download ATTACHMENT 1, NIAGARA PROJECT ERRATA - a123.g. 1, NIAGARA PROJECT ERRATA ... Niagara Project EIS Attachment

of 22

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)

Transcript of ATTACHMENT 1, NIAGARA PROJECT ERRATA - a123.g. 1, NIAGARA PROJECT ERRATA ... Niagara Project EIS...

  • Errata Niagara Project EIS

    Attachment 1 - 1



    Change #1: EIS, page S-17 Wildlife/MIS Table S-11. Summary of TES Wildlife Effects Determinations. Status of gray wolf changed from Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) to Federally Endangered (FE). The gray wolf row: In the Status column: Replace: RFSS With: FE In the No Action column: Replace: NI With: NE In the Proposed Action, Alternatives 1 and 2 columns: Replace: MINLTF With: NLAA

    Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

    Change #2: EIS, page 13 2.2.1 Proposed Action Remove: second paragraph

    Change #3: EIS, page 20 2.3.1 Alternative with Increased Buffers (design criteria) to Protect the Karst Replace: the entire section With: The standards other National Forests use to buffer karst features are the same as those used for streams. This buffer has been found to be effective in karst protection (Minerals and Geology section 3.7.2; project record, Minerals section). Expanding the buffer beyond what is effective would be unnecessary. Although developing an alternative with increased buffer sizes would respond to Issue 1, it would not be necessary to protect the karst. This drawing demonstrates that expanded buffers would reduce the area managed to meet Purpose and Need 1 (vegetation composition and size class goals).

  • Errata Niagara Project EIS

    Attachment 1 - 2

    red dot = karst feature, purple area = effective buffer for karst protection, green area = expanded buffer beyond effective area, rust-colored area = stand to be treated The range of alternatives provided by 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail is sufficient to see a range of different levels of moving the vegetation toward Purpose and Need 1, from the No Action which wouldnt treat any acres to Alternative 2 which is predicted to treat approximately 4,215 acres. An alternative that established buffers larger than what has been shown to be effective would fall within this range.

  • Errata Niagara Project EIS

    Attachment 1 - 3

    Change #4: EIS, page 26 Table 2.4.3 Comparison of Effects, Vegetation

    Remove: existing vegetation section. Replace with:

    Resource Area

    Activity or Measure Proposed Action Effects

    No Action Effects

    Alternative 1 Effects

    Alternative 2 Effects


    Change in aspen acres@ (690) 0 (337) (690) Change in mid seral acres@

    443 0 202 443

    Change in late seral acres@

    247 0 135 247

    Change in mid seral size classes 4 & 5@

    33 0 33 33

    Change in late seral size classes 4 & 5@

    1,779 0 277 1,779

    Total returns to treasury * ($56,006)


    * ($78,775)


    Net acres harvested 2,912 0 1,484 4,215 Volume harvested 12.4 MMBF 0 6.4 MMBF 17.6 MMBF

    () indicates a negative number or a decrease. *-Expenditures would exceed timber harvest revenues with these alternatives. Some costs associated with these alternatives would be covered by other funding @ These numbers reflect changes only in MA2.3, ELT 40/50/90. This category has the most acres across the project area and the most treatment acres. This serves as an example of how the activities move the vegetation toward Forest Plan vegetation goals.

    Change #5: EIS, page 27 2.4.3 Comparison of Effects Comparison of Effects Table, Wildlife and Terrestrial Management Indicator Species section, under Alternative 2 Effects column

    Replace: Closer to 3,328 acres than the Proposed Action (less design criteria). With: Closer to 6,569 acres than the Proposed Action.

  • Errata Niagara Project EIS

    Attachment 1 - 4

    Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences

    3.7 Minerals and Geology

    Change #6: EIS, page 70 3.7.2 Analysis methods The following Management Objectives and BMPs are direct quotes from the Karst Management Handbook for British Columbia. Pertaining specifically to Significant Surface Karst Features. After the last paragraph in section 3.7.2: Insert the following: Management Objectives

    To protect significant surface karst features from physical damage. To maintain any site-specific microclimatic conditions and/or

    habitat/biodiversity characteristics associated with significant surface karst features.

    In the case of sinkholes, to prevent soil erosion and sediment transfer into subsurface openings or caves.

    To provide a measure of aesthetics/recreational experience for surface karst features with high recreation values.

    Best Management Practices The following best management practices are recommended:

    A minimum one-tree-length reserve (based on the average height of the dominant and co-dominant trees at 100 years) extending outward from the edge of the feature. For depression features, such as sinkholes, the edge of the feature should be considered the rim of the sinkhole, as defined by the upper break of the slope enclosing the sinkhole.

    An adjacent management zone of an appropriate size to protect the reserve from windthrow.

    Sinkholes large enough to create their own microclimate (i.e., support distinct vegetation with an obvious species gradient down the sideslope, or exhibit a distinctive temperature and relative humidity gradient), should be managed similarly to a significant cave entrance, with a reserve of two tree lengths to maintain interior microclimatic conditions. [Note: Large sinkholes are generally indicative of large subsurface cavities.] Sinkholes of this magnitude often support high biodiversity and habitat values.

  • Errata Niagara Project EIS

    Attachment 1 - 5

    Figure 11: Showing a reserve area of 1 tree length to buffer a sinkhole and other surface karst features.

    It is not likely that sinkholes large enough to create their own microclimate (i.e., support distinct vegetation with an obvious species gradient down the sideslope, or exhibit a distinctive temperature and relative humidity gradient) exist within the project area. The design criteria around sink holes establish a reserve area of 200 feet from the edge of the karst feature in all directions. This is greater than two-tree lengths, recommended to maintain interior microclimatic conditions.

    Change #7: EIS, page 71 3.7.4 Affected Environment In third paragraph

    Remove: For more information visit Replace with: For more information visit In February 1990, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated the Niagara Escarpment one of the 12 World Biosphere Reserves in Canada. The Niagara Escarpment Commission, an agency of Ontarios Ministry of Natural Resources, regulates development and land use adjacent to the escarpment to protect the biosphere reserve. While the Ontario MNR doesnt have any regulatory influence with the US, it may be of interest to some to know that forest, wildlife and fisheries activities, as well as transportation facilities are all permitted uses within the Canadian Niagara Escarpment Plan will ensure that plans for the cutting of trees on public lands are in accordance with sustainable forestry management practices (

    Change #8: EIS, page 71 3.7.4 Affected Environment After the last paragraph in section 3.7.4, add the following paragraphs: Escarpments are not a rare geologic feature, by definition. However, the Niagara Escarpment is unique in its current configuration, chemical composition, climate, and ecosystem.

  • Errata Niagara Project EIS

    Attachment 1 - 6

    The Niagara Escarpment (NE) was formed 450 million years ago. It was once the edge of an ancient sea that sat roughly where the Great Lakes sit today. This long curving feature begins near Niagara Falls and meanders its way north, crossing the HNF on the East units southern half, then turns south near the Garden Peninsula and winds up 125 miles north of Chicago. It is a bedrock high formed by the erosion of resistant limestones and dolomites. This great geologic feature helps outline the outer margin of the modern Great Lakes. Many things make this a unique feature to the HNF. It is known to contain numerous karst features (unique to Michigan) which can be seen at the Fiborn Quarry, Schmidtys Sink, Biscuit Sink, and many fissures near Maple Hill. In parts of Canada the Niagara Escarpment is known to host some of the most extensive old-growth forest east of the Rockies (Wheeler 1996). The eastern white cedar, a tree that typically lives 90 years on the ground, has been found by researchers on the cliffs of the NE to live up to 1,600 years. These trees are very slow growing. Researchers have also discovered other organisms that live in the rock that normally known to be found in frigid Antarctic plains or internal Middle Eastern deserts (Wheeler 1996).

    3.8 Vegetation

    Change #9: EIS, page 84 3.8.5 Proposed Action Last paragraph Replace: the reference (chapter 2) in both places in that paragraph. With: (Appendix F)

    Change #10: EIS, page 86 Section, on page 86, Insert: Before the last paragraph 2008 HNF Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest, 2009, p. 22) showed that 96% of the stands reviewed to ensure compliance with the five year regene