Download - ATTACHMENT 1, NIAGARA PROJECT ERRATA - …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai...ATTACHMENT 1, NIAGARA PROJECT ERRATA ... Niagara Project EIS Attachment

Errata Niagara Project EIS

Attachment 1 - 1

ATTACHMENT 1, NIAGARA PROJECT ERRATA

NIAGARA DEIS SUMMARY

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

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

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

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


Attachment 1 - 2

red dot = karst feature, purple area = effective buffer for karst protection, green area = expanded buffer beyond effective area, rust-colored area = stand to be treated The range of alternatives provided by 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail is sufficient to see a range of different levels of moving the vegetation toward Purpose and Need 1, from the No Action which wouldn’t treat any acres to Alternative 2 which is predicted to treat approximately 4,215 acres. An alternative that established buffers larger than what has been shown to be effective would fall within this range.


Attachment 1 - 3

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

Remove: existing vegetation section. Replace with:

Resource Area

Activity or Measure Proposed Action Effects

No Action Effects

Alternative 1 Effects

Alternative 2 Effects

VEGETATION

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

443 0 202 443

Change in late seral acres@

247 0 135 247

Change in mid seral size classes 4 & 5@

33 0 33 33

Change in late seral size classes 4 & 5@

1,779 0 277 1,779

Total returns to treasury * ($56,006)

0

* ($78,775)

$20,193

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

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

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

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


Attachment 1 - 4

Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

3.7 Minerals and Geology

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

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

habitat/biodiversity characteristics associated with significant surface karst features.

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

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

“Best Management Practices The following best management practices are recommended:

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

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

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


Attachment 1 - 5

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

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

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

Remove: “For more information visit http://www.niagaraescarpment.org.” Replace with: “For more information visit http://www.escarpment.org.” In February 1990, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated the Niagara Escarpment one of the 12 World Biosphere Reserves in Canada. The Niagara Escarpment Commission, an agency of Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources, regulates development and land use adjacent to the escarpment to protect the biosphere reserve. While the Ontario MNR doesn’t have any regulatory influence with the US, it may be of interest to some to know that forest, wildlife and fisheries activities, as well as transportation facilities are all permitted uses within the Canadian Niagara Escarpment Plan “will ensure that plans for the cutting of trees on public lands are in accordance with sustainable forestry management practices” (http://www.escarpment.org).

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


Attachment 1 - 6

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

3.8 Vegetation

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

Change #10: EIS, page 86 Section 3.8.5.1, on page 86, Insert: Before the last paragraph 2008 HNF Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest, 2009, p. 22) showed that 96% of the stands reviewed to ensure compliance with the five year regeneration requirement of NFMA were certified as regenerated to sufficient stocking levels. On the remaining 130 acres, supplemental planting or additional surveys were scheduled.


Attachment 1 - 7

Change #11: EIS, page 85 After Photo 7 Insert the following photos (by Martha Sjogren):

Photo 7a. Opening in canopy of northern hardwood stand created by selection harvest with regeneration established on the ground (5 – 10 years post harvest).

Photo 7b. Regeneration of northern hardwoods with smaller opening in the canopy (3 – 5 years post harvest).

Photo 7c. Northern hardwood regeneration 15 to 20 years after selection harvest.


Attachment 1 - 8

3.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plants

Change #12: EIS, page 98 3.9.1 Introduction, Paragraph 3 Replace: “The project would have no effect on 36 RFSS plant species and four federally listed plants without suitable habitat in the project activity areas (BE, Table 15). With: “The project would have no impact on 36 RFSS plant species (BE, Table 15) and no effect on three federally listed plants without suitable habitat in the project activity areas (BE Table 4).”

Change #13: EIS, page 103 Line 4 down from the top of the page Replace: “Lake Michigan” With: “Lake Huron”

3.10 Non-native Invasive Plants

Change #14: EIS, page 114 3.10.4 Affected Environment Paragraph 2

Replace: “The HNF has developed a list of NNIP species to be inventoried and controlled which can be found in Appendix W (HNF Non-native Invasive Plant (NNIP) List – 4/14/2008). With: “The HNF has developed a list of NNIP species to be inventoried and controlled which can be found in Appendix G (HNF Non-native Invasive Plant (NNIP).

3.11 Wildlife & Terrestrial Management Indicator Species

Change #15: EIS, page 119 Summary of Effects second row, under Alternative 2 Effects column

Replace: “Closer to 3,328 acres than the Proposed Action.” With: “Closer to 6,569 acres than the Proposed Action.”

Change #16: EIS, page 120 3.11.1 Introduction Table 34. Summary of TES Wildlife Effects Determinations. Status of gray wolf changed from Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) to Federally Endangered (FE).


Attachment 1 - 9

The gray wolf row:

In the Status column: Replace: “RFSS” With: “FE”

In the No Action column Replace: “NI” With: “NE”

In the Proposed Action, Alt. 1, and Alt. 2 columns. Replace: “MINLTF” With: “NLAA”

3.14 Visuals Change #17: EIS, page 149 Summary of Effects table Insert: the following after the last row:

Provides opportunity for public to visit karst features in undisturbed area

Approx. 1,536 acres of even-aged harvest would detract from the visuals for at least 15-20 years. Midground and background in reserve area would show evidence of adjacent harvest for 15-20 years.

No effect. Same effects as the Proposed Action, but on approx. 544 fewer acres of even-aged harvest.

Same acres as the Proposed Action; however, there would be fewer reserve areas, increasing the number of acres detracting from the visual experience.

Change #18: EIS, page 149 3.14.2 Analysis Method After last paragraph: Insert these paragraphs: Stands which contain karst features and were proposed for harvest were analyzed for potential impacts on the visual quality of the stand. Those stands containing karst features that were not proposed to be harvested were not analyzed unless they were within the cumulative effects boundary. Harvest methods were categorized as either even-aged (clearcut, salvage clearcut, shelterwood removal, seed tree removal, and overstory removal) or uneven-aged (thin or selection cut) harvests. This is because even-aged harvest methods tend to result in a temporary opening, while uneven-aged harvest methods reduce the density of the stand from either above or below. Design criteria for karst features are located in Appendix F of this DEIS. These design criteria consist of providing a reserve area around the features ranging from zero to 200 feet.


Attachment 1 - 10

Since uneven-aged methods would result in a less dense stand than that around the karst feature, this analysis will focus on karst features in stands proposed with even-aged harvest methods.

Change #19: EIS, page 150 3.14.3 Analysis Areas Paragraph 1, after the following sentence: “The direct and indirect effects spatial boundary for visual quality along the NCT is ¼ mile on either side of the NCT within the project area boundary.” Insert: The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for stands containing karst features are the stand or group of stands containing those features.

Change #20: EIS, page 150 Paragraph 2, after the last sentence: Insert: The temporal boundary for cumulative effects analysis for stands containing karst features is 15 years after signing of the ROD, which is the time it would take for all vegetation management activities to take place.

Change #21: EIS, page 151 3.14.5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects After paragraph 3: Insert these paragraphs: There are 1,536 acres proposed for even-aged harvest that contain karst features. After harvest, the karst features in these stands would be surrounded by temporary openings until the stand starts to regenerate (about 15-20 years depending on the species). In order to get to these features, one would need to cross the open area where evidence of logging is apparent. This would discourage the NCT users and rock climbers wishing to have an unmanaged appearance from travelling to these features, and would detract from their experience. Only a few features such as Scott’s Quarry, Smitty’s Sink, Maple Hill Cliff and the cliffs north of H-40 may actually have visitors that come specifically to see the karst feature. Once in the reserve area, the foreground would appear natural, but the midground and background would show evidence of the adjacent harvest, as more sunlight would filter through the trees. As the surrounding stands regenerate and grow taller, the evidence of logging would become less until it becomes indistinguishable from the karst reserve island. This could take place as early as 15-20 years in aspen; longer for other species. This could detract from the experience of those wanting to visit the karst features in a natural appearing environment until the canopy of the surrounding stand fills in.


Attachment 1 - 11

Change #22: EIS, page 151 After paragraph 4: Insert these paragraphs: There are 4,154 acres proposed for uneven-aged harvest that contain karst features. There would be little to distinguish the difference between the reserve island and the surrounding stand. The first few years after harvest, stumps and slash may be evident. This could detract from the experience of those wanting to visit the karst features in a natural appearing environment. Once in the reserve area, the foreground, midground and background would appear natural since the canopy in the surrounding stand would remain. As the understory in the surrounding stand grows in, the evidence of harvest would become less and may not detract from the experience of those wanting to visit the karst features in a natural appearing environment. This could occur as early as 3-5 years after harvest.

Change #23: EIS, page 152 3.14.5.2 Cumulative Effects After paragraph 5 (Just before NCT section): Insert these paragraphs: The proposed Niagara stands adjacent to the East Red Pine 2 stands are proposed to be thinned, selection harvested or shelterwood harvested. The East Red Pine 2 stands have been or will be thinned. Therefore, the cumulative effects of the proposed Niagara stands that are adjacent to the East Red Pine 2 thinning would be similar to the direct and indirect effects of uneven-aged managed stands with karst features. The proposed Niagara stands adjacent to the Interior Wetlands stands are proposed to be thinned, selection harvested or shelterwood harvested. The Interior Wetlands stands have been or will be clearcut. Therefore, the cumulative effects of the proposed Niagara stands that are adjacent to the East Red Pine 2 thinning would be similar to the direct and indirect effects of uneven age managed stands with karst features.

Change #24: EIS, page 153 3.14.7.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Replace: “There are fewer stands proposed to be harvested in the alternative compared to the Proposed Action.” With: “Alternative 1 was created due to public concern involving protection of karst features. Alternative 1 has less stands that are known for their high content of limestone boulders and cliffs.”

Change #25: EIS, page 153 After first paragraph (above Table 40): Insert: Those stands remaining have the same effect as the Proposed Action, however there are 544 fewer acres of even-aged harvest and 1,818 fewer acres of uneven-aged harvest affected compared to the Proposed Action. This gives the public more opportunity to travel to karst areas that are in a natural appearing landscape.


Attachment 1 - 12

Change #26: EIS, page 154 3.14.8.1 Direct and Indirect Effects After paragraph 3 (Just before NCT section) Insert: Because the reserve area around the karst features would be smaller, the surrounding even-aged management would be more evident than in the Proposed Action. This alternative would have a higher likelihood of detracting from the visual quality within the karst reserve area because the surrounding even-aged harvesting would be more evident. This gives the public the least opportunity to travel to karst areas that are in a natural appearing landscape. The effects to the visual quality in stands proposed for uneven-aged harvest would be similar to the Proposed Action; however, the reserve area would be smaller and the less dense part of the stand larger.

3.18 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity Change #27: EIS, page 167 As last sentence in paragraph 5: Insert: In the short-term, the even-aged harvest methods would detract from the visual quality of those wishing to visit karst features in a natural appearing environment (section 3.14).

REFERENCES Change #28: EIS, page 181 Add the following reference:

Karst management handbook for British Columbia. For. B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/fordev/karst/karstbmp.pdf

Change #29: EIS, page 188 Add the following reference: Wheeler, Mark, February 1996, Discover “The Vertical Forest.”

GLOSSARY Change #30: EIS, page 189 Add the following to the Escarpment definition: According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/escarpment, the definition of escarpment is the following:


Attachment 1 - 13

Main Entry: es·carp·ment Pronunciation: \i-�skärp-mənt\ Function: noun. Etymology: French escarpement, from escarper to scarp, from Middle French, from escarpe scarp, from Old Italian scarpa — more at SCARP

1 : a steep slope in front of a fortification 2 : a long cliff or steep slope separating two comparatively level or more gently sloping surfaces and resulting from erosion or faulting

Appendix B – Biological Evaluation

Change #31: after page B-102 Add the following supplement to the end of the BE to disclose effects on the endangered gray wolf:


Attachment 1 - 14

NIAGARA PROJECT BIOLOGIAL EVALUATION (BE)

SUPPLEMENT – GRAY WOLF RELISTING

INTRODUCTION The gray wolf was analyzed as a Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Draft Niagara Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and BE. Since the draft was sent to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the gray wolf has been relisted as federally threatened. Therefore, this document discloses potential effects in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual Directives sections 2670.31, 2670.5(3), and 2672.4, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

A. CONSULTATION WITH USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The Forest Service is conducting informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service seeking concurrence with the determinations of effects in this supplement to the BE. We concluded the action alternatives (Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2) may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect gray wolf. This document is submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office to document the analysis. In addition to consultation for gray wolf, programmatic consultation was recently undertaken for Forest Plan revision. The history of this consultation is documented in the Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) for the revision of the Forest Plans (USDA 20051, page 2). The relevance of program-level consultation to this project includes those agreements between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service reached on defining elements of species’ ecology and biology, risk factors and general effects, analysis parameters, monitoring, and management direction in the revised Forest Plan. This supplement to the BE provides more specific information on how relevant information in the program-level BA is incorporated.


Attachment 1 - 15

B. PROPOSED ACTION

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives by Vegetation Management Activity.

Activity No Action Proposed

Action1 Alternative 1

1 Alternative 2

1,2

Addressed in 2005 Forest

Plan BA (Yes/No)

Stand Clearcutting 0 189 103 189 Yes Stand Clearcutting – salvage mortality 0 416 362 416 Yes Shelterwood cut with reserves 0 650 478 650 Yes Seed-tree cut with reserves 0 62 15 62 Yes Overstory removal cut with reserves 0 219 34 219 Yes Single-tree selection cut 0 4,154 1,553 4,154 Yes Commercial thin

3 0 879 783 879 Yes

Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration 0 4,487 1,818 4,487 Yes Mechanical site preparation for natural regeneration

0 409 290 409

Yes

Full planting without concurrent site preparation 0 219 155 219 Yes 1Acreage values are approximate and reflect the maximum acres that would be treated. Once the design criteria are implemented in project design, it is anticipated that

fewer acres would actually be treated. 2Alternative 2 has the same acreage values as the Proposed Action. The difference between these two action alternatives is that Alternative 2 would implement different

design criteria than the Proposed Action. 3This includes two stands of red pine plantations.

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives by Transportation Management Activity.

Activity No Action Proposed Action*

Alternative 1* Alternative 2*

Addressed in 2005 Forest

Plan BA (Yes/No)

New system road construction 0 miles 4 miles 3 miles 4 miles Yes Temporary road construction 0 miles 6 miles 5 miles 6 miles Yes Add unclassified roads to national forest system 0 miles 2 miles 2 miles 2 miles Yes Close existing roads 0 miles 2 miles 2 miles 2 miles Yes Decommission roads 0 miles 18 miles 18 miles 18 miles Yes Construct logging landing (<= 300 feet long) 0 permanent 19 permanent 12 permanent 19 permanent Yes

0 temporary 20 temporary 16 temporary 20 temporary Yes

* All numbers are approximate.


Attachment 1 - 16

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section describes the affected environment for gray wolf within the project area. The EIS contains affected environment information for each resource area. The Niagara Mid-scale Assessment contains additional affected environment information for the Niagara project area.

Table 3. Proposed Affected Environment (within the Niagara Project Area) of Gray Wolf.

Gray wolf No Action Proposed

Action Alternative

1 Alternative

2*

Acres of young aspen-birch 2,330 2,927 2,755 2,927 Acres of northern white cedar 4,919 4,967 4,967 4,967 Miles of groomed designated trails and routes 6.8 Miles of unplowed forest roads open to snowmobiles that are not groomed or part of the designated trail system

80.2

*Alternative 2 would harvest the same stands as the Proposed Action (acres of habitat are the same as the Proposed Action). The difference between the Proposed Action and Alternative 2 is design criteria (Alternative 2 has less design criteria than the Proposed Action). The model did not consider design criteria when determining the amount of habitat for these species. Data source: Habitat Definitions Model (Henderson 2008), and project file geodatabase layers.

Factors Affecting the Species. Pages 143-145 in the Hiawatha NF Programmatic Biological Opinion (USDI 2006) address the factors, including management for preferred prey species (deer and beaver) and disturbance from human activities. These factors have not changed on the Forest. Species Status within the Action Area. Pages 138-140 and page 142 in the Hiawatha NF Programmatic Biological Opinion (USDI 2006) address the status of gray wolf range-wide and on the Forest, respectively. The status of the species has not changed. There are 4 packs (16 animals) present within or adjacent to the Eastside of the HNF (Roell 2007). Specific Niagara winter track surveys mainly took place in 2006 and 2007 (about 108 miles). In addition to those surveys, there are four routes, run annually, that are located within this project area (about 24 miles). Wolf tracks and individual observations have been recorded within the project area, so parts of the project area are being used by these packs. Additionally, part of Mackinac Wilderness (3,150 acres) is located within this project area, which may provide important habitat seclusion for wolves.

D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Analysis Area

The majority of management activities would take place within the Interior Wetlands and Niagara Escarpment 1 Landtype associations (LTAs), which each encompass a group of ecosystems with similar ecological processes and management concerns (USDA1 2006, Appendix I). Most of the direct and indirect effects would occur within areas proposed for harvest, road construction, etc. However, effects, such as increased traffic on surrounding roads due to hauling, would occur on a larger scale.


Attachment 1 - 17

Therefore, the project area boundary was chosen as the direct and indirect effects boundary. This boundary generally follows LTA boundaries. Therefore, this serves as a reasonable, ecological boundary, which includes much of the surrounding landscape where impacts could occur. The time period for direct and indirect effects is based on the predicted time period within which proposed management activities would occur. The NEPA analysis is generally considered relevant for 5 years, harvest contracts can generally extend an additional 5 years, and funding for post harvest Knutson-Vandenberg activities can commonly extend an additional 5 years, so the time period used is 15 years. Most of the direct and indirect effects, which would contribute to cumulative effects, would occur within the project boundary. However, small portions of the project boundary overlap with several different LTAs, which each provide unique habitat characteristics to wildlife populations on and off HNF land. Additionally, there are individual stands located near the edge of the project boundary, and activities in adjacent LTAs could contribute to cumulative effects on some wildlife species. Therefore, there are ten ecologically unique LTAs that make up the cumulative effects boundary: Niagara Escarpment 1, Niagara Escarpment 2, Interior Wetlands, Carp/Ozark Creek Wetlands, Pine River Patterned Wetland, Sand/Clay Transition South, Raco Plains South, Wilwin Wetlands, Lower Carp River Complex, and Niagara South. This list includes the LTAs where proposed management activities would take place (project area) and the LTAs adjacent to proposed management (map in project file). Some information that is not available at the LTA boundary, such as human population trends, is applied from larger political boundaries. The past and future time scale used for consideration of cumulative effects is about 15 years. On large projects, management activities can take 15 years before they are complete, so this is the time period during which direct and indirect effects from proposed management activities would result in cumulative effects. Therefore, projects (within the cumulative effects boundary) that have been implemented over the past 15 years are considered (Niagara EIS, Table 11). Any reasonably foreseeable projects (applicable projects currently being analyzed) that are expected to contribute to cumulative effects over the next 15 years are also considered (Niagara EIS, Table 11). After 15 years, habitat would continue to change, but predictions on habitat availability become increasingly speculative with longer timeframes. Direct and Indirect Effects This section identifies and analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the action, interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects of other actions in the project area. This includes documenting project compliance with standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and effects on the species. Under the No Action alternative natural succession would continue to occur and denning habitat would continue to develop. The creation of early successional forage habitat would depend on natural disturbance factors such as windthrow and fire. No Action is compliant with the Forest Plan management direction for gray wolf.


Attachment 1 - 18

Table 4. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Applicable to Gray Wolf Management.

Forest Plan Guideline (GL) or Standard (S)

Alts. in Compliance

Management activity

Notes/Specifics

S-2600: Implement federal recovery plan

NA NA No known den/rendezvous sites present S-2600: Protect known

TE populations GL-2600: Survey prior to implementing management

Yes Wildlife TES Monitoring

Project surveys (mainly in 2006 and 2007) and HNF/MDNR annual track survey routes.

GL-2600: Closure orders may be used to protect known TE breeding areas, nests and denning sites

NA NA There are no known breeding areas.

GL-2600: Give deference to listed species where there are conflicts with unlisted species

NA NA There are no known conflicts.

*This table presents those standards and guidelines that are both directly applicable to the species and most appropriately monitored at the project-level. Numerous other standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan are not discussed here because they are either only loosely connected to the species and/or are better tracked during periodic programmatic monitoring at the Forestwide level.


Attachment 1 - 19

Table 5. Project Effects of Management Activities on Gray Wolf (Proposed Action) (USDI 2006 – Appendix G). Management Activity Exposure Response Determination

Harvest treatments (including skid road/log landing construction and site preparation)

Indirect

Forest Plan standards and guidelines would limit potential impacts to known den locations. Harvest activities may indirectly reduce den habitat, but creation of early successional habitat may increase potential forage habitat. No measurable response is expected.

NLAA

Road construction Indirect

Increased human access could impact forage activity. Trapping access, illegal shooting, and vehicle mortality also may increase. However, several existing roads would be closed to reduce these effects. Additionally, blocks of roadless habitat (Mackinac Wilderness) already exist and provide habitat seclusion, so measurable impacts are not expected.

NLAA

Road decommissioning Indirect Improve habitat conditions. Reduction in human presence and physical disturbance may increase gray wolf survivorship.

NLAA

Table 6. Project Effects of Management Activities on Gray Wolf (Alternative 1) (USDI 2006 – Appendix G). Management Activity Exposure Response Determination


Indirect

Due to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, no measurable negative response is expected. Alternative 1 would create less early successional habitat, and would not impact as much potential den habitat as the Proposed Action. However, Alternative 1 would not produce as much early successional forage habitat as the Proposed Action.

NLAA

Road construction Indirect One less mile of new road construction, and one less mile of temporary road construction than the Proposed Action. Effects would be similar to the Proposed action, but to a lesser degree.

NLAA

Road decommissioning Indirect Same as Proposed Action. NLAA

Table 7. Project Effects of Management Activities on Gray Wolf (Alternative 2) (USDI 2006 – Appendix G). Management Activity Exposure Response Determination


Indirect

Forest Plan standards and guidelines would limit potential impacts to known den locations. Alternative 2 would create the same amount of early successional forage habitat as the Proposed Action. Alternative 2 would create more understory development (cover for prey species) through selection and thinning activities than the Proposed Action and Alternative 1.

NLAA

Road construction Indirect Effects would be similar to the Proposed action. NLAA Road decommissioning Indirect Same as Proposed Action. NLAA

*For additional discussion and detail regarding these effects, see the programmatic documents BA/BO (gray wolf section) (USDA 2005 and USDI 2006)


Attachment 1 - 20

Cumulative Effects The total size of the cumulative effects area is about 226,440 acres, and the HNF manages about 77% of the land within the cumulative effects boundary. Past, present, and future forest management activities have occurred and are expected to occur on HNF land within the cumulative effects area. Several projects (Niagara EIS, Table 11) are currently being planned or implemented on the HNF in Chippewa and Mackinac County. However, not all of the project activities (past and future) overlap with the cumulative effects area. Over the past 15 years, HNF management projects (Niagara EIS, Table 11) have resulted in the creation of about 11,600 acres of early successional habitat (0-15 years old) within the cumulative effects boundary. This habitat consists of mainly aspen (about 39%), jack pine (about 30%), aspen/mix (about 23%), and red pine (about 5%). Additionally, about 3,850 acres of early successional habitat (about 51% aspen/mix, 15% aspen, 11% white pine, 9% jack pine, and 14% other species) would be created by other projects that overlap with the cumulative effects boundary within the next 15 years (Sprinkler, Raco, Interior Wetlands, Lake Superior Highlands, Sand Clay, etc). These activities may increase forage habitat, but could result in a loss of potential den habitat and, since wolves may avoid harvest areas, alteration to forage behavior and movement also may occur. Other timber management also has occurred on HNF land within the cumulative effects area in the past and several activities are planned to occur in the future. Uneven-aged management (mainly selection harvest) has occurred in the past and about 220 acres of selection harvest (mainly maple/hardwood) is planned for harvest in the next 15 years. Also, thinning has occurred and about 2,700 acres (mainly red pine) is planned to occur. Other activities (removal cuts and improvement cuts) are less common, but about 250 acres is planned within the next 15 years. These activities would reduce woody debris habitat for wolf and prey species, but they would create openings in the canopy, which may provide more understory growth and improve forage habitat for wolves. The cumulative effects area contains portions of Delirium and Mackinac Wilderness, Fibre Roadless Area, Summerby Swamp cRNA, designated old growth, and unsuited wetlands, so about 28% of the entire cumulative effects area is unsuited for timber harvest. Therefore, these areas will provide remote habitat for wolves. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has divided state land into management units, and there are two management units (Sault Ste. Marie and Newberry) that border the HNF. The Sault Ste. Marie management unit overlaps with the cumulative effects boundary, so about 5% of the land within the cumulative effects boundary is managed by the MDNR. A variety of even and uneven aged harvest activities on state land (Lake Superior State Forest) contribute to cumulative effects within this area. The amount of harvest varies by year, and acreage values are not available for each year within the cumulative effects temporal boundary. However, in 2007 there was about 4,700 acres harvested in the Sault Ste. Marie management unit, and in 2009 there is about 3,400 acres planned for harvest. Within the cumulative effects area, there is about 200 acres of red pine clearcutting scheduled for 2008. Additional harvest is scheduled to occur from 2011-2017 within the cumulative effects area. At this time, compartment reviews have not been written for these areas, so the


Attachment 1 - 21

exact acreage amounts are not known. As mentioned above, these harvest activities can result in a cumulative loss of potential denning habitat and connectivity, but may increase forage habitat. Alternative 1 would have less of a cumulative effect than the Proposed Action and Alternative 2. Human populations are increasing in Chippewa (+11%) and Mackinac (+12%) Counties (US Census Bureau 2000), and about 17% of the cumulative effects area is privately owned. Of the 17%, Plum Creek manages several thousand acres of corporate timber lands within this area. Within the last five years this land has been owned by a couple of different timber management corporations, so past management is difficult to quantify, and future management is somewhat speculative. However, timber harvest activities have occurred and are expected to be a large part of future management of this land. Additionally, within the cumulative effects boundary, some private landowners are enrolled in the Commercial Forest Program, a program in which the landowner agrees to manage land for timber production. Therefore, development activities (i.e. home construction) and timber harvest from private land can contribute to cumulative loss of habitat seclusion/connectivity and reduce habitat suitability. In addition to timber harvest, past projects have created and improved recreational trails and private easements (Niagara EIS, Table 11). Additionally, future gravel pit development activities are anticipated (St. Ignace Gravel Pits) within cumulative effects area. Within the Niagara project area, the road construction and maintenance activities may lead to cumulative impacts due to increased recreational access within the cumulative effects area. However, the Proposed Action and Alternative 1 would result in a net decrease in road access, which may improve habitat seclusion. But, road construction, maintenance, or other development on state, Plum Creek, or other private land could cancel out any increased habitat seclusion. Impacts from road density and loss of habitat seclusion can also impact forage behavior and connectivity. Alternative 2 would have the greatest cumulative effect. The Proposed Action would have less of a cumulative impact, and Alternative 1 would cumulatively impact habitat the least.

Determination Each alternative complies with the Forest Plan direction for wolf management. According to effects tables, management activities are not expected to have a measurable impact on wolf habitat. Therefore, the determination for the Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 is “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect.” Determination for No Action is “no effect.” For additional discussion and detail regarding these effects, see the programmatic documents BA/BO (Gray wolf section) (USDA1 2005 and USDI 2006).

E. REFERENCES Endangered Species Act of 1973. Interagency Cooperation. Section 7. Roell, Brian. 2007. Hiawatha Wolf Data. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 14 February 2007. US Census Bureau. 2000. State & County QuickFacts. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Accessed 17 October 2005.


Attachment 1 - 22

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Biological Evaluations. Forest Service Manual 2672.4. Washington DC. ___. 20051. Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Revised Forest Plan – Hiawatha National Forest. Escanaba, MI. ___. 20052. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Forest Service Manual 2670. Washington DC. ___. 2006. Land and Resource Management Plan - Hiawatha National Forest (Forest Plan). Escanaba, MI. USDI 2006. Biological Opinion – Hiawatha National Forest.

Derek Huebner Wildlife Biologist 7/14/2009