lg appe economics 032812 affa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · analysis area...

Lima Green Environmental Assessment

March 2012 E - 1 Appendix E

Appendix E

Economics The National Forest System provides direct and indirect economic benefits to Minnesota and surrounding states. Economic benefits contributed to the region around national forest lands include market and non-market opportunities such as harvesting timber, participating in tourism and wilderness activities, colleting balsam boughs, and fishing. The Lima Green Project Area is a small portion of the Superior National Forest, which is part of a large economic impact area. This analysis tiers to the social and economic analysis for the Superior National Forest found in the Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pages 3.9-1 through 3.9-58. The Forest Plan EIS addresses the economic sustainability of the local communities including employment, income, and present net value. It takes into consideration recreation and tourism, commercial wood products and sustainable timberlands. Forest Plan decisions contribute to economic sustainability by providing for a range of uses, values, products, and services. At the same time Plan direction must be consistent with ecological sustainability. The mix of uses, values, products and services provided by the Forest Plan are measured by representative values indicated by employment, income, industry sectors, portion of economic cumulative impacts, Net Present Value (NPV), and community resilience. These indicators were measured within the defined economic impact area (Forest Plan EIS pages 3.9-1 through 3.9-58). The Lima Green Project Area is within Cook County, Minnesota. Social and economic information for the county is provided below to put the project in context. A vegetation management project the size of the Lima Green Project is likely to have only small measurable economic effects on the surrounding communities. Therefore, it is appropriate to turn to the Forest Plan analysis for effects to tourism and the timber industry. A more appropriate analysis for this document is to address the financial efficiency of the Lima Green Project.

Background Information on Cook Counties

Cook County encompasses approximately 950,000 acres of northeastern Minnesota, of which 91 percent is publicly owned. In Cook County the U.S. Government owns approximately 70 percent of the land, the State of Minnesota owns 15 percent of the land, the Grand Portage Indian Reservation owns 5 percent of the land and Cook County owns less than 1 percent of the land (Personal Communications, Braidy Powers 2010). The estimated 2009 population of Cook County was 5,472, which represented a 5.9 percent increase from the 2000 census. The median household income in 2008 was $46,406, with the majority of workers employed in the private sector (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). In July 2001, the University of Minnesota Duluth Bureau of Business and Economic Research completed a study to measure the importance of forestry in northern Minnesota,



report on its economic base, and analyze its economic trends. Forestry was categorized into product industries such as paper mills, sawmills, logging contractors, and retailers of different types of wood products. The area was described as economically diverse but very dependent on natural resources. The study identified the forest products industry as “clearly one of the central industries in the region’s economy” (Litchy et al. 2001).

Financial Efficiency Analysis

This section will address the financial efficiency of the Lima Green Project. This type of analysis compares projected Forest Service direct expenditures with estimated financial revenues (collected from the sale of forest products). This type of analysis helps determine whether the proposed activities represent a prudent means of achieving the resource objectives outlined in the Forest Plan. The estimated implementation cost of each alternative is shown in Table E-1. These costs would be spread over the course of approximately 10 years until the full implementation of the proposed activities has been completed.

Table E-1: Estimated Costs for Implementing Each Alternative in the Lima Green Project

Harvest Treatments Cost/Acre Alt. 1 Acres Alt. 2 Sale Preparation $241 0 4,877 $1,175,357 Sale Administration $93 0 4,877 $453,561 Total Harvest Costs: 0 $1,628,918 Fuels Reduction: Understory Fuels Reduction $700 0 244 $170,800 Slash Disposal $30 0 151 $4,530 Underburn $250 0 432 $108,00 Total Fuels Reduction Costs: 0 $283,330 Reforestation Mechanical Site Preparation1 $225 0 1,185 $266,625 Planting2 $245 0 87 $21,315 Underplanting $164 0 427 $70,028 Seeding2 $169 0 742 $125,398 Interplanting $245 0 416 $101,920 Release2 $237 0 68 $16,116 Total Reforestation Costs 0 $601,402 Transportation Cost/Mile Alt. 1 Miles Alt. 2 Temporary Road Construction $5,000 0 15.2 $76,000 Total Transportation Costs 0 $76,000

Total Costs: 0 $2,586,650 Source: LimaEconomicAnalysis12_22_11.xlsx, Project Record; Treatment acres were used to calculate costs per treatment. Cost figures for sale and treatment layout were obtained from Gene Dressely, Timber Management; costs for the fuels treatments were provided by Patty Johnson, Fuels Planner; costs for regeneration and site preparation were provided by Myra Theimer, Silviculturist; costs for temporary road construction were provided by John Olson, Civil Engineer and John Mellang, Transportation Planner. All calculation can be found in the economic folder in the Project record. 1Acres of actual mechanical site preparation could be less than the stand acres 2Planting would be 200 - 600 trees/acre. An estimated 50 % of all acres with any type of planting would be released. All of the planted white pine would be released.



Revenues are based on potential timber sale receipts. Revenue figures do not include the benefits that are difficult to quantify, such as recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, visual quality, and water quality. People place a wide range of values on ecosystems, recreational opportunities, water quality, and wildlife. See additional sections of Chapter 3 in this document for ecological values of the project. The benefits (revenues) realized through timber harvests depends on market value and costs at the time of sale. Before any National Forest timber is sold, it is appraised to estimate the products’ fair market value. When a sale is offered, it is offered competitively and the contract is normally awarded to the firm offering the highest bid. These requirements are in place to help ensure that the government is justly compensated for any timber sold off of National Forest System lands. For this analysis, the action alternative stumpage values were calculated using the base period prices effective October 2011 for the Superior National Forest. Prior to the sale being offered, these base stumpage values may be increased to include estimated stump-to-truck transportation, logging overhead, and road construction costs. The stumpage values do not include bid premiums that could result from competitive bidding for the timber when sold. Based on past trends, bids on timber sales are usually above base period prices. Based on past and recent trends there has been a drop in base period prices. Minnesota’s wood-products industry is heavily tied to the national housing market, and the drop in stumpage prices has coincided with the poor housing market that is being experienced across the United States. Ultimately, revenue generated from the Lima Green Project could be higher or lower than what is projected, depending on future market conditions. Timber sold on National Forest System land would result in measurable revenues to the United States Treasury and local county governments (see Table E-2 below). The returns to local governments are payments in lieu of taxes and are based on receipts from National Forest System land. These payments would be made by the federal government to State agencies and would be distributed to local schools. Payments would equal twenty-five percent of the total timber receipts or gross revenues. The total return to the United States Treasury would consist of revenue from the timber sales less the payment to State and local government. Costs associated with reforestation activities would reduce the total return to the US Treasury.

Table E-2: Estimated Financial Return to Local, State and Federal Government from the Lima Green Project

Factor Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Harvest Volume (MMBF) 0 24.74 Gross Revenue to US Treasury 0 $562,359 Payments to State and Local Government 0 $140,590 Total Revenue to US Treasury 0 $421,769 Source: LimaEconomicAnalysis12_22_11.xlsx; Treatment acres were used to estimate revenue; All calculations can be found in the economic folder within the project record.



Alternative 1 (No Action) Under Alternative 1 - No Action, there would be no costs incurred from forest management activities. Also, there would be no revenue to the federal or county government from timber sales. Various benefits would result from this alternative, such as sustaining current recreational activities; however, these activities are difficult to quantify in this analysis. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) As seen by comparing Table E-1 and Table E-2, the cost of Alternatives 2 exceeds the revenue of the project. Stumpage prices are currently at low levels, resulting in less revenue generated for each timber sale. Costs associated with reforestation activities, such as converting a forest type over to conifer, as well as increasing diversity within a stand through planting, are high. Planting may not be needed to adequately regenerate a harvested stand; however, planting would be needed to ensure success in attaining the desired tree species composition. The cost of fuels reduction activities can be high when you compare them to other proposed activities. However, when you compare these upfront costs to the potential costs and devastation of a wildfire, the costs for understory fuels activities are minimal. The least expensive treatment and regeneration method with the greatest return of dollars and total volume is clearcut with reserves and natural regeneration. The shelterwood cut with reserves would generate less volume and revenue than the clearcut harvest because fewer trees would be harvested. The shelterwood harvest would be used to accomplish other objectives such as retaining overstory, two age classes or structural diversity. Economic costs and benefits are important considerations but are not the only or even primary considerations in an environmental analysis. There are many non-market or amenity values associated with the alternatives such as the values of large patches of mature forest and large patches of young forest that will grow into mature patches. Other non-market values include enhancements to habitat conditions, vegetation, riparian areas, and surrounding scenery.

Lima Green Project Environmental Assessment

March 2012 F - 1 Appendix F

Appendix F

Cumulative Actions The following paragraphs include past, present, and expected future management actions that may contribute to cumulative effects. This list is not a cumulative effects analysis. This list is used by resource specialists to determine what actions may create effects in addition to the direct or indirect effects from the Lima Green Project. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance states that the cumulative effects analysis area should be determined by resources, based on potential effects (Considering Cumulative Effects, Council on Environmental Quality, January 1997 pp.15-16). Each resource determined the appropriate cumulative effects analysis area and subsequently which of the actions listed are relevant. Past actions have been completed and their effects taken into account in the existing condition. Present actions are those where the activity, such as a timber contract, is still operating or a decision has been made to implement an action. Future actions are those where an activity is being planned but not started or a decision has yet to be made. To assess effects of past actions, CEQ states “Agencies are not required to list or analyze the effects of individual past actions unless such information is necessary to describe the cumulative effect of all past actions combined. Agencies retain substantial discretion as to the extent of such inquiry and the appropriate level of explanation. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 376-77 (1989). Generally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” “With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making.” Federal Past and On-going Actions within Project Boundary

Completed management actions from vegetation projects have been accounted for in the existing condition of the Lima Green Project Area. Currently, there are two sales, South Bogus (19 acres) and Assinika (260 acres) from the East Side Thinning EA, operating within the project area. Both of these timber sales deal with thinning red pine.



Three stands, 97 acres, around the southwest portion of the project area are planned to be released next year. The stands have unwanted vegetation that is competing with the desired trees, planted a few years ago. Mechanically removing the vegetation competition will increase the probability that the desired trees survive.

One special use permit is ongoing within the Lima Green project area. It was issued in 2010 and expires in 2014. This permit allows the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to use and extend Forest Road U213190, just south of Swamper Lake, to access State land northwest of the project area. At the end of the permit period, the DNR will decommission the portions of the road that they created. Forest Road U213190 could be used to access units 46.01, 46.02, and 46.41.

The Non-Native Invasive Plant Management Project EA (USDA 2006a) describes an integrated pest management approach for managing noxious weeds on National Forest System land and potential environmental effects. In the Lima Green project area, 1.6 acres (136 locations) of invasive plants were treated in 2010, and 1.4 acres (94 locations) of invasive plants were treated in 2011. A similar acreage is expected to be treated for 2012.

The Superior National Forest has completed a Forest-wide Travel Management Project (FTMP) in November, 2009, in coordination with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Louis, Lake and Cook Counties, 1854 Authority, and the Grand Portage Band. The project addressed Off-Highway-Vehicle (OHV) use and the use of unclassified roads.

As shown on Table F-2, there are 12.1 miles of unclassified roads within the Lima Green project area. Under the Forest-wide Travel Management Project (USDA 2009b), 2.4 miles of unclassified roads will be decommissioned and allowed to return to a natural state, 8.2 miles will be converted to an OML 2 road and allow use by OHVs, and 1.5 miles will be converted to OML 1 road—not open for ATV or OHV use.

Table F-2: Change in Road Miles in the Lima Green Project Area

Road Type Total Miles

FTMP Miles Change in Miles

Unclassified 12.1 0 -12.1 OML 1 20.3 21.8 +1.5 OML 2 59.2 67.4 +8.2

Total 91.6 89.2 -2.4

Table F-3 displays the mileages of roads currently open to motorized recreation and the change from implementation of the Forest-wide Travel Management Project. Motorized recreation will decrease by 4.1 miles in the Lima Green Project Area.



Table F-3: Changes in Road Miles Open to Motorized Recreation in the Lima Green Project Area

Road Type Miles

Currently Open

FTMP Open

Change in Miles

Open Unclassified 12.1 0 -12.1 OML 1 9.7 11.4 +1.7 OML 2 58 64.3 +6.3 Total 79.8 75.7 -4.1

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions on Federal Land within Project Boundary

There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions on Federal land within the Lima Green project area. This doesn’t mean that no future actions will occur. It means that the Superior National Forest does not foresee any actions occurring outside of our proposed actions.

Past, Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions on State and Private Lands within Project Boundary

State lands encompass approximately 19 percent (9,269 acres) of the project area. Based on stand information from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources website and discussions with the State resource planners, of those 9,269 acres, the State is currently proposing stand examinations and harvest needs on 2,321 acres within the project boundary (see Table F-4). For the cumulative effects analysis all acres were assumed to be harvested even though actual treatment acres may be less.

Private land encompasses less than one percent (320 acres) of the ownership within the project boundary. These lands are located in the vicinity of Lullaby, Chase, and Merganser Lake and South Brule River. The Superior National Forest anticipates minimal harvesting on private lands within the project boundary since these areas are relatively small and disbursed.

Private properties adjacent to the project boundary, near Greenwood Lake, are part of the Greenwood wildland urban interface (WUI) area. Currently, no fuels reduction activities are occurring on private property. No activities in these areas are expected in the future.

Table F-4: Potential MNDNR Forest Management Activities in Border Lakes Section in the Lima Green Project Area. Prescription Acres

High-risk, low volume - needs a field visit to determine prescription 1,128

General Harvest 806

Commercial thinning 329

Not Specified 58

Total 2,321 Data Source: 6N004_110211_AAF_MnDNRpotentialHarvestsInPA.pdf



Management Actions outside Project Area Boundary The cumulative effects analysis for the landscape ecosystem objectives and Management Indicator Habitat objectives included any past or present decisions or actions not completed and proposals under consideration. Projects which create young age class on the Superior National Forest are listed as follows: Birch EA, Border EIS, Cascade EA, Clara EA, Devil Trout EA, Dunka EA, Echo Trail EIS, Glacier EA, Inga South EA, Lima Green EA, Mid Temperance EA, Pelican EA, Tomahawk EA, Toohey EA, Tracks EA, Virginia EA, Whyte EA, and Windy EA. Table F-5 shows past, present and proposed projects across the forest and the amount of area each project covered in the Mesic Birch Aspen/Spruce-fir (MBA), Mesic Red and White Pine (MRW), and Lowland Conifer B-MRW-MBASF (LCB) Landscape Ecosystems. All project areas do not include every landscape ecosystem and therefore may not appear for these specific landscape ecosystems.

Table F-5: Vegetation management decisions and proposals that have been made within the MBA, MRW and LCB Landscape Ecosystems

Project Name District Status Percent of

MBA LE1 MRW LE2 LCB LE3 Cascade Gunflint Decision 5 0 2 Clara Tofte Decision 9 0 4 Devil Trout Gunflint Decision 8 0 3 Dunka Kawishiwi Decision 0 0 3 Inga South Tofte Decision 1 0 0 Lima Green Gunflint Proposal 7 8 4 Mid Temperance Tofte Decision 8 0 7 Pelican LaCroix Proposal 2 3 0 Toohey Tofte Decision 2 23 3 Tracks Laurentian Decision 3 11 12 Twins Gunflint Decision 7 0 2 Virginia Laurentian Decision 4 16 11 Whyte Laurentian Decision 11 1 20

TOTAL 67 62 71 Data Source: 6C001_093011_MH__LE_LCB_AgeClass2011.xlsx, 6C002_093011_MH__

LE_TrackingMBA_AgeClass2011.xlsx, 6C001_093011_MH__LE_ TrackingMRW_AgeClass2011.xlsx, found in the Project Record

1Total MBA Landscape Ecosystem across the Forest is 299,009 acres. 2Total MRW Landscape Ecosystem across the Forest is 138,112 acres. 3Total LAB Landscape Ecosystem across the Forest is 98,872 acres.


March 2012 G - 1 Appendix G

Appendix G

Management Indicator Habitats 1 – 9 Management Indicator Habitats (MIHs) represent the major biological communities on the Superior National Forest that are affected by management. MIHs are identified in the Forest Plan and represent the types, ages, amounts, and function of habitats within landscape ecosystems (LE) for evaluating a broad spectrum of species. “A key assumption we apply in evaluating MIHs 1 through 10 is that ecological conditions are likely to provide for species viability and maintain well-distributed habitats if there is an adequate representation of the range of habitats that would have been present under the range of natural variability” (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3.3.1-2). A comprehensive analysis of MIHs was conducted for the Lima Project. This analysis looked at two scales, Forest-wide and the Lima Project Area, and three timeframes, 2011 (existing condition), 2014 (end of the first decade of the Forest Plan) and 2020 (ten years from existing condition). MIHs were analyzed using the year 2014 to allow for comparisons to the Forest Plan predictions and to identify whether the Forest Plan objectives are being accomplished. The complete dataset for this analysis data can be found in the Lima Project Record. Landscape ecosystems cover a broader geographic area than a project area such as Lima and therefore, at the project-level, changes to MIHs may or may not meet Forest Plan objectives. For this reason, changes to MIHs are compared and displayed Forest-wide to determine if they meet Forest Plan objectives. This summary displays effects to MIH 4 (aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer) and MIH 6 (upland spruce-fir) because they would be the most affected by the Proposed Action. Table G-1 describes the rationale why these MIH were chosen and others were not. Other MIH with small changes in acreage include MIH 7, MIH 8, MIH 9 and MIH 10. Only changes to habitats in the Mesic Red and White Pine LE and the Mesic/Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir LE are shown in Table G-2 since the majority of the treated stands are within these landscapes. Other landscape ecosystems with small changes in acreage include the Lowland Conifer LE.



Table G-1: Rationale for displaying effects to Management Indicator Habitats. MIH

# Management

Indicator Habitat Summarized Rationale

1 Upland forest No Habitat is an aggregation of other MIHs; the subset where the impact would occur will be displayed.

2 Upland deciduous forest

No Habitat is an aggregation of other MIHs; the subset where the impact would occur will be displayed.

3 Northern Hardwood and oak forest

No None of the proposed treatments would occur in these habitats.

4 Aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer forest

Yes Proposed treatments would affect these habitats.

5 Upland conifer forest No Habitat is an aggregation of other MIHs; the subset where the impact would occur will be displayed.

6 Upland spruce-fir forest Yes Proposed treatments would affect these habitats.

7 Red and white pine forest

No Proposed treatments would affect these habitats but changes in acres are minimal

8 Jack pine forest No Proposed treatments would affect these habitats but changes in acres are minimal

9 Lowland black spruce-tamarack forest

No Proposed treatments would affect these habitats but changes in acres are minimal

10 Upland mature riparian forest

No By following Operational Standard and Guidelines, there would be limited effects to these habitats.

MIH 4 Aspen –Birch and Mixed Aspen-Conifer Forest Young/seedling/open The percentage of young aspen-birch forest on the landscape in the MRW landscape ecosystem is projected to be less in 2014 than in 2004 which is consistent with Forest Plan Objectives for decade one (Fig. 1) The percentage of young aspen-birch forest in the MBASF landscape ecosystem is also expected to be less in 2014 than in 2004 (Fig. 2). This is opposite the Forest Plan objective for this landscape which is to increase the amount of young forest. Alternative 2 of Lima Green is more responsive to Forest Plan objectives for young forest than the No Action Alternative. Mature and Old Growth Forest Forest plan objectives in both landscape ecosystems are to decrease the percentage of mature forest and to increase the percentage of old-growth forest. Forest conditions in 2014 would follow this trend under both Lima Green alternatives and are likely to continue to do so in the following decade (Figs. 1&2). Hardwood trees (aspen-birch) are not long-lived species so some of the old-growth stands may be candidates for future restoration or harvest. Older, large diameter aspen and birch provide a source of shelter and food for ruffed grouse, fisher, pileated woodpecker and many other wildlife species.



MESIC RED AND WHITE PINE LANDSCAPE ECOSYSTEM

MESIC BIRCH/ASPEN/SPRUCE-FIR LANDSCAPE ECOSYSTEM



MIH 6 Upland Spruce-Fir Forest Young/seedling/open The percentage of young upland spruce-fir forest has decreased since 2004 which is consistent with Plan objectives in both landscapes. Alternative 1 of Lima Green more closely follows Plan direction by not creating young spruce-fir forest through management activities. The percentage of young spruce-fir forest would be less than 1.5% in 2014 under either of the Lima Green Alternatives which is a decrease from the 2004 existing condition (Figs. 3&4) Mature and Old Growth Forest There would be a decrease in the mature age class under either Lima Green Alternative by 2014 but an increase in old-growth when compared to the existing condition (Figs. 3&4). The trend for both mature and old-growth is increasing when compared to 2004. Conditions in 2020 would be similar but with more spruce-fir moving into the old-growth class (project record). The increase in old-growth spruce-fir forest in these ecosystems is consistent with Plan direction. These trends in mature and old-growth forest could result in more habitat for late-successional forest species like the northern goshawk. MESIC RED AND WHITE PINE LANDSCAPE ECOSYSTEM



MESIC BIRCH/ASPEN/SPRUCE-FIR LANDSCAPE ECOSYSTEM

According to the Fiscal Year 2008 Superior National Forest Monitoring Report “For most MIH, conditions continue to trend toward consistency with Forest Plan objectives and Forest Plan FEIS conditions analyzed in Chapter 3.3.1. Therefore, management actions for those MIH in the first four years of implementation are consistent with Forest Plan direction. The extent to which conditions for these MIH are trending toward objectives is acceptable. The conclusions of the Forest Plan FEIS about the effect of management on these MIH and their associated species also remain valid. The amount and distribution, by LE, of MIH is adequately representative of those habitats that would have been expected under the range of natural variability of SNF ecosystems and therefore, current implementation of the Forest Plan is expected to maintain the desired diversity and viability of native and desired non-native species” (USDA 2010b).


March 2011 H - 1 Appendix H

Appendix H

Mature Upland Patches This analysis addresses patches of mature and older upland forest in areas larger than or equal to 300 acres (Management Indicator Habitat [MIH] 13). The definition of what is in a patch can be found in the Forest Plan in Tables APP-C-1 and APP-C-2 (FP, pp. C-1 & C-2). Patches are composed of a continuous tree canopy generally provided by mature and older forest. Patches may contain “interior forest” which is defined by the acreage of mature and old growth forest remaining within 100 meters of the edge. There are some wildlife and plant species that rely on continuous acres of forest canopy, with some species surviving best in interior patches. Changes to MIH 13 are analyzed Forest-wide for each patch zone and at the project level. The Forest has been divided into three patch or spatial zones, each with specific guidance in the Forest Plan (FP, p. 2-24). Zones 1 and 2 have specific goals and guidelines for patch maintenance and creation. Zone 3 has no specified number of patches to maintain, but actions should minimize any decrease in patches larger than 300 acres. Patches are a landscape feature, and it is important to manage and follow patch dynamics at the Forest-wide scale in order to assure that habitat is well distributed across the landscape. The Lima Green Project is in Spatial Zone 3, the area surrounding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Table H-1 below displays the changes in the patches within Patch Zone 3 compared with the base year of 2011. It projects the changes at 2020, as a measure of patch dynamics over the second decade of the Forest Plan. Table H-2 displays patch changes out to 2020, the 10 year change assessment year for the Lima Green Project. Projecting to 2020 gives a sense of the trajectory patch numbers are taking over a longer time scale and makes it easier to see changes that would result from this project.

Table H-1: Forest-wide Changes in Acreage, Percentage and Number of Large (> 300 acres) Mature/old, Upland Forest Patches and Interior (MIH13) in Spatial Zone 3 (First Decade of Forest Plan)

Existing

Condition 2011Alt. 1 2020

Alt. 2 2020

Number of patches 171 173 169 Acres of patches 213,093 192,528 189,396 Acres of interior 74,668 65,822 64,692

Changes from 2011: (patches)

in patches +2 -2 in acreage -20,565 -23,697

in % -9.7% -11.1% Changes from 2011:

(interior) in % -12% -13.4%



Forest patches are made up of individual stands of various ages. As a stand grows older, it can become part of the pool of mature stands comprising a patch. Alternatively, a stand can also drop out of a patch as it ages. On this forest, the structure of early serial forest stands of birch and aspen changes when reaching 80 to 100 years. Canopy gaps are created as trees die, and eventually the stand succeeds or reverts to a younger stand of the same or another forest type. Computer models have been developed to change stand ages back to 10 years old upon reaching a certain age. For this reason, there are fewer mature/old growth acres in Alternative 1 in 2020 than currently exist (Table H-1). Natural succession was used in our models but not natural disturbance events such as windstorms or fires.

Mature Upland Patches in Zone Three The Forest Plan assumed a reduction of mature patches (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3.2-58) through the second decade and Table H-1 displays that reduction. The existing condition has a reduction of six patches (177 patches [2004] to 171 patches [2011]) in the seven years since the Forest Plan began (2004). Conversely, large patch acres have increased on the Forest since the Forest Plan Record of Decision. Currently there are 171 large mature upland patches across the Forest in Spatial Zone 3 (Table H-1) of which 13 intersect or are entirely within the Lima Green Project Area (Table H-2). Table H-1 displays the Forest-wide change in mature upland patches and interior under the two Lima Green alternatives. Alternative 1 - No Action would result in more patches by 2020 than the existing condition but there would be a 12 percent decrease in interior forest. Alternative 2 – Action would result in fewer patches by 2020 than the existing condition with a 13 percent decrease in interior. There would be a slight decrease in patch numbers in the action alternative (Alternative 2) resulting in fewer patch and interior acres when compared to Alternative 1 (-9.7 percent vs. -11.1 percent [patches] and -12 percent vs. -13.4 percent [interior]). The Forest Plan FEIS indicated that by following forest type and age objectives, the Forest would likely lose acres and numbers of upland mature patches and connectivity (Forest Plan FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 3.2-60 to -61) in all three spatial zones for at least two decades. Additionally, the Forest Plan FEIS stated that across the Forest, Spatial Zone 3 would likely see as much as a 17 percent decrease in interior forest by decade 2 (Forest Plan FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 3.2-67). Based on analyses for this project, the Forest-wide trend for large patches and interior in Spatial Zone 3 is consistent with predictions from the Forest Plan and recent forest-wide monitoring results (USDA 2010b).

Table H-2: Large Mature, Upland Patches and Interior with Percent Change by 2020 Compared to Existing Condition in 2011 (Lima Green Project Area)

Existing Condition

2011 Alternative 1

2020 Alternative 2

2020 Number of > 300 acre upland patches

13 14 10

Total patch acres 18,905 17,936 14,804 Total interior acres 6400 6458 5068 % change of patch acres from 2011 -5.1% -21.7% % change of interior from 2011 +1% -20.8%



Mature Upland Patches in the Lima Green Project Area Spatial patterns on the landscape are a result of natural and management-induced disturbances. The interdisciplinary team looked at upland mature forest patches in the development of the Lima Green action alternative (Alternative 2) with the goals of increasing available moose forage, maintaining patches greater than 100 acres of red and white pine, and minimizing the decrease in mature upland patches. Proposed harvest units were generally located adjacent to existing patches of young forest to create larger mature patches in the future, but also, adjacent to conifer stands and ponds to benefit area moose. The Lima Green interdisciplinary team also grouped timber harvest units to create large young openings wherever possible. Creating large young patches reduces the amount of edge overall and maintains forest interior habitat. Although under Alternative 1 – No Action the number of forest patches (greater than 300 acres) increases by year 2020, the number of forest patch acres actually decreases by 5 percent. This is a result of older stands succumbing to natural succession, which created an increase in the number of smaller patches by fragmenting larger patches. Under Alternative 2, there would be a decrease in the number of forest patches (13 patches [2011] vs. 10 patches [2020]) caused by the management actions being implemented. Despite the result of Alternative 2, the number of forest patches greater than 5,000 acres will remain the same. The larger forest patches (greater than 1,000 acres) within the Lima Green Project Area would still provide suitable habitat for goshawks and other forest interior species. Habitat models project a 5 percent decrease in mature patch acres (greater than 300 acres) under Alternative 1 – No Action by the year 2020. Under Alternative 1, mature patch acres are lost as trees die in older stands and they revert to a younger age class. A bigger decrease in acres would occur with Alternative 2 (decreasing 22 percent) as a result of management actions. These percentages are less when considered across all of Spatial Zone 3 (Table H-1, Lima Green Project Record).


March 2012 I - 1 Appendix I

Appendix I

Moose (Alces alces) In recent years, moose populations have been declining in northern Minnesota. Aerial surveys from 2011monitoring moose populations indicated a 12 percent decrease from 2010 (Lenarz 2011). Since 2005, there has been a statistically significant downward trend in the northeastern Minnesota moose population (Lenarz 2011). Explanations for this decline include disease, parasites, higher deer densities, a warming climate or a combination of these factors (Axelson 2008). Tribal, state and federal wildlife managers are very concerned about the fate of the Minnesota moose herd and continue to study the problem in hopes they can find a solution. For more information on moose research and how wildlife managers are responding, see the Report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) by the Moose Advisory Committee (2009). This can be found at http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_ wildlife/wildlife/moose/mac/macreport.pdf. Warmer winter and summer temperatures may be affecting moose throughout its range in Minnesota. Much of the recent, recorded mortality appears to be health-related, particularly disease and parasites, and may be linked to heat stress (MNDNR, 2009, p. 16). Providing a constant supply of shrub and small tree forage near stands of conifer trees may encourage moose survival. Stands of spruce, fir, and pine provide cooler temperatures in summer and lower wind speeds in the winter. Habitat alone is not likely limiting moose numbers through Minnesota (MNDNR, 2009, p. 35). However, maintaining well distributed forage and conifer should help to reduce any potential stress induced by poor nutrition and thermal extremes in temperatures.

Indicators Quantitative indicators and other relevant scientific information were used to analyze effects of the alternatives on moose. The analysis focused on the predominant risk factors pertinent to the species. Indicators were selected based on consideration of 1) species’ environmental requirements (habitat quantity, quality, and spatial pattern), life history, and distributional range and 2) potential impacts of management activities. The habitat indicators used for moose that were the same indicators used for the Forest Plan (Forest Plan FEIS, section 3.3.4.2.b) with the inclusion of pine:

Forage habitat: upland forest less than 10 years old Thermal upland conifer cover: upland conifer cover greater than nine years old

Young moose in spring



Recent research indicates the importance of conifer stands in providing thermal cover for moose (Leptich 2007, Dussault et al. 2004). In Maine, female moose showed a preference for lowland conifer forest (Leptich 2007). Therefore, the acreage and distribution of lowlands in the Lima Green Project Area are discussed as well.

Analysis Parameters The potential effects to moose habitat were projected to 2014 and 2020. The year 2014 marks the first decade of the Forest Plan and is used as our benchmark to measure cumulative changes to management indicator habitats. The year 2020 is a reasonably foreseeable future timeframe because it includes all known future projects and provides a reasonably reliable estimate of when the majority of activities (including secondary activities such as reforestation) should be completed.

Affected Environment The Lima Green Project Area is believed to have relatively high moose densities, especially in the eastern portion of the project area (DNR Aerial Survey high density plots, 2011, Lima Green Proj. Rec.). In 2010 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimated the moose population to be 2.1 moose per square mile in this area. Seventy percent of the upland forest in the northeastern section of the Lima Green Project Area has been harvested in the last 50 years and the forage from the past harvests may have helped maintain moose numbers. Dominant, conifer, trees adjacent to and within area drainages and bogs provided both winter and summer thermal protection. Very few (around 1 percent) of the forested uplands in the Lima Green Project Area are currently less than 10 years old and measured as foraging habitat for moose (Table I-1). Despite this, moose sign and evidence of browsing have been seen throughout the project area. Forty-nine percent of the uplands are older conifer stands which are expected to provide winter and summer thermal cover for moose. Thermal cover is well-distributed throughout the project area.

Environmental Effects There would be more foraging habitat created with Alternative 2 (12.4 percent) compared to Alternative 1 (0.6 percent) as a result of timber harvesting (Table I-1). Alternative 1 proposes no management activities and so would do less than Alternative 2 to create forage for moose. Timber harvesting as well as natural disturbance events on all lands (described in Appendix F) would continue to create foraging habitat across the landscape under either alternative. Thermal cover, comprised of spruce, fir, and pine, would be available to moose regardless of the selected alternative. Currently, conifer forest makes up 49 percent of the uplands in the project area and would slightly increase in Alternative 1 (to 51 percent in 2014) or decrease in Alternative 2 (to 47 percent in 2014). Table I-1, below, displays more detail. Also, there would be few management activities in lowland conifer stands, with only 2.5 percent of mature habitat being converted to young (Table I-2). Riparian habitats, wetlands and lakes are protected using Operational Standards and Guidelines



(Appendix D). Across the landscape, thermal cover is expected to increase over the next decade (Appendix H). Table I-1: Upland Habitat Indicators for Moose within the Lima Green Project Area

Indicator

2011 2014 2020 Existing

Condition Alternative

1 Alternative

2 Alternative

1 Alternative

2 Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Young upland forest <10 years old

360 1.2 186 0.6 3,830 12.4 0 0 3,644 11.8

upland conifer (spruce and pine)

> 9 years old 15,164 49 15,751 51 14,578 47 16,193 53 14,962 49

Data source: Existing condition for vegetation indicators are based on 2010 CDS data, and all alternatives are based on projected CDS data in the year 2014 and 2020. % are based on the percent of total upland forest on federal lands in the project area (30,800 acres) for the Mesic Red and White Pine Landscape Ecosystem and Mesic Birch-Aspen-Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem. Table I-2: Lowland Habitat Indicators (MIH 9: Lowland Black Spruce-Tamarack Forest) for Moose within the Lima Green Project Area

Management Indicator Habitat

2011 2014 2020 Existing

Condition Alternative

1 Alternative

2 Alternative

1 Alternative

2 Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Young 140 3.5 56 1.4 157 3.9 0 0 101 3 Pole 787 19.7 815 20.4 815 20.4 659 16.5 659 17

Mature 2,236 56 2,206 55.2 2,105 52.7 2,128 53.3 2,051 51.3 Old/Old Growth and Multi-Aged

832 20.8 918 23 918 23 1,209 30.2 1,185 29.7

Totals: 3,995 100 3,995 100 3,995 100 3,996 100 3996 100 % represents percent of total lowlands for MIH 9 (Existing Condition) on NFS lands.

Within Lima Green, the habitat needs of moose were considered when developing the proposed action. Specifically, maintaining higher than normal amounts of reserve areas and legacy patches were prescribed to maintain thermal and hiding cover for moose. Proposed legacy patches would be 10 percent of the harvest area in units up to 50 acres; 12 percent in units 59 to 100 acres; 15 percent in units over 100 acres; and 20 percent in units over 300 acres. In addition to reserve and legacy patches found within harvest units, nearly 54 percent of forest within 200 meters of harvest units would provide thermal and hiding cover. The main objective for leaving higher proportions of reserve areas and legacy patches would be to provide adequate thermal cover in and adjacent to foraging areas. Allen et al. (1987) suggested that in the Lake Superior region the availability of mature forest for thermal cover is important to reduce heat stress in summer, especially at the southern edge of the moose’s range. Also it has been found that the interspersion of mature residual stands within small cuts would be beneficial to moose (Euler 1981 and Courtois



et al. 2002). Considering that the Lima Green Project Area harbors relatively high moose numbers, it is relevant to implement strategies that should benefit moose at a time when current population trends are decreasing in northeastern Minnesota. For these reasons, the increase in reserve areas and legacy patches should enhance the habitat for moose in the Lima Green Project Area.

lg appe economics 032812 affa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · analysis area...

Documents