee National Forest. Out of this 2,300 acres, 500 acres are currently considered openings or semi-openings with the remaining 1,800 acres currently identified as red pine plantations. The Ottoe skipper was chosen as the surrogate species for this habitat community because it has the most available scientific/research information on which to base an analysis. The effects analysis for the Ottoe skipper is meant to be representative of predicted effects for species that can only be found within the dry prairie habitat community.
The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the following species of concern. The surrogate species for this habitat group is identified in bold letters. Culver’s Root Borer (Papaipema sciata) Hill-prairie Spittlebug (Lepyronia gibbosa) Dusted Skipper (Atrytonopsis hianna) Otte Skipper (Hesperia ottoe) Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Persius Duskywing (Erynnis persius) Regal Frittlary (Speyeria idalia) Phlox Moth (Schinia Indiana)
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A provides no specific conservation measure or Standards and Guidelines to protect or enhance these rare prairie habitats. Under the current direction, these pockets of prairie habitat would continue to decline from woody encroachment or lack of fire. Currently, there are approximately 2,300 acres of potential habitat for this species–Sparta soils that are not degraded. Approximately 500 acres of this habitat is open or semi-open. The remaining 1,800 acres are currently red pine plantations and therefore considered unsuitable. Existing habitat does not currently meet the minimum viability needs of Ottoe skipper and associated species on the Manistee National Forest.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
The amount and quality of habitat for the Ottoe skipper is expected to remain stable or increase slowly over the next 50 years under Alternative B. Under this alternative, the Sparta soil types would be managed as prairies. Conversions of these areas back to prairies would be done gradually over the next 50 years.
Under Alternative B, 1,800 acres of dry prairie–Sparta soils–habitat would be restored over five decades. Due to the priority for implementation for habitat creation for federally listed species, it is unlikely that any portion of the dry prairie would be restored in the first decade. It is important to note, however, that even if all available habitat for the Ottoe skipper, 1,800 acres, was converted in the first decade, the viability of this species on the Manistee National Forest would
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-146 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
still be considered unmet because there is not enough existing habitat acres or potential habitat acres within this limited habitat to sustain the viable population on the Manistee National Forest.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The amount and quality of habitat for the Ottoe skipper is expected to remain stable or increase slowly over the next 30 years under Alternative C. This alternative allows for the Sparta soil types to be managed for prairies. This Alternative is similar to Alternative B but would restore the area over the next 30 years, rather than the 50 years in Alternative B. Under this alternative, the process of restoration would begin in the first decade but would not likely be completed until the end of the third decade. While this alternative would restore the habitat faster than any of the other alternatives, it is still likely that habitat would not be suitable for the next 30 years. It is important to note, however, that even if all available habitat for the Ottoe skipper was converted in the first decade, the viability of this species on the Manistee National Forest would still be considered unmet because there is not enough existing habitat acres or potential habitat acres within this limited habitat to sustain the viable population on the Manistee National Forest.
The gradual return of these areas to prairie will have a positive effect for this habitat type over the long term (30 years), but due to the time proposed to achieve the objective, the Ottoe skipper and associated species may be extirpated from the area and no longer able to recolonize the area. Therefore, Alternative C would have the same effect as Alternatives A and B and would not meet the viability needs of Ottoe skipper and associated species.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects analysis area is the southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. This area was chosen because in Michigan, this butterfly occurs only in the southern Lower Peninsula, specifically, the southwestern half (Nielsen 1999), and the area encompasses the full extent of Ottoe skipper habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions.
Adjacent private ownership of prairie habitat accounts for approximately 4,000 acres of potential habitat. Agricultural practices, urban development and Off-Highway Vehicle/All-Terrain Vehicle use will continue to impact this species habitat group. Therefore it is assumed that, cumulatively, additional prairies on private land in lower Michigan will not be available. The lack of providing additional prairie habitat on private land, in conjunction with management on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, would result in the loss of the species’ viability within the area of analysis
Determination:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Manistee National Forest: Based on the effects analyses disclosed for the surrogate species, Ottoe skipper, it was determined that for species found only within the dry prairie–Sparta soil–community on the Manistee National Forest viability may not be maintained. All alternatives include creation of additional dry prairie. Yet regardless of what is done on the Manistee National Forest, there are only so many acres of
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-147 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences potential dry prairie habitat; therefore, local viability will be impacted. For the species represented by this community, global populations are stable for all except for the Regal Frittilary and Phlox Moth. The Regal Frittilary is becoming rare globally and the Phlox Moth does not have enough information to assess the trend. Federal Listing Determination: None of the alternatives include proposed actions that would result in a trend toward federal listing. Because only 1,800 acres of potential habitat exist on the Manistee National Forest, conversion of that amount of dry prairie habitat would have no impact to the global viability for these species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-148 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Botanical Communities, Habitats and Species of Concern:
Effects to botanical resources are presented in the following order:
1. Plant communities of concern. 2. Wetland habitats that support species of concern. 3. Upland habitats that support species of concern.
Short-term effects are considered the first 10 years of implementation of each alternative. Long- term effects are considered the outcome of 100 years of implementation of each respective alternative. The difference between the short- and long-term effects is similar unless specifically identified for a habitat group.
Determinations for plant communities and habitats supporting plant species of concern are summarized in Appendix F: Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species.
Plant Communities of Concern:
There are 17 plant communities of concern that occur within the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ proclamation boundary that have been analyzed for effects. These are communities which have a global ranking of G1, G2, or G3 which are defined as: G1 - critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity and especially vulnerable to extinction; G2 - imperiled globally and vulnerable to extinction throughout its range; and G3 - either very rare throughout its range or very restricted in range and vulnerable to extinction (Appendix B).
Oak Barrens, Oak-Pine Barrens, Pine Barrens and Dry Sand Prairie Communities:
Historically, pine, oak-pine and oak barrens constituted approximately 10 percent, or 60,000 acres, of the Manistee National Forest. On the Huron National Forest, approximately 19 percent, or 79,000 acres, were once in pine, oak-pine and oak barrens, which were distributed across the landscape. Prairies were generally more restricted in range and abundance.
In the southern half of the Lower Peninsula, the oak barrens community was found on sandy glacial outwash and coarse-textured moraines and covered 1.9 percent of the state (Comer et al. 1995). Presently, the distribution of this community has been reduced to degraded and isolated remnants representing less than 1 percent of the Michigan landscape (Cohen 2001). Twelve occurrences of oak barrens are known to occur in Michigan, but none have been identified on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Pine barrens historically accounted for nearly 270,000 acres of the state with about 210,000 acres distributed in Lower Michigan from Kent and Muskegon Counties northeast to Cheboygan and Alpena Counties. Most of this acreage was concentrated in Crawford County, 55,000 acres; Iosco County, 33,000 acres; and Oscoda County, 28,000 acres (Comer et al. 1995). There are 12 known pine barrens remaining in Michigan, totaling approximately 1,200 acres, with one 30-acre occurrence on the Huron National Forest (Comer 1996a).
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-149 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Just over 112,000 acres of oak-pine barrens were present in Michigan historically, covering 0.3 percent of the state’s surface area (Comer et al. 1995), with acreage concentrated in Newaygo County, 19,000 acres; Crawford County, 17,000 acres; and Allegan County, 15,000 acres. Sixteen oak-pine barrens are currently known in Michigan, totaling 3,534 acres. These remnants constitute less than 1 percent of the present vegetation, a 60-fold reduction from the original amount (Comer 2000). Four of the documented oak-pine barrens occur on the Manistee National Forest and one on the Huron National Forest for a total of 300 acres.
Dry sand prairies, found only on Sparta sand soils, occur on the Manistee National Forest. Dry sand prairies are generally found in a clustered pattern with a scattering of smaller fragments. The total amount of Sparta soils for Muskegon, Newaygo and Montcalm Counties is 6,795 acres, with 3,892 acres currently in private ownership and the remaining acres are National Forest System lands. Almost one quarter of all Sparta sand soils has been so severely eroded that they are no longer considered a prairie soil. Remaining fragments of prairie soils are primarily found in isolation from each other. Most prairie soils are located on private land, with 2,314 acres of good quality prairie soil found on federal lands. About 82 percent of those good quality prairie soil areas under Forest Service management are planted with pine forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
The direct and indirect affects of Alternative A on oak barrens, oak-pine barrens and pine barrens are the same. Since most of the degraded barrens habitat on the Forests is not classified as open lands under Alternative A, the alternative would require that forested conditions be retained. Fire suppression also usually results in forested conditions. Alternative A would allow but would not require the periodic burning needed to retain barrens habitat. Both of these conditions would have negative indirect impacts on barrens species which require a high light environment and some level of periodic burning to survive.
Forest management activities such as timber harvesting, use of roads and trails, and use of prescribed fire would likely cause an increase in non-native species infestations. This would have indirect negative impacts to barrens and prairie communities by reducing native floristic diversity and altering community function. Non-native invasive species such as spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii) are a threat to open canopy environments, since toxins exuded from the roots of spotted knapweed are known to suppress the seedling growth of native species. Alternative A would not have a specific management plan to systematically address invasion by non-native species. However, the Forest Service requirement for timber harvesting contractors to wash harvesting equipment at the project level would be expected to lessen the potential for invasion in areas where timber harvesting occurs.
Suppression of wildfires would continue to be required on the Forests. Because fire is a necessary component of maintaining both barrens and prairies, fire suppression would have a negative effect by allowing woody plant encroachment/succession that would eventually result in the loss of fire-dependant plant species. Prescribed fire, which is used as a vegetation management tool on the Forests, would potentially have beneficial effects on these communities. However, the timing, frequency and intensity of the burn would determine, in part, how effective this tool is in the restoration and maintenance of these communities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-150 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Old-growth Standards and Guidelines require the restoration of 10,000 acres of barrens and prairie habitat which would have beneficial direct and indirect impacts on barrens communities.
Illegal use of Off-Highway Vehicles would occur in these open land habitats both on and off the Forests, resulting in direct negative impacts to species and indirect negative impacts to habitat. This avenue of recreation has been increasing in popularity and is expected to continue to play a role in adversely affecting these habitats.
The direct and indirect effects of Alternative A on dry sand prairies would be similar to those for barrens communities, except that, 1) no potential prairie is found in old growth, so the objective in old-growth Standard and Guidelines requiring prairie creation would not apply, and 2) 108 acres of prairie habitat would be protected and maintained in Research Natural and Special Areas.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
In Alternatives B and C, a total of about 68,000 acres of barrens would be restored, resulting in a highly beneficial direct and indirect effect on barrens communities. Dry sand prairie communities would also benefit from the restoration of all degraded prairie habitat on the Manistee National Forest. Restoration of Sparta soils to dry sand prairie is a Guideline under Alternatives B and C.
Under Alternatives B and C, use of prescribed fire would be increased, especially in Landtype Associations 1 and 2, which would benefit barrens habitat. Fire suppression would continue to occur on the Forests; however, this would be mitigated by the use of prescribed fire as a management tool in the restoration and maintenance of barrens and prairie habitat.
Indirect and direct impacts of Off-Highway Vehicles would be the same as under Alternative A, except that the substantial increase in open areas created under Alternatives B and C would likely result in an increase in illegal Off-Highway Vehicle damage.
Alternatives B and C would provide direction to reduce non-native invasive plant species infestations and prevent new, invader species from becoming established when possible. These alternatives clearly provide direction to minimize indirect impacts from non-native invasive species, though it is expected, due to the widespread nature of some non-native invasive species already on the Forests that indirect effects would still occur to native species and their habitat.
The creation of barrens would result in an overall increase in deer habitat and would likely lead to localized increases in herbivory by deer in barrens and prairie communities.
Alteratives B and C will provide more oak barrens, pine barrens, oak-pine barrens and dry sand prairie habitat compared to Alternative A.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-151 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The area of analysis for cumulative effects on these communities is the State of Michigan because information pertaining to the distribution, rarity and vegetative composition has been compiled on a state-wide basis. The cumulative effects of Alternative A on dry sand prairies, oak barrens, oak-pine barrens and pine barrens are the same and are, therefore, addressed collectively.
Barrens and prairies in Michigan have been cleared and used for agriculture, grazing and development–residential and urban. Current population growth and the resultant development is expected to continue to affect lands which have, in the past, supported these communities. Past effects of agriculture, in particular, have resulted in erosion of the prairie soil and effectively eliminated true prairie from these areas.
Alteration of historic fire regimes and the onset of active fire suppression on state, federal and private lands have shifted most barrens types into woodlands and forests. This has resulted in a loss of floristic diversity (Curtis 1959 in Cohen 2001; Faber-Langendoen 1993). Fire is also an important factor in maintaining prairies, and fire suppression has had a similar negative effect for species biodiversity in this community.
Timber harvesting of oaks in the 1920s destroyed or degraded oak barrens across Michigan and has resulted in a simplified overstory and depauperate floristic diversity (Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1995 in Cohen 2001). Historically, barrens and prairies were sometimes planted to pine plantations, on and off the Forest. Timber harvest activities now occur within these areas. Timber harvest equipment on the Forests is required to undergo washing to reduce spread of invasive plants. However, use of such equipment on other lands is expected to continue to be an avenue for the spread of invasive species.
Illegal use of Off-Highway Vehicles would occur in these open land habitats both on and off the Forests, resulting in direct negative impacts to species and indirect negative impacts to habitat. This avenue of recreation has been increasing in popularity and is expected to continue to play a role in adversely affecting these habitats.
The small quantity of habitat restored to barrens ecosystems under this alternative would not be sufficient, over time, to maintain the species composition or functional processes necessary for healthy, sustainable barrens. The small amount of prairie habitat managed for prairie would also be too little to sustain interacting populations of prairie species or functional processes.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The restoration of approximately 68,000 of barrens habitat, including all degraded dry sand prairies as described in Alternatives B and C would provide enough habitat to promote healthy, functioning and sustainable ecosystems.
Cumulative effects of fire suppression, agriculture, timber and development would be the same as discussed for Alternative A for private lands. Fire suppression would not be expected to have
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-152 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
as large of an effect on the Forests for these alternatives since prescribed fire would be used as a management tool in the restoration and maintenance of the 68,000 acres of barrens and prairie habitat.
Cumulative impacts of Off-Highway Vehicles would be the same as under Alternative A, except that the substantial increase in open acres created under Alternatives B and C is likely to result in an increase in illegal Off-Highway Vehicle damage. Although Off-Highway Vehicle damage would likely occur on an increased number of acres, the benefits of creating more acres of barrens habitat outweighs the negative effects that illegal Off-Highway Vehicle use may have on them.
Although browsing by deer would likely increase due to open conditions, the benefits of creating more acres of barrens habitat would outweigh the negative effects that deer browsing is likely to have.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for oak barrens, oak-pine barrens, pine barrens and dry sand prairie communities, it was determined that for species found only in these communities on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individual species and likely trend toward a loss of viability. Alternative A does not maintain the species’ composition or functional processes necessary to ensure long-term viability on National Forest System lands in the planning area. Alternative B and C may impact individual species but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Proposed actions for Alternatives B and C would not impact global status. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-153 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Great Lakes Marsh Community:
Great Lakes marshes are found along all of the Great Lakes and along connecting rivers. The historical distribution of these marsh communities is likely similar to the current distribution, with regional and local decreases caused by human disturbances. This habitat can be found adjacent to Lakes Michigan and Huron in locations sheltered from open water wave effects. Water levels in these marshes are generally above the surface during the majority of the growing season, with an average depth of up to seven feet. This is a globally imperiled (G2), and state imperiled (S2) community.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Great Lakes marshes occur within the Manistee National Forest proclamation boundary, but none are located on federally managed lands. The area of analysis for effects on this community is the State of Michigan because information pertaining to the distribution, rarity, and vegetative composition has been compiled on a state-wide basis.
The Forests do not have jurisdiction to affect how these lands are managed. All of the alternatives would have an objective for the Forests to implement a public education program, in cooperation with other public and private organizations, to reduce resource-damaging situations, which may indirectly or cumulatively have negative effects on Great Lakes marshes.
Determinations:
A determination of “no impact” is made for all three alternatives for the Great Lakes marsh community since Forests’ management would not impact how these non-federal lands are managed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-154 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Open Dune, Interdunal Wetland, Wooded Dune and Swale Complex and Great Lakes Barren Communities:
These communities are associated with shorelines along Lakes Huron and Michigan. They have been formed, and continue to be affected by, wind and water processes. They each contain suites of plant species endemic to Great Lakes shorelines. The open dunes and wooded dune and swale communities are ranked as rare in Michigan. Both the interdunal wetland and Great Lakes barrens communities are imperiled in Michigan due to their rarity.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
The majority of National Forest System lands containing these rare communities are under Wilderness or Research Natural Area designation. The protection provided by Wilderness and Research Natural Area Standards and Guidelines generally produces a relatively stable environment for natural processes that maintain ecosystem health.
Recreational pressure under Alternative A may impact Great Lakes coastal landform communities. Direct trampling by foot traffic may occur and would pose the greatest threat in the Lake Michigan Recreation Area where higher concentrations of visitors are found. In the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness, the Forests established limits on camping, fires, parking and number of users, groups of 10 people or less, and prohibits use of any mechanized or motorized equipment and pack animals. The Black River dune and swale complex would be indefinitely protected from recreational impacts as a proposed candidate Research Natural Area.
Invasion by non-native species under Alternative A would have indirect negative impacts to Great Lakes coastal landform communities. Alternative A would require that non-native invasive woody plants be controlled in piping plover critical habitat, which would apply to all areas within 1,640 feet of Lake Michigan’s shoreline. There would also be a requirement for removal of noxious weeds in Pitcher’s thistle habitat.
Great Lakes coastal landform communities would still be at risk for direct impacts from herbivory even though management practices within the communities themselves would not encourage herbivory.
Alternative A would restrict Off-Highway Vehicle use to designated roads and trails. However, illegal use of Off-Highway Vehicles on the Forests would continue to occur, and there would be direct negative impacts to plant communities. Alternative A directs the Forests to “close areas and trails immediately where, in the Forest Supervisor’s judgment, motorized vehicles are causing or likely to cause considerable adverse effects. They will remain closed until those effects have been eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence.” Alternative A would also allow for roads to be closed to motorized vehicles for resource protection but this may occur after impacts have been made.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-155 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The Black River wooded dune and swale community would become a candidate Research Natural Area under Alternative B and would be established as a Research Natural Area under Alternative C. Both of these actions would secure protection of the area’s natural habitat and natural processes; however, establishment as a Research Natural Area provides the additional benefit of development of a management plan.
Invasive plant infestations and control projects would continue to have the same effects as in Alternative A. However, Alternatives B and C would provide additional direction to reduce non- native invasive plant species infestations and prevent new, invader species from becoming established when possible.
Indirect and direct impacts of Off-Highway Vehicles for Alternatives B and C would be the same as under Alternative A, except that establishing the Black River Area as a Research Natural Area, under Alternative C, would emphasize protection through the development of a management plan.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The area of analysis for cumulative effects on these communities is the State of Michigan because information pertaining to the distribution, rarity, and vegetative composition of these areas has been compiled on a state-wide basis.
Federal, state, local, and private recreational programs and private land development along the Lake Michigan shoreline are likely to affect sensitive plant communities. Visitors to Ludington State Park and other recreational facilities within the cumulative effects area could potentially enter onto suitable habitat within the Manistee National Forest and destroy habitat when gathering firewood, lighting beach campfires, littering, or trampling and disturbing dune vegetation. Recreational activities would also occur close to the beach area in the Black River area on the Huron National Forest. Currently, it is reasonably certain that recreation activities would continue to occur within and adjacent to the Forests. Many of these activities would likely adversely affect the habitat through repeated disturbance of existing populations and chronic disturbance of dunes.
Although populations of Pitcher’s thistle would be monitored for recreational impacts, other sensitive species occurring outside of Pitcher’s thistle habitat, such as ram’s head lady-slipper, which occurs in wooded dunes, may be impacted if recreational activities were relocated away from dunes and into adjacent habitats.
Artificial dune stabilization with exotic plant species, such as sweet clover, spotted knapweed, Lombardy poplar and thistles, and plantings of species such as white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata) by private landowners and land management agencies have eliminated or modified dune habitat in many areas. Gradual degradation of habitat through woody plant succession is an additional threat to the open dunes community (Ostlie 1990a). Construction of offshore structures such as jetties and on-shore fences can alter dynamic
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-156 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources dune processes essential for long-term habitation. Fragmentation and destruction of habitat within dune fields from road and retaining wall construction, sand mining and lakeshore development prevents dispersal and reduces gene flow between populations. These activities also alter local geomorphic processes necessary for dune formation and habitat maintenance (Ostlie 1990b). The greatest danger to dune habitat outside of the Huron-Manistee National Forests is from private mining efforts (Albert and Comer 1999). Development of golf courses and residential areas is also expected to continue into the future, having an overall negative impact on dune habitats.
Illegal Off-Highway Vehicle use would be controlled in the majority of Great Lakes coastal landform habitat on the Manistee National Forest, but would likely occur in some portions of the Huron National Forest, negatively impacting the dune and swale and lakeshore habitats.
Although control projects for non-native invasive species infestations are occurring in Great Lakes coastal landform communities, the lack of more aggressive measures to prevent and to eradicate non-native species under Alternative A would be cumulative with impacts on private lands. Despite the best efforts to reduce impacts by non-native invasive species at the project level, it is likely that many current infestations would continue to spread and that new infestations would occur.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The cumulative effects of Alternatives B and C on Great Lakes coastal landform communities would be the same as Alternative A, except additional emphasis in the Standards and Guidelines on controlling and preventing non-native invasive species infestations may provide additional benefits. Also, the wooded dune and swale complex in the Black River area would likely benefit from the implementation of a management plan under Alternatives B and C.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the plant communities, it was determined that for species that can be found only within these plant communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A, B and C may impact individual species but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-157 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Coastal Plain Marshes, Intermittent Wetlands, Mesic Sand Prairies, Northern Wet Mesic Prairie, Northern Fens and Poor Fens Communities:
All of these communities have historically had very limited acreage in Michigan. Both fen communities and intermittent wetlands are ranked as rare in Michigan; wet sand prairies and intermittent wetlands are ranked as imperiled due to rarity in Michigan; and northern wet mesic prairies are ranked as critically imperiled in Michigan due to extreme rarity.
Coastal plain marshes are found only on the southern half of the Manistee National Forest. There are four locations where these rare grass- and rush-dominated wetland communities are located. Intermittent wetlands are similar to coastal plain marshes in hydrologic function and plant species structure, but their more northern locations alter plant species composition. The Manistee National Forest has three occurrences of intermittent wetlands. Two mesic sand prairies occur on the Manistee National Forest; one in Lake County and one in Oceana County. Mesic sand prairies are found on lower ground between remnant oak or oak/pine savannahs. Northern wet- mesic prairies are a rare community dominated by grasses and sedges. One northern wet-mesic prairie is found on the Manistee National Forest. Both northern fens and poor fens are grass- dominated wetlands which form on peat soils that are influenced by flowing, calcium- and magnesium-rich, ground water. The Huron National Forest has a single location of each of these rare grass- and forb-dominated wetlands.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
There would be no provisions in Alternative A to specifically identify or protect coastal plain marsh, intermittent wetland, mesic sand prairie, northern wet-mesic prairie, northern fen or poor fen communities. This would result in a negative indirect impact if management activities within or adjacent to these areas were not compatible with open wetland maintenance or restoration.
All known coastal plain marshes, mesic sand prairies and northern fens on the Forests would receive temporary protective status under Alternative A as proposed candidate Research Natural Areas. Intermittent wetlands, northern wet-mesic prairies, northern fens and poor fens would not be as well identified on the Forests and would not have any special protection.
Under Alternative A, intermittent wetlands, northern wet-mesic prairies, northern fens and poor fens would be managed for late seral stages. Indirect effects of late seral stage management may be negative, if shrub and tree species begin to invade these open wetland systems.
Alternative A would include wetlands in the Forests’ riparian definition. The subsequent application of a 100-foot buffer from management activities would have a positive indirect effect on these communities by protecting water quality through upland watershed filtering functions.
Alternative A would restrict Off-Highway Vehicle use to designated roads and trails. However, illegal use of Off-Highway Vehicles on the Forests would likely continue to occur, and there would be direct negative impacts to species and indirect negative impacts to habitat. Alternative A would “close areas and trails immediately where, in the Forest Supervisor’s judgment, motorized vehicles are causing or likely to cause considerable adverse effects. They will remain
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-158 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
closed until those effects have been eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence.” Alternative A would also allow for roads to be closed to motorized vehicles for resource protection but this may occur after impacts have been made.
The lack of fire, resulting in the structural dominance of trees and shrubs, would have a major negative impact on fire dependent wetlands, northern wet-mesic prairies, northern fens and poor fens. Alternative A would allow but would not require periodic burning of these communities.
Establishment and maintenance of forest openings and early successional habitat under Alternative A would have indirect negative impacts on coastal plain marsh, intermittent wetland, mesic sand prairie, northern wet-mesic prairie, northern fen and poor fen communities from increased herbivory by wildlife species, especially deer.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B and C:
An objective of Alternatives B and C identifies the protection of all coastal plain marsh, intermittent wetland, mesic sand prairie, northern wet-mesic prairie, northern fen and poor fen communities providing a positive direct and indirect benefit to the habitats. Perch Lake’s northern fen would no longer be a candidate Research Natural Area, but this would not be anticipated to have any direct or indirect effect as this area would still be protected. . Under Alternatives B and C, the use of prescribed fire would be increased and used as a maintenance tool in rare wetlands where fire was a historic disturbance agent.
Indirect and direct negative impacts of illegal off-highway vehicle use would be reduced through greater emphasis on protection.
Invasive plants would continue to have adverse impacts on coastal plain marsh, intermittent wetland, mesic sand prairie, northern wet-mesic prairie, northern fen and poor fen communities. However, Alternatives B and C would provide direction to reduce non-native invasive plant species infestations and prevent new, invader species from becoming established when possible.
Barrens restoration in Alternatives B and C would likely cause increased localized browsing by deer.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The area of analysis for cumulative effects on these communities is the State of Michigan because information pertaining to the distribution, rarity and vegetative composition of these areas has been compiled on a state-wide basis.
Development of homes for permanent or seasonal use continues to increase within the cumulative effects area. This results in an increase of the urban/wildland interface. Chances for adverse impacts on these communities would also increase as a result of the development and increased numbers of people in the area. Where these communities are located on private lands,
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-159 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
development activities such as filling, dredging, mowing, herbicide use and recreation may have adverse impacts.
Increased levels of recreational use are occurring due to both local population increases and increased visits to state and federal lands by people from outside the immediate area. Of particular concern to these communities are impacts associated with illegal Off-Highway Vehicle use. Although Off-Highway Vehicle use would not be permitted in these wetland communities on state or federal lands, it would occur, and would be expected to have deleterious effects on hydrological function and vegetation.
Many management activities on state, federal and private lands, such as habitat manipulation, timber harvesting and agriculture, create early successional habitat. This habitat provides for large populations of herbivores. These large populations lead to localized negative impacts from herbivory, especially from deer, such as loss of species diversity.
Introduction of non-native plant species from recreation such as horses, Off-Highway Vehicles and hikers; development; vegetation management and agriculture on state, federal and private lands are likely to increase non-native invasive plant species infestations. Non-native plant species infestations cause decreases in overall plant biodiversity and loss of native species, having a negative impact on native plant communities.
Lack of specific measures to protect these communities under Alternative A results in the potential for loss or degredation of the communities on National Forest System lands. Because there are few occurrences of the communities state-wide, loss or degredation on National Forest System lands would contribute cumulatively to the loss of viability of the communities over the analysis area (State of Michigan).
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B and C:
Cumulative effects for Alternative B and C would be similar to those described under Alternative A. However, Standards and Guidelines for the protection of coastal plain marsh, intermittent wetland, mesic sand prairie, northern wet-mesic prairie, northern fen and poor fen communities under Alternatives B and C would help maintain these communities and would, therefore, provide a greater contribution to the continued viability of the communities within the analysis area.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the plant communities, it was determined that for species that can be found only within these plant communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individual species and likely trend toward a loss of viability. Alternative A does not maintain the species’ composition or functional processes necessary to ensure long-term viability on National Forest System lands in the planning area. Alternatives B and C may impact individual species but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-160 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-161 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Southern Floodplain Forest Community:
Floodplain forests are a transitional community found between rivers or streams and upland habitats. Hydrologic processes are unique in this type of wetland, with floodwater depositing silt and sediment and uplands contributing leaf litter and runoff. The fluctuating water levels and nutrient rich soils in floodplain forests provide conditions for highly diverse plant communities. Southern floodplain forests are floodplain forests that contain a particular suite of plant species. They are ranked as rare in the State of Michigan.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would have indirect beneficial impacts to southern floodplain forest communities located in designated old growth and within 100 feet of streams, lakes and wetlands–riparian buffer zone. Old growth would continue to be managed by allowing natural succession processes to occur and riparian management would be for late seral stage vegetative conditions. Both of these management practices would help maintain southern floodplain forest communities. Under Alternative A, three southern floodplain forests would be temporarily protected as proposed candidate Research Natural Areas and another protected under Wild and Scenic River management guidelines.
Activities that alter hydrologic function would have indirect negative impacts to southern floodplain forest communities. Alternative A would not specifically restrict the creation of roads or dams in wetlands in any management area; however, it would require that roads be outside riparian filter strips unless mitigation practices were used. Roads or dams may affect the southern floodplain forests by compacting soils, changing water table levels, alternating subsurface drainage patters and periodicity, flooding and altering nutrient delivery and cycling. This could affect structure and composition of the community.
Establishment and maintenance of forest openings and early successional habitat under Alternative A would have indirect negative impacts on southern floodplain forest communities from increased herbivory, especially from deer. Additionally, if openings were established directly adjacent to this community type, the community would become more exposed to and, thus susceptible, to damage from wind. Removal of trees directly adjacent to southern floodplain forests could increase the water table, resulting in adverse impacts from flooding. Invasion by non-native species under Alternative A would have indirect negative impacts to southern floodplain forest communities. Alternative A does not have standards and guidelines to systematically address invasion by non-native species.
Alternative A would limit Off-Highway Vehicle trails to areas 0.5 miles beyond lakes and streams except in designated crossings. Future trail rerouting following this direction would eliminate some trails that currently pass too close to riparian areas.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Alternatives B and C have an objective stating that Forests’ management would protect southern floodplain forests. However, negative impacts would continue to occur from herbivory and
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-162 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources invasive species similar to Alternative A, except that Alternatives B and C would provide direction to reduce non-native invasive plant species infestations and prevent new, invader species from becoming established when possible.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The area of analysis for cumulative effects on this community is the State of Michigan because information pertaining to the distribution, rarity, and vegetative composition of these areas has been compiled on a state-wide basis.
Development of homes for permanent or seasonal use continues to increase within the cumulative effects area. This results in an increase of the urban/wild land interface. Chances for adverse impacts on this community increase as a result from the development itself and increased numbers of people in the area. Where these communities are located on private lands, development activities such as harvesting, filling, conversion to lawn and recreation have adverse impacts. Construction of water impoundments for hydroelectric power, wildlife habitat, aesthetic or recreation purposes may cause deleterious impacts to this community from flooding or other changes to natural hydrologic regimes.
Many management activities on state, federal and private lands such as habitat manipulation, timber harvesting, and agriculture, create early successional habitat. This habitat provides for large populations of herbivores. These large populations lead to localized negative impacts from herbivory, especially from deer.
Introduction of non-native plant species from recreation such as horses, Off-Highway Vehicles and hikers; development; vegetation management and agriculture on state, federal and private lands are likely to increase non-native invasive plant species infestations in both riparian and upland areas. The association of southern floodplain forest communities to rivers increases the likelihood of introduction because the river may deliver non-native invasive plant propagules from a very large source area. Non-native plant species infestations cause decreases in overall plant biodiversity and loss of native species, having a negative impact on native plant communities.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Cumulative effects for Alternatives B and C would be similar to those described under Alternative A. However, the protection of southern floodplain forest communities under Alternatives B and C would help maintain this community.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the plant communities, it was determined that for species that can be found only within these plant communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A, B and C may impact individual species but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-163 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-164 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Cedar Swamp Community:
This community is classified in Michigan as a rich conifer swamp. It is a groundwater-influenced community containing peaty soils that are both acid and alkaline. The community is dominated by northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and its complex microsite conditions provide habitat for a wide variety of plant species. Rich conifer swamps are ranked as rare in Michigan.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Under Alternative A, direct and indirect negative impacts to cedar swamps would be limited due to Standards and Guidelines for riparian vegetation, which includes wetlands. Alternative A’s riparian standards would: 1) require use of Best Management Practices, which prescribe techniques necessary to maintain the high water quality normally associated with forest land and 2) provide direction that all riparian vegetation would be managed for late seral stages. Best Management Practices would limit impacts from soil and hydrologic disturbance. Management for late seral stages would effectively limit timber harvest activities in forested wetland/riparian areas and would allow for earlier stages in wetland succession to continue to move toward a wet forest condition. Very limited selective harvest of cedar would occur under the alternative, though harvest practices would follow Best Management Practices in order to not set back the successional stage of the habitat and not result in a change in forest type.
Alternative A would provide for the creation and maintenance of upland openings and early successional habitat. Further, this alternative would provide direction to sustain winter cover and provide associated browse. Cedar swamps are frequently used by deer as cover and browse in the swamps that are in close proximity. These features of Alternative A would concentrate white- tailed deer in and around cedar swamps, leading to adverse impacts associated with herbivory. This is of particular significance to this community because cedar regeneration has become problematic due to intense deer browse pressure.
Best Management Practices are designed to mitigate impacts from management activities on wetlands and streams. However, Forest management activities that alter water table levels such as timber harvesting and construction of impoundments may have detrimental effects on cedar swamp communities, which are highly sensitive to alterations in hydrology.
Alternative A would not have a specific management plan to systematically address invasion by non-native invasive species. Consequently, non-native invasive species would have indirect negative impacts to cedar swamp species due to reduction of native plant biodiversity.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Under Alternatives B and C, specific provision would be provided for enhanced protection of existing cedar swamps. Timber harvesting in cedar swamps would be prohibited except for limited salvage of non-living trees after a catastrophic event and single-tree special product sales and gathering. Additional protective measures would prevent undesirable disturbance in swamps, except in rare cases.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-165 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Under Alternatives B and C, an additional 68,500 acres of barrens and prairies would be restored on the Forests. It is expected that this action, in addition to the impacts described in Alternative A, would result in an increase in deer herbivory in areas in close proximity to the restored habitat. This impact is expected to be greater in these areas than under Alternative A, although it is not known how many cedar swamps would be located close enough to restored open lands to be impacted.
Invasion by non-native species under Alternatives B and C would have indirect negative impacts to cedar swamp species. Alternatives B and C would address invasive plants through a new objective to reduce noxious weed infestations and to prevent new invader species from becoming established when possible. These alternatives would clearly provide direction to minimize indirect impacts from non-native invasive species, though it is expected, due to the widespread nature of some non-native invasive species already on the Forests, that indirect effects would still occur to native species and their habitat.
A new Standard and Guideline would be provided under Alternatives B and C which requires that activities in wetlands must not result in a change in soils or hydrologic conditions. This Standard additionally limits impacts to cedar swamps.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The area of analysis for cumulative effects on these communities is the State of Michigan because information pertaining to the distribution, rarity and vegetative composition of these areas has been compiled on a state-wide basis. Development of homes for permanent or seasonal use continues to increase within the cumulative effects area. This results in an increase of the urban/wildland interface. Chances for adverse impacts on this community increase as a result from the development and increased numbers of people in the area. Where these communities are located on private lands, development activities such as harvesting, filling, conversion to lawn, and recreation have adverse impacts. Construction of water impoundments for hydroelectric power, wildlife habitat, aesthetic or recreation purposes may cause deleterious impacts to this community from flooding or other changes to natural hydrologic regimes.
Many management activities on state, federal and private lands, for example habitat manipulation, timber harvesting and agriculture, create early successional habitat. This habitat provides for large populations of herbivores. These large populations lead to negative impacts from herbivory, especially from deer, on cedar swamp communities.
Introduction of non-native plant species from recreation (for example, horses and hikers), development, vegetation management, and agriculture on state, federal and private lands are likely to increase non-native invasive plant species infestations in both riparian and upland areas. The association of cedar swamp communities to rivers increases the likelihood of introduction because the river delivers non-native invasive plant propagules from a very large source area. Non-native plant species infestations cause decreases in overall plant biodiversity and loss of native species, having a negative impact on native plant communities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-166 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
The viability of cedar swamps would likely decrease under this alternative, primarily due to the vast historical loss in numbers and the great difficulty in cedar regeneration due to deer herbivory.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Cumulative effects for cedar swamps discussed under Alternative A are applicable to Alternatives B and C. Additional impacts to cedar swamps under Alternatives B and C are expected to be so negligible that they are not expected to be additive to other cumulative impacts in this community. Herbivory from deer would continue to have serious negative impacts to cedar swamp regeneration. The viability of cedar swamps would likely decrease under these alternatives, primarily due to the vast historical loss in numbers and the great difficulty in cedar regeneration due to deer herbivory.
Determinations:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the plant communities, it was determined that for species that can be found only within these plant communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A, B and C may impact individual species but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-167 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Plant Species of Concern:
Wetland Plant Habitat Groups:
The following wetland plant habitat groups that support wetland plant species of concern were evaluated for effects from proposed and probable land use practices: • Riparian forested • Riparian non-forested • Sub-irrigated moist thicket • Sub-irrigated forest • Wet and exposed mineral soil • Localized wet depressions–swales and vernal pools • Marsh • Wet-mesic prairie/meadow • Swamps–hardwood/conifer • Bog • Aquatic pond/lake • Lake shorelines
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Under Alternative A, direct and indirect negative impacts to wetland and riparian habitats would be limited due to 1) the required use of Best Management Practices which prescribe techniques necessary to maintain the high water quality and 2) the direction that all riparian vegetation will be managed for late seral stages.
Best Management Practices limit impacts from soil and hydrologic disturbance, while management for late seral stages effectively limits timber harvesting activities in forested wetland/riparian areas, allowing for earlier stages in wetland succession to continue to move toward a wet forest condition.
Under Alternative A, streambank stabilization practices may be implemented to address erosion and sedimentation concerns. This practice would have both positive and negative indirect impacts and some direct impacts depending upon the original condition of the streambank and the type of habitat created or modified. For example, heavy rock rip-rap placement may reduce the amount of riparian forest habitat while soil stabilization logs may improve bank stability for re-establishment of riparian vegetation. Both scenarios may reduce sedimentation loads, improving water clarity for species requiring near shore shallow water habitats.
In lakeshore and riparian habitats, recreational activities permitted under Alternative A, such as camping, hiking and fishing would have negative direct and indirect effects on riparian habitats due to trampling, soil compaction, increased streambank erosion and the introduction and spread of invasive plant species. Recreational activities such as boating may have negative indirect effects on aquatic near shore shallow water habitats due to disruption of quiet waters required by some species, and the potential for increased introduction of aquatic invasive plant species. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-168 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
negative impacts of these activities would be reduced by conservation practices such as planned boat launches, designated camping sites, signs, barriers, bridges, boardwalks and planned parking areas.
Road closure activities can be expected to occur under Alternative A when resource damage is observed. Alternative A would also set standards for the desired miles of roads in each management area. Road closures may occur when road density exceeds the desired targeted road density. Positive indirect effects would occur when roads were closed to prevent or eliminate negative impacts of unmanaged vehicle use close to or in wetland and riparian areas. In general, road closures would also result in a positive indirect effect of reducing corridors for the spread of invasive plants.
Alternative A would provide for the creation of upland wildlife openings and the management for early successional forest species, resulting in habitat which is attractive to deer and other herbivores. As a result, increased herbivory would likely occur in these areas and in areas of close proximity. Higher deer populations noted in much of the eastern United States have been linked to an overall reduction of plant diversity across many plant communities, because plant species are not equally adaptive to increased consumption by deer (Ruhren and Handel 2003, Rooney et al. 2000).
Prescribed burning would be permitted under Alternative A and would have a positive indirect effect on wetland/riparian habitats occurring in landscapes which are adapted to fire or are fire dependent. Likewise, fire suppression in these habitats, as allowed under Alternative A, would have a negative indirect impact in fire-dependent riparian/wetland communities due to the increases in nonfire-dependent plant species. Under Alternative A, prescribed burning would occasionally be used as a tool for setting back succession in bogs and wetlands not located in fire-dependent landscapes. This activity would favor early successional species and would have a negative impact on later successional species.
Alternative A would not present a plan for addressing invasive species. Introduction and spread of invasive species has a major negative impact to plant communities by replacing native species, reducing biodiversity, altering species composition and changing wetland function.
Alternative A would have no measures to protect microhabitats such as swales and vernal pools during forest management activities, such as timber harvesting, reforestation and over-planting. Due to the difficulty in detecting these habitats within the larger landscape, it is most likely that forest practices would have negative indirect impacts to these wet microhabitats due to soil disturbance change in the overstory canopy and modification of the elevational structure of the landscape during skidding, hauling and mechanical planting.
Old-growth management in the riparian corridor under Alternative A would contribute to the protection and, in some cases, enhancement of existing riparian habitat. Wetlands in old growth may be restored in accordance with natural disturbance processes, resulting in a positive impact for wetlands habitats where degradation has occurred.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-169 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Under Alternatives B and C, negative direct and indirect impacts would be limited in the 100- foot Streamside Management Zone along lakes, rivers and streams due to required use of Best Management Practices. These Best Management Practices prescribe mitigation techniques that assist in maintaining water quality. Also, vegetation in the Streamside Management Zone would be managed for late seral stages, which would benefit most of these habitat groups. Few of the habitat groups that require early successional habitat conditions are located within the Streamside Management Zone; however, if they are, it is likely that natural riparian disturbances would continue to occur, thereby providing adequate habitat creation.
In these alternatives, to emulate natural disturbances such as fire on outwash plains and sandy hills, the Forests would not be required to maintain a 100-foot Streamside Management Zone around wetlands, and could manage for early successional habitat to meet Species Viability Evaluation needs. However, any management activity could not result in a change in soils or hydrologic conditions. This guideline would limit the negative impacts that forest management activities such as timber harvesting, impoundment creation, or trail creation might have on wetland habitats.
Alternatives B and C Guidelines state that “if natural disturbance processes are not providing adequate habitat within the Streamside Management Zone for threatened, endangered, sensitive and other species with viability concerns, active management for early successional habitat may be implemented on a case-by-case basis.” Currently, there are more than 5,000 acres of early successional habitat within riparian and wetland areas that have been identified during the Species Viability Evaluation process to meet the stated needs of riparian-dependent sensitive wildlife species, for example, golden-winged warbler, American bittern, northern harrier and eastern massasauga. It is expected that the increase in acres to be managed for early successional habitat would be well distributed across the Forests and would be planned in consideration of the habitat needs of sensitive plant species that require late successional habitats. All areas would be surveyed for sensitive species prior to project implementation and Best Management Practices would be implemented for management activities. While these alternatives would increase management activity in riparian/wetland habitats, it is expected that the increase in management for early successional riparian/wetland habitat would have a negligible effect.
Impacts from streambank stabilization practices are expected to be the same as those described under Alternative A.
Alternatives B and C would provide direction to “design management activities adjacent to lakes, streams and wetlands to maintain streambank and shoreline stability and riparian integrity”, providing positive indirect benefits of maintaining shoreline physical characteristics. Otherwise, impacts from recreational uses would be expected to be similar to those under Alternative A.
Under Alternatives B and C, an additional 68,000 acres of barrens habitat would be restored on the Forests. It is expected that this action would result in an increase in deer herbivory in wetland areas that were located near restored barrens habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-170 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Prescribed burning would be expected to increase under Alternatives B and C, providing a net benefit to those wetland/riparian areas adapted to a fire-dependant regime. It is not known, however, how much of the increase in burn management acres would occur in areas with riparian or wetland habitats.
Alternatives B and C would provide a framework for addressing non-native invasive plant infestation and spread. This would have a positive indirect impact on wetland habitats through encouragement of a comprehensive analysis and the use of a variety of management techniques to control and prevent non-native invasive plant infestations in these habitats. It is expected, however, that invasive species would continue to contribute to a decline in habitat quality as non- native invasive species control is not always possible and may not be economically feasible for all non-native invasive species or for all Forest acreage.
Alternatives B and C would also provide direction to identify swales and vernal pools through project level surveys and to develop protection measures for these habitats. Direction would also be provided to inventory wet, exposed-mineral soil habitats for sensitive species habitat. Direction to identify and inventory habitats which are most likely to be overlooked would have a beneficial effect for species that occur in these habitats.
Riparian and wetland areas in old-growth designated areas under Alternatives B and C would be the same as those identified under Alternative A and would likewise be expected to improve in quality as the vegetation matures and/or would be restored in some areas. Implementation of the proposed Standards and Guidelines for riparian and wetland ecosystems would provide protection from other land use activities.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The area of analysis for cumulative effects on these communities is the Lower Peninsula of Michigan because threats to the viability of species associated with these habitat groups are similar within this area. Also, the structure and composition of species within these habitat groups tend to be similar.
Approximately 50 percent of Michigan’s wetlands have been drained, filled or otherwise eliminated since the 1800s. Remaining wetlands have changed in vegetative dominance and in physical characteristics. For example, in many waterways, control structures placed on waterways have reduced or eliminated periodic flooding of riparian marshes and floodplain swamps. Seasonality of flooding is a factor important to reproductive success of some wetland/riparian species (Stanturf et al. 2001).
One of the major contributing factors affecting the quality of wet plant habitats is the attraction of human populations to water bodies and waterways for development and recreational uses. Most of the water bodies and waterways which fall under management jurisdiction of the Forests also have private land ownership. Many of the impacts to water bodies and waterways are due to private land ownership impacts such as shoreline development; reduction of water quality through nutrient input, other effluents and increased sedimentation; replacement of natural vegetation with lawns and impermeable coverings; streambank erosion; motorized watercraft;
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-171 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
pesticide application to water bodies for reduction of vegetation; spread of invasive plants and impacts from foot use and motorized equipment. Other changes in vegetative characteristics of wetland/riparian habitat within the Forests’ proclamation boundary and Forests’ watersheds have occurred due to timber harvest on non-federal lands, increased herbivory pressure by deer and spread of non-native invasive species.
Aquatic vegetation control, motorized boat use, and water quality permits and issues are under the jurisdiction of the state. The ability to affect the quality of habitat for aquatic pond/lake vegetation, in particular, is largely outside of the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Development of homes for permanent or seasonal use continues to increase within the cumulative effects area. This results in an increase of the urban/wildland interface. The potential increases for adverse impacts on wetland habitats increase as a result from the development itself and increased numbers of people in the area. Where these habitats are located on private lands, development activities such as timber harvesting, road creation, filling, dredging, mowing, herbicide use and recreation have adverse impacts on wetland habitats.
Increased levels of recreational use are occurring due to both local population increases and increased visits to state and federal lands by people from outside the immediate area. Of particular concern to non-forested wetland habitats are impacts associated with unmanaged Off- Highway Vehicle use. Although Off-Highway Vehicle use is not permitted in these wetland habitats on state or federal lands, it occurs and has deleterious effects on hydrological function and vegetation. Increased use of personal watercraft is likely to negatively impacts both rooted and floating aquatic vegetation found in lakes, ponds and rivers.
Many management activities on state, federal and private lands, for example habitat manipulation, timber harvesting and agriculture, create early successional habitat. This habitat provides for large populations of herbivores. These large populations lead to localized negative impacts from herbivory, especially from deer.
Introduction of non-native plant species from recreation, for example horses, Off-Highway Vehicles and hikers; development; vegetation management and agriculture on state, federal and private lands are likely to increase non-native invasive plant species infestations. Non-native plant species infestations cause decreases in overall plant biodiversity and loss of native species, having a negative impact on native plant communities.
Determinations except Localized Wet Depressions (swales and vernal pools):
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the plant communities, it was determined that for species that can be found only within these plant communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A, B and C may impact individuals but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-172 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Determinations for Localized Wet Depressions (swales and vernal pools):
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the plant communities, it was determined that for species that can be found only within these plant communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individual and likely trend toward a loss of viability. Alternative A does not maintain the species’ composition or functional processes necessary to ensure long-term viability on National Forest System lands in the planning area. Alternatives B and C may impact individual species but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-173 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Upland Plant Communities:
The following upland plant habitat groups that support sensitive upland plant species were evaluated for effects from proposed and probable land use practices: • Rich mesic forest/clay-loam • Forest with needle duff • Hardwood openings • Semi-open mesic depressions • Open dry sand
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Because Alternative A would not identify the minimum habitat needs for plant species of concern, it would not allow for the expansion or reestablishment of rare upland plant species into areas where they are currently absent. Existing potential habitat for most of these species is found in management areas that would allow even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvesting. It is likely that some portion of the existing potential habitats would be managed for timber in ways that compromises the suitability of the habitat. Most timber harvesting activities would create open land conditions that are not suitable to rare species of rich northern mesic forests and forests with needle duff; however, the activities would create canopy gaps that are only a few tree crowns wide and are within the range of suitability for species of hardwood openings and semi-open mesic depressions. Soil disturbance would be an associated threat with harvest activities, especially for orchids, grape ferns and pine drops that receive a significant proportion of their energy from soil fungi. Old-growth management areas would function as reserve areas where they are coincident with suitable habitat conditions.
Invasive plants such as garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) are able to displace native plants in forest understory through competition and allelopathy. Management involving ground disturbance would be a major factor that accelerates invasion by non-native species of plants. Non-native species such as spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii) are more likely to become established and persist in areas that are chronically disturbed like open dry sand, especially if seeds were transported by motorized vehicles. Allelopathy from spotted knapweed is known to suppress the seedling growth of native species. Alternative A would not have a specific management plan to systematically address invasion by non-native species. However, the Forest Service would require timber harvesting contractors to wash harvesting equipment, which would be expected to lessen the potential for invasion in these managed areas.
Poaching is a problem for some economically valuable rich northern mesic forest species such as goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis) and American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). Poaching would likely continue to have direct negative effects on economically valuable species. Alternative A would not address the issue of poaching.
Alternative A would provide for the creation of upland wildlife openings and management for early successional forest species. This would provide habitat which is attractive to deer and other wildlife species, likely resulting in an increase in herbivory in such areas. Higher deer populations noted in much of the eastern United States have been linked to an overall reduction
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-174 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
of plant diversity across many plant communities, because plant species are not equally adaptive to increased consumption by deer (Ruhren and Handel 2003, Rooney et al. 2000).
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Alternatives B and C would prohibit ground-disturbing activities that were inconsistent with natural disturbance regimes within 80 percent of core mesic northern hardwood habitat areas. In the remaining 20 percent of habitat, at least 80 percent crown closure would be maintained. Management activities would also allow potential high-quality mesic northern hardwood forest habitat adjacent to core areas to convert to actual high-quality mesic northern hardwood forest habitat. This provision would result in positive direct and indirect effects by reducing the negative impacts of timber management activities and allowing for an increase in potential habitat.
For other upland species that inhabit small patches within widespread vegetation types, Alternatives B and C would provide additional measures to ensure that sufficient habitat remained after logging activities. Buffers would be provided around occurrences of species of concern in forests with needle duff, hardwood forest openings and semi-open mesic depressions to avoid soil disturbance and/or provide sufficient crown cover. Species of concern that inhabit open dry sand would be maintained by incorporating known occurrences within expanded prairie habitat.
Recreational vehicles would only be permitted in authorized areas; however unmanaged Off- Highway Vehicle usage would continue to have both direct and indirect negative effects on species in these habitats. Alternatives B and C would lessen these effects by not allowing motorized vehicles in essential habitats for endangered, threatened and sensitive species.
Invasive plants would continue to have negative indirect impacts to upland species and their habitats. Alternatives B and C would provide direction to reduce noxious weed and non-native invasive plant species infestations and to prevent new, invasive species from becoming established when possible. Specific Standards and Guidelines would be provided to prevent, control and monitor non-native invasive species. The Forest Service requirement for timber harvesting contractors to wash harvesting equipment would also lessen the potential for invasion in areas where timber harvesting occurs. These alternatives would clearly provide direction to minimize indirect impacts from non-native invasive species, though it is expected, due to the widespread nature of some invasive species already on the Forests, that indirect effects would still occur to native species and their habitat.
Poaching is a problem for some economically valuable rich northern mesic forest species. Although Alternatives B and C would address poaching for American ginseng, other economically valuable upland habitat species of concern would likely continue to suffer from poaching.
Under Alternatives B and C, an additional 68,000 acres of open lands habitat would be restored to the Forests as barrens and prairie. It is expected that this action would result in an increase in deer herbivory in areas near restored habitat. However, it is not known how many habitats
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-175 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
supporting upland plant species of concern would be located close enough to restored open lands to be impacted.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The area of analysis for cumulative effects on these communities is the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan because threats to the viability of species associated with these habitat groups are similar within this area. Also, the structure and composition of species within these habitat groups tend to be similar.The reduction and alteration of these upland habitats across the state is not likely to be reversed in the future since historic rich mesic forest lands will likely continue to be managed for agriculture, hardwood timber production and aspen, and pine forests are likely to continue to be managed for timber production or are likely to be developed for commercial or residential purposes.
In general, development of homes for permanent or seasonal use continues to increase within the cumulative effects area. The potential increases for adverse impacts on these habitat groups increase as a result of the development itself and from increased numbers of people in the area.
Increased levels of recreational use are occurring due to both local population increases and increased visits to state and federal lands by people from outside the immediate area. Of particular concern for some of these habitat groups are impacts associated with unmanaged Off- Highway Vehicles use. Although Off-Highway Vehicle use would not be permitted off designated travel routes, it continues to occur and would have negative cumulative effects on the open dry sand habitat group.
Increased human presence in rich woods habitat may lead to increases in poaching of valuable plant species found there, such as goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis) and American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius).
Many management activities on state, federal and private lands such as habitat manipulation, timber harvesting and agriculture, create early successional habitat. This habitat provides for large populations of herbivores. These large populations lead to localized negative impacts from herbivory, especially from deer.
Introduction of non-native plant species from recreation, for example horses, Off-Highway Vehicles and hikers; development; vegetation management and agriculture on state, federal and private lands are likely to increase non-native invasive plant species infestations. Non-native plant species infestations cause decreases in overall plant biodiversity and the loss of native species, having a negative impact on native plant communities.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The cumulative effects of Alternatives B and C would be similar to the effects of Alternative A. Although localized beneficial effects would occur on federal lands from additional protection through objectives, Standards and Guidelines, these benefits would not likely change the overall outcome of effects from activities outside Forest lands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-176 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Determinations except rich-mesic forest clay loam habitat group, the forest with needle duff habitat group, and the open dry sand habitat group:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the plant communities, it was determined that for species that can be found only within these plant communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A, B and C may impact individuals but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Determinations for rich-mesic forest clay loam habitat group, the forest with needle duff habitat group, and the open dry sand habitat group:
Viability on National Forest System lands (Huron-Manistee National Forests): Based on the effects analysis disclosed for the plant communities, it was determined that for species that can be found only within these plant communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative A may impact individuals and likely trend toward a loss of species viability. Alternative A does not maintain the species’ composition or functional processes necessary to ensure long-term viability on National Forest System lands in the planning area. Alternatives B and C may impact individuals within a species but would provide for the species’ viability over the long term. Federal Listing Determination: Proposed actions for all alternatives will not cause a trend toward federal listing.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-177 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Effects on Management Indicator Species:
Terrestrial Management Indicator Species:
The Forests have selected three terrestrial wildlife management indicator species: ruffed grouse, Karner blue butterfly and Kirtland’s warbler. See the Huron-Manistee National Forests Management Indicator Species Recommendations, September 2004, in Appendix G for a description of the selection process. The Forests’ deer and wildlife emphasis areas will also be analyzed in this section.
Ruffed Grouse:
The ruffed grouse is a management indicator species because it is an indicator of early- successional disturbances in the aspen-birch community type, and it attracts high public interest as a game species. The ruffed grouse is a good indicator of the aspen-birch community type because it highlights differences between the alternatives, and because each alternative results in varying habitat conditions. The evaluation of ruffed grouse is based primarily on acres of suitable cover and foraging habitat.
The ruffed grouse is a widely distributed species, with fairly specific habitat requirements (Gullion 1984a, Thompson and Dessecker 1997). Although they occur throughout the deciduous and coniferous forests of North America, they are most abundant in early-successional forests dominated by aspens and poplars (Populus spp.) (Rusch et al. 2000). Although the relationship between ruffed grouse and the distribution of aspen is not obligatory, ruffed grouse achieve their greatest abundance in northern regions where aspen, especially quaking aspen are a dominant component of the forest (Cade and Sousa 1985, Thompson and Fritzell 1989).
The highest densities of ruffed grouse are achieved only if there is an interspersion of young and old forest stands to provide the proper combination of food and cover (Gullion 1984a). Optimum grouse habitat is created through the disturbance of mature forest stands, by processes such as fire, blowdown, timber harvest, or succession of open lands back to forest (Thompson and Dessecker 1997).
Euro-American settlement in the 1800s brought land clearing, timber harvesting and subsequent widespread wildfires that increased aspen-birch acreages considerably in the Lake States (Cleland et al. 2001). The severity of this ecological disturbance was quite uncommon before human exploitation (Hunter 1999, p. 34). Fire control, succession, conversion and land development have resulted in some aspen-birch decline since the 1930s (Cleland et al. 2001).
Grouse likely declined with initial forest harvest, increased with early regrowth of these forests, and are apparently again declining as the young forests age (Rusch et al. 2000). Since ruffed grouse mainly occupy early successional deciduous forests created by fire, logging or other large-scale disturbance, Rusch et al. (2000) suggest that fire control, opposition to clearcutting, and conifer management have allowed a maturation and conversion of the eastern deciduous
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-178 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
forests since their original harvest, resulting in the recent decline in habitat suitability for ruffed grouse.
Ruffed Grouse Indicator – Amount of Grouse Habitat:
The first indicator for ruffed grouse is amount, acres, of grouse habitat, aspen-birch forest, that would occur on the Huron-Manistee National Forests under each alternative. This indicator highlights the differences among alternatives because the density of grouse is closely linked to the availability of habitat.
Ruffed Grouse Indicator – Quality of Grouse Habitat:
The second indicator for ruffed grouse is quality of grouse habitat that would occur under each alternative. Grouse habitat quality is a combination of age class distribution, stem density, patch size and conifer component. However, due to the limited availability of data, only age class distribution will be used in this analysis to determine the quality of grouse habitat.
This indicator highlights the differences among alternatives because grouse populations achieve highest densities when there is a good interspersion of young and old forest stands in close proximity to each other to provide for the habitat needs of grouse. Forests that are lacking in young age classes do not provide the best cover for young birds; forests that are lacking in older age classes do not provide adequate food resources. Grouse populations are highest where these different forest stages are located closely proximate to each other; hence, relatively small patches within the larger forest landscape produce the most grouse. Grouse populations are highest in aspen forests with sufficient stem densities. Conifer cover within ruffed grouse habitat can be detrimental, as it tends to favor avian predators (Gullion and Alm 1983; Gullion 1990, Barber 1989). Alternatively, small patches of aspen regeneration in conifer stands, a conifer matrix, can support high densities of ruffed grouse (Gullion 1990).
Analysis Area:
For direct and indirect effects, the analysis area for the ruffed grouse is the Huron-Manistee National Forests since management actions in ruffed grouse habitats on the Forests’ and adjacent non-federal lands could impact the species. The timeframes include the first decade (current condition), and the second, fifth and tenth decades. The analysis bounds for analyzing cumulative effects on the ruffed grouse (aspen-birch forest type) are the borders of the State of Michigan. This area was chosen because 1) the species and its habitat occur throughout the state, 2) young grouse will disperse over a mile or more from their natal site to find new habitat (Brewer et al. 1991), and 3) management actions, both federal and non-federal, could impact the species’ and its habitat within Michigan.
Amount and Quality of Grouse Habitat:
Aspen-dominated forests provide the optimum habitat for grouse. Optimal year-round habitat is a mixture of young and older forest, providing both cover and food.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-179 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Gullion (1984b) indicated grouse need aspen in three age classes: sapling stands about 4 to 15 years old for brood cover; sapling and small pole-stage stands 6 to 25 years old for fall and spring cover; and stands greater than 26 years old for food, and as wintering and nesting cover. From fall through leaf-out in spring, grouse prefer to have activity areas that include mature male aspen, a prime source of their preferred dormant season food; buds and flower catkins.
Larger, contiguous blocks of forest are better grouse habitat than are smaller, isolated or fragmented woodlots surrounded by agricultural fields (Rusch et al. 2000, Kubusiak 1989). Grouse concentrated at (hard) edges are more vulnerable to predation (Gullion 1984a, Green 1995, p. 99).
Within the larger forest matrix, highest densities of grouse occur where habitat components are closely interspersed (Gullion 1984a). According to Gullion, the optimum grouse habitat management prescription is a mosaic of 2.5-acre stands, one-fourth of which are cut each decade leading to a 40-year rotation. Stands this small, however, are generally not economical for commercial operations, so Gullion recommended the same pattern in 10-acre blocks. Blocks of suitable habitat should not be less than 1 acre in size (Gullion 1984a).
Stem densities within regenerating aspen stands are a habitat component of increasing interest as aspen harvest methods vary. Residual overstory trees in aspen regeneration harvests have the effect of reducing sucker growth in aspen (Perala 1977, Huffman 1997). Huffman (1997) found stem densities in 10-year-old aspen stands of about 6,000 stems per acre, with a residual overstory tree basal area of 35 square feet per acre. This basal area is similar to what would be found after the shelterwood harvest method. Reserving some residual canopy cover within aspen harvest units is being tested as a way of reducing aspen sucker density enough to facilitate the restoration of other stand components (Stone et al. 2001). Results from studies have similarities but conclusions regarding “optimal” conditions sometimes conflict. Gullion (1984a) indicates that although stem densities of initial regeneration in secondary hardwood succession are often in the range of 20,000-50,000 stems per acre, ruffed grouse seldom use these stands until they have thinned to total densities of less than 15,000 stems per acre.
Dessecker and McAuley (2001) describe optimum grouse habitats as including young (6 to 15 years old), even-age, deciduous stands that typically support 8,100 to 10,121 stems per acre. Kubisiak (1989) describes good grouse shelter as habitat with more than 8,100 stems per acre. Cade and Sousa (1985) describe optimal drumming sites, 13 to 25 years old, in Minnesota as 2,000-6,000 stems per acre. Optimal drumming cover in Wisconsin is 6 to 25 year old aspen stands with 1,800-6,000 stems per acre (Cade and Sousa 1985).
Gullion (1984a) suggests that when ruffed grouse have a choice, stand use usually ceases when total stem densities decline below 6,900 stems per acre. Gullion states that grouse will use habitat with lower stem densities in areas where cover is poorer, but that grouse densities there will also be lower. Cade and Sousa (1985) state that habitat has “gone by” and rather abruptly ceases to support drumming grouse when stem densities decrease to below 2,000 stems per acre.
The desirability of evergreen cover as it relates to grouse winter habitat has been a controversial topic. In the southern grouse range, where snow cover used for winter burrowing is limited,
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-180 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
ruffed grouse use evergreen cover extensively in winter (Barber 1989). However, in the grouse’s northern range, coniferous cover tends to favor avian predators over grouse (Gullion and Alm 1983), due to a higher risk of predation and shorter survival for grouse when conifers are present (Gullion 1990). Stands of conifers can expose grouse to severe losses from predation (Barber 1989); maximum grouse densities and survival rates of grouse are lower in forests where conifers are the predominant trees (Gullion and Marshall 1968 in Cade and Sousa 1985, Kubusiak et al. 1980). However, Gullion (1990) observed high grouse densities in a configuration of aspen regeneration pockets within a matrix of conifer forest, red and jack pine.
In their habitat suitability index model for ruffed grouse, Cade and Sousa (1985) assumed that the presence of any conifers in an otherwise suitable habitat will reduce suitability of fall-to- spring cover. However, they also indicate that predation on grouse is not always a significant decimating factor associated with coniferous habitats, stating that conifers with low-growing branches, such as spruce and firs, may have greater cover value for grouse than concealment value for raptors, and should not be considered as detrimental as “high pine” conifers.
Maximal grouse densities are associated with small patches of appropriately aged forest, located proximate to each other. Acres of small, young upland forest patches are used as an indicator of this aspect of grouse habitat quality.
On the Huron-Manistee National Forests, optimal grouse habitat is found in aspen-birch forest, in three habitat classes: 1) brood cover, 4- to 15-year old aspen; 2) spring and fall cover, 6- to 15- year old aspen) and 3) food, winter and nesting cover, greater than 25-year old aspen. The Forest Plan revision model data outputs display age-class information only in 10-year increments. Consequently, this analysis compares alternatives assuming that the habitat classes are as follows:
Table III-13. Habitat Classes for Ruffed Grouse. Age Class Habitat Type 0-9 years Brood Cover 10-19 years Spring/Fall Cover 20-29 years 30 + years Food; Winter/Nesting Cover
Figures III-10 and III-11 display the current age-class distribution of the aspen/birch forest type for the Huron-Manistee National Forests and Grouse Management Areas, respectively. Considering all aspen/birch on the Forests, there is considerably less brood cover (6 percent) than spring/fall cover (34 percent), and considerably less spring/fall cover than winter/nest cover (60 percent). Similarly within Grouse Management Areas, there is considerably less brood cover (8 percent) than spring/fall cover (36 percent), and considerably less spring/fall cover than winter/nest cover (56 percent).
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-181 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-10. Aspen/Birch Age Classes – Current Condition.
35000
30000
25000
20000
Acres 15000
10000
5000
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 - 99 100+
Current 9045 22366 32515 32650 21584 6842 8238 16669 11504 0 0 Age Class
Figure III-11. Grouse Management Area Aspen/Birch Age Classes – Current Condition.
8000 7000
6000 5000
4000 Acres 3000
2000
1000
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89 Current 2151 4329 5490 6778 2653 715 1685 2871 763 Age Class
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-182 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Effects are analyzed in two ways: for all aspen on the Forests, and for aspen in Grouse Management Areas only. Decade 1 represents the likely implementation life of the Forest Plan, although the effects of alternatives are also analyzed at the end of the fourth and end of the ninth decades.
Differences among alternatives in providing grouse habitat is determined by the acres of aspen- birch available over time, and by comparing the distribution of acres between the projected age classes.
The quantity and quality of ruffed grouse habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests and within the Grouse Management Areas during the first decade for all alternatives would be the same (Tables III-14 and III-15).
Table III-14. Acres of Habitat for Decades 1, 4 and 9. Current End of Decade End of Decade End of Decade
Condition 1 4 9 Aspen/Birch on Huron-Mansitee National Forests Alternative A 161,413 149,909 141,547 129,180 Alternative B 161,413 149,909 124,677 112,000 Alternative C 161,413 150,573 123,828 64,360 Aspen/Birch in Grouse Management Areas (included above) Alternative A 27,435 26,672 26,349 25,815 Alternative B 27,435 26,672 22,066 21,532 Alternative C 27,435 27,336 27,069 26,535
Table III-15. Habitat Quality 1 for Decades 1, 4 and 9. Current End of Decade End of Decade End of Decade
Condition 1 4 9 Brood Cover on the Huron-Manistee National Forests Alternative A 9,045 24,100 28,000 20,000 Alternative B 9,045 24,100 28,000 24,100 Alternative C 9,045 15,000 15,000 16,197 Brood Cover in Grouse Management Areas (included above) Alternative A 2,151 5,005 6,289 5,005 Alternative B 2,151 4,884 5,820 4,884 Alternative C 2,151 6,246 4,546 6,516 1 Habitat Quality is summarized by displaying the acres of brood cover (0-9 age class) available at the end of each decade.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-183 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Habitat Quantity:
Under Alternative A, the quantity of aspen/birch on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be the highest of all alternatives at the end of the planning horizon of 150 years (Figure III-12). By the end of the first decade, the beginning of the second decade, approximately 149,909 acres of aspen/birch would exist on the Forest, a decrease of 7 percent when compared with the current condition. By the end of the fourth decade it would decline by 12 percent compared to the current number of acres. At the end of the ninth decade and later, the quantity of aspen/birch would stabilize at about 129,180 acres, approximately 20 percent less than the current condition. Thus, Alternative A would result in a steady but modest decline in the quantity of ruffed grouse habitat over 100 years.
Under Alternative A, the quantity of aspen/birch present in Grouse Management Areas would remain fairly stable across all decades (Figure III-12). By the end of the first decade, approximately 26,672 acres of aspen/birch would exist in Grouse Management Areas. When compared with the current condition, this forest type would decline by almost 3 percent at the end of the first decade, and by almost 4 percent at the end of the fourth decade. At the end of the ninth decade and later, the quantity of aspen/birch in Grouse Management Areas would stabilize at approximately 25,815 acres, approximately 6 percent less than the current condition. Thus, Alternative A would result in a slight decline in the quantity of ruffed grouse habitat in Grouse Management Areas over 100 years.
Figure III-12. Total Acres of All Aspen/Birch and Grouse Management Areas by Decade
Total Aspen/Birch and in GMAs by Decade
175000 150000
125000 100000
Acres 75000 50000 25000 0 End of End of End of End of End of Current End of End of End of End of End of End of End of End of End of Decade Decade Decade Decade Decade Condition Decade 1 Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 6 Decade 7 Decade 8 Decade 9 10 11 12 13 14 Alt A - All 161413 149909 144738 142822 141547 138027 135041 132082 129534 129180 129180 129180 129180 129180 129180 Alt B - All 161413 149909 133240 125952 124677 121158 118171 115029 112363 112000 112000 112000 112000 112000 112000 Alt C - All 161413 150573 136604 130026 123828 104748 87472 67346 64714 64360 64360 64360 64360 64360 64360 Alt A - GMA 27435 26672 26445 26420 26349 26200 26042 26006 25886 25815 25815 25815 25815 25815 25815 Alt B - GMA 27435 26672 23801 22137 22056 21917 21759 21723 21603 21532 21532 21532 21532 21532 21532 Alt C - GMA 27435 27336 27165 27140 27059 26920 26762 26726 26600 26535 26535 26535 26535 26535 26535 Ending decade
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-184 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Habitat Quality:
For all aspen/birch, Alternative A would provide less than an ideal habitat distribution for the ruffed grouse at the end of the first decade (Figure III-13), because too much habitat would be in winter/nesting cover. However, Alternative A would improve habitat quality by providing approximately 2.5 times more brood habitat than is presently available (Figure III-13). At the end of the fourth decade, Alternative A would improve habitat quality by providing an even distribution of age classes for brood cover and spring/fall cover, but it would provide substantially more winter/nesting cover (Figure III-14). At the end of the ninth decade, Alternative A would provide less of each cover type than at the end of the fourth decade (Figures III-14 and III-15), consequently habitat quality would decline.
In Grouse Management Areas, Alternative A would provide less than an ideal habitat distribution for the ruffed grouse at the end of the first decade (Figure III-16). However, Alternative A would improve habitat quality in Grouse Management Areas by providing approximately 2.5 times more brood cover than presently available (Figure III-16). At the end of the fourth decade, Alternative A would improve habitat quality by providing an improved distribution of age classes for brood cover and winter/nesting cover, but it would provide substantially greater amount of spring/fall cover (Figure III-17). At the end of the ninth decade, Alternative A would provide a fairly well balanced age class distribution, but would be more heavily weighted toward winter/nesting cover (Figure III-18).
Figure III-13. Aspen/Birch Age Classes by Alternative – End of Decade 1.
35000
30000
25000
20000
Acres 15000
10000 5000
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 - 99 100+
A 24100 9045 22366 32515 8550 21584 6842 8238 16669 0 0 B 24100 9045 22366 32515 8550 21584 6842 8238 16669 0 0 C 15000 9045 22366 32515 18660 21584 6842 7891 16669 0 0 Age Class
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-185 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-14. Aspen/Birch Age Classes by Alternative – End of Decade 4.
30000
25000
20000
15000 Acres
10000
5000
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 - 99 100+
A 28000 28000 28000 24100 5826 18157 2958 2987 3520 0 0 B 28000 28000 28000 24100 363 6566 3142 2987 3520 0 0 C 15000 15000 15000 15000 1551 5795 20126 17276 19080 0 0 Age Class
Figure III-15. Aspen/Birch Age Classes by Alternative – End of Decade 9.
30000
25000
20000
15000 Acres
10000
5000
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 - 99 100+
A 20000 21999 24743 25358 15608 21472 0 0 0 0 0 B 24100 24765 27335 24100 3900 7800 0 0 0 0 0 C 16197 15000 15000 15000 1966 1197 0 0 0 0 0 Age Class
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-186 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Figure III-16. Grouse Management Areas Aspen/Birch Age Classes by Alternative – End of Decade 1.
7000
6000
5000
4000
Acres 3000
2000
1000
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89
Alt A 5005 2151 4329 5490 1773 2653 715 1685 2871 Alt B 4884 2151 4329 5490 1894 2653 715 1685 2871 Alt C 6246 2151 4329 5490 1196 2653 715 1685 2871 Age Class
Figure III-17. Grouse Management Areas Aspen/Birch Age Classes by Alternative – End of Decade 4.
12000
10000
8000
6000 Acres
4000
2000
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89
Alt A 6289 4254 10267 5005 71 120 36 158 149 Alt B 5820 4375 6453 4884 71 120 36 158 149 Alt C 4546 5724 8065 6246 92 2053 36 158 149 Age Class
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-187 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-18. Grouse Management Areas Aspen/Birch Age Classes by Alternative – End of Decade 9.
12000
10000
8000
6000 Acres
4000
2000
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89
Alt A 5005 6289 4254 10267 0 0 0 0 0 Alt B 4884 5820 4375 6453 0 0 0 0 0 Alt C 6516 5738 5740 6587 1933 21 0 0 0 Age Class
According to Cleland et al. (2000), many disturbance-dependent ecosystems such as early successional forests have declined in recent decades. These declines are due in part to nearly a century of fire suppression, as well as land conversion, rural development and grazing. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata) are among the foremost early successional species in the United States and the Lake States–Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota–and are notably the stronghold of the aspen-birch forest type, with 12.9 million acres, or 63 percent, of the total acreage in the lower 48 states.
In 2001, Forest Inventory and Analysis inventory data indicate that the aspen-birch forest type covers 3.5 million acres of Michigan (Leatherberry et al. 2003). The extent of these forests is important, but ownership patterns are as well—ownership provides insights regarding management options. In Michigan, 61 percent of the timberlands are in private ownership, dominated by non-industrial private landowners. Public ownership is also important across the region, and each state’s public ownership has evolved differently since the turn of the 20th Century. In Michigan, state forests and national forests are the principal public ownerships; and there are a few county forests.
Today’s acreage of aspen in Michigan is largely due to the extensive disturbance rendered by 19th Century logging and 20th Century fires, which greatly favored disturbance-dependent species. Disastrous wildfires regularly ripped through the cut-over forest lands, usually in late summer or autumn following periods of extreme drought. Due to the combined effects of logging and wildfires, between a fifth and a quarter of northern Michigan was transformed into
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-188 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
conditions favoring the establishment of aspen. In contrast to the pre-1930s situation, wildfire currently plays a minor role in the regeneration ecology of aspen. Fire prevention and suppression efforts have reduced the millions of acres burned before and after the turn of the 20th century to a negligible amount. Thus, aspen’s future in the northern Lake States depends on continued harvesting of mature stands to promote sucker regrowth.
The aspen-birch forest type has declined in Michigan over the past 70 years. However, the baseline for these losses was established immediately following a time and a human-caused series of disturbances with no historical precedent. Based on Forest Inventory Analysis forest surveys the acreage in aspen-birch declined by 31 percent between 1935 and 2001. The decrease between 1935 and 1966 was relatively constant, about 0.2 percent per year. Between 1966 and 1980, this rate increased seven-fold to 1.4 percent per year, dropping to 1.0 percent per year between 1980 and 1993. However, between 1993 and 2001, the aspen-birch acreage increased by approximately 300,000 acres, 9 percent, or about 1.0 percent per year (Leatherberry et al. 2003).
In the long term, intensive management/disturbance will be required to maintain or expand aspen-birch area. Otherwise, the decline in the aspen-birch forest type will continue, particularly on unmanaged private lands.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Habitat Quantity:
Under Alternative B, the quantity of aspen/birch on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be the same as Alternative A until the end of the first decade (Figure III-12). By the end of the fourth decade, aspen/birch would decline by 23 percent from the current number of acres. By the end of the ninth decade and later, the quantity of aspen/birch would stabilize at approximately 112,000 acres, about 30 percent less than the current condition. Like Alternative A, Alternative B would result in a steady but modest decline in the quantity of ruffed grouse habitat over 100 years.
In Grouse Management Areas, Alternative B, like Alternative A, would maintain a fairly stable quantity of aspen/birch across all decades (Figure III-12). Like Alternative A, approximately 26,672 acres of aspen/birch would exist in Grouse Management Areas by the end of the first decade. At the end of the second decade, this forest type would decline by 13 percent to 23,800 acres. By the end of the fourth decade, aspen/birch would decline by 20 percent from the current condition. By the end of the ninth decade and later, the quantity of aspen/birch would stabilize at approximately 21,532 acres, approximately 22 percent less than in the first decade. Like Alternative A, Alternative B would result in a slight decline in the quantity of ruffed grouse habitat in Grouse Management Areas over 100 years.
The effect of providing potential ginseng habitats has been included within the overall aspen quantity effects analysis. The Huron National Forest projects the conversion of 1,200 acres of aspen/birch to meet species viability needs. Of this total aspen/birch conversion, a significant percentage is from MA 2.1 and could affect aspen management in Grouse Management Areas. However, this conversion has been accounted for in the total aspen/birch acres that would be
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-189 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
available for management. Conversion of aspen for species viability needs on the Manistee National Forest would be approximately 300 acres. This conversion for species viability needs would have a minimal effect when compared to the total aspen losses in Alternative B.
Alternative B would provide additional early successional habitats in jack pine, savannahs and barrens that would benefit ruffed grouse. Changes in riparian management guidelines to the Streamside Management Zone would allow for a substantial amount of aspen to be managed because it is not considered riparian. A complete delineation of riparian and wetland vegetation would not be needed to conduct this analysis. The increased acreage of fire and fuels treatments that encourage native vegetation would also benefit ruffed grouse and its habitat.
Habitat Quality:
For all aspen/birch on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, the effects of Alternative B on ruffed grouse habitat quality would be almost identical as Alternative A when comparing the end of the first and fourth decades (Tables III-14 and III-15). At the end of the ninth decade, Alternative B would result in higher quality grouse habitat than Alternative A (Table III-15).
In Grouse Management Areas, at the end of the first decade, Alternative B would provide the same habitat distribution for the ruffed grouse as Alternative A (Figure III-16). However, at the end of the fourth decade, Alternative B would improve habitat quality in Grouse Management Areas by providing approximately two times more brood cover than what is presently available, but there would be less brood cover under this alternative compared to Alternative A (Table III- 15). At the end of the fourth decade, Alternative B would provide the best balance of ruffed grouse cover of all alternatives. This alternative would improve habitat quality by providing an improved distribution of age classes for spring/fall cover, but it would provide less brood and winter/nesting cover (Figure III-17). By the end of the ninth decade, Alternative B would provide a balanced age class distribution (Figure III-18).
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Habitat Quantity:
Under Alternative C, the quantity of aspen/birch on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be the same as Alternatives A and B until the end of the second decade (Figure III-12). By the end of the fourth decade, the aspen/birch type would decline by 23 percent from the first current available acres, more than Alternatives A and B. In the end of the ninth decade and later, the quantity of aspen/birch would be substantially lower than Alternatives A and B. The quantity of aspen/birch would stabilize at about 64,360 acres, approximately 60 percent less than in the first decade. Thus, Alternative C would result in a sharp decline in the quantity of ruffed grouse habitat over 100 years.
In Grouse Management Areas, Alternative C, like Alternatives A and B, would maintain a fairly stable quantity of aspen/birch across all decades (Figure III-12). Like Alternatives A and B, approximately 27,336 acres of aspen/birch would exist in Grouse Management Areas by the end of the first decade. Under Alternative C, this forest type would not substantially decline by the
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-190 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
end of the second decade. By the end of the fourth decade, the aspen/birch type would decline by 1 percent from the current level. At the end of the ninth decade and later, the quantity of aspen/birch would stabilize at approximately 26,535 acres, approximately 3 percent less than is currently available. Like Alternative A and B, Alternative C would result in a slight decline in the quantity of ruffed grouse habitat in Grouse Management Areas over 100 years. However, of all alternatives, Alternative C would result in the largest amount of aspen in Grouse Management Areas.
The effect of providing potential ginseng habitats has been included within the overall aspen quantity effects analysis. The Huron National Forest projects the conversion of 1,200 acres of aspen/birch to meet species viability needs. Of this total of aspen/birch conversion, a significant percentage is from MA 2.1 and could affect aspen management in Grouse Management Areas. However, this conversion has been accounted for in the total aspen/birch acres that would be available for management. Conversion of aspen for viability needs on the Manistee National Forest would be approximately 300 acres. This conversion for species viability would have a minimal effect when compared to the total aspen losses in Alternative C.
Alternative C also provides additional early successional habitats in jack pine, savannahs and barrens that would provide some additional acres of habitats that would benefit ruffed grouse but it creates this habitat at a faster rate than Alternative B. Changes in riparian management guidelines to the Streamside Management Zone would allow for a substantial amount of aspen to be managed because it is not considered riparian. A complete delineation of riparian and wetland vegetation would not be needed to conduct this analysis. The increased acreage of fire and fuels treatments that encourage native vegetation would also benefit ruffed grouse and its habitat but it would be 25 percent less than Alternative B.
Habitat Quality:
For all aspen/birch on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alternative C would have a more negative effect on ruffed grouse habitat quality than Alternatives A and B at the end of the first decade (Table III-15). Alternative C would provide substaintially less brood cover than Alternatives A and B. At the end of the fourth decade Alternative C would result in a wide distribution of age classes, maintaining aspen/birch up to 89 years old (Figure III-14). Alternative C would provide quality brood cover and spring/fall cover, but would provide an excessive amount of winter/nesting cover for the ruffed grouse. At the end of the ninth decade, Alternative C would result in an adequate age class distribution and provide high quality ruffed grouse habitat (Figure III-15).
In Grouse Management Areas, Alternative C would provide more brood cover for the ruffed grouse in the second decade than Alternatives A and B (Figure III-16). However, at the end of the fourth decade, Alternative C would provide too little brood cover, too much spring/fall cover, and too little winter/nest cover. Alternative C would improve habitat quality in Grouse Management Areas by providing approximately two times more brood cover than what is presently available. At the end of the ninth decade, Alternative C would provide the best age class distribution, but would still be more heavily weighted toward winter/nest cover (Figure III- 18).
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-191 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A, when combined with past, present and future federal, state, tribal, local or private actions in Michigan, would have negative cumulative effects on the ruffed grouse. This alternative would result in the loss of approximately 7 percent, 11,504 acres of the aspen-birch forest type on the Huron-Manistee National Forests by the end of the first decade. This is approximately 0.3 percent of the aspen in Michigan. By the end of the ninth decade, aspen-birch would decline by 20 percent, 32,000 acres, on the Forests. This is approximately 0.9 percent of the aspen in Michigan. This relatively minor loss of aspen on the Forests would contribute to the long-term state-wide decline in the aspen-birch type, resulting in a relatively minor loss of habitat for the ruffed grouse.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B:
The cumulative effects of Alternative B would be very similar to Alternative A. Alternative B would result in the loss of approximately 31 percent, or 49,413 acres, of the aspen-birch forest type on the Huron-Manistee National Forests over 100 years (Figure III-12). The loss of aspen on the Forests would contribute to the long-term state-wide decline in the aspen-birch type, resulting in the loss of habitat for the ruffed grouse.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative C:
The loss of aspen on the Forests would contribute to the long-term state-wide decline in the aspen-birch type, resulting in a loss of habitat for the ruffed grouse.
Karner Blue Butterfly:
The effects of the alternatives on the Karner blue butterfly are described in detail in the Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species section of this document.
Kirtland’s Warbler:
The effects of the alternatives on the Kirtland’s warbler are described in detail in the Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species section of this document.
Aquatic Management Indicator Species:
Introduction:
There are two aquatic Management Indicator Species: the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). Aquatic Management Indicator Species objectives are:
1. Manage habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native fish species within the National Forests (Planning Area). 2. Provide the amount and quality of habitat necessary to sustain minimum viable populations of selected indicator species. Minimum viable population is the minimum
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-192 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
number and distribution of reproductive individuals required to ensure the species’ continued existence. 3. Sustain the amount and quality of management indicator habitats that represent existing native and desired non-native fish species throughout the Forests.
The following description of the affected environment is condensed from the Water Resources and Riparian section. Please refer to it if more detail is desired.
Both the brook trout and mottled sculpin are found throughout the streams on the Huron- Manistee National Forests based on species distribution maps for the Muskegon River system (O’Neal 1997), Manistee River system (Rozich 1998), and Au Sable River system (Zorn and Sendek 2001). The stream systems that these Management Indicator Species occupy on the Huron-Manistee National Forests are predominated by groundwater recharge resulting in extremely stable flow regimes. These streams are geologically youthful, entrenched into sandy glacial outwash and moraines. Most are relatively low gradient stream systems. Thus, given the low gradient and stable flow regimes, these systems have low stream power and are stable systems with low lateral migration rates. However, due to the predominance of sandy soils within the watershed, streambank erosion potential is high. Sediment transport ability is relatively low due to the low stream power, and once sediment is introduced into the system it takes a relatively long time for it to move through. Streambank erosion has the potential to contribute to the instream sand bedload levels in northern Michigan stream systems (Hansen 1971). While erosion itself is a natural process, it is felt that erosional processes on the river systems of the Huron-Manistee National Forests have been accelerated by historical land uses (Bassett 1988; Verry and Dolloff 2001), leading to elevated sand bedload levels. These levels are adversely affecting aquatic habitat. Hansen et al. (1983) and Alexander and Hansen (1986) demonstrated that relatively small sand bedload concentrations of 80-100 parts per million have an adverse effect on aquatic life through a variety of mechanisms. Unstable sand substrate, severe bank erosion and a lack of large wood are typical of many streams in northern Michigan. Historic logging practices such as the cutting of riparian forests, running massive log drives, using high banks for log rollways, and creating splash dams for the transport of logs downriver had some very deleterious effects on the rivers, much of which is still evident today. The removal of wood to facilitate log drives created a great deal of channel instability. The log drives themselves exacerbated the problem with tremendous forces acting upon the sandy soils found in many riparian areas, resulting in a great deal of accelerated bank erosion. In addition to elevated sand bedload levels from streambank erosion, transportation systems, such as roads, trails and road-stream crossings, are also a major source of sediment on the National Forests. The Forest Service has begun addressing the problem by focusing on improving stream crossings within watersheds with National Forest System lands. There are over 1,100 known stream crossings within the watersheds on the National Forests. Compounding the problem with sedimentation is the fact that present-day levels of instream large wood are lower than historical levels. Evidence based upon historical records and photographs suggests that wood played an important role in the structure and function of the aquatic ecosystems of these watersheds (Bassett 1988; Rozich 1998; Zorn and Sendek 2001). This wood plays an important role as one of the primary channel forming agents.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-193 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Large wood is a vital component of aquatic ecosystems. It provides habitat diversity; cover for fish; habitat for invertebrates, reptiles and other components of the aquatic food chain; adds nutrients to the aquatic system and protects streambanks during high flow events. Current-day levels of large wood in aquatic ecosystems on the Huron-Manistee National Forests are much lower due to: (1) historic removal for log drives; (2) cutting of the historic forest; (3) reduced levels of recruitment from subsequent second growth forests and, (4) cutting to facilitate passage of watercraft.
Watersheds across the Forest are fragmented. Dams on large rivers and smaller impoundments on private lands along with the numerous road stream crossings have resulted in a fragmented aquatic habitat. Impoundments create less desirable habitat for brook trout and mottled sculpin.
Life History:
Much of the following background information on brook trout was taken from Raleigh (1982). Brook trout inhabit small headwater streams, large rivers and inland ponds and lakes. Typical brook trout habitat conditions are those associated with a cold temperate climate; cool spring-fed ground water and moderate precipitation. Optimal riverine habitat is characterized by clear, cold, spring-fed water; a silt-free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas; an approximate 1:1 pool-riffle ratio, with areas of slow, deep water; well vegetated stream banks; abundant instream cover and relatively stable water flow.
Mottled sculpins inhabit small, clear streams, where they occupy both riffle and pools over sand, gravel, boulders or limestone. Mottled sculpins favor clear water with some form of shelter to use as hiding cover (Phillip et al. 2002). They are generally 3 to 4 inches in length. This bottom dwelling species has often been called a trout indicator, and it is a fact that, where sculpin populations exist, the water generally holds trout populations as well (Becker 1983).
Effects Common to all Alternatives:
The effects of the proposed and probable land use practices were evaluated for the aquatic management indicator species, such as brook trout and mottled sculpin. These same effects can be extrapolated to other species of interest such as brown and rainbow trout; Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead, as well as the aquatic species of concern. (Refer to both the “Water Resources and Riparian” and “Species of Concern” sections for more details).
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
The management of riparian - stream habitat would have positive effects on brook trout and mottled sculpin and the habitats they occupy. Stream management activities such as maintenance of instream sediment basins are a demonstrated technique for intercepting and removing high in- stream sand bedload and restoring aquatic habitat in northern Michigan stream systems (Hansen et al. 1983; Alexander and Hansen 1986). Stabilization of eroding streambanks would also reduce sediment delivery, resulting in lowered sand bedload. Recreational access improvements within riparian corridors of heavily fished streams would reduce sediment delivery, thereby also
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-194 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
protecting adjacent riverine habitat for aquatic species of concern. Ultimately, stream channels would become narrower, the substrate coarser and the overall channel shape more complex.
Implementation of Standards and Guidelines for riparian and stream ecosystems would protect brook trout and mottled sculpin habitat from other land use activities. The emphasis on old- growth management in the riparian corridor would also contribute to this protection. Riparian forests are moving toward late seral stages, which will ultimately lead to increased recruitment of large wood to the adjacent stream systems. This would lead to increased hydraulic and aquatic habitat diversity. Placement of large wood would accelerate the recovery of aquatic habitat. Removal of large wood from rivers to enhance recreational opportunities, however, would reduce the quality of habitat for brook trout and sculpin.
Improvement of transportation systems and decommissioning of certain roads that are degrading riparian and stream habitat would lead to a reduction in sediment and other non-point sources of pollution improving the habitat quality. Runoff that had been directly delivered to stream systems would now be filtered through soils and riparian areas. This would also improve stream water temperatures for brook trout and sculpin by allowing water to cool before entering the streams.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Direct and indirect effects for Alternatives B and C would be similar to Alternative A with the exception of effects related to vegetation within the riparian corridor. Conservation measures for riparian-dependent sensitive species, for example, golden-winged warbler, call for approximately 5,000 acres of early successional habitat within the riparian corridor on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Based on a Forest-wide Geographical Information System analysis, there are currently 59,500 acres of riparian habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Of this, 35,500 acres, or 60 percent, are within a Streamside Management Zone. Approximately 8 percent of the riparian habitat in an early successional habitat state would be needed to provide for the needs of these other riparian- dependent species. Recruitment rates for large wood adjacent to aquatic ecosystems would be slightly less under these alternatives compared to Alternative A. However, this is not felt to be significant as early successional habitat creation within the riparian corridor is an ongoing process through natural disturbances. In other words, there is always some level of early successional habitat occurring within riparian corridors even under an old-growth predominated regime. Thus, the effects on aquatic management indicator species would be minimal.
It should be noted that active management for early successional habitat within steamside management zones would only occur when natural processes were not providing adequate amounts of this habitat type to meet the needs of other riparian-dependent sensitive wildlife species. A Forest- wide Geographical Information System analysis of vegetation stand data was conducted for the Streamside Management Zone. Streamside Management Zones in the state’s Best Management Practices (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1994) are defined as areas directly adjacent to streams and water. Provisions within the Streamside Management Zone typically contain sediment filter strips, a base shade level, restrictions on ground disturbance, and protection of streambank and streambeds. Designated old growth would comprise 40 percent, or 14,000 acres, of the total acreage in the Streamside Management Zone. Of the remaining 60 percent, or 21,500 acres, approximately
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-195 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
30 percent, or 6,100 acres, would be in aspen/birch, lowland brush and brush/shrub vegetation types. It is presumed that natural disturbance processes within these stands, and the designated old-growth’s other vegetation types within the Streamside Management Zone, would make some contributions to the early successional habitat needs of other species of concern within riparian corridors.
Standards and Guidelines for riparian corridors state that the Forest Service would allow these successional processes to continue without interference, even if they occur within designated old growth. Effects on needs for early successional habitat would be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Such site-specific analysis would include a cumulative analysis of all lands, not just National Forest System lands. If a determination indicated that early successional habitat management within the riparian corridor was warranted, the implementation of Best Management Practices within the 100- foot Streamside Management Zone would ensure protection of habitat for the aquatic management indicator species. Specifically, the following Best Management Practices would pertain to early successional habitat management within the Streamside Management Zone to ensure that water quality and aquatic habitat integrity would be maintained:
• Harvesting/cutting specifications would be modified to retain a sufficient number of trees to maintain shading to the stream and to leave a stable, undisturbed forest floor.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The cumulative effects area follows the Forest Service protocol for watershed analysis and includes all land within 5th level watersheds across the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Figure III-1). Wholesale logging that began in the 1840s cleared much of the landscape, resulting in in- channel stream erosion, accelerated streambank erosion and sedimentation. River and stream cleaning–removal of wood and rocks–splash damming and log rafting furthered the accumulation of land use impacts to streams in Northern Michigan. Catastrophic fire followed the original logging (Verry 2001). Sediment delivery exceeded the ability of the systems to transport it, resulting in aggradation–build-up of instream sand bedload. Much of this bedload is still present today (Bassett 1988). While riparian forests have largely recovered, instream levels of large wood are still depressed as recruitment from second growth forests is far less than from old-growth forests that once prevailed upon the landscape. Cutting of instream wood to facilitate recreational watercraft also contributes to these depressed levels.
Introduction of desirable non-native species such as brown trout, steelhead, rainbow trout and salmon have likely contributed to the decline of brook trout through direct competition and habitat partitioning across the forest. The Michigan Department of National Resources continues to stock these non-native desirable species in these watersheds. As discussed in direct and indirect effects, dams, other small impoundments and transportation systems both on and off the forest have fragmented aquatic habitat and have also likely contributed to the decline of brook trout across the forest.
Alternative A would have beneficial cumulative effects by reducing sand bedload, improving water quality, restoring degraded aquatic habitat and reconnecting disjunct habitat. Although mixed ownership of lands and high costs of restoration on a watershed scale pose problems to overall watershed health, multi-agency partnerships can break down these barriers and improve
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-196 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources overall watershed health. The Forest Service is an active partner in a number of ongoing watershed restoration partnerships. The formation and direction of such partnerships however is beyond the jurisdictional authority of the Forest Service.
Private land development within forested watersheds poses one of the greatest challenges to maintenance of watershed health as larger tracts of lands are fragmented into smaller parcels. Conversion of forested habitat to open-land condition, or with vegetation less than 15 years in age, can contribute to increasing peak, channel-forming flows. When open lands and young-aged forestland exceed 66 percent of a previously forested basin, channel forming flows have the potential to double or triple in size (Verry 1986; Verry 2000), thus leading to accelerated instream erosion. If the open lands are roads or other urbanization, even less area should be in open lands or young-aged forestland. While private land development is beyond the authority of the Forest Service, watershed partnerships that promote wise land use can be used as a mechanism to maintain watershed health, including protection of riparian and aquatic habitat.
Barriers to migration and loss of habitat from the hydro-electric dams or low-head dams on lands within the watersheds of the Huron-Manistee National Forests are impediments to the health of the management indicator species. However, removal of these barriers and/or establishment of fish passage could enable migrations of management indicator species to viable spawning and rearing habitats in the river systems that are currently fragmented. Removal of dams or passage of fish at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-licensed hydroelectric dams on these rivers is under the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Passage is prescribed by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act. Regulations of dams on private property are beyond the jurisdictional control of the Forest Service; that jurisdiction falls to the State of Michigan.
Some watersheds on the Huron-Manistee National Forests have land that was extensively drained–tiled and ditched agricultural or wet land; for example, the Beaver Creek watershed within the Pere Marquette River watershed. Verry (1988) reported that when drained land exceeded one-third of the basin, bankful flows doubled. This has negative effects on management indicator species in two ways: (1) direct loss of habitat as it is usually headwater streams that are converted into drains and (2) adverse changes to downstream channel morphology due to the increased channel forming flows. The establishment and administration of these historic drains are outside of the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.
While standards and guidelines for Off-Highway Vehicle trails on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would call for locating trails outside of riparian areas wherever possible and state law prescribes to a “closed unless posted open” policy for the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, illegal Off-Highway Vehicle use within riparian corridors has the potential to adversely affect management indicator species habitat through the introduction of sediment. When such activity occurs upstream on lands other than National Forest ownership, the adverse effects ultimately get transported downstream to National Forest management indicator species habitat. However, such upstream activity is beyond the authority of the Forest Service to regulate. Once again, watershed partnerships that promote wise land use will serve as the best mechanism to address such issues.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-197 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Deer and Wildlife Emphasis Areas:
The existing Forests Plan allocated management emphasis areas in which activities enhance and increase the variety of wildlife habitats with an emphasis given to managing for deer, grouse, and wildlife. The objectives of Deer Emphasis Areas are to provide critical winter foraging needs and thermal cover through active management. The objectives of Wildlife Emphasis Areas are to provide habitat and to protect isolated, essential areas for endangered, threatened, or sensitive species having specific or unique needs. There are other opportunities outside of the emphasis areas to manage for deer and wildlife habitat, but this is not the primary objective for these areas.
Wildlife diversity and populations are provided for by maintaining the short-rotation timber species, for example, hardwoods, aspen and pines; increasing early successional age classes; maintaining and improving openings and designating and identifying forested stands to be maintained as over-mature or old growth. The various wetland and riparian communities intermixed within these diverse forested and non-forested vegetation types also provide for wildlife diversity and populations. Presently, there are few stands that exhibit over-mature or old-growth conditions, and wildlife species associated with these habitat conditions are low in number. Some small blocks are managed to protect isolated, essential areas for endangered, threatened or sensitive species.
Human activities in the emphasis areas are evident and the interaction among different user groups is moderate. Past land management practices such as timber harvests, tree planting and wildlife opening maintenance are evident throughout the areas. There are roads and trails open to public uses that provide access to forest products, recreational activities and other management activities. Facilities, structures, utility corridors and mineral exploration and development are also evident throughout these areas. Wildlife management activities are typically coordinated with management of adjacent non-National Forest System land. Activities tied to wildlife use make up almost half of the recreational use on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (see the Supply/Demand Assessment and Planning Record). Of these recreational uses, hunting makes up a large portion of the use, and deer are one of the most important game species.
A primary objective of vegetative management in the Deer Emphasis Areas is to increase forage for white-tailed deer through early successional habitat management immediately adjacent to optimal thermal cover. Large areas of lowland conifer riparian habitat, including Deer Emphasis Areas, became a part of the of the old-growth design. Objectives and Standards and Guidelines for old growth prevent management of early successional habitat. While Deer Emphasis Area within old growth would continue to provide thermal cover, they can no longer be managed to provide early successional habitat. There are currently 37,580 acres within the Huron-Manistee National Forests that are actively managed as Deer Emphasis Areas. These areas occur in Management Areas 4.2D, 4.3D and 6.2D.
Vegetative management practices in Wildlife Emphasis Areas stress improving age-class diversity and modifying wetland composition to promote greater wildlife and habitat diversity. Standard and intensive vegetative management treatments can occur in these areas. There are
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-198 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
currently 33,911 acres within the Huron-Manistee National Forests that are actively managed as Wildlife Emphasis Areas. These areas occur in Management Areas 2.1W, 4.2W and 4.3W.
Analysis Area:
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is National Forest System lands within the proclamation boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The cumulative effects analysis areas are the proclamation boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forests, including public and private land. These areas were chosen because they encompass the full extent of habitat in deer and wildlife emphasis areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that could be impacted through federal and non-federal management actions.
Deer Emphasis Areas:
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Where Deer Emphasis Areas occur in the old-growth design, management potential would be reduced in all alternatives due to the Standards and Guidelines for old growth. Management of these areas would be limited to reducing the human influence and promoting late seral stages and, therefore, would not likely provide optimal foraging habitat adjacent to thermal cover for deer. Existing thermal cover would not be influenced by old-growth designation; however, there would be limited opportunities to regenerate lowland conifer. Furthermore, under Alternative A, management in riparian and wetland areas would be restricted to promoting late seral stages. This restriction would only apply to Alternative A. Under Alternatives B and C, there would be no management within a 100-foot Streamside Management Zone adjacent to water bodies.
Table III-16. Deer Emphasis Area: Acres and Percents Available for Management by Alternative Percent Percent Percent Deer Alternative of Deer Alternative of Deer Alternative of Deer Emphasis A (acres) Emphasis B (acres) Emphasis C (acres) Emphasis Area Area Area Area Open to 18,963 50% 14,033 58% 5,697 38% Management Restricted 18,617 50% 10,018 42% 9,476 62% (OG) Total 37,580 24,051 15,173
Under Alternative A, approximately 50 percent of Deer Emphasis Area acres would be within designated old growth, approximately 42 percent of the acres under Alternative B, and approximately 62 percent under Alternative C (Table III-16). Under Alternative A, there would be more opportunities available to meet the needs of white-tailed deer in Deer Emphasis Areas than in Alternatives B and C. While Alternative B would increase the percentage of manageable acres in Deer Emphasis Areas, the total number of manageable acres would be greatly reduced compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would reduce both the percentage and number of
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-199 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
manageable acres in Deer Emphasis Areas compared to Alternatives A and B (Table III-16).
Alternative A would establish Deer Emphasis Areas in Management Areas 4.2 and 4.3, similar to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended. Alternatives B and C would re-designate Management Areas and change some Management Area boundaries. Under Alternative B, approximately 5,207 acres would be designated as Deer Emphasis Areas in Management Area 6.2D, while the acres would be designated within Management Area 6.1D in Alternative C. Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 6.2D would not limit management for early successional habitat. Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 6.1 would allow for 50 acres of early successional habitat to be managed per decade. This would result in a reduction in foraging opportunities for deer and would not provide for optimal thermal cover. However, Alternatives B and C would have an overall net reduction in manageable acres within Deer Emphasis Areas: Alternative B would result in a 26 percent reduction and Alternative C, a 70 percent reduction, compared to Alternative A.
The re-designation of former Deer Emphasis Areas to Management Areas 4.2KW, Kirtland’s Warbler Management Area, 6.1, Semiprimitive Nonmotorized and 9.1, Candidate Research Natural Areas, would make management specifically for deer within these areas unlikely. Management direction for 4.2KW under Alternatives B and C would result in a reduction in quality forage for deer and would not provide for optimal thermal cover. It is likely that Deer Emphasis Areas re-designated as 9.1, Candidate Research Natural Areas, were already part of the old-growth design and, therefore, would not have been actively managed for early successional species. Re-designation of the Deer Emphasis Areas to other Management Areas would not limit early successional habitat management and, therefore, would not limit the ability to continue to manage for deer habitat requirements. Overall, these alternatives would have a potential long- term effect on deer populations, which could affect recreational activities such as hunting and wildlife viewing.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Prior to settlement, the deer herd in Michigan was primarily located in the southern Lower Peninsula. Logging activity and subsequent wildfires removed timber from the northern Lower Peninsula. Over time, this area revegetated to young forests, brush and openings, and deer numbers increased dramatically in the area which is now the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Management of deer populations has been regulated by the State of Michigan through licensing since 1904. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources utilizes deer range improvement projects for the purpose of improving and maintaining habitat for deer.
Currently, thermal cover and associated deer yards are largely unmanaged on private lands. Management for white-tailed deer on private lands primarily focuses on foraging habitat. Lands managed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources within the Forests’ proclamation boundary are managed for deer in some areas, but are smaller in size than that available on the Forests. The cumulative effects of changes in Deer Emphasis Areas under all three alternatives, when combined with management, or the lack of, on private and state lands, would likely affect local numbers of deer, but would not affect populations within the cumulative effects analysis area. Alternatives B and C would have a greater cumulative effect on local deer numbers than
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-200 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Alternative A, since both alternatives would reduce the number of acres available in Deer Emphasis Areas on the Forests. As a result, opportunities tied to wildlife use, such as hunting and wildlife viewing, may be decreased.
Wildlife Emphasis Areas:
Wildlife populations and diversity in northern Lower Michigan have largely recovered from logging and deforestation of the late 1800s. Wildlife on National Forest System lands are managed to different intensities. While some species are still considered rare, others have become more common and no longer require the level of protection needed in the past. Although the Wildlife Emphasis Areas are managed primarily to provide habitat for the rarer species, often listed as federally endangered, threatened or sensitive, habitat management in these areas also benefits the more common species as well.
Under Alternative A, 33,911 acres would be designated as Wildlife Emphasis Areas. Of these acres, approximately 11,214, or 33 percent, would be part of the old-growth design (Table III- 17). These Wildlife Emphasis Areas would provide habitat for wildlife species associated with a diversity of forest types, early successional habitat, wetlands, over-mature and old-growth communities.
Table III-17. Acres and Percents of Wildlife Emphasis Areas Available for Management by Alternative. Percent Percent Percent Wildlife of of of Alternative Alternative Alternative Emphasis Wildlife Wildlife Wildlife A (acres) B (acres) C (acres) Area Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis Area Area Area Open to 22,697 67% 25,225 70% 25,068 70% Management Restricted 11,214 33% 10,676 30% 10,833 30% (OG) Total 33,911 35,901 35,901
Under Alternatives B and C, the acres previously designated as Wildlife Emphasis Areas would change. Some of the acres would remain in Wildlife Emphasis Areas; some would be taken out of Wildlife Emphasis Area designation; and some would be taken out of other designations and added to Wildlife Emphasis Areas. The following table describes these changes.
Table III-18. Wildlife Emphasis Areas – Acres by Alternative. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
(acres) (acres) (acres) Total Wildlife Emphasis Area Acres 33,911 35,901 35,901
A total of 35,901 acres would be designated as Wildlife Emphasis Areas under both Alternatives B and C (Table III-18). This would result in a slight increase in Wildlife Emphasis Area acres
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-201 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
overall. Of these acres, approximately 30 percent would also be part of the old-growth design (Table III-17). This change would primarily have beneficial effects at the local level by increasing the diversity and availability of habitats for wildlife but would likely have minimal to no effects on wildlife populations and diversity across the Forests.
Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives:
Wildlife populations in the cumulative effects analysis area have largely recovered from logging and deforestation of the late 1800s. Wildlife populations on private, state and National Forest System lands within the proclamation boundaries are managed to different intensities. While some species are still considered rare, others have become more common and no longer require the level of protection needed in the past. Alternative A would have minimal cumlative effects on wildlife populations within the cumulative effects analysis area since the alternative would not change the Forest’s current acres of Wildlife Emphasis Areas. Alternatives B and C would have an overall beneficial cumulative effect on wildlife populations by increasing the total number of acres, such as habitat, in Wildlife Emphasis Areas on the Forests. When considered with the continued changes in land use in the private sector that result in the loss and/or degradation of wildlife habitat within the effects area, the Forests’ Wildlife Emphasis Areas increase in importance and are likely to influence wildlife populations into the foreseeable future.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-202 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Effects on Riparian Areas and Wetlands:
Riparian Areas:
The Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas as written for Alternative A are depicted in Figure III-19. The bullet statements provide a brief summary of the management direction from the Standards and Guidelines.
• Riparian areas are managed for late seral stages. • Streamside Management Zone encompasses wetlands.
Figure III-19. Streamside Management Zones under Standards and Guidelines for Alternative A.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Stream management activities such as maintenance of instream sediment basins are a demonstrated technique for intercepting and removing high instream sand bedload, and restoring aquatic habitat in northern Michigan stream systems (Hansen et al. 1983; Alexander and Hansen 1986). Stabilization of eroding streambanks would also reduce sediment delivery, resulting in lowered sand bedload. Stabilization of eroding streambanks may, however, result in a change in vegetative community type depending upon selection of stabilization materials. Ultimately, stream channels would become narrower, the substrate coarser, and the overall channel morphology more complex creating habitat conditions more favorable for species of concern.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-203 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Recreational access improvements within riparian corridors of heavily fished streams would reduce sediment delivery, thereby also protecting adjacent riverine habitat for aquatic species of concern. Such improvements may also help reduce trampling of vegetation and soil compaction in surrounding riparian habitats.
Lake management activities such as shoreline stabilization, restoration of degraded riparian areas from recreation use and improvement of nearshore cover areas would contribute to the protection of lake habitat by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs and improving aquatic habitat.
Spread of non-native invasive species may threaten the viability of native and desirable non- native riparian and aquatic plant communities on the Forests. For example, plants such as purple loosestrife, aquatic species such as zebra mussels and insects like emerald ash borer have the ability to drastically alter the riparian environment by reducing biodiversity through competition and allelopathy. Because there would be limited non-native invasive species control under this alternative, the number of non-native invasive species would continue to increase as well as the size and number of areas infested. Access roads may serve as a pathway for invasive species, effectively displacing native species.
Implementation of the Standards and Guidelines for riparian and stream ecosystems would provide protection from land use activities. Under Alternative A, direct and indirect impacts to riparian habitats would be limited due to: 1) the use of Best Management Practices which prescribe techniques necessary to maintain the high quality water normally associated with forest land and limit impacts from soil and hydrologic disturbance and 2) the direction that all riparian vegetation would be managed for late seral stages. Management for late seral stages would effectively limit timber harvest activities in forested wetland/riparian areas, allowing for earlier stages in wetland succession to continue to move towards a wet forest condition. Within these more open stands, tree growth would be accelerated and the size of large wood would increase.
The emphasis on old-growth management in the riparian corridor would contribute to protection of riparian habitats. Riparian forests are moving towards late seral stages, which ultimately lead to increased recruitment of large wood into the adjacent aquatic systems, both streams and lakes, thereby increasing hydraulic and aquatic habitat diversity. The placement of large wood under this alternative would accelerate the recovery of aquatic habitat.
Wildfire suppression would take place in riparian areas resulting in soil disturbance, compaction, erosion, sedimentation and changes to the vegetative community. As with other activities in riparian areas, Best Management Practices and Standards and Guidelines would be in place to help reduce the effects of wildfire suppression efforts. Wildland fire suppression interrupts an important natural disturbance process ultimately affecting successional pathways. Although the riparian areas burned relatively infrequently, probably only in droughty conditions, prescribed fire could be used to emulate these occasional wild fire effects.
Recreational activities can result in soil compaction, increased erosion, disturbance to riparian wildlife and a change in vegetative cover. Recreational activities such as boating may have negative indirect effects on aquatic plant habitat and wildlife due to: disruption of quiet waters
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-204 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
required by some species; the potential for increased introduction of aquatic invasive plant species and petroleum spills that could potentially reduce water quality.
Improvement of transportation systems and decommissioning of certain roads that are degrading riparian and aquatic habitat would also affect these habitats through the reduction in sediment delivery; reduction of corridors for non-native invasive species spread and reduction in impacts from human effects such as trampling of vegetation, soil compaction and soil rutting, especially when viewed across watersheds.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The Standards and Guidelines for riparian areas as written for Alternatives B and C are depicted in Figure III-20. The bullet statements provide a brief summary of the management direction from the Standards and Guidelines:
• Streamside Management Zone managed for late seral stages. • Streamside Management Zone does not go around wetlands. • Provision for Species Viability Evaluation needs in riparian area.
The direct and indirect effects analysis area is National Forest System lands within the 5th level watershed of the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Figure III-1).
Management of stream and lake habitats under Alternatives B and C would have the same direct and indirect effects as in Alternative A, with the exceptions discussed below.
Under Alternatives B and C, a framework would be provided for addressing the infestation and spread of non-native invasive species. This would have a positive indirect impact on the habitat through encouragement of a comprehensive analysis and the use of a variety of management activities to address invasive threats to riparian and aquatic habitats. It is expected, however, that invasive species would continue to contribute to a decline in habitat quality as treatment would not be economically feasible for all non-native invasive species on all of the Forests acreage.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-205 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-20. Streamside Management Zone Location for Alternatives B and C.
Conservation measures for riparian dependent species of concern specify that 5,000 acres of shrub/scrub habitat would be provided within the riparian corridors on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Additional acreages of early- to mid-successional habitat in marsh, riparian, lowland hardwood and floodplain communities would be needed for other species of concern. Based on a Forest-wide Geographical Information System analysis, there are currently 59,500 acres of riparian habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Of this, 35,500 acres, or 60 percent, are within a Streamside Management Zone. Thus, approximately 8 percent of the riparian habitat would need to be in an early successional habitat state to provide for the needs of these other riparian-dependent species. The recruitment rates for large wood to adjacent aquatic systems would be slightly less under these alternatives compared to Alternative A. However, the effects are expected to be negligible as early successional habitat creation within the riparian corridor through natural disturbance processes is an ongoing event. The Forest Service would not interfere with these processes when they occur, even in designated old-growth areas.
Active management for early successional habitat within riparian corridors would only occur when natural disturbances processes were not providing adequate amounts of this habitat type within the riparian corridor to meet the needs of riparian-dependent sensitive species. A Forest-wide Geographical Information System analysis of forest vegetation was conducted for Streamside Management Zones. Designated old growth comprises 40 percent, or about 14,000 acres, of the total acreage in Streamside Management Zones. Of the remaining 60 percent, or about 21,000 acres, approximately 30 percent, or about 6,000 acres, is in aspen/birch, lowland brush and brush/shrub vegetation types. It is presumed that natural disturbance processes within these forested stands, and the designated old-growth’s other vegetation types within the Streamside Management Zones, would contribute to the early-successional habitat needs of species of concern within riparian corridors. Proposed Standards and Guidelines for riparian corridors state that the Forest Service would allow these successional processes to continue without interference, unless they pose a threat to public health and safety.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-206 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Determining the early successional habitat needs within the riparian corridor would be done on a site- specific basis, with the 6th level watershed serving as the analysis unit. The site-specific analysis normally would include a cumulative analysis of all lands within the 6th level watershed, not just National Forest System lands. If a determination indicated that early successional habitat management within the riparian corridor was warranted, the implementation of Best Management Practices (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1994) within the 100-foot Streamside Management Zone ensures the protection of habitat for the aquatic species of concern. Specifically, the following Best Management Practice would pertain to early successional habitat management within the Streamside Management Zones to ensure that water quality and riparian and aquatic habitat integrity would be maintained:
• In general, harvesting specifications would be modified to retain a sufficient number of trees to maintain shading to the stream and to leave a stable, undisturbed forest floor.
Under Alternatives B and C, late seral stages will be managed in the Streamside Management Zones. This would be a change from Alternative A which would require management for late seral stages for all riparian vegetation. Thus, while Best Management Practices would be implemented for riparian vegetation, timber harvest may occur in riparian forested communities. This would potentially cause changes in vegetative structure and composition and may affect riparian functions, such as filtering of sediments and contribution of nutrients and large wood to aquatic systems.
Under these alternatives, an additional 68,000 acres of barrens habitat would be restored on the Forests. It is expected that this action would result in an increase in deer herbivory in areas of close proximity to restored barrens habitat. This impact would be expected to be greater in these areas than under Alternative A, as there would be an increased risk of erosion from the surface of the riparian area. Barrens in close association with riparian area would benefit species that use both habitat types, such as the eastern massasauga.
Prescribed burning would be expected to increase, providing a net benefit to those riparian areas with a fire-dependent regime. It is not known, however, how much of the increase in burn management acres would occur in areas with riparian habitats. Proposed Standards and Guidelines would call for the use of natural firebreaks such as streams where possible. This would reduce potential erosion hazards but may result in a short-term increase in nutrients to the water course.
Alternatives B and C would provide direction to “review and analyze proposed activities or increases in human uses on lakes and rivers or in riparian areas that would alter riparian or aquatic habitats or affect the natural hydrology or nutrient levels to determine the potential effects on endangered, threatened, and sensitive species….” The alternatives would also provide direction to “design management activities adjacent to lakes, streams and wetlands to maintain streambank and shoreline stability,” which would provide the positive indirect benefit of maintaining shoreline physical characteristics. Otherwise, effects from recreational uses would be expected to be similar to those under Alternative A.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-207 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
The direct and indirect effects of improvement of transportation systems and decommissioning of certain roads would be the same as those for Alternative A.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects area follows the Forest Service protocol for watershed analysis and includes all land within 5th level watersheds across the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Figure III-1).
Many waterways within the watershed have control structures, such as dams and water impoundments. These structures have reduced or eliminated periodic flooding and/or increased the water temperature. Seasonality of flooding is a factor important to reproductive success of some riparian species (Stanturf et al. 2001). The lack of flooding affects riparian marshes and floodplain swamps by changing the area’s species composition. The downstream effect of water temperature increases are diminished growth rate, survival and recruitment of cold water species such as trout.
Increases in human population, visitor use and private land development within forested watersheds poses one of the greatest challenges to maintenance of watershed health as larger tracts of lands are fragmented into smaller parcels and the watersheds are hardened through development. Conversion of forested habitat to open-land condition, or with vegetation less than 15 years in age, contributes to increasing peak, channel-forming flows. When open lands, including agriculture and urban development, and young-aged forestland exceed 66 percent of a previously forested basin, channel forming flows have the potential to double or triple in size (Verry 1986), thus leading to accelerated instream erosion (Verry and Dolloff 2001). While private land development is beyond the authority of the Forest Service, watershed partnerships that promote wise land use can be used as a mechanism to maintain watershed health, including protection of riparian and aquatic habitat.
Development of private lands on lakes within the Forest’s proclamation boundaries increases turbidity and reduces aquatic vegetation in nearshore areas. Herbicide treatments of aquatic vegetation adjacent to private land may also degrade potential habitat if it is not coordinated with aquatic habitat management objectives of adjacent National Forest System lands. Aquatic vegetation control is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Shoreline development on private lands can also contribute to a decline in water quality due to loss of a natural vegetative landscape; increased delivery of nutrients, chemicals and sediments; spread of invasive plants and impacts from foot use and motorized equipment. Motorized boat use, as well as water quality permits, and issues are under the jurisdiction of the State of Michigan. Plant and animal species associated with riparian areas will continue to decline as a result of urbanization across the Forests.
The mixed ownership of lands and high costs of restoration on a watershed scale pose problems to improving overall watershed health. Multi-organizations and agency partnerships in which the Forest Service participates would be expected to improve watershed health.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-208 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The cumulative effects area follows the Forest Service protocol for watershed analysis and includes all land within 5th level watersheds across the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Figure III-1).
Implementation of Alternatives B and C would have beneficial cumulative effects for the riparian and aquatic habitat similar to those in Alternative A. The cumulative effects of private land development within forested watersheds and the development on private lands on lakes within the National Forests would be the same as Alternative A.
Wetlands:
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Under Alternative A, direct and indirect effects to wetland habitats would be limited due to: 1) the required use of Best Management Practices which prescribe techniques necessary to maintain the high quality of water normally associated with forest land. Best Management Practices minimize impacts to wetlands from soil and hydrologic disturbance; and 2) the direction that all riparian vegetation, including wetlands, would be managed for late seral stages. Effects of the Forests’ activities would be short term and localized. Management for late seral stages would effectively preclude timber harvest activities in forested wetland areas, allowing for earlier stages in wetland succession to continue to move toward a wet forest condition.
In wetland habitats, recreational activities such as camping, hiking and unmanaged off-road motorizing may have negative direct and indirect effects on habitat quality due to trampling, crushing, soil rutting and the introduction and spread of invasive plant species.
Road closure activities could occur when resource damage is observed. Indirect effects would occur when roads were closed to prevent or eliminate impacts of unmanaged vehicle use close to or in wetland areas. These effects may reduce compaction, soil erosion, stream sedimentation and spread of invasive plants.
As discussed under Alternative A’s effects for riparian habitats, Alternative A would not present a plan for effectively addressing non-native invasive species, which drastically alter the wetland plant environment by reducing biodiversity through competition and allelopathy.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
In these alternatives, to emulate natural disturbances such as fire on outwash plains and sandy hills, the Forests would not be required to maintain a 100-foot Streamside Management Zone around wetlands, and could manage for early successional habitat to meet Species Viability Evaluation needs. However, guidelines would limit the impacts of many forest activities in wetlands and would not normally result in a change in soils or hydrologic conditions.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-209 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Conservation measures for riparian-dependent species of concern specify that 5,000 acres of shrub/scrub habitat would be provided within the riparian corridors on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Additional acreages of early- to mid-successional habitat in marsh, riparian, lowland hardwood, and floodplain communities would be needed for other species of concern, for example, eastern massasauga, northern harrier and/or American bittern. The acres managed for early successional habitat would occur across the Forests and would be planned in consideration of the habitat needs of sensitive plant species that require late successional habitats. These alternatives would also allow for the management of shallow water emergent wetland complexes of 250 acres or greater.
Standards and Guidelines for Alternatives B and C emphasize management for shallow water emergent wetlands in patches of 24 acres or larger where needed to meet species viability concerns. If shallow water emergent wetland habitat is provided by restoring previously drained wetlands, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects would be positive as there would be a net gain of wetlands on the Forests. If the hydrology of an existing wetland is altered to provide emergent wetland habitat, effects could be either positive or negative to the biological components of the wetland, plants and animals, and would require site-specific analysis.
Before implementation, wetland areas would be surveyed for sensitive species and all activities would follow the state’s Best Management Practices during implementation. While this would result in a potential increase in management activities in wetland habitats, it is expected that this would have a negligible effect. Threatened, endangered and sensitive species, such as ladies tresses, and wetland communities, such as coastal plain marshes, cedar swamps and northern fens, would be protected.
Following site-specific review, wildlife habitat improvements such as impoundment construction and management; pothole construction and level ditching would be permitted in wetlands on a limited basis to meet species needs. Depending on the depth of the impoundment, brush and sedges may be reduced or replaced with aquatic or emergent plant communities. Periodic drawdowns of the impoundments could have impacts on fish and aquatic species, such as changing from cold water stream species to warm water lake species and the possible loss of downstream trout habitat. Soils would be inundated, and soil productivity may improve over time as organic material accumulated, or the soils may go anaerobic depending on the depth of the impoundment. Water quality could also be affected by increased water temperatures. Sediment loading could increase during construction or if the impoundment fails. Following construction, in streams that contain excessive sediment, sediment loads may be reduced downstream of the impoundment because the impoundment would serve as a sediment trap. Over the long term, the impoundments would fill up with sediment if they were not maintained. Water tables would rise in the immediate vicinity of the impoundment. In shallow impoundments, lush vegetation may filter the water. A site-specific analysis would be required prior to constructing an impoundment.
Under Alternatives B and C, an additional 68,000 acres of barrens habitat would be restored to the Forests. It is expected that this action would result in increased deer herbivory in areas that were in close proximity to restored barrens habitat. Higher deer populations have been linked to an overall reduction of plant diversity across many plant communities (Ruhren and Handel 2003;
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-210 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Rooney et al. 2000). Changes in hydrologic function of wetlands adjacent to the restored barrens habitat could result from the change in plant communities, with the effects expected to be greater under these alternatives than under Alternative A.
Prescribed burning in wetlands may affect wetland habitat by releasing nutrients back into the soil. This would return the wetlands to an early successional stage through removal of the vegetative cover but would encourage new growth and sprouting. Likewise, fire suppression in wetland habitats increases the number of non fire-dependent plant species, which could alter the hydrologic function of the wetland. For example, fire may be used as a tool for setting back succession in bogs and emergent wetlands that may be experiencing a trend towards dominance by one or several species such as leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata) or cattails (Typha spp.) (cattails). Effects would vary depending upon the project’s design and implementation. Prescribed burning would be expected to provide a net benefit to those wetland areas adapted to a fire-dependent regime. It is not known, however, how much of the increase in burn management acres would occur in areas with wetland habitats.
The alternatives would allow for treatment of non-native invasive plant infestations and spread. By protecting the species composition of the wetland, the hydrologic function would also be protected. Invasive species would continue to contribute to a decline in habitat quality as treatment would not be economically feasible for all non-native invasive species on all of the Forests’ acreage.
Alternatives B and C would have measures to protect wetland microhabitats such as swales and vernal pools during forest thinning and other forest vegetative practices, including reforestation and overplanting. Due to the difficulty in detecting these habitats within the larger landscape and the difficulty in detecting the presence of these habitats during times of snow cover, it is most likely that forest practices would have negative indirect impacts to these wet microhabitats due to soil disturbance; modification of the elevational structure of the landscape during skidding, hauling and mechanical planting and changes to the overstory canopy.
Wetland areas in old-growth designated areas under Alternatives B and C would be the same as those identified under Alternative A and would likewise be expected to improve in quality and, to some degree, quantity of habitat as vegetation matured and/or is restored in some areas.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The analysis area for cumulative effects is the State of Michigan because wetland loss and management is a state-wide issue and the Forests have data sources available at this scale.
Approximately 50 percent of Michigan’s wetlands have been drained, filledor otherwise eliminated since the 1800s due to development and agriculture. Of those remaining, wetland types have changed in vegetative dominance and in physical characteristics. Wetlands typically occur in discrete patches in a matrix of upland habitat and, consequently, many wetland species must be sustained by avenues of migration within and between metapopulations (Gibbs 2000). The role of shape, size and spatial dispersion in the wetland mosaic is a highly complex relationship. Changes in wetland composition or wetland types in the mosaic can result in a
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-211 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
change or loss of functional value, including habitat roles, which may not even be apparent for a number of years (Findlay and Bourdages 2000; Kusler 1983; Kusler and Montanari 1978).
The loss of wetlands results in a disproportionate fraction of species listed as endangered or threatened in the United States (Gibbs 2000). Recent studies suggest that: 1) it is the wetland mosaic which needs to be protected since small wetlands and uplands play a critical role in the mosaic; 2) wetland functions are not easily recreated and, in fact, mitigation efforts are not able to replace wetland values even over a longer period of 15 to 20 years and 3) adjacent upland land use in the wetland mosaic, such as human presence and road construction play an important role in declining wetland function (Zedler and Callaway 1999; Zedler 2004; Gibbs 2000). These data suggest, then, that even though a ‘no net loss’ of wetland policy exists within Michigan and the lower Northern Peninsula, it is likely there will continue to be a loss of wetlands and the functions, such as habitat and watershed health, that they provide.
Alternative A provides protection of wetlands by managing riparian vegetation for late seral stages. The required 100-foot buffer zone around wetlands in Alternative A would provide for additional protection of wetland values by maintaining upland functions within the wetland mosaic. These provisions would result in little additional cumulative effects to wetlands on the Forests, with the exception of the undesirable impact of non-native invasive species displacing native species and habitat, the impacts of unmanaged recreation and the impacts of deer herbivory on wetland biodiversity. Unmanaged recreation causes damage to wetland ecosystems through user-created trails which may result in compaction, sedimentation and introduction of non-native invasive species.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The analysis area for cumulative effects is the State of Michigan because wetland loss and management is a state-wide issue and the Forests have data sources available at this scale.
Cumulative effects for wetlands as described under Alternative A would also be applicable to Alternatives B and C. While negative effects of invasive plants would still be expected to occur due to the widespread problem of invasive species, the effects would be expected to be lessened by promoting more aggressive management against non-native invasive species under Alternatives B and C.
While negative effects of deer herbivory would be expected under all three alternatives, the proposed increase in open lands and early successional wetlands under Alternatives B and C is expected to increase the attraction of deer to areas where open lands were restored to prairies and barrens. Where these areas were in close proximity to wetlands areas, deer herbivory would be expected to increase.
The removal of the 100-foot Streamside Management Zone requirements in Landtype Associations 1 and 2 could have a negative effect on wetland functions. The removal of wetlands from required management towards late seral stages and the increase in management for wildlife species of concern could also result in some changes in wetland functions. It is expected that conservation measures and project-level planning and analysis would mitigate
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-212 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources these effects in order to maintain wetland functions and to comply with the direction that the Forests’ activities would not affect wetland soils or hydrology.
Unmanaged recreational uses would be expected to continue to have an impact on wetlands as described in Alternative A.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-213 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Effects on Forest Vegetation:
This section of the Environmental Impact Statement analyzes the composition, structure and age of forest vegetation predicted to occur as the result of the management strategies associated with each of the proposed alternatives. It also discusses the processes, both natural and human- induced, occurring with these management strategies and their potential effects on the composition and structure of future forest vegetation, both at the landscape and local (stand) scales.
Spectrum is a linear computer program that simultaneously accounts for the effects of the timber harvesting and vegetation growth on all National Forest System lands. The results are displayed as amounts, acres or volume, of each vegetation type and 10-year age-class distributions. Spectrum was used to generate all of the tables in this section.
Definitions for Forests Composition, Structure and Age:
Forests composition refers to plant species found in a stand or landscape, including trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses. It also refers to plant communities at the stand or landscape level that may be dominated by a single tree species or contain a mixture of trees or various plant species. The vegetative types (groupings) described for the Huron-Manistee National Forests include aspen/birch, high-site oak, lowland conifer, lowland hardwood, long-lived conifer, northern hardwood, low-site oak, short-lived conifer, barrens and openlands.
Forests structure refers to the physical arrangement of various physical and biological components of an ecological system. The analysis of forest composition and structure for this Environmental Impact Statement will be focused primarily on the community and landscape levels. Additionally, individual stands can range from relatively simple to relatively complex in terms of their composition and vertical structural diversity.
Forests age is used to reflect one of the primary structural attributes of a particular landscape. It provides some measure of horizontal structure in terms of amounts and distribution of various successional stages.
The Forest Plan will determine the long-term goals by age classes for the varying vegetative types as well as the amount and general distribution of those types.
Minor Effects to Forest Vegetation from Other Resources:
There would be minor effects to the future composition and structure of forest vegetation, resulting from the management of other resources. These would include increasing the size of emphasis areas such as Grouse Emphasis Areas as proposed under Alternatives B and C, and lengthening the aspen rotation age under Alternative C. There would be fewer acres in the Deer Emphasis Areas under Alternative B and even fewer under Alternative C. Wildlife Emphasis Areas would increase in both Alternatives B and C. Management of lakes, wetlands and aquatic resources would increase early successional riparian habitat due to requirements for wildlife and
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-214 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources plant species of concern. Restrictions on management activities in riparian and wetland habitats would change from the entire riparian/wetland area under Alternative A to 100 feet only for riparian habitats under Alternatives B and C. Management activities to prevent and treat non- native invasive species would contribute to the preservation of native communities. These activities would increase and be more effective in Alternatives B and C than in Alternative A. Treatment and prevention would be prioritized based on Species Viability Evaluations and communities at risk.
Management of motorized and nonmotorized trails, including the North Country Scenic Trail; the scenic integrity objectives as outlined in the Scenery Management System and the development of minerals resource would have negligible effects on forest vegetation for all of the alternatives. Administration of management areas: Semiprimitive Motorized, Semiprimitive Nonmotorized, Candidate Research Natural Areas and Wild and Scenic Study Rivers would have uniformly older age-classes in all cover types. Succession would continue to predominate in all alternatives. Acreage of semiprimitive motorized-designated areas would increase in Alternative B and decrease in Alternative C as compared to Alternative A. Acres of areas designated as semiprimitive nonmotorized would increase the most in Alternative C, and more in Alternative B than in Alternative A.
Indicator 1 – Amount of Forest Vegetation Types:
The first indicator for forest composition and forest structure is the amount of each vegetation type expected to occur under each alternative. Vegetation types may not always reflect the diversity of the species present in the stands. The amount of each vegetation type projected under each alternative will be compared to the existing condition. This comparison will be made at the National Forest level.
This indicator does a good job of highlighting the differences between alternatives because each of the proposed forest management strategies will produce varying amounts and distributions of vegetative types over time. The amount and distribution of vegetative types may have direct implications on available wildlife habitat, scenic quality, forest products and recreational opportunities.
Indicator 2 – Amount of Forests by Age Class:
The second indicator for forest composition and forest structure is the amount, such as acres, of each vegetation type expected to occur in various age categories under each alternative. The amount of vegetation types in each age category projected under each alternative will be compared to the existing condition. This comparison will be made at the National Forest level. This indicator does a good job of highlighting the differences between alternatives because each of the proposed forest management strategies will produce varying amounts and distributions of age classes over time. The age class distribution may have direct implications on biological diversity, old-growth forests, scenic quality, forest products and recreational opportunities.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-215 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Indicator 3 – Use of Management to Influence Within-Stand Complexity:
Indicator 3 for forest composition and forest structure is the use of various management practices that influence the within-stand complexity of the understory, mid-story and over-story layers. Within-stand complexity includes both species and structural diversity. It is a means of comparing a variety of forest stand attributes, such as species diversity and abundance from the ground layer through the canopy; crown closure and density; standing snags and downed logs; and the diversity of tree ages within a stand. The amounts will be projected under each alternative. These amounts will be compared among the alternatives. This indicator does a good job of highlighting the differences between alternatives because the mix and amounts of treatments proposed within each alternative will result in varying degrees of within-stand complexity over time. Within-stand complexity has implications to both native plant community and wildlife habitat quality.
For this analysis, within-stand complexity refers to the vertical structure and associated species diversity at the stand scale. Vertical structure is the bottom to top configuration of above ground vegetation within a forested stand and varies with vegetation class and stand ages. Stand complexity changes markedly during forest succession, from a relatively simple structure in early successional, even-aged stands to more complex structures displayed as stands age. This increase in complexity generally occurs as the overstory matures with the associated canopy thinning and differential height growth of individual canopy trees. This maturation process occurs over tens to hundreds of years, depending on the vegetation type. The gradual heterogeneity of the overstory permits more light to penetrate lower levels of forest. This creates conditions for understory establishment and increased vertical complexity. Additionally, as stands age and self-thin themselves, there are increased amounts of standing snags and downed wood. As trees die in older forest stands leaving gaps of various sizes, vertical structure redevelops through a succession process similar to that at the larger stand scale. The staggered timing and variety of gap sizes and shapes produces variation in the vertical structure of the stand with an associated variation in the overall species composition.
The natural succession of forested stands to a mature and eventually old-growth condition generally provides for the greatest vertical diversity and overall stand complexity. The variety of regeneration methods available to implement the proposed alternatives provide varying effects to vertical structure at the stand and National Forest System landscape levels. While there is variability even within the types of harvest methods used in terms of the kinds and amounts of trees retained after harvests, in general, single harvest entry methods, such as clearcutting and shelterwood regeneration harvests, initially simplify vertical stand structure. Depending on the rotation length, stands may not have an opportunity to redevelop this stand structure prior to the next harvest. The resulting stand complexity from partial harvests or multi-entry harvest regeneration methods is increased over that of a clearcut or shelterwood and continues as the amount of retained trees approaches that of an uneven-aged stand created through continuing select tree harvests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-216 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Analysis Area:
The analysis area for analyzing direct and indirect effects to vegetative types, structure and age will be the National Forest System lands managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Lands under other ownerships within the Forests’ proclamation boundaries will not be considered in addressing the effects of the alternatives on forest vegetation composition because data for those stands are not available for comparison.
The analysis area for cumulative effects will be across all forested lands within the State of Michigan. Data will compare trends in changes of vegetation types on the Huron-Manistee National Forests against that found in Forest Inventory Analysis data for the State of Michigan.
Forest Succession:
Forest succession is the process of change to a particular forest community in a particular location over an extended period of time measured in tens to thousands of years. This process is characterized by a sequential change in relative structure, kind and relative abundance of the dominant species (Barnes et al. 1998).
Forest communities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests are constantly changing due to the natural process of forest succession. This process occurs in all forested stands, managed or unmanaged, regardless of age. The progression of changes to forest composition and structure in a particular area is largely dependent on the inherent ecological capability of the site. This inherent capability is a product of the combined influences that soil, topography and climate exert on the site. Additionally, and equally important to how a forest community changes over time, natural and human-induced disturbances play a critical role in the dynamics of change to composition and structure that occurs within a forested stand. The type, amount and intensity of a disturbance, or sequence of disturbances, can substantially alter the successional sequence in a particular stand or across an area. The possible successional pathways that a forest community can take, based upon the disturbances they undergo, are still largely dictated by the landscape ecosystems in which they occur. Natural disturbances - such as insect infestations, disease outbreaks, wind events, floods or fires - can occur locally within stands or more broadly across multiple stands or even landscapes. These kinds of disturbances, along with the inherent ecological capability of an area, were primarily what shaped the composition and structure of the natural forests occurring on what now is the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Similarly, forest management activities - such as timber harvesting, road building, fire suppression and prescribed burning - can have profound influences on the changes to the composition and structure of forests at the local and landscape levels.
Forest succession is a natural phenomenon that occurs and will continue to occur on the Huron- Manistee National Forests under all alternatives. The potential effects to the successional pathways for each landscape ecosystem are expected to vary by alternative and are analyzed in this Environmental Impact Statement. Existing conditions in the ensuing tables are provided for the various vegetative types and provide a base line for comparison to the various alternatives.
The current amounts of forest vegetation in various vegetative types and age classes are the
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-217 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
result of a multitude of factors. The forest conditions that occurred during the 18th and most of the 19th Centuries on what was later to become the Huron-Manistee National Forests were primarily shaped by climate, soils, landforms and natural disturbances. The extensive logging that occurred during the late 19th Century, followed by widespread slash-fueled wildfires, drastically altered the composition and structure of those original forests. More recently, timber management activities and fire suppression have contributed to the current forest conditions. Throughout this time period, the natural progression of forest succession has also taken place, to varying degrees, on managed and unmanaged lands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
The current distribution of vegetation types does not include barrens, savannahs, or prairies. These habitat types were found historically across the dry sand landtypes on the Huron-Manistee National Forests and were the result of frequent fire events. However, over the last 100 years, fire suppression has greatly reduced or eliminated these vegetation types across the landscape on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Although permissive, Alternative A provides no specific direction for converting forested stands to barrens, savannahs and other openlands in Landtype Associations 1 and 2. It also provides no specific direction on alterations to vegetation structure and composition in relation to management of ginseng, expansion of early successional riparian habit, hazardous fuels reduction or fuelbreak construction.
Indicator 1 – Amounts of Forests Vegetation Types:
Table III-19 displays the acres of each vegetative class that would result from timber harvests and natural succession if Alternative A was implemented.
Table III-19. Estimated acres of each Vegetative Class for Alternative A. Current Vegetative Class Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 5 Decade 10 Condition Aspen/Birch 161,413 149,909144,738 141,547 129,180 Barrens 0* 7961,462 2,390 2,390 High-site Oaks 126,152 131,678 133,924 136,061 142,268 Lowland Conifers 30,803 30,803 30,803 30,803 30,803 Lowland Hardwoods 43,970 43,970 43,970 43,970 43,970 Long-lived Conifers 197,694 197,693 197,693 197,693 197,693 Low-site Oaks 155,835 156,813 156,813 156,813 156,813 Northern Hardwoods 74,116 80,094 83,019 84,073 90,233 Open, Prairies, etc. 60,000 59,205 58,539 57,611 57,611 Short-lived Conifers 115,294 114,317 114,317 114,317 114,317 * There are some small areas of barrens on the Forest but they are currently tracked as openings.
There are currently approximately 161,413 acres of the aspen/birch type. Under Alternative A, it is predicted that this amount would decrease to approximately 149,909 acres in 10 years,
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-218 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
141,547 acres in 50 years and by 100 years; it would level off to approximately 129,180 acres. This 32,233-acre loss over the 100-year period would be primarily due to natural succession with the aspen succeeding to high-site oaks and northern hardwoods in areas such as old growth, lands physically unsuitable for timber harvest, or in lands considered unnecessary to meet species viability needs or timber demands.
There are currently approximately 126,152 acres of the high-site oak type. These are oaks growing on site indexes of 56 and above. Under Alternative A, there is predicted to be approximately 131,678 acres of the high-site oak type in 10 years, approximately 136,061 acres available at the start of the fifth decade, and approximately 142,268 acres at the start of the tenth decade. The approximate 16,106 acre increase would be primarily due to shorter-lived species such as aspen naturally succeeding to this vegetative type.
There are currently approximately 197,694 acres of long-lived conifers. Long-lived conifers are comprised of red pine and white pine, but are predominately present as red pine plantations. This vegetative type is predicted to remain the same under Alternative A through the succeeding decades.
There are currently approximately 115,294 acres of short-lived conifers, predominantly jack pine. In 10 years, it is predicted that there would be approximately 114,317 acres with the number of acres predicted to stabilize at this level under Alternative A through the remaining decades. This small decrease would be primarily due to fuels treatments converting the jack pine to low-site oaks.
There are currently approximately 155,835 acres of low-site oaks. These are oaks growing on site indexes of 55 and lower. In 10 years, it is predicted there would be approximately 156,813 acres of the low-site oak type, with the number of acres predicted to stabilize at this level under Alternative A through the remaining decades. This small increase would be primarily due to fuels treatments converting the short-lived conifer types to low-site oaks.
There are currently approximately 74,116 acres of northern hardwoods. Under Alternative A, it is predicted that there would be approximately 80,094 acres of northern hardwoods in 10 years, approximately 84,073 acres at the start of the fifth decade, and approximately 90,233 acres at the start of the tenth decade. The approximate 16,117-acre increase would be primarily due to aspen that has naturally succeeded to the northern hardwood types.
There currently are approximately 30,803 acres of lowland conifer and 43,970 acres of lowland hardwoods. Under Alternative A, the amount of both of these vegetative types is predicted to remain the same through all of the decades because no harvest treatments are proposed in these vegetative types.
There currently are approximately 60,000 acres of open vegetative types. This type includes lowland wet brush and shrubs; upland brush and shrubs and grassy openings. Under Alternative A, it is predicted that there would be approximately 59,205 acres of open vegetation types in 10 years, and by the fourth decade approximately 57,611 acres. This vegetative type would then be predicted to remain the same through all of the decades.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-219 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
By the fourth decade, there would be about 2,390 acres of barrens, savannahs and prairies, with the number of acres predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. This increase would be the result of open habitat succeeding to barrens, savannahs or prairies.
Indicator 2 – Amounts of Forests by Age Class:
Tables III-20 through III-23 display the difference in age class within each alternative and between alternatives through time.
Table III-20. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 10 years. Vegetative Class Age Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Aspen / White Birch 0 – 9 24,100 24,100 15,000 10 – 19 9,045 9,045 9,045 20 – 29 22,366 22,366 22,366 30 – 39 32,515 32,515 32,515 40 – 49 8,550 8,550 18,314 50 – 59 21,584 21,584 21,584 60 – 69 6,842 6,842 6,842 70 – 79 8,238 8,238 8,238 80 – 89 16,669 16,669 16,669
Barren 796 9,318 26,217
High-site Oaks 0 – 9 2,282 0 170 10 – 19 1,383 1,383 1,383 20 – 29 2,855 2,855 2,855 30 – 39 2,175 2,175 2,175 40 – 49 2,825 2,825 2,825 50 – 59 973 973 973 60 – 69 635 635 635 70 – 79 4,973 4,973 4,973 80 – 89 27,931 27,931 27,931 90 – 99 42,854 44,700 46,820 100+ 42,793 42,651 41,420
Lowland Conifers 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 6 6 6 30 – 39 65 65 65 40 – 49 493 493 493 50 – 59 538 538 538 60 – 69 359 359 359 70 – 79 1,088 1,088 1,088 80 – 89 2,698 2,698 2,698 90 – 99 5,642 5,642 5,642 100+ 19,913 19,913 19,913
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-220 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Table III-20. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 10 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Lowland Hardwoods 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 13 13 13 20 – 29 328 328 328 30 – 39 474 474 474 40 – 49 568 568 568 50 – 59 894 894 894 60 – 69 702 702 702 70 – 79 2,974 2,974 2,974 80 – 89 7,875 7,875 7,875 90 – 99 14,032 14,032 14,032 100+ 16,110 16,110 16,110
Long-lived Conifers 0 – 9 2,656 1,634 1,634 10 – 19 2,042 2,042 2,042 20 – 29 3,435 3,435 3,435 30 – 39 5,766 5,766 5,766 40 – 49 24,878 24,878 24,878 50 – 59 27,809 27,490 27,544 60 – 69 27,179 24,363 26,541 70 – 79 78,010 71,595 62,115 80 – 89 19,478 19,478 19,478 90 – 99 3,527 3,373 3,373 100+ 2,914 4,089 4,089
Low-site Oaks 0 – 9 6,477 1,910 1,890 10 – 19 6,728 6,728 6,728 20 – 29 12,059 12,059 12,059 30 – 39 21,736 21,736 21,736 40 – 49 12,491 12,021 11,954 50 – 59 4,098 4,098 4,017 60 – 69 3,688 3,085 2,619 70 – 79 14,014 10,628 10,581 80 – 89 17,616 21,679 20,553 90 – 99 27,577 27,577 27,372 100+ 30,330 29,388 26,413
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-221 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-20. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 10 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Northern Hardwoods 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 706 706 706 20 – 29 573 573 573 30 – 39 696 696 696 40 – 49 470 470 470 50 – 59 345 345 345 60 – 69 630 630 630 70 – 79 3,733 3,733 3,733 80 – 89 23,626 23,626 23,626 90 – 99 34,956 32,983 30,326 100+ 14,358 14,358 14,358
Open 59,205 66,497 67,264
Short-lived Conifers 0 – 9 10,700 17,500 17,500 10 – 19 13,697 13,697 13,697 20 – 29 14,281 14,281 14,281 30 – 39 12,319 12,319 12,319 40 – 49 7,838 3,011 1,778 50 – 59 6,716 4,045 2,998 60 – 69 12,011 11,878 11,461 70 – 79 21,631 22,936 21,135 80 – 89 11,649 13,074 13,074 90 – 99 3,475 3,768 3,768 100+ 0 0 0
Table III-21. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 30 years. Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Aspen / White Birch 0 – 9 28,000 28,000 15,000 10 – 19 28,000 28,000 15,000 20 – 29 24,100 24,100 15,000 30 – 39 9,045 9,045 9,045 40 – 49 22,366 21,897 11,043 50 – 59 23,530 7,129 22,384 60 – 69 2,987 2,987 17,276 70 – 79 3,520 3,520 19,080 80 – 89 1,275 1,275 6,198
Barren 2,390 60,693 67,763
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-222 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Table III-21. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 30 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C High-site Oaks 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 0 0 11,734 20 – 29 10,282 8,261 3,154 30 – 39 1,383 1,383 1,383 40 – 49 2,855 2,855 2,855 50 – 59 2,175 2,175 2,175 60 – 69 2,825 2,825 2,825 70 – 79 973 973 973 80 – 89 635 635 635 90 – 99 6,085 8,809 9,347 100+ 107,822 110,731 107,702
Lowland Conifers 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 0 0 30 – 39 0 0 0 40 – 49 6 6 6 50 – 59 65 65 65 60 – 69 493 493 493 70 – 79 538 538 538 80 – 89 359 359 359 90 – 99 1,088 1,088 1,088 100+ 28,254 28,254 28,254
Lowland Hardwoods 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 0 0 30 – 39 13 13 13 40 – 49 328 328 328 50 – 59 474 474 474 60 – 69 568 568 568 70 – 79 894 894 894 80 – 89 702 702 702 90 – 99 2,974 2,974 2,974 100+ 38,017 38,017 38,017
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-223 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-21. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 30 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Long-lived Conifers 0 – 9 20,684 5,113 7,603 10 – 19 1,250 1,096 1,096 20 – 29 2,656 1,634 1,634 30 – 39 2,042 2,042 2,042 40 – 49 3,435 3,435 3,435 50 – 59 5,766 5,766 5,766 60 – 69 24,878 24,878 24,878 70 – 79 27,809 11,612 21,458 80 – 89 27,179 16,418 15,130 90 – 99 57,326 65,472 54,512 100+ 24,669 25,844 25,844
Low-site Oaks 0 – 9 7,500 0 4,536 10 – 19 7,500 0 697 20 – 29 6,477 1,910 1,890 30 – 39 6,728 6,728 6,728 40 – 49 12,059 12,059 12,059 50 – 59 16,236 21,296 20,793 60 – 69 6,808 11,915 11,154 70 – 79 1,100 3,731 3,730 80 – 89 2,869 2,688 2,471 90 – 99 14,014 10,323 10,155 100+ 75,523 69,352 60,035
Northern Hardwoods 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 1,563 0 0 30 – 39 706 706 706 40 – 49 573 573 573 50 – 59 696 696 696 60 – 69 470 470 470 70 – 79 345 345 345 80 – 89 630 630 630 90 – 99 4,537 7,185 5,936 100+ 74,303 78,827 72,544
Open 57,611 65,701 65,670
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-224 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Table III-21. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 30 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Short-lived Conifers 0 – 9 10,700 18,000 18,000 10 – 19 10,700 18,000 18,000 20 – 29 10,700 17,500 17,500 30 – 39 13,697 13,697 13,697 40 – 49 12,763 3,214 3,231 50 – 59 3,668 2,668 1,390 60 – 69 5,789 2,418 1,667 70 – 79 5,374 2,863 2,678 80 – 89 7,318 4,602 4,835 90 – 99 18,485 13,847 12,455 100+ 15,123 9,961 11,263
Table III-22. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 50 years. Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Aspen / White Birch 0 – 9 28,000 28,000 15,000 10 – 19 28,000 28,000 15,000 20 – 29 28,000 28,000 15,000 30 – 39 28,000 28,000 15,000 40 – 49 11,708 0 3,163 50 – 59 5,826 363 1,551 60 – 69 2,549 2,666 2,632 70 – 79 2,958 3,142 20,126 80 – 89 2,987 2,987 17,276
Barren 2,390 68,501 67,763
High-site Oaks 0 – 9 12,745 8,633 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 1,146 19,063 30 – 39 16,604 22,879 38,292 40 – 49 10,282 8,261 3,154 50 – 59 1,383 1,383 1,383 60 – 69 2,855 2,855 2,855 70 – 79 2,175 2,175 2,175 80 – 89 2,825 2,825 2,825 90 – 99 2,635 1,999 3,978 100+ 86,218 88,106 75,615
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-225 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-22. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 50 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Lowland Conifers 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 0 0 30 – 39 0 0 0 40 – 49 0 0 0 50 – 59 0 0 0 60 – 69 6 6 6 70 – 79 65 65 65 80 – 89 493 493 493 90 – 99 538 538 538 100+ 29,701 29,701 29,701
Lowland Hardwoods 0 – 9 0 0 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 0 0 30 – 39 0 0 0 40 – 49 0 0 0 50 – 59 13 13 13 60 – 69 328 328 328 70 – 79 474 474 474 80 – 89 568 568 568 90 – 99 894 894 894 100+ 41,693 41,693 41,693
Long-lived Conifers 0 – 9 13,683 5,237 23,935 10 – 19 22,649 7,620 7,718 20 – 29 20,684 5,113 7,603 30 – 39 1,250 1,096 1,096 40 – 49 2,656 1,634 1,634 50 – 59 2,042 2,042 2,042 60 – 69 3,435 3,435 3,435 70 – 79 5,766 5,766 5,766 80 – 89 24,878 24,878 24,878 90 – 99 27,809 11,612 20,601 100+ 72,842 94,876 64,690
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-226 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Table III-22. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 50 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Low-site Oaks 0 – 9 7,500 6,440 7,498 10 – 19 7,500 0 135 20 – 29 7,500 0 4,536 30 – 39 7,500 0 697 40 – 49 6,477 1,910 1,890 50 – 59 2,070 2,619 2,623 60 – 69 8,472 8,478 9,055 70 – 79 13,481 9,872 10,143 80 – 89 2,808 2,366 2,484 90 – 99 1,100 3,731 3,595 100+ 92,405 79,921 72,661
Northern Hardwoods 0 – 9 1,416 0 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 0 0 30 – 39 0 0 0 40 – 49 1,563 0 0 50 – 59 706 706 706 60 – 69 573 573 573 70 – 79 696 696 696 80 – 89 470 470 470 90 – 99 2,203 2,839 16,420 100+ 78,304 87,327 81,757
Open 57,611 65,701 65,670
Short-lived Conifers 0 – 9 10,700 18,000 18,000 10 – 19 10,700 18,000 18,000 20 – 29 10,700 18,000 18,000 30 – 39 10,700 18,000 18,000 40 – 49 10,700 16,000 16,000 50 – 59 2,148 222 714 60 – 69 2,912 311 948 70 – 79 3,668 1,402 1,086 80 – 89 5,789 2,418 1,667 90 – 99 5,374 2,863 2,678 100+ 40,926 28,409 28,552
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-227 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-23. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 100 years. Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Aspen / White Birch 0 – 9 33,523 32,565 15,000 10 – 19 20,000 24,100 16,197 20 – 29 21,999 24,765 15,000 30 – 39 24,743 27,335 15,000 40 – 49 13,307 0 3,163 50 – 59 15,608 3,235 0 60 – 69 0 0 0 70 – 79 0 0 0 80 – 89 0 0 0
Barren 2,390 68,501 67,763
High-site Oaks 0 – 9 1,993 1,993 4,985 10 – 19 0 2,581 2,581 20 – 29 0 926 926 30 – 39 0 481 564 40 – 49 8,236 2,617 2,605 50 – 59 12,745 8,633 0 60 – 69 0 0 0 70 – 79 0 1,146 19,063 80 – 89 16,604 22,879 38,292 90 – 99 10,282 8,261 2,984 100+ 92,408 93,690 95,708
Lowland Conifers 0 – 9 0 0 1 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 0 0 30 – 39 0 0 0 40 – 49 0 0 0 50 – 59 0 0 0 60 – 69 0 0 0 70 – 79 0 0 0 80 – 89 0 0 0 90 – 99 0 0 0 100+ 30,803 30,803 30,802
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-228 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Table III-23. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 100 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Lowland Hardwoods 0 – 9 0 0 1 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 0 0 30 – 39 0 0 0 40 – 49 0 0 0 50 – 59 0 0 0 60 – 69 0 0 0 70 – 79 0 0 0 80 – 89 0 0 0 90 – 99 0 0 0 100+ 43,970 43,970 43,969
Long-lived Conifers 0 – 9 5,494 6,125 10,647 10 – 19 14,696 11,437 11,018 20 – 29 14,809 13,981 17,845 30 – 39 17,076 13,430 16,518 40 – 49 10,824 35,938 25,747 50 – 59 13,683 5,237 23,935 60 – 69 22,649 7,620 7,718 70 – 79 20,684 5,113 7,603 80 – 89 1,250 1,096 1,096 90 – 99 2,656 1,634 0 100+ 73,872 61,697 41,270
Low-site Oaks 0 – 9 7,500 0 697 10 – 19 7,500 1,910 1,890 20 – 29 8,477 2,409 2,409 30 – 39 7,500 5,026 4,253 40 – 49 14,237 6,462 6,484 50 – 59 5,222 6,440 7,498 60 – 69 1,856 0 135 70 – 79 5,500 0 4,536 80 – 89 0 0 0 90 – 99 0 0 0 100+ 99,021 93,090 87,415
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-229 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-23. Age class distribution for all forest types under each alternative after 100 years (Continued). Vegetative Class Age Class Alt A Alt B Alt C Northern Hardwoods 0 – 9 0 659 0 10 – 19 0 0 0 20 – 29 0 0 0 30 – 39 0 182 0 40 – 49 3,114 0 0 50 – 59 1,416 0 0 60 – 69 0 0 0 70 – 79 0 0 0 80 – 89 0 0 0 90 – 99 1,563 0 0 100+ 84,139 97,981 122,642
Open 57,611 65,701 65,670
Short-lived Conifers 0 – 9 10,700 18,000 18,000 10 – 19 10,700 18,000 18,000 20 – 29 10,700 18,000 18,000 30 – 39 10,700 18,000 18,000 40 – 49 0 0 0 50 – 59 10,700 16,000 16,000 60 – 69 0 0 0 70 – 79 0 0 0 80 – 89 0 0 0 90 – 99 0 0 0 100+ 60,817 35,625 35,645
The current age-classes of the Forests are the result of past management and natural events. The fire suppression activities that began in the 1920s and tree planting activities of the 1930s are mirrored in the current age class distribution that is first shown as the “Initial” column in Table III-21. There are currently 270,768 acres of Forests in the 60 to 79 year age class and 205,227 acres in the 80 to 99 year age class. These two age classes combined equal nearly one half, or 49.3 percent, of the current forest condition.
During the first decade under Alternative A, age classes would be relatively evenly spread with the exception of ages 60 to 99, which would have the highest amount. During the first decade, the older age classes would begin to increase. However, by the tenth decade, age-classes would skew toward the more-than -100 year and the less-than-60 year categories.
In the first 10 years, aspen/birch would begin to show a more even distribution of acres across the age classes through age 99. By 100 years, age classes would be regulated, and all aspen/birch age classes are predicted to be less than 60 years old (See Tables III-20 through III-23).
In the first 10 years, high-site oak is predicted to show relatively even age class distribution through year 79. The amount of acres in age classes above 80 years would increase. Within 100
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-230 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
years, the majority of high-site oak would be greater than 80 years old with 67 percent of the acres in the more-than-100 year category (See Tables III-20 through III-23).
In the first 10 years, long-lived conifers are predicted to have the majority of the acres in the 40 to 79 age classes. Within 100 years, the age distribution of long-lived conifers would be skewed toward the more-than-100 and the less-than-80 year age classes (See Tables III-20 through III- 23).
In the first 10 years, low-site oak is predicted to have a relatively even spread across the age classes. Within 100 years, the age of most low site oak would be greater than 100 years (63 percent) with minor amounts generally spread evenly below 60 years in age (See Tables III-20 through III-23).
In the first 10 years, the majority of northern hardwoods are predicted to be 80 to 99 years old. Within 100 years, 92 percent of the northern hardwoods would be greater than 100 years old (See Tables III-20 through III-23).
In the first decade, the short-lived conifer type is predicted to have a relatively even spread across the age classes except that no acres would exceed 100 years in age. Within 100 years, 53 percent of all short-live conifers would be greater than 100 years or would be spread evenly below 60 years in age (See Tables III-20 through III-23).
No treatments are expected in lowland hardwoods or lowland conifers under Alternative A. Therefore, age classes would be assumed to be generally trending toward the oldest age classes.
Indicator 3 – Use of Management to Influence Within-Stand Complexity:
Over the length of the longest rotation of the vegetation types, 100 years, approximately 62 percent of the acres would receive harvest treatments that would change the within-stand complexity of the forest. Approximately 38 percent of the acres would receive no treatments. Approximately 42 percent of the acres would be the result of clearcut/shelterwood treatments, 3 percent uneven-aged treatments and 17 percent would be a result of thinning treatments. However, an additional 11 percent of the total acres that would receive thinning treatments would also receive clearcut or shelterwood regeneration harvests during the 100-year rotation period. The aspen/birch, short-lived conifers and low-site oaks vegetative types would likely receive two clearcut treatments in that period of time on the same acres. The long-lived conifers, high-site oaks and northern hardwoods that are even-aged managed would likely only receive one clearcut/shelterwood treatment during that period of time after a series of thinnings. Uneven- aged managed northern hardwood stands would likely have harvest entries every 20 years to select individual trees.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
Vegetation type data for the State of Michigan is from the USDA-North Central Research Station Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Resource Bulletins NC-179 (Schmidt et al. 1997) and NC-224 (Leatherberry and Brand 2003).
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-231 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Forest Inventory Analysis data for the aspen/birch forest type showed an increase of approximately 9 percent, or 300,000 acres, across all ownerships in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. However, the data shows an overall long-term decline in aspen in Michigan. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project about a 7 percent decrease, or 11,500 acres. This is approximately 0.3 percent of the aspen in Michigan. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would decrease on the Huron-Manistee National Forests by about 20 percent, or approximately 32,000 acres. This is approximately 0.9 percent of the aspen in Michigan. This decrease would be a relatively minor amount of the total acres in the state.
High-site oaks and low-site oaks showed an increase by about 13 percent, or 251,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project about a 2 percent, or 5,800 acres; 0.3 percent state-wide, increase in the number of acres during the short term, 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would increase on the Huron-Manistee National Forests by about 5 percent or 15,300 acres, 0.7 percent state-wide, from the 2001 oak acres in the state. This increase would be a relatively minor amount of the total acres in the state.
Long-lived conifer and short-lived conifer showed an increase by 0.7 percent or 14,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period of 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project a 0.3 percent, or 800 acres; 0.04 percent state-wide, decrease in the number of acres during the short term, 10 years. No further decrease is projected to occur over 100 years. This would essentially have no impact on the total acres in the state.
Northern hardwoods showed a decrease by about 1 percent, or 71,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project about a 6 percent, or 4,800 acres; 0.07 percent state-wide, increase in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would increase on the Huron- Manistee National Forests by about 22 percent, or 16,100 acres, 0.2 percent state-wide, from the 2001 northern hardwoods acres in the state. This increase would be a relatively minor amount of the total acres in the state.
Lowland hardwoods showed an increase by about 3 percent, or 44,000 acres, and lowland conifers showed an increase of about 0.4 percent, or 12,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project no changes in the 10-year or 100-year period. This would likely have no impact on this vegetation type on a state-wide basis.
Openings and barrens make up the non-forested vegetation types on the Forests. Alternative A predicts that the amount of non-forested acres would remain unchanged.
Total forested acres in the state have increased by 777,000 acres, or about 4 percent, for the period of 1993 to 2001. This indicates that lands are converting from non-forested to forested conditions. Alternative A predicts that the amount of non-forested–openings and barrens/savannahs–acres on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would remain unchanged. This management should have little impact on the overall forested condition of the state.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-232 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
There would be conversions from forested types to barrens, savannahs and other openlands in Landtype Associations 1 and 2 in Alternative B. There would be alterations to vegetation structure and composition in relation to management of ginseng and other sensitive species habitat. Kirtland’s warbler habitat, early successional riparian habitat, early successional vegetation and hazardous fuels reduction and fuelbreak construction would be expanded in Alternative B. Management activities mentioned in Alternative A would also have similar effects on vegetation composition and structure primarily in low site oak, jack pine and red pine vegetation types. However, under Alternative B more aspen vegetation types would be expected to convert to northern hardwoods and high site oak vegetation types, than in Alternative A.
Indicator 1 – Amounts of Forests Vegetation Types
Table III-24 displays the acres of each vegetative class that would result from timber harvests and natural succession if Alternative B was implemented.
Table III-24. Estimated acres of each Vegetative Class for Alternative B. Current Vegetative Class Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 5 Decade 10 Condition Aspen/Birch 161,413 149,909 133,240 124,677 112,000 Barrens 0 9,318 28,722 64,500 68,501 High-site Oaks 126,152 131,101 137,362 139,236 143,208 Lowland Conifers 30,803 30,803 30,803 30,803 30,803 Lowland Hardwoods 43,970 43,970 43,970 43,970 43,970 Long-lived Conifers 197,694 188,144 182,139 163,309 163,309 Low-site Oaks 155,835 150,907 144,829 132,699 115,337 Northern Hardwoods 74,116 78,120 85,980 90,117 98,822 Open 60,000 66,497 66,498 65,701 65,701 Short-lived Conifers 115,294 116,508 111,734 110,264 123,625
There are currently approximately 161,400 acres of the aspen/birch type. Under Alternative B, it is predicted there would be approximately 149,909 acres of the aspen/birch type in 10 years, approximately 124,677 acres in 50 years and by 100 years the amount would level off to about 112,000 acres. This 49,400-acre loss would be primarily due to natural succession; with the aspen succeeding to high-site oaks and northern hardwoods in areas such as old growth, lands physically unsuitable for timber harvest, or from lands unnecessary to meet species viability or timber demands.
There currently are approximately 126,152 acres of the high-site oak type. These are oaks growing on site indexes of 56 and above. Under Alternative B, it is predicted there would be about 131,101 acres of the high-site oak type in 10 years, approximately 139,236 acres in 50 years and by 100 years approximately 143,208 acres. This approximate 17,056-acre increase would be primarily due to shorter-lived species such as aspen naturally succeeding to this vegetative type and some of this vegetative type being converted to barrens or savannahs.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-233 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
There currently are approximately 197,694 acres of long-lived conifers. Long-lived conifers are comprised of red pine and white pine but are predominately present as red pine plantations. Under Alternative B, it is predicted there would be approximately 188,144 acres of long-lived conifers in 10 years. In 30 years, it is predicted to be approximately 182,139 acres, and in the fifth decade, approximately 163,309 acres, with the number of acres predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. This 34,385-acre decrease would be primarily due to conversion to barrens, savannahs and open lands.
There are currently approximately 115,294 acres of short-lived conifers, predominately jack pine. Under Alternative B, it is predicted there would be approximately 116,508 acres of short- lived conifers in 10 years; in 30 years approximately 111,734 acres; at 50 years, 110,264 acres and by 100 years there is predicted to be 123,625 acres. The number of acres is predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The fluctuation of acres in the beginning 50 years would be due to acres being converted from jack pine to barrens or savannahs and other acres being converted from other vegetative types to jack pine for Kirtland’s warbler habitat. There would be a net gain of 8,331 acres of short-lived conifers.
There currently are approximately 155,835 acres of low-site oaks. These are oaks growing on site indexes of 55 and lower. In 10 years, it is predicted there would be approximately 150,907 acres of low-site oaks under Alternative B; by 30 years approximately 144,829 acres; at 50 years, 132,699 acres; and by 100 years, 115,237 acres. The number of acres is predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The 40,598-acre decrease would be primarily due to conversion to short-lived conifers, jack pine, for Kirtland’s warbler management and to barrens or savannahs.
There currently are approximately 74,116 acres of northern hardwoods. In 10 years it is predicted there would be about 78,120 acres; in 30 years, 85,980 acres; by 50 years, 90,117 acres; and by 100 years, 98,822 acres. This number is predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The approximate 24,706-acre increase would be primarily due to aspen that has naturally succeeded to the northern hardwood types.
There currently are approximately 30,803 acres of lowland conifer and 43,970 acres of lowland hardwoods. Under Alternative B, the number of acres of both vegetative types is predicted to remain the same through all of the decades because no harvest treatments are proposed in these vegetative types.
There currently are approximately 60,000 acres of open vegetative types. This type includes lowland wet brush and shrubs; upland brush and shrubs; and grassy openings. In 10 years, it is predicted there would be approximately 66,497 acres; in 30 years, 66,498 acres; and in 50 years, 65,701 acres. The number of acres is predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The net increase of 5,701 acres would be primarily due to conversion from long-lived conifers, short-lived conifers and low-site oaks to openings and some openings converting to barrens or savannahs.
There currently are no acres of barrens, savannahs or prairies. Under Alternative B, it is predicted there would be about 9,318 acres of these vegetation types in 10 years; in 30 years,
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-234 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
28,722 acres; in 50 years, 64,500 acres; and in 100 years, 68,501 acres. This number is predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The 68,501-acre increase would be primarily the result of conversion of long-lived conifers, short-lived conifers, low-site oaks and lesser amounts from high-site oaks and openings.
Indicator 2 – Amounts of Forests by Age Class:
During the first 10 years under Alternative B, age classes would be relatively evenly spread with the exception of ages 60 to 99, which would have the highest amount. During the first 10 years, the older age classes would begin to increase, while the younger age classes would decrease slightly and the 60 to 79 age class would decrease by about the same as the 80 to 99 age class increases. By 100 years, age classes would be skewed toward the greater-than-100 year and the less-than-60 year categories (See Tables III-20 through III-23).
In the first 10 years, aspen/birch would begin to show a more even distribution of acres across the age classes through age 99. By 100 years, age classes would be regulated and all aspen/birch is predicted to be less than 60 years old.
In the first 10 years, high-site oak is predicted to show relatively even age class distribution through age 79. The amount of acres in age classes above 80 years would increase. Within 100 years, the majority of the high-site oak would be greater than 80 years old with 70 percent of the acres in the greater-than-100 age category.
In the first 10 years, long-lived conifer is predicted to have the majority of its acres in the 40 to 79 age classes. Within 100 years, the age distribution of long-lived conifers would be skewed toward the greater-than-100 and the less-than-60 year age classes.
In the first 10 years, low-site oak is predicted to have a relatively even spread across the age classes. Within 100 years, 78 percent of the low-site oak would be greater than 100 years old, with none in the 0 to 19 and 60 to 99 age classes and approximately 22 percent evenly spread between the other two age classes.
In the first 10 years, the majority of northern hardwoods are predicted to be 80 to 99 years old. Within 100 years, 99 percent of the northern hardwoods would be greater than 100 years old.
In the first 10 years, short-lived conifer is predicted to have a relatively even spread across the age classes except there would be no acres greater than 100 years in age. Within 100 years, 35 percent of all short-lived conifers would be greater than 100 years old or spread evenly below 60 years in age.
No treatments are expected in lowland hardwoods or lowland conifers under Alternative B. Therefore, age classes would be assumed to generally trend towards the oldest age classes.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-235 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Indicator 3 – Use of Management to Influence Within-Stand Complexity:
Over the length of the longest rotation of the vegetation types, 100 years, approximately 65 percent of the acres would receive harvest treatments that would change the within-stand complexity of the forest. Approximately 35 percent of the acres would receive no treatments. Approximately 45 percent of the acres would receive clearcut/shelterwood treatments; 2 percent, uneven-aged treatments; and 18 percent, thinning treatments. However, an additional 17 percent of the total acres that would receive thinning treatments would also receive clearcut or shelterwood regeneration harvests during the 100-year rotation period. The aspen/birch, short- lived conifers, and low-site oaks vegetative types would likely receive two clearcut treatments in that period of time on the same acres. The long-lived conifers, high-site oaks and northern hardwoods that are even-aged managed would likely only receive one clearcut/shelterwood treatment during that period of time after a series of thinnings. Uneven-aged managed northern hardwood stands would likely have harvest entries every 20 years to select individual trees.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative B:
Vegetation type data for the State of Michigan is from the USDA-North Central Research Station Forest Inventory Analysis Resource Bulletin NC-179 (1993) and NC-224 (2001).
Aspen/birch showed an increase by about 9 percent, or 300,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project about a 7 percent, or 11,500 acres; 0.3 percent state-wide, decrease in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would decrease on the Huron- Manistee National Forests by about 23 percent or 36,400 acres, 1.0 percent state-wide from the 2001 aspen acres in the state. This decrease would be a relatively minor amount of the total acres in the state.
High-site oaks and low-site oaks showed an increase by about 13 percent, or 251,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project about a 0.3 percent, or 900 acres; 0.03 percent state-wide, decrease in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would decrease on the Huron-Manistee National Forests by about 11 percent or 31,100 acres (2 percent state-wide) from the 2001 oak acres in the state. This decrease is a relatively small amount of the total acres in the state, and the state as a whole has gained more than the Huron-Manistee National Forests are declining. This overall loss would be due primarily to conversion to non- forested vegetation types such as barrens, savannahs and prairies.
Long-lived conifer and short-lived conifer showed an increase by 0.7 percent, or 14,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period of 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project a 2.6 percent, or 8,200 acres; 0.4 percent state-wide, decrease in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would decrease on the Huron-Manistee National Forests by about 8 percent or 25,000 acres, 1.2 percent state-wide. This 10-year loss is about one-half the acres gained by the state from 1993 to 2001. The loss of these conifer types on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be mainly the
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-236 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
result of conversion of these types to non-forested vegetation types such as barrens, savannahs and prairies.
Northern hardwoods showed a decrease by about 1 percent, or 71,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project about a 5 percent, or 4,000 acres; 0.06 percent state-wide, increase in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would increase on the Huron- Manistee National Forests by about 25 percent or 18,200 acres, 0.3 percent state-wide. This increase would be a relatively minor amount of the total acres in the state.
Lowland hardwoods showed an increase by about 3 percent, or 44,000 acres, and lowland conifers showed an increase of about 0.4 percent, or 12,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project no changes in the 10-year or 100-year periods. This would likely have no effect on this vegetation type on a state-wide basis.
Openings and barrens make up the non-forested vegetation types on the forest. Alternative B predicts the amount of non-forested acres would increase to approximately 10 percent of the sandy hills and plains landtype associations, with the size of openings being up to 500 acres. Approximately 1,800 acres of the openlands would be located on dry Sparta soils.
Total forested acres in the state have increased by 777,000 acres, or about 4 percent, for the period of 1993 to 2001. This indicates that lands are converting from non-forested to forested conditions. Alternative B predicts that the amount of non-forested–openings, barrens, savannahs and prairies–acres on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would increase by about 27 percent or 16,600 acres, 0.09 percent of the total forested acres in the state, in 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected the acres would increase by about 124 percent or 74,200 acres, 0.4 percent of the 2001 state-wide total forested acres. This management should have little impact on the overall forested condition of the state because the state is currently gaining significantly more overall forested acres than the Huron-Manistee National Forests are losing.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
There would be alterations to vegetation structure and composition in relation to management of ginseng and other sensitive species habitat. Kirtland’s warbler habitat, early successional riparian habitat, early successional vegetation, hazardous fuels reduction and fuelbreak construction would be expanded in Alternative C, but would be at varying implementation rates. Management activities mentioned above would affect vegetation composition and structure primarily in low- site oak, jack pine, and red pine vegetation types. Under Alternative C, more of the aspen vegetation types would be expected to convert to northern hardwoods and high-site oak vegetation types, compared to Alternative A. The rotation age of aspen inside of Grouse Emphasis Areas would increase to 50 years.
Indicator 1 – Amounts of Forests Vegetation Types:
Table III-25 displays the acres of each vegetative class that would result from timber harvests
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-237 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
and natural succession if Alternative C was implemented.
Table III-25. Estimated acres of each Vegetative Class for Alternative C. Current Vegetative Class Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 5 Decade 10 Condition Aspen/Birch 161,413 150,573136,604 123,828 64,360 Barrens 0 26,21752,431 67,763 67,763 High-site Oaks 126,152 132,160 138,410 146,335 167,708 Lowland Conifers 30,803 30,803 30,803 30,803 30,803 Lowland Hardwoods 43,970 43,970 43,970 43,970 43,970 Long-lived Conifers 197,694 180,896 169,281 163,398 163,398 Low-site Oaks 155,835 145,921 139,702 131,317 115,317 Northern Hardwoods 74,116 75,463 79,697 84,547 122,642 Open 60,000 67,26466,467 65,670 65,670 Short-lived Conifers 115,294 112,010 107,912 107,645 123,645
There currently are approximately 161,400 acres of the aspen/birch type. Aspen acres would steadily decline in this alternative through 90 years before leveling off. In 10 years, it is predicted to be about 150,600 acres; in 50 years approximately 123,800 acres; and by 100 years, it would level off to approximately 64,400 acres for the remainder of the decades. This 97,000-acre loss would be primarily due to natural succession of aspen succeeding to high-site oaks and northern hardwoods in areas such as old growth, lands physically unsuitable for timber harvest or from lands considered unnecessary to meet species viability needs or timber demands.
There currently are approximately 126,000 acres of the high-site oaks type. These are oaks growing on site indexes of 56 and above. High-site oak acres would steadily increase in this alternative before leveling off. In 10 years it is predicted there would be approximately 132,200 acres of the high-site oak type. In 50 years it is predicted there would be approximately 146,300 acres and by 100 years, it would level off to approximately 167,700 acres for the remainder of the decades. The approximate 41,500-acre net increase would be primarily due to shorter-lived species such as aspen naturally succeeding to this vegetative type and high-site oaks converting to barrens or savannahs.
There currently are approximately 197,700 acres of long-lived conifers. Long-lived conifers are comprised of red pine and white pine, but are predominately present as red pine plantations. Under Alternative C, it is predicted there would be approximately 180,900 acres of the long- lived conifer type in 10 years. By 30 years it is predicted there would be approximately 169,300 acres, with the number of acres predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. This 34,300-acre decrease would be primarily due to conversion of the long-lived conifer types to barren, savannah and open vegetation types.
There are currently approximately 115,300 acres of short-lived conifers, predominately jack pine. In 10 years it is predicted there would be approximately 112,000 acres; in 30 years approximately 107,900 acres; at 50 years, 107,600 acres; and by 100 years, 123,600 acres. The number of acres is predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-238 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
fluctuation of acres in the beginning 50 years would be due to acres of jack pine being converted to barrens, savannahs, openings and low-site oaks being converted to short-lived conifers–jack pine–for the Kirtland’s warbler habitat. There would be a net gain of approximately 8,300 acres of short-lived conifers.
There currently are approximately 155,800 acres of low-site oaks. These are oaks growing on site indexes of 55 and lower. In 10 years, it is predicted there would be approximately 145,900 acres; in 30 years approximately 139,700 acres; at 50 years, 131,300 acres and at 100 years, 115,300 acres. The number of acres is predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The 40,500-acre net decrease would be primarily due to conversion to short-lived conifers–jack pine–for the Kirtland’s warbler and barrens or savannahs with minor amounts converted to openings. The small amounts of low-site oaks that would be converted from short- lived conifers to low-site oaks would be from fuels management.
There currently are approximately 74,100 acres of northern hardwoods. Under Alternative C, it is predicted there would be approximately 75,500 acres of the northern hardwood type in 10 years. In 30 years it is predicted to increase to approximately 79,700 acres; by 50 years approximately 84,500 acres; and by 100 years 122,600 acres. The acres of northern hardwoods are predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The approximate 48,500-acre increase would be primarily due to aspen that would have naturally succeeded to the northern hardwood types.
There currently are approximately 30,800 acres of lowland conifer and 44,000 acres of lowland hardwoods. The acres of both vegetation types are predicted to remain at these levels through all of the decades because no harvest treatments are proposed in these vegetative types.
There currently are approximately 60,000 acres of the open vegetative types. These types include lowland wet brush and shrubs, upland brush and shrubs and grassy openings. In 10 years it is predicted there would be approximately 67,300 acres; in 30 years, approximately 66,500 acres and in 50 years, approximately 65,700 acres. The number of acres is predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The 5,700-acre net increase would be primarily due to conversion from long-lived conifers, and lesser amounts of low-site oaks and short-lived conifers to open vegetative types. In addition, some of the open vegetation type acres are predicted to convert to barrens or savannahs.
There currently are no acres of barrens or savannahs. In 10 years it is predicted there would be approximately 26,200 acres of barrens or savannahs; in 30 years it is predicted there would be approximately 52,400 acres and in 50 years, there would be approximately 67,800 acres. The acres of barrens and savannahs are predicted to stabilize at this level through the remaining decades. The 67,800-acre increase would be primarily the result of the conversion of long-lived conifers, low-site oaks, and short-lived conifers with lesser amounts of high-site oaks and openings to barrens or savannahs.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-239 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Indicator 2 – Amounts of Forests by Age Class:
During the first 10 years under Alternative C, age classes would be relatively evenly spread with the exception of ages 60 to 99, which would have the highest amount. During the first 10 years, the older age classes would begin to increase. However, by 100 years, age classes would be skewed toward the greater-than-100 year and the less-than-60 year age categories (See Tables III-20 through III-23).
In the first 10 years, aspen/birch would begin to show a more even distribution of acres across the age classes through age 99. By 100 years, age classes would be regulated and all aspen/birch is predicted to be less than 60 years old.
In the first 10 years, high-site oaks are predicted to show relatively even-age class distribution through age 79. The amount of acres in age classes above 80 years would increase. Within 100 years, the majority of high-site oak would be in age classes greater than 80 years old with 57 percent of the acres in the greater-than-100 year age category.
In the first 10 years, long-lived conifers are predicted to have the majority of the acres in the 40 to 79 age class. Within 100 years, the age distribution of long-lived conifers would be skewed toward the greater-than-100 and less-than-60 year age classes.
In the first 10 years, low-site oaks are predicted to have a relatively even spread across the age classes. Within 100 years, the age of 76 percent of low-site oak would be greater than 100 years with minor amounts generally spread evenly below 80 years of age and none in the 80 to 99 year age class.
In the first 10 years, the majority of northern hardwoods are predicted to be in the 80 to 99 years age class. Within 100 years, 92 percent of the northern hardwoods would be greater than 100 years.
In the first 10 years, short-lived conifers are predicted to have a relatively even spread across the age classes except no acres would exceed 100 years in age. Within 100 years, 35 percent of all short-lived conifers would be greater than 100 years or spread evenly below 60 years in age.
No treatments are expected in lowland hardwoods or lowland conifers under Alternative C. Therefore age classes for these vegetation types are assumed to generally trend toward the oldest age classes.
Indicator 3 – Use of Management to Influence Within-Stand Complexity:
Over the length of the longest rotation of the vegetation types, 100 years, approximately 66 percent of the acres would receive harvest treatments that change the within-stand complexity of the forest. Approximately 34 percent of the acres would receive no treatments. Approximately 44 percent of the acres would be the result of clearcut/shelterwood treatments, 2 percent uneven- aged treatments, and 20 percent from thinning treatments. However, an additional 20 percent of the total acres that would receive thinning treatments would also receive clearcut or shelterwood
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-240 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
regeneration harvests during the 100-year rotation period. The aspen/birch, short-lived conifers and low-site oaks vegetative types would likely receive two clearcut treatments in that period of time on the same acres. The long-lived conifers, high-site oaks and northern hardwoods that are even-aged managed would likely only receive one clearcut/shelterwood treatment during that period of time after a series of thinnings. Uneven-aged managed northern hardwood stands would likely have harvest entries every 20 years to select individual trees.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives C:
Vegetation type data for the State of Michigan is from the USDA-North Central Research Station Forest Inventory Analysis Resource Bulletin NC-179 (1993) and NC-224 (2001).
Aspen/birch showed an increase of about 9 percent, or 300,000 acres, across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests project an approximate 7 percent, or 10,800 acres, 0.3 percent state-wide, decrease in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected the acres would decrease on the Huron-Manistee National Forests by approximately 60 percent or 97,400 acres, 2.8 percent state- wide from the 2001 aspen acres in the state. This decrease at the 10 year Forest Plan period would be relatively minor in relation to the total state acres of aspen. The predicted decrease in aspen acres on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be a significant change in 100 years: however, it would have a relatively small impact at the state level, if upward trends continue for the state similar to the period of 1993 to 2001.
High-site oaks and low-site oaks showed an increase of about 13 percent or 251,000 acres across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests projects an approximately 2 percent or 4,700 acres, 0.2 percent state-wide, decrease in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would increase on the Huron-Manistee National Forests by about 0.4 percent or 1,200 acres, 0.05 percent state-wide from the 2001 oak acres in the state). This increase would be a relatively insignificant amount of the total acres in the state. However, this overall gain would be due to gaining high-site oak through aspen succession, and by losing low-site oak to conversions to non-forested vegetation types such as openings, barrens, savannahs and prairies.
Long-lived conifers and short-lived conifers showed an increase of 0.7 percent or 14,000 acres across all lands in the state for the period of 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests projects a 7 percent, or 20,700 acres decrease in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would decrease on the Huron- Manistee National Forests by about 9 percent, or 26,800 acres, 1.3 percent state-wide. This 10- year loss is approximately 1.5 times the acres gained by the state from 1993 to 2001. The loss of these conifer types on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be mainly the result of the conversion of these forested types to non-forested vegetation types such as openings, barrens, savannahs and prairies as well as some conversions of red pine to jack pine for Kirtland’s warbler management. If the overall increases at the state level continue similar to the period of 1993 to 2001, then the losses at the Huron-Manistee National Forests may be offset by the gains at the state level in 100 years.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-241 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Northern hardwoods showed a decrease of about 1 percent or 71,000 acres across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests projects about a 2 percent, or 1,700 acres, 0.02 percent state-wide, increase in the number of acres during the Forest Plan period of 10 years. At 100 years, it is projected that the acres would increase on the Huron- Manistee National Forests by about 66 percent, or 48,700 acres, 0.6 percent state-wide. This increase at the 10-year Forest Plan period would be relatively minor in relation to the total state acres of northern hardwoods. The predicted increase in northern hardwoods acres on the Huron- Manistee National Forests would be a significant change in 100 years; however, it would have a relatively small impact at the state level compared to the total acres of this vegetation type. Much of the significant change in acres on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would be the result of aspen succeeding to northern hardwoods.
Lowland hardwoods showed an increase of about 3 percent, or 44,000 acres, and lowland conifers showed an increase of about 0.4 percent, or 12,000 acres across all lands in the state for the period 1993 to 2001. The Huron-Manistee National Forests projects no changes in the 10- year or 100-year periods. This would likely to have no impact on this vegetation type on a state- wide basis.
Openings and barrens make up the non-forested vegetation types on the forest. Alternative C predicts that the amount of these non-forested acres would increase. The implementation rate under Alternative C for increasing non-forested acres, especially barrens would be faster than in Alternative B. Non-forested vegetation types comprise approximately 10 percent of the sandy hills and plains landtype associations with the size of the openings being up to 500 acres. Approximately 1,800 acres of the openlands would be located on dry Sparta soils.
Total forested acres in the state have increased by 777,000 acres for the period of 1993 to 2001, or about 4 percent. This indicates that lands are converting from non-forested conditions to forested ones. Alternative C predicts that in 10 years the amount of non-forested–openings, barrens, savannahs and prairies–acres on the Huron-Manistee National Forests would increase by about 58 percent, or 34,600 acres, 0.2 percent of the total forested acres in the state, in 10 years. At 100 years it is projected that the acres would increase by about 124 percent, or 74,200 acres, 0.4 percent of the 2001 state-wide total forested acres. This management should have little impact on the overall forested condition of the state because the state is currently gaining significantly more overall forested acres than the Huron-Manistee National Forests are losing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-242 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Effects on Non-Native Invasive Species:
Introduction:
For this document, non-native invasive species are those plant and animal species which are not indigenous to the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, and which aggressively compete for space and resources with native species. An organism is considered non-native when it has been introduced by humans to a location outside its natural or native range. Many non-native species exist in apparent harmony in environments where they were introduced. A relatively small number of non-native plants, for example, corn, wheat, rice and oats, form the basis of our agricultural industry and pose little to no known threats to natural ecosystems. Not all non-native species are invasive, for example, tulips, while some natives are aggressive and somewhat invasive, for example, blackberry and tent caterpillars. The most important aspect of a non-native species is how it responds to a new environment. Those species that are both non-native and aggressive can alter natural ecosystems.
Invasive species display rapid growth and spread, establish over large areas and persist and replace native species. Invasiveness is characterized by high reproductive rates, abundant seed, high germination or survival rate and persistence in the ecosystem. Examples of highly impacting, non-desirable invasive species that exist on the Forests are Norway rat, sea lamprey, zebra mussel, gypsy moth and purple loosestrife. Effects of invasion include native species being replaced by exotic species, changes in water or fire regimes, changes in soil characteristics, adding or displacing an existing wildlife food source, changing a multiple species community into a monoculture and changing erosion and sedimentation processes (Westbrooks 1998). Non- native invasive species can also impact species of viability concern, such as rusty crayfish consuming rare aquatic plants.
Insects and Diseases:
The most important insects and diseases threatening forest vegetation are gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar); Dutch elm disease fungus (Ophiostoma ulmi - formerly called Ceratocystis ulmi and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi), spread by either the native elm bark beetle (Hylurgopinus rufipes) or the smaller European elm bark beetle (Scolytus multistriatus ); emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis); Asian long-horned beetle (Anaplophora glabripennis); butternut canker (Sirococcus clavigignti-juglandacearum); and beech bark disease, which results when bark that is attacked and altered by the beech scale (Cryptococcus fagisug) is invaded and killed by the beech bark disease fungi, primarily Nectria coccinea var. faginata and sometimes N. galligena.
The gypsy moth and Dutch elm disease fungus infest every acre of the Forests where oaks and elms are present. Beech bark disease currently infests several thousand acres in Mason, Manistee, Oceana and Wexford Counties. Emerald ash borer infestations occur in Alcona and other southern Michigan counties; the Agriculture Plant Health Inspection Service and Michigan Department of Agriculture, and other state agencies, are currently attempting to eradicate this species in Michigan and the eastern United States. Butternut canker infects this species throughout its native range, but the population of butternut trees is low on the Forests. The Asian
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-243 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
long-horned beetle has not been found on the Forests, but eradication and monitoring programs are on-going as close as the greater Chicago area.
Plants:
There are currently 60 plants listed as non-native invasive species of concern for the Forests. Each species has an associated management goal ranging from immediate eradication to preventing invasion in non-infested areas. The Forests’ list also includes plant species not yet found but expected to arrive in the near future. The list is a working document that will change to incorporate additional species not yet identified as non-native invasive species. Management goals are also likely to change based on new information. The current list of non-native invasive species of concern can be found on the Huron-Manistee National Forests' website (www.fs.fed.us/r9/hmnf).
The following are three examples of plant species from the Forests’ non-native invasive species plant list that occur in different habitats:
Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is a European biennial introduced by settlers for cooking uses. This plant is a prolific seed producer, dominates all other ground vegetation and spreads very rapidly. It occurs in undisturbed and disturbed hardwood forests, along roadsides and in yards. It can tolerate a variety of light regimes (Mortensen 2002). This invasive is a threat to spring ephemerals and other native ground flora. It was first found on the Huron-Manistee National Forests in 2002. It has been found on non-federal lands in two locations with large populations.
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) occurs in wetland and riparian areas and almost always out-competes native vegetation, turning diverse plant communities into monocultures. Purple loosestrife replaces native vegetation used by wildlife for food, cover and nest building. A single plant produces thousands of seeds and individuals can spread vegetatively as well (Mortensen 2001). There are numerous locations of purple loosestrife within the Forests’ boundary on both private and public lands. Biological control using beetles has been underway on the Forests for four years and appears to be effective in the locations where it has been used.
Spotted knapweed [Centaurea biebersteinii (maculosa)] threatens some of the rarer plant communities on the Forests. This species is found in dry, often disturbed sandy soil, where rare barrens, prairie and dune species also occur. Spotted knapweed is not only a prolific seed producer; it also manufactures a toxic compound which is exuded from its roots. This compound kills many neighboring plants, freeing up space and resources for spotted knapweed seedlings to use. Control on the Forests at this time is limited to Research Natural Areas, Wilderness and other special areas.
A complete inventory of the Forests to assess the amount of acreage infested with invasive plant species has not been completed. The most likely areas of infestation include roadside habitat, areas of disturbance in sandy soils and suitable riparian habitats. When the number of acres in landtype associations having these characteristics is considered, it is estimated that over 100,000 acres of the Forests could to be infested with invasive plants.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-244 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Aquatic and Terrestrial Animals:
There are three animal species known to occur on the Forests that have deleterious environmental effects – rusty crayfish, sea lamprey and zebra mussel.
Rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) are native to the Ohio River basin. These crustaceans were most likely spread by anglers who use them as bait, and they have also been sold to schools by biological supply companies. They have large ecological impacts because they eat aquatic vegetation that is important habitat and food for other species, and out compete native crayfish species (Gunderson 2004). Lodge et al. (1994) found that rusty crayfish caused a significant decrease in aquatic plants and snails in a northern Wisconsin lake.
Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), introduced into the Great Lakes via the Welland Canal in the early 1920s, has contributed greatly to the decline of native whitefish and lake trout in the Great Lakes. Since 1956, the governments of the United States and Canada, working jointly through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, have implemented a successful lamprey control program. Lampreys use the Great Lakes-accessible rivers of the Huron-Manistee National Forests for reproduction.
Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) were introduced from the Caspian Sea area in ballast water. This species attaches to hard substrates; such as rocks, boat hulls and other mussels, and is known to foul water intake pipes at power plants. Zebra mussels are very prolific and can form dense mats. High numbers are very efficient at filtering material that other organisms use for food out of the water. Large numbers of zebra mussels can have a devastating effect on native mussels due to competition (Strayer and Smith, 1996). Where they have become established, they have created serious ecological and economic problems. They are easily spread on boat hulls and in live-well water. Zebra mussels currently are found in the major river systems on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, especially in proximity to the hydropower projects on the Au Sable, Manistee and Muskegon Rivers.
Another animal that is likely to be having deleterious effects on the Forests’ vegetative communities is the earthworm (Lumbricus, Eisenia, Apporectodea and Dendrobaena spp.). The Wisconsin glaciation, approximately 70,000 to 10,000 years ago, removed all topsoil from much of northern North America, eliminating all native earthworms from this area. Since European settlement, earthworms have been introduced unintentionally by dumping ships’ ballast, in imported plant potting soil, intentionally to improve soil conditions or as fishing bait (Hendrix and Bohlen 2002). All earthworms in Michigan are invasive species, usually European members of the family Lumbricidae (Reynolds, 1995). When earthworms invade an area with no native worms, they rapidly devour the forest duff layer which negatively affects species that require a moist organic forest floor. Surveys in 2003 and 2004 found earthworms in 62 of 85 sites, or 73 percent, on the Ottawa National Forest. Their natural rate of spread is typically slow, 7 to 10 feet per year (Curry, 1998). Roads are an effective means of earthworm spread because earthworm egg masses can easily be moved in mud attached to vehicles, hiker’s boots, etc. The forest types most susceptible to invasion are northern hardwoods and aspen. Drier, and more acidic, forest types such as conifer, and very wet soils are less susceptible to invasion (Pritchett and Fisher
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-245 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
1987). Although the extent to which these species are negatively affecting the forest environment is not yet well understood, it is probable that negative effects are occurring.
There are two invasive species of fish that are not known to occur on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, yet present an imminent threat. The bighead and silver carp have been migrating north through the Mississippi River drainage and are currently being blocked from access to the Great Lakes by a fish barrier located in the Chicago Shipping Canal (Irons 2003, Taylor et al. 2003). An introduction into the Great Lakes poses a very serious threat to the ecology of this system as both species are planktivorous. Consequently, these invaders could affect every species of fish in the Great Lakes as all fish forage on plankton at some point in their lives (which in turn has the potential to affect those fisheries on the Huron-Manistee National Forests that are Great Lakes accessible).
Sources and Means of Spread:
Non-native invasive species enter National Forest System lands and spread in different ways. Some were planted for erosion control, for example, crown vetch, or introduced in fill material, seed mixes and mulches. Some escaped from yards and gardens when seeds were eaten and carried by birds or mammals, for example, honeysuckle and common buckthorn. Some are brought in on recreational vehicles or hiking boots: for example, Eurasian water milfoil is frequently transferred on boat trailers and spotted knapweed seeds are carried by All-terrain Vehicles. Some are transported by anglers: for example, rusty crayfish and earthworms are used as bait and may be released or escape from the container. Vehicles on roads can spread seeds by driving through infestations, picking up seeds that are dropped elsewhere or by generating wind currents that move seeds down the road corridor. Logging equipment can introduce non-native invasive species to uninfested areas; for example, plant seeds or worm cocoons carried on tire treads. Some non-native invasive species were introduced elsewhere in the North America and are gradually spreading when unintentionally transported, for example, gypsy moth egg masses on wood, vehicles and outdoor recreational items or emerald ash borer larvae in firewood or small transplanted trees. Wind, water and wildlife also move propagules of non-native invasive species.
Regardless of the vector, establishment of introduced propagules often depends on site conditions. If there is an intact native plant community, invading plants may be repelled but if there is open or disturbed soil, such as on a trail, roadside, gravel pit, lakeshore or log decking area, invading plants are likely to establish. If two rusty crayfish land in a lake full of large- mouth bass, they may be eaten before they can reproduce. However, for most of these exotic species, there are few natural controls such as predators or parasites to limit population sizes. Most of these species can move only short distances via their own mechanisms, but can make huge range jumps if assisted accidentally or deliberately by people. Use of the Forests can thus introduce species to areas that would not otherwise be particularly accessible to non-native invasive species.
Once established, infestations of invasive species can be very difficult to control. Treatment options include manual, mechanical, chemical, cultural and biological controls. Prevention is
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-246 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
generally less expensive and has fewer environmental consequences than any of the control options.
Indicators and Analysis Area:
Two indicators for non-native invasive species are used: the number of new non-native invasive species identified on the Forests, and the total area infested by invasive species. The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, based on the potential sources of introduction and means of spread for non-native invasive species.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A would provide for the control of insects and diseases, whether native or non- native, through the use of Integrated Pest Management; however, Integrated Pest Management is weighted towards native, endemic pests of trees. Generally there is a time lapse to detect and coordinate treatment of non-native invasive species infestations, which may allow species to spread further and increase in numbers of individuals.
There are numerous potential sources of new introductions of and the means of spreading non- native invasive species including: most recreational activities, but especially those associated with recreational trails and permanent forest and public roads; ground-disturbing activities and equipment used for timber harvests, prescribed fire events and wildfire suppression; right-of- way’s and easements for public and private roads and utility corridors and mineral exploration. Despite treatments using integrated pest management, it is expected that introductions and number of acres infested would increase.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives B and C:
Non-native invasive species and forest pest species would continue to be introduced and spread by activities in the analysis area, as described in Alternative A.
Changes in management area, emphasis area, Research Natural Area, and Candidate Research Natural Area acres would reduce the potential for spread and local introduction of non-native invasive species, largely because of the net increase of nonmotorized acres and other protected areas, and a decrease in wildlife and deer emphasis units.
Converting thousands of acres of various conifer and low-site oak forest types to restore barrens and prairie habitats would create the potential for increased spread of invasive species that are difficult to prevent and control in sandy, open habitats. In addition, the average opening size would increase, which may allow larger populations of non-native invasive species to occur.
Intensified red pine harvesting would generate more mechanical harvest entries, increasing the potential for local introductions and decreasing the recovery interval between ground disturbing events.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-247 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
The increases in fuelbreak creation and maintenance and prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction activities would increase the potential for non-native invasive species introduction and spread. However, this trend would be moderated as more natural fire regimes were restored and native ground flora that can resist new introductions and slow rates of spread became established.
New mineral lease activities would be expected to increase the number of acres disturbed and susceptible to invasion and spread. These developments would be limited to upland sites by restrictive lease stipulations, which would decrease the likelihood of wetland invasive introductions and rates of spread where mineral rights were owned by the State of Michigan or the United States. Privately-owned mineral rights within the Forests’ boundary, having either Forest or private surface ownership, frequently do not have such restrictive lease stipulations. This would increase the overall potential for new introductions and a higher rate of spread throughout the analysis area.
New mitigation standards under Alternatives B and C for ground disturbing activities would reduce the potential for new introductions and decrease non-mitigated rates of spread. Specific Standards and Guidelines would be provided to prevent, control and monitor non-native invasive species. These mitigation measures would apply to the entire range of management practices. Due to the widespread existing populations of some species and the biological characteristics of other species on native landscapes, the effectiveness of decreasing the rates of spread would vary by ecological setting and control effort. Due to the limits of prevention, detection, treatment and monitoring in the analysis area, the potential for new local or landscape introductions cannot be eliminated.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
When considering the effects listed above with the predicted increase in population; urbanization around and within the Forests’ boundary; the need for access to private property across National Forest System Lands and the number of visitors to the Forests, it is likely that there would be an increase in the introduction of new non-native invasive species and an increase in the number of acres infested on the Forests.
Cumulative Effects of Alternatives B and C:
The current infestation levels, when combined with the various ownerships, management objectives, road jurisdictions, unmanaged recreational activities and the complexity of addressing non-native invasive species on private and public lands, is likely to cause moderate to high levels of vegetative and aquatic resource degradation on the Huron-Manistee National Forests which is also likely to cause degradation and increased distribution of non-native invasive species within the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Standards and Guidelines would provide direction and guidance in working with public and private partners on developing and implementing education and prevention programs to reduce new infestations and the rates of spread of existing non-native invasive species infestations within and adjacent to the Forests' lands. These Forest-wide efforts will provide minimal impact on the spread of non-native invasive species within the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-248 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
The increase of the population base within and adjacent to the Forests would increase the rate of these introductions and spread of non-native invasive species by decreasing parcel sizes of private ownership and increasing the negative effects of private access privileges and practices.
Non-native invasive species management would focus on communities that are the least infested and those communities that are most at risk due to rarity.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-249 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Effects on Old Growth:
The Huron Manistee National Forests’ 1986 Land and Resource Management Plan allocated approximately 173,000 acres to old growth by management area. However, the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, was appealed based on the facts that specific locations of old growth were not mapped and that old-growth management direction was not provided. Thirteen years later, after old-growth definitions, design criteria, mapping, management options and desired conditions were extensively debated and discussed, the Old Growth Settlement Agreement Forest Plan Amendment, Amendment 24, was signed (USDA-Forest Service 2001). Much time and energy has recently been devoted to designating old growth, and no changes are proposed for the Forest Plan Revision. Thus the extent, location and management of old growth will be the same for Alternatives A, B and C.
General Description of Designated Old-Growth Areas:
It is recognized that no true old-growth forests currently exist on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Thus, the old-growth design is an effort to designate geographic areas where the properties and processes of old-growth ecosystems will be restored over time. Connectivity and large, contiguous blocks were considered to be more important than individual stand considerations when the old-growth design was developed. As such, the design does not necessarily contain the oldest vegetation communities on the Forests, but rather is characterized by a connected network of large tracts of land that will attain old-growth characteristics over time.
Within the designated old-growth areas, there is expected to be little evidence of human-caused disturbance and that the controlling influences on vegetative community development and structure will be natural processes. The old-growth design does contain dynamic ecosystems that when subjected to natural processes as controlling influences will result in early successional communities such as sedge meadow or shrub dominated wetlands, young jack pine forest, prairie, pine barrens or savannahs. However, in general, the conditions within the old-growth design will, over time, trend toward mature forested stands characterized by trees of different ages and sizes, including dominant trees beyond the age of biological maturity and significant amounts of standing dead trees and down woody material.
Although wildlife species that use old-growth habitat, such as bear, bobcat, pileated woodpecker and species of neotropical songbirds, are expected to benefit, the greatest benefit of the old- growth designation is expected to be conservation of ecological diversity. As such, landtype associations were used to stratify the old-growth design to ensure ecological diversity and to promote associated biological diversity. A more detailed description of the old-growth allocation can be found in the Old-Growth Amendment’s Environmental Assessment (USDA-Forest Service 2001).
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-250 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Minor Effects to Other Resources Common to All Alternatives:
The affects of early successional management would decrease over time. The effects of roads and trails would also decrease over time as vegetation on closed and obliterated roads and trails regenerated. Despite the overlapping location of the old-growth design with water-related recreation destinations, as well as existing motorized and nonmotorized trails, recreation use would only be slightly affected by the old-growth design under any of the alternatives. Any increase in recreation use would be due to non-consumptive recreation, such as nature study and hiking, that would occur within the mature and over-mature forest areas found in old-growth locations.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Vegetation:
Vegetative communities occupying areas within the old-growth design have arisen as a result of various historical land use practices including logging, plantation establishment and agriculture. In addition, factors such as catastrophic fire following the logging era and subsequent decades of fire suppression have significantly influenced today’s vegetative composition within the design. Because of this, the emphasis on allowing natural process to occur would result in changes to vegetative communities. Specifically, early successional communities such as aspen, jack pine, openings and old fields, would be lost in favor of, for example, red pine, white pine or northern hardwood forests. This trend would be similar among all three alternatives and would be in accordance with the objectives of the old-growth design. However, some ecosystems within the old-growth design, particularly dry sandy outwash plains, support vegetative communities that have evolved with and require fire to establish and maintain.
Use of prescribed fire or mechanical treatments to mimic fire’s natural role in these systems would be allowed within the old-growth design, and wildfires would be suppressed using minimum-impact techniques. The combination of fire suppression and lack of timber harvest within such vegetative communities, especially jack pine forests, may result in excessive fuel loadings, stagnation, decline and increased potential for catastrophic infestation by insects or wildfires of greater intensity than would likely occur naturally. Disturbances of this nature may produce adverse effects on site conditions such as degradation of soil structure, loss of soil fertility and establishment of unnatural vegetative community structure or composition.
The Old-Growth Amendment would allow for the use of active management to expedite restoration of old-growth conditions in human-influenced vegetative communities. Further, the amendment would allow for the restoration of 10,000 acres of prairies, savannahs and oak-pine barrens within the design. Restoring natural communities such as relatively open red or white pine forests, pine barrens or savannahs that are less prone to excessive fuel loading and stagnation may mitigate the impacts of the conditions created by active management. For example, periodic use of prescribed fire would be used to maintain closed conifer and oak forests, while preventing the excessive build up of fuel loads.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-251 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Restoration of Prairies, Barrens, and Savannahs:
The Old-Growth Amendment would allow for the establishment and maintenance of up to 10,000 acres of fire-dependent savannahs, prairies and oak-pine barrens. This would be consistent with the objectives of the old-growth design in that it would contribute to the restoration of ecological diversity and would reintroduce periodic, low intensity fire, a natural process, into appropriate ecosystems. However, restoration of these open, grass dominated communities may attract and concentrate populations of white tailed deer. Increased herbivory may result and, in turn, lead to localized impacts on understory vegetative diversity.
A final potential effect is that increased open lands associated with these restoration efforts may encourage the illegal operation of Off-Highway Vehicles away from designated trail systems. This type of Off-Highway Vehicle use has been shown to adversely impact natural community structure and composition by directly destroying ground flora and introducing or allowing for the spread and establishment of non-native invasive plant species. Disturbance to surface soil horizons and soil compaction can also result and cause disruption to natural processes such as the relationship between soil and hydrology.
Timber Harvesting and Mechanical Treatments:
Although natural processes would predominate within designated old-growth areas, some timber harvesting and mechanical treatments are permissible within the design. For example, forest conditions that were influenced directly or indirectly by humans will be actively managed if such management will ensure or expedite development of old-growth conditions. Specifically, there are approximately 18,600 acres of conifer plantations within the old-growth design. These plantations will be subjected to a maximum of four restoration efforts, which may include commercial harvesting, designed to restore more natural-appearing forest conditions by reducing the unnatural row effect, producing larger diameter trees, and creating or improving horizontal and vertical structural diversity. Additionally, as discussed, up to 10,000 acres of prairies, savannahs and oak-pine systems will be restored and maintained. This activity will involve timber harvesting and will usually require establishment of fire lines.
Initially, these activities will conflict with objectives of the old-growth design by virtue of the facts that timber harvest is not a natural process and there will be distinct evidence of human- caused disturbance within the design. There is also the potential threat that soil compaction or introduction of non-native invasive species may cause longer term disruptions of natural processes. However, there are Standards and Guidelines in place to mitigate impacts on soils and the Old-Growth Amendment has a provision that non-native invasive plant species must be controlled to maintain native vegetation. Over the long term, management activities involving timber harvesting, if carefully executed, will reduce unnatural appearing row effects, expedite the attainment of natural or natural appearing vegetative communities that contribute significantly to ecological diversity, and provide a condition where natural processes can better function to maintain or enhance this diversity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-252 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Non-Native Invasive Species:
Adverse impacts of non-native invasive species on the structure and function of natural ecosystems and on ecological diversity have been well documented. Non-native invasive species may become established within designated old-growth areas as a result of restoration activities within the design, as described above, or directly or indirectly through introductions along roads or established Off-Highway Vehicles, hiking or horse trails. Further, many management activities routinely conducted on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, such as habitat manipulation, timber harvest and road or trail construction, may result in establishment or spread of non-native invasive species. This, in turn, may lead to infestations within the old-growth design via natural vectors of dispersal such as wind or animals.
As stated previously, the Old-Growth Amendment has a provision that non-native invasive plant species must be controlled to maintain native vegetation. Additionally, Alternative A requires certain precautions be taken to prevent spread of non-native invasive species; for example the washing of timber harvesting equipment is required. Despite these precautions, due to the ubiquitous distribution of many non-native invasive species on the Forests, adverse indirect effects are still likely to occur from invasive species under this Alternative.
Wetlands:
The old-growth design contains a variety of wetland communities ranging from emergent marshes, sedge meadows, thickets of alder, willow, dogwood or other shrubs, to forested swamps of black ash and red maple or spruce, cedar and tamarack. Like terrestrial vegetation communities within the design, wetlands occur in various successional stages. Further, wetland communities within the old-growth design have also been subjected to a wide array of human caused disturbances, such as timber harvest, catastrophic fire, damming and draining, and may require restoration. Such restoration efforts are intended to be consistent with natural processes and disturbances such as occasional flooding, blow down and fires, which would occur naturally in certain wetland communities when the regional water table is low.
Effects associated with wetland restoration activities are expected to be similar to those described for terrestrial restoration and may temporarily conflict with objectives of the Old- Growth Amendment. If natural disturbance processes are not adequately restoring natural vegetative conditions, active management would be considered. Management methods that would be used included prescribed fire, planting and eradication. Restoration activities will reduce unnatural vegetative conditions and expedite the attainment of natural or natural appearing vegetative communities. These restored communities will facilitate accomplishment of old-growth objectives by contributing significantly to ecological diversity and providing conditions where natural processes can better function to maintain or enhance this diversity.
Flooding of wetlands may occur within the old-growth design in accordance with existing licenses for operations of hydroelectric projects on the Manistee, Muskegon and Au Sable Rivers. Additionally, flooding of wetlands is also permitted through the establishment of water control structures within the old-growth design. Water control structures may be designed to allow for the periodic manipulation of water levels. These activities will create and maintain
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-253 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences ponds or emergent marshes, but interrupt natural succession to communities such as sedge meadows, fens, alder or willow thicket or forested swamps. Flooding and periodic water level manipulation of wetlands has the benefit of providing habitat for species associated with these habitat conditions, for example many species of waterfowl. However, these activities impact designated old growth by preventing natural successional processes to operate and by precluding the function of natural hydrologic processes through, for example, the introduction of artificial hydrologic regimes.
Herbivory:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests create or maintain forest openings and early successional habitat under Alternative A directly through habitat manipulation or indirectly via other forest management activities. This increases populations of associated wildlife species which, in turn, will have indirect impacts on understory vegetation composition within the old-growth design due to high levels of herbivory; especially from white-tailed deer.
Minerals:
Ownership of subsurface mineral rights under National Forest System lands is about 50 percent federal, 40 percent state and 10 percent private. In accordance with existing law and regulation, private owners of mineral rights under National Forest System lands have the right, through the severance deed and state regulation, to develop their interests. These rights must be honored irrespective of old-growth designation, with the exception of federal leases with old-growth stipulations. As such, land management decisions are not permitted to preclude private mineral owners from making reasonable use of surface lands for subsurface resource development. Thus, activities associated with mineral development for gravel, sand, or oil and gas could occur within the old-growth design. Such activities may create disturbance to surface areas within the old- growth design by clearing vegetation, establishing well pads or access roads, and through the extraction of sand or gravel. Normally, areas of disturbance associated with such activity would be from 3 to 6 acres for sand and gravel operations, whereas establishment of well pads may disturb from 1 to 3.5 acres. Most foreseeable development for oil and gas across the Forest would be at densities less than one surface location per 40 acres.
Activities associated with minerals resource development within old-growth areas may negatively affect old growth through fragmenting the design, converting maturing vegetation to early successional stages and disrupting natural or near-natural processes. The possibility for infestation, establishment, or spread of invasive species may also increase in areas subjected to development. However, these negative effects are expected to be minimal to negligible for the following reasons. First, forest-wide projected development over next 10 to 15 years for the Huron-Manistee National Forests predicts 88 new wells drilled on all National Forest System lands with a corresponding 384 acres of surface disturbance; less than one percent of lands designated as old growth. In addition, since 90 percent of the mineral interests is administered by either state or federal governments, the Forest Service has the right to recommend reasonable lease stipulations for development on the majority of National Forest System lands. It is unlikely that this development would occur within the old-growth design.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-254 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Development in much of the old-growth design is subject to additional restrictions because it overlaps with Wild and Scenic Rivers, no surface occupancy is allowed; semiprimitive motorized areas, maximum one surface location per 160 acres; and semiprimitive nonmotorized areas, maximum one surface location per 640 acres. Table III-26 shows the percent of the old- growth design occurring within each of these designations for the three alternatives. In this respect, Alternatives A and B would be similar whereas Alternative C would have more surface occupancy restrictions because of the increased percentage of acres in semiprimitive nonmotorized areas.
Table III-26. Percent of Designated Old-Growth Areas occurring within Management Areas with surface occupancy restrictions. Alternative Designated Area A B C Wild and Scenic Rivers 14% 14% 14% Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Areas 26% 27% 33% Semiprimitive Motorized Areas 4% 6% 0%
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Vegetation:
Effects on vegetation from Alternative B would be similar as those described in Alternative A.
Restoration of Prairies, Barrens, and Savannahs:
Effects for Alternatives B and C are similar to Alternative A. However, Alternative A allows for restoration and maintenance of “up to” 10,000 acres of prairies, savannahs and oak-pine barrens; whereas, Alternative B prescribes that the 10,000 acres will be established within the old-growth design. Thus, benefits associated with reduction of fuel loadings and forest stagnation, increased ecological diversity and restoration of natural processes as described under Alternative A may be realized to a greater extent under Alternative B.
Similar to Alternative A, localized impacts to understory diversity associated with herbivory from white tailed deer may increase as a result of restoration of these open communities.
Effects related to the illegal operation of Off-Highway Vehicles would be similar to Alternative A.
Timber Harvesting and Mechanical Treatments:
Effects associated with timber harvesting and mechanical treatments within the old-growth design will be similar to those expected for Alternative A.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-255 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Non-Native Invasive Species:
Although adverse indirect effects from non-native invasive species are still likely to occur at some level under Alternative B, the effects are likely to be reduced compared to Alternative A. In addition to the provisions to control non-native invasive species described under Alternative A, Alternative B also provides Forest-wide direction to reduce infestations and prevent new, invasive species from becoming established. Additionally, specific Standards and Guidelines are given to prevent, control and monitor non-native invasive species in Alternatives B. Because Alternative A does not contain these Standards and Guidelines, the threat of adverse impacts associated with invasive species is likely less pronounced in Alternatives B.
Wetlands:
Effects on wetlands from Alternative B would be similar to those described in Alternative A.
Herbivory:
Alternative B calls for establishment and maintenance of forest openings and early successional habitat, similar to Alternative A. In addition, Alternative B requires the establishment and maintenance of an additional 58,500 acres of barrens, prairies or savannahs and 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks. This is likely to increase adverse impacts due to herbivory from white-tailed deer compared to Alternative A.
Minerals:
Effects related to the minerals resource from Alternative B would be similar to those described in Alternative A.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Vegetation:
Effects to vegetation from Alternative C would be similar as those described in Alternative A and B.
Restoration of Prairies, Barrens, and Savannahs:
Adverse effects related to the illegal operation of Off-Highway Vehicles in open lands will be reduced in this alternative compared to Alternatives A and B. Alternative C has the most acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and, therefore, has the greatest percentage of designated old growth falling into this management area (see Table III-26). Restricted use of Off-Highway Vehicles within the semiprimitive nonmotorized areas should tangentially help to control illegal Off-Highway Vehicles use associated with open lands within the old-growth design.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-256 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Timber Harvesting and Mechanical Treatments:
Effects from Alternative C associated with timber harvesting and mechanical treatments within the old-growth design would be similar to those for Alternatives A and B.
Non-Native Invasive Species:
Effects on non-native invasive species from Alternative C would be similar to those for Alternative B.
Wetlands:
Effects on wetlands from Alternative C would be similar to those described in Alternatives A and B.
Herbivory:
Effects from herbivory from Alternative C would be similar to those described in Alternative B.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The analysis area for cumulative effects will be Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula. This area is roughly equivalent to the Regional Landscape Ecosystem Section 7 (Albert 1994). As such, this area can be distinquished from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the southern portion of Michigan based on its physiography, soils, climate and landscape ecosystems. The suite of threats also distinquishes and separates the anlaysis area from the other areas of Michigan.
According to the Forest’s social and economic assessment, the population of the analysis area is expected to grow throughout the planning horizon. This, in turn, will lead to urban development and sprawl and subdivision of large tracts of privately owned land into smaller parcels for both permanent and vacation homes. Cumulatively, these trends will make the objectives of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ old-growth design, which are to establish and maintain ecological diversity and function of natural processes within relatively large blocks of connected public land, increasingly difficult to achieve and sustain. The landscape-scale setting in which the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ old-growth design occurs is currently largely developed and fragmented.
Ecosystems that historically occurred as vast tracts of contiguous forest, such as northern hardwood forests, now exist largely in fragmented blocks interspersed among towns, agricultural lands, pastures and abandoned fields. Conversely, many areas that historically existed as open oak pine or jack pine barrens have become forested due to fire suppression and reforestation efforts. Thus, at the scale of the cumulative analysis area, natural landscape level patterns and processes, such as habitat continuity and natural fire regimes, have been largely disrupted. Population trends as described above will exacerbate these adverse impacts by, for example, further fragmenting the landscape in which the old-growth design occurs. Increasing the number
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-257 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
of homes in the vicinity of designated old growth, would make management with prescribed fire more difficult.
According to the socioeconomic assessment, trips into the analysis area for cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, biking, sightseeing, visiting historical places and walking are projected to increase faster than population growth. Trips for a number of traditional activities, such as picnicking, off-road driving and primitive camping; however, are projected to decline markedly. Overall, these trends suggest that there will be increasing numbers of people in and around the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This leads to increased potential for spread, establishment, or infestation of non-native invasive species into the old-growth design.
Lastly, management of early successional habitat by state agencies and private hunt clubs, in combination with agricultural practices within the cumulative effects analysis area, will continue to perpetuate high populations of white-tailed deer. This, is turn, will lead to higher levels of herbivory that may impact the structure and composition of vegetative communities with in the old-growth design.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-258 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Effects on Wildland Fire
Introduction:
This section describes effects that existing and proposed forest resource management activities will have on wildland fire and hazardous fuels management. The analysis is divided into three sections: Wildfire, Wildland Fire Use and Hazardous Fuel Reduction activities.
Definitions of Common Terminology:
• Wildland Fire refers to any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct types of wildland fire have been defined and include wildfire, wildland fire use and prescribed fire. • Wildfire refers to an unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized human- caused fires, escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects and all other wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out. • Wildland Fire Use is the application of the appropriate management response to naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives in predefined designated areas outlined in Fire Management Plans. • Prescribed Fire is any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and National Environmental Policy Act requirements, where applicable, must be met, prior to ignition. • Hazardous Fuel Reduction includes the removal or rearrangement of combustible forest vegetation with the purpose of reducing the severity of a subsequent fire. This will make fire suppression efforts more effective, and lower the hazard to publics and forest resources.
Three indicators are used to measure the effects of the proposed management activities on wildfire, wildland fire use and hazardous fuel reduction. These indicators are: Fire Condition Class, Wildland Urban Interface and Public and Firefighter Safety.
• Fire Condition Class is a level of measure of how much the vegetation type or forest stand has been altered because of the departure from historical fire return interval averages. Condition class is defined in three levels.
• Fire Condition Class 1 is the least altered from historical averages, fire regimes are within an historical range, and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes, species composition and structure, are intact and functioning within an historical range. • Fire Condition Class 2 refers to forest conditions where fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals, either increased or decreased, resulting in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity,
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-259 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
severity and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range. • Fire Condition Class 3 is the most changed from natural conditions, where fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, severity and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical range.
Much of the Forest is presently in Fire Condition Class 3. This is due to extensive 19th Century logging, followed by severe wildfires, conifer planting and within the last 70 years, fire suppression activities. Condition class 3 is most evident on the Forests in short- and long-lived conifer, low-site oak, barrens, savannahs, prairies and forest openings.
• Fire Regime refers to the severity and frequency that fire burns in a vegetation type or forest stand. There are five fire regimes ranging from Fire Regime 1 where low intensity fires burn every 1 to 35 years, to Fire Regime 5 where high intensity fire burn an average of 200 years or more apart. • Wildland Urban Interface is defined in the January 4, 2001 Federal Register (Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 3 January 4, 2001) as “the urban wildland interface community exists where humans and their developments meet or intermix with wildland fuel.” Most of the Huron Manistee National Forests meets the wildland-urban interface criteria since a wildfire, in any location on the Forests, has the potential to burn a residence, cabin or existing infrastructure.
Fire Control Techniques Common to All Alternatives:
Suppression tactics generally use minimum disturbance methods where safety of personnel and the public allow. Natural and existing fuel barriers, such as roads, are used for fire control lines when possible. Tractor plow, water, foam and hand tool control lines are the most common options and are frequently used in conjunction on each wildfire. Tractor plow and hand tool control efforts push burnable material to the side and expose mineral soil. Wilderness fire suppression tactics always use minimum impact suppression tactics, which generally limit control methods to hand tools and water; special authorizations are required for the use of mechanical suppression equipment. Burned areas, including control lines, are rehabilitated as needed after each wildfire; wildfires that exceed 300 acres use the Burned Area Emergency Response protocol to assess rehabilitation needs and methods.
Public and firefighter safety will be the first priority for any fire related management activity. Fire suppression efforts are always guided by these principles. Fuels management, including prescribed burning, also has safety as the overriding objective.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-260 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Analysis Area:
The area of effects analysis for direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the Huron-Manistee National Forests' boundaries and those lands adjacent to the Forests that would be affected from a fire leaving the Forests, or from fires entering the Forests.
Minor Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Wildfires and proposed fuels treatments will be affected by Forests' resource management, user activity, and other management activities. Some of these effects are large and are discussed in detail. Other effects are minor or not measurable. The following subjects have minor effects from proposed activities:
Effects from old-growth management on wildfire suppression and hazardous fuel reduction are expected to be minor or positive, as wildfires will be suppressed in old growth as in any other part of the Forests. In old-growth areas, fire suppression will be more complex due to increased fuel loadings, lack of access and administrative constraints. This will increase the risk to the public and firefighters. Fuels treatments in old growth will be for the objective of promoting characteristics that accelerate those stands toward the desired condition.
As forests mature, there will be an increase in snags and wildlife den trees. These conditions will make suppression efforts more difficult and adversely impact firefighter safety. Snags burn unpredictably and their structural integrity is compromised making them a hazard to firefighters and public. Burning snags also increase the likelihood of spotting and creating new wildfires.
Non-native invasive species have the potential to affect forest condition classes. Areas where prescribed burning is being used to maintain certain desired condition class characteristics could be moved into a more hazardous condition class by increases in these invasive species or a less hazardous condition by decreases in these invasive species. Alternatives B and C propose more opening construction providing opportunities for invasive species in that habitat type.
Effects on Wildfire:
The effects of wildfires will vary by alternative, because, while wildfires are not a planned management action, the fuel that they burn can be manipulated, resulting in different effects. These effects are discussed in the hazardous fuel reduction section. The number of wildfires should not vary by alternative as the sources of fire starts are beyond the control of management. The size and intensity of these wildfires may be reduced through prior vegetation management such as timber management or fire hazard reduction activities. Lightning starts only three percent of the wildfires on the Forests; the rest are human caused, with the majority of fire starts coming from debris burning, campfires and arson.
The Forests have a fire prevention program in place. The intent is to lower the number of fire starts caused by human factors. This program will continue whichever alternative is selected.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-261 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Public and Firefighter Safety:
There would be no different effects from wildfire between the alternatives as there are no differences in fire suppression response between the alternatives. Public and firefighter safety are always the first objective. Fuel hazard reduction activities could help reduce the size and intensity of wildfires providing a measure of safety for firefighters and publics. Alternatives B and C propose more fuel hazard reduction activities than Alternative A.
Wildland Fire Use:
Wildland fire use is allowed in all alternatives. Natural ignitions are not a planned management action and therefore the effects of wildland fire use will not vary by alternative. The criteria for wildland fire use is contained in the Forests’ Fire Management Plan.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Ninety-seven percent of wildfires on the Forests are started through human activities. Therefore, the projected increase in population density, permanent residences, seasonal residences and visitors (Michigan National Forests’ Social Assessment 2003) in the impact area is likely to have a strong influence on increasing wildfire starts. These effects would be common to all alternatives. The Forests' fire prevention program looks to educate forest users with the objective to lower the number of wildfires.
The impact of suppressing wildfires for the past 100 years has cumulatively made the Forests more susceptible to large, high intensity wildfires. Hazardous fuel reduction activities are aimed at reducing the risk of these fires. All alternative will lessen the risk with Alternative B having the largest amount of hazardous fuel reduction activities.
The effects of wildfire on the Huron Manistee National Forests’ fire-adapted ecosystems, or fire regimes, are significant because of the scale of acres involved. For the 10-year period from 1994 through 2003, the Forests had an average of 70 fires per year for an average of 1,512 acres per year. Historically, fires, ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 acres were not uncommon on the Forests, often in the jack pine fuel type. While more frequent wildfires would more closely mimic historical fire return intervals, safety of firefighters and public could be jeopardized and the property damage could increase.
Hazardous Fuel Reduction:
Hazardous fuel reduction objectives will be met through a variety of methods, including timber sales, prescribed fire and a variety of mechanical fuel reduction treatments. The mixture of treatments will vary from year to year, and acres treated by prescribed fire will be dependent on weather conditions. The use of prescribed fire will almost always accomplish multiple objectives within the same treatment area or unit. For example, a prescribed burn for the purpose of reducing fuel loading may also maintain natural openings, encourage vegetative diversity or
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-262 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources improve wildlife habitat. In addition, prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatment may be used for objectives other than hazard reduction, such as restoring potential old-growth conditions or controlling non-native invasive species.
Alternatives B and C include 2,000 acres of fuelbreak construction per year to be completed during the first decade of the planning period. Fuelbreaks are generally linear areas that have less fuel than the surrounding areas. Most of the fuel and vegetation is removed and will be maintained in that condition. Examples of fuelbreaks are; areas with low stocking of mature trees with no understory vegetation, open prairies, wide roads and cleared powerlines.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Fuelbreaks are most effective when used as buffers for high-value resources in the wildland urban interface. Strategically placed dispersed treatment patterns are recommended for the general landscape due to unpredictable fire locations, variable land ownership, restrictions on treatments and differing suppression responses. When protecting a wildland urban interface or intermix, dispersed treatments slow the progress of a fire while fuelbreaks provide a toehold for suppression actions. Furthermore, densities and total coverage of dispersed treatment units can be decreased with distance from areas to be protected.
Reducing fire hazard by treating hazardous fuels will reduce the potential fire intensity and severity in those specific areas treated. Reducing the fuel loading is of greatest value when conducted in areas that have a higher than average fuel load, and that are located adjacent to or near improvements such as houses or other structures, administrative facilities, campgrounds and communication sites.
Forests' management activities would be conducted under all alternatives that would change condition class, including prescribed fire used to restore or revitalize fire-adapted communities, establishing barrens, savannahs and prairies on Landtype Associations 1 and 2 and increasing Kirtland’s warbler habitat. The effect of fire in these cases is to reduce fuel loading and to favor those species that are adapted to, or tolerant of, fire.
Prescribed fire will result in the consumption and subsequent reduction in the amount of fuels within the treated area. The amount of reduction will depend on the initial set of conditions, including fuel moisture, type, size and arrangement. The reduction in fuel is temporary, lasting the time period it takes for the vegetation to become reestablished. This can be as little as one year for fine, grassy fuels. A burn usually results in a mosaic pattern having a mixture of burned, partially burned and unburned vegetation. Effects from the safe implementation and control of prescribed burning are similar to the fire control effects to wildfire control. Tractor plow lines are often used on the edge of prescribed burns for control lines.
Mechanical fuel reduction will be done in areas where prescribed burning would not result in favorable results. Fuel loading may be too high to allow safe burning therefore mechanical treatments could be used to create favorable fuel conditions for burning. These effects would be similar for each alternative, only the total numbers of acres treated varies.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-263 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Timber sale slash and other activity fuels result from other vegetation treatments, such as powerline and road rights-of-ways, and non-commercial activities. Treating the slash and other vegetation accumulations generated by these activities with prescribed fire or mechanical tools will mitigate any increase in fire hazard generated by such activities.
Under Alternative A, no specific objective for fuel treatment is planned. Acres treated will be dependent on budgets alone, but will be less than for Alternatives B and C. Limited fuelbreak construction will be completed during the first decade. Condition Class improvements would occur on those areas that receive hazardous fuel reduction, or timber sales.
Proposed increases in Kirtland’s Warbler habitat, short-lived conifer, in Alternatives B and C would move this vegetation type toward Condition Class 1 on those acres. This will result in increasing the potential for more frequent, stand replacement fires. Both, alternatives have proposed an increased amount of open-land management. The impact of this will be an overall change in condition class for this type of vegetation to more closely mimic the natural fire regime. Open grasslands result in a change in fire behavior from heavier less flashy woodland fuel types to more flashy grass fuel models. While the grass fuel model is flashier it is a less complex suppression effort. This reduces suppression time. This type of habitat is under represented on the Forest today, compared to pre-Euro-American settlement conditions.
This management will also result in an increase in the amount of prescribed burning on the forest to create and maintain these types.
Alternative A treats the least amount of short- and long-lived conifer and oak, 5,000 acres per year, and proposes no increase of openings, barrens, savannahs or prairies, which could act as fuelbreaks. The wildfire hazard to communities-at-risk would be the highest for Alternative A of the three alternatives.
Alternative A would treat the least amount of acres resulting in less defensible space adjacent to communities-at-risk, which could result in a higher fire risk to public and private property. Ongoing hazardous fuel reduction activities and fuelbreak construction would continue and provide a measure of firefighter and public safety, though those acres not treated would continue to accumulate hazardous fuels
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
The objective for Alternative B is to treat 8,000 acres per year for hazardous fuels reduction purposes. This will treat more acres and accomplish fire hazard reduction objectives in a shorter time frame than Alternatives A and C. In addition, 2,000 acres per year of fuelbreak construction will be accomplished during the first decade. This alternative would provide for the most opportunity to change condition class of forest vegetation across the Forest. Reducing fire hazard by treating hazardous fuels will reduce the potential fire intensity and severity in those specific areas treated.
Alternative B treats the most hazardous vegetation types, 8,000 acre per year, and proposes creating 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks per year, to lower the fire hazard to communities-at-risk.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-264 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Alternative B would treat the most acres of hazardous fuels, short- and long-lived conifer and oak forest types. The effect of lower severity fires in these areas would promote the highest level of public and firefighter safety of the three alternatives. The fuelbreak construction will also help reduce the risk to the public and private property.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
The objective for Alternative C is to treat 6,000 acres per year for hazard reduction purposes. However, Alternative C will have a longer time frame than Alternative B for achieving general hazard reduction objectives on the landscape. In addition, 2,000 acres per year of fuelbreak construction will be accomplished. Fuelbreak construction will be completed during the first decade, so there is no difference in fuelbreak construction between Alternatives B and C. Reducing fire hazard by treating hazardous fuels will reduce the potential fire intensity and severity in those specific areas treated. Alternative C effects would be similar to Alternative B; however, 6,000 acres of the high risk vegetation types would be treated under this alternative instead of the 8,000 acres in Alternative B.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Fuel reduction efforts are prioritized to treat areas of high risk. These are planned to be near or around Communities-at-Risk, as identified in the Federal Register. Effectiveness of hazard reduction is dependent on the placement of treatments on the landscape. Ideally, the desired outcome of an ignition is that the fire reaches a treated area while still small in size and moderate in intensity. This maximizes the probability that suppression resources will be able to utilize treated areas to help contain fires and to utilize fuelbreaks as toeholds from which to take suppression actions such as backfiring and holding. The cumulative effect of placing treatments on the landscape is that at some point in time, the percentage of area treated begins to have a significant effect on moderating fire intensity and, thus, fire size.
Research on landscape-level effects of fuel treatments has so far been mostly theoretical. There are two basic spatial strategies: fuelbreaks and dispersed treatments. These strategies involve fundamentally different ideas on the role of individual treatment units. Fuelbreaks are intended to reinforce defensible locations and thereby reduce fire sizes by facilitating suppression tactics such as backfiring and holding. Dispersed treatments rely on the topology of the treatment units as parts of a pattern to reduce spread rate and intensities (Finney 2001). Dispersed treatments facilitate all suppression tactics, including direct, indirect and parallel strategies, by slowing overall fire growth and allowing units to be connected by firelines prior to the fires arrival. Fuelbreaks have little effect on fire behavior or severity if the fire does not reach the break or jumps over it. Extensive coverage by a dispersed treatment pattern can change fire behavior irrespective of suppression actions (Finney 2001).
Theoretical modeling is useful for identifying target conditions for a long-term landscape-level hazard reduction program, but actual cumulative effects are difficult to quantify due to variations in fuel type and unpredictable weather patterns.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-265 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Maintenance of existing barrens, savannahs and prairies on Landtype Associations 1 and 2 leads these areas to Condition Class 1. Both burning and mechanical treatments would maintain permanent or temporary opening of up to 500 acres. Perpetuating such open areas is consistent with Condition Class 1. The removal of the native vegetation in these areas is not complete and generally mimics the results of naturally occurring fires. Treating activity fuel accumulations generated by these activities with prescribed fire or mechanical tools augments the condition class 1 or 2 objectives of pine, oak and barren-savannah cover types.
Alternative A will have the least cumulative effect on reducing fire hazard, due to the lack of specific treatment objectives. Alternative B will have the largest positive cumulative effect on reducing fire hazard due to the accelerated schedule of planned treatments in comparison to Alternatives A and C.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-266 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Effects on Research Natural Areas:
Research Natural Areas serve as a national network of unique or representative areas which provide baseline or reference information on natural conditions. This network also helps protect biological diversity at the genetic, species, ecosystem and landscape levels. Research Natural Areas are managed to maintain the natural features and ecological processes for which they were established. There are currently three Research Natural Areas that have been designated by the Regional Forester on the Huron-Manistee National Forests: Hayes Tower, designated in 1998 on the Huron National Forest; Newaygo Prairies, designated in 1988 on the Manistee National Forest; and Nordhouse Dunes, designated in 1987 on the Manistee National Forest. The total acres under Research Natural Area management prescription are 1,363.
Three areas are currently identified as candidate Research Natural Areas and 33 areas are identified as potential candidate Research Natural Areas. All of these areas are under consideration for establishment as Research Natural Areas (see Appendix C – Research Natural Areas).
Scope of Analysis:
The area of analysis for direct and indirect effects includes all National Forest System lands managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests within the identified boundaries of the designated, candidate and potential candidate Research Natural Areas. The analysis area for cumulative effects includes National Forest System lands within the proclamation boundary of the Huron-Manistee National Forests and all high-quality natural communities identified within the ecological Subregions represented on the Forests. These analysis areas were identified based on the R9 Framework which addressed vegetative communities by ecological subregions (Tyrrell and Faber-Langondoon 2000).
Effects of Other Resources on Research Natural Areas that are Common to All Alternatives:
Standards and Guidelines for Research Natural Areas provide protection from adverse effects from management activities related to Wildlife and Rare Plants, Roads and Trails, Savannahs, Barrens, Prairies and other Openlands, Lakes, Wetlands and Aquatic Resources, Non-native Invasive Species, Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails, Fire and Fuels, Disturbance Mitigation, Minerals, and Law, Regulation and Policy. Research Natural Area Standards and Guidelines include protection from the adverse effects from activities on lands adjacent to Research Natural Areas. Management Plans specific to individual Research Natural Areas may allow recreational activities, vegetation management activities, and prescribed fire if these activities will not have an adverse impact or may provide beneficial impacts to Research Natural Area resources.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-267 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Chapter III - Affected Environment and Biological Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Alternative A provides protection for designated, candidate and potential candidate Research Natural Areas through Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines found in chapters II and III of the Forests’ Plan. Specific management direction for Hayes Tower, Nordhouse Dunes and Newaygo Prairies Research Natural Areas is in the Management Plan section of each Research Natural Areas Establishment Report. In Alternative A, Fry Lake and Bear Swamp potential candidate Research Natural Areas remain under evaluation and have no specific management requirements other than those described in overall Research Natural Area Standards and Guidelines. Pine Island Marsh potential candidate Research Natural Area remains on hold pending acquisition of adjacent lands needed to adequately protect the area.
Alternative A does not utilize the opportunity to add unique and representative areas to the national network of Research Natural Areas. Under Alternative A, Bear Swamp, Big South and Brandy Brook are identified as potential candidate or candidate Research Natural Areas (Huron- Manistee National Forests' 2001 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, USDA-Forest Service 2001). They are not designated as Research Natural Areas under Alternative A. Although these areas are protected by Research Natural Area Standards and Guidelines under Alternative A, there will be no benefit to these areas from the development of management plans nor will they be highlighted for use in research studies. The 33 potential Candidates also include areas of duplicate representation. Although areas of duplicate representation are unlikely to be carried forward as candidate Research Natural Areas, under Alternative A the Forests must continue to provide high levels of protection for them as they remain identified as potential candidates.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B protects and maintains Hayes Tower, Newaygo Prairies and Nordhouse Dunes Research Natural Areas the same as in Alternative A.
Alternative B moves 17 potential candidate Research Natural Areas closer to establishment by officially identifying them as Candidates (see Appendix C - Research Natural Areas). Bear Swamp remains as a candidate Research Natural Area. The total acreage of these 18 areas is approximately 9,200 acres.
Under Alternative B, 4 of the 33 potential candidate areas and Pine Island Marsh candidate Research Natural Area will be managed as Research Natural Area-equivalents, whereby the unique features they contain will be protected and maintained. Protection of these features will be to a degree that will allow them to serve as baseline natural conditions for research potential. Exact boundaries and acreage of these areas has yet to be determined.
The remaining proposed candidate Research Natural Areas and Fry Lake Candidate Research Natural Area will revert to management Standards and Guidelines for the Management Areas in which they occur. Exceptions to this are globally rare communities, such as Coastal Plain Marshes and Northern Fens, which are protected by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines regardless of what Management Area they are found in.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-268 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Environmental Consequences Biological Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative C:
Alternative C has the same effects as Alternative B except that Bear Swamp, Big South and Brandy Brook candidate Research Natural Areas, totaling approximately 5,280 acres, will be designated through the Forest Plan Record of Decision. Under Alternative C, the Forest Plan will incorporate the Establishment Reports and Management Plans for these areas, moving them from Candidate Research Natural Areas to established Research Natural Areas. The Management Plans will outline general management objectives for maintaining the natural features and ecological functions of the individual areas.
The three designated Resarch Natural Areas would provide representation of 1) unique or rare features and 2) more common community types with which comparisons of frequent management techniques can be compared. These Research Natural Areas would move the Forests in the direction of Regional and National goals for representative Research Natural Areas.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
The cumulative effects of general Forest management activities on established Research Natural Areas would be non-impacting or beneficial. The Forests’ Plan Standards and Guidelines for Research Natural Areas require protection both within the Research Natural Area and protection from adverse effects resulting from activities adjacent to Research Natural Areas.
The cumulative impacts of leaving Bear Swamp, Fry Lake, Pine Island Marsh and the 33 potential candidate Research Natural Areas in an evaluation or pending status is that beneficial activities that would be developed through Management Plans would not occur. Although important features in these areas would be protected under Alternative A, it is expected that the lack of evaluation and subsequent management recommendations would lead to the general quality of these sites not improving or diminishing somewhat over time.
Cumulative Effects for Alternatives B and C:
Alternative B will result in 18 candidate Research Natural Areas becoming part of the national network of Research Natural Areas. Both candidate Research Natural Areas and Research Natural Area-equivalents will provide baseline information on natural conditions for researchers and resource managers. Management plans for Research Natural Areas would provide guidance for beneficial management practices; monitoring would ensure natural conditions are being maintained.
The cumulative effects of general Forest management activities on established and candidate Research Natural Areas would be non-impacting or beneficial. The Forests’ Plan Standards and Guidelines for Research Natural Areas require protection both within the Research Natural Area and protection from adverse effects from activities adjacent to Research Natural Areas.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-269 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment – Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Affected Environment – Recreation, Social and Economic Resources
Recreation:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests serve as a “backyard” playground for many Midwest residents. More than 60 million people are within a day’s drive of enjoying recreation opportunities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Proximity to population centers and accessibility due to road densities makes the Forests popular for year-round outdoor recreational activities.
Recreational emphasis is placed on activities appropriate to a Roaded Natural setting, although developed recreation opportunities are available. Much of the Forests’ lands lies adjacent to private and state lands and other recreational facilities.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests provide opportunities for many different recreational activities such as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, picnicking, canoeing, snowmobiling, Off- Highway Vehicle use, driving for pleasure and gathering forest products. The Forests receive approximately 3 million visits annually (Recreation Demand and Capacity Trend Analysis 2004). New and emerging uses may occur over the life of this Forest Plan. The evaluation of these uses may result in a need to amend the Forest Plan. Recreation activities are discussed under four major categories: developed recreation, dispersed recreation, hunting and fishing.
Approximately 83.5 percent of the lands within the Forests have features typical of the Roaded Natural class of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Within these roaded natural areas, each Forest provides a variety of developed recreation opportunities at campgrounds, water access sites, picnic sites, observations areas, visitor centers and other facilities. Rural areas contain some of the Forests’ most developed recreational facilities.
The semiprimitive nonmotorized and semiprimitive motorized inventoried areas offer a wide variety of trails and dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, berry picking, trapping, bird watching and many other remote recreation activities.
The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is managed primarily as primitive.
Developed Recreation:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests maintain approximately 170 developed sites, 28 percent of which are trailheads. Boating sites, either canoe launches or landings, make up another 21 percent. Camping facilities, including horse camps, comprise an additional 23 percent. The remaining 28 percent are comprised of beaches, picnic areas, fishing sites, information and observation sites and other permitted sites.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-270 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment – Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
The Forests also provide an extensive trail network, with over 1,900 miles of designated trail, including the North Country National Scenic Trail on the Manistee National Forest and the Shore-to-Shore Hiking and Horse Trail on the Huron National Forest. Snowmobiling and Off- Highway Vehicle riding are popular on designated trails on the Forests. Off-Highway Vehicle use is allowed on designated trails on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Currently mountain biking is allowed on all trails unless posted closed. Additional mountain biking opportunities exist on the Forests’ approximately 3,700 miles of forest roads.
The Forests are home to more than 1,800 miles of rivers and 17,000 acres of lakes, providing an abundance of water-related recreational activities. Activities are guided by management plans for specific areas, such as Au Sable, Bear Creek, Manistee, Pere Marquette and Pine Rivers, all nationally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers; the newly designated River Road National Scenic Byway; and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness area. The Forests operate an interpretive site at Lumberman’s Monument Visitor Information Center.
Developed recreation facilities include such places as campgrounds, swimming beaches, boat launches, trailheads and picnic areas. Currently, the Forests provide both walk-in campsites and vehicle access campgrounds, with spacing between units to provide privacy. The feeling of isolation provided by the spacing, modest fees and the attractive forest and lake settings make these areas appealing. Often swimming areas, boat launch sites, and picnic areas are grouped with campgrounds. Use fees are generally charged at these developed sites. Most developed campgrounds on the Huron-Manistee National Forests are operated by concessionaires (Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests July 25, 2003).
Dispersed Recreation:
Dispersed recreation includes all activities occurring outside the developed recreation sites, including such activities as camping, hiking, forest product gathering, wildlife watching, pleasure driving and hunting and fishing. The Forests provide opportunities for dispersed recreation that often do not occur except in large public land areas. These opportunities include nine areas (Huron-Manistee Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2001) managed to provide nonmotorized use and solitude, and an extensive trail system. The system includes trails for activities such as snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, hiking, mountain biking and horseback riding. The Forests contain excellent canoeing waters, which include the Pine, Pere Marquette, Big Manistee, Little Manistee, Au Sable, Muskegon, Little Muskegon and White Rivers.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class Objectives:
The Forest Service uses a classification system called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum to help describe differences in recreation settings, opportunities and experiences and help guide management activities. Recreation settings vary from primitive–where there is little evidence of other people, and more opportunities for self-reliance–to more developed rural areas which offer more facilities, better access and opportunities to interact with other recreationists. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is referred to in two different ways. The first is as an inventory tool to describe the existing array of recreation settings. This application describes the existing condition of the Forests and is referred to as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum inventory.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-271 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment – Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Secondly, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is used to establish prescriptive management objectives, referred to as “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class objectives.” The amount and location of land in each Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class provides an effective way to compare forest settings and recreation opportunities emphasized in each alternative.
The 1986 Forest Plan used the national Recreation Opportunity Spectrum inventory mapping criteria that resulted in classification of a high percentage of the roaded natural class. Since that time, the Forests have updated their current assessment and reviewed the areas for suitability. This assessment identified areas that appear to have “moved” to other classes as a result of population movement within the state, migration, and increasing development within the Forests’ boundaries. Increasing pressures on public land management and its uses have been documented in the assessments for recreation, semiprimitive motorized, semiprimitive nonmotorized, Wilderness area and roaded natural to rural assessments. Based on these assessments, the Huron Manistee National Forests have proposed modifications to the Forests’ Recreation Opportunity Spectrum inventory, which is tied to management areas. Table-III-27 describes the characterization of each Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class for the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Table III-27. Characteristics of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes.
ROS Class Setting Activities - Facilities
Primitive • Very high probability of experiencing • Access for people with solitude, freedom, closeness to disabilities can be “MOST nature, tranquility, self-reliance, DIFFICULT” and very challenge and risk. challenging. See design guide. • Unmodified natural or natural- • No site modifications for appearing environment. facilities. • Very low interaction between users. • Interpretation through self- discovery. No on-site facilities. • Minimal evidence of other users. • No facilities for user comfort. • Restrictions and controls not evident Rustic and rudimentary ones for after entry. site protection only. Use • Access and travel is nonmotorized undimensioned native materials. on trails and cross-country. • No vegetative alterations.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-272 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment – Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Table III-27. Characteristics of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes (Continued). ROS Class Setting Activities - Facilities
Semiprimitive • High probability of experiencing solitude, • Access for people for nonmotorized closeness to nature, tranquility, self- disabilities is “DIFFICULT” reliance, challenge and risk. and challenging. • Natural-appearing environment. • Rustic and rudimentary facilities primarily for site • Low interaction between users. protection. No evidence of • Some evidence of other users. synthetic materials. Use undimensioned native • Minimum or subtle on-site controls. materials. • Access and travel is nonmotorized on • Interpretation through self- trails, some primitive roads or cross- discovery. Some use of country. maps, brochures, and • Vegetative alterations; sanitation guidebooks. No on-site salvage to very small units in size and facilities. number, widely dispersed and not evident.
Semiprimitive • Moderate probability of experiencing • Access for people for motorized solitude, closeness to nature and disabilities is “DIFFICULT” tranquility. High degree of self-reliance, and challenging. challenge and risk in using motorized • Rustic and rudimentary equipment. facilities primarily for site • Predominantly natural-appearing protection. No evidence of environment. synthetic materials. Use undimensioned native • Low concentration of users, but often materials. evidence of others on trails. • Interpretation through very • Minimum on-site controls and limited on-site facilities. Use restrictions present but subtle. of maps, brochures and • Vegetative alterations very small in size guidebooks. and number widely dispersed and visually subordinate.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-273 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment – Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-27. Characteristics of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes (Continued). ROS Class Setting Activities - Facilities
Roaded natural • Opportunity to affiliate with other users • Access for people with in developed sites but with some chance disabilities is of only for privacy. Self reliance on outdoor skill “MODERATE” challenge. of only moderate importance. Little • Rustic facilities providing challenge and risk. some comfort for the user as • Mostly natural-appearing environment well as site protection. Use as viewed from sensitive trails and roads. native materials but with more refinement in design. • Interaction between users at campsites Synthetic materials should is of moderate importance. not be evident. • Some obvious on-site controls of users. • Moderate site modification • Access and travel is conventional for facilities. motorized including sedans, trailers, • Interpretation through recreational vehicles, and some motor simple wayside exhibits. Use homes. native-like materials with • Vegetative alterations done to maintain some refinement in design. desired visual and recreational Some casual interpretation characteristics. by Forest staff.
Rural • Opportunity to observe and affiliate with • Access for people with other users is important as is convenience disabilities is “EASY” and of facilities. Self-reliance on outdoor skills meets standards. of little importance. Little challenge and • Some facilities designed risk except for activities such as downhill primarily for user comfort and skiing. convenience. Some synthetic • Natural environment is culturally but harmonious materials modified yet attractive, such as pastoral may be incorporated. Design farmlands. Backdrop may range from may be more complex and alterations not obvious to dominant. refined. • Interactions between users may be high • Moderate to heavy site as is evidence of other users. modification. • Obvious and prevalent on-site controls. • Interpretation through more complex wayside exhibits • Access and travel facilities are for including small lighted individual intensified motorized use. structures. Interpretative facilities such as kiosks may be staffed part time.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-274 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment – Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Table III-28 summarizes the acres in each of the Forest’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes by Alternative.
Table III-28. Forests Acres1/ by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class. Recreation Opportunity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Spectrum (Current Plan) (Preferred) Classification Percent Percent Percent Acres of Forests Acres of Forests Acres of Forests Primitive or Designated 3,370 0.35% 3,370 0.35% Wilderness 3,370 0.35% Semiprimitive nonmotorized 59,626 6.11% 62,301 6.40% 79,449 8.16% Semiprimitive motorized 11,375 1.17% 17,149 1.76% 0 0.00% Roaded natural2/ 813,800 83.35% 715,409 73.52% 715,409 73.52% Rural 49,710 5.09% 128,483 13.20% 128,483 13.20% Variable/Special Designations 38,528 3.95% 46,385 4.77% 46,385 4.77% Urban 0 0.00% 00.00% 0 0.00% 1/Acres from Corporate Data System (CDS), Huron-Manistee National Forests, 2002. 2/ Includes Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat.
Noise:
Noise within the Huron-Manistee National Forests is generated by several sources which have varying degrees of intensity and duration. These sources are: 1) motor vehicle use on highways and forest roads; 2) recreational vehicles on trails and illegally traveling cross-country; 3) human activities associated with developed and undeveloped campgrounds, seasonal and permanent dwellings and villages; 4) firearm use during hunting seasons; 5) power boating on lakes and streams; 6) group activities such as canoeing, fishing and horseback riding; 7) forest management activities such as timber harvesting, mineral development, cultural work, wildlife habitat improvement and road or other construction activities and 8) military activities associated with the National Guard Camp near Grayling, and Air National Guard exercises from regional bases.
The distances these noises travel vary from one-fourth mile for sounds generated by normal activities around homes and campgrounds to one mile for chainsaws to three or more miles for diesel trucks traversing hilly terrain and to 20 miles or more for artillery barrages or low-level aircraft operations.
Hunting:
Wildlife is both a focal point and an amenity for recreational users of the Forests. Hunting is one of the top five primary recreational activities on the forests. (Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests 2003). Hunting starts with squirrel, grouse and woodcock in
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-275 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment – Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences mid-September. In October, November and December, deer hunters dominate the activities of these Forests, while waterfowl hunting overlaps these seasons. Rabbit hunting carries on through winter, and wild turkey hunting is mainly a spring activity. In total, about 50 wildlife species can be hunted and/or trapped on the uplands and wetlands of these Forests.
Fishing:
Angling is also a popular recreational activity on the Forests. Many lakes and streams are within a short driving distance of large population centers and receive heavy use by anglers. Other less accessible lakes and streams are popular with campers and vacationers. Angling activities take place year-round on the Forests. Anadromous and native trout and salmon fisheries are available as well as many warm water fish species. Surveys completed in 2000 show that angling is the primary reason that 7.8 percent of users visit the Forests. (Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests, July 25, 2003).
National Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers:
The Forests have five Congressionally designated National Wild and Scenic Rivers. See Appendix E for management information on the Wild and Scenic River systems.
• The following National Scenic Rivers are located on the Manistee National Forest: o Pere Marquette, 66 miles, both inside and outside the Forests’ boundary o Pine River, 26 miles o Bear Creek, 6.5 miles • The following National Recreational River is located on the Manistee National Forest: o Manistee, 26 miles • The following National Scenic River is located on the Huron National Forest: o Au Sable, 23 miles
Study or Eligible National Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers:
The Little Manistee and White Rivers have been designated Study Rivers for potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System on the Manistee National Forest by the Michigan Rivers Act (P.L. 102-249).
The Little Muskegon and Muskegon Rivers were determined to be eligible for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River system in 1988 as part of the Huron-Manistee Final Environmental Impact Statement, as amended. Suitability studies for these two rivers have not been completed. The Pine River Addition area on the Manistee National Forest, section from the former Stronach Dam to M-55, has been evaluated for potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System. Eligibility for this segment of the Pine River has been completed. See Appendix E for further management information on these Study Rivers.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-276 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment – Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Wilderness:
Wilderness is specifically managed to provide the forest visitor with a remote, secluded experience, free from the sounds and presence of mechanization. The Huron-Manistee National Forests provide a wilderness opportunity within the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness. Although historic activities left the Forests riddled with evidence of human activity, the Forests’ designated Wilderness ensures that there is a place where the sights and sounds of mechanization are absent. The Huron-Manistee National Forests are one of the few places in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan with a land base large enough and contiguous enough to provide opportunities for solitude or for relatively primitive, unconfined types of recreation.
The Nordhouse Dunes/Sensibar Tract, an area of unique sand dunes, containing one of the longest undeveloped shorelines along Lake Michigan, was the only area recommended for wilderness study in the 1986 Forest Plan. This area was evaluated, and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness was Congressionally designated by the Michigan Wilderness Act of 1987, P.L. 100- 184. The Forest Plan was amended in December 1988 to recognize this designation.
An inventory of the Forests was conducted in 2004 for other potential wilderness areas. No other areas on the Forests were recommended for wilderness evaluation.
Trails:
Thousand of miles of trails exist on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Most trails are multiple use trails and provide a variety of recreation opportunities across the Forests, ranging from cross-country skiing and hiking to snowmobile and Off-Highway Vehicles riding. Table III-29 lists the miles of trail by recreational use.
Table III-29. Miles of Trail by Recreational Use.
Huron National Forest Manistee National Designated Trail Type (miles)* Forest (miles) * Cross-Country Ski 100 68 Hiking 236 214 Mountain Bike 152 128 Horse 120 29 Snowmobile 267 332 Off-Highway Vehicles 218 75 Motorcycle 28 222 Total Trail Miles 1,121 1,068 * The total miles in the columns above do not equal the total miles of trails on the Forests because many uses overlap on the same trail systems. (Huron-Manistee National Forest – INFRA Database, 2004)
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-277 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment – Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Visual Resources:
Scenery is an important natural resource of the Forests and must be cared for and managed for future generations. Existing natural features, including vegetation, water, landforms, and geology, largely influence the scenery. High quality scenery enhances people’s lives and benefits communities and society. Sightseeing and driving for pleasure are among the nation’s leading recreational activities, and demand for them is expected to continue.
Many people are concerned about the scenic values of the landscape they live in, recreate in and/or travel through. Most people express a strong interest in maintaining the natural character of the forest, but there is a difference of opinion about what is natural. Some people place high value on landscapes with little evidence of management activity such as timber harvest, roads, utility corridors or other developments. Other people have a higher tolerance for noticeable management activity. Some people prefer a park-like forest that has large trees and that is relatively open beneath the tree canopy. Still others prefer forests where vegetation is multi- layered and wood has accumulated on the forest floor.
Some people are also concerned that a strong emphasis on scenic quality would reduce the amount or intensity of forest management activities, especially timber harvesting, allowed in some areas.
The historic use of the land in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula has played a large role in the current scenic quality of the vistas, scenic drives, lakeshores, recreational sites and other undeveloped lands of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The most recent, long-lasting and significant events affecting the historical landscape have been the extensive industrial logging, associated large fires and agriculture that occurred around the beginning of the 20th Century.
Since the time that the National Forests were established, wildfires have, for the most part, been suppressed, multiple use management has been emphasized, and urbanization of the rural areas has continued. The blocks of land in federal ownership within the proclamation boundaries are scattered amongst private lands, creating a patchwork of forest and openings. There are also many wetlands, rivers and streams. In the dry sand outwash plains, that make up the Scenic Attractiveness C class in the Scenery Management System, large, stand-replacing wildfires have occurred frequently. The forests of these areas tend to be comprised of small trees and brush. Lands in federal ownership in the Class C areas are more solid than in other areas of the Forests. An explanation of the Scenery Mangement System can be found in Appendix A of the Forest Plan.
The Forests have roads and trails that are recognized at the national, state and local levels as providing exceptional scenic opportunities. These include National Scenic Byways, Scenic Trails, State of Michigan Heritage Routes and other National Recreation Trails.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-278 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment – Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Manistee National Forest:
Most public lands on the Manistee National Forest are accessible from well-traveled public roads. The visual quality objectives established for this Forest are primarily concerned with areas along these roads, as well as selected waterways or trails. Approximately 5 percent of the Forest is classified retention, second most sensitive. All of the most sensitive areas are adjacent to the heavily traveled routes through the Forest.
Visual variety on the Forest results from combinations of vegetative species and topography as well as openings, water and views. The northern part of the Forest has more natural topographical variation and, therefore, appears to be more distinctive in variety. About 12 percent of the Forest is considered variety class A, distinctive, 49 percent is variety class C, minimal variety, and the remainder is class B, common, for this part of the state. Descriptions of these terms are in the glossary under "Variety Class."
Huron National Forest:
Much of the Huron National Forest is readily accessible from publicly maintained roads. These existing roads provide numerous scenic forest views. About nine percent of the Forest is classified retention, and only half of that is immediately adjacent to the sensitive travel routes.
The Huron National Forest has less vegetative variety than the Manistee National Forest and is less visually distinctive. Because of little vegetative variety, topography is the most significant element affecting variety class. Approximately 9 percent of the Forest is considered variety class A, distinctive, 37 percent is variety class C, minimal, and the remainder is class B, common, for this part of the state.
Roads:
Principal access routes to the Huron National Forest are Highways M-72 and M-55 from the east and west, and Highways I-75, M-33, M-65 and US-23 from the north and south. Principal access routes to the Manistee National Forest are Highways M-55, US-10 and M-20 from the east and west and Highways US-131, M-37 and US-31 from the north and south.
An estimated 10,400 miles of road exist within the Forests’ boundaries, resulting in an average road density of 3.2 miles per square mile. Of these roads, approximately 6,997 miles, 67 percent, are two-lane improved roads and approximately 3,403 miles, 33 percent, are single-lane unimproved primitive or minimally improved travelways. Of the total miles, approximately 6,670 are state and county roads, 64 percent and 3,730, 36 percent, are National Forest System roads.
The 3,730 miles of National Forest roads are classified by five maintenance levels:
• Maintenance Level 1: Roads that are closed and not maintained. • Maintenance Level 2: Roads that are maintained for high -clearance vehicles.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-279 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment – Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
• Maintenance Level 3: Roads that do not have smooth surfaces and are maintained for passenger vehicles. • Maintenance Level 4: Roads that have smooth surfaces and are maintained for passenger vehicles. • Maintenance Level 5: Roads that are possibly paved and dust free and have smooth surfaces and are maintained for passenger vehicles.
A breakdown of the National Forest roads is shown below:
Table III-30. National Forest Road Miles by Maintenance Level1/. Forest Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Total
Huron NF 267 1117 252 16 1.5 1,653.5
Manistee NF 220 1799 33 13.5 11 2,076.5
TOTAL 487 2916 285 29.5 12.5 3,730.0 1/Forest-Scale Roads Analysis for the Huron-Manistee National Forests – November 2002, INFRA Database – September 2, 2004.
Heritage Resources:
The term heritage resources includes a broad range of physical evidence left by people who occupied or visited areas in the past. Heritage resources are a fragile, nonrenewable record of past human activity and include any district, site, building, structure, landscape, object, network or neighborhood significant in American history, architecture, archaeology or culture together with associated artifacts, records and other material remains. The overwhelming majority of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ known heritage resources are archaeological. They include Native American settlements, logging industry related sites, Euro-American pioneer homesteads and even former villages and towns. While the measure of significance of heritage resources is explicitly stated in the National Register of Historic Places regulations, all heritage resources possess some degree of importance because each can help reveal the patterns and details of former lifeways. This is not to say all such properties are worthy of preservation, but all in some way illustrate the rich and diverse cultural history of the people who inhabited the lands which today include the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
The earliest archaeological sites in this area date to the time following the recession of glacial ice. Since that time of caribou and mammoth, transitions in environment, lifestyle and people have occurred. The cultures of many peoples from Paleo-Indian hunters through woodland farmers to the period of written history are represented on the Forests.
More than 2,500 heritage resource sites spanning more than 10,000 years of human history have been recorded within the Forests. A number of these sites have proven valuable in providing important information about Michigan’s past. Huron-Manistee National Forests’ land managers, as directed by federal legislation, Executive Order, and agency policy, strive to conserve this
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-280 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment – Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
record of Michigan’s cultural heritage for present and future use and enjoyment. The Forests can also offer a wide and fertile array of interpretive and educational opportunities.
Land Use:
The characteristic trend of private land use has been toward subdivision and sale. Large company holdings previously available for public recreation are also being sold and divided into numerous small, private tracts. This ownership configuration contributes to user conflicts because of trespass by public land users on private lands and, occasionally, private landowners’ occupancy trespassing on public lands. Requests for special-use permits for roads, power lines and telephone lines in areas with scattered ownership are also more numerous.
Timber Harvest:
Over 92 percent of the Forests’ area is tentatively suitable for timber production. Tentatively suitable lands are lands capable of producing commercial timber volumes.
Past timber harvest and consumption trends, 1980 to 1992, indicate that 22 percent of timber volumes removed from the counties within the Forests boundaries came from National Forest System Lands (Table 5.7, page 146, Analysis of the Management Situation, Appendix F; Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests 2003). The average volume offered on the Forests from 1986 to 2003 was 10.4 million cubic feet, including salvage volumes. The average volume offered on the Forests from 1996 to 2003 was 7.8 million cubic feet. The average volume offered for the period of 2001 to 2003 was 5.6 million cubic feet (USDA-Forest Service, Sale Tracking and Reporting System, Periodic Timber Sale Accomplishment Report 2004). This indicates a downward trend in the volume of timber offered and is considerably below the existing Forest Plan Allowable Sale Quantity.
Timber values differ significantly between the Huron and Manistee National Forests. The output values for the Huron and Manistee National Forests are displayed in Table III-31. Values shown are derived from Fiscal Year 2001 to Fiscal Year 2003 timber sales. They reflect the differences in hauling distance from each of the two Forests to the mills, differences in product size, and volumes per acre. Timber is sold on a per unit basis, which is 100 cubic feet.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-281 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment – Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-31. Output Values for Timber Products from the Huron and Manistee National Forests (FY 2001-2003). Output Values $/ccf1/ Product Type Huron $/ccf2/ Manistee $/ccf Mixed Hardwood Sawtimber $48.18 $97.15 Mixed Hardwood Pulpwood $19.56 $35.75 Aspen/Birch Sawtimber $34.07 $31.52 Aspen/Birch Pulpwood $19.28 $23.79 Long Lived Conifer Sawtimber $57.68 $113.91 Long Lived Conifer Pulpwood $42.02 $59.50 Short Lived Conifer Sawtimber $45.83 $39.70 Short Lived Conifer Pulpwood $31.88 $20.53 Oak Sawtimber $19.93 $70.67 Oak Pulpwood $15.21 $28.65 1/Note: Conversion factors are 0.6 MBF = 1ccf and 1.266 cords = 1ccf (ccf = 100 cubic feet). 2/Note: Values represented are averages from FY2001 to FY2003. Values include all products sold including merchantable, salvage, negotiated sales for such things as trail widening, fuel reduction projects, and other special uses (data derived from USDA-Forest Service Automated Timber Sale Accounting, Sold and Removed Worksheet).
Social and Economic Setting:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests are two separate proclaimed National Forests having separate impact areas (Figure III-21). The Huron National Forest’s impact area is a nine-county area including Otsego, Crawford, Oscoda, Alcona, Ogemaw, Alpena, Montmorency, Roscommon and Iosco Counties. The impact area for the Manistee National Forest includes a nine-county area including Manistee, Wexford, Mason, Lake, Oceana, Newaygo, Missaukee, Osceola and Muskegon Counties. Not all of these counties contain National Forest System lands, but were included because of the Forests’ influence on these counties. The impact areas of the forests were determined by the Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forest that was completed in July 2003.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-282 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment – Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Figure III-21. Michigan National Forest Impact Areas and Proclamation Boundaries.
Population:
Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, the estimated total population of the Huron National Forest counties is 174,793, and the population of the Manistee National Forest counties is 377,240. The population has increased at a higher percentage rate during the 1990s in these areas compared with the state average. The State of Michigan’s population increased about 6.9 percent during the period from 1990 to 2000. The Huron and Manistee impact areas increased in population by 23.1 percent and 15.4 percent respectively during the period from 1980 to 2000. Population centers in the Huron impact area are Tawas, Oscoda, Harrisville, Alpena, Mio, West Branch and Grayling. Population centers in the Manistee impact area are Muskegon, Ludington, Manistee, Cadillac, Baldwin and White Cloud. (Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests, 2003).
Income:
The median household income is $32,615 and $36,391 (2000 data) for the Huron and Manistee impact areas, respectively. This is much lower than the state-wide average of $44,667 and the national average of $41,994. In 2000, unemployment in both areas was higher than state-wide rates. The Huron area averaged 8.1 percent and the Manistee area averaged 6.1 percent, while the
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-283 Final Environmental Impact Statement Affected Environment – Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
State of Michigan averaged 5.5 percent unemployment and the national average was 4.0 percent. There is a variety of employment activity groups. Manufacturing, trade, tourism, agriculture, and government are the main groups. (Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests 2003).
Users: The major user groups of the Forest are recreational users and loggers. The majority of recreational users come from outside the area, while most loggers live and work within the area.
Human Resource Programs:
The Forests have a number of human resource programs which include: • Volunteers working in the National Forests • Youth Conservation Corps • Senior Community Service Employment Program
These programs provide work and learning opportunities for youth, adult employment and training and technical assistance to individuals and communities. In addition, the Forests cooperate with the State of Michigan, local governments, and education systems to provide other hosted programs.
Where Visitors Come From:
Depending on the Forests’ use, the area of influence varies. Recreation use defines the largest area of influence. The most popular recreation uses of the Forests are hiking, sightseeing, fishing, hunting and Off-Highway Vehicle travel. Recreation users often travel 200 or 300 miles to visit the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Besides people from the local area, the area of influence for the Huron-Manistee National Forests includes the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and northeastern Illinois, northern Indiana and northwestern Ohio (Figure III-22). Most of the Huron National Forest’s recreation users live in southeast Michigan, which includes the cities of Detroit, Flint and Bay City. Most of the Manistee National Forest’s recreation users live in southwest Michigan, which includes the cities of Grand Rapids, Lansing and Muskegon.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-284 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Affected Environment – Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Figure III-22. Origin of Huron-Manistee National Forests Visitors Based on National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Samples.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-285 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Environmental Consequences – Recreation, Social and Economic Resources
Effects on Recreation Use:
Various management strategies exist which address the full array of recreational opportunities and forest settings. As a result of a “Need for Change” assessment, the Huron-Manistee National Forests propose to look at three specific areas that affect recreation management on the Forests. Semiprimitive area suitability, aesthetics and access were proposed as necessary topics to address in Forest Plan revision.
Revision will establish objectives for recreational opportunities by alternative and associated forest settings, specifically the quantity and location of each forest setting.
Area of the Analysis:
The analysis area includes all federal land managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area represents National Forest System lands where recreation resources are impacted by management activities. The discussion of direct and indirect effects includes the recreation emphasis using Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class objectives. Recreational opportunities within the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area are discussed later in the document. However, the Plan Revision process did not include making changes in Wilderness management.
The cumulative effects analysis area is the social-economic impact area as defined by the Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests that was completed in July 2003.
Current Recreation Use:
National Visitor Use Monitoring survey is one tool in monitoring visitor use on National Forest System lands. Additional monitoring tools sponsored by the Forest Service, State of Michigan and/or private partners are used to provide a complete picture of the uses that occur on National Forest System lands and the effects on natural resources and social environments.
The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey is a sampling system designed to collect data on National Forest visits. Data collection includes on-site interviews and sampling of recreation visitors. The Huron-Manistee National Forests were first sampled in the fall of 2001 and summer of 2002; the next sampling will occur in 2006 and 2007. Additional recreation monitoring tools are Michigan’s hunting check-in surveys, State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) surveys, traffic counters, sign-in sheets at visitors centers, special use permit monitoring reports, pay envelopes at recreation fee stations, reports on sales of annual, weekly and daily Forest passes, recreation equipment sales reports and administrative personnel observations.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-286 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
“Recreation Visitor Day” (RVD), “Persons At One Time” (PAOT) and “National Forest Visit” are recreation use measurement units. A “recreation visitor day” is defined as one person recreating in an activity for 12 hours. “Persons at one time” is defined as how many people can occupy a site at the same time without causing unacceptable resource impacts. A “national forest visit” is the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A national forest visit can be composed of use of multiple facilities and involvement in multiple activities all on one trip.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests completed the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey in 2001. The results of that survey failed to adequately reflect some major recreational uses that occur on the National Forests. The Forests incorporated additional state-wide survey data, and using professional judgment of the Huron-Manistee’s staff and management, revised the under- represented segments of the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey to better approximate annual recreation use figures. The revised data indicates that the Huron-Manistee National Forests received more than three million National Forest visits, which includes over 27,500 visits recorded for the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness area, or 64.2 Recreation Visitor Days.
Table III-32: National Visitor Use Monitoring Summary (Annual RVDs1/). Category Huron-ManisteeNational Forests Camping in developed sites 93.0 Primitive camping 156.3 Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas 295.8 Resorts, cabins and other 00.0 Picnicking and family day use 63.4 Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, and other species 325.3 Viewing natural features such as scenery 664.3 Viewing historic and prehistoric sites 21.1 Visiting a nature center, nature trail or Visitor 33.8 Information Center Nature Study 12.7 General/other-relaxing, hanging out 763.7 Fishing – all types 329.6 Hunting – all types 367.6 Off-Highway Vehicle travel 253.5 Driving for pleasure 173.2 Snowmobile Travel 169.0 Hiking and walking 338.4 Horseback riding 3.8 Bicycling, including mountain bikes 12.7 Nonmotorized water travel 278.9 Other nonmotorized activities, swimming 16.9 Gathering mushrooms, berries, etc 126.8 TOTAL 4,499.8 1/ RVD=Recreation Visitor Day. Source: Project files summarize how NVUM categories were revised and survey data adjusted to reflect increased National Forest Visits.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-287 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Demand:
Overall, the trend for outdoor recreation participation indicates continued growth in the demand of outdoor recreation opportunities, facilities and services (Cordell 1997). Potential future recreation demand on a regional and national level is addressed in Cordell’s Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends, 1999. According to the report, the five fastest growing outdoor recreation activities through the year 2050 measured in activity days are expected to be: visiting historic places, downhill skiing, snowmobiling, sightseeing and non-consumptive wildlife activity. These activities tend to occur in the more developed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes of roaded natural, rural and urban.
According to Cordell, days spent and numbers of participants in winter, water-based and developed land activities will, in general, grow faster than the population. These activities generally occur in roaded natural and semiprimitive motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes. Hunting and fishing, along with other dispersed land activities, which occur in all Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes, are not expected to increase in activity days or participation numbers as fast as the population is growing. Non-consumptive wildlife activities, such as bird watching, are an exception to this trend; however, non-consumptive wildlife activities are not limited to dispersed settings. That is, non-consumptive wildlife activities would also occur in all Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes year-round and can occur in conjunction with other forms of outdoor recreation.
Supply – Capacity:
The overall recreation supply on the Forests was determined utilizing two methods. Capacity of general forest areas was estimated based on acreages within each Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification. Developed recreation site capacity was estimated by using designed capacity measured as Persons at One Time, taking into account length of season and estimated use levels. Capacity estimates are subject to a certain amount of subjectivity. While the capacity of a campground can be estimated based on the parking available and the number of sites provided; estimates of the capacity of general forest areas are subject to interpretation based on personal or social preferences. Social capacity is the number of other persons or activities that a visitor can tolerate without feeling that their experience has been compromised. If social capacity is exceeded, a visitor will try to find another location to pursue their chosen activity or abandon that activity in favor of another. Social capacity can vary from one person to another. What one individual is willing to accept, may be unacceptable to another.
Overall the forests demand for recreation did not approach capacity in the general forest areas utilizing the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification method. Developed recreation site capacity indicated that there is currently an excess of capacity for most developed recreation opportunities available on the Forests. Capacity shortages are expected in the following categories: trailhead facilities for snowmobiling, Off-Highway Vehicle use and hiking; canoe landings and boat launches; day use areas associated with swimming opportunities; and Visitor Center capacity. Capacity will need to be monitored to adjust for emerging uses that evolve through the advent of new technologies and inventions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-288 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Total current recreation use is less than the capacity based on Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classifications. All alternatives would be within the total practical maximum capacity in the long term, 50 years.
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended (Alternative A), provides little general direction for managing recreation opportunities and settings using Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class objectives. Table III-28 displays the potential shift as a result of land use assessments. Discussions of the effects for the movement of acreage by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum will be discussed within those sections.
All alternatives would emphasize providing both developed and dispersed sites and areas considering health and safety standards, resource protection, cost effectiveness, efficient maintenance and user accessibility. The focus would be on maintaining existing facilities before constructing new facilities due to budget constraints and backlog of maintenance. For example, it is unlikely that any new campgrounds would be constructed, but existing campgrounds may undergo improvements to address accessibility, be reconstructed for current use or be decommissioned because of low use.
Recreation activities would be encouraged because the Forests’ niche emphasizes providing quality sustainable recreation opportunities and benefits with an emphasis on activities appropriate to roaded natural or more remote natural settings. However, user developed or constructed campsites, water accesses and trails are not encouraged even though they are present on the Forests. Therefore, to help meet the emphasis on activities suitable for remote settings, existing user developed sites would be analyzed and, depending on the social and resource impacts, would be removed and the site rehabilitated or they would be managed at an appropriate level.
Impacts to recreations users on peak days may occur. Facilities that support snowmobiling, Off- Highway Vehicle use and hiking could be in short supply. Users would be affected by their feeling of overcrowding and inability to find places to recreate. Sites may become overused, requiring increased maintenance to supply the expected level of health and safety required by law. Law enforcement required to manage illegal use would also increase. Overcrowding on some Off-Highway Vehicle trails could also result in a greater frequency of accidents and an increased number of fatalities. Costs associated with overused demand for the sites would increase.
Canoe landing and boat launches also were estimated to become in short supply due to increasing demand. Direct effects to these areas would be similar to that above.
Some users may be turned away and use may be redistributed to other areas, counties or state lands. Private land owners may also see an increase in trespass.
Visitor Center capacity was also perceived as being inadequate. Direct effects due to increased use would also be similar. Increased costs would be incurred because of additional visits.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-289 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Routine maintenance would be required on a more frequent schedule. Grounds management would also increase.
Increased vandalism may also be a problem due to increased use.
Finally, Forest management activities in all alternatives would generally meet recreation objectives while minimizing conflicts with recreation uses. Techniques to minimize conflicts include avoiding use of trails for skidding logs, minimizing the crossing of skid trails over designated recreation trails, placing safety signing to warn recreation users of activities in an area, piling slash and other logging debris out of view of recreation roads and trails and scheduling activities during low recreation use periods.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
All alternatives, if implemented, would continue to supply land-based recreation opportunities and be sustained for a growing population. The alternatives, to varying degrees, provide dispersed and developed recreation experiences that provide a unique experience within the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Societal expectations of finding a recreation experience that relies on large remote land bases on National Forest System lands would be met.
Cumulatively, the impacts of overused sites due to an increasing number of users may cause the need for significant increases to budgets to provide for renovations and improvements, including expansions to these sites to increase capacity. Some sites may need to be hardened and/or put under permit; reservation and/or quotas to reduce impacts to the sites may be needed to maintain the desired Recreation Opportunity Spectrum objectives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-290 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Effects on Special Designations:
Wild and Scenic Rivers:
Within the boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forests flow hundreds of miles of rivers and streams that provide a range of recreation opportunities and a variety of fish and wildlife habitats. The importance of these rivers to all Americans and their desire to maintain and improve the quality of the water and fish and wildlife habitats is evidenced by the number of miles of streams that have been protected by either federal or state designation, and in some cases both.
Scope of the Analysis:
The analysis area includes all federal land managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area represents National Forest System lands where recreation resources exist, and the land where those resources could receive impacts from management activities.
The area for cumulative effects includes land administered on other ownerships including both public and private lands. The Lower Peninsula of Michigan is being considered as the cumulative effects area for Wild and Scenic River opportunities as determined by the respective eligibility studies.
Within the Forests’ boundaries there are five rivers included in the federal Wild and Scenic River System: Pere Marquette, AuSable, Pine, Manistee and Bear Creek, totaling 147.5 miles. All five rivers and their legislatively designated corridors are within Management Area 8.1 - Special Areas. All five rivers have management plans. Two of the river plans, the Pere Marquette and the Au Sable, need to be updated. The river plans for the Pine, Manistee and Bear Creek are current.
Amendment 24 to the Forest Plan included all of the lands within these river corridors in the old- growth design. This amendment also made changes to the aquatic and riparian management Standards and Guidelines. As a result, management within these river corridors is limited to restoration of ecosystems that have been influenced by humans; for example, plantations and fire-dominated landtype associations where fire has been suppressed. Streambank and aquatic habitat improvements are permitted. Recreational uses such as camping, fishing, canoeing, hunting and hiking are the primary activities within the corridors. Recreation facilities range from walk-in access sites to paved parking lots with concrete pier boat ramps.
In July 1988, in response to an appeal of the 1986 Forest Plan by the American Rivers Conservation Council, the Huron-Manistee National Forests agreed to complete eligibility studies for the five rivers identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory within the boundaries of the National Forests. The Forests also agreed to identify any other rivers that may be eligible using the criteria of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Three of the five rivers were determined to be eligible, the Little Muskegon, Muskegon, 2 segments, and the White. A segment of the White River not identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory was also analyzed and determined to be eligible. These three rivers and their corridors are located in Roaded Natural and Rural
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-291 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Management Areas. Amendment 3 to the Forest Plan incorporated Standards and Guidelines regarding allowable resource management activities on National Forest System lands within the one-fourth mile river corridors. Each of these rivers is currently being managed to protect or enhance those values that made them eligible for the National System. The Pentwater and the upper portion of the Muskegon River were determined to be not eligible, and the East Branch of the Au Gres was not classified because there was no federal ownership.
In March 1992, the Michigan Scenic Rivers Act was passed. This act designated 42 miles of the Little Manistee and 75 miles of the White as Study Rivers. Neither study has been completed.
Environmental Consequences:
As part of the revision process, the Huron-Manistee National Forests considered whether any additional rivers should be considered for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system or if any changes to candidate study or study rivers should be made. Table III-33 compares the designated and study rivers by alternative.
Table III-33. Comparison of Wild and Scenic and Legislatively Designated Study Rivers by Alternative.
River Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Pere Marquette MA 8.1- Special MA 8.1- Wild & MA 8.1- Wild & Areas. Scenic Rivers. Scenic Rivers. Designation – Management Management Management Scenic Miles - 66 direction for river direction for river direction for river corridor contained corridor contained corridor contained in River in River in River Management Plan. Management Plan. Management Plan.
Au Sable MA 8.1- Special MA 8.1- Wild & MA 8.1- Wild & Areas. Scenic Rivers. Scenic Rivers. Designation – Management Change MA Change MA Scenic Miles – 23 direction for river boundary to boundary to corridor contained coincide with coincide with in River McKinley and McKinley and Management Plan. South River Roads. South River Roads.
Pine MA 8.1- Special MA 8.1- Wild & MA 8.1- Wild & Areas. Scenic Rivers. Scenic Rivers. Designation – Management Place lands Place lands Scenic Miles – 26 direction for river between the Scenic between the Scenic corridor contained River’s western River’s western in River boundary and M-55 boundary and M-55 Management Plan. in MA 9.2 – Wild & in MA 9.2 – Wild & Scenic Study Scenic Study Rivers. Rivers.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-292 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Table III-33. Comparison of Wild and Scenic and Legislatively Designated Study Rivers by Alternative (Continued).
River Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Manistee and Bear MA 8.1- Special MA 8.1- Wild & MA 8.1- Wild & Creek Areas. Scenic Rivers. Scenic Rivers. Management Management Management Designation – direction for river direction for river direction for river Recreation & corridor contained corridor contained corridor contained Scenic Miles – 26 in River in River in River and 6.5 Management Plan. Management Plan. Management Plan.
Little Manistee MA 4.2 – Roaded MA 9.2 – Wild & MA 9.2 – Wild & Natural. No defined Scenic Study Scenic Study Designation – corridor. Standards Rivers. Standards Rivers. Standards Study Miles – 42 and Guidelines for and Guidelines to and Guidelines to study rivers protect river’s protect river’s currently do not attributes until attributes until apply. study completed. study completed.
White River MA’s 2.1, 4.2, and MA 9.2 – Wild & MA 9.2 – Wild & 4.3 – Roaded Scenic Study Scenic Study Designation – Natural and MA 4.4 Rivers. Standards Rivers. Standards Study Miles – 75 – Rural. River’s and Guidelines to and Guidelines to attributes protected protect river’s protect river’s under current attributes until attributes until Standards and study completed. study completed. Guidelines.
The status of potential study rivers, the Muskegon and Little Muskegon and the portion of the Pine River from Stronach Dam to M-55, was also considered. Recommendations range from completing the suitability analysis to dropping from further consideration because of limited federal ownership and increased development within the corridors.
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers:
Under Alternative A, designated rivers are found in MA 8.1 – Special Areas. In Alternative B and C, MA 8.1 – Special Areas would be renamed MA 8.1 – Wild and Scenic Rivers. Management of the five rivers is directed by each river’s management plan. Therefore, changing the name of the management area would not have an effect on how these rivers are managed but it would serve to highlight the importance of these river systems.
Alternatives B and C would evaluate a new segment of the Pine River, between the western boundary of the Scenic River and M-55, for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. No new river segments, either on the Pine or the four other rivers, would be evaluated under
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-293 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Alternative A. Alternatives B and C have the potential to increase designated river miles while river miles under Alternative A would remain the same.
Alternative A would leave the management area boundary unchanged for the Au Sable Scenic River. Under Alternatives B and C the boundary would be changed to coincide with McKinley and South River Roads. Under Alternatives B and C, administration of the Au Sable River and use of the river corridor by the public would be less confusing because the management boundaries would be tied to physical features readily identifiable on the ground.
Activities within the riparian zone are restricted under Alternative A. Under Alternatives B and C, management activities in Streamside Management Zones are permitted in response to species viability concerns and fuels management. However, all federal lands within the Wild and Scenic River corridors have been designated as old growth, and management activities are limited to ecosystem restoration. Therefore, the likelihood of management activities occurring within the Streamside Management Zones under any of the alternatives is very low.
Legislatively Designated Study Rivers:
Under Alternative A, the two legislatively designated study rivers, Little Manistee and White, are located in a variety of management areas. A corridor is not defined for the Little Manistee and the corridor for the White River does not relate to physical features. In Alternative A, current Standards and Guidelines for study rivers do not apply to the Little Manistee. In Alternatives B and C, a river corridor has been defined and mapped. Both rivers would be placed in Management Area 9.2 – Wild and Scenic Study Rivers until studies that recommend whether they should or should not be included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System are completed. Standards and Guidelines for Wild and Scenic Study Rivers would apply to both rivers.
All three alternatives could result in an increase in the number of federally designated rivers and river miles on the Forests. However, Alternatives B and C would provide more protection for the Little Manistee and White Rivers until studies are completed because Standards and Guidelines would be applied to federal lands within defined corridors. The Standards and Guidelines would ensure that the outstandingly remarkable values for which each river was proposed for study were protected.
Potential Study Rivers:
Alternative A, B and C would retain the sections of the Little Muskegon, Muskegon and the portion of the Pine River from Stronach Dam to M-55 that had been determined to be eligible as potential study rivers. Corridors would be defined and be placed in Management Area 9.2 – Wild and Scenic Study Rivers. Management activities within the corridors would have to comply with the Standards and Guidelines for Wild and Scenic Study Rivers and could not detract from the outstandingly remarkable values for which the river was proposed for study. Suitability determinations for these would need to be completed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-294 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers:
In 2003, the Pine and Manistee Rivers were added to the state Natural River System. As a result, private lands within 400 feet of the river are now zoned. All five of the Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Forests’ boundary are now part of the state’s system. Zoning of private lands coupled with old-growth management on federal lands would result in the maintenance and likely improvement of the water quality and aquatic habitat of these rivers by ensuring responsible development of private lands and retaining a forested system within the river corridor. In the long term, there would be no discernable difference between alternatives in the quality of the Pere Marquette, Au Sable, Pine, Manistee, and Bear Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Legislatively Designated Study Rivers:
The potential for rivers to be added to the Wild and Scenic River System outside the Forests’ boundary is low. The suitability of the Little Manistee and White River for inclusion in the system is high. In the long term, the studies for the two rivers would be completed under all three alternatives. The difference between the alternatives would be the quality of the river and its outstandingly remarkable values at the time the studies are completed. Alternative A affords the least protection to these rivers because easily identifiable corridors where Wild and Scenic Study River’s Standards and Guidelines apply are not defined, and the Rivers remain in multiple management areas versus one; 9.2 – Wild and Scenic Study Rivers.
Potential Study Rivers:
In the long term, development of the private lands within the Little Muskegon and Muskegon River corridors would continue. This development would be expected to have a negative effect on the outstandingly remarkable values for which these rivers were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. Neither of these rivers are part of the state Natural River System and the likelihood of them being added is low. Opportunities to increase federal ownership within the river corridors would be limited because of the value of these lands for private sector development. Currently the Forest Service owns only a few acres within the Muskegon River corridor. The character of the federal lands is not expected to change because the lands are being managed as old growth and management activities would be restricted.
The portion of the Pine River from Stronach Dam to M-55 is mainly in federal ownership. Currently, management of this segment of the Pine parallels the federally designated portion upstream. Alternatives A, B and C propose to complete the suitability analyses for these rivers. If they are determined to be suitable, they will have a formal study completed to add them to the Wild and Scenic River System.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-295 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Wilderness:
Scope of Analysis:
The analysis area includes all federal land managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area represents National Forest System lands where recreation resources exist, and the land where those resources could receive impacts from management activities.
The effected area for cumulative effects includes land administered on other ownerships including both public and private lands. The Lower Peninsula of Michigan is being considered as the Cumulative Effects Area for semiprimitive recreational opportunities.
Current Management Direction:
Current management direction for Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness provides a primitive or semiprimitive, nonmechanized recreational opportunity in a natural environment emphasizing solitude. Activities could include backpacking, hiking, camping, hunting, cross-country skiing, snow shoeing, beach combing and other nonmotorized activities.
Other management activities include providing habitat for wildlife species, including endangered, threatened and sensitive species; management for invasive species and the protection of unique characteristics of this wilderness and cultural resources.
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The designated Wilderness would remain the same under Alternatives A, B, and C. Modifications would not be made to the existing Wilderness area boundary.
Hiking, backpacking, camping, hunting, sight seeing and beach combing are popular in Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness. Hikers, hunters and other recreational users looking for experiences that require more physical challenge, less interaction between people and separation from mechanization will find these opportunities.
Management of invasive species in all alternatives will enhance wilderness values. This management will move toward a more natural environment, highlighting the ecology of this unique dunal system.
Management for endangered, threatened and sensitive species, for example piping plover and pitcher’s thistle, will continue in all alternatives. This management will enhance the Wilderness value of a natural environment supporting native species. There may be short-term effects on recreational use of the shoreline or critical habitat during nesting season of the piping plover. This effect would be limited human influence within the critical habitat or nesting area. Human impacts of hiking may need to be limited in areas supporting pitcher’s thistle. Neither of these management activities will affect the Wilderness values.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-296 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests, with 3,450 acres of designated Wilderness, is among the few places in Lower Michigan where people can go to enjoy a quality primitive nonmotorized wilderness experience. Alternatives A, B and C would maintain the existing acreage of wilderness. The quality of the experiences is expected to continue to improve over time as management direction for invasive species; endangered, threatened and sensitive species and other resources continue to move the areas toward the desired future conditions outlined in all Alternatives.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-297 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Effects on Trails:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests have more than 1,500 miles of designated trails, both motorized and nonmotorized, including the North Country National Scenic Trail. Nonmotorized designated trails include hiking, biking, horseback riding and cross country skiing, while designated motorized trails include snowmobiles, Off-Highway Vehicles and motorcycles. These trails are located in close proximity to a majority of Michigan’s residents and are an important recreational and economic resource. Over a million visitors use these trails annually (USDA- Forest Service, National Visitor Use Monitoring Results August 2002). This use was almost evenly split between motorized and nonmotorized use. Much of the maintenance on these trails is accomplished by cooperators with volunteers through State of Michigan Off-Road Vehicle and snowmobile grants and with individual groups. The State of Michigan also provides trail opportunities on state forests adjoining the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
The analysis area for direct and indirect effects will be the proclamation boundary of the Huron- Manistee National Forests. The analysis area for cumulative effects will be social-economic impact area for the Huron-Manistee National Forests as described in the Social Effects Local/Regional Section.
In response to the Forests’ proposed changes in recreation management, the public identified the following issue:
• How many acres of semiprimitive motorized and semiprimitive nonmotorized will be allocated and what portion of our existing trails system will be open to use by mountain bikes?
The management of motorized recreation has generated national and local interest. The Chief of the Forest Service has identified unmanaged recreation, especially the undesirable impacts from unmanaged Off-Highway Vehicle use, as one of the key impacts facing National Forests today. Concerns have been expressed over the amount of unplanned roads and trails, erosion, lack of quality Off-Highway Vehicle recreation opportunities, water degradation and habitat destruction from Off-Highway Vehicle activity. In response to this issue, the Chief chartered two national teams to develop policy and tools to address this issue effectively at the field level. This policy focuses on three key points to minimize or eliminate the impacts from unmanaged Off-Highway Vehicle use:
• Wheeled Off-Highway Vehicle travel will be allowed on designated roads, trails and areas. • Cross-country travel by wheeled Off-Highway Vehicles will be generally prohibited; and • Decisions of which roads, trails and areas to designate will be made at the field level.
This proposed change in national policy would have little impact on the Forest because the Off- Highway Vehicle program is currently managed on designated trails and areas, and cross-country travel is prohibited.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-298 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
The Huron-Manistee National Forests provide numerous opportunities for both nonmotorized and motorized trail use. The table below displays the mileage by trail type for each National Forest.
Table III-34. Miles of Nonmotorized and Motorized Trails Trails Huron National Forest Manistee National Forest Nonmotorized (miles) 236 405 Motorized (miles) 502 748
Approximately 1 million visitors reported using both motorized and nonmotorized trails on the forest in 2002. The future demand, projected visits, for these trails will change. By 2050, the projected visits for off-road driving are expected to increase at a rate that is less than population growth while snowmobile use is expected to more than double. Horseback riding, walking, hiking, biking and cross-country skiing are expected to grow at a rate that exceeds population growth (H. Ken Cordell et al. 1999).
Both demand and supply must be considered when evaluating the adequacy of trail facilities. This was analyzed in the Recreation Supply and Demand Analysis for the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Recreation Supply and Demand Analysis can be found in Appendix B of the Forest Plan. The portion of the analysis on trails follows.
Nonmotorized:
Annually, biking, mountain and touring, use is estimated at 12,700 recreation visitor days annually (National Visitor Use Monitoring 2002). Use is projected to increase to approximately 22,800 recreation visitor days by 2050. Developed trailheads allowing bike use currently accommodate approximately 68,000 recreation visitor days annually, almost three times the projected demand. Within the Forests, approximately 130 miles of trail and more than 10,000 miles of state, county and forest roads are open to visitors using bicycles.
On the Forests, estimated hiking or walking use is 338,000 recreation visitor days annually (National Visitor Use Monitoring 2002). Use is projected to increase to approximately 447,000 recreation visitor days by 2050. Existing developed sites specifically associated with hiking and walking has a capacity of approximately 209,000 recreation visitor days, which is 61 percent of the needed capacity.
Horseback riding use estimates are 4,200 recreation visitor days annually, (National Visitor Use Monitoring 2002). Use is projected to increase to approximately 6,100 recreation visitor days by 2050. Existing horseback riding trailhead capacity is approximately 7,200 recreation visitor days. There are approximately 121 miles of horse trails on the Forests. The Forests also have an open policy on horseback riding. Only Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness area, 126 miles of the North Country National Scenic Trail and 12 miles of the Manistee River trail are closed to horseback riding. This supply is adequate to meet current and future demand with the possible exception of trailheads on peak-use weekends.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-299 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Existing cross-country skiing trailheads provide an estimated capacity of more than 27,000 recreation visitor days and there are approximately 145 miles of trail. Demand projections for this activity are expected to increase approximately 50 percent over the next 50 years (Cordell 1999). Currently, supply is adequate to accommodate demand.
Motorized:
The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey resulted in current Off-Highway Vehicle use estimates of 254,000 Recreation Visitor Days annually. Use is projected to increase to approximately 307,000 Recreation Visitor Days by 2050. Existing Off-Highway Vehicle trailhead capacity is approximately 108,000 Recreation Visitor Days, accommodating 42 percent of existing use. Based on current capacity, projected increases in use and observations by forest personnel, the need for additional trailhead capacity may exist. Also, when asked in a 1998 to 1999 survey about what to change concerning the Off-Highway Vehicle program, the leading response was develop additional trails and area for the designated system (Charles M. Nelson et al. 2000).
The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey resulted in current snowmobile use estimates of 169,000 Recreation Visitor Days annually. Use is projected to grow to approximately 348,000 Recreation Visitor Days by 2050. Existing snowmobile trailhead capacity is approximately 93,000 Recreation Visitor Days, accommodating only 55 percent of the existing use. Demand is very “peak” oriented, with most use occurring on a limited number of winter weekends. Observations by forest personnel indicate that parking at existing snowmobile trailheads is adequate. Many snowmobile users may not be utilizing the forest’s trailheads but may be riding from motels, cabins, private residences or other trailheads.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A:
Nonmotorized:
The Forest Plan did not address mountain bike use as this use became popular after the Forest Plan was adopted. Alternative A would allow mountain biking on 130 miles of trail and more than 3,600 miles of forest roads. Alternative A would provide less mountain biking opportunities when compared to both Alternatives B and C.
Hiking demand is expected to increase over the next 50 years. Biking is projected to increase by 80 percent over the same period. These increases could lead to additional conflicts between hikers and bikers. Because of the different seasons of use, minimal conflicts between cross- country skiers and bikers would be expected. Alternatives B and C would open some hiking trails to mountain biking. This could increase user conflicts and the need for trail maintenance and trail-user etiquette education. Alternative A would have less potential for trail user conflict than Alternatives B and C since these two alternatives could allow more mountain bike access to nonmotorized trails.
Horseback riding and cross-country skiing are projected to increase over the next 50 years. Existing trail and trailhead facilities are adequate to meet current and future demand.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-300 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Motorized:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests provide more than 700 miles of Off-Highway Vehicle (not including snowmobiles) trails and 18 trailheads. The Forests are open to Off-Highway Vehicle and snowmobile use on designated trails only. Only minor changes to the trail system are expected in the short term, 5 to10 years. Trail relocations could be done to mitigate impact to a variety of resources. In the long term, increased demand for Off-Highway Vehicle opportunities could result in additional facilities–trails and trailheads.
In the long term, 50 years, Off-Highway Vehicle use is projected to increase by approximately 20 percent, while population is expected to increase by almost 30 percent. This long-term increase in use would increase crowding, particularly on summer holiday weekends. This crowding could diminish the users recreational experience and may cause some users to select other areas, such as state land north of the Forests, providing the same type of activity. Some users may choose not to participate. In the long term, Off-Highway Vehicle trails and trailheads are not adequate to provide for a positive recreational experience. In the short term, crowding of Off-Highway Vehicle facilities can be expected on heavy use weekends. Increased use could generate an increased need for trail maintenance and law enforcement to prevent illegal trail development. Off-Highway Vehicle trail maintenance on the Forests is largely funded by State of Michigan grants. Any major reductions to this grant program could cause reduced visitor satisfaction and present safety issues, which may require a reduction in the amount of open trails. These effects are common to all three alternatives.
The Forests currently provide approximately 600 miles of snowmobile trail and 17 trailheads. Snowmobile use is restricted to designated trails. The State of Michigan allows use of snowmobiles on unplowed roads within State lands. Snowmobile use is directly related to the quality and quantity of snowfall received each winter.
Alternative A restricts the use of snowmobiles to designated trails. Alternatives B and C would allow snowmobiles to use designated trails and all unplowed forest roads unless otherwise prohibited by law, regulation, or special management area objectives, such as deer wintering areas or threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. This policy would bring the Forests in alignment with State of Michigan snowmobile regulations pertaining to use of unplowed roads. Opening unplowed roads would increase user satisfaction by increasing the recreation opportunities on trails and roads. Trail maintenance would only occur on designated trails.
The table below displays the miles of roads and trails that could be used by snowmobiles under each Alternative.
Table III-35. Miles of Roads and Trails Open to Snowmobiles Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Trails and Roads Open to 599 3,626 3,589 Snowmobiles (Miles)
Even though Alternatives B and C open many more miles of unplowed Forest roads, it is expected that the majority of the snowmobile use would continue to occur on designated trails.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-301 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Unplowed roads would not be groomed. Without grooming, high levels of use would not be expected. Unplowed roads would be used to access additional areas within the Forest increasing user satisfaction. User satisfaction could increase in Alternatives B and C when compared to Alternative A.
Maintenance of designated snowmobile trails is largely done by private, non-profit associations which are funded by State of Michigan grants. Any major reductions in this grant program would reduce user satisfaction and likely reduce the number of users.
Alternative B and C could reduce crowding and increase user satisfaction when compared to Alternative A. Opening of the unplowed roads is not expected to measurably increase the number of users because some unauthorized riding on unplowed roads is currently taking place.
Observations by forest personnel indicate that trails and trailheads for snowmobile use are currently adequate to supply the demand except on “peak” weekends. In the long term, 20 to 50 years, additional facilities could be needed to meet the projected demand.
Cumulative Effects of Alternative A:
In the long term, 50 years, biking, snowmobiling, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing and Off-Highway Vehicle use are projected to increase, while hiking is expected to remain constant.
Nonmotorized:
Because Alternative A limits mountain biking opportunities, mountain bikers would use other trails provided by the public and private sectors– state forests, state parks, county facilities and ski areas. This limitation has the potential to cause crowding on the other facilities as the demand for mountain biking increases. Since most of these trails are biking and hiking, Alternative A could increase trail user conflicts and the need for maintenance and education at off-Forest facilities.
Motorized:
In the next 50 years, Off-Highway Vehicle use is expected to increase. Crowding on trails and at trailheads, particularly on heavy-use weekends, would increase. This may cause Off-Highway Vehicle users to select other options in the impact area. This could increase the need for maintenance and enforcement at these other non-Forests’ facilities.
Snowmobile use is most affected by the quantity and quality of snow. Alternative A permits snowmobile use on designated trails only. Alternatives B and C would allow snowmobile use on all unplowed National Forest roads unless otherwise prohibited by law, regulation or special management area objectives, such as deer wintering areas or threatened, endangered or sensitive species, which would increase opportunities and user satisfaction. The impact of limiting snowmobile use to designated trails is not expected to have a measurable cumulative effect on snowmobile use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-302 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B:
Alternative B will increase emphasis on managing hazardous fuels, barrens and prairie restoration and species viability. This change in emphasis could affect trail visitors. Trail visitors could expect to encounter: more open areas; management activities for threatened, endangered and sensitive species; smoke management; additional areas closed to motorized use–Research Natural Area and semiprimitive nonmotorized–non-native invasive species treatment and prevention; relocation of trails in the Briar Hills South area and the North Country National Scenic trail managed to scenic integrity level of high. All of these changes could increase or decrease user satisfaction and use.
Nonmotorized:
All of the alternatives have a Standard and Guideline for trail density, number of miles of nonmotorized trails per square mile of National Forest System lands, in the various management areas. The table below displays miles of nonmotorized trail per square mile of National Forest System land and the desired trail density by management area.
Table III-36. Nonmotorized Trail Density by Management Area. Management Alternative A Desired Alternative B Desired Alternative C Desired Area 2.1 0 to 3 0 to 33 0 to 33 4.2 0 to 3 0 to 33 0 to 33 4.3 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 4.4 0 to 1 0 to 1 0 to 1 5.1 0 to 3 0 to 33 0 to 33 6.14 0 to 3 0 to 33 0 to 33 6.21 0 to 2 0 to 22 0 to 22 8.16 N/A N/A N/A 7.15, 6 N/A 0 to 6 0 to 6 8.26 N/A N/A N/A 8.36 N/A N/A N/A 8.46 N/A N/A N/A 9.16 N/A N/A N/A 9.26 N/A N/A N/A 9.36 N/A N/A N/A 1) Was MA’s 1.1, 3.1, and 4.1 in 1986 Forest Plan. 2) Except Brandybrook is 0 to 1. 3) Except Manistee River, Au Sable River, and Cooke Pond are 0 to 2. 4) Was MA’s 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 in 1986 Forest Plan. 5) No comparable MA in the 1986 Forest Plan. 6) As defined in special area plans.
The trail density guideline would not limit future trail expansion for Alternative A. The same is true for Alternatives B and C, except in Management Area 7.1 where existing trail density exceeds the guideline. Management Area 7.1 is less than 0.4 percent of the forest. With the small area of MA 7.1, the trail density guideline would not affect trail expansion opportunities.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-303 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Alternatives B and C increase the area of candidate Research Natural Areas by 8,465 acres when compared to Alternative A. There are 0.3 miles of nonmotorized trail in the Bear Swamp candidate Research Natural Area. A management plan specific to the Bear Swamp candidate Research Natural Area will address this trail, which will also be done in Alternative C.
Alternatives B and C would increase mountain biking opportunities on existing trails when compared to Alternative A, which did not address mountain bike use. Mountain bike use would be permitted on most nonmotorized trails. Biking is projected to grow by 14 percent from 2000 to 2010. This increased opportunity and growing demand could increase conflicts with hikers. Hikers and bikers could select alternate trails or may not participate. The increased use by mountain bikes is not expected to increase conflicts with cross-country skiers because of the different season of use. In all alternatives, bicycle use complies with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service, National Park Service, and the North Country Trail Association, Inc.for use on the North Country National Scenic Trail.
Motorized:
All of the alternatives have a Standard and Guideline for trail density, number of miles of motorized trails per square mile of National Forest System lands, in the various management areas. The table below displays miles of motorized trail per square mile of National Forest System land and the desired trail density by management area.
Table III-37. Motorized Trail Density (miles of trail per square mile) by Management Area. Management Alternative A Desired Alternative B Desired Alternative C Desired Area 2.1 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 4.2 0 to 2 0 to 2 0 to 2 4.3 0 to 1 0 to 1 0 to 1 4.4 0 to 1 0 to 1 0 to 1 5.1 None None None 6.1 None None None 6.21 0 to 1 0 to 1 0 to 1 7.12 N/A 0 to 1 0 to 1 1) Was Management Areas 1.1, 3.1, and 4.1 in 1986 Forest Plan. 2) No comparable Management Area in the 1986 Forest Plan.
Alternatives B and C increase the area of candidate Research Natural Areas. There are 2.1 miles of motorized trail in two candidate Research Natural Areas–Big South and Bear Swamp. Management plans specific to Big South and Bear Swamp candidate Research Natural Areas would address these trails, which will also be done in Alternative C.
Alternative B has additional Guidelines that could impact the location of motorized trails. The first Guideline that could affect Off-Highway Vehicle trail location is:
• Where possible, motorized vehicle trails will be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from rivers, streams and lakes except at designated crossings.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-304 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Currently, approximately 126 miles of motorized vehicle trails are located within 1,000 feet of rivers, streams and lakes that are not associated with crossings. These trails would need to be evaluated to see if there are other possible locations. Trail relocations would require a site- specific environmental analysis. Another Guideline that would limit the location of new motorized trails is:
• Generally, new motorized trails will not be constructed in cedar swamps, hardwood conifer swamps and sub-irrigated forests. However, new motorized trails may be considered through cedar swamps, hardwood swamps and sub-irrigated forests if there are no other reasonable routes.
Collectively, approximately 75,000 acres of cedar and hardwood swamps exist on the Forests. The acres of sub-irrigated forest is unknown. These wet areas limit but do not prohibit new trail opportunities. The combination of these two Guidelines could cause trail relocation and impact location of new trail. These Guidelines are not expected to have a measurable effect on motorized trails.
Alternative B would increase semiprimitive nonmotorized areas by 5,091 acres and candidate Research Natural Areas by 8,465 acres when compared to Alternative A. This could limit future motorized trail opportunities in a very minor way, reduces area for new trail location by 1.3 percent when compared to Alternative A. No effects are expected from this minor limitation.
Cumulative Effects for Alternatives B and C:
Nonmotorized:
Alternative B contains a Guideline that would allow biking on designated nonmotorized trails, which would increase biking opportunities. This could reduce the demand for biking on other facilities in the impact area. Increasing the number of trails that bikes can access on the National Forests may increase conflicts with hikers. Some hikers could choose other locations off-forest. The multi-use trail designations could increase the need for maintenance. Visitor satisfaction may decrease for those who enjoy single-use trails.
Motorized:
The guidelines and changes to management areas associated with Alternative B would have a very minor limitation on the expansion of motorized trails or could cause the relocation of existing trails. No cumulative effects are expected from this minor limitation or potential relocations.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C:
Alternative C would increase the area of semiprimitive nonmotorized over Alternatives A and B and create the same mountain biking opportunities as Alternative B. The effects of Alternative C would be similar to those described for Alternative B with a minor difference.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-305 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Nonmotorized:
The direct and indirect effects on mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding and cross-country skiing opportunities are the same as Alternative B.
Motorized:
Alternative C would increase semiprimitive nonmotorized areas, 16,985 acres, when compared to Alternative B. Alternative B and C have the same area of candidate Research Natural Areas. The increase in semiprimitive nonmotorized area could limit future motorized trail opportunities in a very minor way, reduces area for new trail location by 1.7 percent when compared to Alternative B. No effects are expected from this minor limitation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-306 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Effects on Visual Resources:
There are many ideas of what a “natural” appearing forest looks like and how much emphasis should be placed on scenic integrity levels in forest management. Forest Plan revision will determine management direction for maintaining, enhancing, restoring and monitoring scenic integrity. Forest Plan Revision will also establish Scenic Integrity Objectives for the Forests, which guide the amount, degree, intensity and distribution of management activities needed to achieve desired scenic conditions.
Indicator 1 – Scenic Integrity Level:
The first indicator for scenic quality is the Scenic Integrity Level as it may or may not vary, by acres, within each alternative.
This indicator demonstrates the importance in maintaining the scenic value as compared with other areas of the forest, in terms of degree of deviation from the natural character. This indicator effectively compares the alternatives because it is an objective measurement of the importance each alternative places on scenic integrity. Managing for scenic quality provides for a variety of benefits, including economic benefits such as tourism and social benefits such as opportunities to enjoy the visual aspect of the landscape.
Scenic integrity is a key concept within the Scenery Management System. The Scenery Management System is used by the Forest Service to determine the relative value and importance of scenery in the National Forest System. The Scenery Management System is used in the context of ecosystem management to inventory and analyze scenery; assist in developing natural resource goals and objectives; monitor scenic integrity and ensure that attractive landscapes are sustained for the future.
Scenic Classes:
Scenic Classes are classifications that prioritize lands based on their importance and scenic value. Scenic Classes were inventoried and mapped for the Forests by considering (1) the scenic attractiveness of the land and (2) visibility from travel ways, use areas and water bodies with different levels of concern by the public. Agriculture Handbook Number 701, Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, provided the primary direction for the scenic inventory. Table III-38 summarizes the inventory results.
Table III-38. Scenic Class Matrix. Distance Zone/Concern Level Scenic Foreground Middleground Foreground Middleground Background Attractiveness Concern Concern Concern Concern (Bg) Classes Level 1 (Fg1) Level 1 (Mg1) Level 2 (Fg2) Level 2 (Mg2) A 1 2 2 3 3 B 1 3 2 5 5 C 1 4 2 6 7
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-307 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Scenic Attractiveness of the landscape was analyzed by starting with groupings of landtype associations similar to Fire Regime classes. The six Fire Regime classes were grouped to create the initial three scenic attractiveness classes as follows.
Fire Regime Class 1 and Fire Regime Class 2 were grouped and are illustrative of indistinctive scenic attractiveness, Class C. They are typical of flatter terrain with shorter-lived conifer species providing little interest or variety in the landscape. These areas are the most likely areas to experience large, stand-replacing wildfires and the most likely locations for Kirtland’s warbler habitat work or large fuelbreak projects.
Fire Regime Class 3 and Fire Regime Class 4 were grouped and are illustrative of typical scenic attractiveness, Class B. They contain stands of relatively long-lived tree species with various species mixes. The terrain is also typically more variable than the previous classes.
Fire Regime Class 3W and Fire Regime Class 4W were grouped with the water elements and are illustrative of distinctive scenic attractiveness, Class A. Water bodies such as the major rivers and lakes as well as wetlands and riparian zones comprise this grouping. Because of the importance of water and water-based recreation to visitors to the Huron-Manistee National Forests, it is likely these areas will remain without noticeable deviations from the landscape character.
The three classes that resulted from the Fire Regime class groupings were further refined on the ground after comparing the resultant maps to the older Variety Class maps used in the original Forest Plan. It was determined, for instance, that the mere presence of wetland or water did not necessarily result in a distinctive condition. The maps used to produce the final Scenic Classes were the result of this ground-truthing.
Distance Zones were produced in Arc View by using an offset algorithm. Once the maps were produced, actual seen areas were substituted for a few key areas where Forest Service employees determined major areas could not be actually seen. Examples where this was done include the White River Semiprimitive Area, the Pere Marquette Scenic River and parts of the Au Sable River.
Concern Levels describe the relative importance of scenery to the public. Sometimes it is impossible to separate emotional attachments to a landscape from the perceived beauty, so the Forest used several determining factors to assign Concern Levels to roads, trails, developed recreation sites, many lakes and streams, designated areas such as Wilderness or Semiprimitive areas and other use areas. These areas and routes were labeled in Arc View attribute tables.
Scenic Integrity:
Scenic Integrity is an indication of the state of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. More importantly, it measures how closely the landscape approaches the character desired over the long term. It is stated in degrees of deviation from this desired character. Where the desired character is reflective of the existing character, then Scenic Integrity measures deviation from the existing condition. Landscape character with a
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-308 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources high degree of Scenic Integrity has a sense of wholeness or being complete. In the Scenery Management System process, Scenic Integrity is managed in degrees ranging over five levels from Very High to Very Low Scenic Integrity Levels are:
Very high – Landscapes are unaltered. High – Landscape appears unaltered. Moderate – Landscape appears slightly altered. Low – Landscape appears moderately altered. Very low – Landscape appears heavily altered.
Scenic Integrity Objectives:
Scenic Integrity Objectives measure the landscape over time. The adopted objectives are an expression of the likelihood for deviations from the desired landscape character. It is important to note that interim or short-term integrity levels may be necessary to reach a long-term character goal. Once that goal is achieved, the integrity may actually be higher than present. This may be best shown through creation of pine barrens or oak savannahs. Once achieved, on-going management should maintain the ability to perpetuate the vegetation within the parameters of the assigned Scenic Integrity Objective. The assigned Scenic Integrity Objective describes the appearance of the desired landscape condition. Using the example of pine barrens establishment, a Scenic Integrity Objective of high describes the appearance of the final barrens condition, not the original timbered condition or the change from the timbered condition.
Scope of Analysis:
The analysis area includes all federal land managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area represents National Forest System land where recreation resources exist and the land where those resources could receive impacts from management activities.
The affected area for cumulative effects includes land administered on other ownerships including both public and private with the proclamation boundary.
In the process of implementing the Scenery Management System, the Forests classified additional sensitive travel routes and areas as compared to routes and areas identified in the Visual Management System. These additions resulted in some change from the existing condition within the current plan.
The inventoried Scenic Class 1 and 2 acres are primarily associated with the foregrounds of visually sensitive roads, trails, lakes, streams and use areas. Within the morainal hill portions of the Forests, there is more opportunity for distant views. For this reason, areas with high levels of scenic attractiveness that are visible from visual corridors with high levels of viewer concern were assigned a Scenic Class 2.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-309 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Regardless of which alternative is selected, the management direction in the Forest Plan would provide for a range of diverse landscapes and natural settings. The scenic environment within the Forests would range from landscapes with high scenic integrity displaying little or no evidence of management activities to landscapes with lower scenic integrity that have dominant visible evidence of management activities.
The Scenery Management System would be used in all alternatives to manage the Forests’ scenic resources in order to protect and enhance the recreation and scenic resource values, while meeting other resource commitments. Resource management activities would not reduce the scenic integrity below the assigned level for a given area.
There are a number of Standards and Guidelines that would address the following topics for all alternatives: facilities, temporary and permanent openings, utilities, riparian areas, signs, roads, minerals and oil and gas, vegetation management, fuels treatments and general forest management. In all the above topics, the following expectations apply: the Scenic Integrity Objectives associated with a management area would be known and incorporated in any management decision; any constructed facilities would blend into the landscape; visual expectations of management within areas of disturbance would be identified and implemented in a timely manner and site-specific projects would minimize visual impacts as prescribed by the Scenic Integrity Objectives and Standards and Guidelines.
Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives:
The Forest Plan would implement the Scenic Integrity Objectives consistent with the theme and emphasis of the alternative. Meeting the Scenic Integrity Objectives would help maintain a key component of the regional tourism industry. Implementation of Alternative A or B would not likely result in a major change in the forest landscape seen from popular travel ways and use areas as compared to the present-day situation. Implementation of Alternative C would likely result, for the most part, in short-term lessening of Scenic Integrity followed by gradually increasing Scenic Integrity, perhaps higher than the present-day situation. Some of these changes may be abrupt and large. These changes would likely be limited to Management Area 4.2.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives A:
Over the next 20 years, the emphasis on forest management in this alternative would result in a similar level of scenic quality as found in today’s Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternative B and C:
Forest management in these alternatives would result in lower scenic integrity levels during the next 20 years due to an increase in large open areas for Kirtland’s warbler habitat, pine barrens establishment, fuelbreak creation and prairie re-establishment projects. These conversion projects would result in a short-term drop in integrity level. Once the areas are established and their appearance is consistent with the desired future condition, the integrity level may be higher
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-310 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources than before the activities were undertaken. Changes in the appearance of the Forests, as contrasted to the existing condition, would occur relatively gradually under Alternative B and more rapidly under Alternative C.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-311 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Effects on Semiprimitive Management Areas:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests provide a range of recreation opportunities, including nonmotorized activities. Although historic logging activity left the Forests riddled with roads and abandoned railroad grades, the Forests’ allocated semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized and wilderness areas ensure that there are places where the sounds of motors are absent or minimized. The Huron-Manistee National Forests are among the rare places in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan with a land base large enough and contiguous enough to provide opportunities for solitude or for relatively remote and semiprimitive types of recreation.
Scope of the Analysis:
The analysis area includes all federal land managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area represents National Forest Systems land where recreation resources exist and the land where those resources could receive impacts from management activities.
The affected area for cumulative effects in this analysis includes land administered on other ownerships including, both public and private lands. The Lower Peninsula of Michigan is being considered as the cumulative effects area for semiprimitive recreational opportunities.
Current Designations:
Fourteen areas have been allocated as semiprimitive nonmotorized and three areas have been allocated to semiprimitive motorized. Brandybrook was identified as a semiprimitive motorized area but the Forest Plan was not amended to change its semiprimitive area designation. Tables III-40, III-41, III-42 and III-43 list the current management areas with semiprimitive allocations on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas are characterized by few and/or subtle human modifications and with a large probability of isolation from the sights and sounds of others. Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas provide dispersed recreational opportunities in areas that are remote, natural- appearing, and essentially free of developments, except primitive roads. Examples of nonmotorized opportunities are dispersed camping, hiking, mountain biking, cross country skiing, fishing, observing nature and hunting. Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas provide the forest visitor with a recreational experience in secluded areas, free from the sounds and presence of motorized vehicles and mechanized equipment.
Semiprimitive motorized management areas provide recreational activities similar to semiprimitive nonmotorized areas, with the exception of motorized use. Semiprimitive motorized areas are characterized by moderately dominant human alterations with evidence of permanent roads and/or trails; provide recreational activities in a remote, natural setting and allow the use of motorized vehicles or mechanized equipment. Examples of motorized opportunities are snowmobiling, trail bike riding, driving for pleasure and Off-Highway Vehicle use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-312 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Some motorized recreation activities have continued to occur in or near several existing semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas. For example, snowmobile trails cross the Briar Hills and Manistee River Semiprimitive Nonmotorized management areas. Most of these trails are located on county roads within the areas where the Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over motorized use in the road rights of way. Snowmobile trails also exist along, or very near, the perimeters of other semiprimitive nonmotorized and semiprimitive motorized management areas. Many of these trails existed prior to their designations or proposal for designation. Snowmobile clubs use motorized equipment to groom snowmobile trails on roads within several of the current semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas.
Developed campsites are located in designated campground and have improvements such as spurs, fire rings, picnic tables, drinking water and rest rooms. No developed campsites are located within semiprimitive management areas. Dispersed campsites are not part of designated campgrounds and usually do not include picnic areas or beaches. Numerous dispersed sites are located within the Forests’ semiprimitive nonmotorized and semiprimitive motorized management areas. Although some of these sites are accessible from roads, some are only accessible by foot travel or motorboat. Dispersed sites sometimes have improvements such as designated parking, fire rings, picnic tables and rest rooms. Although most dispersed sites are single isolated sites, some have four to six campsites grouped together.
The majority of the designated semiprimitive areas are within the Forests’ old-growth design. All management areas with semiprimitive acres in the Forest Plan are available for timber management and most have received some level of timber management or other type or vegetative treatment. These treatments were implemented to improve visual diversity and wildlife habitat in these areas.
In response to legal mandates and public and internal concerns about existing semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized area management, the Huron-Manistee National Forests have proposed completing the designation of semiprimitive management areas identified in the existing Forest Plan. This would result in adjusting some area boundaries to facilitate administration and modifying some management areas to resolve outstanding incompatible use issues. As part of the revision process, the Huron-Manistee National Forests considered whether any additional areas should be considered for possible semiprimitive management. After reviewing such things as Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, road densities, old growth and the management and ownership of adjoining private lands, no new areas were identified for consideration as semiprimitive management areas.
One of the concerns raised during scoping was that there were insufficient opportunities of semiprimitive recreational activities. Based on public input and an evaluation of the current management situation, the Forests identified an opportunity to offer an increased opportunity for quality nonmotorized recreational opportunities in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Forests offered the following range of alternatives for semiprimitive management areas.
The following tables (Tables III-40, III-41, III-42 and III-43) list the current management areas with semiprimitive allocations on the Huron-Manistee National Forests:
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-313 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-39. Areas Currently Allocated Semiprimitive Nonmotorized, by Forest. Name Forest Whalen Lake Manistee Bowman Lake Manistee White River Manistee Condon West Manistee Briar Hills North Manistee Briar Hills South Manistee Manistee River Manistee South Branch Au Sable Huron Wakeley Lake Huron Reid Lake Huron Cooke Pond Huron Hoist Huron Whitewater Creek Huron Au Sable Huron
Table III-40. Areas Currently Allocated Semiprimitive Motorized, by Forest. Name Forest Nordhouse Manistee Loda Lake Manistee Condon East Manistee
Table III-41. Proposed Forest Semiprimitive Motorized Area Identified but not Amended Into the 1986 Forest Plan. Name Forest Brandybrook Manistee
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-314 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Tables III-43 describes the name, net acreage, and semiprimitive area designation by alternative.
Table III-42. Semiprimitive Areas by Alternative.
Area Name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Whalen Lake SPNM1/ SPNM SPNM Bowman Lake SPNM SPNM SPNM White River SPNM SPNM SPNM Condon West SPNM SPNM SPNM Briar Hills North SPNM SPNM SPNM Briar Hills South SPNM SPM2/ SPNM Manistee River SPNM SPNM SPNM South Branch SPNM SPNM SPNM Wakeley Lake SPNM SPNM SPNM Reid Lake SPNM SPNM SPNM Cooke Pond SPNM SPNM SPNM Hoist SPNM SPNM SPNM Whitewater Creek SPNM SPNM SPNM Au Sable SPNM SPNM SPNM Brandy Brook SPM SPNM Nordhouse SPM SPM SPNM Loda Lake SPM SPM SPNM Condon East SPM SPM SPNM Total Acres of 59,626 62,301 79,449 Designated SPNM Total Acres of 11,375 17,148 0 Designated SPM 1/ SPNM = Semiprimitive Nonmotorized. 2/ SPM = Semiprimitive Motorized.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative A:
Under Alternative A, management areas currently designated as either semiprimitive nonmotorized or semiprimitive motorized would remain the same. Brandybrook would not be designated a semiprimitive motorized management area, and no change would occur to the current management direction for this area. No modifications would be made to existing semiprimitive area boundaries and some non-conforming uses are expected to continue. Unless the management direction for semiprimitive nonmotorized areas is implemented on a site- specific level, the desired semiprimitive nonmotorized experience would not be provided or may continue to be diminished. However, the Forest Service would continue to conduct site-specific analysis to evaluate opportunities to eliminate non-conforming uses. Overall, Alternative A, which maintains existing semiprimitive management area designations and management, would not increase semiprimitive opportunities. Over time, the quality of the semiprimitive experience is expected to slowly improve as old-growth management promotes semiprimitive characteristics and site-specific analyses continue to address non-conforming uses. Although Alternative A would not allocate more areas as semiprimitive motorized, it would likely provide the highest level of semiprimitive motorized experiences.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-315 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives B and C:
Alternatives B and C would increase the number of semiprimitive management areas. In addition, opportunities for nonmotorized semiprimitive recreation increase in Alternatives B and C over Alternative A. Increasing the amount of semiprimitive management area acreage provides a) more opportunities to recreate in more natural, less-disturbed settings; b) less contact with other visitors; c) less contact with the sights and sounds of civilization, including engine noise and motorized vehicles and d) somewhat more demanding physical challenge.
As shown in Table III-43, Alternative B would provide more semiprimitive nonmotorized and semiprimitive motorized opportunities than Alternative A. Under Alternative B, approximately 6 percent of the Forests would be designated for semiprimitive nonmotorized use and approximately 2 percent for semiprimitive motorized use.
In Alternative B, the closing of interior roads and trails in these areas would reduce the amount of dispersed recreational opportunities associated with motorized access on the Forests. The recreational experience would improve for those users seeking the semiprimitive nonmotorized experience and who prefer to recreate in less roaded areas. Over time, the quality of the semiprimitive experience is expected to slowly improve as old-growth management promotes semiprimitive characteristics and site-specific analyses continue to address non-conforming uses. It is likely that some recreational visitors seeking road access to recreational activities may no longer come to their traditional areas to recreate. Forest users who prefer motorized recreational activities or vehicle access within a short distance of their recreational activity may be displaced to more roaded areas. It is expected that recreational users would adapt to the new management area direction without a noticeable reduction in overall recreational use on the Forests. Implementation of Alternative B would result in more road closures and motorized trail relocations, decreased motorized access to recreational activities in some areas, increased semiprimitive recreational opportunities and an improved semiprimitive experience.
As shown in Table III-42 and III-43, Alternative C would designate an additional 17,148 acres of designated semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas, and eliminates any designated area for semiprimitive motorized experiences. Under Alternative C, approximately 8.4 percent of the Forests would be managed as semiprimitive nonmotorized areas to provide semiprimitive nonmotorized recreational experiences. As a result, Alternative C would provide the most semiprimitive nonmotorized opportunities and the least semiprimitive motorized opportunities. Motorized trails within designated semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas would be relocated as alternative routes are identified outside semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. The Forest Service would work with local communities in order to facilitate the relocation process. The relocation of motorized trails from semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the implementation of road closures would increase recreation opportunities for people who enjoy more primitive forms of recreation such as hiking and nature viewing and improve the quality of the experience. Those who prefer driving for pleasure motorized recreation would find fewer opportunities within the semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas.
Hunting, sight seeing and non-commercial collection of forest products, mushroom hunting and berry picking, are popular in semiprimitive areas. Motorized access would decrease in both
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-316 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Alternatives B and C. Visitors seeking vehicle access to their traditional use areas would have fewer opportunities over time as roads within semiprimitive areas are closed. However, the semiprimitive experience would improve as these areas become more remote. Hunters, dispersed campers and other recreational users looking for experiences that require more physical challenge, less interaction between people and some separation from motorized vehicles would find more opportunities.
Table III-43. Acres of Semiprimitive Areas by Alternative. Management Area Description Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 59,626 62,301 79,449 Semiprimitive Motorized 11,375 17,148 0 Total 71,001 79,449 79,449
Cumulative Effects:
With approximately 3,400 acres of designated Wilderness in the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness and about 71,000 acres of semiprimitive management areas, the Huron-Manistee National Forests are among the few places in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan where people can visit to enjoy quality primitive or semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized recreational experiences. The semiprimitive experience is limited on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Under all alternatives, semiprimitive areas occupy less than 10 percent of National Forest System lands. Currently, approximately 90 percent of National Forest System lands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests are located within one-fourth mile of a road. This level of road density makes the semiprimitive nonmotorized experience relatively sparse for forest users.
Alternative A would maintain the existing acreage of semiprimitive motorized and semiprimitive nonmotorized recreational opportunities. The quality of the semiprimitive recreational experience is expected to improve over time as management direction for old growth and other resources continue to move the areas toward the desired future condition for semiprimitive areas.
The quality of the semiprimitive recreational experiences is expected to be higher in both Alternative B and C, in the short and long term, than in Alternative A. The adoption of new direction in Alternatives B and C, along with continued implementation of management direction for resources such as old growth, is expected to increase the quality of semiprimitive experience and opportunities offered on the Forests. In addition, proposed adjustments to semiprimitive management area boundaries are expected to facilitate and improve the Forest Service’s management of these lands and the agency’s ability to move the areas toward their desired future condition. Roads and motorized trails within many of the semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas would be gradually relocated to suitable locations outside designated semiprimitive areas or closed, improving the quality of the semiprimitive recreational experience.
While enthusiasts of motorized forms of recreation would find fewer opportunities within these areas, opportunities for those who would enjoy nonmotorized forms of recreation such as hiking, biking, hunting and primitive camping increase. Under both Alternative B and C, motorized
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-317 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
recreation enthusiasts would eventually have fewer opportunities for semiprimitive motorized recreational activities on the Forests due to continued reduction in road densities to meet Forest Plan direction. However, motorized recreational opportunities are provided adjacent to these areas and across the majority of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Overall, the implementation of Alternatives B and C would likely create a shift in some of the recreational use on the Forests to semiprimitive and create a relatively small reduction in overall recreational use attributed to motorized use on the Forests. Under all alternatives, the quality of the semiprimitive experience is expected to improve as the management direction for these areas is implemented to provide semiprimitive opportunities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-318 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Effects on Roads:
Roads make the Huron-Manistee National Forests accessible to the public. They move people from place to place, allow for rapid response in emergency situations, facilitate management activities and provide access to remote areas and recreational facilities. However, roads also bring engine noise, are costly to maintain, and may cause resource damage. Motorized vehicle use on roads can produce pollutants and degrade soil and water resources. Roads create openings in the forest ecosystem, which can create barriers for the movement of some species or pathways that allow other predatory species to move freely. Road use stirs up dust that can damage vegetation, and creates noise that can disturb wildlife. Vehicles can lead to wildlife mortality from collisions. Vehicles may transport seeds from non-native invasive species, which can allow invasive species to become established on the Forests, out-competing desirable native species.
Scope of the Analysis:
The analysis area includes all federal lands managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area represents National Forest System lands where recreation resources exist and the land where those resources could receive impacts from management activities.
The affected area for cumulative effects includes land administered on other ownerships including, both public and private lands within the proclamation boundaries.
Alternative A is the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, with some changes to the Standards and Guidelines to reflect current national policy.
The proposed changes in Alternative B that have an effect on road management include the designation of an increased number of acres and areas as semiprimitive motorized and semiprimitive nonmotorized; an increase in restoration activities for a variety of wildlife species and habitats; an increase in activities associated with hazardous fuels management and fuelbreaks.
Changes in Alternative C that have an effect on roads include all of the proposed changes in Alternative B with the following exceptions: • An increase in activity associated with hazardous fuels management and fuelbreaks compared to Alternative A, but a decrease in acres and rate of fuel treatment, 6,000 acres annually, compared to Alternative B, 8,000 acres annually. • The designation of three additional Research Natural Areas.
Existing Roads:
An estimated 10,400 miles of roads exist within the Forests’ boundaries, resulting in an average road density of 3.2 miles per square mile. Of the total miles, approximately 6,670 miles are state and county roads and 3,730 are National Forest System roads. Approximately 90 percent of
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-319 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
National Forest System lands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests are located within one-fourth mile of a road.
The 3,730 miles of National Forest roads are classified by five maintenance levels:
Maintenance Level 1: Roads that are closed and not maintained. Maintenance Level 2: Roads that are maintained for high clearance vehicles. Maintenance Level 3: Roads that do not have smooth surfaces and are maintained for passenger vehicles. Maintenance Level 4: Roads that have smooth surfaces and are maintained for passenger vehicles. Maintenance Level 5: Roads that are possibly paved and dust free and have smooth surfaces and are maintained for passenger vehicles.
A breakdown of the National Forest roads by maintenance level is shown below:
Table III-44. Maintenance Level of National Forest Roads. National Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Total Forest Huron 267 1,117 252 16 1.5 1,653.5 Manistee 220 1,799 33 13.5 11 2,076.5 TOTAL 487 2,916 285 29.5 12.5 3,730
In addition to authorized federal, forest, state, county and township roads, there are many unauthorized, user-developed roads across the Forests. Since these are not designed roads, many are rutted and are in need of maintenance, repair or closure. Due to the poor location of some of these roads, such as on steep terrains, portions of these roads are susceptible to erosion. Road/stream crossings, roadside erosion and Off-Highway Vehicle damage to the hillsides are the primary contributors to stream sedimentation and degraded water quality.
Current Management Direction:
The current management direction provided regarding road management is to reduce the net miles of roads on the Forests by emphasizing closure of roads determined to be nonessential for resource management. The Motorized Travel Management Rule, effective December 9, 2005, closes roads, trails and areas to motorized use unless designated as open on the Motorized Vehicle Use Map. The three alternatives affect the road system and road management in similar ways but to varying degrees.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Forest roads indirectly impact regional and local economies through the support of tourism, recreation and land management activities. Some of these activities include driving for pleasure, hiking, mountain biking, berry picking, horseback riding, boating, hunting, watching wildlife, fishing, accessing private lands and resource management activities. The net effect of
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-320 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
management activities would be a decrease in road miles across the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Trailheads for nonmotorized recreational activities would be provided.
While difficult to quantify, roads provide connections between the communities that provide an economic and social network for those who live nearby or who visit the Forests. There are a variety of community social and economic health relationships affected by road management. Due to the intermingled ownership within the Forest’s proclamation boundary, historic and traditional motorized use of the Forests, aging population and the value and need to access special places and experiences, some forest users may perceive road management, such as road decommissioning, as an adverse effect.
Currently, approximately 90 percent of National Forest System lands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests are located within one-fourth mile of a road. Although these alternatives reduce the amount of open roads on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, such as in semiprimitive and Research Natural Areas, an ample amount of motorized access to recreational opportunities would continue to be provided across the Forests, which promotes tourism. Many forest visitors who drive the existing roads across the Forests and prefer motorized recreation would likely move to other locations if the road closures directly impacts the area where they have traditionally recreated. These visitors would continue to contribute income to local businesses and the local economy.
There are those who would benefit socially and economically through the road density reduction. Forest visitors who prefer nonmotorized recreational activities, such as mushroom hunting, hiking, cross country skiing, hunting and horseback riding, would be attracted to the improved nonmotorized recreational opportunities. The decrease in open road densities would increase the value of the area for those who prefer less interaction with motorized vehicles. These visitors would also contribute income to the local businesses as they pass through or stay overnight in the area, resulting in an economic benefit to local communities. The implementation of any of the alternatives, particularly Alternatives B and C, would likely create a shift in some of the recreational use on the Forests to semiprimitive and create a relatively small reduction in the overall recreational use attributed to motorized use on the Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative A:
Under Alternative A, management direction would continue to emphasize the need to reduce the net miles of roads on the Forests by closing or decommissioning roads determined to be nonessential for resource management. Road densities would be reduced to more closely meet the desired condition levels identified in the different Management Areas across the Huron- Manistee National Forests. Reducing road densities or improving road locations would reduce resource damage such as roadside erosion, sediment delivery to streams, wildlife disturbance and mortality, and habitat degradation and improve aquatic habitat and water quality. Road reductions would also reduce the potential for trespass onto private property; theft of forest products; litter and dumping and human ignition of wildfire, which represents more than 95 percent of all ignition sources in Michigan. The road reduction would also reduce the trespass potential onto private property, theft of forest products, litter, user conflicts and the wildfire potential. Although the density of roads would be reduced, motorized access throughout the
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-321 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Forests continues to be provided. The need for new road construction for resource management and access to private property would continue. However, the effect on the road system would continue to be a reduction in road miles across the heavily roaded Forests.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives B and C:
Alternatives B and C would increase the amount and acreage of semiprimitive management areas allocated on the Forests. This allocation may prompt the closure of roads within some of these areas to more closely meet the desired condition for road density levels identified for semiprimitive areas. Alternative C would designate three additional Research Natural Areas. This designation would restrict any new road construction in these areas, and increase closures of nonessential roads. The effects of reducing road densities across the Forests under Alternatives B and C are similar to those discussed above under Alternative A.
All three alternatives provide for restoration activities for a variety of wildlife species and habitats, with Alternatives B and C proposing an increase in these activities. These restoration and conservation activities for both wildlife and plants may cause several different effects on roads. In order to most effectively restore and conserve wildlife and plant species and habitats, roads may be obliterated in order to restore habitat; roads may be closed to public vehicular use or roads may be restricted by vehicle type or season of use.
Temporary road closures may be necessary for hazardous fuels management. Prescribed burning activities would require temporary road closures due to safety concerns. All three alternatives provide for hazardous fuels management and fuelbreaks, with the greatest increase in these activities in Alternative B.
All three alternatives have the possibility of increased oil and gas development on National Forest System lands. This development may cause the need for road construction in order to allow access. However, these roads would likely be temporary and obliterated when no longer necessary. This new road construction would not likely cause an increase in net miles of roads.
In general, for all three alternatives, the net effect of management activities would be a decrease in road miles across the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Management activities on the Forests generate road use because most management activities require motorized access. Some of the Forest activities generating the most road use are timber harvesting and developed and dispersed recreation. Although decisions regarding the closure of specific access roads would be made at the site-specific project level, high standard passenger car roads, maintenance levels 3 to 5, are unlikely to be closed or decommissioned. Access roads closed are generally low standard maintenance level 2 roads. Therefore, access for developed recreational activities would not likely be affected by the road closures. Over time, motorized access for dispersed recreational activities such as hunting and dispersed camping would decrease. An ample amount of access would continue to be provided across the Forests for management purposes, recreational activities, and public use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-322 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Effects on Heritage Resources:
Heritage resources are both fragile and non-renewable. Most are archaeological sites hidden by surface litter and vegetation or obscured by more recent land use alterations. The integrity of heritage values can be adversely affected by passive neglect or through the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of management activities, such as many of those outlined in the Forest Plan alternatives. Under all three alternatives, management of heritage resources is characteristically permissive rather than prescriptive or prohibitive, allowing needed situational flexibility in property identification and protection protocols.
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The Alternatives are similar in substantive intent but not in precise wording. The Standard and Guidelines dealing with National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Section 106 compliance issues have been designed to ensure Forest management undertakings consistently result in “no effect” or “no adverse effect” determinations for historic properties. Certain responsibilities, such as National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, Section 110 and Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as amended, dealing with protection and permitting issues, are also generally addressed in all alternatives.
Adverse effects to heritage values can occur as a consequence of deficiencies in the field survey methodology, and/or faults in the design, coordination or execution of recommended protective measures at the time of project implementation.
Non-project-specific negative effects to heritage properties can be the result of both conscious and unintentional disturbance. Prominent examples include vandalism, illegal Off-Highway Vehicle use and dispersed camping. Immediate direct effects can often be regarded as minor but each repeated episode further diminishes the integrity of the resource. For example, a number of known archaeological sites are co-located with popular recreation areas. In developed campgrounds, specific campsites can be closed or planned improvements altered to conserve heritage values. At dispersed campsites, however, negative effects from trash burial and latrine and camp fire excavations are often unrecognized, unmitigated and ongoing. This problem will continue under all alternatives and is expected to increase with increasing recreation, hunting and angling demand.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The effects above can be considered as both direct and indirect at the immediate project and site level. There is also survey and excavation evidence to confirm that they are cumulative and represent a significant and unmitigated threat to the long-term viability of the historic record in our most intensively managed and highest use areas.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-323 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Effects on Lands:
To better understand the potential impact of the Huron-Manistee National Forests on local communities, it is helpful to understand the general land ownership patterns in Michigan as well as the distribution of National Forest System lands in local counties.
Michigan has approximately 37.5 million acres of land, not counting water bodies. The State of Michigan landholdings, totaling 4.7 million acres, are in state forests, state park and recreation areas, state wildlife refuges and state game areas. Michigan has the largest dedicated state forest system in the United States. Federal lands include National Forests, National Lakeshores and National Park and National Wildlife Refuges totaling 3.2 million acres of Michigan. The national forests are the largest category of federal land. The four National Forests located in Michigan, the Ottawa, Hiawatha and Huron-Manistee National Forests, comprise nearly 2.9 million acres.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests are the only National Forests located in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and are managed together as the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Huron National Forest is approximately 436,200 acres and the Manistee National Forest is approximately 536,800 acres. Together, the Huron-Manistee National Forests comprise approximately 973,000 acres of land. This constitutes approximately 2.6 percent of the state’s total land base. The percentage of National Forest System lands within each county ranges from a low of 0.4 percent in Montcalm County to a high of 41.4 percent in Oscoda County. Although state, county and private land parcels are scattered within the boundaries of both Forests, the Huron National Forest has a more consolidated ownership pattern than the Manistee National Forest. Table III-45 depicts the number of acres of national forest system land in each county.
Table III-45. National Forest System Lands by County. Acres of National Percent of National County County Forest System Forest System Acres Lands Within County Lands Within County Alcona 444,840 113,220 25.5% Crawford 368,280 38,448 10.4% Iosco 362,340 111,741 30.8% Lake 374,880 112,437 30.0% Manistee 359,040 87,701 24.4% Mason 326,700 60,702 18.6% Mecosta 366,960 3,459 0.9% Montcalm 467,280 1,760 0.4% Muskegon 335,940 12,547 3.7% Newaygo 555,720 110,323 19.9% Oceana 356,400 53,301 15.0% Ogemaw 372,240 20,183 5.4% Oscoda 372,900 154,494 41.4% Wexford 373,560 96,880 25.9%
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-324 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
The percent of National Forest System land in a county is important, both socially and economically. Although National Forests do not pay property taxes for the land managed by the federal government, the federal government does fund state and local governments through three major programs: the Twenty-Five Percent Fund or Secure Rural Schools and Communities Act payments; Payment in Lieu of Taxes and a share of mineral royalties.
The 25 Percent Fund provides a means to share 25 percent of the gross revenue from fees collected on National Forest System lands for activities such as timber harvest, grazing, camping, and spcial use permit fees. The funds are paid annually to counties where the funds originated, based on the acreage of National Forest System lands contained within them. These funds must be used for schools and roads. Counties may choose one of two formulas for calculating their payments: one is the traditional formula based on the current year’s revenue and the newer “Full Payment” option or the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act became an option to counties to replace the 25 Percent Fund. It is designed to stablize annual payments to states and counties over five years, beginning in 2001. The new formula for computing annual payments is based on averaging a state’s three highest payments between 1986 and 1999 to arrive at a compensation allotment or “full payment amount.” Counties could choose to continue to receive payments under the 25 Percent Fund, or to receive the county’s proportionate share of the state’s full payment amount under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act option.
The federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 established funds to compensate county governments for private property taxes forgone due to public ownership. Like the 25 Percent Fund, federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes payments are made to the counties based on acres of National Forest System land within the county, but only for National Forest System land that was privately owned prior to federal acquisition, called Entitlement Acres. If the lands were already in public ownership, such as those previously owned by the state government, these lands were already tax exempt, so are not considered “entitled” to federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes dollars. This statutory requirement explains why some counties do not receive money for every acre of National Forest System land. In addition to Entitlement Acres, federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes payment amounts depend on several additional factors: population of a county, amount of payments from other federal agencies during the previous year; existence of state pass-through laws, which require other federal payments to be channeled to other local entities rather than county government and the Consumer Price Index.
A third major federal program that funds states and counties involves mineral royalties generated on federal lands. For lands acquired by the Forest Service under the Weeks Act, which includes Huron-Manistee National Forests lands, the federal government shares 25 percent of gross mining receipts with the state. Mineral royalties historically were added to the 25 Percent Fund, earmarked for schools and roads, but after 1992 an administrative change shifted these payments to a separate fund for counties, not earmarked for schools and roads.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-325 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Scope of the Analysis:
The analysis area includes all federal land managed by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. This area represents National Forest System lands where recreation resources exist and the land where those resources could receive impacts from management activities.
The affected area for cumulative effects includes land administered on other ownerships including, both public and private lands within the State of Michigan.
Lands Program:
The Forest Service acquires parcels of land on a willing seller/willing buyer basis and through land donations. Land acquisitions focus on properties, that enhance recreational opportunities; improve endangered, threatened and sensitive species and ecosystem management; address land management issues and consolidate ownership patterns.
The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, identified approximately 40,000 acres of National Forest System lands that were available for exchange within the two forests. Most of the land identified was small, scattered parcels, and of these 40,000 acres, about 9,000 lacked legal access. Since 1986, the Forests have exchanged approximately 22,900 acres, of which, 9,310 was exchanged in 1984 and 1985. However, between 1999 to 2004, only 257.51 acres have been exchanged out of federal ownership, for an average of 51.5 National Forest System acres per year. The Forests evaluate exchange proposals on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are in the public interest.
Since 1986, the Forests have purchased 26,217 acres of private land. From 1999 to 2004, a total of 6,536 acres have been acquired, including 5,892 acres of the Great Lakes Fishery Trust case. The average acres acquired over the five years from 1999 to 2004 has been 128.8 acres, not including the Great Lakes Fisheries Trust Case.
The Forest Service issues and maintains non-recreation special use authorizations for various uses across the Forest. These authorizations are issued for such uses as private roads, county roads, power lines and telephone lines across National Forest System lands. Currently, the Forests maintain approximately 600 non-recreation authorizations and receive about 25 new authorization requests per year.
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests are expected to continue acquisition of relatively undeveloped tracts of land, that enhance the programs of the Forests. The percentage of National Forest System lands within most counties is expected to remain the same or slightly increase with new acquisitions. The Forest Service would continue to work with partners in identifying lands for acquisition. Some land exchanges with private individuals, groups, organizations and governmental agencies would likely occur to address land management issues and promote the goals of the agency. A slight increase in Payment in Lieu of Taxes Payments to counties is expected.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-326 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Requests for new special use authorizations are expected to continue or increase over the next 10 years due to the trend of increased development of private tracts in rural areas. Since no changes are proposed in current management direction and authorizations are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, no direct or indirect impacts are expected.
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Acquisitions of properties are expected to improve efficiency of National Forest System land management; address outstanding and emerging issues; improve and protect habitat for endangered, threatened and sensitive species and promote the overall goals of the Forest Plan.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-327 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Social Effects – Local and Regional:
The social context for evaluating the effects of the alternatives lies in what people value about the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Social attitudes, values and beliefs are elements used to describe and understand the human dimension of natural resource management. These elements do not lend themselves to quantitative measurements; therefore, qualitative information will be examined to gauge these effects such as describing vegetative conditions associated with an alternative and the effects on visitor’s use of those areas.
Scope of the Analysis:
The analysis area for local social effects will be Forest’s impact areas as defined in the Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests (July 25, 2003). For regional effects, the analysis area will be northern lower Michigan. The Huron National Forest impact area consists of the following nine counties: Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Iosco, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego and Roscommon. The Manistee National Forest impact zone consists of the following nine counties: Lake, Manistee, Mason, Missaukee, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Osceola and Wexford.
The detailed social assessment used to develop this section of the effects analysis can be found in the planning record.
Michigan’s population is concentrated in the southern Lower Peninsula. Seventy-four percent of Michigan’s population lives within a two-hour drive of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The population in the Huron National Forest and the Manistee National Forest impact areas grew 23.1 and 15.8 percent, respectively, from 1980 to 2000. Population change is based generally on net migration into the area. Amenity migration is affecting many rural areas; people are migrating to rural areas due to their rich natural resource amenities.
The housing unit increase from 1990 to 2000 in the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ impact zones was slightly higher than the state average of 10 percent. At the county level, 37 percent of the housing units in the Huron National Forest impact area are seasonal and 18 percent in the Manistee National Forest impact area are seasonal. Seasonal homeowners and visitors participate in a variety of outdoor recreational activities, especially those associated with water. Seasonal home use is concentrated in the summer with one study estimating that 55 percent of the use occurred in summer. Conversion of seasonal homes to permanent homes is occurring and may be reflected in slight declines of seasonal homes in the Huron National Forest impact area from 1990 to 2000.
On the Huron-Manistee National Forests, there are currently 32 producing oil and gas wells. There are 758 state mineral leases and 77 federal mineral leases. Mineral leases are pending on 18,000 acres of National Forest System lands.
Forests in Michigan are widely accessible through a variety of state, county and Forest Service roads. Thirty-nine percent of timberland in Michigan is within one-quarter mile of a maintained
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-328 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
road with an additional 47 percent of the acreage between one-quarter and three-quarters of a mile. On the Huron-Manistee National Forests, approximately 99 percent of Forest Lands are within one-half mile of a road.
The Huron-Manistee has few lands with true old-growth characteristics but has designated approximately 176,000 acres for old-growth management. It is expected that these areas will eventually attain old-growth characteristics. The Forests currently manage approximately 3,300 acres of wilderness. The Forests currently provide about 59,600 acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas and about 11,400 acres of semiprimitive motorized management areas.
Many people recognize passive values for particular areas of the Forests that are significant to them personally, independent of any active or consumptive use of the area. Passive use values include existence and bequest values. Existence values are things, places or conditions that people value simply because they exist, without any intent or expectation of using them. Bequest value is the desire to allow others, such as future generations, to benefit from the resources. Some natural resource protection values can also be considered passive use values. For example, many people believe forests and wildlife have inherent worth in and of themselves, independent of their usefulness to humans, and should, therefore, be protected (Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, USDA-Forest Service 2000).
Natural features such as rivers, lakes and forests are important resources that attract visitors and new residents to areas near National Forests. These features allow a high “quality of life” for residents and forest users. Residents desire to maintain community character and environmental quality in areas where they live, but generally feel they have little control over change. The community character can generally be described using factors such as development levels, access, cultural heritage or the level of human activity in the area. The level of environmental quality includes safe drinking water, recreational opportunities, healthy ecosystems and scenic beauty.
The communities in and around the National Forests have historically relied on natural resources and tourism for a portion of their economies. The forests, lakes and rivers of the area have provided highly valued recreational opportunities and are the main attraction for the 3 million visitors to the Forests each year. The natural resources also provide an economic boost to the community.
Societal trends that may influence National Forest management include increasing diversity of racial and ethnic groups, an aging population, increasing computer competence, improving technology in long-distance communication, increasing emphasis on sustainability, increasing numbers of grass roots environmental groups, increasing importance of water issues and a continuing emphasis on land use change.
Within the region, trips for cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, biking, sightseeing, visiting historical places and walking are projected to increase faster than population growth. However, visits for a number of traditional activities, for example, picnicking, off-road
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-329 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
driving and primitive camping; are projected to decline markedly in the long term, greater than 10 years.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative A:
The trend of population increase from migration is expected to continue. The trend of small declines in the number of seasonal dwellings through conversion to permanent dwellings is expected to continue.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests generally contribute to the rural character and quality of life enjoyed by residents and visitors in the impact zones. The multiple-use mandate of the Forest Service requires the protection of natural resources while providing activities such as timber sales, oil and gas development and wildlife habitat management. For example, the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, calls for the creation of habitat for the federally endangered Kirtland’s warbler and Karner blue butterfly. These activities change the forested setting to a more open setting. For some forest visitors, open or recently reforested areas may be inconsistent with expectations of a setting characterized by mature forests on National Forest System lands. Additionally, activities such as development of oil and gas or timber harvesting may create sights and sounds inconsistent with an anticipated “natural experience.” The sights and sounds associated with actual management activities are normally short term, lasting only the duration of a project. The physical and social effects on the forested setting can last for many years. For example, a timber harvest may take a number of years to reach a state where management is no longer apparent. Additionally, management activities may result in a different suite of wildlife and plant species. Those who place value on these species would be affected. In comparison to Alternatives B and C, Alternative A provides fewer open areas, fewer areas of disturbance and less frequent disturbance activities. These activities are not expected to alter the trend in use of the Forests by the communities in the impact areas. This alternative would contribute least to the short-term, 10 to 20 years, production of commodities from the Forests, but provide the least disturbance to visitors. Standards and Guidelines applied to all alternatives to protect the environmental quality and heritage resources will mitigate potential significant effects to these resources.
It is predicted that future oil and gas well development on federal and non-federal lands with federal, state or privately owned mineral rights within the proclamation boundary of the Huron National Forest would include 46 new wells of which 36 are expected to be productive. Future oil and gas development on all public and private lands with federal, state or private mineral rights within the proclamation boundary of the Manistee National Forest is expected to include 148 new wells, of which, 103 are expected to be productive. This level of development is expected from all three alternatives. Among the alternatives, Alternative A would have fewer acres with a no-surface-occupancy stipulation and fewer acres with other restrictions on mineral resource production activities. Alternative A is the least restrictive on development of mineral rights, should lease holders decide to proceed with activities.
One of the natural resource amenities that residents in the impact zone and visitors expect from the National Forests is hunting areas. Alternative A provides less aspen management and would provide habitat for fewer grouse than Alternative B. Alternative C is expected to have less frequent management for aspen in Grouse Management Areas, which may result in lower
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-330 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
populations of grouse than under Alternative A. Alternative A will provide habitat to support fewer deer than either Alternative B or C due to less open land management. Alternative A is not expected to change the current hunting use of the National Forests in the short term,10 years. In the longer term, over the next 20 to 100 years, there may be a decline in the Forests use by grouse hunters in comparison to Alternatives B and C.
Some local residents and visitors also expect availability of National Forests areas with little to no active vegetation management. There is no difference between the alternatives in the management of old growth or Wilderness. Perceptions of the value of old growth and Wilderness vary. People who support a passive or protective approach to forest management and appreciate areas where natural processes and the environments they create take precedent over active management derive benefit from the existence of these areas. However, these management designations limit opportunities to produce renewable resources through active management in these areas. There is also an expectation among some visitors of a forest experience that includes a sense of isolation from the sights and sounds of others. Alternatives B and C will provide additional semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. Since there is no difference between alternatives in old growth and Wilderness designations from the current condition, little change in use of the National Forests in old growth, Wilderness or semiprimitive areas by the populations of local communities or visitors is expected over the short term, 10 years. As populations increase and lands around the National Forest are developed over the long term, 30 to 100 years, the demand for such areas may increase, increasing user conflicts.
Recreational management may bring more people into the Forest’s impact areas because of increasing population growth. Residents in the impact areas are concerned about population growth and increased development that is changing, or will change, the nature of their communities. Historical population growth trends within the Forests’ impact areas are not thought to be directly related to management activities on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. It is not expected that management goals, objectives or Standards and Guidelines would have a notable overall direct, indirect or cumulative effect on the size, densities or demographics of the populations of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ impact areas. Forest management alternatives may have localized effects on the rural character of specific areas where mining development, recreation development or access development may lead to additional development on lands adjacent to the Forests. However, no major changes to the existing trends in mining development, recreation development or access development that would lead to changes in the level or rate of rural development currently occurring are expected under any of the alternatives.
Roads in the National Forests are thought to play an important role for visitor and resident’s pursuit of activities. The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, calls for some road closures to meet management area objectives. Road closures may affect motorized access to areas traditionally visited.
Jack pine and red pine forests are volatile fuel types. The Forests’ ownership pattern is highly fragmented by private inholdings, particularly on the Manistee National Forest. There is a risk of wildfire affecting communities. Alternative A allows for the creation of fuelbreaks, but does not require them. Under Alternatives B and C, there are requirements for the establishment of
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-331 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences fuelbreaks and additional fuel reduction treatments. Alternative A would present a greater risk of damage to properties in adjacent communities than under Alternatives B or C.
Cumulative Effects for Alternative A:
Population is expected to increase in the Forests’ impact areas. Open lands within the Forests’ impact areas are expected to decrease over the long term, 100 years. State and federal forest lands within the Forests’ impact areas are expected to continue to be managed for species diversity, with openings for species such as Kirtland’s warbler and Karner blue butterfly. Agricultural practices on private lands are expected to continue but are expected to decline as the population grows, areas are subdivided and urbanization continues. Old, unmanaged agricultural fields may be subdivided and developed or will become forested.
Oil and gas exploration and development on private land in the Forests’ impact area is expected to continue at a modest rate. With depletion of the current producing wells, exploration for new targets will continue. Operators will look to new technologies to enhance recovery from known producing formations of the Michigan Basin. Horizontal drilling allows more efficient recovery of the resource by re-entering existing wells. Counties of the Manistee National Forest can expect to experience exploration of shallow structures targeting “bypassed gas and oil,” and almost the entire Manistee National Forest has some potential for this type of exploration. Exploration for deep rift-related fields in the Huron National Forest is expected to continue and focus on areas within the boundaries of established, or seismically discernable, shallow fields. Widespread exploration is not expected on the Huron National Forest.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is expected to continue to manage for game species on state land and to issue hunting licenses. This alternative would continue the trend of providing the opportunity to encounter game species on the Forests, see Table III-46 below.
Table III-46. Hunted Species Population Ranking1/-Short Term and Long Term. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Short Long Short Long Short Long Term Term Term Term Term Term Deer 1 1 2 2 3 2 Grouse 2 2 3 3 1 1 Turkey 1 1 2 2 3 2 1/ Ranking: 1= lowest, 3=highest.
More private landowners are closing their roads to public access, and more roads are being developed as private parcels are subdivided. Cumulatively, a decline in motor vehicle access to the Forests is expected. This is not expected to change among alternatives, except in semiprimitive management areas as discussed above.
Amenity migration is affecting many rural areas, as people are migrating to rural areas due to their rich natural resource amenities. This is not expected to change between alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-332 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
With the anticipated increase in population and parcelization, it is expected that wildfire will become more costly; a greater risk to life and property and there would be more ignition sources near the forest.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative B:
The effects of Alternative B would differ slightly from Alternative A.
Alternative B would create more open spaces than Alternative A in both the short term, 10 years, and long term, 100 years. Compared to Alternative C, this alternative would provide less open spaces in the short term, 10-30 years, and a similar amount in subsequent decades.
Alternative B places restrictions on how oil and gas development would proceed across the largest area of the Forests of any of the alternatives, 632,897 acres. Alternative B would designate more areas of the Forests as no surface occupancy, 204,631 acres, than Alternative A, but an amount equal to that of Alternative C.
Alternative B provides more habitat for turkey and deer, providing more opportunity for hunting than Alternative A. Alternative B provides less habitat for turkey and deer than Alternative C over the first 50 years, but after the fifth decade Alternatives B and C provide an equal amount of habitat. Alternative B will provide more habitat for grouse than Alternatives A and C over the long term and short term. This will provide more grouse hunting opportunity than either Alternatives A or C.
Alternative B increases the amount of semiprimitive nonmotorized acres compared to Alternative A, but provides fewer acres than Alternative C. This will provide more areas with an experience that includes the isolation from the sights and sounds of others as compared to Alternative A and fewer than Alternative C.
Alternative B will provide more fuels treatments than Alternatives A and C, both in the long term and short term. This will result in the least risk to lives and private property from wildfire.
Cumulative Effects for Alternative B:
By increasing fuels treatments, this alternative would reduce the risk of developing a catastrophic wildfire and increase the likelihood of containing a wildfire if it should occur above both Alternatives A and C.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative C:
The effects of Alternative C would be similar to those described for Alternative A with a few differences.
Alternative C would provide more open land than Alternative A. Alternative C would also provide more open land than Alternative B for the first 50 years, after which time the two alternatives would have similar effects.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-333 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
With respect to turkey and deer, Alternative C would provide more opportunity for hunting than Alternative A. Compared to Alternative B, Alternative C would provide more opportunity to hunt turkey and deer for the first 50 years and then the amounts would be the same. Alternative C provides less grouse hunting opportunity than Alternatives A and B.
Alternative C would provide no semiprimitive motorized management areas but the most semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. Thus Alternative C provides the greatest opportunity to experience isolation from the sights and sounds of others.
Alternative C would require less fuels treatments than Alternative B and more than in Alternative A. This may provide greater protection from wildfire than Alternative A and less than under Alternative B.
Cumulative Effects for Alternative C:
By increasing fuels treatments this alternative would reduce the risk of developing a catastrophic wildfire and increase the likelihood of containing one if it should occur above Alternative A, but less than under Alternative B.
Table III-47. Semiprimitive Nonmotorized and Semiprimitive Motorized Management Areas. Alternative (acres) Allocated Area(s) A B C Wild and Scenic Rivers N/A 20,201 20,201 Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Areas 59,626 62,301 79,449 Semiprimitive Motorized Areas 11,375 17,148 0
Economic Sustainability of Local Communities:
Forest Plan decisions contribute to economic sustainability by providing for a range of uses, values, products and services. Concurrently, Forest Plan direction must be consistent with ecological sustainability. The mix of uses, values, products and services provided by each alternative are measured by representative values indicated by employment, income, industry sectors and portion of economic cumulative impacts, within the Forests’ defined “economic impact area.”
This analysis considers the potential effects to market-related goods and services that are traditionally related to the National Forests, for which monetary values are available, and for which analysis tools are generally accepted. Market benefits can include revenue related to the sale of timber and fees from camping. The Forests also provide revenue to the impact areas from expenditures related to the management of the National Forests. These include items such as employee salaries and contracting for trail construction.
In an attempt to address some non-market values, this analysis has incorporated information from the Forest Service’s “Resource Pricing and Valuation Procedures for the Recommended 1990 Resources Planning Act Program” document. The assigned values included the following
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-334 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
areas: Wilderness; hunting; fishing; non-consumptive wildlife uses; camping; picnicking; swimming; mechanized travel and viewing scenery; hiking; horseback riding; water travel; winter sports and resort use.
Affected Environment/Impact Area:
Economic impact areas consider state/local planning regions and associated economies, National Forest supply based regions, Forest Service expenditures and other factors. The impact area for the Huron-Manistee National Forests, for purposes of the economic impact modeling, includes the following 18 counties; Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Iosco, Lake, Manistee, Mason, Missaukee, Montmorency, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Roscommon and Wexford.
An economic impact assessment modeling tool called IMPLAN® (IMpact Analysis for PLANning) was used to estimate the impacts of economic changes. IMPLAN allows forest managers to examine how the Forests influence employment and labor incomes within the counties that make up the impact area. Due to potential substitution effects from competing non- government sources, these jobs are characterized as being associated with local economic activity initiated by Forest Service programs and activities, rather than caused by these activities. For example, in a situation where 25 percent of logs currently processed by a particular mill are harvested from the Forests, with 75 percent from other sources, if a reduction in available National Forest stumpage reduces the proportion to 20 percent, a substitution effect would be made by wood supplied from other sources, such as state and private lands to make up the reduction of 5 percent.
Economic relationships generated within IMPLAN were extracted and used in the Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (FEAST) model. The FEAST model was used at the Forest-level to analyze the impacts of Forest Plan alternatives.
The following table characterizes the IMPLAN model view of jobs and income in the impact area in total and for the current Forest Service-related jobs and income.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-335 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-48. Current Role of Forest Service-Related Contributions to the Area Economy Employment (jobs) Labor Income ($ million) Industry Area Totals FS-Related Area Totals FS-Related Agriculture 10,338 58 $86.3 $0.7 Mining 1,394 40 $75.7 $1.7 Construction 18,902 114 $687.8 $4.4 Manufacturing 46,954 456 $2,397.8 $22.2 Transportation, Communication, & Utilities 8,044 116 $377.4 $5.4 Wholesale trade 8,642 157 $314.3 $6.1 Retail trade 52,689 1,703 $850.7 $24.4 Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 13,601 136 $302.6 $2.9 Services 65,503 1,641 $1,651.3 $29.2 Government (Federal, State, & Local) 34,484 524 $1,294.6 $24.9 Miscellaneous 1,502 13 $11.9 $0.1 Total 262,052 4,958 $8,050.3 $122.0 Percent of Total 100.0% 1.9% 100.0% 1.5%
The figure of 262,052 area jobs is more than the 224,295 jobs estimated by Leefers, et al. (2003). The difference may be due to IMPLAN’s accounting of full- and part-time employment estimates. While manufacturing, which includes the forest products industry, accounts for 30 percent of the area total income, it only accounts for 18 percent of the jobs. Area totals for retail trade and service account for 31 percent of the income and 43 percent of the jobs, which include most recreation-related employment. When only Forest Service-related jobs are considered, the retail trade and service industries account for 67 percent of the jobs and 44 percent of the income.
Leefers et al. found unemployment in the impact area to be 6.6 percent. Winter employment rates varied up to 18 percent when recreation opportunities are much more limited, even when the important activities of hunting and snow sports recreation contributions are factored in.
Data Information:
Timber Sales Revenue and Expenditure Data:
Information on timber stumpage values was obtained from the Forests’ timber sales records. Six different categories of timber products–softwood sawtimber, softwood pulpwood, hardwood sawtimber, hardwood pulpwood and aspen sawtimber and pulpwood–are harvested from the Forests and processed by various sectors. Stumpage values were determined for each of these categories. The IMPLAN model was used to estimate production coefficients for these categories. The economic impact area has a diverse mix of timber processing firms including sawmills, planing, flooring, veneer and plywood, pallet, veneer and plywood, preserving and paper mills. The IMPLAN model was used to estimate employment in the lumber and wood products industry. The model estimated that retail trade and service industry are by far the largest employers based on Forest Service resources.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-336 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Recreation Revenue and Expenditure Data:
Visitors to the Forests engage in a variety of activities that often cross boundary lines between public and private lands. Consequently, spending patterns for visitors to the Forests can be reliably represented by a general tourism/recreation visitor-spending pattern for northern Michigan. Recreation use is measured in recreation visitor days–one 12-hour visit by one person. The tourism studies used either days or nights as the unit of measure. Recreation visitor days were multiplied by assigned values according to specifications provided in the research paper, “Resource Pricing and Valuation Procedures for the Recommended 1990 RPA Program.” This guidance was used for calculations for total spending by each alternative.
The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey contains information on the number of visitors to each National Forest, how important the National Forest is to the trip, and expenditures of the visitors. A National Forest visit is the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period. The Forests received about 1.33 million visits in 2001. (Individual report for the Huron-Manistee National Use Visitor Monitoring Results, USDA-Forest Service 2002).
It should also be noted that the numbers from the National Visitor User Monitoring system do not completely account for snowmobiling, which is an important activity on the Forests. In order to account for this use, Forest Recreation and Planning Staff adjusted the National Visitor Use Monitoring system estimate upward from 1.33 million visits to 3 million visits based upon discussions with Dr. Daniel Stynes, Professor, Michigan State University.
Forest Service Program Areas:
The impacts of the alternatives are projected based on Forest Service expenditures and the estimated outputs in four program areas of forest management, including recreation/tourism, wildlife and fish, timber, and minerals. The output levels used for this analysis represent the projected 10-year average for the planning period. National Forest resource specialists have provided budget estimates based on the best available information and professional judgment.
The Forests have chosen to analyze alternatives using numbers for outputs and revenue that are based on a full funding/full implementation scenario. Full funding scenarios use the projected budget from the National Forests 2004 budgeting process (budget formulation execution system, BEFES, Level 4, 2004 dollars for FY 2006 budget).
The existing condition, labeled “Current,” is displayed in the tables located within the following discussion of economic indicators. The realistic funding information includes fiscal year 2004 budget values for forest programs. This information will provide a comparison based on the reality of lower funding levels and projected outcomes of alternatives based on full funding levels. In other words, IMPLAN/FEAST estimates for Alternatives A through C should be considered as upper limits, while the reality of funding may well be less than needed to reach upper limits.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-337 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
County Revenue via Payments to States:
There are three payments or revenue sources provided to counties via payments to states from the federal government that are based on the amount of National Forest System land within the county. These payments are a source of revenue for counties and local school districts and are meant to offset the loss of potential land, goods, and services related tax revenue.
1) 25 Percent Fund payment or The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act of 2000:
The first county payment or revenue is the “25 Percent Fund payment.” The 25 Percent Fund payment is based on gross National Forest receipts within a National Forest and is allocated to the counties by the proportion of the total National Forest acreage within each of the counties in the particular National Forest. For example, if a National Forest had $1,000,000 in gross receipts, and County A included 20 percent of the acreage of the National Forest, County B, 50 percent, and County C, 30 percent; then the $250,000, 25 percent of gross receipts, would be split $50,000 to County A, $125,000 to County B, and $75,000 to County C. The counties, that have National Forest System land within their boundaries operating under the 25 Percent Payment allocation include Manistee, Wexford, Osceola, Lake, Newaygo, Mecosta, Oceana, Ogemaw and Muskegon.
Leefers et al., in 2000, found that counties in the impact area received $1,009,200 in 25 percent fund payments.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 became a new option to counties to replace the 25 Percent Fund payment. It is designed to stabilize annual payments to states and counties over five years, beginning in 2001. The new formula for computing annual payments is based on averaging a state’s three highest payments between 1986 and through 1999 to arrive at a compensation allotment or “full payment amount.” Counties could choose to continue to receive payments under the 25 Percent Fund or to receive the county’s proportionate share of the state’s full payment amount under the secure rural schools and community self- determination option. Crawford, Oscoda, Alcona and Iosco Counties are receiving payments under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act; therefore, payments to these counties will not be affected by changes in the revised Forest Plan.
2) Payment in Lieu of Taxes:
Payment in Lieu of Taxes is another federal payment to counties. It is based on the number of federal entitlement acres within a county, with adjustments based on the population of the county; a schedule of maximum and minimum per acre payments, which are adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes fluctuates year to year based partly on the previous year’s 25 Percent Fund payment and partly on the Congressional appropriation level. In recent years, Congress has appropriated approximately one-half to two-thirds of what a full Payment in Lieu of Taxes payment would be. It is not possible to predict Payment in Lieu of Taxes payments because the major factor in determining financial allocation is the Congressional appropriation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-338 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
For 2000, Leefers et al. found that the counties received $317,600 in Payment in Lieu of Taxes payments.
3) Mineral Royalties:
The fourth major federal program that funds states and counties involves mineral royalties generated on federal lands. For lands acquired by the Forest Service under the Weeks Act, which includes most of the Huron-Manistee National Forests lands, the federal government shares 25 percent of gross mining receipts with the state. Mineral royalties historically have been added to the 25 Percent Fund, earmarked for schools and roads, but after 1992, an administrative change shifted these payments to a separate fund for counties, not earmarked for schools and roads. Since 1992, royalties for minerals activities on National Forest System lands have been paid directly to counties by the Bureau of Land Management’s Minerals Management Service.
Recreation and Tourism:
Outdoor recreation, travel and tourism provide an important contribution to Northern Michigan’s regional economy. Tourism has historically been and remains an important part of the area’s economy, and figures are available to measure market values to an area. Tourism is defined by the United Nations Statistics Commission, “As any person traveling to a place outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year.” This definition applies to economic activity that stems from both business and vacation purposes, regardless of the duration of the trip, as long as it is less than one year. Likewise, this definition does not distinguish between a non-resident visitor and a resident visitor. It is hard to determine what part of tourism can be attributed to the natural amenities offered in the National Forest area, as compared to developed attractions such as golf courses and downhill ski areas. However, National Forest settings and activities that are tied to the aesthetic qualities of, the abundance of, and increased opportunities to experience wildlife, lakes and rivers, large undeveloped forested areas are an important draw to visitors.
Commercial Wood Products and Suitable Timberlands:
Commercial wood products directly or indirectly derived from forested timberlands, including National Forests, respond to the on-going demand for these products by society. The primary forest products industry is vital to Michigan’s economy and forest health. The industry is especially important to rural Michigan, where highly paid jobs are important to local economies. It is dominated by large pulp and paper producers; oriented strand board mills and flakeboard mills. Michigan’s lands have many uses, including production of trees for commercial harvesting. This land is identified as timberland, is forestland that is productive enough to produce a commercial crop of trees, and is not reserved from harvesting by policy or law. Timberlands do not include National Forest System lands reserved from harvest by policy or law, including designated Wildernesses.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-339 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
There are many suppliers to the demand for wood products across the state. Wood comes from private, public and industry timberlands to meet state, regional and national demand for wood products. National Forest System lands contain many acres of lands that are not within the suitable land class for timber harvesting for a variety of reasons. These include lands excluded because of law or policy, for example, designated Wilderness and Research Natural Areas, and other lands that are excluded, such as lands containing wetlands and campgrounds. National Forests are also managed under the guidance of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960. This Act established the multiple-use and sustained yield policies for management of the National Forests and creates expectations that these lands will be managed for multiple resource products, benefits and values for the people of the United States. The mix of management necessary to sustain the natural resources, social and economic resources at the local and regional level requires forest-wide and site-level decisions that do not always maximize timber volume harvested. Factors that influence management decisions include, but are not limited to, threatened and endangered species restrictions, recreational use and opportunities and water- resources considerations.
Environmental Consequences Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Quantitative economic effects of any alternative may be recognized more rapidly than long-term social effects in local communities and individuals. As proposed quantities of goods, services, and opportunities associated with National Forest System lands change within each alternative, there would be corresponding changes in employment, revenue and value. These changes would generally be seen over the first decade and may continue over the planning analysis period of 150 years. It is recognized that the economies of Michigan’s forest product sectors have been changing over the last decade. There have been job losses, mill closings and disinvestments. The underlying causes of this change operate at multiple scales, from local to global, with far- reaching scope and impact. Some of the main drivers of change are market based, over which government has little influence.
The results of the IMPLAN economic modeling should be viewed as programmatic level estimates of extremely complex economic interactions of the regional economy. Interpretations of the IMPLAN data should be viewed as comparisons among Forest Plan revision alternatives of the potential relative economic effects because of limited economic data, associated assumptions and the limitations of the IMPLAN model itself.
Quantifiable economic analysis methods for passive values are not readily available nor are analysis methods agreed upon for use within the Forest Service. Passive values, such as the value of a sunrise over a lake, associated with the Forests as a whole are no doubt considerable, and the Forest Service recognizes the tremendous value of these kinds of opportunities, forest settings and benefits provided for within each alternative.
Passive values are extremely difficult to accurately measure, particularly on the per acre basis, which would be needed in order to make a comparison among alternatives. Such values are described and considered qualitatively within the social and other individual resource sections of this document.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-340 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Resource Protection Methods:
All alternatives incorporate a base set of management direction that addresses social and economic sustainability. This direction consists of desired conditions and objectives that would apply to and limit the effects of any alternative selected for implementation in the Forest Plan.
Forest Plan Desired Conditions:
The Forests provide commodity resources in an environmentally sustainable and acceptable manner to contribute to the social and economic sustainability and diversity of local communities.
The Forests provide non-commodity opportunities such as birch bark and firewood, recreational pursuits and historical facility access in an environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable manner to contribute to social sustainability and vitality of local resident’s way of life, cultural integrity and social cohesion.
The Forests continue to provide rare or unique benefits that may not be common on or available from other ownerships of public or private lands, such as opportunities for experiencing solitude in remote settings, recreating where lakeshores are undeveloped, harvesting unique natural resources and providing habitat for some federal and/or state endangered, threatened or sensitive species.
The Forests continue to emphasize agency, tribal and public involvement with increases in intergovernmental coordination with federal, state, county governments and agencies; a high level of communication and dialogue with a broad range of stakeholders and successful dialogue between tribal governments and Huron-Manistee National Forests leadership employees.
Forest Plan Objectives:
Contribute to local-scale social and economic vitality by promoting and/or protecting area cultural values, traditional employment, recreation opportunities, historical landscape features, and aesthetic qualities of the forest. An annual and sustainable program of commercial timber sales and other products are offered and/or available. Improve delivery of services to urban communities.
Direct and Indirect Effects:
The discussion below addresses the potential economic effects of various resource management activities associated with each alternative.
Generally the discussion will focus on the economic indicators described at the beginning of this section that respond to issues and concerns commonly expressed by those responding to Forest Service requests for input in the planning process. These include employment, income and community resilience.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-341 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
The IMPLAN/FEAST analysis and subsequent data can be applied to both the direct and indirect impacts on the economic condition of the assigned impact area only in terms of employment and income. An example of a direct impact is the payment a logger receives from the harvesting and sale of trees to a wood products facility. The indirect effects are when the wages of the logger are spent on car maintenance and groceries.
Indicator 1 – Employment and Income by Forest Service Program Area:
An indicator for economic sustainability includes the contribution to the economic impact area by the National Forest program area budgets and outputs in terms of the number of jobs and average associated income.
The following examines the effects of the alternatives on employment and labor income opportunities within the expanded impact area.
The National Forests are legally responsible to provide for a variety of uses and benefits by the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960. These uses and benefits are reflected in Tables III-50, III-51, III-52, and III-53 as “Resources.” They have been allocated in FEAST by the amount of money expended by the Forests directly related to each resource. Based on this budget information, and other gathered data incorporated in IMPLAN/FEAST, subsequent employment and associated income figures have been projected for each alternative. It is essential to remember that IMPLAN/FEAST is analyzing only the first decade for these indicators.
It is also important to note that the “current” column in the following tables display employment and income as it relates to the average of the last 10 years of actual financial allocation and program management implementation by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Comparison of the current column with the fully funded, fully implemented Alternatives indicates that in all alternatives, there would be an increase in employment and income.
Table III-49. Employment by Program by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1). Total Number of Jobs Contributed Resource Current Alternative A Alernative B Alternative C Recreation 2,703 2,703 2,703 2,703 Wildlife and Fish 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Grazing 0 0 0 0 Timber 692 1,592 2,324 2,906 Minerals 142 142 142 142 Payments to States/Counties 39 67 102 136 Forest Service Expenditures 283 565 669 798 Total Forest Management 4,958 6,169 7,040 7,784 Percent Change from Current --- 24.4% 42.0% 57.0% Source: Table A: Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (Version 10.26.2004).
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-342 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Table III-50. Labor Income by Program by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1; $1,000,000). Millions of dollars Resource Current Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Recreation $53.5 $53.5 $53.5 $53.5 Wildlife and Fish $22.4 $22.4 $22.4 $22.4 Grazing $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Timber $26.0 $63.4 $89.8 $107.9 Minerals $4.5 $4.5 $4.5 $4.5 Payments to States/Counties $1.5 $2.5 $3.9 $5.2 Forest Service Expenditures $14.1 $33.9 $36.0 $39.7 Total Forest Management $122.0 $180.2 $210.0 $233.1 Percent Change from Current --- 47.7% 72.1% 91.1% Source: Table B: Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (Version 10.26.2004).
Table III-51. Employment by Major Industry by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1). Total Number of Jobs Contributed Industry Current Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Agriculture 58 65 69 72 Mining 40 44 45 46 Construction 114 157 180 192 Manufacturing 456 857 1,215 1,539 Transportation, Communication, & Utilities 116 160 189 211 Wholesale trade 157 200 238 267 Retail trade 1,703 1,867 1,958 2,026 Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 136 181 208 228 Services 1,641 1,851 1,985 2,086 Government (Federal, State, & Local) 524 769 933 1,096 Miscellaneous 13 17 20 23 Total Forest Management 4,958 6,169 7,040 7,784 Percent Change from Current --- 24.4% 42.0% 57.0% Source: Table C: Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (Version 10.26.2004).
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-343 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-52. Labor Income by Major Industry by Alternative (Average Annual, Decade 1; $1,000,000). Millions of dollars Industry Current Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Agriculture $0.7 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 Mining $1.7 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 Construction $4.4 $6.1 $7.0 $7.5 Manufacturing $22.2 $45.2 $60.8 $71.7 Transportation, Communication, & Utilities $5.4 $7.6 $9.2 $10.0 Wholesale trade $6.1 $7.8 $9.3 $10.4 Retail trade $24.4 $27.1 $28.6 $29.7 Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $2.9 $4.0 $4.6 $5.0 Services $29.2 $34.5 $37.9 $40.5 Government (Federal, State, & Local) $24.9 $45.2 $49.9 $55.3 Miscellaneous $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 Total Forest Management $122.0 $180.2 $210.0 $233.1 Percent Change from Current --- 47.7% 72.1% 91.1% Source: Table D: Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (Version 10.26.2004).
Table III-53. Forest Service Revenues and Payments to Counties (Annual Avg., Decade 1; $1,000,000). Millions of dollars Forest Service Program Current Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Recreation $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Wildlife and Fish $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Grazing $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Timber $4.6 $8.5 $13.2 $17.9 Minerals $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 Soil, Water & Air $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Protection $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 Total Revenues $5.4 $9.2 $13.9 $18.6 Payment to States/Counties $1.3 $2.3 $3.5 $4.7 Source: Table E: Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (Version 10.26.2004).
Evaluation of the alternatives indicates that all alternatives would provide thousands of jobs related to total forest management. The differences between the alternatives are concentrated in the timber category and range from 1,592 jobs (less than 1 percent of the 262,052 total jobs in the impact area), to 2,906 jobs (1.1 percent) (Table III-48). However, the impacts of gaining or losing any job would be considerable to individual persons, families or businesses. Within very small communities, the loss of a single job may be very important, even though the impact across the analysis area may be negligible.
The timber harvest associated with each alternative influences the total number of jobs and income in the analysis area within the first decade. The differences in employment and income
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-344 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
between alternatives are for the most part, associated with changes in timber volume. Quantity of timber varies considerably by alternative within the first 10 years and directly affects the number of jobs within each alternative.
In general, the more gross volume harvested the more jobs an alternative would create. Alternatives B and C would provide for the most timber harvested and provide for the most jobs. Alternative A would harvest the least amount of timber and provide for the fewest number of jobs. There are fewer jobs per cubic feet of harvest in the pulpwood industry than sawtimber related industries. In the impact area, as defined by the IMPLAN/FEAST model, harvested sawtimber would result in more labor-intensive work, resulting in more jobs. There is also a higher income associated with sawtimber harvesting due to less utilization of mechanization to accomplish the final product.
Overall, based on the five categories of products–softwood and hardwood pulpwood and sawtimber and aspen–analyzed within IMPLAN/FEAST, Alternatives B and C would provide for the most job opportunities and labor income because of forest expenditures for both Forests. Alternative A would provide less employment and income, as the jobs related to the timber program are substantially less than Alternatives B and C. This is a result of the lower projected volume harvested.
It is important to note that the “current” column, which displays employment and income by program, relates to the average of the last 10 years of outputs by the Huron-Manistee National Forests
Indicator 2 – Employment and Income by Major Industry:
Economic stability is the contribution to the economic impact area by National Forest budgets and outputs in terms of total number of jobs and income within major industry categories. The Forest Service expenditures contribute to a broad range of major industry employment and income as identified in Table III-50.
Major industry sectors are defined by the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification system for economic analysis. These sectors are further aggregated by IMPLAN and summarized by appropriate groups in FEAST. A consideration of the number of people employed by and number of employers within the major industry sectors is formulated within IMPLAN/FEAST. The results are dominated by two industry groups that depend on natural resources and include: 1) wood products industries, manufacturing, and 2) tourism industries,services and retail trade.
A review of outcomes from each alternative by industry category demonstrates a range in employment and income by major industry. The projected gain, or loss, of jobs and income may or may not cause readjustments within an industry category, but a change in employment would considerably affect the individuals involved. IMPLAN/FEAST does not redistribute jobs from one sector to another due to forest management changes. Rather, IMPLAN/FEAST restricts job occurrence within each sector, based on the alternative’s management theme.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-345 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
The projected change in number of jobs related to the retail trade and services industry does vary slightly, based on the limited effects of alternative themes on recreation and wildlife expenditures by the Forest Service. These expenditures remain relatively constant across the alternatives over the decade of IMPLAN/FEAST analysis.
This analysis does not draw the conclusion that the harvesting associated with the difference between alternatives will directly result in jobs being added or lost. There are always possibilities of substitution of raw materials from other sources, changes in production efficiency due to modernization and a myriad of other “possible changes” which affect jobs and income.
The distribution in number of jobs provided by the manufacturing sector would change and is a result of the change in timber volume and type of product. Alternatives A, B and C would all provide for a number of jobs within the manufacturing industry that does vary from the existing condition.
The labor income by major industry varies somewhat by alternative within an industry category. The manufacturing category provides for the largest range of change across the alternatives, based on the sawtimber and pulpwood emphasis and subsequent ratios of each alternative.
It is important to note that the “current” column, which displays employment and income by major industry, relates to the average of the last 10 years of outputs by the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Indicator 3 – Community Resilience:
Potential revenue to counties by federal payments related to National Forest System land is IMPLAN/FEAST modeling output as shown in Table III-53. This information identifies potential monetary changes only within the 25 Percent Fund because of projected alternative implementation over the first decade. The model does not take into account recent legislative changes and options counties now have to receive federal reimbursement. Counties can continue to receive the 25 Percent Fund or receive a proportionate share of the state’s full payment amount under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
The IMPLAN/FEAST information indicating revenue to counties should be reviewed in terms of the traditional 25 Percent Fund receipts and as a relative comparison between the alternatives as to what may or could be received. Over the long term, whichever option for reimbursement counties may choose for National Forest System lands, the selected alternative will have an effect on the total contribution. The current options for reimbursement include a reliance on historical National Forest revenue, so a change in goods and services based on alternative management direction will have an effect on potential county revenue.
Financial and Economic Efficiency Indicator – Present Net Value:
The financial and economic present net value is discussed in this section. Present net value is used here as the main criterion to assess financial and economic efficiency. Present net value is a measure of how efficiently the Forest Service is using tax dollars to obtain the goals of each
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-346 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
alternative. Financial efficiency considers forest program costs and market-based values– revenues received directly. Economic efficiency includes the addition of assigned values, activities such as hiking, fishing and wilderness use, and non-consumptive wildlife uses such as bird watching.
Present net value is defined as the value of discounted benefits, or revenues, minus discounted costs. A present net value analysis includes all outputs including timber and recreation, to which monetary values are assigned. In deriving present net value figures, costs are subtracted from benefits to yield a net value. “Future values” such as benefits received in the future are discounted using an appropriate discount rate to obtain a “present value.” The present net value of a given alternative is the discounted sum of all benefits minus the sum of all costs associated with that alternative. Present net value estimates, as required by National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219), attempt to condense a large amount of information into a single value and for that reason should be used appropriately.
When considering quantitative issues, present net value offers a consistent measure in dollars for comparison of alternatives.
This type of analysis does not traditionally account for non-market benefits, opportunity costs, individual values or other values, benefits and costs that are not easily quantifiable. The design and evaluation of alternatives included values that are not readily expressed in economic terms, such as species viability and experiential opportunities available on the Forests. Non-market items such as ecosystem services that include clean water and care of wildlife, a variety of recreational opportunities and ecosystems left in their natural state are maintained across all alternatives. Acceptable quantitative models that analyze opportunity costs and other non-market benefits of National Forests and forest management are not available for Michigan. This is not to imply that such values are not important, but to recognize that nonmarket values are difficult to represent with appropriate dollar figures. In an attempt to address some non-market values, this analysis has incorporated 1990 Resources Protection Act assigned values for the following areas: wilderness, hunting, fishing, viewing wildlife, camping, picnicking, swimming, mechanized travel and viewing scenery, hiking, horseback riding, water travel, winter sports and resort use. The existing use and future demand for recreation opportunities has been estimated for the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Regional trends indicate a steady growth in recreation demand (Cordell 1999). The Forests’ recreational use was calculated using the results of the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey within each of the above Resources Protection Act categories. The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey was completed in 2001 on each Forest and provides science-based information about the type, quantity, quality and location of recreation use on public lands. (National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey Results August 2002, and updated results, 2004, Huron-Manistee National Forests).
Table III-54 displays the economic and financial present net value result for each alternative. All dollars are in constant dollars with no allowance for inflation. A 4 percent discount rate per year was used over a period of 100 years. While the planning horizon for the Forest Plan is 10 to 15 years, the present net value analysis considers costs and benefits into the future to account for long-term benefits and to discount costs. While the question of the appropriate discount rate to use is debatable, the 4 percent level is consistent with what is commonly used in evaluation of
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-347 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
public policy. Revenues are not reduced for payments made to states and counties. The reduction of present net value in any alternative as compared to the most financially or economically efficient solution is the economic trade-off, or opportunity costs, of achieving that alternative.
Table III-54. Present Net Value. With Non-market Assigned Value Market Price Values Present Net Value Present Net Value ($1,000) Alternative A $7,534,932 ($536,002) $6,998,930 Alternative B $7,441,933 ($614,760) $6,827,173 Alternative C $7,568,044 ($264,530) $7,303,514 Source: 11.5.04_H-M _PNV b.xls
Forest Service budgets have held constant over the planning horizon. Specific allocation differences between resource programs were made based on each alternative’s emphasis. Forest Service revenues change based on estimated resource outputs by alternative.
Present net value, Forest Service revenues minus costs, for the market price includes costs from recreation, timber, soil, water, air, minerals, protection, wildlife and fish programs and receipts from timber, fee demo, special uses and other campground receipts.
The market price present net value figures indicate there would be deficits across all alternatives on the Forests. The market price present net values indicate that Alternative C, which has a higher harvest volume, would provide the least deficit. Alternatives A and B, with less of an emphasis on quantity of timber harvested, would show higher costs to the taxpayer. This occurs because there would be fewer agency revenues associated with these alternatives while expenses remain comparable.
When the non-market values are included within the present net value calculations, there are considerable differences as compared to the results of the market price present net value. The value added by the assigned value (non-market RPA given value indicators from Resource Pricing and Valuation Procedures for the Recommended 1990 RPA Program, USDA-Forest Service RPA Program document), provide for a substantial gain in “revenue/value” and subsequently a positive present net value calculation within each alternative on the Forests.
Environmental Justice and Civil Rights Effects:
Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations, requires that the alternatives be assessed for “disproportionately high and adverse effects…on minority populations and low-income populations.”
This section will describe the employment and income that comprise the economic environment of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. These household and local economy based factors assist
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-348 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources in characterizing the people who use, benefit from or have an impact on the areas surrounding the Forests.
Household income – The Huron-Manistee National Forests’ economic impact area included 215,911 households in 2000. The percentage of households in the impact area counties with incomes less than $10,000 ranged from a low of 6 percent in Otsego County to a high of 18 percent in Lake County.
Table III-55. Households and Household Income by County and Economic Impact Area. Percent of Households households Median Population with less County/Impact Number of with less household 16 years than Area households than income in and over $10,000 $10,000 dollars income income Alcona 9,768 5,114 608 12% $31,362 Alpena 24,804 12,877 1,326 10% $34,177 Crawford 11,214 5,628 504 9% $33,364 Iosco 22,045 11,7551,301 11% $31,321 Montmorency 8,505 4,477 515 12% $30,005 Ogemaw 17,212 8,843 1,024 12% $30,474 Oscoda 7,528 3,934 473 12% $28,228 Otsego 17,800 8,993 540 6% $40,876 Roscommon 21,040 11,264 1,205 11% $30,029 Lake 9,225 4,682 821 18% $26,622 Manistee 19,713 9,829 968 10% $34,208 Mason 22,278 11,436 1,030 9% $34,704 Missaukee 11,027 5,467 485 9% $35,224 Muskegon 128,751 63,491 5,805 9% $38,008 Newaygo 35,458 17,639 1,635 9% $37,130 Oceana 20,318 9,826 947 10% $35,307 Osceola 17,711 8,863 898 10% $34,102 Wexford 23,381 11,793 1,103 9% $35,363 Impact Area 427,778 215,911 21,188 10% $34,503 State of Michigan 7,630,645 3,788,780 313,905 8.3% $44,667 Source: Leefers, Larry; Karen Potter-Witter, Maureen McDonough, July 25, 2003, Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests, Michigan State University report to the Michigan National Forests, 274 pp.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-349 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-23. Median Incomes, 2000.
$50,000 State of Michigan Median Income $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000
Dollars $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0
a rd w o n e a d n da o fo a tee s w eg Lake ke egon for Iosco sco nis u k AlconaAlpe gem Ots Ma a s ex Cra O ommon ss ewaygoOceanaOsceolW O sc Ma N o Mi Mu Montmorency R County
As shown in Figure III-23, the median incomes of counties in the impact area were 8 to 40 percent lower than the median income for the state as a whole. For example, Lake County, at a median income of $26,622, is about 40 percent lower than the overall Michigan median income of $$44,667; whereas Otsego County is only about 8 percent lower at a median income of $40,876.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-350 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Table III-56. Household Earnings and Income Sources by County, 2000. Households Percent with Percent with County/Impact Percent with with Social public Area retirement earnings Security assistance Alcona 2,963 81% 6% 64% Alpena 9,359 48% 5% 33% Crawford 4,093 49% 6% 39% Iosco 7,532 65% 6% 51% Montmorency 2,696 75% 6% 58% Ogemaw 5,863 58% 6% 41% Oscoda 2,466 67% 7% 50% Otsego 7,097 38% 4% 29% Roscommon 6,794 74% 6% 59% Lake 2,974 65% 10% 41% Manistee 7,071 51% 5% 32% Mason 8,528 45% 5% 27% Missaukee 4,083 44% 6% 28% Muskegon 49,301 39% 6% 26% Newaygo 13,626 39% 5% 26% Oceana 7,560 43% 6% 27% Osceola 6,630 43% 5% 29% Wexford 9,048 40% 5% 28% Michigan 3,037,312 26% 4% 19% Source: Leefers, Larry; Karen Potter-Witter, Maureen McDonough, July 25, 2003, Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests, Michigan State University report to the Michigan National Forests, 274 pp.
Table III-56 illustrates that in 10 of the 18 counties in the economic impact area, nearly half of those receiving earnings also received Social Security income. All counties had a much higher percentage of households receiving Social Security income than the state as a whole. Seventeen out of 18 counties had a higher percentage of households receiving public assistance. The one exception was Otsego County, at the state average of 4 percent.
The Forests have an active urban outreach program in the southern Lower Michigan. This program connects the Forest Service with diverse groups sharing common goals in conservation education. There urban outreach efforts will foster long-term relationships with urban constituents to achieve the goals of improved service, enhanced representation of diverse interests and increased stewardship of natural resources.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-351 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Figure III-24. Percentage of Households Receiving Retirement Income Compared to the State of Michigan, 2000.
0.7
Percentage of Households Receiving Retirement Income Compared to State of Michigan, 2000 0.6
0.5
0.4
Dollars 0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Alcona Iosco Oscoda Lake Missaukee Oceana
County
Households receiving retirement income range from 26 to 64 percent compared to 19 percent for the state, indicating an aging population within the economic impact area.
While management of the Huron-Manistee National Forests has an impact on the economies of local counties, many other factors influence and affect these economies. For example, recreation and timber outputs from other landowners affect local economies as well.
Forest management on the Huron-Manistee National Forests currently contributes about 1.9 percent of area employment and about 1.5 percent of area income, see Table III-48. Should full implementation of any of the three alternatives occur, the average estimated jobs contributed in the 10-year planning period would represent less than 3 percent of the current level of jobs and income. The relative size of these jobs and income contribution to the larger economy is further diminished when compared to expected economic growth in the impact area from other sources.
Minority populations in the Huron-Manistee National Forests impact areas comprise less than 11.4 percent on the Manistee and 2.4 on the Huron. See Figure III-24 and Table III-57 thru III- 59. Nationally, there is a low participation rate for minorities in outdoor recreation.
Approximately 10.7 percent of the residents in the Huron impact area are below the poverty level and can be considered low-income, while approximately 11.5 percent of the residents in the Manistee impact area are below the poverty level. See Table III-59.
There are no known direct, indirect or cumulative effects of the alternatives on the resident or
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-352 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources visitor low-income or minority populations. The alternatives do not propose management objectives, goals, or activities that would have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations or visitors.
Figure III-25. Percent of Non-white Populations in Michigan and Within Michigan National Forest Boundaries.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-353 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-57. Population by Race and Percent Non-white in the United States, Michigan, Wisconsin and National Forest Impact Areas, 2000. Race Impact American Asian or African Multiple White Total Percent Area Indian or Pacific American Races Population Non- Alaska Islander or Black white Native Huron 1,002 560 607 1,994 170,630 174,793 2.4% National Forest Manistee 3,058 1,384 26,825 11,829 334,144 377,240 11.4% National Forest Michigan 58,479 179,202 1,412,742 321,968 7,966,053 9,938,444 19.8% Source: NRIS-HD.
Table III-58. Percentage of Minority Populations in Michigan. Minorities as a Percent of Location Population Michigan 19.8 Alcona County 2.0 Alpena County 6.5 Crawford County 3.6 Iosco County 3.1 Lake County 15.3 Manistee County 5.8 Mason County 4.2 Missaukee County 2.5 Montmorency County 1.6 Muskegon County 18.7 Newaygo County 5.2 Oceana County 9.6 Ogemaw County 2.5 Osceola County 2.5 Oscoda County 2.2 Otsego County 2.5 Roscommon County 2.0 Wexford County 2.7 Source: 2000 US Census.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-354 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Table III- 59. Michigan’s Population Below Poverty. Location Percent of Population Below Poverty Michigan 10.5 Alcona County 12.6 Alpena County 10.5 Crawford County 12.7 Iosco County 12.7 Lake County 19.4 Manistee County 10.3 Mason County 11.0 Missaukee County 10.7 Montmorency County 12.8 Muskegon County 11.4 Newaygo County 11.6 Oceana County 14.7 Ogemaw County 14.0 Osceola County 12.7 Oscoda County 14.6 Otsego County 6.8 Roscommon County 12.4 Wexford County 10.3 Source: 2000 US Census.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-355 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Other Disclosures:
Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long- Term Productivity:
Effects of all Alternatives:
Short-term uses are those expected to occur on the Forests over the next 10 years. These uses include, but are not limited to, recreational use, mineral development, timber harvest, habitat manipulation and prescribed burning. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land to provide resource outputs for a period of time beyond the next 10 years.
Management of the Forests under any alternative balances the demand for services against the need to maintain long-term productivity of the resource base. All alternatives meet the requirements of the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 to provide for the “…achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land.” The long-term productivity of the land is maintained or improved in all alternatives while maintaining or increasing goods and services throughout the planning horizon.
The effects of management on resources production and changes in landscape character are projected into the future. To widen the perspective of this information, current and future conditions have been graphed to indicate the trends resulting from the management practices of various alternatives.
Table III-60 indicates that planned timber sale trends range from 150,000 to 295,000 thousand cubic feet per decade. Alternative A produces the lowest volume among the alternatives in the first decade but is producing the most in the later decades, while Alternative C produces the highest timber volume in the first decade but would produce the least in later decades. These figures include nonchargeable volumes. Tables III-20 through III-23 display these trends by vegetative species.
Management of aspen/birch results in many differences. If aspen/birch types are not harvested, they naturally convert to long-lived hardwoods or high site oaks. Under Alternative C, 48,699 acres of aspen would be allowed to naturally convert to other vegetative types, this being the highest conversion of aspen among the alternatives.
Alternatives B and C propose conversion of 73,650 acres of forested lands to barrens, prairies and later-successional forests for wildlife and plant habitat and fuelbreaks (see Table III-61). Alternatives B and C would vary in the rate that barrens and prairie are created.
Table III-42 depicts the acres of semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized management areas, by alternative. Alternative C provides the most semiprimitive nonmotorized and no semiprimitive motorized; Alternative B provides the most semiprimitive motorized, while
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-356 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Alternative A designates the least number of acres to semiprimitive nonmotorized. The Forests have one Wilderness area with no change between alternatives.
Table III-62 displays the short- and long-term trends of the quantity of habitat for game species of interest. Restoration of barrens, prairies and savannahs proposed under Alternatives B and C is expected to improve deer and turkey habitat and populations when compared with Alternative A. Due to the accelerated implementation rate for barrens restoration, Alternative C would provide the most habitat for deer and turkey in the short term, whereas Alternative A would provide the least. In the long term, 50 years, Alternative B would provide more habitat for deer and turkey than Alternative C. However, by the ninth decade, Alternative C would reduce the acres of the aspen forest type by approximately 50 percent. Alternative A provides the least amount of habitat in the long term for deer and turkey because fewer barrens, prairies and savannahs would be restored.
In the short term, Alternatives A and B would provide similar amounts of early successional aspen regeneration on an annual basis, while Alternative C would provide less. Therefore, Alternative C would provide the least amount of habitat for grouse in the short term. In the long term, Alternatives B and C would provide similar amounts of the aspen forest type, but less than Alternative A. Therefore, Alternative A would provide more aspen habitat for grouse over the long term. Over the short and long terms, Alternatives B and C would provide additional habitat for grouse as a result of riparian vegetation management that is currently not provided in Alternative A.
The short-term uses–timber cuts–of the late 1800s and early 1900s significantly affected fluctuations in long-term productivity. Essentially all of the merchantable timber volume was removed, leaving the forests’ area in a regenerating state over the past 80 years. During this period, the Forest-wide production of goods and services has changed from a level near zero to the present level.
Short-term uses proposed in each alternative continue to increase the production of goods and service, though at rates that eventually stabilize and avoid fluctuation in long-term productivity similar to that experienced in the past.
Table III-60. Timber Volume Produced Per Decade. Decade Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 1 150,607 MCF 193,367 MCF 242,723 MCF 2 215,128 MCF 215,135 MCF 256,136 MCF 3 222,752 MCF 295,321 MCF 223,618 MCF 4 224,585 MCF 219,393 MCF 189,354 MCF 5 224,287 MCF 214,562 MCF 189,247 MCF 6 228,762 MCF 209,820 MCF 188,115 MCF 7 228,632 MCF 209,690 MCF 187,984 MCF 8 228,608 MCF 209,666 MCF 187,961 MCF 9 228,608 MCF 209,666 MCF 187,961 MCF 10 228,608 MCF 209,666 MCF 187,961 MCF
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-357 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Table III-61. Vegetation Class Conversions under Alternatives B and C.
1/ 1/ Vegetation Acres - Forest Vegetation Class - Class - Conversion accomplished Note Conversion from to over 5 decades
Huron AB NH 1,180 Conversion acres Huron HSO HSO 810 Unmanaged acres Huron LH LH 180 Unmanaged acres Huron LLC Barrens 9,100 Conversion acres Huron LSO Barrens 4,100 Unmanaged acres Huron NH NH 2,580 Unmanaged acres Huron SLC Barrens 6,000 Conversion acres Manistee AB HSO 150 Conversion acres Manistee AB NH 150 Conversion acres Manistee HSO Barrens 8,500 Conversion acres Manistee HSO HSO 780 Unmanaged acres Manistee LH LH 220 Unmanaged acres Manistee LLC Barrens 16,400 Conversion acres Manistee LSO Barrens 7,700 Conversion acres Manistee NH NH 9,100 Unmanaged acres Manistee SLC Barrens 6,700 Conversion acres Total constraint acres 73,650 1/ AB = aspen/birch, NH = northern hardwoods, HSO = high site oak, LH = lowland hardwood, LLC = long lived conifer, LSO = low-site oak, SLC = short lived conifer.
Table III-62. Game Species Habitat Quantity Ranking1/ Over the Short and Long Terms. Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Deer 1 1 2 3 3 2 Turkey 1 1 2 3 3 3 Ruffed 3 3 3 2 1 2 Grouse 1/Ranking for Short Term and Long Term: 1= lowest, 3=highest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-358 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Irretrievable or Irreversible Commitment of Resources:
Effects Common to All Alternatives:
An irreversible commitment of resources is one that results from actions that alter an area so it cannot return to its natural condition for an extended period of time or one that uses nonrenewable resources, such as cultural or mineral resources. The only irreversible commitment of resources anticipated under any alternative is the extraction of mineral resources. Extraction would not differ significantly among alternatives.
Irretrievable commitments of resources include lost production or lost use of renewable resources due to a management decision. The opportunity to use the resource is foregone during the period of time it is committed to other uses and during periods of non-use. An example is foregoing timber harvests in areas of Wilderness study. The commitment is irretrievable rather than irreversible because a reclassification of wilderness to non-wilderness would make timber harvests possible again. Only the loss sustained during the period of unavailability is irretrievable.
Decisions that forego the production or use of renewable resources for relatively long periods of time would differ by alternative and include:
• The reduction of timber production on sites dedicated to roads, wildlife openings, prairies, savannahs, barrens, fuelbreaks, recreation facilities, gravel or borrows pits, mining sites or right-of-way corridors. • The loss of timber production potential in management areas 5.1 (Wilderness), 8.1 (Special Areas), 9.1 (Candidate Research Natural Areas) and 9.2 (Candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers) and early entry areas. • The use of fossil fuels and energy used in the administration and management of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. • Any inadvertent damage and subsequent loss of endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species habitat; endangered, threatened or sensitive plants; cultural resources; wetlands; soils; air quality or water quality. These losses can occur if mitigation measures are unsuccessful. • Any shifts in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class from the primitive end of the spectrum to the urban end. • Any shifts in the visual quality. • Any loss of investments due to high risk. For example, if developed recreation facilities are constructed but the demand turns out to be much lower than projected, the value of the investments may be lost.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-359 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
Unavoidable Adverse Effects and Mitigation:
Effects Common to All Alternatives:
Implementation of any alternative on the Huron-Manistee National Forests may result in some unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The severity of the adverse effects can be minimized by adhering to the direction in the Forests’ Plan Standards and Guidelines, but some effects cannot be avoided if any management activities occur. Affected elements include:
• Visual Resources: Vegetation manipulation and road construction activities cause a temporary change in the landscape that can reduce the scenic quality. Examples include: debris on the ground, exposed earth, vegetation disturbance and open corridors. Reduced scenic quality from timber sales, road construction and fires are normally short term, over 5 to 20 years. • Air Quality: Vegetation manipulation, road construction, motorized recreation and prescribed burning activities would cause temporary and localized reductions in air quality due to dust, exhaust fumes and smoke. These changes occur only during actual harvesting, construction, recreation and burning. • Noise: Vegetation manipulation, road construction, drilling, mining, motorized recreation and increased vehicle and campground use cause additional noise. The effects are localized. • Recreation: Activities, such as timber sales, prescribed burning, creating openlands and road construction temporarily disrupt recreation uses by reducing or changing the kinds of recreation that normally would occur on the area. Other activities, such as road closures, ermanently reduce or change the opportunities available. Some kinds of developments, such as hiking trails or roads, or activities, such as motorized recreation or timber harvesting, may displace other recreation uses that are incompatible and create visitor conflicts. • Soil Productivity: Development and restoration activities such as constructing parking lots or roads would adversely affect soil productivity on the occupied site. Where vegetation cover and soils are disturbed, there may be some short-term erosion. Activities involving vehicles or heavy equipment can cause soil compaction. • Water Resources: When vegetation cover is removed or soils are disturbed or ompacted, there is a short-term increase in sedimentation–movement of soil particles into water. Natural precipitation and flood events also cause sedimentation. Natural occurrences of chemical compounds in surface water reduce water quality. Mining operations have the otential to contaminate surface and ground water. • Vegetation: Removing vegetation cover and disturbing the soils during forest management activities can result in loss of vegetative productivity. Depending on the duration of the project, the loss may be short or long term. Open roads and trails may provide corridors for the spread of non-native invasive species. • Wildlife: Public use of land may result in unavoidable disturbance of native plants, birds or other species near travel routes, trails or recreational facilities. For example, the presence of a trail and activity on the trail may result in trampling of bordering vegetation, loss of nesting habitat along the trail corridor or local elimination of
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-360 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
predators. Such effects would be avoidable only by complete elimination of all travel routes and facilities. Visitor presence may also contribute to dispersal or increased populations of non-native invasive species, undesirable insect species or other species. • Forest Management: Activities such as timber harvesting and road construction cause short-term disturbance and displacement of some wildlife species. Continual activity, such as traffic on a highway or hiking on a trail, may cause long-term displacement from local areas. Individual animals are accidentally killed by human activities. Fish habitat is degraded by low-pH water, sediment or contaminants. • Heritage Resources: Both human activities and natural events have the potential to disturb or destroy heritage resources. • Income and Employment: Changes in income and employment may result from both human decision and natural events. Reductions in timber harvest levels may cause corresponding reductions in local and regional timber industry-related employment and income. Reductions in scenic quality may cause corresponding reduction in local service industries employment and income. Reduction or modifications in recreational opportunities may also result in adjustments from employment and income within local service industries. • Individual and Community Social Factors: Traditional and cultural practices and activities of local and regional residents have the potential to be disturbed by human decision or natural events. Important locations and/or landscape opportunities directly or indirectly associated with individuals and/or communities may be affected by, but not limited to, changes in forest access opportunities, natural resource management and/or natural events such as fire and windstorms. • Hazardous Materials: There is potential for accidental spills of hazardous materials within the National Forests. Transportation of hazardous materials, such as chemicals and gasoline, on public and Forest Service roads carries the potential for accidental spills. Small localized spills may also occur on project sites, such as motor oil on a timber harvest or a road construction site. There is also potential for accidental leakage from gas and oil pipelines that cross the Forests.
Mitigation Common to all Alternatives:
Forest-wide minimum resource standards provide a minimum level of protection for all resources and mitigate potential adverse environmental effects. These minimum resource standards are incorporated into all management prescriptions. These measures are summarized by the environmental elements on the following pages. All elements are not listed since there are not minimum resource standards for each element.
• Soil Resources - Road, campground and trail construction, ski area construction, mechanical site preparation, timber harvesting, prescribed burning and wildlife opening construction all affect soil. Soils productivity and structure within the activity corridor are altered through the removal of the "A" horizon or the compaction of residual soil particles. However, past practices have not produced significant effects on sedimentation or erosion on the Huron-Manistee National Forests because of the gentle topography of the landscape.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-361 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
The effects of management practices on soil resources are mitigated through the use of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relating to design specifications. This includes such items as installing culverts and by conducting prescribed burning under conditions that avoid damaging the soils. • Minerals and Geology - None of the Alternatives limit the search for and extraction of minerals. Conversely, any mineral activities that may occur will have no appreciable effect on any alternative. Should deposits be located and determined to be economical, only a comparatively small acreage is needed for development. Locating such deposits through prospecting has proven to have little measurable effect on other resources. • Visual Resource - The effects on the visual resource are mitigated by numerous actions. Design standards of road construction help lessen soil and vegetative disturbances. A closed tree cover and irregular edges helps mitigate campground and ski area construction. Timber harvests can be moderated by considering: 1) the natural stand shape, 2) cutting area size limitations, 3) spatial arrangement and timing of application, 4) residual debris disposal and 5) reserve tree retention. • Cultural Resources - Effects on cultural resources are mitigated either through the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to adjust practices or by removing cultural artifacts and preserving significant cultural sites in accordance with existing laws and regulations. Some cultural sites may be lost through inadvertent damage or if they are deemed ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. • Water Resources - Road and campground construction and timber harvest may adversely affect water bodies. Adverse effects on the water resources are mitigated through the use of design standards and by locating practices away from surface water. In particular, mitigation and protection specifications for bridge and culvert installations are in the Forests’ Plan Standards and Guidelines. Damage may occur if mitigation measures are not followed. • Wetlands and Riparian Areas - The effects of road construction on wetlands are mitigated through the use of culverts and fabric mats. Harvest practices and chemical applications may affect riparian areas. Some harvest techniques are altered in wetland or riparian areas to mitigate any possible damage. Effects from chemicals on the riparian areas are mitigated through the proper application of the chemicals as required by the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. • Fire Potential - The effects of possible wildfires are mitigated by 1) fire rings provided in campgrounds, 2) interspersing slow burning hardwoods within pine plantations, 3) timing and spatial arrangement of harvest practices and 4) public information and education in wildfire prevention. • Endangered, Thrreatened and Sensitive Species - The effects on endangered, threatened and sensitive species are mitigated by relocating management practices away from essential habitats. Other mitigation measures may limit the timing of practices so they do not interfere with nesting seasons as required by the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. An increase in human activities within the Forests increases the risk of disturbance. • Insect and Disease - Chemical controls are possible to mitigate large problems due to insect and disease damage.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-362 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
Monitoring and Evaluation:
Chapter IV of the Forest Plan discusses monitoring and evaluation requirements. These activities help ensure that the National Forests meet the objectives outlined in the Forest Plan.
Monitoring and evaluation are separate and sequential activities. They provide information to determine whether Forest Service programs follow the Forest Plan direction. This direction includes goals and objectives, management prescriptions,and Standards and Guidelines. It is through this process that the quality of implementation is assessed. Also, changes needed in the Forest Plan management direction are determined through this process.
Monitoring is done to observe or record the results of actions. This consists of collecting information from selected sources on a sample basis. Information is used to determine if:
• Goals and objectives, identified in the Forests Plan, are being achieved; • Management prescriptions are applied as directed; • Results of applying prescriptions address the management problems, issues, concerns and opportunities; • Significant effects are occurring as predicted; and • Costs of implementing the Forest Plan are as predicted.
Evaluation is the analysis and appraisal of the observations made during the monitoring process. Evaluation determines how well the results meet the Forest Plan directive. From this evaluation, the Forest Supervisor will decide what changes are necessary to ensure management activities conform to the Plan.
The following list identifies the National Forest Management Act monitoring requirements and the purpose of monitoring. Additional details are listed in Table IV-1 of Chapter IV of the Forest Plan.
National Forest Management Act Required Purpose of Monitoring
36 CFR 219.12(K)(1) A quantitative estimate of performance Compare accomplishments comparing outputs and services to those to projected outputs. projected by the Forest Plan.
36 CFR 219.12(K)(2) Documentation of the measured prescriptions Compare application of and effects, including significant changes in management prescriptions productivity of the land. to effects produced.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-363 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
National Forest Management Act Required Purpose of Monitoring
36 CFR 219.12(K)(3) Documentation of costs associated with Verification of unit costs used in carrying out the planned management Forest Plan. Build data for Forest prescriptions as compared with costs Plan revision. estimated in the Forest Plan.
36 CFR 219.12(K)(5) Lands are adequately restocked as Assure lands adequately stocked specified in the Forest Plan. within 5 years.
Lands identified as not suited for timber Evaluate suitability of land for production are examined at least every timber production. 10 years to determine if they have become suited; and if determined suited, such lands are returned to timber production.
Maximum size limits for harvest areas Determine if maximum size limits are evaluated to determine whether for timber harvest achieve desired such size limits should be continued. effects.
Determine extent and severity of Destructive insect and disease insect and disease occurrence. organisms must not increase to potentially damaging levels following management activities.
36 CFR 219.7(f) Planned activities must consider the effects of Identify emerging issues, concerns National Forest management on land, resources and opportunities (including and communities adjacent to the Huron- problems of agency coordination). Manistee National Forests and the effects upon National Forests’ management of activities on nearby lands managed by other federal or other government agencies or under the jurisdiction of local governments.
36 CFR 219.19 Population trends of management indicator Evaluate effects of management species will be monitored and relationships strategies on selected fish and to changes determined. This monitoring will wildlife populations and identify be done in cooperation with state fish and direction for future management. wildlife agencies, to the extent practicable.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-364 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter III - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Environmental Consequences Social and Economic Resources
National Forest Management Act Required Purpose of Monitoring
36 CFR 219.28 Identify research needs to support or improve Determine research implementation National Forest management. progress and identify opportunities. Revise needs and priorities for research.
Monitor home firewood sources. Determine if Forests are meeting the objective of maintaining or increasing firewood, which helps resolve a management problem and speaks to issues, concerns and opportunities.
Monitor clearcutting in short- rotation oak types. Determine if Forests are meeting the objective of decreasing clearcuts in short-rotation oak types, which helps resolve a management problem and speaks to issues, concerns and opportunities.
Monitor use in semiprimitive areas. Establish what uses occur.
Monitor the Forests’ road system. Speaks directly to one of Forests’ management problems by reducing the number of road miles on the Forests.
Monitor aspen management and Determine if Forests are meeting the reduce conversion of short- rotation oaks objective of emphasizing wildlife, to emphasize wildlife. which helps resolve a management problem and speaks to issues, concerns and opportunities.
Monitor recreation use on the Forests. Determine use, trends, and/or changes.
Monitor selected lakes. Determine effects of acid deposition and status of eutrophication.
Monitor designated swimming Determine bacteriological safety of beaches: water for full body contact recreation, for example, swimming.
Huron-Manistee National Forests III-365 Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Consequences - Recreation, Chapter III - Affected Environment and Social and Economic Resources Environmental Consequences
National Forest Management Act Required Purpose of Monitoring
Monitor drinking water wells. Determine bacteriological safety and levels of other contaminants.
Monitor selected sites on designated Determine effects over time of and recommended federal management practices and public Wild and Scenic Rivers. and private developments on designated or recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Monitor selected sensitive highway Determine visual effects over time of corridors. implementing the proposed management.
Final Environmental Impact Statement III-366 Huron-Manistee National Forests
CHAPTER IV -
PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
The following lists of individuals; federal, state and local agencies, and tribes identify the key people integral in the development of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Those listed as Interdisciplinary Team Members include representatives of each Ranger District and Station, and the Core Planning Team. Team members are listed alphabetically.
Interdisciplinary Core Team:
Dianne Berry – Public Affairs Specialist Education: B.S. Resource Development, Michigan State University. 1980. Experience: 23 years state and federal employment as Environmental and Resources Analyst, Planner and Public Affairs Specialist. Contribution: Public participation and document preparation activities.
Carol Boll – Recreation and Trails Program Manager Education: M.S. Forestry, West Virginia University. 1989. B.S. Outdoor Recreation, Ohio University. 1982. Experience: 26 years of Forest Service experience in Resource and Recreation Management. Contribution: Recreation and Social Assessment.
Barbara Bonefeld – Fire Management Officer Education: M.S. Forest Management, Michigan State University, 1981. B.S. Forestry, Michigan Technological University, 1979. Experience: 24 years of Forest Service experience in Forestry, Fire and Fuels. Contribution: Wildland fire and hazardous fuel reduction goals, objectives and effects.
Alix Cleveland – Plant Ecologist Education: M.S. Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY, Syracuse University, 1996. B.S. Environmental Science, SUNY, Syracuse University, 1991. Experience: 13 years experience with Forest Service as Plant Ecologist. Contribution: Botanical biological evaluation, assessments of Non-Native Invasive Species and Research Natural Areas assessments.
Richard Corner – Forest Planner Education: M.S. Forest and Range Management, Washington State University, 1993. B.S. Forestry, Michigan State University, 1989. Experience: 11 years experience with state and federal agencies, as Environmental Quality Analyst, Ecologist and Forest Planner. Contribution: Effects Analysis and Alternative Development.
Huron-Manistee National Forests IV-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
John Davis – Forest Archeologist Education: M.A. Archeology, Michigan State University, 1979. B.S. Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1972. Experience: 24 years Forest Service employment as Forest Archeologist and Heritage Program Manager. Contribution: Desired Future Conditions, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines; Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.
Jim DiMaio – Forest Planner (Retired) Education: B.S. Forest Management, University of Massachusetts, 1971. Post-graduate studies toward Masters in Silviculture at Colorado University, University of Washington, and Oregon State University. Experience: Peace Corps Forester, Niger, West Africa; Forest Service Research Technician in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Forest Service experience in Silviculture and Timber Management, Operations Staff and Acting District Ranger, District Ranger and Forest Natural Resource Team Leader, and Forest Planner. Contribution: Forest Plan Implementation and Amendments; Need for Change Assessment, Notice of Intent, and various assessments.
Kenneth Rex Ennis – Forest Wildlife Biologist Education: B.S. Wildlife Conservation and Management, Southwest Missouri State University, 1974. Experience: 28 years Forest Service experience in Wildlife Habitat Management. Contribution: Species Viability Evaluation (SVE), biological evaluation for SVE species.
Lee Evison – Forest Analyst Education: M.S. Forest Management, University of Washington, 1971. B.S. Forestry, Michigan State University, 1968. Experience: 37 years state and federal experience in Forest Management and GIS. Contribution: Analysis team leader.
Wm. Patrick Fowler, PhD – Forest Hydrologist Education: PhD. Watershed Management, Minor: Cultural Ecology, University of Arizona, 1990. M.S. Watershed Management, University of Arizona, 1985. B.S Forestry, University of Kentucky, 1977, Experience: 26 years federal and university experience as Hydrologist, Research Hydrologist and Ecologist. Contribution: Old Growth, Species Viability Evaluation, Monitoring and Evaluation and Effects Analysis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement IV-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
Joe Gates – Forest Silviculturist/Soil Scientist Education: M.S. Forest Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1982. B.S. Forest Science, University of Minnesota, 1977. Registered Silviculturist. Experience: 26 years Forest Service experience as Forester, Assistant Ranger, Soil Scientist, Silviculturist and Program Manager. Contribution: Analysis team member; provided silviculture and soil science expertise.
Barb Heidel – Supervisory Forester Education: B.S. Forestry and Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1986. Experience: 20 years Forest Service experience in Forestry and Recreation. Contribution: Vegetative management, non-native invasive species, Standards and Guidelines, Wildland fire and hazardous fuel reduction goals, objectives and effects.
Lauri Hogeboom – National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator Education: B.S. Forest Management, University of Michigan, 1987. Experience: 17 years Forest Service experience in NEPA and Forest Management. Contribution: FEIS Chapters I and II, document reviews and edits.
Philip W. Huber – Wildlife Biologist Education: B.S. Forestry, University of Michigan, 1981. Experience: 24 years Forest Service experience as Wildlife Biologist, Biological Technician, Other Resources Assistant and Forestry Technician. Contribution: Species Viability Evaluation and Biological Assessment for Kirtland's warbler and Biological Evaluation for Species Viability Evaluation Species.
Rose Ingram – Operations Staff Officer Education: B.S. Forestry, Michigan State University, 1978. Experience: 28 years Forest Service experience in Timber Management, Silviculture and Recreation. Contribution: Recreation Demand and Roadless Assessments.
Jeffery G. Pullen – Resources and Planning Staff Officer Education: B.S. Natural Resource Management, Michigan State University, 1978. Experience: 28 years Forest Service on the Huron-Manistee National Forests as Forest Planner, Information Technology Specialist, Administrative Officer, Acting Deputy Forest Supervisor, Budget and Accounting Analyst, Information Systems Manager, Assistant District Ranger, Forester and Forestry Technician. Contribution: Provided leadership and facilitation in the management and execution of all aspects of Forest Plan revision efforts.
Huron-Manistee National Forests IV-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
Carl Racchini – Ecosystem Team Leader Education: B.S. Wildlife Management, Biology, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, 1974. Experience: 30 years Forest Service as Bio-Tech, District Biologist, Zone Biologist, Resource Assistant and Ecosystem Team Leader. Contribution: Species Viability Evaluation and Biological Assessments.
Terry Saarela – Minerals Program Manager Education: B.S. Mining Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1982. Experience: 21 years Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management experience as Mining Engineer, Planning & Environmental Coordinator, Environmental Scientist and Minerals Program Manager. Contribution Reasonably Foreseeable Oil and Gas Development Scenario; FEIS Chapters I, II and Appendix I.
Arla Schumacher – Planning Assistant Education: High School Diploma. Experience: 30 years experience with Forest Service. Contribution: Editorial role in development of Proposed and Final Forest Plan and Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement; created, organized and maintained Forest Plan Revision Project Files.
Robert Stuber – Fisheries Biologist Education: M.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, 1979. B.S. Zoology, University of Wisconsin, 1974. Experience: 24 years Forest Service experience as Fisheries Biologist. Contribution: Aquatic Biology Effects Analysis.
Larry Throop – Forest Timber Program Manager Education: B.S. Forestry and Wildlife Management, Michigan Technological University, 1974. Experience: 31 years Forest Service experience in Silviculture, Wildlife Biology, Planning, Timber Sale Management and Administration. Contribution: Effects Analysis, Cost Analysis and Vegetation Modeling.
Rick Witzke – Assistant Fire Management Officer Education: B.S. Forestry, Michigan State University, 1976. Experience: 28 years Forest Service experience in Timber and Fire Management. Contribution: Wildland Fire and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Goals, Objectives and Effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement IV-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
Extended Interdisciplinary Team:
Jeff Chynoweth – Wildlife Biologist - Mio Ranger District Education: M.S. Environmental Biology, Governor’s State University, 1997. B.S. Biology, Governor’s State University, 1995. Experience: 9 years National Grasslands, National Monument and National Forest experience as Wildlife Biologist. Contribution: Biological Evaluation and Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.
Carol DeFour – Applications Examiner Education: High School Diploma. Experience: 28 years Forest Service experience as Clerk, Typist and Conveyance Examiner. Contribution: Minerals and resources maps, leased lands information.
Ross Frid – Information Technology Specialist (now retired) Education: B.L.A. Syracuse University/SUNY, 1966. Graduate of the Forest Service’s Recreation Short Course at Clemson University. Experience: 40 years Forest Service experience as Landscape Architect. Contribution: Led the effort to convert the Forests’ Visual Management System to the Scenery Management System (SMS). Produced maps and write-ups for the SMS.
Steve Hatting – West Zone Fire Management Officer Education: B.S. Forest Management, Pennsylvania State University, 1977. Experience: 25 years Forest Service experience in Timber and Fire Management. Contribution: Fire and fuels.
Mark Herberger – Fuels Planner Education: M.S. Forest Fire Ecology, University of Massachusetts, 1998. B.S. Forest Resource Management, Ohio State University, 1992. Experience: 10 years state and federal experience in Silviculture, Fire, Timber, and Fuels Planning. Contribution: Fuels Planning.
John R. Hojnowski – Assistant Ranger, Cadillac-Manistee Ranger District Education: A.A.S. Forestry, College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, 1976. Experience: 14 years Forest Service experience as Assistant Ranger. Contribution: Social and economic assessment, recreation demand assessment.
Huron-Manistee National Forests IV-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
Holly Jennings – Huron National Forest Zone Fisheries Biologist Education: M.S. Fisheries Management, Michigan State University, 1992. B.S. Fisheries Management, Michigan State University, 1988. Experience: 16 years Forest Service experience as Fisheries Biologist. Contribution Biological assessment/evaluation; effects analysis of aquatic species and habitats and monitoring plan.
Michael Joyce – Manistee National Forest Zone Fisheries Biologist Education: M.S. Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, 2001. B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1999. Experience: 4 years Forest Service experience as Zone Fisheries Biologist. Contribution: Technical assistance on aquatic portion of biological evaluation and effects analysis.
Dave LaChance – Geologist, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior Education: M.S. Geology, Eastern Washington University. B.A. Geology, University of New Hampshire. Experience: 31 years federal experience as an Exploration/Development Geologist responsible for the safe and efficient development of federal lands in the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf and the eastern half of the United States. Contribution: Exploration Potential, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario.
Patricia J. McGhan – Botonist, Manistee National Forest Education: M.S. SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, 1979. B.S. SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, 1977. Experience: 21 years experience with federal, state and local agencies as Wetland Plant Ecologist, Natural Resource Director, Plant Ecologist and Botanist. Contribution: Botanical biological assessment.
Patricia O’Connell – NEPA Coordinator, Cadillac-Manistee District Education: B.S. Wildlife Conservation, University of Wyoming, 1982. Experience: 17 years Forest Service experience as Planner, Wildlife Biologist, and NEPA Coordinator. Contribution: Botanical biological evaluation review/edit; semiprimitive and roads section review/edit.
David Riegle – Huron National Forest Zone Fire Management Officer Education: B.S. Wildlife Management, Michigan State University, 1979. Experience: 26 years Forest Service experience as Forester, District Wildlife Biologist and Fire Management Officer. Contribution: Wildland fire and hazardous fuel reduction goals, objectives and effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement IV-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
Matthew D. Sands – Forester/Shared Services Silviculture Education: M.S. Administration, Central Michigan University, 1991. B.S. Forestry, Michigan State University, 1976. Experience: 28 years Forest Service experience in Forestry and Silviculture; certified Region 9 Silviculturist since 1985; Michigan Registered Forester #603. Contribution: Analysis team member, timber growth and yield analysis.
Greg J. Schmidt – Botanist, Huron National Forest. Education: M.S. Botany, University of Tennessee, 1998. B.S. Biology, Grand Valley State University, 1995. Experience: 3 years Forest Service experience as Botanist. Contribution: Botanical biological assessment.
Chris Schumacher – District Wildlife Biologist Education: M.S. Wildlife Biology, Central Michigan University, 1982. B.S. Wildlife Biology, Central Michigan University, 1974. Experience: 15 years Forest Service experience in Wildlife and Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Management. Contribution: Species Viability Evaluation, Management Indicator Species Assessment, Biological Evaluation and probable effects analysis.
Nickolas Schmelter – Public Services Team Leader, Assistant Ranger Education: B.S. Recreation Resource Management, University of Wisconsin, 1979. Experience: 25 years Forest Service experience as Timber Management Assistant and Other Resources Assistant. Contribution: Demand assessment for recreation; Chapters II and III relative to recreation and roadless area management; and effects analysis for recreation; semiprimitive; and roads and trails.
Carol Waite – Land Surveyor Education: M.S. Forestry, Michigan Technological University. B.S. Surveying, Michigan Technological University, 1987. Experience: 15 years surveying experience with private, state and federal agencies as Geodesist, Wildlife Technician/Ecologist, and Forest Land Surveyor. Contribution: Determined boundary line location costs.
Diane Walker – Assistant Ranger - Planning Education: B.S. Natural Resource Management, Rutgers University, 1982. Experience: 25 years on the Huron-Manistee National Forests as Forester, member of the Land Management Planning Team and Assistant Ranger. Contribution: Effects analysis for Recreation, Semiprimitive Areas, Trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Visuals; Wild and Scenic Rivers Appendix and Recreation Demand Assessment.
Huron-Manistee National Forests IV-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
Leadership Team:
Leanne Marten – Forest Supervisor
Jerry Bird – Deputy Forest Supervisor
Kenneth Arbogast – Public Affairs Officer
Eric Dahlkamp – Administrative Staff Officer
Jeffery Pullen – Resources and Planning Staff Officer
Roshanna Stone - Resources Staff Officer (transferred from Forests)
Rose Ingram – Operations Staff Officer
Charles J. Andrina – District Ranger, Huron Shores Ranger Station
Leslie E. Russell – District Ranger, Baldwin/White Cloud Ranger District
Jim Thompson – District Ranger, Cadillac-Manistee Ranger District
Steve Goldman – District Ranger, Mio Ranger District
Support Staff:
Geographic Information System (GIS), Computer and Modeling Support
GIS Support:
Roxeanne Gustafson – GIS Assistant
Elizabeth McNichols – Resource Information Specialist
Matt Dickinson – Planner (Interdisciplinary)
Delynn Lovelace – Forestry Technician
Julie Weston – Cartographic Technician
Web Support:
Catherine Salm – Public Affairs Specialist
Final Environmental Impact Statement IV-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Chapter IV - Preparers and Contributors
Contractors:
Larry Leefers, PhD. – Professor, Department of Forestry, Michigan State University Contribution: Vegetation Modeling
Tom Kocx Contribution: Scenery Management System
Cooperating Agencies:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tribal Consultation:
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Little Traverse Band of Odawa Indians Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians
State Agencies:
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Natural Resource Conservation Service Natural Resources Commission, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Huron-Manistee National Forests IV-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER V -
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DISTRIBUTION
Chapter V - Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Impact Statement Distribution Statement Recipients
Chapter V – Final Environmental Impact Statement Distribution
Final Environmental Impact Statement Recipients
This chapter identifies those officials, agencies and libraries who received a copy of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. In addition to those who received a copy of the final documents, hundreds of businesses, organizations, and individuals were notified of the availability of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Elected Officials:
The following elected officials received a copy of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Federal Officials:
Senator Carl Levin Congressman Michael J. Rogers Senator Debbie Stabenow Congressman Joe Knollenberg Congressman Bart Stupak Congressman Candice Miller Congressman Peter Hoekstra Congressman Thaddeus McCotter Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers Congressman Sander M. Levin Congressman Dave Camp Congressman Carolyn Kilpatrick Congressman Dale E. Kildee Congressman John Conyers, Jr. Congressman Fred Upton Congressman John D. Dingell Congressman Joe Schwarz
State Officials:
Governor Jennifer Granholm State Senator Michelle McManus State Representative Darwin Booher State Senator Tony Stamas State Representative Joel Sheltrown State Senator Gerald Van Woerkom State Representative Geoff Hansen
Federal Agencies:
The following federal agencies received a copy of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Bureau of Land Management Environmental Protection Agency National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation Service
Huron-Manistee National Forests V-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Chapter V - Final Environmental Statement Recipients Impact Statement Distribution
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USDI Office of Environmental Policy Compliance Director
Tribal Governments:
The following tribal governments received a copy of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Little Traverse Band of Odawa Indians Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
State Agencies:
The following state agencies received a copy of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Harrisville State Park Ludington State Park Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Libraries:
The following libraries received a copy of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Alcona County Library Bridgman Public Library Cadillac-Wexford County Public Library Ferris State University Library Flint Public Library Fremont Public Library J.R. Vanpelt Library Shiawassee District Library University of Michigan Science Library Willard Library
Final Environmental Impact Statement V-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter V - Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Impact Statement Distribution Statement Recipients
Local Governments:
The following local governments were notified of the availability of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Aetna Township Denver Township Alabaster Township Dickson Township Alcona Conservation District Dover Township Alcona County Board of Commissioners Eden Township Alcona County Road Commission Elbridge Township Alcona Township Elgelston Township Antioch Township Elk Township Au Sable Township Everett Township Baldwin Township Ferry Township Baraga Village Manager Filer Township Barton Township Freesoil Township Beaver Township Fruitland Township Big Creek Township Goodwell Township Big Prairie Township Grand Traverse County Planning Big Rapids Township Commission Blue Lake Township Grant Township Boon Township Grayling Township Branch Township Greenbush Township Brooks Township Greenwood Township Brown Township Gustin Township Burleigh Township Harrisville City Clerk Caledonia Township Harrisville Township Cedar Creek Township Hawes Township Chase Township Haynes Township Cherry Grove Township Henderson Township Cherry Valley Township Holton Township Churchill Township Home Township City of Cadillac Huron Pines RC&D City of East Tawas Iosco County Board of Commissioners City of Manistee Planning Department Iosco County Parks and Recreation City of Scottville Iosco County Road Commission City of Tawas City Kalkaska County Planning Commission Colfax Township Lake County Clerk Comins Township Lake County Road Commission Crawford County Lake Township Croton Township Laketon Township Crystal Township Leavitt Township Curtis Township Lilley Township Custer Township Lincoln Township Dayton Township Logan Township
Huron-Manistee National Forests V-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Chapter V - Final Environmental Statement Recipients Impact Statement Distribution
Manistee County Planning Commission Oscoda County Planning Commission Manistee Township Oscoda Township Marilla Township Otto Township Mason County Board of Commissioners Peacock Township Mason County Road Commission Pentwater Village Mason County Zoning Office Pinora Township Meade Township Plainfield Township Mecosta County Board of Commissioners Pleasant Plains Township Mecosta Township Pleasanton Township Mentor Township Reno Township Merrill Township Sauble Township Michigan Association of Drain Selma Township Commissioners Shelby Township Mikado Township Sheridan Township Millen Township Sherman Township Missaukee County MSU Extension Director Slagle Township Missaukee County Planning Commission South Branch Township Mitchell Township South Branch Township Fire Department Monroe Township Springdale Township Montague Township Springville Township Montcalm County Board of Commissioners Stronach Township Morton Township Sweetwater Township Muskegon County Clerk Tawas Township Muskegon County Conservation District Troy Township Muskegon County Department of Public Village of Mesick Works Weare Township Muskegon County Road Commission Webber Township Muskegon Township Wexford County Planning Commission Newaygo County Road Commission Wexford County Road Commission Newfield Township Wexford County Soil Conservation District North Newkirk Township Whitehall City Norman Township Whitehall Township Northeast Michigan Council of Government Wilbur Township Norwich Township Wilcox Township Oceana County Yates Township Osceola County Board of Commissioners Oscoda County Park Board
Media:
The following media received notification of the availability of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Associated Press Gannan Broadcasting Bay City Times Grand Rapids Press Cadillac News Interlochen Public Radio
Final Environmental Impact Statement V-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter V - Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Impact Statement Distribution Statement Recipients
Iosco County News Herald Oscoda Press Ludington Daily News Outdoors Forever Manistee News Advocate Roscommon Herald-News Muskegon Chronicle Times-Indicator News Channel 7 & 4 Traverse City Record Eagle The Northwoods Call Upper Midwest Travel/Advertising Ogemaw County Herald Magazine Oil & Gas News WATT Radio
Businesses and Organizations:
The following businesses and organizations received notification of the availability of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement:
A & R Pipeline Company Cook Investments ABTCO Inc. Cousineau Forest Products A. J. D. Forest Products CRA-Mar Products American Forestry Association Curtisville Trading Post American Land Conservancy Cycle Conservation Club American Rivers Cycle Conservation Club of Michigan American Timber Craft Defenders of the Great Lakes Anglers of the AuSable Dix Lumber Co., Inc. A.R.C. Consulting Dow Corning Audubon Society Doyle & Sons AuSable Institute of Environmental Studies DPI, Inc. AVSTAR, Inc. Elenbaas Sawmill Babbin & Eggert Enterprise Elowski Forest Products Company Bazuin & Sons, Inc. Enchanted Acres Beaver Creek Chapter ENFIA Bent Wheels Cycle Conservation Club Fleetwood Forest Products Blue Ribbon Coalition Forest Resource Alliance Boyne USA, Inc. Forestply BPOI Frahm Photography Brighton Trail Riders Association Gascho Sawmill, Inc. Bulldog Riders Genessee Audubon Burco Associates Gerald Mc Cormick Sawmill, Inc. Buskirk Lumber Company Gosling Czubak Associates Biewer Sawmill Grand Traverse Ruffed Grouse Society Caberfae Skiing Company Grand Valley Chapter NWTF Cadillac Forest Products, Inc. Graves Wood Products Cadillac Winter Promotion Great Lakes Land Rover Club Camp Barakel Great Lakes Plywood Car-Lo Forestry Hamlin Lake Preservation Society CMC Hankins Forest Products Coldwell Banker Harmon Logging Inc. Consumers Energy Harrington Group Adv.
Huron-Manistee National Forests V-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Chapter V - Final Environmental Statement Recipients Impact Statement Distribution
Hastings Manufacturing Company Michigan Association Recreational Heartwood Snowmobiles Holberton Forest Products Michigan Bow Hunters News Horner Floor Covering Michigan Bowhunters Association Hydrolake Michigan Chapter – the WL Society Imperial Carving Company Michigan Conservation Foundation Inside Energy Michigan Council Trout Unlimited Int. MMBA Michigan Enterprises International Paper Michigan Land Use Institute Izaak Walton League Michigan Motorcycle Dealers Association Janisse Sawmill & Const. Company Michigan Mountain Bike Association Jarvis Sawmill, Inc. Michigan Mountain Bike Association Jerome Miller Lumber Company Northern Chapter Jim Crouch & Associates Michigan Oil and Gas Association Just Timber Michigan Oil and Gas Brokerage Service K & M Forest Products Michigan Recreation Canoe Associates K & S Sawmill Michigan Sharptail Grouse Association Kal Valley Chapter Michigan Snow Association Kalamazoo Nature Center Michigan Snowmobile Association Knight Wood Michigan State Council La Conley Forest Products, Inc. Michigan Trail Riders Association Lake City Property Owners Association Michigan Trappers Association Lake Osceola Michigan Tree Lake’n Wood Real Estate Michigan Wild Turkey Hunters Association Lake States Forestry Michigan Wildlife Conservancy Lakewood Products Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation Lamb Forest Products Michigan Steelheaders Land Conservancy of Western Michigan Michigan Trailfinders Club Land Information Access Association Michigan United Conservation Club Larson Forest Products Miller Oil Corporation League of Michigan Bicyclists Moeke Brothers Lumber Inc. Lecureaux & Marshall Monroe Forest Products LFC Power Systems Murrey Forest Products Little Manistee Watershed Council Nash Forest Products Local 699 UAW National Handicap Director LP-Alpena National Wild Turkey Federation Marquette Fab, Inc. NCCS Camp Newaygo Mason-Griffit Chapter Newaygo County Audobon Club McClure Oil Company Newaygo Engineering & Survey Company MCN Oil & Gas Company Nordlund & Associates Inc. Mead Brothers Excavating North Country Trail Association Mead Paper North Country Trail Association – East Meridian Energy Corporation Trails MFRA North Country Trail Association – Spirit of Michigan 4H Foundation the Woods Michigan Association of Timbermen North Michigan Chapter Ducks Unlimited
Final Environmental Impact Statement V-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter V - Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Impact Statement Distribution Statement Recipients
Northeast Michigan Sportsmen Club SRS Northwoods Wilderness Recovery Steelhead Anglers NWF GL Natural Resource Center Sundowners 4X4 NWTF Northern District Sylvan Acres Assoc. O & A Electric Coop T.D. Johnson Lumber Company Oak Arbor Company The Nature Conservancy Outdoor Access, Inc. The Wilderness Society Paddle Brave Camp & Canoe Livery Thillmany-International Paper Pat Underhill Forest Products Thorn Creek Lumber Paul B. Lapham & Associates, Inc. TPA of Michigan & Wisconsin Payless Ag. Trailriders Snowmobile Club Peninsular Oil & Gas Company Trout Unlimited Pere Marquette Watershed Council Trust for Public Land Perkins and Sons Two Trackers 4-Wheel Drive Club Petro-Hunt Corporation Upper Baldwin River Association Pine Haven Campground Upper Michigan River Association Pine River Chapter of Trout Unlimited Van Keulen & Winchester Pine River Association Viking Energy of McBain, Inc. Quality Whitetail W. Central Michigan Procurement Center Quigley Lumber Company Warner Norcross & Judd R.S. Scott Associates We Love Smokey Society Rails to Trails Cons. Weaver Forest Products Ralph Hurley Inc. Webberville Hunting & Fishing Club Richard’s Pharmacy Wegner Forest Products Riverside Canoe Trips Wellman Forestry Inc. Robert Gentz Forest Products West Michigan Environmental Action Rose Alvia Retreat Inc. Council Rothig Forest Products West Shore Snowmobile Council Ruffed Grouse Society Weyerhaeuser Company S. D. Warren Company Whispering Woods – Thurston Savich Wood Products White Cloud Lions Club Shomler Canoes/Kayaks Wild Turkey Federation Sierra Club Wildlife Management Institute Sierra Club/Lorax Assoc. Windyhills Log Homes Sierra Club – Mackinaw Chapter Wolverine Power Supply Coop, Inc. Southeast Michigan NAVHDA Woodlands Harvesting, Inc. Southwest Michigan Technical Assistance Woods & Water Camping & Rec., Inc. Office Woodstock, Inc. Spirit of the Woods YMCA Camp Echo
Huron-Manistee National Forests V-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Chapter V - Final Environmental Statement Recipients Impact Statement Distribution
Individuals:
In addition to the approximately 1400 individuals on our Forest Plan Revision mailing list who received notification of the availability of the Revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, the following individuals received either an electronic or printed copy of these final documents. Since our documents are available on the internet, this list includes only those who specifically requested a copy.
Gary Altosello Amy Conover Alan R. Amendt Jeffrey L. Cooper David Anderson Cam Cope Matthew Anderson George Craig Cal Bacon Dennis Crispell Catherine G. Baldwin Larry & Ellen Culberson Thomas Barnes Stephan Cunningham Jamie Battersby Phil Dakin Sabrena Battersby Melissa Damaschlie William M. Belitskus John DeLeon Linda S. Berker Becky Denney Michael C. Boogaart Joseph M. Dipko Dawne M. Borsos James Distefanis Jenny Boyce Kathleen Donahoe Ruth M. Brock Denny Douglas Jerry Brower Mary Dubay Patrick J. Brower Mike Duchin Roger Brown David Dullack Dan Burman Jim Ekhardt Jim Bushaw Jim Embach Dean Buzzelli Dennis Emery David Byrwa Richard Entringer Rob Cadmus Rob Fabick Paul A. Call Glen and Norene Facemire John Campbell Donna Fahlen Jeanne Cardinal Louis Fair Brian Carroll Mark Fairau Deana Carvana Chris Favaro Margaret Case Bob Fisher Pat Cason Michael J. Fontana Jeremy Chambers Virginia Franklin Julia Chambers Tony Furlich Bill Chapin Paul J. Gambka Terrance M. Chappel Rusty Gates David Chaundy Larry Gillen Michael T. Chezik Kirk Gillies Don Clapper Nikka G. Glenn
Final Environmental Impact Statement V-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests Chapter V - Final Environmental Final Environmental Impact Impact Statement Distribution Statement Recipients
Yancy Goodlock Jim Maturen Kip A. Gordon Ed Mazeika John Greer Anita R. McCranie Stephen Grimes Mark D. McCranie Scott Grush Fred McLane Steve M. Gudich Jeff Meaton Bob Hardenburgh Kurt J. Meister Willard Hardin Philip Micklin Richard H. Harvey Dave Miehlke Mary Hauswirth Mike Mierzejewsk Brian Hawthorne LeRoy Mikolowski Alan W. Haxton Gordon Miller Leigh Haynie Glenn F. Moll Louis Heath Elden Montross Erik Hellmuth Rob Mossoia Terry Herron Darrell Myers Mark Hudson John W. Neault David J. Illes David Nickell Robert E. Jacobson Ralph Niedecken Scott and Monica Jarema Kevin Oles Matt Jenkins J. Michael Oostmeyer Tom Jennett Mark C. Overway Geraldine Johnson Bick Oyo Lisa Johnson Brian Paddock Patsy Johnson Mark R. Patterson Tom Kauffman Eric Paxton James Kennedy Henry W. Peters Helen Keramidas Lester Peyton Kim Kost Bill Posak Paul Kovalcik Nick Posak LuAnne Kozma Jerry Powell Annie Krochalis Michael Powell Brett Krogh Ralph Powell Kile Kucher Gregory A. Preston John R. Kus Theresa Reese Corina Lang James Richards David Laskosky Melinda Richards Victor Legg John Ries John Legge Jeff Rock Gary Leingnen Dale Ross Patrick T. Leslie Laura Rowlson Phil Longley George Ryne Todd and Heather Luchies Mark Sampeer Gary Marek Rob Sandie Jean Marx Steve Santos Joseph R. Matteini Julia Schad
Huron-Manistee National Forests V-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement Final Environmental Impact Chapter V - Final Environmental Statement Recipients Impact Statement Distribution
John G. Schnorr Jim Swan Glen Schwein Theresa Swan Ronald E. Scott Linda Swanson Edward Shacklett Consetta Tabaka Larry and Vicki Shields Norman Tabaka Nancy L. Shiffler Doug Thiel Claude Siders Paul Thielking Kevin Simkins Howard A. Thompson Mark R. Skeith Frederick H. Townsend Larry Skwarezynski M. Truitt Tim Smith Richard Turner Darwin Spaysky Doug Vander Woude Richard Spotts Al Vick Edward Stakoe Eric Wall David Steffen Laurence C. Walsh Jessica Steffen Laura Wasilco Norval Stephens Bill Wirlnick Rainy and Bob Stephenson Wade A. Wolf Michael Stiffler Daniel Young Rodney Stites Jean Marie Zirger James Sudalnik Frank Zoch
Final Environmental Impact Statement V-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests
APPENDIX A -
DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS PROCESS Appendix A - Description Description of the of the Analysis Process Analysis Process
Appendix A - Description of the Analysis Process
Description of the Analysis Process
Introduction:
Appendix A presents a technical discussion of the analysis process and computer models used for the revised Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The appendix focuses on the quantitative methods used to perform the analysis and documents how the analysis was done.
The Forests’ major planning goal is to provide enough information to help decision makers and publics determine which combinations of goods, services and land allocations will maximize net public benefits. The regulations (36 CFR 219) developed under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 provide the analytical framework within which these decisions are made.
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and its regulations also state that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and its regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) must be applied in the analytical process. The National Environmental Policy Act regulations require that the environmental effects of a proposed action and alternatives to that proposed action must be disclosed.
Information presented in this appendix supplements the broader and less technical descriptions included in the body of the effects analysis in Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. This discussion includes modeling components and inputs, rules, methods and management constraints. Additional information and documents used in the analysis process are contained in the Huron-Manistee National Forests' planning records. The planning record in its entirety is incorporated here by reference.
The results from the modeling process are estimates of what can be expected if alternatives are implemented. In addition, they facilitate comparison of alternatives.
Forest Activity Scheduling Model (Spectrum)
Introduction:
This section documents the work associated with the formulation and analysis of the forest activity-scheduling model for the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The forest planning analysis problem can be stated as follows: given a fixed area of land, what activities should be assigned to each land unit over the next 150 years to achieve the desired future conditions and still meet all physical, operational and regulatory constraints?
The Forests used the Spectrum Modeling Program as a timber harvest-scheduling tool to report timber outputs, costs and benefits. Spectrum is a software package developed by the Forest
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
Service’s Ecosystem Management staff, in cooperation with the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Spectrum simultaneously analyzes the trade-off between the many goals, constraints, management activities, timing options and landtypes, which are necessary to manage a large forest. Spectrum uses linear programming optimization software called C-WHIZ, which in turn uses a modified Simplex algorithm for high-speed model solutions.
Spectrum is a linear programming model. It assumes that the relationship between outputs and the land base are linear, that is, twice the number of similar acres yields twice the outputs. Other resource programs, such as recreation, are not addressed by Spectrum because they are not related directly to vegetation management. Spectrum builds a matrix of coefficients and transfers the file to a linear programming package for problem solution. The primary reason Spectrum was selected for use in the planning process was the ability of the model to allocate scarce resources to competing demands based on selected criteria. The model then writes a report and produces a data file that contains the results. The data file can then be analyzed through comparisons with information in other databases.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests model scheduled vegetation management for 15 decades and provided an estimate of long-term sustained yield capability for each of the alternatives. The model was designed to track proposed management by Forest, Huron National Forest versus the Manistee National Forest, and timberland suitability, suitable or unsuitable lands. The model was designed to analyze the entire Huron-Manistee National Forests and suitable timberlands. Depending on the forest type and management goals, management options included no treatment, selection, shelterwood and clearcutting. Intermediate treatments or thinnings were prescribed in some cases. Succession was modeled for aspen-birch forest types. The modeling results indicated that conversion from selected forest types to barrens, openings and other forest types was possible.
Development of Land Allocation Model (Spectrum):
Land management planning is the major mechanism for making large-scale and long-term forestland allocations and resource management decisions. Planning consists largely of exploring a national forest’s productive potential and experimenting with various allocation choices. A forest model is the primary planning tool because it permits studying the consequences of choices without actually committing valuable resources to “on-the ground” experimentation or having to wait many years to observe an outcome. People, not the model, make decisions about structuring land allocations, choosing and pursuing trade-offs, and accepting one result instead of another. The model is a device for organizing elements of the decision problem and discovering possible outcomes and choices.
The model is used in the analysis to simulate different management actions on forest resources and environmental conditions. This model is also designed to find the optimum solution to a problem posed by the potentials and limitations of land and resources; the effect of costs, budgets and resource prices; and the desired objectives of resource yields and environmental conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Forest Activity Scheduling of the Analysis Process Model (Spectrum)
Spectrum Model Design:
The basic elements of the Spectrum structure are Outputs and Costs, Analysis Units, Management Prescriptions, Time Periods, Objective Functions and Constraints. Outputs are those goods and services that are produced whether purposely or incidentally because of management of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Selection of outputs to be used in Spectrum has major bearing on the structure of the model and on the results of the analysis. Outputs from the vegetation management model included allowable sale quantity for each alternative, timber management schedules to achieve each allowable sale quantity, and plant and animal habitat acreage.
Alternative models were developed on several assumptions, including:
• The Forest Plan will be a strategic Plan that will guide broad land-based decisions to implement certain goals and objectives.
• “On-the-ground” decisions will apply Standards and Guidelines of the Plan and implementation guides to meet goals and objectives of the strategic Forest Plan.
• Models used in this analysis are sufficient for strategic planning.
• Each alternative will use the same Standards and Guidelines.
• Management Prescription Areas will remain essentially the same, except there would be no semiprimitive motorized areas under Alternative C.
• Alternative A was modeled using the Standards and Guidelines for the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended.
• Alternatives B and C used the same revised Standards and Guidelines with only the timing of implementation of (management actions varied.
In designing a Spectrum model, the modeler inputs resource data; specifies resource interactions; sets goals and objectives; outlines management actions; defines activities and outputs; sets the planning horizon; delineates the landscape into management areas; and inputs economic data.
Model design identified questions the model needed to answer and assessed what information was available for model input. The planning team identified the following factors that needed to be considered in Spectrum:
• Variety of species/product yields, • Vegetation class acreage projections by one or more sub-categories, • Age-class distributions by forest type/species, and • Varied social and economic conditions across the Forest.
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
Figure A-1. Timber Harvest Schedule Model - Process Overview.
Yield Tables Constraints ASQ
Timber Management Management Schedule Actions
Lands Suitable SVE/ for Timber Wildlife Management Habitat Analysis Costs & Tracking Units Returns Alternative Development
Development of Analysis Units:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests’ land base, which is inventoried and tracked in the Forest Combined Data Systems database, was classified by using five levels of information summarized in Table A-1. The five levels of information on the Huron-Manistee National Forests produced unique analysis units which varied by alternative. Alternative B contained 3,086 analysis units. Management actions are associated with analysis units in Spectrum.
Table A-1. Identification Levels Used to Classify the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Land Base for Analysis. Number of Level Description Categories 1 Management Area by Forest 44 2 Vegetation Class 9 3 Age Class Distribution 21 4 Old Growth 2 5 Timber Suitability 2
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Forest Activity Scheduling of the Analysis Process Model (Spectrum)
The following land attributes were used to stratify the Forests’ land base for modeling: (1) Management areas, (2) Forest vegetation class, (3) 10-year age-classes, (4) Old-growth/Non-old- growth designation and (5) Suitable and non-suitable forestland for timber management.
(1) Management Areas:
A management practice is a site-specific action, measure or treatment, such as tree planting and barrens creation, designed to implement management prescriptions, whereas a management prescription is a combination of management practices applied to a specific management area.
Management areas are areas of land that have a specific management prescription (see Forest Plan, Chapter III). Management area boundaries are based on landtype associations and were developed during the planning process in the mid-1980s. This provides a consistent ecological foundation for planning and management. The Huron-Manistee National Forests were stratified into management areas, each with its own description; prescription; and set of Standards and Guidelines. Land allocations by acres were assigned to each management area and transferred to the model. Emphasizing each management area goals and constraints, the model determined what type of vegetation management should be done and when.
The assignment of management prescriptions to each alternative is based upon a combination of ecological, economic and social factors. These factors vary across the alternatives in order to explore a range of options. Spectrum’s allocation capabilities are applied to the management actions and timing of choices. The model estimated, by decade and by management area, the following outputs and conditions:
• Maximum timber harvest totals or allowable sale quantity; • Species/product timber harvest volumes; • Forest cover type acres, including barrens and openings; • Forest cover type age-class distributions; • Timber harvest methods by acres; and • Standing timber volume (inventory or standing capital).
Forest and management areas help guide land allocation and management. The number of management areas varied by alternative.
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
Table A-2. Level 1 Identifiers – Huron-Manistee National Forests' Management Areas by Forest for Alternative B. Management Area1/ H2.1 H8.1 M4.4G H2.1G H8.2 M4.4W H4.2 H8.4 M5.1 H4.2D H9.1 M6.1 H4.2G M2.1 M6.2 H4.2KW M2.1G M6.2D H4.2W M2.1W M6.3 H4.3 M4.2 M8.1 H4.3D M4.2G M8.2 H4.3G M4.2W M8.3 H4.3W M4.3 M8.4 H4.4 M4.3D M9.1 H4.4G M4.3G M9.2 H6.1 M4.3W M9.2W H7.1 M4.4 1/ Management Area: Number is the management prescription area. H - Huron National Forest. M – Manistee National Forest. D – Deer emphasis sub-unit of a management area. G – Grouse emphasis sub-unit of a management area. W – General wildlife emphasis sub-unit of a management area.
(2) Vegetation Classes:
Review of the forest cover types described in the 1986 Forest Plan and consultation with the forest silviculturalist and other resource management specialists assisted the planning team in selecting the vegetation classes for stratifying the Forests’ land base (Table A-3).
Current vegetation age classes may lose or gain acreage over time. For example, unmanaged aspen / birch is modeled to succeed to high site oak or northern hardwoods. In addition, openings may be created as part of a fuelbreak strategy.
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Forest Activity Scheduling of the Analysis Process Model (Spectrum)
Table A-3. Level 2 Identifiers – Vegetation Classes. AB – Aspen/birch (includes forest types such as quaking and bigtooth aspen, paper birch, balsam poplar and aspen-white spruce-balsam fir).
HSO – High site oak; Site index greater than 55 (includes white pine-northern red oak-white ash, oak-aspen, black oak, white oak, northern red oak, yellow poplar-white oak-northern red oak, mixed oak and black locust). LC – Lowland conifer (includes black spruce, northern white cedar, tamarack, mixed swamp conifers and cedar-aspen-paper birch).
LH – Lowland hardwood (includes black ash-elm-red maple, red maple (wet) and mixed lowland hardwoods).
LLC – Long-lived conifer (includes red pine, white pine, white pine-hemlock, hemlock, Norway spruce, white spruce, white spruce-balsam fir-Norway spruce, black spruce (upland) and northern white cedar (upland). LSO – Low site oak (includes jack pine-oak, red pine-oak, plus forest types with site index less than 55, including white pine-northern red oak-white ash, black oak, white oak, northern red oak, mixed oak and black locust). NH – Northern hardwood (including northern hardwoods-hemlock, mixed northern hardwoods, sugar maple-beech-yellow birch, sugar maple-basswood, black cherry-white ash-yellow poplar, red maple (dry site) sugar maple, beech and mixed upland hardwoods). SLC – Short-lived conifer (includes jack pine, scotch pine, conifers and balsam fir-aspen-paper birch).
OPEN – Openings (includes lowland brush, brush/shrub and upland openings).
(3) Age Class Distribution:
Age classes are needed for analyzing ecological, silvicultural and biological information. Ten- year age classes were widely used in the preparation of the Forest Plan and the accompanying environmental impact statement published in 1986. It was determined that 10-year age classes were appropriate for Spectrum modeling of a programmatic plan. Current age classes were determined by inventory conditions (Table A-4). For example, short-lived forest types have fewer age classes than long-lived forest types. Significant acres of northern hardwoods are being managed for an uneven-aged structure, and these acres are tracked separately in Spectrum.
Table A-4. Level 3 Identifiers – Age Class Groups. Age Class 0-9 40-49 80-89 120-129 10-19 50-59 90-99 130-139 20-29 60-69 100-109 140-149 30-39 70-79 110-119 150+
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
(4) Old Growth:
Currently, 174,119 acres have been designated as old growth (1986 Forest Plan, as amended. See Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, for further discussion of the old-growth decision). To account for the earlier decisions regarding old growth, each analysis unit is identified in Spectrum as “old growth” or “not old growth” (Table A-5).
Table A-5. Level 4 Identifiers – Old Growth. Old-Growth Designation Old Growth Not Old Growth
(5) Timber Suitability:
The final level identifier entered into Spectrum was timberland suitability for timber production. Each analysis unit was given a suitability designation of either suitable or not suitable for timber production (Table A-6). Several factors are considered in designating a stand’s suitability. (See Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix H for further discussion of suitability analysis).
Table A-6. Level 5 Identifiers – Suitability of Land for Timber Production. Suitability Designation Suitable Unsuitable
Yield Tables:
Estimated harvest volumes, called “yield tables” are an important input to Spectrum. Spectrum uses the yield tables to estimate a harvest schedule by method, harvest volumes and the present net value of each alternative.
Yield tables developed during the first round of planning in the mid-1980s were used for this latest plan revision, as the yield tables were determined to be valid and did not require redevelopment. Verification of existing yield tables was accomplished by comparing existing standing volumes to outputs from recent timber sales.
This process identified aspen/white birch yield tables as an exception. During the yield table verification process, it was discovered that the 1986 aspen/white birch yield coefficients were underestimated. Forest silviculturalists developed new aspen/white birch yield tables utilizing Forest Inventory and Analysis data.1 The Forest Vegetation Simulator (an individual tree-
1 Under the authority of several acts including the McSweeny-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928, the Forest Service conducts periodic forest inventories of all states including Michigan. The Forest Inventory and Analysis program has the responsibility to collect, maintain and analyze this data. Sample plot data collected by the Forest Inventory and Analysis includes individual tree information such as tree height, diameter and species. Each plot is assigned a forest type, age, and other site information that happens to correlate well with the Forest’s Combined Data Systems stand polygon data.
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Forest Activity Scheduling of the Analysis Process Model (Spectrum)
growing model) was used to create the aspen yield table. The Lake States variant of this model was used. Outputs were imported into Spectrum from an Excel spreadsheet.
Input yields for Spectrum included the following species--products:
• Aspen / white birch--pulpwood/sawtimber • High site oak--pulpwood/sawtimber • Lowland conifer--pulpwood/sawtimber • Lowland hardwood--pulpwood/sawtimber • Long-lived conifer--pulpwood/sawtimber • Lowland hardwoods--pulpwood/sawtimber • Low site oak--pulpwood/sawtimber • Northern hardwoods--pulpwood/sawtimber • Short-lived conifer--pulpwood/sawtimber
Yield tables are used as inputs in the Spectrum model. Spectrum projects future outputs, long- term sustained yield, and other concerns related to forest vegetation for alternatives.
Management actions in Spectrum were identified. Management actions along with timing are the options among which the model “chooses” for each analysis unit. Management actions are driven by management area cover type composition objectives and are constrained by biological considerations. For example, in some management areas, it was necessary to have management action options that convert other forest types to barrens for species viability objectives for species such as Karner Blue Butterfly, and to openings to accomplish timber fuel hazard reduction.
Development of Model Constraints:
Several types of constraints were developed for the Spectrum model in response to Standards and Guidelines and the management requirements in the National Forest Management Act of 1976, regulations (36 CFR 219.27). Constraints were also developed in response to management goals and to improve the model’s simulation of actual management of the Forests. These additional constraints include:
• Constraints assigning congressionally and administratively designated areas to specific prescriptions, • Constraints ensuring that the management requirements are met in each alternative, • Timber scheduling constraints and • Operational constraints that constrain timber harvest to a realistic solution
Long-Term Sustained Yield and Non-declining Yields Constraint:
Long-term sustained yield is defined as “the highest uniform wood yield from lands being managed for timber production that may be sustained under a specified management intensity consistent with multiple-use objectives” (USDA-Forest Service 1982 - CFR 219.3). Long-term sustained yield can also be explained as the potential average growth and is displayed in
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
Spectrum as an annual yield for the final period modeled. The long-term sustained yield constraint is used to ensure that the harvest of timber in the final decade of this projection is not greater than the long-term timber production capacity of the Forests. Long-term sustained yield capacity is computed using the acreage scheduled for each regeneration prescription applied in the model.
Perpetual Timber Harvest Constraint:
This constraint ensures that the remaining timber inventory will allow achievement of non- declining harvest levels beyond the modeling horizon. To achieve this condition the constraint requires that the Forest contain as much timber inventory volume at the end of the final period as the Forest would have, on the average, under the management intensities selected in the analysis. Without this constraint, the Spectrum model would have no reason to leave enough inventory at the end of 150 years to sustain timber harvest levels into perpetuity.
Non-declining Yield Constraint:
This constraint ensures that the harvest of timber in a decade is greater than or equal to the harvest of timber in the previous period. This constraint indirectly limits the model to a lower present net value and reduced flow of timber in the early decades, but also provides community economic and social stability through the controlled flow of timber.
Management Requirements Constraints:
These constraints limit the model so that the management actions and intensities selected are consistent with the emphasis of an individual alternative. Some of these constraints are specifically defined in the constraint section of the model and others are implemented through the definitions of the management actions, the management action theming and the definitions of the scheduling options. For example, if there are no schedules defined for a specific prescription, then analysis units that contain that prescription are constrained to only allow minimum level management. In addition, maximum and minimum levels of early successional conditions are constrained for the different prescriptions and alternatives, as are levels of thinning, amounts of woodland management, low-site oak conversion and uneven-aged management.
Species Viability/Management Indicator Species Constraints:
The wildlife, ecological and botanical team set certain goals for wildlife habitat. These were incorporated into the Spectrum model, specifically, Species Viability Evaluation habitat goals (barrens, openings, and aspen management) for ruffed grouse, Karner blue butterfly and Kirtland’s warbler (Tables A-7, A-8 and A-9) (See Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B for a description of the Species Viability Evaluation process).
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Forest Activity Scheduling of the Analysis Process Model (Spectrum)
Table A-7. Spectrum Constraints Related to Species Viability Concerns, Acres of Forest Types Converted or Succeeding to Other Types. Acres - VegClass - VegClass - Forest accomplished Note Conversion from Conversion to over 5 decades Huron AB NH 1,180 Succession acres Huron AB HSO 1,180 Succession acres Huron HSO HSO 810 Unmanaged acres Huron LH LH 180 Unmanaged acres Huron LLC Barrens 9,100 Conversion acres Huron LSO Barrens 4,100 Unmanaged acres Huron NH NH 2,580 Unmanaged acres Huron SLC Barrens 6,000 Conversion acres Manistee AB HSO 150 Conversion acres Manistee AB NH 150 Conversion acres Manistee HSO Barrens 8,500 Conversion acres Manistee HSO HSO 780 Unmanaged acres Manistee LH LH 220 Unmanaged acres Manistee LLC Barrens 16,400 Conversion acres Manistee LSO Barrens 7,700 Conversion acres Manistee NH NH 9,100 Unmanaged acres Manistee SLC Barrens 6,700 Conversion acres Total constraint acres 74,830 VegClass=Vegetation Class: AB = Aspen/Birch; HSO = High-site oak; LH = Lowland Hardwood; LLC = Long-lived Conifer; LSO = Low-site Oak; NH = Northern Hardwood; SLC = Short-lived Conifer
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
Table A-8. Spectrum Constraints Related to Species Viability Concerns, Acres of Old-Growth Conversion to Barrens. Acres - Old growth VegClass - Habitat condition - Forest accomplished Converted from converted to over 5 decades Huron LLC Barrens 816 Huron LLC Barrens 861 Huron LSO Barrens 795 Huron LSO Barrens 472 Huron OPEN Barrens 386 Huron OPEN Barrens 1,093 Huron SLC Barrens 518 Huron SLC Barrens 559 Manistee LLC Barrens 137 Manistee LLC Barrens 572 Manistee LLC Barrens 773 Manistee LSO Barrens 458 Manistee LSO Barrens 631 Manistee LSO Barrens 591 Manistee OPEN Barrens 181 Manistee OPEN Barrens 339 Manistee OPEN Barrens 391 Manistee SLC Barrens 56 Manistee SLC Barrens 106 Manistee SLC Barrens 267 Total constraint acres 10,000 VegClass=Vegetation Class: LLC = Long-lived Conifer; LSO = Low-site Oak; SLC = Short-lived Conifer
Table A-9. Spectrum Constraints Related to Management Indicator Species Concerns. Forest Sub-Management Area VegClass Acres / decade Huron Ruffed grouse Aspen 1,875 Huron Kirtland's warbler SLC 10,700 Manistee Ruffed grouse Aspen 2,500 VegClass=Vegetation Class: SLC = Short-lived Conifer
Hazardous Fuels Reduction:
In order to maintain the biological integrity of fire-dependent ecosystems, provide for public safety, and protect public property from wildfire, specific hazardous fuels reduction goals were proposed. These goals were constraint inputs in Spectrum (Table A-10).
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-12 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Forest Activity Scheduling of the Analysis Process Model (Spectrum)
Table A-10. Spectrum Constraints Related to Fuels Hazard Reduction Concerns.
VegClass - conversion VegClass - conversion Acres - accomplished Forest from to in the 1st decade
Huron LLC Open 4,430 Huron LSO Open 480 Huron SLC Open 2,890 Manistee LLC Open 870 Manistee LSO Open 320 Manistee SLC Open 510 Manistee SLC LSO 500 Total constraint acres 10,000 VegClass=Vegetation Class: LLC = Long-lived Conifer; LSO = Low-site Oak; SLC = Short-lived Conifer
Benefits in Spectrum:
Table A-11 lists the timber stumpage value outputs used in SPECTRUM. The timber benefits are developed from recent stumpage prices paid for timber harvested on the Huron- Manistee National Forests. Receipts are dependent upon the Forest and general vegetative group.
Table A-11. Priced Output Values Used in the Spectrum Model. Priced Outputs
Product Huron National Forest Manistee National Forest Value per Million Cubic Feet AB sawlogs $371.42 $317.48 AB pulpwood $234.66 $232.11 HSO sawlogs $503.40 $971.02 HSO pulpwood $157.53 $368.09 LC sawlogs $495.67 $388.96 LC pulpwood $344.25 $154.09 LLC sawlogs $740.11 $1,123.29 LLC pulpwood $487.99 $535.90 LSO sawlogs $503.40 $971.02 LSO pulpwood $157.53 $368.09 NH sawlogs $503.40 $971.02 NH pulpwood $157.53 $368.09 SLC sawlogs $495.67 $388.96 SLC pulpwood $344.25 $154.09 Product: AB = Aspen/Birch; HSO = High-site Oak; LC = Lowland Conifer; LLC = Long-lived Conifer; LSO = Low-site Oak; NH = Northern Hardwood; SLC = Short-lived Conifer
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
Costs used in Vegetation Management and Spectrum Model Use:
The costs shown in the following Table A-12 are in 2003-dollar values. These are the associated costs of activities, such as stand regeneration, stand improvement and timber harvesting, used in the Spectrum model to create various vegetative conditions. Such activities may occur only when certain conditions are met. These conditions are displayed in the table. Regeneration and other silvicultural costs were estimated from historic records.
Table A-12. Costs of Activities, Regeneration and Vegetative Class Conversions. Vegetation Class Activity Cost Timber sale preparation and All administration: Clearcutting, thinning, $676.00/mcf shelterwood All Certification survey $8.00/acre AB Site preparation, natural $25.00/acre HSO Site preparation, natural $60.00/acre LC, LH, LSO, NH, SLC Site preparation, natural $35.00/acre (Kirtland’s warbler area) LLC Site preparation, natural $31.50/acre All Landline survey - new $39.00/acre All Landline survey - reestablish $10.00/acre Reforestation, timber stand improvement All $12.50/acre preparation & administration HSO Reforestation – oak; shelterwood, 1st cut $6.10/acre Reforestation – other species, HSO $25.00/acre shelterwood, removal cut LC, LH Reforestation $62.50/acre Reforestation, mechanical – disk trencher, LLC $15.75/acre Bracke scarifier Reforestation, red, white and jack pine LLC $94.50/acre planting Reforestation, red, white and jack pine LLC $10.00/acre planting LLC Reforestation, mechanical – furrowing $10.00/acre LSO Reforestation, mechanical – disc trencher $14.00/acre Reforestation, mechanical – Bracke LSO $14.00/acre scarifier Reforestation, normal planting – other LSO $25.00/acre species NH (other forest types) Natural site preparation (shelterwood) $60.00/acre NH (other species) Reforestation $35.00/acre NH (other forest types) Natural site preparation (clearcut) $35.00/acre
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-14 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Forest Activity Scheduling of the Analysis Process Model (Spectrum)
Table A-12. Costs of Activities, Regeneration and Vegetative Class Conversions (Continued). Vegetation Class1/ Activity Cost SLC (seeding) Reforestation $7.50/acre SLC Reforestation (Mechanical furrowing) $100.00/acre Reforestation (Red, white and jack pine SLC $210.00/acre planting) Reforestation (Mechanical, roller chopping SLC (Kirtland’s Warbler) $25.00/acre or furrowing) Reforestation (Mechanical, roller SLC (Kirtland’s Warbler) $27.50/acre chopping, with chains) Reforestation (Mechanical, Chain SLC (Kirtland’s Warbler) $15.00/acre scarifier) SLC (Kirtland’s Warbler) Planting $285.00/acre SLC (Kirtland’s Warbler) Planting (Fill-in) $10.00/acre SLC (Conversion to LSO) Regeneration $118.50/acre LSO (Conversion to SLC) Regeneration $460.50/acre HSO Browse protection $31.50/acre LC, LH Browse protection $157.50/acre All forested vegetation Barrens creation $250.00/acre classes Barrens Barrens maintenance $226.80/acre All forested vegetation Opening creation $400.00/acre classes Openings Opening maintenance $200.00/acre Land line Boundary survey, establishment $39.00/acre Land line Boundary survey, re-establishment $10.00/acre 1/ Vegetation Class: AB = Aspen/Birch; HSO = High-site oak; LC = Lowland Conifer; LH = Lowland Hardwood; LLC = Long-lived Conifer; LSO = Low-site Oak; NH = Northern Hardwood; SLC = Short-lived Conifer.
More details on the use of these costs are available in the project record.
Benchmarks:
Benchmark analyses provide baseline data to support formulation of alternatives, and aid in defining the range within which alternatives can be constructed. Benchmarks estimate the Forest’s physical, biological and technical capabilities to produce goods and services. The Planning Regulations specify that, as a minimum, the Analysis of the Management Situation shall include benchmark analyses that define: (1) the range within which alternatives can be constructed; (2) the minimum level of management needed to maintain and protect the Huron- Manistee National Forests as part of the National Forest System together with associated costs and benefits; (3) the maximum physical and biological production potentials of individual significant goods and services together with associated benefits and costs; and (4) monetary benchmark that estimates the maximum present net value of those resources.
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-15 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
Maximum Timber Benchmark: This benchmark provided baseline timber production capability references. The maximum timber benchmark utilized the maximum potential area of the Forests that can be classified as suitable for timber production. Forest land not considered as suitable for timber production in these benchmark analyses include non-forested land, land that is defined as physically unsuitable for timber management according to the Planning Regulations, and land removed through statute or administrative action, such as designated Wilderness.
Maximum Present Net Value Benchmark: This benchmark reflected the maximum value of discounted revenues minus discounted costs. Monetary benchmarks estimate the Present Net Value for resources with established market values and those with assigned values. Present Net Value calculations are made using a discounting formula with a 4 percent discount rate. The Present Net Value for major market-priced outputs is maximized by estimating the mix of uses combined with a schedule of outputs and costs.
Minimum Level Benchmark: The Planning Regulations require the identification of a Minimum Level Benchmark (minimum maintenance and protection of the Forest). This benchmark represents only those costs and outputs associated with protecting and managing activities and investments where there is little or no management discretion. Incidental outputs are permissible, but there will be no management action-related timber. Forest vegetation will evolve through natural succession.
The Minimum Level Benchmark represents the least amount of management needed to maintain and protect the Forest as part of the national forest system. The following are minimum management objectives: (1) Protect the life, health and safety of forest users; (2) Conserve soil and water resources; (3) Prevent significant or permanent impairment of the productivity of the land; (4) Administer legally required special uses and mineral leases, permits, contracts, and operating plans; and (5) Prevent environmental damage to the land and resources of adjoining and (or) downstream lands under other ownership. In addition, facility maintenance will be done only to support activities and use that cannot be reasonably discouraged; all other facilities are allowed to deteriorate. Dispersed recreation use will be permitted when and where control activities are not needed. Critical habitat for threatened and endangered species will be protected. In addition, heritage resource management will be limited to the identification and protection of resources associated with proposed ground disturbing activities.
Benchmarks were considered sufficient to meet our analysis needs. With the benchmarks defined, the planning team finalized alternatives for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Benchmarks were used to model each alternative as a check of both the model and benchmark assumptions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-16 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Forest Activity Scheduling of the Analysis Process Model (Spectrum)
Figure A–2. First Decade Alternative and Benchmark Comparisons of Average Annual Harvest.
Decade 1 Average Annual Allowable Sale Quantity for Alternatives and Benchmarks
35 32.5
30
25 19.3 20 MMCF/ 14.3 15.2 15.2 Year1/ 15
10
5 2.5
0 ALT A ALT B ALT C MaxPNV MaxASQ MinASQ Spectrum Run 2/
1/ MMCF=Million Cubic Feet. 2/ Spectrum Run: ALT A = Alternative A. ALT B = Alternative B. ALT C = Alternative C. MaxPNV = Maximize Present Net Value. MaxASQ = Maximize Allowable Sale Quantity. MinASQ = Minimum Allowable Sale Quantity.
Table A-13. Spectrum Benchmark Runs by Present Net Value and Allowable Sale Quantity. Present Net Value Allowable Sale Quantity Benchmark Run 1/ (1,000 $ 2004) (mcf/decade)2/ Maximize PNV $82,751 192,600 Maximize ASQ -$100,380 324,750 Minimum Level $-90,579 24,921 1/ PNV=Present net value, ASQ=Allowable sale quantity. 2/mcf=Thousand cubic feet.
Estimated Effects of Alternatives:
Each of the three alternatives was analyzed using the Spectrum model. Each alternative had a specific set of objectives. All alternatives had a non-declining yield constraint applied over a 15- decade timeframe. All alternatives had a budget constraint based on approximately 150 percent of the existing budget. Species viability and fuels hazard reduction objectives was applied to
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-17 Final Environmental Impact Statement Forest Activity Scheduling Appendix A - Description Model (Spectrum) of the Analysis Process
Alternatives B and C. Management indicator requirements were applied to all alternatives.
Alternative A was designed to mimic the current plan applied without change. For example, there were no barrens or fuels hazard reduction areas in the current plan and therefore there were none in Alternative A. Harvest activity mirrored proposed harvests in the 1986 Forest Plan.
Alternative B was formulated to represent a schedule of vegetation management that improves and protects sensitive plant communities, including restoration of barrens and prairies for Karner blue butterfly and increased jack pine harvest treatment for Kirtland’s warbler, as well as implementation of hazardous fuel reduction through implementation of forest fuelbreaks.
Alternative C accelerates the minimum species viability and biodiversity goals of Alternative B in 30 years rather than 50 compared to Alternative B, and decreases the number of acres and rate of activity in hazardous fuel reduction.
The following Table A-14 displays some of the important results from the analysis for the first decade of implementation.
Table A-14. Spectrum Model Results. Alternative A B C Allowable Sale Quantity 143,000 151,677 151,677 (MCF) / 1st Period Nonchargeable (MCF) 7,002 41,700 87,041 1st Period Long-Term Sustained 33,570 30,642 27,842 Yield (MCF/yr) Present Net Value (M$) -$69,824 -$80,980 -$43,938 Clearcut (acres, 1st 46,216 60,959 69,675 Period) Shelterwood (acres, 1st 9,563 8,261 2,984 Period) Thin (acres, 1st Period) 32,599 59,458 87,707 Uneven-age (acres, 1st 5,692 0 0 Period) Opening Maintenance 15,000 15,000 15,000 (acres, 1st Period) Barrens Creation (acres, 796 9,318 26,217 1st Period) 1/ MCF=Thousand Cubic Feet. M$ = Thousand Dollars.
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-18 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Social and Economic of the Analysis Process Resiliency Analysis
Social and Economic Resiliency Analysis
The purpose of this portion of Appendix A is to provide interested readers with additional details regarding the social and economic analyses utilizing the economic computer models IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) and FEAST (Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool). This section does not provide sufficient information to replicate the analysis. For that level of detail, the specialist reports contained in the administrative record should be consulted.
Defining Economic Impact Analysis Area:
Introduction:
Defining impact areas for use with IMPLAN (economic input-output model) is a blend of art and science. Due to the complex economic interactions between individuals, firms and governments, no impact area perfectly represents these interactions. Rather, an impact area embodies a set of decisions that offer the best answers to questions that publics, decision-makers and economists ask.
The economic impact area for the Huron-Manistee National Forests is described in the Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests, 2003, authored by Drs. Larry Leefers, Associate Professor, Karen Potter-Witter, Professor, Maureen McDonough, Professor, Department of Forestry, Michigan State University.
The impact area for the Huron-Manistee National Forests includes the following counties:
Alcona Lake Alpena Manistee Crawford Mason Iosco Missaukee Montmorency Muskegon Ogemaw Newaygo Oscoda Oceana Otsego Osceola Roscommon Wexford
Huron-Manistee National Forests' Economic Impact Area:
Economic relationships generated within IMPLAN were extracted and used in the FEAST model. The FEAST model was used at the Forest-level to analyze the impacts of Forest Plan alternatives.
Impact areas are defined using historic and anticipated effects of National Forest management. However, there is no guarantee that they will provide the best fit for assessing future effects. Effects of future National Forest management should be monitored to see whether the criteria for
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-19 Final Environmental Impact Statement Social and Economic Appendix A - Description Resiliency Analysis of the Analysis Process
impact area definition discussed above and their application are providing the most credible and useful estimates of local economic impacts.
Figure A-3. Economic Impact Area for the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Economic Impact Model:
Economic effects to local counties were estimated using an economic input-output model developed with IMPLAN Professional 2.0.1017 (IMPLAN). IMPLAN is a software package for personal computers that uses the latest national input-output tables from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, secondary economic data at the county level from a variety of public sources and proprietary procedures to develop an input-output model for a study area. The model was originally developed by the Forest Service and is now the property of the Minnesota IMPLAN Group. Someone who is unfamiliar with IMPLAN cannot readily perform input-output analysis with IMPLAN. A detailed explanation of every step in building the model and constructing individual resource and activity impact files was not made a part of this appendix. To know the procedural process for running IMPLAN, refer to “IMPLAN Professional User’s, Analysis Guide and Data Guide”, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 1997, which is part of the Planning of each forest. The Minnesota IMPLAN Group also offers training classes for model usage.
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-20 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Social and Economic of the Analysis Process Resiliency Analysis
The Huron-Manistee National Forests' model was developed using 2001 IMPLAN data. One model was developed to include both the Huron and Manistee National Forests.
The model area was determined with consideration of such things as generally recognized functional economies, supply-based regions, resident concepts of “local” and contiguous counties.
Forest Contribution and Economic Impact Analysis:
Impact analysis describes what happens when a change in final sales (such as exports and consumer purchases) occurs for goods and services in the model area. Changes in final sales are the result of multiplying units of production (for example, hundred cubic feet of timber harvest or recreation visitor days of recreation use) times sales per unit. Economic impacts were estimated using the best available production and sales data. The source of each is listed below. Impacts to local economies are measured in two ways: employment and labor income. Employment is expressed in jobs; a job can be seasonal or year-round, full-time or part-time. The number of jobs is computed by averaging monthly employment data from state sources over one year. The income measure used was labor income expressed in 2003 dollars. Labor income includes both employee compensation (pay plus benefits) and proprietors’ income (for example profits by self-employed).
The planning area model was used to determine the employment and income consequences throughout the economy of one-million-dollar changes for each kind of impact. The results are called response coefficients. Because input-output models are linear, multipliers or response coefficients need only be calculated once per model and then applied to the direct change in output. Spreadsheets were used to calculate total effects by multiplying the response coefficients by estimated levels of dollar activity. A customized Excel workbook called Forest Economic Analysis Software Tool (FEAST) was developed and used for this purpose. Details of FEAST may be examined in the project record. Specifications for developing response coefficients and levels of dollar activity are stated below.
Timber:
Sales Data:
Information on timber stumpage values was provided from historical sales records available on each National Forest. Direct information on the shipped value of finished timber products for all processing sectors was not available from any source. Because this information was unavailable, the IMPLAN model was used to derive these production values.
Use of the Social and Economic Assessment:
The Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests, 2003, indicates a modest mix of timber processing firms in northern Michigan. Of the possible 18 different types of timber processing sectors, only three can be found in this area, such as wood products, furniture and paper. The assessment indicates that wood products employment on the Huron
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-21 Final Environmental Impact Statement Social and Economic Appendix A - Description Resiliency Analysis of the Analysis Process
National Forest side of the impact area in 2003, was approximately 1,354 persons in 54 wood products manufacturing establishments and 78 in five furniture establishments. Employment was estimated at 205 in the paper industry in four establishments. Furniture and fixture earnings were not disclosed for any of the counties in the Huron National Forest impact area.
Wood products employment on the Manistee National Forest side of the impact area was approximately 765 persons in 41 wood products establishments and 940 in 26 furniture establishments. Employment was estimated at 1,184 in the paper industry in five establishments.
Use of the Model:
Employment in the lumber and wood products industry is also estimated by the IMPLAN model. One million dollars of exports were modeled through each timber-processing sector to determine a “response coefficient.” Timber volume from the National Forests was multiplied by historical stumpage prices and multiplied by the response coefficient for “logging camps” to obtain the total economic impact. The distribution of National Forest timber processors and model relationships between “logging camps” and other sectors were then used to derive the export value for each timber sector. This value was then multiplied by the appropriate response coefficient to determine total economic impact for each sector. All results were then summed for presentation in the Environmental Impact Statement. This process was repeated for each alternative.
Recreation and Wildlife/Fish:
Expenditure Data:
Visitors to the National Forests in Michigan often engage in a variety of activities during a trip. Often these activities cross over boundary lines between public and private lands. Consequently, a general tourism/recreationist expenditure pattern can reliably represent visitors to the National Forests. Several surveys of tourists in northern Michigan were used to build an expenditure profile for most recreationists on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Where studies that are more specific were not available, the general expenditure profile from these surveys was used.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service periodically conducts a national survey to obtain, among other information, data on recreation expenditures for hunting, fishing and other wildlife-related recreation. This information is available by state. These expenditure profiles were also organized for use in IMPLAN by the agency’s Inventory and Monitoring Institute. Expenditures were collected on a “per trip” basis, but converted to a person-day basis for use in IMPLAN. Expenditure profiles for non-resident expenditures in Michigan were used for estimating impacts from wildlife-related recreation.
Use of the Model:
One million dollars of expenditures for the categories of recreation discussed above were run through the model. The results were then incorporated into the FEAST workbook where they were multiplied by total expenditures for each category. Only non-local recreation expenditures
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-22 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix A - Description Social and Economic of the Analysis Process Resiliency Analysis
(tourism export) use is considered for impact analysis.
Minerals:
Expenditure Data:
Mineral activities on National Forest System lands generate revenues for the local economy through renting/leasing of heavy equipment; purchase of supplies and materials, and payments of salaries to workers. Expenditures vary by depth of well, type of well, and stage of development. Typical spending profiles for wells in Michigan were used to document spending profiles for typical wells expected to be drilled on the Forests. Data was acquired for both dry holes and productive wells.
Use of the Model:
One million dollars of expenditures for the categories of minerals discussed above were run through the model. The results were then incorporated into the FEAST workbook where they were multiplied by total expenditures for each category.
Federal Expenditures and Employment:
Expenditure Data:
The Forest adjusted budget estimates by alternative. This budget constraint was used to estimate total Forest expenditures, some of which had local economic effects. Total Forest obligations by budget object code for FY 2003 were used to estimate how the budget would be spent. Forest Service employment was estimated by the Forest staff based on examination of historical Forest Service obligations. Details regarding the expenditures may be found in the project record.
Use of the Model:
To obtain an estimate of total impacts from Forest Service spending, salary and non-salary portions of the impact were handled separately. Non-salary expenditures were determined by using the budget object code information noted above. This profile was run through the model for non-salary expenditures per one million dollars, and the results multiplied by total Forest non-salary expenditures. Sales to the Federal Government are treated in the same manner as exports.
Salary impacts result from Forest employees spending a portion of their salaries locally. IMPLAN includes a profile of personal consumption expenditures for several income categories.
Revenue Sharing – 25 Percent Fund Payments:
Expenditure Data:
Federal law requires that a portion of current or historical revenues be returned to the states and
Huron-Manistee National Forests A-23 Final Environmental Impact Statement Social and Economic Appendix A - Description Resiliency Analysis of the Analysis Process
counties within which the revenues were received. These payments may be used for a variety of purposes, including schools and roads. It was assumed that 25 percent of all National Forest revenues would be returned to the local impact area, and that a split of 75 percent for schools and 25 percent for roads would represent how local governments spend these revenues. A profile of expenditures for each of these purposes was derived from the model itself. Details regarding the expenditures may be found in the project record.
Use of the Model:
The national expenditure profile for state/local government education (schools) and local model estimates for road construction (roads) are provided within IMPLAN. One million dollars of each profile was used to estimate a response coefficient for these Forest Service payments to impact area counties. The results were then incorporated into a spreadsheet where they were multiplied by total expenditures. Sales to local government are treated in the same manner as exports.
Output Levels:
Output levels are specified in the FEAST Excel spreadsheet, located in the project record.
Financial and Economic Efficiency Analysis:
Financial efficiency is defined as how well the dollars invested in each alternative produce revenues to the agency. Economic efficiency is defined as how well the dollars invested in each alternative produce benefits to society. Present Net Value is used as an indicator of financial and economic efficiency.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests used a Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheet to calculate Present Net Value for each alternative over a 50-year period. A 4 percent real discount rate, prescribed by Forest Service Handbook 1909.17, was used. Decadal and 50-year cumulative present values for program benefits and costs, as well as present net values, are the product of this spreadsheet. For each decade, an average annual resource value was estimated, multiplied by 10 years, and discounted from the mid-point of each decade.
Final Environmental Impact Statement A-24 Huron-Manistee National Forests
APPENDIX B -
SPECIES VIABILITY EVALUATION
Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Viability Evaluation Process
Appendix B - Species Viability Evaluation
Species Viability Evaluation Process
Introduction:
The Huron-Manistee National Forests are required to maintain the viability of all native and desirable non-native species. The Forests ensure that this requirement is met through the Species Viability Evaluation process. Detailed evaluation occurs only for those species, identified on the “Species Viability Evaluation List,” which may have viability concerns.
Purpose:
This appendix summarizes the Species Viability Evaluation process for the Huron-Manistee National Forests' Revised Forest Plan. The process is intended to address the maintenance of viability of existing native and desired non-native species within National Forests to meet the following Forest Plan Revision requirements.
• 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 219.19 - 1982 • Departmental Regulations 9500-4 • 36 CFR 219.9 - 1982
As such, the Species Viability Evaluation process is a structured and reasoned series of judgments about projected amounts and distributions of habitat, and the likelihood that such habitat would allow populations of species that may be at risk to remain well-distributed over the long-term. This process provides an estimate of the likelihood that a population will persist in a given geographic distribution for a given period of time. Specifically, the Species Viability Evaluation is focused on those species and rare landscapes that are at “risk” and need to be addressed in the Revised Forest Plan.
This process is not a quantitative population viability analysis because it does not employ explicit models of genetic or demographic risk to species. However, the Species Viability Evaluation process meets the essential criterion of a population viability analysis.
Process:
The following describes the seven steps followed in the Species Viability Evaluation. A flow chart visually depicting the process is displayed in Figure B-1.
Step 1. Identify Species at Risk:
Species that are: 1) federally threatened or endangered; 2) proposed for or currently on the Region 9 Regional Forester Sensitive Species list; or 3) have global (G), trinomial (T), or national (N) ranks of 1 – 3 by the Nature Conservancy and Nature Serve (see web site:
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Species Viability Evaluation Process Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation http://www.natureserve.org) are automatically included in the Species Viability Evaluation. Other species are included if there is a documented occurrence within the National Forest and the species demonstrate a viability risk due to: 1) low abundance and distribution; 2) a declining population trend; 3) habitat decline; or overall population vulnerability.
Other species of special interest, for example gathering, viewing, sporting and sustainability, that do not have viability concerns will be identified and addressed through other Forest Plan revision processes and planning efforts. The Species Viability Evaluation process is not designed to address these important species.
Step 2. Collect Information on the Species at Risk:
Information on species taxonomy, conservation status, life history, risk factors, limiting factors, population trends, habitat trends and conservation approaches will be collected and stored in a data base. The sources of information are from literature; approved conservation assessments and approaches; US Fish and Wildlife Service consultations and status assessments; and experts. The purpose of collecting information on the species at risk is to establish specific requirements so that species viability can be evaluated in the context of Forest Plan direction.
Step 3. Assigning Forest Ranks to Species:
In this step, species are ranked according to their relative rarity and severity of threat. This process allows for the quick identification of highest priority species.
Step 4. Group Species at Risk:
This is the grouping of species to effectively and efficiently evaluate their viability. Species groups may be established based on occurrences, similar vegetative community/habitats, limiting factors, threats, guilds, sensitivity or broad scale ecological considerations.
Step 5. Compare Species Needs to 1986 Forest Plan, as Amended:
Species habitat needs are compared against the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, to evaluate the extent to which current management direction provides habitat to maintain viability of at-risk species. This preliminary evaluation identifies where the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, does not provide for species viability. The outcome is the identification of changes to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, that may be necessary to meet the Revised Forest Plan species viability standards.
Step 6. Development of Conservation Measures:
Specific conservation measures, focused on key risks or species limiting factors, are developed to provide for species viability. These conservation measures will be used to develop proposed objectives or specific Standards and Guidelines.
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Viability Evaluation Process
Step 7. Incorporation of Conservation Measures into Forest Plan Revision Alternatives:
Landscape scale management area direction and/or Standards and Guidelines are incorporated into Forest Plan Revision alternatives to provide for species viability.
Additional Information:
Additional information on the species addressed in the Species Viability Evaluation process is available from the following:
Environmental Documentation:
The Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment documents describe the environmental effects of the alternatives and their consequences for Species Viability Evaluation species.
Monitoring:
The Forest Plan (Chapter IV) will include how viability (populations and habitat trends) will be monitored. The process of incorporating the results of monitoring into improved management area direction and Standards and Guidelines to better provide for viability (adaptive management) will also be included.
Species Viability Evaluations Species Narratives
The remainder of this document will describe the Species Viability Evaluation process including development of the Species Viability Evaluation species list, assigning Forest or “F-ranks”, creation of species habitat groups, and selection of focal species for each of the groups. Needs for the habitat groups, focusing on the habitat requirements of the group’s focal species, were evaluated and compared to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended. Conservation recommendations were developed and proposed when 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, conditions did not appear to provide for long-term species viability. Narratives documenting the evaluations and proposed conservation measures for each species group can be found in the Analysis of the Management Situation.
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Figure B-1. Species Viability Evaluation Process Flow Chart
Species Viability Evaluation Process Flow Chart
Step 1: Identification Step 2: Collection of of Species at risk Information on the Species At Risk
Step 3: Assign F ranks
no Species occurs in discrete and unique habitats (e.g. cliff) yes
Rank = F4,F5: no Widespread, secure Species Revise or develop S&G as needed
yes Rank = FO,FH,FP: no No Documented Occurrence
no yes Rank = F?: Maintain appropriate Insufficient Information S&Gs Rank = Conduct F1,F2,F3 species surveys Gather more information on species in the future
Step 4: Species Grouping by threats, habitat, etc:
Step 5: Comparison of Species or Species Group Needs to Forest Plan
Species (group) habitat requirements can be provided by S&Gs yes
no Step 6: Development of Conservation Measures: Standards and Guidelines
Step 6: Development of Conservation Measures: Additional forest - wide management area goals
Additional information on the species addressed in the species viability evaluation process: Environmental Documentation (see Biological Evaluation) Monitoring (see Chapter IV)
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Huron-Manistee National Forests' Species Viability Evaluation Species List Criteria:
The following are the criteria used for developing the list of species specifically evaluated in the Species Viability Evaluation process.
• Species that are federally threatened; endangered, whether proposed or candidate; and species on the Region 9 Regional Forester Sensitive Species list will be included in the Species Viability Evaluation process and need full consideration because of Forest planning landscape considerations. State listed species have been incorporated in the Species at Risk list by means of the Region 9 Regional Forester Sensitive Species list. When the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list was updated, the State’s list of Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern was thoroughly reviewed, and those state species meeting Regional Forester Sensitive Species listing criteria were included in the revised Regional Forester Sensitive Species list. Species with viability concerns identified by recommendation of researchers, experts, Non-Governmental Organizations, resource management agencies and publics may be included in the Species Viability Evaluation process.
• Species not known to occur, with no officially documented occurrences, on National Forests will not be included in the Species Viability Evaluation process. In accordance with Forest Service guidance, surveys will be conducted for Species Viability Evaluation species that have a likelihood of occurring on National Forest Service System lands.
• Species known to occur on the National Forests that have stable or increasing populations will not be carried forward in the Species Viability Evaluation process. By definition these species are not species at risk.
• Species known to occur on the National Forests that are not tracked by Michigan Natural Features Inventory are not included in the process unless their population viability is identified by a downward trend. These may be identified through other regional assessments completed by cooperating agencies or other recognized experts.
• Species that occur in isolated, specific, uncommon habitats will have Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and will be addressed at the project level.
• Species associated with rare communities will be identified and listed in a table to show the species and the rare community it is associated with. Those rare communities that require restoration and maintenance will be carried forward in the Species Viability Evaluation process.
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Species Viability Evaluation Species List:
In accordance with the above criteria, the National Forests in Michigan developed a proposed species at risk list which would be the basis for consideration in Forest Plan revision. This list included federally threatened, endangered, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and other species and communities of concern. The list included 212 species which included five mammals, 38 birds, six reptiles, seven fish, 25 insects, four mollusks, 88 plants, six lichens, four mosses, and 29 communities. Of this list developed for the National Forests in Michigan, the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ list included three mammals, 33 birds, six reptiles, seven fish, 19 insects, two mollusks, 54 plants and 18 communities.
These species are shown in the following table. “F ranks” (see step 3 of the Species Viability Evaluation process) were given to the species based on criteria developed by the three Michigan National Forests. The F rank criteria are as follows:
FN: Federally endangered, threatened, candidate, and/or Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species not otherwise assigned an F rank on the Forest F?: Species that are present on the Forest, but abundance information is insufficient to develop Forest rank. F1: Species which are extremely rare on the Forest unit. F2: Species which are very rare on the Forest unit. F3: Species which are rare and uncommon on the Forest unit. F4: Species which are widespread, abundant, and apparently secure on the Forest unit. F5: Species which are demonstrably secure on the Forest unit.
Table B-1. Forest Ranks (F ranks) for Species Considered in the Species Viability Evaluation. Forest Rank Species F? FN F5 F4 F3 F2 F1 Mammals American Marten (Martes Americana) X Eastern Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) X Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) X Birds American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) X Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) X Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) X Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) X Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) X
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Table B-1. Forest Ranks (F ranks) for Species Considered in the Species Viability Evaluation (Continued). Forest Rank Species F? FN F5 F4 F3 F2 F1 Birds Black-crowned Night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) X Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) X Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) X Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) X Common Loon (Gavia immer) X Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) X Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) X Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) X Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) X Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) X King Rail (Rallus elegans) X Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) X Migrant Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) X Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) X Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) X Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) X Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) X Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) X Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) X Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) X Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) X Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) X Spruce Grouse (Falcipennis canadensis) X Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) X Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) X Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) X Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) X Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) X
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Table B-1. Forest Ranks (F ranks) for Species Considered in the Species Viability Evaluation (Continued). Forest Rank Species F? FN F5 F4 F3 F2 F1 Reptiles Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) X Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) X Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) X Kirtland’s Snake (Clonophis kirtlandii) X Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) X Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) X Fish Channel Darter (Percina copelandi) X Greater Redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi) X Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) X Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) X Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) X River Redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum) X River Darter (Percina shumardi) X Insects Culvers’s Root Borer (Papaipema sciata) X Doll’s Merolonche (Merolonche dolli) X Douglas Stenelmis Riffle Beetle (Stenelmis douglasensis) X Dusted Skipper (Atrytonopsis hianna) X Frosted Elfin (Incisalia irus) X Henry’s Elfin (Incisalia henrici) X Hill-prairie Spittlebug (Lepyronia gibbosa) X Imperial Moth (Eacles imperialis pini) X Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) X Lake Huron Locust (Trimerotropis huroniana) X Michigan Bog Grasshopper (Appalachia arcana) X Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe) X Persius Duskywing (Erynnis persius) X Phlox Moth (Schinia indiana) X Poweshiek Skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek) X Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia) X Southern Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus wyandot) X Spartina Borer Moth (Spartiniphaga inops) X Sprague’s Pygarctic (Pygarctic spraguei) X
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Table B-1. Forest Ranks (F ranks) for Species Considered in the Species Viability Evaluation (Continued). Forest Rank Species F? FN F5 F4 F3 F2 F1 Mollusks Creek Heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa) X Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) X Plants Pale Agoseris (Agoseris glauca) X Purple Milkweed (Asclepias purpurascens) X Western Silver Aster (Aster sericeus) X Canadian milkvetch (Astragalus canadensis) X Ternate grapefern (Botrychium rugulosum =ternatum) X Sideoats Grama Grass (Bouteloua curtipendula) X Schweinitz's sedge (Carex schweinitzii) X Hill’s Thistle (Cirsium hillii) X Wild comfrey (Cynoglossum virginianum (=boreale) var. boreale) X Ram’s Head Orchid (Cypripedium arietinum) X False Violet (Dalibarda repens) X Goldie's fern (Dryopteris goldiana) X Purple Spikerush (Eleocharis atropurpurea) X Engelmann's spikerush (Eleocharis engelmannii) X Three-ribbed spikerush (Eleocharis tricostata) X Upland Boneset (Eupatorium sessilifolium) X Rough Fescue (Festuca scabrella) X Umbrella-grass (Fuirena squarrosa) X Dwarf-bulrush (Hemicarpha micrantha) X Northern Fir-moss (Huperzia selago) X Gentian-leaved St. John’s-wort (Hypericum gentianoides) X Butternut (Juglans cinerea) X Small Headed Rush (Juncus brachycarpus) X Vasey's rush (Juncus vaseyi) X False Boneset (Kuhnia eupatorioides) X Leggett's Pinweed (Lechea pulchella) X Furrowed Flax (Linum sulcatum) X
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Table B-1. Forest Ranks (F ranks) for Species Considered in the Species Viability Evaluation (Continued). Forest Rank Species F? FN F5 F4 F3 F2 F1 Plants (continued) Purple Twayblade (Liparis liliifolia) X Northern Appressed Clubmoss (Lycopodiella subappressa) X White Adder's-mouth (Malaxis brachypoda) X Fascicled Broomrape (Orobanche fasciculata) X Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) X Bog Bluegrass (Poa paludigena) X Cross-leaved Milkwort (Polygala cruciata) X Waterthread Pondweed (Potamogeton bicupulatus) X Alleghany Plum (Prunus alleghaniensis v. davisii) X Baldrush (Psilocarya (=Rhynchospora) scripoides) X Pine-drops (Pterospora andromedea) X Whorled Mountain Mint (Pycnathemum verticillatum) X Hairy Mountain Mint (Pycnathemum pilosum) X Meadow-Beauty (Rhexia virginica) X Tooth-cup (Rotala ramosior) X Hall’s Bulrush (Scirpus hallii) X Torrey’s Bulrush (Scirpus torreyi) X Few-flowered Nut-rush (Scleria pauciflora) X Tall Nut-rush (Scleria triglomerata) X Atlantic blue-eyed-grass (Sisyrinchium atlanticum) X Blue-eyed-grass (Sisyrinchium strictum) X Yellow Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes ochroleuca) X Prairie Dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) X False Pennyroyal (Trichostema brachiatum) X Bastard Pennyroyal (Trichostema dichotomum) X Purple Sand Grass (Triplasis purpurea) X
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Table B-1. Forest Ranks (F ranks) for Species Considered in the Species Viability Evaluation (Continued). Forest Rank Species F? FN F5 F4 F3 F2 F1 Natural Communities Cedar Swamp X Coastal plain marsh X Dry sand prairie Great Lakes barrens X Great Lakes marsh X Hardwood-conifer swamp Interdunal wetland X Intermittent wetland X Mesic sand praire X Northern fen X Northern wet mesic prairie X Oak barrens X Oak-pine barrens X Open dunes X Pine barrens X Poor fen X Southern floodplain forest X Wooded dune and swale complex X
Species Groups:
Following development of the species list by National Forest in Michigan, the Species Viability Evaluation species database and Forest ranks, Species Viability Evaluation species were grouped by associated habitats and a focal species was selected for each of these habitat groups. The following table describes the habitat groups, their constituent Species Viability Evaluation species, and the group’s focal species.
Table B-2. Aquatic Species Groups. (The group’s focal species is in bold.) Species Group Description Species Aquatic Species Large river species Lake Sturgeon Group 1 River Redhorse Greater Redhorse Snuffbox Mussel Aquatic Species Small fish that prefer deep, fast flowing riffle Channel Darter Group 2 sections with gravel/cobble substrate in River Darter medium to large sized streams; year-round residents Aquatic Species Species that prefer clear, cool headwaters of Redside dace Group 3 river systems Creek heelsplitter Douglas Stenelmis Riffle beetle Aquatic Species Sand and mud habitats in clear vegetated Pugnose shiner Group 4 lakes and vegetated pools and runs of creeks and rivers
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Table B-3. Species Viability Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Groups. (The group’s focal species is in bold.)
GREAT LAKES SHRUB/SCRUB RIPARIAN/LOWLAND MARSH BEACH/DUNE RIVER/STREAMS PONDS/LAKES MARSH BOGS/FENS WETLANDS HDWDS/Floodplain Piping Plover Larger Larger American Bittern Black-billed Cuckoo Mid - Late Olive-sided Golden-winged Prairie Warbler Wood Turtle Common Loon Northern Harrier Flycatcher Warbler Indiana Bat Lake Huron Locust Spotted Turtle Trumpeter Swan King Rail Spotted Turtle Canada Warbler Eastern Pipistrelle Michigan Bog Bald Eagle Yellow rail Grasshopper Kirtland's Snake Bald Eagle Black-crowned Black-crowned Night Night Heron Heron Cerulean Warbler Black Tern Black Tern Canada Warbler Blanding's Turtle Red-shouldered Hawk Smaller Spotted Turtle Wood Turtle Blanding's Turtle Eastern Massasauga Eastern Box Turtle Spotted Turtle Early-Mid Golden-winged warbler Eastern Massasauga Kirtland's Snake
LOWLAND MIXED RED/WHITE CONIFER/BOREAL OAK/PINE HARDWOODS ASPEN/BIRCH PINE/SPRUCE Mid-Late Late Late Early Golden-winged American Marten Indiana Bat American Marten Warbler American Marten Red-shouldered Northern Goshawk Cerulean Warbler Hawk Whip-poor-will Bald Eagle Red-headed Northern Spruce Grouse Woodpecker Goshawk Late Northern Goshawk Black-backed Red-headed Woodpecker Woodpecker Northern Goshawk Imperial Moth Eastern Massasauga Early-Mid Wood Thrush Wood Thrush Whip-poor-will Black-billed Cuckoo Sprague's Pygarctic
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-12 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Table B-3. Species Viability Evaluation – Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Groups (Continued). (The group’s focal species is in bold.)
SAVANNAH (Oak JACK PINE PINE BARRENS Pine Barrens) GRASSLAND DRY PRAIRIE Early-Open Large Openlands Large Openlands Large Openlands Large Michigan Bog Karner Blue Grasshopper Sharp-tailed Grouse Butterfly Northern Harrier Sharp-tailed Grouse Prairie Warbler Kirtland's Warbler Henslow's Sparrow Upland Sandpiper Upland Sandpiper Prairie Warbler Large or Smaller Grasshopper Sparrow Sharp-tailed Grouse Upland sandpiper Eastern Pipistrelle Eastern Meadowlark Large or Smaller Black-billed Cuckoo Bobolink Culver's Root Borer Michigan Loggerhead Mid-Successional Large or Smaller Shrike Sharp-tailed Grouse Hill-prairie Spittlebug Migrant Loggerhead Red-headed Kirtland's Warbler Shrike Woodpecker Upland Sandpiper Dusted Skipper Red-headed Black-billed Cuckoo Woodpecker Eastern Box Turtle Ottoe Skipper Hill-prairie Whip-poor-will Henry's Elfin Spittlebug Smaller Openlands Karner Blue Butterfly Olive-sided Flycatcher Dusted Skipper Frosted Elfin Eastern Pipistrelle Persius Duskywing Michigan Bog Persius Migrant Loggerhead Grasshopper Duskywing Shrike Regal Frittilary Mid - Late Eastern Successional Massasauga Henry's Elfin Spotted Turtle Phlox Moth Spruce Grouse Regal Frittilary Eastern Box Turtle Imperial Moth Dusted skipper Eastern Massasauga Black-backed Woodpecker Ottoe Skipper American marten Doll's Merolonche Large or Smaller Sprague's Pygarctic Dusted Skipper Henry's Elfin Frosted Elfin Persius Duskywing Sprague's Pygarctic Phlox moth
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Table B-4. Species Viability Evaluation –Botanical Habitat Groups and Communities of Concern. Subirrigated Wet Exposed Riparian - Aquatic Pond-Lake Semi-open Mesic Barrens (Oak, Open Dry Sand Coastal Plain Marsh/ Moist Mineral Soils Forested/ Waterthread Depression Oak-Pine, Pine) Hill’s Thistle, Intermittent Wetland Forest/Thicket Engelmann's Southern Pondweed Wild comfrey Pale Agoseris, Leggett's Purple Spikerush, Purple Spikerush, Floodplain Forest Purple Milkweed, Pinweed, Linum Engelmann's spikerush, Twayblade Dwarf-bulrush, Schweinitz's sedge, Lake shorelines - Great Lakes Hill’s Thistle, sulcatum, Three-angle Spikerush, Fir Clubmoss, Butternut, White Acid/ Barrens/Interdunal Ram’s Head Furrowed Flax , Umbrella-grass, Dwarf- Mesic Sand Gentian-leaved Adder's-mouth, Bog Calcareous/Neutral Wetland/Open Orchid, Upland False bulrush, Gentian-leaved Prairie/ St. John’s-wort, Bluegrass Canadian milkvetch, Dunes/Wooded Boneset, Rough Pennyroyal, St. John’s-wort, Short- Northern Wet- Short-fruited Umbrella-grass, Dune/Wooded Fescue, False Bastard fruited Rush, Vasey's Mesic Prairie Rush, Vasey's Swamp/Southern Dwarf-bulrush, Fir Dune Swale Boneset, Alleghany Pennyroyal, rush, Leggett's Pinweed, Purple rush, Northern Swamp/Hardwood Clubmoss, Short- Ram’s Head Orchid, Plum, Hairy Sand Grass Northern Appressed Milkweed, Appressed Conifer Swamp fruited Rush, False Violet, Fir Mountain Mint, Clubmoss, Cross-leaved Canadian Clubmoss, Ram’s Head Orchid, Vasey's rush, Clubmoss, Northern False Pennyroyal, Milkwort, Waterthread milkvetch, Meadow-Beauty False Violet , White Leggett's Pinweed, Appressed Bastard Pondweed, Baldrush, Kuhnia Adder's-mouth, Bog Northern Appressed Clubmoss, Fascicled Pennyroyal, Sand Whorled Mountain Mint, eupatorioides, Wet-Mesic Bluegrass Clubmoss, Cross- Broomrape, Grass Meadow-Beauty, Tooth- Tooth-cup, Prairie/Meadow leaved Milkwort, Meadow-Beauty, cup, Torrey’s Bulrush, Prairie Purple Sub-irrigated Baldrush, Whorled Tooth-cup Dry Sand Prairie Hall’s Bulrush, Few- Dropseed Spikerush, Short- Forest Mountain Mint, Western Silver flowered Nut-rush, Tall fruited Rush, False Violet , Purple Tooth-cup, Torrey’s Hardwood Forest Aster, Sideoats Nut-rush, Atlantic blue- Swale in Vasey's rush, Twayblade Bulrush, Few- Openings Grama Grass, Hill’s eyed-grass, Blue-eyed- Oak/Swale in Cross-leaved flowered Nut-rush, Ternate grapefern Thistle, False grass Pine/ Vernal Milkwort, Cedar Swamp Tall Nut-rush, Boneset, Leggett's Pool Meadow-Beauty, Ram’s Head Orchid, Atlantic blue-eyed- Forest with Pinweed, Furrowed Engelmann's Tooth-cup, Few- White Adder's- grass Needleduff Flax, Bastard spikerush, flowered Nut- mouth Pine-drops Pennyroyal Three-angle rush, Tall Nut- Spikerush, rush, Atlantic Riparian- Non- Bog Clay-Loam Short-fruited blue-eyed-grass, forested Forest/Rich Mesic Rush, Bog Blue-eyed-grass, Canadian milkvetch Great Lakes Marsh Northern Forest Bluegrass, Yellow Ladies’- Goldie's fern, Blue-eyed- tresses, Prairie Marsh Ginseng grass, Prairie Dropseed Dropseed Northern Fen/Poor Fen
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-14 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Standards and Guidelines for Certain Species and Communities:
Following development of “F” ranks and species groups, an intermediate determination was made as to whether species or communities were found only in discrete and unique habitats. If so, conservation measures were developed to protect species viability without further analysis and incorporated into the Forest Plan Chapters II and III management direction. Conservation measures (Standards and Guidelines or direction) for these species or communities are given in the table below. Community descriptions are provided at the end of this Appendix.
Table B-5. Standards and Guidelines Developed to Protect the Viability of Species or Natural Communities. Standards and Guidelines Species or Natural Communities • Protection of coastal plain marshes, intermittent Coastal plain marsh, intermittent wetlands, mesic sand prairies, northern fens, poor wetland, mesic sand prairie, Great fens and Great Lakes marshes. Lakes marsh, northern fen, poor • Rare wetland communities where fire is a known fen, purple milkweed, Canada disturbance – prescribed fire should be used to milkvetch, purple spike-rush, maintain the community when appropriate. Engelman’s spike-rush, three- ribbed spikerush, umbrella-grass, dwarf-bulrush, northern fir-moss, Gentian-leaved St. John’s-wort, small headed rush, Vasey’s rush, false boneset, Legett’s pinweed, northern appressed clubmoss, bog bluegrass, cross-leaved milkwort, waterthread pondweed, bald rush, meadow beauty, toothcup, Hall’s bulrush, few-flowered nut-rush, tall nut-rush, Houghton’s goldenrod, yellow-ladies’-tresses, prairie dropseed
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-15 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Table B-5. Standards and Guidelines Developed to Protect the Viability of Species or Natural Communities (Continued). Standards and Guidelines Species or Natural Communities • Generally, new motorized trails will not be constructed Cedar swamp, hardwood conifer in cedar swamps, hardwood conifer swamps and swamp, subirrigated forest, ram’s- subirrigated forests. However, new motorized trails head lady-slipper, false-violet, lily- may be considered through cedar swamps, hardwood leaved twayblade, white adder’s- conifer swamps and subirrigated forests if there are mouth no other reasonable routes. • Timber harvesting in cedar swamps is excluded except for: • limited salvage of non-living trees after a catastrophic event, and • single-tree, special products gathering administered under permit. • Maintain hardwood and hardwood/conifer swamps. • Minimize disturbance of the forest floor in swamps. • Equipment may be used within swamps and sub- irrigated forests. However, equipment should not be operated within these areas when soils are saturated or when rutting is likely to occur. • Temporary access routes for equipment use within swamps or sub-irrigated forests should be obliterated, stabilized, and restored to natural conditions immediately by using native vegetation appropriate to ecological land type phases. • Manage swamps and sub-irrigated forests with practices consistent with resource conditions and protect hydrologic function. • Swales1 in oak and pine forests will be identified and Engelman’s spike-rush, three- protected through project level surveys. ribbed spikerush, small headed rush, Vasey’s rush • Maintain a minimum of 60 percent canopy cover and northern wild comfrey do not allow mechanical disturbance within three tree- lengths of known occurrences of Cynoglossum boreale. • Prescribed fire in the understory that does not harm the overstory may not harm the species provided that it takes place before bolting in the spring or after fruit dispersal in the fall. • Submit Black River potential Research Natural Area Wooded dune and swale, northern as a candidate Research Natural Area. fir-moss, false-violet
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-16 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Table B-5. Standards and Guidelines Developed to Protect the Viability of Species or Natural Communities (Continued). Standards and Guidelines Species or Natural Communities • Management treatments in meadows with known yellow lady’s-tresses occurrences of Spiranthes ochroleuca should not affect soil moisture or soil structure within approximately 66 feet of the known populations. If it is necessary to conduct maintenance activities to keep the community in a meadow stage, treatment should be done using handcutting or other non soil-disturbing management techniques. • Maintain a protection zone no greater than three tree- pine-drops lengths around occurrences of Pterospora andromedea. • Maintain or create small openings (less than one ternate grape fern acre) in stands with known occurrences of Botrychium rugulosum. • Maintain a protection zone of approximately 66 feet with no mechanical equipment use and minimal soil disturbance around all known occurrences of B. rugulosm. Hand cutting is permitted. • Where populations of dry, open, sand Regional Leggett’s pinweed, furrowed flax, Forester’s Sensitive Species are found, management Alleghany plum, false pennyroyal, activities will maintain habitat suitable for these bastard pennyroyal, Hill’s thistle, species. sand grass • If possible, when occurrences are found, expand suitable habitat into areas currently being managed for barrens or prairies. • Increase habitat management to provide for viability of Dry Sand Prairies species in dry prairie settings (Sparta soils) up to historic conditions (not to exceed 1800 acres). 1 Swale: a seasonally ponded, generally less than one-acre area, located in moderately to well- drained uplands.
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-17 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Community Descriptions:
These descriptions rely heavily on descriptions established by Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Coastal Plain Marsh:
Associated Species: Purple Spikerush, Engelmann's spikerush, Three-angle Spikerush, Umbrella-grass, Dwarf-bulrush, Gentian-leaved St. John’s-wort, Short-fruited Rush, Vasey's rush, Leggett's Pinweed, Northern Appressed Clubmoss, Cross-leaved Milkwort, Waterthread Pondweed, Baldrush, Meadow-Beauty, Tooth-cup, Hall’s Bulrush, Few-flowered Nut-rush and Tall Nut-rush
Description: A coastal plain marsh is a Great Lakes wetland plant community which contains a suite of species commonly found along the Atlantic coastline. Coastal plain marshes occur on sand deposits associated with postglacial lakes and outwash channels which occur in the southwestern portion of the Lower Peninsula in Michigan. This community is grass and rush dominated and is found on the shores of softwater seepage lakes, ponds or wet depressions, where water levels fluctuate seasonally and yearly. Water level fluctuation is critical for maintenance of the suite of coastal plain disjunct plant species found in this community.
Threats: This community is globally imperiled (G2) and state imperiled (S2). Threats include changes in hydrologic function; soil displacement, rutting and compaction from illegal Off- Highway Vehicle use; and fire suppression. Because water levels fluctuate from year to year, coastal plain marshes may be overlooked and/or impacted during temporarily dry conditions. Loss of any single coastal plain marsh may negatively impact population dynamics at other coastal plain marsh sites.
Intermittent Wetland:
Associated Species: Purple Spikerush, Three-angle Spikerush, Dwarf-bulrush, Short-fruited Rush, Vasey's rush, Northern Appressed Clubmoss, Baldrush and Tooth-cup
Description: An herbaceous or herb-shrub wetland found along lakeshores or in depressions which experiences fluctuating water levels seasonally and yearly. This community is similar in species composition to coastal plain marshes; however, it occurs further north and typically contains fewer Atlantic coastal plain disjunct species.
Threats: Intermittent Wetlands have a globally imperiled (G2) and state imperiled (S2) ranking. Threats are the same as those listed above for coastal plain marshes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-18 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Mesic Sand Prairie:
Associated Species: Purple Milkweed, Canadian milkvetch and False Boneset
Description: This community consists of a mixture of species associated with upland and lowland relic prairies and savannahs. These mesic, native grasslands occur on level sandy glacial outwash with sandy loam to sandy soils and experience seasonally high water tables.
Threats: This is a globally imperiled (G2) and state critically imperiled (S1) community. The major threats are fire suppression, plowing or other major soil disruption, recreational vehicle use, including illegal off-highway usage, planting competing vegetation, invasive plants and inherent rarity.
Great Lakes Marsh:
Description: Great Lakes marshes occur along all of the Great Lakes, including Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, St. Clair and Superior; they are also found along the connecting rivers, including Detroit, Niagara, St. Clair, St. Lawrence and St. Mary’s. The historical distribution of Great Lakes marshes is likely similar to the current distribution with regional and local decreases caused by anthropogenic disturbance. This habitat can be found adjacent to the Great Lakes in locations sheltered from open water wave effects. Water levels are generally above the surface during the majority of the growing season to an average depth of up to approximately 6.5 feet.
Threats: This is a globally imperiled (G2) and state imperiled (S2) community. Great Lakes marshes are susceptible to hydrologic changes–water control structures–invasive species and recreational pressures and are at risk partially because of inherent rarity.
Northern Fen:
Description: A sedge-and rush-dominated community through which alkaline ground water flows. Additionally, this community frequently contains some acid-loving species, typically found on sphagnum hummocks.
Threats: This community has a state rank of rare/uncommon (S3). Threats include changes in hydrology including water pH, recreational vehicle use, including illegal off-highway usage, and invasive plants.
Poor Fen:
Description: A grass and sedge dominated community similar to the Northern Fen community but water that is lower in alkalinity; species composition is less rich and contains more bog species.
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-19 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Threats: This community has a state rank of rare/uncommon (S3). Changes in hydrology including water pH, recreational vehicle use, including illegal off-highway usage, and invasive plants.
Southern Floodplain Forest:
Associated Species: Butternut and Bog Bluegrass
Description: This community is a deciduous forest on the floodplain of major streams or rivers. Acer saccharinum (silver maple), Fraxinus pensylvanica (green ash), Quercus bicolor (swamp white oak) and Quercus macrocarpa (bur oak) are fairly reliable indicator species for this community. Acer rubrum (red maple), Fraxinus nigra (black ash) and Ulmus americana (American elm) are common codominants, but are not good indicator species for the community.
Threats: This community has a state rank of rare/uncommon (S3). Juglans cinerea viability is threatened by a fungus, for which treatment may be beyond the scope of Forest management.
Cedar Swamp:
Associated Species: False Violet and White Adder's-mouth
Description: A minerotrophic forest dominated by Thuja occidentalis (northern white-cedar). These forests are often found adjacent to streams and lakes or in other nutrient-rich areas.
Threats: Deer browse and harvesting–opening of canopy, change in ground temperature, change in species composition and introduction of invasives.
Hardwood-Conifer Swamp:
Associated Species: False Violet and White Adder's-mouth
Description: A swamp dominated more by hardwood species then conifers. Sometimes found as a transitional community between a coniferous lowland and upland hardwoods, but also located in riparian habitats. Dominant spices include Fraxinus nigra (black ash) and Thuja occidentalis (northern white-cedar). Other common tree species may include Populus grandidentata (big-tooth aspen), Betula papyrifera (paper birch) and Acer rubrum (red maple).
Threats: Alteration of hydrologic function, deer browse and harvesting–opening of canopy, change in ground temperature, change in species composition and introduction of invasives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-20 Huron-Manistee National Forests Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives
Subirrigated Forest:
Associated Species: False Violet and Purple Twayblade
Description: Hardwood or hardwood/conifer forests with a high water table that is at or near the surface seasonally.
Threats: Deer browse and harvesting–opening of canopy, change in ground temperature, change in species composition, introduction of invasives.
Interdunal Wetland:
Associated Species: Northern Appressed Clubmoss and Meadow-Beauty and Tooth-cup
Description: Wet depressions with fluctuating water tables located in open dunes. Communities are dominated by grasses, sedges and shrubs.
Threats: This is a globally very rare (G3?), state imperiled (S2) community. Threats include invasive species, recreational pressure, illegal Off-Highway Vehicle use and inherent rarity.
Great Lakes Barrens:
Description: A coniferous savannah of scattered and clumped trees, and often dense low or creeping shrub layer along the shores of the Great Lakes. Dominant canopy species are Pinus strobus (white pine), P. resinosa (red pine) and P. banksiana jack pine. A low shrub layer dominated chiefly by Juniperus communis is common.
Threats: This is a globally imperiled (G2), and state imperiled (S2) community. Threats include recreational pressure, invasive species, deer browse and inherent rarity.
Wooded Dune/Swale:
Associated Species: Fir Clubmoss and False Violet
Description: This community is found along Great Lakes shorelines and contains a complex of forest and wetland on alternating ridges and swales. The ridges are generally covered by upland forest species while the swales support northern wet meadow, cedar or conifer swamp species or bog vegetation.
Threats: This community has globally very rare (G3) and state rare/uncommon (S3) rankings. Major threats include timber harvesting, recreational pressure, invasive species and deer browse.
Huron-Manistee National Forests B-21 Final Environmental Impact Statement Species Viability Evaluation Species Narratives Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation
Dry Sand Prairie:
Associated Species: Western Silver Aster, Sideoats Grama, False Boneset, Leggett's Pinweed, Furrowed Flax, Hill’s Thistle and Bastard Pennyroyal
Description: This habitat is a special site condition found within dry, level landscapes on outwash sands, sandy glacial lake plains and sandy areas in coarse-textured end moraines. Although this community is sometimes described more broadly, only those areas distinguished by true prairie soils–the Sparta Sand soil type–are included in this community description. Soils are principally loamy sand soils which are more strongly acid than is typical for this prairie soil in other states. As indicated by the high levels of organic material in the soil profile, these areas contain or once contained native grassland communities. Unplowed remnants are often found on slopes.
Threats: This community is ranked as state imperiled (S2) and has a global rank of imperiled/very rare (G2/G3). The main threats to this habitat are fire suppression, plowing or other major soil disruption, recreational vehicle use (including illegal off-highway usage), development, planting competing vegetation and invasive plants.
Species Viability Evaluations for Habitat Groups and Surrogate Species:
Finally, needs for the remaining habitat groups, focusing on the habitat requirements of the group’s focal species, were evaluated and compared to the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended. The Species Viability Evaluations included an assessment of historic and current habitat conditions. Conservation recommendations were developed and proposed when the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, conditions did not appear to provide for long-term species viability. Narratives documenting the evaluations and proposed conservation measures are found in the planning record.
Final Environmental Impact Statement B-22 Huron-Manistee National Forests
APPENDIX C -
RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS Status of Designated Appendix C - Research Natural Areas Research Natural Areas
Appendix C - Research Natural Areas
Status of Designated Research Natural Areas
There are three designated Research Natural Areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Nordhouse Dunes and Newaygo Prairies Research Natural Areas are located on the Manistee National Forest and Hayes Tower Research Natural Area is located on the Huron National Forest.
Status of Candidate and Potential Candidate Research Natural Areas or Unique Areas
The following tables display the status of candidate Research Natural Areas and potential candidate Research Natural Areas or Unique Areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests prior to 2004:
Table C-1. Existing Candidate Research Natural Areas. Candidate Research Natural Area Status Fry Lake Establishment under evaluation Pine Island Marsh Establishment on hold pending land acquisition needed to protect unique features Bear Swamp Environmental Assessment and Establishment Report in Progress
Table C-2. Potential Candidate Research Natural Areas or Unique Areas. Potential Candidate Research Natural Status Area or Unique Area Alley Lake Under Study Arquilla Creek Under Study Big South Environmental Assessment and Establishment Report in Progress Black River Complex Under Study Blockhouse Creek and Blockhouse Under Study Swamp Brandy Brook Environmental Assessment and Establishment Report in Progress Casin Lake Under Study Honawan Lake Forest Under Study Hopper’s Swamp Under Study Hunter’s Lake Under Study
Huron-Manistee National Forests C-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Evaluation Process Appendix C - Research Natural Areas
Table C-2. Potential Candidate Research Natural Areas or Unique Areas (Continued). Potential Candidate Research Natural Status Area or Unique Area Indian Lake Under Study Knapp Prairie Under Study Little Robinson Lake Under Study Loon Lake Under Study Loud Creek Under Study McDonald Creek Forest Under Study McMaster’s Bridge Bog Under Study North Branch White River Under Study O’Brien Lake Forest and O’Brien Lake Under Study Swamp Pearl Lake Under Study Perch Lake Under Study Sischo Prairie Under Study Skeel Creek Prairie Under Study South Branch Bog Under Study South Olga Bog Under Study Timmerman Lake Under Study Toft Lake Under Study Trout Lake Swamp Under Study Valley Road Prairie Under Study White River Under Study Vaughn Lake Under Study Yonker’s Meadow Included in Bear Swamp candidate Research Natural Area
Evaluation Process
In 2004 the following process was used to evaluate the areas listed in Tables C-1 and C-2 for their potential as Research Natural Areas:
The Forests' Leadership Team reviewed recommendations from the report entitled, An Evaluation of Candidate and Potential Candidate Research Natural Areas on the Huron- Manistee National Forest with a focus on Ecosystem Representation (Michigan Natural Features Inventory 2003).
Final Environmental Impact Statement C-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix C - Research Natural Areas Evaluation Results
Guidelines desribed in the April 10, 2000 Draft report entitled, Establishing a Region-Wide Network of Representative Research Natural Areas (RNAs): An Assessment for the Eastern Region’s RNA Framework (USDA-Forest Service and The Nature Conservancy 2000) were used to assess recommendations for candidate Research Natural Areas. The most critical guideline used in the decision-making process was representation; “Specifically, the ecosystems to represent are each alliance in each subsection that occurs on national forest land,” as stated on page 7 of the report.
Evaluation Results
Tables C-3and C-4 identify the post-evaluation status for candidate Research Natural Areas and potential candidate Research Natural Areas or Unique Areas:
Table C-3. Candidate Research Natural Area Evaluation Results. Candidate Research Natural Area Post-evaluation Status Fry Lake Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to duplicate representation Pine Island Marsh Retain as RNA-equivalent Bear Swamp Candidate Research Natural Area
Table C-4. Potential Candidate Research Natural Area or Unique Area Evaluation Results. Potential Candidate Research Natural Post-evaluation Status Area or Unique Area Alley Lake Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to duplicate representation Arquilla Creek Retain as RNA-equivalent Big South Candidate Research Natural Area Black River Complex Candidate Research Natural Area Blockhouse Creek and Blockhouse Candidate Research Natural Area Swamp Brandy Brook Candidate Research Natural Area Casin Lake Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to private ownership Honawan Lake Forest Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to duplicate representation Hopper’s Swamp Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to duplicate representation
Huron-Manistee National Forests C-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Evaluation Results Appendix C - Research Natural Areas
Table C-4. Potential Candidate Research Natural Area or Unique Area Evaluation Results (Continued). Potential Candidate Research Natural Post-evaluation Status Area or Unique Area Hunter’s Lake Candidate Research Natural Area Indian Lake Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to duplicate representation Knapp Prairie Retain as RNA-equivalent Little Robinson Lake Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to duplicate representation Loon Lake Candidate Research Natural Area Loud Creek Candidate Research Natural Area McDonald Creek Forest Candidate Research Natural Area McMaster’s Bridge Bog Candidate Research Natural Area North Branch White River Candidate Research Natural Area O’Brien Lake Forest and O’Brien Lake Candidate Research Natural Area Swamp Pearl Lake Candidate Research Natural Area Perch Lake Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to degraded conditions Sischo Prairie Retain as RNA-equivalent Skeel Creek Prairie Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to private ownership South Branch Bog Candidate Research Natural Area South Olga Bog Candidate Research Natural Area Timmerman Lake Dropped from candidate Research Natural Area status due to duplicate representation/private ownership Toft Lake Candidate Research Natural Area Trout Lake Swamp Candidate Research Natural Area Valley Road Prairie Retain as RNA-equivalent White River (Sischo Prairie) Retain as RNA-equivalent Vaughn Lake Candidate Research Natural Area Yonker’s Meadow Included in Bear Swamp candidate Research Natural Area
Final Environmental Impact Statement C-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Candidate Research Natural Appendix C - Research Natural Areas Area Descriptions
Candidate Research Natural Area Descriptions
Table C-5 describes those areas identified as candidate Research Natural Areas.
Table C-5. Candidate Research Natural Area Descriptions. Candidate Research Description Natural Area Bear Swamp This area contains three high-quality natural communities: a rich (includes Yonker’s Meadow) conifer swamp, a southern swamp and intermittent wetlands. 2,139 acres Five rare plant species and one rare animal species are known to inhabit these areas. Bear Swamp is large enough to study communities and species at a landscape scale. Big South The Big South area contains several vegetative communities (includes Whelan Lake) including a bog, intermittent wetland, oak-pine barrens, southern 1,842 acres floodplain forest and emergent marsh. This area represents a large, diverse, highly undisturbed floodplain with high floral and faunal diversity. Inclusion of portions of upland areas adjacent to the floodplain provide adequate landscape context for study of ecological processes. Black River Complex This area along the Lake Huron shoreline contains a globally 750 acres rare wooded dune and swale complex which consists of a series of low ridges, approximately three to six feet in height, that are separated by wet swales. Second growth upland forests of paper birch, red maple, red ash and aspen dominate the ridges; swales are dominated by a sparse canopy of alder, black ash and northern white cedar, and support a diverse ground layer. This area also contains approximately one half mile of Lake Huron shoreline, which may facilitate additional studies of shoreline processes. Blockhouse Swamp/Creek Blockhouse Swamp contains a rich conifer swamp and a small 1,010 acres mesic northern forest. The rich conifer swamp is dominated by second growth northern white cedar with occasional bigtooth aspen, paper birch, red maple and black ash also occurring within the canopy. Balsam fir is common in the understory, occasionally forming thickets and ground layer diversity is high. Although small, the mesic northern forest contains old-growth white pine and occasional red pine. The size of this area will allow communities and species to be studied at a landscape scale.
Huron-Manistee National Forests C-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement Candidate Research Natural Area Descriptions Appendix C - Research Natural Areas
Table C-5. Candidate Research Natural Area Descriptions (Continued). Candidate Research Description Natural Area Brandybrook The Brandybrook area is located on poorly drained glacial 1,300 acres outwash sands and includes a complex of wetland communities, of which, five are considered high-quality natural communities. Represented wetlands include bog, muskeg, poor conifer swamp, rich conifer swamp and hardwood conifer swamp. Although hydrologic processes have been altered in the bog community, the majority of the area can be studied as representation of unaltered conditions. Hunter’s Lake This area contains a shallow lake basin that supports an 28 acres intermittent wetland with fluctuating water levels. Jack pine dominates the sandy uplands surrounding the basin. This wetland is one of the larger unmanipulated wetlands of its type found on the Mio Ranger District and as such serves as a good representative area. Loon Lake The Loon Lake area occurs on sandy outwash and contains 439 acres numerous wet depressions, several of which support globally imperiled coastal plain marshes. Five rare plant species are documented within this area as well. Loon Lake will provide an opportunity to study these rare species and communities. Loud Creek This area contains a rich conifer swamp dominated by northern 175 acres white cedar. The rich conifer swamp occurs within a narrow outwash channel of Loud Creek, which runs through the center of the area. The area contains a moderate to high level of diversity and will offer the opportunity to study a wetland type that is suffering from poor regeneration state-wide. McDonald Creek Forest The McDonald Creek area contains a dry-mesic northern forest 103 acres with mature white pine, aspen and some red pine. It is surrounded by spruce and cedar swamps on all sides. It is currently the best identified representative of white pine-aspen forest located in the Harrisville Moraines Subsection. McMaster’s Bridge Bog This area contains a diverse, second growth, rich conifer swamp 85 acres with good cedar regeneration. Northern white cedar, black spruce and tamarack are the primary canopy species. The rich conifer swamp is relatively intact and therefore a good example of this type within the Mio Outwash Plains Subsection. North Branch White River A series of three northern wet meadows occur within this 450 acres outwash channel of the North Branch of the White River. The meadows are dominated by Carex lacustris and speckled alder and appear to be undergoing succession to northern shrub thicket (alder thicket) as a result of fire suppression. This area will offer an excellent opportunity to study management of grass-dominated wetlands in a landscape context.
Final Environmental Impact Statement C-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests Candidate Research Natural Appendix C - Research Natural Areas Area Descriptions
Table C-5. Candidate Research Natural Area Descriptions (Continued). Candidate Research Description Natural Area O’Brien Lake Forest and This area contains a dry-mesic northern forest dominated by red Swamp pine, some of which are over 100 years old, and a poor conifer 130 acres swamp dominated by black spruce. The poor conifer swamp occurs along the southern shore of O'Brien Lake and extends to the Au Sable River, where it turns into a river floodplain forest. This area contains the best known example of a poor conifer swamp in the Mio Outwash Plains Subsection. Pearl Lake The Pearl Lake area contains a poor conifer swamp dominated 49 acres by black spruce. At this time it is the best representation of this type of wetland forest not occurring on private land within the Newaygo Outwash and Ice Contact Subsection. Toft Lake The Toft Lake area contains a small lake and a relict conifer 168 acres swamp. This wetland is strongly influenced by calcareous groundwater and contains numerous seeps and a variety of vegetation zones. White pine, tamarack, and red maple dominate the eastern portion of the wetland while the western portion supports a wet savannah of black spruce and tamarack with a ground layer of northern fen vegetation. South Branch (Foley) Bog This area contains a large, high quality bog displaying good, 104 acres distinct, vegetative zones. Abundant species include Carex oligosperma, sphagnum mosses and leatherleaf; black spruce and tamarack dominate a small area of the bog. This area serves as an excellent example of this wetland type in the Mio Outwash Plains Subsection. South Olga Bog South Olga Bog is located in the Big Rapids Loamy Moraine 30 acres Subsection and, at this time, is the best representation of this type of wetland on federal land in that subsection. Although the size is small, this type of feature is often small and inclusion of adjacent features is not necessary to preserve the integrity of the area. Trout Lake Swamp Trout Lake Swamp contains a second-growth hardwood-conifer 185 acres swamp dominated by northern white cedar, black ash, balsam fir and black spruce; speckled alder is abundant in the understory. This area is primarily in an undegraded state and contains a high level of diversity. This size and character of this area afford an excellent opportunity for study. Vaughn Lake This area contains a high quality, highly diverse bog surrounded 200 acres by a forested zone of tamarack, black spruce, white pine and red maple. The sandy uplands around the forested wet zone support a dry-mesic forest. Vaughan Lake provides an excellent opportunity to study wetland features in a broader ecological context.
Huron-Manistee National Forests C-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX D -
ROADLESS/WILDERNESS INVENTORY
Appendix D - Roadless/Wilderness Inventory Background
Appendix D - Roadless/Wilderness Inventory
Background
Roadless and Wilderness Areas were evaluated during the development of the 1986 Forest Plan.
Two areas were evaluated in the 1986 Forest Plan and carried through the planning period - the Sensibar Tract (Nordhouse Dunes) and Bear Swamp. Since the plan was signed, the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness has been established and amended into the 1986 Forest Plan (Amendment #7, December 20, 1988) and will not be addressed any further in this documentation. Bear Swamp has been carried throughout the planning period as a special area.
Review of the Huron-Manistee National Forests
The Forests have a net acreage change of approximately 25,000 acres since the 1986 Forest Plan was signed. The ownership of the Huron-Manistee National Forests is very fragmented. National Forest ownership of the Huron National Forest is 63 percent and the Manistee National Forest is 40 percent (FS-383 dated January 2004). This fragmented nature of the Forests does not lend itself to large blocks of undeveloped lands, and many areas of National Forest System lands are bounded by county roads, utilities, or state or private ownerships.
Process
Criteria for identifying roadless and potential wilderness areas in the eastern United States recognize that most land shows some signs of human activity and modification even though they have shown highly recuperative capabilities. The purpose of identifying roadless areas during the revision of the Forest Plan is to identify areas for potential wilderness. This is supported by the 1982 Code of Federal Regulations [36 CFR 219, section 219.17 (a)] which states, “…roadless areas within the National Forest System shall be evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the forest planning process….” Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction, in addition to further clarification by the Regional Forester in a letter dated August 13, 1997, provides the framework for identification of roadless areas.
Step 1 - Determine Areas to be Evaluated:
• Using Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques, areas were mapped on the Forests that were contiguous and met the following:
o contain more than 5,000 acres. o contain less than 5,000 acres but: are manageable in their natural condition, are self-contained,
Huron-Manistee National Forests D-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Process Appendix D - Roadless/Wilderness Inventory
are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, or roadless areas regardless of their size.
• GIS Procedures-The Forests’ maps were queried for areas greater than 2,500 acres that were contiguous and had no through roads (passenger vehicle travel). This included all levels 1 through 5 roads and other roads not under Forest Service jurisdiction, such as county and state roads. Very few areas were identified that met this coarse screen.
• Roads - Improved roads included other jurisdictional roads, such as state, county, private and Forest Service, that are open and maintained for travel. These account for over 95 percent of the roads on the Forests. These are roads that can be driven by passenger vehicles. Note: Level 1 roads (closed) were also reviewed in this analysis because some are used for administrative purposes.
• The Huron-Manistee National Forests had a limited number of areas greater than 2,500 acres. A query of areas greater than 2,000 acres provided more areas and was the basis and starting point of the review. There were 36 areas identified as greater than 2,000 acres, of which three were greater than 5,000 acres (Table D-1).
Table D-1. Contiguous Areas Greater Than 2,000 Acres. Area Acres Area Acres Briar Hills North 2,005 Lower Manistee 2,500 Briar Hills South 2,025 Comstock 2,581 Whitewater Creek 2,035 Wallace Creek 2,634 Pentwater 2,043 Croswell 2,668 Lower Pine River 2,051 Winnepesaug 2,684 Benton 2,064 Condon West 2,750 Oxford 2,097 Upper Manistee River 2,800 Pine Lake 2,100 South Cooke 2,819 Lower Au Sable 2,102 Big Creek 2,844 Whalen Lake 2,107 Bear Swamp 3,246 Maltbly Hills 2,118 Reid Lake SPNM 1/ 3,423 Blockhouse Creek 2,124 Stiles Swamp 3,479 Au Sable River 2,199 Upper Pine River 3,695 Caberfae 2,290 McGillis Creek 3,836 Hungerford 2,313 Cooke Potential SPNM 4,003 Brandy Brook 2,319 White River 5,568 Wilber Creek 2,427 Hoist Lakes SPNM 8,780 Black River 2,438 Au Sable River SPNM 10,045 1/ SPNM = Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement D-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix D - Roadless/Wilderness Inventory Process
Step 2 - Initial Screening:
Initial screening eliminated 24 areas based on shape (long or amoeba); existence of a county or state road that bisected an area; or ownership breaks in the middle with a small corridor of land connecting the areas. Management for roadless values was not viable in these areas due to the “breaks.” The Forests reviewed each area as possible roadless units but found that they were too small to manage for roadless values. The following 12 areas remained in the potential inventory:
Table D-2. Contiguous Areas Greater Than 2000 Acres Which Could be Managed for Roadless Values (Shape and Ownership). Area Acres Area Acres Briar Hills North 2,005 Winnepesaug 2,684 Briar Hills South 2,025 Condon West 2,750 Benton 2,064 Reid Lake SPNM 1/ 3,423 Maltbly Hills 2,118 McGillis Creek 3,836 Wilber Creek 2,427 Cooke Potential SPNM 4,003 Comstock 2,581 Hoist Lakes SPNM 8,780 1/ SPNM = Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Area.
Step 3 - Determination of One-Half Mile Per Thousand Acres:
The mileage of roads within the 12 potential inventory areas per thousand acres was calculated. Those areas with road densities exceeding one-half mile per thousand acres were dropped from consideration with only three potential inventory areas remaining.
Table D-3. Potential Inventory Areas. Area 1/ Acres Reid Lake SPNM 3,423 Cooke Potential SPNM 4,003 Hoist Lakes SPNM 8,780 1/ SPNM = Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Area.
Step 4 - Review the Human Influences and Improvements of the Areas:
An interdisciplinary review of the remaining three areas was completed for known utilities, mineral ownership, non-native species, harvesting activities, dwellings, human influences, designated motorized trails and existence and maintenance of other improvements, such as impoundments.
Huron-Manistee National Forests D-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Summary Appendix D - Roadless/Wilderness Inventory
Results
Hoist Lakes and Reid Lake semiprimitive nonmotorized areas have less than one-half mile of road per 1,000 acres, but also contain impoundments, one in Hoist Lakes and two in Reid Lake semiprimitive nonmotorized areas, that will be maintained for other resources, such as fisheries and wildlife. They also have evidence of harvesting and planting and an obvious improved road system in place for the maintenance of the impoundments.
Cooke potential semiprimitive nonmotorized area also has less than one-half mile of road per 1,000 acres but is located on Cooke Pond. This impoundment of the Au Sable River is heavily influenced by summertime motorized traffic on the impoundment, including powerboats and jet skis, and on the county road systems adjoining the area. There is also a private road that accesses private land in this area. It is not conducive to wilderness values because the amount of motorized watercraft on the impoundments and motorized traffic on the county roads.
Summary
The results of the inventory did not identify any areas as eligible for further evaluation.
Table D-4 summarizes the evaluation of all criteria identified in FSH 1909.12 for the three areas having less than one-half mile of road per one thousand acres.
Table D-4. Summary of Potential Areas Evaluated for Roadless Inventory on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Area Name Evaluation Criteria Hoist Lakes Reid Lake Cooke Potential Semiprimitive Semiprimitive Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Nonmotorized Nonmotorized Acres 8,780 3,423 4,003 Land is regaining a natural, Yes Yes Yes untrammeled appearance Improvements existing in the area No - No - 2 Yes are being affected by the forces of 1 Impoundment Impoundments nature rather than humans and are disappearing or muted The area has existing or attainable No No Yes National Forest System ownership patterns, both surface and subsurface, that could ensure Wilderness values
Final Environmental Impact Statement D-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix D - Roadless/Wilderness Inventory Summary
Table D-4. Summary of Potential Areas Evaluated for Roadless Inventory on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Continued). Area Name Evaluation Criteria Hoist Lakes Reid Lake Cooke Potential Semiprimitive Semiprimitive Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Nonmotorized Nonmotorized The location is conducive to Yes Yes No perpetuation of Wilderness values The area contains no more than 2.6 miles 0.9 mile managed 1.37 miles - one-half mile of improved road for managed of of 5.99 total 0.34 mile/1,000 each 1,000 acres, and is under 18.92 total miles - miles - 0.3 mile/ acres Forest Service jurisdiction (Miles of 0.3 mile/1,000 1,000 acres road - density) acres No more than 15 percent of the Yes Yes Yes area is in non-native planted vegetation Harvesting has occurred on 20 Yes Yes Yes percent or less of the area within the past 10 years The area contains only a few Yes Yes Yes dwellings on private lands and the location of these dwellings and their access needs insulate their effects on the natural conditions of National Forest System lands
Huron-Manistee National Forests D-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX E -
WILD AND SCENIC RIVER INVENTORY UPDATE Appendix E - Wild and Scenic River Inventory Update Background
Appendix E - Wild and Scenic River Inventory Update
Background
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:
Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to preserve select rivers’ free-flowing condition, water quality and outstandingly remarkable values. The most important provision of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is protecting rivers from the harmful effects of water resources projects. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act also directs that each river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) be administered in a manner to protect and enhance a river’s outstanding natural and cultural values. It allows existing uses of a river to continue and future uses to be considered, so long as existing or proposed use does not conflict with protecting river values. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act also directs building partnerships among landowners, river users, tribal nations and all levels of government.
Beyond the immediate protection afforded to the eight rivers in the enabling legislation, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act established a process for building a legacy of protected rivers. Rivers may be identified for study by an act of Congress under Section 5(a), or through federal agency- initiated study under Section 5(d)(1). By 2004, Congress had authorized 138 rivers for study. Section 5(d)(1) directs federal agencies to consider the potential of Wild and Scenic Rivers in their planning process, and its application has resulted in numerous individual river designations, and state and area-specific legislation.
Both Sections 5(a) and 5(d)(1) studies require determinations to be made regarding a river’s eligibility, classification and suitability. Eligibility and classification represent an inventory of existing conditions. Eligibility is an evaluation of whether a river is free-flowing and possesses one or more outstandingly remarkable values. If found eligible, the current development level of a river is analyzed, such as water resources projects, shoreline development and accessibility, and a recommendation is made that it be placed into one or more of three classes – wild, scenic or recreational.
The final procedural step, suitability, provides the basis for determining whether to recommend a river as part of the National System. Rivers are added to the National System by act of Congress or by the Secretary of the Interior. Secretarial designation requires that a river be a part of a state river protection system and the state governor to make application to the Secretary.
Nationally 163 rivers are protected, consisting of over 11,300 river miles. Within the Forests’ boundaries there are five rivers included in the Wild and Scenic River System. These Rivers include: Pere Marquette, Au Sable, Pine, Manistee and Bear Creek; totaling 147.5 miles.
Planning History:
In July 1988, in response to an appeal of the 1986 Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) by the American Rivers Conservation Council, the Huron-Manistee National
Huron-Manistee National Forests E-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E - Wild and Scenic Forest Plan Revision River Inventory Update
Forests agreed to complete studies for the five inventoried rivers within the boundaries of the National Forests. The Forests also agreed to identify any other rivers that may be eligible using the criteria of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Three of the five rivers were determined to be eligible: the Little Muskegon, Muskegon (2 segments) and the White. A segment of the White River not identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory was also analyzed and determined to be eligible. These rivers are currently being managed to protect or enhance those values that made them eligible for the National System. The Pentwater and the upper portion of the Muskegon River were determined to be not eligible, and the East Branch of the Au Gres was not classified because there was no federal ownership.
Table E-1 lists the eligible rivers by segment and length, outstandingly remarkable values, and classification on National Forest System lands.
Table E-1. Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers. Outstandingly River Segment Length Remarkable Classification (miles) Values Little Croton Dam to Morley 25 Scenic Scenic Muskegon impoundment Muskegon Croton Dam to City of 14 Scenic and Recreation Newaygo Archeological White (3 White Cloud downstream to 75 Recreational Recreation segments) Forest boundary and Archeological Forest boundary near Hesperia downstream to Forest boundary
North Branch from mouth to McLaren Lake
In March 1992, the Michigan Scenic Rivers Act was passed. This act designated the Pine River and Bear Creek as National Scenic Rivers; the Manistee River as a National Recreational River; and 42 miles of the Little Manistee and 75 miles of the White Rivers as Study Rivers. Management plans for the three designated rivers were completed. The Little Manistee River and the White River studies have not been completed at this time.
Forest Plan Revision
In 2004, the Forest Plan Revision provided the opportunity to review the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, the Michigan Scenic Rivers Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to determine if there were any changes to the status of rivers within the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Table E-2 summarizes the review and recommendations for designated rivers on the Forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement E-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix E - Wild and Scenic River Inventory Update Forest Plan Revision
Table E-2. Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. River Review Assessment Recommendation Pere Marquette Current management plan is out Update the Pere Marquette Plan River of date and needs to be revised outside of the Forests’ Plan revision process. Au Sable River Current river corridor boundary Change the management area does not correlate with physical boundary to coincide with McKinley features on the ground. and South River Roads.
Pine River Current management direction is Place the lands between the Pine adequate for implementation. River National Scenic River’s western Stronach Dam has been removed boundary to M-55 in “lands in holding” and an additional segment of the for potential addition to the Pine river may be eligible. National Scenic River. Manistee River Management plan is current. No changes recommended. Bear Creek Management plan is current. No changes recommended.
Table E-3 summarizes the review and recommendations for the Study Rivers on the Forests.
Table E-3. Huron-Manistee National Forests Study Wild and Scenic Rivers. River Review Assessment Recommendation Little Muskegon Free-flowing conditions and Complete the suitability determination River outstandingly remarkable values outside of Forests’ Plan revision. have been protected by Forests’ Continue protection of the river’s Plan Standards and Guidelines. attributes. Muskegon Free-flowing conditions and Complete the suitability determination River outstandingly remarkable values outside of Forests’ Plan revision. have been protected by Forests’ Continue protection of the river’s Plan Standards and Guidelines. attributes. White River Michigan Scenic Rivers Act Public Complete the river study as staffing Law 102-249,of 1991 identified as and funding become available; a Study River. delineate a river corridor; place in Management Area 9.2 to ensure protection of the values for which it may be designated. Little Manistee Michigan Scenic Rivers Act of Complete the river study as staffing River 1991, Public Law 102-249 and funding become available; identified as a Study River. delineate a river corridor; place in Management Area 9.2 to ensure protection of the values for which it may be designated. Pine River Free-flowing conditions and Complete the suitability determination outstandingly remarkable values outside of Forests’ Plan revision. have been protected by Forests’ Place the lands between the Pine Plan Standards and Guidelines. River National Scenic River’s western boundary to M-55 in Management Area 9.2 to ensure protection of this segment for potential addition to the Pine National Scenic River.
Huron-Manistee National Forests E-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E - Wild and Scenic Forest Plan Revision River Inventory Update
Summary:
The segment of the Pine River between Highway M-55 and the Pine River Scenic boundary has been identified for inclusion in the National System. This is a result of the removal of Stronach Dam. No other new rivers were identified for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Eligibility of this segment of the Pine River has been completed and recommendation is to classify this segment as Scenic. The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines will protect the free- flowing condition, the outstandingly remarkable values, and the Scenic classification of this segment of the Pine River.
The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines will protect the free-flowing condition, the outstandingly remarkable values and the classifications of the rivers that have been determined to be eligible - the Muskegon, Little Muskegon, and the Pine Addition - and the two Study Rivers - the White and the Little Manistee - until the suitability analyses or studies are completed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement E-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests
APPENDIX F -
FEDERAL THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES
Appendix F - Threatened, Endangered and Regional Forester Sensitive Species Background
Appendix F – Federal Threatened, Endangered and Regional Forester Sensitive Species
Background
Summary of Effects:
Current List of Species:
In addition to timber, recreation and other goods and services, the Huron-Manistee National Forests provide habitat for native and desirable non-native species. Plant and animal species listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act can be viewed on the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service's Region 9 web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes.
The Regional Forester Sensitive Species List contains those species that occur within the proclamation boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forests which are candidates for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act; were de-listed under the Endangered Species Act in the last five years; have global (G), trinomial (T) or national (N) ranks of 1 – 3 by the Nature Conservancy and Nature Serve (see http://www.natureserve.org); or are considered sensitive based on Risk Evaluations. The Regional Forester Sensitive Species list can also be viewed at the above referenced Forest Service web site.
Since species may be listed or de-listed as threatened or endangered and added or removed from the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list at any time, the most effective way to obtain current information regarding these lists is to consult the Region 9 web site.
Summary of Effects:
Effects of the alternatives on threatened, endangered, Regional Forester Sensitive Species and other species with viability concerns were analyzed in the Biological Evaluation for the Forest Plan. Federally listed, threatened and endangered, species were evaluated individually. Regional Forester Sensitive Species and other species of concern were grouped according to associated habitats and a representative or “focal species” for each group was analyzed. A summary of the determinations associated with these analyses is presented in Tables F-1 and F-2. Additional information on focal species and species habitat grouping can be found in Appendix B: Species Viability Evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Additional information on effects and determinations can be found in the Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment in the Forest Planning Record.
Huron-Manistee National Forests F-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F - Threatened, Endangered Background and Regional Forester Sensitive Species
Table F-1. Federally Listed Species. Determination1/ Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Mammals Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) ILAA ILAA ILAA Birds Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucopcephalus) ILAA ILAA ILAA Piping Plover (Great Lakes Population) ILAA ILAA ILAA (Charadrius melodus) Piping Plover Critical Habitat (Great Lakes NLAA NLAA NLAA Population) (Charadrius melodus) Insects Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa ILAA ILAA ILAA samuelis) Plants Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) ILAA ILAA ILAA 1/Determinations of the likely effects of Forest Plan alternatives on federally listed species. (Refer to the Biological Evaluation for more information.) ILAA (Is Likely to Adversely Affect) is the determination arrived at in a biological assessment when the overall effect of the alternative is beneficial to the listed species, but it is also likely to cause some adverse effects. NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Table F-2. Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Other Species of Concern. Rare Community or Habitat of Determination1/ Concern Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Rare Plant Communities Oak Barrens MILT MINT MINT Oak-Pine Barrens MILT MINT MINT Pine Barrens MILT MINT MINT Dry Sand Prairie MILT MINT MINT Great Lakes Marsh NI NI NI Open Dune MINT MINT MINT Interdunal Wetland MINT MINT MINT Wooded Dune and Swale Complex MINT MINT MINT Great Lakes Barrens MINT MINT MINT Coastal Plain Marsh MILT MINT MINT Intermittent Wetland MILT MINT MINT Mesic Sand Prairie MILT MINT MINT Northern Wet-Mesic Prairie MILT MINT MINT 1/Determinations of the likely effects of Revised Forest Plan alternatives on rare plant communities and other habitats supporting plants and animals of concern. (See Biological Evaluation for more information.) Note that the “habitats supporting plants and animals of concern” represent habitat needs for groups of Regional Forester Sensitive Species and other species of concern as described in Appendix B: Species Viability Evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The determinations of effect are defined as follows: No Impact (NI) = no effect expected; May Impact Not Likely to Trend (MINT) = may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area; May Impact Likely to Trend (MILT) = may impact individuals and is likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix F - Threatened, Endangered and Regional Forester Sensitive Species Background
Table F-2. Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Other Species of Concern. (Continued). Rare Community or Habitat of Determination1/ Concern Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Rare Plant Communities (Continued) Northern Fen MILT MINT MINT Poor Fen MILT MINT MINT Southern Floodplain Forest MINT MINT MINT Cedar Swamp MINT MINT MINT Habitats Supporting Plant Species of Concern Riparian Forested MINT MINT MINT Riparian Non-Forested MINT MINT MINT Subirrigated Moist Thicket MINT MINT MINT Subirrigated Forest MINT MINT MINT Wet Exposed Mineral Soils MINT MINT MINT Localized Wet Depressions (Swales/Vernal pools) MILT MINT MINT Marsh MINT MINT MINT Wet-mesic prairie/meadow MINT MINT MINT Swamp MINT MINT MINT Bogs MINT MINT MINT Aquatic Pond/Lake MINT MINT MINT Lake Shorelines MINT MINT MINT Rich Mesic Forest/Clay-Loam MILT MINT MINT Forest with Needle Duff MILT MINT MINT Hardwood Openings MINT MINT MINT Semi-open Mesic Depressions MINT MINT MINT Open Dry Sand MILT MINT MINT Habitats Supporting Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Concern (focal species) Beach & Dunes (Piping plover) MINT MINT MINT Rivers & Streams (Wood turtle) MINT MINT MINT Ponds & Lakes Large (Common MINT MINT MINT loon) Ponds & Lakes Smaller (Blanding MINT MINT MINT turtle) 1/Determinations of the likely effects of Revised Forest Plan alternatives on rare plant communities and other habitats supporting plants and animals of concern. (See Biological Evaluation for more information.) Note that the “habitats supporting plants and animals of concern” represent habitat needs for groups of Regional Forester Sensitive Species and other species of concern as described in Appendix B: Species Viability Evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The determinations of effect are defined as follows: No Impact (NI) = no effect expected; May Impact Not Likely to Trend (MINT) = may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area; May Impact Likely to Trend (MILT) = may impact individuals and is likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area.
Huron-Manistee National Forests F-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F - Threatened, Endangered Background and Regional Forester Sensitive Species
Table F-2. Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Other Species of Concern. (Continued). Rare Community or Habitat of Determination1/ Concern Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A Habitats Supporting Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Concern (focal species) (Continued) Marsh (American bittern) MILT MINT MINT Marsh (Northern harrier) MILT MINT MINT Bogs & Fens (Olive-sided MINT MINT MINT flycatcher) Shrub/Shrub Wetlands (Golden- MILT MINT MINT winged warbler) Riparian/Lowland Hardwood MINT MINT MINT Floodplains Mid-Late (Cerulean warbler) Riparian/Lowland Hardwood MINT MINT MINT Floodplains Mid-Late (Red- shouldered hawk) Riparian/Lowland Hardwood MINT MINT MINT Floodplains Early-Mid (Eastern massasauga) Lowland conifer/boreal (Black- MILT MINT MINT backed woodpecker) Oak/Pine (Red-headed MINT MINT MINT woodpecker) Oak/Pine Early-Mid (Whip-poor- MINT MINT MINT will) Mixed hardwoods Late (Northern MINT MINT MINT goshawk) Mixed hardwoods Late (Wood MINT MINT MINT thrush) Aspen/Birch Early (Golden-winged MINT MINT MINT warbler) Red/White Pine/Spruce (American MINT MINT MINT marten) Jack pine Early-Open (Michigan MINT MINT MINT bog grasshopper) Jack pine Mid-successional MINT MINT MINT (Kirtland’s warbler) 1/Determinations of the likely effects of Revised Forest Plan alternatives on rare plant communities and other habitats supporting plants and animals of concern. (See Biological Evaluation for more information.) Note that the “habitats supporting plants and animals of concern” represent habitat needs for groups of Regional Forester Sensitive Species and other species of concern as described in Appendix B: Species Viability Evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The determinations of effect are defined as follows: No Impact (NI) = no effect expected; May Impact Not Likely to Trend (MINT) = may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area; May Impact Likely to Trend (MILT) = may impact individuals and is likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix F - Threatened, Endangered and Regional Forester Sensitive Species Background
Table F-2. Regional Forester Sensitive Species and Other Species of Concern. (Continued). Rare Community or Habitat of Determination1/ Concern Alternative A Alternative A Alternative A Habitats Supporting Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Concern (focal species) (Continued) Jack pine Mid-Late successional MINT MINT MINT (Spruce grouse) Pine barrens (Dusted skipper) MILT MILT MINT Oak/Pine barrens (Red-headed MILT MILT MINT woodpecker) Grasslands Large Openlands MILT MINT MINT (Henslow’s sparrow) Grasslands Large Openlands MILT MINT MINT (Bobolink) Grasslands Smaller Openlands MINT MINT MINT (Eastern box turtle) Dry Prairie Large (Upland MILT MILT MINT sandpiper) Dry Prairie Large or Small (Ottoe MILT MILT MILT skipper) Habitats Supporting Aquatic MINT MINT MINT Species of Concern (focal species) Large Rivers (Lake Sturgeon) MINT MINT MINT Medium to Large Sized Streams MINT MINT MINT (Channel darter) Clear, Cool Headwaters of River MINT MINT MINT Systems (Creek heelsplitter) Clear Vegetated Lakes and Vege- MINT MINT MINT tated Pools and Runs of Creeks and Rivers (Pugnose Shiner) 1/Determinations of the likely effects of Revised Forest Plan alternatives on rare plant communities and other habitats supporting plants and animals of concern. (See Biological Evaluation for more information.) Note that the “habitats supporting plants and animals of concern” represent habitat needs for groups of Regional Forester Sensitive Species and other species of concern as described in Appendix B: Species Viability Evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The determinations of effect are defined as follows: No Impact (NI) = no effect expected; May Impact Not Likely to Trend (MINT) = may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area; May Impact Likely to Trend (MILT) = may impact individuals and is likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area.
Huron-Manistee National Forests F-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX G -
MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES
Appendix G - Management Indicator Species Recommendations
Appendix G - Management Indicator Species
Recommendations
The Huron-Manistee National Forests have identified and selected six Management Indicator Species: ruffed grouse, Kirtland’s warbler, bald eagle, Karner blue butterfly, brook trout and mottled sculpin.
In general, the Forests followed Region 9 direction for selecting Management Indicator Species as outlined in Managing R9 Plan Revisions: 5. Revision Tools: Ecological. Management Indicator Species. The six Management Indicator Species were selected from an initial list of 30 potential Management Indicator Species. The initial list consisted of the 16 Management Indicator Species identified in the 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, plus additional species indicative of vegetation communities that would potentially be altered compositionally or in spatial extent by forest management activities. Each of the 30 potential Management Indicator Species was evaluated against the four criteria for “ideal” Management Indicator Species as provided in R9 direction. If any of the four criteria were not met a species was considered unsuitable as a Management Indicator Species.
The results of the 30 potential MIS species evaluated against “ideal” Management Indicator Species criteria are presented in Table G-1. Eight species met all four criteria, but two of these were determined to be unsuitable Management Indicator Species for reasons shown in Table G- 2. As stated, the remaining six are Management Indicator Species for the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Table G-1. Potential Management Indicator Species (MIS) Evaluated Against Four Criteria for Ideal MIS as Listed on the R9 Website.
If individual species failed to meet any of the criteria they were considered unsuitable as MIS. If all criteria were met the species was considered potentially suitable. Criteria are as follows: Criterion I: Habitat and population information was known and complete regarding habitat use, threats and limiting factors. Criterion II: Sampling protocols were in place sufficient to develop population estimates and trend information, and past and current data for the Forests exists. Criterion III: There is a well-documented cause and effect relationship from our management actions and changes in populations on our Forests. Criterion IV: The species played an important ecological role or changes in its population were known to represent changes in other species with similar habitat requirements. Criteria for “Ideal MIS” MIS Potential MIS Criterion I Criterion II Criterion III Criterion IV Suitability White-tailed deer Yes Yes No No unsuitable potentially Ruffed grouse Yes Yes Yes Yes1 suitable Gray squirrel Yes No No No unsuitable Chestnut-sided warbler Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable
Huron-Manistee National Forests G-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Recommendations Appendix G - Management Indicator Species
Table G-1. Potential Management Indicator Species (MIS) Evaluated Against Four Criteria for Ideal MIS as Listed on the R9 Website (Continued). Criteria for “Ideal MIS” MIS Potential MIS Criterion I Criterion II Criterion III Criterion IV Suitability Black-throated green warbler Yes No Yes No unsuitable Lincoln's sparrow Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable Eastern bluebird Yes No No Yes unsuitable Pileated woodpecker Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable Ducks Not specific enough in 1986 Forest Plan, as amended; proposed use of wood duck only. potentially Kirtland's warbler Yes Yes Yes Yes suitable potentially Bald eagle Yes Yes Yes Yes suitable Beaver Yes No No Yes unsuitable potentially Brown trout3 Yes Yes Yes Yes suitable Steelhead Yes No No2 Yes unsuitable Bluegill (or prey) Yes No No Yes Unsuitable Walleye (or predator) Yes No No Yes unsuitable potentially Pitcher's thistle Yes Yes Yes Yes suitable Black bear Yes No No No unsuitable Common loon Yes Yes No No unsuitable Wood duck Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable American bittern Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable Nashville warbler Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable Upland sandpiper Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable Indiana bat Yes No No Yes unsuitable potentially Piping plover Yes Yes Yes Yes suitable potentially Karner blue butterfly Yes Yes Yes Yes suitable Bobolink Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable June grass No No No Yes unsuitable Spotted knapweed Yes No Yes Yes unsuitable Blue cohosh No No No Yes unsuitable Need potentially Mottled sculpin Yes baseline Yes Yes suitable potentially Brook trout Yes Yes Yes Yes suitable potentially Brown trout Yes Yes Yes Yes suitable 1Represents early successional species. 2Migratory species. 3The 1986 Forest Plan, as amended, has brown trout and brook trout as MIS.
Final Environmental Impact Statement G-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix G - Management Indicator Species Recommendations
Table G-2. Final Decision of Management Indicator Species (MIS) Suitability and Rationale. Final MIS Potential MIS Species Suitability Rationale Species populations will indicate a large proportion of future vegetation management Ruffed grouse Suitable activities on the Forests. Species populations will indicate a large proportion of future vegetation management Kirtland's warbler Suitable activities on the Forests. Species populations will indicate mature habitat Bald eagle Suitable across the Forests. Habitat is very localized and of very limited Pitcher's thistle Not Suitable spatial extent across the Forests. Habitat is very localized and of very limited Piping plover Not Suitable spatial extent across the Forests. Species populations will indicate a large proportion of future vegetation management Karner blue butterfly Suitable activities on the Forests. Species represents aquatic habitats, has an adequate distribution across the Forests, and indicates the cumulative result of all management Mottled sculpin Suitable activities within the watershed. Species represents aquatic habitats, has an adequate distribution across the Forests, and indicates the cumulative result of all management Brook trout Suitable activities within the watershed.
Huron-Manistee National Forests G-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX H -
LAND SUITED FOR TIMBER MANAGEMENT
Appendix H - Land Suited for Timber Management Land Classification Summary
Appendix H - Land Suited for Timber Management
Land Classification Summary
National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rules and Regulations (36 CFR, Part 219) of the National Forest Management Act require that the total net area of each National Forest be classified by its land management planning use status. Figure H-1, the flow diagram below, presents the successive categories of forest land for the Huron-Manistee National Forests' Land and Resource Management Plan. The following category descriptions and definitions were used to identify forest land that is suitable for timber production.
Figure H-1. Huron-Manistee National Forests' Land Suitability Classification - Acres. 895,061 Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 913,263 493,940 Restockable Not Appropriate for Within 5 Years Timber Production
913,263 18,202 401,121 No Irreversible Inadequate Land Suitable for Timber Damage Information Production 913,844 0 Industrial Not Restockable Wood Within 5 Years 913,844 581 Not 0 Irreversible Withdrawn Damage Nonindustrial 928,873 Wood Forest Land 975,345 15,029 Land Withdrawn from Timber Production 980,341 46,472 Total Net Nonforest National Land Forest Area 4,996 Water
Water:
Rivers and streams 120 feet or more in width and lakes, reservoirs and ponds more than one acre in size are classified as not suited for timber production.
Land:
The area of dry land and land temporarily or partly covered by water, such as marshes, swamps and river floodplains; rivers and streams less than 120 feet in width; and lakes, reservoirs and ponds less than one acre in size.
Huron-Manistee National Forests H-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix H - Land Suited Land Classification Summary for Timber Management
Non-forest Land:
Land never having or incapable of having 10 percent or more of its area occupied by forest trees, and land capable of supporting such cover, but currently developed for non-forest uses. Such land includes wildlife openings, roads, special land uses and administrative sites.
Forest Land:
Land having or capable of having at least 10 percent of the area occupied by forest trees of any size and not currently developed for non-forest uses.
Forest Land Withdrawn From Timber Production:
Land designated by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service for purposes that preclude timber production. Experimental forests are included if their objectives preclude regularly scheduled timber production. Withdrawn land is classified as not suited for timber production. It includes the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness. It does not include candidate Research Natural Areas or study Wild and Scenic Rivers. Establishment of Research Natural Areas will be in compliance with 1982 Forest Planning Code of Federal Regulation - 36 CFR 219.25. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines will protect the Research Natural Area attributes of each candidate area pending its establishment.
Forest Land Not Producing Industrial Wood:
Land producing tree species that are not currently used commercially or not expected to be used commercially within the next 10 years. Such land is classified as not suitable for timber production.
Forest Land Physically Not Suited:
Forest land where technology is unavailable to ensure timber production without irreversible resource damage to soils, productivity or watershed conditions. Forests' managers cannot ensure that this land will be adequately restocked within five years. Such land is classified as unsuitable for timber production.
Inadequate Information:
Forest land about which managers lack adequate information, based on current research and experience, to project responses to timber management practices. Such land has been categorized as not suited in the model and is unsuitable for timber production.
Forest Land Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production:
Forest land acres tentatively identified as appropriate for timber production are calculated by taking the Forests' land total and subtracting land: 1) withdrawn from timber production, 2) not
Final Environmental Impact Statement H-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix H - Land Suited for Timber Management Land Classification Summary producing crops of industrial wood, 3) not physically suited, and 4) for which information is inadequate.
Forest Land Not Appropriate for Timber Production:
Forest land acres inappropriate for timber production were determined by reviewing tentatively suitable forest land and summarizing the acres that were: administratively removed to meet other resource and management objectives, such as threatened or endangered species habitat, recreation, or fire and fuels treatment; and areas that were not cost efficient in meeting the Forest Plan objectives over the planning horizon (includes acres with positive present net worth, but with costs in excess of projected scheduled outputs).
Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production:
Land that will be used for timber production. Table H-1 summarizes the acreages identified for each of the above categories.
Table H-1. Timber Resource Land Suitability. Classification Net Forest Acres 1. Water 4,996 2. Nonforest Land 46,472
3. Forest Land 928,873
4. Forest Land Withdrawn from Timber Production 15,029
5. Forest Land Not Producing Industrial Wood 0
6. Forest Land Physically Not Suited: Irreversible Damage Likely to Occur 581 Not Restockable Within 5 Years 0 7. Forest Land - Inadequate Information 18,202 8. Forest Land - Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production (Item 3 Minus Items 4, 5, 6, and 7) 895,061
9. Forest Land - Not Appropriate for Timber Production 493,940 10. Unsuitable Forest Land (Items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9) 527,752
11. Total Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production (Item 3 Minus Item 10) 401,121
12. Total Net National Forest Area (Items 1, 2, and 3)(From Land Status Records) 980,341
Huron-Manistee National Forests H-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix H - Land Suited Land Classification Summary for Timber Management
Table H-2 summarizes timber production by timber suitability. Additional information used to determine suitability is available for review in the Forests' Planning Records.
Table H-2. Timber Productivity Classification. 1/ Productivity Class 1 All National Forest Tentatively Percent Percent (cubic feet/acre/year) System Lands Suitable Lands Less than 20 10,645 1% 20-49 306,774 34% 300,495 34% 50 - 84 471,381 53% 463,420 53% 85 - 119 107,739 12% 103,999 12% 120 + 9,145 1% 8,841 1% Totals 895,038 876,754 1/ Productivity for lands about which data are available.
Table H-3 displays an estimate of the present and the future age class distribution on all National Forest System lands, tentatively suitable and unsuitable acres.
Table H-3. Age Class Distribution Acres on all National Forest System Lands for Lands Where Data are Available. Age Class Present Forest Future Forest 1/ 0 - 9 33,614 55,970 10 - 19 55,902 64,881 20 - 29 75,746 59,532 30 - 39 85,763 53,725 40 - 49 65,991 17,242 50 - 59 52,045 31,928 60 - 69 136,006 14,907 70 - 79 134,295 14,093 80 - 89 134,684 38,555 90 - 99 70,700 0 100+ 60,529 480,239 Totals 905,275 831,072 1/ The Projected Future Forest is defined at decade 15 or 150 years (year 2153).
Timber Management on Unsuitable Forest Land:
The following timber management activities may be carried out on unsuitable forest land:
1. Salvage or sanitation harvesting of trees or stands that are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from an insect or disease attack.
2. Cutting of individual trees or stands to test logging systems, to conduct experiments, or to gather information about tree growth, insect or disease organisms, or determine the effect of harvesting on other resources.
Final Environmental Impact Statement H-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix H - Land Suited for Timber Management Land Classification Summary
3. Cutting of trees to promote the safety of forest users, such as hazard-tree removal in campgrounds and picnic areas, administrative sites, and along roads open to the public.
4. Harvesting to meet habitat objectives for animal or plant species that are endangered or threatened.
5. Harvesting to meet forage production objectives for livestock.
6. Harvesting to improve the visual resource by opening scenic vistas or by improving visual variety.
7. Harvesting of firewood and Christmas trees.
8. Harvesting to provide access for activities such as road construction.
Huron-Manistee National Forests H-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX I -
RELEVANT STATUTES, REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS Appendix I - Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Agreements Forest Service Direction
Appendix I - Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Agreements
This appendix lists the statutes, regulations, policies and agreements that are relevant to forest planning and forest management activities on National Forest System lands.
Forest Service Direction
The following is a partial listing of Forest Service policies relevant to the Forest Plan. A complete listing can be found in the Forest Service Manual and the Forest Service Handbook. Together, these are known as the Forest Service Directives System.
The Forest Service Directives System is the primary basis for the management and control of all internal programs, and serves as the primary source of administrative direction to Forest Service employees. The system sets forth legal authorities, management objectives, policies, responsibilities, delegations, standards, procedures and other instructions.
The Forest Service Manuals contain legal authorities, goals, objectives, policies, responsibilities, instructions and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest Service line officers and primary staff, in more than one unit, to plan and execute assigned programs and activities.
The Forest Service Handbooks contain directives that provide instructions and guidance on how to proceed with a specialized phase of a program or activity. Handbooks are either based on a part of the Manual or they incorporate external directives.
The majority of Standards and Guidelines used to implement Forest Plans are located in the Directives System under the following general headings and codes:
1600 Information Services 1900 Planning 2000 National Forest Resources Management (2080 Noxious Weeds Management) 2100 Environmental Management 2200 Rangeland Management 2300 Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management 2400 Timber Management 2500 Watershed and Air Management 2600 Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management 2700 Special Uses Management 2800 Minerals and Geology 3400 Forest Pest Management 4000 Research and Development 5100 Fire Management 5300 Law Enforcement 5400 Landownership
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I –Relevant Statutes, Federal Statutes Regulations, Policies and Agreements
7300 Buildings and Other Structures 7400 Public Health and Pollution Control Facilities 7700 Transportation System
The intent of many Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines is incorporated into permits that authorize specific uses on the National Forests. General permitting requirements can be referenced as follows:
Minerals Forest Service Manual 2800 Rangeland Management Forest Service Manual 2200 Recreation Forest Service Manual 2300 Special Uses Forest Service Manual 2700 Timber Management Forest Service Manual 2400 Transportation System Forest Service Manual 7700
Federal Statutes
• Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980. • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of August 11, 1978. • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. • Anderson-Mansfield Reforestation and Revegetation Act of October 11, 1949. • Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906. • Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974. • Archaeological Resources Protection Act of October 31, 1979, as amended 1988. • Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. • Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937. • Clarke-McNary Act of June 7, 1924. • Clean Air Act of August 7, 1977, as amended (1977 and 1990). • Clean Water Act (1948-87). • Clean Water Amendments, (“Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972”). • Color of Title Act of December 22, 1928. • Common Varieties of Mineral Materials Act of July 31, 1947. • Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of July 1, 1978. • Disaster Relief Act of May 22, 1974. • Eastern Wilderness Act of January 3, 1975. • Economy Act of June 30, 1932. • Emergency Flood Prevention (Agricultural Credit Act) Act of August 4, 1978. • Endangered Species Act (ESA) of December 28, 1973. • Energy Security Act of June 30, 1980. • Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972. • Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act of October 21, 1972. • Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976.
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix I - Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Agreements Federal Statutes
• Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987. • Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974. • Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000. • Federal Power Act of June 10, 1920. • Federal-State Cooperation for Soil Conservation Act of December 22, 1944. • Federal Water Pollution Control Act of July 9, 1956, as amended (Water Quality Act of 1965, Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966). • Federal Water Project Recreation Act of July 9, 1965. • Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of September 15, 2960. • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of March 10, 1934. • Forest Highways Act of August 27, 1958. • Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974. • Freedom of Information Act of November 21, 1974. • Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950. • Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (November 21, 2003). • Historic Sites Act of 1935. • Joint Surveys of Watershed Areas Act of September 5, 1962. • Knutson-Vandenberg Act of June 9, 1930. • Land Acquisition Act of March 3, 1925. • Land Acquisition – Declaration of Taking Act of February 26, 1931. • Land Acquisition – Title Adjustment Act of July 8, 1943. • Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of September 3, 1964. • Law Enforcement Authority Act of March 3, 1905. • Leases Around Reservoirs Act of March 3, 1962. • Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920. • Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of August 7, 1947. • Mineral Resources on Weeks Law Lands Act of March 4, 1917. • Mineral Springs Leasing Act of February 28, 1899. • Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act of August 11, 1955. • Mining and Minerals Policy Act of December 31, 1970. • Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960. • Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of November 16, 1990. • National Environmental Education Act of November 16, 1990. • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. • National 1990 Farm Bill (title XII – Forest Stewardship Act) Act of November 28, 1990. • National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of October 22, 1976. • National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964. • National Historic Preservation Act of October 15, 1966, as amended (1980 and 1992). • A National Trails System Act of October 2, 1968. • Occupancy Permits Act of March 4, 1915. • Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897. • Petrified Wood Act of September 28, 1962. • Pipelines Act of February 25, 1920.
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I –Relevant Statutes, Federal Statutes Regulations, Policies and Agreements
• Preservation of American Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906. • Preservation of Historical and Archaeological Data Act of May 24, 1974. • Public Buildings Cooperative use Act of 1976. • Public Land Surveys Act of March 3, 1899. • Public Rangelands Improvement Act of October 25, 1978. • Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. • Renewable Resources Extension Act of June 30, 1978. • Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1946. • Research Grants Act of September 6, 1958. • Rural Development Act of August 30, 1972. • Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of November 16, 1977. • Sikes Act of October 18, 1974. • Small Tracts Act of January 22, 1983. • Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of November 18, 1977. • Solid Waste Disposal (Resource conservation & Recovery Act) Act of October 21, 1976. • Supplemental National Forest Reforestation Fund Act of September 18, 1972. • Surface Mining control and Reclamation Act of August 3, 1977. • Sustained Yield Forest management Act of March 29, 1944. • Timber Export Act of March 4, 1917. • Timber Exportation Act of April 12, 1926. • Title Adjustment Act of April 28, 1930. • Toxic Substances Control Act of October 11, 1976. • Transfer Act of February 1, 1905. • Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act of May 23, 1908. • Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards U.S. Criminal Code (Title 18 USC Chapter 92 – Public Lands) Act of June 25, 1948. • U.S. Mining Laws (Public Domain Lands) Act of May 10, 1872. • Volunteers in the National Forests Act of May 18, 1972. • Water Quality Improvement Act of April 3, 1965. • Water Resources Planning Act of July 22, 1965. • Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954. • Weeks Act Status for Certain Lands Act of September 2, 1958. • Weeks Act of March 1, 1911. • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968. • Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964. • Wildlife Game Refuges Act of August 11, 1916. • Wood Residue Utilization Act of December 19, 1980. • Youth Conservation Corps Act of August 13, 1970.
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests Appendix I –Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Policies and Agreements Executive Orders
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
• 36 CFR 60 National Register of Historic Places • 36 CFR 63 Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places • 36 CFR 65 National Historic Landmarks Program • 36 CFR 68 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties • 36 CFR 79 Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological Collections • 36 CFR 212 Forest Development Transportation System • 36 CFR 213 Administration Under Bankhead-Jones Act • 36 CFR 219 Planning • 36 CFR 221 Timber Management Planning • 36 CFR 222 Range Management • 36 CFR 223 Sale and Disposal of NFS Timber • 36 CFR 228 Minerals • 36 CFR 241 Fish and Wildlife • 36 CFR 251 Land Uses • 36 CFR 254 Landownership Adjustments • 36 CFR 261 Prohibitions • 36 CFR 291 Occupancy and Use of Developed Sites and Areas of Concentrated Public Use • 36 CFR 292 National Recreation Areas • 36 CFR 293 Wilderness Primitive Areas • 36 CFR 294 Special Areas • 36 CFR 295 Use of Motor Vehicles off Forest Development Roads • 36 CFR 296 Protection of Archaeological Resources • 36 CFR 197 Wild and Scenic Rivers • 36 CFR 800 Protection of Historic Properties • 40 CFR 1500-1508 Council on Environmental Quality • 43 CFR 7 Protection of Archeological Resources • 43 CFR 10 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Final Rule
Executive Orders (EO)
• EO 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment • EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands • EO 11991 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality • EO 11644/11989 Use of Off-Road Vehicles • EO 11988 Floodplain Management • EO 12113 Independent Water Project Review
Huron-Manistee National Forests I-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement Agreements and Appendix I –Relevant Statutes, Memoranda of Understanding Regulations, Policies and Agreements
• EO 12682 Setting Customer Service Standards • EO 12898 Environmental Justice • EO 13007 Indian Sacred Sites • EO 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments • EO 13212 Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects • EO 13287 Preserve America
State and Local Laws and Regulations
• Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act. No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, as amended (Part 615, Supervisor of Wells and the Administrative Rules). • Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act. No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, Part 91. • Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act. No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, as amended (Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act). • PA 74, 1970, as amended, Corner Recordation Act. • PA 345, 1990, State Survey Act. • PA 132, 1970, Certified Survey Act. • PA 155, 1976, Right of Entry by Surveyors Act. • PA 299, 1980, Occupational Code Requiring Licensing.
Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding
• Agreement of Settlement – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Memorandums of Understanding Regarding Tribal/USDA-Forest Service relations on National Forest System land within the territories ceded in the treaties of 1836, 1837 and 1842 • Michigan Natural Features Inventory Memorandum of Understanding • National Invasive Species Management Plan • State Historic Preservation Office Memorandum of Understanding • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Memorandum of Understanding • United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement I-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests
APPENDIX J -
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Appendix J - Response to Comments Introduction
Appendix J - Response to Comments
Introduction
Comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were essential in the development of the 2006 Forest Plan to manage resources on the Huron-Manistee to best meet the Forest Service’s mission, legal requirements and goals of both National Environmental Policy Act and National Forest Management Act and the interests of the public as a whole.
This appendix describes the process used to analyze public comments submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Forest Plan and develop agency responses.
As mandated by law, the Huron-Manistee National Forests established and maintained correspondence with government agencies and tribal governments throughout the revision process. Copies of comment letters received from these entities are included at the end of this appendix.
Copies of all documents referenced in this appendix are located in the official planning record, and are available upon request from the Supervisor’s Office in Cadillac, Michigan.
Analysis of Public Comments
Comments on the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement were received by the Huron-Manistee National Forests in many forms, including letters, postcards, e- mails, faxes, telephone calls and comments made at public meetings. All comments were compiled, organized, read and analyzed with assistance from the USDA-Forest Service’s ACT 2 Enterprise Team, contracted to systematically review and categorize comments into primary topics to assist the Huron-Manistee National Forests' interdisciplinary team in their organization and development of responses.
Direction:
As a federal agency, the USDA-Forest Service must follow the procedures mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act. Procedures of this Act include soliciting comment on draft Environmental Impact Statements from federal, state and local agencies, tribal governments, and interested and affected publics (40 CFR 1503.1[a]). Further, the agency is directed to “assess and consider comments, both individually and collectively” (40 CFR 1503.4[a]) and prepare a response to those concerns expressed during the comment period following the March 18, 2005 release of the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Possible responses to comments considered include (40 CFR 1503.4[a]): • Modify alternatives, including the proposed action. • Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Analysis of Public Comments Appendix J - Response to Comments
• Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses. • Make factual corrections. • Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the sources, authorities, or reasons, which support the agency's position and, if appropriate, indicate those circumstances which would trigger agency reappraisal or further response.
Comment Letter Processing:
The Huron-Manistee received about 1,650 comment letters during the formal, 3-month comment period following the March 18, 2005 release of the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Of those comments received, approximately 1,450 were submitted as part of an organized response (or ‘form letter’) campaign. Although several of these form letters contained identical text, each letter was treated individually. The Huron- Manistee transmitted every comment letter to the ACT 2 Enterprise Team. ACT 2 used a coding structure and a standardized application process of the coding structure to categorize and prepare comments for the Huron-Manistee. This method is effective in analyzing voluminous comment, both individually and collectively, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Using this coding structure, comments were transcribed into a database to allow the creation of subsequent queries and reports. ACT 2 utilized the following process:
• Each comment author or “respondent” was assigned a unique tracking number. All respondents were linked to their individual comments through this number in the database. Information pertaining specifically to the respondent, such as their address and organizational affiliation, was also recorded. • Each comment letter was assigned a unique tracking number. All comment letters are linked to the respondent through this number in the database. • ACT 2 staff identified distinct comments within each letter relating to a particular concern, resource consideration, or proposed management action. • The distinct comments, identified by comment letter number, were placed in a separate document in the database. Those comments sharing similar concerns, questions, and/or suggestions for a topic (i.e., aspen management, motorized recreation) were grouped together.
The database prepared by ACT 2, as well as a list of comments, by respondent number, is available for public review in the planning record.
Content Analysis:
Each comment letter was read in its entirety, with the primary topic(s) identified. Comments were grouped by similar concerns and further refined to eliminate redundancy. Public concern statements were then written to represent the concerns.
Content analysis involves not only identifying each action or change requested by a respondent, but also the reason(s) behind each request in order to capture the full argument of each comment. Therefore, paragraphs within a comment letter may be divided into several comments because
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Analysis of Public Comments multiple arguments are presented. Alternatively, several paragraphs that form one, coherent statement may be identified as a complete argument.
Public Concern Statements:
A portion of the content analysis process involved developing summary statements representing public comments. The Huron-Manistee staff identified issues and developed public comment statements to summarize comments representing similar issues, arguments or positions. The interdisciplinary team determined whether comments were substantive and within the scope of the revision process. Substantive comments within the scope of revision assisted the interdisciplinary team to further determine whether refinement to management direction, alternatives, supporting analysis, or other plan elements was needed. More detailed information regarding substantive comments and scope are presented in the following sections.
Each public comment statement was developed to capture the action that one or more members of the public believed the Responsible Official should take, and often includes the basis for this request.
Because each comment statement is a summary, it can represent one or many comments, depending on the actual comments submitted. Comment statements range from extremely broad generalities to extremely specific points because they reflect the content of verbatim public comments. In the interest of space limitations for publication of this volume, the verbatim comments are not presented, but are represented only by the public concern statement.
Public concern statements are not intended to replace actual comment letters or sample quotes. Rather, they help guide reviewers to comments on the specific topic in which they may be interested. They also allow the systematic response to large numbers of comments through the grouping process. It is important to note that during the process of identifying concerns, all comments have been treated equally—they are not weighted by organizational affiliation or status of respondents, and it does not matter if an idea was expressed by thousands of people or a single person. Emphasis is placed on the content of a comment rather than who wrote it or the number of people who agree with it. Relative depth of feeling and interest among the public can serve to provide a general context for decision-making. However, it is the appropriateness, specificity, and factual accuracy of each comment that provides the basis for modifications to planning documents and decisions. Consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process in which the outcome is determined by the majority opinion. National Environmental Policy Act encourages all interested parties to submit comment as often as they wish.
Substantive Comments:
The National Environmental Policy Act requires the interdisciplinary team to formally respond to substantive comments. Substantive comments are defined as those that fall within the scope of the decision-making for the Forest Plan revision.
Based on the Council of Environmental Quality’s regulations, a substantive comment is one that:
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Analysis of Public Comments Appendix J - Response to Comments
• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the environmental impact statement; • Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental analysis as presented; • Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and address significant issues; or • Cause changes or revisions in the proposal.
Non-substantive comments, or concerns identified from them, include those that simply state a position in favor of or against an alternative, merely agree or disagree with Forest Service policy, or otherwise express an unsupported personal preference or opinion. While simple statements of opinion without a rationale were captured during the content analysis process, it is the strength of the respondent’s rationale as a complete argument that provided the resource specialists of the interdisciplinary team a substantive comment to answer. Thus, simple statements of opinion have not been included in the Public Concern Statements in this appendix.
Scope of Decision:
The Council of Environmental Quality’s (40 CFR 1508.25) regulations define “scope” as the range of connected, similar or cumulative actions, the alternatives and mitigation measures, and the direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to be considered in the environmental impact statement. The Huron-Manistee is required to explain why comments are determined out of scope. Generally, the types of comments received, and concerns identified, that were considered out of scope include those that:
• Do not address the purpose, need, or goals of the Forest Plan revision. Examples include comments that are not directly related to the Proposed Forest Plan or Draft Environmental Impact Statement, such as concerns pertaining to routine administrative functions. • Offer suggestions about areas beyond the Huron-Manistee’s jurisdiction. • Request action on concerns that are addressed by federal law or national policy. • Suggest an action not appropriate for the current level of planning, such as actions that would occur through implementation of the Forest Plan. • Recommendations that did not consider reasonable and foreseeable negative consequences. • Do not provide rationale for the suggestion or are statements of opinion.
Response to Comments:
Once comments were reviewed, issues identified and the public concern statements written, responses to the public concern statements were developed. Where applicable, responses include references to chapters or sections within the 2006 Forest Plan or Final EIS where more information is available. Where warranted, responses note modifications to proposed actions, additional analyses conducted, as well as clarifications and/or corrections made to the final documents in response to comments received.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Public Concern Statements
The public concern statements and the responses to these statements are presented in the remainder of this appendix. Public concern statements and accompanying responses have been grouped by resource area where possible and are numbered for agency use.
Agency Trust and Credibility:
PC#: 1 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests employees should not be working on Saturday and Sunday.
Response: Employee work schedules are task specific and based on many factors, including workload and type of project. Forest Plan revision does not make decisions regarding employee work schedules.
PC#: 2 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests’ plan revision process should not take four to six years to complete. Forest plans should be more responsive to changing issues, and not exhaust public interest and involvement.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests strived to complete the Forest Plan revision process within two years to respond to concerns associated with extended planning periods. The Forests have complied with requirements of the National Forest Management Act. Forest Plans can be amended, through a process that includes public involvement, as necessary, to adapt to changing issues or new information.
PC#: 3 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should extend the deadline for comments on the Draft Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Large amounts of literature for each of the National Forests in Michigan have been released at the same time.
Response: The Regional Forester, while recognizing the effort to review and understand the volume and complexity of the information presented in the documents, declined to extend the comment period. It should be noted, however, that the 90-day comment period, provided for in the National Forest Management Act regulations, doubled the standard 45-day comment period required for project Environmental Impact Statements under the National Environmental Policy Act. The three Michigan Forests’ planning process provided frequent opportunity for input and comment throughout the process of preparing these documents.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Allowable Sale Quantity:
PC#: 4 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should obtain the funding to accomplish the projected allowable sale quantity objective and achieve the desired forest condition goal.
PC#: 5 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should eliminate the restrictive allowable sale quantity because it drastically understates the potential harvest level.
PC#: 6 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not increase the allowable sale quantity.
Response: The allowable sale quantity is not a timber harvest goal. The amount of timber harvested annually is based on a variety of factors such as budget allocations from Congress, staffing levels, and National, Regional, and Forestwide priorities. Allowable sale quantity determination is a requirement of Forest Service regulations. The allowable sale quantity, as defined in the National Forest Management Act regulations (36 CFR 219.3) is, “The quantity of timber that may be sold from the area of suitable land covered by the forest plan for a time period specified by the plan.” The allowable sale quantity for the Selected Alternative and the revised Forest Plan is 910 million board feet per decade, or an average annual sale quantity of 91 million board feet per year. This allowable sale quantity meets the goals and objectives stated in the Notice of Intent. Vegetation diversity is the key to managing habitats for the great variety of wildlife species found on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The revised Forest Plan provides a balance between competing concerns—such as logging operations and protection of the environment. Goals and Objectives ensure that the harvest of special forest products is within sustainable levels. Standards and Guidelines provide increased guidance for the management of these forest products, and the monitoring plan recognizes the need to monitor harvest levels to support determination of sustainable levels.
Alternatives:
PC#: 7 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should develop more than two action alternatives.
PC#: 8 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not require the public to choose between packages of alternatives such as Alternative A, B or C. There are good aspects to all of the alternatives. The best options will not necessarily match exactly one of the alternatives as they are described. There should be an intermediate approach between these alternatives.
Response: During the initial phases of Forest Plan revision, the Forests conducted an Analysis of the Current Management Situation and several public involvement sessions to obtain Need for
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Change topics. These topics were published in the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Revision of Land and Resource Management Plans (2003). The Huron- Manistee National Forests received many comments from groups, government agencies, tribes, and individuals, as well as employees on the Notice of Intent. All comments, concerns, and questions received were reviewed and categorized. Based on this review and categorization, “issues” regarding the proposed management activities in the Notice of Intent were developed. An issue is defined as a point of uncertainty or debate about the social, ecological, or economic effects of the management activities being proposed.
The results from the Analysis of the Current Management Situation and comments that were received on the Need for Change and Notice of Intent indicated that the 1986 Forest Plan was still valid and needed few modifications. The 1986 Forest Plan was continuously updated and had been amended 25 times over the past 18 years. Therefore, changes needed to the 1986 Forest Plan were minimal. This translated into a small number, and correspondingly narrow, range of alternatives. The Forests determined that three alternates were sufficient to address the issues and concerns specific to the Huron-Manistee National Forests provides a clear basis for choice by the decision makers and the public.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed three alternatives with different outcomes to address Plan Revision issues. Each alternative meets the intent of relevant laws, including the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, under which the National Forests are managed. The Regional Forester considered all of the alternatives and the Record of Decision describes his rational for the Selected Alternative. Forest managers believe the Selected Alternative represents the best balance in achieving sustainable ecosystems, meeting the intent of relevant laws, and addresses the issues and concerns specific to the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
PC#: 9 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should adopt Alternative A, the current Forest Plan, because it is balanced and superior to Alternative B.
PC#: 10 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not adopt the proposed Forest Plan because it is much too restrictive and limiting in the area of recreation.
PC#: 11 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should adopt Alternative B because it maintains or increases early successional habitat, is most appropriate with respect to Off- Highway Vehicle use, is the most balanced, will benefit fisheries and aquatic resources, reduce non-native invasive species, and enhance and maintain riparian zones.
Response: The Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed three alternatives with different outcomes to address Plan Revision issues. Each alternative meets the intent of relevant laws, including the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, under which the National Forests are managed. The Regional Forester considered all of the alternatives and the Record of Decision describes his rational for the Selected Alternative. Forest managers believe the Selected Alternative represents the best balance in achieving sustainable ecosystems, meeting the intent of
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
relevant laws, and addresses the issues and concerns specific to the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Aquatic Resource:
PC#: 12 Public Concern: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System generally requires permits obtained for activities that disturb an acre or more of land where some portion of the disturbed land discharges storm water to a lake, stream or wetland, or wetland contiguous to a lake or stream. It seems probable the Service would undertake such an activity. It is not clear how this will be addressed.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The Forests will apply for and attain all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits required by law to conduct its management activities.
PC#: 13 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not make forest management decisions without thorough consideration of other activities in the watershed. The fragmented nature of the National Forest leads to unique complications. The Forest Plan revision is a framework from which holistic management can continue to develop.
Response: The Forests have attempted to incorporate Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines that guide sound forest management decisions at multiple scales. The Environmental Impact Statement discloses the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing this Plan. The Forests also recognize resource management complications that arise from its fragmented ownership, and attempt to consolidate lands where appropriate.
PC#: 14 Public Concern: Because so much of the land surrounding rivers are in the care of National Forest System Lands, the Huron-Manistee National Forests should develop a management plan that controls the impact this land has on river ecosystems.
Response: The revised Forest Plan contains many goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines aimed at protecting riparian habitats – “land surrounding rivers,” and adjacent water bodies. For example, Chapter II of the revised Forest Plan: Goals, Objectives, and Desired Future Condition – Natural Resources; Chapter II of the Forest Plan: Standards and Guidelines- 2500 Watershed Management and 2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. The Final Environmental Impact Statement discloses the anticipated effects that implementation of the revised Forest Plan will have on riparian areas, water quality, and species that utilize these habitats. See Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement: Effects on Water Resources, Effects on Riparian and Wetlands, and Effects on Species of Concern; specifically Aquatic Habitats and Species of Concern and Terrestrial Habitats and Species of Concern: Rivers and Streams, Large pond and Lakes, Small Ponds and Lakes, Marsh, Bogs and Fens, Shrub/Scrub, and Riparian/Lowland Hardwood habitat groups for examples.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 15 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should identify impaired waters or proposed total maximum daily load allocations for waters within the proclamation boundary. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should note that there are no listed impaired waters or total maximum daily load allocations. In addition, Final Environmental Impact Statement should include a discussion of how the Forest Plan will affect or avoid affecting water bodies that have these concerns.
Response: There are listed impaired, non-attainment, waters within the proclaimed boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forests and these are displayed in Table III-1, Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Identification of impaired waters and total maximum daily load allocations are the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. At the time of this writing, no total maximum daily load allocations for these waters had been developed. The Huron-Manistee National Forests will remain in compliance with any determinations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
PC#: 16 Public Concern: The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines should elaborate on the methods employed for the protection of streams.
Response: The National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service to monitor project activities to ensure that they comply with the revised Forest Plan objectives and Standards and Guidelines. Monitoring is outlined in Chapter IV of the revised Forest Plan. The monitoring matrix described requires that the Forests monitor: 1) population trends of Management Indicator Species and the relationships of population trends to habitat changes; 2) the number of acres and the percent of the Streamside Management Zone that is being actively managed for early successional stages; and 3) the amounts, distribution and types of available habitats to provide for the sustainability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Responding to these monitoring requirements will ensure that trout streams are protected. The specifics of monitoring protocols will be developed in the Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation Guide.
PC#: 17 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should include an objective or at least address the fact that, with the complete removal of Stronach Dam in 2003, river restoration work can begin now in and along the Pine River. There are 2 to 4 years worth of work to be done on severely eroded sand banks sending tons of sand into the river.
Response: The revised Forest Plan is permissive with respect to river restoration activities. However, specific activities, such as those that may be required along the Pine River because of the Stronach Dam removal, are implementation issues beyond the scope of Forest Plan revision. Implementation is addressed at the site-specific level under separate environmental analysis, documentation, and with public involvement. Implementation will also comply with the Pine River Management Plan.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 18 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should have a specific guideline added in the Riparian Management section that states that the 6th level watershed will be the analysis unit used to determine early-successional habitat needs within riparian corridors and that all lands, not just National Forest System lands, will be used in cumulative effects analyses. This guideline should mirror statements in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that state the 6th level watershed will be used as the analysis unit when determining early-successional habitat needs within riparian corridors. The determinations made for aquatic species of concern (page III-76), and the conclusion that there will be no adverse affect on aquatic Management Indicator Species (III-188) and riparian habitat and wetlands (page III-199) can not be made without such a guideline.
Response: The direction in the Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding sixth level watershed as the analysis unit for determining early successional habitat needs within riparian corridors is intended as guidance rather than a definitive standard. The revised Forest Plan is implemented at the project level under site-specific environmental documentation with public involvement. While the sixth level watershed will generally be used, the revised Forest Plan must allow sufficient flexibility, where Line Officers can use appropriate evaluation methods based on specific circumstances encountered on a case-by-case basis. The Huron-Manistee National Forests believe that a guideline specifying that sixth level watersheds be used would take away this important flexibility.
Cumulative effects analyses for project implementation always include all lands within the planning area so there is no need to restate that in a guideline for determining early-successional habitat needs.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests are confident that its determinations made for aquatic species of concern (page III-76, Final Environmental Impact Statement), and the conclusion that there will be no adverse effect on aquatic Management Indicator Species (III-188, Final Environmental Impact Statement) and riparian habitat and wetlands (page III-199, Final Environmental Impact Statement) is not tied to use of the 6th level watershed as an analysis unit.
PC#: 19 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should be more aggressive in placing large woody debris in rivers and streams.
Response: The Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-192 through 198, portrays beneficial effects for both aquatic Management Indicator Species and aquatic sensitive species from riparian vegetation management and desired future conditions for large woody debris (revised Forest Plan Table II-2). Chapter IV identifies the monitoring and evaluation strategy and provides a mechanism for evaluating and adjusting the revised Forest Plan as deemed necessary. Thus, if the stated goals for large woody debris are found to be inadequate based on monitoring, the numbers could be adjusted.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 20 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not emphasize mitigation measures in watershed management because many of these procedures have little proven success. For example, best management practices, as practiced on the ground, rely on 50 or 100- foot buffers, and often ignore factors that contribute sediment just beyond the buffer. Sediment entering streams from timber-cutting, road-building, and other ground disturbing activity is often “mitigated” by sediment basins. These measures are questionable in value and do little to correct the action that got the sediment in the stream in the first place. With this type of activity brings its own set of problems, including the need for roads and landings for access, compromising wetland muck soils in the riparian zone from spoils dumping, introducing invasive plant species to an area, and perpetuating these species from the frequent maintenance required.
Response: Best Management Practices (BMPs), described in the revised Forest Plan under Watershed 2500 II-18, are proactive management guidelines aimed at preventing adverse impacts to water bodies before they occur. Utilization of BMPs is widely accepted by nearly all private and public land management agencies, including the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, as the most effective means to minimize or prevent adverse impacts on riparian and aquatic ecosystems. The system of BMPs used in the revised Forest Plan includes considerations for slope, soil types, and impacts of large equipment.
Sediment in streams running through the Huron-Manistee National Forests comes from many diffuse sources throughout the watersheds; non-point source pollution. Much of it is believed to have come from historic land use practices such as excessive logging, poor farming practices and log drives during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Sediment also comes from stream crossings, road construction, and maintenance – federal, state, county, local, municipal construction activities, and land management practices such as timber harvest, wildlife management, and farming. Thus, the Forests’ in-stream mitigation activities are aimed at correcting problems with streams that have resulted from a tremendous variety of sources. The revised Forest Plan includes Standards and Guidelines designed to prevent adverse impacts from in-stream mitigation practices such as stream bank stabilization and sediment basin construction and maintenance, for example, guidelines for disposal of spoils.
The revised Forest Plan also contains Standards and Guidelines aimed directly at protecting water quality, and contains an aggressive non-native invasive species management program, and allows for the Forests to actively partner with watershed councils and other organizations to proactively address water quality issues at the scale of the watershed.
PC#: 21 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should contain comprehensive guidelines and monitoring procedures for clearing of navigational hazards.
PC#: 22 Public Concern: The Forest Plan Guideline 3b at page II-20 for cutting in-stream woody debris should include an 8-foot maximum cleared width to prevent excessive removal of large woody debris for navigation purposes and set a clear, unambiguous standard.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#:23 Public Concern: The wording of Guideline 3b at page II-20 for cutting in-stream woody debris should be changed to promote safety. Currently, the wording is,” If watercraft cannot go over, under or around woody debris, it constitutes a navigational hazard and may be cut only to the extent necessary for navigation.” Experts can navigate a technical, albeit “navigable” constriction that to a less experienced paddler would present an imminent threat of capsize, pinning, and drowning. The recreating public would be much better served if the guideline was changed to emphasize safety.
Response: Specific procedures and guidelines for monitoring are not Forest Plan decisions (National Forest Management Act of 1976). However, the monitoring framework, provided in Chapter IV of the revised Forest Plan, establishes the basis for Forests to effectively monitor the revised Forest Plan. The potential for monitoring changes in aquatic habitats due to clearing exists and would fit within the framework if the Forests and their partners determine later that this activity is necessary.
Development of comprehensive guidelines for the clearing of navigation hazards was not identified as a Forest Plan revision issue and was not evaluated during the revision process. The Huron-Manistee National Forests could participate, along with other partners and stakeholders, in the development of such guidelines in individual river plans in the future, if the activity is determined to be necessary.
The Forests have changed Guideline 3b, Aquatic Restoration in Chapter II on page 19 to read as follows, “Natural, in-stream, or added large wood shall be left undisturbed unless it constitutes a navigational hazard. If woody debris presents an obvious and dangerous hazard, prudent moving of the wood should be undertaken to provide reasonably safe passage. The recommended clearing guideline is an eight-foot limit.”
PC#: 24 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should conduct a forest-wide inventory of stream crossings. While it is recognized that some roads are necessary for users to gain entry into the National Forests, the direct and indirect impacts of any new road construction on aquatic resources should be thoroughly evaluated before any new road construction proceeds. If existing roads are adversely affecting aquatic resources, appropriate corrective actions should be taken immediately.
PC#: 25 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should rewrite Section 7700 under Transportation System, Guideline A3e at page II-41 to state that all water crossings should be designed to minimize stream sedimentation.
Response: The Forest Service is required to do a roads assessment plan for any changes in the National Forest road system (creation, elimination, or re-location of roads). This public process requires coordination with other agencies and interested publics.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-12 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Comprehensive inventories of all road-stream crossings have been done for the following major watersheds on the National Forests: Au Sable, Manistee (including the Pine River watershed), Little Manistee, Pere Marquette, Pine (Au Sable – Lake Huron), and White River watersheds. There are more than 1,500 cataloged road-stream crossings within these watersheds. Structures consist of culverts and bridges. We recognize the need for a geographic information system for these completed inventories. To date, the Little Manistee, White, and Pine River (Lake Huron) watershed inventories have been entered into a Geographic Information System database.
During the last decade, the Forest Service has placed an emphasis on upgrading road-stream crossings to reduce sediment delivery to adjacent aquatic and riparian habitat as part of overall watershed restoration partnerships. This has been accomplished primarily with the County Road Commissions.
Section 7700, Transportation System Guideline A3e, on page II-40 has been changed to state that all water crossings will be designed to minimize stream sedimentation.
PC#: 26 Public Concern: There are no explicit details about how aquatic monitoring will be accomplished. Chapter IV describes species monitoring and the frequency of monitoring. However, there is no information on how this will be achieved. There is no mention of sensitive species being monitored.
Response: Chapter IV, Monitoring and Evaluation provides the monitoring framework for the revised Forest Plan. This is meant to be a plan and is designed pursuant to National Forest Management Act regulations. It is specifically designed to provide the Forests flexibility adapting to changes, such as new scientific information or emerging issues. There are monitoring considerations within Chapter IV that pertain directly to sensitive species and it is designed to help determine if viable populations of appropriate native and desirable non-native species are being maintained within the planning area. Specific information regarding the “what” and “how” of monitoring is not a Forest Plan revision decision (National Forest Management Act of 1976).
PC#: 27 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should emphasize the importance of evaluating and monitoring of the riparian corridors. Streambank stabilization work is important, but much of the stream stabilization and habitat improvement work on the Forest has not been evaluated effectively.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests recognize the social, economic, and ecological importance of riparian corridors and have developed numerous goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines to ensure the proper management of these systems. With respect to monitoring within riparian corridors, specific information on the “what” and “how” is not a Forest Plan revision decision (National Forest Management Act of 1976). However, the monitoring framework, provided in Chapter IV of the revised Forest Plan, establishes the basis for the Forests to monitor riparian corridors and the success or failure of such management activities as streambank stabilization projects. For example, as is shown in the monitoring matrix in Chapter IV, the
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
amount, distribution, types of available habitats, species viability, successional status, and acres of Streamside Management Zone vegetation will be monitored.
PC#: 28 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should establish an objective to monitor and study upstream thermal migration of warmer temperatures, which is a problem nationwide due to past logging, mining, agricultural and other practices within riparian zones. This effort would assist with reclaiming and stabilizing cold-water streams and habitats.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, Chapter IV: Monitoring and Evaluation provides the monitoring framework. This framework is intentionally general with respect to specific species, environmental parameters, and methods. This provides the Forests flexibility in adapting to changes, such as new scientific information or emerging issues. Monitoring considerations within Chapter IV that pertain directly to the above issue of concern are: 1) the Forest’s will monitor the amounts, distribution, and types of available habitats, including water temperature, to ensure the sustainability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem at multiple scales; 2) the Forest’s will monitor to ensure that the minimum viable populations of appropriate native and desirable non-native species will be maintained within the planning area; 3) monitor the acres and percent of the Streamside Management Zone that is late successional vegetation to ensure protection of water quality and provide a source of large woody debris; and 4) the acreage and percentage of the Streamside Management Zone that is being managed for early successional vegetation will also be monitored. Specific information concerning the “what” and “how” of monitoring will be included in the “Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation Guide.”
PC#: 29 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should include examples or provide a more complete definition of the term “disturbance” as it is used in the revised Forest Plan, 2500, 1-Water, Section A, item 3.
Response: The term, “disturbance”, as used in ecology and resource management, describes, “any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, natural community, or population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment” (Helms 1998). While the entire definition applies in this context, the focus is on disruption of substrate availability. Most frequently, the concern is the compaction or exposure of mineral soils within the Streamside Management Zone, which increases the chance for overland flow and/or eroded soils to enter the water body.
PC#: 30 Public Concern: A number of trout streams are shaded by mature, full canopy trees that let little if any sunlight reach the banks, which are bare ground. After a major rainfall and spring runoff the erosion of the banks continues, and will do so until the mature trees are harvested and sunlight reaches the banks allowing grassy vegetation and shrubs to grow which decreases erosion significantly.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-14 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 31 Public Concern: It has been noted by fisheries experts that old growth has a negative effect on both the rivers and the fishery.
PC#: 32 Public Concern: Old growth promotes increased sedimentation into the river.
PC#: 33 Public Concern: The brook trout is an important inhabitant of streams. The assumption of the need for 40 percent forested state, sediment removal, gravel placement and especially “large wood for structural complexity” does not figure. They are a pioneer species that likes spring water. If that spring water flows through a rich meadow with under cut banks, all the better. In addition, the turf will filter runoff and recharge groundwater so you will not have to remove sediment or add gravel.
Response: The Final Environmental Impact Statement portrays effects of Forest Plan implementation on aquatic resources and associated streamside vegetation. The environmental assessment that accompanied the Forest Plan Amendment #24 for the designation of old growth portrayed positive effects for the aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Old-growth management will not result in increased sedimentation. This conclusion is based on current science from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Tonello, M., C. Freiburger, A. Nuhfer, and S. Sutton. 2004). Riparian and streamside management guidelines will have a positive effect on water quality and the stream fishes of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. (Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-22, III-33-36, III-192-198).
Research from the North Central Research Station has shown that when more than 60 percent of a watershed is in an open-land, including forests greater than 15 years of age, overland run-off increases (Verry, E.S. 2000). This change increases instream erosion, which is presumed to affect brook trout habitat adversely through flow scouring and subsequent sedimentation.
PC#: 34 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should contain an additional guideline on page II-20, at 3a, which affords special consideration to the needs of other riparian species.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, Chapter II-6 identifies a desired future condition that provides habitat needs of riparian dependent species. Modification was made to the guideline found on page II-20, number 2500, I.A.4.a, to state: “Aquatic habitat restoration will consider the needs of all riparian dependent species.”
PC#: 35 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should consider proximity to water bodies when selecting locations for specific projects because mining activities and clearing activities have the potential to affect water quality and flow. In addition, we note that the project- specific environmental impact documents for these activities will need to address impacts to water.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-15 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Response: The Forest Service is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines do take into consideration proximity of water bodies when implementing management activities.
Project specific impacts to water quality will be addressed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act at the site-specific level, which includes environmental documentation and public involvement.
PC#: 36 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should be corrected, as there is a conflict between Standards and Guidelines, 2600 VI Wetlands, Section D, Page II-34 and 2600 VIII Fish, Section C-1. Specifically, the guidelines listed in 2600 VI Wetlands, Section D, Page II-34 states that early-successional shrub/scrub habitats in patches 25 acres or larger within wetland/riparian areas will be managed on each forest, and that areas to be managed for early-successional habitat would be within areas where these vegetation types exist. This is in direct conflict with 2600 VIII Fish, Section C-1 if the shrub/scrub habitat already exists due to natural disturbance processes (even within 200 feet of designated trout streams).
PC#: 37 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should be corrected as there is a conflict with Riparian Management Standards and Guidelines, section 2500, which are inconsistent with the Standards and Guidelines listed under section 2600 Wildlife, fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management.
PC#: 38 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should discourage vegetation activities, which encourage beaver along trout streams. For example, VIII Fish, Guideline C-1, page II-35: “Protect state-classified trout streams. Vegetation attractive to beaver should be discouraged within 200 feet of streams.” The vast majority of streams on the Huron-Manistee National Forests are classified by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources as trout streams. Given that the Streamside Management Zone extends at least 100 feet from the streams edge, active management for early-successional habitat within this Streamside Management Zone will not discourage vegetation attractive to beaver.
PC#: 39 Public Concern: There appears to be an inconsistency between guidelines for Streamside Management Zone early-successional habitat enhancement, and discouraging beavers along trout streams.
Response: The revised Forest Plan allows for multiple objectives in riparian corridors. In general, riparian vegetation will be managed for late seral stages. However, early successional habitat management to meet viability requirements of endangered, threatened, or sensitive species may be undertaken if natural disturbance processes are not meeting these requirements.
The inconsistency between the guidelines in Section 2500, I-Water, 1-Riparian Vegetation Management, a & b, page II-17; and Section 2600, VI-Wetlands, D, page II-34; and VIII-Fish, C1, page II-35, has been clarified in the revised Forest Plan.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-16 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
The guideline listed in Section 2600, VI-Wetlands, D, page II-34: “Manage early-successional shrub/scrub habitats in patches 25 acres or larger within wetland/riparian areas on each Forest. Areas to be managed for early successional scrub/shrub habitat would be within areas where these vegetation types exist” will be changed to “Manage early successional shrub/scrub habitats in patches 25 acres or larger within wetland/riparian areas on each Forest where the need to meet species viability has been determined on a case-by-case basis. Areas to be managed for early successional shrub/scrub habitat would be within areas where these vegetation types exist or existed but are succeeding to later seral stages and the need for meeting species viability is identified and analyzed. This guideline does not apply in management areas 5.1, 7.1, 8.2 and 9.1,” to clarify the intent of the guideline.
PC#: 40 Public Concern: Placement of large woody debris in the Au Sable River has ruined the scenic quality of the area. Some of us have snorkeled the Au Sable where you have placed dead trees in the past and have not seen one fish.
Response: The Forest Plan identifies large wood as an objective to aquatic habitat restoration. Therefore, placement of large wood in rivers, such as the Au Sable and Manistee Rivers, is an ongoing practice. Hicks et al. 1991, Bisson et al. 1987, Verry 1992, Verry and Dolloff 2001, and Hilderbrand et al. 1997 all provide excellent synopses of the various functions that large woody debris plays in stream systems. While initial visual impacts may occur, monitoring results indicate that the placed wood blend in with the natural environment within a short period, generally two to three years. Species of tree used may also affect short-term visual quality.
Huron-Pines Resource Conservation and Development Council did underwater photography of the trees placed below Alcona Dam on the Au Sable River. The photography showed that fish were using the trees as structure. In addition, Forest Service observations have shown a variety of other riparian species using these trees, such as mink, wood turtle, and great blue herons.
PC#: 41 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should explain how specific numbers of large woody debris structures per 300 feet of stream were attained.
Response: Numbers were derived from our best professional judgment and observations of natural disturbances in streams with occurrences of large wood in northern Michigan. These guidelines are continually being refined because of our monitoring both of placed wood and from natural levels in streams on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. If long-term monitoring indicates that these guidelines for large wood need to be adjusted, then the Forest Plan will be amended.
Aspen:
PC#: 42 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should plan for 1,500 acres of annual aspen harvest outside of Grouse Emphasis Areas rather than 2,410 acres as projected in the Selected Alternative.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-17 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 43 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should manage aspen, birch, and oak more intensively for grouse, woodcock, deer, and other bird species that are dependent upon aspen. Clearcutting should be allowed to provide for game bird habitat.
PC#: 44 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should reduce the overabundance of aspen and birch forest and achieve a more sensible balance of forest types.
PC#: 45 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not reduce the aspen forest type because it will have a negative impact on early successional depend wildlife species, hunting recreation, and result in increased pressure for these resources on state-owned land.
PC#: 46 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should recognize that aspen is far more significant for today’s society than it was in the pre-settlement forest and that aspen should not be allowed to convert to other forest types.
PC#: 47 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should allocate fewer acres to aspen and birch management because the forest type only occurred marginally in pre-settlement forests.
PC#: 48 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement places too much emphasis on aspen and birch and fails to account for the forest type on State and private lands.
Response: The Forests conducted an Analysis of the Current Management Situation, September 18, 2003. The Analysis of the Current Management Situation evaluation identified that there were no critical or compelling reasons to change the direction or strategy in the Forest Plan for several issues. Aspen was one of the issues that did not require a change in direction.
It is recognized that aspen is important to many game and nongame species as well as to local economies partly dependent upon the forest products industry. As such, it is one of several habitat types analyzed in the revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Selected Alternative provides for a mix of forest types and age classes within a variety of habitat types, including aspen, while maintaining species viability. The Selected Alternative strives toward a balance between ecological, economic, and social considerations. As disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, implementation of the Selected Alternative projects 149,909 acres of aspen on the Forests within the first decade. This is a reduction of 11,504 acres of aspen from the current 161,413 acres available. This decrease in aspen acreage is expected to have a small impact on the population of deer and grouse; however, species viability for both deer and grouse is not expected to be adversely impacted (Chapter III, page III-178 – III-192, Final Environmental Impact Statement).
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-18 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Clearcutting is one tool available to improve grouse and deer habitat, and is expected to continue to be used where appropriate on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. However, when and where this tool will be utilized, however, is evaluated on a site-specific basis and, therefore, is outside the scope for Forest Plan revision.
Page III-233 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement discloses the amount of aspen managed on a statewide basis for all ownerships. Taking into consideration the amount of aspen managed on State and private lands. Additionally, the aspen resource is analyzed from a statewide perspective in the cumulative effects section for Management Indicator Species (Chapter III, page III-192, Final Environmental Impact Statement). Also disclosed is the percentage the Huron-Manistee National Forests contributes to statewide aspen management. Other alternatives evaluating different levels of aspen management were considered, but because they did not respond to the Forest Plan revision issues or maintain species viability, they were eliminated from further consideration (Chapter II, page II-3, Final Environmental Impact Statement). The alternatives pertinent to aspen included minimum, passive, maximum and maximum multiple use management.
Forest succession is a natural process that requires time, measured in decades or centuries. Most of the decline in the aspen vegetative class for all alternatives is due to succession. Based on the current age distribution of aspen, declines in the aspen vegetative class would not be expected by Decade 3. However, by Decade 10 a significant difference in the amounts of aspen is reflected in the three alternatives. By Decade 2 in the Selected Alternative, the Forests expect to lose approximately 12,000 acres of aspen. By Decade 10, approximately 49,400 acres of aspen is lost (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Table III-24, page III-227).
When determining the most appropriate mix of species composition to meet the different management objectives of the alternatives the Forests considered current species types, age class distribution, soil types, landscape patterns, needs of species of viability concern, and recreational opportunities. Early successional forests make important contributions to biodiversity at the landscape scale; thus, early successional forest continues to be a strong emphasis in the revised Forest Plan, providing a balance between competing demands for use of the Forests’ resources. Aspen is valuable habitat for ruffed grouse, woodcock, and other early successional wildlife species and some manufacturers depend on aspen for their products. Young aspen stands, less than 10 years old, and other shrub-dominated areas are important to a number of neotropical migrant bird species such as the golden-winged warbler. Projections for the Selected Alternative show that aspen in this young age class, less than 10 years old, will increase over the next two decades while, as a whole total aspen acres actually decrease as part of ecological restoration to promote species viability and to enhance ecosystem function.
All alternatives analyzed create a balance of habitats, from young to mature forests, perpetuating habitats for both game and nongame species.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-19 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Barrens – Savannahs – Openings:
PC#: 49 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should be corrected as it states on pages ES-17 and III-166 that 68,000 acres of barrens and prairies will be created under Alternatives B and C, while on page III-340 it states that 73,650 acres will be created.
Response: The statement on page III-357 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been changed to show that the acreage of proposed conversion includes acres converted from early- successional habitat to later-successional habitat, in addition to those acres converted from forested conditions to barrens and prairies. The figure of 73,650 acres is correct. The number of barrens and prairie acres that are projected for establishment in the Selected Alternative, as well as Alternative C, are 68,000 acres.
PC#: 50 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species require early successional habitat. The Final Environmental Impact Statement Glossary should define mesic and dry grasslands; it is not clear which species will benefit from large openings.
Response: The endangered, threatened, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, and species with viability concerns that need early-successional habitats and benefit from large openings can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, beginning on page III-81, and locating the appropriate habitat communities of interest, and in Appendix B, Species Viability Evaluation.
The actual size of a barren or savannah is characterized in the revised Forest Plan for many of the Management Areas. For example, Management Area 2.1, page III-2.1-6, section 2600, I, General Management, states:
I General Management A Mesic Grasslands 1 Manage mesic grassland habitats as areas 250 acres or larger. 2 If 250-acre areas are not attainable, provide multiple areas 75 acres or larger, which total at least 250 acres within a 640-acre area. 3 Manage multiple habitat areas within one mile of each other to increase suitability if possible. B Dry Grasslands 1 Manage dry grassland habitat, 250 acres or larger in Landtype Associations 1 and 2. 2 Manage multiple habitats as blocks when they are within one mile of each other to increase suitability.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-20 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Definitions of mesic and dry grasslands are in the glossary. Table II-3, vegetation composition objectives, page II-7, has been modified to display vegetative composition objectives of barrens and openings.
PC#: 51 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose evidence that barrens actually have an objective reality in the specified areas proposed for treatment. Otherwise, it is misleading to continually reference “restore or restoration” of barrens areas unless the evidence exists.
Response: Species Viability Evaluations completed for Forest Plan revision indicate that current oak, oak-pine and pine barrens ecosystems are found in very small portions of their original range across the forests (see Analysis of the Current Management Situation 9/18/2003, Appendix C, Species Viability Evaluations). It is not surprising, therefore, that the Forests have over 20 at- risk plant and animal species associated with these habitats, including two federally listed species (see Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, Species Viability Evaluation). Using current information on barrens species ranges and habitat needs, data on historic barrens locations, and amounts and frequency of fire events that likely created barrens habitat, the Forests developed conservation measures for maintaining enough barrens habitat for associated species-at-risk. Conservation measures include creation and maintenance of barrens habitats in ecosystems that, historically, were likely to support these habitats. The Forest Plan does not specifically locate barrens restoration sites, as these will be determined at the site-specific level.
Barrens and savannahs will be either created or restored depending on the current condition of the site proposed for management as determined at the time of the site-specific analysis. A large amount of the barrens and savannahs are required because of the Forest’s Species Viability Evaluation process that calls for converting forested stands to barrens or savannahs, Table III-20 to Table III-23, beginning on page III-221, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
PC#: 52 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose where openings might be created, cumulative effects of openings and impacts on water quality and soil disturbance from opening creation and maintenance. All of this information and effects should be consolidated in a separate section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Response: The Final Environmental Impact Statement discusses the cumulative impacts of barrens creation at the Forest Planning level, which is broad and strategic. Species Viability Evaluations completed for Forest Plan revision indicate that current oak, oak-pine and pine barrens ecosystems are found in very small portions of their original range across the forests (see Analysis of the Current Management Situation, Appendix C, Species Viability Evaluations). It is not surprising, therefore, that the Forests have over 20 at-risk plant and animal species associated with these habitats, including two federally listed species (see Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, Species Viability Evaluation). Using current information on barrens species ranges and habitat needs, data on historic barrens locations and amounts and frequency of fire events that likely created barrens habitat, the Forests developed conservation measures for maintaining enough barrens habitat for associated species-at-risk. Conservation measures include
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-21 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments creation and maintenance of barrens habitats in ecosystems that historically were likely to support these habitats. The revised Forest Plan does not specifically locate barrens restoration sites, as these will be determined at the site-specific level. Selection of areas for barrens restoration will be based on species needs. More site-specific cumulative effects analyses will occur as barrens restoration locations are selected and analyzed. There will be an effort, where possible, to coordinate fuelbreak creation and barrens restoration.
Site-specific analysis, including cumulative effects on water quality, will be conducted and management prescriptions will be adjusted accordingly. Any land management activity will utilize State of Michigan Best Management Practices to mitigate negative effects to water quality.
Increased invasive plant infestations will be problematic in barrens restoration projects. The revised Forest Plan includes Standards and Guidelines to prevent the spread and control of non- native invasive species. Treatments, such as implementing non-native invasive plant control measures or seeding with native plants, will be developed at the site-specific level. The Forests’ monitoring plan will have protocols designed to measure the effectiveness of management practices on controlling the establishment and spread of non-native invasive species.
Barrens restoration activities, as with other Forest management activities, are required to maintain long-term soil productivity. The potential for soil compaction and or loss beyond allowable quantities will be addressed through site-specific analyses; cumulative effects are described in the Effects on Soils section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III- 14 to III-17.
The timing of implementation and methods to be used in barrens restoration will be addressed through site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analysis, including cumulative effects.
Alternate formats could have been used for Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, such as emphasizing opening management. However, we chose to use the current format to better organize and clearly identify management for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species and communities on the Forests, which was a major factor in the revision process.
PC#: 53 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should maintain and implement the current 1986 Forest Plan in regards to openings. The aggressive interest in massive opening creation before the public has had an adequate opportunity to express their view is misplaced.
Response: The Forests believe that interested publics have had adequate opportunity to express their concerns and views on the Forest Plan revision. During the initial phases of Forest Plan revision, the Forests conducted an Analysis of the Current Management Situation and several public involvement sessions to obtain Need for Change topics. These topics were published in the Notice of Intent document on September 18, 2003. The Huron-Manistee National Forests received many comments from groups, government agencies, tribes, and individuals, as well as employees on the Notice of Intent. All comments, concerns, and questions received were
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-22 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
reviewed and categorized. Based on this review and categorization, “issues” regarding the proposed management activities in the Notice of Intent were developed. An issue is defined as a point of uncertainty or debate about the social, ecological, or economic effects of the management activities being proposed.
The need for an increase for openings was established as part of the Forest Plan revision Need for Change process and Analysis of the Current Management Situation, as disclosed in that documentation (planning record on file in the Supervisor’s Office) and in the Purpose and Need for Action, Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages I-1 through I-3. The increase in openings is to meet species viability needs and recovery of threatened and endangered species such as the Karner blue butterfly. Monitoring of the implementation of this program and progress in meeting objectives is included in the revised Forest Plan, Monitoring and Evaluation, Chapter IV.
PC#: 54 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the justification for converting large acreages into barrens and savannahs. The Final Environmental Impact Statement already recognizes the increasing trend toward urbanization of the private lands in and around the Huron-Manistee National Forests. That trend will result in a substantial amount of barrens, savannahs, and openings with no need for further restoration activities.
Response: The creation and management of barrens, savannahs, prairies and smaller openings, less than 10-acres, on the Forests are not equal to the open areas created by urbanization of private lands. Barrens, savannahs, prairies, and small openings in the Forest are located and designed to promote habitat that will be used by specific endangered, threatened, sensitive, and other desirable native species. While some portion of urbanized private lands within the Forests’ proclamation boundary may create habitat suitable for use by endangered, threatened, sensitive and other desirable plant and animal species, there is no way of guaranteeing or predicting what those acres might be or how they may be managed now or in the future.
Species Viability Evaluations completed for Forest Plan revision indicate that current oak, oak- pine and pine barrens ecosystems are found in very small portions of their original range across the forests (see Analysis of the Current Management Situation, Appendix C, Species Viability Evaluations). It is not surprising, therefore, that the Forests have over 20 at-risk plant and animal species associated with these habitats, including two federally listed species (see Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, Species Viability Evaluation). Using current information on barrens species ranges and habitat needs, data on historic barrens locations, and amounts and frequency of fire events that likely created barrens habitat, the Forests developed conservation measures for maintaining enough barrens habitat for associated species-at-risk. Conservation measures include creation and maintenance of barrens habitats in ecosystems that historically were likely to support these habitats. The Forest Plan does not specifically locate barrens restoration sites, as these will be determined at the site-specific level.
Table II-3 was changed in the Forest Plan to “Openings.” Previously, it was, “Managed Openings (less than 10 acres)”. Table III-24 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-23 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments page III-234 displays the amount of openings to be managed by decade. This refers to all openings.
PC#: 55 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should include a specific discussion of prevention measures the Huron-Manistee National Forests will use to address potential invasive spread in the clearing and restored barrens areas, since these acres would be especially prone to invasive encroachment. If the mitigation does not apply in these areas, it is strongly recommended that they be designated as special emphasis areas for invasive species control.
Response: The Forest Plan provides Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, which address prevention and control of non-native invasive species at the Management Area level. Site- specific analysis also addresses non-native invasive species at the barrens restoration, or project level, and, if needed, may include mitigation measures to help prevent spread. The Forests’ monitoring plan will have protocols designed to measure the effectiveness of management practices on controlling the establishment and spread of non-native invasive species. Should monitoring indicate a need, the Forest Plan can be amended.
The Forest Service Manual and Handbooks also have specific direction for the management of non-native invasive species on National Forest System lands that have been incorporated into the planning documents by reference (revised Forest Plan, page I-6).
PC#: 56 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should discuss the desired amount of mesic grassland and the distribution across the Forests.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, provides forest-wide Management Area direction and objectives to provide “the amount and quality of habitat necessary to sustain minimum viable populations that represent existing native vertebrates throughout the Forests.” The Species Viability Evaluation process, Appendix B, considered the mesic grassland habitat group and identified conservation measures for this group. Chapter III, Management Area Direction, Goals and Objectives, and the 2600 section discuss the Standards and Guidelines that provide habitat conditions that meet species needs. While the specific amount has not been identified in the Forest Plan Chapter II and III, it has been disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, Biological Resources, Large Open Grasslands Habitat Group. The direct and indirect effects for Alternatives B and C provide direction for the creation and maintenance of up to 2,500 acres of grassland habitat. The Species Viability Evaluation documentation for this large open grassland habitat group further clarifies the habitat amount and its distribution. It identifies five areas on each Forest where these habitats will be created or maintained to meet these species viability needs.
PC#: 57 Public Concern: Since barrens restoration areas may be attractive to recreational uses, the Final Environmental Impact Statement should evaluate potential impacts to barren restoration areas from motorized use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-24 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Response: Broad level effects from recreational motorized use have been evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement starting on page III-149. Motorized use on the Forests is restricted to roads and designated trails and areas (revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-13). Site-specific analysis with public involvement will address needs for protection of created barrens.
PC#: 58 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should specify which prairie species will be used in barrens restoration work and indicate the seed source.
Response: The revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines call for the use of genetically appropriate local genotypes when they are available or non-persistent non-natives. What species will actually be planted will be determined during the site level project development, analysis, and project implementation.
PC#: 59 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not destroy timber stands and convert them to barrens or for fuels management purposes. It is particularly objectionable to lose recent investments that have been made in red pine stands.
PC#: 60 Public Concern: We are concerned that removing 68,000 acres from forest production could have a negative long-term impact on timber outputs from the forests. Perhaps the acreage should be reduced.
Response: Species Viability Evaluations completed for Forest Plan revision indicate that current oak, oak-pine and pine barrens ecosystems are found in very small portions of their original range across the forests (see Analysis of the Current Management Situation, Appendix C, Species Viability Evaluations). Consequently, the Forests have over 20 at-risk plant and animal species associated with these habitats, including two federally listed species, which are the Karner blue butterfly and Kirtland's warbler (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, Species Viability Evaluation). Using current information on barrens species ranges and habitat needs, data on historic barrens locations, and amounts and frequency of fire events that likely created barrens habitat, the Forests developed conservation measures for maintaining enough barrens habitat for associated species-at-risk. Conservation measures include creation and maintenance of barrens habitats in ecosystems that historically were likely to support these habitats. The Forest Plan does not specifically locate barrens restoration sites, as these will be determined at the site-specific level. Selection of areas for barrens restoration will be based on site-specific ability of the site to maintain and support a barrens ecosystem, as well as species needs, regardless of current Forest Type.
Because of mixed ownership patterns within the Forests’ proclamation boundary, there is extensive wildland/urban interface. It is the Forests priority to protect private property and public safety through fuels management.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
The Forests do not anticipate a reduction in the amount of timber outputs as measured by allowable sale quantity due to barrens, savannah, or prairie restoration activities (see Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A. The projected fiber output from dedicated timber production lands is expected to increase under the chosen alternative, even with the proposed removals of timber production lands for creation and restoration of savannahs and prairies. The number of acres of barrens and savannah habitat desired on the Forests’ was determined through the Species Viability Evaluation process using the best available information.
PC#: 61 Public Concern: It is well recognized that remnant prairies exist in small areas of the southern part of the Manistee National Forest (Sparta soils series sites) and are often forested with closely spaced rows of red and jack pine plantations. It appears the primary purpose of pine plantings was prevention of wind erosion (from review of Soil Survey of Newaygo County, Michigan. What does the Plan Revision mean by “Sparta soils should be managed as prairies?” Does the Plan revision propose to de-forest these Sparta soils? Removing tree cover from Sparta soils will again subject these soils to wind erosion and reverse past management practices designed and successfully implemented to stabilize these soils.
Response: The Forests plan to manage the Sparta sand soils, classified as not severely eroded, for prairies. As with other forest management activities, prairie restoration activities are required to maintain long-term soil productivity. The potential for wind erosion and soil loss beyond allowable quantities will be addressed through site-specific analyses and project-level implementation, which will include public involvement.
Conifer – Jack Pine:
PC#: 62 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should maintain jack pine on appropriate sites within the 4.2 Management Area.
Response: A description of Management Prescription Area 4.2 can be found in the revised Forest Plan (page II-1, III-4.2-1 to III-4.2-15). Stand specific prescriptions for reforestation, based on Ecological Land Type Phases, are considered site-specific, and are not determined at the forest plan level.
PC#: 63 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should manage jack pine using the uneven-aged silvicultural method because it produces healthier forests and benefits many nongame wildlife species.
Response: Jack pine is adapted to regeneration by stand replacing wildfire. Jack pine requires full sunlight to regenerate. Clearcutting, even-aged silvicultural system, mimics the regeneration effects of wildfire and is the optimal method for regenerating this forest type. Many non-game wildlife species utilize these clearcut areas at various stages of regeneration.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-26 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Conifer – Red Pine:
PC#: 64 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should create barrens, savannahs or prairies over the next 10 years because, planted with legumes, they will provide food and nesting habitat for many non- game birds, the endangered Karner blue Butterfly, plus food for ruffed grouse and turkeys. Extensive final harvest of red pine plantation would provide outstanding areas for grassy openings and barrens.
Response: The Forests agree, although it is unknown how much of barrens, savannahs, or prairies restoration will actually occur in red pine plantations. Projections indicate that approximately 34,000 acres of barrens, prairies, and openings will come from red pine stands.
PC#: 65 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not create Kirtland's warbler and Karner blue butterfly habitat at the expense of red pine stands. Red pine acreage should be maintained by adopting a policy of no-net-loss of red pine stands.
Response: The revised Forest Plan is a broad, strategic document, and does not specify where management activities will occur. It is acknowledged that some conversion of red pine stands may occur for the perpetuation of the Kirtland's warbler. If so, site-specific analysis would include potential impacts to other resources.
In the first two decades of the Forest Plan, approximately 15,500 acres of red pine are projected to be converted from red pine stands to barrens, savannahs, and openlands (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Table III-24, page 234), which include restoration for Karner blue butterfly. In the same table, a comparison of the current number of red pine acres, 197,694 acres, and decade five, 163,309 acres, projects that approximately 34,400 acres of red pine would be converted to barrens, savannahs, and open lands. (see also Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III- 230)
The Forests do not have plans to replace red pine plantation acreages that are converted to Kirtland's warbler habitat or barrens and savannahs. However, it is important to note that even with this projected reduction; red pine will still be a significant forest type across the landscape. Overall impacts of the projected reduction in red pine acres over the 50-year planning horizon were analyzed for each alternative and disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, pages III-231 to III-243.
The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance in the amount of timber scheduled for harvest, with consideration for other resources. The Forests also recognized the need for ecosystem restoration and landscape-level management of resources to promote species viability and to enhance ecosystem function.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-27 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 66 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should revisit forest management guidelines for red pine plantations and jack pine, oak, and aspen stands because overmaturity and mortality are occurring 20 – 50 years sooner than anticipated.
Response: The Forests are not experiencing significant mortality in the forest types mentioned in the comment, therefore, a need to re-examine red pine management guidelines has been determined to be unnecessary. Monitoring and Evaluation criteria have been established to re- assess forest health and, if new information becomes available, forest type management guidelines can be amended (revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-7, and in many of the forest- wide Standards and Guidelines).
PC#: 67 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should use a species site suitability system (Kotar plant habitat typing) in determining sites suitable for conversion from red pine (27,000 acres) to jack pine in Kirtland's warbler habitat creation areas.
Response: The current system used to determine site suitability for jack pine is the Ecological Land Type Phase, see Field Guide for Ecological Classification and Inventory System of the Huron-Manistee National Forests). Ecological Land Type Phase maps exist for the entire Forests. The Huron-Manistee National Forests have successfully applied an ecological classification system for many years, especially in regards to jack pine and red pine sites. The Forests have invested significant resources in development and utilization of this system and have chosen to continue using it in landscape scale decision making during the forest planning revision process. We continue to review other classification systems for incorporation into or modification of our system.
The revised Forest Plan is a broad, strategic document and does not specify where management activities will occur. However, at the project implementation level, some red pine stands may be converted to jack pine for Kirtland’s warbler habitat. After five decades, approximately 34,400 acres of red pine would be converted to barrens, savannahs, and open lands (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, page III-235).
PC#: 68 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should shorten the rotation age for red pine (currently 100 years) producing a sawlog product more desired by forest industry.
Response: The revised Forest Plan allows rotation ages of 70 to 120 years in red and white pine (Table II-10, page II-17). Market and economic resources are considered as part of the Forest Plan revision process (The Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests, Leefers et al. 2003). This includes forest industry capabilities; however, these capabilities are dynamic and are expected to adapt as technologies and other needs necessitate. There are always possibilities of substitution of raw materials from other sources, changes in production efficiency due to modernization, and a myriad of other possible changes, which affect industry requirements. As such, although considered, product requirements are not a driving force in land management planning. The species/product mix produced by the Selected Alternative results
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-28 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
from harvesting activities to meet other resource goals, such as habitat improvement or landscape ecosystem management objectives.
PC#: 69 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should work cooperatively with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources coordinating and scheduling of red pine harvest and regeneration to avoid a boom and bust cycle, thus, assuring a steady supply of red pine to the forest products industry.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests agree that the Forest Service should work cooperatively with other landowners and land managers. While the Forest Service only has jurisdiction on National Forest System lands, the agency will strive to work cooperatively with others to address landscape-level issues, such as habitat availability and timber supplies.
PC#: 70 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should complete and disclose the results of a timber market survey as the findings would show much more potential for red pine volume production.
Response: Huron-Manistee National Forests’ personnel assessed the timber supply and historic timber consumption information as provided in the Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests. This report characterizes the social and economic environment for the Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee National Forests. Information contained in the report assisted the Forests’ personnel in assessing and deriving resource demand (Larry Throop, Assessment for the Demand of Timber Goods and Services from the Forests, September 27, 2004; and, Larry Leefers, Timber Consumption (Demand) and Modeling for the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Department of Forestry, Michigan State University).
Overall, demand for timber products has increased only moderately since the 1986 Forest Plan was approved. The demand for timber products is estimated to continue to increase slightly through the next planning period for most products, mainly due to increased populations both nationally and locally. Red pine pulpwood and sawtimber and northern hardwood sawtimber are the exceptions. The prediction is that demand will remain moderate and will be relatively elastic on the Forests, meaning that the competitive price will be primarily driven by the broader marketplace and not by output levels from these Forests.
The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance in the amount of timber scheduled for harvest with consideration for other resources. The Forests also recognized the need for ecosystem restoration and landscape-level management of resources to promote species viability and to enhance ecosystem function.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-29 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Conifer – Swamp Forest Types:
PC#: 71 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should provide for increased management of cedar swamps and lowland hardwoods because lack of management will result in conversion to tag alder, which will have a negative effect on deer winter habitat.
Response: Cedar is a long-lived species and is not likely to succeed to other forest types in the planning horizon, 50 years, nor are lowland hardwoods anticipated to succeed to other forest types.
It is desirable to maintain existing cedar communities. However, it is very difficult to establish new stands of cedar economically on a landscape scale. It is anticipated that cedar swamps will continue to provide thermal cover and browse for deer into the future. Therefore, the Forests have elected not to try to regenerate cedar. The harvest projection for lowland conifer and lowland hardwoods in the next planning period is very limited. The potential impacts of the proposed level of harvest was analyzed and disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-165 to III-167 for cedar and pages III-218, III-243, among other locations.
Specifically for deer, management activities on state, federal and private lands, for example, habitat manipulation, timber harvesting and agriculture, create early successional habitat. This habitat provides for large populations of herbivores. These large populations lead to serious negative impacts from herbivory, especially from deer, on cedar swamp communities. Another negative impact is the result in an increase in deer herbivory in areas in close proximity to the restored 68,500 acres of barrens and prairies. It is not known how many cedar swamps would be located close enough to restored open lands to be impacted (Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-167).
Overall, the Selected Alternative best meets long-term goals and objectives for the Huron- Manistee National Forests, integrating biological, social, and economic factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Forests’ resources.
Cooperative Management and Collaboration:
PC#: 72 Public Concern: The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is willing to provide to the Huron- Manistee National Forests data on mottle sculpin and brook trout taken from fish sampling sites.
Response: The brook trout and the mottled sculpin have been selected as Management Indicator Species (Appendix G, Final Environmental Impact Statement). The Huron-Manistee National Forests appreciate the data-sharing offer and are eager to work cooperatively to address natural resource management issues.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-30 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 73 Public Concern: The Department of Natural Resources and the Huron-Manistee National Forests should cooperate in the planning and management of respective public land and resources in the northern Lower Peninsula.
Response: As stated in the revised Forest Plan, page I-9: Principle 2: it is the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ intent and desire to coordinate as suggested. Specifically, the Huron-Manistee National Forests will coordinate management activities with the appropriate local, state, or tribal governments as well as other federal agencies.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests anticipates that there will be some differences in management direction because of differences between agencies in laws, regulations, and policies.
PC#: 74 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should encourage partnerships with other federal agencies, tribes, and organizations, particularly in watershed restoration efforts.
PC#: 75 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should recognize the potential of volunteers.
Response: The Forest Service recognizes the importance of partnerships in implementing the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. The revised Forest Plan is permissive with respect to the involvement of volunteers when deemed advisable, provided the arrangement is in accordance with laws, regulations and policies (revised Forest Plan, page I-9: Principle 2).
Deer and Grouse Emphasis Areas:
PC#: 76 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should manage aspen across the Forests’ landscape, developing good ageclass diversity rather than intensively managing aspen in a few Grouse Management Areas.
Response: Aspen and its management are important to many game and nongame species. Implementation of the Selected Alternative provides for a mix of forest types and age classes to maintain species viability. The Selected Alternative does not emphasize aspen management in Grouse Management Areas over aspen outside of Grouse Management Areas. Aspen in Grouse Management Areas are managed on a 40-year rotation, as compared to a 50-year rotation outside of Grouse Management Areas. Chapter III, page III-178 through 192, of the Final Environmental Impact Statement discusses grouse and the reasons for a shortened aspen rotation in Grouse Management Areas.
PC#: 77 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should harvest aspen to provide deer with a source of food and not reduce acres of Deer Emphasis Areas or clearly state the reason
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-31 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
and the long-term effects for the decrease in Deer Emphasis Area acres. Areas of the Forests should be designated as remote and trophy deer hunting areas.
PC#: 78 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should eliminate Deer Emphasis Areas and substantially reduce Grouse Emphasis Areas acres because over-abundant populations of white-tailed deer are causing a loss of vegetative diversity.
Response: The 1986 Forests Plan allocated Deer Emphasis Areas in which specific management activities are intended to enhance deer habitats. Their importance relates to the provision of critical winter forage requirements and thermal cover through active management. The objectives of Deer Emphasis Areas are to protect isolated, essential areas for deer, which have specific or unique habitat requirements. There are other opportunities outside of the emphasis areas to manage for deer, but this is not the primary objective for these areas (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, beginning on page III-199 through 203 Deer Emphasis Areas occur in Management Areas 4.2, 4.3, and 6.2, revised Forest Plan).
Deer Emphasis Area acreages were decreased because of the re-designation of former Deer Emphasis Areas to Management Areas 4.2KW (Kirtland’s Warbler Management Area), 6.1 (semiprimitive nonmotorized), and 9.1 (Candidate Research Natural Areas) (Need for Change, September 18, 2003).
The effects of the re-designation are discussed on page 201chapter III, Final Environmental Impact Statement. The particular discussion is repeated here for the convenience of the reader. The re-designation would make management specifically for deer within these areas unlikely. Management direction for 4.2KW under Alternatives B and C would result in a reduction in quality forage for deer and would not provide for optimal thermal cover. It is likely that Deer Emphasis Areas re-designated as 9.1, Candidate Research Natural Areas, were already part of the old-growth design, and, therefore, would not have been actively managed for early successional species. Re-designation of the Deer Emphasis Areas to other Management Areas would not limit early successional habitat management and, therefore, would not limit the ability to continue to manage for deer habitat requirements. Overall, these alternatives would have a potential long- term affect on deer populations, which could affect recreational activities such as hunting and wildlife viewing.
Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas are intended to provide remote recreational opportunities including hunting. Trophy hunting areas and bait-prohibited areas are regulated by the State of Michigan, and are thus, outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and the Forest Plan revision process.
An actual elimination, of or reduction in, acreage of Deer, Grouse, and Wildlife Emphasis Areas was not identified as a Need for Change issue (Notice of Intent, September 18, 2003) and thus, is not within the scope of the plan revision. Deer Emphasis Areas make up only a small percentage, approximately 2 to 4 percent, of the total area of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. These areas are primarily managed to provide winter thermal cover, and this habitat only has a minor impact on local deer numbers in most years. Overall, however, there would be increased
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-32 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements herbivory from deer, as noted in numerous locations in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, pages III-255 through 258, among others.
The revised Forest Plan provides a balance between competing demands for use of the Forests’ resources. Despite a reduction in the amount of Deer Emphasis Area acres, the projected harvest of aspen, and other tree species outside of old growth and deer emphasis areas, will maintain the viability of white-tailed deer on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Selected Alternative requires the establishment and maintenance of 58,500 acres of barrens, prairies, or savannahs and 2,000 acres of fuelbreaks. This is likely to increase adverse impacts due to herbivory from white- tailed deer. In addition, many management activities such as, habitat manipulation, timber harvesting, and agriculture on state, federal, and private lands create early successional habitat. This habitat provides for large populations of deer. These large populations lead to localized negative impacts from herbivory.
Disturbance Regimes – Wildfire:
PC#: 79 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan places too much emphasis on fire suppression and reduced fuel loads through timber harvesting. The Forest Service must recognize the vital role that fire has in the ecosystem, and try to return some of these natural disturbance regimes to the area.
Response: Many of the ecosystems of northern Michigan are disturbance-related systems that need some type of disturbance to keep them in balance. In the distant past, that disturbance was wildfire. That wildfire intensity level is not possible today because of health, safety, and protection of private property concerns. Therefore, carefully planned and controlled timber harvest is often used as the disturbance agent.
The types of harvest identified in the revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement create conditions similar to various types of natural disturbances. Although timber harvesting, particularly clearcutting, is not the same as the historic natural disturbances, it does provide the necessary conditions for establishing and growing species that characteristically were regenerated by stand replacement type disturbances that created open conditions.
As discussed throughout the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, including pages III-48 and III-49, fire will be used to increase forest health, restore ecosystem processes, and to accomplish site preparation. Timber harvest will be the tool used to meet vegetation objectives, often in conjunction with prescribed fire. Prescribed fire is one of the most effective and efficient practices for fuel reduction programs to reduce wildfire severity. Prescribed fire is also used to prepare sites for natural regeneration, and for special wildlife management needs for species such as the Kirtland’s warbler and the Karner blue butterfly. The Forests believe that the revised Forest Plan balances multiple uses. The vegetative objectives of the revised Forest Plan were developed to address all aspects of forest management.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-33 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Document Organization and Corrections:
PC#: 80 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should present Kirtland's warbler, Indiana bat, and Karner blue butterfly information in summary form at the beginning of the Endangered and Threatened Species section or at the beginning of the species-specific sections to make the information more accessible.
Response: We appreciate your comment. The Forests evaluated your comment and believe that the information is organized sufficiently.
PC#: 81 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests’ website should include the Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the revised Forest Plan. The comment deadline could not be established because the Notice of Availability is the only document indicating the date.
Response: While it is true that Huron-Manistee National Forests’ website did not include the Federal Register Notice of Availability, the Forests sent a Forest Plan revision newsletter and postcard to approximately 1,300 individuals, businesses and organizations whose names are maintained on the revision mailing lists. Both indicated the availability of the draft documents, the timeframe for submitting comments, the website address and telephone number for obtaining these documents. The Forest Plan revision newsletter, as well as the draft documents, has been posted on the website since early March 2005.
PC#: 82 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan, Alternatives A and B maps, should correct the error that depicts part of the proposed study area (9.2) on the Pine on Map B includes portions of the Pine that are part of the National Wild & Scenic River section.
Response: Both maps are correct. Map A includes all of the designated Scenic River from Lincoln Bridge to one mile above Stronach Dam, and the portion from one mile above Stronach Dam to Low Bridge. This is consistent with the decision to manage the river from Lincoln Bridge to Low Bridge as described in Amendment #23. Map B describes the designated portion of the river as Management Area 8.1 and the portion from Stronach to M-55 as Management Area 9.2.
PC#: 83 Public Concern: I oppose all proposed plans, because none of them does a viable job of managing the forest for all users of these resources: man, wildlife, and timber.
Response: The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires that all National Forests develop and implement a Forest Plan. The Huron-Manistee National Forests believe that the Selected Alternative best meets long-term goals and objectives for the Huron-Manistee National
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-34 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Forests, integrating biological, social, and economic factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Forests’ resources.
PC#: 84 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should improve the maps accompanying the Forest Plan; they are unclear in the Brandy Brook area.
Response: The revised Forest Plan was adjusted to clarify the Management Areas map labeling for the Brandy Brook area. The Management Area designations within Brandy Brook are repositioned to the west of Lake Mitchell, within MA 6.2D (Alternative B) and MA 6.1D (Alternative C).
PC#: 85 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should include a bibliography and information on where copies of the studies referenced in the Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statements can be found.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests have provided the full citation for all reference materials referred to in the revised Forest Plan, Appendix F and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix J. The Forests will assist individuals in attaining specific unpublished materials if the need arises.
PC#: 86 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not have pseudo-management areas such as remote area habitat, without adequate disclosures on the ½ inch to 1-mile road maps or management direction outlines and narrative. Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests are not proposing remote area habitat management areas in the Forest Plan revision Process.
PC#: 87 Public Concern: The National Forest Management Act requires each Forest Plan to contain Standards and Guidelines for each management prescription for each management area, which provides important boundaries on the actions of the agency in implementing the plans. Each management prescription should contain its own Standards and Guidelines, and they should be clear, appropriately detailed so that the public can have a good idea of what is being planned, and enforceable. Vague, broad statements, which include terms, like “should or may” or “at the discretion of,” are unenforceable. These kinds of Standards and Guidelines do not provide any boundary on agency action and do not comply with the requirements of the law.
Response: Standards and Guidelines are not a requirement of the National Forest Management Act. Rather, they are required in the resource management planning regulations, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 36 CFR Part 219. Section 219.11, Forest Plan Content, (c). This section states that each management area will have multiple use prescriptions and associated Standards and Guidelines. The Huron-Manistee National Forests believe that the Standards and Guidelines in its revised Forest Plan comply with all appropriate laws, regulations, and policies.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-35 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
The Forest Plan is intended to provide broad strategic direction to assist the Forests in attaining management objectives. Standards and Guidelines (see definitions below) are intended to facilitate implementation of the Forest Plan at this broad strategic level. Individual management actions undertaken to implement the Forest Plan are subject to site-specific environmental analysis and documentation and public involvement.
Standards and Guidelines are defined in the revised Forest Plan, Glossary, Appendix F, page F- 48. Standards are requirements found in a forest plan, which impose limits on natural resource management activities, generally for environmental protection. Standards are required limits to activities. These limitations allow the Forests to reach the desired conditions and objectives. Standards also ensure compliance with laws, regulations, executive orders, and policy direction. Deviations from Standards must be analyzed and documented in Forest Plan amendments.
However, Guidelines are preferable limits to management actions that may be followed to achieve desired conditions. Guidelines are generally expected to be carried out. They help the Forests to reach the desired conditions and objectives in a way that permits operational flexibility to respond to variations over time. Deviations from Guidelines must be analyzed during project- level analysis and documented in a project decision document, but deviations do not require a Forest Plan amendment.
PC#: 88 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should designate other areas on the Forests as Management Area 7.1: Concentrated Recreation Area. Does the 7.1 designation apply to only non-motorized uses? We currently have some areas on the Forest that would meet the criteria of concentrated motorized areas. Why were these not considered for a concentrated motorized recreation area designation, for example, “7.2 concentrated motorized”?
Response: The Concentrated Recreation Management Area designation does not only apply to non-motorized uses but can be used for any high-density, self-contained forest recreation environment, for example, downhill ski resorts.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests do not know which areas the commenter is suggesting should be considered for a concentrated recreation designation so it is not possible to respond specifically to this question. However, the Huron-Manistee National Forests evaluated all Management Area designations during Forest Plan revision. There is only one location on the Huron-Manistee National Forests where designated trail densities are high enough to warrant a designation of Concentrated Recreation Management. This area, Corsair Recreation Area, formerly the Silver Creek semiprimitive nonmotorized area, has been designated as a Management Area 7.1, Concentrated Recreation Area.
PC#: 89 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should improve the Draft Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement by providing major editorial work. The documents are too voluminous, unorganized, confusing, and hard to review. The simple reasons and basis for decisions are often hard to decipher. Specific suggestions for improving the documents are: 1) prepare an executive summary section where major issues can be addressed with footnoted
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-36 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements references to the body of the Plan; 2) provide an index of both documents; 3) improve the Table of Contents; and 4) include an introductory comparison of the current plan and proposed changes to make it much easier for readers to find issues and details of particular concerns.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests strived to compile the tremendous volume of information contained in the revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement into clear and well-organized documents. We have thoroughly edited both documents, reorganized many sections, and included indices. The revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement have been indexed and additional work has been done to improve the clarity and organization of the documents. An executive summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared. The Forests believe that this additional effort will facilitate understanding of the documents and the location of information pertaining to specific issues within them. We believe that the documents are now more clear, better organized, and easier to use than their draft versions. The Forests do not believe that an executive summary of the revised Forest Plan would be useful.
PC#: 90 Public Concern: The public is presented with a hodge-podge of overlapping and confusing management layers each with its own impacts to recreation. The reader cannot determine what management prescriptions apply to their choice of recreational activity at any given place, let alone the rationale the Huron-Manistee National Forests are using for the various management restrictions.
Response: The Forests have tried to make the documents as easy to understand as possible. Forest management and Forests related issues can be extremely complex, and often require detailed analysis and management direction. The revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement were developed not only for public review, but to serve as management direction that Forest Service employees will use to manage the National Forests. As such, some of the management direction must be technical in nature. Those desiring a less complex analysis should refer to the executive summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which provides a quick summary and findings of the analysis. As to specific concerns, the commenter does not provide enough information to respond. However, from the comment we can assume that the commenter has concerns about performing a specific recreational activity at a specific location. Forest Service staff is available to discuss specifics of recreational opportunities available at any given area.
PC#: 91 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement should both be included in consolidated electronic computer files rather than separated into individual chapter files. A Table of Contents for the Final Environmental Impact Statement should be included.
Response: Complete document digital files, rather than by chapter, will be provided on the Website for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and revised Forest Plan A more thorough table of contents is incorporated into the final documents.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-37 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Ecological Classification:
PC#: 92 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should consider species site suitability, such as the Kotar methodology, in determining which sites are best suited for aspen.
Response: Sites that are best suited, ecologically, for aspen are determined at the stand level and not in the revised Forest Plan. The Huron-Manistee National Forests use locally developed Ecological Land Type Phases to determine site suitability for aspen. Ecological Land Type Phases were developed within a broader ecological framework. In this system, landscape ecosystems on the Huron-Manistee National Forests are defined by combinations of geologic; vegetative, both overstory and ground flora, soil; hydrologic; and substratum (refer to the Ecological Classification and Inventory of the Huron-Manistee National Forests Field Guide).
PC#: 93 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should define and map aquatic ecological units (watersheds) as discussed in North Central Experiment Station General Technical Report NC-176.
Response: The Forests are aware of NC-176 and use this resource on a case-by-case basis when appropriate. However, at present, this Ecological System is not used as the basis for planning by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. In Region 9, the fifth level watershed is used as the basis for planning purposes. Thus, the system is not described in the revised Forest Plan or Final Environmental Impact Statement. Fifth level watersheds are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on page III-3 and displayed in Figure III-1. As new information becomes available, the Forests will continue to evaluate the possibilities of incorporating new Ecological Classification Systems for planning for aquatic resource management.
Economic and Social Impacts:
PC#: 94 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should recognize the economic and social impact of timber management in generating revenues, in the contribution to local communities’ economy, and to wildlife based recreation.
Response: The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance between, and integration of, ecological, economic, and social factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ natural resources. There are many methods or tools used in achieving this balance, including harvesting of timber. As such, timber harvest is a part of management of National Forest System lands, and potential economic impacts are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-329 to III-348. The Huron-Manistee National Forests considered an alternative that would maximize the production of timber products (see page II-3, Final Environmental Impact Statement). This Alternative was eliminated from detailed study and further consideration because it failed to respond effectively to Forests’ issues or to public
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-38 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
comments received. Maximum timber production was also evaluated under the maximum timber benchmark (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A).
PC#: 95 Public Concern: The preferences seemingly being given to fiscal profits over healthy growth and protection of our resources are alarmingly shortsighted…the direction, which seems to have been given to make profit even if wildlife is adversely affected, is disgraceful.
Response: Under Alternatives B and C, the objectives of forest management include restoration of ecosystems and providing for the viability of animal and plant species. Timber harvesting is one of the tools to accomplish these objectives. There are varieties of methods to achieve this objective, with timber harvest being one of many successful tools. The Huron-Manistee National Forests’ revised Forest Plan is designed to achieve a balance between ecological, social, and economic needs.
PC#: 96 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should promote tourism by not requiring hunting and fishing guides to obtain a permit to operate.
Response: Commercial operations on National Forest System lands are required to have special use permits under 36 CFR 261.10. Hunting and fishing regulations and issuance of outfitter guide permits are administrative processes beyond the scope of Forest Planning.
PC#: 97 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should manage the bidding and leasing process of concessionaire operated campgrounds fairly and honestly. Rustic campgrounds are not meeting their potential in revenue compared to the recreational experience.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests evaluated area recreational assets and demands. A Recreation Niche Statement was prepared, that, in part, emphasizes water-based recreational activities. The Forests intent is to maintain ownership on lands adjacent to water for general public use and enjoyment, and to provide opportunities that are more rustic in nature. The revised Forest Plan and the Recreation Niche do not specifically recommend that the Forests establish highly developed campgrounds. Highly developed recreational opportunities appear to be adequately provided for by the private sector.
However, the Forests do operate developed recreation sites. Many of the developed recreation sites on the Forests charge a fee and are managed in accordance with the Forests’ implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. These are maintained and managed by the Forest Service. Some campgrounds are operated under a special use permit by a concessionaire. These permits are issued using a competitive bidding process and are administered by the Forest Service.
PC#: 98 Public Concern: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources should advertise which lakes are stocked with fish and stock those lakes that are closest to private tourist businesses.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-39 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Response: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the management of the state’s fisheries, including stocking of lakes and streams. This issue is outside the scope of the Forest Plan revision process.
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species - General:
PC#: 99 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should be flexible in allowing other agencies or organizations to conduct surveys of lakes and streams during restricted periods designed to protect loons and eagles.
Response: The evaluation of protective measures for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species is done on a site-specific basis. These site-specific analyses will continue to be done in cooperation with other state, local, and federal governmental agencies.
PC#: 100 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should contain more stringent Standards and Guidelines to protect threatened and endangered species; the Final Environmental Impact Statement does little to prove species are viable.
Response: As part of the Forest Plan revision process, the Huron-Manistee National Forests conducted a Species Viability Evaluation (Appendix B, Final Environmental Impact Statement). Because of this evaluation, Conservation Measures, Standards and Guidelines, and management direction were incorporated into the revised Forest Plan to provide for minimum viability of all Management Indicator Species, Regional Forester sensitive species, federal and state listed species, and for all native and desirable non-native species. Many of the specific items identified in the Need for Change process and carried forward into the Notice of Intent specifically addressed species viability. Accordingly, specific conservation measures to maintain the viability of native and desirable non-native species were developed and incorporated into the revised Forest Plan (2600 Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management, page II-23, revised Forest Plan). The effects of implementation of said conservation measures are disclosed in the Environmental Impact Statement for the revised Forest Plan.
PC#: 101 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should omit the statement “as well as those species proposed to be listed” on page II-24 of the Forest Plan. The [endangered and threatened species] lists are long enough without including the “proposed” species. It is reasonable to include the Indiana bat in the “desired future condition” of the Forest, but the specifications that manipulate management of the forest in order to raise more bats are not reasonable.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests are required by law, regulation, and policy for example, the Endangered Species Act, 36 Code of Federal Regulations 219.19 and 219.9, and Departmental Regulations 9500-4 to maintain the viability of native and desirable non-native species. Strict regulations are in place regarding management for federally threatened and endangered species and their habitats on National Forest System Lands. (16 U.S.C. 1534 et seq.)
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-40 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Section 7 directs Federal departments and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats (16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq.). Federal agencies also must consult with the Secretary of the Interior, on non-marine species, or the Secretary of Commerce, on marine species, whenever an action authorized by such agency is likely to affect a species listed as endangered or threatened or to affect its critical habitat. The act mandates conference with the appropriate Secretary whenever an action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, or whenever an action might result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed for listing (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)4).
PC#: 102 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should include Standards and Guidelines for the 10 aquatic Regional Forester sensitive species (including lake sturgeon, creek heel splitter, pugnose shiner, and channel darter) in the Forest Plan.
Response: To improve organization and facilitate implementation, the revised Forest Plan has been reorganized such that some items formerly located in the Standards and Guideline sections are now located under “Goals, Objectives, and Desired Future Conditions” at the beginning of Chapter II. This section provides the Huron-Manistee National Forests with the direction necessary to manage appropriately habitat for the ten aquatic Regional Forester Sensitive Species mentioned in the comment. Specifically, general protection and enhancement measures for the aquatic sensitive species are implicit in the following Forest-side goals and objective (Chapter II, page II-3 and desired future conditions Chapter II, page II-6). These are:
• Wildlife and fisheries habitats and plant communities shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native species. • Maintain or improve the populations of endangered, threatened, or sensitive species or communities. • Manage riparian areas consistent with resource conditions, management objectives and designated water use. Reduce nonpoint pollution to the maximum extent feasible and protect the hydrologic functions of watersheds, including both surface and groundwater systems. • Manage oligotrophic lakes with 100 percent of National Forest ownership so as not to change the trophic status; allow no more than a 10-percent decline in trophic status in other oligotrophic lakes and lakes with a mesotrophic status; lakes with a eutrophic status will maintain fishable and swimmable waters. • Maintain favorable conditions of water flow and quality. Management practices will not result in a decline in water quality conditions. • Habitat needs of riparian-dependent species are met and maintained, especially habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-41 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species - Ginseng:
PC#: 103 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not forego management of good quality northern hardwood stands for ginseng. Not actively managing these stands is not beneficial to the forest products industry.
Response: Ginseng is very rare on the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, page B-10). There exists only a small portion of the Huron- Manistee National Forests that is potentially suitable habitat for ginseng. This amounts to approximately 22,500 acres, or about 2 percent of the Forests. The revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines specify managing 80 percent of potential ginseng habitat for conditions that are likely to support viable ginseng populations. The Forests are mandated by law to protect viability of species on National Forest System lands, while striving to meet other ecological, economic, and social needs. The Selected Alternative strives to achieve such a balance. Potential impacts to other resources, including economic impacts, were analyzed and disclosed in Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-174 through III-177.
The Forests also recognized the need for ecosystem restoration and landscape-level management of resources to promote species viability and to enhance ecosystem function. The Selected Alternative attempts to ensure the distribution, abundance, and habitat requirements of species adapted to mature forest as well, and for those requiring large opening complexes.
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species – Indiana Bat:
PC#: 104 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should restrict cutting of standing dead trees within suitable Indiana bat habitat at any time during the year and not just from May 1 to August 31.
Response: We agree and have modified Standard and Guideline in revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600, II, C, 3 – Indiana Bat, to include the following:
• Within the five-mile radius around Tippy Dam – Tippy Management Zone, firewood permits will be prohibited.
In addition, the current Manistee National Forest Firewood Permit Program provides a map showing areas closed for standing dead firewood collection from May 1 through August 31. This map is provided to all firewood permit holders.
PC#: 105 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should coordinate with Indiana bat management actions and protective measures listed in the Biological Evaluation, as they are different. These measures include:
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-42 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
1. Regeneration units will be designed with irregular borders to provide edges for solar exposure of roost sites, interspersion of roosting and foraging habitat, and travel corridors. 2. Survey and document pre- and post-harvest roost tree conditions, including inventory and protection measures. 3. Create or renovate upland water sources for Indiana bat by developing water holes in wildlife openings along the forest edge; designating Maintenance Level 1 and decommissioned roads to provide upland water sources; designing road construction and reconstruction projects to include small waterholes adjacent to the road, where feasible. 4. Manage the 5-mile (8-km) radius around Tippy Dam to best benefit the bat. 5. Habitat removal and modification to include considerations for minimizing potential adverse impacts, such as visual assessments of roosting habitat quality (exfoliating bark, splits/cracks, hollows, holes, dens, and cavities) or other assessment techniques such as mist-netting. 6. Habitat removal and modifications will employ seasonal avoidance measures, as feasible and prudent. 7. Site-specific project protection measures will be developed during biological evaluations to identify appropriate protection measures.
Response: The following list corresponds to the numbered items above:
1. Added Standard and Guidelines to revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600, II, C – Indiana Bat. • Regeneration units will be designed with irregular borders to provide edges for solar exposure of roost sites, interspersion of roosting and foraging habitat, and travel corridors. 2. This will be included in revised Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation Guide as stated in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter IV. 3. Added Standard and Guideline to revised Forest Plan, Chapter III, Management Areas 2.1, 4.2, 4.4, and 6.1, Section 2600, I, General Management: • Provide for waterhole development or restoration in Management Areas 2.1, 4.2, 4.4, and 6.2.
• Added Standards and Guidelines to Chapter II, 2600, II, C, 9 – Indiana Bat: o Upland Water Sources will be provided for the Indiana Bat by: 9 Developing water holes in wildlife openings along the forest edge. 9 Utilize maintenance level 1 and decommissioned roads to provide upland water sources, where feasible. 9 Designing road construction and reconstruction projects to include small waterholes adjacent to the road, where feasible.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-43 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
4. Added to Goals, Objectives, and Desired Future Conditions section of revised Forest Plan, Chapter II - Natural Resources. 5. Standards and Guidelines exist in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, and 2600 II C - Indiana Bat. 6. Standards and Guidelines exist in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, and 2600 II C - Indiana Bat. 7. Standards and Guidelines exist in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, and 2600 II C - Indiana Bat.
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species – Karner blue Butterfly:
PC#: 106 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should coordinate with Karner blue butterfly management actions and protective measures listed in the Biological Evaluation, as they are different. These measures include: 1. Trail construction, road construction, and vegetation management activities will be designed to improve potential Karner blue butterfly habitat. Roads and trails will be managed and maintained in a manner to protect areas with wild lupine. Where this is not feasible and damage is occurring, trails and roads may be relocated or decommissioned. 2. Provide dispersal corridors in order to facilitate dispersal between occupied and unoccupied areas (suitable habitat sites). 3. Activities will be scheduled and completed when they are least likely to impact any life stage of the butterfly. 4. Watershed management activities that are incompatible with Karner blue butterfly will be excluded.
Response: The following changes correspond to the items listed in the concern and were made to the revised Forest Plan: 1. Added Standard and Guideline to the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, and 2600, II, G, 3 - Karner blue butterfly: • Roads and trails may be relocated or decommissioned, as deemed necessary to protect wild lupine. 2. Added Standard and Guideline to the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600, II, G, 5 - Karner blue butterfly: • Provide dispersal corridors in order to facilitate dispersal between occupied and unoccupied areas (suitable habitat sites). 3. Standards and Guidelines exist in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600, II, G - Karner blue Butterfly which provide timing restrictions for activities that are likely to impact the Karner blue Butterfly. 4. Added Standard and Guideline to the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, and 2600, II, G, 2- Karner blue butterfly: • Resource management activities, such as road and trail construction and vegetation management, will be designed to protect and improve potential Karner blue butterfly habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-44 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 107 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should depict a measure for: (1) total amount of habitat to be managed for recovery and non-recovery Karner blue butterfly populations and (2) habitat management targets by decade to meet these goals.
Response: Clarifications of the amount of habitat restoration to occur in the metapopulation areas and in the essential Karner blue butterfly habitat areas, non-recovery, were made to the revised Forest Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the Biological Assessement:
• Revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600, IV - Management Indicator Species, B - Karner blue Butterfly. • Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. • Biological Assessment, Karner blue Butterfly Effects Section.
In general, approximately 7,000 acres of barrens restoration are planned to occur during the first decade. While not specific to the metapopulation areas or essential Karner blue butterfly habitat areas, it is expected that 60 percent would occur in the metapopulation areas and 40 percent would occur in the essential Karner blue butterfly habitat areas.
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species - Kirtland's warbler
PC#: 108 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not implement a large increase in Kirtland's warbler habitat when the recovery objective of 1,000 pairs has been exceeded at the same time when Golden-Winged Warbler habitat is being severely diminished by the loss of aspen.
Response: The Kirtland's warbler is a federally endangered species, and the golden-winged warbler is not. The significant increase in the Kirtland's warbler population in recent years has been on State of Michigan lands. Only in the past three years has the Huron-Manistee National Forests met its minimum goal of 420 pairs. A Species Viability Analysis indicated that more habitat management is required to maintain or exceed these numbers over the long-term (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B). This will also continue to meet the requirements as outlined in the Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Plan. In addition, the Selected Alternative emphasizes managing habitat for the golden-winged warbler (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, Table B-3, surrogate species for shrub/scrub wetlands and early successional aspen/birch).
PC#: 109 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Forest Plan should clarify the amount of essential Kirtland's warbler habitat is being proposed, i.e., Environmental Impact Statement, page II-13, Table II-2 states that the Selected Alternative will increase the amount of Kirtland's warbler essential habitat to 135,965 acres. However, page II-32 of the Forest Plan and page 80 of the Biological Evaluation states that this alternative will reach a breeding habitat goal of 88,300 acres.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-45 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Response: We agree this was an error. The text has been changed in Chapter II of the Final Environmental Impact Statement to be consistent. Table II-2 was corrected to reflect the correction acreage of 88,300 acres. The 135,965 acres is the total acres in Management Area 4.2 that is considered Kirtland's warbler habitat. Not all of Management Area 4.2 is essential habitat.
PC#: 110 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should not dedicate so many acres and tax dollars to intensive, single-species management such as the Kirtland's warbler. Very specific and repetitious warbler habitat conditions must be created through artificial treatments and other bird competitors of the Kirtland’s warbler must be baited, trapped, and killed. The law is flawed and the species should be capable of living in the natural environment.
Response: The revised Forest Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement disclosure reflect the management necessary to meet recovery goals and laws mandated by the Endangered Species Act. Essential habitat needed to meet these mandates includes 20 percent, rather than 30 percent, of that habitat type on the Forests. Although essential for the Kirtland's warbler, this habitat type is also vital for other plant and animal species and, thus is beneficial on a larger ecosystem scale. All the management activities are designed, as best possible, to mimic natural wildfires that are now suppressed to protect human life and property. Please refer to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-46, for disclosure of potential effects from this management activity.
PC#: 111 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should clarify contradictory statements about recovery objectives for Kirtland's warbler, i.e., the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-59 states an objective of 1,000 pairs and later states that the minimum objective is 420 pairs.
Response: One thousand pairs of Kirtland’s warblers is the recovery objective throughout its known range including National Forest System land and State Forest land, as well as Fish and Wildlife Service land. The objective of 420 pairs is the goal on the Huron-Manistee National Forests only (Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-58 to 61).
PC#: 112 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose whether nest parasitism by the Brown-headed cowbird is a concern and could be increased by creating barrens, savannahs, and prairies on the Forests.
Response: Cowbird parasitism may increase because of barrens creation, particularly on the Manistee National Forest. Cowbird control continues to be implemented on the Huron National Forest for the Kirtland's warbler and is likely to have benefits outside the Kirtland’s Warbler Management Areas. However, barrens creation is still likely to have some negative effect on the Huron National Forest. Effects are discussed in the habitat groups of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, including the Pine Barrens habitat group and Savannah, Oak-Pine Barrens, habitat group.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-46 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 113 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should explicitly state that the annual target for Kirtland's warbler is to provide breeding habitat for a minimum of 420 pairs of Kirtland's warblers through sustained harvest and regeneration of an average of 1,600 acres annually.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, Chapters II and III, display Goals and Objectives, Desired Future Conditions and Standards and Guidelines to reflect Kirtland's warbler breeding habitat by decade. This decadal goal is reflective of an objective of approximately 1,600 acres of essential breeding habitat created each year. It is anticipated that approximately 15,960 acres of essential breeding habitat will be available at any one time into the future. This will enable the Forests to provide for a minimum of 420 pairs of Kirtland's warblers.
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species – Piping Plover:
PC#: 114 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should prohibit fireworks within 3,281 feet (1000m) of active piping plover nests, require that pets to be on a leash within piping plover critical habitat, and include the most up-to-date information regarding piping plover status in the Biological Evaluation.
Response: Discharge of fireworks anywhere on National Forest administered lands across Region 9 is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.52. Therefore, protection is afforded to piping plover and it is not repeated in the revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
The Biological Assessment data was updated to include 2005 piping plover census data that the Forest Service obtained from the 2005 Piping Plover Coordination Meeting.
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species – Pitcher’s Thistle:
PC#: 115 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should include the following measures in regards to Pitcher’s Thistle: 1. Limit foot travel in areas occupied by Pitcher's thistle; design foot traffic on dunes to limit impacts to Pitcher's thistle. 2. Limit Off-Highway Vehicle traffic to trails. (Management Areas 4.2 and 4.3 only). 3. Close some roads into Pitcher's thistle areas (Management Areas 4.2 and 4.3 only). 4. Apply a management direction that indicates that prescribed burning will be very unlikely to be used in dune habitats. 5. Prohibit watershed management activities in Pitcher's thistle habitat. 6. Control introduced species. 7. Provide protective/informative signage for public. 8. Increase law enforcement to protect Pitcher's thistle.
Response: The following changes correspond to the items listed in the above concern and were made to the revised Forest Plan:
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-47 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
1. Added Standards and Guidelines to the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600 II H- Pitcher's thistle which are currently identified in Chapter III, Management Areas 4.2, 4.3, and 5.1. Added Standard and Guideline: • Limit foot traffic within specific areas of the dune ecosystem where Pitcher's thistle occurs. 2. Limiting Off-Highway Vehicle traffic is current Forest Service policy and is not repeated in the revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 3. Added Standard and Guideline to the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600, II H- Pitcher's thistle: • Roads into Pitcher's thistle habitat on National Forest System lands will be closed when appropriate. 4. Added Standard and Guideline to the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600, II H- Pitcher's Thistle: • Limit the use of prescribed burning in dune habitat where Pitcher's thistle occurs. 5. Standard and Guideline exists in revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600, II H - Pitcher's Thistle: • Prohibit new resource development and mining in occupied Pitcher’s thistle habitat. 6. Revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, Goals, Objectives, and Desired Future Conditions - Natural Resources identifies this as an objective. Replaced the Standard and Guideline in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2600 II H - Pitcher's Thistle that stated “prohibit pesticide use in occupied Pitcher's thistle habitat” with a new Standard and Guideline that states: • Herbicide use will occur only when other methods of control for specific non-native invasive plant species are ineffective. The Biological Assessment addresses effects associated with this change. 7. Revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, Goals, Objectives, and Desired Future Conditions - Health and Safety identifies this as an objective. 8. Modified the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, Goals, Objectives, and Desired Future Conditions - Health and Safety objective for law enforcement to reflect emphasis on resource protection needs: • Provide for Law Enforcement and compliance patrols based on user activity and resource protection needs.
Even-aged Management:
PC#: 116 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should harvest the allowable sale quantity and provide for adequate regeneration of certain desirable, shade-intolerant species, such as cherry, basswood, yellow and white birch by using the clearcut method of timber.
Response: The amount of timber harvested annually is based on a variety of factors such as budget allocations from Congress, staffing levels, and national, regional, and forestwide priorities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-48 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
The revised Forest Plan allows for both uneven- and even-aged management techniques. Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages depending upon the particular site and desired management. Both techniques can be prescribed at the site-specific level depending upon the situation, and as such, more site-specific analysis would occur at the project implementation level and disclosed during the environmental analysis process. At 50 years, no individual tree species is expected to be lost in any vegetative class (Table III-22, Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-226 – III-228). Some tree species will be reduced in some stands if regeneration cutting does not take place. However, cherry, basswood, and yellow and white birch are expected to occur in the composition of the forest type (Chapter III, Indicator 3 – Use of Management to Influence Within-Stand Complexity, pages III-232 through 242) in stands proposed for regeneration, for example, aspen regeneration.
PC#: 117 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should discontinue clearcutting vast tracts of our national forests (thinning is bad enough). This practice always creates an eyesore.
Response: National Forest Management Act regulations consider even-aged management, or clearcutting, as one of many acceptable silvicultural methods that are used to achieve multiple use objectives in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Forestwide silvicultural Standards and Guidelines provide for the protection of soils, scenery, aquatic, and recreational resources when using the clearcutting harvest method. Clearcutting is commonly used to regenerate aspen and jack pine because both tree species requires full sunlight for regeneration and is important habitat components for survivability of such species as the endangered Kirtland’s warbler. When and where to utilize clearcutting as a tool to meet resource objectives is identified on a site-specific level and is outside the scope of the Forest Plan revision.
Forest Health:
PC#: 118 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should maintain an active timber management program, achieving a more productive, healthy forest with less risk from forest pests, diseases, and wildfires. Table III-23 of the Environmental Impact Statement projects that 47 percent of the forested acres will be over 100 years of age. Shade intolerant forest types, such as cherry, basswood, birch, and oak, will decline as components of forested stands.
Response: The implication of this comment is that the Huron-Manistee National Forests should manage more of the suitable land for timber, resulting in a healthy forest condition. The concept of forest health includes such diverse concepts as viable species, diversity of species, and sustainable ecosystems; all were considered in the development of the range of alternatives. Table H-1, found on Page H-3 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, refers to the Total Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production, which is 401,121 acres. These are Spectrum model projections of the amount of tentatively suitable timber lands that are needed to meet the projected allowable sale quantity requirements of 150 years.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-49 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
The revised Forest Plan is meant to guide management activities for a 10 to 15 year period. It is a dynamic document that will be examined at a minimum of every five years and adjusted when new information becomes available or circumstances change (Chapter I, page I-2, revised Forest Plan). Technically, at 50 years, no individual tree species is expected to be lost in any vegetative class (Table III-22, Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-232 through 242). Some species will be reduced in some stands if regeneration cutting does not take place. However, cherry, basswood, birch, and oak are expected to occur in the composition of the forest type (Chapter III, Indicator 3 – Use of Management to Influence Within-Stand Complexity, pages III- 232 through 242) in stands proposed for regeneration, for example, aspen regeneration).
Overall, the Huron-Manistee National Forests are managed to provide a variety of ecological conditions and recreational opportunities. Some of these include Research Natural Areas, old growth, campgrounds, non-motorized trails, riparian habitat, and unique areas. All are designed to provide a healthy forest to meet our responsibilities to the public, while meeting all environmental regulations, policies, and laws.
PC#: 119 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the Forests’ forest health condition and current situation, for example, oak wilt, beech bark disease, and emerald ash borer.
Response: The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, pages III-41 through 43 discloses the insect and disease situations currently known on the Forests. Standards and Guidelines regarding pest management are included in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, Standard and Guidelines, 3400 Forest Pest Management, page II-37. Site-specific species concerns will be addressed through specific management actions.
PC#: 120 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should emphasize Integrated Pest Management and create a mosaic of forest types and age classes across the Forests. This is the best means of obtaining healthy forest conditions rather than large barrens and prairie restorations, which are the antithesis of forest health and Integrated Pest Management.
Response: The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance between, and integration of, ecological, economic, and social factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ natural resources. One of the tools used to meet these values is timber harvest. Potential impacts are analyzed and disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, pages III- 215 through 221. The Forests also recognized the need for ecosystem restoration and landscape- level management of resources to promote species viability and to enhance ecosystem function, particularly in ecosystems frequently disturbed by fire. The Selected Alternative attempts to ensure the distribution, abundance, and habitat requirements for species adapted to mature forest and for those requiring large opening complexes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-50 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 121 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should work with the road commission to remove diseased trees before blocking roads in the Forests.
Response: Removal of hazardous trees is an administrative, public safety activity, which is handled on a site-specific basis and is outside the scope of Forest Plan revision.
PC#: 122 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the amount carbon that is being stored on the Forests and how the actions proposed in the revised Forest Plan will release stored carbon. Forest management activities such as logging, road building, and burning result in significant carbon release to the environment. Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are contributing to global climate change, which could have a serious effect on our forests.
Response: There exists an abundance of recent scientific discourse on the interplay of forests, climate change, and carbon sequestration. The Forests believe the level of uncertainty about possible climate change effects on Michigan forests, or the overall role of our forests in influencing climate change, via carbon sequestration, is still too great to provide a firm foundation for proposing broad-scale changes to vegetation or forest practices. That is the reason more thorough analysis of climate change, or specific Forest Plan direction to address climate change, was not developed in our Forest Plan revision process. As science advances to a level of greater clarity about the interrelationships between Michigan forests and climate change, development of measures to intercede, and numerous legal provisions for plan amendments and revisions, will ultimately provide the means for making responsive changes to Forest Plan direction. We believe the rates of change are likely to be slow enough that our ability, if any, to exert influence will not be significantly compromised by the direction of management the Forests’ Plans establish for the next 10-15 years. We also are hopeful that Forest Plan direction for moving toward increased diversity in amounts, conditions, and patterns of vegetation will result in forests that are more resilient to potential climate change.
Forest Transportation System - General:
PC#: 123 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the process and criteria used in transportation planning for the Forests.
Response: During the Analysis of the Current Management Situation that was conducted in 2003, the Huron-Manistee National Forests determined that issues related to access were adequately addressed in the 1986 Forest Plan. The Forests’ Analysis of the Current Management Situation identified that there were no critical or compelling reasons to change the direction or strategy for access contained in the 1986 Forest Plan based on public comment and Forests staff analysis. The Forests determined that unless substantive new information was revealed, the Forest Plan revision process would not include access issues. A forest-wide roads analysis for maintenance levels 3 through 5 was conducted in 2002. Maintenance level 1 and 2 roads as well as user-developed roads are evaluated during analysis of a site-specific project. The revised Forest Plan sets road densities and states that when a road is not needed for administrative use or
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-51 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
public needs that the road should be closed. The process used to determine whether roads are no longer needed for administration or public use requires a site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analysis, including public involvement.
PC#: 124 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should discuss and address level 2 roads in Management Area 2.1, page III-2.1-8, Section 7700, and Management Area 8.4, page III-8.4-4, Section 7700, as these roads should remain open, as are county level 2 roads. Signing should be similar to county signs, maintaining uniformity.
Response: The direction provided in Management Area 2.1, Section 7700, refers specifically to roads providing access to oil and gas extraction. The Huron-Manistee National Forests do not have jurisdiction over county roads and counties do not use the Forest Service road classification system. Posted county seasonal roads are collector roads. A Forest Service classified level 2 road is defined as a road that is open for a limited amount of traffic usually consisting of administrative, permitted or dispersed recreational, or other specialized use (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix J, page J-38). The Huron-Manistee National Forests do not propose to close county roads. Forest Service roads are evaluated on a site-specific basis to determine whether they are needed for administrative or public use.
The standard and guide cited in the 7700 section of III-8.4-4 refers specifically to roads developed for oil and gas production in the Special Areas. The signing of Forest Service roads is in accordance with Forest Service Handbook direction.
PC#: 125 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan, page II-40, Table II-15 should be clarified. Define Local, Collector, and Arterial roads as to ownership and list their level.
Response: These types of roads may include all ownerships, and maintenance levels may vary according to the individual road. Definitions of local, collector, and arterial roads are in the revised Forest Plan, Appendix J, Glossary, page J-38.
Fragmentation:
PC#: 126 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should monitor the degree and intensity of fragmentation occurring on National Forest System lands.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests recognizes fragmentation as a critical issue. Fragmentation has been identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as one of the four most important threats facing National Forest System lands today. Chapter IV, Monitoring and Evaluation, provides the monitoring framework for the revised Forest Plan. This framework is intentionally general with respect to specific species, environmental parameters, and monitoring methodology. This provides the Forests flexibility to adapt to changes, such as new scientific information or emerging issues. The Monitoring Matrix in Chapter IV does provide that: 1) the Forests will monitor the amounts, distribution, and types of available habitats to ensure the
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-52 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
sustainability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem at multiple scales; and 2) the Forests will monitor to ensure that the minimum viable populations of appropriate native and desirable non- native species will be maintained within the planning area. Other monitoring requirements provided in Chapter IV, such as monitoring vegetation management and successional stage within the Streamside Management Zone also apply.
The revised Forest Plan attempts to limit habitat fragmentation through an increase in large- block management, increased attention to landscape-level habitat connectivity, and Standards and Guidelines that reflect our understanding of the habitat requirements of the species found on the Forests. The Huron-Manistee National Forests provide direction for the restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of wildlife habitat through Forestwide and Management Area specific Goals, Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines found in the revised Forest Plan, including direction for Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species, as well as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. The management of the Huron-Manistee National Forests provides for the use of renewable forest resources in a combination that best meets the needs of the American people. The revised Forest Plan strives to achieve a balance in the protection of habitat for birds, fish, and other wildlife.
Fuel Barriers:
PC#: 127 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the methodology used in determining the amount of fuel barrier and hazardous fuels risk reduction acres scheduled for creation and maintenance.
Response: The Forests used a geographic information systems analysis to determine the required acreage. A 300-foot buffer width was assumed a safe zone around National Forest System lands adjacent to private property. Current research has indicated through fire behavior simulation that Fuel Model 4 (Anderson 1982), which jack pine is modeled as, will ignite structures within 380 feet when adjacent to this shrub model (Scott 2003). This buffer width is a minimal value for areas adjacent to jack pine, however structures adjacent to red pine type could require a larger buffer when the intent of that buffer is to provide defensible space adjacent to private land in which firefighters can defend structures and law enforcement can evacuate people affected by the fire.
With regard to the methodology used in determining the hazardous fuels on the forest and the reduction acres, a landscape geographic information systems spatial analysis was performed. This analysis included the incorporation of the landtype association, soil type and hydrology, historical fire location and frequency, the vegetation type and its structure, and associated fire- intensity coefficient, which was based on observed fire behavior for a particular vegetation type during the spring upland-conifer candling period. These characteristics were integrated to produce a spatial assessment, which identified areas that would have a high probability of an extreme-intensity crown fire, a high-intensity surface to crown fire, a moderate-intensity surface fire, and a low-intensity surface fire. After delineating the areas identified as those having a high probability of an extreme-intensity crown-dominated wildfire, red and jack pine stands were identified within these areas. The 300-foot buffer of the National Forest System lands was then
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-53 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
overlayed adjacent to private property to define those areas, which would need to be treated to provide a minimum buffer either in order to evacuate local people or to defend structures which are defensible.
Game Species – White-tailed Deer:
PC#: 128 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should ask the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to issue more deer hunting licenses resulting in more deer harvested so that tree species will not be so readily browsed.
Response: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is cognizant of the correlation between deer numbers and vegetation damage. The State of Michigan hunting laws and regulations are outside of Forest Service jurisdiction.
Game Species – Ruffed and Sharp-tailed Grouse:
PC#: 129 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should increase habitat for woodcock and grouse through aspen and birch management and management in riparian areas for early successional species.
Response: Management of aspen, openings, shrub/scrub, and riparian areas under the Selected Alternative will provide habitat for woodcock and grouse. This management will maintain the viability of the species dependent on these habitat types on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
PC#: 130 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should recognize Sharp-tailed grouse as a desirable non-native species.
Response: Although sharp-tailed grouse are extremely rare and uncommon, the Huron-Manistee National Forests do consider sharp-tailed as a desirable species. As such, during Forest Plan revision viability of the species was analyzed. Management activities in the Selected Alternative, such as jack pine harvest and restoration and creation of pine barrens, dry sand prairies, and large mesic grassland habitats, are expected to improve the species’ viability (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, Table B-3, page B-14).
PC#: 131 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should cooperate with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to transfer sharp-tailed grouse from the Upper Peninsula to a promising site on the Forests to increase the population and improve the gene pool.
Response: The revised Forest Plan (pages II-4 to II-6) does not preclude the reintroduction of native or desired non-native species. Site-specific reintroduction projects are outside the scope of this document.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-54 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Heritage Resources:
PC#: 132 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should recognize and address the old Cadillac to Traverse City Indian Tail. Management direction with appropriate Standards and Guidelines need to be restored in the Forests’ Plan.
Response: The Cadillac to Traverse City Indian trail is an important interpretive resource for the Manistee National Forest. Public interest in the trail has been high. According to our file of various maps, articles, brochures and Government Land Office plats, three to four miles of the trail probably crossed current National Forest System Lands in about four separate locations. The trail corridor(s) is identified in our heritage property files and will be recognized as important and sensitive during project planning. Protection measures will be considered, coordinated, and implemented following appropriate established laws, regulations, and policies for the protection of cultural resources.
As stated in Chapter I of the revised Forest Plan, one of the basic principals of management the Huron-Manistee National Forests will adhere to is that the Forest Service will follow laws and regulations as well as policies in Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks that relate to managing National Forest System lands. The Huron-Manistee National Forests believe that current laws, regulations, and policies provide sufficient management direction to provide the protection that this important and significant cultural resource requires, such as the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended in 1980, 1992, and 1979, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, as amended 1988. Because the revised Forest Plan is designed to supplement, not replace, direction from these sources, and because sufficient management direction already occurs in law, regulation, and policy, the Huron-Manistee National Forests have decided that specific Standards and Guidelines for the Cadillac to Traverse City Indian trail are unnecessary.
Land Exchanges:
PC#: 133 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should maintain or increase current acreage on National Forest and not dispose of acreage.
Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not allow for a net increase in Federal ownership. The transfer of private lands to public lands continues to erode the tax base for local government. To increase that acreage when significant shortfalls in implementation targets already occur does not make sense.
Response: Acquiring or disposing of land is done only after a determination is made that the public interest will be well served. When considering the public interest, full consideration is given to the achievement of better management of Federal lands and resources, to meet the needs of State and local residents and their economies, and to secure important objectives. Objectives include, but are not limited to: 1) protection of fish and wildlife habitats, cultural resources, watersheds, wilderness and aesthetic values; 2) enhancement of recreation opportunities and
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-55 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
public access; 3) consolidation of lands and/or interests in lands, such as mineral and timber interests; 4) expansion of communities; 5) accommodation of existing or planned land use authorizations; 6) promotion of multiple use values; 7) implementation of applicable Forest revised Forest Plans; and 8) fulfillment of public needs. Our intent is that any future land acquisitions on the Forests will be done by working with willing sellers or exchange proponents, and will be guided by forestwide or Management Area-specific direction for land acquisition in the revised Forest Plan. Consideration of potential effects on the social and economic fabric of nearby local communities is a necessary and required facet of determining if any given, future land adjustment action is clearly in the “public interest.”
During the early phases of Forest Plan revision, Analysis of the Current Management Situation and public involvement associated with the Need For Change and Notice of Intent, it was determined that the original 1986 Forest Plan provided sufficient direction to appropriately manage issues related to acquisition and disposition of Forest Lands. The Forests have no proposal to reduce ownership but may acquire or exchange lands as provided for in the revised Forest Plan. Individual land exchanges are evaluated on a site-specific basis through separate environmental analysis.
Land Suitability:
PC#: 134 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should explain the difference between a higher land suitable for timber production acreage figure in a study done on December 17, 2003 and that disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix H, page H-3. Allowable sale quantity volumes should be based on what the regional timber demand is and what the forest is actually capable of producing with all physical, congressional, or Forest Service mandated constraints subtracted, for example, old growth.
Response: Table H-1, found on Page H-3 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, refers to the Total Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production, or 401,121 acres. Land suitable for timber production is calculated by taking the Huron-Manistee National Forests land total and subtracting land: 1) withdrawn from timber production, 2) not producing crops of industrial wood, 3) not physically suited, and 4) for which information is inadequate.
The document dated December 17, 2003, as referenced, deals with a suitability evaluation that was part of the Analysis of the Current Management Situation on the Forests. SUITED LANDS in the evaluation are National Forest System lands that are biologically and physically capable of producing timber. Suited Lands, (Land Suitability Class 500, were determined to be 687,901 acres.
The determinations Total Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production, and Suited lands, Land Suitability Class 500 are not directly comparable.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-56 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Management Areas – General:
PC#: 135 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should be composed of an alternative approach regarding designation of semiprimitive motorized Areas and semiprimitive nonmotorized Areas. The Huron-Manistee National Forests should continue the progression of more restricted Management Area designation to unrestricted, as in Rural Natural to Rural because there is no demonstrated need for Management Areas that serve a small minority of forest users.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests are managed in accordance with the Multiple- Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The Forests have been divided into Management Areas, each providing a different mix of opportunities and outputs. One of the recreation opportunities requested and provided for in these Management Areas is a motorized experience. As part of the current Forest Plan revision process, the Forests reviewed all Management Area designations based on regional and national guidelines. Recommendations were made to change Management Area designations. These recommendations are reflected in the three alternatives and the potential impacts are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-299 through 307. The Forests retain nonmotorized recreation opportunities in all Alternatives. The Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed a variety of Alternatives with different outcomes, including semiprimitive areas, to address Plan Revision issues (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter II, page II-3). Because the alternatives considered did not respond to the Forest Plan revision issues or maintain species viability, they were eliminated from further consideration.
PC#: 136 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the reason for changing Management Areas 1.1, 3.1 and 4.1 semiprimitive motorized to 6.2 semiprimitive motorized and if 6.2 designation Standards and Guidelines are more restrictive than the former designations.
Response: Management Areas 1.1, 3.1, and 4.1 were combined to reduce redundancy and facilitate the understanding of management of semiprimitive motorized Areas. The Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 6.2 were obtained from Standard and Guidelines in Management Areas for 1.1, 3.1, and 4.1 in the 1986 Forest Plan and are, therefore, as restrictive as the previous Management Areas.
PC#: 137 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose if Management Area 7.1 and 8.3, Experimental Forests, are being used for their intended purpose; they should be put into a Management Area where they can be managed, if not.
Response: The general provisions of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 USC 551) and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Research Act of 1978 (16 USC643) authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to designate experimental forests and ranges. Under regulations at 7 CFR 2.60(a), the Secretary of Agriculture has delegated this authority to the Chief of the Forest
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-57 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Service. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.23 set forth broad direction for establishing and administering these areas.
The authority for the Forest Service to establish research natural areas is summarized as follows: 36 CFR 251.23 Experimental areas and Research Natural Areas: “The Chief of the Forest Service shall establish and permanently record a series of areas on National Forest land to be known as experimental forests or experimental ranges, sufficient in number and size to provide adequately for the research necessary to serve as a basis for the management of forest and range land in each forest region.”
Management direction for experimental forests is established by the North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. The Huron-Manistee National Forests do not have the authority to dissolve the experimental forests. Therefore, the Udell Experimental Forest will remain as Management Area 8.3. The Udell Experimental Forest was originally established for long-term watershed management research.
PC#: 138 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should consider maintaining Management Area 8.4 Management Area level 2 roads as they are rather than maintaining them at level 3 standards.
Response: The Proposed Forest Plan contained a Standard and Guide in the 7700 section of III- 8.4-4 and referred specifically to roads developed for oil and gas production in the Special Areas. Despite the fact that the Standard and Guideline did not require all roads in 8.4 Management Areas to be maintained at level 3 or higher, section 2800 Minerals and Geology, states that federal oil and gas leases will contain a no-surface occupancy stipulation. Since there is no need for level 3 roads for oil and gas purposes, the 7700 section was deleted from the revised Forest Plan
Management Indicator Species:
PC#: 139 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose whether the target of 40 brook trout per acre will allow the Forests to meet its objective for maintaining viable populations of existing native and desired non-native species.
PC#: 140 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose how the target of one brook trout per 100 square meters was determined and how this guideline is related to the management indicator species brook trout guideline.
PC#: 141 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests maintenance target for brook trout populations should be 100 percent rather than 25 percent of the state level.
Response: The guideline of one brook trout per 100 square meters (revised Forest Plan Chapter II, 2600, VIII Fish, Guideline A,1, a) was replaced with the proposed management indicator
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-58 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
species guideline of 40 individuals/acre, in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix G.
The level of 40 individuals per acre was determined to be a reasonable estimate of a minimum viable population level even though it is only 25 percent of a documented average population level for 13 northern Michigan streams for the following reasons:
• Biologists define minimum viable population size, as the critical population size, below which the population has a very small chance to survive (Sznajd-Weron 2000). The average population level is not used to determine the minimum viable population size because any long-term average is mathematically based on a range of data. In the case of the northern Michigan data (Gowing and Alexander 1980), the range used to calculate the average population for brook trout was as low as 25 percent of this average number of individuals. Even going that low, these populations of trout in the 13 streams are still surviving. Thus, it was determined that, based on the best information available, this would be an acceptable minimum viable population size to use as a guide.
Setting the minimum viable population size at 25 percent of the average level is further corroborated by examination of long-term data on the South Branch Au Sable and Au Sable Rivers, two streams closed to angler harvest Michigan Department of Natural Resources Hunt Creek Research Station website. Brook trout population levels varied by as much as an order of magnitude due to natural variation alone over a 10-year period, for example, 67 – 768 individuals/acre. While the lower number from this data set is 67 percent higher than the proposed minimum viable population size of 40 individuals per acre in the revised Forest Plan, these two river segments are more productive than the headwater areas that typically make up the bulk of the stream habitat on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
PC#: 142 Public Concern: The selection of Management Indicator Species determines management direction or emphasis on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Management Indicator Species chosen by the Huron-Manistee National Forests provide a distorted view of how the Forests will be managed.
Response: Management indicator species are not intended to provide an indication, or view, of how the Forests will be managed nor do they drive management direction on the Forests. Rather, decisions regarding management direction were made through the Forest Plan revision process according to law, regulation, and policy and social, economic, and ecological considerations. Management indicator species are then selected in specific instances to monitor the effectiveness of implementation of the management direction.
PC#: 143 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests have not selected enough Management Indicator Species to represent an appropriate variety of habitat types or to assess the effects of management activities on ecosystems (management indicator species). Particularly lacking are
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-59 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
old-growth dependent species (especially bald eagle and pileated woodpecker) and species vulnerable to local extinction due to fragmentation (especially carnivores).
Response: The Rules and Regulations pertaining to Management Indicator Species (36 CFR 219.19) do not require the Forest Service to select a particular number of management indicator species nor do they require the Forest Service to select management indicator species for each habitat or vegetative community on the Forests. Rather, the regulations require that the Forests identify and select “certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the [Forest Planning] area” as management indicator species and state the reasons for the selection of those species. Rational for selection of management indicator species in the Regulations (also 36 CFR 219.19) go on to say that species are to be selected “…because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities.”
Peer-reviewed published research has concluded that using management indicator species to evaluate the effectiveness of management activities has limitations, for example, Nemie 1997. Therefore, the Forests have focused emphasis on monitoring a few key management indicator species while supplementing this effort with other monitoring, such as tracking the quality and quantity of key habitats. For example, the Forests believe that monitoring certain habitats or habitat conditions, such as mature or old-growth forest or fragmentation, is better accomplished by directly measuring the abundance and quality of such habitats, such as patch size, structure, or degree of fragmentation compared to doing it indirectly through species population monitoring.
Supplemental monitoring efforts are summarized in Chapter IV: Monitoring and Evaluation of the revised Forest Plan. In this chapter, the Forests describe the overall monitoring framework that will be used to evaluate the environmental, as well as social and economic, impacts of implementing the revised Forest Plan. The Monitoring Matrix in Chapter IV provides that: 1) the Forests will monitor the amounts, distribution, and types of available habitats to ensure the sustainability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems at multiple scales; and 2) the Forests will monitor to ensure that the minimum viable populations of appropriate native and desirable non- native species will be maintained within the planning area.
The Forests originally selected five Management Indicator Species: Karner blue butterfly, Kirtland’s warbler, ruffed grouse, brook trout, and mottled sculpin. Since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published, the Forests added the bald eagle as a Management Indicator Species.
The selection of all of these species is consistent with rules and regulations pertaining to management indicator species selection (CFR 36 219.19). Specific rationale for the selection of the six management indicator species identified in the revised Forest Plan is given in Appendix G of the Environmental Impact Statement. In summary, the Forests evaluated potential management indicator species against four criteria: 1) habitat and population information was known and complete regarding habitat use, threats, and limiting factors; 2) sampling protocols were in place sufficient to develop population estimates and trend information and past and current data for the Forests exists; 3) there is a well-documented cause and effect relationship between management actions and changes in population on the Forests; 4) the species played an important ecological role or changes in its population were known to represent changes in other
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-60 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements species with similar habitat requirements. After being subjected to this screening process, many species, formerly considered acceptable management indicator species by the Huron-Manistee National Forests, were determined to be unsuitable (see Appendix G of the Final Environmental Impact Statement).
The pileated woodpecker was not selected as a management indicator species because it failed Criterion 2: sampling protocols are not in place sufficient to develop population estimates for the species and trend information for the Forests does not exist (See Appendix G, Final Environmental Impact Statement).
PC#: 144 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests have chosen inappropriate species as Management Indicator Species.
PC#: 145 Public Concern: Threatened and endangered species such as Kirtland’s Warbler and Karner blue butterfly are inappropriate because too many variables that are beyond the control of the Forest Service influence their populations.
PC#: 146 Public Concern: Ruffed grouse should not be a Management Indicator Species.
PC#: 147 Public Concern: Management Indicator Species that use similar habitats, such as the brook trout and mottled sculpin, should be avoided.
Response: The Rules and Regulations pertaining to Management Indicator Species (36 CFR 219.19) require that management indicator species are to be selected “…because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities.” The rules further state that, “In the selection of management indicator species, the following categories shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and Threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal lists for the planning area; species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs; species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of special interest; and additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water quality.” The Kirtland’s warbler and Karner blue butterfly are both federally endangered species and the ruffed grouse is a species that is commonly hunted. All three species have special habitat needs that are influenced significantly by planned management programs. Therefore, all three species, in accordance with rules and regulations, are appropriate management indicator species.
During Forest Plan revision, all species considered potential management indicator species were subjected to a “screening” process whereby they were subjected to four evaluation criteria: 1)
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-61 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
habitat and population information was known and complete regarding habitat use, threats, and limiting factors; 2) sampling protocols were in place sufficient to develop population estimates and trend information, and past and current data for the Forests exist; 3) there is a well documented cause and effect relationship between management actions and changes in populations on the Forests; 4) the species played an important ecological role, or changes in its population were known to represent changes in other species with similar habitat requirements (Appendix G Final Environmental Impact Statement). All four criteria applied to the Kirtland’s warbler, Karner blue butterfly, and ruffed grouse. As such, the species were selected as management indicator species. Since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published, the Forests added the bald eagle as a Management Indicator Species.
The Forests acknowledge that the populations of all species are subjected to variables that are beyond the control of the Forest Service. However, the Huron-Manistee National Forests provide approximately one half of all known summer breeding range for the Kirtland’s warbler and its population numbers are demonstrably tied to management activities on the Forests (Huber et al. 1999). Similarly, in the Karner blue Butterfly Recovery Plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) identify lands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests as critical for the recovery of that species. Thus, population levels of that species will also be significantly influenced by planned management programs. Lastly, the ruffed grouse was selected as a management indicator species because it is an indicator of disturbances in the aspen/birch community type; is a species that is central to considerable social, ecological, and economic values; and its populations indicate the effectiveness of a large proportion of future vegetation management activities on the Forests. It has been the experience on the Forests that monitoring programs for Kirtland’s Warbler, Karner blue butterfly, and ruffed grouse, in partnership with other agencies, have proven particularly useful for evaluating the efficacy of our management and the Forests are confident that they are appropriate and justifiable management indicator species.
Although the brook trout and mottled sculpin do represent similar habitat conditions, it was determined that having two species for this habitat type was useful because: 1) brook trout are subjected to fishing pressure and angler harvest could introduce bias into population estimates being used to monitor the revised Forest Plan implementation, making it difficult to determine whether population changes are due to changes in habitat or angler harvest; and 2) the mottled sculpin is not subjected to fishing pressure and associated angler harvest, thus its population trends may therefore be more easily tied to management without this additional bias being introduced.
1Huber, P.W., J A. Weinrich, E.S. Carlson. 1999. Strategy for Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat Management. Forest Service and Michigan Department of Natural Resources Report.
Minerals
PC#: 148 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should include a discussion of potential impacts to water quality and quantity that may occur because of the Forest Plan's allowing mineral exploration and mining in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-62 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Environmental Impact Statement does not include a discussion of the cumulative impacts to water quantity of Alternative B (the Selected Alternative) and C.
Response: Chapter III, Effects on Water Resources, Final Environmental Impact Statement was updated to identify cumulative effects to water quality and quantity.
PC#: 149 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not permit air pollution in the form of toxic or sour gasses from oil and gas extraction to occur eight months of the year in endangered species habitat. The standard and guideline, which reads, “Any well emitting toxic or sour gases into the air within one-half mile of occupiable habitat may not be operated during May 1 to September 30” should be changed. Wells emitting toxic or sour gas should be shut down until repaired.
Response: The standard cited was written prior to the 1996 revision of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Oil and Gas regulations. The current Department of Environmental Quality regulations do not allow emissions of hydrogen sulfide gas to the atmosphere. The regulations require that sour gas must be burned or injected into an approved underground formation. Based on these updated regulations, we have revised the standard in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-36, to read: “Producing wells shall not emit hydrogen sulfide gas to the atmosphere. Sour gas must be burned, incinerated, or injected into an approved underground formation in accordance with Michigan’s Oil and Gas Regulations.” (R324.1129, effective Sept. 20, 1996). This new standard will apply to all management areas.
PC#: 150 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not allow surface occupancy for oil and gas development in sensitive areas such as semiprimitive nonmotorized areas or endangered species habitat for the Kirtland’s warbler.
Response: The federal government has a number of policies, regulations, and laws to encourage the development of mineral resources. The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 states that agencies shall “Foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs.” The Forest Service’s mission as it relates to minerals management is to “encourage, facilitate, and administer the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nation.” (Forest Service Manual 2800, Zero Code)
A 1996 environmental analysis and decision amended the Huron-Manistee National Forests revised Forest Plan to address surface use for oil and gas exploration/development and leasing availability for lands in semiprimitive nonmotorized areas (Forest Plan Amendment #23, 2001). The amendment specified a maximum surface development density of one surface location for every 640 acres in Management Area 6.1 (Proposed Forest Plan, page II-36). The revised Forest Plan identifies most lands included in Management Areas 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 9.1, and 9.2 as “no surface occupancy” for oil and gas development (revised Forest Plan, Chapter 3, 2800 direction).
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-63 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
These surface use restrictions for Wild and Scenic River corridors, Research Natural Areas, experimental forests, and “special areas,” together with the other Standards and Guidelines in the revised Forest Plan (pages II-14 through 15, II-19, II-27, II-35 through 37, II-39, II-40), are designed to limit the density of oil and gas development and mitigate effects while still meeting the agency’s responsibilities under the various laws, regulations, and policies encouraging the development of mineral resources. The Final Environmental Impact Statement included an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable development across the Forest for the next 10 to15 years. The findings documented in the effects analysis do not support the need for additional restrictions relating to oil and gas development. Lease stipulations or restrictions must be reasonable and necessary. The existing Standards and Guidelines regarding surface use addressed in the Management Areas listed above are carried forward in the revised Forest Plan.
The Standards and Guidelines for oil and gas operations outlined for Management Area 4.2 are designed to protect Kirtland’s warbler habitat. These restrictions were developed through Forest Plan Amendment #23 and its associated analysis to ensure that management activities maintain essential nesting habitat for Kirtland’s warbler in compliance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and as outlined in the Kirtland’s Warbler Management and Recovery Plan. These restrictions include seasonal drilling, surface location density restrictions depending upon the age of the trees, for example, 1 location per 640 acres or 1 location per 160 acres, reforestation, and additional mitigation based on site-specific review (Forest Plan Amendment #23, 2001, revised Forest Plan, pages III-4.2-11 through 4.2-13). The analysis of impacts included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the revised Forest Plan does not reflect a need to increase restrictions on oil and gas development in Management Area 4.2. This is further confirmed through the Fish and Wildlife Service’s concurrence with the findings outlined in the Biological Evaluation prepared for the revised Forest Plan. Considering these analyses, and the agency’s responsibilities under the various laws, regulations, and policies encouraging the development of mineral resources, the Standards and Guidelines developed under Amendment #23 are carried forward in the revised Forest Plan.
At the time specific lands are identified for leasing, a site-specific review of these lands will be conducted and appropriate restrictions for occupancy will be identified based on the combination of the Standards and Guidelines and the site-specific review. If “sensitive areas” are identified during the review, additional analysis may be conducted if necessary to identify additional lease stipulations prior to making those lands available for leasing. As stated above, occupancy restrictions are identified for semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and special areas in the revised Forest Plan.
The approval of a specific proposal, including the surface use plan for an individual well, would be done following a site-specific analysis of the specific proposal(s), including proposed flowlines, roads, etc. The operator must complete and obtain approval of their Surface Use Plan of Operations and Drilling Permit from the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, respectively.
PC#: 151 Public Concern: When mineral leases are put up for sale, they should designate in advance those areas where surface disturbance will not be allowed. These designations should pay
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-64 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
particular attention to both the ecological needs and the recreation experience of the affected surface area.
Response: The Forest Service does designate, in advance of leasing, what areas are open and closed to surface occupancy for oil and gas development, and if open, under what conditions. The revised Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines identify the condition under which occupancy would be considered at a Forest-wide scale. At the time specific lands are nominated for lease, a site-specific review of these lands is conducted and appropriate restrictions for occupancy identified based on the combination of the Standards and Guidelines and site-specific review. If specific concerns relating to ecological or recreational values are identified during this review, additional analysis may be conducted if deemed necessary to identity additional lease stipulations prior to making those lands available.
Should leasing of specific lands occur, a more site-specific analysis of individual drilling proposals, including proposed flow lines, roads etc., must be completed and the operator must obtain approval of their Surface Use Plan of Operations and Drilling Permit from the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, respectively.
PC#: 152 Public Concern: Referring back to Appendix E, the Forest Service again fails to consider the cumulative effect of all of those potential gas and oil wells…Consider cumulative effect of all exploration, drilling and production…While we appreciate that the author of Appendix E was making projections, projecting cumulative effect would not be unreasonable under the circumstances.
Response: Appendix E provides a projection of the reasonably foreseeable development for oil and gas across the Huron-Manistee National Forests for the next 10 to15 years. This projection is required by regulation and is not meant to be an effects analysis. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis related to the foreseeable development projected in Appendix E is included in Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. This analysis considers mitigation provided by the revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Chapter II and III. In addition to the Standards and Guidelines many of the potential effects are mitigated, and thus not identified as a potential effect, through existing regulation such as the casing/cementing requirements for oil and gas wells for protection of groundwater resources (Bureau of Land Management, Onshore Order #2).
PC#: 153 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should have required greater setback distances for oil and gas extraction surface occupancy from lakes, rivers and the River Road National Forest Scenic Byway. The setback distances in the Forest Plan are inadequate to protect resources.
Response: With respect to lakes and rivers, the 300-foot setback outlined in the revised Forest Plan is considered to be a minimum setback (revised Forest Plan, Page II-19, 3, a or b). This guideline will be attached to a Federal oil and gas lease as a lease stipulation, which will dictate how, when and where an oil and gas lessee may locate a proposed well (Forest Plan, Page II-35,
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-65 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
B, 1). In addition, use of Best Management Practices during surface disturbing activities will further lessen potential impacts to adjacent open water.
Although the Forests do not have a setback identified, the Forest Service has imposed a “no surface occupancy” restriction for wetland areas.
The 300-foot “no surface occupancy” buffer for oil and gas activity along the River Road National Scenic Byway is considered adequate for protection of visual and aesthetic values along the road. Page III-295 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement states that Standards and Guidelines are incorporated into the revised Forest Plan, which addresses visual impacts of forest management activities, including “minerals and oil and gas.” The following expectations apply to those activities: “the Scenic Integrity Objectives associated with a management area would be known and incorporated in any management decision; any constructed facilities would blend into the landscape; visual expectations of management within areas of disturbance would be identified and implemented in a timely manner, site-specific projects would minimize visual impacts as prescribed by Scenic Integrity Objectives and Standards and Guidelines.” If a lease is issued for minerals located in the corridor of the Scenic Byway, and if oil and gas exploration/development should be proposed, a site-specific environmental analysis would be conducted prior to permitting surface disturbance. This analysis would consider protection of the visual and aesthetic qualities of the Byway in accordance with the Scenery Integrity Objectives. In addition, site-specific reclamation may include introduction of vegetative screening, if necessary.
Oil and gas development on federal leases are subject to lease stipulations, which allow reasonable movement of a proposed well location, and site-specific mitigation if justified (43 CFR 3101.1-2). If it is determined that a proposed well location is too close to a river, wetland, or the scenic byway, the agencies can move the proposed location up to 200 meters. This additional 200 meters (656 feet) gives the agencies the flexibility to move the location beyond the established “no surface occupancy” buffer if deemed necessary. In addition, upon receipt of a proposed well location a site-specific environmental analysis would be completed.
Based on the above information, the ability to move a surface occupancy site, and the need to site-specifically analyze and mitigate effects prior to surface disturbance, the no surface occupancy setbacks are deemed sufficient. The commenter did not provide any additional information, which would justify the need to increase this, proposed no surface occupancy buffer.
Monitoring:
PC#: 154 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should identify inventory and use pattern information needs and set objectives for meeting those needs. The plan should also provide adequate monitoring requirements to ensure that it will not result in damage to the forest. This should include requirements for in-the-field monitoring of an adequate range of forest species. These requirements should be mandatory and frequent.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-66 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Response: Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks give direction on inventory intervals and protocols to use when collecting data on National Forest System lands. Annually, each Forest must decide what is actually going to be collected based on a priority of need and budget constraints.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests describe, in Chapter IV: Monitoring and Evaluation of the revised Forest Plan, the monitoring framework that will be used to evaluate the environmental, as well as social and economic, impacts of implementing the revised Forest Plan. The framework is general with respect to specific species, environmental parameters, or methods, and thus, provides flexibility to adapt to changes, such as new scientific information or emerging issues. The monitoring framework is consistent with requirements set forth in the National Forest Management Act regulations. Specific information concerning the “what” and “how” monitoring will be carried out will be included in the “Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation Guide.” The implementation guide will also identify data gaps and collection needs that will be necessary to monitor the implementation of the revised Forest Plan, and to evaluate the effectiveness of management practices and compliance with laws, rules, and regulations.
The Forests believe that the monitoring framework outlined in Chapter IV will provide the information needed to ensure that implementation of the revised Forest Plan will not result in damage to the forest.
Motorized Recreation:
PC#: 155 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should include a plan to limit or close access to at-risk or sensitive lakes and rivers to personal watercraft to minimize shoreline erosion, protect wildlife habitat, and limit noise.
Response: The authority to limit or close access to personal watercraft lies with the State of Michigan as delegated to the local township unit of government. The only exceptions to these legal authorities are those lakes that have one hundred percent National Forest ownership of the shoreline. Watercraft limitations and closures then fall under the authority of the Forest Supervisor.
PC#: 156 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should permit Off-Highway Vehicle users to use most forest roads and designated trails but not be permitted to travel cross-county. In fact, more miles of trail should be developed because current routes are very limiting in their recreational value.
Response: The revised Forest Plan provides direction for Off-Highway Vehicle use on designated trails on page II-13. Cross-country use of Off-Highway Vehicles is prohibited. The Huron-Manistee National Forests provides more than 700 miles of Off-Highway Vehicle trails, excluding snowmobiles. In addition, trucks and street-legal motorcycles may use the 3,243 miles of Forest roads, and an additional 6,670 miles of state and county roads within the Forest Boundary. The revised Forest Plan does not preclude the addition of system trails, nor does it
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-67 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
propose to eliminate any trails. Site-specific analysis of a proposed trail would need to meet trail density guides as set forth in an individual management area prescription.
PC#: 157 Public Concern: Off-Highway vehicle users should be required to purchase a federal Off- Highway Vehicle sticker in order to fund Off-Highway Vehicle management.
Response: Off-Highway Vehicles are required to have current Off-Highway Vehicle stickers purchased from the State of Michigan to use the designated trail system. The State of Michigan uses funds from the purchase of stickers to provide grants that are used to create and maintain Off-Highway Vehicle trails on public lands. The Forests have changed the revised Forest Plan on page II-12, VIII, A, 4 to read, “Emphasize volunteer and cooperative agreements and grants to construct, maintain, and administer trail systems.”
PC#: 158 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should designate and design motorized trails specifically for 4-wheel drive vehicles and not simply allocate roads for 4-wheel use.
Response: On the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Off-Highway Vehicle trails are designed to accommodate vehicles 50 inches wide or less (revised Forest Plan, page II-13, VIII, D, 8). Trails for larger vehicles may be developed after a site-specific analysis consistent with management area direction. This is unlikely as current road densities discourage new trails from being developed. Street legal vehicles, larger than 50 inches, may use the forest road system.
PC#: 159 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should establish a policy that permits physically disabled individuals to access areas with an off-highway vehicle, even if not normally permitted.
Response: We appreciate and recognize your desire to access National Forest System lands. The Huron-Manistee National Forests has over 3,000 miles of roads open to licensed vehicles, and approximately 500 miles of trail open to Off-Highway Vehicles. Most areas are accessible by some type of vehicle.
Since the 1980s, the Huron-Manistee National Forests have had a policy of restricting Off- Highway Vehicles to trails specifically designated as open for that use; all other areas of the Forests have been closed to these vehicles. This policy was incorporated in the Huron-Manistee's 1986 Forest Plan (revised Forest Plan, Standards and Guidelines, page II-13). This policy is consistent with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources policies on Off-Highway Vehicle use in the Lower Peninsula.
It is legal to use an Off-Highway Vehicle to retrieve a deer as long as the Off-Highway Vehicle is used on an existing trail designated for that use and the use is compliant with other state regulations; however, cross-country use is prohibited. The Forest Service does not have a permit that provides special access for persons with disabilities. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources issues permits to persons with disabilities, entitled “Affidavit for Off-Highway
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-68 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Vehicle Handicapper Privileges.” The Huron-Manistee National Forests do recognize the Michigan Department of Natural Resource’s Affidavit. The Affidavit gives the holder who has a disability a special privilege to operate an Off-Highway Vehicle on all forest roads on state- owned land. However, the Affidavit states “privileges do not extend to cross country use, nor to areas, trails and roads specifically CLOSED to Off-Highway Vehicle use, nor to the operation of an Off-Highway Vehicle within federal forest lands, a state park, state recreation area or Michigan trailway.” The Forest policy is consistently applied across the Huron-Manistee National Forests and was not intended to discourage any person from using the National Forests.
PC#: 160 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forest should not allow snowmobiles to use all unplowed forest roads. The Final Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately explain why snowmobiling is an important activity. The Final Environmental Impact Statement does not give an adequate basis for increasing the National Visitor Use Monitoring recreational statistics. Off-Highway Vehicle and snowmobile use should be kept to a minimum because there is no question that these vehicles inflict damage to Forest habitat, besides conflicting with non- motorized trail users.
Response: The 1986 Forest Plan states, “….prohibit snowplowing of roads under Forest Service control from December 15 to March 15, when the road is part of a designated winter trail system.” The plan also states, “Trail management will be compatible with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum objective of the area.”
The revised Forest Plan states, “Avoid snowplowing of roads under Forest Service control from December 1 to March 31, when the road is part of a designated winter trail system.” In addition, it states, “….restrict Off-Highway Vehicle travel, including snowmobiles, to designated trails of areas unless otherwise provided for by law, regulation, or by special are management objectives.” The revised plan also states, “Trail management will be compatible with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum objective of the area.”
The National Visitor Use Monitoring survey is one tool in monitoring visitor use on National Forest lands. Additional monitoring tools sponsored by the Forest Service, State of Michigan, and/or private partners are used to provide a complete picture of the uses that occur on National Forest lands and the effects on natural resources and social environments.
PC#: 161 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should regulate motorized use of the Forests, including an analysis of trails and development of an environmental impact statement of the statewide snowmobile trail system because Off-Highway Vehicle use, mountain bike races, and snowmobile trails are examples of uses that only hasten the deterioration of the land and water under the care of the Forest Service where there are never enough resources for enforcement.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests do regulate motorized use of the Forests but also recognize that resource damage from illegal motorized use does occur. Law enforcement resources are planned, funded, and allocated through administrative processes separate from the
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-69 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
forest planning process according to existing statutes, regulations, and Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 5302 and Forest Service Handbook 5309.11 and others). The statewide snowmobile trail system is outside the scope of Forest Plan revision. Any proposals to develop or modify snowmobile trails are evaluated through a site-specific analysis. Road closure methods and effectiveness are evaluated on a site-specific basis and are not a Forest Plan revision issue. However, we continue to work with agencies and partners to acquire public input and participation in developing site-specific resource management analyses and evaluations.
PC#: 162 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose snowmobiles as a source of noise and snowmobiles should be restricted from Bear Swamp. Additionally, the revised Forest Plan should explicitly explain what vehicles are allowed on trails in the summer and winter.
Response: Snowmobiles are recreational vehicles and are identified as a source of noise in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-276. There is a guideline on page III-9.1-3 of the revised Forest Plan that states use of motorized vehicles should not be allowed in 9.1 areas, including Bear Swamp. However, exemptions will be described in the Research Natural Area Establishment Record and Management Plan. The Forests have attempted to relocate the snowmobile trail away from the proposed Bear Swamp Research Natural Area. Because of the lack of federal land ownership in this area, the Forests have been unable to find an alternative route. For this reason, the trail will remain in its present location until resource conditions change, at which time, a site-specific analysis with public involvement, will be conducted.
The Forest Service is a multiple use agency and provides a variety of trail opportunities for Off- Highway Vehicles, dirt bikes, and snowmobiles on designated trails only. The only change being proposed in the revised Forest Plan is that open, unplowed Forest Service roads will be designated for snowmobile use in the winter (revised Forest Plan, page II-13).
PC#: 163 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should adopt a motorized trail policy of “closed unless posted open.” In addition, the Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the effects the various management prescriptions and Standards and Guidelines have on the ability of the Forests to actively manage motorized trails. For example, on page II-13, Off- Highway Vehicles, D 2 and D 3; it is unclear whether D3 is more restrictive than D2. In addition, the Standard and Guideline on page II-13, D.10 is not uniform with state law.
Response: The policy of the Huron-Manistee National Forests is consistent with National policy; that is, to designate trails open for the specific uses allowed on each trail. The reference given in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-12, refers to mountain bike use on roads, not trails. Management prescriptions and Standards and Guidelines were analyzed and disclosed in the effects section in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-299 – III-307. There are no prescriptions or Standards and Guidelines that prevent the Forests from actively managing recreational resources. For example, on page III-305, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, Motorized, states that, “All of the alternatives have a standard and guideline for trail density, number of miles of motorized trails per square mile of National Forest System lands, in
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-70 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
the various management areas.” Further, this section further states that the trail density guideline would not limit future trail expansion.
The comment, concerning the Standard and Guideline, revised Forest Plan, page II-13, Off- Highway Vehicles, D2 and D3, is correct. D3 is more restrictive than D2. The standards are different because D2 refers to distance from houses while D3 refers to distance from bodies of water. D3 contains a greater distance due to concern about erosion and other potential impacts to watershed.
The Standard and Guideline on page II-13 D -10 is correct. This is a guideline intended to reduce the amount of mixed street legal traffic on forest roads with snowmobiles on rights-of-way to address safety issues.
PC#: 164 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should provide for rescinding the permission for snowmobiles to use county roads in Management Area 6.1, if the frequency of violations increases.
Response: The administration of county roads is outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and is therefore, not addressed in the revised Forest Plan. The Forest Supervisor has authority to close forest roads and trails where resource damage is occurring until it is repaired and threat of reoccurrence has been eliminated.
PC#: 165 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not allow any Off-Highway Vehicles anywhere, either off-road or on-road, on National Forest System land.
Response: The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance between and integration of ecological, economic, and social factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ natural resources. According to the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, motorized recreation opportunities should be provided where applicable. The revised Forest Plan provides direction that addresses the needs of motorized recreational users, limits unacceptable resource damage, and minimizes conflicts with other recreation activities.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed a variety of Alternatives with different outcomes to address Plan Revision issues (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter II, page II-3). Included was “passive” management, which minimized motorized recreational development. Because this alternative did not respond to the Forest Plan revision issues or maintain species viability, it was eliminated from further consideration.
PC#: 166 Public Concern: There is a lack of adequate range of Alternatives. No alternative included options for expanding Off-Highway Vehicle use to meet the current and anticipated demand while also protecting resources. It is imperative that a sufficient number of acres remain open to
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-71 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Off-Highway Vehicle use so that the Huron-Manistee Forests can achieve their own goal of providing a multi-use forest.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests should keep our land open to the public. I would hate to see the lands that I have come to love suddenly become off limits to my son and future generations.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests should realize that people want to recreate in the forest, not just be able to drive by the edge and look at the boundaries. The demographics of users are younger or older families, neither of which are able to hike in several miles to view the woods, younger because they have small children, and older because they may be physically incapable.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not construct any 4-lane highways through the forest. Do not build anymore.
Response: The Forests’ Analysis of the Current Management Situation, conducted in 2003, identified that there were no critical or compelling reasons to change the direction or strategy for access contained in the 1986 Forest Plan. During the Analysis of the Current Management Situation, the Huron-Manistee National Forests determined that the original 1986 Forest Plan provided sufficient direction to appropriately manage issues related to recreational access. The Forests determined that unless substantive new information was revealed, the Forest Plan revision process would not include access issues.
While certain activities must be managed to protect resource values for future generations, the Huron-Manistee National Forests are and will continue to be open to the public to use and enjoy.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests are highly accessible and have a very dense network of both classified and unclassified roads. There are almost no instances where one can walk several miles to access any portion of either Forest.
Although major roads cross National Forest System Lands, the Huron-Manistee National Forests have not and do not intend to construct any four-lane highways through the National Forests.
PC#: 167 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should make guidelines D3, (which is more restrictive than D2) and D2 uniform or explain the rational why they are not.
Response: 2300: VIII. D3 States, “Where possible, motorized vehicle trails will be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from rivers, streams, and lakes except at designated crossings.” This guideline, in the 1986 Forest Plan, limited motorized vehicle trails to areas one half mile beyond lakes and streams except at designated crossings. The guideline has been relaxed somewhat to provide for more resource management flexibility in the revised Forest Plan, but maintains a minimum distance of 1,000 feet from rivers, streams, and lakes to protect resources values. The rational for this guideline is unrelated to D2, which states, “Where possible, do not construct motorized trails within 660 feet of any seasonal or permanent residence,” and therefore uniformity between the two guidelines is not expected or necessary.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-72 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Natural Resource Management – General:
PC#: 168 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should, as its first management priority, to provide for the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Secondly, the Forest Plan should provide for high quality, non-motorized recreation opportunities while protecting wildlife and preserving water quality. Overall, the Huron-Manistee National Forests should emphasize environmental preservation, protection, and restoration, and eliminate commercial logging, other resource extraction, new road construction, Off-Highway Vehicle use, and the Huron-Manistee National Forests should be analyzed for potential National Recreation Areas.
Response: Preservation and restoration of the environment is one of many management emphases utilized in the revision of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ Plan. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 states that, “it is the policy of the Congress that the National Forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” Management of National Forests includes management of uses of all the various renewable surface resources in a combination that best meets the needs of the American people. The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance between and integration of ecological, economic, and social factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ natural resources.
National Recreation Areas are designated by law or administratively. They must possess unique recreational, aesthetic, historical, archaeological, and natural resource values as defined in the Forest Service Manual 2370. No areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forests attain the unique requirements for a National Recreational Area.
PC#: 169 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should speak-to and ultimately accomplish planned forest treatments.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests revised Forest Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement are the framework for funding projects and accomplishing objectives. In order to achieve the desired conditions and accomplish objectives, the Forests need to treat the specified acres, and implement the wildlife and other resource projects identified in the revised Forest Plan. However, funding levels on the Forests to accomplish the program of work are part of an overall funding allocation determined by Congress and the Administration. The Forests must work within the budget that is allocated. The Forests make requests for funding based on projected accomplishments in the revised Forest Plan.
PC#: 170 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should develop a process to accomplish and maintain an inventory system that would result in site-specific stand prescriptions.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-73 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests maintains vegetative data in the Combined Data Systems database, which is used on the Forests when conducting a variety of analyses, such as, Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, at the project level. This gives resource managers the information they need when determining the effects of potential on- the-ground activities within specific areas of the Forests.
Nonmotorized Recreation:
PC#: 171 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should protect plants and animals, but this protection should not come at the expense of access to rivers by canoeists.
Response: The revised Forest Plan does not propose a reduction in access to rivers.
PC#: 172 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should specify the amount of increased mountain bike trails are proposed for Alternatives B and C for comparison to Alternative A.
PC#: 173 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should allow mountain bike use on all trails where feasible, unless posted closed or seasonally restricted, because mountain bike use is allowed on all Forest Service roads.
Response: Mountain bikes are allowed on all open roads and on designated mountain bike trails. The Huron-Manistee National Forests policy of designating trails as open to a use, as opposed to posting them closed to a use, is consistent with National Direction and State of Michigan policy. The Standards and Guidelines have been amended to include designated trail in the revised Forest Plan, page II-12, VIII, A, 8. The Selected Alternative allows for the possibility of designating sections of existing trail for mountain biking opportunities on a site-specific basis. Because the site-specific analysis has not been completed on potential modifications to the existing trail uses, a definitive number of miles cannot be provided.
PC#: 174 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should create more trails, nonmotorized, as well as motorized. The Final Environmental Impact Statement failed to interpret the National Visitor Use Monitoring in terms of hiking and walking use compared to backpacking on the Forests. Mountain bikers should not be allowed to ride on hiking trails. Mountain bikes should be allowed on all trails where feasible, unless posted closed or seasonally restricted.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement inappropriately states, “This increased opportunity and growing demand could increase conflicts with hikers. Hikers and bikers could select alternative trails or may not participate. Some hikers could choose other locations off- forest…User satisfaction may decrease for those who enjoy single use trails.” (Final
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-74 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-289 and III-290). It appears that this group of forest users is being told, “If you don't like it, go somewhere else.”
Response: The Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-300, has been corrected in regards to hiking demand. Hiking and backpacking are not separate categories in the National Visitor Use Monitoring system.
Alternatives B and C acknowledge the current use of mountain bikes on National Forest System lands. Alternative A, the original 1986 Forest Plan as amended, did not address mountain bikes. The increase in mileage open to mountain bikes is found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-303 through 307 and reflects the difference between no mountain bike use considered in Alternative A and the expected mountain bike use of designated existing trails in Alternative B and C. Mountain bikes are allowed on all open roads and on designated trails. The Huron-Manistee National Forests policy of designating trails as open to a use, as opposed to posting them closed to a use, is consistent with National Direction and State of Michigan policy.
The characterization of potential effects because of increased user conflicts, “If you don't like it, go somewhere else,” is definitely not a proposed response by the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Rather, statements detail the Huron-Manistee National Forests expectations of what would most likely occur through implementation of the various alternatives. The revised Forest Plan trail density guidelines do not limit future trail expansion in any of the alternatives with one exception: Management Area 7.1 (Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-299 through 307). This involves a site-specific issue; analysis would occur during the project implementation level and disclosed during the environmental analysis process. The Selected Alternative retains motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. The revised Forest Plan does not call for the closure of any specific roads or trails. Road and trail closures are implemented on a case-by- case basis following site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement.
PC#: 175 Public Concern: The Forest Plan, Chapter II, Table II-6, page II-12 conflicts with the Desired Future Condition statements on page III-7.1-2.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, Table II-6, does not conflict with the desired future condition for 7.1 Management Area characterized on page III-7.1-2. The desired future condition on page III-7.1-2, states, “Nonmotorized use is emphasized, providing primarily hiking, cross- country skiing, and equestrian travel.” This is not in conflict with the Nonmotorized trail density guideline of 0 to 6 miles of trail contained in Table II-6. Concurrently, there is a short snowmobile trail segment that crosses the area in the southwest corner that is about one-half mile long, which is within the guideline enumerated in Table II-6, or Motorized: 0 to 1 mile.
PC#: 176 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should emphasize dispersed camping through education, partnerships, utilization of mitigating measures to reduce negative sites problems that might occur with dispersed camping, streamlining special recreation permits, access, and through the
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-75 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
implementation of other proactive management techniques. The definition of dispersed camping should be added to the revised Forest Plan Glossary.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests revised Forest Plan allows for dispersed camping. The suggested goals and/or objectives pertain to developed campsites and are not relevant for dispersed camping. The need to manage individual dispersed camping areas to deal with resource impacts is determined on a site-specific basis, according to Management Area direction and resource issues involved. The revised Forest Plan allows for education and dissemination of information about camping.
A definition of dispersed camping has been added to the revised Forest Plan Glossary, Appendix F, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Glossary, Appendix J.
North Country Trail:
PC#: 177 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should state a firm commitment to remove bicycles from the North County National Scenic Trail.
Response: The revised Forest Plan complies with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service, National Park Service, and the North Country Trail Association, Inc.
PC#: 178 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should discuss the Memorandum of Understanding between the Huron-Manistee National Forests, National Park Service, and the North Country Trail Association and include the Trail Handbook for Trail Design, Construction, and Maintenance and the Huron-Manistee North Country National Scenic Trail Implementation Guide.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, page II-14, Section X, A, has been edited to include the Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the North Country Trail Association.
In regards to the trail handbook, the Forests will follow laws, regulations, and policy. Repeating these is not necessary for the revised Forest Plan. A Standard and Guideline was added to in Chapter II, 2300, X, B - the North Country National Scenic Trail Standards and Guidelines, and states, “Management of the North Country National Scenic Trail will be in accordance with pertinent requirements and management policies such as the Huron-Manistee National Forests' North Country National Scenic Trail implementation guide.”
PC#: 179 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement mentions the North Country Scenic Trail, but specific cumulative effects are not considered.
PC#: 180 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should disclose the Scenery Management System for the North Country National Scenic Trail corridor.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-76 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Response: There are no large-scale activities in the revised Forest Plan, which would have negative cumulative effects on the North Country National Scenic Trail (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, page III-305). Projects will be analyzed on a site-specific basis and will adhere to the North Country National Scenic Trail Management Plan.
The corridor of the North Country National Scenic Trail is not a separate Management Area. Therefore, the Scenery Management System for the North Country Trail is consistent with the Management Areas the North Country Trail passes through. A description of the sensitivity levels and integrity objectives of each Management Area can be found in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-15. The scenic integrity level within the foreground distance zone of the North Country Trail will not be lower than moderate (revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II- 15).
PC#: 181 Public Concern: The Forest Plan, page II-14, Standards and Guideline F states, “The North Country National Scenic Trail should be for hiking and backpacking.” This guideline does not allow a change in the primary use should the demand for mountain biking increase and the demand for hiking and backpacking decrease.
Response: The North Country National Scenic Trail was designated by Congress as primarily a hiking trail. A management plan for the trail was completed in 1982 by the National Park Service in cooperation with the participating States. Changing the direction for use of the North Country National Scenic Trail is outside the scope of Forest Plan revision.
PC#: 182 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement, page II-7, should include the North Country Trail in the section titled, “Recreation, semiprimitive areas, aesthetics & access”, and the section retitled, “Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Specially Designated Areas.”
Response: The title was changed to Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and the North Country National Scenic Trail and bullets was added. Other specially designated areas are either addressed in their own Management Areas or addressed in Management Area 8.1: Special Areas.
PC#: 183 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should include the route of the North Country Trail on all maps associated with the plan.
Response: The Forest Plan revision maps identify Management Areas. Major travel routes are included for the public to orient themselves. No further features are included because it would clutter the map at the Forest scale. However, the North Country National Scenic Trail is included in the Forest Visitor Maps.
PC#: 184 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should provide for a method of indicating the Forest Service's progress on attaining the Desired Future Condition for the North Country Trail. The monitoring
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-77 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
matrix should include information on how many miles of the North Country Trail has been changed from “open to bike” to “hiking only.”
Response: There is no change to mountain bike use proposed on the North Country Trail. The progress toward attainment of the desired future condition would be provided in Monitoring and Evaluation reports. In accordance with the Monitoring Matrix in Chapter IV of the revised Forest Plan, monitoring will identify which trail and the number of miles open to mountain bikes.
PC#: 185 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should prohibit the use of llamas on the North Country Trail.
Response: When the Huron-Manistee National Forests evaluated the use of horses in the 1986 Forest Plan, hoofed animals were found detrimental. Llamas are not hoofed animals, and therefore, are not detrimental to the trail. There is no reason to restrict their use. The Standard and Guideline, revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, 2300, X, D, was changed to; “The North Country National Scenic Trail is closed to motorized use.” Possessing or using saddle, pack, or draft animals is also prohibited. Llamas are allowed on the trail.
Northern Hardwoods-Oak:
PC#: 186 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should be changed to include harvest projections for northern hardwoods in the first decade.
Response: It is correct that the Spectrum model did not project harvests for northern hardwood for the first decade in the Selected Alternative. Seventy-three million board feet of timber harvest are projected in the second decade. It should be noted, however, that these are model-derived projections. Undoubtedly, some amount of acres of northern hardwoods will be harvested when project level management objectives are implemented. These projects will be implemented on a case-by-case basis under site-specific environmental documentation with public involvement. Goals and Objectives, Desired Future Conditions, and Standards and Guidelines allow the Forests flexibility in managing northern hardwoods. To analyze a range of alternatives, Alternative A does include higher projected outputs of northern hardwood forest products. The differences between the alternatives are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III.
PC#: 187 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should establish that the oak type could be maintained, as it is questionable from a study of Table III-20 through 23 figures. If the Forest Plan does not maintain the oak type, then the tables should demonstrate the conversion of oak to other forest types. The conversion of 20,300 acres of oak to barrens is unacceptable.
Response: The revised Forest Plan is meant to guide management activities for a 10 – 15 year period. It is a dynamic document that will be periodically examined and adjusted when new information becomes available or circumstances change. While the planning horizon for the revised Forest Plan is 50 years, and it analyzes all activities and future conditions and
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-78 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
effects of alternative actions, the implications of decisions made on complex forest systems become too difficult to understand 15 – 50 years in the future, and beyond. For that reason, extensive successional pathways were not modeled. Table III-23 depicts relatively large acres of oak extending beyond 100 years. However, what the Forests will look like in 100 years is a projection.
High site oak stands are likely to exist well beyond 100 years due to the longevity of species such as red and white oak even though the model predicts a net loss of approximately 23,000 acres of all oak types after 100 years. The revised Forest Plan proposes to regenerate 6,838 acres of low site oak in the first decade. Oak will still be present in the pine barren and savannah habitats where the acres of low site oak vegetative class are reduced.
PC#: 188 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not convert slow developing, marginally stocked oak stands to barrens and fuel barriers resulting in dried-out soil conditions. Oak should be managed aggressively so that the type does not decline because wildlife requires acorns to survive through winters.
Response: Restoration of barrens and fuels treatments are intended to provide habitat for species with viability concerns and to reduce the chance for adverse impacts associated with wildfire, respectively. It is important to note that although vitally important for certain species viability, the actual amount of barrens habitat creation proposed over the planning horizon is less than 60,000 acres. This is less than one-tenth of one percent of total lands managed by the Huron- Manistee National Forests. Oak is still prominent across National Forest System lands. As disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Table III-20, beginning on page III-221 through 223, 168,027 acres of oak habitat type is expected to be maintained through the 50-year planning horizon. The revised Forest Plan proposes to regenerate 6,838 acres of low site oak in the first decade. The Spectrum model projects a net loss of approximately 23,000 acres of oak types after 100 years. Oak will still be present in the pine barren and habitats where the acres of low site oak vegetative class are reduced. Mast is important to wildlife species. Guidelines in the revised Forest Plan , page II-23, Table II-12, prescribes a minimum number of mast trees to be retained during harvest. It is also important to harvest oaks to regenerate them to maintain the oak type.
Old Growth:
PC#: 189 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the impact that old growth designations within river corridors have had on migratory birds, particularly woodcock.
Response: Woodcock have been included and addressed in the revised Forest Plan through the Species Viability Evaluation process and is disclosed in Appendix B of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. It was determined in Step 1 of the Species Viability Evaluation that woodcock was not a species with a viability concern on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Management of aspen, openings, and shrub/scrub habitat, which would benefit woodcock, is included in both
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-79 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Alternatives B and C. Therefore, management occurring outside of old growth will maintain the viability of the species on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Direction in the revised Forest Plan provides a range of management options providing for a mix of late and early successional habitat in riparian areas outside of old growth. Management direction in the Plans allows a range of vegetative management practices or silvicultural treatments to be used in riparian areas, including treatments needed to maintain early successional forests, provided such use is appropriate on a site-specific basis. The near-bank riparian management zone adjacent to lakes, streams, or open water wetlands is not a “no cut” zone. Rather, it is a zone where active management, including timber harvest geared to even- aged management, can be used, provided it is used to help maintain or restore riparian ecological function. On a site-specific basis, the use of timber harvest to promote early successional or young-age forest to benefit species such as woodcock is considered in keeping with this direction. Likewise, direction for the remainder, such as, outer riparian management zone allows even-aged timber harvest practices for any site-appropriate early or late successional tree species, while favoring harvest at extended rotations. The Final Environmental Impact Statement and revised Forest Plan provide this flexibility through riparian-specific management direction through Goals and Objectives, Desired Future Conditions, and Standards and Guidelines (Chapter III, pages III-22, III-75, III-98, among others in the Final Environmental Impact Statement; and, Chapter II, pages II-5, II-18, II-19, II-22, among others in the revised Forest Plan).
PC#: 190 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should maintain the current 2,000 acres of managed wildlife openings within old-growth areas.
PC#: 191 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should meet the requirements of renewable resources and sustainability in the management of aspen and oak forest types, which are declining because of old-growth policies and allowing aspen and oak to convert to other forest types.
PC#: 192 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should provide for the preservation and reestablishment of old growth forest, emphasize biodiversity, and multiple use over timber production. Standards and Guidelines are inadequate for management of old growth stands and stands adjacent to old growth. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should apply new scientific data to old management and the revised Forest Plan should include specific guidelines for monitoring old growth objectives.
PC#: 193 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should designate old growth core areas connected by corridors rather than concentrating old growth along riparian areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-80 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 194 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should offer the opportunity to revisit the old growth issue design because the design is flawed.
PC#: 195 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should designate much less of the Forests as old growth as it is not conducive to multiple use principles, creates a fire hazard, and is not supported by forest users.
PC#: 196 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose that old growth has a high risk of catastrophic wildfire.
PC#: 197 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should designate more old growth resulting in more tourism.
PC#: 198 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not constrain resource management by designating old growth and should not deny access to old growth by motorized trail users.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests' old-growth design and designation was updated in March 2003. Amendment #24 to the 1986 Forest Plan describes the changes made. While not agreeable to everyone, this amendment addressed a variety of issues and concerns regarding old-growth management on the Forests.
In 2003, Amendment #24 resolved the old-growth issue. The concerns and issues raised during the Need for Change process for Forest Plan revision in 2003 were similar to ones brought forward and addressed during the amendment process. As such, it was determined that design, acres designated, and management (including motorized access), of old growth would not be an identified as a need for change item in Forest Plan revision. Potential impacts to old growth, due to other proposed changes, however, were analyzed and disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-44, III-245, and Tables III-20 through III-23, beginning on page III- 221. The revised Forest Plan provides for wildfire suppression and fuels treatment in old growth, where there is a concern for public safety (Chapter III, page III-255, Final Environmental Impact Statement).
PC#: 199 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should contain a map of old growth areas and a map of suited and unsuited timber land. The maps associated with the roads analysis are useless.
Response: Maps of the old-growth design are now included in the revised Forest Plan as determined in the Amendment #24 decision to the 1986 Forest Plan. They are also available in the project file. Old-growth maps have been included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-81 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Regarding the roads analysis, only levels 3, 4, and 5 roads were analyzed at the Forest level. Level 1 and 2 roads are local and are expected to be analyzed at the site-specific project level. The existing maps are adequate for Forest Plan revision
PC#: 200 Public Concern: The old growth definition does not address ecosystems such as pine barrens that could be considered old growth.
Response: The definition of “old growth,” as provided in the glossaries of the revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement is consistent with the definition of “old growth forests” provided in the Environmental Assessment for the Old Growth Amendment to the 1986 Forest Plan (Amendment # 24, February 28, 2001). Confusion exists because the Forests’ old- growth design is a contiguous geographical area where all landtype associations are represented and natural ecological processes are allowed to predominate. This may result in the establishment of natural and ecologically significant open areas or early successional forests. Though not traditionally considered “old growth,” these unforested or young forested conditions would be expected to occur within the Forests’ old-growth design. In accordance with Amendment #24, 10,000 acres within the Forests’ old-growth design are expected to be managed as barrens/prairies/or savannahs.
The definition of “old growth” in the revised Forest Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement was edited to incorporate these concepts as follows:
Old Growth: Ecosystems where natural biological processes predominate and are characterized by older larger trees, native species, and minimal human disturbance. Old-growth structural diversity includes multi-layered canopies, canopy gaps, tip-up mounds, and an accumulation of dead woody material. Old-growth tracts vary from small isolated forested areas to larger landscape complexes that may include ecologically important non-forested openings, younger patches produced by natural disturbances, wetlands, and water bodies.
Research Natural Areas:
PC#: 201 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not establish any new candidate Research Natural Areas and should not designate any new ones because Research Natural Areas: 1) are underutilized, 2) have no demonstrated need; 3) are opposed by the majority of forest users; 4) limit recreational use; and 5) prevent necessary vegetative management in perpetuity. The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not designate any Research Natural Area outside of designated Wilderness areas and should not exceed the minimum size requirements, such as 80 to 160 acres
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests establish Research Natural Areas as part of meeting multiple use management objectives and in adherence to policy direction. Out of approximately 1 million acres of National Forest System lands, 1,363 acres are designated as Research Natural Areas. The revised Forest Plan moves approximately 14,000 acres into Candidate Research Natural Areas/Research Natural Area status (Management Areas 9.1 and
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-82 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
9.2). The effects of moving these acres from the Management Areas that they currently reside in to Management Areas 9.1 and 9.2 are disclosed throughout the Final Environmental Impact Statement where comparisons of Alternatives by Management Areas are found. The process for designating candidate Research Natural Areas as Research Natural Areas includes the development of management plans and will occur in the future. Public involvement will be included in the process of writing management plans.
Regarding size of Research Natural Areas, Forest Service Manual direction (4063.1) states “- Size Standards. Research natural areas must be large enough to provide essentially unmodified conditions within their interiors. In the West, 300 acres (121.4 hectares) of land is generally considered the minimum size. In the East, where it may be impossible to find areas of 300 or more acres, consider establishing smaller areas, especially in grassland systems and in areas with special vegetative, aquatic, or geologic situations. Incorporate enough acres to ensure unmodified conditions within their interiors and to protect the features and/or qualities for which the research natural area is to be established.”
Forest Service Manual direction (4063-Research Natural Areas) states, “Research Natural Areas are part of a national network of ecological areas designated in perpetuity for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity on National Forest System lands. Research natural areas are for nonmanipulative research, observation, and study.” Objectives of establishing research natural areas (Forest Service Manual 4063.02) are:
• Preserve a wide spectrum of pristine representative areas that typify important forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, geological, and similar natural situations that have special or unique characteristics of scientific interest and importance that, in combination, form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. • Preserve and maintain genetic diversity. • Protect against serious environmental disruptions. • Serve as reference areas for the study of succession. • Provide onsite and extension educational activities. • Serve as baseline areas for measuring long-term ecological changes. • Serve as control areas for comparing results from manipulative research. • Monitor effects of resource management techniques and practices.
Current-use patterns for Research Natural Area information do not predict future needs for base- line data. If these areas are not identified and managed appropriately now, they may not be suitable when research need arises. Therefore, Forest Service Manual direction requires that Research Natural Areas be established in a “wide-spectrum” of representative areas. They also may assist in implementing provisions of special acts, such as the Endangered Species Act and the monitoring provisions of the National Forest Management Act.
The revised Forest Plan provides Standards and Guidelines for wildlife habitat management in a variety of habitats across the Forests. The potential impacts on wildlife of designating Research Natural Areas are described in Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement under
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-83 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
effects of Alternatives C on Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Animals and Plants, and under effects on Management Indicator Species.
Research Natural Area designations can be changed but require approval by the Regional Forester and would also require a Forest Plan amendment.
PC#: 202 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should designate 3 new Research Natural Areas and establish the16 potential candidate Research Natural Areas, noted as the last bullet under “Wildlife and Rare Plants” on page II-11 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to: 1) maintain the ecological integrity of significant natural community occurrences; 2) protect special and unique areas; 3) protect/preserve Michigan’s biodiversity; 4) and to keep rivers healthy and unpolluted so fish won't be contaminated.
Response: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement analyzed a variety of Alternatives with different outcomes to address Plan Revision issues. Among these was an Alternative that designated three new Research Natural Areas and identified 15 potential candidate Research Natural Areas. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement incorrectly referred to 19 candidate Research Natural Areas. There are actually 18. This correction has been made. Each Alternative meets the intent of relevant laws, including the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, under which the National Forests are managed. The Regional Forester considered all of the Alternatives and the Record of Decision describes his rational for the Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative represents what forest managers believe to be the best balance in achieving sustainable ecosystems and meeting the intent of relevant laws, and addressing the issues and concerns specific to the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
PC#: 203 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should designate the remaining candidate Research Natural Areas to provide large natural areas where we can bird, hike, and see native wildlife.
Response: Establishment of Research Natural Areas beyond the three identified in Alternative C was not considered as part of any Alternative. These Research Natural Areas (Brandy Brook, Big South, and Bear Swamp) were selected for establishment under Alternative C because draft establishment records had already been completed. To designate all of the remaining candidates in Alternatives B and C, establishment records would need to be completed. The Forests determined that it was unrealistic to accomplish establishment records for 15 candidate Research Natural Areas during Forest Plan revision.
PC#: 204 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should define what is meant by the phrase, “Recreation in the area such as hiking, hunting, camping, and fishing will not be encouraged,” in reference to Research Natural Areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-84 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Response: To “not encourage” certain recreational activities means the Research Natural Areas will not be indicated on recreation maps and designated campsites and trails will not be established in them.
PC#: 205 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not attempt to “slide through” Research Natural Area designations as part of Forest Plans without disclosures and public involvement.
Response: The Research Natural Area designation process includes public involvement as described by the National Environmental Policy Act process. Site-specific decisions, which may be identified in Research Natural Area Management Plans, will follow all requirements for public notification and involvement.
Research Needs:
PC#: 206 Public Concern: There is no disclosure of Research needs and accomplishments made during the existing Plan period.
PC#: 207 Public Concern: What are the accomplishments and results of the Oak Administrative Study? How is the new information being applied to Plan Revision Management Direction? Is the Study being continued?
PC#: 208 Public Concern: What are the accomplishments and results of the Long Term Soil Productivity Study? How is the new information being applied to Plan Revision Management Direction? Is the Study being continued?
PC#: 209 Public Concern: Reference page A-20 of the Draft Plan document. What is the status of research being done for cedar regeneration? Is there any Management Direction to be applied of cedar other than “no cutting over the next 50 years”? Is more coordination needed with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for deer management in regards to cedar on the Forests?
PC#: 210 Public Concern: Is the Forests’ management still participating with Forest Service research in acid rain at the Pine River Research Forest lab? There needs to be a disclosure of the acid rain component on the Forests because of this monitoring. Is their any other air quality monitoring going on over the Forests?
Response: The Analysis of the Current Management Situation (September 18, 2003) identified two research needs for the Forests: 1) allowable sale quantity should be compatible with Ecological Land Type Phases; 2) ecological classification and inventory are used in management
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-85 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
prescriptions to meet vegetative community objectives. The research needs have not been completely addressed by the scientific community, to date. However, research in the area is on going and cooperative efforts among agencies are beginning to address statewide landscape planning on public lands. Additionally, the Forests have begun to incorporate concepts of Ecological Classification into the Planning process, for example, with respect to decisions regarding location and amount of barrens, prairie, and savannah restoration projects. Other research or administrative study results are generally addressed in the Forests’ annual monitoring reports. Results or findings are incorporated into management practices on an ongoing basis.
The oak administrative study has been terminated and results are summarized in numerous documents. One of these, a peer reviewed publication (Williams 2003) used to guide management of low-site oak ecosystems on the Forests, is referenced in Appendix C of the revised Forest Plan.
Results of the Aspen replication of the Long Term Soil Productivity Study are published in several documents. The five-year results for the Huron-Manistee National Forest are summarized in a peer reviewed publication by Stone et al. (1998) (see Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III). The ten-year results will be available sometime after October 2005. The 15th-year data collection has been initiated and the Huron-Manistee is scheduled for 2007-2008. Impacts of organic matter removal and compaction on soil productivity are addressed in the cumulative effects section of Chapter III, Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The management direction for northern white-cedar forest types from the original 1986 Forest Plan was carried forward with modifications into the revised Forest Plan. Cedar swamps will not be managed for timber, but may be modified for other needs. The Forests believe that adequate coordination exists between the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for deer and cedar management.
The Forests are still participating in the National Atmospheric Deposition Program. A site (MI53) is maintained in the Wellston area under private contract. Data collected from the site is available from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program website (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/sitemap.asp?state=mi). Over the last 20 years, the Forests have seen a gradual improvement in some air quality parameters related to acid rain. The Huron- Manistee National Forests are not aware of any other air quality monitoring being performed over the Forests.
Riparian Areas:
PC#: 211 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should coordinate with the Pine River Natural River Plan in regards to prohibiting roads, skid trails, and landing areas within Streamside Management Zones.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests developed a management plan for the Pine River in 1995 with thorough public involvement. This plan predates the State of Michigan’s Pine River Natural Rivers Plan. The revised Forest Plan follows the Forests’ Pine River Management Plan in implementation of management activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-86 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
The revised Forest Plan states in Section 2500, I, a, page II-17, that, “Vegetation management within the Streamside Management Zones will be consistent with the State of Michigan’s Best Management Practices…” Certain management activities such as bank stabilization, endangered or threatened species viability concerns, and placement of large woody debris may require the use of equipment and may occur under the guidelines in the revised Forest Plan. A site-specific analysis is completed for each proposed project, involving the public and other local, State, and federal agencies, in which direct, indirect and cumulative effects are considered.
PC#: 212 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should contain guidelines that protect riparian areas from increasing recreational use.
Response: An edit has been made in the revised Forest Plan guideline 2500, I, A, 8, page II-21, to strengthen the intent. This guideline now reads, “Design management activities adjacent to lakes, streams, and wetlands to maintain stream bank and shoreline stability and riparian integrity.”
PC#: 213 Public Concern: The Forest Plan, Standards and Guidelines on pages II-18 through II-22 should establish a minimum riparian buffer that limits disturbance (i.e., physical degradation, noise, air pollution) from Off-Highway Vehicle and snowmobile use.
Response: The revised Forest Plan already has protective recreation management guidelines that state that the location of motorized trails shall be 1,000 feet from streams and lakes wherever possible (revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, VIII, D, 3, page II-13.
PC#: 214 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should designate stream buffers that minimize habitat disturbance to adjacent uplands for the benefit of amphibians and reptiles, contributing to the protection of stream habitats.
Response: Because the size of a buffer area varies by species, it would be difficult to provide a universal buffer that would meet the need of all species. However, biodiversity was a major consideration in designing our designated old-growth areas. Approximately 1/3 of this design is made up of riparian areas and wetlands that, in turn, are connected to upland habitat. These areas are natural process areas where vegetation management activities are limited to providing for public health and safety, as well as ecosystem restoration by emulating natural disturbances. This, coupled with the use of Streamside Management Zones in other areas outside of the old- growth design, will provide for much the habitat needs of amphibians and reptiles on the Forests.
Road Density and Closure:
PC#: 215 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should reduce the density of roads because they disrupt wildlife and contribute to dumping of trash in the Forests. In some
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-87 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
instances, logging roads could be closed after harvesting. Some closed roads should have a short spur left open at the main road for recreationists to use for camping. A sign should be posted stating the reason for the closure.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, page II-5, provides direction to “Reduce the net miles of roads on the Forests by emphasizing the closures of roads determined to be non-essential for resource management.” A roads analysis was done on the Huron-Manistee National Forests to determine road density. The results are discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-320. The revised Forest Plan sets road densities and states that when a road is not needed for administrative use or public needs that the road should be closed. Forest roads are not open to Off-Highway Vehicle use. Specific road closures are determined on a case-by-case basis following site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests recognizes that trash dumping is a problem and the revised Forest Plan allows for road closures with site-specific analysis. The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, beginning on pages III-322-3, identifies that a reduction of road miles may reduce littering and trash dumping. During the analysis for each timber sale, the question of closing roads is addressed. In most cases, roads are closed upon completion of timber harvest unless determined necessary for administrative purposes or other public uses, in which case, they will remain open. Potential impacts of timber sale roads are considered at a site-specific level, and as such, more analysis would occur at the project implementation level and disclosed during the environmental analysis process. In regards to leaving spurs for parking and camping, design and configuration of specific road closures are carried out on a case-by-case basis following site- specific environmental analysis and public involvement. Road closures and the effectiveness of the closures will be assessed on a case-by-case basis with public involvement. The type of signing used in specific road closures is also determined on a case-by-case basis.
PC#: 216 Public Concern: The Forest Plan, Table II-6 in Chapter II, page II-12 should indicate if the miles/square mile are minimums, averages or maximums. These miles seem unreasonably low in all cases for motorized and non-motorized uses.
Response: Table II-6 provides a guide that establishes the average range of miles per square mile within each management area. The guidelines were established in the 1986 Forest Plan. No information was brought forward during the Need for Change or Notice of Intent process that indicated changes were needed. There are locations were these guidelines are exceeded based on a site-specific analysis; however, our experience has been that in most cases these guidelines are valid for the respective management area objectives. The revised Forest Plan sets Management Area direction for 7.1 for highly concentrated recreational use, which does not specifically exclude motorized use.
PC#: 217 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should have contained maps of all roads and trails to facilitate meaningful input. This inhibited the public from engaging in meaningful analysis for proposed Wilderness designation, semiprimitive motorized and nonmotorized allocations, and road and trail density issues. The Council on Environmental
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-88 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Quality implementing regulations state: “If a draft statement is so inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis, the agency shall prepare and circulate a revised draft of the appropriate portion.” Therefore, a revised environmental impact statement must be issued that includes maps of roads and trails.
Response: The Final Environmental Impact Statement and revised Forest Plan propose no specific road or trail construction or closure, such as, no site-specific decisions. It does establish Standards and Guidelines and Management Direction for all Management Areas, including Wilderness and semiprimitive areas. The planning record contains a copy of the transportation atlas that provides specific locations for all inventoried roads and trails. As part of the Huron- Manistee National Forests roads analysis process, site-specific National Environmental Policy Act documentation is prepared at the time of project level analysis and detailed information on existing roads and trails and proposed changes are part of these documents.
No site-specific decisions about roads and trails are being made. Therefore, adding the roads to our existing maps or providing additional maps displaying all inventoried roads is not necessary. Boundaries of existing and proposed Wilderness and semiprimitive areas are displayed on the maps provided with the draft and final documents. Additional detailed information about each of these areas is available in the planning record upon request.
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations does not require that detailed supporting information be included in the documents only that it be part of the planning record and available for public review. Our planning record contains this information.
PC#: 218 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not reduce the net number of Forest Service road mileage. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should not have evaluated road densities by including state and county roads that the Forests have no control over.
Response: An estimated 10,400 miles of road exist within the Forests’ boundaries, resulting in an average road density of 3.2 miles of road per square mile. Of the total miles, approximately 6,670 miles are state and county roads. This figure does not include unclassified or user- developed roads. The analysis properly considered state and county roads because of the cumulative effects that they have on the forests. More than 90 percent of National Forest System lands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests are located within ¼ mile of a road. (Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-320).
All three alternatives provide for restoration activities for a variety of wildlife species and habitats, with Alternatives B and C proposing an increase in these activities. In order to most effectively restore and conserve wildlife and plant species and habitats, roads may be obliterated in order to restore habitat, roads may be closed to public vehicular use, or roads may be restricted by vehicle type or season of use. Additional roads could be developed. These determinations will be made only after site-specific analysis. An ample amount of access would continue to be provided across the Forests for management purposes, recreational activities, and public use.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-89 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
The revised Forest Plan, page II-5, provides direction to “Reduce the net miles of roads on the Forests by emphasizing the closures of roads determined to be non-essential for resource management.” The revised Forest Plan sets road densities and states that when a road is not needed for administrative use or public needs that the road should be closed. Specific road closures are carried out on a case-by-case basis following site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement.
PC#: 219 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should contain road closure Standards and Guidelines in the Management Area Direction. Scenery Management System should be addressed in the Forests Plan in the appropriate Management Area.
Response: Road closures may be necessary to implement under a tremendous variety of circumstances and the revised Forest Plan must be flexible enough to allow project managers to adapt appropriately. Therefore, the specific method used to close any given road is not a revised Forest Plan level issue but rather an implementation issue to be decided on a case-by-case basis at the site-specific level. The Huron-Manistee National Forests have a large body of literature to draw from when making decisions on how to implement specific road closures; see, for example, A Guide to Road Closure and Obliteration in the Forest Service (Moll 1996).
PC#: 220 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should provide for motorized and nonmotorized recreation in other, noncompeting locations when existing recreational use is displaced because of closures. Conflicts between users can be avoiding with proper planning.
Response: The revised Forest Plan states at II-6: “Design and manage trails for a primary seasonal use, to discourage conflicting uses. Prevent motorized and nonmotorized uses from occurring at the same time during any season of the year. Trails may also have secondary uses.” The revised Forest Plan allows for the creation of additional trails except in Management Areas 7.1 and 8.2, upon completion of a site-specific analysis.
Semiprimitive Motorized Management Areas:
PC#: 221 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should increase 6.2 semiprimitive motorized Management Areas over 6.1 semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas because semiprimitive motorized is enjoyed by the majority of forest users.
Additionally, other re-designations that should occur are semiprimitive nonmotorized and semiprimitive motorized Management Areas to 2.1, 4.2, or 4.3. Specifically, White River, Whalen Lake, and Condon West semiprimitive nonmotorized should be re-designated to 4.2 or 6.2 MAs; Briar Hills (south) should be a 2.1 MA; Loda Lake and Nordhouse (eastern portion) should be re-designated as a 4.2 or 4.3.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests are managed in accordance with the Multiple- Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The Forests have been divided into Management Areas, each
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-90 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
providing a different mix of opportunities and outputs. One of the recreation opportunities requested and provided for in these Management Areas is a non-motorized experience. As part of the current Forest Plan revision process, the forest reviewed all management area designations based on regional and national guidelines. Recommendations were made to change management area designations. These recommendations are reflected in the three alternatives and the potential impacts are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-300 through 307. Depending on the alternative, some areas may be closed to motorized recreation. The Forests retain motorized recreation opportunities in all Alternatives. Motorized recreation opportunities exist both outside and within semiprimitive motorized areas. Semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities are limited to the high density of roads on the Forests. Because of the relatively limited opportunity for nonmotorized recreation, the Forests have provided more acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas compared to semiprimitive motorized in all alternatives.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement, page 314, indicated that some motorized recreation activities have continued to occur in or near several existing semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas. For example, snowmobile trails cross the Briar Hills semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas. Most of these trails are located on county roads within the areas where the Forest Service does not have jurisdiction over motorized use in the road rights of way. In the Selected Alternative, management of the Briar Hills South area was recommended to be changed to semiprimitive motorized to recognize these existing snowmobile and motorcycle trails while retaining semiprimitive values.
Management of the Loda Lake area was changed from 4.2 to 1.1 in Amendment #24 (March 2003). Semiprimitive motorized Areas in the revised Forest Plan are now 6.2, which includes Loda Lake. The designation changes were made to facilitate efficient administration and management. The desired future condition for Loda Lake area is to provide habitat for the Karner blue butterfly and a variety of recreational opportunities, for hunting, camping, driving for pleasure, gathering forest products, hiking, mountain biking and Off-Highway Vehicle use.
Much of the Nordhouse area was heavily roaded and used for motorized recreational purposes. In addition, a paved and heavily used access road occurred within the southern portion of the 1986 Management Area. Accordingly, the Forest changed the configuration of the Management Area such that the northern portions of the Management Area became Roaded Natural Sandy Plains and Hills (4.2) and Roaded Natural Wetlands (4.3) Grouse Emphasis Areas. The remaining, central portions, of the Management Area remained semiprimitive motorized (6.2) as it was determined that objectives of that Management Area were attainable and that the Management Area would contribute to the diversity of recreational opportunities the Forests must provide.
Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Management Areas:
PC#: 222 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should not designate deer or grouse emphasis areas semiprimitive areas. Semiprimitive motorized and semiprimitive nonmotorized areas are
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-91 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
supposed to be “characterized by a predominantly natural appearing environment of moderate to large size.” (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, page J-43).
Response: The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is a system of classifying the range of recreational experiences, opportunities, and settings available in a given area of land. For example, primitive areas are characterized by an essentially unmodified environment. Semiprimitive non-motorized is characterized by few and/or subtle human modifications and Semi-primitive Motorized is characterized by moderately dominant human alterations (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix J, page J-36). Semi-primitive areas are, “characterized by a predominantly natural appearing environment of moderate to large size.” The Glossary goes on to say that, “The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but would be subtle”. Naturally appearing is described as “the existing natural character of the landscape is integrated into management activities such as harvesting. The landscape shows few signs of forest management; however the effects of naturally occurring disturbances, such as fire or windstorm, may be noticeable.” These characteristics describe the recreational experience specifically, and do not preclude management. Brandybrook Deer Emphasis Area (Management Area 6.2D) is the only semiprimitive area managed to provide browse for deer. There are no grouse emphasis areas in Management Areas 6.1 or 6.2. Aspen is a naturally occurring component of these areas and occurs because of natural disturbances (windthrow) and because of timber harvest.
PC#: 223 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should increase semiprimitive nonmotorized areas because such areas are rare in the Midwest and the Forests are being overrun by Off-Highway Vehicles causing damage, noise, and new cross-country trails are being created.
Response: The Forests evaluated a range of alternatives in the Final Environmental Impact Statement including two alternatives that increase semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas compared to current levels. As part of the Forest Plan revision process, the Forests reviewed all Management Area designations based on Regional and National guidelines. Recommendations were made to change Management Area designations. These recommendations are reflected in the three alternatives. Public comment received prior to the completion of the Need for Change and Notice of Intent (September 2003) identified the need for semiprimitive motorized and Nonmotorized areas. The Selected Alternative identifies more semi-primitive area acreage than the 1986 Forest Plan. The Management Area describes a Desired Future Condition. In some cases, the desired future condition is achieved quickly; in other cases, it may take more time and effort. Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, because of limited federal ownership, ownership patterns, development within forest boundaries and jurisdiction over existing roads, may not meet expectations of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum guide for individual recreational experiences. To provide the range of opportunities for visitors in Northern Michigan, the Forests accept that some areas are “aspiring” to meet the desired future condition. Motorized recreation is only permitted on designated roads and trails. The network of roads is available to street legal vehicles; other motorized uses are permitted only on designated portions of the road network. Table III-34 on page III-300 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement accurately depicts what it is intended to communicate, such as, the number of miles of trails, not roads, available to motorized use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-92 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Existing road miles are documented in Table III-44 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The potential impacts of semiprimitive Management Areas were analyzed and disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-313 through 319. Based on the analysis, it was determined that the Selected Alternative maximizes net public benefits, remains consistent with resource integration and management requirements, and complies with the long- term goals and objectives as outlined in the revised Forest Plan. Ecological, economic, and social considerations are balanced within environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
PC#: 224 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should close semiprimitive Management Areas to hunting, including 5.1, 6.1, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, and 9.2 areas, wildlife emphasis areas, and within one-mile of these areas.
Response: The State of Michigan possesses the authority for game management and the hunting of game. As stated in Forest Service Manual 2643.1, “Hunting, fishing, and trapping of fish and wildlife and associated practices on National Forest System lands are subject to State fish and wildlife laws and regulations. The exceptions include: 1) state fish and wildlife laws and regulations that conflict with Federal laws; or 2) state laws and regulations would permit activities that conflict with land and resource management responsibilities of the Forest Service or that are inconsistent with direction in forest plans.”
The basis for the above policy is the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. Although this Act states that one of the purposes for management of National Forests includes wildlife and fish, the Act also states that “[nothing herein shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction of responsibilities of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish on the national forests.” In addition, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides “nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary concerned to require Federal permits to hunt and fish …on lands in the National Forest System or as enlarging or diminishing the responsibility and authority of the States for management of fish and resident wildlife.” The Federal Land Policy and Management Act further states that, “except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary concerned relating to hunting and fishing pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State fish and game department.” (43U.S.C. 1732(b)).
The Forest Service does have the authority to issue closure orders for specific areas related to,
• public health and safety - 36 C.F.R. 261.53(e) • discharging a firearm, air rifle, or gas gun - 36 C.F.R. 261.58(m) • Possessing any animal or parts, etc. - 36 C.F.R. 261.58(t) • hunting or fishing - 36 C.F.R. 261.58(v)
The Forest Service does possess the authority to issue closures as necessary to accomplish certain purposes, for example, to provide safe areas around campgrounds, or to provide protection for endangered species such as the Kirtland’s warbler. However, the Forest’s determined that a general closure based solely on the regulation of hunting and fishing, or sights and sounds associated with those activities, is not justifiable given the aforementioned laws and policies.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-93 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 225 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should reevaluate semiprimitive Management Areas (Motorized and Nonmotorized) because current uses and conditions are not compatible with their semiprimitive category.
Specifically, point-by-point:
1) Motorized user groups were not party to the settlement agreement; 2) There exists no demonstrated need for semiprimitive nonmotorized; 2a) Current conditions and uses are not conducive to semiprimitive nonmotorized values 3) Au Sable electric transmission line, private ownership access, mineral ownership, motored watercraft; 4) Cooke Dam has motorized watercraft on impoundments, proximity to high use areas, swampy conditions; 5) Hoist and Reed Lakes: should allow bicycles - management direction says more opportunities will be provided; 6) S Branch Au Sable: What is status of FR 4212 near Mason Chapel?; 7) Whitewater Creek:50percent private ownership, no subsurface ownership, power line row, ATV, motorcycle and snowmobile trails adjacent to south boundary and through eastern portion; 8) Briar Hills (north): majority not in favor of action alternatives, do not have attribute of semiprimitive nonmotorized, Forest Service did not disclose true character of the Management Areas on recreation and quad maps re: classified roads; 9) Condon Lakes West: relocate North Country Trail to this area, vegetative management, and public may object to limiting access; 10) Manistee River: western road heavily used and is snowmobile trail, heavy use for drive in rustic camping, motors allowed on river, Area doesn't have attributes of semiprimitive nonmotorized, relocate North Country Trail to east side of river from Red Bridge to Hodenpyle to allow bikes on west side trail, allow motorized access to old Red Bridge lookout tower site; 11) Whalen Lake (Big South): heavily roaded, rural area, heavily infested with invasives, pine plantations need thinning, location not conducive to semiprimitive nonmotorized; recreation maps don't show many county roads within boundary, minor signs of dumping and civil disobedience, research natural area criteria can't be met in this area or Bear Swamp. 12) Wakeley Lake: We agree with the – Summary of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Assessment 9/18/03 – “Change from semiprimitive nonmotorized and roaded natural to rural since the majority of the area is private and being developed”; also the proximity of the airport to the Lake. 13) White River: The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum inventory of this area is Roaded Natural. Currently this area is heavily roaded; located in an area that is very developed; area is limited by county roads and utilities; located in a rural area, not conductive to semiprimitive nonmotorized attributes. Present condition; no trails currently exists; 6 miles of county maintained roads throughout area, and 10 miles level 2 roads; USGS special use permit road; heavy camping use occurs along the rivers; allow outboard motors on the river...The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum of this area should be returned to Roaded Natural in light of above facts, also it seems logical in light of the above stated conditions this area would not be suitable for any Research Natural Area designation or further study in that direction.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-94 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests recognize that portions of semiprimitive motorized and semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas do not provide the semiprimitive experience as envisioned in the revised Forest Plan. Despite the fact that the desired future conditions for semiprimitive motorized and semiprimitive nonmotorized values may not be present, management will continue until these conditions are achieved. The Huron-Manistee National Forests believe that these areas represent the best opportunity for the Forests to achieve the desired results.
1. As part of the current Forest Plan revision process, the Forests reviewed all Management Area designations based on regional and national guidelines. Based on this analysis, recommendations were made to change Management Area designations. These recommendations are reflected in the three alternatives. 2. Public Comment received during the Need for Change and Notice of Intent identified the need for semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized areas. Public involvement in the development of the alternatives was not limited to those parties involved in the Settlement Agreement on the 1986 Forest Plan, but was open to everyone. 2a. The Management Area describes a desired future condition. In some cases, we will achieve that desired future condition quickly; in other cases, it may take more time and effort. Semiprimitive nonmotorized areas in the Lower Peninsula, because of limited federal ownership, ownership pattern, development within forest boundaries and jurisdiction over existing roads, may not meet expectations of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum guide for individual recreational experiences. To provide the range of opportunities for visitors in northern Michigan, the Forests accept that some areas are “aspiring” to meet the desired future condition and will be managed to move towards that desired future condition as opportunities arise. 3. Au Sable: See general statement 2a. Thank you for your comment. The Forests recognizes the existence of the transmission lines and state-owned mineral rights. 4. Cooke: The presence of motorized watercraft is transitory, similar to aircraft. We would not expect motorized watercraft to have a significant effect on the visitor’s experience level 5. Hoist and Reid: There have been no proposals to develop mountain bike trails in these areas. Management direction allows for increased opportunities by allowing mountain bikes on all Forest Service roads unless closed by Forest Supervisor’s order (revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, VIII, A, 8, page II-12). 6. S. Branch Au Sable: FR4212 will remain open (revised Forest Plan, Chapter III, 2300, II, A, 5, page III-6.1-5. 7. Whitewater Creek: See general comment 2a above. 8. Briar Hills: This decision was made through a site-specific analysis following Forest Plan direction (revised Forest Plan, Chapter III, page III-6.1-3, Table III-8). 9. Condon Lakes West: The current location of the North Country National Scenic Trail takes advantage of the area’s natural attributes. There is no demonstrated need to relocate this trail. Vegetation Management may be used to meet the objectives of old growth designation and semi-primitive designation. There is currently limited access because of a large expanse of wetlands.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-95 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
10. Manistee River: See general statement at 2a. Relocation of the North Country National Scenic Trail and status of motorized access to Old Red Bridge lookout site are site- specific projects, which are not addressed at Forest Plan level. 11. Whalen Lake: It is recognized that portions of the Whalen Lake (Big South) area do not currently provide a semiprimitive experience as envisioned in the Forest Plan. Although the desired future conditions for semiprimitive nonmotorized may not currently be present in all portions of the Big South semiprimitive nonmotorized, management will continue until semiprimitive nonmotorized conditions are achieved. In regards to Big South and Bear Swamp research natural area designation, some of the ecological communities represented within these areas have been altered by past and current land uses and management activities. However, portions of both of these areas remain relatively intact and serve as quality examples for representation into the research natural area program. Forest Service Manual direction (4063.2) states, “In the selection of representative areas a pristine condition is the goal. However, when candidate areas in a pristine condition are unavailable, then areas that reflect the pristine condition as closely as possible may be selected.” Designating research natural areas helps protect and maintain representative landscapes within National Forest boundaries so that natural processes can function and be studied. Research natural areas can also provide baseline information to evaluate the effects of management on similar ecosystems, per National Forest Management Act requirements. The rationale for selecting these particular areas to represent ecological communities on the Forests is explained in detail in the report entitled “An Evaluation of Candidate and Potential Candidate Research Natural Areas on the Huron-Manistee National Forest with a Focus on Ecosystem Representation”, referenced in Appendix C of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. This report describes the 20-year history of rare and representative surveys conducted on the Forests and the process used to select which of those communities to recommend for candidate research natural area status. Appendix C of the Final Environmental Impact Statement further explains how the Forests utilized information from the above-referenced report to make final recommendations for the revised Forest Plan. Recreational use may be allowed in research natural areas as long as the use does not degrade the special values for which the research natural area was established. Public information or signage may be distributed or displayed to gain public support and awareness of the research natural areas values. The comment appears to refer to the Forest Visitor Maps, which will be updated within the next few years. Current editions were published prior to 1996. 12. The quote from the Summary of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Assessment applies to the area south of M-72. The area south of M-72 will be managed as rural as stated in the Summary of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Assessment. 13. The White River semiprimitive Area is a large block of public ownership bounded on three sides by the White River. There are only a few private inholdings, with the majority of them found along the area’s perimeter. A site-specific analysis for the management of this area has been completed. Over the last several years, the Forest Service has been closing roads and restoring areas impacted by unmanaged camping and illegal Off- Highway Vehicle use. This management will continue over the next several years until the Desired Future Condition is achieved.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-96 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 226 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should not allow snowmobiles in semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas because snowmobiling destroys isolation from the sights and sound of humans in semiprimitive nonmotorized areas.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests, in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, are managed to provide a wide range of products and recreational opportunities. The need to provide the opportunity for visitors to experience solitude and little interaction with the sights and sounds of other humans is recognized and incorporated into the revised Forest Plan. This goal is incorporated into the Standards and Guidelines for Management Areas 6.1, semiprimitive nonmotorized and 5.1 Wilderness. Snowmobiles are not allowed in the Forests’ wilderness area. Although most of the Forests semiprimitive nonmotorized areas currently have some degree of motorized use occurring within them, ultimately the desired future condition of these areas is to provide users with the opportunity to experience a “semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation experience.”
PC#: 227 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should designate Loda Lake and Brandy Brook as semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas and Brandy Brook area should not be managed as a Deer Emphasis Area because of the negative impact deer browsing will have on the candidate Research Natural Area.
Response: The Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzed a variety of alternatives to address Forest Plan Revision issues, including one that evaluated designating Loda Lake semiprimitive motorized and Brandy Brook semiprimitive motorized Areas as semiprimitive nonmotorized areas. The effects of semiprimitive areas are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement starting on pages III-313 through 319. Each alternative meets the intent of relevant laws under which the National Forests are managed. The Regional Forester considered all of the alternatives and the Record of Decision describes his rational for the Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative represents what forest managers believe to be the best balance in achieving sustainable ecosystems and meeting the intent of relevant laws, and addressing the issues and concerns specific to the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests recognize that adverse impacts on vegetation associated with browsing by white-tailed deer are, at least locally, significant. Associated impacts are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement at various locations. There is no evidence to suggest that concentrations of deer associated with the deer emphasis area adjacent to the Research Natural Area would exacerbate deer impacts above current levels. However, we acknowledge that the possibility exits. When developing the Brandy Brook Research Natural Area management plan we will look for opportunities to mitigate negative impacts.
PC#: 228 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose how recreationists will gain access to activities on the Au Sable River.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-97 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Response: There are a number of access sites to the Au Sable semiprimitive nonmotorized area that are available to the public. Consumer’s Energy, tail-water access below Alcona Dam Pond, Bobcat Creek, Thompson’s Landing, Loud Dam pond and Rollways Picnic area all provide access to the Au Sable. Although, the current revised Forest Plan allowed limited vehicular access to the east and west of the river, these were to be temporary in nature, approximately 10 years. Implementation of the 1986 Forest Plan closed these remaining two roads over the past five years. Although gated and closed, pedestrian access is still permitted, as well as other non- motorized uses within the area, such as use of the Shore-to-Shore Hiking and Horse trail. Since this area is being managed as a semiprimitive nonmotorized area, all-vehicular access within the area is prohibited except for private landowners under permit for access to their properties. Remote and/or dispersed camping is allowed as part of the Au Sable primitive camping system.
PC#: 229 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement alternatives maps should depict 6.2 semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas the same, as 6.2 semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Areas. The 2002 Roads Analysis Map is unclear as to the reason for changing Management Areas 2.1 to 4.3 and 8.1 to 4.3. Lumping all semiprimitive nonmotorized areas in one area is not agreeable.
Response: In the 1986 Forest Plan, represented by Alternative A in the Forest Plan revision process, Management Areas 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 were all semiprimitive nonmotorized areas in different land type associations. In Alternatives B and C, semiprimitive nonmotorized areas are consolidated into management area 6.1. The Huron-Manistee National Forests has been divided into Management Areas, each providing a different mix of opportunities and outputs. As part of the Forest Plan revision process, the Forests reviewed all Management Area designations. Based on changes that have occurred during implementation of the current Plan, such as demographic changes, subdivisions and development of private lands, modifications were made to some area boundaries and designations. The area around Walgamott Corners was incorporated into the surrounding 4.3 area because it has similar characteristics. Walkinshaw Wetlands was originally designated 4.3 and changed to 8.1. Because of changes in Regional direction and reconsideration of the current management situation, Walkinshaw Wetlands was changed back to 4.3. Changes in the Walkinshaw Wetlands’ management area designation do not change our direction for this area (revised Forest Plan, Chapter III, beginning on page III-4.3-1.
PC#: 230 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should maintain Briar Hills intact as a semiprimitive nonmotorized Management Area because the Forests need more roadless areas.
Response: The Forests are managed in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. The Forests have been divided into Management Areas, each providing a different mix of opportunities and outputs. A variety of recreational opportunities are provided, including motorized recreation. As part of the Forest Plan revision process, the Forests reviewed Management Area designations based on Regional and National guidelines. Because of the roadless/wilderness evaluations, additional areas were identified for consideration as semiprimitive nonmotorized. Recommendations were then made to change Management Area designations. The recommendations are reflected in the three alternatives; therefore, some areas
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-98 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
may be closed to motorized recreation. The Forests do retain nonmotorized recreation opportunities in all Alternatives. The Huron-Manistee National Forests evaluated Alternative C, which designated additional acres of semiprimitive nonmotorized management areas. Included in this range of Alternatives was one that maintained the Briar Hills South area as semiprimitive nonmotorized, Alternative A, and an alternative where all semiprimitive areas were changed to nonmotorized, Alternative C. Each Alternative met the intent of relevant laws, including the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, under which the National Forests are managed. The Regional Forester considered all of the Alternatives and the Record of Decision describes his rationale for the Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative represents what the Forests believe to be the best balance in achieving sustainable ecosystems, meeting the intent of relevant laws, and addressing the issues and concerns specific to the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Soils:
PC#: 231 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should stop whole tree chipping because it takes too much from the soil. Tree tops need to be left on-site to help build the soil up.
Response: Impacts of organic matter removal and compaction are addressed in the cumulative effects section, Chapter III, of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The determination in the effects analysis was that, though, there may be short-term losses in soil productivity from biomass removals, long-term site productivity would be maintained under all alternatives in accordance with federal regulation and revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
Special Uses:
PC#: 232 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should be corrected under the various Management Area Direction sections, 2700 Special Use Management where it states that there are 10 hydro-electric projects licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as it pertains to the Croton and Hardy dams which do not have National Forest System lands as part of their projects.
Response: We agree with the comment and appreciate pointing out the correct number of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensed projects that have applicable 4(e) conditions, eight, rather than ten.
The 4(e) terms and conditions are incorporated into the Standards and Guidelines by reference.
PC#: 233 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should deny permission to private clubs to hold Off-Highway Vehicle and automobile races and rallies on National Forest System land because it is damaging to forest values. The revised Forest Plan should explain use of the terms, “where possible,” “where appropriate,” and “competitive” and explain who will decide what is possible and appropriate.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-99 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Response: The administration of special use permits is done under regulations and policy found in the in Forest Service Handbook, 2709.11. The Forests must follow agency direction in administering and issuing permits. Changing these procedures is a national issue and outside the scope of the Forest Plan revision process. Decisions on permitting specific special use events are made on a case-by-case basis following site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement. The term “competitive” is used in its common meaning. Forest Service regulations do not prohibit competitive events on National Forest System lands. However, competitive events and the determination of “where possible” and “where appropriate” is a site-specific determination made by the Line Officer after the completion of an environmental analysis, including public involvement.
Streamside Management Zone:
PC#: 234 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should clarify the amount of riparian vegetation that can potentially be managed for early-successional habitat. This should include the amount within the Streamside Management Zone and the amount that can be managed for this habitat type within the riparian corridor that extends beyond the Streamside Management Zone. Species requiring early-successional habitat in riparian zones should be identified. Further, there should be a guideline for what is an adequate amount of early-successional habitat and what will be the standard used to determine this amount.
Response: The Species Viability Evaluation process is summarized on pages B-13 to B-15, in Appendix B of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The process was used to determine conservation measures necessary to provide for species with viability concerns on the Forests. Species requiring early-successional habitat in riparian zones are identified in Table B-3 of this Appendix. The species are organized into habitat groups and each habitat group is identified by a surrogate species. Habitat groups requiring early successional habitat in riparian zones are shrub/scrub wetlands, golden-winged warbler surrogate species, and riparian/lowland hardwoods/floodplain/early to mid successional habitat, eastern massasauga surrogate species. Conservation measures developed for these habitat groups are discussed in the Analysis of the Current Management Situation (9/18/2003).
The Species Viability Evaluation process identified 5,000 acres, or 2,500 per National Forest, of early successional shrub/scrub habitats that would be maintained or enhanced within the riparian corridor areas, by either natural processes or management, with adequate distribution across the Forests to provide for viable populations.
Managing for early successional habitat to address this need within riparian corridors will be addressed on a case-by-case basis under site-specific environmental documentation with public involvement. Key factors that will need to be considered at the site level include natural disturbance processes, habitat needs of riparian-dependent endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, and the amount of existing and foreseeable future habitat on National Forest System lands. The habitat does not necessarily have to be created or maintained within the Streamside Management Zone. The habitat may be provided for within riparian areas, but outside the Streamside Management Zone. However, active management for early successional habitat
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-100 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
within the Streamside Management Zone may occur if it is demonstrated that the habitat need cannot be met elsewhere. Additional factors are identified in Chapter II of the revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
There is no specific number of acres that may be managed for early successional habitat within the riparian corridor adjacent to Streamside Management Zones. Management within riparian corridors outside Streamside Management Zones is subject to the following objectives and guidelines:
• Manage riparian areas consistent with resource conditions, management objectives and designated water use. Reduce nonpoint pollution to the maximum extent feasible and protect the hydrologic function of watersheds.
• Management activities are allowed in wetland areas when they will not cause a detrimental change to the soil characteristics or hydrologic function of the wetland areas.
Finally, the revised Forest Plan is implemented at the project level under site-specific environmental documentation with public involvement. The revised Forest Plan must allow sufficient flexibility, such that Line Officers can use appropriate evaluation methods based on specific circumstances encountered on a case-by-case basis. The Huron-Manistee National Forests believe that a guideline specifying a standard methodology for determining the amount of habitat available would compromise this important flexibility. The amount of early successional habitat in Streamside Management Zones is stated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and is not necessary to incorporate into the revised Forest Plan as a guideline.
PC#: 235 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not manage early successional habitat in streamside and riparian areas.
PC#: 236 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should not ignore negative impact on water quality through sediment delivery and increased water temperatures.
PC#: 237 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement analysis ignores negative impact this would have on most reptile and amphibian populations.
PC#: 238 Public Concern: Analysis ignores impact this would have on riparian cedar and hemlock forest (which has declined almost 75 percent since the last Forest Plan) through blowdowns and changing ground water.
Response: In general, riparian corridors are managed for late seral stages (revised Forest Plan Chapter II). However, the revised Forest Plan allows for active management for early successional habitat to maintain species viability within the Streamside Management Zone for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species where natural disturbance processes are not
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-101 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments providing adequate habitat on a case-by-case basis. Five thousand acres, or 2,500 per National Forest, of the riparian corridor can be managed for this purpose.
If early successional habitat management is to occur, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed, per revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, page III-22). The 6th level watershed will be used as the unit of analysis in determining the need for active early successional habitat management in the riparian corridor.
The Species Viability Evaluation analysis (Appendix B, Final Environmental Impact Statement) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement did consider riparian associated species. Conservation measures for reptile species identified in the Species Viability Evaluation process will provide protection (see Species Viability Evaluation in the Analysis of the Management Situation, September 18, 2003). In addition, biodiversity was a major consideration in identifying our designated old growth areas. Approximately one-third of this design is made up of riparian areas and wetlands that, in turn, are connected to upland habitat. These areas are natural process areas where vegetation management activities are limited to providing for public health and safety as well as ecosystem restoration by emulating natural disturbances.
The Forests do not believe that implementation of the revised Forest Plan will have a negative effect on water quality and sediment delivery. As stated in the revised Forest Plan (Chapter II, Standards and Guidelines), the Forests will implement the State of Michigan Best Management Practices to protect water quality and prevent sedimentation as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Conservation measures identified in the Species Viability Evaluation analysis for the cedar swamp and conifer-hardwood habitat types will provide some protection for northern white cedar and hemlock (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B). Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, also addresses the effects on these forest types. In addition, those cedar and hemlock found in old growth areas will also be protected. There are no plans to harvest cedar or hemlock on National Forest System lands.
PC#: 239 Public Concern: We see habitat value in Streamside Management Zone. There should be a minimum percentage of this desirable habitat. Total early-successional habitat is not to exceed 66 percent of the area within any 6th level watershed - a minimum percent is probably a more important and useful figure to guide management, as there seems to be a danger that the minimum is far more likely to be approached than the maximum.
Response: The Species Viability Evaluations assessed the minimum habitat requirements to maintain viability of native and desirable non-native species (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B). The 66 percent area within any sixth level watershed is a threshold level, as opposed to a maximum. In other words, when this level is reached, or exceeded, over- land flow from precipitation events will cause an increase in channel-forming flows (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III Water Quality).
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-102 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 240 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should give watershed protection and proper management a high-priority in management planning. This should not only include heightened protection for Wild and Scenic Rivers, Michigan Natural Rivers and blue Ribbon Trout Streams, but also for the tributaries, intermittent streams, springs, wetlands and forested wetlands that are part of these ecosystems. Little value was placed on headwaters of these areas in the Forest Plans.
Response: The revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (Chapter II) offer protection for all aquatic and riparian habitats within a watershed, including important headwater areas.
PC#: 241 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should adhere to Best Management Practices, such as those in Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1994) when working in the Streamside Management Zone or in those instances where some sort of mechanical treatment is proposed to mange riparian vegetation. Consider referencing the practices in the “Guidelines” section.
Response: The revised Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines identified section 2500 Watershed Management, I.A.5-6, were designed specifically to protect water quality and address potential impacts that could result from various forest management practices. All alternatives require the use of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources best management practices (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1994) to mitigate potential negative effects on water quality (Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-20; revised Forest Plan II-21, 2500 Standards and Guidelines). Best management practices are an integral part of our management strategies and are incorporated into all management practices. Analysis of potential impacts to resources, resulting from applying these Standards and Guidelines, are provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages III-18 to III-24. This analysis indicated no adverse impacts are expected to result.
PC#: 242 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should maintain a 300-foot wide riparian buffer during vegetative management adjacent to trout streams where possible, with case-by-case exceptions as necessary.
PC#: 243 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should maintain a minimum buffer strip width for Riparian Corridors of 100 feet, from each side of a stream, measured from the bank of the lake or stream. Strip width should be increased with increase in slope percent.
Response: The revised Forest Plan has addressed the issue of riparian buffer width with guidelines and best management practices to protect water quality and riparian integrity, Chapter II, 2500, pages II-17 to II-22. In general, these call for a 100-foot Streamside Management Zone. Late seral conditions are emphasized in this area and special precautionary management restrictions apply. The zone extends in distance as on site slope increases up to slopes greater than 50 percent. After slopes become that steep, management is not recommended. This
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-103 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
management system is consistent with that used by the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources and recommended by the Department of Environmental Quality.
Application of Streamside Management Zones, in combination with other Standards and Guidelines aimed at protecting aquatic resources, are evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement. No adverse direct or indirect effects are expected to occur to trout streams or other water bodies because of implementing the revised Forest Plan (Chapter III-20 Water Quality, Affected Environment, and Environmental Consequences)
PC#: 244 Public Concern: The Forest Plan Streamside Management Zones should not supercede those required in Michigan’s Natural Rivers / Wild and Scenic River legislation because managing for early successional vegetation within 100 feet of rivers is in conflict. The plan should give the definition of sensitive wildlife species.
Response: The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not preclude vegetation management within the riparian corridor. However, the revised Forest Plan desired future conditions for riparian areas are similar to those in the State Natural River Management Plan. Generally, riparian areas including the Streamside Management Zone will be managed for late seral stages. There will be management for early successional habitat if natural disturbance processes are not providing adequate amounts of habitat for species with viability concerns. However, as portrayed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, this amount of early successional habitat management would not exceed 8 percent of the total amount of riparian habitat found across the Huron-Manistee National Forests (Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-195). The definition and criteria for sensitive species designation is described in the revised Forest Plan Glossary, Appendix F.
PC#: 245 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should provide more specific information about from where, to where, the minimum width of Streamside Management Zone distances apply and if the measurement is horizontal from the edge of the water or along an angular rising embankment (see page II-18, Table II-11, Streamside Management Zones). An example of calculation would be most helpful.
Response: The revised Forest Plan uses the term Streamside Management Zone in lieu of filter or buffer strip (Appendix F, revised Forest Plan). The revised Forest Plan states, “The minimum Streamside Management Zone width should be a minimum of 100 feet from each side of the stream or lake shore. This is a horizontal distance along the ground. Width should be increased with increases in slope percent,” as displayed in Table II-11.
Timber Resource Management:
PC#: 246 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should allow for a much longer rotation age for northern hardwoods and white pine, as this would counter balance forest fragmentation and urbanization.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-104 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Response: Rotation age is a term used to optimize timber outputs based on growth rates of various species. Table II-10, found on page II-17, Chapter II in the revised Forest Plan displays rotation age of 70-120 years for red and white pine, and northern hardwood. Therefore, it is expected that these forest types may be managed beyond 100 years. In addition, the Forests have designated large areas of old growth (174,000 total old growth acres) that will allow northern hardwood and white pine to grow well beyond 120 years.
PC#: 247 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose forest certification options or opportunities.
Response: The suggestion of the Forest Service taking a lead in third-party certification of wood harvested on National Forest System lands is considered to be a Regional and or National decision and not a Forest Plan revision level decision.
PC#: 248 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should not grant so many timber harvest exemptions on unsuited forestland, particularly salvage logging, because snags and fallen logs provide critical habitat for cavity nesting birds, other species, and provides soil nutrients.
Response: Suitability is a term related to the production of forest products, and not whether the land has the capability of growing trees. Many acres of the Huron-Manistee National Forests are termed unsuitable because the management intention is not to manage for forest products. Such areas include lands where the primary objective is barrens, savannahs, openings, old growth, campgrounds, and other administrative sites. Any harvesting that occurs in these areas is to facilitate attainment of the management objectives for the areas and for producing timber products. Any salvage in these areas is primarily aimed at public safety.
PC#: 249 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should include guidelines for leaving trees in clumps after timber harvesting.
Response: Leaving trees in clumps or as individuals is permitted in the revised Forest Plan. The final determination, however, is a site-specific concern and is thus, outside the scope of the Forest Plan revision.
PC#: 250 Public Concern: Timber sale contracts should include a clause that requires contractors to clean-up debris at logging sites.
Response: Slash debris created by timber sales is disposed of based on site-specific needs of the area being logged. Additionally, the removal of garbage and other waste associated with timber harvest operations is required as part of timber sale contracts. It should be noted, however, that these are site-specific issues related to individual timber sale contracts and are outside the scope of the Forest Plan revision.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-105 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 251 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should increase the amount of timber harvest because of the economic benefits to local communities, including payment-in-lieu of taxes to Counties, and to wildlife habitat.
Response: The Forest Service has an interest in the condition and vibrancy of local economies, especially as they relate to the use of public lands. This is based upon both the agency’s congressionally mandated interests in healthy communities generally as well as its local concern as a partner with vested interests in the life of particular communities. Well-managed public lands and vibrant local communities are not mutually exclusive. The Forest Service recognizes that the National Forests contribute to the timber volume supply of local and regional mills. Supplying natural resources for those industries is one goal of the revised Forest Plan. How much timber volume can be offered for sale is dependent on a careful consideration of all resources values and the Forest Service allocated budgets. There are also other goals as outlined within the Huron-Manistee National Forests revised Forest Plan. These include, but are not limited to, promoting ecosystem health and conservation using a collaborative approach to sustain the nation’s forests and wetlands, and providing forest settings and natural resources that enhance social, economic, and ecological benefits at local, regional, and national levels. The selection of an alternative is dependent on many tangible and intangible indicators. Sustainability of the ecosystem, providing for a variety of forested settings and opportunities, providing for treaty rights, and contributing to the economic stability of communities are just a few of the considerations in the Selected Alternative selection.
Disclosure of the economic benefits of the Selected Alternative can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, beginning on page III-271.
PC#: 252 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should conduct an audit of the timber sale program as commercial logging on National Forest System land is losing money and is unacceptable.
Response: Although economics is an important and vital consideration in the management of National Forest System lands on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, it is not the only consideration. The Huron-Manistee National Forests revised Forest Plan strives to balance ecological, economic, and social needs and resources in accordance with a variety of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Implementation of the Selected Alternative has been determined to best meet these three precepts of ecosystem management as disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, revised Forest Plan, and the Record of Decision.
As such, financial auditing of the timber program or other resource programs is an administrative action. The following quotation by a Forest Service Director Ann Bartuska addresses the below cost argument: “Before any national forest timber is sold, it is appraised, and the objective of this appraisal is to estimate the material’s fair market value. When a sale is offered, it is offered competitively and the contract is normally awarded to the firm offering the highest bid. These requirements have been imposed to help ensure that the government is justly compensated for any timber it sells. Arguments of a subsidy arise from the fact that the price the government
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-106 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
charges for timber is not always sufficient to cover its full costs of sale preparation and administration. A variety of factors contribute to this situation. These include the following: 1) the Forest Service’s multiple use mission does not stress maximizing dollar returns; 2) the agency, as a consequence of various process and procedural requirements relating to such things as public involvement, analysis of potential environmental effects, and administrative appeals, tends to be a relatively high cost timber producer; 3) the price the agency can charge for timber is determined in an open market where most purchasers have a choice of buying either public or private stumpage; and 4) the price the agency can charge is dictated by the commercial value of the material being sold, and over time priorities have shifted to favor removing relatively small diameter, low value material. Given these realities, the Forest Service cannot always price its timber high enough to cover its full costs of production, because if it did so, in some instances it would only succeed in driving itself out of the market, which would compromise its ability to use timber sales as a management tool, even for achieving stewardship purpose objectives. Experience indicates that typically this would cause the net cost of national forest management to increase, not decrease. This outcome is traceable to the fact that timber sales, unlike other ways of manipulating vegetation, such as, prescribed burning, use of chemical herbicides, and mechanical treatments such as cut and leave - generate some revenue to help offset their costs of implementation.” (USDA-Forest Service, Ann Bartuska, Director, Forest and Rangeland Staff, file code 2400 November 6, 2000).
PC#: 253 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should harvest maples and beeches on highlands because they do not represent the historical original forest.
Response: Northern hardwood forests dominated by sugar maple and American beech were a significant vegetation type before the logging era of the late 1800s and early 1900s. These forests typically occurred on moraines and glacial till plains but most evidence suggests that they contained more hemlock, white pine, and yellow birch than in today’s northern hardwood forest. Glacial moraines today will continue to be dominated by northern hardwood forests as forest succession proceeds. Where specific management goals and objectives are to be achieved, the Huron-Manistee National Forests will continue to harvest northern hardwoods on an uneven- aged basis. The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance in the amount of timber scheduled for harvest with consideration for other resources.
PC#: 254 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should implement forest management activities in Management Areas 6.1 and 6.2, outside of designated old growth areas because management can provide habitat diversity.
Response: Forest management is permitted in Management Prescription Areas 6.1 and 6.2 to provide habitat diversity (revised Forest Plan, Chapter III, 2400, I and II, pages III-6.1-6 - III- 6.1-7 and III-6.2-4 - III-6.2-5.
PC#: 255 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should require loggers to pay for tops of trees, if they remove them.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-107 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 256 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should account for the revenues received from timber harvesting on National Forest System land.
Response: The revenues generated from sale of timber from the National Forest are returned to the general United States Treasury, the same place that taxes and other revenues go. The exception to this is that 25 percent of returns from timber sales and other revenues generated from National Forests, such as campground fees, go to the State of Michigan, and are then allocated to the Counties that have National Forests within them. These monies are to support local schools and roads in these counties. Stumpage from timber sales is paid to the U.S. Treasury. Timber sale contractual specifications are outside the scope of analysis for Forest Plan revision.
Trails – Infrastructure Management:
PC#: 257 Public Concern: The revised Forest Plan should define trail maintenance standards.
Response: There are no longer maintenance levels for trails. These are now called trail maintenance priorities and the definitions have been added to the revised Forest Plan, Appendix F.
PC#: 258 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should manage Off-Highway Vehicle use in a manner that maximizes economic opportunity for adjacent gateway communities while minimizing the impact to overall rangeland health, vegetation, wildlife and other visitors.
Response: The Forests are managed in accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. This Act states, “It is the policy of the Congress that the National Forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” Management of National Forests includes management of uses of all the various renewable surface resources in a combination that best meets the needs of the American people. Therefore, the Huron-Manistee National Forests is not managed to maximize economic opportunity associated with any one resource value. The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance between and integration of ecological, economic, and social factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ natural resources.
The following objective is included in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-5, “Cooperate with local communities when considering site-specific proposals that would provide access to services in local communities.”
PC#: 259 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should provide a reasonable range of access opportunity to see the backcountry through Off-Highway Vehicle use by youth, the aging population, and the physically handicapped.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-108 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests evaluated a range of alternatives in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that are consistent with laws, regulations, and policies and provide a reasonable range of access opportunities. The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance between, and integration of, ecological, economic, and social factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ natural resources.
The following objective is included in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-6, “Provide a variety of access opportunities for a range of user abilities consistent with management area direction and Standards and Guidelines.” Off-Highway Vehicle use is on designated trails only.
PC#: 260 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should use proven recreation management principles to manage vehicle-based recreation that is sustainable, manageable, and enjoyable.
Response: The revised Forest Plan recognizes that Off-Highway Vehicle use is an acceptable use of National Forest System lands. The Forests provide more than 700 miles of designated Off- Highway Vehicle trails. Trail systems provide a variety of difficulty levels, experiences, and opportunities for different vehicle types. Where possible, trails are destination based. At this time, the Forests do not have designated routes; however, the Forests have approximately 3,200 miles of forest roads open to licensed vehicles.
PC#: 261 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should actively manage Off-Highway Vehicle use by providing an extensive, designated route trail system that satisfies the experience desired by Off- Highway Vehicle recreationists, which keys upon the monitoring factors of customer satisfaction, education, compliance, and enforcement.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests are multiple-use recreation Forests with numerous uses, of which Off-Highway Vehicle is one. The revised Forest Plan provides general direction for recreation opportunities through Standards and Guidelines. Recreation management programs are site-specific and determined through budget and environmental analysis, including public involvement. Proposed trails or routes, as well as road closures, are addressed on a site- specific basis and include public involvement.
The following Goal and Objective is included in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, on page II-4, “Use a combination of personal contacts, brochures, maps and informational signing to inform and educate users about forest management.”
PC#: 262 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should evaluate roads and determine where closures are necessary; recognizing that existing motorized use will be displaced to other areas. In order to minimize impacts to the remaining roads, trails and areas open for Off-Highway Vehicle use should allow for additional access and additional recreational opportunities in suitable areas.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-109 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests recognize that as closures occur recreation use may be displaced; however, we must also manage for resource values. The Forests have determined that the designated trails and road system is the best system to protect resource values and ensure public safety. Additions to the road or trails system will be addressed on a site- specific basis, consistent with the Standards and Guideline of specific management areas.
PC#: 263 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should enhance Off-Highway Vehicle user accountability and responsibility to ensure common sense compliance among the majority of forest visitors so that law enforcement can handle the small percentage of willful abusers.
Response: Law enforcement and user education is currently addressed in the revised Forest Plan in Forest-wide Goals and Objectives (revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-3). Information is currently available at Forest Service offices, on the Huron-Manistee National Forests website, at developed trailheads, and at local businesses.
PC#: 264 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should develop, maintain, and reroute trail systems for Off- Highway Vehicle use that meet reasonable criteria for acceptable resource mitigation that is based on credible site-specific science.
Response: The considerations suggested in the comment have been integral to the development of the current motorized trails system on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Numerous Standards and Guidelines for Management Areas are designed to protect environmental values while providing recreational opportunities to forest users. As such, the elements are considered during the site-specific analysis on proposed trails and routes. Disclosure of impacts by Off- Highway Vehicles on wildlife and habitats is in many places in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, including pages III-299 through 312.
PC#: 265 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should provide for a wide range of accessible and highly desirable recreation experiences and opportunities for visitors and community residents while protecting other resource values.
PC#: 266 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should provide for a safe environment for Off-Highway Vehicle use, weighing expectations for risk and challenge, through identification of appropriate designated routes.
Response: The revised Forest Plan addresses mixed use and safe multiple use of trails in the Goals and Objectives (revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, page II-3 – II-6). Safety considerations have been integral to the development of the current motorized trails system on the Huron- Manistee National Forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-110 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Uneven-aged Management:
PC#: 267 Public Concern: The Forest Plan emphasized even-age timber management to the exclusion of uneven-aged management. The Huron-Manistee National Forests should be experimenting with uneven-aged management techniques to produce mixtures of age classes and species resulting in a more disease-resistant and fire-resistant forest.
Response: The revised Forest Plan allows for both uneven- and even-aged management techniques. Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages depending upon the particular site and desired management. Both techniques can be prescribed at the site-specific level depending upon the situation and, as such, more site-specific analysis would occur at the project implementation level and be disclosed during the environmental analysis process.
PC#: 268 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should be using uneven-aged timber management as the preferred method of harvesting in semiprimitive areas. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose why even-aged timber management would best achieve the desired conditions in semiprimitive areas.
Response: Descriptions for Management Areas 6.1, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and 6.2, semiprimitive motorized, can be found on Page II-2, Table II-1of the revised Forest Plan. Goals and Objectives and Desired Future Conditions of the 6.1 and 6.2 Management Areas are found beginning on pages III-6.1-4 and III-6.2-2, respectively. Forest managers have a range of options for managing the 6.1 and 6.2 areas. Foremost is management emphasis on natural or natural- appearing environments, including old growth and low concentrations of roads and/or trails. Both management areas can provide low to moderate volumes of forest products. However, Standards and Guidelines limit harvesting of timber to improving visual quality, reducing hazardous fuels, pest management, fuelbreaks, or for maintaining diversity of wildlife habitats. Even-aged management is the primary silvicultural system used for the sole reason that the Huron-Manistee National Forests are largely comprised of those timber types, aspen, jack pine, oak, and red and white pine, that require and benefit from even-aged management. These are shade-intolerant species requiring full sunlight to adequately regenerate (silvicultural systems are described in more detail in Appendix C of the revised Forest Plan).
User Conflicts:
PC#: 269 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should enforce the recommended hours to be on the Pine River for those canoeists who are customers of the watercraft rental companies.
Response: This issue is addressed in the Pine River National Scenic River Management Plan, which is not being updated as part of the Forest Plan revision process.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-111 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 270 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not use the increase in semiprimitive Management Areas, possibly increasing conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized trail users, or sensitive species habitat (a map for analysis would be desirable) as a pretext to closing roads and trails in the future.
Response: The concern is with the Goal on page II-6 of the revised Forest Plan, which states, “Design and manage trails for a primary season use, to discourage conflicting uses, such as prevent motorized and nonmotorized uses from occurring at the same time during any season of the year. Trails may also have secondary uses.” (See Goal in the Glossary, pages F-15 and F-28). When a conflict arises, the Forests consider a range of alternatives to address the issues on a case-by-case basis. These issues often involve trail design, safety, or resource concerns. All new trail construction is considered on a site-specific basis consistent with management area direction. Nothing in the revised Forest Plan precludes analyzing new proposals, as long as they meet the desired future condition of the management area. A map of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species was not made available because all proposals are evaluated through a site- specific analysis that includes a survey for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species species. Cumulative impacts will be addressed in each site-specific analysis. Effects of old growth on the alternatives can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, pages III- 251 through 259.
PC#: 271 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should not accommodate hunting, equestrian use, or mineral exploration and development for the Corsair Trail System.
Response: There is a possibility that the above-mentioned user conflicts may occur within the Corsair Trail System. However, Management Area 7.1 is allocated for highly concentrated use, so users should anticipate encountering the sights and sounds of human activity. The Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 7.1 require mineral related facilities to be placed outside the Management Area, when practical, and contain other mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to users. The maximum development identified in the 7.1 Management Area is one well per 640 acres.
PC#: 272 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should be more accommodating when recreationists want to organize an event on National Forest System land.
Response: The Huron-Manistee National Forests try to accommodate recreational events on National Forest System lands to the extent that this can be accomplished without undue compromise to other resource values and outputs. However, organized recreational events require special-use permits and these take a certain amount of time to complete. Special use permitting is accomplished at the District level on a case-by-case basis and is not a Forest Plan revision issue.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-112 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Vegetation Concerns – Pre-settlement:
PC#: 273 Public Concern: The Forest Plan’s desired future condition should reflect pre-settlement condition of forest types and age classes with fewer acres of aspen and more pine and northern hardwoods.
Response: The Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for revision of the Forest Plan (2003) identified ecosystem restoration as an area in need of change during the Forest Plan revision process. A requirement found in the 1982 National Forest Management Act regulations (36 CFR 219.19) includes ecological restoration. The purpose is to increase the probability of maintaining diverse and viable populations of plant and animal species on the Forests. However, these ecological restoration attempts are not intended to return the Forests to pre-European conditions. Significant improvements are made in the Selected Alternative in meeting the needs of late successional species, which are often edge sensitive, and those needing prairie and barrens conditions. These improvements are achieved through allowing some areas of the Forests to naturally succeed to late successional forest types, developing old growth areas (Forest Plan Amendment #24), promoting greater structural and compositional diversity within stands of all age classes, and creating large openland areas. The revised Forest Plan calls for managing aspen for wildlife such as golden-winged warbler, ruffed grouse and white-tailed deer, which also provides an important resource for the local timber industry. Forest-wide Goals and Objectives, Standard and Guidelines, and Management Area Direction all provide habitat direction for a variety of game and non-game species. The Forests are required to manage for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish values. That means that the management of National Forests includes management of uses of all the various renewable surface resources in a combination that best meets the needs of the American people.
Vegetation Concerns – Tree Species:
PC#: 274 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should plant American chestnut seedlings because chestnuts provide mast for turkeys, deer, grouse, and other wildlife species.
Response: The revised Forest Plan (pages II-4 to II-6) does not preclude the reintroduction of native or desired non-native species. Site-specific reintroduction projects are outside the scope of this document.
PC#: 275 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not remove Scotch pine that are providing shade and serving as a nurse tree for oak and pine; the Forests should not alter this natural process.
Response: Scotch pine is a non-native species. The revised Forest Plan does not include direction specific to Scotch pine. The limited number of Scotch pine treatments is addressed at the site-specific project level.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-113 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Wetlands:
PC#: 276 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should include wetlands in the restoration and management effort because these lands are important to other wildlife species.
Response: The Species Viability Evaluation process (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, and in the planning record file) addressed the need to manage and restore various wetland communities (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, Table B-3, page B- 13). These include Great Lakes marshes, beach/dunes, river/streams, ponds/lakes, marsh, bogs/fens, shrub/scrub wetlands, and riparian/lowland hardwood floodplains.
PC#: 277 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should revisit the goal to “acquire, create, and manage shallow water – emergent marshes” because it is incompatible with other goals, not cost effective, nor considers the labor-intensive nature of the proposal.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, Chapter III, Management Area Direction for specific management areas does provide goals and objectives to “acquire, create, and manage shallow water-emergent wetlands.” Management Area examples include 2.1 or 4.3. The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Affected Environment-Biological Resources, Wetland, identifies the significant loss of these habitats in Michigan and the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. More than 50 percent of Michigan’s wetlands have been lost. Over 90 percent of the shallow wetlands in Michigan have been lost since pre-settlement conditions (Kashian 1995). The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B, Species Viability Evaluation, describes the approach the Forests used to conduct species evaluation process, which identified species at risk, collecting information on species, grouping species, and developing conservation measures to be incorporated in the revised Forest Plan. The marsh habitat group and associated species were identified for evaluation through this process. The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for the revised Forest Plan. These goals and objectives provide for the maintenance and creation of additional habitat to meet viability needs of species associated with this habitat group.
PC#: 278 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should expand protection to address the management of adjacent uplands for wetland inhabitants. Adjacent upland habitats are critical for feeding, overwintering, and nesting for some wetland-dwelling reptiles and amphibians. The revised Forest Plan should establish a buffer that minimizes habitat disturbance to adjacent uplands for the benefit of amphibians and reptiles, contributing to the protection of wetland habitats.
Response: Wetlands are considered part of the riparian area as defined on Page III-34 of Final Environmental Impact Statement and in the glossaries of the revised Forest Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Streamside Management Zones will be applied from the
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-114 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
water’s edge along lakes, streams, and wetlands with standing water. The exception is for wetlands within landscapes of sandy outwash plains (LTA1). In this landscape, Streamside Management Zones will not be used around wetlands as this best emulates natural disturbances, such as fire.
We recognize and agree with the need for wetlands and riparian areas to be connected with uplands. Approximately one-third of our 173,000 acres of designated Old Growth areas are made up of riparian areas and wetlands, which are connected to upland habitats.
Clarifications have been made to the final documents.
Wild – Scenic – Recreational Rivers:
PC#: 279 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should include Wild and Scenic river management plans in the Forest Plan revision process.
PC#: 280 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should update Wild and Scenic river plans outside of the Forest Plan revision process and then amended to the revised Forest Plan.
Response: The intent of the Huron-Manistee National Forests has not been to incorporate revision of the five existing river plans into the Forest Plan revision process. River management plans are more site-specific in nature than the revised Forest Plan. Asking the public to remain involved in reviewing and commenting on numerous draft proposals simultaneously would create a large burden for the commenters and would most likely reduce the quantity and quality of public comments. River plans will be revised individually and the process will incorporate public involvement. Revision of the Pere Marquette river plan is underway. Additionally, the specific management plans for Wild and Scenic Rivers are incorporated into the revised Forest Plan by reference, as are other plans, such as, Kirtland’s warbler and Karner blue butterfly recovery plans. For these and any areas outside the Wild and Scenic River boundaries, updates or changes will be done after completion of site-specific environmental analysis and extensive involvement of the public.
PC#: 281 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should prohibit motorized watercraft in 6.1 Management Areas and on the Au Sable and Manistee Rivers and on designated Wild and Scenic rivers. The Forests should also implement a canoeing permit system on the Au Sable.
Response: The Forest Service has jurisdiction over the National Forest System lands adjacent to lakes, rivers and streams, whereas the State of Michigan has jurisdiction over watercraft use on most waterways. Prohibition of watercraft is outside the authority of the Forest Service and, therefore, outside the scope of Forest Plan revision. The Forest Service controls canoe livery access to landings located on National Forest System lands through special use permits. Canoe liveries are covered in the River Management Plans for designated areas of the Au Sable and Manistee Rivers. As such, it is a planning process separate from Forest Plan revision.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-115 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 282 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not transfer 9.2 Study Wild and Scenic River land to “Lands-in-Holding” designation, creating a de-facto 8.1 Management Area.
Response: The study rivers list in the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, Table III-16, page III-9.2- 2, was originally identified in the 1986 Forest Plan as amended. No new rivers are proposed for lands-in-holding status except for one mile on the Pine River National Scenic River. The Forests are required to protect the potential outstandingly remarkable values for which these rivers may be designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. This is both Congressional intent and national direction. The rationale for this direction is to ensure that management activities do not occur which could inadvertently result in a river no longer qualifying for future designation.
PC#: 283 Public Concern: The status and management plans for state designated Natural Rivers should be noted in the revised Forest Plan.
Response: Chapter II, page II-4 of the revised Forest Plan, Goals and Objectives, has been updated to include language recognizing the State Natural Rivers Act.
PC#: 284 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the effects of Streamside Management Zone activities along State designated Natural Rivers.
Response: The effects of Streamside Management Zones are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on page III-35. Specific effects along Natural Rivers are not disclosed because the Forest Service does not manage those areas differently.
Wilderness – Roadless Areas:
PC#: 285 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should state that hunting, fishing, and hiking are not encouraged in the Research Natural Area portion of the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness. In addition, provision of drinking water sources could be considered in the Wilderness.
Response: The revised Forest Plan, Chapter III, page III-9.1-2, Goals and Objectives for 9.1 Management Areas, states, “Recreation in the area such as hiking, hunting, camping, and fishing will not be encouraged.” The desired future condition also states, “Management direction for candidate Research Natural Areas will be the same as Research Natural Areas.” However, the congressionally designated 5.1 Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness desired future condition supercedes the Research Natural Area goals and objectives. Further, Standards and Guidelines for Nordhouse Dunes state that drinking water or drinking water development will not be provided (revised Forest Plan, page III 5.1-6). The Forests identified in the Need for Change, Notice of Intent, September 18, 2003, that there were no critical or compelling reasons to change the direction or strategy of the Nordhouse Dunes Research Natural Area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-116 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
PC#: 286 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should not designate any more Wilderness because it would deny motorized access to the Forests.
Response: During the Forest Plan revision process, the Forests reviewed all Management Area designations based on regional and national guidelines, including an evaluation and inventory of roadless and wilderness areas (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix D). The results indicated that no additional areas were identified for consideration as wilderness. Currently, there is one wilderness area on the Huron-Manistee National Forests and no Alternative proposes a change in wilderness designation.
PC#: 287 Public Concern: The wilderness regions that are preserved as National Forests were never intended to be used for economic gain.
Response: The Forest Service is mandated to provide multiple uses that provide many forest products and values. At the time of their creation, management of the Huron-Manistee National Forests was based on the Weeks Act (March 1, 1911) as amended by the Clarke-McNary Act (June 7, 1924). The Weeks Act authorized Congress to appropriate funds to acquire lands for “the conservation and improvement of the navigability of a river,” and it focused on the lands containing the headwaters of such rivers. The Clarke-McNary Act broadened the purpose for purchase of lands for Forest Reserves by authorizing purchase of “such forested, cut-over, or denuded land within the watersheds of navigable streams as…may be necessary to the regulation of the flow of navigable streams or for the production of timber.”
Since that time, Congress has passed a body of laws that require a broader natural resource focus when it comes to the management of National Forest System land. Laws such as the Multiple- Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 are examples of laws that apply to these lands and require consideration of a broader array of resource issues and public values than did the two acts under which the Forests were originally established.
The alternatives considered for the Forests’ revised Forest Plan fulfill the goals associated with the body of laws directing management of national forest lands, including the Weeks Act and the Clarke-McNary Act. The management of National Forests includes management of uses of all the various renewable surface resources in a combination that best meets the needs of the American people. The Selected Alternative maximizes net public benefits, is consistent with resource integration and management requirements, and complies with long-term goals and objectives as outlined in the revised Forest Plan. Ecological, economic, and social considerations are balanced within environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
PC#: 288 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should increase the amount of roadless area because the Forests are being overrun by Off-Highway Vehicles.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-117 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
PC#: 289 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should apply the Eastern Wilderness Act the way it was intended; less restrictive in regards to establishing Wilderness. The guidelines from the Regional Office were essentially illegal as there are many acres on the Forests that qualify for Wilderness status.
PC#: 290 Public Concern: The intent of the Eastern Wilderness Act was to create a set of criteria that recognized Eastern conditions and were therefore less restrictive than those in the Wilderness Act, not more restrictive. As the Huron-Manistee has applied criteria, it appears more difficult for roadless areas to qualify as suitable for Wilderness. This contradicts the intent, and the language, of the Wilderness Act.
PC#: 291 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee has thousands of acres suitable for additional Wilderness study and designation. However, Roadless and Wilderness review disqualifies all areas, using arbitrary parameters defined by the Region 9 office. None of these guides have any basis in the Wilderness Act and the disqualification of lands this early in the process is blatantly illegal. In fact, there are many lands in the Huron-Manistee that have Wilderness qualities including semi- primitive motorized and non-motorized areas, lands adjacent to Wilderness areas, large wetland complexes, and lands adjacent to Wild and Scenic River corridors.
PC#: 292 Public Concern: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not properly review the Hoist, Reid, or Cook Semi-primitive Non-motorized areas. A detailed Wilderness evaluation needs to be done for these areas.
Response: As part of Forest Plan revision, the Huron-Manistee National Forests completed a roadless inventory to determine if any areas qualified for potential wilderness recommendation. Appendix D of the Final Environmental Impact Statement outlines the roadless and wilderness inventory process, criteria, and findings. The Huron-Manistee National Forests do not know specifically which parameters the commenter believes are arbitrary (comment #291) but the Forests believe that the inventory was conducted in full accordance with the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1975. Additionally, the Forests followed the requirements for inventory and evaluation set forth in 36CFR 219.17, Forest Service Manual 1923, and Forest Service Handbook 1902.12. The Regional Forester issued a letter dated August 1997 to provide clarification of this same Manual and Handbook direction and to provide for consistency in the interpretation and application of manual and handbook direction across national forests in the Region. The Forests adhered to the guidance in this letter.
The Huron-Manistee National Forests recognize that criteria for identifying roadless and potential wilderness areas in the Eastern United States are to be conducted with the understanding that most lands show some signs of human activity and modification but that these lands have shown highly recuperative capabilities. Despite this, the roadless and wilderness inventory process in Appendix D of the Final Environmental Impact Statement demonstrates that there are very few areas within the proclaimed boundaries of Huron-Manistee National Forests
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-118 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
that even remotely approach wilderness criteria for the Eastern United States. This results from the highly fragmented ownership patterns within the proclamation boundaries of the Forests, a very dense network of federal, state, and county roads, and the relatively high population density and associated infrastructure of the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan.
In addition to the roadless wilderness evaluation, the Forests conducted a geographic information systems analysis that demonstrated that 99 percent of both Forests are within one-half mile of a road and 90 percent of both Forests are within one-quarter mile of a road. This analysis did not include level 1 and 2 roads, which, if included, would yield a much greater road density.
PC#: 293 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should introduce innovative forest management strategies in the Nordhouse Wilderness Area.
Response: The Wilderness Act of 1964 precludes vegetative management for the purposes of fuel reduction and salvage of insect and disease infested trees in Wilderness Areas, including Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area. Vegetation adjacent to Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness will be managed in accordance with the management direction for the Wilderness. These include project-level, or site-specific decisions and analyses and, thus, are outside the Forest Plan revision process.
Management of vegetation adjacent to Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is in accordance with Management Area direction and, additionally, would be handled in a site-specific analysis; as such, it is not a Forest Plan revision issue.
Wildlife:
PC#: 294 Public Concern: Why is the golden-winged warbler selected as a surrogate when it is not a Regional Foresters Sensitive Species?
Response: Surrogate species are selected because they represent other wildlife species that use a particular habitat and habitat condition. Therefore, they do not have to be Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. Other species that are not Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species on the Huron- Manistee National Forests, but are surrogate species; include the American Bittern, American Marten, Black-backed Woodpecker, Bobolink, Northern Harrier, Red-headed Woodpecker and Upland Sandpiper, and Whip-poor-will. The golden-winged warbler was selected to represent the shrub-scrub and aspen/birch (early) habitat groups because it breeds on the Huron-Manistee National Forests and utilizes these habitats. Succession eliminates the early successional habitats the species prefers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service breeding bird survey information indicates that golden-winged warbler populations in the state of Michigan are declining, on average, 7 percent per year since 1966.
PC#: 295 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the effects on wildlife of opening 3,626 miles of roads and trails to snowmobiles.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-119 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Response: The revised Forest Plan does not change the miles of snowmobile trails; however, it does open unplowed roads to snowmobile use. The Selected Alternative restricts snowmobile use in areas such as deer wintering areas, endangered, threatened, or sensitive species areas, or other areas requiring protection. The potential impacts of unplowed roads open for snowmobile use have been disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, page III-303.
PC#: 296 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement’s Species Viability Evaluation should not have been so subjective and based largely on the opinion of biologists. The result is heavy-handed management to fulfill requirements of the Environmental Species Act at the expense of other land management laws.
Response: Ecological, economic, and social considerations are adhered to and balanced within environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Please refer to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III and Appendix B – Species Viability Evaluation.
PC#: 297 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should recognize that viable populations of some species cannot be attained by timber harvest and that others require large- scale planning or other management needs for harvesting to be of benefit.
Response: Viable populations are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B. The Forests strived to ensure the distribution, abundance, and habitat requirements of species adapted to mature forests and those requiring large opening complexes. The Selected Alternative best meets the long-term goals and objectives, integrating biological, social, and economic factors into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Forests’ resources.
PC#: 298 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should increase snowshoe hare populations by regenerating cedar swamps.
Response: The revised Forest Plan includes maintaining existing cedar communities (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B). The need for additional regeneration establishment of these communities was not part of the Need for Change, and therefore, was not included as part of the revision process. Establishing new areas of cedar communities on a landscape scale is very difficult and costly. It should be noted that snowshoe hare utilize a variety of habitats, not only cedar communities. The Huron-Manistee National Forests are providing sufficient habitat for populations of snowshoe hare through forest management activities. For example, jack pine areas clearcut as Kirtland's warbler habitat and grouse aspen management areas create excellent habitat for snowshoe hares.
PC#: 299 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the reason why the Cerulean warbler was chosen as a surrogate species because the warbler is not representative of any forest condition on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-120 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Response: The Cerulean warbler was chosen as a surrogate species for the mixed hardwood habitat type group along rivers and lakes (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, pages III-92 – III-94) through the Species Viability Evaluation process (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B). This species was requested by species experts and other interested individuals because of the fact that the species is present on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, and because the Forests have suitable habitats. Additionally, the Cerulean warbler is a Regional sensitive species and it was petitioned to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Cerulean warbler can be monitored effectively and is consistently found within the habitat type, it is not a generalist. Please refer to Appendix B of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for more information on the Species Viability Evaluation process.
PC#: 300 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should disclose the effects of fragmentation on wildlife.
Response: The Forests agree that the occurrence of fragmentation is important, and therefore, was included in the analysis of alternatives. Potential impacts are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III, for each habitat group effects, and by individual species, where relevant. Spatial arrangement of habitats was a determining factor in the Species Viability Evaluations.
PC#: 301 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement should recognize and utilize the four national bird plans and their regional components: the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North American Management Plan, and the North American Landbird Conservation Plan and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Birds of Conservation Concern.
Response: While these documents are not specifically referenced in the revised Forest Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Forests are familiar with these plans, and they are used in assisting the Forests to achieve site-specific objectives and, therefore, are outside the scope of Forest Plan revision.
PC#: 302 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should coordinate with the Audubon Society’s Important Bird Areas Program and provide additional disclosure and discussion of nominated breeding / migratory bird sites, including the lower Manistee River, Walkinshaw Wetlands, Nordhouse Dunes, and many Kirtland warbler-breeding sites.
Response: Two new objectives were added to the revised Forest Plan, Chapter II, Natural Resource, referencing the four national bird plans and the Important Bird Area Program.
The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern was used as a reference for development of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ species list for which viability evaluations were conducted. The evaluations were conducted to meet viable population objectives.
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-121 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Individual species were grouped as a part of the different habitats, and viability analysis was conducted within the Forests to ensure that habitat objectives were provided.
The Important Bird Areas Program recognizes that habitat loss and fragmentation are the most serious threats facing populations of birds across America and around the world. The Huron- Manistee National Forests, through Species Viability Evaluation Appendix B, has identified those places that are critical to birds during some part of their life cycle. Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement disclosed the effects of the alternatives on these habitat groups and associated bird species.
The revised Forest Plan has established Management Areas that provide emphasis for conserving bird habitat, such the Kirtland’s Warbler Management Areas and Walkinshaw Wetlands. To date, the identification of Important Bird Areas in Michigan has not been completed. The Huron- Manistee National Forests will coordinate with the Audubon Society in the Important Bird Areas Program and provide some additional information so that areas on the Forests can be considered.
PC#: 303 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should not emphasize endangered species to the exclusion of other species, particularly game species because these wildlife populations and hunting recreation will be reduced. A balance of habitats from forest regeneration to maturity, including openings will perpetuate biodiversity.
PC#: 304 Public Concern: The Huron-Manistee National Forests should protect forests, thus helping wildlife because the public is very sensitive to Michigan’s forests.
Response: The Selected Alternative strives to achieve a balance and integration among ecological, economic, and social factors to provide a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity, and productivity of the Huron-Manistee National Forests’ natural resources. A range of habitats are managed for, ranging from regenerating to mature forest, and incorporating wildlife openings. This is intended to perpetuate biodiversity for game and non-game species (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter III).
PC#: 305 Public Concern: The Forest Plan should manage about one-third of the Forests in old growth and the remainder managed on a twenty to forty year rotation-harvesting program because about fifty wildlife species require old growth forest for survival, there are one-hundred that require, or use, early successional forest.
Response: The Forest Service is mandated to provide multiple uses that provide many forest products and values. The Forests conducted a Species Viability Evaluation during the Forests’ plan revision process (Appendix B, Final Environmental Impact Statement). As disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Alternatives B and C provide habitat for the viability of all species (Chapter III, Final Environmental Impact Statement).
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-122 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
The suggested shortened rotation age for two-thirds of the Huron-Manistee National Forests would not provide a reasonable diversity of forest products, and could be expected to have detrimental impacts on soil, water, air, and many recreational opportunities, and therefore, was not considered in detail or analyzed further.
PC#: 306 Public Concern: The Final Environmental Impact Statement requires a correction between the conclusions on page III-341 with the corresponding Table III-63 on page III-342, and possibly the accuracy of the information on pages III-168 – III-182.
Response: The narrative on page III-358 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, describing Table III-62, now found on page III-359 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, was in error, and was corrected. The information beginning on pages III-178 through 192 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement is accurate in describing the effects of the alternatives on ruffed grouse.
List of Respondents to the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement by Affiliation
The table below displays the self-identified government agencies, elected officials and Tribal entities who submitted comments on the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement during the formal comment period. The unique identifying number that was assigned to each response letter for tracking purposes is also listed here. A copy of each comment letter received from the agencies listed in Table J-1 follows.
Table J-1. List of Governmental Respondents to the Proposed Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Comment Letter Commenting Agency Number Federal Agencies United States Department of the Interior 1644 United States Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service 1500 Unites States Environmental Protection Agency 1634 Federal Elected Officials U.S. House of Representatives – Bart Stupak 1618 Tribal Entities Little River Band of Ottawa Indians 1633, 1645 State Agencies Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 1578 Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1652
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-123 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Comment Letter 1644:
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-124 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-125 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-126 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-127 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-128 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-129 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-130 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-131 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-132 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-133 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-134 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-135 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-136 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-137 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-138 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Comment Letter 1500:
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-139 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Comment Letter 1634:
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-140 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-141 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-142 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-143 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-144 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-145 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Comment Letter 1618:
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-146 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-147 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-148 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Comment Letter 1633:
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-149 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-150 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-151 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Comment Letter 1645:
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-152 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-153 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Comment Letter 1578:
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-154 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-155 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Comment Letter 1652:
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-156 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-157 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-158 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix J - Response to Comments Public Concern Statements
Huron-Manistee National Forests J-159 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Public Concern Statements Appendix J - Response to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Statement J-160 Huron-Manistee National Forests
APPENDIX K -
REFERENCES
Appendix K – References
Appendix K - References
Achuff, B. J., et al. 2001. “Linking riparian forest complexity and littoral zone habitat in a northern temperate lake.” Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Des Moines, Iowa (abstract only) December 9 - 12.
Albert, D. A. and P. J. Comer. 1999. Natural Community Abstract for Wooded Dune and Swale Complex. Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 6 pp.
Alexander, G. R. and E. A. Hansen. 1983. “Sand sediment in a Michigan trout stream. Part II. Effects of reducing sand bedload on a trout population.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:365-372.
Alexander, G. R. and E. A. Hansen. 1986. “Sand bedload in a brook trout stream.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6(1):9-23.
Anders, A. D., J. F. Faaborg, and F. R. Thompson III. 1998. “Post-fledgling dispersal, habitat use, and home-range size of juvenile wood thrushes.” Auk 115:349-358.
Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan Mammals. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. pp. 251- 265.
Barber, H. L., F. J. Brenner and R. Kirkpatrick. 1989. “Food.” In Ruffed Grouse, Atwater, S. and J. Schnell, eds. Harrisburg: Stackpole Books.
Barnes, B. V., D. R. Zak, S. R. Denton, and S. H. Spurr. 1998. Forest Ecology. 4th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 774 pp.
Bassett, C. E. 1988. “Rivers of sand: Restoration of fish habitat on the Hiawatha National Forest.” In Integrating Forest Management for Fish and Wildlife. T.W. Hoekstra and J. Capp, eds. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-122. pp. 43-48.
Becker, G. C. 1983. “The mottled sculpin.” In Fishes of Wisconsin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 969-973.
Berg, D. J. 2003. “The spiny water flea, Bythotrephes cederstroemi: Another unwelcome newcomer to the Great Lakes.” FS-049 Ohio Sea Grant. Available on World Wide Web: http://www.sg.ohio-state.edu/pdfs/publications/fs/fs-049.pdf
Bhatti, J. S., N.W. Foster, T. Oja, M.H. Moayeri and P.A. Arp. 1998. “Modeling potentially sustainable biomass productivity in jack pine forest stands.” Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 78:105-113.
Huron-Manistee National Forests K-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix K – References
Bisson, P. A., et al. 1987. “Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, present, and future.” In Streamside Management: Forestry and Fisheries Interactions. E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy, eds. University of Washington Institute of Forest Resource Contribution 57. Seattle, Washington. pp. 143-190.
Brooks, K. N., et al. 1997. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. 2nd edition. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 502 pp.
Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 2nd edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Manomet, Massachusettes.
Burgess, R. J. 1968. Michigan Basin Society Symposium on Michigan Oil and Gas Fields, Michigan Basin Geological Society.
Cade, B. S. and P. J. Sousa. 1985. “Habitat suitability index models: ruffed grouse.” U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.86). 31 pp.
Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. 22 pp.
Carman, S. and R. R. Goforth. 2000. Special animal abstract for Percina copelandi (channel darter). Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2 pp.
Chiotti, J. A., et al. 2003. “Evaluation of recruitment, habitat preference, and river retention of young lake sturgeon in the Big Manistee River, Michigan.” Abstract of Poster presented at 64th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. December 7-10, 2003. Kansas City, Missouri.
Cleland, D. T., L. A. Leefers and D. L. Dickmann. 2001. “Ecology and Management of Aspen: A Lakes States Perspective.” Published in: Proceedings of a Conference - Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes. General Tech. Report RMRS-P-18.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended through P.L. 104-150, The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996.
Cohen, J. G. 2000. Natural Community Abstract for Oak Pine Barrens. Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 6 pp.
Cohen, J. G. 2001. Natural Community Abstract for Oak Barrens. Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 8 pp.
Comer, P. J. 1996a. Wetland Trends in Michigan Since 1800: A Preliminary Assessment. Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 76 pp.
Final Environmental Impact Statement K-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix K – References
Comer, P. J. 1996b. Natural Community Abstract for Pine Barrens. Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 3 pp.
Comer, P. J., et al. 1995b. Michigan’s Native Landscape - as Interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856. Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 78 pp. and digital map.
Comer, P. J., et al. 1995a. Michigan’s Presettlement Vegetation as Iinterpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856. Digital map. Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Cook, T. D. and A. W. Bally. 1975. Stratigraphic Atlas of North and Central America. Prepared by the Exploration Department of Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 271 pp.
Cordell, H. K. et al. 1999. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends.
Cowardin, L. M., et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.
Crocoll, S. T. 1994. “Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus).” The Birds of North America, No. 107., A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Curry, J. P. 1998. “Factors affecting earthworm distribution in soils.” pp. 37-64 in Earthworm Ecology. A. Edwards, ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 52-53.
Curtis, J. T. 1959. Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 657 pp.
Cwikiel, W. 1998. Living with Michigan’s Wetlands: A Landowner’s Guide. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. (Third Printing) Conway, Michigan.
Dahl, T. E. 2000. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 82 pp.
Damstra, R. A., T. L. Galarowicz, and J. J. Lallaman. 2003. “Stock assessment, movement, and habitat utilization of lake sturgeon in the Manistee River, Michigan.” Abstract of Paper presented at 64th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. December 7-10, 2003. Kansas City, Missouri. Decker, A. D., D. E. Wicks and J.M. Coates. 1993. Gas content measurement and log-based correlations in the Antrim Shale. Prepared by Advanced Resources International, Inc. for the Gas Research Institute. Chicago, Illinois.
Huron-Manistee National Forests K-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix K – References
Dessecker, D. R. and D. G. McAuley. 2001. “Importance of early successional habitat to ruffed grouse and American woodcock.” Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29(2):456-465.
Dolloff, C. A. and J. R. Webster. 2000. “Particulate organic contributions from forests to streams: Debris isn’t so bad.” In Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. E.S.Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Dolloff, eds. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 125-138.
Dunn, H. L. 2000. “Development of strategies for sampling freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae).” In Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium, Ohio Biological Survey. pp. 161-167.
Dymond, P., S. Scheu and D. Parkinson. 1997. “Density and distribution of Dendrobaena octaedra (Lumbricidae) in aspen and pine forests in the Canadian Rocky Mountains (Alberta).” Soil Biol. Biochem. 29 (3/4): 265-273.
Faber-Langendoen, D. 1993. “A proposed classification for savannas in the Midwest.” Background paper for the Midwest Oak Savanna Conference. 18 pp.
Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-797, 798-824a, and 824b-825r, June 10, 1920, as amended 1930, 1935, 1936, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1968, 1970, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1990-1992 and 1996.
Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 3 January 4, 2001. “Urban wildland interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire.” pp. 751-777.
Findlay, C. S. and J. Bourdages. 2000. “Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction of adjacent lands.” Conservation Biology. 14(1): 86-94.
Finney, M. A. 2001. “Spatial strategies for landscape fuel treatment.” Proc. Workshop on Tools and methodologies for fire danger mapping. J. Bento and H. Botelho, eds. March 9-14, Vila Real, Portugal. pp. 157-163.
Fisher, H. and M. W. Barratt. 1985. “Exploration in Ordovician of central Michigan basin.” American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin. 69(12): 2965-2076.
Gibbs, J. P. 2000. “Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation.” Conservation Biology. 14(1): 314-317.
Goforth, R. R. 2000. Special Animal Abstract for Clinostomus elongates (redside dace). Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 3pp.
Gowing, H. and G. Alexander. 1980. Population dynamics of trout in some streams of the northern lower peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report No. 1877. Lansing, Michigan.
Final Environmental Impact Statement K-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix K – References
Green, J. C. 1995. Birds and Forests: A Management and Conservation Guide. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources. 182 pp.
Gregory, S. V., et al. 2000. “Bibliography: World literature on wood in streams, rivers, and riparian areas.” Version 1.0. International Conference on Wood in World River. October 2000. Corvallis: Oregon State University.
Grier, J. W., et al. 1983. Northern states bald eagle recovery plan.
Gullion, G. 1984a. The Ruffed Grouse. Minocqua: NorthWord Press, Inc. 136 pp.
Gullion, G. 1984b. Managing Northern Forests for Wildlife. Ruffed Grouse Society, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. 72 pp.
Gullion, G. W. and A. A. Alm. 1983. “Forest management and ruffed grouse populations in a Minnesota coniferous forest.” J. Forestry 1983: 529-532.
Gullion, G. W., and W. H. Marshall. 1968. “Survival of ruffed grouse in a boreal forest.” The Living Bird 7:117-167.
Gullion, G. 1990. “Ruffed grouse use of conifer plantations.” Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18: 183-197.
Gunderman, B. and D. Peterson. 1999. “Abundance and age structure of adult lake sturgeon in the Manistee River.” Abstract of Paper presented at 61st Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. December 5-8, 1999. Chicago, Illinois.
Gunderson, J. 2004. “Rusty crayfish fact sheet.” Minnesota Sea Grant. Available on World Wide Web at: www.seagrant.umn.edu/exotics/rusty.html
Hansen, E. A. 1971. “Sediment in a Michigan trout stream: its source, movement, and some effects on fish habitat.” U.S. Forest Service Research Paper NC-59. North Central Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Hansen, E. A., G. A. Alexander and W. H. Dunn. 1983. “Sand sediment in a Michigan trout stream. Part I. A technique for removing sand bedload from streams.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: 355-364.
Helms, J. A. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters. 5400 Grosvenor Lane. Bethesda, Maryland 20814. 210 pp.
Hendrix, P. F. and P. J. Bohlen. 2002. “Exotic earthworm invasions in North America: Ecological and policy implications.” Bioscience. 52(9): 801-811.
Hicks, B. J., et al. 1991. “Responses of salmonids to habitat changes.” In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. W. R. Meehan, ed. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland. pp. 483-518.
Huron-Manistee National Forests K-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix K – References
Hildebrand, R. H., et al. 1997. “Effects of large woody debris placement on stream channels and benthic macroinvertebrates.” Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 54: 931-939.
Hill, D. 1994. “Advances in Antrim Shale Technology.” Workshop Sponsored by the Gas Research Institute in Cooperation with the Michigan Section of the SPE. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.
Holman, J. A. 1975. Michigan’s Fossil Vertebrates. Michigan State University Pub. Mus., Ed. Bull. No. 2. 54 pp.
Huffman, R. D. 1997. “Effects of residual overstory on bird use and aspen regeneration in aspen harvest sites in Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge, Minnesota.” M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University.
Hunter, Malcolm L., Jr., editor. 1999. Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 698 pp.
Hyde, D. and M. Smar. 2000. Special animal abstract for Brychius hungerfordi (Hungerford’s crawling water beetle). Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 4 pp.
Ilhardt, B. L., E. S. Verry and B. J. Palik. 2000. “Defining riparian areas.” In Riparian management in forests in the continental eastern United States. E. S. Verry, J. W Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. New York: Lewis Publishers. pp. 23 – 42.
Irons, K. S. 2003. “Status and distribution of non-native fish species in the Upper Mississippi River basin.” Abstract taken from 64th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Kansas City, Missouri.
Kellogg, R. L. 1971. “Aeromagnetic Investigation of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan.” M. S. thesis. Michigan State University, Department of Geology. East Lansing, Michigan. 161 pp.
Kilgo, J. C., K. V. Miller, and W. P. Smith. 1999. “Effects of group-selection timber harvest in bottomland hardwoods on fall migrants.” J. Field Ornithol. 70(3):404-413.
Kingsbury, B. 2002. R9 Conservation approach for the Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus C. Catenatus) on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan. 82 pp.
Knutson, M. G., et al. 2001. Partners in flight bird conservation plan for the upper great lakes plain (Physiographic Area 16). USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center in cooperation with Partners in Flight. La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Kubusiak, J. 1989. “The best year-round cover.” In Ruffed grouse, Atwater, S. and J. Schnell, eds. Harrisburg: Stackpole Books. pp. 320-321.
Final Environmental Impact Statement K-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix K – References
Kushlan, J. A., et al. 2002. “Waterbird conservation for the Americas: The North American waterbird conservation plan, Version 1.” Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C.
Kusler, J. A. 1983. Our national wetland heritage - A protection guidebook. Washington, D.C., Environmental Law Institute. p. 4.
Kusler, J. A. and J. H. Montanari. 1978. National Wetland Protection Symposium. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-78-97 Proceedings. 255 pp.
Lallaman, J. J. and D. L. Peterson. 2001. “Stock assessment of lake sturgeon in the Manistee River, Michigan.” Abstract of Paper presented at 63rd Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. December 9-12, 2001. Des Moines, Iowa.
Leatherberry, Earl C. and Gary J. Brand. 2003. Michigan’s forest resources in 2001. Resour. Bull. NC-224. St. Paul: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 23 pp.
Lee, Y. 1999. Special animal abstract for Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding’s turtle). Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 3 pp.
Lillenthal, Richard T. 1978. Stratigraphic Cross-Sections of the Michigan Basin. Report of Investigation 19, Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Lodge, D. M., et al. 1994. “Effects of an omnivorous crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) on a freshwater littoral food web.” Ecology 75(5): 1265-1281.
Lyons, J., L. Wang, and T. D. Simonson. 1996. “Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:241-256.
Meehan, W. R., editor. 1991. “Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats.” American Fisheries Society. Special Publication 19.
Michigan Department of Agriculture. 2003. Emerald ash borer: Michigan eradication strategy. Lansing.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2000. Great Lakes Trends into the New Millennium. Office of the Great Lakes. . Lansing. 41 pp.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. 2002 Annual Air Quality Report. Air Quality Division. Lansing. 142 pp.
Huron-Manistee National Forests K-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix K – References
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Division. 2004. Water Quality and Pollution Control in Michigan: 2004 Sections 303(d) and 305(b) integrated report. Lansing. 56 pp.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land. Forest Management Division and Surface Water Quality Management Division. Lansing. 77 pp.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2004 (in press). Smoke Management Plan. . Lansing.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Riparian Management Zones and Trout Streams: 21st Century Beyond. Fisheries Division. Lansing. 8 pp.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 1995. Forest stewardship training materials for oak-pine barrens ecosystem. (Unpublished manuscript.) Lansing: Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Moll, J. E. 1996. A Guide for Road Closure and Obliteration in the Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. Technology & Development Program. 7700 Engineering. 9677 1205. 49 pp.
Mortensen, C. E. 2001. Expanded Edition. Weeds of the Northern Lake States. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Division of Resource Management, Minnesota. pp. 4 - 32.
Mortensen, C. E. 2002. Invasive Plants of the Southern Tier, USFS Region 9. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Division of Resource Management, Minnesota. pp. 6, 34, 36.
Mortl, Frank L. and J. Westbrook. 1991. “Michigan Oil and Gas Story: County by County.” Michigan Oil and Gas News. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.
NatureServe. 2004. “NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].” Version 4.6. Arlington:NatureServe. Available on World Wide Web at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer
Neimi, G. J., et. al. 1997. “A critical analysis on the use of indicator species in management.” J. Wild. Manage. 61(4):1240-1252.
Nelson, C. M. et al. 2000. Michigan Licensed Off-Road Vehicle Use and Users: 1998 to 1999.
Newbry, M. G., M. A. Bozek and M. Jennings. 2000. “Architecture of submerged trees as fish habitat: Implications for riparian and littoral zone management.” 62nd Annual Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. (abstract only). Minneapolis, Minnesota
Newbry, M. G., M. A. Bozek and M. Jennings. 2001. “Differences in architectural complexity of submerged deciduous versus conifer trees in relation to fish habitat.” 63rd Annual Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. (abstract only). Des Moines, Iowa.
Final Environmental Impact Statement K-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix K – References
O’Neal, R. P. 1997. Muskegon River Watershed Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Fisheries Special Report 19. Lansing, Michigan.
Ostlie, Wayne. 1990a. “Element Stewardship Abstract for Cirsium pitcheri - Pitcher’s Thistle.” Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ostlie, Wayne R. 1990b. “Element Stewardship Abstract for Solidago houghtonii (Houghton’s goldenrod).” Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy. Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Payne, R. B. 1983. A distributional checklist of the birds of Michigan. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Misc. Publication No. 164.
Peffers, B. M. 1995. “Distribution of in-lake coarse woody debris within old-growth and second- growth forest settings.” M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife. East Lansing, Michigan.
Perala, Donald A. 1977. Manager’s Handbook for Aspen in the North-Central States. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-36, 30 p. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minnesota.
Phillip, G. L., N. Paulson and J. T. Hatch. 2002. Mottled Sculpin. Minnesota Dept. Nat. Resources, James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis/St. Paul. Minnesota.
Prichett, W. L. and R. F. Fisher. 1987. Properties and Management of Forest Soils. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. p. 184.
Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Brook trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS- 82/10.24.
Reynolds, J. W. 1995. “Status of exotic earthworm systematics and biogeography in North America.” pp. 1-28 Earthworm ecology and biogeography in North America. P. F. Hendrix, ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 10-12, 23.
Rich, T. D., et al. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Available from Partners in Flight website: http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ (Version: March 2005).
Rooney, T. P., et al. 2000. “Biotic impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest understory communities.” Conserv. Biol. 18(3): 787-798.
Rozich, T. J. 1998. Manistee River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 21. Lansing, Michigan.
Huron-Manistee National Forests K-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix K – References
Ruhren, S. and S. N. Handel. 2003. “Herbivory constrains: Survival, reproduction and mutualisms when restoring nine temperate forest herbs.” J. of Torrey Bot. Soc. 130(1): 34-42.
Rusch, D. H., et al. 2000. “Ruffed grouse.” The Birds of North America, No. 515. 28 pp.
Santer, R.A. 1977. Michigan: Heart of the Great Lakes. Kendall Hunt Pub Co. 364 pp.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Semlitsch, R. and J. Bodie. 2003. “Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles.” Conservation Biology 17(5):1219-1228.
Schmetterling, D. A., C. G. Clancy, and T. M. Brandt. 2001. “Effects of riprap bank reinforcement on stream salmonids in the western United States.” Fisheries 27(7): 6-13.
Schmidt, T. L., J. S. Spencer Jr. and R. Bertsch. 1997. Michigan's Forests, 1993: An Analysis. North Central Forest Experiment Station Resource Bulletin NC-179. USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MN. 102 pp.
Schultz, D. L. 1986. “Report of the survey to assess the current status of Percina Copelandi and Percina Shumardi in Michigan” University of Michigan: Museum of Zoology and Department of Biological Sciences. 17 pp.
Stanturf, J. A., et al. 2001. “Achieving restoration success: Myths in bottomland hardwood forests.” Restoration Ecology 9(2): 189-200.
State of Michigan. 1941. Noxious Weeds. Public Act 359 of 1941. Available at: http://www.michiganlegislature.org/law/ 5 pp.
Stone, D. M., J. A. Gates and J. D. Elioff. 1998. “Are we maintaining aspen productivity on sand soils?’ In Improving forest productivity for timber... A key to sustainability. Duluth, Minnesota. pp. 177–184.
Stone, D. M., et al. 2001. “Restoration of aspen-dominated ecosystems in the Lake States.” In Sustaining aspen in western landscapes. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- P-18. pp. 137-143.
Strayer, D. L., and L. C. Smith. 1996. “Relationships between zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and unionid calms during the early stages of the zebra mussel invasion of the Hudson River.” Freshwater Biology 36: 771-779.
Syrjamski, R. M. 1977. “The Prairie du Chien Group of the Michigan Basin.” M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University, Department of Geology. East Lansing, Michigan. 140 pp.
Final Environmental Impact Statement K-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix K – References
Tamm, Lucille C. 1986. Newaygo-Mecosta Known Geologic Structure (KGS). Mineral Report. Milwaukee Field Office, Bureau of Land Management.
Taylor, R. M., M. A. Pegg, and J. H. Chick. 2003. “Aquatic nuisance species: An evaluation of barriers for preventing the spread of bighead carp to the Great Lakes.” Abstract from 64th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Kansas City, Missouri.
Thompson, F. R. and E. K. Fritzell. 1989. “Habitat use, home range, and survival of territorial male ruffed grouse.” J. Wildl. Manage. 53(1):15-21.
Thompson, F. R., III. and D. R. Dessecker. 1997. “Management of early-successional communities in central hardwood forests, with special emphasis on the ecology and management of oaks, Ruffed Grouse, and forest songbirds.” USDA North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-195.
USDA-Forest Service. 1980. An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources (A Procedural Handbook). Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG- D6-0660. Environmental Research Laboratory, Technology Development and Applications Branch, Environmental Research Laboratory. Athens, Georgia.
USDA-Forest Service. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. Huron- Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan.
USDA-Forest Service. 1988. Forest Plan Final Settlement Agreement. Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan.
USDA-Forest Service. 1993. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan.
USDA-Forest Service. 1994. “Status of the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides Melissa samuelis) on the Huron-Manistee National Forests with special consideration for the planning of management activities within occupied areas.” October 3, 1994. 16+ pp.
USDA-Forest Service. 1996. American Marten Conservation Strategy for the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan. 37 pp.
USDA-Forest Service. 2000a. "Eastern Region Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Species list." Available on World Wide Web at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/tes_lists.htm
USDA-Forest Service. 2000b. "Eastern Region Regional Forester's Sensitive Species list." Available on World Wide Web at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/tes_lists.htm
USDA-Forest Service. 2000c. Landbird Strategic Plan. Washington D.C.
USDA-Forest Service. 2001a. Huron-Manistee National Forests – Monitoring and Evaluation Report - Fiscal Year 2001. Cadillac, Michigan. 88 pp.
Huron-Manistee National Forests K-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix K – References
USDA-Forest Service. 2001b. Old-Growth Amendment Environmental Assessment. February 28, 2001. Huron Manistee National Forests, Cadillac, Michigan. 145 pp.
USDA-Forest Service. 2002. Biological Assessment for the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
USDA-Forest Service. 2003. Programmatic Biological Assessment of the Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Huron-Manistee National Forests, Cadillac, Michigan. 194 pp.
USDA-Forest Service. 2004a. Biological Evaluation for Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Forest Plan Revision. 431 pp.
USDA-Forest Service. 2004b. Fire Management Plan 2004. Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan.
USDA-Forest Service. 2004c. Management Recommendations for the Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus c. catenatus) on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan.
USDA-Forest Service. 2006. Bald Eagle Management Plan. Huron-Manistee National Forests.
USDA-Forest Service and Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1981. Kirtland's Warbler Management Plan for Habitat in Michigan. Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan
USDA-Forest Service and Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2001c. Strategy for Kirtland's Warbler Habitat Management. Huron-Manistee National Forests. Cadillac, Michigan.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 1985. Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Twin Cities, Minnesota.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Great Lakes and northern Great Plains piping plover recovery plan. Twin Cities, Minnesota. 160 pp.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Recovery Plan. Prepared by the Indiana Bat Recovery Team. Technical Draft.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised Recovery Plan. Agency Draft. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. “Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final determination of critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover.” Federal Register 66(88): 22938-22969.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Karner blue butterfly Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Fort Snelling, MN. 122+ pp.
Final Environmental Impact Statement K-12 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix K – References
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) Recovery Plan. Ft. Snelling, MN. 92 pp.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Biological Opinion on the Programmatic Biological Assessment of the Huron-Manistee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. East Lansing, Michigan.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Recovery Plan. Great Lakes – Big Rivers Region ( Region 3). Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 133 pp. plus Appendices.
USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003c. Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 141 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Final Rule Designating and Classifying Areas not Meeting the National Air Quality Standard for 8-Hour Ozone.
Velz, C. J. and J. J. Gannon. 1960. Drought flow characteristics of Michigan streams. Michigan Department of Conservation. Lansing, Michigan.
Verry, E. S. 1986. “Forest harvesting and water: the Lakes States experience.” Water Resource Bulletin 22(6): 1039-1047.
Verry, E. S. 1988. “The hydrology of wetlands and man’s influence on it.” In Symposium on the hydrology of wetlands in temperate and cold regions. Vol. 2. June 6-8, 1988. Joensuu, Finland. Publication of the Academy of Finland. Helsinki, Finland: 5/1988: 41-61.
Verry, E. S. 1992. “Riparian systems and management.” In Proceedings of Forest Practices and Water Quality Workshop. Lake States Forestry Alliance, St. Paul, Minnesota. 24 pp.
Verry, E. S. 2000. “Water flows in soils and streams: Sustaining hydrologic function.” In Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Boca Raton:CRC Press. pp. 99-124.
Verry, E. S., J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff. 2000. Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. CRC Press LLC.
Verry, E. S. and C. A. Dolloff. 2001. “The challenge of managing healthy riparian areas.” In Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. E.S . Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Boca Raton:Lewis Publishers. pp. 1-22.
Voss, E. G. 1985. Michigan Flora. Vol. 2. Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 59 and Univ. of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor. 558 pp.
Wang, L., et al. 1997. “Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams.” Fisheries 22(6):6-12.
Huron-Manistee National Forests K-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix K – References
Weetman, G. F. and Algar, D. 1983. “Low site-class black spruce and jack pine nutrient removals after full-tree and tree-length logging.” Can. J. For. Res. 13: 1030–1036.
Wells, C. G. and J. R. Jorgensen. 1979. “Effects of Intensive Harvesting on Nutrient Supply and Sustained Productivity.” Impact of Intensive Harvesting on Forest Nutrient Cycling, A.L. Leaf, ed. Syracuse. pp. 212-230.
Westbrook, Jack, ed. Michigan Oil and Gas News, Weekly Trade Journal. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.
Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive Plants, Changing the Landscape of America: Fact Book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). Washington, DC. pp. 5, 57.
Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck. 1997. Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. 20814-2199. 561 pp.
Zedler, J. B. 2004. Compensating for Wetland Losses in the United States. Ibis. 146: 92-100.
Zedler, J. B. and J. C. Callaway. 1999. “Tracking wetland restoration: Do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories?” Restoration Ecol. 7(1): 69-73.
Zorn, T. G. and S. P. Sendek. 2001. Au Sable River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 26. Lansing, Michigan.
Final Environmental Impact Statement K-14 Huron-Manistee National Forests
APPENDIX L -
GLOSSARY
Appendix L – Glossary
Appendix L - Glossary
Activity Fuels – Fuels and/or slash which have been directly generated or altered by management action.
Adaptive Management – A type of natural resource management in which decision- making is an on-going process. Monitoring the results of actions will provide a flow of information that may indicate the need to change a course of action. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also indicate the need to adapt resource management.
Age Class – Grouping of trees originating from a single natural event or regeneration activity. Age classes are grouped by an interval of 10 or 20 years, for example 1-10 years, 11-20 years, 21-30 years, etc.
Aggregate Road – See “Road Types.”
Allelopathy – The production and release of chemical substances by one species that inhibit the growth of other species of plants
Allowable Sale Quantity – The quantity of timber that may be sold from the area of suitable land covered by the Forest Plan for a time period specified by the plan. This allowable sale quantity is usually expressed on an annual basis as the “average annual allowable sale quantity” (FSM 1900). For timber resource planning purposes, the allowable sale quantity applies to each decade over the planning horizon and includes only chargeable volume. Consistent with the definition of timber production, does not include fuelwood or other non- industrial wood.
All-terrain Vehicle – All-terrain vehicles are motorized flotation-tired vehicles with at least three, but no more than six low pressure tires, with an engine displacement of less than 800 cubic centimeters and total dry weight less than 900 pounds.
Alluvium – All sediment deposits resulting directly or indirectly from sediment transport within streams deposited in riverbeds, floodplains, lakes, fans, and estuaries.
Alternative – One of the several policies, plans, or projects proposed for the decision- making process.
Analysis – Methods used to determine or separate inventory and resource mapping information into important components and examine them critically (Webster).
Analysis Area – One site or a combination of sites delineated for the purpose of analysis in formulating alternatives and estimating various impacts and effects.
Analysis of Management Situation – A determination of the ability of the planning area to supply goods and services in response to society's demand for those goods and services.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Animal Unit Month – The quantity of forage required by one mature cow (1,000 pounds) or the equivalent for 1 month.
Aquatic – Pertaining to standing or running water in streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs.
Aquatic Ecosystems – Aquatic systems are those that contain plants and animals that predominantly depend on a significant amount of water to be present for at least part of the year.
Arterial Road – See “Road Types.”
Aspen/Birch Vegetative Type – Includes forest types such as quaking and bigtooth aspen, paper birch, balsam poplar, and aspen-white spruce-balsam fir mix.
Atmospheric Deposition – the addition of elements or substances found in the air to the surface of the earth.
Background – See “Visual Distance Zones.”
Barren – A fire dependant vegetative community characterized by widely spaced, open- grown trees in the overstory. The understory is characteristically dominated by various assemblages of fire tolerant, shade intolerant, grasses, sedges, shrubs, and forbs. The community is generally located on droughty, infertile, sandy soils of outwash plains and sandy lake plains. The specific vegetative composition of the community is dependant on its physiographic and geographic position.
Basal Area – Measurement of how much of a site is occupied by trees. It is determined by estimating the cross-section area of all the trees in an area at breast height (4.5 feet).
Base Sale Schedule – A schedule in which the planned sale and harvest for any future decade is equal to or greater than the planned sale and harvest for the preceding decade of the Planning period, and this planning sale and harvest for any decade is not larger than the long- term, sustained-yield capacity. (This definition expresses the principle of nondeclining flow.)
Benchmark – A reference point that shows the limits of the resource outputs that a National Forest can provide.
Benefit (Value) – Inclusive term used to quantify the results of a proposed activity, project, or program expressed in monetary or non-monetary terms.
Benefit/Cost Ratio – The total discounted benefits of an activity divided by the total discounted costs.
Best Management Practices – Practices (individual or in combination) that prevent non- point source of pollution or ensure that the amount is kept to a level compatible with state water quality and wetland protection goals.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Big Game – The large species of animals that are hunted, such as deer, bear, and moose.
Biodiversity – Variety of life and its ecological processes; the variety of organisms considered at all levels, from genetic variants belonging to the same species, through arrays of genera, families, and still higher taxonomic levels. Includes the variety of ecosystems, which comprise both the communities of organisms within particular habitats, and the physical conditions under which they live. The Forest Service Manual has direction on habitat planning and evaluation, including specific forest planning direction for meeting biological diversity requirements: A forest plan must address biological diversity through consideration of the distribution and abundance of plant and animal species and communities to meet overall multiple-use objectives (FSM 2622.01).
Bioengineering – Combining structural, biological, and ecological concepts to construct living structures for erosion, sediment, or flood control.
Biological Potential – The maximum production of a selected organism that can be obtained under optimum management.
Biomass – As used in this document, the total weight, or quantity of a tree or trees.
Biome – An area of land with a characteristic combination of plants and animals that pass through a sequence of stages in development and that tend to reach a point of approximate equilibrium with its environment that differs from the equilibrium reached in another biome.
Biota – Pertaining to any aspect of life, especially to characteristics of entire populations of organisms, including animals, plants, fungi, and microorganisms, found in a given ecosystem.
Blowdown – Downed trees and slash from a windstorm.
Board Foot – A measure of sawn material; an amount of wood equivalent to a piece 12 inches x 12 inches x 1 inch. Multiply the number of board feet by 0.167 to convert to cubic feet of raw material.
Bog – Wetland ecosystems made up of accumulations of peat derived from decomposed sedges and mosses. Bog water is acidic and vegetation includes mostly shrubs, sedges, and mosses, stunted black spruce, tamarack, balsam fir and cedar.
Boreal Forest – A circumpolar, tundra forest type consisting primarily of black spruce and white spruce with balsam fir, birch, and aspen. It is the most extensive forest type in the world. Broadcast Seeding – The scattering of seed as evenly as possible over an area.
Brush Raking – The uprooting and piling of brush with a tractor or bulldozer to reduce competition between the brush and the favored species.
Burning Prescription – Written direction stipulating fire environment conditions,
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary techniques, and administrative constraints necessary to achieve specified resource management objectives by use of fire on a given area of land.
Calcareous (soil) – Soil containing sufficient calcium carbonate (CaC03), often with magnesium carbonate (MgCO3), to effervesce visibly when treated with cold diluted hydrochloric acid (HCl).
Cambium – A layer of living cells between the wood and the inmost bark of a tree. In each growing season, divisions of these cells adds a new layer of cells on the wood already formed as well as a layer of inner bark on the outer face of the cambium.
Canopy – The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to the uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be use to describe lower layers in a multi-storied forest.
Capital Investment – Includes all the activities initially required to produce a measurable and complete output. It has identifiable starting and ending dates. It reflects the cost of developed structures, facilities, or improvements in natural resources used to produce outputs, generally over a number of years.
Carrying Capacity – The level and types of recreational use a natural or developed area can provide without deterioration of the quality of the recreational experience or the resource.
Cavity – A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, roosting, and reproduction.
Channel Morphology – The shape, structure, or form of stream channels usually as it relates to actions of flowing water or response to management.
Clearcutting – A regeneration method used to establish even-aged stands whereby all trees are removed in one harvest.
Climax Vegetation – The culminating stage in plant succession for a given environment, the vegetation being conceived as having reached a highly stable condition.
CMAI – See “Culmination of Mean Annual Increment.”
Coarse Filter Management – Land management that addresses the needs of all species, communities, environments, and ecological processes in a land area (compare to fine filter management). It is the concept of managing an array of representative ecosystems across the landscape, assuming that such representation will provide habitat for the majority of species.
Cold Water – Aquatic habitat that predominately supports fish species that have temperature tolerances up to about 70o F, and exhibit their greatest reproductive success at temperatures below 65o F (18.3o C). Salmon, trout, whitefish, and grayling are examples.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Collaborative Planning – Forest Service employees working with the public, state and local agencies, tribal governments, regulatory agencies, other federal agencies and others to assure the most efficient and effective conservation and sustainable multiple use management possible.
Collector Road – See “Road Types.”
Commercial Forest Land – Forest land that is producing or is capable of producing crops of industrial wood and (a) has not been withdrawn by Congress, the Secretary, or the Chief; (b) existing technology and knowledge is available to ensure timber production without irreversible damage to soils, productivity, or watershed conditions; and (c) existing technology and knowledge, as reflected in current research and experience, provides reasonable assurance that adequate restocking can be attained within 5 years after final harvesting.
Commodity Resources – Market driven resources such as timber, boughs, minerals and wildlife fish and game that can be bought and sold.
Common Class – See “Variety Class.”
Competitive Use of Off-Road Vehicles – Off-road vehicle use involving two or more persons that are organized for the purpose of contest, match, or other trial of skill, ability, or machine.
Composition – As used in ecology, the mix of species present on a site or landscape or population and the species’ relative abundance.
Concession Permit – A permit that authorizes private individuals or corporations to operate Forest Service-owned facilities as a commercial, profit-making venture.
Concessionaire – See “Concession Permit.”
Condition Class – A classification of the amount of departure from the natural fire regime.
Conifer – A wide range of the tree species within the order Gymnospermae, typically evergreen, bearing cones, and having needle or scale-like leaves, such as pine and spruce.
Connectivity – The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches, corridors, or “stepping stones” of like vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to which similar habitats are linked.
Conservation (of species) – The terms “conserve,” “conserving” and “conservation” mean the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the] Act are no longer necessary. [ESA § 3(3)]
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Constant Road – See “Road Types.”
Constrained Maximum Level Alternative – The highest level of a particular output that could be produced over time, subject to the production of minimum acceptable levels for all other outputs.
Controlled Burn – See “Prescribed Fire.”
Cool Water (Intermediate) – Aquatic habitat that is intermediate between cold and warm waters and supports fish species that have the greatest reproductive success in temperatures ranging from 60o F to 75o F (15o C to 24o C). Usually included in this group are such species as smallmouth bass, northern pike, walleye, muskellunge, and sturgeon.
Cord – A unit of gross volume measurement for stacked round or split wood. A standard cord is 4 feet x 4 feet x 8 feet or 128 cubic feet. A standard cord may contain 60 to 100 solid cubic feet of wood depending on the size of the pieces and the compactness of the stacks.
Corridor (wildlife) – A defined tract of land connecting two or more areas of similar habitat type through which wildlife species can travel.
Corridor Road – See “Road Types.”
Cost Coefficients – Values that relate an acre of land to particular dollar cost in a specific period of time.
Cost Efficiency – The usefulness of specified inputs (costs) to produce specified outputs (benefits). In measuring cost efficiency, some outputs (such as environmental, economic, or social impacts) are not assigned monetary values but are achieved at specified levels in a least costly manner.
Cover Type (Forest Cover Type) – Stands of particular vegetation type that are composed of similar tree species.
Critical Habitat – Critical habitat is a term used in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. It refers to specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management consideration or protection. These areas do not necessarily have to be occupied by the species at the time of designation. This means that areas must be identified that will allow for the protection of the current population, and any population increases that may be required to achieve recovery (allowing the species to be removed from the endangered species list)
CRM – Cultural Resource Management.
Cubic Foot – Common unit of measure for volumes of raw wood that is equivalent to a 12-inch cube. Multiply number of cubic feet by 6.0 to convert to board feet of sawn material.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Culmination of Mean Annual Increment – Age at which the mean annual growth is at its maximum and begins to decline.
Cultural Resources – The physical remains of past human cultural systems in places or sites of importance in human history or prehistory.
DEIS – Draft Environmental Impact Statement. See “Environmental Impact Statement.”
Demand Trends – The expected future need or desire for outputs, services, and uses.
Den tree – Any tree with hollow areas within branches or trunk that can be used for shelter by wildlife species.
Dense Hardwood Vegetative Type – This category includes all hardwoods except aspen and birch; including northern hardwoods and high- and low-site oaks.
Departure – A sale schedule that deviates from the principle of nondeclining flow by exhibiting a planned decrease in the timber sale and harvest schedule at any time in the future. A departure can be characterized as a temporary increase, usually in the beginning decade(s) of the Planning period, over the base sale schedule that would otherwise be established without impairing the future attainment of the Forests' long-term, sustained-yield capacity.
Desired Condition – Description of land and resource conditions if all long-term goals are achieved.
Desired Non-native Species – Those species of plants or animals that are not indigenous to an area but wanted for their contribution to high social, economic or cultural value.
Developed Recreation – Recreation that requires facilities resulting in concentrated use of an area. Examples are campgrounds and ski areas. Facilities might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, ski lifts, and buildings. See “Dispersed Recreation”.
Diameter at Breast Height – The diameter of a tree 4.5 feet above ground level.
Dispersed Recreation – Recreation opportunities or use occurring away from developed recreation sites, providing very little or no contact with Forest Service or volunteer staff. There may be minor facilities associated with dispersed recreation areas, such as parking areas, bulletin board at a trailhead or no facilities for activities such as hunting or camping. See “Developed Recreation”.
Distinctive Class – See “Variety Class.”
Distribution System – An arrangement of transmission lines, pipelines, utility lines, and/or roads to distribute energy or resources throughout an area.
Disturbance – Any event, either natural or human induced, that alters the structure,
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
composition, or functions of an ecosystem. Examples include forest fires, insect infestations, and timber harvesting.
Diversity – The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan (36 CFR 219.3). See also biodiversity.
Duff – The fermentation and humus layer of the forest floor material lying below the litter and above mineral soil; it consists of partially decomposed organic matter whose origins can still be visually determined as well as the fully decomposed humus layer. This layer does not include the freshly cast material in the litter layer. See “Litter.”
Early Successional Forest – The forest community that develops immediately following a removal or destruction of vegetation in an area. For instance, grasses may be the first plants to grow in an area that was burned.
Eastern Region – The portion of the Forest Service also referred to as Region 9, which includes the National Forests and Grasslands in New England, the Mid Atlantic, the Mid-west, and the Lake States.
Ecological Approach – An approach to natural resource management that considers the relationships among all organisms, including humans and their environment.
Ecological Integrity –In general, ecological integrity refers to the degree to which the elements of biodiversity and the processes that link them together and sustain the entire system are complete and capable of performing desired functions. Exact definitions of integrity are relative and may differ depending on the type of ecosystem being described.
ELT (Ecological Landtype) – An area of land with a distinct combination of natural, physical, chemical, and biological properties that cause it to respond in a predictable and relatively uniform manner to the application of given management practices. In a relatively undisturbed state and/or at a given stage (sere) of plant succession, an Ecological Landtype usually is occupied by a predictable and relatively uniform plant community. Typical size generally ranges from about 10 to a few hundred acres.
Ecological Units – Delimit areas of different biological and physical potentials.
Ecology – The interrelationships of living things to one another and to their environment, or the study of these interrelationships.
Ecosystem – A community of living plants, animals, and other organisms interacting with each other and with their physical environment.
Ecosystem Management – An ecological approach to natural resource management to assure productive, healthy ecosystems by blending social, economic, physical and biological needs and values.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-8 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Edge –The margin where two or more vegetation patches meet, such as a meadow opening next to a mature forest stand, a red pine stand next to an aspen stand, or a clearcut stand next to a well-stocked stand.
Emergent vegetation – Herbaceous plants that grow in water or saturated soil, with portions that stand up out of the water.
Endangered Species – Species listed as nationally in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of their ranges by the State of Michigan Endangered and Threatened Species list of February 8, 1983, and 50 CFR Part 17, July 27, 1983.
Environmental Analysis – The process associated with the preparation of an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement and the decision whether to prepare an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. It is an analysis of alternative actions and their predictable short-term and long-term environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, and social factors and their interactions.
Environmental Assessment – A concise public document that serves to (a) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No Significant Impact and (b) aid in an agency's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act when no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary (40 CFR 1508.9a).
Environmental Effect – Net change (good or bad) in the physical, biological, social, or economic components of the environment resulting from human actions. Effects and impacts as used in this document are synonymous.
Environmental Impact Statement – A statement of environmental effects required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. It is a formal document that must follow the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, and directives of the agency responsible for the project proposal.
Erosion – The wearing away of the land's surface by running water, wind, ice, and other geological agents. It includes detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity.
Eutrophication – The process by which a body of water becomes, either naturally or by pollution, rich in dissolved nutrients such as phosphorus.
Even-Aged – The condition of a forest or stand composed of trees having no or relatively small differences in age.
Even-Aged Timber Management – The combination of actions that result in the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Even-Flow – Continuous supply of products over a given time period.
Existing Visual Condition – The present state of visual alteration, which is measured in six degrees (untouched, unnoticed, minor disturbance, disturbed, major disturbance, drastic disturbance) of deviation from the natural-appearing landscape.
Exotic Species – See Non-native Invasive Species
Experimental Forest – A forest area set aside for research, administered by the Research branch of the Forest Service.
Extended Rotation – Management at rotation ages that are a minimum of 1.5 times the Culmination of Mean Annual Increment.
Extirpated Species – Species that formerly occurred regularly in an area but have disappeared and are not expected to recur without human assistance.
Fall Swarming Period – Period of time in the fall that bats forage, roost, and conduct mating activities near their hibernaculum before they hibernate, generally considered to be from September 1 through October 20 on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
FEAST - Economic effects of the Forest Plan to local counties were estimated using an economic input-output model developed with IMPLAN Professional 2.0 (IMPLAN). Economic relationships generated within IMPLAN were extracted and used in the Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (FEAST) models. The model IMPLAN utilizing FEAST was used to help analyze the economic variation of forest management based on each alternative’s proposed management emphasis. (See IMPLAN®).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License – Licensed hydro-electric projects on the Huron-Manistee National Forests include six hydro-electric power producing dams on the Au Sable River– Mio, Alcona, Loud, Five Channels, Cooke and Foote, and two power producing dams on the Manistee River– Hodenpyl and Tippy. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license term is June 30, 2034.
FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement. See “Environmental Impact Statement.”
Fen – Wetlands that receive nutrients from direct contact with mineral enriched groundwater. A fen that has very low concentrations of plant nutrients and floristically resembles a bog is termed a “poor” fen. A "rich" fen has relatively high concentrations of nutrients, but is still characterized by the accumulation of peat (though this is likely to be primarily from the remains of plants other than sphagnum mosses, such as sedges and brown mosses).
Fine Filter Management – The concept of managing individual species through individual conservation measures. Individual nests, colonies, and habitats are emphasized. Management that focuses on the welfare of a single or only a few species rather than the broader habitat or ecosystem (compare to coarse filter management).
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-10 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Fire Management – All activities required for the protection of resources and values from fire, and the use of fire to meet land management goals and objectives.
Fire Management Area – One or more parcels of land with clearly defined boundaries and with established fire management direction that is responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives.
Fire Management Effectiveness Index – The index value that measures effectiveness of annual fire management operational programs and serves as a planning attainment, analysis, and evaluation tool for both annual and long-term programs. Measured in dollars per 1,000 acres protected, the objective is to minimize the index value.
Fire Regime – A generalized description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem. It is characterized by fire frequency, seasonality, intensity, duration and scale (patch size), as well as regularity or variability.
Fire Rotation – The interval of time between wildland fire occurrences in a specific geographic area.
Fire Use –The combination of Wildland Fire Use and prescribed fire application to meet resource objectives.
Fiscal Year – The fiscal year is the government’s accounting period. It begins on October 1, ends on September 30, and is designated by the calendar year in which it ends.
Flood Plain – Lowland and relatively flat areas joining inland and coastal waters, including debris cones and flood-prone areas of offshore islands. The minimum area included is subject to a 1 percent (100-year recurrence) or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
Floodprone Area – Land and water which lies below the elevation equivalent to two times the maximum depth at bankfull stage of a stream.
Flora – The plants of a given region or period.
Flowline – Pipe through which oil or gas flows to processing equipment or storage.
Flow Regime – The prevailing water flow pattern of a stream and is determined by geology, topography, climate and vegetation.
Forage – All non-woody plants (grass, grass-like plants, and forbs) and portions of woody plants (browse) available to domestic livestock and wildlife for food. Only a portion of a plant is available for forage if the plant is to remain healthy.
Forage Management – Development of the range resource to its reasonably attainable potential, and management on a sustained-yield basis in a manner, which will enhance productive harmony between humans and their environment. Forage management in the Eastern
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-11 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Region will be done to the extent necessary to support combined livestock and wildlife targets while protecting and enhancing the biological and physical intensities of range ecosystems.
Forage Utilization – (1) The portion of current year's forage production by weight that is consumed or destroyed by grazing animals. It is synonymous with degree of use. Expressed in percent of current year's growth utilized by grazing animals on an average over time based on a system of range management. The key to forage utilization is to maintain the key forage species while achieving other management objectives such as the maintenance of watersheds, wildlife habitat, recreational values, and the protection of regenerating plants. (2) The percent expressed in the “Management Prescription” is the estimated average forage utilization allowable to meet the objectives of that prescription under sustained-yield management.
Forb – Any herbaceous plant other than grass or grass-like plants.
Foreground – See “Visual Distance Zones.”
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, National Assessment – A document compiled by the Secretary of Agriculture every 10 years that contains facts and analyses to develop and guide public and private forest and rangeland policies and programs.
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, National Program – A document compiled by the Secretary of Agriculture every 5 years that outlines Forest Service programs for National Forest System management, cooperative assistance to states and private landowners, and research.
Forest Cover Type (Forest Type) – See “Cover Type.”
Forest Floor – Distinctive feature of forest soils that designates all organic matter, including litter and decomposing organic layers resting on the mineral soil surfaces but not mixed with mineral soil material. There are layers to the forest floor: “litter layer” of unaltered dead remains of plants and animals; a layer of fragmented partly decomposed organic materials still discernible to the naked eye, and a layer of well-decomposed organic material. The forest floor provides food to micro-fauna and micro-flora provides a fund of nutrients for higher plants, insulates the surface from extremes in temperature and moisture, and improves water infiltration See “Duff..”
Forest Health – A forest condition that has overall structure, function, and characteristics that enable it to be resilient to disturbance, meet human needs, and to maintain normal rates of change commensurate with its stage of development.
Forest Highway – See “Road Types.”
Forest Land – Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having had such tree cover and not currently developed for nonforest use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-12 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
• (Forest Land) Not Appropriate – Land not selected for timber production in the Forests' Plan alternative due to (a) the multiple-use objectives for the alternative preclude timber production, (b) other management objectives for the alternative limit timber production activities to the point where management requirements set forth in 36 CFR 219.27 cannot be met, and (c) the land is not cost efficient over the Planning horizon in meeting Forests' objectives that include timber production. Land not appropriate for timber production shall be designated as unsuitable in the preferred alternative and Forests' Plan.
• (Forest Land) Suitable – Land that is to be managed for timber production on a regulated basis.
• (Forest Land) Tentatively Suitable – Forest land that is producing or is capable of producing crops of industrial wood and (a) has not been withdrawn by Congress, the Secretary, or the Chief; (b) existing technology and knowledge is available to ensure timber production without irreversible damage to soils, productivity, or watershed conditions; (c) existing technology and knowledge, as reflected in current research and experience, provides reasonable assurance that adequate restocking can be attained within 5 years after final harvest; and (d) adequate information is available to project responses to timber management activities.
• (Forest Land) Unsuitable – Forest land that is not managed for timber production because (a) the land has been withdrawn by Congress, the Secretary, or the Chief; (b) the land is not producing or capable of producing crops of industrial wood; (c) technology is not available to prevent irreversible damage to soils, productivity, or watershed conditions; (d) there is no reasonable assurance that lands can be adequately restocked within 5 years after final harvest, based on existing technology and knowledge as reflected in current research and experience; (e) there is, at present, a lack of adequate information to respond to timber management activities; or (f) timber management is inconsistent with or not cost efficient in meeting the management requirements and multiple-use objectives specified in the Forests' Plan.
Forest Plan – (Short for the Land and Resource Management Plan.) A long-range plan for management of a designated area of National Forest System lands. This plan will provide direction for all management programs and practices, resource uses, and resource protection measures on these lands.
Forest Plan Revision – A formal modification of an existing forest plan to address changes in the natural, social, and economic environment, new information about resources on and off National Forests, and new scientific knowledge that sheds new light on the assumptions of the existing plan and make the predicted impacts of the existing plan less accurate and/or less acceptable. Federal planning regulations require the Forest Service to revise a forest plan every 10 to 15 years.
Forest Products – Goods and services resulting from use of the forest. These may
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-13 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary include timber, wildlife, water, forage, recreation, and minerals. Also included, are recreational experiences, scenic and spiritual values, etc.
Forest Supervisor – The official responsible for administering National Forest System lands on an administrative unit, usually one or more National Forests. The Forest Supervisor reports to the Regional Forester.
Forest Type – A descriptive term used to group stands of similar character of development and species composition, due to given ecological factors, by which they may be differentiated from other groups of stands (see Cover Type).
Forest-Wide Management Requirements – A set of statements, which define or indicate acceptable norms, specifications or quality that must be met when accomplishing an activity or practice under a given set of conditions on the Forests.
Fragmentation – The process by which a landscape is broken into smaller islands of forest within a mosaic of other forms of land use or ownership. Fragmentation is a concern because of the effect of noncontiguous forest cover on connectivity and the movement and dispersal of animals in the landscape.
Fuel Management – The practice of planning and executing treatment or control of any vegetative material, which adversely affects meeting fire management direction, based upon resource management goals and objectives.
Fuel Treatment – A rearrangement or disposal of natural or activity fuels to reduce the fire hazard.
Fuelbreak – A strategically located strip of land, normally 100 to 400 feet wide, where fuels have been reduced or modified; used as a safe location from which fire fighters can attack and control a fire.
Fuels – Plants and woody vegetation, both living and dead, that are capable of burning.
Gabion – A wire mesh basket filled with rocks and used to protect erodible streambanks, or to create dams, deflectors, or other instream structures.
Game Species – Wild animals hunted for sport or food.
Gathering Pipeline – A pipeline used to move oil or gas from the field to a main pipeline.
Gauging Station – Continuous-streamflow measuring station usually operated by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Genotype – The genetic makeup of an organism.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-14 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Girdling – To make more or less continuous incisions around a living tree stem, through at least both bark and cambium, generally with the object of killing the tree; kinds of girdling include the following:
• Chemical girdling – Making a girdle and further, using an herbicide to kill the tree.
• Fill girdling – Making a series of downward, more or less overlapping incisions generally for the introduction of an herbicide.
• Mechanical girdling – Removing a broad band of bark, from several inches to several feet wide, all round a living bole, with some sapwood or without, so as to kill, or at least weaken the tree.
Goal – A concise statement that describes a desired future condition normally expressed in broad, general terms that are timeless, in that there is no specific date by which the goal is to be achieved.
Goods and Services – The various outputs, including on-site uses, produced by forest and rangeland resources.
Graded and Drained Road – See “Road Types.”
Grassland – A large openland community in which the characteristic plants are grasses.
• Grassland (Dry) – Covers a wide variety of grassland biotypes with relatively dry and nutrient-poor soils. Dry grasslands are enriched by structural elements such as bushes and trees, which provide valuable habitats for rare species of wildlife.
• Grassland (Mesic) – Characterized by, or adapted to, loamy, or silty soil types.
Group Selection Harvest – A cutting method in which trees are removed periodically in small groups. This silvicultural treatment results in small openings that form mosaics of age- class groups and leads to the formation of an uneven-aged stand.
Growing Stock Level (GSL) – Expressed either in stems per acre or square feet of basal area of timber growing on any area.
Guidelines – Guidelines are preferable limits to management actions that may be followed to achieve desired conditions. Guidelines are generally expected to be carried out. They help the Forest to reach the desired conditions and objectives in a way that permits operational flexibility to respond to variations over time. Deviations from guidelines must be analyzed during project-level analysis and documented in a project decision document, but deviations do not require a Forest Plan amendment.
Habitat – An area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or occurs. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered to be
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-15 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
food, water, cover, and living space. Breeding habitat: The habitat type or types upon which a wildlife species depends for reproduction. Foraging habitat: The habitat type or types within which a wildlife species finds the food it needs. Wintering habitat: Areas where migratory, and particularly airborne (e.g., birds, bats) species find shelter or warmer weather during the winter or non-breeding season.
Hardwood – A broad-leaved flowering tree, as distinguished from a conifer. Trees belonging to the botanical group of angiospermae.
Harvest (Timber Harvest) – Cutting and removing trees from the forest for utilization.
Hazardous Fuel – Combustible vegetation (live or dead), such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs, and trees, that contribute to the threat of ignition and high fire intensity and/or high rate of spread.
Herbivore – An animal that feeds on plant substances.
Herbivory – The consumption of plants by animals.
Heritage Resources – The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past; this can be historical or pre-historic (also see cultural resources).
High Quality Hardwoods – Hardwood trees or stands that will yield high value timber products such as veneer, knot-free lumber, furniture or specialty product stock, and flooring.
High-Site Oak – Oaks where site index greater than 55. Includes white pine-northern red oak-white ash, oak-aspen, black oak, white oak, northern red oak, yellow poplar-white oak- northern red oak, mixed oak, and black locust.
Hydro-Electric Licenses – See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Licenses
Hydrologic Characteristics – Features of a watershed relating to the flow of water, such as infiltration, evapotranspiration, runoff, water yield, peak flows, and normal annual peak flow.
Hydrological Regime – The sum total of water that occurs in an area on average during a given period, i.e., the quantity, timing, location, and quality of available surface water, soil water, and groundwater. Hydrological regime is defined in terms of both single events and long- term patterns. The single-event perspective describes the flood that results from a rainstorm of some intensity, duration, and frequency that falls in a drainage basin with moisture already in the soils. The water that does not infiltrate the soil or evaporate into the atmosphere flows to and through the stream channel. If the volume of water exceeds the capacity of the channel to carry it, a flood results.
IMPLAN® – Acronym for IMpact Analysis for PLANning. IMPLAN® is an economic impact assessment modeling system. IMPLAN allows the development of economic models to estimate the impacts of economic changes in states, counties, or communities. IMPLAN® is a
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-16 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary computer model developed by the Forest Service in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the USDI Bureau of Land Management to assist the Forest Service in land and resource management planning. (See “Input-Output Analysis Model”).
Implementation –Those activities necessary to initiate the actions in the approved land and resource management plan.
Implementing Regulations – Regulations generated by an agency to implement acts of Congress. For example, 36 CFR 219 contains regulations to implement the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act and the National Forest Management Act.
Improved Road – See “Road Types.”
Indicator Species – See “Management Indicator Species.”
Indigenous (Species) – Any species native to land or water.
Individual Tree Selection Harvest – A cutting method where individual trees are removed from certain size and age classes over an entire stand area. Regeneration is usually natural, and an uneven-aged stand is maintained.
Infiltration – The rate of movement of water from the atmosphere into the soil; that portion of rainfall or surface runoff that moves downward into the subsurface rock and soil; the entry of water from precipitation, irrigation, or runoff into the soil profile.
Informed Public Consent – Attaining substantial effective agreement on a course of action through various public information and involvement projects.
Input-Output Analysis Model – Quantitative study of the interdependency of a group of activities based on the relationship between inputs and outputs of the activities. The basic tool of analysis is a square input-output table or interaction model for a given period that simultaneously shows the value of inputs and outputs for each activity, as well as the value of transactions within each activity. It has been applied to the economy and the industries into which the economy can be divided.
Insecticide – An agent used to control insect populations.
Instream Flow – Usually used in defining the minimum flow necessary for all the uses of water while it is flowing through streams. Some of those uses are fisheries, channel stability, maintenance, riparian habitat maintenance, and aesthetics.
Intangible Values (Intangible Outputs) – Goods, services, uses, and conditions which are believed to have values to society but which have neither market values nor assigned values. (See “Nonmarket Values”).
Integrated Pest Management – An ecologically based process for selecting strategies to
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-17 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary regulate forest pests to achieve resource management objectives. It includes planned and systematic detection, evaluation, and monitoring techniques and all appropriate silvicultural, biological, chemical, genetic and mechanical tactics needed to prevent or reduce pest caused damage and losses to levels that are economically, environmentally, and aesthetically acceptable. (FSH 2109.14-94-1)
Integrated Resource Management Approach – All resources are planned in the same area and scheduled over the next decade using an interdisciplinary approach. All further Forest Plan implementation actions are united and coordinated to achieve the Forest Plan goals and objectives.
Integrity (heritage resources) – In terms of heritage resources, it is evidence of the authenticity of a property’s historical character, as indicated by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historical or pre-historical period of use (see “Ecological Integrity”).
Interdisciplinary – The combination of two or more academic disciplines or fields of study.
Interdisciplinary Team – A group of individuals with skills from different resources. An Interdisciplinary Team is assembled because no single scientific discipline is sufficient to adequately identify and resolve issues and problems. Team member interaction provides necessary insight to all stages of the process.
Interior Forest – A large contiguous forest with a closed or partially open canopy of relatively mature trees.
Intermediate Harvest – Any removal of trees from an even-aged stand between the time of its formation and the regeneration cutting.
Intermittent Road – See “Road Types.”
Intermittent Stream – A stream that flows only at certain times of the year as when it receives water from springs, rainfall or run-off from some surface source, such as melting snow.
Interpretive Site – A developed site at which a broad range of natural or cultural history is interpreted or described for the enjoyment of the public.
Intolerant Species – Those plant species that do not grow well in shade.
Introduced Pest – Any insect or disease not native to a particular region.
Intrusive – Rocks formed from solidification of fluid flowing into or between other rocks. Solidification occurs before surface contacts.
Invasive Species – See non-native invasive species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-18 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Inversion – A reversal of the normal atmospheric temperature gradient; cool air layer trapped beneath a layer of warm air.
Isolated Find – An historic or prehistoric archaeological object found unassociated with other archaeological objects.
Issue – A subject or question of widespread public discussion or interest regarding management of National Forest System lands.
Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Plan – A joint Forest Service, State, and USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service management plan that provides for the essential habitat of the Kirtland's warbler.
K-V Funds – The Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930, as amended by the National Forest Management Act, authorizes the collection of funds (K-V funds) for improvement activities within a timber sale area, such as reforestation, timber stand improvement work, wildlife and fisheries projects, and other resource activities.
Lacustrine Nesting Habitat – Nesting region that is associated with lakes.
Land Allocation –The decision to use land for various resource management objectives to best satisfy the issues, concerns, and opportunities.
Land and Resource Management Plan – See Forest Plan.
Land Exchange – A discretionary, voluntary transaction involving mutual transfers of land or interests in land between the Secretary of Agriculture acting by or through the Forest Service and a non-federal entity.
Landscape – A relatively large land area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated due to factors such as geology, soils, climate, and human impacts. Landscapes are often used for coarse filter analysis.
Landscape Ecosystem – The land and vegetation systems that occur naturally on the landscape. Landscape Ecosystems are one or more Landtype Associations grouped together.
Landscape Scale – Forest or area-wide planning, and watershed analysis scale; polygons representing 1,000’s to 10,000’s of acres. 1:250,000 to 1:60,000 range scale. Land unit scale – project and management area planning and analysis scale; polygons representing 10’s to 1,000’s of acres. 1:24,000 to 1:60,000 range scale. Legacy Data: Data (tabular or spatial) in which the Forest Service has already invested considerable time and money, but which has not yet been migrated into a corporate database.
Landtype Association – An ecological unit based on similar geologic landform, soils, climate, and vegetation that is part of the “National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units.” Landtype associations are smaller than subsections and larger than landtypes.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-19 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Large Wood – Large pieces of wood in stream channels or on the ground, includes logs, pieces of logs, and large chunks of wood; provides streambed stability and/or structural habitat diversity. Also called down wood or coarse wood. Previously referred to as large woody debris.
Late Successional Forest – The stage of forest succession in which most of the trees are mature or overmature.
Lateral Migration – Channel migration, the movement of a river or stream channel across its valley bottom.
Leadership Team – Decision-making group consisting of the Forest Supervisor, Deputy Forest Supervisor, Staff Officers, and District Rangers.
Leaching - A process of soil nutrient removal through the erosive movement and chemical action of water.
Leasable Minerals – Coal, oil, gas, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil shale, and geothermal steam.
Legal Administrative Status – Identifier to show specific legal or administrative requirements that may restrict management options on an area.
Linear Program Model – A mathematical method, expressed in the form of equations, used to determine the best use of resources to achieve a desired result and limitations on available resources.
Linear Programming – A mathematical technique for determining the effects of alternative resource allocations.
Litter (Forest Litter) – The top layer of the forest floor directly above the duff layer, which includes freshly fallen or only slightly decomposed plant material, including leaves, needles, bark flakes, cone scales, fruits (including acorns and cones), dead matted grass and other vegetative parts that are little altered in structure by decomposition. See “Duff.”
Local Road – See “Road Types.”
Long-lived Conifer Vegetative Type – Consisting of red pine, white pine, white pine- hemlock, hemlock, Norway spruce, white spruce, white spruce-balsam fir-Norway spruce, black spruce (upland), and northern white cedar (upland).
Long-lived Tree Species – Trees species, including red pine, white pine, white spruce, black spruce, oak, balsam fir, tamarack, northern white cedar, northern hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods.
Long-Term – Action governed by the Forest Plan generally taking place over a period of 10 years or more from the present.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-20 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Long-Term Sustained-Yield Capacity – The highest uniform wood yield from lands being managed for timber production that may be sustained, under specified management intensity, consistent with multiple-use objectives.
Lowland Conifer Vegetative Type – Consists of black spruce, northern white cedar, tamarack, mixed swamp conifers, and cedar-aspen-paper birch mix.
Lowland Hardwood Vegetative Type – Consists of black ash-elm-red maple, red maple (wet), and mixed lowland hardwoods.
Low-Site Oak Vegetative Type – Consists of oak and mixed oak forest types with site index less than 55, and includes jack pine-oak, red pine-oak, white pine-northern red oak-white ash, black oak, white oak, northern red oak, mixed oak and black locust.
Management Area – A portion of a landscape with similar management objectives and a common management prescription. The Forests are divided into management areas with specific direction for each management area described through desired conditions, objectives, Standards and Guidelines.
Management Concern – A matter of importance to the management of National Forest System lands, which is identified internally by the agency.
Management Direction – A statement of multiple-use and other goals, objectives, management prescriptions, and Standards and Guidelines for attaining those objectives and desired conditions.
Management Goal – A concise statement that describes a desired condition of the land to be achieved some time in the future.
Management Indicator Species and Habitats – Management indicator species and habitats are “…plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for their emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent” (Forest Service Manual 2620.5, Washington Office amendment 2600- 91-5). Management indicators provide a means of monitoring and evaluating the effects of actions on biotic resources, including specific species, communities, habitats, and interrelationships among organisms. As part of the planning process, the Forest Service is directed to “….select management indicators that best represent the issues, concerns, and opportunities to support recovery of federally-listed species, provide continued viability of sensitive species, and enhance management of wildlife and fish for commercial, recreational, scientific, subsistence, or aesthetic values or uses. Management indicators representing overall objectives for wildlife, fish, and plants may include species, groups of species with similar habitat relationships, or habitats that are of high concern.” (Forest Service Manual 2621.1) Management indicators are also selected to meet 1982 planning regulations 36 CFR Sec. 219.19 (a) (1) that require the Forest Service to consider the use of management indicator species. See Appendix G of the Environmental Impact Statement for more information.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-21 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Management Intensity – The management practice or combination of management practices and their associated costs designed to obtain different levels of goods and services.
Management Opportunity – A statement of general actions, measures, or treatments that address the public issue or management concern in a favorable way.
Management Practices – A specific activity, course of action, or treatment that is designed to move the forest toward desired conditions.
Management Prescription – Management practices selected and scheduled for application in a specific area to attain multiple use and other goals and objectives. At the forest level for a management area, a Management Prescription includes (a) the management practices selected and scheduled, (b) a description of the desired future condition of the land, and (c) the Standards and Guidelines necessary to control the management practices and achieve and maintain the desired future conditions. See Plan chapter IV for a further discussion of this term.
Management Problem – A major problem of long-range significance, derived from public issues and management concerns, to be addressed when formulating Forests' Plan alternatives.
Marginal Analysis – A type of analysis in which only the costs and benefits considered are those about which decisions can be made. Fixed benefits and costs are not considered.
Market Value (Market Output) – Goods, services, and uses which commonly are bought and sold and which are priced or valued directly from existing markets.
Marshes – Wetlands dominated by grasses and grass-like plants, including sedges and rushes.
Mast tree – Any tree producing fruit that is used for food by wildlife species.
Mass Movement – Downslope unit movement of a portion of the land's surface, such as a single landslide or the gradual, simultaneous downhill movement of a whole mass of loose earth material on a slope face.
Mature Tree or Stand – A tree or stand that has attained full development, particularly in height, and is in full seed production.
Maximum Modification – See “Visual Quality Objective.”
Mean Annual Increment of Growth – The total increase in size or volume of individual trees; or, it can refer to the increase in size and volume of a stand of trees at a particular age, divided by that age in years (also see culmination mean annual increment).
Memorandum of Understanding – The instrument used for a written plan between the Forest Service and other parties for carrying out their separate activities in a coordinated and
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-22 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary mutually beneficial manner and for documenting a framework for cooperation.
Mesic – Sites or habitats characterized by intermediate moisture conditions, i.e., neither decidedly wet or dry.
Mesotrophic – A water body or wetland containing moderate quantities of nutrients and are moderately productive in terms of aquatic animal and plant life.
Metapopulation – A subpopulation of a species linked to other subpopulations by more or less restricted migration.
Middle Ground– See “Visual Distance Zones.”
Mineral Development – The inventory and extraction of mineral materials.
Mineral Exploration – A search for mineral materials.
Mineral Material – Includes the common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, and similar materials.
Mineral Soil – Soil that consists mainly of inorganic material, such as weathered rock, rather than organic matter.
Minimal Class – See “Variety Class.”
Minimum Level Management – The management strategy that would meet only the basic statutory requirements of administering unavoidable nondiscretionary land uses, preventing damage to adjoining lands of other ownerships, and protecting the life, health, and safety of incidental users.
Minimum Viable Population – The minimum numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals required to ensure a continued existence.
Mitigation – Action taken for the purpose of eliminating, reducing, or minimizing negative impacts of management activities on the environment.
Modification – See “Visual Quality Objective.”
Monitoring – A systematic process of collecting information to evaluate changes in actions, conditions, and relationships over time and space relative to a pre-determined standard or expected norm.
Monitoring and Evaluation (Forest Plan) – The periodic evaluation of Forest Plan management activities to determine how well objectives are met, and how closely management Standards and Guidelines have been applied.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-23 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Moraine (glacial) – A distinct accumulation of unsorted, unstratified glacial drift, predominantly till, with an initial topographic modifier related to its deposition as a direct action of glacial ice. Includes the following:
• End Moraine – Hilly ridges that characterize a deposit produced at the front of the ice mass any time it was stationary long enough to permit an accumulation of debris.
• Ground Moraine – A thinner, more level till deposited as ice retreated rapidly.
• Lateral Moraine – Stony ridges deposited along the outer edges of the ice mass and parallel to the direction of its movement.
• Terminal Moraine – An end moraine that marks the farthest advance or maximum extent of the glacier (often used as synonym of end moraine).
Mosaic – Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape, such as areas with trees and areas without trees occurring over a landscape.
Motorized Use – Land use requiring or largely dependent on motor vehicles and roads.
Multiple-Use – The management of all various resources of the National Forests so that they are used in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people. The management makes the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions. Some land would be used for less than all of the resources in a harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land. Consideration is given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.
National Environmental Policy Act – Public law that outlines specific procedures for integrating environmental considerations into agency planning. Congress passed NEPA in 1969 to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment. One of the major tenets of NEPA is its emphasis on public disclosure of possible environmental effects of any major action on public land. The Act requires a statement of possible environmental effects to be released to the public and other agencies for review and comment.
National Forest Management Act – Public Law of 1976 that provides for planning and management of National Forests, and requires the preparation of forest plans.
National Forest System – All of the management units, national forests, and national grasslands that the Forest Service manages.
National Forest System Land – Federal lands that have been designated by Executive order or statute as National Forests, National Grasslands, National Tallgrass Prairie, or other
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-24 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
lands under the administration of the Forest Service.
National Forest System Road – Classified forest roads under Forest Service jurisdiction being wholly or partly, or adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System and necessary for the protection, administration, and use of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. The term “National Forest System Road” is synonymous with the term “forest development road.”
National Forest Visit – The entry of one person upon a National Forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A National Forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits.
National Register of Historic Places – A list maintained by the National Park Service of areas which have been designated as being of historic significance.
National Wild and Scenic River System – Rivers with outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values designated by Congress under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for preservation of their free-flowing condition (also see Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Act).
National Wilderness Preservation System – All lands covered by the Wilderness Act and subsequent wilderness designations, irrespective of the department or agency having jurisdiction.
Native Species – With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that historically occurred in that ecosystem. Native species do not include species introduced by humans.
Natural – Existing and/or formed by nature; not artificial.
Natural appearing – The existing natural character of the landscape is integrated into management activities, such as harvesting. The landscape shows few signs of forest management activities; however, the effects of naturally occurring disturbances (fire or windstorm) may be noticeable.
Natural Disturbance – Disruption of existing conditions by wind, fire, flooding, drought, insects, and disease at a scale from one tree to hundreds of thousands of acres.
Natural Opening – Area of forest whose vegetation is predominantly contained in the ground-layer or mid-layer, e.g. grasses, forbs, shrubs, or saplings, with minor representation in the canopy-layer, e.g. mature trees. Such areas typically are the product of natural stand replacing disturbance processes, e.g. fire, wind, or ice storms, and typically will return to a forested state dominated by canopy-layer and shrub-layer vegetation. Depending upon eco-type, natural openings can vary in size from less than one acre to hundreds or thousands of acres.
Natural Processes/Conditions – Plant and animal communities where people have not directly impacted either of those communities or their soils by such activities as logging, fire
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
suppression, grazing, or cultivation.
Nectar Plant – A species of flowering plant that provides a sugary liquid (nectar) as a food/energy source. Invertebrates, such as butterflies, are the primary users of nectar-providing plants. The invertebrate species may use a suite of plant species as nectar sources.
Net Value Change (Also Net Resource Value Change) – The sum of the changes resulting from increases (benefits) and decreases (damages) in the value of outputs from the land area affected as the consequences of fire.
Nitrogen Fixation – the conversion of elemental nitrogen from the atmosphere to organic combinations or to forms readily utilizable in biological processes.
No Action Alternative – The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if current management direction continues unchanged.
Nondeclining Yield – A level of timber production planned so that the planned sale and harvest for any future decade is equal to or greater than the planned sale and harvest for the preceding decade.
Non-Forest Land – Land never having or incapable of having 10 percent or more of the area occupied by forest trees, or land previously having such cover and currently developed for non-forest uses.
Non-Forest Vegetative Type – Noncommercial forestland (for example, shrubs, forbs, and grasses in wildlife openings).
Non-Game Species – Animal species that are not usually hunted in this State. This classification is determined by the State Legislators.
Non-indigenous Species – A species that is not naturally present in an ecosystem within its historical range or naturally expanded from its historical range, in the state. See “Non-native invasive species.”
Nonmarket Values (Nonmarket Outputs) – Goods, services, and uses which are not commonly bought or sold in existing markets; assigned dollar values for some have been derived from willingness-to-pay analyses for use in comparing alternatives. See “Intangible values”.
Nonmotorized Use – Land uses requiring or largely dependent on isolation from motor vehicles and/or roads.
Non-native Invasive Species – Non-native species are any species that occupy an ecosystem outside its historical range. Invasive species are any non-native species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species are those species that spread from their original native habitat, to one that is not their native habitat. Non-native Invasive Species explode in population because they are not in
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-26 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
their original ecosystem where they were kept in check by many factors, such as parasites and predation. Frequently these species are aggressive and difficult to manage. Non-native Invasive Species differ from noxious weeds in that Non-native Invasive Species can be animals or plants, and they are strictly non-native species.
Non-point Source Water Pollutants – Pollutants contributed to runoff and seepage from land areas, often resulting from multiple, difficult to define, points of origin. Agricultural and urban runoff, runoff from construction activities and runoff from forestry practices are example sources of non-point pollutants. The following forest management activities are potential nonpoint sources of pollution: prescribed burning, pest and fire control, surface drainage, and road construction and maintenance from which there is natural runoff.
Nonstocked Vegetative Type – Potential commercial forestland that is open or not presently stocked with trees (for example, abandoned agricultural field).
Nonstructural Range Improvement – A modification of existing vegetation to improve the grazing resource. Examples are spraying or plowing sagebrush and seeding to grass.
Northern Hardwood Vegetative Type – Forests containing the following cover types: northern hardwoods-hemlock, mixed northern hardwoods, sugar maple-beech-yellow birch, sugar maple-basswood, black cherry-white ash-yellow poplar, red maple (dry site) sugar maple, beech and mixed upland hardwoods.
Nutrient Cycling – Circulation or exchange of elements such as nitrogen and carbon between non-living and living portions of the environment. Includes all mineral and nutrient cycles involving mammals and vegetation.
Oak Barren – A fire dependant vegetative community characterized by widely spaced, open-grown oaks (commonly white, bur, or Hill’s oak) in the overstory. Various assemblages of fire tolerant, shade intolerant, grasses, sedges, shrubs, and forbs characteristically dominate the understory. The community is generally located on droughty, infertile, sandy soils of outwash plains and sandy lake plains. The specific vegetative composition of the community is dependant on its physiographic and geographic position.
Oak-Pine Barren – A fire dependant vegetative community characterized by a combination of oaks and pines in the overstory. Various assemblages of fire tolerant, shade intolerant, grasses, sedges, shrubs, and forbs characteristically dominate the understory. The community is generally located on droughty, infertile, sandy soils of outwash plains and sandy lake plains. The specific vegetative composition of the community is dependant on its physiographic and geographic position.
Objective – A concise, time-specific statement of measurable and planned results that respond to pre-established desired condition. An objective forms the basis for further planning by defining both the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified desired conditions. Objectives are action oriented and specifically describe measurable results.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-27 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Obliteration – The returning of the land occupied by a road or trail to vegetative cover.
Occupancy Trespass – The illegal occupancy or possession of National Forest land.
Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross- country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland or other natural terrain.
Old Forest – An age class older than the mature age class.
Old Growth – Ecosystems where natural biological processes predominate and are characterized by older, larger trees; native species and minimal human disturbance. Old growth structural diversity includes multi-layered canopies, canopy gaps, tip-up mounds, and an accumulation of dead woody material. Old growth tracts vary from small isolated forested areas to larger landscape complexes that may include ecologically important non-forested openings, younger patches produced by natural disturbances, wetland and water bodies.
Open to Public Travel – A road open to the general public for use with a standard passenger automobile. Such roads may be closed during scheduled periods, extreme weather conditions, or emergencies. They do not have restrictive gates, signs labeled “prohibited,” regulations except those needed for general traffic control, or restrictions based on size, weight, or class of vehicle registration.
Opportunity Costs – The value of benefits foregone or given up due to the effect of choosing another management alternative that either impacts existing outputs or shifts resources away from other activities so that they are no longer produced and their benefits are lost.
Organic Matter – Plant and animal residues, or substances made by living organisms. All are based upon carbon.
Organization Camp – This designation includes camps of a public or semipublic nature that are developed by the special use authorization holder, by the federal government, or jointly by both. Normally, only nonprofit organizations or governmental agencies qualify for special use authorizations in this category. (Forest Service Manual 2721.13)
Outcomes – The impact on a resource or landscape of program activities, for example water quality changes and improved habitat condition.
Output Coefficient – Value, which relates an acre of land to a particular quantity of output in a specific period of time.
Outputs –The goods, end products, or services that are purchased, consumed, or used directly by people.
Outwash (glacial) – Stratified sand and gravel, sorted, and deposited by water that originated mainly from melting of glacial ice; may occur as valley fill (valley trains or outwash
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-28 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
terraces) or as widespread level outwash plains.
Overstory – Relative to even-aged stands, the mature trees that overtop younger trees.
Partial Cut/Harvest – A harvesting system that leaves at least 30 ft2 basal area and up to 80 ft2 basal area. This harvest method facilitates reaching a desired stand conditions in terms of structure and age while at the same time producing timber volume. Partial cuts with a smaller retention are like shelterwood systems, while partial cuts with more retention are considered multiple-aged management. Partial cuts can be used with all forest types.
Patch Size – A group of forest stands of similar aged forests that may be made up of different forest cover types.
Perennial Stream – A stream that maintains water in its channel throughout the year.
Permit – A special-use authorization that provides permission, without conveying an interest in land, to occupy and use National Forest System lands or facilities for specific purposes, and which is both revocable and terminable.
Pests – Insects, diseases, or animals that interfere with objectives for management of forests.
Physiographic Province – Region of similar structure and climate that has had a unified landform history.
Pine Barren – A fire dependant vegetative community characterized by widely spaced, open-grown jack pine and, to a lesser extent, red pine in the overstory. The understory is characteristically dominated by various assemblages of fire tolerant, shade intolerant, grasses, sedges, shrubs, and forbs. The community is generally located on droughty, infertile, sandy soils of outwash plains and sandy lake plains. The specific vegetative composition of the community is dependant on its physiographic and geographic position.
Pioneer – By extension, any new arrival in the early stages of succession, generally with particular reference to certain species whose presence appears to promote the establishment of more exacting species.
Planned Ignition – A fire started by a deliberate management action.
Planning Area – The area of the National Forest System controlled by a decision document.
Planning Criteria – Criteria prepared to guide the Planning process and management direction.
Planning Horizon – The 50-year time frame for which goods, services, and effects were projected in the development of the Forest Plan.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-29 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Planning Period – Decade 1 (2005-2015). The time interval within the planning horizon that is used to show incremental changes in yields, costs, effects, and benefits.
Plant Communities – An assemblage of plants that, in general, occur together on similar site conditions.
Plantation – A forest crop or stand raised artificially, by either seeding or planting of young trees.
Play (geology) – The extent of a petroleum-bearing formation.
Pole – A tree of a size between a sapling and a mature tree.
Pole Timber – As used in timber surveys, a size class definition for trees 5.0 to 8.9 inches at DBH. As used in logging operations, trees from which pole products are produced, such as telephone poles and pilings.
Porosity – The volume of pores in a soil sample (non-solid volume) divided by the bulk volume of the sample.
Post Market – The market of trees to be used as fence posts. They normally are 4 to 10 inches in diameter and 6 to 10 feet long.
Prairie – A grass dominated vegetative community characterized by rich fertile soils and very few to no trees. The suite of associated grasses, shrubs, and forbs are somewhat predictable and diagnostic of the community.
Precision – Degree of accuracy; generally refers to the number of significant digits of information to the right of the decimal point. Statistical, the degree of variation about the mean.
Pre-Euro-American – The time period before European settlement, approximately mid- to late-1800s (previously referred to as pre-settlement).
Preferred Alternative – The alternative favored for implementation by the Forest Service based on relative merits including physical, biological, social, and economic considerations and the agency's statutory missions.
Preparatory Cut – See “Shelterwood Cutting.”
Prescribed Fire/Prescribed Burning/Management Ignited Fire – The intentional use of fire to accomplish specific resource objectives under prescribed conditions and circumstances. Prescribed fire is used to accomplish specific resource objectives such as preparing sites for natural regeneration of trees, reducing fuels, or controlling unwanted vegetation.
Prescription (Fire or Silvicultural) – A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand structure to one that meets management goals.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-30 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Present Net Value – The difference between the discounted benefits of all outputs to which monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs.
Preservation – See “Visual Quality Objective.”
Pre-settlement – See pre-Euro-American.
Primary Constituent Elements – Physical or biological habitat features needed for life and successful reproduction of the species. These features are known as primary constituent elements and include, but are not limited to:
• space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; • food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; • cover or shelter; • sites for breeding and rearing of offspring; and • habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
Areas containing these elements of the habitat are identified in the landscape. By law, the Forest Service is required to identify sufficient areas containing these characteristics to ensure conservation of a listed species.
Primitive – See “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.”
Primitive Road – See “Road Types.”
Primitive Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class – Part of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Area is characterized by an essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.
Project – An organized effort to achieve an objective identified by location, activities, outputs, effects, and time period and responsibilities for execution.
Protection Zones – An area protected from activities that would be detrimental to a species or its habitat.
Protective Element (Fire) – The support element, such as fire suppression, that provides protection to the Forests' resources and uses.
Psychological Fencing – Fencing used in concert with predator exclosures to prevent people from approaching piping plover exclosures out of curiosity. Fencing is usually bailing twine with piping plover closed area signs.
Public Issue – A subject or question of widespread public discussion or interest
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-31 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary regarding management of National Forest System lands and identified through public participation.
Puddling – A severe alteration of soil structure that greatly reduces gas exchange and infiltration of water into the soil. Associated with fine-textured soils with high water content. Puddling may or may not result in an increase in soil density and with rutting, compaction often occurs. Puddling may occur at the bottom of a rut. Detrimental puddling results from an alteration of soil structure severe enough to reduce the permeability and infiltration of the soil and is caused by depressions in the soil surface caused by an animal, foot, or mechanical traffic.
Pulpwood – Trees that yield logs of suitable size and quality for production of pulp.
Range of Natural Variability – The variation of physical and biological conditions within an area due to natural processes with all of the elements present and functioning.
Rangeland – Land on which the natural plant cover is composed principally of native grasses, forbs, or shrubs valuable for forage
Rare Natural Resources – These are plants, animals, and natural communities that are defined as threatened, endangered, sensitive, special concern, or very uncommon.
Reclamation – Returning disturbed lands to a form and productivity level that will be ecologically balanced and in conformity with the predetermined Land and Resource Management Plan.
Record of Decision – The official documentation of the decision on an action evaluated in an environmental impact statement.
Recovery (of federally listed species) – Improvement in the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in the Endangered Species act.
Recreation Experience Levels –
• Primitive – At this level, recreational opportunities attempt to satisfy basic needs by requiring a high degree of basic outdoor skills. It provides opportunities for extreme isolation and a feeling of being a part of both nature and a wilderness heritage. Primitive areas occur in the natural environment, although some areas may be modified for resource protection. There is no motorized access at this level. No facilities are provided except those needed for resource protection. Native materials are utilized where possible. There is natural weathering of surfaces.
• Level 1 – At this level, recreational opportunities attempt to satisfy basic needs to a near-maximum extent. Feeling of physical achievement at reaching opportunities without mechanized access is important to the user. There is a feeling of being nearly primitive and closely associated with nature. It occurs in an essentially
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-32 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
unmodified natural environment. Modifications for comfort and convenience are minimal. Spacing is informal and dispersed to minimize contacts with other individuals or groups. There is no motorized access at this level. There are only essential facilities for resource protection with on-site materials used whenever possible. Facilities appear inconspicuous, substantial, and harmonious.
• Level 2 – At this level, recreational opportunities attempt to satisfy basic needs to an extent tempered by motorized access. Opportunities to socialize with others are important although less so than at more developed experience levels. It occurs in a slightly modified environment. Rustic or rudimentary facilities for comfort and convenience of users are provided. Improvements are mostly for the protection of the resources. Motorized access is provided or permitted. Primary access is provided over primitive roads or trails or by experienced boat or aircraft users. Facilities are more for resource protection than for the comfort of users. Architecture is functional and historic in nature. Color schemes blend into local environment with little contrast.
• Level 3 (Intermediate) – At this level, recreational opportunities require moderate outdoor skills. Opportunities to socialize with others are equally as important as isolation while providing a feeling of being close to nature. Natural environment dominates but there are some modifications for comfort and convenience of users. Facilities are about equal for protection of resources and comfort/safety of users. There are hard surface roads and trails built mostly with native materials at this level. Primary access is over well-traveled roads or by capable boat or aircraft operators. Visitor information services (VIS) are informal. Facilities harmonize with the environment in form and color and are constructed primarily of wood and masonry.
• Level 4 – At this level, recreational opportunities require only a moderate degree of basic activity skills. Regimentation and fairly obvious controls are important. User is aware of the opportunity to meet and be with other people - this level is obviously not isolated. Some opportunity to use contemporary skills such as snow and water skiing are important. The environment is substantially modified. Facilities are primarily for comfort and convenience of users but luxury facilities may be provided. Traffic controls are present. Visitor information services are frequently available. Facilities generally harmonize with surrounding environment but may contain focal points or trim of contrasting color, texture, or form.
• Level 5 (Modern) – At this level, recreational opportunities require few basic outdoor skills. There is abundant opportunity to develop and use contemporary outdoor skills such as snow and water skiing. A feeling of being “next to nature” rather than closely associated with it exists. There is a high degree of environmental modification in these areas. Many facilities provide for comfort and convenience of users - modern sanitation and electrical systems and hookups, showers, and laundry facilities, equipment rental, and sales and services. Overstory, ground vegetation, and landforms are graded or modified as necessary. Plant materials may be exotic
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-33 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
or native. Privacy often is provided by walls, structures, and screening. There is obvious control of users for security and resource protection. This level has a somewhat urbanized environment surrounded by and interspersed with a natural environment. Formal visitor information services usually are available.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – A system of classifying the range of recreational experiences, opportunities, and settings available on a given area of land. Classifications include: • Primitive – Characterized by essentially unmodified environment where trails may be present but structures are rare. Probability of isolation from the sights and sounds of humans is extremely high.
• Semiprimitive Nonmotorized – Characterized by few and/or subtle human modifications and with a large probability of isolation from the sights and sounds of others.
• Semiprimitive Motorized – Characterized by moderately dominant human alterations with strong evidence of permanent roads and/or trails.
• Roaded Natural – Characterized by a predominately-natural environment with evidence of moderately permanent alternate resources and resource utilization. Evidence of the sights and sounds of humans is moderate but in harmony with the natural environment. Opportunities exist for both social interaction and moderate isolation from sights and sounds of others.
• Rural – Characterized by an area on which the sights and sounds of humans are frequent and the landscape has been considerably altered by humans.
• Urban – Characterized by a natural setting that is dominated by structures built by humans; the sights and sounds of humans predominate.
Recreation Residence Site – House or cabin permitted on National Forest System lands for the recreational use of the owner but not as a primary residence.
Recreation Visitor Day – Recreational use of National Forest System land totals 12 hours. It may consist of one person for 12 hours, two people for 6 hours, or any combination that totals 12 hours.
Recreational River – Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Usage - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.
Reforestation – The natural or artificial restocking of an area with forest trees.
Reforestation Backlog – Areas that need to have trees reestablished. This can be done by planting, seeding, or preparing the site for natural regeneration.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-34 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Regeneration – (1) The actual seedlings and saplings existing in a stand. (2) The act of establishing young trees naturally or artificially.
Regeneration Cut – Removal of trees with the intention of establishing a new crop of seedlings.
Regulated – Forestland managed for timber production under sustained-yield principles.
Removal Cut – See “Shelterwood Cutting.”
Research Natural Area – Land areas classified by order of the Chief of the Forest Service containing natural plant communities that have not been modified by humans and are protected and studied to obtain more information about the ecosystem.
Resilient, Resiliency – The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. Resiliency is one of the properties that enable the system to persist in many different states of successional stages. In human communities, refers to the ability of a community to respond to externally induced changes such as larger economic or social forces.
Resource Management Prescription – Written direction on the resource management practices selected and scheduled for application on a specific area to attain goals and objectives.
Responsible Line Official – The Forest Service employee who has the authority to select and/or carry out a specific planning action.
Restoration (of ecosystems) – Actions taken to alter an ecosystem to achieve a healthy and functioning condition.
Revegetation – The reestablishment of a plant cover. This may take place naturally through the reproductive process of existing flora or artificially through the direct action of humans.
Right of Eminent Domain – The taking of property for necessary public use, with reasonable compensation being made to the property owner. See “Condemnation.”
Right-of-way – Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, maintenance, and termination of a project or facility passing over, upon, under, or through such land.
Riparian Areas – Riparian areas include aquatic ecosystems, riparian ecosystems, and wetlands. They are three-dimensional: Longitudinal (extending up and down streams and along the shores); lateral (to the estimated boundary of land with direct land-water interactions); and vertical (from below the water table to above the canopy.
Riparian Corridor - The riparian corridor includes the riparian area along all perennial and intermittent streams with defined, recognizable channels. It also includes areas around
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-35 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
ponds, lakeshores, wetlands, springs, and seeps (Environmental Impact Statement, Figure III-3). Where necessary, the riparian corridor also includes any adjacent terrestrial areas needed to protect or restore riparian function.
Riparian Ecosystems – Areas that are adjacent to aquatic ecosystems and extend away from the bank or shore to include lands with direct land-water interactions. Interactions may affect abiotic and biotic structure, function, and composition. As a minimum, this will include all lands that are adjacent to surface water and which have hydric soils or distinctive vegetative communities that require free or unbound water.
Riparian Management Zone – A site-specific area with boundaries established to define limits of management activities, and associated standards and guidelines, within riparian areas. Size and placement of riparian management zones will be determined by management objectives for riparian areas and may not include all of the riparian area.
Riprap – Material such as rocks and concrete that are placed along a watercourse to stabilize the banks.
Road – A motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated or managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary.
Road Classification (functional) – Forest system roads are defined on the National Forests by three functional classifications to describe their function within the transportation system: Arterial: Provides service to large land areas, and connects with other arterial routes or public highways. These are usually through-routes. Collector: Serves smaller land areas than arterials, and connects arterials to local roads or terminal facilities. Local: Serves as a single purpose road, and connects terminal facilities with collectors or arterials.
Road Decommissioning – Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state.
Road Density – The measure of the degree to which road miles occupy a given land area (for example, 1 mile per square mile is 1 mile of road within a given square mile).
Road Maintenance Level – A formally established criterion that prescribes the intensity of maintenance necessary for the planning operation of a road. The five levels are:
• Maintenance Level 1 – This level is used for intermittent service roads during the period of time that management direction requires the road to be closed or blocked to traffic. Basic custodial maintenance is performed as required to protect the road investment and to see that damage to adjacent lands and resources is minimal. Drainage facilities and runoff patterns are maintained. While being maintained at Level 1, roads will be closed or blocked to traffic.
• Maintenance Level 2 – This level is used on roads where management direction requires that the road be open for a limited amount of traffic. Traffic normally is
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-36 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
minor, usually consisting of one use or a combination of uses: administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Level 2 roads are normally characterized as single lane, primitive-type facilities intended for use by high clearance vehicles; passenger car traffic is not a consideration.
• Maintenance Level 3 – This level is used on roads where management direction requires the road to be open and maintained for safe travel by passenger cars. Traffic volumes are minor to moderate. Level 3 roads normally are characterized as low speed, single lanes with turnouts and spot surfacing. This level normally is used for local or minor collector roads.
• Maintenance Level 4 – This level is used on roads where management requires the road to provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Some Level 4 roads may be single lane and some may be paved and/or dust abated. This level normally is used for collector or minor arterial roads.
• Maintenance Level 5 – This level is used where management direction requires the road to provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Level 5 roads normally are characterized as double lane, paved facilities. Some Level 5 roads may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. This level normally is used for arterial roads.
Road Obliteration – A road decommissioning technique used to eliminate the functional characteristics of a travelway and re-establish the natural resource production capability. The intent is to make the corridor unusable as a road or a trail and stabilize it against soil loss, which can involve re-contouring and restoring natural slopes.
Road Types and Terminology –
• Aggregate – Same as “Graded and Drained” but with a surface of gravel instead of native soil.
• Arterial – Provides service to large land areas and usually is a public highway connecting with other Forests' arterial roads to form an integrated network of primary travel routes. Its location and standard is often 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.
• Collector – Usually a county public road and serves smaller land areas than an arterial road, and is usually connected to a public highway. Collects traffic from Forest local roads and/or terminal facilities. Its location and standard is influenced by both long-term, multi-resource service needs and travel efficiency. May be operated by either constant or intermediate service, depending on land use and resource management objectives for the area served by the facility.
• Constant (Constant Entry Road) – A road developed and operated for continual
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-37 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
or annual recurrent service.
• Corridor – A linear strip of land identified for present or future location of transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries.
• Forest Development – A road that has been included in the Forests' development transportation plan.
• Forest Highway – A forest road under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public travel. (Title 23 USC 101, as amended by the Surface Transportation Act of 1978.)
• Graded and Drained – A road constructed with the surface graded and crowned, sometimes with ditches. The road surface is native soil. The width is 14 feet or more.
• Improved – A road developed by construction or reconstruction and perpetuated by maintenance as contrasted with an “unimproved travelway” developed and perpetuated by use.
• Intermittent – A road developed and operated for periodic service and closed for more than 1 year between periods of use.
• Local – Connects terminal facilities with collector or arterial roads. Its location and standard usually are controlled by a specific resource activity rather than travel efficiency. A forest local road may be developed and operated for either long-term or short-term service.
• Primitive – A low standard road created and perpetuated by use, not constructed. The road surface is native soil partially grass covered. The width is less than 10 feet. Commonly called “two-track.”
• Short-Term or Temporary Facility – A facility developed and operated for a limited period of time, which will cease to exist as a transportation facility after the purpose for which it was constructed, is completed and the occupied land is reclaimed and managed for natural resource purposes.
• Specified Road – A road specified in a timber sale contract for construction or reconstruction to access timber for harvesting activities.
Roaded Natural Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class – Part of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Area is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interactions between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-38 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and design of facilities.
Roadless Area – An area inventoried in a National Forest that meets specific criteria. Some of the criteria include (1) is approximately 2500 acres, or if smaller, is contiguous to a designated wilderness or primitive area, or lies east of the 100th Meridian, and therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Eastern Wilderness Act; and (2) can include up to ½ miles of improved Forest Service road per 1000 acres; and (3) has been inventoried for further study as a possible inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System.
Roadless Area Review and Evaluation – A Forest Service analysis of potential wilderness areas.
Rodenticide – An agent that kills, repels or controls rodents.
Roost Tree – A tree used by animals for perching, resting, or raising their young. Bats are one of the more consistent users of roost trees. Depending on the species, they will use exfoliating bark, cavities, cracks, or leaves for roost sites.
Rotation – The number of years required to establish and grow timber crops, to a specified condition of maturity.
Roundwood – Trees that are used without being milled, such as fence posts, telephone poles, and pulpwood.
Route – Used to specify a travelway for uses such as off-highway vehicle, horse, snowmobile, or bike. "Trail" is used when there is a specifically constructed travelway for assigned use/uses. "Route" is used when the travelway uses existing means such as Forest System roads.
Rural Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Class – Part of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. An area that is characterized by a natural environment, which has been substantially modified by development of structures, vegetative manipulation, or pastoral agricultural development. Resource modification and utilization practices may be used to enhance specific recreation activities and maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate user densities are present away from developed sites. Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available.
Rutting – Severe rutting is an extreme form of detrimental puddling. Often associated with clay and organic soils. The ruts are molded and typically have well defined berms. They severely disrupt soil structure and porosity, can adversely alter local groundwater hydrology and wetland function and provide conduits for runoff.
Salvage – The removal of dead trees or trees being damaged or dying due to injurious
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-39 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
agents other than competition, to recover value that would otherwise be lost.
Sapling – A young tree more than a few feet tall and between 1.0 to 4.9 inches diameter at breast height that is typically growing vigorously. A young tree larger than a seedling, but smaller than a pole.
Savannah – Grassland regions with scattered trees, grading into either open plains or woodlands.
Sawtimber – As used in timber surveys, a size class definition for trees more than 9 inches at DBH for conifers and 11 inches at DBH for hardwoods.
Scale – 1. The degree of resolution at which ecosystems are observed and measured. 2. The relation between the size of an object on a map and its size in the real world. A large scale represents drawing closer to real world, while a small scale represents a larger unit of measure allowing viewing of more surface/area. Geographic extent; for example, region, sub-regional, or landscape.
Scale, Spatial – The size of area at which different ecological processes occur; for example, photosynthesis occurs at a cellular scale, measured in microns, while tornadoes occur at a landscape scale, measured in tens to thousands of square miles.
Scarification – The loosening of the topsoil in open areas to prepare for regeneration by direct seeding or natural seed fall.
Scenery – General appearance of a place or landscape, and a natural resource of the Forests and composed of existing natural features including vegetation, water, landforms, and geology.
Scenery Management System – Tool incorporated into Forest Plans to determine the relative value and importance of scenery on National Forest System lands. The process involves classifying landscapes, and setting goals and objectives for maintaining, enhancing, restoring, and monitoring scenic integrity.
Scenic Byway – National Scenic Byway usage - the roads or section of roads, which traverses an area, which may have outstanding aesthetic, cultural, historic, or interpretive forest values.
Scenic Class – Scenic classes are the measure of the value of scenery in a National Forest. Scenic classes are determined and mapped by combining scenic attractiveness classes with distance zones and concern levels of landscape visibility. Scenic classes are a product of the inventory process that is used for analysis and planning purposes. Generally, scenic classes 1 and 2 have high public value, classes 3 through 5 have moderate value, and classes 6 and 7 have low value.
Scenic Easement – Relative to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 93-621) of 1975
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-40 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
and by definition of the Act: the right to control the use of land (including the air space above such land) within the authorized boundaries of the component of the Wild and Scenic River System for the purpose of protecting the natural qualities of a designated wild, scenic, or recreational river area. Such controls shall not affect any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement without the owner's consent.
Scenic Integrity – The state of naturalness, or conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. It is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is usually perceived to be “complete.” The degrees of deviation are used to describe the existing scenic integrity, proposed scenic integrity levels, and scenic integrity objectives.
Scenic Integrity Objectives – Scenic Integrity Objectives guide the amount, degree, intensity, and distribution of management activities needed to achieve desired scenic conditions. They are:
• Very High (unaltered) scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “is” intact with only minute, if any, deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest possible level.
• High (Appears Unaltered) scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such a scale that they are not evident.
• Moderate (Slightly Altered) scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.
• Low (Moderately Altered) scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears moderately altered.” Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed, but compatible or complimentary to the character within.
• Very Low (Heavily Altered) scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain (landforms) so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition.
Scenic River – Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Usage – The rivers or sections of rivers that
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-41 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
are free of impoundments, where shorelines or watersheds are still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible by road at places.
Section – Term used to describe an ecological unit. Sections are defined by glacial deposits, topography, distribution of plants and regional climate.
Sediment – Solid materials, both mineral and organic, that are in suspension, are being transported, or have been moved from their site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice and have come to rest on the earth's surface.
Sediment Yield – Amount of solid waste washed into a watercourse.
Seed Cut – See “Shelterwood Cutting.”
Seed-Tree Cutting Method – A cutting method in which all trees are removed in one cut except for a small number of seed-bearing trees left singly or in small groups. This practice eventually results in an even-aged stand.
Seed Tree Harvest –A cutting method in which the mature timber crop is removed from an area in one cut, except for a certain number of widely dispersed seed-bearing trees.
Seedbed – In natural regeneration, the soil or forest floor in which seed falls. In nursery practices, the prepared area which is seeded.
Seedling – As used in timber surveys, a size class definition for trees less than 1-inch diameter at 4.5 feet.
Seen Area (Leaf Off) – Area along a travelway that is visible during the time when trees are bare.
Selection Harvest Cut – A system, which removes trees individually in a scattered pattern from a large area each year. (1) Individual-tree selection cutting involves the removal of selected trees of all size classes on an individual basis. Regeneration is established under the partial shade of the overstory canopy after each cut. (2) Group selection cutting involves the removal of selected trees of all size classes and groups of a fraction of an acre up to 2 to 3 acres in size. Regeneration occurs in the groups under conditions similar to those found in small clearcuts.
Semiprimitive Motorized – See “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.”
Semiprimitive Motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class – Part of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural- 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 would be subtle. Use of local, primitive, or collector roads with predominantly natural surfaces and trails suitable for motorbikes is permitted.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-42 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Semiprimitive Nonmotorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class – Part of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural- appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between 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 would be subtle. Motorized recreation use is not permitted, but local roads used for other resource management may be present on a limited basis. Use of such roads is restricted to minimize impacts on recreational experience opportunities.
Sensitive Areas – Areas with high erosion hazards, areas that may be susceptible to compaction, or areas with nonstable slopes.
Sensitive Species – Species designated by the Regional Forester and included on the Eastern Region Sensitive Species list (R-9 Draft Supplement, FSM 2670.3). The list includes species identified by the criteria below that are known, reported, or suspected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the planned area in the Eastern Region. The criteria are:
• Species in an officially proposed status by the Federal Register - Proposed Rule Making.
• Species on a Notice of Review List in the Federal Register (such as 47 CFR 58454- 58460, December 30, 1982).
• Species placed on Region 9's Sensitive Plant or Animal List at the discretion of the Regional Forester if he/she deems they require special management attention. Examples of situations that may cause such listings include:
• Species common elsewhere, but a disjunct population of unique, popular, or scientific interest occurs on National Forest System land.
• Locally endemic population in unique habitats that warrant continued monitoring or special management to assure jeopardy is not occurring and will not occur in the future.
Sensitivity Level – As used in Cultural Resource Management, the degree of cultural resource development potential and/or the degree of conflict with other uses for a given area. As used in Visual Quality Management, a particular degree or measure of viewer interest in the scenic qualities of the landscape. The degrees are: 1-most sensitive, 2-sensitive, and 3-less sensitive.
Seral Stage – The stage of succession of a plant or animal community that is transitional. If left alone, the seral stage will give way to another plant or animal community that represents a further stage of succession (climax).
Serotinous – Pertaining to fruit or cones that remain on a tree without opening for one or more years. For example, jack pine cones open and seeds are shed when heat is provided by fires or hot and dry conditions.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-43 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Severance Deed (minerals) – A deed in which mineral interests are retained upon sale of the land through language in the deed of conveyance reserving specified mineral rights to the seller. Ownership of severed minerals has often become very obscure and fractionalized. See “Severed Mineral Rights.”
Severed Mineral Rights – A severance is a separation of the ownership of the minerals from the ownership of the surface of the land.
Severely Burned Conditions (also known as detrimentally burned soil) – Entire forest floor is consumed or reduced to charred material. In addition, fine roots and organic matter are charred in the upper one-half inch of mineral soil. Vaporized substances may condense and form a water repellent layer.
Shade-Tolerant – A tree or other plant species having the capacity to grow without receiving direct sunlight.
Shearing – Using a bladed tractor to clear all vegetation from the land in preparation for planting.
Sheet Erosion – Removal of a fairly uniform layer of soil from the land surface by runoff water without the development of conspicuous water channels.
Shelterwood Cutting – A cutting method used in even-aged management. It is the removal of a stand of trees through a series of cuttings designed to establish a new crop with seed and shade provided by the retained portion of the stand.
Shelterwood Harvest – Method of regenerating an even-aged stand in which trees are removed to establish a new age class beneath the shelter of residual trees.
Short-lived Conifers Vegetative Type – Includes jack pine, scotch pine, conifers, and balsam fir-aspen-paper birch.
Short-Term Road – See “Road Types.”
Silvicultural Prescriptions or Treatment or Practices – Activities prescribed for tending, harvesting, and re-establishing a stand of trees.
Silvicultural System – A process following accepted silvicultural principles whereby forests are tended, harvested, and replaced resulting in a forest of distinctive form.
Silviculture – The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and values of society on a sustainable basis.
Site – An area of suitable habitat or restorable habitat that is separated from other suitable habitat; separation distance will vary depending on the nature of the intervening habitat and the
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-44 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
dispersal capabilities of the species through that habitat type.
Site Index (Forestry) – A numerical expression commonly accepted as an indicator of the quality or timber productivity of a site; an expression of the height-age relationship of the tallest trees (dominants and codominants) in normal stands at some designated age, such as 50 years.
Site Preparation – The general term for removing unwanted vegetation, slash, roots, and stones from a site before reforestation. Naturally occurring wildfire, as well as prescribed fire, can prepare a site for natural regeneration.
Size Class – One of the three intervals of tree stem diameters used to classify timber in the Forest Plan database. The size classes are: Seedling/sapling (less than five inches in diameter); pole timber (five to seven inches in diameter); sawtimber (greater than seven inches in diameter).
Skid Trail – Travelway used to drag or transport cut trees or logs from the stump to the road for collection.
Skidding – Hauling logs by sliding from stump to a collection point.
Slash – The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or after a storm, fire, or other event. Slash includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, bark, etc.
Snag – A standing dead tree used by birds for nesting, roosting, perching, courting, and/or foraging for food. Many mammals use snags for denning and foraging for food.
Snowmobile – Any self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice and steered by skis or runners.
Social Analysis – An analysis of the social (as distinct from the economic and environmental) effects of a given plan or proposal for action. Social analysis includes identification and evaluation of all pertinent desirable and undesirable consequences to all segments of society, stated in some comparable quantitative terms, such as persons or percent of population in each affected social segment. It also includes a subjective analysis of social factors not expressible in quantitative terms.
Softwood – A coniferous tree. Trees belonging to the botanical group gymnospermae.
Soil Compaction – A physical change in soil properties that results in a decrease in porosity and an increase in soil-bulk density and strength. Detrimental compaction is the condition with increased soil density and strength that hampers root growth, reduces aeration, and inhibits soil water movement.
Soil Hydrology – Movement of water into and through the soil.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-45 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Soil Nutrient Drain (or Loss) – A process in which more nutrients are removed from an area than are replaced by natural nutrient inputs. The nutrient removal can be natural or human- caused.
Soil Productivity – Soil potential to produce biomass that depends on the interaction of physical, chemical, and climatic characteristics of the site.
Soil Profile – A progression of distinct layers of soil, beginning at the surface, that have been altered by normal soil-forming processes such as leaching, oxidation, or accretion
Soil Quality – The inherent capacity of a specific soil, as determined by its inherent physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, to perform its biologic, hydrologic, and ecological functions (Forest Service Handbook 2509.18, 2002).
Spatial Feasibility – The capacity of a management activity to be practically implemented on the ground.
Special Interest Area – Areas not meeting the criteria for Research Natural Area designation may become Special Interest Areas under USDA Regulations, Title 36, Section 194.1, National Natural Landmarks (U.S. Department of Interior program).
Special Land Use – The occupation or reservation of land or water for a particular use or uses and excluding other land uses.
Special Management Area – Designated area where unique characteristics exist (for example, experimental forests, Research Natural Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers).
Special-use Permit – See “Permit.”
Species Viability – A viable species consists of self-sustaining and interacting populations that are well distributed through the species’ range. Self-sustaining populations are those that are sufficiently abundant and have sufficient diversity to display the array of life history strategies and forms to provide for their long-term persistence and adaptability over time. The implementing regulations for the 1982 National Forest Management Act provides specific direction concerning viability: Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals, and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with other in the planning area (36 CFR 219.19).
Specified Road – See “Road Types.”
Spectrum – A computer-based analytical tool for building natural resource management
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-46 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
models. Spectrum is a software package that simultaneously analyzes the trade-off between the many goals, constraints, management activities, timing options, and landtypes, which are necessary to manage a large forest.
Spring Staging Period – Period of time when bats stage near their hibernaculum in the spring before moving to their summer habitat, generally considered to be from May 1 to June 15 on the Huron-Manistee National Forests.
Staminate – In plant reproduction terminology, staminate literally means, “bearing stamens.” Staminate plant parts, or stamens are "male": i.e., they produce pollen.
Stand (of trees) – A community of trees or other vegetation sufficiently uniform in composition, constitution, age, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities and so form a silvicultural or management entity.
Stand Replacement Disturbance – A disturbance that kills or removes trees and creates a new age class of trees, usually fire, wind, insects, or harvesting.
Standards – Requirements found in a forest plan, which impose limits on natural resource management activities, generally for environmental protection. Standards are required limits to activities. These limitations allow the Forest to reach the desired conditions and objectives. Standards also ensure compliance with laws, regulations, executive orders, and policy direction. Deviations from standards must be analyzed and documented in Forest Plan amendments.
Stemwood – The wood of the stem(s) of a tree, i.e., of its main axis (or axes) as distinct from the branches (branchwood), stump (stumpwood), or roots (rootwood).
Stochastic – Referring to patterns of random effects. Containing elements of probability.
Stocking Level – The number of trees in an area as compared to the desirable number of trees for best results, such as maximum wood production.
Stratigraphic Record (geology) – Is the geological result of layered sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Other rocks can be layered (foliated metamorphic rocks and mineralogically layered igneous rocks) but these, once recognized, are excluded because the layers do not record the passage of time in an obvious way.
Stream Geomorphology – The study of water and earth forces that form stream channels, drainage patterns, floodplains, and explain erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments moved by water.
Stream Riffle – A shallow area extending across a streambed and causing a “break” in the water surface, usually in the form of a succession of small waves.
Stream Stability – The tendency of streams to persist relatively unchanged through time.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-47 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Stable streams have a pattern and profile such that, over time, channel features are maintained and the stream system neither aggrades nor degrades.
Streamside Management Zone (Environmental Impact Statement, Figure III-4)- Often referred to as filter or buffer strips, the streamside management zones in the state Best Management Practices are areas directly adjacent to streams and water. Provisions within the streamside management zones typically contain sediment filter strips, a base shade level, restriction on ground disturbance and protection of stream banks and streambeds.
Structural Diversity – Variation of vegetation at the landscape or site level. At the landscape scale, this might include non-forest and forest areas. At the site level, this refers to the different vegetation heights and characteristics.
Structural Range Improvement – Any type of fabricated range improvement, such as fences and corrals.
Structure – How the parts of ecosystems are arranged, both horizontally and vertically. Structure might reveal a pattern, or mosaic, or total randomness of vegetation.
Stumpage Price – The value of standing timber.
Subpopulation – A self-reproducing population of a species that is associated with a site or patch.
Subsection – Term used to describe an ecological unit. Subsections are defined by glacial forming processes, bedrock formations, local climate, topography, soil groups, and the distribution of plants.
Subsoil – The layer below the soil surface in which roots normally grow.
Subsurface Rights (Mineral Rights) – Ownership of, or right to use, the resources and improvements under the surface of the land which includes the right to use as much of the surface as is necessary to exercise the subsurface rights.
Subsurface Values (Subsurface Resources) – Resources and improvements under the surface of the land only. As used in this document, the term means minerals.
Succession – An orderly process of biotic community development that involves changes in species, structure, and community processes with time; it is reasonably directional and, therefore, predictable.
Successional Stage – A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare ground to climax. In the plan revision process, these are generally referred to as early, mid, and late successional stages as follows:
• Early Successional Species – Typically colonize sites immediately following
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-48 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
catastrophic disturbances.
• Mid-Successional Species – Tolerant of conditions that exit as community moves toward late succession.
• Late-Successional Species – Adapted to environmental conditions that exist at steady state equilibrium with respect to natural disturbance regimes.
Suitable Forest Land – Land to be managed for timber production on a regulated basis.
Suitable Habitat – Habitat that is sufficient to support a reproducing subpopulation of a species.
Suitable Range – Range, which is accessible to livestock or wildlife and can be grazed on a sustained-yield basis without damage to other resources.
Suitable Timber Lands – Lands that include timber harvesting as an identified and scheduled management practice.
Summer Maternity Habitat – Habitat used by female bats during the period of May through August for raising their young. Generally includes a number of potential roost trees, water sources, and foraging habitat.
Surface Fire – A fire that burns surface litter, debris, and small vegetation.
Surface Rights – Ownership of the surface of the land only; right to use the surface of the land on a regulated basis.
Survey – An exercise in which a set of qualitative or quantitative observations are made, usually by means of a standardized procedure and within a restricted period of time, but without any preconception of what the findings ought to be.
Sustainable (ecological) – The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, biological diversity, and productivity over time.
Sustainable (human) – Each generation acts in a manner allowing every future generation the option of being as well off as its predecessors.
Sustained Yield – The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the National Forest without impairment of the productivity of the land.
Swamps – Wetlands dominated by woody plants, including trees and shrubs.
System Roads – See National Forest System roads.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-49 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Targets – A National Forest’s annual goals for accomplishment for natural resource programs. Targets represent the commitment the Forest Service has with Congress to accomplish the work Congress has funded. Targets are often used as a measure of the agency’s performance. Targets are not the same as objectives.
Temporary Openings – Areas of grass/forbs and shrubs usually resulting from timber harvest that will be replaced by tree saplings over a period of a few years: in contrast to permanent nonforested openings.
Temporary Roads – Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation that are not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system, and not necessary for long-term resource management. These roads are not included on the National Forest System road inventory and are decommissioned after use.
Tentatively Suitable Forest Land – Forest land that is producing or is capable of producing crops of industrial wood; and a) has not been withdrawn by Congress, the Secretary, or the Chief; b) existing technology and knowledge is available to ensure timber production without irreversible damage to soils productivity, or watershed conditions; c) existing technology and knowledge, as reflected in current research and experience, provides reasonable assurance that it is possible to restock adequately within five years after final harvest; and d) adequate information is available to project responses to timber management activities.
Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory – An inventory of the national hierarchical classification system based on biotic and environmental factors. At the Ecoregion scale, ecological map units are domain— division—province (global or national); at the Subregional scale, map units are sections and subsections (statewide, multi-forest, multi agency); at the Landscape scale, map units are landtype associations (Forest or area-wide); and at the Land unit scale, map units are (ecological) landtypes, and landtype phases (project and management area).
Thermal Cover – Vegetative cover used by animals against weather.
Thinning – Silvicultural treatment where trees are removed to provide improved growing conditions for remaining trees. This method is used in immature stands to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth and/or form, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality.
Threatened Species – Species listed as nationally threatened, or according to the State of Michigan Endangered and Threatened Species list of February 8, 1983, and 50 CFR Part 17, July 27, 1983. Also, official designation by US Fish and Wildlife Service applied to any species, which is likely to become endangered throughout all, or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.
Tiering – Incorporating information contained in an Environmental Impact Statement, such as the Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement, by reference in subsequent environmental documents.
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-50 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
Till (glaciation) – Unstratified glacial drift deposited directly by ice and consisting of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders intermingled in any proportion.
Timber Production – The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated crops of trees for cutting into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use. For purposes of forest planning, timber production does not include fuelwood or harvests from unsuitable lands (Forest Service Manual 1900).
Timber Stand Improvement – Usually related to activities conducted in young stands of timber to improve growth rate and form of the remaining trees. Examples are thinning, pruning, fertilization, and control of undesirable vegetation.
Topsoil – The original or present dark-colored upper soil that ranges from a fraction of an inch to several feet deep.
Total Maximum Daily Load – The maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. Also refers to the process of allocating pollutant loadings among point and non-point sources. Also refers to a written plan and analysis of an impaired water body established to ensure that the water quality standards will be attained and maintained throughout the water body in the event of reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant loads.
Trail – An existing one-track path or way capable of travel by a pedestrian or a motorized vehicle less than 50 inches wide.
Trailhead – The parking, signing, or other facilities available at the beginning of a trail.
Trail Maintenance Priorities –
• Priority 1 – Maintenance activities that would correct an unsafe condition relative to management objectives.
• Priority 2 – Maintenance activities that minimize unacceptable resource and trail damage.
• Priority 3 – Maintenance activities that fully restore the trail to the planned design standard.
Trails - National Forest System Trails – As defined in 36 CFR 212.1 and 261.2, those trails wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving, the National Forests and other areas administered by the Forest Service that have been included in the Forest Transportation Atlas. These trails are part of the National Forest Trail Systems and are included in the corporate level Infrastructure databases.
Transmission Pipeline – A pipeline that carries gas or liquid from a producing field or central collection facility to a storage or consumption facility, usually over long distances.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-51 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Travel Ways – Travel ways represent linear concentrations of public viewing, including but not limited to highways, Operational Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5 roads, trails, and waterways.
Treatment (Vegetation) – Any activities undertaken to modify or maintain the existing condition of the vegetation (Vegetative management).
Treaty Rights – Rights related to hunting, gathering, and fishing retained by Native American tribal members.
Tree Species Suitable for the Site – Tree species that a given site is capable of growing based on natural conditions of soil, microclimate, and topography. For application to management on the Huron-Manistee National Forests, also refers to cover types or tree components that are characteristic of one or more vegetative growth stages of the landscape ecosystem of the site in question.
Tribal Sovereignty – The inherent governmental power from which specific political powers are derived. Indian governmental powers, with some exceptions, are not powers granted by Congress, but are inherent powers of a limited sovereignty that have never been extinguished. Congress has the authority to limit or abolish tribal powers. However, without congressional action, a tribe retains the inherent right to self-government and no state may impose its laws on a reservation.
Tribe – Term used to designate a federally recognized group of American Indians and their governing body. Tribes may comprise more than one band.
Tributary River Segments – Tributary River segments include unclassified rivers and streams. These segments are not navigable by watercraft and hold low potential for recreation development. Land ownership is mixed with seasonal residence and some year round residence. Typically, these segments flow into larger creeks, rivers, or lakes. Generally, these segments are not named.
Unclassified Roads – Roads on National Forest System land that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization.
Unconstrained Maximum – Level of management defined as the highest possible level of a given output along with the costs associated with achieving it.
Understory – All forest vegetation growing beneath the overstory.
Uneven-aged – A term usually used as “uneven-aged stand” or “uneven-aged management,” which identifies a stand containing three or more age classes of trees. A planned sequence of treatments designed to maintain and regenerate a stand with three or more age
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-52 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary classes. Examples are individual tree and group selection harvest.
Unplanned Ignition – A fire started at random by either natural or human causes.
Unregulated (Pre-1980 Terminology) – Forest land that is suitable and available but not organized for timber production under sustained-yield principles; where timber harvest is permissible but is not a goal of management.
Unsuitable Lands or Non-Suitable for Timber Production – National Forest System land that is not managed for timber production, because of policy, ecology, technology, silviculture, or economics.
Upland – Any area that is not a wetland. (See Wetlands)
Urban Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class – Part of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the background may have natural-appearing elements. Renewable resource modification and utilization practices are often used to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetation cover is often exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans are predominant on site. Large numbers of users can be expected, both on site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people throughout the site.
User-Developed Recreation Facilities – Trails, campsites, water access sites, or other facilities that have been developed by users or through use and are not maintained as recreation facilities by the Forest Service or other public/private entity.
Utility Corridor / Rights-of-Way – A tract of land of varying width forming a passageway across the Forest through which various commodities such as oil, gas, and electricity are transported.
Variety Class – A particular level of visual variety or diversity of landscape character, described as:
• Distinctive (Variety Class A) – Refers to unusual and/or outstanding landscape varieties that stand out from the common features in the character type. • Common (Variety Class B) – Refers to prevalent, usual, or widespread landscape variety within a character type. It also refers to ordinary or undistinguished visual variety. • Minimal (Variety Class C) – Refers to little or no visual variety in the landscape. A monotonous or below-average landscape when compared with the common features in the character type.
Vegetation –The plant cover of an area or region.
Vegetative Community – A grouping of forest types from the forest inventory that is
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-53 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
commonly associated in similar environments. This grouping is used to identify Management Areas with common goals, objectives, and direction.
Vegetative Growth Stages – The combination of successional and developmental stages used to describe a stand (e.g., 80 to 100 years old, multiple-age, aspen-fir).
Vegetative Manipulation – The change of one vegetative type to another by tractor, fire, or chemicals. Usually, this is done to increase forage for livestock and can be a beneficial tool for wildlife.
Vegetative Types – See “Aspen/Birch,” “Dense Hardwood,” “Long-lived Conifer,” “Low-site oak,” “High-site Oak,” “Lowland Conifer,” “Lowland Hardwood,” “Nonforest,” “Nonstocked,” “Short-lived Conifer.”
Vertical Diversity – The diversity in an area that results from the complexity of the above-ground structure of the vegetation; the more tiers of vegetation or the more diverse the species make-up, or both, the higher the degree of vertical diversity.
Viable Population – A population that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its range in the Planning area. For Forests' Planning purposes, a Planning area is one or more identified National Forest(s).
Viewshed – Total visible area from a single observer’s position or the total visible area from multiple observer positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, cities, or other view locations. Examples are corridors, feature or basin viewsheds.
Visitor Information Service – A service provided to the public by National Forests in which the public is supplied with information regarding opportunities or activities on National Forest System land; usually, but not always recreational opportunities.
Visual Absorption Capacity – Indicates the relative difficulty or cost of achieving Visual Quality Objectives. It measures the land's capacity to absorb the visual impact of management activities. See “Visual Quality Objective.”
Visual Distance Zones – Areas of landscape denoted by specified distances from the observer. Used as a frame of reference in which to discuss landscape characteristics or activities of man. The three zones are:
• Background – The distant part of a landscape; surroundings, especially those behind something, and providing harmony and contrast; the area located from 3 to 5 miles or more from the viewer. • Foreground – That part of a scene or landscape nearest the viewer and in which detail is evident, usually 1/2 to 1/4 mile from the viewer. • Middle Ground – That part of a scene or landscape, which extends from the
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-54 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary
foreground zone to 3 to 5 miles from the observer. Textures are discernible at that distance.
Visual Management Program – Also referred to as “Landscape Management” or “Visual Quality Management.” The art and science of planning and administering the use of forestlands in such ways that the visual effects maintain or upgrade visitors' psychological welfare. It is the planning and design of the visual aspects of multiple-use land management.
Visual Resource – A part of the landscape important forest scenic quality. It may include a composite of terrain, geologic features, or vegetation.
Volatilization – Transfer of a chemical from liquid to vapor; evaporation.
Warm Water – Aquatic habitat that supports fish species that have their best reproductive success and summer water temperature tolerance between 75o F and 85o F (23o to 29o C) or about 80o F. The various sunfish species and largemouth bass are examples.
Warm-water Fish – Warm-water fish have preferences for summer water temperatures that are greater than approximately 75° F.
Water Permeability – The state of being penetrable, especially having pores or openings that permit liquids or gases to pass through.
Water Quality Index – A numeric integration of eight weighted water quality parameters to yield a comparative index ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 being the best quality.
Water Yield – The total net amount of water produced on the Forests including streamflow and groundwater recharge.
Watershed – The area from which all surface water drains to a common point, commonly thought of as the area that drains water into a given lake or stream.
Watershed Health –The expression of ecological composition, structure, and function at the scale of the watershed. Same as watershed integrity.
Wetlands – Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas and have been identified as palustrine areas by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wheeled Skidder – An internal combustion wheeled vehicle specifically designed to skid logs.
Whole Tree Logging / Removal – Felling and transporting the whole tree with its crown, and sometimes even its roots, for trimming and crosscutting at a landing or mill.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-55 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix L – Glossary
Wild and Scenic River Corridor – See “Wild River” and “Scenic River.”
Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act –Rivers or sections of rivers designated by Congressional actions under the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as wild, scenic or recreational by an act of the legislature of the state or states through which they flow. Rivers may be classified and administered under one or more of the following categories: Wild River: River or section of river that is free of impoundments with watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. Scenic River: River or section of river that is free of impoundments, with watersheds still largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. Recreational River: River or section of river that is readily accessible by road or railroad that may have some development along its shoreline and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.
Wilderness –The National Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 defined a wilderness as an area of undeveloped federal land designated by Congress that has the following characteristics: 1) It is affected primarily by the forces of nature, where people are visitors who do not remain. It may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. 2) It possesses outstanding opportunities for solitude, or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 3) It is an area large enough so that continued use will not change its unspoiled natural condition.
Wilderness Area – A Congressionally designated tract of Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. Management is intended to retain these characteristics.
Wilderness Condition – Describes the environment of a wilderness area that may or may not be designated for wilderness area management.
Wilderness Permit – Authorization in writing by a Forest Officer to enter and be in wilderness.
Wilderness Study Area – One of the areas selected by Congress from an inventory of unroaded and undeveloped National Forest System lands as having apparent high quality for wilderness. The area will be studied to determine whether it should be recommended for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Wild River – Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Usage - Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.
Wildfire – Any fire that requires a suppression response.
Wildland Fire Use – Prescribed natural fire is a fire burning under specified conditions, to accomplish certain planned objectives; the fire may result from either planned or unplanned ignitions. A prescribed natural fire plan is one that permits certain fires to burn in a manner that duplicates natural conditions as much as possible. The policy allows for fire ignited by lightning
Final Environmental Impact Statement L-56 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix L – Glossary to burn under pre-planned, specific conditions and objectives.
Wildland Urban Interface – The line, area or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.
Wildlife and Fish User Day – A 12-hour day of hunting, fishing, trapping or observing wildlife. This may be one person for 12 hours, two people for 6 hours, or any combination that totals 12 hours.
Wildlife Habitat – The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a wildlife species or a population of such species.
Wildlife Structure – A site-specific improvement of a wildlife or fish habitat. For example, spring development or dugout to provide water, brush pile for cover, nest box for birds, or rock and log placement in a stream for fish cover and pool creation.
Windthrow – Trees uprooted by wind.
Winter Road – Roads only used during frozen roadbed conditions and closed in other seasons. They usually are constructed to reduce ground disturbance, often without removal of existing topsoil and utilizing snow and ice as part of the road surface. They are typically Operational Maintenance Level 1 roads when not maintained for winter use, and move up to an Operational Maintenance Level 2 road when used.
Woody Debris – Dead, natural woody material greater than 4 inches diameter and longer than 3.2 feet, usually composed of poles and large branches. Various terms, such as large woody debris, coarse woody debris, and large organic debris, have been used to describe this material.
Yard – A place where logs are accumulated. Also describes the act of moving logs or trees to a landing; for example, by dragging with a cable or wheeled skidder.
Huron-Manistee National Forests L-57 Final Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX M -
INDEX
Appendix M - Index
Appendix M - Index
A
Allelopathy III-174, III-204, III-209
Allowable Sale Quantity I-4, I-13, II-6, II-8, II-14, III-10, III-11, III-281
Alluvium III-17
Authorities National Environmental Policy Act I-12, II-1, III-259 National Forest Management Act I-1, I-3, I-7, I-13, III-9, III-347, III-363, III-364, III-365, III-366 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act III-291
B
Bald Eagle II-6, III-33, III- 56, III-57, III-58, III-82, III-92, III-95, III-120
Barren II-10, III-23, III- 67, III-68, III-155, III-220, III-222, III-225, III-228, III-238, III-266
Best Management Practices III-14, III-16, III-19, III-20, III-21, III-22, III-24, III-35, III-51, III-74, III-83, III-99, III-101, III-165, III-168, III-170, III-195, III-196, III- 204, III-207, III-209, III-210
Biodiversity I-9, III-152, III- 160, III-163, III-165, III-166, III-169, III-172, III-176, III-204, III-209, III-212
Biomass III-10, III-11, III- 12, III-16, III-24
Blowdown III-178
Board Foot I-13, II-6, II-8, II-10, II-14, III-10, III-11, III-282
Bog III-36, III-88, III-123, III-124, III-128, III-168
Brook Trout II-6, II-8, III- 192, III-193, III-194, III-195, III-196
C
Clearcutting III-117, III-178, III-216, III-365
Condition Class III-259, III-260, III-261, III-263, III-264, III-266
Huron-Manistee National Forests M-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix M - Index
Critical Habitat III-61, III-62, III- 70, III-155, III-296
Cultural Resources III-50, III-280, III-296, III-323, III-330, III-359, III-361, III-362
D
Dispersed Camping III-312, III-322, III-323
Dispersed Recreation II-6, III-16, III- 270, III-271, III-312, III-316, III-322
E
Eutrophication III-365
Experimental Forest III-27
Extirpated Species I-9
F
Fire Regime II-9, III-46, III-152, III-243, III-248, III-257, III-259, III-260, III-262, III-264, III-308
Fragmentation III-79, III-80, III- 85, III-87, III-89, III-91, III-92, III-93, III-94, III-96, III-97, III-102, III-107, III-108, III-112, III-113, III-114, III-115, III-120, III-121, III-123, III-124, III-133, III-138, III-140, III-141, III-142, III-157
Fuel Treatment II-10, II-11, II-13, II-15, III-55, III-121, III-141, III-264, III-265, III-319
Fuelbreak I-12, II-8, II-15, III- 11, III-68, III-109, III-218, III-233, III-237, III-248, III-263, III-264, III-265, III-308, III-310
H
Hazardous Fuel I-5, I-12, II-7, II-9, II-10, II-11, II-15, III-18, III-47, III-49, III-55, III-68, III-218, III-233, III-237, III-259, III-261, III-262, III-263, III-264, III- 265, III-303, III-319, III-322
Herbicide III-76, III-141, III- 160, III-172, III-208
Herbivory III-151, III-155, III- 159, III-160, III-162, III-163, III-165, III-166, III-167, III-169, III-170, III-172, III-174, III-175, III-176, III-207, III-210, III- 212, III-252, III-254, III-255, III-256, III-257, III-258
Hibernaculum III-54, III-99, III-100
Final Environmental Impact Statement M-2 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix M - Index
High-Site Oak III-40, III-214, III-218, III-219, III-220, III-223, III-225, III-228, III-230, III-231, III-232, III-233, III-235, III-236, III-237, III-238, III-239, III-240, III-241
K
Karner Blue II-6, II-8, II-14, III-29, III-47, III-62, III-63, III-64, III-65, III-66, III-67, III-68, III-69, III-128, III-146, III-178, III-192, III-330, III-332
L
Land Exchange III-1, III-326
Large Wood III-17, III-18, III-73, III- 74, III-75, III-92, III-95, III-111, III-114, III-193, III-194, III-195, III-196, III-204, III-206, III-207
Late Successional Forest III-90, III-99, III-100
M
Management Indicator Species and Habitat I-5, II-8, III-35, III- 178, III-193, III-194, III-195, III-196, III-197
Monitoring I-2, I-4, I-5, I-8, II-1, II-7, II-8, II-10, III-14, III-61, III-64, III-68, III-69, III-74, III-121, III-244, III-248, III-268, III-269, III-271, III-285, III-286, III-287, III-298, III-299, III-300, III-307, III-337, III-347, III-363, III-364, III-365, III-366
Mottled Sculpin II-8, III-192, III-193, III-194, III-195
Motorized Use III-142, III-274, III- 303, III-312, III-313, III-316, III-318, III-320, III-321
Multiple-Use III-3, III-330, III-340, III-356
N
National Register of Historic Places III-280, III-362
National Wild and Scenic River System III-276
Non-Native Invasive Species III-267
O
Off-Highway Vehicle I-11, II-6, III-25, III-62, III-63, III-70, III-76, III-86, III-88, III-147, III-151, III-152, III-153, III-155, III-156, III-157, III-158, III-159, III-160, III-162,
Huron-Manistee National Forests M-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix M - Index
III-163, III-172, III-175, III-176, III-197, III-252, III-253, III-255, III-256, III-270, III-271, III-277, III-284, III-287, III-288, III-289, III-298, III-300, III-301, III-302, III-304, III-312, III-320, III-323
Off-Road Vehicle III-298
Old-Growth I-8, I-9, I-10, I-13, II-14, III-10, III-11, III-22, III-27, III-29, III-33, III-38, III-39, III-43, III-44, III-45, III-46, III-50, III-57, III-64, III-65, III-73, III- 74, III-75, III-78, III-79, III-80, III-88, III-90, III-92, III-95, III-99, III-100, III-104, III-105, III-107, III-109, III-111, III-114, III-120, III-128, III-131, III-140, III-151, III-162, III-169, III-171, III-174, III-195, III-196, III-198, III-199, III-200, III-201, III-202, III-204, III-206, III-211, III-215, III-216, III-219, III-233, III-238, III-250, III-251, III-252, III-253, III-254, III-255, III-256, III-257, III-258, III-261, III-263, III-291, III-294, III-295, III-313, III-315, III-316, III-317, III-329, III-331
P
Prairie I-3, I-5, II-7, II-10, III- 23, III-37, III-38, III-48, III-77, III-93, III-96, III-107, III-108, III-109, III-110, III-112, III-115, III-123, III-128, III-129, III- 131, III-144, III-146, III-147, III-148, III-149, III-150, III-151, III-152, III-153, III-158, III-159, III-160, III-168, III-175, III- 244, III-247, III-250, III-303, III-310, III-356
Pre-Euro-American Settlement III-264
Prescribed Fire I-12, II-13, III-13, III-15, III-20, III-21, III-24, III-25, III-26, III-43, III-47, III-51, III-53, III-54, III-56, III-78, III-79, III-80, III-84, III-100, III-107, III- 108, III-109, III-123, III-124, III-127, III-128, III-132, III-133, III-134, III-135, III-143, III-150, III-151, III-153, III-159, III- 169, III-171, III-204, III-207, III-211, III-217, III-247, III-248, III-251, III-253, III-258, III-259, III-260, III-261, III-262, III- 263, III-264, III-266, III-267, III-322, III-356, III-360, III-361, III-362
R
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum II-8, III-270, III-271, III- 272, III-273, III-274, III-275, III-286, III-287, III-288, III-290, III-313, III-359 Primitive III-44, III-138, III-258, III-270, III-271, III-272, III-273, III-275, III-276, III-277, III-279, III-287, III-296, III-297, III-312, III-316, III-317, III- 330, III-359 Roaded Natural II-6, III-44, III-270, III- 272, III-274, III-275, III-287, III-289, III-291, III-293 Rural I-5, I-12, II-7, II-8, II-9, III-15, III-44, III-47, III-86, III-109, III-188, III-246, III-270, III-271, III-272, III-274, III-275, III-278, III-287, III-291, III- 293, III-310, III-325, III-327, III-328, III-330, III-331, III-332, III-338, III-339, III-346 Semiprimitive Motorized I-11, II-4, II-6, II-9, II- 11, II-15, III-27, III-29, III-44, III-79, III-215, III-255, III-270, III-272, III-273, III-275, III-287, III-298, III-312, III-313, III-314, III-315, III-316, III-317, III-318, III-319, III-329, III-334, III-356 Semiprimitive Nonmotorized I-11, II-6, II-9, II-11, II- 15, III-44, III-79, III-80, III-200, III-215, III-255, III-256, III-270, III-272, III-273, III-275, III-298, III-303, III-305, III- 306, III-312, III-313, III-314, III-315, III-316, III-317, III-319, III-329, III-331, III-333, III-334, III-356 Urban I-12, II-7, II-9, III-6, III- 7, III-17, III-26, III-36, III-37, III-46, III-53, III-60, III-62, III-63, III-64, III-66, III-68, III-76, III-114, III-132, III-141, III- 147, III-152, III-159, III-163, III-166, III-172, III-197, III-208, III-257, III-259, III-260, III-263, III-275, III-283, III-287, III-341, III-345, III-351, III-359
Recreation Visitor Day III-286, III-287, III-299, III-300, III-337
Regeneration II-5, III-41, III-47, III- 59, III-99, III-115, III-123, III-126, III-165, III-167, III-179, III-180, III-181, III-189, III-216, III-231, III-236, III-241, III-357
Final Environmental Impact Statement M-4 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Appendix M - Index
Research Natural Area I-3, I-4, II-3, II-4, II-5, II-8, II-11, III-27, III-32, III-47, III-48, III-50, III-51, III-79, III-80, III-92, III-93, III-96, III-108, III-109, III-112, III-114, III- 115, III-120, III-155, III-156, III-158, III-159, III-162, III-200, III-215, III-244, III-247, III-267, III-268, III-269, III-303, III- 304, III-305, III-306, III-319, III-321, III-322, III-340, III-359
Riparian Areas I-5, I-11, II-5, II-6, II- 8, II-14, III-3, III-21, III-34, III-35, III-49, III-73, III-74, III-75, III-78, III-83, III-84, III-88, III-90, III-91, III-92, III-95, III- 99, III-100, III-101, III-102, III-140, III-162, III-165, III-168, III-169, III-171, III-193, III-195, III-197, III-203, III-204, III- 205, III-207, III-208, III-244, III-310, III-362
Riparian Corridor III-19, III-22, III-35, III-36, III-73, III-74, III-75, III-76, III-84, III-93, III-96, III-169, III-194, III-195, III-196, III-197, III-204, III-206, III-207, III- 210
Roadless Area III-329
Rotation II-11, II-12, III-12, III-13, III-16, III-46, III-59, III-64, III-67, III-111, III-120, III-180, III-198, III-214, III-216, III-231, III-236, III-237, III-240, III-365
Ruffed Grouse I-4, II-5, II-7, II-8, II-11, III-33, III-178, III-179, III-180, III-181, III-183, III-184, III-185, III-189, III-190, III-191, III-192
S
Scenery Management System I-3, I-5, II-9, II-15, III-50, III-215, III-278, III-307, III-309, III-310
Scenic Byway III-271, III-278
Scenic Integrity Objectives III-215, III-307, III- 309, III-310
Scenic River I-2, I-4, I-5, II-3, II- 6, II-7, II-9, III-27, III-29, III-50, III-90, III-92, III-95, III-99, III-100, III-108, III-109, III-111, III-112, III-114, III-120, III- 162, III-255, III-271, III-276, III-291, III-292, III-293, III-294, III-295, III-308, III-334, III-359, III-366
Sensitive Species I-5, II-4, II-5, II-7, III-21, III-31, III-32, III-53, III-71, III-74, III-149, III-156, III-170, III-171, III-175, III-195, III-198, III-206, III-207, III-210, III-233, III-237, III-296, III-297, III-301, III-302, III-303, III-326, III-327, III-341, III-362
Severed Mineral Rights III-28
Silviculture Age Class III-39, III-40, III-41, III-179, III-180, III-181, III-182, III-183, III-185, III-186, III-187, III-188, III-190, III-191, III-198, III-214, III-215, III- 217, III-220, III-221, III-222, III-223, III-224, III-225, III-226, III-227, III-228, III-229, III-230, III-231, III-235, III-240
Snowmobile III-277, III-287, III- 298, III-299, III-300, III-301, III-302, III-313
Soil Compaction III-14, III-15, III- 168, III-204, III-205, III-252, III-360
Special-use Permit III-281 Species Viability I-2, I-3, I-7, I-10, II-2, II-3, II-7, II-8, II-10, II-12, II-13, II-14, III-22, III-55, III-70, III-71, III-77, III-90, III-111, III-128, III-130, III-170, III-177, III- 189, III-191, III-205, III-209, III-210, III-215, III-219, III-233, III-238, III-294, III-303, III-347
Huron-Manistee National Forests M-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix M - Index
Streamside Management Zone II-8, II-14, III-21, III-35, III- 36, III-50, III-74, III-79, III-80, III-84, III-123, III-135, III-138, III-170, III-190, III-191, III-195, III-196, III-199, III-203, III- 205, III-206, III-207, III-209, III-212, III-294
Subsurface Rights III-254
Succession III-57, III-65, III-90, III-134, III-137, III-140, III-144, III-150, III-156, III-162, III-165, III-168, III-169, III-178, III-180, III-204, III-209, III-211, III-215, III-216, III-217, III-218, III-219, III-233, III-238, III-241, III-254
Successional Stage I-11, III-21, III-86, III-99, III-165, III-211, III-214, III-253, III-254 Early Successional Species III-169, III-188, III-200
T
Temporary Roads III-14, III-15, III-124
Threatened Species III-31, III-53
Timber Production I-5, II-3, II-8, III-2, III-176, III-281, III-359, III-364
U
Unclassified Roads III-49
W
Wild and Scenic River Corridor III-27, III-294
Wilderness I-4, II-6, II-9, III-8, III-27, III-28, III-44, III-53, III-92, III-95, III-109, III-111, III-114, III-155, III-244, III-260, III-270, III-271, III-272, III- 275, III-277, III-286, III-296, III-297, III-299, III-308, III-312, III-317, III-329, III-331, III-335, III-340, III-347, III-357, III- 359
Final Environmental Impact Statement M-6 Huron-Manistee National Forests
Huron-Manistee National Forests 1755 South Mitchell Street Cadillac, MI 49601 (231) 775-2421 www.fs.fed.us/r9/hmnf
"Caring for the land and serving people.”
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 individuals' 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, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.