Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...United States Department...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service August 2014

For Information Contact: Evan Miller 1247 E. Wall Street, Eagle River, WI 54521

(715) 479-2827

Environmental Assessment Morgan Lake Campground ATV Designation Project Eagle River-Florence Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Florence County, Wisconsin Location is T38N, R16E, Section 18

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600. 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. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Morgan Lake Campground ATV Designation Project Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents Page 1

Table of Contents SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT ............................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENT LAYOUT .................................................................. 3 Document structure ......................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................. 4

1.1 How this project was created ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Purpose and need for action .................................................................................................. 4 1.2.1 Current and desired condition including the need for action ............................................. 4

1.2.2 The purposes or objectives for this project from the forest plan ................................... 5 1.2.3 Meeting the forest plan direction ................................................................................... 5

1.3 Proposed action ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Decision framework .............................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Public involvement ............................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Proposed action ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Alternatives considered, but not in detail ........................................................................... 10 2.3 Design features for this project ........................................................................................... 10

Heritage ................................................................................................................................. 10 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 10 Non-native Invasive Species ................................................................................................. 10 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 10

CHAPTER 3, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 11 3.1 Introduction to Chapter 3 .................................................................................................... 11

3.1.1 Impacts to the environment definitions and cumulative action list ............................. 11 3.2 Recreation resource report .................................................................................................. 11

Summary of the recreation resource report ........................................................................... 11 3.2.1 Affected recreational environment .............................................................................. 11 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences - Direct and indirect environmental effects on recreational experience ......................................................................................................... 11 3.2.3 Cumulative effects of the recreational experience ....................................................... 12

3.3 Water resource report .......................................................................................................... 13 Summary of the water resource report .................................................................................. 13 General concerns on forest roads .......................................................................................... 13 Affected environment for water resources ............................................................................ 13 3.3.2. Environmental Consequences - Direct and indirect environmental effects on water resources ............................................................................................................................... 14 3.3.3 Cumulative effects on water resources ........................................................................ 15

3.4 Non-native invasive species (NNIS) resource report .......................................................... 15 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 15 3.4.1 Affected environment for NNIS .................................................................................. 15 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences - Direct and indirect environmental effects on NNIS . 16 3.4.3 Cumulative effects on NNIS ........................................................................................ 16

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species/ Regional Forester Sensitive Species ....................... 16


Table of Contents Page 2

Summary of wildlife and plant species determinations ........................................................ 16 3.5.1 Affected environment for wildlife and plant species considered ................................. 16 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences - Direct and indirect environmental effects on TES/RFSS ............................................................................................................................. 22 3.5.3 Cumulative effects ....................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 4 PREPARERS AND CONSULTATION ...................................................................... 23 4.1 List of preparers .................................................................................................................. 23

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 24 General ...................................................................................................................................... 24 BE ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Water resources ......................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix-Map List of tables included in this EA Table 1. TES ................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 2. RFSS ............................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3. RFSS likely to occur ....................................................................................................... 21


Summary of document and Introduction of the document layout Page 3

SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT

The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) proposes to designate Morgan Lake Campground for all terrain vehicle (ATV)/utility-terrain vehicles (UTV) use.

This environmental assessment (EA) is tiered to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) for the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF). This EA refers to the CNNF EIS throughout the document, and it is based on direction from that plan. This project is subject to objection pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 218.7 subparts A and B, but is not part of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

This EA is not a decision document. Based upon the effects of the proposed action, the responsible official would decide whether to implement the project, and if so what parts of the project. This decision would be made in a Decision Notice/Finding of Significant Impact document after this EA is completed. The responsible official can choose any parts of the proposed action.

INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENT LAYOUT

Document structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action. The document is organized into six parts:

1. Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

2. Proposed action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action for achieving the stated purpose. This discussion also includes possible design features.

3. Environmental consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the proposed action.

4. Agencies and persons consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

5. References: References cited in this document.6. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses

presented in the environmental assessment.


Chapter 1- How this project was created, Purpose and need for action, Current and desired condition Page 4

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project and area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Eagle River Ranger District Office in Eagle River, WI.

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 How this project was created

An interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resource specialist developed this proposal by considering both the existing condition of the affected landscape and the desired landscape conditions identified in the CNNF’s forest plan.

1.2 Purpose and need for action

1.2.1 Current and desired condition including the need for action

The Forest Service selected this campground because it allows for a direct connection to the existing Florence County ATV route/trail system. In addition, the campground has a current low occupancy rate and favorable soils for motorized use. The State of Wisconsin Trail Aids Grant Program will make it possible for the Forest Service to acquire funding for rehabilitation and improvements at the campground.

Existing condition of the campground

There is a high concentration of ATV/UTV use and ownership in the area. With the popularity and registration of all-terrain vehicles remaining steady or still increasing, ATV/UTV riders and owners are looking for and will continue to look for opportunities to stay and ride.

Campers currently lightly use (with an 11 percent occupancy rate) Morgan Lake Campground. Morgan Lake Campground is located entirely on favorable soil types. All campground roads and spurs are currently open to Highway Legal Vehicles. The Forest Service would further analyze roads in this campground and protected them through armoring the treads surface, if needed. The primary local soil types in the project area are Pence, Padus, and Vilas, which are considered moderately well, well or excessively well drained.

Desired condition of the campground for economic reasons

The desired condition is to increase use in the campground, while proving a recreational opportunity. The CNNF assumes that designation of this campground for ATV/UTV use will increase occupancy and therefore increase revenue. The designation of an existing campground and associated campground roads provides: A different motorized riding opportunity on existing tread The ability to design and construct a safe and sustainable ATV/UTV campground Utilize areas that allow proper management of motorized uses


Chapter 1- Purposes or objectives for this project from the forest plan, Meeting the forest plan Page 5

Provides ATV/UTV enthusiasts a camping option when making a weekend recreational trip

ATV users to legally access the Florence County ATV route/trail system directly from their campsite without the need to trailer their ATV/UTV to a trailhead

Need for this project

Preliminary analysis of the project area indicates that there are certain conditions that warrant action to accomplish the direction and desired conditions identified in the forest plan. The current trail and route mileage on the Nicolet side of the CNNF varies from desired conditions in the forest plan. Of primary importance are the needs for change in trail mileage, enhance the diversity and quality of recreation experience and motorized riding opportunity.

1.2.2 The purposes or objectives for this project from the forest planThe forests plan sets goals and direction for managing the forest. The current forest plan became effective on June 14, 2004. The forest is divided into management areas (MAs), each with specific standards and guidelines to attain a desired future condition of the landscape. The proposed project is located in MA 1B: Early successional-aspen, mixed aspen-conifer, and conifer. It also contains MA 8D: Existing, eligible, and potentially eligible wild, scenic, and recreational rivers.

The objectives from the forest plan are to:I. Objective 2.1d (p. 1-5) in the forest plan states “Construct up to 85 miles of ATV trails

on the Nicolet National Forest” II. Goal 2.1 - Recreation Opportunities (p. 1-4) states “Maintain or enhance the diversity and

quality of recreation experiences within acceptable limits of change to ecosystem stability and condition.”

III. Guideline on p. 2-28- “Use existing corridors for new all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, and other off-road vehicle routes wherever possible.”

IV. Guideline on p. 2-28- “Provide multiple motorized recreation uses on motorized trails when ground conditions permit and the uses are compatible…”

1.2.3 Meeting the forest plan direction

Standards and guidelines applicable Forest-wide

Construction, Reconstruction, and Use of Motorized Trails (forest plan p. 2-28): Standards:

• Do not locate new motorized trails or routes over State of Wisconsin navigable waters when alternative locations are feasible. This requirement does not apply to snowmobile trails that are routed over frozen surface waters. There are no State of Wisconsin navigable waters on National Forest

Land that will be crossed through the implementation of the proposed action.

• Do not locate new motorized trails or routes through wetlands when alternative locations are feasible. This requirement does not apply to snowmobile trails that


Chapter 1- Meeting the forest plan, Guidelines Page 6

cross wetlands under frozen conditions (without the use of fill). If a new trail or route must be located within a wetland, alternatives to earthen fill must be considered. The proposed designation will not affect area wetlands.

• Install adequately sized culverts (or other appropriate drainage structures) and appropriate erosion control measures where motorized trails or routes cross navigable and non-navigable streams. This requirement does not apply to snowmobile trails that cross streams under frozen conditions. No State of Wisconsin navigable or non-navigable waters on National

Forest Land will be crossed through the implementation of this action.• New, replacement, and reconstructed trail bridges must have closed-slat or similar

running surfaces that prevent the deposit of trail sediment and debris in waterways. There are no trail bridges proposed for this project.

• All-terrain vehicles that operate on Forest trails and routes must be registered with the State of Wisconsin (or meet requirements for registration if the owner is a non-resident), and have a Forest Service approved spark arrestor. Wisconsin State Statute 23.33(2) (a), Stats., requires the registration of

ATV’s that are operated within the State of Wisconsin. The 2003 Wisconsin ACT 251 created a nonresident all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trail pass that is to be purchased and displayed on out of state ATV’s. Section 23.33(6)(e), Stats., requires every ATV to be equipped with a functioning muffler to prevent excessive or unusual noise and with a functioning spark arrester of a type approved by the U.S. Forest Service. Any trail user in violation of the above State of Wisconsin laws will be in violation of 36 CFR 261.55(d) and subject to a collateral forfeiture of $75.00.

• Snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles operating on Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest trails and routes shall meet all sound attenuation requirements defined in Wisconsin statutes. Snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles operating on Forest trails or routes shall not be modified in any manner that amplifies or otherwise increases total noise emissions above the noise emission levels of originally manufactured machines. Such modifications may be allowed as part of a special event under special use permit. Section 23.33(6)(e), Stats., requires every ATV to be equipped with a

functioning muffler to prevent excessive or unusual noise and with a functioning spark arrester of a type approved by the U.S. Forest Service. Section 23.33 (6m) (a), Stats., prohibits ATV’s from emitting noise above 96 decibels. Any trail user in violation of the above State of Wisconsin laws will be in violation of 36 CFR 261.55(d) and subject to a collateral forfeiture of $75.00.

Guidelines: Do not locate new motorized trails or routes through a Special Management Area, or designated Old Growth and Natural Feature Complexes.

o The proposed action is not inside any Special Management Areas, designated Old Growth, or a Natural Feature Complex.


Chapter 1- Meeting the forest plan, Standards and guidelines for this management area Page 7

• Do not locate new motorized trails or routes adjacent to Wilderness, Proposed Wilderness, or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas unless such a location is the best feasible relocation of a trail from inside the area.

o There are no Wilderness, Proposed Wilderness, or Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas within or adjacent to the proposed project areas.

• Use existing corridors for new all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, and other off-road vehicle routes wherever possible.

o The proposed designation includes only existing campground and boat landing access roads.

• Provide multiple motorized recreation uses on motorized trails when ground conditions permit and the uses are compatible. Caution signs should provide sufficient warning to visitors that several motorized activities may be taking place on the trail simultaneously. Single use trails may connect to multiple use trails.

o This proposal would not result in the development of motorized trails.• Locate new all-terrain vehicle trails outside of areas identified as least suitable for

such use (ATV Resource suitability Map, See Map Packet).o This proposal would not result in the development of motorized trails.

• Avoid (when possible) wetlands, riparian areas, stream crossings, sustained grades of 5% or more, and highly erodible soils (silt cap, sand, etc.) when designing new all-terrain vehicle trail systems, relocating existing motorized trail segments, or considering the designation of roads as all-terrain vehicle routes. Where such locations cannot be avoided, consider stabilizing the trail tread and ensuring adequate drainage. Give priority to relocating trail segments that cause erosion, and a degradation of water quality and other resources.

o The proposed corridors have been used as open roads for several decades. They have proven to be sustainable when used by motorized vehicles. Prior to implementation each corridor would be analyzed to determine areas needing treatment to mitigate resource concerns.

Standards and guidelines for this management area:

Guidelines for Management Areas 1B and 8D are on page 3-6 & 3-45 through 3-48 of the forest plan.

• MA 1B Recreation

There are no standards or guidelines relating to recreation or motorized recreational vehicle use.

• MA 8D Recreation

Construction of major new recreation facilities (campgrounds, major trailheads, etc.) will not occur within wild or scenic river segments. Construction of minor recreation facilities that maintain or enhance river values (such as primitive campsites) are permitted within scenic segments, and are permitted on a case-by-case basis within wild segments.


Chapter 1- Meeting the forest plan, Proposed action, Decision framework, Public Involvement Page 8

New recreation facilities within wild and scenic corridors will not be readily visible from the river. There are no new facilities proposed under this project

Transportation Systems New road and motorized trail construction is not permitted within

eligible or designated wild river corridors. There is no construction proposed under this project

Do not designate new motorized trails within eligible or designated scenic and recreation river corridors. Where the designation and use of motorized trails is unavoidable—they will be located at least 400 feet from eligible or designated scenic rivers and at least 100 feet from eligible or designated recreation rivers. The designation is for ATV/UTV routes (posted open forest

road, page EE-1) not trails, so it does not conflict.

1.3 Proposed action

The Forest Service is proposing to designate Morgan Lake Campground road and boat landing access road as open and available to all ATV’s and UTV’s. Morgan Lake Road, Forest Road (FR) 2161, is a town designated ATV/UTV route, which connects to the extensive Florence County ATV trail system. This project would include spot filling with gravel and clearing vegetation along the road. This project is located near the Town of Fence in Florence County, WI. The legal location is Township 38 North, Range 16 East, Section 18.

1.4 Decision framework

The District Ranger is the responsible official for making project-level decisions. Based upon the effects of the proposed action, the responsible official would decide what level of activity is necessary to address the forest plan and concerns associated with this project. This level of activity could be the proposed action, parts of the proposed action, or no decision at all.

The decision to be made is what management actions would be taken in the project area, if any, when these actions would occur, using what design features, and management requirements.

1.5 Public involvement

This project was listed in the schedule of proposed actions on July 2014. It was posted on the CNNF website on April 15, 2014. The CNNF sent out scoping letters on April 15, 2014, to tribes, other agencies, members of the public who, otherwise, have expressed an interest in the project. As a result, of the outreaches described, the CNNF received one response from individuals or organizations providing comments and suggestions.


Chapter 1- Issues; Chapter 2 – Proposed action Page 9

Using the comments from the public, the IDT normally develops a list of concerns to address. However, we received only positive comments and suggestions. These suggestions were considered in updating the proposed action. The IDT did not identify any key issues from scoping.

1.6 Issues

The IDT has identified no key issues at this time. The potential for minor impacts to water quality, recreation, invasive species, and Regional Forested Sensitive Species and Threatened and Endangered Species habitat were considered. However, our assessments find such impacts would be well within those anticipated by the forest plan EIS as part of achieving desired conditions.

Applicable forest plan standards and guidelines would be applied. Because impacts of the proposed action are anticipated to be minor, we do not anticipate studying additional alternatives in detail.

CHAPTER 2, ALTERNATIVESThis chapter describes the proposed action considered and its description. At this time, there are no key issues driving a need for us to study additional alternatives.

This section describes the proposed action, which wholly or partially meet the purpose and need. This action proposes specific activities that could be carried out without further NEPA documentation.

2.1 Proposed action

The Forest Service is proposing to designate Morgan Lake Campground roads and boat landing access road as open and available to ATV’s and UTV’s. Morgan Lake Road, FR 2161, is a town designated ATV/UTV route, which connects to the extensive Florence County ATV trail system. This project would include spot filling with gravel and clearing vegetation along the road. The actions are listed below: Designation of the Morgan Lake Campground Road, FR 2218 Designation of the Morgan Lake Boat Ramp Road (FR 2217) Spot filling roads with gravel to prevent erosion Clear vegetation along roads around corners and intersections Preform a mixed motorized use analysis Update the Motor Vehicle Use Map Add signs


Chapter 2- Alternatives considered, Design features Page 10

2.2 Alternatives considered, but not in detail

No alternatives were raised by internal or external scoping.

2.3 Design features for this project

In response to resource analysis on the proposal, the IDT developed these design features to ease the potential impacts that the proposed action may cause.

Heritage• Contact the forest archaeologist immediately if any site features or artifacts are located

during the project.

Hydrology• Designation of these roads for ATV/UTV use would have to be monitored to ensure

illegal off road use does not become an established use. • All proposed (where needed) activities would follow Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR) BMPs for water quality and forest plan standards and guidelines.

Non-native Invasive Species• Diligent monitoring of the campground is needed to ensure that new infestations are

found early and treated promptly.

Wildlife• Review the Biological Evaluation for the designation of Morgan Lake Campground and

Morgan Lake Boat Landing access road for ATV/UTV use upon obtaining any new information or species location prior to completion of the project.

• Observations of any TES species in the project area prior to or during project implementation, will be postpone / halt any actions until a determination of the potential effects has been made and design features are identified.


Chapter 3- Introduction, Impacts; Recreation Resource Report, Affected Env., Env. Consequences Page 11

CHAPTER 3, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction to Chapter 3

This section summarizes the physical and biological environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to the implementation of the proposed action.

3.1.1 Impacts to the environment definitions and cumulative action listImpacts are composed of three parts: direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action but occur later in time or further removed in distance. Cumulative effects are a result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and future actions.

Actions in the area include the Florence County ATV trail system, Morgan Vegetation Management Project, campground maintenance activities, and current vehicle use of the site. The specialists in the cumulative effects analysis considered these projects.

3.2 Recreation resource report

The following section is from the Recreation Resource Report, which analyses the current condition and any impacts form the proposed action.

Summary of the recreation resource reportThere would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on the recreational experience.

3.2.1 Affected recreational environmentThis project area is directly connected to the extensive Florence County ATV trail system.

Morgan Lake Campground is currently lightly used with an 11percent occupancy rate. The campground roads and campsite spurs are high standard maintenance level four roads. Part of this campground is in MA 8D, which is part of the Popple River (classified as scenic eligible).

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences - Direct and indirect environmental effects on recreational experience The proposed action would designate all of the corridors and spurs within Morgan Lake Campground as open for ATV/UTV use. The direct effect would be increased access to recreation facilities for individuals who use all-terrain vehicles, which in turn, may increase


Chapter 3- Recreation Resource Report, Cumulative effects Page 12

occupancy. The greatest effect would be to individuals using the site and experiencing increased noise due to the increase of ATV/UTV traffic within the site itself. There is not expected to be any visual impacts (users cannot see the campground from the river) or a noticeable increase in noise to individuals recreating on the Popple River. Portions of Morgan Lake Campground lie within the one-quarter mile management buffer of the eligible national wild and scenic river but the vast majority of the campground is outside the management area. Use of Morgan Lake Road by ATV/UTV’s has occurred for many years with little to no impact to river users.

An indirect effect of ATV/UTV designation may be displacing individuals who prefer using campgrounds not open to ATV/UTV use. Other individuals may choose to continue using this campground but would have to adapt to the potential of increased noise and ATV/UTV traffic. There would be no physical change in the location or amenities of the campground so there would be no direct effects to physical setting.

3.2.3 Cumulative effects of the recreational experienceThe area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis is the campground area. The time span that is analyzed is from the time of corridor designation through planning and implementation of the Morgan Vegetation Management Project.

Past activities

The existing campground and boat landing was constructed to provide camping and boating/fishing opportunities to the public for the enjoyment and use of the surrounding landscape. The entire project area is open to full sized vehicle traffic and is shown as such on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). This use will not change. The use of this campground has been an important part of local recreation as hunters, anglers, and wildlife viewers have frequently used it. This use will continue and provide recreationists a variety of outdoor opportunities.

ATV travel was added to the adjacent township jurisdiction road (Morgan Lake Road) approximately seven years ago as part of the larger Florence County ATV trail system. This use is not expected to change.

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule and the resulting MVUM can either reduce or increase public motorized access across the CNNF including the proposed ATV/UTV designation of Morgan Lake Campground. In 2009, the CNNF published its first MVUM, making it available to the public. The designation and historic use of travel-ways that are within the proposed project remained the same.

Present activities

There are no present activities, other than routine campground use and maintenance in the project area. As a result, there would be no cumulative effects on motorized access, recreation setting or recreation activities when present activities are considered with direct and indirect effects of the project proposal.


Chapter 3;Water Resource Report; Summary, General Concerns, Affected Env. Page 13

Future activities

Future vegetation management activities (Morgan) are planned where stands of timber may be identified adjacent to the proposed project area. If timber sales were to occur in the project area they would be planned as winter harvest units to reduce visible impacts to the area and maintain the sites aesthetic integrity. It is not expected that new roads would need to be constructed near the campground. Using design features should minimize any effects to the recreation setting and on recreation activities.

There are no reasonably foreseeable projects that combined with the proposed project would have cumulative effects on motorized access, recreation setting or recreation activities.

3.3 Water resource report

Summary of the water resource reportThe analysis of direct and indirect effects on water quality shows that the effect to water quality by designating the selected roads for ATV/UTV use would not impair the long-term water quality. Utilizing BMPs during and after project activities would achieve forest plan standards and guidelines for watershed protection and management, riparian areas, and wetlands.

General concerns on forest roadsDue to the proximity of surface water features (Morgan Lake) off road use could be a potential impact to water resources. Many of the roads within the area have been in place since the early logging era. Poorly designed, located, constructed, or maintained roads and trails can be significant sources of stream sediment. Sediment can originate from hydrologically connected roads and trails with native surface material, inadequate gravel surface, poor vegetation on slopes or ditches, inadequate ditch armor, and inadequate drainage. The potential for this erosion and sedimentation also increases as slope of the road increases. This occurs because water moves at higher velocities as slope increases and water volume accumulates as slope length increases. Both slope steepness and length contribute to greater rill and gully erosion (forest plan EIS, p. 3-19 through 3-25).

Affected environment for water resourcesThe access into Morgan Lake Campground (FR 2218) and Morgan Lake Boat Landing (FR 2217) was field reviewed May 2014.

FR 2217- This road provides access to the boat landing. The road is surfaced with gravel and no road surface erosion was observed. The boat landing provides access for small boats/canoes and no observed erosion problems exist. The road does not cross any streams or wetlands.


Chapter 3- Water resource report, Environmental consequences Page 14

FR 2218- This road provides access to the campground and there is one wetland adjacent to the road (closest point is 50 feet from the wetland). No streams cross the road and no road surface erosion was observed.

Morgan Lake Campground lies partly inside of MA 8D near the Popple River, which is designated ‘scenic’. Popple River is (at the closest point) approximately 630 feet from the proposed designated roads.

3.3.2. Environmental Consequences - Direct and indirect environmental effects on water resourcesThe “affected area” for analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed activities to aquatic resources is Morgan Lake and the adjacent wetland located near the proposed designated ATV/UTV roads. These areas were chosen because it will provide the most comprehensive boundary when analyzing the cumulative effects to water quality from the proposed activities. Sediment movement downstream can be variable and dependent upon the landform characteristics.

Sediment movement downstream can be variable and dependent upon the landform characteristics. The potential for short and long-term effects were addressed within the project area. Long-term effects are those expected to last longer than one year after treatment or mitigation is completed, while those expected to last less than one year were considered short-term. Short-term effects would be expected to occur during the first growing season or the time it takes exposed soil to become stabilized and re-vegetated. Long-term effects would be expected to occur in subsequent growing seasons, where the short-term effects were more prominent on the landscape and it will take longer for the sediment to flush downstream. The Water Resources Specialist chose the boundary distances and long verses short-term effects criteria to be consistent with Wisconsin’s Forestry BMPs for Water Quality Monitoring Program.

All proposed activities would be implemented utilizing WDNR’s BMPs for Water Quality, specifically BMPs identified for the forest roads and stream crossings. Activities would be monitored during project implementation to ensure design features are followed. The effectiveness of the BMPs is based upon monitoring results complied from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. During the mid-1990s, the Forests also participated in the development of these BMPs (WDNR 2010). The CNNF supports their use to minimize sediment and other non-point sources of water pollutants. Interdisciplinary and interagency teams monitored the use and effectiveness of BMPs across all land ownerships in Wisconsin, including the National Forest, during the years of 1995 to 2006. The field evaluations indicated that 99.9 percent of the time no adverse impact to water quality occurred when a BMP was applied correctly where needed. They also indicated that the one percent of time that there was an impact, it was minor. The most recent monitoring, 2006, was conducted on Federal and industrial timber sales where the monitoring also evaluated construction activities on roads. The field evaluations indicated that 99.9 percent of the time, no adverse impact to water quality occurred when a BMP was applied correctly (94 percent) where needed.When BMPs were not applied correctly, 6 percent of the time, less than 4.4 percent of the time there was a minor impact (Shy and Wagner 2007).


Chapter 3- Water Resources, Environmental Consequences, Cumulative effect; NNIS, Affected Environment Page 15

In addition, Section 208 of the 1977 Clean Water Act required states to develop plans and procedures to control non-point sources of pollution, including silvicultural sources, to the extent feasible. Section 319 of the 1987 Clean Water Act requires each state to develop and implement a program to reduce non-point source pollution to the “maximum extent practicable.” The act requires that BMPs be used to control non-point sources of water pollution.

Most Forest Service policy regarding water quality is contained in Forest Service Manuals 2532 (Water Quality Management) and 2522 (Watershed Improvement). The primary objective for water quality management is to protect, and where necessary, improve the quality of the water resource consistent with the purposes of the National Forests and national water quality goals. The policy includes promoting and applying approved Best Management Practices to all management activities as the method for control of non-point sources of water pollution and for compliance with state and national water quality goals. The policy establishes goals and objectives for managing the quality of the water resource in land and resource management plans; and producing water of a quality suitable for the beneficial uses identified in the land and resources management planning process. Forest Service policy also calls for restoring degraded watershed conditions; improving soil and water quality; and implementing watershed improvement projects when feasible.

The current forest plan includes standards and guidelines that are intended to serve as BMPs for the protection of water quality in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

3.3.3 Cumulative effects on water resourcesBased on findings of direct and indirect effects on water quality, the analysis shows that the effect to water quality from proposed activities would not impair the long-term water quality. All construction activities would follow WI Forestry BMPs for water quality and forest plan standards and guidelines. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects.

3.4 Non-native invasive species (NNIS) resource report

SummaryFrom a cumulative effects perspective, there is an increased risk of NNIS introductions to the campground simply by virtue of the increased amount of traffic.

3.4.1 Affected environment for NNIS According to the Forest Service NNIS database, there are no known NNIS infestations within the campground. European marsh thistle is found along the shoreline of Morgan Lake including the area around the boat landing.


Chapter 3- NNIS – Cumulative effects; TES/RFSS, Affected environment Page 16

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences - Direct and indirect environmental effects on NNIS Allowing ATV/UTVs in the campground and on the boat landing road will not change the use of the roads, but will likely increase the amount of traffic above current levels. ATV/UTV use on the existing roads will not affect the rate of spread of the marsh thistle that is found along the shoreline.

3.4.3 Cumulative effects on NNIS The spatial area for the cumulative effects was mostly the current motorized use (ATV route/trail system and the campground roads) close to the project area, with some farther movement included. Temporal is from the start of the NNIS database projected into the future.

From a cumulative effects perspective, there is an increased risk of NNIS introductions to the campground simply by virtue of the increased amount of traffic. ATV/UTVs will be traveling from nearby areas or trailered from further distances and NNIS seeds and plant parts may contaminate mud that clings to them, which could then be deposited in campsites and along the campground road. Numerous National Forest campgrounds on the forest are already known to have NNIS such was garlic mustard, which was likely brought in by recreationists. Off road vehicles such as ATV/UTVs are another vector for the movement of NNIS.

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species/ Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Summary of wildlife and plant species determinations There will be no negative effect or impact to any Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) or proposed wildlife and plant species or Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). Past, present and future actions in the project area have been analyzed for cumulative effects; there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from this project.

3.5.1 Affected environment for wildlife and plant species consideredInformation regarding TES or Proposed wildlife and plant species is obtained through the cooperation of the US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), WDNR, the state Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, USDA Forest Service Eastern Region TES staff, and other species experts outside the agency.

The Forest Service is responsible for the protection of federally listed TES species (Table 1) as well as RFSS (Table 2) where they occur within CNNF boundaries. This evaluation considers both these lists and the recent updated RFSS list that was approved 2011. This Biological Evaluation (BE) also considered species "likely to occur" on the Forest. These are species that are not currently listed on CNNF RFSS list but are listed as RFSS for other nearby Forests, suitable habitat may exists for the species on the CNNF and therefore they were considered in the BE.


Chapter 3- TES/RFSS, Affected environment Page 17

Table 1. TES

Species Common name Status Known occurrence

Potential habitat Surveyed

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler G1,SNA,SC,FE No No No

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx G5, SNA, SC No No No Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea

Fassett’s locoweed

G5,T1, T2, S1, S2, SE No No No

Because there are no known occurrences of Federally-listed species (Table 1) or their potential habitat will not be affected, no detailed analysis of effects for these species is warranted, except Canada Lynx.

Status of the Canada lynx on the CNNF

The USFWS listed the Canada Lynx in 2000 as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). During this period, the CNNF initiated an analysis of potentially suitable habitat and field surveys using the National Lynx Conservation Assessment protocols (Weiland 2000). These field surveys were conducted in an attempt to encounter the species on Forestlands (Weiland 2000). The results of this analysis and field survey concluded that lynx were not present and that suitable habitat for the species did not exist. Since that analysis, lynx have been documented as present and breeding on the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota (Ed Lindquist, Forest Biologist, personal communication 2004). Another lynx was captured near Marquette Michigan during the winter of 2003-04 in the northeastern portion Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (these areas contain much larger amounts of boreal or boreal like forest than exists on the CNNF). Additionally, based on review of harvest records of lynx in the province of Ontario Canada, it appears that lynx populations in the Great Lakes are at the highest levels in over a decade an likely explain the recent appearance of lynx in upper Michigan and northern Minnesota (USFWS 2004). Based on this, the US FWS indicated in a Consultation letter to the Forest in March 2004 for the revised forest plan, that any lynx in Wisconsin and on the CNNF: Are likely to be animals dispersing from source populations in Minnesota and Canada They do not anticipate that any would become residents in any particular area of the

Forest or State These animals would benefit from the forest plan’s emphasis on increasing interior forest

habitats, increasing patch sizes, and increased emphasis on roadless and non-motorized areas

The habitats most suitable for lynx are lowland conifer types that are not proposed for vegetative management actions under the forest plan (USFWS 2004)

This indicates that any lynx found in Wisconsin is likely a transient animal that is unlikely to establish itself in the State and on the Forest. The WDNR with assistance from CNNF biologists completed additional snow tracking efforts for the Forest’s 2000 analysis. They completed this in areas of possible lynx sightings reported during the 1990’s on the Eagle River District of the Forest (which border the upper peninsula of Michigan). The tracking failed to locate any additional information of lynx present on the CNNF and in the proposed action area. Also, the Forest working with the WDNR has followed up multiple reports of lynx on the Forest in other



areas with no positive identification of lynx presence. Therefore, this proposed action is anticipated to have “no effect” to the species or its habitat, because he proposed action complies with the forest plan and does not impact any lowland conifer gauged to be the most suitable type for lynx.Table 2. RFSS

Species Common name Status Occurrence or habitat potential 2

Evaluated in detail (Y)

TES Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler G1, SNA, SC, FE N N Lynx canadensis Canada lynx G5, SNA, SC N N Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea Fassett’s locoweed G5T1T2, S1S2,

SE N N

RFSS - Animals Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon G3G4, S3, SC N N Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte's Sparrow G4, S2B, SC N N Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper G5, S2B, SC N N Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk G5, S3S4B, ST N N Callophrys henrici Henry's Elfin G5, S2, SC N N Canis lupis Gray (Timber) Wolf G4, S2, ST Y Y Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler G4, S2S3B, ST N N Falcipennis canadensis Spruce Grouse G5, S1S2B, ST N N Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle G4, S3, ST N N Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced Clubtail G3, S3, SC N N Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle G4, S3B, SC Y N Martes americana American Marten G5, S3, SE N N Moxostoma valenciennesi Greater Redhorse G4, S2S3, ST N N Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis G5, S2S4, ST N N Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis G4, S1S3, ST N N Notropis anogenus Pugnose Shiner G3, S2S3, ST N N Oeneis chryxus Chryxus Arctic G5, S2, SC N N Ophiogomphus anomalus Extra-striped Snaketail G3, S1, SE N N Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy Snaketail G3, S3, ST N N Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler G4, S3B, SC N N Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat G5, S1S3, ST N N

Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker G5, S2B, SC N N

Pieris virginiensis West Virginia White G3G4, S2, SC N N

Plebejus idas nabokovi Northern (Nabokov's) Blue G5, S1, SE N N

Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse G4, S2B, SC N N Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Ellipse G3G4, S2, ST N N

RFSS – Plants





Amerorchis rotundifolia Roundleaf Orchid G5, S2, ST N N Arabis missouriensis v. deamii Green Rockcress G5?Q, S2, SC N N

Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum Green Spleenwort G4, S1, SE N N

Astragalus alpinus Alpine Milkvetch G5, S1, SE N N Botrychium minganense Mingan Moonwort G4, S2, SC N N Botrychium mormo Little Goblin Moonwort G3, S3, SE N N Botrychium oneidense Bluntlobe Grapefern G4Q, S2, SC N N Botrychium pallidum Pale Moonwort G3,S1,SC N N Botrychium rugulosum Ternate Grapefern G3, S2, SC N N Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal Water-starwort G5, S2, SC N N

Callitriche heterophylla Twoheaded Water-starwort G5,S1,ST N N

Caloplaca parvula A lichen G1 N N Calypso bulbosa Fairy Slipper G5, S3, ST N N Carex backii Rocky Mountain Sedge G4, S1, SC N N Carex crawei Crawe's Sedge G5, S3, SC N N Carex gynocrates Northern Bog Sedge G5, S3, SC N N Carex livida var radicaulis Livid Sedge G5T5, S2, SC N N Carex michauxiana Michaux's Sedge G5, S2, ST N N Carex sychnocephala Many-headed Sedge G4, S2, SC N N Ceratophyllum echinatum Prickly Hornwort G4?, S2, SC N N

Cypripedium arietinum Ram's-head Lady's-slipper G3, S2, ST N N

Diplazium pycnocarpon Glade Fern G5, S2, SC N N Dryopteris expansa Spreading Woodfern G5, S2, SC N N Dryopteris filix-mas Male Fern G5, S1, SC N N Dryopteris fragrans var remotiuscula Fragrant Fern G5T3T5, S3, SC N N

Eleocharis olivacea Bright Green Spikerush G5, S2, SC N N Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-flowered Spikerush G5, S2, SC N N Epilobium palustre Marsh Willow-herb G5, S3, SC N N Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail G5, S2, SC N N Eriophorum chamissonis Russet Cotton-grass G5, S2, SC N N Huperzia selago Fir Clubmoss G5, S2, SC N N Juglans cinerea Butternut G3G4, S3?, SC N N Juncus stygius Moor Rush G5, S1, SE N N

Leucophysalis grandiflora Large-flowered Ground-cherry G4?, S1, SC N N

Littorella uniflora American Shoregrass G5, S2, SC N N





Melica smithii Smith's Melicgrass G4, S1, SE N N Moehringia macrophylla Largeleaf Sandwort G4, S1, SE N N Myriophyllum farwellii Farwell's Water-milfoil G5, S3, SC N N Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng G3G4, S4, SC N N

Parnassia palustris Marsh Grass-of-Parnassus G5, S2, ST N N

Piptatherum canadensis Canada Mountain Ricegrass G5, S1, SC N N

Poa paludigena Bog Bluegrass G3, S3, ST N N Polemonium occidentale ssp lacustre Western Jacob's Ladder G5?T1Q, S1, SE N N

Polystichum braunii Braun's Holly-fern G5, S3, ST N N Potamogeton confervoides Algae-like Pondweed G4, S2, ST N N Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed G3, S1, SC N N Pyrola minor Snowline Wintergreen G5, S1, SE N N Ranunculus gmelinii Gmelin's Buttercup G5, S2, SE N N Rhynchospora fusca Brown Beakrush G4G5, S2, SC N N Sparganium glomeratum Northern Bur-read G4?, S2, ST N N Streptopus amplexifolius Clasping Twisted-stalk G5, S3, SC N N Tiarella cordifolia Heartleaf Foamflower G5, S1, SE N N Usnea longissima Beard Lichen G4, S1 N N Vaccinium cespitosum Dwarf Huckleberry G5, S2, SE N N Valeriana uliginosa Marsh Valerian G4Q, S2, ST N N



Table 3. RFSS likely to occur

Species Common Name Status Known Occurrence

Potential Habitat Surveyed

Animals Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistrelle G5, S3S4, SC N N N Plethobasus cyphyus Bullhead mussel G3, S1, SE N N N Somatochlora forcipata Forcipate emerald

dragonfly G5, S2S3, SC N N N Plants

Cardamine maxima Large toothwort G5, S1, SC N N N Carex lenticularis Shore sedge G5, S2, ST N N N Disporum hookeri Fairy bells, Hooker’s

mandarin G5 N N N

Eleocharis engelmannii Engelmann’s spike-rush

G4G5Q, S1, SC N N N

Listera auriculata Auricled twayblade G3G4, S1, SE N N N Listera convallarioides Broad-leaved

twayblade G5, S1, ST N N N

Petasites sagittatus Arrow-leaved sweet colt’s-foot

G5, S3, ST N N N

Platanthera flava var herbiola Pale-green orchid G4T4Q, S2, ST N N N Potamogeton pulcher Spotted pondweed G5, S1, SE N N N Pterospora andromeda Giant pinedrops G5, S1, SE N N N Ranunculus lapponicus Lapland buttercup G5, S1, SE N N N

Categories:1. Confirmed: Species has been observed within or near (within 0.25 miles) the project/proposed project area; a documented occurrence is on file for uncommon or rare species.2. Probable: Habitat is suitable; species has been documented on the Forest but not necessarily within project/proposed project area. Likelihood of occurrence is high. 3. Minimal: Some habitat exists; species may or may not have been documented on Forest. Likelihood of occurrence within the project area or proposed project area is low.4. None: No suitable habitat exists; species has not been documented in project area.

Species present or with potential habitat

Gray wolvesWolf habitat has been defined as areas having the following characteristics (WDNR, 1999): low human population densities, sufficient prey (deer, beaver, etc.), low road densities (4.8 km/km2 or 2.9 mile/square mile) and appropriate vegetation cover and landscape patterns. Of these elements, road density and complexity of the spatial landscape pattern (low fragmentation from agricultural or urbanizing landscape) appear to be the most important. The WDNR estimates that there are 809 – 834 wolves and 214 wolf packs currently in the state (WDNR, 2013). On the Eagle River-Florence Ranger District (RD) there are approximately seven to nine wolf packs or portions of wolf packs that overlap the RD boundary. The Mud Lake Pack is in the immediate vicinity of the project area with an estimated pack size of two to four animals.


Chapter 3- TES/RFSS- Affected environment, Environmental Consequences Page 22

Bald eagleEagles are very common throughout the CNNF and are considered abundant across specific areas of lake and large stream habitat. Generally, eagles now occupy all or most of the suitable habitat occurring across the forest such that some larger lakes are home to multiple territories.

BatsPotential habitat for the three bats species may occur in the general vicinity, but are not likely to occur in the campground due to the vegetation make-up of the campground, which is primarily pine, especially red and jack.

Foraging habitat for these species could generally be defined as upland hardwood, bottomland hardwood, and pine-hardwood forest types. Roosting habitat could generally be defined as stands ≥60 years old in upland hardwood and pine-hardwood forest types.

Surveys needed or conducted

Gray wolves The Forest Service does not need additional surveys. Wolves on the CNNF are monitored yearly in cooperation with the WDNR-Bureau of Endangered Resources and results are shared with CNNF wildlife staff.

Bald eagleNo special or additional surveys are needed. WDNR conducts two surveys each year across the entire state and this includes nests on the CNNF. Forest Service staff also documents existing nests, as they are located. No eagle nests are known to occur at Morgan Lake, but eagles may use the lake for foraging.

Other speciesNo surveys are needed for other species because none occur in the project area that have present or potential habitat.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences - Direct and indirect environmental effects on TES/RFSS

Gray wolves

This activity would not affect suitable habitat for the wolves, affect their prey or prey habitat. If wolves are in the campground area, disturbance may cause the wolves to avoid the area. However, because wolves maintain such large territories (181 square kilometers on average in Wisconsin, WDNR 1999) they may disperse to less disturbed areas while remaining within their territory.

Bald eagle


Chapter 3- TES/RFSS, Environmental Consequences, Cumulative effects; Chapter 4 Page 23

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the bald eagle from the proposed project because no nests are located within the project area and campground and trail use will not affect foraging habitat.

Bats

This project will not cause any structural changes to the existing bat foraging or roosting habitat. The only negative impact could be from ATV/UTV traffic and noise disturbance if bats are utilizing these habitats adjacent to the proposed routes. If bats are displaced from these small impacted areas, other suitable roosting and foraging habitat remains in abundance. Therefore, because habitat is less than ideal, the three species of bats will not be analyzed further.

3.5.3 Cumulative effects

Grey wolfs

Specific timeframe for cumulative effects for the wolf analysis is the 2013 and 2014 survey season, as well as the general actions listed above. The spatial analysis was the campground area. Since there would be no direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects to wolves from the proposed project.

Bald eagle

The timeframe for analysis is the biyearly survey done by the WDNR, last survey June/July 2014. This survey area includes the nest areas on the CNNF. Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects to the bald eagle.

Bats

The cumulative effects timeframe would be 2012-2014, with the spatial area being the Morgan Lake Campground. Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects to the bats.

Chapter 4 PREPARERS AND CONSULTATION

4.1 List of preparersSteve Janke- BotanyMike Peczynski-Wildlife BiologistSara Sommer-Water ResourcesMarilee Houtler-NEPAEvan Miller-Recreation


Chapter 5- References Page 24

CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

General

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement. R9-CN-FEIS-0404. USDA Forest Service, Rhinelander, WI

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. R9-CN-FP-0404. USDA Forest Service, Rhinelander, WI

BE

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Correspondence from Janet Smith, Field Supervisor, Ecological Services to Anne Archie, Forest Supervisor, CNNF regarding the effects of the revised CNNF-Land Resource Management Plan on Federal Threatened and Endangered Species, 3 p.

Weiland, N. 2000. Lynx habitat suitability assessment for the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Unpubl. Rpt. USDA Forest Service, Park Falls, WI, 22 p.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan. Madison. WI: Wisconsin Endangered Resources Publ. #099 99, 1999.

Water resources

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. Eastern Region. R9-CN-FP-0404.

Shy, K. and C. Wagner, 2007. Wisconsin’s Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality, 2006 BMP Monitoring Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, PUB-FR-391-2007, Madison, Wisconsin, 35 p

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2010. Wisconsin’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality: A Field Manual for Loggers, Landowners and Land Managers. Publication number FR-093, 162 p.

Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...United States Department...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Assessmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...United States Department...