United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service...
74
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Prickett Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Ottawa National Forest Ontonagon Ranger District Baraga, Houghton, and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan JUNE 2017
Transcript of United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service...
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Prickett Vegetation Management
Project Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Ottawa National Forest
Ontonagon Ranger District
Baraga, Houghton, and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan
JUNE 2017
i
For More Information Contact:
Susanne M. Adams, District Ranger and Responsible Official
Bergland and Ontonagon Ranger Districts
1209 Rockland Road, Ontonagon, Michigan 49953
Phone: 906-884-2085 x14; Email: [email protected]
Chris Kovala, Interdisciplinary Team Leader
Kenton Ranger District
Phone: 906-852-3500 x21
Email: [email protected]
This Environmental Assessment and associated documents are also located at the
following website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ottawa/landmanagement/projects
(see the Prickett Vegetation Management Project link within the “Under Analysis”
section).
*Photo credit (front cover): A hardwood stand prior to thinning. This photo was taken
by Chris Kovala, Environmental Coordinator, Ottawa National Forest.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and
institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from
discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity
(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status,
family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs,
or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity
conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and
complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who
require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large
print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency
or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through
the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be
made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination
complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027,
found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA
office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information
requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
2
Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
Document Structure ............................................................................................................ 4
Project Development ....................................................................................................... 5
Proposed Project Location .................................................................................................. 5
Purpose and Need for the Project ........................................................................................ 6
Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 8
Affected Environment and Purpose and Need for Action............................................... 8
Northern Hardwoods ................................................................................................... 8
Long-lived Conifer ...................................................................................................... 8
Aspen ........................................................................................................................... 9
Maintain diversity of vegetation types and age classes ............................................. 10
Old Growth ................................................................................................................ 11
Support to the Local Economy .................................................................................. 11
Transportation ................................................................................................................... 11
Affected Environment and Purpose and Need for Action............................................. 11
Designated Motorized Use ................................................................................................ 11
Affected Environment and Purpose and Need .............................................................. 11
Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................... 12
Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 12
Public Comment Review Process ................................................................................. 13
No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives ................................................................... 13
Outcomes of Alternative 1 - No Action ........................................................................ 14
Outcomes of Alternative 2 - Proposed Action .............................................................. 15
Vegetation Management ............................................................................................ 15
Maintain diversity of vegetation types and age classes ............................................. 19
Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 24
Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 25
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives ....................................................................... 27
Aquatics/Fisheries ......................................................................................................... 27
Soils............................................................................................................................... 31
3
Non-native Invasive Plants (NNIP) .............................................................................. 37
Visual Resources ........................................................................................................... 41
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ........................................................... 43
Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 45
There are 74 roads and trails in the project that are adjacent to archaeological sites. If these
roads and trails can be used in a manner that prevents disturbance to the adjacent
archaeological sites, then 50 sites would be protected. ............................................. 46
Finding of No Significant Impact ..................................................................................... 47
Context .......................................................................................................................... 47
Intensity......................................................................................................................... 47
Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ..................................................... 51
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 55
References ......................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix 1. Design Criteria, Monitoring and Adaptive Management ............................. 59
Design Criteria .............................................................................................................. 59
Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 1
Adaptive Management .................................................................................................... 1
Appendix 2. Maps ............................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables
Table 1. Aspen acres by age class in the Project Area ...................................................... 10
Table 2. Proposed Vegetation Management (see Maps 1 and 2) ...................................... 18
Table 3. Proposed Transportation System Activities (see Maps 3 and 4) ......................... 23
Table 4. Current (2016 MVUM) and Proposed Motor Vehicle and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV)
Use ............................................................................................................................. 24
Table 5. Comparison of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternative ........................ 25
Table 6. Operability Rating Summary - Proposed Action Timber Sale Re-Entry Areas .. 36
List of Figures
Figure 1. Proposed Project Area Vicinity Map ................................................................... 6
4
Introduction
The Forest Service is proposing to address a variety of needs to maintain or improve
natural resource conditions on the Ottawa National Forest to better meet the objectives,
and maintain the desired conditions, within the project area specified in the 2006 Ottawa
Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 2006). This
project is proposed to be implemented on National Forest System lands in Management
Areas (MAs) 6.1 and 6.2 on the Ontonagon Ranger District of the Ottawa National Forest.
The Responsible Official for this project is Susanne A. Adams, District Ranger for the
Bergland and Ontonagon Ranger Districts.
The Ottawa has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether the effects of
the project proposal may result in significant effects to the human environment and thereby
requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). By preparing this EA, we
are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). For more details of the proposal, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of
this document.
Document Structure
The document is organized into five parts:
Purpose and Need for this Project: This section includes information on the history of the
project proposal and the purpose and need for the project. This section also details how the
Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.
Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: The EA includes a detailed
description of the agency’s Proposed Action as well as the No Action alternative. This
section provides a summary table of the activities associated with each alternative.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives: This section describes the environmental
effects of implementing the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of agencies, preparers and
staff consulted during the development of this EA.
Appendices: The appendices include a list of design criteria (Appendix 1) and maps
Appendix 2) to support the analyses presented in the EA.
Definitions of the terms used in this document as well as a list of acronyms used are located in
the glossary section of the Forest Plan, which is available upon request or on the Ottawa website
at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ottawa/landmanagement/planning.
This document makes reference to several additional documents that further support the analysis,
including the Analysis Framework, Forest Plan documents, and other citations referenced. To
obtain access to the cited documents, or for more information, please contact the Team Leader.
5
Project Development
The information presented in this EA is based on the best available information. All locations,
acreages and other figures are approximate and may vary during project implementation due to
site-specific conditions and application of design criteria. Calculations used for this analysis are
based on skilled interpretations of aerial photos and maps; data evaluation; application of
professional judgment from personal observations with similar projects; and information
acquired from review of relevant, scientific literature.
To facilitate the analysis of this project, the Responsible Official instructed the Interdisciplinary
(ID) Team to develop a framework for their analysis. This Analysis Framework establishes
analysis assumptions and defines the depth and detail of analysis necessary to aid the
Responsible Official in making required findings and to determine the significance of the effects.
This document contains important information about the foundation of the EA’s analysis.
The ID Team developed the Analysis Framework based on comments received in scoping, their
professional knowledge of expected outcomes and effects, and legal requirements. The Analysis
Framework is incorporated by reference into this project’s analysis. The Analysis Framework is
available on the Ottawa’s website
(http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/ottawa/landmanagement/projects ) and by request.
Proposed Project Location
The project area is located on the Ontonagon Ranger District in Baraga, Houghton and
Ontonagon Counties, Michigan (see Figure 1). The project area consists of primarily mature
mixed hardwood stands, with some red pine plantations and aspen stands in MAs 6.1 and 6.21.
The project area covers approximately 36,000 total acres; of which approximately 24,000 acres
are National Forest System lands.
Maps showing existing conditions, potential treatment stands, silvicultural prescription types,
road management activities and designated public access are based on the best available
information (Appendix 2).
1 Management Areas are defined in the Forest Plan, which is available at located on the Ottawa’s website at: website
at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ottawa/forestplan.
6
Figure 1. Proposed Project Area Vicinity Map
In the vicinity of the project area, there are portions of MA 8.1 (the corridor for the Sturgeon
Wild and Scenic River) and MA 8.3 (Special Interest Areas for the Posse Podzol Terrace and
Silver Mountain Area). However, the Prickett VMP proposal excludes the majority of these
areas from any project activity (see the description of the Proposed Action).
Purpose and Need for the Project The need for action has been developed based upon a comparison between the existing resource
conditions in the project area described in this section and desired conditions for these resources,
outlined in the Forest Plan. An ID Team review of this area has revealed a variety of needs and
opportunities to maintain or improve resource conditions to better meet the desired conditions for
MAs 6.1 and 6.2 outlined in the Forest Plan (pp. 3-6 to 3-10; and 3-12 to 3-25). Furthermore, the
ID Team took into account the projected effects of climate change on the project area resources
and how those changes could impact vegetation management, wildlife habitat needs, and riparian
resources.
This project would allow the Forest Service to work towards meeting Forest-wide goals and
objectives. There is a need to provide a diversity of vegetation types and age classes; align the
current transportation system to the desired condition stated in the Forest Plan for administrative
7
and public access; and integrate prescribed fire in
select red pine plantations in order to work towards
achieving the desired vegetation conditions in MAs
6.1 and 6.2 (Forest Plan, pages 3-55 and 3-61).
The purpose and need for this management within
the project area is supported by the Forest Plan as
follows:
Manage the northern hardwood type with a
mixture of uneven-aged and even-aged
management to provide a variety of northern
hardwood communities (species, size structure,
age class), which produce a full range of
wildlife and recreation benefits and a sustained
yield of timber products (Forest Plan page 2-2).
Restore and maintain Great Lakes forested
ecosystems using timber management and
silvicultural practices as tools, and to enhance
values associated with the Great Lakes
ecosystem (Forest Plan page 2-5).
Provide a sustained yield of timber while
meeting integrated resource management
objectives consistent with land capabilities
(Forest Plan page 2-6).
Retain old growth forests across the landscape
in conjunction with other adjacent ownerships
to maintain healthy, diverse, and productive
ecosystems (Forest Plan, p. 2-2).
Promote diverse and quality recreation
experiences within the capability of sustainable
ecosystems, and consistent with the niche of the
Ottawa, while minimizing impacts to natural
resources (Forest Plan, page 2-4).
Maintain or increase opportunities for quiet and
remote experiences in semi-primitive non-motorized areas and other areas as appropriate
(Forest Plan page 2-4).
Integrate hazardous fuels projects with other programs to achieve multiple resource
objectives (Forest Plan page 2-11).
Design and maintain a safe, efficient, and effective transportation system that supports both
public and administrative uses of National Forest System Lands (Forest Plan page 2-12).
Maintaining diversity across the Ottawa National Forest Ottawa National Forest employees take pride in restoring lands and managing your forests for the benefit and enjoyment of all Americans. One crucial aspect of forest management is providing diverse habitats for both the plants and animals that reside here.
The Ottawa National Forest uses its
Forest Plan to guide employees on
appropriate actions to either maintain,
or improve, your forested lands. For
example, the Forest Plan states that the
Ottawa National Forest should maintain
a variety of forest types, such as mixed
hardwoods, aspen and long-lived
conifers. This tree species diversity
supports a wide variety of wildlife, such
as white-tailed deer, black bear, and
ruffed grouse, but it also supports the
local economy through timber
management activities.
8
Vegetation
Affected Environment and Purpose and Need for Action
This section discloses the site-specific forest conditions within the project area, as well as the
desired vegetation composition at the Forest-wide scale. These composition percentages are an
important aspect in the foundation for our management strategies.
The current conditions do not meet all of the Forest Plan’s desired conditions as follows:
Northern Hardwoods
The northern hardwood forest type is both diverse in species composition and stand
characteristics. Most hardwood stands in the project area are second-growth stands, which have
a component of overstocked, smaller pole-sized trees; some of which are of poor form and
quality.
The Forest Plan’s desired vegetation composition for northern hardwood is between 15 and 90%
of the landscape within MAs 6.1 and 6.2 (pp. 3-58 and 3-64). At the Forest-wide scale, the
percentage is currently at 93% for MA 6.1 and 76% for MA 6.2.
There is a need to improve and maintain the growth, vigor and quality of northern hardwood
stands, while promoting the development of a balanced age/size class distribution to enhance
structural complexity. There is also a need to improve the condition of northern hardwoods for
the long-term by managing the vegetation through emphasis on the overall diversity of species
and to provide a mix of uneven-aged and even-aged conditions as described in the Forest Plan
(page 2-6). Improving these conditions, while addressing diversification needs of hardwoods
stands, would help increase stand and Forest resiliency to impacts from a changing climate (see
Project File, Climate Analysis).
Long-lived Conifer
Current stand densities of red pine are higher than what is recommended for optimal growth. The
majority of the red pine stands within the project area were established through artificial
regeneration (e.g. planting) during the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) era in the late 1930’s
and early 1940’s.
The Forest Plan’s desired vegetation composition for long-lived conifer is between 1 and 45% of
the landscape within MAs 6.1 and 6.2 (pp. 3-58 and 3-64). At the Forest-wide scale, the
percentage is currently at 7% for both MA 6.1 and 6.2.
The close spacing between trees in red pine plantations has resulted in small crowns, as well as
reduced growth and tree vigor, making trees more susceptible to insect and disease problems.
There is a need to improve the growth, vigor, and quality of long-lived conifer where applicable
as outlined in the Forest Plan (pp. 2-2, 2-6 and 2-8).
9
Fire on the Landscape
After turn-of-the-20th-century logging, the Civilian
Conservation Corps established red pine
plantations on the Ottawa and management of
plantations has continued to retain red pine on the
landscape. Through active fire suppression and
silvicultural timber stand improvement activities,
the natural fire regime has been eliminated, and red
pine regeneration is primarily achieved through
seedling planting after the soil is disturbed by
mechanical means. However, there are three red
pine plantation stands within the project area that
lack the desired component of seedlings and
saplings in the understory due to a thick component
of shrub species along with thick duff layers on the
forest floor (see Appendix 2, Map 2).
Of the three pines native to Michigan, red pine is
the most tolerant of surface fires in mature stands
(Dickmann 1993). The red pine stands thrive on
glaciated soils where intense fires historically
occurred at 50-200 year intervals. Legacy red pines
with multiple fire scars are easily found across the
landscape.
There is a need to re-establish fire as a natural
process on the landscape. This project would allow
us to integrate hazardous fuels projects with other
programs (timber/ silviculture) to achieve multiple
resource objectives and reduce hazardous fuels.
Without fire or some disturbance as a component in
these long-lived conifer communities, these stands
would succeed to various combinations of northern
hardwoods in the future (Wright, 1982).
Aspen
Aspen is a pioneer or early successional short-lived
and shade-intolerant species. Therefore, unless
there is a natural event such as wildfire or major
storm damage occurrence, aspen would eventually
Do all pine forests grow in
straight lines?
Have you ever seen a pine forest like this? If
you have, you may have been viewing a
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) pine
plantation. The CCC employed thousands of
Americans during the Great Depression in
the 1930’s to rehabilitate public land that
had been cut over in the late-19th century
(before and after reforestation pictured
below).
The US Forest Service continues to manage
many of these forested area to provide
timber for the American public.
10
die out and give way to more shade-tolerant species such as red and white pines, spruce/fir, oak
and northern hardwoods.
There is currently an over-abundance of mature and over-mature aspen stands within the project
area.
Table 1. Aspen acres by age class in the Project Area
Age Class Acres Percentage
0-20 103 5.4%
21-40 475 25.0%
41-60 393 20.7%
60+ 927 48.8%
Total 1,898 100.0%
Almost half of the aspen acres occur in the 60+ year category, which means that the aspen in
these stands are over-mature and beginning to convert to other forest types (see Table 1). Almost
650 acres of the 927 existing aspen acres in the 60+ age class are on lands suitable for timber
production. The remaining acres of 60+ aspen are unsuitable for timber production because of
steep slopes or the presence of streams and wetlands.
The Forest Plan’s desired vegetation composition for the aspen forest type is between 10 and
55% of the landscape within MAs 6.1 and 6.2 (pp. 3-58 and 3-64). At the Forest-wide scale, the
percentage is currently at 6% for MA 6.1 and 12% for MA 6.2.
There is a need to manage for aspen vegetation conditions over time to create the desired range
of age classes and to maintain the desired amount of aspen across the landscape, including within
the project area. If actions are not taken to regenerate these stands, they will transition from
aspen stands to mixed hardwood stands (2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, p. 22).
Additionally, there is a need to improve stand conditions to be more drought-tolerant on drier
sites as climate projections predict warmer and drier conditions in the future (see Project File,
Climate Analysis).
Maintain diversity of vegetation types and age classes
The project area was selected for management because not all forest characteristics in MAs 6.1
and 6.2 currently align with the desired conditions determined in the Forest Plan. These MAs
emphasize the same desired vegetative compositions (Forest Plan, pp. 3-57 and 3-63).
Therefore, the desired conditions are also similar for providing a continuous canopy of northern
hardwoods, interspersed with aspen, softwoods, and temporary openings, along with associated
habitat conditions and timber products throughout the management areas. Management Area 6.1
emphasizes a moderate to high amount of northern hardwood, while MA 6.2 offers a high
amount of northern hardwood forest. Even-aged management of the aspen forest type provides
habitat conditions for game species such as deer and ruffed grouse.
11
Old Growth
Old growth provides late-successional habitat components, including diversity of tree age-
classes, structural complexity, and downed woody material. The Forest Plan calls for a
minimum of 10% of the landscape within MAs 6.1 and 6.2 to be classified as old growth (pp. 3-
58 and 3-64). At the Forest-wide scale, the percentage of old growth is 6% and 10% for MAs
6.1 and 6.2, respectively.
Adjustments to classified old growth may be made in accordance with Forest Plan guidelines (p.
2-24). A review was performed to determine whether the currently classified old growth
contains the required characteristics outlined in the Forest Plan (p. 2-25). Based on this review, a
need has been identified to retain old growth in some areas, and declassify those areas that do not
possess or meet the Forest Plan criteria for old growth. There is an additional need to classify
stands in different areas where conditions would support Forest Plan old growth criteria to
replace those acres declassified, and to more fully meet the Forest Plan’s old growth objectives.
Support to the Local Economy
The forest products industry is vital to the local economy of the western Upper Peninsula of
Michigan. The Ottawa seeks to provide a mix of forest products to help support this local and
regional industry (Forest Plan, p. 2-6). This includes providing a mix of species and products
consistent with demand (Forest Plan, p. 2-6).
Transportation
Affected Environment and Purpose and Need for Action
The overall purpose for transportation management is to provide a safe, efficient, and effective
road system that supports both public and administrative uses (Forest Plan, p. 2-12). Survey
results show that some portions of the transportation system need to be improved to bring roads
up to the appropriate standard as well as ensure that the road network provides for resource
protection.
In some areas, the transportation system is not adequate to facilitate management of the project
area. Conversely, some existing roads have been deemed unnecessary to retain on the
transportation system for current or future use. In order to achieve the Forest Plan goal, there is a
need to ensure we provide for an adequate transportation system, including improving the
conditions of the existing roads, reducing road densities as appropriate, and considering
constructing roads where needed.
Designated Motorized Use
Affected Environment and Purpose and Need The overall purpose for recreation management is to provide for safe and quality recreational
experiences, while improving the condition of the natural resource in the project area (Forest
Plan, pp. 2-3, 2-4 and 2-14).
12
The current Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) displayed on Map 5 shows the roads and trails
open to motorized use, and the type of vehicles allowed (OHVs only, highway legal vehicles
only or both). The ID Team reviewed the current designations and proposed changes to address
specific conditions located on the ground in the project area. The area is popular for dispersed
recreation. Both MAs 6.1 and 6.2 provide for opportunities of solitude, which is enhanced by
lower road densities.
The Forest Service uses a nationally recognized classification system called the Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to describe different recreation settings, opportunities, and
experiences to help guide recreation management activities (Forest Plan, Appendix B). The ROS
is the direction recreation management actions follow to achieve the desired recreation setting.
Each MA is assigned a desired ROS in the Forest Plan.
Management Area 6.1 is designated as a semi-primitive non-motorized recreational environment
where lower standard roads are closed to all public motorized use. Within the project area, the
public access system is consistent with the Forest Plan. Management Area 6.2 offers semi-
primitive motorized recreational opportunities where there is more flexibility for designating
public access. Most often, the greatest need is to balance the needs of both motorized and non-
motorized recreational users, while providing an access system that is responsive to resource
protection needs. Thus, there is a need to align the current conditions with the desired conditions
prescribed in the Forest Plan through a road-by-road evaluation to determine which roads can
support motorized uses.
A need has been identified to improve administrative and public access within MA 8.3. This
Special Interest Area provides for the protection of the Posse Podzol Terrace, a geological feature
of terrace walls and terraces on the Forest. This opportunity would require the Responsible
Official to weigh the benefits of providing access within the Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized area
against the Forest Plan’s Guidelines for restricting motorized use within MA 8.3 (Forest Plan, p.
3-89).
Tribal Consultation The Forest Service shares in the United States’ legal responsibility and treaty obligations to work
with federally-recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis to protect the Tribes’
ceded territory rights on lands administered by the Forest Service. The scoping documentation
was sent to several Tribes on November 16, 2016, including local representatives of the Lac
Vieux Desert (LVD) Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
(KBIC). Additionally, Ottawa staff met with representatives of these Tribal governments to
discuss this project in January 2016, September 2016, and March 2017.
Public Involvement
The Forest Service consulted with many potentially interested and affected parties, including
State and local agencies during the scoping period. In November 2016, a scoping letter
explaining the purpose and need for action, as well as the location and description of the
13
proposed actions, was sent to more than 260 potentially interested parties including: those who
subscribe to the Ottawa’s mailing list; nearby property owners; local government agencies for
Baraga, Iron, Gogebic, Houghton and Ontonagon Counties; local township offices; and the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. It was also announced through the Ottawa’s
Schedule of Proposed Actions2 and via an Ottawa press release (http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/ and
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ottawa/news-events/).
Public Comment Review Process
In response to the November 2016 scoping letter, comment letters from 11 interested parties were
received. Pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1503.4), all comments were evaluated by the
ID Team and Responsible Official (Project File, Comment Matrix). We received comments that
support and oppose the Proposed Action.
Each comment was reviewed to determine if concerns raised were within the scope of the
proposal and relevant to the decision being made. Comments were then reviewed to determine if
an alternative to the Proposed Action was necessary and/or if the project proposal (i.e., cause)
would produce an undesirable result (i.e., effect) that could not be addressed through protection
measures afforded by law, regulation, policy, Forest Plan direction or proposed design criteria.
These cause-effect relationships are called issues. As outlined in Forest Service Handbook
1909.15, section 12.4, issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may
occur from the Proposed Action, providing opportunities during the analysis to explore
alternative ways to meet the purpose and need for the proposal while reducing adverse effects.
Concerns have been identified, but they can be addressed through implementation of Forest Plan
direction, project design criteria, or simple clarification of the project’s intent (Project File,
Comment Matrix). Therefore, the Responsible Official has determined that these areas of
concern do not present issues requiring detailed analysis. Specific concerns brought forward
were related to the economic viability of timber if the proposed prescribed fire activity in red
pine plantations were to occur. Other concerns raised included dust and increased traffic on non-
Forest Service roads, motor vehicle use post-harvest and carbon sequestration (see project file).
No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives
The No Action (Alternative 1) and Proposed Action (Alternative 2) have been analyzed in detail.
A summary of the expected outcomes from implementation of both alternatives is included in
this section. These expected outcomes show how the current project area conditions would be
changed in response to implementation and also demonstrates the extent to which each
alternative would meet the purpose and need of the proposal.
2 The Schedule of Proposed Actions is a report that contains a list of proposed actions that will begin or are currently
undergoing environmental analysis and documentation.
14
Outcomes of Alternative 1 - No Action This alternative was developed as required in 40 CFR 1502.14(d), and serves as the baseline for
evaluating the Proposed Action. In summary, the No Action alternative does not propose any
new vegetation management or ground disturbing activities or changes to existing conditions
within the project area. No timber harvest would occur on these National Forest System lands.
There would be no progress toward the desired conditions as described in the Forest Plan for
MAs 6.1 and 6.2.
Without active management, the northern hardwood landscape would persist over the long-term,
with species such as sugar maple, ironwood, and white pine dominating the landscape due to
their shade tolerance and long life spans. However, these current hardwood stands lack a full
range of size and age classes, are at a higher than ideal stocking level recommended for vigorous
growth, and contain some trees that are suppressed. Overtime, the successional trend of northern
hardwoods is towards sugar maple with components of white ash, yellow birch, basswood, and
red maple.
Without human-caused or natural disturbances, aspen forest tends to move toward a late-
successional forest, which on the Ottawa favors sugar maple, hemlock, and other shade-tolerant
vegetation. This succession typically takes more than 80 years, or a stand generation.
Red pine plantations and long-lived conifer species would remain in their current condition.
Trees per acre would remain the same, growth would slow, and over time crown density would
increase, which would increase risk of potential crown fires in those stands. The current fuel
loads and potential conditions that may occur, such as ladder fuel establishment, represent
significant crown-fire risk should these areas remain untreated. The probability of a crown fire
occurring would remain elevated, thus creating a hazardous working environment for firefighters
should a fire occur. Public safety could be compromised along with the increased damage or
destruction of non-federal lands and property.
The No Action alternative would result in reduced habitat for wildlife species as overstocked
stands continued to age, leading to reduced diversity and structural complexity. In the case of
aspen forests, no management would result in loss of this early successional habitat. Economically, the No Action Alterative would not increase opportunities for timber industry-
related employment or timber related economic support for rural communities.
There are currently 5,003 acres classified as old growth within the project area. This would
remain unchanged under this alternative.
The transportation system would not be refined and no roads would be constructed or
reconstructed. Roads that have problems, such as rutting, sedimentation, poor drainage or other
erosion problems would not be corrected. See the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives
section for more information regarding the effects of not implementing the Proposed Action for
multiple resources.
There would be no changes to the existing designated access within the project area, which
would lead to a foregone opportunity to refine the access system and allow for additional
motorized recreation opportunities in MA 6.2.
15
Outcomes of Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
The Forest Plan includes direction in the form of Forest-wide goals, objectives, standards and
guidelines, as well as management area-specific standards and guidelines. Together, all of these
elements outline the desired conditions for the entirety of the Ottawa’s landscape. The analysis
that was performed in the Forest Plan’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) included
the expectation that the desired conditions would not be achieved immediately. Instead, the
Forest Plan’s desired conditions are used as the foundation for how management strives towards
achieving, or maintaining, the desired conditions through site-specific projects (Forest Plan, p. 1-
10).
The Proposed Action includes vegetation management (see Table 1 for summary) and associated
economic benefits, changes to the transportation system to meet the needs for both public and
administrative access, prescribed fire and project design criteria as described in the following
sections.
In considering how climate change may impact our project, the ID Team utilized the Forest
Adaptation Resources approach to consider the vulnerability of forested ecosystems, in general
and specifically, within the project area (see Project File). This further assisted in identifying
adaptation approaches and tactics that could help the system become more resistant or resilient in
the face of climate changes (Swanston et. al. 2012a). The ID Team found that many of the
management activities planned already contained adaptation tactics that would improve the
systems resilience (e.g. encouraging species diversity and favoring against sugar maple in
hardwood stands).
The number of acres harvested would not exceed the amount authorized if the Proposed Action is
selected for implementation. See Table 1 for a summary of the Proposed Action’s vegetation
proposal.
In terms of vegetation management, the project area excludes:
stands located within MAs outside of MA 6.1 and MA 6.2 (including Wild and Scenic River
corridors, Wilderness, and Special Interest Areas); and
areas classified as not suitable for timber harvest in the Forest Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS), such as areas with >75% unsuitable soil types and classified old
growth stands (as defined by the Forest Plan FEIS, Volume II, pgs. A-13 to A-15).
Vegetation Management
The project maps (Appendix 2) show the approximately 14,060 acres of proposed treatment
stands that have been identified at this time, based on available information from databases and
field review to verify feasibility of proposed stands.
Northern Hardwood
To progress towards the desired condition for northern hardwoods in the project area,
approximately 13,300 acres of mixed hardwood stands would be managed using selection,
16
thinning, improvement, and shelterwood management techniques (see Appendix 2, Map 2). This
would also provide conditions for establishment of natural regeneration in northern hardwood
forest types through uneven-aged structure (Forest Plan, pp. 2-2, 2-6 and 2-7).
Alternative 2 would treat northern hardwood stands to maintain or increase structural and
compositional complexity. Selection harvest would improve long-term growth conditions for the
residual timber by removal of mature, diseased and low-quality timber, and excess growing
stock.
Where available, and when quality and vigor (tree health) allow, mid-tolerant species including
northern red oak, white ash, basswood, white pine, yellow birch, and black cherry would
generally be favored over sugar and red maples of similar size and quality. This is done to
maintain diversity (a long-term mix of vegetation) across the landscape. Sugar maple would be
favored over red maple as a residual due to probable higher long-term value and a normally
longer life span.
Hemlock mixed in with hardwoods would typically be left as a residual due to a combination of
factors including, but not limited to, the following: value as a wildlife species for both thermal
cover and snag/den potential; its relatively low timber value; and to promote diversity in the
hardwood stands. However, some hemlock would be harvested where it is growing in clumps.
Thinning in these clumps promotes the health and vigor of the remaining trees, while improving
their longevity by reducing competition. Hemlock would also be harvested where it may present
hazards with breakage or other defects.
At the project scale, the percentage of northern hardwood would be retained at 78% for MA 6.1
and 61% for MA 6.2.
Long-lived Conifer
To achieve the desired condition for long-lived conifers in the project area, approximately 230
acres of red pine stands would be managed through thinning in identified overcrowded stands.
This alternative would maintain the current white pine component across the project area in MA
17
6.2. It would increase the health and vigor of white
pine individuals by reducing competition with other
species and reduce the amount of white pine blister
rust by removing infected trees.
At the project scale, the percentage of long-lived
conifer (e.g., red pine) would remain unchanged at
0% in MA 6.1 and 5% in 6.2.
Aspen
To retain aspen on the landscape in these MAs,
regeneration of approximately 600 acres of aspen
would occur within the project area through
clearcutting. This harvest prescription is the
common practice to regenerate aspen because it
mimics natural disturbances that occur in these
stands, such as wildfire, insects, diseases or
windthrow. Aspen need disturbance for new growth
and suckering.
Even-aged management is the primary silvicultural
system for aspen (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service,
2006 p. 3-9). Aspen responds well to intensive
management and the clearcutting regeneration
method favors the establishment and development of
this shade-intolerant species (USDA Forest Service,
2006 p. C-4; Burns, 1990; Perala, 1977; Cleland et al,
2001). Leaving a lower density of trees in a stand
can reduce the regeneration success and future
growth of the stand (USDA Forest Service, 1985).
Under Alternative 2, some untreated stands would
convert from an aspen forest type to other forest
types, but on a much smaller scale than if no
vegetation management was implemented to
regenerate aspen stands. This alternative regenerates
aspen/paper birch on approximately 593 acres. In
cases where modified clearcuts are proposed, the
majority of the area would be clearcut, but there
would be some residual clumps of mid-tolerant
species such as northern red oak and white pine left
to maintain diversity across the landscape. Aspen
clearcuts are designed with irregular edges and
Managing Red Pine Plantations through prescribed fire and timber management
Thinning of red pine stands and the use of prescribed fire are two strategies used by the Forest Service to reduce the risk of potentially severe and destructive wildfires. To illustrate the effectiveness of these strategies, let’s refer to the No Pablo wildfire that occurred on the Huron-Manistee National Forest in 2000.
The effects of a wildfire on a managed red pine plantation (above). Note that the fire did not reach the crowns of the trees, nor did it scorch all of the available forest litter. Compare this to how the same wildfire impacted a separate red pine plantation two miles away (below). This plantation was severely impacted, as abundant ground fuels, combined with a dense tree canopy, allowed the fire to burn much hotter, which in turn killed many of the trees in this stand.
18
variable patch sizes to promote the “blending” of clearcut edges with the surrounding forest to
maintain a more natural look to the landscape.
Alternative 2 would also convert 16 acres of area containing northern hardwood, spruce and/or
balsam fir to future aspen and/or birch stands. Conversely, about 730 acres currently typed as
aspen are converting to other forest types. The design of the project would maintain some aspen
in these stands where there is enough aspen to regenerate it; however, the majority of the stands
would be another type.
Aspen is a highly visible species in the northern forest landscape. While clearcutting results in
temporary openings that affect the visual quality of the landscape, the 600 acres proposed for
aspen regeneration would allow the aspen type to remain stable for the next 60 years.
Alternative 2 continues to move the age class distribution (where rotation age range for aspen
equals 40-90 years) toward the desired condition described in the Forest Plan, while addressing
forest health conditions.
At the Forest-wide scale, the percentage of aspen would be retained at 6% in MA 6.1 and 12% in
6.2. While the percentage of aspen in these MA’s will remain unchanged, the age class structure
would change, providing diversity among aspen stands and the species that rely on the young
aspen forest habitat type (particularly ruffed grouse and white-tailed deer).
Table 2. Proposed Vegetation Management (see Maps 1 and 2)
Activity Acres in
MA 6.1
Acres in
MA 6.2
Total Acres
(rounded)
Northern Hardwood Management
Thinning Harvest - 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 enhance forest health.
0 8 10
Selection Harvest - A cutting method
where individual trees are removed from
certain size and age classes of trees within
a stand. Regeneration of a new age class of
trees is usually natural; resulting in
managing for an uneven-aged (or multi-
aged) stand of trees.
2,628 10,324 12,950
Shelterwood Harvest – Removal of some
trees in a stand managed as even-aged to
promote the establishment of a new age
0 111 110
19
Activity Acres in
MA 6.1
Acres in
MA 6.2
Total Acres
(rounded)
class of trees beneath the shelter of residual
trees.
Improvement Harvest – Treatment that
regulates species composition and
improves the quality of the stand by
enhancing existing stand conditions to
promote additional desirable species, and
improve form and quality.
0 151 150
Long-lived Conifer Management
Thinning - Treatment where trees are
removed to provide improved growing
conditions for remaining trees.
8 219 230
Aspen/Paper Birch Management
Regeneration Harvest – The removal of
all or almost all trees in the stand in a
single cutting. Regeneration of a new age
class of trees is usually natural, but
planting can occur resulting in managing
for an even-aged (or same-aged) stand of
trees.
0 609 610
Totals 2,636 11,422 14,060
Maintain diversity of vegetation types and age classes
Through management actions described above, the vegetative composition percentages, stand age and forest types would be maintained or improved based upon site conditions. A benefit of these actions is improved habitat. Northern hardwood management would improve growth of trees and provide gaps in the canopy allowing understory development. Species that would benefit include red-shoulder hawk, northern white butterfly, and bat species. There would also be increased forage for deer in the understory.
In aspen habitat, regeneration of the forest type through clearcut harvest would be most beneficial to ruffed grouse and white-tailed deer, as well as Neotropical migrant birds.
Group selection and thinning treatments in long-lived conifer would more quickly progress these
unnatural monocultures towards the desired future conditions and help develop the large tree
components, while also improving conditions for wildlife habitat. Thinning may increase shrub
20
and seedling layer (maple, aspen, beaked hazel) and provide higher quality forage for deer, red-
backed voles and chipmunk.
Fire Use in Long-lived Conifer Forests
There is a need to restore the conditions of red pine plantations’ understory to support desirable
conditions for future generations of red pine and the associated plant and animal species that rely
on this forest type.
The harvest activity would increase the fuel loading within the stands. The burn would reduce
those increased fuel loadings and return the nutrients stored in the duff to the soil, reduce the
depth and continuity of the duff, and allow for the promotion of grasses, sedges, and forbs.
Together the harvest and prescribed burn would improve the health, vigor, and quality of red
pine.
Harvest alone would reduce the stand density and crown closure. However, it would not address
the issue of fuel loading, which temporarily increases post-harvest due to the slash left from the
harvest activity.
Three stands, approximately 47 acres total, are proposed for prescribed burning after timber
harvest has been completed. The proposed prescribed burns are located in compartment 102,
stands 1 and 2, and in compartment 49, stand 18 south of FR 2277. See Map 2 in Appendix 2 for
the proposed locations.
An area larger than the size of the stands to be burned would be incorporated into the burn area
to allow room for the placement of fire lines and post-harvest planning. The location of fire line
placement would be determined after the timber harvest activity has occurred, but would utilize
natural control lines such as existing roads where practical.
Mitigation measures would be used to create a cool burn and reduce bole char and other damage.
Such measures could include but are not limited to raking around trees and ring firing. Fire lines
would need to be constructed to contain the prescribed fire within the project boundary. The least
ground disturbing methods would be used that would still allow for fire containment, safety of
firefighters, and the safety of the public. This may include the use of existing roads and trails,
leaf blower line, wet line, hand line, dozer line, or a combination. The location of fire line would
be determined post-harvest.
A prescribed fire burn plan would be written and approved using the Interagency Prescribed Fire
Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide before any prescribed fire is ignited. This
planning process would include a complexity analysis, objectives (burn and resource),
prescription (fire behavior and weather), scheduling, pre-burn considerations, needed
organization and equipment, communication, safety, test fire, ignition plan, holding plan,
contingency plan, fire behavior modeling, smoke management and air quality, monitoring, and
post-burn activities among other topics.
Old Growth
Refinements in the designation of stands of old growth are intended to improve patch size and
spatial arrangement, while striving to maintain the amount of classified old growth within the
21
Forest Plan’s direction. Old growth consists of late-successional stages of naturally occurring
forests dominated by long lived species, containing large trees, tree-fall gaps, having multiple
canopy layers, high levels of structural diversity and high frequency of snags and downed logs of
various sizes. There are currently 5,003 acres classified as old growth within the project area.
Some of the old growth stands are isolated from larger patches of old growth.
The direction of the 2006 Forest Plan is to identify potential old growth stands that meet certain
old growth characteristic criteria, including contributing to connectivity. Given this, many of the
stands that did not possess many of the old growth characteristics or did not contribute to or
complement the connectivity of old growth on the landscape, are proposed for declassification
under the Proposed Action alternative. Some stands that were not classified, but possess a good
deal of old growth characteristics and/or contribute towards connectivity are proposed to be
classified as old growth. The current composition of old growth within the MA 6.1 and MA 6.2
is 6% and 10% respectively. Desired composition for both MA 6.1 and 6.2 is 10% or greater old
growth. Of the 5,003 acres of old growth, 323 acres would be declassified and 111 acres would
be classified old growth. The proposed adjustment of old growth acreage in the overall project
area would result in 4,791 acres of old growth after implementation (see Map 2).
It is important to note that identifying site-specific locations of classified old growth in this
project area does not change the percentage of the landscape to be classified as old growth that
was established in Forest Plan direction (p. 3-18). In accordance with the Forest Plan, the total
amount of old growth to be located via stand classification at the Forest-wide MA scale, is 10%
or greater of the 57,000 acres, and 52,400 acres, of National Forest System lands encompassing
MAs 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in 6% in
MA 6.1 and 10% in MA 6.2, which is unchanged from present conditions.
Economics
The Proposed Action would also support the local economy. The outcomes for economics are
based on the relevant revenues and costs of implementation. A benefit-to-cost ratio of 1 or more
represents a positive return, and therefore the financial benefits of an alternative would outweigh
the costs necessary to implement the Proposed Action.
Accounting for approximately 14,060 acres of proposed vegetative treatment and estimated road
costs3, the economic analysis predicts that the Proposed Action would result in a benefit to cost
ratio of 1.31; demonstrating a positive return (project file, Economic Resource Analysis). Due to
Forest Service policies which return revenue to communities surrounding National Forests, there
would be an economic return of money to the community from associated harvest activities, and
as a result, potential for an increase in employment opportunities and other support to rural
communities.
3 To estimate the costs of transportation refinements proposed, timber sales sold between the years of 2009 and 2014
were examined to determine the average weighted cost of $0.72/CCF.
22
Transportation Management
The proposal includes permanent and temporary road construction and reconstruction to access
stands and facilitate harvest operations. Design criteria and best management practices are used
to minimize the impacts and costs of road use and construction. For example, existing roads
would be used to the extent possible. If access cannot economically be achieved in accordance
with the design criteria and best management practices, then stands would be excluded from
treatment. All changes to the transportation system would stay within the desired road densities
listed in the Forest Plan.
Permanent Road Construction
The proposed Design Criteria (Appendix 1) allow for permanent road construction as part of this
project. This would occur in two situations:
1) Relocating poorly located roads: In some cases, existing system roads may be poorly located
(such as too close to a stream) and therefore, there may be a minor amount of new permanent
road construction in order to relocate the existing road. In these situations, the existing
system road would be decommissioned.
2) Supporting long-term transportation needs: In some areas permanent roads would be
constructed in locations where they would provide future access for northern hardwood
stands, which are more regularly managed. If temporary roads were used in these situations,
it would result in greater costs and impacts to resources because future management activities
may place roads where the temporary roads were decommissioned. In order to reduce
overall long-term costs for transportation management, these roads would remain available
for harvesting adjacent hardwood stands in the future.
It is estimated that approximately six miles of permanent construction would be required for this
project (Project File).
Temporary Roads
Current logging equipment is capable of skidding harvested timber up to ¼-mile through
treatment stands (based on equipment limitations, risk to soil, and economic feasibility). Where
stands, or portions of stands, are further than ¼ mile from an existing road (e.g., system road),
temporary road construction may be required to supplement skidding to facilitate harvest
operations.
A temporary road is not constructed to the same standard as a system road. Temporary roads are
built at a minimum width for operations; and any culverts and crossing structures used are
removed after use. These roads are decommissioned at the conclusion of timber operations
through placement of slash, berms or barriers installed to prohibit motorized vehicle access and
to allow the roadbed to naturally re-vegetate. These roads are established depending on need,
where the landscape can support use, and where resource concerns are best addressed based on
the application of design criteria and best management practices.
23
Reconstruction
The Proposed Action includes reconstruction on all existing roads, as necessary. Reconstruction
of roads would improve conditions to provide access to stands and facilitate timber harvest
operations and public motorized access. If the Proposed Action were to occur, approximately 85
to 120 miles of road would need to be reconstructed for timber harvest. The range of mileages
included under the Proposed Action is to allow flexibility to address resource concerns and/or
improve roads that may need culvert replacement and other roadwork. This is especially true for
lower standard roads that are proposed for public access, where road conditions may not be
improved through timber sale operations, and road conditions can change over time.
Reconstruction improvements would include: clearing brush, limited road widening, gravel
placement where needed, installing and/or repairing culverts, as well as ditching and shaping of
roads. Implementation of these actions would enhance the roads’ standards in a manner
consistent with the Forest Plan’s direction to “maintain a safe, efficient, and effective
transportation system that supports administrative uses of National Forest System Lands” while
minimizing resource impacts such as sedimentation. These improvements would also serve to
benefit motorized public access in those areas designated for such use.
Road Decommissioning
Decommissioning of approximately 147 miles of road is proposed to address road-related
resource damage, especially where negative impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat
and other forest resources has occurred. The roads identified are currently not open for
motorized use, and decommissioning these roads would have no effect on public access.
Decommissioning activities have been identified for 133 miles of unclassified road and 14 miles
of system road to address resource protection needs and ensure management of the most efficient
transportation system.
Table 3. Proposed Transportation System Activities (see Maps 3 and 4)
Activity Miles
(approximate)
Construction 6
Reconstruction 85-120
Road Decommissioning* 140-160
Total Miles Up to 286
*Does not include decommissioning of temporary roads
Designated Motor Vehicle Use
The outcome of the Proposed Action is improved motorized recreational user opportunities
through changes to the location and type of routes offered. Roads currently available for
motorized public use would not change. However, an additional 22 miles of roads currently
unavailable for public motorized use would be available for motorized recreational use and
public access in MA 6.2 under the Proposed Action (see Table 4).
24
Alternative 2 would designate motorized access on two roads within MA 8.3, a semi-primitive
non-motorized area. Currently, a snowmobile trail traverses this area. Upon review, the ID
Team recommended that OHV use could also occur here, if road reconstruction measures are
completed first. Forest Road 2277 is currently open to OHV only, and Alternative 2 would open
this road to all motorized access. Forest Road 2277-E would be open to OHVs. Road conditions
following reconstruction of Forest Road 2277 would provide an opportunity for changing the
designation from OHV use only to open to all. Forest Road 2277-E, a spur of 2277 would be
newly designated for OHV access. Both of these roads are within the Posse Podzol Terrace
Special Interest Area and designation of motorized access would not implement Forest Plan
guidelines for maintaining the semi-primitive non-motorized environment in this location.
However, after IDT analysis, these roads were determined to be suitable for the proposed use and
this change would not affect the Posse Podzol terrace formation.
Some routes would be available for use on the next edition of the MVUM. Exceptions would
occur for those road segments that need to be reconstructed first or in areas where reconstruction
measures could result in a temporary closure of OHV access to facilitate timber harvest. As
outlined in the transportation section, the Proposed Action includes flexibility in the mileage of
reconstruction that can be approved in this project. There may be instances where reconstruction
would be needed to improve user safety or rider experience. Improvement of roads would be
implemented as funding and priorities allow.
Table 4. Current (2016 MVUM) and Proposed Motor Vehicle and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use
Vehicle Access (Project Area) Existing
Miles
Proposed
Miles
Open to highway legal vehicles only 19 18
Roads open to all vehicles 2 5
Roads open to OHV’s 48 68
Total Miles of Change in
Designated Access
69 91
Design Criteria
The ID Team has developed design criteria to achieve management objectives for other resources
and minimize or eliminate any potential effects to natural and cultural resources in the project
area (see Appendix 1). Design criteria ensure projects are implemented in a manner that is
consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. These include habitat enhancement
features for wildlife; measures to reduce the spread of invasive species; and protective measures
for rare plants and animal habitats, riparian areas, fisheries, soil resources, visual quality
objectives, recreation opportunities, and cultural resources.
25
Comparison of Alternatives The resource effects summaries in the following table are based on the outcomes and effects estimated by the ID Team of implementation of the proposed alternatives as outlined in the No Action and Proposed Action Alternative and Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives section.
Table 5. Comparison of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternative
Resource No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative
Vegetation
Hardwood forest type lacks age
structure and optimal growing
conditions. Successional species
replace current species.
Aspen forest type continues to
decline and successional species
replace desired species.
Long-lived conifer forest type
lacks age structure and optimal
growing conditions.
Hardwood forest type managed to
allow optimal growth through
silvicultural treatments.
Aspen forest type maintained on
landscape with a diversity of age
classes.
Long-lived conifer forest type
managed to allow optimal growth
through silvicultural treatments.
Old Growth
The amount of old growth
classified would not change; it
would remain at 5,003 acres in the
project area.
A decrease to about 4,791 acres.
The acres of old growth would be
adjusted to areas that encompass
old growth characteristics.
Fire
Without the use of prescribed fire,
there would be an increased risk
due to hazardous fuels buildup.
These long-lived conifer
communities would succeed to
northern hardwoods in the future.
Prescribed fire would be used as
a tool to reduce hazardous fuels
conditions and encourage
understory development within
approximately 47 acres of red
pine plantation.
Economics
No increase in opportunities for
timber industry-related
employment or timber related
economic support in local
communities.
Harvest of approximately 14,060
acres would result in a positive
return of timber-generated dollars.
Transportation No refinements of the
transportation system for
administrative or public access.
Improvements to the
transportation system, including
construction and reconstruction
would facilitate timber harvest.
Recreation
Designated motorized access
would remain at an estimated total
of 69 miles.
System roads not improved for
use by Forest visitors.
No changes to the current
allowable motorized use on roads.
Designated motorized access
would increase to 91 miles, with
increased access for roads open to
all vehicles, as well as OHVs.
Improved existing system roads
for use by Forest visitors.
About 20 miles of additional
OHV access provided in MA 6.2.
26
Resource No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative
Aquatics and
Fisheries
No impacts from timber harvest.
Existing roads remain in their
current condition, which may
result in continued erosion,
sedimentation and/or aquatic
organism passage barriers.
Maintained or slightly improved
water quality as a result of system
road improvements.
Minor sedimentation due to new
or temporary road construction
activities.
Wildlife
Hardwood habitat would remain
overstocked with reduced species
diversity.
Aspen habitat would be lost as
stands convert to late successional
species.
Long-lived conifer habitat would
continue to be overstocked, with
marginal wildlife habitat.
Hardwood habitat would improve
through increased growth and
open canopy gaps that allow
understory vegetation to grow.
Aspen would be regenerated to
benefit a host of species
dependent upon early
successional habitat.
Long-lived conifer habitat would
benefit from the development of
an understory and large tree
components.
Soils
No effects to soil from timber
harvest or road construction
activities
Existing roads not maintained or
reconstructed would deteriorate
and contribute to erosion
Minor disturbance to soil from
timber harvest activities
Road maintenance and
reconstruction would reduce
erosion
Non-Native
Invasive
Plants
Ongoing slow spread of non-
native invasive plants mainly
along continually disturbed road
corridors and OHV routes
Possible increase in non-native
invasive plant spread primarily
due to road construction
Visual
resources
Loss of scenic diversity provided
through maintaining diverse forest
types
Visual diversity increased at the
landscape scale
Short term visual impacts during
harvest and reforestation activities
Visual quality objectives are
retained
Threatened,
Endangered,
and Sensitive
Species
May Impact Individuals of 11
RFSS, No Impact for 77 RFSS,
Beneficial Impact for 3 RFSS
No Effect on Kirtland’s warbler or
Canada lynx
Not Likely to Adversely Affect
gray wolf or northern long-eared
bat
May Impact Individuals of 45
RFSS and No Impact for 46
RFSS.
No Effect on Kirtland’s warbler or
Canada lynx
Likely to Adversely Affect
northern long-eared bat
Not Likely to Adversely Affect
gray wolf
27
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives
for each impacted resource. This chapter describes the unintended environmental consequences
(Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 section 12.4) - also referred to as effects or impacts - on the
resources within the project area. The resources discussed in this section are those for which
effects are known to occur due to the types of activities proposed, and for those where public
comment indicated a concern that has not been previously addressed. Additional effects are
discussed in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) section as related to specific legal
requirements.
The anticipated effects are based on professional judgment and knowledge about the extent and
duration of effects based on past experience in the planning and implementation of similar types
of activities and design criteria. The conclusions have been based on the assumptions identified
in the Analysis Framework (project file document). The bounds of analysis that define the
location and timeframe considered for estimating the outcomes and effects are also disclosed in
the Analysis Framework document, which is available on the Ottawa’s website, or upon request.
To understand the contribution of past actions, some resources used the existing conditions as a
representation of the impacts of the past (as allowed by the 2005 CEQ Memo, see project file
References).
Aquatics/Fisheries Affected Environment
There are a total of 163 stream miles within the project area, of which about 78 miles are
perennially flowing and 85 miles are intermittent. There are no water quality impairments within
the project area (MDEQ, 2017a; MDEQ, 2017b), and streams are considered to have good water
quality. All streams in the project area and their tributaries are State of Michigan designated
trout streams. Almost all are classified cold or cold-transitional, meaning stream temperatures
are suitable for trout and other coldwater aquatic species, which also need clean, well-
oxygenated water and diverse habitat including gravel for spawning and pools for resting.
The Prickett VMP has numerous routes that cross streams. Road-stream crossings are sources of
stream sediment, which in turn can alter channel characteristics and affect the biological
community (Furniss et al 1991). Excess sediment reduces water quality and damages aquatic
communities and habitat by covering fish spawning gravels; filling in pools; making streams
wider, shallower, and warmer; decreasing overall habitat complexity; and reducing fish egg and
freshwater mussel survival by inhibiting oxygen uptake (Waters 1995). There are 177 mapped
road-stream crossings within the project area. However, the project area has many small streams
that have never been mapped, many of which also have road crossings. The large density of
streams is due to the soil characteristics and topography. Some of the current road-stream
crossings are causing erosion and sedimentation, including crossing structures that are damaged
in some way, are in poor condition, or are missing. Crossings of unmapped streams were
28
identified during the road field inventory, and all road inventory field notes reside in the project
file.
There are some roads within the project area that are poorly located, designed and/or maintained
(rutting, etc.) which can adversely impact streams through sedimentation. Additionally,
numerous roads cross streams where beaver have utilized the roads for dam production. This not
only damages the transportation system but can result in road washout during high flow periods,
contributing additional sedimentation into the stream network. Roads that are poorly designed
and/or maintained can improperly route water along them, picking up sediment along the way
and depositing the sediment-laden water into streams and wetlands at crossings
Currently, there are nearly nine miles of road segments within wetlands in the project area.
Roads crossing wetlands are sources of sediment that can alter the wetland function and impact
aquatic biota. Wetlands are often linked with streams as many streams originate from them or
are bordered by them. Water quality within wetlands is protected, similarly to streams, and
sediment input is a concern. Excessive sediment can fill in and damage wetlands. Wetlands
affected by sedimentation can lose their open water areas and become choked with aquatic
vegetation, an altered state that has less biological diversity and is of much less value to wildlife.
An immense variety of microbe, plant, invertebrate, amphibian, reptile, bird, fish and mammal
species occur in a wetland ecosystem, and many rely on wetland habitat for breeding, foraging,
and cover. Invertebrates are an important food source for other wetland animals, and excessive
sediment can smother them and destroy the habitat they need to survive. Also, suspended
sediment routed to a wetland can interfere with feeding of wetland species that rely on sight to
obtain their food and can coat the gills of fishes and invertebrates, impeding oxygen uptake.
Furthermore, an increased accumulation of sediments can alter the hydrologic regime of the
wetlands over a relatively short time (Mitsch and Gosselink 2015).
Roads within wetlands can also disrupt the natural water flow patterns through the wetlands
resulting in wetter conditions on the “up-stream” side of the road and dryer conditions on the
“down-stream” side, thereby changing wetland type.
Any activity that disturbs the vegetation and soil of a watershed can increase sediment yield
(Yoho 1980). Routes that receive little or no motorized use become vegetated, but increased use
of these routes can disturb the vegetation and soil. Loosened particles from ATV tires become
readily movable by rain and wind and can move into ditches and road edges where they can be
routed to streams (Olive and Marion 2009). Ruts in roadways route displaced soil particles, and
when the ruts occur near streams, the eroded soil can end up in the stream channels where they
can impact channel characteristics and biota. The soil section of this EA includes additional
discussion of rutting and the soils that are susceptible to it.
Alternative 1 - No Action
The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects result in erosion and sedimentation into streams and
wetlands due to road location as well as authorized uses of roads and trails. However, the water
quality is considered good and would be expected to remain good. As there are no actions
proposed, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects are anticipated.
29
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Water quality within the project area would remain good as it would not be adversely impacted
by the Proposed Action and would slightly improve.
Some routes would be reconstructed to facilitate timber harvest operations, which would include
adding and/or replacing stream and wetland crossing structures, and improving water routing
along the roadway, all of which would reduce sedimentation to aquatic resources. Crossing
structures may be impediments to fish and other aquatic organism passage on some perennial
streams (Furniss et al. 1991). Culverts replaced in streams would be sized and installed to allow
for aquatic organism passage to maintain or enhance aquatic habitat connectivity.
Some routes would be relocated to better sites where they could avoid streams and wetlands,
which reduces the number of stream and wetland crossings. Some routes deemed unnecessary
for future management needs would be removed from the managed road system altogether. The
abandoned portion of the routes and those removed from the road system would be
decommissioned, thereby reducing the number of stream crossings by 80. Decommissioning
would also remove about 5 miles of roads from wetlands. Decommissioning would include
blocking routes where needed to eliminate motorized use, removing stream and wetland crossing
structures and allowing the routes to naturalize. Sedimentation effects would be reduced or
eliminated as a result of these measures.
Management for OHVs would include changing route designations that are currently open to
OHVs to better match the routes’ suitability in order to accommodate motorized use with
minimal adverse impacts to the road surface and surrounding environment, given little to no
route maintenance. There would be 23 stream crossings of “OHV only” routes, which is a
reduction of 24 crossings. The number of wetlands crossings would amount to 26, a reduction of
19, and miles of routes in wetlands would be reduced from 2.7 to 1.7 miles. Routes closed to
OHVs would become vegetated, reducing erosion and sedimentation. The roads used for timber
management would be maintained prior to closure to provide for proper water drainage.
Keeping OHVs off the closed routes would prevent rutting and road surface erosion, thereby
protecting streams and wetlands. The roads freshly maintained and opened for OHVs only
would consist of those with the best native surface drainage, or those with gravel surfacing, that
are able to withstand the use without developing heavy rutting and road surface erosion. Adverse
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems would therefore be minimized.
A few routes would be designated as “open to all,” which includes both truck and OHV use.
These routes are mostly on sandy soils, which have the least risk for rutting and off-site erosion
and have very few wetlands and streams (see the soil section for further discussion). Therefore,
any potential adverse impacts to these ecosystems would be minimal.
30
Cumulative Effects
Past Actions
There was some recent past unauthorized use on Forest Road 1924 that resulted in rutting and
erosion. This closed road is used as a snowmobile trail in the winter and also crosses Farce
Creek, several tributaries and wetlands. The snowmobile club has since completed additional
work to the road to improve the condition, allowing vegetation to cover the road surface and hold
the soil in place.
About 426 acres of timber harvest occurred within the past ten years in the project area as a
result of the Outlaw and Runaway timber sales. These sales are from NEPA decisions that pre-
dated the existing Forest Plan, and stream and wetland protection measures utilized were less
restrictive than what the Ottawa uses today. However, design criteria, State of Michigan best
management practices and standard timber sale contract provisions, along with road maintenance
and reconstruction, reduced impacts to streams and wetlands. Therefore, erosion and
sedimentation was likely minimal with these timber sales.
Other past actions include stream habitat improvement projects such as the addition of woody
structure, riffles, and sediment traps to the West Branch Sturgeon River and Clear Creek; timber
harvest on private lands; and use and maintenance of roads for transportation and recreation.
Present Actions
Other current and planned activities within the cumulative effects area include timber sales and
other management activities approved within the Rousseau East Project, the Ottawa Connector
Route, and the Non-native Invasive Plant Control Project, as well as the decommissioning of
unclassified roads and other ongoing road maintenance in the project area. The Rousseau East
Project has similar vegetation management and road work (construction, re-construction,
decommissioning) activities and similar design criteria for the protection of aquatic resources.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Fifty-two of the 177 road-stream crossings within the project area were surveyed within the past
10 years to determine whether fish can pass through them or not. Of those surveyed, 12 are
determined to be impassable, 34 are passable, and 6 would need further study since results were
inconclusive. The 2016 Road and Stream Crossing Project’s decision allows crossing structures
throughout the Ottawa to be replaced as needed to improve aquatic organism passage. Should
the replacement of some of these structures not occur with the Prickett VMP, structures may be
replaced sometime in the future via the 2016 decision.
The Designated Motorized Use Project is currently being analyzed, which proposes to change the
motorized access designation of Forest Service Roads 2200, 2270, 2274, and 2276 from “open to
highway legal vehicles only,” to “open to all motorized access.” This change in designation
would allow OHVs to travel these routes, better enabling them to connect to side roads open to
OHVs.
31
Other reasonably foreseeable actions include implementation of the Red Pine Thinning Project
(USDA Forest Service 2014), the Aspen Management Project (USDA Forest Service 2016), and
county road maintenance. Implementation of other projects within the project area is expected to
benefit aquatic resources through reduced sedimentation and erosion, road improvements, and
additional structure within waterways (see Analysis Framework). Road and recreational use on
the Ottawa would be expected to continue, as would timber harvest and recreational use of
private lands adjoining the project area.
Because the Proposed Action would decrease impacts related to roads and sediment, the effects
of this project added to those of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within
the analysis area would reduce effects to water quality and to aquatic species and their habitats.
Soils Affected Environment
The Ecological Classification System (ECS) for the Ottawa is a hierarchical mapping system that
provides an effective means of determining land capability and of predicting resource response to
management activities at many levels of planning. The direct and indirect effects analysis of the
Proposed Action covers all ground disturbing activities within the project area. Within the ECS
hierarchy, the Ecological Land Type Phases (ELTPs) are the most site-specific and are applicable
for analysis at the project level (Cleland, et al., 1997, p. 184). ELTPs have three integrated
components; landform, soils, and vegetation. ELTPs define similar ecological conditions relating
to soil texture, moisture, nutrients, drainage class, slope, and other related characteristics; and
can be used to provide site capability information, equipment operating periods, and more
(USDA Forest Service, 1994, pp. 89-90; USDA Forest Service, 1997, pp. 83-85).
Each ELTP has slope definitions and specific guidelines for season of operation (see Project
File). Operating season designations were incorporated according to the physical properties of
the soil within each ELTP, in conjunction with professional judgment. Additionally, ELTPs have
been correlated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map units (MUs),
which are assigned risk ratings. These NRCS risk ratings of slight, moderate, or severe were used
for this analysis to determine site suitability for harvest operations, and potential for impacts to
the soil from the proposed activities. Ratings are based on the most limiting properties of a
mapping unit, and can be used to suggest site suitability, precautions for minimizing disturbance
impacts, or suggesting adaptive actions where disturbance impacts cannot be satisfactorily
minimized. Design criteria/mitigations, State of Michigan Best Management Practices (BMPs)
(MI DNR, MI DEQ, 2009), and BMPs for National Forest System lands (USDA Forest Service,
2012a) would then be incorporated into proposed activities in order to minimize or eliminate
effects to the soil resource. For example, an area with severe compaction and rutting potential
has an operating season designation restricting harvest activity to winter frozen conditions only,
thereby reducing the risk for impacts to the soil.
Potential direct and indirect effects to the soil resource are reasonably confined to the soil
directly beneath where the disturbance factors are taking place. Effects may extend slightly to
32
the edges of adjacent ELTPs in some instances, but not to an extent where the effect would
extend outside of the immediate project area. System roads are a dedicated use and would have
no effects; therefore, system roads are not included in this analysis.
Alternative 1 - No Action
There would be no risk for detrimental impact due to project activities, as there would be no
change to the existing condition of the proposed treatment areas. Portions of the soil resource in
the project area would not be removed from the productive land base as no road construction
would take place. No compaction, rutting, erosion, displacement, or temporary removal of
productive soil due to temporary road construction or use would occur. Roads not receiving
reconstruction activities, as well as existing roads that are located in poorly suited areas, would
deteriorate over time, potentially resulting in erosion and rutting. Natural disturbance events and
soil formation processes, including biomass accumulation and other natural inputs, would
continue to naturally occur.
There would be no change to the existing condition of the designated motorized use system on
the Ottawa. Soil resource effects from that system would be expected to continue on a negative
trend. Roads in poorly suited locations receiving little to no maintenance and continued
motorized use would deteriorate over time, potentially resulting in increased erosion as well as
areas of increased compaction and rutting due to off-tread riding adjacent to the roadbed. At the
same time, roads that would be able to support additional motorized use without increased soil
impacts would remain unavailable to users.
Cumulative Effects
In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must
overlap in space and time with the effects of the proposal. As disclosed, no management actions
would occur under Alternative 1, and thus, there are no cumulative effects of implementing this
alternative.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would result in both negative and positive impacts on soils. These effects
are expected to be minor in scope, as the application of design criteria/mitigations and Michigan
BMPs would aid in minimizing negative effects. This determination is based on professional
judgment and a known range of effects from similar activities in other areas with similar soil
types.
Vegetation management has the potential to negatively impact the soil resource. Potential soil
disturbance ratings are determined by analyzing the soil operability (well-, moderate- or poorly-
suited), the erosion hazard (slight, moderate, severe, very severe) and the soil rutting hazard
(slight, moderate, or severe). The ratings noted are based on the most limiting condition of the
soil, and do not factor in the requirements and guidelines put in place to protect the soil resource
(i.e. design criteria) during the proposed activities. Areas with risk ratings of poorly suited
33
(operability) or severe (erosion, rutting) would have a higher portion of acreage removed from
treatment once project mitigations are applied.
The risk ratings determined for the Prickett VMP indicate an overall moderate suitability for
operations (73% of the project area), a slight risk for erosion (89% of the project area), and a
severe risk for rutting (75% of the project area) (see Soils Report). While many of these risks
can be mitigated with project specific design criteria, the rating outcomes emphasize that unless
those mitigations are in place, soil disturbance impacts may be detrimental. Such mitigations
(design criteria) utilize the tools built into the ECS and can be used to minimize the soil effects
(i.e. compaction, rutting, and erosion) from project activities. Condition-based operating season
restrictions are a very integral part of the land management practices on the Ottawa, and when
appropriately applied, greatly reduce soil resource impacts. In addition, other ECS applications,
low ground pressure equipment options, and the checks and balances done from sale layout all
the way through to sale administration and closure are used as ways to minimize impacts to the
soil resource. The incorporation of design criteria and Michigan BMPs paired with the oversight
of experienced Forest Service sale layout and administration personnel greatly minimize risks to
the soil resource. Negative impacts to the soil resource would be expected to increase if any of
those factors were not in place during project implementation.
Harvesting trees and removing the merchantable bole and bark would remove some nutrients
from the treatment areas. Design criteria stipulating the amount of fine woody debris to leave
after harvest would help to maintain nutrients on site.
Prescribed fire has the potential to impact soil productivity. Generally, the severity of fire effects
is proportional to the intensity and duration of soil heating. The least amount of damage to the
soil occurs during cool-burning, low-severity fires. There will be a burn plan which will specify
methods and conditions so that a light burn is the result. The ELTPs within the proposed
prescribed burn areas are comprised of deep, dry, sandy soils with rapid permeability rates.
Conducting a low intensity burn would not substantially heat the soil and would therefore avoid
effects accelerating erosion (i.e. water repellency), maintaining the rapid percolation of water
through the soil. In addition, the proposed prescribed burn areas in the Prickett project area are
relatively flat, further minimizing erosion potential.
In addition to the prescribed fire, the creation and maintenance of a fire line could have similar
effects to a low use skid trail, depending on what type of equipment is used to create and
maintain it. Compaction and rutting would not be factors if heavy equipment were not used for
such purposes. Impacts to the soil would be greatly minimized if the work was done by hand
(i.e. wet line), with a mower, using an ATV, or if existing roads were utilized as much as
possible. For mechanical creation or maintenance of the fuel break, design criteria restricting
equipment operations would also apply should heavy equipment be used.
The proposed road development actions included in the Prickett proposal would help to reduce
some of the soil resource impacts occurring as a result of the existing road network and its
designated motorized use component. With this alternative, approximately 147 miles of road
34
would be decommissioned; 20 of those miles being located on soils that are poorly suited for
natural surface roads. Decommissioning such roads would allow those areas to begin to recover.
Re-locating system roads to improve the transportation system would minimize the impacts
poorly located roads can have on their surrounding environment. New road construction
resulting from either system road re-location work or regular transportation system needs would
result in the removal of productive soil from the land base, as those areas of new construction
would become part of the permanent transportation system on the Ottawa. Existing roadbeds
would be used whenever possible. In the case of road re-location, areas where the road location
had been moved from would be decommissioned and allowed to begin the natural recovery
process.
Road reconstruction has the potential to improve soil and water conditions through the
evaluation and maintenance of drainage and water control structures. However, such activities
are likely to increase soil erosion in the short term due to the presence of bare soil on and along
the road grade as armoring layers that have developed over time on the road surface and in the
ditch are removed (Grace and Clinton, 2007). Design criteria incorporate mitigations to help
facilitate re-vegetation if necessary and erosion control measures intended to keep erosion to a
minimum. Road reconstruction would improve upon the current condition of the road system,
and when the appropriate mitigations and BMPs are properly applied, soil impacts due to erosion
would be temporary in nature and would be minimized over the long term.
The implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the short-term removal of land from
productive forest due to the construction and use of temporary roads. Impacts to the soil resource
resulting from temporary road construction would be minimized through the application of
design criteria, Michigan BMPs, and contract specifications. Where possible, temporary roads
would be located in areas having the least amount of impact to the soil and water resources.
However, these roads may be located on poorly suited soils, resulting in an increased risk of soil
erosion, rutting, compaction, and effects to soil productivity. Though avoidance of wetland and
stream crossings is the best option, if avoidance is not feasible, minimizing and mitigating
impacts to those resources becomes important. There are many options for crossing such features
temporarily (see Design Criteria) (Blinn, 1998). When no longer being used for the proposed
project activities, any temporary roads created would be decommissioned using project design
criteria and applicable timber sale contract provisions and returned to productive forest land.
Skid trails and log landings are necessary components of harvest operations. Main skid trails
have a higher potential for soil disturbance due to repetitive use. Pre-emptive measures such as
operating season requirements, properly locating (i.e. avoiding skidding in draws) and armoring
trails with slash help to minimize long-term impacts to the soil. Log landings are another source
for soil disturbance, but are generally of small extent. These areas may be scarified and re-
vegetated or they may be left to recover naturally. This recovery time would vary depending on
the soil characteristics and the amount of soil disturbance at the site.
Motorized use designations on roads can negatively impact the soil resource, particularly due to
the loss of the soil resource through erosion. With this proposal, the miles of road closed to
35
motorized use would increase, thereby benefitting the soil resource. The miles of road currently
open to OHV use only would increase slightly by making roads that are moderately or well
suited available for use. The project proposal would result in very little change to the miles of
road open to all vehicles and those open to highway legal vehicles only.
Off-highway vehicle use contributes to higher resource impacts, particularly on minimum
maintenance roads than what other trail uses do. As part of this project, roads were reviewed and
were retained or omitted from motorized use designation largely based on the known or potential
resource impacts. Some roads that are less suitable for OHV use may have been maintained as
open to OHVs per Ranger discretion. Although soil resource impacts may be higher along those
roads, because these roads are generally not maintained, all roads open to OHV use only would
need to be monitored regularly to ensure that they are not contributing to resource degradation in
the future.
Cumulative Effects
Effects to the soil resource from historical land uses have dealt primarily with the exploitative
logging practices, associated activities, and uncontrolled fires which occurred during the late
1800s and early 1900s. These activities generally occurred without consideration for impacts to
the land and did not include restoration plans once the activities were complete. The resulting
impacts to the soil resource varied depending on the ecological characteristics associated with
the different land types.
Some of the proposed treatment stands overlap spatially with areas harvested or treated between
the project implementation date and 2000. These areas may not have had adequate time to
recover from any compaction that could have occurred during those harvest entries. The period
of time for natural recovery from compaction varies with soil physical characteristics, chemical
characteristics, climate, and the severity of compaction. Recovery may be faster where soils are
subjected to freezing‐thawing or wetting‐drying cycles (National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc., 2004, p. 62). Studies from colder climates (e.g., Lake States) illustrate more
rapid rates of recovery, particularly for surface soils (National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc., 2004, p. 42). Investigations for estimated time for recovery of soil bulk
density in surface horizons have ranged from approximately 1 to 18 years (National Council for
Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., 2004, pp. 40 and 42).
36
Table 6. Operability Rating Summary - Proposed Action Timber Sale Re-Entry Areas
Operability Acres of Re-Entry Percent of Re-Entry
Area
Percent of Total
Treatment Area
(Project-Wide Scale)
Well Suited 78 4% 1%
Moderately Suited 1,604 88% 11%
Poorly Suited 136 8% 1%
Not Rated 0 0% 0%
Total: 1,818 100% 13%
Stands that may be scheduled for re‐entry are located on soils that are dominantly moderately
suited for operability (see Table 6), and thus have a lower potential for having past negative
impacts. Areas that are poorly suited or not rated would likely not be included in harvest
operations due to slope and operability restrictions, or would be mitigated appropriately. The soil
qualities indicative of such operability risk ratings shown coupled with the operational design
criteria and contract specifications, natural recovery rates, and prudent and experienced sale
administration oversight should allow for sustained soil quality with minimal long term
cumulative effects. The remainder of the proposed harvest areas would likely have had adequate
time to recover from any compaction that may have occurred during previous harvest entries.
Incorporation of project design criteria and other practices and standards previously mentioned
have been successfully employed on similar past activities on the Ottawa and have proven to be
effective (USDA Forest Service, 2003, pp. 91-95; USDA Forest Service, 2004, p. 57; USDA
Forest Service, 2005b, pp. 69- 70; USDA Forest Service, 2008, pp. 23-24). In addition to recent
experience with timber sales, older representative sales with similar treatments and transportation
networks (on similar landforms to those proposed for the Prickett project) were reviewed as part
of this analysis (Project File). Although past sale administration inspection reports from the
aforementioned sales did not document any long-term impacts, more recent times have posed
new challenges on these fine-textured soils. Wet summers and warm, wet winters pose new
challenges operationally. In light of these challenges, diligent oversight and prudent operations
would become even more important.
There are no activities currently occurring, and there are no reasonably foreseeable future actions
within the proposed treatment stands that would impact the soil resource. However, it should be
noted that access routes may also be used for projects included in the Analysis Framework.
Temporary roads are short-term in nature. However, there may be some instances where
temporary roads are located on previously decommissioned or previously used temporary roads,
or where there is evidence of old existing roadbeds or railroad grades. In such instances, soils
may not have had adequate time to recover from their previous use, potentially compounding any
37
previous soil disturbance (i.e. compaction), and prolonging the ability of the soil resource in
those areas to recover.
Given the effects in the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future, in addition to the impacts
associated with implementing the Proposed Action, the degree, duration, distribution, and extent
of the soil disturbance that would be expected from the proposed activities would result in minor,
negative effects to the soil resource overall. The incorporation of design criteria and BMPs
paired with the oversight of experienced Forest Service sale layout and administration personnel
greatly minimize risks to the soil resource. Negative impacts to the soil resource would be
expected to increase if any of those factors were not in place during project implementation.
Positive trends are acknowledged concerning road system improvements and designated
motorized use changes that aim to reduce impacts to the productive soil resource.
Non-native Invasive Plants (NNIP) Affected Environment
Non-native invasive plants (NNIP) potentially of concern for the Ottawa include three
categories: Federally-listed, state-listed, and Forest concern plants. Most of the Forest concern
NNIP are species which invade natural areas such as garlic mustard, Japanese barberry and
exotic honeysuckles. Within the project area, many invasive plants (native and non-native) are
most abundant in regularly disturbed areas, such as along roads and OHV trails. For example,
spotted knapweed and crown vetch are common along some roads in the Prickett project area.
Marsh thistle is common in many stands, along streams and trails. Infestations of the following
Ottawa high priority non-native invasive plants are recorded in the project area, based mainly on
surveys for this project in 2016: Japanese barberry, leafy spurge, exotic honeysuckles, Eurasian
watermilfoil, autumn olive, and purple loosestrife. Infestations of Ottawa medium priority NNIP
are also recorded: crown vetch, marsh thistle, reed canary grass, and sweet clover. Other NNIP
may occur in areas not surveyed within the project area; however, they are likely to be additional
infestations of the species noted above. Low priority species such as burdock, spotted
knapweed, orange hawkweed and others also are recorded in the project area. Most of the NNIP
infestations are fairly small, except the Eurasian watermilfoil in Prickett Lake.
No infestations would be specifically treated as part of the Prickett Project but they could be
treated under the Ottawa NF NNIP Control Project. Several of the honeysuckle infestations are
scheduled for treatment in 2017 and most (other than new honeysuckle sites found in the 2016
survey) have been previously treated as well. Two barberry and three crown vetch sites are also
scheduled for treatment in 2017. Treatments are expected to control the spread and eventually
perhaps eradicate these small sites.
Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
The direct and indirect NNIP effects analysis area is the project area, since this is where these
effects would occur. The temporal bounds for direct effects analysis are while project activities
occur since this is when direct impacts could occur. The temporal bounds for indirect effects
analysis are during project activities or in subsequent years following introduction of propagules
38
or ground disturbance, i.e. the life of the project plus 5 years. After this time, effects dissipate
and become less measurable and cannot be correlated to project activities. Degree of
invasiveness and other life cycle information is not fully documented for all non-native invasive
plants in the North Woods; analysis is based on available information and professional judgment.
The indicator for the risk of spreading NNIP is ground disturbance. The variables selected for
the direct/indirect effects comparison are acres of timber harvest (any type), road construction,
and miles of road open to OHVs but not highway legal vehicles, because these activities could
introduce and spread NNIP within the project area.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Since there would be no timber harvest, road construction, prescribed fire, or other project
activities disturbing ground under Alternative 1, there is low potential for invasive plant spread
other than along continually disturbed road corridors and OHV routes. About 48 miles of road
and trail would remain open for OHV only use. This type of motorized travel contributes to the
spread of non-native invasive plants by moving seeds from place to place when they are caught
on the undercarriage, tires, and other parts of the OHV (Rooney 2005, Rew and Pollnac 2010).
Also, OHV use can keep the trails in an open disturbed state, which is conducive to NNIP
establishment.
Natural processes can also contribute to NNIP spread. Existing roadside infestations such as
crown vetch, common in and near the project area, are expected to persist and may slowly
spread, into disturbed areas where the existing native plant community does not repel these
invaders. NNIP in openings may decrease as forested native plant communities develop. Other
NNIP could establish in the project area, spread by wind, water, animals, or human activities.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Generally, the proposed timber harvests would not directly affect invasive plants in the project
area since the infestations are mostly not within forested stands, except for the Japanese barberry
and exotic honeysuckles. These shrubs are found in several of the stands proposed for hardwood
selection harvest. They could be directly trampled by harvesting equipment or slash dropped on
them, but are likely to resprout from the roots. If they are growing in the path of a high speed
skid trail, repeated trampling might kill them. The increase in light from timber harvest is
expected to be beneficial to these shrubs (Munger 2005). Increases in shrub canopy coverage or
abundance can, under some conditions, suppress tree regeneration and native herb growth. There
is likely to be a slight increase in these shrubs following timber harvest. However, as noted
above, several of the sites are already scheduled for treatment in 2017 and the new sites are
likely to be treated later.
Some of the proposed actions may indirectly affect the introduction or spread of NNIP within the
project area. Timber harvest may increase NNIP presence in several ways:
39
1) Due to soil disturbance (especially in summer operations), harvest may favor germination of
seeds in the seed bank as well as create favorable establishment sites with reduced
competition.
2) Seeds may be introduced by unclean harvesting equipment. However, the Forest Service has
a contract provision (BT 6.35) to provide for cleaning of off-road equipment. Also, logging
machinery is expected to come from relatively local sources, which are unlikely to pick up
NNIP seeds that do not already occur on the Ottawa. In addition, most of the priority
invasive plants on the Ottawa are largely restricted to disturbed sites such as roadsides and do
not persist within forested habitats, making pick-up of priority seeds less likely (the exotic
shrubs are, however, an exception to this). It is possible that timber operating equipment
may pick up invasive plant seeds from existing infestations within the project area and move
them to new sites.
3) Canopy opening due to timber harvest can affect opportunities for invasive plant spread and
establishment. Selection, improvement, and thinning harvests would not open the canopy
more than a few percent, so that shaded conditions remain, restricting many sun-loving
invasives (but not garlic mustard) (Matlack and Schaub 2011). Shelterwood and aspen
clearcut treatments result in more drastic changes in plant communities, creating open
conditions favoring invasive plants, although these invaders are expected to be out-competed
by dense aspen regeneration in the aspen regeneration stands (Metzger and Schultz 1984).
Establishment of NNIP following harvest actions is most likely in skid trails and landings,
where the intact vegetation and soils are disturbed and amount of light increased (Buckley et
al. 2002; Devine et al. 2011; Zenner and Berger 2008).
Alternative 2 proposes harvest of approximately 14,060 acres, or about 59% of the National
Forest System land in the project area. Thus, the risk of spreading NNIP from harvest operations
is considerably greater than under Alternative 1 with no harvest proposed.
No NNIP infestations have been mapped in or near the approximately 6 miles of road
construction. Road construction can result in the potential spread of NNIP because existing plant
communities, such as hardwood forest where most of the new road construction would occur,
tend to repel NNIP. When the native plant cover is removed, leaving bare soil and full sun, space
becomes available for plant colonization by native and non-native plants. Design criteria and
contract clauses requiring equipment cleaning help prevent some NNIP seed introductions, but
seed can also be spread by wind, water, animals, and Forest visitors’ vehicles (including OHVs),
which do not have to be cleaned. Crown vetch, common on roads in the project area, is
primarily spread by vehicles and likely would spread onto some of the new roads. Other (low
priority) NNIP such as spotted knapweed, St. Johnswort, oxeye daisy, or Queen Anne’s lace,
along with native ruderals like evening primrose, black-eyed susan, goldenrod, fleabane, asters,
grasses and sedges, are likely colonizers of new road construction areas.
Indirect effects from road construction include new infestations, such as on frequently-used new
roads, where NNIP likely would only occur on the road shoulders. Less frequently-used roads
could have invasive vegetation across the full road width or on shoulders and in the middle
40
between the two tracks. The type of new road designed for hauling timber is often narrower than
a collector road, with more shade, which helps to repel many of the priority NNIP (but not
barberry or exotic honeysuckles). Design criteria for seeding areas prone to NNIP colonization
(i.e., larger patches of bare soil) would encourage revegetation and minimize the introduction of
NNIPs.
About 0.6 mile of the new road construction would be designated open for OHV use. OHV
travel contributes to the spread of non-native invasive plants as noted above. Thus, these new
road miles open to OHVs are more likely to become infested than new road segments that are
closed to OHVs after use in the timber sale.
Gravel used in road work can carry NNIP seeds. Material sources for Prickett could include
Coontail Pit, Hardwood Pit, and private sources. The possible sources that may be used have not
had botanical field surveys. It is likely they would have some NNIP present, but not species that
do not already occur in the project area. Overall, the use of material from the pits is not expected
to introduce any novel NNIP into the project area, but this material could contribute to new
infestations in the project area. A design criterion calls for use of gravel that is free of NNIP seed
(high and medium priority species), but this is difficult to implement since there is no State or
local weed-seed free certifying program for gravel, mulch, hay and other materials.
Alternative 2 would increase the miles of road open only to OHVs versus Alt. 1. This equates to
increased potential for introduction and establishment of some NNIP.
Road decommissioning of about 147 (and up to 160) miles in Alternative 2 is expected to allow
native vegetation to replace existing roadside ruderals (weedy, disturbance-associated species)
over time, as shade increases. Most of these road segments are not associated with mapped
priority NNIP infestations. Thus the effect of road decommissioning and subsequent increased
shade in lowering abundance of NNIP is mostly for low priority non-natives and native ruderal
species.
Prescribed burning is proposed for three stands. The burn would be expected to stimulate native
plant growth such as sedges and grasses, not invite NNIPs. However, the bare soil fire lines are
likely to be colonized by disturbance-associated species; therefore a design criterion is
recommended to seed these areas after the burns are completed. Design criteria also call for
cleaning of firefighter gear and equipment to avoid introducing invasive plant seeds, and
monitoring fire lines for NNIP.
The same natural processes as described for Alternative 1 also apply to Alternative 2.
Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effects spatial analysis area is the project area plus a ½ mile additional zone
around treatment units (if this extends past project area boundary), since this is the likely area
into which new infestations, resulting from project activities, might spread, and the likely source
area. The temporal bounds for cumulative effects analysis are the present (with present condition
a proxy resulting from all past effects), extending 15 years into the future, a reasonably
foreseeable time frame in which there may be overlap of other activities with project activities.
41
Design criteria are used to limit the potential for increased NNIP spread. However, some new
infestations are possible, such as from windblown and animal-carried seed, seed brought in on
equipment that does not have to be cleaned, or seed picked up in the project area after equipment
is cleaned. Roadside invasives would persist and likely spread under both alternatives. There
are slight cumulative effects on NNIP spread from many activities that occur in the project area,
and the efforts to contain NNIP would never be fully successful in eradication of all NNIP (as
disclosed in Forest Plan EIS, pages 3-92, 3-95-96). For the action alternative, the direct and
indirect effects of the project are consistent with the actions considered in the Forest Plan FEIS.
There is nothing new in the project area or proposal that would add to the cumulative impacts
already disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS for NNIP (pp. 3-86 to 3-97).
Visual Resources Affected Environment
Effects to the project’s visual quality objectives are addressed in terms of whether this project
provides the desired effects on aesthetic values, and that the project complies with the Forest
Plan, as required by the National Forest Management Act.
The visual goals vary depending on the amount of visual variety in a landscape (variety class)
and the level of use (sensitivity level) along travel routes, use areas, and water bodies. In the
Prickett project areas, the visual quality objectives (VQOs) for vegetative management fall into
three general categories: Retention (areas surrounding Silver Mountain, Prickett Lake, and the
adjacent Sturgeon River Wild and Scenic River corridor); Partial Retention (areas surrounding
the West Branch Sturgeon River and tributaries); and Modification (the remaining and majority
of the project area (refer to Forest Plan and Appendix F, Glossary). A map depicting the VQO
boundaries is in the project file (Prickett Vegetation Management Project Existing Vegetation and
Management Areas Map 1).
The location of the treatments would not be seen from the Sturgeon River as the majority of
activities would take place at a minimum of a quarter to half mile from the edge of the river
corridor. In addition, as there is no management within MA 8.1, the Outstandingly Remarkable
Value of Scenery is not anticipated to be affected under either alternative.
The possible effects of the proposed alternatives on VQOs are discussed qualitatively and the
overall effect is reported in general terms. The alternatives are compared primarily through the
type and degree of vegetative management visible from the primary travel corridors and points of
visual interest, in addition to the following indicators:
VQOs maintained or enhanced
Alternative 1 - No Action
There would be no direct/indirect effects under this alternative because no vegetative
management activities would occur; therefore, there would be no immediate impact to the overall
visual appearance of the project since no enhancement to visual variety would occur. However,
natural ecological changes in the landscape that occur over time would change the current visual
42
appearance and would affect these values. As there are no direct or indirect effects, no
cumulative effects would occur.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
The vegetative management actions in Alternative 2 that would impact the visual resource are the
harvesting of approximately 14,060 acres of timber in MAs 6.1 and 6.2 to regenerate northern
hardwoods, hemlock, and aspen stands, release young spruce and fir stands, reduce stand density
by thinning, improving the growth of various northern hardwood and softwood stands, and
improve wildlife habitat.
Treatments resulting in the harvest of single trees (selection harvest, intermediate or pre-
commercial thinning, or structural improvement) would enhance these stands by promoting a big
tree character in the future. Large diameter trees in a forested environment generally are more
visually pleasing than dense stands of small diameter wood. These types of vegetative
management projects would help maintain a healthy forest, resulting in accelerated growth by
enabling trees to attain larger diameter during a shorter period of time. This specific treatment
would retain more trees than the typical conditions associated with harvest for timber production;
the visual effects would last one to five years. The application of design criteria would greatly
reduce the impacts to the area’s visual quality and help to maintain the conditions supporting
retention and partial retention VQOs.
Areas receiving clearcut harvest or other treatments where groups of trees are taken (such as
salvage or shelterwood harvest) would be more of a noticeable treatment to the Forest visitor
with effects beginning to diminish five years post-harvest. In short-term, these areas would
provide a more varied, diverse, and visually interesting landscape. Areas treated with
shelterwood harvest would have slightly less negative effects than clearcut harvest. After
shelterwood harvest is complete, the area is expected to become reforested in the understory for
about five years before a follow-up harvest (removal cut) of the overstory is performed. With
time, clearcut areas would become reforested and become a seamless part of the landscape.
All treatments proposed under Alternative 2 meet the Visual Quality Objectives for the specific
area in which they are located, when design criteria are applied (Forest Plan, pp. 3-3-58 and 3-
64), including timber harvest in general and locations around various lakes and streams.
Indirect effects of any type of harvest would be evidence of soil disturbance created by log
landings and skid trails and presence of dead vegetation (i.e. slash and brown leaves scattered on
the ground) would be more prominent in clearcut areas. As an example, areas receiving
hazardous fuels reduction activities would have a short-term impact on visuals due to the amount
of slash in understories of some stands immediately after treatment. The visual impact would be
reduced if this material is removed or addressed through mechanical means (crushed, chipped).
If this material is left on site and burned, the impact to the visual quality objectives lessens with
new vegetation growth in six months to two years depending on site conditions. Typical
vegetation management practices in these stands may address hazardous fuels reduction needs
without additional efforts needed. The visual quality objectives would be impacted in the short-
term, but enhanced or maintained, when design criteria are applied about 5 years post-harvest.
43
Cumulative Effects
The analysis area for cumulative effects of the proposed management activities is the Prickett EA
project area since effects to the visual resource are not expected to extend beyond it due to the
relatively flat terrain. The one exception is the scenic overlook on Silver Mountain where views
of the treated stands would be considerably in the Background distance zone (e.g., 5+ miles) and
are partially obstructed by trees within the three hundred and sixty degree viewshed. The
temporal bounds for this analysis are the time frames of implementation of the previous Forest
Plan (1986) and the anticipated implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan (about two decades into
the future). This timeframe is appropriate because it captures management activities affecting the
project area’s visual quality that have been implemented and are proposed.
There is no evidence that past harvesting activity or other management actions have left
lingering, unacceptable negative effects. There are no on-going actions that would affect the
visual quality resources on National Forest System land. As much of the private timber land is
managed with the goal of sustainable harvest, and often takes the visual quality resource into
consideration, it is unlikely that private harvesting would negatively affect the landscape at the
project level that is being considered or in the future.
There are no reasonably foreseeable actions on Federal lands that would cause negative effects to
visual quality. Harvest on private lands is primarily northern hardwood selection harvest as
noted in the Vegetative Management section. The visual resource would be temporarily and
minimally affected by these types of treatments. If Alternative 2 is selected, the proposed
management activities would result in movement towards forest composition and age-class
distribution objectives. The project area would continue to maintain a mosaic of forest types,
including temporary openings and stands featuring aspen, paper birch, balsam fir, hemlock, and
northern hardwoods. Given the existing conditions from past timber harvests, in addition to the
proposed actions, the cumulative effect would be minor, but positive, as the landscape would
continue to possess a strong visual forested character. With implementation of design criteria,
the visual resource would be minimally impacted.
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species This section focuses on impacts to Sensitive wildlife and plant species. All Regional Forester
Sensitive Species (RFSS) known to occur on the Ottawa were considered while planning this
project. Species were selected for further analysis if they have the potential to occur in or near
the project area based on habitats present, species habitat requirements, and documented
occurrences. Relative to Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, biological evaluations (BE) must
arrive at one of four possible determinations: 1) “no impacts”, NI (where no effect is expected);
2) “beneficial effects”, BEN (where effects are expected to be beneficial); 3) “may impact
individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”, MII (where
effects are expected to be insignificant (unmeasurable), or discountable (extremely unlikely); or
4) “likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”, LRT (where effects are
expected to be detrimental and substantial).
44
Alternative 1 - No Action
Since there would be no timber harvest or road construction, reconstruction or maintenance
resulting in disturbance, there is limited impact to sensitive species. As in the Proposed Action,
all RFSS and Federally-listed species were examined to determine possible impacts from the no
action alternative. Findings for RFSS ranged from No Impact (77 species) to May Impact
Individuals (11 species) to Beneficial (3 species). The No Action Alternative was determined to
have no effect to both Kirtland’s warbler and Canada lynx. It has been determined that the No
action is not likely to adversely affect northern long-eared bat or gray wolf. A detailed analysis
for all species can be found in the Biological Evaluation (BE).
Additional Plants of Concern
The project area includes two rare plants not currently listed as RFSS (and therefore not
addressed in the BE). Dryopteris expansa (spreading woodfern) has been documented on the
Ottawa primarily in the McCormick Wilderness, with eight locations (including this one) on the
main part of the Forest. It is under evaluation for RFSS status. This population was found in a
hardwoods stand near a ravine. There is also an observed population of a very unusual, putative
hybrid between Cardamine maxima (large toothwort, RFSS) and the more common Cardamine
diphylla (two-leaf toothwort). This population occurred scattered throughout a hardwoods stand
and near an old road. Protective design criteria are recommended.
Effects to these plants would be similar to the effects described for the hardwoods-associated
rare plants in the BE. Under Alternative 1, there would be no forest-disturbing activities and the
existing suitable habitat would continue to be available. No roads are currently in use near the
occurrences so there are no effects from road use. Therefore, the determination is no impact.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Under Alternative 2, direct and indirect effects to mesic forest habitat would result from the
proposed timber harvest activities and road construction/reconstruction/maintenance. The fern
population would be buffered from effects by implementation of the design criterion. Its location
near the bottom of a steep ravine slope and drainway to Farce Creek probably means that spread
into the unbuffered, drier part of the stand is unlikely. Therefore, the determination is no impact.
For the toothwort hybrid, the winter operations should help to protect the shallow rhizomes of
the plant from damage, allowing it to resprout in the spring. The increase in light from harvest is
not expected to be detrimental, since this is a spring ephemeral which flowers before the canopy
leafs out. However, the plants occurring along the road slated for reconstruction are likely to be
destroyed. Therefore, the determination is May Impact Individuals. See the BE for more
information about effects to habitats and determinations.
Findings for RFSS ranged from No Impact (46 species) to May Impact Individuals (45 species).
In addition to the BE, a biological assessment (BA) was prepared to determine how the Proposed
Action may affect federally listed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat. This
alternative is not expected to cause a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of viability for these
species.
45
Relative to species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended,
biological assessments must arrive at one of three possible determinations: 1) “no effect”, NE
(where no effect is expected); 2) “not likely to adversely affect”, NLAA (where effects are
expected to be beneficial, insignificant (unmeasurable), or discountable (extremely unlikely); or
3) “likely to adversely affect”, LAA (where effects are expected to be adverse or detrimental).
Determinations were reached for the four Federally-listed species known to occur on the Ottawa:
Kirtland’s warbler, Canada lynx, northern long-eared bat and gray wolf.
The Proposed Action was determined to have “no effect” to both Kirtland’s warbler and Canada
lynx as these species are not currently known to be found in the project area.
The Proposed Action was determined to “Likely to adversely affect” northern long-eared bat.
The Proposed Action was determined to “Not likely to adversely affect” gray wolf.
Cultural Resources Affected Environment
In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the national
forest system lands involved with actions proposed have been inventoried for historic properties
through numerous cultural resource surveys conducted from 1978 to 2016. Pursuant to 36 CFR
800.2(c-f), the Forest Service has submitted the results of these cultural resource surveys to the
Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer. The Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer
has concurred with the majority of this proposal, as long as the design criteria are implemented,
that this proposed project would have no effect on historic properties (Michigan SHPO letter,
3/31/2017). Additional SHPO review of the determinations for temporary road construction as
necessary.
Affected Environment
Database records and field review were used to determine the existing condition for cultural
resources in the vicinity of the proposed roads. There are no historic properties in this project
that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. There is one Eligible historic property
in this project which will be avoided by all project activity.
There are additional cultural resources in the project area not listed above such as old railroad
grades, isolated artifacts (e.g. an abandoned car), and structures that do not meet the 50 year-old
age requirement (e.g. a 1970s cabin). These resources should be treated as potentially eligible
unless consultation has found them not eligible.
Alternative 1 – No Action
In order to have cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions must
have effects that overlap in space and time with the effects of a proposal. There would be no
resource management under Alternative 1, and thus, no cumulative effects from implementation
of Alternative 1.
46
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Implementation of site avoidance measures would prevent any heritage site from damage. There
are 50 cultural resources sites recorded in the stands proposed for harvesting. If the project can
be re-designed to avoid these sites then these sites would be protected. If the project cannot be
designed to avoid these sites, then SHPO must be consulted to determine mitigation. There are
some stands that do not have roads to them (“labeled no access”). The stands have not been
surveyed. If roads are built to these stands, both stand and proposed route would require survey.
There are 74 roads and trails in the project that are adjacent to archaeological sites. If these
roads and trails can be used in a manner that prevents disturbance to the adjacent archaeological
sites, then 50 sites would be protected. Improvements of the road/trail network would increase
access to archaeological sites, which potentially would increase visitation and casual collection
of artifacts. Reducing the vegetation through harvesting would increase visibility of
archaeological site locations, which potentially would increase visitation and casual collection of
artifacts.
There are 74 roads and trails in the project that are adjacent to archaeological sites. If these
roads and trails can be used in a manner that prevents disturbance to the adjacent archaeological
sites, then 50 sites would be protected.
Cumulative Effects
As there are no direct or indirect effects from project implementation when design criteria are
applied, there are no cumulative effects.
47
Finding of No Significant Impact The Ontonagon District Ranger, Susanne M. Adams, is the Responsible Official for this project; her determinations for legal requirements are outlined in following section.
As the Responsible Official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to
the definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have
reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project file. I have
determined that Alternative 2 would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for
this finding is a follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition and significance cited
above.
Context For the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives, the context of the environmental effects is
based on the environmental analysis in this EA. In the case of site-specific actions, significance
depends on the effects in the project’s locale rather than the world as a whole. Both short and
long-term effects are relevant (FSH 1909.15, 65.1, Part 02). This project is a site-specific action
that by itself does not have international, national, region-wide, or state-wide importance. The
outcomes and effects sections reveal that most of the consequences from project implementation
and additional environmental effects are confined to the project area. Therefore, it is my
determination that the effects of implementing the project alternatives would not be significant
locally, regionally, or nationally.
Discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to Alternative 2, the Proposed Action,
and is within the context of local importance in the area associated with this project.
Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information
from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project file. The effects of this
project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to
concerns raised by the public.
I have taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant and current scientific
information, experience with similar projects, and knowledge of conditions obtained through
site-specific filed surveys. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the
project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).
1. Consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts. I considered both the beneficial
and adverse impacts associated with the alternatives as presented in the EA. Benefits of
implementing Alternative 2 include, but are not limited to, silvicultural practices to restore
and/or maintain healthy, diverse and resilient forests to work towards meeting direction
outlined in the Forest Plan. These practices would subsequently maintain a range for forest
habitats in the project area, reduce hazardous fuels conditions in identified red pine
plantations, improve recreational opportunities, and provide wood products for the local
48
economy. Additional benefits include a transportation system that would provide enhanced
administrative access to facilitate timber harvest, as well as improve public access where
roads and trails would be designated on route that can sustain use.
These improvements would also benefit soil and watershed resource by reducing
sedimentation to streams and wetlands. Additionally, the classification of old growth would
improve and/or maintain this type of habitat within the desired conditions outlined in the
Forest Plan. These enhancements along with designated access would provide opportunities
for outdoor recreation on a designated access system that is safe and move effectively
managed. This is consistent with Forest Plan expectations as outlined in the expected
outcomes.
No significant adverse resource effects from implementing the project were identified in the
EA (see Outcomes of the Proposed Action and Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives).
There is potential for adverse effects upon habitat for sensitive plant and animal species,
however, this project would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or loss of
viability for any RFSS. Some impacts are also expected from non-native invasive species,
effects to the soil resource from timber harvest and management of effects upon visual
quality objectives. However, these impacts are similar to other project s previous to this one
and are not unique to this project. Some impacts would be minimized or avoided using
design criteria. Previous projects, with similar activities and using similar design criteria,
have been found to be effective in avoiding or minimizing adverse effects.
I have given careful consideration to both beneficial and negative impacts disclosed. I have
determined that these impacts are not significant. Impacts of this project would be within
the range of effects identified in the Forest Plan’s FEIS (Volume 1, pp. 3-1 to 3-228).
2. Consideration of the effects on public health and safety. Alternative 2 would not
significantly affect public health and safety. Harvesting timber is a common activity in the
Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan and local residents and seasonal visitors are
accustomed to seeing harvest activities. Maintaining a transportation system that facilitates
multiple-use management of Forest resources is part of the purpose and need of this project.
During timber harvest, roads used by logging equipment are signed and posted to alert the
public.
Prescribed fire may be used to treat hazardous fuels conditions. Although prescribed fire
can be an efficient method for these types of projects, weather conditions and other factors
may ultimately dictate whether the use of mechanical means would occur to meet
objectives. Planning efforts for the use of prescribed fire includes a burn plan that would
outline several measures to ensure public safety. Based on past operations of a similar
nature, there have been no instances where public safety has been affected. Therefore, I have
determined that implementation of Alternative 2 would have no adverse effects on public
health and safety.
49
Based on past projects of a similar nature, there have been no instances where public safety
has been affected. Therefore, I have determined the alternatives would have no effects on
public health and safety.
3. Consideration of the unique characteristics of the geographic area. My decision would
not affect any unique areas, historic features, or ecologically critical areas. There are no
park lands, or prime farmlands in the project area. The project area does include historic
features/cultural sites; all sites would be avoided and protected through implementation of
the proposed design criteria (see Appendix 1). Portions of the road system within MA 8.3
would be improved for administrative and recreational access. However, these roads and
associated access would not affect the Posse Podzol Terrace geological feature. Based on
this information, I conclude that this decision will have no adverse effects on unique
resources and no site-specific amendments to the Forest Plan are necessary.
4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of human environment are likely to be
highly controversial. “Human Environment” shall be interpreted comprehensively to
include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that
environment (FSH 1909.15, 65.1). Based upon previous implementation of similar
projects and the results of the EA, the effects of the alternative actions on the quality of the
human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. A range of comments were
received in response to the project’s proposals, including comments supporting and
opposing the Proposed Action (see project file). The differences in comments reflect a
range of opinions, and do not of and by themselves constitute controversy.
This does not mean that the decision to proceed with the project will be acceptable to all
people, as some may find that their wants and interests are not served by Alternative 2. I
interpret the controversy criteria to be the degree to which there is scientific controversy
relative to the results of the effects analysis, not whether one favors or opposes a specific
alternative. It is my professional judgment that physical, biological, and social issues have
been addressed and the best available science was utilized in the preparation of the effects
analysis, therefore the effects of the alternatives are reasonably predictable.
Based upon previous implementation of similar projects, the effects of the Proposed Action
on the quality of the human environment are not considered as highly controversial. Timber
harvesting, refinements of the transportation system, wildlife habitat enhancements and
improvements to aquatic and riparian habitat are typical of the management actions that
occur across the Ottawa and on many non-National Forest properties. While there are many
different views about some of these specific management actions, the activities proposed are
consistent with Forest Plan direction and best available science. Therefore, I have
determined that the effects of the Proposed Action are not likely to be highly controversial.
5. Consideration of the degree to which effects on the human environment are highly
uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The human environment is the natural
and physical environment, and the relationship of people with that environment (40 CFR
1508.14). This Proposed Action is similar to many past actions in this analysis area and
50
across the Ottawa, and its effects upon the human environment are reasonably expected to
be similar (see project file). The project file demonstrates a thorough review of the best
available and relevant scientific information, consideration of opposing views, and, where
appropriate, the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific
uncertainty, and risk.
We have considerable experience with the types of activities being implemented. Actions
proposed are similar to the types of activities that have been used for many years on the
Ottawa. Based upon my knowledge of past actions and professional and technical
knowledge and experience, I am confident that we understand the effects of these activities
on the human environment. There are no unique or unusual characteristics about the area or
Alternative 2 that would lead to an unknown risk to the human environment.
6. The degree to which this action may establish a precedent for future actions with
significant effects or represents a decision in principle about future considerations. As
previously stated, the Proposed Action includes activities that are similar to many past
actions in this analysis area and across the Ottawa. Therefore, the effects are expected to be
similar. The effects analysis is site-specific to the Prickett project area and is consistent with
the Forest Plan. Therefore, no precedent-setting actions are proposed.
7. Consideration of the action in relation to other actions with individually insignificant
but cumulative significant effects. The cumulative effects of past management, combined
with the current proposal, and reasonably foreseeable future actions for each resource is
disclosed. These analyses were reviewed in consideration of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) guidance on cumulative effects analysis (see project file, references).
Cumulative effects analysis for the project area, by resource, was conducted as outlined in
this EA as well as associated specialist resource analyses (see project file). In addition the
analysis reviewed private land management activities and considered them in the cumulative
effects analysis. Site-specific projects implementing our Forest Plan have not been found to
result in cumulatively significant impacts. Therefore, effects of the Proposed Action, when
considered in conjunction with other past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities are
not expected to lead to significant cumulative effects due to timeframes for implementation,
protective measures developed in the selected design criteria, and application of Forest-wide
Standards and Guidelines.
8. The degree to which the action may affect listed or eligible historic places. This project
meets federal, state and local laws for protection of historic places (see Cultural Resources).
A project specific inventory of the area has been conducted. All known or newly discovered
sites would be protected through application of design criteria to ensure protection of
heritage resources in accordance with Federal laws and regulations.
9. The degree to which the action may affect an endangered species or their habitat. The
Proposed Action would not adversely affect any proposed, endangered or threatened species
or its habitat. There is no indication that implementing the proposed vegetation treatments
would move a proposed, threatened or endangered species towards federal listing or increase
51
its present federal listing. If any federally proposed or listed animal or plant species are
found at a later date or, if any new information relevant to potential effects of an activity on
these species becomes available, the activity would be stopped and the Section 7
consultation process, as per the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, would be
initiated.
10. Whether the proposed action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Alternative 2 does not
threaten a violation of federal, state, or local environmental protection laws.
Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations
1) National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1600 ET SEQ.): The National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) and accompanying regulations require that several specific
findings be documented at the project level. These are as follows:
a) Consistency with Forest Plan (16 USC 1604(i)): This project would implement the
Ottawa’s Forest Plan. The alternative development process and the management goals
of the Proposed Action, in relation to Forest Plan standards and guidelines and effects,
are also displayed in Chapter 2. Alternative 2 would further the desired conditions of
MAs 6.1 and 6.2.
A portion of MA 8.3 within the project area is managed for the Posse Podzol Terrace,
SIA managed for a set of terrace walls and terraces on the Forest. Designation of these
two roads would not affect the SIA (see project file). The Forest Plan’s Guideline states
that roads are restricted to non-motorized use unless allowed through written
authorization. A decision to implement Alternative 2 would provide this authorization.
A site-specific deviation from implementing the Forest Plan Guideline would improve
Forest visitors’ recreational experience by allowing all motorized vehicles access in this
area.
b) Suitability for Timber Production (16 USC 1604[g][2]: All lands proposed for timber
management in this project within MAs 6.1 and 6.2 has been identified as suitable for
timber production (Forest Plan’s FEIS, Volume II, Appendix A, pp. A-12 to A-13). The
classification of land as suited or unsuited is also tied closely to the Ecological
Classification and Inventory and Monitoring System, which provided ecological
potential and capabilities for various landtype phases (Forest Plan, Appendix D).
c) Optimality Determination Appropriateness of Even-aged Management (16 USC
1604 [g][3][f][i]): When the silvicultural treatment of clearcut harvest is proposed for
use on National Forest System lands, a determination must be made that it is the
optimum method to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant Forest Plan.
Even-aged management where used, must be the appropriate silvicultural system to meet
the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan. Using even-aged management would
meet the purpose and need of this project (see Section 1.3). This Proposed Action would
ensure that the aspen forest type is maintained in the project area through both
52
regenerating aspen where it currently exists as well as converting other forest types to
aspen (see Section 2.3.4).
Clearcut harvest is the optimum method for promoting regeneration of the aspen forest
type as this species requires full sunlight for vigorous growth and successful competition
with shade-tolerant species. The optimality of clearcutting to regenerate the forest types
for which it is prescribed is further supported by the discussion of clearcutting rationale
in the Forest Plan (Appendix C, pp. C-8 to C-9).
Clearcut harvest is the optimum method for achieving the purpose and need of this
project for the following reasons: (a) The aspen proposed for regeneration is mature to
overmature, and there is risk of losing this forest type to succession (being mature to
overmature in this context refers to entire stand which is composed of trees that are at or
nearing the end of their live expectancy). If these aspen stands are not harvested with the
intent to regenerate them there is a strong likelihood that they would succeed to other
forest types); (b) the amount of 0- 9 year age class is below what is required for early-
successional wildlife species needs; and (c) clearcut harvest is the only system that can
assure that required densities of aspen suckers are obtained to meet the needs of wildlife
species. For these reasons, I determined that even-aged management is an appropriate
management system and the optimal regeneration method for these forest types based on
the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan.
d) Vegetative Treatments - (16 USC 1604 [e] [f]): All proposals that involve vegetative
treatments of tree cover for any purpose must comply with the following requirements
(see items i through vii):
i. Be best suited to the multiple-use goals stated in the Forest Plan. Development of
this EA and associated resource analyses were completed in an integrated fashion
using an ID Team of resource specialists and public input. The purpose and need for
this project discusses the links to the goals and objectives for MAs 6.1 and 6.2.
ii. Assures that technology and knowledge exists to adequately restock lands within
5 years after the final harvest. The knowledge and technology currently exists to
adequately restock the harvested areas and the stocking surveys for similar areas are
documented in the project file. Analysis of current and historical regeneration data
for similar treatments across the Ottawa supports the conclusion that adequate
stocking of the proposed regeneration harvest units is assured with site preparation
efforts occurring in a timely manner following regeneration harvest. This
conclusion is supported by a reforestation accomplishment summary offered in the
2011 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report (pp. 9 to 13).
iii. Not to be chosen primarily because they will give the greatest dollar return.
Economic outcomes discloses that Alternative 2 would be an economically efficient
alternative. However, vegetation management is being proposed for several reasons,
and not solely based on dollars returned. As this analysis is performed to provide a
method to compare the economic efficiency of alternatives, the actual volume
53
harvested is dependent upon several factors, including final volume available per
acre, market conditions and operating conditions (2010 M&E Report, p. 5).
iv. Be chosen after considering potential effects on residual trees and adjacent
stands. In my decision-making process, I am considering the effects on residual
trees and adjacent stands as outlined in the design criteria (see Appendix 1). Design
criteria do address the impacts of reducing tree density along with the need to
provide for habitat needs and watershed benefits. Based on the analysis disclosed
in this EA as well as the project file, Alternative 2 would provide the best balance
of management practices to meet all resource values.
v. Be selected to avoid permanent impairment of site productivity and to ensure
conservation of soil and water resources. By adhering to Forest-wide Standards
and Guidelines and site-specific design criteria, Alternative 2 would avoid
impairment of site productivity and ensure conservation of soil and water resources.
During analysis, the ID Team identified treatment areas that were of concern.
These areas were evaluated in the field; it was determined that application of design
criteria would meet the objective of avoiding impairment of site productivity. This
determination is supported by the project file.
vi. Be selected to provide the desired effects on water quality and quantity, wildlife,
regeneration of desired tree species, forage production, recreation uses, aesthetic
values, and other resource yields. Alternative 2 would provide the desired effect
on the above resources. All harvest units would be designed to maintain the
ecological function of adjacent riparian types, using logging systems and layout that
minimize ground disturbance, implementing buffers to all streams by category, and
applying Michigan Best Management Practices to all activities. Project design
criteria, as well application of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, would be used
in concert with vegetative management to provide the desired effects on other
resource values, including browse production, recreation uses, and aesthetic values.
vii. Be practical in terms of transportation and harvesting requirements. The ID
Team assessed the existing transportation system within the project area and
proposed changes only when necessary to meet resource objectives. All road
activities were evaluated to find a balance between the benefits and the costs of
road-associated effects on resources (see project file). Alternative 2 would meet the
objectives of the transportation system needs for facilitating timber harvest, while
enhancing recreational access where applicable. The economic analysis conducted
considered the costs of planning, sale preparation, logging, and administration and
total costs of preparation, logging and administration. Total estimated revenues
exceed approximated costs of project implementation.
e) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species: Federal law and direction applicable to
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) include the National Forest Management
Act and the Forest Service Manual 2670. I have reviewed the analysis and projected
54
effects on all RFSS plant and animal species listed as occurring or possibly occurring on
the Ottawa. There is no indication that implementing the vegetation treatments or other
proposed actions would cause effects different than those disclosed in the Biological
Evaluation. I concur with the findings and determinations outlined in this EA.
2) Clean Water Act: The integrity of project area’s water and riparian features would be
maintained as a result of the application of general Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines
(pages 2-2 to 2-9), Michigan’s Best Management Practices, as well as site-specific protective
design criteria (see Appendix 1). The project’s riparian design criteria would provide
additional site-specific measures to assure riparian areas retain their ecological function.
Supporting information in the project file indicates that implementation of Alternative 2
would not produce appreciable impacts on aquatics. Therefore, the Clean Water Act and
State Water Quality Standards would be met.
3) Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended: The Ottawa has no Class I areas. Smoke emissions
from the use of prescribed fire that may occur as part of hazardous fuels reduction activities
would be negligible. Use of prescribed fire would be conducted in accordance with an
approved burn plan, which includes measures to minimize smoke emissions. Impacts to air
quality are not expected to exceed thresholds outlined in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
3. The Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 ET. SEQ.): As required by the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), a Biological Assessment, included in the project’s Biological Evaluation
was prepared addressing the potential effects to proposed, threatened or endangered species
(see project file, Biological Evaluation). To ensure compliance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Forest Service will consult with the USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting concurrence with the following determinations.
The BA/BE states Alternative 2 would have no effect upon the Federally-listed species
Canada lynx or Kirtland’s warbler.
The BA/BE has determined that Alternative 2 may effect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the gray wolf. This project is consistent with the Forest Plan, the Forest Plan’s
Programmatic Biological Opinion relative to wolf, and therefore Alternative 2 would
qualify for Level 2 consultation under the Forest Plan’s 2006 Programmatic Biological
Opinion.
Alternative 2 is likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat. The project is
within ¼ mile of a hibernacula. There are no known maternal roost trees located along
the roads proposed for reconstruction nor along any of the roads included in the proposed
project (USFWS East Lansing Office’s fact sheet [dated July 22, 2016] and website were
checked on May 2, 2017). Therefore, we believe this project is eligible for the
Streamlined Consultation Process described in the Final 4(d) Rule (50 CFR §17.40(o)).
To ensure continued adherence to the Final 4(d) Rule, I have included a design criterion
prohibiting tree removal within 0.25 miles of any known bat hibernacula and 150 feet of
any known occupied bat maternal roost trees. Due to inclusion of these design criteria, I
55
believe there are no effects to northern long-eared bat beyond those previously disclosed
in the programmatic Biological Opinion on implementing the final 4(d) rule dated
January 5, 2016. Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited
under the Final 4(d) Rule.
There is no indication that implementing Alternative 2 would move a proposed species
toward federal listing, nor increase the status of any currently-listed threatened or
endangered species. If any other Federally proposed or listed animal or plant species are
found at a later date, or if any new information relevant to potential effects of the project
on these species become available, then the Section 7 consultation process, as per the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, would be re-initiated.
4) National Historic Preservation Act: All sites would be avoided and protected following
Forest Plan direction and implementation of the proposed design criteria that are included as
part of this project to protect heritage resources (see Appendix 1). A project-specific
inventory of all activity areas has been conducted, and has been placed in the archaeological
files. If any unknown sites are found within an area of potential effect during project
implementation, the project would be redesigned to avoid the site, or measures would be
designed to mitigate the effects of the project on the site and submitted to the Michigan State
Historical Preservation Office as required by law for their review and consultation. Based
upon the analysis performed, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to heritage resources
from implementation of the proposed alternative are anticipated; therefore Alternative 2 is
consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act.
5) Travel Management Rule: The Rule requires the Forest Service to designate a system of
roads and trails open for motorized use and prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the
designated system (36 CRF Parts 212, 261, and 295). The regulations require that the
designated system be displayed for the public on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (which the
Ottawa National Forest first implemented in 2007). These regulations served as primary role
in the development of this project. I have determined that implementation of Alternative 2
would comply with the Travel Management Rule.
6) Environmental Justice – Executive Order 12898: Executive Order 12898 requires
consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income
populations. Public involvement occurred for this project, and the results did not identify any
adversely impacted local minority or low-income populations. I have considered the effects
of this project on low income and minority populations and concluded that this project is
consistent with the intent of this Executive Order. The local community was notified of this
project through the public participation process (see project file).
Conclusions
The effects analysis in this Environmental Assessment considered both the context and intensity
of the action in determining its significance as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27.
56
Based upon the analysis, I have determined that Alternative 2 would not significantly affect the
human environment. Consequently, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. My
review of the analysis prepared by the ID Team indicates that this project is consistent with
Forest Plan management direction, compliant with other applicable laws, and responds to public
concerns. After thorough consideration, I have determined that this project would not constitute
a major federal action, individually or cumulatively, and Alternative 2 would not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment. The site-specific actions of the proposed
alternative, in both the short and long-term, would not be significant.
References Buckley, D.S, T.R. Crow, E.A. Nauretz, K.E. Schulz. 2002. Influence of skid trails and haul
roads on understory plant richness and composition in managed forest landscapes in
Upper Michigan, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 5969 (2002):1-12.
Burns, 1990;
Cleland, DT, L.A. Leefers, and D. Dickmann. 2001. Ecology and Management of Aspen: A Lake
States Perspective. 2001. General Tech. Report RMRS-P-18.
Devine et al. 2011. Tracking the establishment of invasive exotic species in a timber harvest.
Kentucky Woodlands Magazine 6(2):16-17.
Dickmann, D. 1993. Management of red pine for multiple benefits using prescribed fire.
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 10(2): 53-62.
Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, C.S. Yee. 1991. Chapter 8 road construction and maintenance. In:
Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:297-323.
Grace, J.M. and B.D. Clinton. 2007. Protecting soil and water in forest road management.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ISSN 0001-2351. Vol. 50(5):
1579-1584.
Matlack, G.R. and J. R. Schaub. 2011. Long-term persistence and spatial assortment of
nonnative plant species in second-growth forests. Ecography 34: 649-658.
Meadows, D., Foltz, R., Geehan, N. 2008. Effects of All-Terrain Vehicles on Forested Lands and
Grasslands. 0823 1811-SDTDC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Technology
and Development Program.
Metzger, F. and J. Schultz. 1984. Understory Response to 50 Years of Management of a
Northern Hardwood Forest in Upper Michigan. American Midland Naturalist 112(2): pp.
209-223.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
(2009). Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Practices on Forest Land. Publication Number
IC4011. Lansing, MI.
57
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2015. Wetlands. 5th ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley.
Munger, Gregory T. 2005. Lonicera spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014,
September 10].
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2004. Effects of heavy equipment on
physical properties of soils and on long-term productivity: A review of literature and
current research. Technical Bulletin No. 887. Research Triangle Park, NC: National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. pp. 40, 42 and 62.
Olive, N.D. and J.L. Marion. 2009. The influence of use-relate, environmental, and managerial
factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of Environmental Management 90
(2009) 1483-1493.
Perala, 1977
Rew, L. and F. Pollnac. 2010. Seed dispersal by vehicles. In April 2010 Newsletter of the Center
for Invasive Plant Management, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 2 p.
Rooney, Thomas P. 2005. Distribution of ecologically-invasive plants along off-road vehicle
trails in the Chequamegon national forest, Wisconsin. The Michigan Botanist 44: pp.
178-182.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
Accessed 02/2017.
USDA Forest Service, Blinn, et al. 1998. Temporary Stream and Wetland Crossing Options for
Forest Management. Gen Tech. Rep. NC-202. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service,
North Central Research Station. pp. 21-29.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Ottawa National Forest Non-Native Invasive Plant Control
Project. Signed April 4, 2005, by Forest Supervisor Robert Lueckel.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Ottawa National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Eastern Region. pp. 3-86 to 3-97, Appendix II, pp. A-13 to A-15.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Ottawa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pp.
1-10, 2-2 to 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-24, 2-25, 3-6 to 3-10, 3-12 to 3-25, 3-55 to 3-61, 3-
63, 3-64, Appendix B, Appendix C, pp. C-4, C-8 to C-9; and Appendix D.
USDA Forest Service. 2012. Non-Native Invasive Species Best Management Practices
Guidance for the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region. BMP 5.3, page 27.
USDA Forest Service. 2012a. FS-990a. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality
Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume I: National Core BMP Technical
Guide. Washington, D.C.
58
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American
Fisheries Society Monograph 7. P. 79-118.
Wright, Henry A. and Arthur W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology United States and Southern
Canada. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982. 0-471-09033-6
Yoho, N.S. 1980. Forest management and sediment production in the south – a review. Southern
J. Applied Forestry 4(1), 27-35.
Zenner, E.K and A.L. Berger. 2008. Influence of skidder traffic and canopy removal intensities
on the ground flora in a clearcut-with-reserves northern hardwood stand in Minnesota,
USA. Forest Ecology and Management 256 (2008):1785–1794.
59
Appendix 1. Design Criteria, Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Design Criteria As part of the Proposed Action, the interdisciplinary team has developed the following design
criteria to achieve management objectives for other resources and minimize or eliminate any
potential effects to natural and cultural resources in the treatment stands. These include habitat
enhancement features for wildlife, measures to reduce the spread of invasive species, and a
number of protective measures for rare plants and animals, riparian areas, fisheries, soil
resources, visual quality objectives, recreation opportunities, and cultural resources. Design
criteria are organized by activity and resources protected. Some apply throughout the treatment
areas, but others would be applied under certain conditions (e.g. on steep slopes).
A. Vegetation Management Project-wide design criteria for vegetation management:
A1) Retention of habitat features for wildlife
a. Retain existing snags, down, or leaning trees where removal is not necessary for safe
operations in order to retain roosting, nesting, and escape cover for birds and mammals.
Snags felled should not be removed for biomass or other reasons, generally. Snags
appropriate for felling would include dead or unstable live trees sufficiently tall to reach
landings and roads the purchaser would be using, including temporary roads and new
construction.
b. In stands lacking snag trees, up to 10 basal area of snag trees/acre could be created with
girdling. In most locations, 1 to 5 trees (≤14”diameter at breast height (dbh)) girdled per
acre should be sufficient to provide for present and future habitat needs. In stands where
smaller diameter (<14” dbh) trees are more common up to 10 snags/acre may be required
to achieve a similar amount of snag material.
c. Allow for snag maintenance and/or creation with girdling up to 2 snags per 10 acres in
aspen clearcuts and could create 1 brush pile for every 15 acres to mitigate the loss of
cover, nesting habitat, and drumming logs for ruffed grouse and other species of wildlife.
d. To the extent possible, retain existing large woody debris (LWD) in all treatment stands.
The LWD can be moved to allow for safe operations in the harvest area, i.e. off roads,
skid trails and landings. Tops and limbs used to stabilize soil, typically on roads or skid
trails, should be left in place following harvest operations. Exceptions include where
tops and limbs fall into wetlands, streams and meadows where they are to be removed per
timber sale contract direction (language also described in project Riparian Matrix and
Michigan Best Management Practices (see project file)). Tops and limbs used to cross
small wet drains must be removed prior to sale close-out.
A2) Biomass retention and management for protection of wildlife and plant habitat,
soils, and hydrology
Should biomass harvest be requested, consult with Soil Resource personnel and reference the
60
Ottawa National Forest Approach to Biomass Harvest white paper, developed by an
interdisciplinary team in August, 2010. Additional sources for biomass guidelines would include
the Wisconsin Forestland Woody Biomass Harvesting Guidelines (2014). In particular,
considerations regarding fine and coarse woody debris retention, nutrient requirements for
droughty and sandy upland soils (including associated tree species) as well as shallow to bedrock
soils, and stump removal would need to be addressed prior to proceeding with biomass harvest
A3) Protection of Cultural Resources
a. All stands proposed for harvest will be surveyed before implementation (see project file
for additional information).
b. All timber harvest activity will avoid archaeological and historic sites. The area
protected will include a buffer zone extending up to 30 meters (100’) beyond the site
boundary, within which no vegetation removal or other activities will be permitted. Sites
that are adjacent to timber stands but not in the payment unit must be marked as protected
areas so that contractors know these areas are not to be disturbed.
A4) Protection of aquatic features and habitat:
When vegetation management stands are located near streams, wetlands, ponds, and lakes, site-
specific riparian area protection would be applied (see Riparian Matrix in project file). Riparian
design criteria would be utilized for all activities within and immediately adjacent to riparian
corridors and riparian areas that are typically identified during sale/contract preparation
activities. These measures are to ensure that vegetation manipulation within the riparian corridors
and riparian areas maintains or enhances riparian function.
a. Wetlands: When wetlands must be crossed for stand management and there are no
other reasonable alternatives to crossing, then the following would be implemented:
(1) cross at the narrowest point of the wetland and as close to right angles as
feasible; (2) maintain cross drainage during and after the project is completed; (3)
place easily removable materials such as mats, small pipe bundles, corduroy (log
stringers), or other similar cross drainage structures to minimize damage due to fill
removal (Blinn, et al., 1998, pp. 21-29); and (4) where there are no road
improvements to permit dry season operation, specify “winter only” use with
specific sales administration guidelines regarding when use is and is not appropriate.
b. Cold water and cold transitional trout streams: Where aspen occurs within 400 feet
of either the bankfull width or water inundated area on cold and cold-transitional
trout streams (as identified by the Forest fish biologist and noted in the Riparian
Matrix), do not regenerate the aspen in order to protect trout habitat.
c. Incised valleys: Incised valleys associated with perennial streams (LTA 20) would
have wider riparian area and riparian corridor designations in order to protect the
steep valley slopes from mass wasting. Specific designations would be included in
the site-specific riparian area protections (see Riparian Matrix).
d. Where aquatic features to be protected are identifiable on maps, they would be
61
included on timber sale maps for timber contract protection. Small unmapped
wetlands, ponds, seasonal ponds, lakes, rivers or drainways identified during sale
preparation activities may be excluded from the sale area by paint. This measure is to
protect soil quality/productivity and water quality
e. A permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is
required for any skidding of timber across streams.
A5) Protection of sensitive soil: Design features are applicable to ground disturbing
activities such as commercial and non-commercial vegetation treatments. Where applicable to
a timber sale contract, the following design criteria are in addition to timber sale contract
provisions for protection of soil and water quality. Procedures include “Sustainable Soil and
Water Quality Practices on Forest Land” issued by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDNR, MDEQ, 2009).
a. Slopes greater than 35%:
i. Generally, sale area layout activities would exclude all mapped slopes greater
than 35%.
ii. Equipment operations would be prohibited on all slopes greater than 35%
except in special situations where equipment operations on a very short slope
would greatly facilitate timber sale operations and/or reduce impacts to soils in
other areas. These skid trails would be approved by sale administration
personnel or in consultation with a soil scientist on a case by case basis.
b. Slopes between 18%-35%:
i. Equipment operations on slopes between 18% - 35% will be evaluated on a
case by case basis by Forest Service personnel. Where necessary, sale area
layout would exclude these slopes within payment units or these areas would
not be marked to avoid soil resource damage.
c. For vegetation management, the season of operation would follow Soil Scientist
guidelines for the Ecological Land Type Phase (ELTP) being operated on (see project
file). Note that these guidelines are based on ground condition, and not an arbitrary
season. Winter ground should be firm or frozen to effectively protect the soil resource.
The most restrictive operating season included in a payment unit would determine the
operating period for that unit in the timber sale contract. Typically these guidelines
would be used to develop operating restrictions, rather than referring to normal
operating seasons. Operation outside of these periods must be agreed to under the
provisions of the contract, in consultation with soil resource personnel.
d. To address soil productivity concerns within stands located on droughty or sandy
upland sites (see project file), maintain even slash distribution throughout the stand, as
specified in the timber sale contract. Retaining a few small brush piles for wildlife
purposes would be acceptable. Whole tree harvesting, hazardous fuel reduction, and
pile burning would be discouraged on these sites.
62
e. Three Ecological Classification System (ECS) study plot center points are located in
the project area (Ontonagon Ranger District). Protection measures include prohibiting
all harvest and machinery travel within a 50 foot radius of the plot center and
protecting the three marked bearing trees (Compartment 49 Stand 35, Compartment 43
Stand 8, and Compartment 44 Stand 12).
f. To protect the duff layer in an area where it is currently intact (no invasive
earthworms) and there is an abundance of uncommon and rare Botrychium ferns,
which are duff-associated. Conduct vegetation management operations only in winter,
over fully frozen ground, or with 6 inches of compacted snow or 12 inches of
uncompacted snow (see project file; Forest Plan p. 2-13, 2-27). Road reconstruction,
decommissioning and related work in this area should also be conducted under these
conditions.
B. Transportation Management Activities (reconstruction, relocation and
temporary road construction) B1) Installation of closure devices to prevent unauthorized motorized use:
a. Selection of a road closure device and closure procedures would follow the road access
management guidelines for local roads on the Ottawa (see project file). Road closures
can be conducted using berms or gates or transplanting trees and shrubs from nearby or
adjacent sites into the road surface area. This is to discourage unauthorized use and
subsequent aquatic and soil resource impacts. Closure devices on roads open to OHVs
will allow for opening 65 inches. This opening will be located on the road bed where
permissible.
b. Wherever practical, a closure device should be placed at the entrance of a network of
roads rather than closing each individual segment.
c. Roads to be decommissioned would have treatments implemented to discourage
unauthorized motor vehicle use unless the route is completely grown in and impassable.
Decommissioning treatments can include blocking the entrance with berms, rocks,
stumps, logs and/or transplanted trees, and stabilization through slash placement. Slash
may be heavily placed on decommissioned road surfaces for at least the first 100 feet
after the closure device to discourage unauthorized motorized use. Slash may be derived
through the cutting of small un-merchantable (generally 4” or less in diameter) nearby
trees and shrubs. Any wetland or stream crossing structure, including any associated fill
material, will be removed.
B2) Reducing impacts to visuals, soil and water from log landings:
a. Where possible, log landings would be located a minimum of 100 feet from collector
roads, unless specified otherwise to meet visual quality objectives.
b. For the protection of soils and water bodies, when possible, locate landings on well to
moderately-well drained uplands. Landings would be placed in areas where slope would
direct sediment away from water bodies and would not be located within riparian
63
corridors where possible. Landings would be located at least 150 feet from seasonal
ponds and they would be located, designed, and managed such that they do not
contribute sediment to seasonal ponds.
c. Logging debris (chips, bark, etc.) at landings will be reduced to a thickness that will not
severely restrict vegetative growth on the area as determined by sale administration
personnel.
B3) Temporary and permanent road construction (protection for soil and water and
prevention of non-native invasive plants):
a. Temporary roads used during a timber sale would be blocked following harvest
completion in such a manner as to inhibit all forms of motorized use, following the
design criteria specific to road closures.
b. Temporary roads used during a timber sale would be located to avoid riparian corridors
where possible to avoid sedimentation and impacts on riparian function.
c. As necessary to attain stabilization of roadbed and fill slopes of temporary roads, the
remaining roadbed would be returned to the original landscape contour and all crossing
structures would be removed. Drainage structures across streams and wetlands and all
fills associated with drainages and wetlands would be removed to permit normal
maximum water flows which would include some floodplain area and normal wetland
function.
d. Permanent system roads may only be constructed under the following conditions:
i. During project implementation, it may occasionally be found that existing roads are
resulting in resource impacts due to poor location. New roads may be constructed
nearby to relocate a system road in a more appropriate site. In this case, the
existing system road would be decommissioned and closed, following the
decommissioning design criteria. Work with an Ottawa National Forest soil
scientist, botanist and archeologist to determine the best location for new road
construction when field conditions warrant a need and the Section 18 process is
invoked.
e. All permanent road crossing structures proposed for installation (new or replacement) on
fish bearing streams within the project area shall be designed for aquatic organism
passage. Consult with the Project fisheries biologist if needed to determine if streams are
fish bearing. (Forest Plan pg. 2-3 and 2-34).
f. Retain native vegetation in and around project activity to the maximum extent possible
consistent with project objectives (Forest Plan p. 2-13). New construction roads should
be developed to retain the most shade possible, to lower the potential for NNIP
infestations.
g. Changes in MVUM designation that could increase access to archaeological sites must
be monitored. If Forest users are disturbing archaeological sites, measures to keep
64
vehicles on the existing road/trail such as a fence, an earthen berm, or a row of boulders
must be placed to stop the disturbance.
h. All temp road locations and road construction would avoid archaeological sites,
including a 100 foot buffer. Questions about location of sites should be referred to an
Archaeologist.
B4) Revegetation of disturbed areas:
a. Freshly disturbed soil areas, such as landings, unsurfaced road beds, and open areas left
after culvert removal or installation, may be left to revegetate naturally, if non-native
invasive plant colonization potential and erosion potential are low (Forest Plan p. 2-13).
If erosion potential is high, or the area is prone to colonization by non-native species, as
determined by a Forest Service representative, seed the area to encourage revegetation.
Seed should be a local native seed mix, or a non-native, non-persistent seed mix
appropriate to the site, and approved by a Forest botanist.
b. Where the risk of erosion exists on low-use OML 1-2 roads, or on decommissioned
roads within the project area, seeding may also be done as a part of a post-sale activity.
Seed would be a Forest Service approved local, native plant mix, whenever feasible and
available. If unavailable, a non-invasive seed mix approved by a Forest botanist would
be used.
B5) Place skid trails to prevent sedimentation and impacts to riparian function:
a. Designate skid trails to direct activities outside of riparian corridors as quickly as
possible, to minimize the number of skid trails within riparian corridors, and to avoid
steep slopes (D phase and greater) within the riparian corridors to avoid sedimentation
and impacts on riparian function.
b. Avoid skidding in draws so as to avoid equipment traffic in areas that concentrate runoff
and overland flow.
C. Design Criteria Applicable for all activities C1) Protective measures for raptors (Forest Plan page 2-30)
a. Any known or located goshawk or red-shouldered hawk nests would follow protection
measures as outlined in March 19, 2014 letter.
C2) Protection of Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) and Threatened and
Endangered species (TES):
a. If RFSS, state-listed, rare or species of viability concern plants are located during
surveys or project implementation, Botany program staff would recommend buffer
zones, timing restrictions or other mitigations as needed to protect the populations
(Forest Plan p. 2-27). Populations and protection measures would be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate action. Guidelines in existing
conservation approaches, other scientific literature, the Forest Plan, and professional
65
judgement would be followed to protect TES populations. The Responsible Official
would make the final decision on protection measures.
b. Wolf dens and rendezvous sites used within the current year or immediate previous year
shall be protected by an 8 acre (330 ft. radius) no-disturbance buffer around the site
from March 1 to July 31. Den or rendezvous sites shall be verified by wildlife biologist
or wildlife technician.
c. In order to protect the Federally-listed Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB), no tree
removal shall take place within 0.25 miles from a known hibernacula or 150 feet from a
known maternity roost tree in accordance with the final U.S. Fish and Wildlife 4(d) rule
(50 CFR §17.40(o)). Reserve snags and den trees according to Forest Plan guidelines (p
2-32); focus on retaining trees with features beneficial to the NLEB such as shaggy
bark and cavities.
d. Hand-fell/brush, clear and/or mow existing upland openings to simulate the effects of
natural disturbance and fire to prevent the overgrowth by trees and shrubs in this
important habitat for birds, pollinators and a variety of wildlife including potential
rendezvous sites for wolves.
e. Protection measures for newly discovered TES species would be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis and jointly developed by project’s botanist and/or biologist and the
Responsible Official; incorporating conservation strategies contained in approved
recovery plans, conservation approaches, as well as the 2006 Forest Plan, and
professional judgment.
f. Conduct rare and invasive plant surveys in the following stands, in 2-3 blooming
periods, prior to treatment (Compartment 38, Stand 37; Compt. 41, Stands 3, 7, 13, 14,
19, 21, 23, 31; Compt. 44, Stand 23; Compt. 46, Stands 4 and 5; Compt. 48, Stand 12;
Compt. 53, Stand 14; Compt. 99, Stands 14 and 17; Compt. 102, Stands 1 and 25; and
Compt. 103, Stand 13) (Forest Plan p. 2-27).
g. Unless they are a safety concern, existing tree tip-ups should not be straightened
(righted) by operators, in order to retain habitat for certain species of concern, low
competition germination sites, and contribute to pit and mound microtopography
(Forest Plan p. 2-28).
h. Provide protective, no-activity buffers (approximately 2 to 3 tree lengths) around
documented RFSS and special plant populations in the project area (see project file;
Forest Plan p. 2-27).
i. Provide protective, no-activity buffers around documented special plant populations in
the project area as shown in Table 2 (Forest Plan p. 2-27).
66
Table 1. Recommended Buffers for Rare Plant Populations in Proposed Treatment Stands
Taxon
Common
Name Buffer Information Purpose
Botrychium
mormo
(794)
Little
goblin
moonwort
250 foot buffer per conservation strategy (Casson et
al. 2002): no canopy opening by timber harvest; no
ground disturbance. There are 2 clusters about 500
feet apart. Buffered area would be shaped like a
solid figure 8 and would occupy about 11 acres
(some of that extends outside the stand to the
southeast). Stand outline is shown in green and
buffer outline in red:
Also, reconstruction of Road 05038044 would be
truncated by about 300 feet.
Approx. 3-tree
length zone
would avoid
desiccation
(drying out) and
changes in light
and moisture
regime, to
protect fern
microsite. This
fern is more
shade-
dependent than
the species
listed below.
Botrychium
simplex
(795)
Least
grapefern
150 ft. radius buffer circle (~1.6 acres): no canopy
opening by timber harvest; no ground disturbance
except that needed for reconstruction of road
05105035 which crosses the buffer and may be
used as planned.
Approx. 2-tree
length zone
would avoid
desiccation and
changes in light
and moisture
regime, to
protect fern
microsite.
Botrychium
simplex
(796)
Least
grapefern
150 ft. radius buffer circle (~1.6 acres): no canopy
opening by timber harvest; no ground disturbance.
Reconstruction of a road extending from the end
2271-A1 and labelled 05105027 will have to shift
to avoid the buffer. Consult botanist at time of
layout.
Approx. 2-tree
length zone
would avoid
desiccation and
changes in light
and moisture
regime, to
protect fern
microsite.
67
Botrychium
simplex
(797)
Least
grapefern
150 ft. radius buffer circle (~1.6 acres): no canopy
opening by timber harvest; no ground disturbance.
Reconstruction of road 2292-A will have to shift to
avoid the buffer. Consult botanist at time of layout.
Approx. 2-tree
length zone
would avoid
desiccation and
changes in light
and moisture
regime, to
protect fern
microsite.
Pyrola
asarifolia
(792)
Liverleaf
wintergree
n
150 ft. radius buffer circle around 400 m2
population area (~2 acres): no canopy opening by
timber harvest; no ground disturbance. May be
partly within riparian buffer; plants are about 45
feet from stream. No road considerations.
Approx. 2-tree
length zone
would avoid
desiccation and
changes in light
and moisture
regime, to
protect
microsite.
Pyrola
asarifolia
(790)
Liverleaf
wintergree
n
150 ft. radius buffer circle (~1.6 acres): no canopy
opening by timber harvest; no ground disturbance.
May be within riparian buffer; plants are about 90
feet from stream. No road considerations.
Approx. 2-tree
length zone
would avoid
desiccation and
changes in light
and moisture
regime, to
protect
microsite.
Table 2. No activity buffers for special plant populations.
Taxon
Common
Name Buffer Information Purpose
Dryopteris
expansa
(793)
Spreading
woodfern
150 ft. radius buffer circle (~1.6
acres): no canopy opening by
timber harvest; no ground
disturbance. No road
considerations needed.
Approx. 2-tree length
zone would avoid
desiccation and changes in
light and moisture regime,
to protect fern microsite.
Cardamine
maxima x
diphylla
hybrid
Toothwort
hybrid
Conduct timber harvest operations
only in winter, over fully frozen
ground, or with 6 inches of
compacted snow or 12 inches of
These conditions would
protect the shallow
rhizomes of this plant,
which has not been
68
uncompacted snow. Road
decommissioning in this stand
should also be conducted under
these conditions. Road
maintenance and reconstruction
may proceed as planned in any
season.
recorded on the Ottawa
previously and is related
to an RFSS plant.
C3) Protection of Cultural Resources
a. All archaeological and historic sites whose National Register of Historic Places status
is eligible or unevaluated will not be disturbed.
b. Changes in the proposed activities or locations must be reported to the Forest
Archaeologist so that the effects to cultural resources can be determined.
c. Staff and contractors must stop work if any unexpected artifacts or sites are found and
immediately report the location to the Forest Archaeologist.
d. Contracts (e.g. road contract) and agreements (e.g. stewardship agreement) will
include a clause that enables the Forest Service to modify or suspend work in order to
protect archaeological or historic sites, regardless of when they are identified.
C4) Measures to reduce the spread of priority invasive species:
a. If new infestations of high or medium priority non-native invasive plants (Forest Plan p.
2-12; see list in NNIP specialist report) are located during project implementation or
surveys, treatment plans or measures to avoid propagule spread (such as scheduling of
harvests to leave infested stands until last) may be recommended (Forest Plan p. 2-13).
The Responsible Official would make the final decision on prevention and control
measures.
b. For any ground-disturbing activities, such as prescribed fire; road reconstruction and
construction; and others conducted by employees, volunteers, partners, or contractors,
take reasonable measures to make equipment, clothing, boots, gear, and vehicles free of
soil, seeds, vegetative matter, and other debris that could contain or hold non-native
invasive plant seeds, prior to entry into the project area (Forest Plan p. 2-13).
c. Consistent with contract clause, operators shall use reasonable measures to make sure
each piece of equipment that will work off a paved or level 3 (collector) road is visually
free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter or other debris that could contain or hold seed, eggs
or other propagules (pieces that could start a new infestation) prior to arriving at the
Forest (Forest Plan p. 2-13). Reasonable measures shall not require the disassembly of
equipment components or use of any specialized inspection tools. Equipment shall be
considered free of soil, seeds, and other such debris when a visual inspection does not
disclose such material.
d. Consistent with contract clause, operators must advise the Forest Service of measures
taken to clean equipment and arrange for Forest Service inspection prior to such
69
equipment being placed in service. For internal equipment surfaces, operator shall
sweep vehicle cabs and deposit refuse in waste receptacles prior to movement onto the
Ottawa National Forest. This includes equipment used for timber harvest as well as road
work equipment.
e. Minimize soil disturbance to the extent practical, consistent with project objectives, for
all project activities (Forest Plan p. 2-13).
f. If gravel, fill or mulch is needed, use materials that are free of non-native invasive plant
seeds (Forest Plan p. 2-13) (see list in NNIP specialist report).
C5) Protection of Recreation Opportunities
a. Where treatments stands are located within developed trails, a recreation specialist would
be contacted to help design the sale to reduce impacts. The following measures would be
implemented to protect the trails and developed recreational sites, including ensuring the
continued safe use of existing trail systems.
i. Harvest planning would include attempting to plan harvest season outside trail
and recreation sites’ season of use where possible.
ii. If harvest activities occur along or within trails or developed recreation areas,
logging activity signs would be posted and the roads would be evaluated for
temporary closure to ensure safety of forest visitors.
iii. If harvest activities are required by prescription to operate during the snowmobile
season designated by the State of Michigan (typically December 1 to March 31),
temporary reroutes of the snowmobile trails will be attempted. Coordination
between timber and recreation would occur before the snowmobile season to
allow time for the responsible clubs to designate alternative routes with the
MDNR, or complete clearing of the route to mitigate safety concerns. Hauling
equipment or logs would be limited to weekdays only during winter harvest
activities to reduce user conflict between snowmobilers and logging trucks where
mixed use exists. Additionally, a minimum snow mat would be maintained on the
road surface and safety signs would be posted.
iv. North Country National Scenic Trail (NCNST) will be managed through the
project area to meet trail management guidelines.
v. Skid Trails crossing the NCNST will be kept to a minimum and will be designated
by the sale administrator and be normally perpendicular to the trail.
vi. Ensure no slash is left in NCNST trail corridor and lop and scatter slash to no
more than 36” from the ground for a distance of 25’ either side of the NCNST.
b. Where practical, along collector roads, closure devices on system roads should have a
setback to allow for dispersed camping sites or parking areas. The closure device (berm
or gate) should be placed to allow room for dispersed camping sites and/or parking that
will not block access through the gate. Additional site hardening may occur if needed at
these sites.
70
C6) Protection Visual Quality Objectives
There are five classes of Visual Quality Objectives in the Forest Service Visual Management
System. Each class allows a different degree of acceptable alteration to the existing landscape.
(see Forest Plan, Appendix G).
A list of affected stands for each design criterion, as applicable, is located in the Project File.
a. To meet the Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Retention/Partial Retention areas
adjacent to the Sturgeon River WSR corridor, management activities would be designed
to maintain and protect the existing river scenery as viewed from the river corridor
(Forest Plan, p. G‐2; WSR CRMP, p. 3‐17).
b. To meet the VQO of Retention/ Partial Retention in areas surrounding Silver Mountain
and Prickett Lake, management activities shall be designed to maintain and protect the
existing scenery as viewed from Silver Mountain and Prickett Lake. Openings and stand
boundaries shall be organically shaped. Straight lines and geometric shapes shall be
avoided. Edges shall be shaped and/or feathered where appropriate to avoid a shadowing
effect in the cut unit. Openings shall be oriented to contours and existing vegetation
patterns to blend with existing landscape characteristics, as appropriate.
c. County Roads and Forest Roads
i. In areas identified with a VQO of Retention or Partial Retention, special road and
landing designs would be followed. When possible, this includes locating
landings at least 400 feet from the road. When this is not possible, access roads to
the landings should be angled or curved to screen the landing from view unless
safety concerns dictate otherwise.
ii. Lop and scatter slash to lie within 36 inches of the ground for a 50 foot zone,
starting from forested edge of stand, along the forested edge of Prickett Dam
Road, South Laird Road, Newberry Road, Silver Mountain Road and Forest
Roads 2200, 2270 and 2276. This is to reduce the impacts of vegetation
management to the scenic integrity along well-traveled roads.
iii. Along well traveled roads (see “b” above), transition the edges of the forest
between clearcut openings by shaping and feathering in a gradual manner rather
than leaving peek-a-boo strips of vegetation. Openings would not be in geometric
shapes, but would blend with the landscape. The intent is to reduce the appearance
of sharp lines and the perception of a drastic change in vegetation coverage.
iv. An actual opening size of up to 10 acres maybe appropriate in the foreground
zone and up to 25 acres in middle ground and background zones on highly to
moderately traveled roads.
d. All applicable stands visible from Forest Roads open to the public in MAs 6.1 and 6.2.
i. In Modification areas, where the treatment is clearcut harvest, openings up to 25
acres in size may be visible from the roadway (Forest Plan 3-59 and 3-65). Due
to the narrow depth of some stands, necessary inclusions can be placed along the
edge of the road, with roadside openings of up to 400’ in length between
71
inclusions.
ii. In Modification areas for all treatments, lop and scatter slash to within 36 inches
of the ground for 50 foot zone.
e. Snowmobile trails and OHV trails
i. In general, for areas in the foreground of trails, trees would be harvested in such a
manner that larger diameter trees and trees that provide visual interest or variety
are retained. The retained species and distribution described in the Silviculture
and Wildlife design criteria should be utilized in meeting this criterion.
D. Prescribed Fire
D1) Protection of Soils
a. Within prescribed burn areas, scatter any slash piles to limit the intensity and duration of
soil heating caused by the burning of concentrated fuels. Pile burning on droughty and
sandy upland sites would be discouraged (see map depicting droughty and sandy upland
ELTPs in project file).
b. Conduct prescribed burns so that the resulting burn is low intensity. Generally, the
severity of fire effects is proportional to the intensity and duration of soil heating. Thus,
a low severity prescribed burn would help protect soil productivity.
c. Plan to control erosion after a prescribed burn to prevent sediment runoff to lakes,
streams, and wetlands; maintain soil stabilization features until the site is fully
revegetated or stabilized.
d. Avoid plowed and bladed fire lines in riparian corridors except where necessary to
control wildfire.
D2) Protection of Cultural Resources
a. All prescribed burns will avoid archaeological sites, including a 100 foot buffer.
Questions about location of sites should be referred to an Archaeologist.
D3) NNIP
a. Seed the fire lines after the prescribed burns are complete, to rapidly establish suitable
vegetation and prevent establishment of NNIP. Consult a Forest Botanist for site-specific
seed recommendations using local native seed. (Based on USDA Forest
Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. USDA, Washington, DC.)
b. Inspect and document NNIP establishment at fire access roads, cleaning sites, all
disturbed staging areas, fire lines, and within burned areas; control priority infestations to
prevent spread within burned areas.
Ontonagon Ranger District, Ottawa National Forest
1
Monitoring Botany: Monitor changes in plant communities due to prescribed fire via before and
after vegetation data collection in the fire units.
Cultural Resources: In identified areas where sites are adjacent to access roads, monitor
cultural resource sites to ensure that OHV travel is no damaging cultural resource sites.
Silviculture: First and third year stocking surveys would occur for those stands
receiving clearcut, selection, group selection and shelterwood treatments.
Soils: Closed road spurs that lead off of the proposed designated access would be
monitored using established protocols in the OHV Implementation Strategy.
Wildlife: Staff will continue to monitor red-shouldered hawk habitat and will work with
Timber layout staff to protect integrity of territory found during sale prep and with sale
administration during sale implementation.
Adaptive Management In response to additional needs for safety and/or resource protection, this project would
allow implementation of road activities as deemed necessary to support administrative
access and designated recreational access. This project allows for a range of
decommissioning between 85 and 120 miles, and a range of road reconstruction between
140 and 160 miles. These ranges allow for flexibility in the future where additional
needs are identified throughout the implementation process.
Road decommissioning includes, but is not limited to road closure, removal of culverts,
seeding, tree planting, and waterbar placement to address potential erosion. Road
reconstruction includes, but is not limited to: road realignment, road widening, and
improving drainage through culvert repair or replacement. The amount of road
reconstruction would be based upon site-specific conditions and resource surveys at the
time of implementation. Implementation of these actions would enhance the roads’
standards in a manner consistent with the Forest Plan’s direction to “maintain a safe,
efficient, and effective transportation system that supports administrative uses of National
Forest System lands” while minimizing resource impacts. All activities would take place
on existing roads and associated right-of-ways. The amount of road reconstruction would
be based upon site-specific conditions and resource surveys at the time of
implementation.
Ontonagon Ranger District, Ottawa National Forest
2
Appendix 2. Maps
