united states department of agriculture aspen...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Aspen Management Project Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Ottawa National Forest

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger

Districts Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan

FEBRUARY 2015

For More Information Contact:

Susanne Adams, District Ranger/Team Leader Ottawa National Forest 1209 Rockland Road

Ontonagon, Michigan 49953 Phone: 906-884-2085 x14 Email: [email protected]

This Environmental Assessment and associated documents are also located at the following website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ottawa/projects

(see the Aspen Management Project link within the “Under Analysis” section).

*Photo credit (front cover): This is a regenerated aspen stand ten years after treatment. This photo was taken by Chris Kovala, Environmental Coordinator, Ottawa National Forest.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or activities.)

If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD).

If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA office.

To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call Toll free, (866) 632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice users). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Aspen Management Project Environmental Assessment i

Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Project Location .............................................................................................. 2

Need for the Proposal .......................................................................................................... 3 Enhance Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................ 3 Maintain diversity of vegetation types and age classes ............................................... 3 Connected Transportation Needs ................................................................................. 5

Agencies and Persons Consulted ........................................................................................ 5 Tribal Consultation ......................................................................................................... 5 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 6 Public Comment Review Process ................................................................................... 6

Proposed Action and Alternatives ....................................................................................... 7 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 8

Aspen Regeneration ..................................................................................................... 8 Transportation Management ........................................................................................ 9 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 10

Outcomes of the Proposed Action................................................................................. 11 Enhance wildlife habitat ............................................................................................ 11 Maintain diversity of vegetation types and age classes ............................................. 11 Climate change resilience .......................................................................................... 12 Economics ................................................................................................................. 13

No Action ...................................................................................................................... 13 Outcomes of No Action ................................................................................................ 13 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .......................................................... 14

Limited clearcutting ................................................................................................... 14 Reduced harvest adjacent to private lands ................................................................. 14 Increase aspen management ...................................................................................... 15

Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 16 Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives ....................................................................... 17

Aquatics/Fisheries ......................................................................................................... 17 Soils............................................................................................................................... 20 Non-native Invasive Plants (NNIP) .............................................................................. 24 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 27 Visual Resources ........................................................................................................... 28 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ........................................................... 30 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 32

Finding of No Significant Impact ..................................................................................... 33 Context .......................................................................................................................... 33 Intensity......................................................................................................................... 33 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ..................................................... 37 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 38

References ......................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 1. Design Criteria ................................................................................................. Appendix 2. Maps .................................................................................................................

Aspen Management Project Environmental Assessment ii

List of Tables Table 1: Proposed Action Summary .................................................................................. 8

Table 2. Comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives ....................... 16

Table 3: Regional Foresters Sensitive Species for which the Proposed Action May Impact Individuals ..................................................................................................... 31

List of Figures

Figure 1: Acres of aspen in the 0-9 age class over time compared to the Forest Plan Objective ...................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Acres of aspen by age class under the existing condition and projected for 20 years. ............................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 3: Aspen Acres by Age Class in Management Areas 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a, 4.2a for the Existing Condition and in 20 years under Both Alternatives .................................... 12

Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, Ottawa National Forest

Aspen Management Project Environmental Assessment 1

Introduction The U.S. Forest Service is proposing to increase the regeneration of aging aspen stands across the Ottawa National Forest to better meet the objectives and maintain the desired conditions specified in the 2006 Ottawa Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 2006a). Regeneration (clearcut harvest) of an average of 1,700 acres of aspen per year would increase habitat for many local species that prefer young forest, including, but not limited to, ruffed grouse, white-tailed deer, snowshoe hare, and golden-winged warbler. In doing so, it would increase wildlife-based recreation opportunities. This project is proposed to be implemented on National Forest System lands on the Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon, and Watersmeet Ranger Districts of the Ottawa National Forest.

The Forest Service prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether the harvesting of mature aspen stands, and the connected road system management actions, may significantly affect the quality of the human environment; thereby require 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 proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

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 (see Appendix 1). 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 (project file) 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. The ID Team developed the analysis framework based on comments received in scoping, their professional knowledge of expected outcomes and effects, and legal requirements.

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: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ottawa/forestplan.

This document makes reference to several citations which further support the analysis, including the Analysis Framework, Forest Plan documents, and citations referenced. To obtain access to the cited documents, or for more information, please contact the Team Leader.



Proposed Project Location The project area is located on the Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon and Watersmeet Ranger Districts in Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan. The project area includes up to 30,000 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands within Forest Plan management areas (MAs) 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a and 4.2a1. The MAs in this project area emphasize early successional communities and/or high proportions of aspen and paper birch forest types.

The Project Area is defined as the potential treatment stands as well as the roads maintained, reconstructed or constructed to access these stands. All proposed treatment stands would be selected because they meet the following requirements:

mature and over-mature aspen stands over 40 years of age; proportion of aspen remaining in the stands are sufficient to ensure regeneration

success; and access is economically feasible (i.e., there is existing access or the cost of system or

temporary construction, or reconstruction, is matched with sufficient aspen volume).

The project area excludes:

aspen stands located in other MAs (including Wild and Scenic River corridors, Wilderness, and Special Interest Areas);

areas harvested within the last 30 years; areas recently evaluated in other vegetation management projects; 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)(USDA Forest Service 2006c).

The project maps (Appendix 2) show potential treatment stands that have been identified at this time, based on available information from databases and some limited field review to verify feasibility of some stands. Approximately 25,000 acres have been identified on the maps at this time. However, in some limited situations, stands currently mapped as potential treatment stands may not be the complete set of stands treated through this project. Field review at the time of implementation may indicate that either: 1) some of the mapped stands do not meet some basic requirements to meet the purpose and need; or 2) that some stands in the immediate vicinity, but not currently mapped in Appendix 2, do meet the criteria. Field verification would occur prior to implementation and stands would be selected for treatment based on the current age, condition of the stands, and access. The number of acres harvested would not exceed the amount authorized if the Proposed Action is selected for implementation. 1 Management Areas are defined in the Forest Plan, which is available on the Ottawa’s website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ottawa/forestplan.



Need for the Proposal The purpose of this proposal is to manage the aspen to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives for wildlife and vegetation resources over the next 10-20 years.

Enhance Wildlife Habitat The purpose and need for wildlife resources within the project area is to maintain and enhance young forest (early-successional) habitats for:

wildlife species that benefit from young forests, including, but not limited to, ruffed grouse, woodcock, white-tailed deer, snowshoe hare, and the predators that benefit from these species (Forest Plan pg. 2-8), as well as non-game species like golden-winged warbler;

wildlife-based recreational opportunities, such as wildlife viewing and hunting; and

to progress towards the Forest Plan objective of maintaining 12,000 acres of young aspen in the 0-9 year age class for ruffed grouse (Forest Plan pg. 2-8).

Within the Ottawa National Forest there are approximately 10,700 acres of aspen currently in the 0-9 year age class, and without continued management, this figure would decrease annually as the stands age. Currently, there is an average of 690 acres of aspen being regenerated annually by ongoing vegetation management projects (USDA Forest Service 2012) (see Figure 1). There is an overall need to increase the amount of early-successional habitats across the Forest in the next few years in order to move towards the Forest Plan objective. In order to maintain the wildlife objective, a minimum of 1,200 acres of new regeneration is needed each year to maintain this wildlife objective over the long term.

Maintain diversity of vegetation types and age classes The purpose of the proposal is also to work towards meeting Forest-wide goals and objectives to provide a diversity of vegetation ty

Aspen Ecology

Aspen is a shade intolerant, early

successional, species and requires

disturbances such as clearcutting,

breakup of soil, windthrow, or fire

to become established and

maintained on the landscape.

Aspen regenerates mostly by root

suckering but sometimes can

reproduce through seed. Aspen is

relatively short‐lived and cannot

reproduce under shade, so without

disturbance, aspen stands are

replaced over time by more shade

tolerant species. Aspen is valued by

forest users for many reasons,

including its scenic beauty, prime

wildlife habitat, and economic

benefit.

Aspendisplayingfallcolors(top).Amatureaspentreeviewedfromtheground(bottom).



pes and age classes, and to work towards achieving the

Figure 1: Acres of aspen in the 0-9 age class over time compared to the Forest Plan Objective

desired vegetation conditions in MAs 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a and 4.2a (Forest Plan pg. 2-2, 2-6, 3-4, 3-18, 3-23, and 3-29). According to the best available information, the percentage of aspen currently meets Forest Plan desired condition in these MAs (project file, Silviculture Report). However, it does not meet the desired mix of age classes. Aspen has been decreasing for the past several decades on the Ottawa (and in the region in general) as it matures and transitions to mixed hardwood and conifer. While the Forest Plan objectives seek to provide a full range of age classes for aspen, current conditions are skewed towards over-mature age classes. Over 39% of aspen on the Ottawa is over 60 years of age and is at risk of successional loss; that is converting or is beginning to convert to other species (see Figure 2) (USDA Forest Service 2012). Therefore, there is a need to manage stands over time to create the desired range of age conditions.

During development of the 2006 Forest Plan, it was estimated that by implementing the Forest Plan, 109,000 acres of aspen on lands suitable for timber management would be maintained on the Forest over time to support achievement of the goals, objectives, and desired conditions (FEIS 3-59). It was determined that maintaining 109,000 acres would require an emphasis on regeneration over the next 10-20 years and an estimated average annual regeneration harvest of 20% of suitable acres per decade (or 1,700 acres per year) to regenerate early successional stands. As noted above, aspen harvest averages about 690 acres per year (USDA Forest Service 2012). Therefore, in order to maintain aspen on the landscape at the desired percentages and move towards Forest Plan desired conditions, there is a need to increase the pace of aspen regeneration over the next several years to compensate for lower than expected harvest rates, and to maintain an average of 1,700 acres of regeneration per year for the next 10-20 years.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2007 2017 2027 2037

A

c

r

e

s

Year

Forest Plan Objective

No Action



Figure 2: Acres of aspen by age class under the existing condition and projected for 20 years.

To reduce the rate of successional loss of mature aspen within the project area and ensure that suitable aspen acres are not lost, there is a need to prioritize treatment of aging areas and those aspen stands that are converting to non-aspen forest types. To meet this need, it would be necessary to clearcut larger areas in order to regenerate those aspen stands that are located adjacent to one another, as shown in Appendix 2, which would create temporary openings that exceed 40 acres. The Forest Plan allows for temporary openings greater than 40 acres on a case-by-case basis after 60 days of public notice and review by the Regional Forester (Forest Plan, pg. 2-23).

Connected Transportation Needs Finally, in order to achieve the goals above, there is a need to ensure we provide for an adequate transportation system, including improving the conditions of the existing roads or constructing roads. It is estimated that approximately 13% of proposed treatment stands do not currently have road access (are more than ¼ from an existing road), therefore, there is a need for some temporary or permanent road construction (project file, Road Estimation Document).

Agencies and Persons Consulted

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

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0‐10 11‐20 21‐30 31‐40 41‐50 51‐60 60+

Acres

Age Class (years)

Existing Condition

No Action (20 years)



was sent to several Tribes, including local representatives of the Lac Vieux Desert (LVD) Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC). In October of 2014, tribal representatives were invited to attend a field trip to discuss the project and seek their input – it was attended by the forestry and wildlife staff of Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Additionally, Ottawa staff met with representatives of these Tribal governments to discuss this project in October 2013, January 2014, and August 2014.

Public Involvement The Forest Service consulted with many potentially interested and affected parties, including state and local agencies during the scoping period. First, a stakeholder meeting was held in October 2013. Invitations were sent to interested parties on the Ottawa’s mailing list, local and regional wildlife organizations and sportsman’s clubs, and representatives of the local timber industry. The stakeholder meeting focused on introducing elements of the project, seeking feedback on our initial proposal, and a field trip to visit aspen stands proposed for treatment and discuss the intended results of project activities.

In May 2014, a scoping letter explaining the purpose and need for action, as well as the location and description of the proposed actions, was sent to more than 1,400 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/).

The May scoping letter, as well as a May 13, 2014 legal notice in the Ironwood Daily Globe, disclosed the intent to include temporary openings greater than 40 acres in this proposal. The Forest Plan allows for temporary openings greater than 40 acres on a case-by-case basis after 60 days of public notice and review by the Regional Forester (Forest Plan, pg. 2-23). The legal notice, scoping, and this environmental assessment meet the requirement for public notice. Concurrent with the release of this Environmental Assessment, the Regional Forester review of the proposal will occur.

Public Comment Review Process In response to the scoping period, comment letters from 51 interested parties were received in response to the public meeting and the May 2014 scoping letter. 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

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.



an alternative to the Proposed Action was necessary and/or if the project proposal (e.g., cause) would produce an undesirable result (e.g., 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. It was determined that these concerns either did not meet the project purpose and need and/or 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 an issue requiring detailed analysis. Specific concerns brought forward were to increase harvest, accelerate harvest, potential for windthrow or other effects to adjacent private property, visual quality, and concerns about specific harvest areas.

A few of these concerns (increased aspen harvest, reduced harvest near private property) were reviewed by the team as potential alternatives, and are described in more detail in the Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis section.

Visual quality concerns are addressed through adherence to the Forest Plan Scenery Management Guidelines (Forest Plan, pgs. G-1 to G-5) and the use of measurable Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). Variety class of the natural landscape, distance from which the modification would be viewed, and sensitivity of the scenic quality are all taken into account when determining harvest decisions. All of the proposed stands fall under a range of VQOs, from a condition where activities are to appear minimal on the landscape (retention) to where activities may dominate the landscape (maximum modification). All of these VQOs, allow management activities like aspen harvest to occur.

Specific stands were identified by two commenters as not suitable for timber management (project file, Comment Matrix). These stands were reviewed in detail (as all stands would be prior to harvest). Upon analysis, these stands were excluded from the list of potential treatment stands due to topographical and hydrological factors (too steep and too wet).

Proposed Action and Alternatives The Proposed Action and following alternatives were considered. A summary of the expected outcomes from implementation is included in the description of the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives. 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.

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



AspenRegeneration

Becauseofaspen’srelianceondisturbancetoregenerate,even‐agedmanagement(e.g.,clearcutting)istheprimarysilviculturalsystemformanagingaspen.

Brokentopsandlimbsarecommonindicatorsofanaspenreachingover‐maturity(top).

Anaspenstandoneyearaftertreatment(middle).Vigorousaspenregenerationandhabitattreesareclearlynoticeable.

Anaspenstandtenyearsaftertreatment(bottom).Thispictureshowsthedenseregenerationthatprovideshabitatforlocalspecies.

that was performed in the Forest Plan’s 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).

Proposed Action The Proposed Action includes clearcut harvests, changes to the transportation system to facilitate timber harvest and project design criteria as described in the following sections.

Table 1: Proposed Action Summary

Activity Amount per year (approximate)

Aspen clearcut harvest 1,700 acres

Temporary road construction

8-12 miles

Permanent road construction

Up to 2 miles

Aspen Regeneration The proposal includes clearcutting an average of 1,700 acres of mature and over-mature aspen per year within the Project Area over the next 10-20 years, up to 30,000 acres (see Proposed Project Location section). In approximately 10 areas per year, clearcut harvest may create temporary openings ranging from 41 to 100 acres. All others would be less than 40 acres.

Clearcutting 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. Without human-caused or natural disturbances, the forest tends to move toward a late-successional forest, which on



the Ottawa favors sugar maple, hemlock, and other shade-tolerant vegetation.

Prioritization of stands for treatment would be based on a range of conditions identified by the interdisciplinary team such as: stand age and condition, providing a diversity of age conditions across the landscape, accessibility of the stands, economic viability of the harvest, and relation to other stands proposed for treatment.

Transportation Management The proposal includes road maintenance, reconstruction or temporary road construction, and a small amount of permanent road construction, as needed to access stands for harvest. 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 There will be no change in public motorized use as a result of this decision. Until a separate decision is made, all roads currently open to public motorized use will remain open, and all roads closed to public motorized use will remain closed.

Maintenance and Reconstruction

The Proposed Action includes maintenance or reconstruction on existing roads, as necessary. Approximately 56% of the stands are estimated to be accessible from existing Forest System roads (project file, Road Estimation Document). Based on their experience with past timber sales in similar areas, ID Team specialists estimated that about 20% of roads used to facilitate timber harvest require reconstruction and the majority would require some maintenance. However, the actual amount of road maintenance and reconstruction would be based upon site-specific conditions at the time of implementation. Maintenance and reconstruction of roads would improve conditions to provide access to stands and facilitate timber harvest operations. 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 currently designated for such use.

Temporary Roads

Current logging equipment is capable of skidding harvested timber up to ¼ of a 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); then temporary road construction may be required. Approximately 13% of proposed treatment stands are more than ¼ mile from a system road and 30% are just within ¼ mile of a system road, therefore approximately 13- 43% of the proposed treatment stands may require temporary road construction. Based on best available road information, it is estimated that accessing these



stands would require temporary road construction, ranging between 8 to 12 miles per year (project file, Road Estimation Document).

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. In addition, slash, berms or barriers are installed on these roads to prohibit motorized vehicle access and allowing 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.

Permanent Road Construction

The Proposed Design Criteria (Appendix 1) also allow for limited permanent road construction as part of this project. This may 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, it makes sense to keep these roads for harvesting adjacent hardwood stands in the future.

To account for these situations, it was estimated that up to two miles of permanent construction or relocation of system roads would be required per year to access treatment stands (project file, Road Estimation Document). Any permanent changes to the transportation system would maintain the desired road densities listed in the Forest Plan.

Design Criteria The interdisciplinary 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). 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.

The interdisciplinary team is anticipating that at the landscape scale, project area conditions would vary and require different types of design criteria. This project would be planned with the best available information, however all site-specific information would not be available before a



decision would be made. Therefore, closer to the time of implementation, the site-specific stand conditions present and proposed road/access locations would be evaluated through field inventory and survey. At that time, the appropriate design criteria would be identified, using measures outlined in Appendix 1, and implemented. This would ensure that resources such as wildlife, water, rare plants, and soil would be protected under the variety of expected management and roadwork activities and any effects would be minimized. For example, some design criteria would require field surveys prior to implementation to ensure that any rare or sensitive resources are avoided. In addition, interdisciplinary review of proposed road/access locations would be needed prior to implementation. As many of these resources may change over time and project implementation would occur over longer than a decade, completion of surveys and inventories closer to the time of implementation can better ensure the most accurate information is used to implement the project and protect these resources. The interdisciplinary team will develop an implementation guide, which would include monitoring, to ensure treatments are consistent with the final decision and that treatments are resulting in the intended effects.

Outcomes of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is designed to meet the purpose and need to maintain early successional habitat for a variety of wildlife species that depend on it and to meet Forest Plan vegetation management objectives. It also would have additional positive outcomes related to climate change resilience and economic benefits.

Enhance wildlife habitat The proposed action would meet the purpose and need to maintain early-successional habitat. In particular it would exceed the Forest Plan Objective to maintain at least 12,000 acres of early successional (0-9 age class) aspen over time. By increasing the amount of young aspen, the proposed action would meet the purpose and need to increase the amount of habitat available to wildlife species dependent on early successional aspen forest types. Ruffed grouse and deer would benefit greatly and most likely increase their populations at the local level. Other wildlife including, woodcock, snowshoe hares and early successional dependent songbirds would benefit from the treatments. The increase in prey species would also benefit predators such as wolves and bobcats. Wildlife-based recreation focused on these species and their habitat would increase somewhat proportionally to the amount of habitat treated and response in wildlife population size.

Maintain diversity of vegetation types and age classes Additionally, the Proposed Action would allow the total acres of the aspen type across the forest to remain stable for the next 60 years and would contribute to meeting the purpose and need and plan objective to maintain 109,000 acres over time. The proposed action also continues to move the age class distribution toward the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan, while addressing forest health conditions. Figure 3 shows the aspen acres within MAs 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a,



and 4.2a by age class under the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative over the life of the project.

Figure 3: Aspen Acres by Age Class in Management Areas 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a, 4.2a for the Existing Condition and in 20 years under Both Alternatives34

Climate change resilience In addition, managing aspen at this time would help increase the resilience of these aspen stands to climate change and other stressors, particularly through maintaining landscape diversity. Although aspen is a species that is moderate to highly vulnerable to climate change in the long term (Janowiak et al. 2014), in the short term, lack of disturbance or management is the greatest influence on aspen decline. Therefore, it is critical to manage these declining stands in the near future. Though aspen may be vulnerable, it is a highly adaptable species which can grow in a variety of conditions. This project would create a young cohort of aspen on a wide diversity of site conditions, which could have success under the range of future climate projections. In addition, the project includes design criteria that would result in limited harvest in some portions of stands or would leave certain species of trees, these features would enhance stand level diversity. The actions could ensure the opportunity for long-term maintenance of aspen on the

3 The No Action alternative assumes that approximately 690 acres of aspen would continue to be regenerated annually, based on the trend of the past 8 years (2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report). The Proposed Action figures assume 15,000 acres are treated every 10 years, as the Proposed Action calls for up to 30,000 total acres.

4 Note that in both alternatives many acres of aspen in the 60+ category may convert to other forest types.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

0‐10 10‐20 21‐30 31‐40 41‐50 51‐60 60+

A

c

r

e

s

Age Class (years)

Existing Condition

No Action (20 years)

Proposed Action (20 years)



landscape and could provide more opportunities for future management decisions to address aspen vulnerability with the best available information of that time.

Economics Finally, 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 one or above represents a positive return, and therefore the financial benefits of an alternative would outweigh the costs necessary to implement the Proposed Action. Accounting for up to 30,000 acres of proposed treatment and estimated road costs5, the economic analysis predicts that the Proposed Action would result in a benefit to cost ratio of 1.72; demonstrating a positive return (project file, Economic Resource Analysis). There would be an economic return of money to the community from associated harvest activities (through hiring of local contractors, sale of timber products, payments to counties, etc.) and as a result, potential for an increase in employment opportunities and other support to rural communities. In addition, the increased opportunities for wildlife-based recreation may provide some economic benefits to local communities.

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. Therefore, no additional actions would be implemented on NFS lands to align the project area’s existing conditions with the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan for MAs 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a, and 4.2a. Current management outside of this proposal would be expected to continue. For analysis purposes, it is assumed the current annual average harvest of approximately 690 acres of aspen would continue under current management.

Outcomes of No Action In the short term, the No Action Alternative maintains the current amount of aspen; however, over time, it does not contribute to the purpose and need of maintaining a certain percentage of aspen within MAs 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a, and 4.2a. Many stands currently typed as aspen would continue to age and convert to different forest types. This trend, over time, would result in fewer acres of aspen than described as desirable by the Forest Plan. The aspen component would continue to decline, with an increasing mortality rate due to a combination of advanced age and increased susceptibility to damage by disease, insects, wind, and climate change related stressors. Stands located mainly in MA 3.1a and 4.1a would convert to predominantly hardwoods. Individual or small clumps of aspen may persist, but the majority the stands would no longer be

5 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.



an aspen forest type. Many stands in MA 1.1a and 4.2a would give way to conifers, predominantly white pine, which historically covered much of the area.

In particular, the early successional age class would decline (see Figures 1, 2, and 3), therefore the purpose and need for wildlife would not be met. The loss of aspen over time would reduce the amount of habitat available to wildlife species dependent on early successional aspen forest types. Ruffed grouse and deer could be already at low levels given the advanced age of the aspen stands and surrounding habitat, but the anticipated loss of aspen would likely inhibit those species’ numbers from rebounding at a local level. Wildlife-based recreation focused on wildlife species and their habitat would diminish as related a result of the early successional habitat decreasing over time.

Economically, the No Action Alterative would not increase opportunities for timber industry-related employment and support to rural communities.

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Concerns brought forward during the scoping period suggested consideration of three additional alternatives by the Responsible Official. These alternatives and the rationale for eliminating them from detailed analysis are outlined below.

Limited clearcutting Some commenters suggested using selection harvest or not using clearcutting for management of the aspen stands. As described in the Proposed Action section, clearcut harvests are the appropriate management tool for regenerating aspen stands and to meet the purpose and need for increasing early successional forest. Selection harvest would not result in successful aspen regeneration due to the way aspen grows by root-suckering and aspen’s relative shade-intolerance. The desired conditions, and therefore the purpose and need, could not be met with selection harvest. The Forest Plan contains further documentation demonstrating that the most appropriate silvicultural treatment for aspen management is clearcutting (Forest Plan Appendix C-8 and C-9).

In addition, a few commenters suggested not clearcutting certain stands. In those cases, the specific stands were reviewed and some were found to not meet project requirements (the stands were wetlands or not accessible) and were dropped from further consideration (project file, Comment Matrix and team emails).

Reduced harvest adjacent to private lands A few commenters suggested we consider not harvesting stands that are adjacent to private land based on concerns such as windthrow on adjacent lands after timber harvest. The ID Team noted that windthrow is common on the Ottawa as small scale high wind events are the primary natural disturbance regime in the northern hardwood forest. However, these windthrow disturbances occur at random depending on weather patterns and soil conditions. They are not known to be caused by clearcut harvest of adjacent areas, in most cases. In addition, the ID Team noted that, due to the need for equipment operability, there is typically a small buffer of about 30 feet



surrounding aspen clearcuts on NFS lands next to private property to ensure that the activities do not encroach onto that property. These buffers of forested areas greatly minimize the likelihood of tree blowdown on adjacent lands and eliminate the chance of other impacts on private lands.

Increase aspen management Commenters suggested increasing aspen management through managing aspen in other management areas (MAs), maintaining more acres of aspen at a faster pace, or considering non-commercial options (including fire). In designing the project, the team targeted all of the stands that meet age and other criteria. The Responsible Official determined that this project would focus on those MAs where the Forest Plan includes maintaining a higher percentage of aspen on the landscape as part of the desired conditions (see project file document developed for project initiation). During project planning, the ID Team reviewed areas to determine which stands are the most appropriate at this time to align the project area’s existing conditions with Forest Plan desired conditions. We have proposed all known stands that meet age and other criteria needed for successful regeneration. Among the factors that led to stands being deferred from treatment are: a) lands that are not physically suited for management activities (as defined by the Forest Plan FEIS, Volume II, pgs. A-13 to A-15); and b) current stand conditions do not support the regeneration of aspen already under consideration in a feasible and cost-effective manner (i.e., the cost of transportation refinements outweigh the dollar return from timber volume harvested). In order to align aspen management with the Forest Plan’s analysis for the number of acres that could be managed over the long-term (FEIS, Table 3-18, p. 3-59), we will maintain an average annual harvest of 1,700 acres of aspen per year, in addition to implementing other projects which have proposed aspen management.



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 Proposed Action and Alternatives and Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives sections.

Table 2. Comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives

Resource Proposed Action Alternative No Action Alternative

Wildlife

19,900 acres of aspen in the 0-9 age class after 20 years, then continued maintenance of early-successional habitat for several species

6,900 acres of aspen in the 0-9 age class after 20 years, then continued loss of early-successional habitat for several species

Vegetation Aspen forest-type maintained on

landscape within identified MAs Aspen age classes are more balanced

Aspen forest-type continues to decline Aspen age class structure further skewed

towards >60 years age class

Recreation

Improved wildlife-based recreational opportunities in early-successional forest

Improved existing system roads for use by forest visitors.

Decrease in wildlife-based recreational opportunities related to early successional forest over time.

System roads not improved for use by forest visitors.

Aquatics and Fisheries

No impacts from timber harvest Maintained or slightly improved water

quality as a result of existing system road improvements

Minor sedimentation due to new or temporary road construction activities

No impacts from timber harvest Existing roads remain in current

condition, which may include continued erosion and sedimentation, aquatic organism passage barriers, or other habitat impacts

Soils

Minor disturbance to soil from timber harvest activities

Road maintenance and reconstruction would reduce erosion

No effects to soil from timber harvest or road construction activities

Existing roads not maintained or reconstructed would deteriorate

Non-Native Invasive Plants

Possible increase in non-native invasive plant spread primarily due to road construction

Ongoing slow spread of non-native invasive species

Visual resources

Visual diversity increased at the landscape scale

Short term visual impacts while temporary openings exist

Visual quality objectives are retained

Loss of scenic diversity provided by aspen, in the long term

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

May impact individuals of 46 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS), no impact for 43 RFSS

No effect on Kirtland’s warbler or Canada lynx; may affect, not likely to adversely affect gray wolf

Not likely to jeopardize northern long-eared bat

May impact individuals of 4 RFSS, no impact for 83 RFSS, beneficial impacts for 2

No effect on Kirtland’s warbler or Canada lynx; may affect, not likely to adversely affect gray wolf

Not likely to jeopardize northern long-eared bat



Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and no 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. Additional effects are discussed in the 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 and References).

Aquatics/Fisheries Affected Environment

Water quality is generally considered good to excellent throughout the area surrounding the Ottawa National Forest (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 1999, MDEQ 2003, MDEQ 2004a, MDEQ 2004b, MDEQ 2007, MDEQ 2008, MDEQ 2011, MDEQ 2012, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 1999, MDNR 2000) and there are no water-quality impaired water bodies resulting from Forest management within the analysis area (MDEQ 2014). Water quality impairment due to mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) is prevalent throughout the area, although it occurs from atmospheric deposition (MDEQ 2014) and is not associated with forest management.

Most of the aspen treatment areas (92%) are located near (within 400 feet of) streams and rivers, with 47% near perennial streams, and 45% near intermittent streams. Many treatment areas occur within the East Branch Ontonagon River and the Paint River watersheds, which host important coldwater habitat. Many treatment areas occur within watersheds containing important coldwater habitats that support productive native brook trout populations, as well as some populations of non-native rainbow and brown trout, all of which are popular with anglers. Other species occurring in Forest streams include bass, sunfish and many species of minnows and freshwater mussels, as well as a RFSS redside dace and creek heelsplitter mussel.

The majority (73%) of proposed treatment areas are within 300 feet of mapped wetlands. Wetland acreages include the very poorly and poorly drained soils rated as floodplains, bogs, swamps and ash drainways. Many of the lakes and ponds associated with the aspen treatment areas are small in size and are not managed for fisheries. The few lakes near the treatment areas



that are managed for fisheries contain species such as northern pike, walleye, bass, sunfish and perch.

The affected environment includes existing road stream crossings and road sediment contribution areas on the Forest Service roads that would be used to access the proposed aspen harvest areas. These locations are sources of sediment to streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands. Streams are the most vulnerable to sedimentation due to the way sediment is routed and how it impacts aquatic organisms. Excessive sediment in streams reduces water quality and damages aquatic habitat by covering spawning gravels; filling in pools; making streams wider, shallower, and warmer; and decreasing overall habitat complexity. It also reduces fish egg and freshwater mussel survival (Waters 1995; Brim Box and Mossa 1999).

Proposed Action

There would be no discernable changes to streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands from timber harvest due to implementation of riparian design criteria, which provides protection measures such as riparian buffers (see Appendix 1). Based on their use during past timber harvest, including aspen clearcuts, and implementation of the riparian design criteria we have sufficiently buffered aquatic features from sedimentation, and aquatic species have been protected (Analysis Framework; Lesch 2011; Lesch 2012). In addition, due to the low number of potential stream crossings and project design criteria, the roads associated with the proposed actions would have minimal effects on aquatic ecosystems.

Road maintenance and reconstruction activities generally maintain or slightly improve water quality (see Analysis Framework) by improving surface material and water conveyance routes, which reduces sedimentation and protects aquatic features and aquatic species. Degraded crossings would be replaced with new structures designed to provide for aquatic organism passage and that pass at least the 100 year flood flows, reducing the risk of future failure due to high flows. The specific roads that would be reconstructed and maintained, as well as the crossings that would be replaced, would be determined closer to the time of implementation after the Decision (Analysis Framework). The site-specific needs would then be developed for each access route that would be utilized and would follow Forest Service engineering specifications as well as any relevant or required State permitting.

Road construction and temporary road construction occurring near or crossing aquatic features can result in sediment increases, since all roads tend to contribute a small amount of sediment to aquatic systems over time. Risks to streams, water quality and aquatic organisms increase with the number and condition of crossings within stream networks and road proximity to streams. The location of roads needed to access the stands proposed for harvest would be determined closer to the time of implementation after the Decision. Therefore, it is not known at this time if and where new crossings would be needed. There would be about 8 to 12 miles of temporary roads constructed per year. When temporary roads are no longer needed for this project, crossing structures would be removed and vegetation would become re-established at crossings within a couple of years (project file, Analysis Framework), thereby reducing or eliminating sedimentation in the long term. There could be new system road construction over the life of the



project for up to two miles per year. This construction may include permanent stream crossing structures, although the amount and location would be determined closer to the time of implementation after the Decision (project file, Analysis Framework). Some of the permanent road construction would be done to replace poorly located roads, which would then be decommissioned. This may include roads with stream crossings, thereby reducing sedimentation.

A road construction and temporary road estimate analysis was completed (project file, Estimated Road Construction) during which the roads interdisciplinary team considered how to reduce impacts to soils and water crossings. In this analysis, road locations were approximated to avoid most streams and wetlands, and therefore, it is estimated there may be as few as two to four crossings constructed on perennial or intermittent streams each year for some type of road, either temporary or permanent. All new constructed crossings would require State of Michigan permits that would specify sediment control best management practices. All permanent crossings would be designed to pass aquatic organisms and at least 100 year flood flows (project file, Analysis Framework). A hydrologist and soil scientist would be members of the interdisciplinary team that conducts the more detailed site specific analysis after the Decision and closer to the time of implementation. At that time, the access route needs would be determined with consideration for minimizing potential sediment risk and reducing impacts on streams and aquatic communities. There is also a possibility that some stands would be accessed utilizing existing old routes (railroad grades, old roads, etc.) that have had crossing structures removed. The best access route would be chosen for implementation that avoids stream crossings where possible. This would take place closer to the time of implementation and after the Decision (project file, Analysis Framework).

Cumulative Effects

There are numerous past, present and future projects in the vicinity of the proposed aspen project (project file, Analysis Framework and Past/Present/Future Projects in Vicinity of Aspen Management map). The primary impacts (positive and negative) from these other projects are related to transportation. Some of the other present/ongoing projects include timber harvest with similar riparian design criteria to minimize effects to aquatic resources. Some roads from these other projects cross streams associated with the aspen project and therefore may produce a small amount of sedimentation. Some may have had crossings decommissioned thereby reducing sedimentation. Some roads used for aspen treatment may also be used by other projects at the same time. Other projects have been developed to improve watershed conditions and will reduce sedimentation, improve aquatic organism passage and/or improve stream corridor habitat (such as the Forestwide Aquatic Organism Passage or Riparian Restoration Projects). However, as described in the Analysis Framework, given the past and ongoing projects, there has been a trend of positive cumulative effects on water quality throughout the Ottawa, due to riparian protections and road improvements (USDA Forest Service 2006d). Despite the minor cumulative effect of sedimentation from road construction and temporary construction from the proposed project, this trend is expected to continue with the implementation of road reconstruction, culvert replacement and project design criteria. All streams would remain unimpaired.



An open area cumulative effects analysis was completed for this alternative to assure that the 60% open area threshold is not exceeded, which pertains to the existing amount of temporary or permanent openings within other NFS projects and adjacent lands when combined with the proposed clearcut harvest in this project. It was determined that none of the 6th level watersheds would exceed thresholds of 60% open area (Project file, Open Area documentation).

No Action

There would be no direct and indirect effects to streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands or their aquatic communities since this alternative does not propose changes to the existing condition. There would be no road reconstruction and therefore no improvements to sediment effects from existing roads in poor condition. Aquatic resources would not change from their existing condition. There would be no cumulative effects since there are no direct and indirect effects.

Soils Affected Environment

The Ecological Classification System (ECS) for the Ottawa National Forest was used as a basis for analyzing this project in the context of ecosystem management. This system provides an effective means of determining land capability and of predicting resource response to management activities at many levels of planning. The ECS is a nested hierarchical mapping system and results in an information system with the capability to identify, organize, and describe ecologically significant land units for interdisciplinary analysis and prediction of the natural resource response to management activities.

Ecological Land Type Phase (ELTP) information defines 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). Information outlining brief descriptions and limitations for all of the ELTPs that occur within the project area that may affect, or be affected by, the proposed activities can be found in the project record.

Each ELTP has slope definitions and specific guidelines for season of operation. Operating season designations were incorporated into the ECS 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, which are assigned risk ratings for various interpretations (Soil Survey Staff).

Ratings for operability evaluate the off-road transport or harvest of logs or wood products by ground based wheeled or tracked equipment, and are based on soil properties and qualities that would be affected by such activities.

A rating of well suited (slight risk) indicates that few or no restrictions are necessary for harvest activities.



A rating of moderately suited (moderate risk) indicates that one or more restrictions may limit the effective use of harvest equipment, and that seasonal restrictions would be more limiting.

A rating of poorly suited (severe risk) indicates that one or more limitations make the use of harvest equipment impractical unless major considerations are made.

Ratings for erosion and displacement potential are similar to those for compaction and rutting potential. However, for erosion potential, ratings are based on slope delineation.

A rating of slight indicates that little erosion is likely. A rating of moderate indicates that erosion control measures may be needed. A rating of severe indicates that erosion is very likely and that erosion-control measures

are advised, and a rating of very severe indicates that significant6 erosion may be a factor and that erosion-control measures may be costly and impractical.

Proposed Action

The proposed action would result in both negative and positive impacts on soils, but these effects are expected to be minor in scope. The application of design criteria would aid in minimizing negative effects.

Vegetation management has the potential to negatively impact the soil resource. An analysis of the potential soil disturbance ratings for the proposed treatment areas within the Aspen project area was completed and includes ratings for harvest operability and erosion risk.

One potential risk to soils would be from operating harvest equipment in the proposed areas. Ninety-one percent of the soils located in the proposed areas are classified as moderately or well suited for operations. Less than nine percent of soils within the proposed treatment stands are poorly suited for operations.

Another soil risk associated with harvest operations is from erosion. Risk rating determinations for this project area revealed that over ninety-eight percent of the soils in the treatment areas have a slight or moderate risk for erosion. Less than two percent of the soils are rated as having a severe or very severe erosion risk.

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. These risk ratings (% of treatment area) are based on the maximum anticipated acreage; actual acres of harvest would likely be less once design criteria are applied. Areas with risk ratings of poorly suited (operability) or severe (erosion) would have a higher portion of acreage removed from treatment once project mitigations are applied. Project design criteria and timber sale contract specification would be utilized to minimize erosion, and areas of severe or very severe erosion risk may be excluded from operations. Details regarding the

6 As used in the NRCS Risk Rating definition for Erosion Hazard (off-road, off trail) (MI).



operability and erosion risk rating definitions and results can be found in the Soil Resource Analysis located in the project file.

An additional risk to soils from vegetation management is removal of site nutrients. Harvesting trees and removing the merchantable bole and bark would remove some nutrients from the treatment area. However, less than a third of the nutrients are immobilized in the merchantable stem wood and bark. The remainder returns to the soil reserve in foliage, branches, fruits, and roots (Pritchett and Fisher 1987). Design criteria stipulating the amount of fine woody debris to leave after harvest would help to maintain nutrients on site. Nutrient losses by conventional harvests from even the most productive sites are relatively small on an annual basis. Such losses can likely be replaced by soil weathering and natural inputs, except for some particularly infertile soils. Most soils can replace the nutrients in the harvested timber without a long-term decrease in productivity (Pritchett and Fisher 1987). Design criteria have been specifically developed to minimize the removal of woody material from treatment stands on nutrient poor sites. Soil productivity may be also be impacted if erosion, compaction, rutting, or displacement should occur; however the potential for these effects is low.

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 typical 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. 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.

The potential for erosion is increased in all new road construction and reconstruction due to the areas of bare soil, both on and along the road grade. Modern road construction and reconstruction activities would incorporate Michigan Best Management Practices which consider protection for the soil resource. Design criteria incorporate mitigations to help facilitate re-vegetation if necessary and keep erosion to a minimum. Additional design criteria for roads and water diversion structures would minimize the effects of the road system on the surrounding soil resource. Existing roadbeds would be used whenever possible.

Road reconstruction and maintenance have the potential to improve soil and water conditions through the evaluation and maintenance of drainage and water control structures. Both reconstruction and road maintenance would improve upon the current condition of the road system.

The implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would result in the short-term removal of land from productive forest due to the construction and use of temporary roads (approximately 8 to 12 miles per year). Impacts to the soil resource resulting from temporary road construction would be minimized through the application of design criteria, Best Management Practices (MI DNR and MI DEQ 2009) and contract specifications. Temporary roads would be located in areas having the least amount of impact to the soil and water resources. However, there are instances when these roads may be located on poorly suited soils, resulting in an increased risk



of soil disturbance. Though avoidance of poorly suited soils and stream crossings is the best option, there are instances when avoidance is not feasible, thus minimizing and mitigating impacts to those resources becomes increasingly important. There are many options for crossing such features temporarily (Blinn 1998). And in poorly suited locations, temporary construction of winter standard roads on frozen ground is one example of a way to minimize impacts in such areas (Grigal, D.F. 2000, p. 171). 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. Natural soil processes such as swelling and shrinking due to moisture changes and movement of soil particles by freezing and thawing (including frost heave) and biological activity tend to restore soil physical properties (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2004, p. 38).

Cumulative Effects

Given the effects in the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future, in addition to the impacts associated with implementing the Proposed Action (including the application of design criteria), 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 Aspen project development and stand selection process included removing from the proposal all stands that have been harvested within the last thirty years (project file, Short Summary of Aspen Project Work). Therefore, none of the proposed treatment stands would overlap spatially with areas harvested or treated between the project implementation date and 1998. The proposed harvest areas should have had adequate time to recover from any compaction that could have occurred during previous harvest entries. The period of time for natural recovery from compaction varies with soil physical characteristics, chemical characteristics, climate, and the severity of compaction, but is estimated to range from approximately 1 to 18 years (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2004, pp. 40 and 42).

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 2005, pp. 69-70; USDA Forest Service 2008, pp. 23-24).

There are no activities currently occurring, and there are no reasonably foreseeable future actions within the proposed treatment stands. However, it should be noted that access routes for activities on adjacent lands may be used for the Aspen Project as well. System roads are a dedicated use and would have no further effects. 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 previous soil disturbance (i.e. compaction), and prolonging the ability of the soil resource in those areas to recover.



No Action

There would be no risk for detrimental impact due to vegetation management activities, as there would be no change to the existing condition of the proposed treatment stands. 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. Natural disturbance events and soil formation processes, including biomass accumulation and other natural inputs, would continue to naturally occur.

Roads not receiving maintenance or reconstruction activities as well as existing roads that are located in poorly suited areas, would deteriorate over time, potentially resulting in erosion and rutting. Over time, areas adjacent to deteriorating segments of road would be impacted as users attempt to travel around such segments, creating areas of compaction and rutting adjacent to the roadbed.

Cumulative Effects

Impacts to the soil from any previous activity would remain on the landscape. Existing legacy ruts, if present, would persist, as would any existing occurrences of erosion. Historical compaction, if any, would remain on the landscape and continue to be naturally mitigated. No cumulative effects would be expected.

Non-native Invasive Plants (NNIP) Affected Environment

Within the project area, many invasive plants (native and non-native) are most abundant in regularly disturbed areas, such as along roads and off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails. Based on the best available information, infestations of the following Ottawa high priority non-native invasive plants are recorded in, or within 15 feet of proposed aspen treatment stands: wild chervil, Japanese barberry, glossy buckthorn, and exotic honeysuckles. Glossy buckthorn infestations are located within four treatment stands in the northern portion of the project area and exotic honeysuckle is located in one stand in the southern portion. Infestations of Ottawa medium priority NNIP are also recorded: bishop’s goutweed, spotted knapweed, marsh thistle, sweet clover, reed canary grass, and crown vetch. Other high and medium priority NNIP may occur in the project area, since project-specific surveys have not yet been conducted. Low priority species such as burdock, Queen Anne’s lace, orange hawkweed, St. John’s-wort, wild parsnip, and others also are recorded in the project area. Through implementation the Ottawa National Forest NNIP Treatment Project, some areas of high and medium priority invasive species are targeted for treatment with chemical or biological control measures where the will be most effective. Low priority species are not currently treated.

Proposed Action

Timber harvest may affect the introduction or spread of NNIP within the project area in several ways, including soil disturbance, unclean harvesting equipment (though Design Criteria and contract provisions reduce this effect), and canopy opening increasing light availability. Overall,



the main increase in NNIP associated with the proposed harvests is likely to be in invasive shrubs, and in herbs along skid trails and landings. The latter are expected to be lower priority species.

There are glossy buckthorn infestations within four proposed treatment stands in the northern part of the project area. The mapped infestations are all quite small (around 0.1 acre) except the one, which is about 3 acres within the stand. Still, these are of concern because a dense buckthorn canopy can inhibit aspen suckering, preventing good regeneration of the stand (Miller 2005). However, A recent review of past clearcut aspen stands with buckthorn, on the north Ottawa, found that aspen regeneration was adequate (project file). Although, glossy buckthorn treatment has not been proposed as part of this project, it could be treated concurrently under the Ottawa NF NNIP Project (Note, however, that this treatment is unlikely since buckthorn in this location is not a high priority for treatment due to local abundance and low potential for eradication success). If not controlled, we can expect that the buckthorn would persist and be stimulated by the aspen cutting, and that aspen regeneration may not occur to the desired density in the buckthorn areas. Regeneration success would vary with stand conditions and may be adequate or may be inhibited in these particular stands. With treatment, the infested areas should regenerate to aspen and the buckthorn extent decrease. There may be other stands in this vicinity with buckthorn infestations and similar results. These infestations and possible areas of lower density aspen regeneration are a very small part of the overall project.

The four mapped infestations of exotic honeysuckles range from less than or near 0.1 acre to 3 acres in size. Other infestations may be found during pre-implementation surveys. Dense bush honeysuckle infestations can suppress regeneration of tree seedlings and affect recruitment into the subcanopy (Munger 2005). Increased light, such as from overstory removal with timber harvest, benefits honeysuckle shrubs and may increase their extent (Rathfon and Ruble 2007). Clearcutting in the Proposed Action may result in less than desired aspen stocking rates in dense honeysuckle sites, with some honeysuckle remaining or increasing in extent. If treatment occurs prior to harvest, aspen regeneration is expected to be denser and the extent of honeysuckle to be reduced. As noted for buckthorn infestations, the possible areas of lower density aspen regeneration due to honeysuckle are a very small part of the overall project.

There are two stands with documented Japanese barberry infestations under the canopy. Barberry is likely to be stimulated by the increased light associated with clearcutting (Zouhar 2008). However, it may soon be shaded out by aspen whips, with little net change in extent of infestation. The mapped infestations are both very small so there would be little effect, but larger patches may be found when project surveys occur.

There are some herbaceous NNIP infestations within proposed treatment stands. Clearcutting the aspen may result in some decline due to trampling, followed by an increase due to increased light, followed by a decrease as the dense young aspen grow and shade the forest floor. Within the stands, the infestations are likely to decrease overall or stay the same. In road edges and skid trails, herbaceous NNIP infestations could increase.



System and temporary road construction, road reconstruction, and maintenance proposed under the Proposed Action could result in spread of NNIP. Road work can have this effect because existing plant communities 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, wild chervil, spotted knapweed, St. Johns-wort, oxeye daisy, plantain, and Queen Anne’s lace, along with native colonizers like evening primrose, black-eyed susan, goldenrod, fleabane, asters, grasses and sedges, are likely to grow along road edges following road construction and maintenance.

Indirect effects include new infestations on the road shoulders, across the full road width, or on shoulders and in the middle between the two tracks. Temporary roads, although designed for hauling timber, are often narrower than a collector road, with more shade, which helps to repel many of the priority NNIP. Design criteria for seeding areas prone to NNIP colonization (i.e., bare soil) would encourage revegetation and minimize the establishment of NNIPs.

Gravel used in road work can carry NNIP seeds from shade-intolerant NNIP that grow in the gravel pits. Material sources for the Aspen Management Project are not known yet, since road construction, reconstruction and maintenance needs would be identified as treatment stands are identified annually. Some Ottawa gravel pits have had NNIP surveys, showing that common invaders are spotted knapweed, sweet clovers, mullein, hawkweeds and others. Use of material from ONF pits is not expected to move seed of any species not already present along some roadsides in the project area. However, use of material could result in some new infestations along sunny roads.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions can and will likely contribute to the introduction and spread of NNIP in the project area. New NNIP infestations arising from the Proposed Action might be treated under the NNIP Control Project if they are high priority species and containment is feasible. Additional ongoing and future vegetation management projects (project file, Analysis Framework, see list of ongoing and expected future projects that are with ½ mile of the Aspen project) may also contribute to some increases in NNIP, though design criteria are used to limit the potential for increased NNIP spread from the project activities. In addition, continued introductions of invasive plants are expected, as is continuance of activities that spread them. Many recreational activities can spread invasives in the project area, and prevention depends on increasing awareness and actions taken by Forest visitors. Finally, 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. That said, high priority invasives would continue to be treated by the Ottawa and partner organizations as part of the NNIP control project, though many low priority infestations, such as roadside weeds would persist and likely spread.



No Action

Since there would be no timber harvest or road construction, reconstruction or maintenance resulting in ground disturbance, there is low potential for invasive plant spread other than along continually disturbed road corridors and OHV routes in the project area. Vehicle 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 vehicle (Rooney 2005, Rew and Pollnac 2010). Natural processes can also contribute to NNIP spread. Existing roadside infestations are expected to persist and may slowly spread, into disturbed areas where the existing native plant community does not repel these invaders. The NNIP in openings in proposed treatment stands may decrease as forested native plant communities develop. Other NNIP could establish in the project area, spread by wind, water, animals, or human activities.

Cumulative Effects

Roadside weeds would persist and likely spread. There are slight cumulative effects on NNIP spread from many activities that occur on the Forest (as disclosed in Forest Plan EIS, pages 3-92, 3-95-96).

Recreation Affected Environment

There are no developed recreational areas in the Project Area. However, there are three developed campgrounds (Sparrow Rapids, Lake St. Kathryn, and Norway Lake) within a half mile of the proposed treatment stands (see Maps in Appendix 2). In addition, dispersed recreation opportunities are present throughout the project area, including primitive camping, driving for pleasure, fishing, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, snowmobiling, and use of OHVs/ATVs on designated routes.

The Forest Service uses a nationally recognized classification system called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for identifying, describing, planning and managing a range of recreation settings, opportunities and experiences. Management areas 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a and 4.2a (Forest Plan pg. 2-2, 2-6, 3-4, 3-18, 3-23, and 3-29) emphasize a roaded natural, motorized recreational environment. In this environment, interactions between users may be low to moderate but with evidence of other users prevalent (Forest Plan, “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum” Appendix B, p. B-1).

Proposed Action

This alternative is expected to result in minimal direct or indirect effects on developed recreation activities. The aspen stands are not located in campgrounds or other areas managed for developed recreational use. Harvest operations and logging truck traffic could temporarily affect the experience of some recreationists using forest roads or trails. However, given the roaded natural environment of the project area, it is reasonable for visitors to expect forest management activities. Design criteria have been developed for rerouting snowmobile trails as necessary, in addition to limiting operations to weekdays only, to reduce conflicts between harvest operations and snowmobile use (see Appendix 1).



The Proposed Action includes maintenance or reconstruction on existing roads as necessary, based upon site-specific conditions. These activities would improve road conditions, therefore providing an indirect benefit of a safer and more enjoyable recreation experience for those routes currently open for public access. Implementation of this project would result in an overall slight positive effect for dispersed recreational users of the forest.

The effect this project has on the habitat may have positive effects to the dispersed recreational user. These include improved habitat that contains increased forage for wildlife, specifically, the early-successional aspen provide a food source as well as good cover for sought-after game species such as ruffed grouse, whitetail deer, and snowshoe hare (see Outcomes section above) and non-game species such as golden-winged warbler. Therefore, wildlife-based recreational opportunities would be enhanced.

Cumulative Effects

No additional activities (present or reasonably foreseeable) impacting recreationists would take place within the project area. Past actions have resulted in most of the roads leading to previously treated stands receiving improvements that resulted in enhanced access for recreational use. Implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with other projects that improve wildlife habitat across the forest, would lead to a minor, positive cumulative effect for the recreational environment both in enhanced access and wildlife related recreational experiences.

No Action

There would be no direct or indirect effects to recreation, as no new management activities would take place. The transportation system within the project area would remain in its existing state with current management ongoing. No improvements for road conditions on public access routes would take place as a result of this project, though base level maintenance would continue to occur on higher level roads. Natural succession would continue changing the composition from predominantly aspen to a later successional forest species composition. As aspen ages, there would be a diminished opportunity across the Forest for recreationists who utilize early successional habitat for wildlife-based recreation.

Visual Resources Affected Environment

Visual goals on the Ottawa vary depending on the amount of visual variety in a landscape (variety class) and the level of use (sensitivity level) along primary travel routes, use areas, and waterbodies. Goals are also varied depending on the view from the foreground (¼ to ½ mile from the viewer), middle ground (three to five miles), or background (five or more miles). In the project area, the visual quality objectives (VQOs) for vegetative management fall into four general categories: Retention (or high scenic integrity), Partial Retention (or moderate scenic integrity), Modification (or low scenic integrity), and Maximum Modification (or very low scenic integrity) (refer to Forest Plan Appendix G). In Retention and Partial Retention VQOs,



management is to be less visually evident. Maps depicting the VQO boundaries are located in the project file.

The project area lies within a broader context of the managed northern hardwood forest landscape. Management of this landscape can increase variety and diversity in the middle and background views over the long term. Topography varies from rolling to flat, with most views being foreground only and few places with middle or background views in the distance. The analysis area is predominately focused on foreground views of proposed treatment areas and access routes that occur within retention or partial retention areas (primarily located along high level roads), with very few locations (for example, Trap Hills, Norwich Bluff, Silver Mountain, Wolf Mountain) having the potential to view the project in the distant background.

Proposed Action

The visual resource in proposed management activity areas would be minimally, and temporarily, impacted because design criteria would reduce visual impacts. Proposed vegetative management projects would help maintain a healthy sustainable forest and would provide visual variety on the landscape in the long term. Clearcut harvest of aspen stands would have noticeable visual effects of management in the foreground along main travel routes that last one to five years, while the stand advances from sapling to pole-sized timber. Visual effects from harvest include ground disturbance created by log landings and skid trails, system road construction, temporary road use, berms, and presence of dead vegetation (i.e., slash scattered on the ground). After less than five years, views of slash, landings, temporary roads, and other evidence of management are diminished by new vegetation growth. From the middle and background, the aspen regeneration areas would provide a more varied and diverse landscape. There is potential that the aspen harvests proposed could be viewable in the background from sensitive viewing areas such as hilltops that provide long range viewing or perhaps from the Norwich bluff area or along roadways at hilltop crests that have similar long range viewing perspectives. However, as a result of application of design criteria for riparian areas and other resources, the proposed treatment stands would be irregularly shaped. In addition, design criteria for temporary openings greater than 40 acres are included to ensure these blend into the natural environment when viewed from a distance. In the background the harvest activities would appear as natural openings, mimicking natural disturbances. Therefore, the Proposed Action is consistent with VQOs.

Cumulative Effects

There is no evidence that past harvesting activity or other management actions have left lingering, unacceptable negative effects to the visual landscape. There are no on-going actions that would add to the visual quality effects in the foreground within the project area (which includes the proposed treatment stands and access routes). However, in the middle ground and background, other management activities on federal and private land may be visible over time. On federal land, several vegetation management projects ongoing near (within ½ mile) the proposed aspen stands and may be visible from sensitive viewing sites in the background (see list in Analysis Framework). Typically the hardwood and conifer management of past projects or private land management would not be visible from the background, but other ongoing or future



aspen clearcuts may be visible. However, in the background these clearcuts would appear as natural openings. Therefore, it is unlikely that other public or private harvesting would negatively affect the visual landscape from background views in Retention or Partial Retention areas.

Since this project is proposed to take place as far as 20 years into the future, it is anticipated that some visual changes would be occurring throughout the life cycle of the project when combined with the visual effects of projects noted above that would be visually noticeable from various geographical locations on the forest. It is anticipated that these viewing perspectives would be from a distance and would be temporary disturbances that are typical of any forested region applying conservation management to the forested landscape. Given the existing conditions from past timber harvest, in addition to the Proposed Action, the cumulative effect would be minor, but positive, as the landscape would continue to possess a forested character with management being temporarily evident in the foreground and minimally evident in the background. With implementation of design criteria, the visual quality objectives would be maintained.

No Action

Under the No Action alternative no activities would be implemented and there would be no direct effect to the overall visual appearance of the project area. Natural ecological changes in the landscape that occur over time would change the current visual appearance. For example, the lack of treatment could result in further risk of insect and disease factors and loss of aspen over time, which would lead to negative visual impacts in areas affected. In addition, in the long term, the loss of aspen on the landscape would reduce visual diversity on the landscape at the background level.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species The effects to early successional wildlife habitat and the purpose and need are described in the outcomes sections and are not repeated here. 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).

In addition, a biological evaluation was done to determine how the Proposed Action may affect federally listed endangered and threatened species and critical habitat. Determinations were reached for the three federally listed species known to occur or have potential habitat on the forest, gray wolf, Kirtland’s warbler and Canada lynx, as well as the newly proposed-for-listing northern long-eared bat, which was previously considered RFSS and documented on the Ottawa.



Proposed Action

A detailed analysis for all species can be found in the Biological Evaluation (BE). Findings for RFSS ranged from No Impact (43 species) to May Impact Individuals (46 species). Table 3 lists the species for which a May Impact Individuals determination was found, meaning effects are expected to be insignificant (unmeasurable), or discountable (extremely unlikely) for the species as a whole.

The proposed action was determined to have “no effect” to both Kirtland’s warbler and Canada lynx as the species do not utilize aspen as habitat or are not currently known to be found in the project area. The proposed action may affect the gray wolf, but is not likely to adversely affect the species. There would be minor negative direct impacts to wolves due to temporary displacement during implementation. However, the overall net impact is positive as substantial prey habitat is created both in short and long term.

The northern long-eared bat is proposed for federal listing It has been determined that the proposed action is “Not likely to jeopardize” this species.

Table 3: Regional Foresters Sensitive Species for which the Proposed Action May Impact Individuals

Mammals Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus)

Birds Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Spruce grouse (Falcipennis canadensis), Bald eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus), Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis)

Amphibians Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)

Reptiles Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta)

Fish/ Mollusks

Redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus), Creek heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa)

Insects Rapids clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus quadricolor), Pygmy snaketail dragonfly (Ophiogomphus howei), Tawny crescent butterfly (Phyciodes batesii), West Virginia white butterfly (Pieris virginiensis), Forcipate emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora foricipata)

Vascular Plants

Trianglelobe moonwort (Botrychium ascendens), Michigan moonwort (Botrychium michiganense), Common moonwort (Botrychium lunaria), Mingan moonwort (Botrychium minganense), Little goblin moonwort (Botrychium mormo), Bluntlobe grapefern (Botrychium oneidense), Pale moonwort (Botrychium pallidum), Ternate grapefern (Botrychium rugulosum), Least grapefern (Botrychium simplex), Large toothwort (Cardamine maxima), Ram’s-head lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium arietinum), Greater yellow lady’s- slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens), Showy lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium reginae), White fawnlily (Erythronium albidum), Showy orchid (Galearis spectabilis), Fir clubmoss (Huperzia selago), Butternut (Juglans cinerea), American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), Broad beechfern (Phegopteris hexagonoptera), Canada mountain ricegrass (Piptatherum canadense), Fairy bells/drops-of-gold (Prosartes hookeri var. hookeri), Giant pinedrops (Pterospora andromedea), Pink wintergreen (Pyrola asarifolia), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), Heart-leaved foam-flower (Tiarella cordifolia)

Lichens Black foam lichen (Anzia colpodes), Beauvois’ spotted felt lichen (Sticta beauvoisii), Beard lichen (Usnea longissima)



Bryophytes Ohio Orthotrichum moss (Orthotrichum ohioense), Pylaisiadelpha moss (Pylaisiadelpha tenuirostris), Schistostega moss (Schistostega pennata)

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 (83 species) to May Impact Individuals (4 species) to Beneficial (2 species). The No Action Alternative was determined to have no effect to both Kirtland’s warbler and Canada lynx. The No Action Alternative may affect the gray wolf, but is not likely to adversely affect the species. This alternative would have greater negative indirect impacts to wolves due to the loss of prey habitat over time. It has been determined that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize Northern long-eared bat. A detailed analysis for all species can be found in the Biological Evaluation (BE).

Cultural Resources Affected Environment

Only portions of the proposed project area have been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Surveys will be conducted each year, prior to implementation, as the specific stands and roads are identified along with current cultural resource survey status. Therefore, the following discusses only those known resources identified in the preliminary map. At the time of implementation, the actual area and site-specific road needs will be determined annually and may include areas not on this map. The area of potential effect would be determined annually.

Fifty-four cultural resource sites have been recorded within the initial proposed treatment stands, all are archaeological (no standing structures). The sites include two historic logging towns, logging camps, homesteads, trails and prehistoric lithic scatters. The exact location of these cultural resource sites is protected under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 CFR 470hh).

Proposed Action

Activities during timber harvesting and the construction, maintenance, decommissioning, use, and closure of skid trails and roads can result in irreversible damage to cultural resource sites. Design criteria to avoid all known sites have been developed to protect them the from adverse impacts.

The combination of past activities, activities prescribed under the proposed action alternatives, and foreseeable future activities in the project area have no cumulative impacts on cultural resources. The cultural resource sites would be avoided by all proposed activities.

No Action

Under this alternative, there would not be any change to the existing condition of the cultural resources. Existing sites would remain subject to natural degradation.



Finding of No Significant Impact The Forest Supervisor, Linda L. Jackson, 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, and I have determined that the Proposed Action alternative will 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 as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of 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 proposed alternatives would not be significant locally, regionally, or nationally.

Discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to the intended action and is within the context of local importance in the area associated with the project area.

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. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant and current scientific information, experience with similar projects, and knowledge of conditions obtained through remote sensing measures. 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 Chapter 3 of the EA. Benefits of the proposed action include, but are not limited to, maintaining healthy and resilient stand conditions via silvicultural practices, consistent with Forest Plan expectations as outlined in the expected outcomes. In particular, there is a beneficial outcome of an increase of early successional wildlife habitat and associated wildlife-based recreational



benefits. These practices would also provide an additional benefit of wood products for the local economy.

Though limited in scope and intensity, the potential for adverse impacts include effects upon habitat for sensitive plant and animal species; however, this project would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability for any RFSS. There are other adverse impacts I am taking into consideration, which include the impacts from non-native invasive plants; minor effects to the soils resource from timber harvest; minor effects to water resources from road construction; and short-term management effects upon visual resources. These impacts are similar to other projects previous to this one and are not unique to this project. Most impacts would be minimized and/or avoided using the design criteria in Appendix 1. Previous projects, with similar activities using these or similar design criteria, have been found to be effective in avoiding or minimizing adverse effects.

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), or disclosed by commenters during the scoping period. I have given careful consideration to these factors and I have determined that there will be no significant impacts from implementing this project.

2. Consideration of the effects on public health and safety. This proposed action 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 timber management 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. Additionally, some forest roads would be closed to OHV or snowmobile traffic during timber hauling operations when necessary to address dual-use safety concerns (Appendix 1). Based on past operations 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 will not affect any unique areas, historic features, or ecologically critical areas. There are no park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas in the project area. However, the project area is likely to contain historical/cultural sites and wetlands. All of these sites would be avoided and protected through implementation of proposed design criteria (see Appendix 1 and Heritage Resources Sections). Therefore the Project is consistent with National Historic Preservation Act.

The proposed treatment areas do not include Wild and Scenic River Corridors. However, this project proposes activities adjacent to the corridors of the West Branch Ontonagon, East Branch Ontonagon, Cisco Branch Ontonagon, Sturgeon, North Branch Paint, and South Branch Paint Wild and Scenic River corridors (MA 8.1), as well as near tributaries of the Middle Branch Ontonagon Wild and Scenic River. Since the majority of effects are



anticipated to remain within treatment stands and construction areas, there would not be impacts to the corridors. In addition, implementation of riparian design criteria would ensure that the Proposed Action would not negatively impact the water quality, free-flowing condition or outstandingly remarkable values of the WSRs. In some limited cases, access to treatment stands would be through the WSR corridors. In this case, transportation management would be consistent with Forest Plan desired conditions for the corridor. Based on this information; I conclude that the alternatives would have no adverse effects on unique resources.

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. 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 the Proposed Action. 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.

5. Consideration of the degree to which effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Based upon my knowledge and professional experience, I am confident that we understand the effects of the alternatives on the human environment. There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain, or involve unique or unknown risks. Environmental effects described in the EA have been analyzed in detail to determine predictable results.

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. The effects analysis is specific to the project area and there are no precedent-setting actions proposed in the EA.

7. Consideration of the action in relation to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulative significant effects. Cumulative effects analysis for the resources within the analysis area was conducted in the EA, Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Section. The EA, along with the project file, has shown that the cumulative effects of this decision, when considered in conjunction with other past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities, are not expected to be significant.

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



Section). As described in the EA and in the project file, all known or newly discovered sites would be protected through application of design criteria.

9. The degree to which the action may affect an endangered species or their habitat. A Biological Assessment (BA) was completed and documented with the project Biological Evaluation, and is hereby incorporated into this decision document by reference. The alternatives would not affect the federally listed species Canada lynx and Kirtland’s warbler.

On December 19, 2014, the District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the Final Rule issued on December 28, 2011, that designated and delisted a Distinct Population Segment of the Western Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), 76 Fed. Reg. 81,666 (Dec. 28, 2011) (Humane Society of the United States v. Jewell, et. al., Civ. No. 13-186). The court ordered that the final rule delisting the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes be vacated and that protection for the gray wolf as a federally endangered species be reinstated in Michigan. Therefore, to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the proposed alternatives have been reviewed for potential impacts to gray wolf. The Forest Service has determined that alternatives may impact, but are not likely to adversely impact the gray wolf (See Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Section, above, and Biological Evaluation in the project file). Per Section 7, the Forest Service has reinitiated consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting concurrence with this determination.

On October 2, 2013, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act due to the primary threat of White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). More information about this proposed listing is available at the Federal Register website (http://www.federalregister.gov; October 2, 2013 edition, pp. 61045-61080). None of the proposed actions in this project would jeopardize this bat species or its habitat. If the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service lists this bat species (decision expected during the spring 2015), the Ottawa would initiate consultation according to the ESA Section 7 Handbook (USDI FWS 1998). To ensure consultation can be completed efficiently if the species is listed, the Forest Service has initiated informal conferencing with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting concurrence with this initial determination for the species.

There is no indication that implementing the alternatives will move a proposed listed Threatened or endangered species towards federal listing or increase the present status of federal listing. 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 initiated.

10. Whether the proposed action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. This action does not threaten a violation of federal, state, or local environmental protection laws.



Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations I have determined that my decision is consistent with all laws, regulations, and agency policy. The following summarizes findings required by major environmental laws.

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)): The Aspen Management Project

would implement the direction of the Forest Plan. In addition, the effects analysis and project record demonstrates the project is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. I have determined the actions are appropriate and needed to further the forestwide objectives and desired conditions of MAs 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a and 4.2a. As required by NFMA, I find the alternatives to be consistent with the Forest Plan.

b) Suitability for Timber Production (16 USC 1604[g][2]): All lands proposed for timber management in the proposed project have 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 for aspen regeneration. The optimality of clearcutting to regenerate the forest types for which it is prescribed is supported by the discussion of clearcutting rationale in the Forest Plan (Appendix C, p. C-8 to C-9). This project does not present a different situation than what was evaluated at the Plan level. 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.

a) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species: Federal law and direction applicable to sensitive species include the NFMA and the Forest Service Manual (2670). The Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives section of the EA describes the effects determinations for RFSS, which are described in more detail in the project Biological Evaluation. The Proposed Action is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for these species (BE, p. 14).

b) Management Indicator Species: An evaluation of the proposed projects impacts to Management Indicator Species has been completed (see project file). Though the proposed action may have minor effects to habitat for American marten, EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera), and cutleaf toothwort, it would not



change the ongoing trends forestwide from implementation of the Forest Plan. For the MIS ruffed grouse, the project would result in an increase in habitat and would provide the potential for increased trends (depending on a variety of other factors that impact the species). The proposed action is consistent with Plan standards and guidelines and objectives for MIS (p. 2-8).

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 the Proposed Action would not produce appreciable impacts on aquatics. Therefore, the Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Standards would be met.

3) Environmental Justice Act: The Environmental Justice Act of 1994 requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. Public involvement occurred for this project, and the results of it 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 have concluded that this project is consistent with the intent of this Order (EO 12898).

Conclusions The effects analysis considered both the context and intensity of the action in determining its significance as outlined in 40 CFR 1508.27. Based upon the analysis, I have determined that the Proposed Action would not significantly affect the human environment. Therefore, preparation of 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 responsive to public concerns. The site-specific actions of the Proposed Action, in both the short and long-term, would not be significant.



References Blinn, C. R., Dahlman, R., Hislop, L., Thompson, M. A. 1998. Temporary Stream and Wetland

Crossing Options for Forest Management. General Technical Report NC-202. USDA Forest Service.

Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18(1):99-117.

Council on Environmental Quality. 2005. Guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative effects analysis. Memorandum. Executive Office of the President. Washington D.C.

Grigal, D. F. 2000. Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. Forest Ecology and Management 138, 167-185.

Janowiak, Maria K.; Iverson, Louis R.; Mladenoff, David J.; Peters, Emily; Wythers, Kirk R.; Xi, Weimin; Brandt, Leslie A.; Butler, Patricia R.; Handler, Stephen D.; Shannon, P. Danielle; Swanston, Chris; Parker, Linda R.; Amman, Amy J.; Bogaczyk, Brian; Handler, Christine; Lesch, Ellen; Reich, Peter B.; Matthews, Stephen; Peters, Matthew; Prasad, Anantha; Khanal, Sami; Liu, Feng; Bal, Tara; Bronson, Dustin; Burton, Andrew; Ferris, Jim; Fosgitt, Jon; Hagan, Shawn; Johnston, Erin; Kane, Evan; Matula, Colleen; O’Connor, Ryan; Higgins, Dale; St. Pierre, Matt; Daley, Jad; Davenport, Mae; Emery, Marla R.; Fehringer, David; Hoving, Christopher L.; Johnson, Gary; Neitzel, David; Notaro, Michael; Rissman, Adena; Rittenhouse, Chadwick; Ziel, Robert. 2014. Forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the Northwoods Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 247 p.

Lesch, Ellen. 2011. Monitoring and evaluation report. Ottawa National Forest. Ironwood, MI 4 pp.

Lesch, Ellen. 2012. Monitoring and evaluation report. Ottawa National Forest. Ironwood, MI. 4 pp.

Michigan Deptartment Environmental Quality. 1999. A biological survey of the Presque Isle, Black, and Montreal River watersheds: Ontonagon and Gogebic counties, Michigan, June and July 1998. Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality. 2003. Michigan department of environmental quality water division. April 2003. Staff report. A biological survey of the Brule, Paint, and Michigamme rivers watersheds. Iron and Marquette counties. June 17-23, 2002 and July 14, 2002. 21 pp.

Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality. 2004a. Michigan department of environmental quality water division. May 2004. Staff report. A biological survey of the Ontonagon river



watershed. Ontonagon, Gogebic and Houghton counties, Michigan. June 2003 Michigan DEQ Water Bureau. Lansing, Michigan. 24 pp

Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality. 2004b. A biological survey of the Presque Isle, Black, and Montreal River watersheds: Ontonagon and Gogebic counties, Michigan, June 2003. Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Water Bureau, Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality. 2007. Michigan department of environmental quality water burea. December 2007. Staff report. A biological survey of Lake Superior tributaries from the Keweenaw Peninsula to the Carp River: Baraga, Houghton, Iron, Marquette, and Ontonagon counties, Michigan. June – August, 2006. 85 pp.

Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality. 2008. Michigan department of environmental quality water bureau. February 2008. Staff report. A biological survey of the Menominee river watershed including the Iron, Brule, Paint, Michigamme, Sturgeon, and Little Cedar rivers subwatersheds, Baraga, Dickinson, Iron, Marquette, and Menominee counties, Michigan. June 2007. 47 pp.

Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality. 2011. Michigan department of environmental quality water resources division. May 2011. Staff report. A biological survey of the Ontonagon, Presque Isle, Iron, Montreal, and Upper Wisconsin rivers watersheds and other selected nonbasin year watersheds. Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, and Ontonagon counties, Michigan. June 2008. 39 pp.

Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality. 2012. Michigan department of environmental quality water resources division. April 2012. Staff report. Biological survey of the Keweenaw watershed group in Baraga, Houghton, Keweenaw, Marquette and Ontonagon counties. June and August, 2011. 52 pp.

Michigan Dept. Environmental Quality. 2014. Michigan department of environmental quality water resources division. March 2014. Water quality and pollution control in Michigan. 2014 sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 integrated report. Plus appendices. 117+ pp.

Michigan Dept. Natural Resources. 1999. Michigan department of natural resources. Surface water quality division. April 1999. Staff report. A biological survey of the Ontonagon river watershed. Ontonagon, Gogebic and Houghton counties, Michigan. June and July 1998 Michigan DEQ Water Bureau. Lansing, Michigan. 28 pp

Michigan Dept. Natural Resources. 2000. Michigan department of natural resources. Surface water quality division. February 2000. Staff report. A biological survey of selected coastal Lake Superior tributaries in western Ontonagon and Gogebic counties. June and July 1998. 7 pp.

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.

Miller. 2005. Regenerating quaking aspen on a site dominated by buckthorn in Upper Michigan. Michigan State University, Upper Peninsula Tree Improvement Center Research Report. Available:



http://agbioresearch.msu.edu/uploads/files/Research_Center/FBIC/Gen_Forestry/Regenerating_Quaking_Aspen.pdf

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/plants/shrub/lonspp/all.html.

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.

Pritchett, W. L., & Fisher, R. F. 1987. Properties and Management of Forest Soils. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Rathfon, R. and K. Ruble. 2007. Herbicide treatments for controlling invasive bush honeysuckle in a mature hardwood forest in west-central Indiana. In Proceedings of 15th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, pp. 187-197. E-GTR-SRS-101, USDA FS, Southern Research Station. Available: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs101/gtr_srs101-24.pdf.

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 pp.

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 03/2014.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bethesda, MD. 251 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Ottawa National Forest FY 1993 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Ironwood, MI: USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Ottawa National Forest Monitor & Evaluation Report. Land and Resource Management Plan. First Decade and Beyond... Ironwood, MI: USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Fifteen Year Review, Ottawa National Forest, FY 2001 Monitoring & Evaluation Report. Ironwood, MI: USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Ottawa National Forest FY 2002-2003 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Ironwood, MI: USDA Forest Service.




USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Ottawa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (referred to as Forest Plan). USDA Forest Service Eastern Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2006 Ottawa National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Volume I. USDA Forest Service Eastern Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2006 Ottawa

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Volume II. USDA Forest Service Eastern Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2006d. Ottawa National Forest final environmental impact statement water specialist report. Ottawa National Forest. Ironwood, Michigan.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Ottawa National Forest Fiscal Year 2007 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Ironwood, MI: USDA Forest Service.



USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species At. US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Service. March 1998 Final. 315 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013 .Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern-long eared bat as endangered or threatened species; Listing northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Federal Register 78 (191): 61046-61020.

Zouhar, K. 2008. Berberis thunbergii. 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/plants/shrub/berthu/all.html.


Aspen Management Project Environmental Assessment Appendix 1-1

Appendix 1. 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 (vegetation management and transportation management) 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 (Aspen clearcuts)

Project-wide design criteria for vegetation management:

A1) Retention of habitat features for wildlife

a. If present, retain 1 island (0.1-0.5 acre) of mast-producing, hardwood species (oaks, cherries, birch, etc.) or long-lived conifer pockets for every 10 acres (if greater than a 10 acre stand). Where practicable, design treatment units with irregular shapes and edges while retaining clumps of long-lived conifers, oaks, yellow birch and cherry species.

b. Leave 1 sound standing tree, greater than 10 inches in diameter for every 10 acres (minimum of one log per stand if less than 10 acres) for future downed wood recruitment for ruffed grouse drumming logs and to benefit wildlife in general.

c. Where possible during harvest operations and site preparation activities, retain young sapling conifer patches (Forest Plan 2-29, 2-30). Patches would consist of dense 2-10 foot tall balsam fir, spruce, and other conifer species, covering approximately 5 percent of the area.

A2) Biomass retention and management for protection of wildlife and plant habitat, soils, and hydrology

a. Do not remove stumps, roots, or other below-ground biomass. No removal of litter unless needed for site regeneration objectives.

b. Avoid re-entry for harvesting biomass. Re-entry is not allowed if tree regeneration has begun, or the site has been planted.

c. To the extent feasible, where biomass harvest is utilized (on unrestricted soils), retain downed fine woody debris[1] present before harvest except on roads, skid trails, and

[1] Fine woody debris can be defined as woody material, living or dead, less than 4 inches diameter inside bark at the large end; including small branches, twigs, cones, and other portions of shrubs and trees.



landings; as well as retaining fine woody debris resulting from incidental breakage of tops and limbs in the general harvest area. Residues should be dispersed throughout the site, rather than accumulated. The overall intent is to maintain soil nutrients and provide for wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

d. To the extent possible, retain existing large woody debris. The large woody debris 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 site specific riparian design criteria and State BMPs). Tops and limbs may be used to cross small wet drains but must be removed prior to sale close-out.

Site-Specific/Conditional Design Criteria for Vegetation Management Activities

A3) Fine woody debris retention on sensitive sites:

a. Do not remove existing or created fine woody debris (i.e. no biomass harvest) on shallow soils where bedrock is within 20 inches of the surface (see project file and Implementation Guide for list).

b. Do not remove existing or created fine woody debris (i.e. no biomass harvest) on dry, nutrient-poor sandy soils (see project file and Implementation Guide for list).

A4) Protection of aquatic features and habitat:

When aspen management stands are located near streams, wetlands, ponds, and lakes, site-specific riparian area protection would be developed by an aquatic resources specialist and applied (see project file, Riparian Matrix). 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 timber 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, do not regenerate the aspen.



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 (referred to as the “Riparian Matrix”) in the Implementation Guides.

d. Where aquatic features to be protected are identifiable on maps, they would be 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. The method used would be at the discretion of sale preparation personnel. This measure is to protect soil quality/productivity and water quality.

A5) Protection of sensitive soil: Design features are applicable to ground disturbing activities such as commercial timber harvest 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. 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. If necessary, sale area layout may exclude these slopes within cutting units or areas would not be marked to avoid soil resource damage.

c. For timber harvest, the season of operation would follow Soil Scientist guidelines for the ELTP being operated on (see project file and Implementation Guide). 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.

d. To address soil productivity concerns within stands located on droughty or sandy upland sites (see project file and Implementation Guide for a map and list of the droughty and sandy upland map units), 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.

e. Two Ecological Classification System (ECS) study plot center points are located in the project area (see project file and Implementation Guide for stand numbers). 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.

B. Transportation Management Activities (road maintenance, reconstruction, relocation and temporary road construction)

Project-wide design criteria for transportation management:

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 OHV’s 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.

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 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 design criteria B1 above.



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. Where 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 design criteria B1 above.

ii. Where access to aspen stands is being constructed through hardwood stands in which there is a need for long term permanent access for regular harvest activities.

iii. Permanent road density would remain within the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan.

e. Where permanent road crossing structures are proposed for installation (new or replacement) on fish bearing streams, design them to allow passage of aquatic organisms (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). Any permanent construction roads should be developed to retain the most shade possible, consistent with contract clauses, to lower the potential for NNIP infestations.

B4) Revegetation of disturbed areas:

a. Freshly disturbed soil areas, such as landings and un-surfaced road beds may be left to re-vegetate naturally, if non-native invasive plant colonization potential and erosion potential are low. If erosion potential is high, or the area is prone to colonization by non-native species, seed the area to encourage re-vegetation. Seed would 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 and greater) within the riparian corridors to avoid sedimentation and impacts on riparian function.

C. Design Criteria Applicable for all activities

C1) Protective measures for raptors (Forest Plan page 2-30) a. No harvest zone of 300' radius around active red-shouldered hawk nests: Timing is

year–round. Active is defined as the red-shouldered hawk pair presence in current year or immediately previous year.

b. Approximately 30-acre nest protection area where no disturbance-causing activities would be allowed between March 16 to Sept. 1 for red-shouldered hawks. Disturbance-causing activities include layout/tree marking, road work, logging, hauling, opening maintenance, tree planting and TSI efforts. Nests would be verified by a wildlife biologist or wildlife technician. If a known nesting area has been inactive for two years, or more, prior to treatment, then a wildlife biologist and district ranger may remove or modify some or all of the buffers. Modifications or additional protection measures could be made on a case-by-case basis by the wildlife biologist and district ranger, including evaluation of existing road/trail use within the area.

c. Approximately 30-acre nest protection area where no disturbance-causing activities would be allowed between March 16 to August 1 for goshawks. Disturbance-causing activities include layout/tree marking, road work, logging, hauling, opening maintenance, tree planting and TSI efforts. Nests would be verified by a wildlife biologist or wildlife technician. If a known nesting area is inactive for the current nesting season, then a wildlife biologist and district ranger may remove or modify some or all of the buffers. Modifications or additional protection measures could be made on a case-by-basis by the wildlife biologist and district ranger, including evaluation of existing road/trail use within the area.

C2) Protection of Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) and Threatened and

Endangered species (TES): a. If TES, RFSS or state-listed plants or animals are previously documented, located in

surveys, or newly discovered, Biology and Botany staff would recommend buffer zones, timing restrictions or other mitigations as needed to protect the populations. Populations and protection measures would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate action. Guidelines in approved recovery plans, existing conservation approaches, other scientific literature, the 2006 Forest Plan, and professional judgment would be followed to protect these populations. The Responsible Official would make a final decision on protection measures.

b. If any active wolf den or rendezvous sites are found in the work area, work would immediately cease and Biology staff would be contacted to confirm and work with the Responsible Official to determine appropriate action.



c. All project areas will have a botany evaluation completed before implementation (Forest Plan p. 2-27), which typically will include one or more field surveys.

d. 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).

e. For protection of rare invertebrate and plant species, on and around large boulders and rock outcrops, eight feet (approximately) in diameter and larger, implement a 75 foot no-cut zone during sale layout or marking (Forest Plan p. 2-33)

f. For areas of exposed (forest floor) rock larger than approximately 20 feet in diameter, implement a 75-foot (one tree length) no-cut zone from the perimeter during sale layout or marking (Forest Plan p. 2-33).

C3) Protection of Cultural Resources

a. All project areas will have a survey before implementation.

b. All archaeological and historic sites that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or whose NRHP status remains unevaluated will not be disturbed. Sites will be avoided by all project activity. 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.

c. A portion of this project lies within the Lac Vieux Desert to L’Anse Historic Trail Corridor. This portion of the project will be implemented according to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (dated November 2010).

d. Staff and contractors must stop work if any unexpected artifacts or sites are found and immediately report the location to the Forest Archaeologist.

C4) Measures to reduce the spread of priority invasive species:

g. If Ottawa NF high or medium priority non-native invasive plants (see ONF NNIP List in project file; Forest Plan p. 2-12) are previously documented or located in 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 2-13). The Responsible Official would make the final decision on prevention and control measures.

h. 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. 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. 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 equipment being placed in service. The Forest Service shall have two days, excluding weekends and federal holidays, to inspect equipment after it has been made available for inspection. After inspection, or after two days, activities may proceed.

i. Minimize soil disturbance to the extent practical, consistent with project objectives, for all project activities (Forest Plan p. 2-13).

j. If fill or mulch is needed, use materials that are free of non-native invasive plant seeds (Forest Plan p. 2.13) (Ottawa high and medium priority species; see list in project file).

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. No OHV recreational use trail would require re-routing as a result of this vegetation management project prior to, or after project implementation. Temporary rerouting or trail closures may be an option selected when other options are not viable.

ii. Harvest planning would include attempting to plan harvest season outside trail and recreation sites’ season of use where possible.

iii. If harvest activities occur along or within trails or developed recreation areas, logging activity signs would be posted and the roads will be evaluated for temporary closure to ensure safety of forest visitors.

iv. 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 will 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 will be limited to weekdays only during winter harvest activities to reduce user conflict between snowmobilers and logging trucks where dual use exists. Additionally, a minimum snow mat will be maintained on the road surface and safety signs will be posted.

b. Any harvest operations implemented along or adjacent to the North Country National Scenic Trail shall have all slash (remaining limbs and/or tops) removed at least 25 back from the center of the trail. All limbs and/or tops remaining from 25 feet out to 50 feet



from the trail center shall be lopped and scattered to a height not exceeding 24 inches above the ground surface.

c. 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.

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. Since the Ottawa Forest Plan considers the Visual Management System and Visual Quality Objectives current and valid, Forest Service Visual Management system and Visual Quality Objectives defined in the Ottawa Forest Plan will be adhered to in conducting this Aspen Management Project (Forest Plan Appendix G) For Retention and Partial Retention VQOs any harvest operations that are located within retention or partial retention designated areas are more restrictive on allowable visual disturbance. In Retention and Partial Retention stands adjacent to well-traveled County Roads and Forest Roads OML 3 and 4, the following criteria shall apply:

a. Lop and scatter slash to lie within 36 inches of the ground for a 50-foot zone, starting from the forested edge of the stand.

i. If the forest edge is situated at an angle above the road where the forest floor cannot be seen from the roadway and/or a combination of the slope and width of the road right-of-way shield the forest floor from view from the road, no slash treatment is required. This can be determined by the Timber Sale Administrator on a site-specific basis.

ii. Screen any log landings from view by using an angled road or leaving a vegetative screen. When possible landings should be located out of sight from a road or public viewing location.

b. All slash, tops and root wads shall be left in a visual state that blends with the natural surroundings. If tops or slash are piled too high so that they become a visually prominent feature, they will need to be lopped/cut and dispersed to a lower level. Root wads would need to be rolled back down, obvious high stumps should be lowered or perhaps addition of brush around the base should be placed to reduce the disturbed area from standing out. This is to make the area blend even if it is in a transitional state from being in an existing condition to being in a desired condition.

c. If clarification is needed by the layout planner on a specific harvest site, the planner will contact a recreation specialist or a landscape architect for additional assistance in ensuring Visual Quality Objectives are met in the planning process.

d. All clearcut areas proposed up to and larger than 40 acres in size shall upon completion remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape in order to maintain scenic



integrity. This can be completed using a variety of layout and harvesting methods that blend with the natural existing areas form, line, color or texture. Examples could include paralleling harvest edges with existing contours, feathering harvest areas and roads and avoid creation of unnatural hard straight lines and shapes on the landscape.



Appendix 2. Maps

Aspen Managment Project Environmental Assessment MapOttawa National Forest

Ottawa NationalForest

7

65

4

2

8

3

1

LAKE SUPERIOR

VICTORIARESEVOIR

West BranchOntonagon River

West Branch

Ontonagon River

Ontonagon River

Middle Branch

Ontonagon River45

730

690

733

705

630

850

615

Rockland

Mass City

Map 1

Locator Map

This data was compiled by the Ottawa National Forest using themost current and complete GIS

data available. Reliability or suitability of this information is not assured

for any particular purpose and may be corrected, updated, or otherwise

modified without notice.0 2 4

Miles Miles

Ottawa/Project/EAAspenAnalysis/GIS/Mxds/TemplateFromLisaMODIFIED GRS 9/5/2014

This map displays the potential treatment stands for the Aspen Management Project based on best available stand information. Field verification would occur prior to

implementation and stands would be selected for treatment based on the

current age and condition of the stands.

PotentialTreatment Stands

Pioneer MultipleUse Trail

North CountryNational ScenicTrail

Forest Boundary

Wilderness

Campground

Non-Federal Land

National ForestSystem Land

Forest Highways

Collector Roads

High ClearanceRoads

Low StandardForest Roads

Page 1 of 8

Not all roads displayed are open to public motorized use.



7

65

4

2

8

3

1

LAKE SUPERIOR

Middle branch

Ontonagon River

Jumbo River

East Branch

Ontonagon River

28

FH-16

1100

1460

4588

1250

580

705532

0

4500

850

1470

1500

1300

820

570

45894588

-J

3660

3693-A

1100

FH-16

1300

Kenton

Bruce Crossing

Map 2

Locator Map





Miles Miles








Forest Boundary

Wilderness

Campground

Non-Federal Land


Forest Highways

Collector Roads

High ClearanceRoads


Page 2 of 8




7

65

4

2

8

3

1

LAKE SUPERIOR

LAKETHIRTEEN

Sturgeon River

East BranchOntonagon RiverJumbo River

SturgeonRiver

Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness

2200

FH-16

2400

1300

1100

2210

2020

2217

1460

2108

1250

3500

2009

3660

4580

4588

1470

2690

1500

4589

2385

3693-A 2111

FH-16

1100

Kenton

Map 3

Locator Map





Miles Miles








Forest Boundary

Wilderness

Campground

Non-Federal Land


Forest Highways

Collector Roads

High ClearanceRoads


Page 3 of 8




7

65

4

2

8

3

1

LAKE SUPERIOR

CHIEFEDWARDS

LAKE

LAKETHIRTEEN

TEPEE LAKE

NORWAYLAKE

MARTENLAKE

LAKESTE

KATHRYN

BELALAKE

PERCHLAKE

ROBINSONLAKE

PAINTLAKE

HANNAHWEBB

WINSLOWLAKE

EASTPAINTLAKE

LAKEMITIGWAKI

CURRYLAKE LOWER

HOLMESLAKE

MALLARDLAKE

JumboRiver

North BranchPaint River

East BranchOntonagon River

West BranchJumbo River

Jumbo River

3500

FH-16

2130

3660

3400

3346

2400

3630

2149

2127

4580

3610

21084588

3614

3340

2152

3616

45402142

4589

2493

4100

2480

3668-A

2111

2127-A

Map 4

Locator Map





Miles Miles








Forest Boundary

Wilderness

Campground

Non-Federal Land


Forest Highways

Collector Roads

High ClearanceRoads


Page 4 of 8




7

65

4

2

8

3

1

LAKE SUPERIORMALLARD

LAKE

JAMESLAKE

GOLDENLAKE

SILVERLAKE

IRONLAKE

TIMBERLAKE

HOMANLAKE

North BranchPaint River

South BranchPaint River

US2

3400

FH-16

3270

3350

3480

3470

2180

34753920

3320

3340

4100

3922

3210

3275

IRN-BASSWOOD ROAD

2130

HOMER ROAD

3282

Map 5

Locator Map





Miles Miles








Forest Boundary

Wilderness

Campground

Non-Federal Land


Forest Highways

Collector Roads

High ClearanceRoads


Page 5 of 8




7

65

4

2

8

3

1

LAKE SUPERIOR

CHIEFEDWARDS

LAKE

CRYSTALLAKE

SUCKERLAKE

PERCHLAKE

BASSLAKE

MALLARDLAKE

MARIONLAKE

HORSESHOELAKE

TAYLORLAKE

TAMARACKLAKE

POWWOWLAKE

ALLENLAKE

DUCKLAKE

DEVILSHEAD LAKE ANDERSON

LAKE IMP LAKE

JAMESLAKE

DINNERLAKE

MARSHLAKE MUSKEG

LAKE

MOONLAKE

MILLLAKE

BIRCHLAKE

US2

Sylvania Wilderness

3940

6320

3340

3920

3925

3960

4100

4700

FH-16

3980

3346

6110

4500

5030

3978

3922

5086

5001

6324

3985501

5

3218

5043

3320

5048

3282

3999

4990

5046

5021

Watersmeet

Map 6

Locator Map





Miles Miles








Forest Boundary

Wilderness

Campground

Non-Federal Land


Forest Highways

Collector Roads

High ClearanceRoads


Page 6 of 8




7

65

4

2

8

3

1

LAKE SUPERIOR

LITTLEBEATONS

LAKE

Cisco Branch

Ontonagon River

45

6930

5230

5320

6964

560

525054

88

5086

5260

698651

64

Map 7

Locator Map





Miles Miles








Forest Boundary

Wilderness

Campground

Non-Federal Land


Forest Highways

Collector Roads

High ClearanceRoads


Page 7 of 8




7

65

4

2

8

3

1

LAKE SUPERIOR

HAWKLAKE

BOBCATLAKE

OXBOWLAKE RECORD

LAKE

CUPLAKE

SUNDANCELAKE

BARBLAKE

POMEROYLAKE

GAYLORDLAKE

LANGFORDLAKEORMES

LAKE

STATELINELAKE

DAMONLAKE

LITTLEOXBOW LAKE

CLEARWATERLAKE

CLOVERLEAFLAKE

BIGAFRICAN

LAKE

CISCOLAKE

LITTLEHORSEHEAD

LAKE

BAY LAKEMOOSEHEAD

LAKE

HORSEHEADLAKE

EMELINELAKELITTLE

PRESQUEISLE LAKEMERMAID

LAKE

East BranchPresque Isle River

Cisco Branch

Ontonagon River

Presque

Isle River

PresqueIsle River

US2

7300

7100

8220

8500

6860

6881

8240

8300

9120

6862

67576897

8800

6828

6899

6767

6894

6828-A

8523

Marenisco

Map 8

Locator Map





Miles Miles








Forest Boundary

Wilderness

Campground

Non-Federal Land


Forest Highways

Collector Roads

High ClearanceRoads


Page 8 of 8


united states department of agriculture aspen...

Documents