glen mud timber sale project checklist environmental...

GLEN MUD TIMBER SALE PROJECT Checklist Environmental Assessment

September 2018

Dept. of Natural Resources & Conservation Northwest Land Office – Stillwater Unit

Glen Mud Timber Sale Project Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

2

Environmental Assessment Checklist

Project Name: Glen Mud Timber Sale Proposed Implementation Date: October, 2018 Proponent: Stillwater Unit, Northwestern Land Office, Montana DNRC County: Lincoln

Type and Purpose of Action

Description of Proposed Action: The Stillwater Unit of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is proposing the Glen Mud Timber Sale. The project is located approximately 5 miles southeast of Eureka, MT (refer to Vicinity Map Attachment A-1 and Project Map Attachment A-2) and includes the following sections:

Beneficiary Legal

Description

Total Acres

Treated Acres

Common Schools T36N R26W Sections 16, 36 1,280 180

Public Buildings MSU 2nd Grant MSU Morrill Eastern College-MSU/Western College-U of M Montana Tech University of Montana School for the Deaf and Blind Pine Hills School Veterans Home Public Land Trust Acquired Land

Objectives of the project include:

• Reduce stocking densities and ladder fuels to reduce potential for large fire growth within the wildland urban interface (WUI).

• Establish areas of regeneration of the desired species mix, improve vigor/tree growth, and meet the Forest Management Rules in relation to wildlife, fisheries, and water quality.

• Increase future timber productivity in the harvest units. • Contribute to the DNRC and Northwestern Land Office’s annual targets of timber-harvest

volumes. DNRC is required by state law (77-5-221 through 223, MCA) to annually harvest approximately 57.6 MMbf statewide.

• Apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) or meet design criteria that are necessary to promote long-term water quality during logging and road improvement operations.


3

BMPs include site improvements such as improvements to drainage from ditches and road surfaces, and road maintenance on segments of roads prior to log hauling.

Proposed activities include:

Action Quantity Proposed Harvest Activities # Acres Clearcut Seed Tree 161 Shelterwood 15 Selection Commercial Thinning Salvage 4 Total Treatment Acres 180 Proposed Forest Improvement Treatment # Acres Pre-commercial Thinning 30 Planting Proposed Road Activities # Miles New permanent road construction New temporary road construction Road maintenance Road reconstruction 0.25 Road abandoned 0.15 Road reclaimed Other Activities

Duration of Activities: 3 years

Implementation Period: October 2018- November 2021

The lands involved in this proposed project are held in trust by the State of Montana. (Enabling Act of February 22, 1889; 1972 Montana Constitution, Article X, Section 11). The Board of Land Commissioners and the DNRC are required by law to administer these trust lands to produce the largest measure of reasonable and legitimate return over the long run for the beneficiary institutions (Section 77-1-202, MCA). The DNRC would manage lands involved in this project in accordance with: The State Forest Land Management Plan (DNRC 1996), Administrative Rules for Forest Management (ARM 36.11.401 through 471), The Montana DNRC Forested State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)

(DNRC 2010) All other applicable state and federal laws.


4

Project Development

SCOPING:

• DATE: o December 12, 2016

• PUBLIC SCOPED:

o The scoping notice was posted on the DNRC Website: http://dnrc.mt.gov/public-interest/public-notices

o In December 2016, DNRC solicited public participation on the Glen Mud Timber Sale Project. The Initial Proposal with maps was sent to neighboring landowners, individuals, agencies, and other organizations that have expressed interest in DNRC’s management activities. The Initial Proposal was also posted at the Eureka, MT Post Office. A notification was also placed in the Tobacco Valley News. The mailing list of parties receiving the Initial Proposal is located in the project file at the Stillwater Unit Headquarters in Olney, Montana.

• AGENCIES SCOPED:

o Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribe, Kootenai National Forest.

• COMMENTS RECEIVED: o How many: 8 o Concerns:

noxious weed spread the use of uneven-aged management a request for the state to upgrade an existing easement into Section 36

(Mud Creek parcel) to allow public access, and for DNRC to consider brushing roads/trails for non-motorized use within

Section 16 (Glen Lake parcel) and create trails. o Results (how were concerns addressed):

Both the noxious weed and use of uneven-aged management were considered in the design of the project.

• In order to minimize the spread of noxious weeds an integrated weed management plan would be implemented. This includes specifications that all equipment brought to the sale area would be thoroughly washed and cleaned to DNRC standards. Both parcels have numerous age classes of trees within them but the outbreak of Armillaria root rot and Douglas-fir bark beetle on the Glen Lake parcel have driven the silvicultural prescriptions to a more even-aged regime on those sites. Overall, there would be more multi-aged stands throughout the area following harvest given the small size of harvest unit proposed.

DNRC has an easement through private property for forest management purposes only, however walk-in access to the Mud Creek parcel (section 16) is less than 250 feet from an open Forest Service road.

http://dnrc.mt.gov/public-interest/public-notices

http://dnrc.mt.gov/public-interest/public-notices


5

DNRC proposes to brush only the roads necessary to meet our harvesting and forest improvement needs at this time. Public non-motorized access is available with a valid Recreational Use License or conservation license if hunting or fishing.

DNRC specialists were consulted, including: Chris Forristal (Wildlife Biologist), Tony Nelson (Hydrologist) and Patrick Rennie (Archeologist). Internal and external issues and concerns were incorporated into project planning and design and will be implemented in associated contracts. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION, LIST OF PERMITS NEEDED: (Conservation Easements, Army Corps of Engineers, road use permits, etc.)

• United States Fish & Wildlife Service- DNRC is managing the habitats of threatened and endangered species on this project by implementing the Montana DNRC Forested Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and the associated Incidental Take Permit that was issued by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) in February of 2012 under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. The HCP identifies specific conservation strategies for managing the habitats of grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and three fish species: bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and Columbia redband trout. This project complies with the HCP. The HCP can be found at http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/forest-management/hcp.

• Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)- DNRC is classified as a major

open burner by DEQ and is issued a permit from DEQ to conduct burning activities on state lands managed by DNRC. As a major open-burning permit holder, DNRC agrees to comply with the limitations and conditions of the permit.

• Montana/Idaho Airshed Group- The DNRC is a member of the Montana/Idaho Airshed

Group which was formed to minimize or prevent smoke impacts while using fire to accomplish land management objectives and/or fuel hazard reduction (Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 2006). The Group determines the delineation of airsheds and impact zones throughout Idaho and Montana. Airsheds describe those geographical areas that have similar atmospheric conditions, while impact zones describe any area in Montana or Idaho that the Group deems smoke sensitive and/or having an existing air quality problem (Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 2006). As a member of the Airshed Group, DNRC agrees to burn only on days approved for good smoke dispersion as determined by the Smoke Management Unit.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No-Action Alternative: The No-Action Alternative is used as a baseline for comparing the effects that the Action Alternative would have on the environment and is considered a possible alternative for selection. Under this alternative, no timber would be harvested and therefore no revenue would be generated for the Common Schools Trust at this time. Salvage logging, firewood gathering, recreational use, fire suppression, noxious-weed control, additional requests for permits and easements, and ongoing management requests may still occur. Natural events,

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/forest-management/hcp


6

such as plant succession, tree mortality due to insects and diseases, windthrow, down fuel accumulation, in-growth of ladder fuels, and wildfires, would continue to occur. Action Alternative: A commercial timber harvest would take place to remove between 1 to 3 million board feet of timber. Timber would be harvested using ground-based equipment on 180 acres. Most of these proposed treatments are within the Wildland Urban Interface and would receive treatments to meet the State’s High Hazard Fuel Reduction Agreement levels. The Glen Lake parcel has several areas with ongoing mortality due to root rot and Douglas-fir beetle activity; these areas are proposed for harvest. Past management in stands located in the Mud Creek parcel have produced many small openings in the canopy and have created a diverse batch of age classes. Many areas within these stands have shown a significant decrease in vigor and are lacking an understory age class. Harvesting in these units would expand on the existing openings and create a new age class of trees. The prescription calls for seed-tree with reserves favoring western larch and ponderosa pine for leave trees. Piling and scarification should allow for western larch and ponderosa pine to establish in the understory on these parcels. Specific harvest unit data and overall pre-commercial thinning specifications are provided in Attachment B – Glen Mud Prescription Table; using this table with maps in Attachment A will provide additional detail for this project.

Impacts on the Physical Environment

Evaluation of the impacts on the No-Action and Action Alternatives including direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts on the Physical Environment. VEGETATION: Vegetation Existing Conditions: The existing species mix is western larch/Douglas-fir with variable amounts of ponderosa pine and Engelmann spruce throughout the stands, with lodgepole pine in the lower canopies. These multi-storied stands are medium- to well-stocked in the saw-timber component, with well-established middle- and lower-level canopy layers. In each of the sections, there are many ½-acre pockets of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and larch regeneration in the 1” to 5” size class and 20 years old on average. Armillaria and Douglas-fir beetle activity is occurring in both sections but primarily in the Glen Lake section. Orange hawkweed, spotted knapweed, and oxeye-daisy have been identified in the project area. Potential old-growth stands in the harvest areas have been evaluated to verify the old-growth status of those areas. There is approximately 50 acres of old growth in the Glen Lake parcel and no old-growth stands in the Mud Creek section. Of the proposed harvest units, 28.5 acres identified as old growth would be harvested. These acres are affected by prevalent Armillaria root disease and insect damage. No rare plants were identified during field reconnaissance or within the Montana Natural Heritage Database.


7

Vegetation Impact Can

Impact Be Mitigated?

Comment Number Direct Secondary Cumulative

No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No-Action

Noxious Weeds X X X Rare Plants X X X Vegetative community X X X Old Growth X X X

Action Noxious Weeds X X X yes Rare Plants X X X Vegetative community X X X yes V-1 Old Growth X X X V-2

Comments: V-1: The Action Alternative would harvest 2.5 MMbf over 180 acres of sawtimber and would be treated with a seed-tree or shelterwood with reserve tree prescription. Although the stands would continue to maintain primarily Douglas-fir, creating openings and scarifying would increase the amount of ponderosa pine and western larch in the future. Trampling or piling slash would follow harvest and improve conditions for this natural regeneration. This would move the Desired Future Condition toward WL/DF type throughout the harvested areas. Stocking would be reduced, thereby reducing forest fuel-loading, ladder fuels, and potential fire-intensity in treated units.

V-2: 29 acres of old growth would be harvested to reduce the loss of sawlog volume due to the presence of root rot and Douglas-fir beetle. 21 acres of verified old growth would remain in the Glen Lake parcel. Cumulatively on the Stillwater Unit and following harvest activities there would be an estimated 15,672 acres of old growth which is approximately 13.6% of the area under jurisdiction of the Stillwater Unit.

Vegetation Mitigations: • Harvest Units adjacent to private property would meet the High Standard for reduction of

logging slash; slash would be treated and removed for 100 feet along the harvest unit boundary on those units next to private ownership, and within 1,000 feet of any residences. Following harvest and fuels treatments, the connectivity of dense fuel-loading and ladder fuels leading to the tree crowns would be removed in the proposed harvest units. This would likely improve success of aerial and ground attack on wildfires, while also improving safety for wildland fire fighters.

• Mitigation measures for noxious weed control include washing equipment before entering the site, sowing grass seed on roads after road maintenance and harvesting (ARM 36.11.445) and applying herbicide on spots of weed outbreaks along roadways including areas behind road closures. This would minimize the spread and continued prevalence of noxious weeds in the project area.


8

SOIL DISTURBANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY: Soil Disturbance and Productivity Existing Conditions: Timber harvesting in the proposed project area has been ongoing since the 1950s. Less than 15% of soils are impacted from past entries where ground-based yarding was done.

Soil Disturbance and Productivity

Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated?



Physical Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement)

X X X

Erosion X X X Nutrient Cycling X X X Slope Stability X X X Soil Productivity X X X

Action Physical Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement)

X X X Y S-1

Erosion X X X Y Nutrient Cycling X X X Y S-1 Slope Stability X X X Soil Productivity X X X Y

Comments: S-1: Potential impacts to soil physical disturbance and erosion would be minimized by restricting ground-based operations to periods of dry, frozen or snow-covered conditions. Soil productivity risk would be minimized by leaving 10-15 tons/acre of coarse woody material in harvested areas. Soil Mitigations:

• Operate ground-based equipment only on dry, frozen or snow-covered soils • Leave 10-15 tons of coarse woody debris per acre in harvest units

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY: Potential cumulative effects to water quality and quantity were deemed low due to the limited area of proposed harvest activity and no proposed riparian harvesting. Water Quality and Quantity Existing Conditions: Past activities in and around the proposed project area include timber management, agriculture, and home site development. These activities have led to reductions in forest canopy cover, and construction of roads. In 2017, the Gibralter Fire burned a substantial amount of acreage in the upper Mud Creek watershed, above DNRC ownership. This loss of canopy cover may lead to increases in water quantity depending on weather and how the watershed reacts.


9

Water Quality & Quantity




Water Quality X X X Water Quantity X X X Y

Action Water Quality X X X Y W-1 Water Quantity X X X Y W-1

Comments: W-1: Risks to water quality and quantity changes would be mitigated by not harvesting in the riparian area and maintaining or improving BMPs on all roads proposed for haul. Water Quality & Quantity Mitigations:

• Comply with all requirements of Forest Management Rules, Best Management Practices (BMP), Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Law and DNRC HCP

FISHERIES: Fisheries Existing Conditions: Mud Creek is a perennial tributary to the Tobacco River. Mud Creek has no fish species data identified, but as a perennial, class 1 tributary to a known fish-bearing stream, it is assumed that Mud Creek is, or could become occupied fish habitat.

Fisheries Impact Can




Sediment X X X F-1 Flow Regimes X X X F-1 Woody Debris X X X F-1 Stream Shading X X X F-1 Stream Temperature X X X F-1 Connectivity X X X F-1 Populations X X X F-1

Action Sediment X X X Y F-2 Flow Regimes X X X F-2 Woody Debris X X X F-2 Stream Shading X X X F-2 Stream Temperature X X X F-2 Connectivity X X X F-2 Populations X X X F-2

Comments:


10

F-1: No-Action: No direct or indirect impacts would occur to affected fish species or affected fisheries resources beyond those described in Fisheries Existing Conditions. Cumulative effects (other related past and present factors; other future, related actions; and any impacts described in Fisheries Existing Conditions) would continue to occur. F-2: Risks of sediment from the proposed project are due to operation on roads near stream crossings. No operations are proposed within any riparian areas therefore risk of adverse impacts are low to other fishery resources. Fisheries Mitigations:

• Comply with all requirements of Forest Management Rules, BMPs, SMZ Law and DNRC HCP

References DNRC 1996. State forest land management plan: final environmental impact statement (and

appendixes). Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, Montana.

DNRC 2010. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Forested State Trust

Lands Habitat Conservation Plan: Final EIS, Volume II, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, Montana.

WILDLIFE: Wildlife Existing Conditions: The project area contains of variety of habitat conditions for native wildlife species. The project area consists of two parcels separated by approximately 3 miles. The Glen Lake parcel (T36N, R26W, section 16) is bordered on three sides by housing developments and has 1.0 miles of well-traveled open road running through it. The Mud Creek parcel (T36N, R26W, section 36) is abutted by low-density houses on two sides and does not contain any open roads. Because of the proximity of Glen Lake parcel to occupied homes and open roads, non-motorized recreational use of the parcel is moderate and considerably higher than recreation levels in the Mud Creek parcel. The project area contains 1,087 acres of mature forest stands (trees ≥9” dbh with ≥40% canopy closure), of which 50 acres are old-growth forest using Green et al. (1992) standards. Insects and disease are resulting in accelerated tree mortality within 30 acres of existing old growth and will likely remove these stands from old growth status within the next 10 years. Another 138 acres consist of stands with mature trees and a more open (<40%) canopy. Approximately 49 acres are small patches of regenerating saplings and another 6 acres consist of small, unforested openings. Overall, habitat conditions within the project area are more favorable for wildlife species preferring well-developed forest with a relatively closed canopy. No-Action Alternative: None of the proposed activities would occur. In the short-term, no changes to the amounts, quality, or spatial arrangement of forested habitat would occur. In the long-term and in the absence of disturbance, habitat suitability for old-growth-associated species would likely decrease due to forest insects and disease currently impacting the large trees in these stands. Overall, an increase in habitat availability for species preferring mature


11

connected forests would likely occur over time as other stands mature, while habitat availability would decrease for species preferring young, open stand types.

Action Alternative (see Wildlife table below):

Wildlife

Impact Can Impact be Mitigated?


No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Threatened and

Endangered Species

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) Habitat: Recovery areas, security from human activity

X X X Y WI-1

Canada lynx (Felix lynx) Habitat: Subalpine fir habitat types, dense sapling, old forest, deep snow zone

X X X Y WI-2

Sensitive Species

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Habitat: Late-successional forest within 1 mile of open water

X X X WI-3

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) Habitat: Mature to old burned or beetle-infested forest

X X X WI-4

Coeur d'Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) Habitat: Waterfall spray zones, talus near cascading streams

X X X WI-4

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus Phasianellus columbianus) Habitat: Grassland,

X X X WI-4


12

Wildlife



No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High shrubland, riparian, agriculture Common loon (Gavia immer) Habitat: Cold mountain lakes, nest in emergent vegetation

X X X WI-4

Fisher (Martes pennanti) Habitat: Dense mature to old forest less than 6,000 feet in elevation and riparian

X X X Y WI-5

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) Habitat: Late-successional ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest

X X X Y WI-6

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Habitat: Ample big game populations, security from human activities

X X X WI-7

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Habitat: White-water streams, boulder and cobble substrates

X X X WI-4

Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis) Habitat: Sphagnum meadows, bogs, fens with thick moss mats

X X X WI-4

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Habitat: Cliff features near open foraging areas and/or wetlands

X X X WI-4

Pileated woodpecker X X X WI-8


13

Wildlife



No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High (Dryocopus pileatus) Habitat: Late-successional ponderosa pine and larch-fir forest Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) Habitat: Caves, caverns, old mines

X X X WI-4

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Habitat: Alpine tundra and high-elevation boreal forests that maintain deep persistent snow into late spring

X X X WI-9

Big Game Species

Elk X X X WI-10 Whitetail X X X WI-10 Mule Deer X X X WI-10 Other Mature Forest/Old-growth X X X WI-11

Comments: WI-1. Grizzly Bear – Approximately 185 acres of grizzly bear hiding cover within non-recovery occupied habitat would be harvested. Hiding cover would be removed on 165 acres and reduced on another 15 acres. Another 5 acres would undergo harvesting of blown-down trees and along the Glen Lake Irrigation Ditch levee, which would not appreciably change hiding cover. To mitigate for potential adverse effects, patches of cover would be retained such that no point within seed tree units would be greater than 600 feet to hiding cover. No new open roads would be built, but motorized use of existing restricted roads within the project area would increase during project implementation. Any grizzly bears using the project area could be temporarily displaced by the proposed activities for up to three years, however appreciable use of the Glen Lake parcel is not anticipated due to the number of surrounding home sites and lack of preferred bear habitats. Additionally, spring timing restrictions would be applied from April 1 – June 15 to provide security for grizzly bears in the spring. Impacts to hiding cover and increased disturbance under the Action Alternative would be additive to ongoing USDA Forest Service projects (Gibralter Ridge fire salvage, Galton Vegetation Management) and a 2017 wildfire that burned approximately 6,150 acres of the cumulative effects analysis area (CEAA). The greatest risks to bears within the CEAA would remain human habitations and associated attractants that bring bears into conflict with people.


14

WI-2. Canada Lynx – Approximately 136 acres (16% of existing habitat in the Project Area) would be impacted by the proposed timber sale. Of these acres, 116 acres would be treated with a seed tree prescription and these stands would not retain enough conifer canopy cover to continue providing suitable lynx habitat post-harvest. The remaining 20 acres would receive treatments that would reduce some suitable habitat attributes but would overall continue to provide suitable lynx habitat. To ensure that forest structural attributes preferred by snowshoe hares remain following harvest, some dense patches of advanced regeneration would be retained within portions of lynx winter forage habitat. Additionally, 10 to 15 tons/acre of coarse woody debris would be retained in accordance with DNRC Forest Management Rules (ARM 36.11.414, except along boundaries with private property) and retention of downed logs ≥15 inch diameter would be emphasized. Lynx habitat connectivity within the project area would be reduced; however, overall suitable lynx habitat would remain continuous. The proposed activities could temporarily displace any lynx that might be using the area, however appreciable use of the Glen Lake parcel is not expected due to surrounding home sites, interspersed unsuitable habitat types, and lower snow loads compared to preferred habitat. Use of the Mud Creek parcel by lynx was more likely, however recent wildfire in adjacent lands has removed much of the suitable habitat in this part of the CEAA. Disturbance/displacement and habitat alteration by the proposed DNRC activities would be additive to ongoing USDA Forest Service projects (Gibralter Ridge fire salvage, Galton Vegetation Management) and recent wildfire within the CEAA.

WI-3. Bald Eagle – The Glen Lake parcel falls within the home range of the Glen Lake eagle pair; however, the nest site is over 1.5 miles from any proposed harvest. Homes and open roads are situated between the nest site area and the DNRC parcel. Appreciable use of the Glen Lake parcel by bald eagles would not be expected due to the lack of preferred habitat (e.g. lakes, meadows). Additionally, the number of home sites and open roads around Glen Lake would suggest that these eagles are likely habituated to human disturbance in areas they are likely to forage.

WI-4. These species were evaluated and it was determined that the project area lies outside of the normal distribution for the species, and/or suitable habitat was not found to be present. WI-5. Fisher – Approximately 148 acres of potential fisher habitat would be affected by the proposed activities (13% of fisher habitat available in the Project Area). Of these acres, 143 acres would not be suitable habitat post-harvest due to low amounts of mature conifer cover. The remaining 5 acres of stands would salvage blowdown and remove trees along the levee of the irrigation ditch, and thus remain suitable for fisher use post-harvest due to retention of mature trees. To reduce potential adverse effects on fishers, at least 2 large snags and 2 large snag recruitment trees per acre (>21 inches dbh) would be retained (ARM 36.11.411). These snags are important habitat features that provide resting and denning sites for fishers. Riparian fisher habitat would not be harvested. Overall connectivity would remain intact across the Project Area. Considering the low availability of mature stands in the surrounding area, lack of fisher observations within the last 30 years (MNHP 2018), and prevalence of dry ponderosa pine forest types, which are avoided by fishers (Olson et al. 2014), the likelihood of fishers using the CEAA area is low.

WI-6. Flammulated Owls – The proposed timber harvest would affect approximately 45 acres (11.2% of habitat in the Project Area) of preferred flammulated owl cover types. Most of these are currently too densely forested to be considered suitable for flammulated owl use. The improvement cut and seed tree treatments would open stands to 10-40% canopy cover and would favor seral species, which would create more open forest stand conditions potentially


15

beneficial to flammulated owls. To retain potential nesting trees for flammulated owls at least 2 large snags and 2 large snag recruitment trees per acre (>21 inches dbh) would be retained (ARM 36.11.411). Within the CEAA, a number of forest stands appear to be structurally suitable for flammulated owls, however snags available for nesting are likely limited due to widespread firewood gathering on private property.

WI-7. Gray Wolf – Wolves may use habitat near the Project Area. Disturbance associated with timber sales at den and rendezvous locations can adversely affect wolves; however, timing restrictions would apply if den or rendezvous sites are documented (ARM 33.11.430(1)(a)(b)).

WI-8. Pileated Woodpecker – The proposed activities would affect 151 acres of suitable pileated woodpecker habitat (25.6% of habitat available in the Project Area). Of these acres, 141 acres (23.9% of habitat available in the Project Area) would be treated with a seed tree cut reducing mature canopy cover from 35-70% to 5-15% and causing these stands to become unsuitable for pileated woodpecker use post-harvest. The remaining acres would be treated with an improvement cut or salvage and would remain suitable for pileated woodpeckers post-harvest, although fewer snags would be available for nesting and foraging. To reduce potential adverse effects on pileated woodpeckers, at least 2 large snags and 2 large snag recruitment trees per acre (>21 inches dbh) would be retained and all snags cut for safety reasons would be left in the harvest unit (ARM 36.11.411). Habitat alterations due to the proposed action would be additive to habitat changes within the CEAA on USFS lands due to recent wildfire and forest management projects (Galton Vegetation Management).

WI-9. Wolverine – No potentially suitable wolverine habitat exists within the proposed project area. The project area does not maintain deep snow into late spring and does not contain high-elevation alpine habitat. While a wolverine could pass through the project area during its extensive movements, appreciable use of the area is not expected. Given the large home range area (average 150+ sq. miles) wolverines occupy, and long distances wolverines typically cover during their movements, the proposed activities would not be expected to measurably affect use of the area by wolverines.

WI-10. Big Game – The proposed activities would reduce thermal cover on potential white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk winter range (DFWP 2008). The proposed harvest would affect 155 acres of thermal cover (12.7% of thermal cover available in the Project Area). Of these acres, 140 acres (11.5% of thermal cover available in the Project Area) would be treated with a seed tree cut and would retain 5-15% mature canopy cover reducing the capacity of these stands to provide thermal cover during typical winter conditions. Another 15 acres would be treated with an improvement cut and would continue providing some thermal cover post-harvest, albeit at a reduced quality. Approximately 187 acres of more open forest with mature trees and patches of regenerating forest would continue to grow and provide higher-quality thermal cover within the next 20 years. No new open roads would be built and visual screening along existing roads would be maintained where it is available.

WI-11. Mature Forest/Old-growth Forest – The proposed action would harvest approximately 176 acres of mature forest (16.2% of mature forest within the project area) with a reasonably closed canopy (≥40% canopy closure). Of these acres, 29 acres of old-growth forest (58.5% of old-growth within the project area) would be harvested and removed from old-growth status. Harvest prescriptions on 161 acres, including all 29 acres of old-growth being harvested, would reduce live tree densities to 8-10 trees per an acres and canopy cover to 5-15%. Thus, these stands would no longer be suitable for wildlife species preferring dense forest with more shaded canopies. At the same time, habitat suitability for species utilizing younger stands and open forest with widely scattered mature trees would increase. However, 926 acres (72.4% of the


16

project area) of mature forest, including 21 acres of old-growth forest, would remain within the project area. Connectivity of mature forest would remain high, and a number of these stands connect with other mature stands outside of DNRC lands within the CEAA. Recent wildfire within the CEAA and forest management projects on USDA Forest Service lands have removed some mature forest and continue to alter mature forest stands within the CEAA; the proposed action would be additive to these changes at the broader spatial scale. However, mature forest would remain present and well-connected through much of the CEAA.

Wildlife Mitigations: If a threatened or endangered species is encountered, consult a DNRC biologist

immediately. Similarly, if undocumented nesting raptors or wolf dens are encountered within ½ mile of the Project Area, contact a DNRC biologist.

Contractors will adhere to food storage and sanitation requirements as described in the timber sale contract. Ensure that all attractants such as food, garbage, and petroleum products are stored in a bear-resistant manner.

Prohibit contractors and purchasers conducting contract operations from carrying firearms while on duty as per ARM 36.11.444(2).

Prohibit all motorized activities more than 100 feet from open roads from April 1 – June 15. Retain visual screening along roads to the greatest extent practicable. Effectively close roads in the Project Area via a combination of gates, kelly humps, rocks,

and stumps. Retain patches of advanced regeneration of shade-tolerant trees as per LY-HB4 (USFWS

and DNRC 2010) in all harvest units. Retain at least 2 snags and 2 snag recruits per acre >21 inches dbh or the next available

size class, particularly favoring ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir for retention. If snags are cut for safety concerns, they must be left in the harvest unit.

Retain 10-15 tons/acre of coarse-woody debris and emphasize retention of 15-inch diameter downed logs, aiming for at least one 20-foot-long section per acre.

References: DFWP. 2008. Maps of moose, elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer distribution in Montana. In

Individual GIS data layers. Available online at: http://fwp.mt.gov/gisData/imageFiles/distributionElk.jpg http://fwp.mt.gov/gisData/imageFiles/distributionMoose.jpg http://fwp.mt.gov/gisData/imageFiles/distributionMuleDeer.jpg http://fwp.mt.gov/gisData/imageFiles/distributionWhiteTailedDeer.jpg

Olson, L. E., J. D. Sauder, N. M. Albrecht, R. S. Vinkey, S. A. Cushman, and M. K. Schwartz. 2014. Modeling the effects of dispersal and patch size on predicted fisher (Pekania [Martes] pennanti) distribution in the U.S. Rocky Mountains. Biological Conservation 169:89-98.

USFWS, and DNRC. 2010. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Forested Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes I and II., U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, Colorado and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Missoula, MT.

http://fwp.mt.gov/gisData/imageFiles/distributionWhiteTailedDeer.jpg


17

AIR QUALITY:

Air Quality Impact Can




Smoke X X X Dust X X X

Action Smoke X X X Yes A-1, A-2 Dust X X X Yes A-3

Comments: A-1: This project is not within an impact zone as described by the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. Under the Action Alternative, some slash piles consisting of tree limbs, tops, and other vegetative debris would be created throughout the project area during harvesting and site preparation. These slash piles would ultimately be burned after harvesting and site preparation operations have been completed. A-2: Burning that may occur on adjacent properties in combination with the proposed action could potentially increase cumulative impacts to the local airshed. Thus, cumulative impacts to air quality due to slash pile burning associated with the proposed action would also be expected to be minimal.

A-3: Under the Action Alternative, dust may be generated by log hauling activities during dry conditions.

Air Quality Mitigations:

• Burning within the project area would be short in duration and would be conducted when conditions favor good to excellent ventilation and smoke dispersion as determined by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group.

• The DNRC, as a member of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, would burn only on approved days. DNRC would also follow regulations Lincoln County has for Air Quality. Thus, direct, secondary and cumulative effects to air quality due to slash pile burning associated with the proposed action would be minimal.

• During dry conditions dust abatement may be applied especially near residences. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES / AESTHETICS / DEMANDS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES:

Will Alternative result in potential

impacts to:




Historical or Archaeological Sites X X X


18


impacts to:



No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High

Aesthetics X X X Demands on Environmental Resources of Land, Water, or Energy

X X X

Action Historical or Archaeological Sites X X X Arch-1

Aesthetics X X X Yes Aest-1 Demands on Environmental Resources of Land, Water, or Energy

X X X

Comments: Arch 1: DNRC has no record of cultural resources within the Glen Lake section and only a dilapidated cabin on the Mud Creek section. If previously unknown cultural or paleontological materials are identified during project related activities, all work will cease until a professional assessment of the resources can be made. Aest-1: Unit 1 is the only harvest area along a well-traveled open road, Sinclair Creek road. Evidence of logging would be present but diminishing each year. Larger concentrations of slash would be piled and burned. Besides the reduction of overstory tree crown closure, signs of logging would be minimal within a decade post-harvest. Mitigations: A 100-foot buffer would be retained along the Sinclair Creek Road. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THE AREA: List other studies, plans or projects on this tract. Determine cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of current private, state or federal actions in the analysis area, and from future proposed state actions in the analysis area that are under MEPA review (scoped) or permitting review by any state agency.

• Gibralter Ridge Fire Salvage (USDA Forest Service, 2018): Watershed and wildlife analyses were taken into account for this environmental review.

• Galton Vegetation Management Final EIS (USDA Forest Service, 2016): Watershed and wildlife analyses were taken into account for this environmental review.

Impacts on the Human Population

Evaluation of the impacts on the proposed action including direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts on the Human Population.


19


impacts to:




Health and Human Safety X X X

Industrial, Commercial and Agricultural Activities and Production

X X X

Quantity and Distribution of Employment

X X X

Local Tax Base and Tax Revenues X X X

Demand for Government Services X X X

Access To and Quality of Recreational and Wilderness Activities

X X X

Density and Distribution of population and housing

X X X

Social Structures and Mores X X X

Cultural Uniqueness and Diversity X X X

Action Health and Human Safety X X X Y 1

Industrial, Commercial and Agricultural Activities and Production

X X X 2

Quantity and Distribution of Employment

X X X 3

Local Tax Base and Tax Revenues X X X 1

Demand for Government Services X X X

Access To and Quality of Recreational and Wilderness Activities

X X X 5

Density and Distribution of population and housing

X X X

Social Structures and Mores X X X


20


impacts to:



No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Cultural Uniqueness and Diversity X X X

Comments:

1. No unusual safety considerations are associated with the proposed project. Because of the relatively small size of the proposed project, and mitigation measures that would be taken, health and safety risks posed by the project would be minimal.

2. The proposed timber sale would continue to provide logging-related industrial production in the region.

3. Due to the relatively small size of the proposed timber sale, no measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would be likely. However, according to a report issued by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (2008), an average of 10.0 jobs per million board feet of timber harvested is maintained in the timber industry.

4. Log trucks hauling to the purchasing mill would result in temporary increases in traffic on the county roads. This increase is a normal contributor to the activities of the local community and would not be considered a new source of traffic; therefore, additional government service would not be required.

5. Access within the State section would remain non-motorized.

Mitigations: “Trucks Entering” signs would be placed along county roads while hauling is in effect. Locally Adopted Environmental Plans and Goals: List State, County, City, USFS, BLM, Tribal, and other zoning or management plans, and identify how they would affect this project. There are no locally adopted environmental plans or goals associated with this proposal. Other Appropriate Social and Economic Circumstances: Costs, revenues and estimates of return are estimates intended for relative comparison of alternatives. They are not intended to be used as absolute estimates of return. The estimated stumpage is based on comparable sales analysis. This method compares recent sales to find a market value for stumpage. These sales have similar species, quality, average diameter, product mix, terrain, date of sale, distance from mills, road building and logging systems, terms of sale, or anything that could affect a buyer’s willingness to pay. No-Action Alternative: The No-Action alternative would not generate any return to the trust at this time. Action Alternative: The timber harvest would generate additional revenue for the Common Schools Trust. The estimated return to the trust for the proposed harvest is $825,200 based on an estimated harvest of 2.5 million board feet (17,360 tons) and an overall stumpage value of $35.45 per ton. Costs, revenues, and estimates of return are estimates intended for relative comparison of alternatives, they are not intended to be used as absolute estimates of return.


21

References DNRC 1996. State Forest Land Management Plan: final environmental impact statement (and

appendixes). Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, Montana.

DNRC 2010. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Forested State Trust

Lands Habitat Conservation Plan: Final EIS, Volume II, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, Montana.

Does the proposed action involve potential risks or adverse effects that are uncertain but extremely harmful if they were to occur? No Does the proposed action have impacts that are individually minor, but cumulatively significant or potentially significant? No Environmental Assessment Checklist Prepared By:

Name: Tye Sundt Title: Forest Management Supervisor Date: August 10, 2018

Finding

Alternative Selected

Upon Review of the Checklist EA and attachments, I find the Action Alternative, as proposed, meets the intent of the project objectives as stated in Section I – Type and Purpose of Action. The lands involved in this project are held by the State of Montana in trust for the support of specific beneficiary institutions and DNRC is required by law to administer these trust lands to produce the largest measure of reasonable and legitimate return over the long run (Enabling Act of February 22, 1889; 1972 Montana Constitution, Article X Section 11; and, 77-1-212 MCA). The Action Alternative complies with all pertinent environmental laws, the DNRC SFLMP and HCP, and is based upon a consensus of professional opinion on limits of acceptable environmental impact. For these reasons, I have selected the Action Alternative to be implemented on this project.

Significance of Potential Impacts

After a review of the scoping documents, project file, Forest Management Rules, SFLMP and HCP checklists, and Department policies, standards, and guidelines, I find that all of the identified resource management concerns have been fully addressed in this Checklist EA and its attachments. Specific project design features and various recommendations by the resource


22

management specialists will be implemented to ensure that this project will fall within the limits of environmental change. Taken individually and cumulatively, the proposed activities are common practices, and no project activities are being conducted on important fragile or unique sites. I find there will be no significant impacts to the human environments as a result of implementing the Action Alternative. In summary, I find that the identified adverse impacts will be controlled, mitigated, or avoided by the design of the project to the extent that the impacts are not significant. Need for Further Environmental Analysis

EIS More Detailed EA X No Further Analysis

Environmental Assessment Checklist Approved By:

Name: Michael J McMahon Title: Forest Management Supervisor Date: August 31, 2018 Signature: /s/ Michael J. McMahon


23

Attachment A:

Project Maps


24

A-1: Timber Sale Vicinity Map

GLEN MUD TIMBER SALE VICINITY MAP

Glen Mud Timber Sale: T36N R26W Sections 16, 36


25

A-2: Timber Sale Harvest Units


26

Attachment B:

Prescription Table

Unit # Est. Acres Mbf/Acre EstVolCut

Prescription Particulars involved in unit(s)

1 54 acres Seed tree with reserves

• Tractor harvest unit. • Root rot pockets within the Unit • Rely on natural regeneration. • Marked to leave favoring WL, 50-60 foot spacing • Retain a minimum of 2 snag recruits >21" DBH where possible and

2 of the largest snags per acre. • Construct skid trail outside the draw • Residential hazard reduction within the WUI • Mechanical pile and scarify. • 100-foot buffer on open road


• Tractor harvest unit. • Marked to leave favoring WL/PP • DF is deteriorating • Retain a minimum of 2 snag recruits >21" DBH where possible and

2 of the largest snags per acre. • Mechanical pile and scarify, plant southern aspect with PP/DF • Rely on natural regeneration and plant • Residential hazard reduction within the WUI • Last part of road will be relocated out of draw bottom • Excavated skid trail will be needed

3 7.5 acres Seed tree with reserves

• Tractor harvest unit. • Marked to leave favoring WL/PP • Retain a minimum of 2 snag recruits >21" DBH and 2 of the largest

snags per acre. • Landings need to avoid areas of advanced regeneration • Rely on natural regeneration • Machine pile and scarify





27




6 6.6 acres Seed tree with reserves



7 15.2 acres Improvement cut





snags per acre. • Landings need to avoid areas of advanced regeneration • Rely on natural regeneration and plant south aspects to PP/DF • Machine pile and scarify some of the unit

9 4 acres Blowdown Salvage • Remove blowdown trees and trees along levee of irrigation ditch • Purchaser will skid down and land in private

BMP = Best Management Practices DBH = Diameter at Breast Height DF = Douglas-fir ERZ = Equipment Restriction Zone PP = Ponderosa pine

RMZ = Riparian Management Zone SMZ = Streamside Management Zone WL=Western Larch WUI = Wildland Urban Interface

glen mud timber sale project checklist environmental...

Documents