united states agriculture black torch forest...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

January 2018

Environmental Assessment

Black Torch

Great Divide Ranger District Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

Ashland and Sawyer Counties, Wisconsin

Townships 40 thru 44 North, Ranges 3 thru 5 West

Black Torch

Responsible Official: Michael A. Martin, District Ranger

Great Divide Ranger District

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

N22223 State Highway 13, Glidden, WI 54527

Telephone: 715-264-2511

Project webpage: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47680

For Information Contact: Ginger Molitor, Team Leader

Great Divide Ranger District

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

10650 Nyman Ave

Hayward, WI 54843

Telephone: 715-634-4821 x2327

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form by telephone, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47680

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html


i

Contents Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action .....................................................................................................7

Project Location ........................................................................................................................................8 Why Are We Doing This?.........................................................................................................................9 Need to Improve/Maintain Forest Health..................................................................................................9 Need to Supply Wood Products to Meet Demand ..................................................................................13 Need to Provide a Safe and Effective Road System ...............................................................................13 Decision Framework ...............................................................................................................................14 Modified Proposed Action and Alternative Development ......................................................................14

Chapter 2 – Alternatives ..............................................................................................................................21 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ..............................................................................21

Proposed Action Described in the Scoping Document........................................................................21 Not Exceeding the Temporary Openings Limitation of 40 Acres .......................................................21 No New National Forest System Road Construction ..........................................................................22 Late Successional Habitat Improvement .............................................................................................22

Alternatives Considered in Detail ...........................................................................................................22 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................22 Modified Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................23

Alternative Comparison ..........................................................................................................................34 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ......................................................38

Forest Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................39 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................41 No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................44 Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts .........................................................47

Soil Resources and Productivity .............................................................................................................60 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................60 No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................63 Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts .........................................................64

Water Quality and Watershed Impacts Related to Erosion .....................................................................77 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................77 No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................83 Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts .........................................................84

Wildlife and Terrestrial Management Indicator Species .........................................................................92 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................................93 No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................101 Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts .......................................................102

Forest Access and Recreational Opportunities......................................................................................107 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................107 No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................110 Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts .......................................................111

Scenic Integrity Objectives ...................................................................................................................115 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................115 No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................119 Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts .......................................................120

Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................................................123 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................124 No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................129 Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts .......................................................129

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers and Distribution ..........................................................................................135

Black Torch

ii

References ............................................................................................................................................ 137 Appendix A – Relevant Laws, Regulations and Policies .......................................................................... A-1 Appendix B – Maps .................................................................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C – Other Issues ....................................................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D – Response to Comments ..................................................................................................... D-1 Appendix E – Alternative Tables (Treatments and Design Features) ....................................................... E-1 Appendix F – Biological Evaluation ......................................................................................................... F-1

List of Tables

Table 1-1. Management areas within the project area boundary. ................................................................ 7 Table 1-2. Existing aspen, balsam fir, paper birch and red pine age classes compared to Forest Plan

desired range. ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2-1. Treatments proposed to meet the need to improve or maintain forest health. .......................... 26 Table 2-2. Proposed harvest treatments. .................................................................................................... 28 Table 2-3. Other proposed vegetation treatments. ..................................................................................... 29 Table 2-4. Estimated volume in million board feet by harvest type. ......................................................... 29 Table 2-5. Transportation system improvements. ...................................................................................... 31 Table 2-6. Change in road density from the modified proposed action. .................................................... 33 Table 2-7. Comparison of the no action and the modified proposed action. ............................................. 34 Table 3-1. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions contributing to cumulative effects. ... 38 Table 3-2. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to forest vegetation. .......................... 40 Table 3-3. Existing Black Torch acreage by major forest type and management area. ............................. 41 Table 3-4. Management Area 1A – Black Torch vegetation existing condition and desired composition.

............................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table 3-5. Aspen age class distribution in project area from the no action alternative. ............................ 45 Table 3-6. Balsam fir age class distribution in project area from the no action alternative. ...................... 46 Table 3-7. Paper birch age class distribution in project area from the no action alternative. .................... 46 Table 3-8. Red pine age class distribution in project area from the no action alternative. ........................ 46 Table 3-9. MA 1A – Early successional forest type existing condition and after implementation. ........... 48 Table 3-10. Aspen age class distribution in project area from the modified proposed action. .................. 49 Table 3-11. Balsam fir age class distribution in project area from the modified proposed action. ............ 50 Table 3-12. Paper birch age class distribution in project area from the modified proposed action. .......... 51 Table 3-13. Red pine age class distribution in project area from the modified proposed action. .............. 51 Table 3-14. East Fork of the Chippewa River white pine underplanting. .................................................. 54 Table 3-15. Estimated volume in million board feet by harvest type. ....................................................... 55 Table 3-16. Remaining treatment acres within Black Torch from overlapping projects. .......................... 56 Table 3-17. Woodland equipment use rating. ............................................................................................ 65 Table 3-18. Potential for soil compaction and rutting................................................................................ 65 Table 3-19. Potential for soil erosion and displacement. ........................................................................... 65 Table 3-20. Potential for soil erosion and displacement summary. ........................................................... 77 Table 3-21. Wetland types within the project area. ................................................................................... 78 Table 3-22. Riparian acreage within the project area by watershed (100-foot RMZ). .............................. 80 Table 3-23. Resource indicators and measures for water quality and watershed impacts. ........................ 82 Table 3-24. Summary of proposed activities located in RMZs.................................................................. 84 Table 3-25. Proposed road activities in wetlands and RMZs. .................................................................... 86 Table 3-26. Open area analysis for the Black Torch project area – snow melt (60% threshold). .............. 87 Table 3-27. Open area analysis for the Black Torch project area – rainfall (35% threshold). ................... 88 Table 3-28. Open area cumulative effects analysis for the Black Torch project area – snowmelt (60%

threshold). ........................................................................................................................................... 89


iii

Table 3-29. Open area cumulative effects analysis for the Black Torch project area – rainfall (35% threshold). ............................................................................................................................................90

Table 3-30. Summary of past, present and reasonably foreseeable harvest in RMZs. ...............................90 Table 3-31. Wildlife threatened, endangered and regional forester sensitive species effects determinations

for species evaluated in detail in the BE..............................................................................................92 Table 3-32. Potential indirect effects on preferred big brown bat summer roosting habitat. ...................104 Table 3-33. Existing road density. ............................................................................................................108 Table 3-34. Miles of motorized and non-motorized trail within the project area. ....................................109 Table 3-35. Proposed road density as a result of the modified proposed action. .....................................112 Table 3-36. Miles of motorized and non-motorized trail in the project area and percent potentially

affected by the modified proposed action..........................................................................................113 Table 3-37. Recent project effects on road density – West Zone. ............................................................114 Table 3-38. Miles of SIO Areas; existing condition. ................................................................................117 Table 3-39. Scenic integrity indicators and measures for assessing effects. ............................................119 Table 3-40. Miles of affected SIO areas. ..................................................................................................121 Table 3-41. Payments to Ashland and Sawyer counties. ..........................................................................125 Table 3-42. Number of jobs by sector for Ashland and Sawyer counties. ...............................................125 Table 3-43. Income by county and sector.................................................................................................126 Table 3-44. Fiscal year 2017 revenues from timber sales on the Great Divide Ranger District. .............126 Table 3-45. Timber volume sold for the Great Divide Ranger District. ...................................................127 Table 3-46. Economic indicators and measures for assessing effects. .....................................................128 Table 3-47. Economic measures for modified proposed action versus no action. ...................................130 Table 3-48. Wisconsin long-term industry employment projections 2014-2024 . ...................................131 Table 3-49. Remaining harvest volume for Great Divide Ranger District by project. .............................132

List of Figures Figure 1-1. Vicinity map. .............................................................................................................................8 Figure 3-1. Riparian Area Functions. .........................................................................................................79 Figure 3-2. White-tailed deer population trends in Wisconsin’s Northern Forest Deer Management Zone

2002-2015. ...........................................................................................................................................97 Figure 3-3. Winter severity index 1960-2016. ...........................................................................................98

Black Torch

iv

Page intentionally left blank.


5

Document Structure We have prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations listed in appendix A. This EA discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the proposed action and other alternatives identified and developed as part of the internal and public scoping process. For more details of the proposed action, see the “Proposed Action and Alternatives” section of this document.

This document is organized into five chapters:

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter explains what action we are proposing, why the action is needed, where the action will occur, and what our decision would address. This chapter also discusses how we invited public participation and how we addressed public issues.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the proposed action, as well as alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. It discusses how alternatives were developed and briefly compares the effects of each alternative.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. The analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of each alternative. The no action alternative provides the baseline for evaluating and comparing the alternatives, including the proposed action.

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination: This chapter identifies the preparers of this assessment and the agencies or individuals to whom this report is distributed.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information that supports this EA. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of environmental resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the district office in Hayward, Wisconsin.

Chapter 1 Need for Action

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Appendices Details

Chapter 3 Consequences

Chapter 4 Consultation/ Coordination

Black Torch

6

List of Acronyms BA Biological Assessment ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum BE Biological Evaluation SHPO State Historic Preservation Office BMP Best Management Practice SIO Scenic Integrity Objective CFR Code of Federal Regulations SMU Soil Map Unit EA Environmental Assessment SPM Semi-primitive Motorized FEIS Final Environmental Impact

Statement SPNM Semi-primitive Non-motorized

GIS Geographic Information System SRSCSDA Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer LTP Land Type Phase TMP Travel Management Plan MA Management Area TMR Travel Management Rule NNIP Non-native Invasive Plant USDA United States Department of

Agriculture PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act of

1976 WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources

RMZ Riparian Management Zone VQO Visual Quality Objectives RN Roaded Natural WMI Wildlife Management Institute RNA Research Natural Area


7

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action This EA presents the results of an analysis of the environmental impacts of a proposal to implement activities consistent with direction in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and responds to specific needs identified in the 53,430-acre project area in the Great Divide Ranger District of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (the Forest).

The Record of Decision for the 2004 Forest Plan identifies the majority of federal ownership in the project area as management area (MA) 1A (USDA Forest Service 2004a). All MAs within the project boundary are listed in table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Management areas within the project area boundary.

Management Area

Management Area Description Acres

1A Early successional forest (primarily aspen) – maintained in a shifting mosaic pattern of age classes across the landscape. Aspen is the most prevalent tree species, and the desired landscape composition and structure is for early successional forest communities to dominate the landscape. Numerous small, simple patches with a high degree of edge are created through even-aged management, resulting in significant contrast among patches. Temporary openings, young forests and small permanent openings are commonly interspersed throughout the area. (Forest Plan, pages 3-3 and 3-4)

48,714

1A – Non-motorized

The difference between this area and the rest of MA 1A is that public motorized access is restricted to provide a non-motorized recreation experience. Full vegetation management is allowed in these areas and the underlying MA 1A prescription would be applied.

7,934

8E – Research Natural Areas (RNA)

Characterized by ecologically significant natural features, representative ecosystems, and/or unique areas. They are chosen as high quality representatives of ecological communities found on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (the Forest). They are generally well-buffered from incompatible activities on nearby lands. The McCarthy Lake and Cedars Research Natural Area (RNA) is the only one within the project area. Compatible activities were considered in the stands next to this RNA. No activities are proposed within the RNA. (Forest Plan, pages 3-50 through 3-53)

467

8G – Old Growth and Natural Feature Complexes

Characterized by ecosystem complexes and scattered individual stands which feature existing or developing old growth forest, and other exemplary natural communities. Because 8G areas have unique or representative vegetation characteristics, vegetation composition results from natural ecological processes rather than human-caused activities. Compatible activities were considered in the stands next to these areas, and no activities are proposed within the seven old growth areas embedded within the project area boundary. (Forest Plan, pages 3-56 through 3-58)

2,374

Other Water bodies and non-Forest Service lands. 3,971

Black Torch

8

Project Location The project area is located in the Great Divide Ranger District (district) of the Forest in Ashland and Sawyer counties. The legal description for the area is: T 40 and 41 N, R 4 and 5 W; T 42 N, R 3, 4 and 5 W; T 43 N, R 3 and 4 W; and T 44 N, R 3 and 4 W. The project area lies mainly east and south of the community of Clam Lake with some of the project area to the north of Clam Lake. The towns of Chippewa, Draper, Gordon, Grand View, Marengo, Round Lake, Shanagolden, Spider Lake, and Winter are within the project area. The overall project area is about 63,460 acres in size, 53,430 acres of which are National Forest System land (figure 1-1). The proposed action includes about 14,920 acres of timber harvest treatments over the next 15 years on National Forest System lands and is expected to provide about 109 million board feet of wood products. The proposed activities can be viewed on maps in appendix B.

Figure 1-1. Vicinity map.


9

Why Are We Doing This? The proposed action is a response to the Forest’s responsibility to implement goals and objectives identified under the current Forest Plan. The Forest Plan provides the desired outcome for the area by identifying goals and assigning an MA direction. The underlying purpose and need for action (why these actions are proposed) comes from the differences between the existing conditions and the conditions that are desired for the project area. For example, the theme or goal for MA 1A is for early successional forest (aspen, balsam fir, and paper birch). The desired condition is to have a relatively patchy aspen-dominated landscape. Human-caused disturbance that maintains early successional communities is evident, frequent and intensive, resulting in forest patches that tend to be younger than those within other MAs (Forest Plan, page 3-4). One specific aspect of the MA 1A theme is to have aspen, the prevalent early successional tree species, maintained in a shifting mosaic pattern of age classes across the landscape. The existing condition in the project area is a maturing aspen-dominated landscape. This difference between the existing and desired conditions would be addressed by proposing vegetation management activities with the potential to change the forest toward the desired mix of age classes.

Through examination of the existing conditions of the project area, we have identified three main needs for action based upon Forest Plan goals and objectives and other Forest Service direction:

Need to Improve/Maintain Forest Health (Forest Plan Goal 1.4 – Provide terrestrial ecosystems in healthy, diverse and productive conditions that support the diversity of plant and animal species.)

Objective 1: Maintain early successional forest types on the landscape.

By their very nature, early successional communities are short-lived. They decrease rapidly on the landscape if not frequently reestablished. Long-term studies of existing landscapes in Wisconsin forests (Potts et al. 2004) show that early successional habitat is rapidly declining in favor of older, northern hardwood communities. Monitoring evaluation of the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2012a) supports the findings of Potts and shows the loss of early successional communities (primarily aspen) is similarly occurring on the Forest. One purpose of this project is to maintain early successional forest types as the dominant landscape cover in the project area through regeneration.

Aspen cannot reproduce under shade (shade-intolerant), and without disturbance, aspen stands are replaced over time by other species. It regenerates mostly by root suckering, but sometimes can reproduce through seed. Aspen requires disturbance, for example, even-aged harvest, followed by site preparation, or natural events such as wind or fire events, to become established and maintained on the landscape. Due to these characteristics, clearcutting is used to mimic natural disturbance and is the primary silvicultural tool for managing aspen (Perala 1977).

The rotation age for aspen, that is, the age at which losses begin to exceed growth, is 45 years (Forest Plan, page 2-4). Aspen stands should be regenerated when they reach rotation age to minimize loss to rot and mortality. About 6,754 acres (38 percent) of the aspen stands in the project area are beyond rotation age and are in need of regeneration.

Balsam fir, like aspen, declines rapidly when held beyond its rotation age of 45 years (Forest Plan, page 2-4). About 85 percent of the balsam fir stands in the project area are older than 45 years and are in need of regeneration. These stands are breaking up due to trunk rot, spruce

Black Torch

10

budworm defoliation and wind throw. Many of these high-risk stands are mixtures of balsam fir and aspen, rather than pure balsam fir. The Forest Plan recommends managing balsam fir and aspen as alternate crops on the same site where the opportunity exists (Forest Plan, page 2-11).

Paper birch stands beyond rotation age need to be regenerated before the paper birch component is lost through natural succession. The standard rotation age of paper birch is 60 years (Forest Plan page 2-4). Paper birch regeneration requires a seedbed of mineral soil best prepared using scarification or prescribed fire (Safford 1983, Safford et al. 1990). Paper birch is often regenerated through a shelterwood harvest followed by site preparation, such as prescribed burning or scarification, of the soil. This type of treatment is described in detail later in this section and in chapter 2.

Objective 2: Improve age class distribution.

The aspen, balsam fir, paper birch and red pine present in the project area are overabundant in the older age groups, with limited representation in the youngest age groups. One purpose of this project is to improve the age class distributions in the project area by regenerating older and/or declining stands, which will provide long-term sustainable levels of different age classes. Table 1-2 includes a comparison of the existing age condition and the desired range for these species as described in the Forest Plan.

Table 1-2. Existing aspen, balsam fir, paper birch and red pine age classes compared to Forest Plan desired range.

Age Class (years) Existing Percent

Existing Acres

Desired Percent Range

Target Percent

Comparison to Target

- = % under target + = % over target

Aspen (Forest Plan, page 2-5) 0-10 4 715 15-25 20 -16

46 or more 38 6,754 5-15 10 +28 Balsam fir (Forest Plan, page 2-11)

0-10 < 1% 8 15-25 20 -19 46 or more 86 1,690 5-15 10 +76

Paper birch (Forest Plan, page 2-6) 0-20 0 0 20-30 25 -25

61 or more 97 817 20-30 25 +72 Red pine (Forest Plan, page 2-10)

0-20 1 23 10-20 15 -14 61-100 46 773 25-35 30 +16

Red pine is a long-lived species that is usually managed in even-aged stands due to the shade-intolerant nature of red pine seedlings. Nearly 33 percent of the 1,666 acres of red pine stands within the project area are about the same age, having been planted by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s and 1940s.


11

Postponing regeneration until all stands reach standard rotation age of 100 would perpetuate this age class imbalance. Lower crown dieback was observed in a few red pine stands, a total of about 110 acres with a minimum rotation age of 50 years, making these stands good candidates for regeneration. This reduced crown structure, trees with less than 30 percent crown ratios, is a sign that stands may not have had the desired growth response to thinning (Gilmore and Palik 2006). Regenerating them prior to the standard rotation age of 100 would help balance the age class distribution while reducing the concern regarding future mortality in these stands. In addition, one declining 75-year-old jack pine stand with insect and disease problems has site conditions compatible for growing red pine and has been identified for conversion to red pine.

Objective 3: Improve the early successional habitat for wildlife.

Wildlife species dependent upon early successional species, such as aspen, for food and cover benefit from the maintenance of young aspen on the landscape. One purpose of this project is to improve the early successional wildlife habitat for species, such as elk, ruffed grouse, golden-winged warbler and American woodcock by regenerating young aspen and improving the age class distribution in the project area using silvicultural treatments described above and in detail in chapter 2. Forest Plan Goals 1.4, 1.5, and 2.7 (Forest Plan, pages 1-3, 1-4, and 1-6, respectively), the North American Woodcock Conservation Plan (Wildlife Management Institute [WMI] 2008), Upper Great Lakes Woodcock and Young Forest Habitat Landscape Initiative (WMI 2009), North American Ruffed Grouse Conservation Plan (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2006), and Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Potter et al. 2007) goals also support the need to improve early successional species in the project area.

The project area falls within the core foraging and breeding ranges for the Clam Lake elk herd. Although the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has the responsibility of managing the elk herd, “[t]he authority for elk habitat management lies with the Forest Service as the primary landowner in the designated elk range” (Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS] Appendices, page L-3 [USDA Forest Service 2004c]). There is a need to provide year-round foraging habitat (young-age aspen) for elk. The WDNR has indicated that larger aspen clearcuts would be more beneficial for elk. Increasing the size of temporary openings beyond 40 acres would help the Forest address the aspen age class imbalance and provide additional habitat benefits for elk.

Ruffed grouse is the species most likely to experience a population increase with an increase in early successional habitat. They are one of the species most closely tied to the aspen resource. Habitat used by woodcock from April through October is almost identical to that used by grouse (Gullion 1984). They use many of the same habitats, including various ages of aspen. The long-term maintenance of aspen is beneficial to these birds, as they use a wide variety of aspen age classes. Without active aspen management or other substantial disturbance, the amount of young-age aspen within the project area will continue to decline, resulting in the loss of early successional forest habitat for species using this habitat type.

Objective 4: Reduce stocking levels in overstocked forested stands.

Some of the mid- to late-successional upland forest within the project area is composed of dense or crowded trees. These stands exceed the stocking management goals of the Forest Plan for the maintenance of forest health and productivity (Forest Plan, pages 2-4 to 2-12 and appendix FF). These crowded conditions typically result in reduced growth because of competition for light, water and nutrients. The number of trees per acre, also known as the stocking level, needs to be

Black Torch

12

reduced to increase the availability of light and nutrients for remaining trees. Treatments, such as thinning and selection harvest, are used to reduce tree stocking to allow for improved health and vigor of the remaining trees, which would improve overall forest health and productivity.

Objective 5: Maintain forest types of intermediate shade tolerance.

Forest types of intermediate shade tolerance, such as hardwoods, conifers and oak, within the project area that are at rotation age or have a well-developed understory, a young cohort of desired tree species, are now mature enough to be released from the existing overstory. The term intermediate shade tolerance will often be used interchangeably with the term mid-tolerant. These species are often maintained through a shelterwood regeneration method. The shelterwood harvest is a multiple-staged method; the first step is to remove about 50-75 percent of the trees, retaining the healthiest and largest trees to provide a seed source as well as partial shade. The second step is planting or natural regeneration of the understory, depending on the species. This may include site preparation activities, such as prescribed burning or scarification, of the soil. Lastly, the overstory is removed when the seedlings are established to allow the desired understory to develop. The stands near rotation age are ready to start the regeneration process at the beginning, and the stands with a well-developed understory are at the stage of the overstory removal. There is a need to maintain intermediate shade-tolerant species as a minor component of the landscape cover in the project area to better meet this guideline.

Objective 6: Restore healthy forest conditions on areas damaged by spruce decline.

Spruce decline is caused by a combination of factors, including spruce budworm, needle cast fungi, drought stress, root disease and marginal site conditions. About 10 percent of the spruce in the project area are showing evidence of decline. The rapid mortality of white spruce has created a need to restore desirable forest stocking and composition in these stands. One purpose of this project is to regenerate affected sites to a healthy mix of tree species.

Objective 7: Convert aspen to northern hardwoods and mesic conifers adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G.

Thirty-five stands typed as early successional lie next to MA 8E, the McCarthy Lake and Cedars RNA, and MA 8G, old growth and natural feature complexes, within the project area. The McCarthy Lake and Cedars RNA was originally set aside in the mid-1980s to protect its high quality old growth white cedar swamp and nearby undeveloped lake. Several of the stands adjacent to the RNA are aspen. Aspen is not desired next to white cedar as aspen attracts wildlife that may damage white cedar. The MA 8G areas within the project area include older-aged hemlock-hardwood forest, old growth swamp conifer forest, open sedge meadow, natural red and white pine “islands” within a large open bog complex, alder thicket, and sections of the Moose and East Torch rivers. A forestwide guideline speaks directly about adjacency management, “Design management activities adjacent to [RNAs], special management areas, and old growth areas to complement their ecological values (Forest Plan, page 2-4).”


13

Need to Supply Wood Products to Meet Demand (Forest Plan Goal 2.5 – Contribute toward satisfying demand for wood products and special forest products through environmentally responsible harvest on National Forest System lands.)

Objective 8: Provide a sustainable flow of wood products while meeting habitat and landscape needs.

The long-term objective for the suitable forestland within the project area is to provide a sustainable flow of wood products while meeting other Forest Plan objectives. The acres identified for treatment in the project area belong to the suitable land base, and commercial harvests can be used to meet most of the habitat and landscape needs identified. Treatment activities to meet the vegetation objectives are proposed to be accomplished through the sale of marketable wood products, including biomass. Therefore, the purpose and need for this project also include offering wood products to contribute to local demands.

Need to Provide a Safe and Effective Road System (Forest Plan Goal 3.1 – Build and maintain safe, efficient and effective infrastructure that supports public and administrative uses of National Forest System lands. Retain and progress toward the Forest-wide average total road density goal of 3.0 miles per square mile established in 1986.)

Objective 9: Provide access to the Forest through the development of a cost-effective road system with minimal environmental impacts.

A transportation analysis was conducted for the project area. Its purpose was threefold:

1. to determine if existing road density levels within the project area are within Forest Plan desired conditions;

2. to identify the risks (to resources) and values (for administrative and/or public access) associated with the roads currently recorded in our road database; and

3. to determine if additional roads are needed to access stands proposed for treatment.

Based on the information in the analysis, total and open road densities are currently within the desired range of the Forest Plan objectives for all portions of the project area.

The proposed transportation actions are based on the analysis of a road’s risk to resources balanced against a road’s administrative and/or public use value. The roads determined to be of low to moderate risk to resources and moderate to high administrative and public use value are proposed to be maintained at their current level. Other roads were determined to be of high to moderate risk to resources and of high value for administrative and/or public use. These roads are proposed for relocation, reconstruction and/or closure to the public to provide sustainable access and decrease maintenance costs. Roads found to have high risk and low value are proposed for decommissioning. A number of the roads proposed for decommissioning are already revegetated on the ground and have yet to be removed from the roads database. Most of the remaining roads identified for decommissioning are unauthorized roads not included in the National Forest System and are not open to public motorized use.

Some stands were identified as not having adequate access for timber harvest. Stands to be harvested only once in a more-than-20-year time interval, such as early successional forest types

Black Torch

14

like aspen and balsam fir, should be considered for temporary road access, unless there is a low risk and high value in creating permanent access. Those areas that need to be entered on a regular basis, such as hardwoods and pine, would need a permanent road system. An exception may be where the only access to a stand is through a wetland. In such a case, a temporary road would be built during winter conditions to avoid or minimize wetland impacts as much as possible.

Decision Framework The main purpose of an EA is to disclose the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action or the alternatives to the action in the overall context of their significance (inform the decision maker) and provide a basis for involving the public. This EA was prepared on the premise that certain decisions must be made and documented in a decision notice and finding of no significant impact. Accordingly, this document focuses on providing sufficient analysis to inform these decisions and findings.

This EA is tiered to the 2004 Forest Plan, the Forest Plan FEIS and the Forest Plan Record of Decision. The Record of Decision included decisions about general management direction for an area. Impacts of the general management directions were disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS. This EA looks at the impacts that may be different from or in addition to what was already disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS and are generally related to the specific location of the proposed management activities.

The responsible official for the decision is the Great Divide District Ranger. Based on the analysis presented in this EA and supported in the project record, the district ranger will determine whether the proposed project and alternatives could result in a significant impact. If there is a finding of no significant impact, the district ranger will select an alternative deciding:

• whether to implement the activities described in the proposed action,

• what specific design criteria or mitigation measures are needed, and

• what specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure design criteria and mitigation measures are implemented and effective.

The decision will be based on:

• how well the selected alternative achieves the purpose and need,

• how well the selected alternative protects the environment and addresses issues and concerns, and

• how well the selected alternative complies with relevant policies, laws and regulations.

Modified Proposed Action and Alternative Development The modified proposed action was designed to meet the purpose and need as described in the previous section and includes all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and other design measures used to reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts. The Forest Plan standards and guidelines and other design measures address a wide range of potential impacts and issues described below that came out of internal and public scoping and tribal consultation. Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of the modified proposed action and any other alternatives considered for this project. Appendix B includes maps of the modified proposed action.


15

Tribal Input Twelve representatives of six tribes were sent invitations to the September 30, 2015, open house. Those same representatives were sent the project’s proposed action as described in the public scoping package, in accordance with the Forest Service Tribal Memorandum of Understanding, on March 18, 2016. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission expressed concerns about potential impacts to American marten and provided information and recommendations for minimizing those impacts. The Commission also made recommendations regarding the proposed action. Issues identified are described in more detail below. Appendix D also identifies the comments submitted with an explanation of how they were considered in the analysis.

Public Involvement This project was listed on the Forest’s Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning in October 2015. This schedule is mailed or emailed to dozens of individuals and is available on the World Wide Web for those people interested in proposals occurring on the Forest.

An open house was held on September 30, 2015, to gather feedback on the initial project proposal. Invitations were sent to 46 landowners in Sawyer County and 92 landowners in Ashland County with property within or intersecting the project area boundary. More than 70 stakeholders, including representatives of various townships, companies, organizations, and agencies, expressing interest in information about projects on the ranger district were also invited. A news release was published on September 30, 2015. Thirty-five people attended.

As required by law and Forest Service policy, a 30-day notice and comment period was provided starting on March 21, 2016. The notice was published in the Ashland Daily Press (newspaper of record) in Ashland, Wisconsin, and was emailed or mailed hard copy to 86 individual contacts. All correspondence related to the open house and notice and comment period is available in the project record Scoping Folder.

Twelve people responded during the 30-day notice and comment period. Out of the twelve responses received concerning the proposal, eight expressed general support of the project, a number also provided suggestions for improvement of the proposal, and a number expressed concerns about potential impacts.

Issues identified are described in more detail below. Appendix D also identifies the comments submitted with an explanation of how they were considered in the analysis.

Public Notice of Temporary Openings The National Forest Management Act includes provisions for a limitation on the creation of temporary openings created through even-aged management. With the forest types that occur in the eastern United States, this size limit is set at 40 acres for Region 9. The 2012 Planning Rule also includes this size limitation (36 CFR 219.11(d)(4)). Exceptions to this limitation are allowed with review by the regional forester and 60-day public notice.

Temporary openings greater than 40 acres in size would be created as part of the modified proposed action described in chapter 2. Under this proposal, 124 stands totaling 4,473 acres will exceed 40 acres alone or by adjacency to other stands planned for harvest that will result in a temporary opening. See appendix B for the location of these openings.

Black Torch

16

These treatments are proposed in order to reach vegetation composition objectives for young aspen, balsam fir and paper birch. See chapter 3 for analysis of the potential effects of these openings under the modified proposed action.

The proposed temporary openings greater than 40 acres in size were included in the legal notice for the Black Torch scoping package, starting the 60-day public notice required, pursuant to 36 CFR Part 219.

Issues or Concerns with the Proposed Actions The purpose of scoping is to identify key environmental issues deserving of further study and to deemphasize other issues in the environmental effects analysis (40 CFR 1500.4g). Issues are defined as points of disagreement, debate, or dispute about potential effects of a proposed activity and are based on some anticipated outcome of the proposed action.

All comments received were considered by the interdisciplinary team and the district ranger. The interdisciplinary team placed comments into one of four categories and determined the best way to address the comment in the environmental analysis.

Categories of comments included:

• Issues used to develop alternatives or changes to the proposed action. Comments were used to change the proposed action into the modified proposed action. See the next section for a description of those changes. A number of alternatives recommended during internal and public scoping were also considered, but were not carried forward for detailed analysis. A brief summary of each of these alternatives is located in chapter 2.

• Issues analyzed in the EA. These issues were used to generate alternatives to the proposal, formulate additional mitigation or project design features that would reduce potential impacts or identify project monitoring needs and are described below. Measurement indicators were assigned, which were analyzed and described under the appropriate resource section in chapter 3.

• Other issues that do not appear in this section of the document were raised during project scoping. Interdisciplinary review of these issues determined that the effects to resources identified were limited in extent, duration and intensity and did not drive the development of an alternative. The spread of non-native invasive plants (NNIP), threatened, endangered and sensitive plant species, management indicator habitats, air quality, heritage and cultural resources, and environmental justice are concerns addressed briefly in appendix C. Though considered and analyzed for this EA, they are not discussed at length, pursuant to 40 CFR 1500.4(c). In some instances, these issues can be addressed through implementation of Forest Plan direction or project design features listed in appendix E.

• Non-issue comments, questions and comments noted are included in appendix D. A brief response to comments is also included in appendix D.


17

Issues Used to Drive Changes to the Proposed Action The changes outlined in this section have been incorporated into the modified proposed action described in detail in chapter 2. As part of the development of the proposed action described in the scoping package, the interdisciplinary team identified potential actions to accomplish the purpose and need for the Black Torch project. The team used vegetation, soils, other resource data and field reconnaissance by foresters, biologists, fuels specialists, engineering technicians and other resource specialists to develop the proposed action. The team strived to develop actions that would meet multiple objectives and best meet the purpose and need.

As described previously, the scoping package describing the proposed action was distributed to the public in March 2016, and the public was invited to submit comments. The team modified the proposed action based on scoping comments received and further evaluation of the existing condition. The intent of the proposed action remained intact with some changes. The main changes are:

• After further evaluation of stands for potential biomass harvesting and to address concerns about biomass harvesting expressed during public scoping, the team determined that about 157 stands (4,959 acres) would be proposed for no biomass harvesting due to the occurrence of suitable American marten habitat. The remaining 432 stands (9,965 acres) would be eligible for biomass harvesting.

• Objective 5 of the purpose and need in the scoping package described using a shelterwood regeneration method to maintain intermediate shade-tolerant forest types as a minor component. In response to suggestions provided during public scoping to use even-aged management to manage for intermediate shade-tolerant hardwoods, the proposed action was modified to change the treatment of 12 hardwood stands (358 acres) to even-aged treatment (thinning or shelterwood followed by overstory removal). Seven of the 12 stands (199 acres) would receive a shelterwood treatment followed by overstory removal when regeneration is two to four feet tall (about five years). Five of the 12 stands (159 acres) would be thinned, and a shelterwood treatment would be considered for the next entry. Originally, individual selection harvest was proposed for these stands. Potential effects to wildlife, specifically suitable American marten habitat, rare plant habitat, and proximity to old growth and natural feature complexes (MA 8G) were taken into consideration when developing this change to the proposed action.

• In response to a number of comments regarding elk habitat improvement, the proposed action was changed to include three larger permanent openings, totaling about 50 acres, ranging from 10-25 acres in size, in stands already proposed for clearcutting in the original proposed action. Access for continued maintenance, surrounding habitat, particularly thermal cover, if limited, American marten suitable habitat and proximity to other openings were all considered when determining the best locations for these permanent openings.

• After further evaluation of stand treatments, the team changed the proposed action for two balsam fir stands next to MA 8G and one aspen stand next to a threatened, endangered or sensitive plant site. This change would result in about 28 acres of clearcut changed to improvement cut. The improvement cut would promote succession toward longer-lived species and be complementary to the adjacent MA, as recommended by the Forest Plan, and reduce potential browse pressure in the area of a threatened, endangered or sensitive plant.

Black Torch

18

These changes to the proposed action are summarized in the modified proposed action in chapter 2. The potential effects of this change are described in chapter 3.

Issues Analyzed in Detail in the EA Through the analysis of public comments, the interdisciplinary team identified the following issues that need to be analyzed in detail in the EA.

Forest Vegetation As identified in the objectives for this project, maintaining early successional forest types, such as aspen, balsam fir, and paper birch, on the landscape, improving age class distribution, reducing stocking levels in overstocked forested stands, maintaining forest types of intermediate shade tolerance and restoring healthy forest conditions impacted by spruce decline will be evaluated. Concerns were also raised during public scoping about timing of the harvest (all at once or at regular intervals), the type of harvesting, such as clearcutting, potential impacts of biomass removal and the impacts of new road construction on forest health. These issues are addressed in a more detailed explanation for the timing and type of harvesting in the modified proposed action in chapter 2 and in the effects analysis in chapter 3.

Soil Resources and Productivity Comments regarding the potential project impacts on soil resources and productivity were received during public scoping. Soil disturbance caused by heavy equipment used for harvesting or site preparation activities, such as prescribed burning or scarification, may have effects on soil physical, chemical and biological properties and could reduce long-term forest soil productivity. Use of equipment creates a risk for soil compaction, rutting, displacement or erosion. These concerns would be measured by acres of soil disturbance. These issues are addressed through the use of design features listed in appendix E and analyzed in chapter 3.

Water Quality and Watershed Impacts Related to Erosion Several comments were received expressing concerns that proposed activities may have impacts on watershed resources. Concerns were related to sedimentation and increased erosion from system and temporary road construction, reconstruction and maintenance, achieving road density objectives, biomass removal (leave slash), causing water quality issues in streams, lakes and wetlands. These concerns would be measured with the amount of proposed activities within 100 feet of lakes, streams and wetlands. These issues were addressed through the use of best management practices (BMPs) and design features listed in appendix E, and the potential impacts on water resources are analyzed in chapter 3.

Potential Decline of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species from Project Implementation A concern was expressed about the proposed action potentially contributing to the decline of threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Responses to specific questions appear in the response to scoping comments in appendix D. Measures for this concern are identified in chapter 3 and the biological evaluation (appendix F).


19

Wildlife Impacts from Project Implementation Several comments were received expressing concerns that proposed activities may have impacts on wildlife. Concerns were related to the following:

• Number of entries into an actively-managed stand,

• Intensity of logging (restricting removal to a low percentage of the stand’s basal area and canopy cover),

• Construction and reconstruction of roads causing habitat fragmentation,

• Achieving road density objectives,

• Impacts on wildlife, specifically the following: American marten, American woodcock, ruffed grouse, golden-winged warbler, beaver, elk, red-shouldered hawk, northern goshawk, mature-forest-reliant species, amphibians, and reptiles,

• Impacts of temporary openings and impacts of permanent openings,

• Impacts of small openings and impacts of large openings,

• Impacts of creating more early successional habitat,

• Creation of edge habitat leading to high densities of songbird nest predators and parasites, invasions of exotic earthworms, and higher local populations of white-tailed deer, potentially impacting plant diversity and the regeneration of sensitive conifers like eastern hemlock and northern white cedar because of increased deer browsing,

• Impacts to aquatic habitats, including increase in water temperature, loss of terrestrial food (insects and leaves) used by aquatic organisms,

• Retention of dead trees and cavity trees, and

• Impacts of biomass removal

Responses to specific questions appear in the response to scoping comments in appendix D. Due to the number and variety of concerns, measures for these concerns are identified in chapter 3 and the biological evaluation (appendix F). Some of these issues are addressed through the use of design features listed in appendix E. Other comments regarding impacts to wildlife are addressed in the Wildlife and Terrestrial Management Indicator Species section of chapter 3 and in the project biological evaluation (appendix F).

Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project on Forest Access and Recreational Opportunities Several concerns were raised during public scoping regarding limited access and, conversely, too much access resulting from proposed National Forest System road changes. Several other concerns related to recreation were expressed, including providing too much motorized access adversely impacting hunting opportunities, potential impacts to visitors using the North Country Trail and the Porcupine Lake Wilderness and achieving road density objectives. This would be measured by changes to the forest transportation system conditions, road density changes, and changes to access and recreational use. Issues about specific roads are addressed in appendix D, Response to Comments. The other issues are addressed in the effects analysis for forest access and recreational opportunities in chapter 3 and design features listed in appendix E.

Black Torch

20

Meeting Scenic Integrity Objectives Several concerns were raised during the open house and the public scoping period regarding the impacts of the proposed project on scenery and scenic integrity objectives (SIO), specifically that the creation of openings visible to High SIO viewpoints could lead to a reduction in scenic integrity. The SIO and Forest Plan guidelines (Forest Plan, page 2-29) along some corridors within the project area would not be met, due to the creation of temporary openings resulting from aspen, balsam fir, and red pine clearcutting and paper birch overstory removal harvests. This issue will be addressed through the use of design features, such as the use of buffers between a viewpoint and a timber sale, leaving reserve trees, and is analyzed in chapter 3.

Socioeconomics Local demand for wood products remains high as evidenced from recent timber sales offered and sold on the district. In addition, ground-based logging systems are needed to harvest forest products, so an adequate road system is identified in each alternative. The transportation system proposed action will improve recreational access to some areas of the Forest, while also moving the district towards a minimum road system that is financially sustainable. As expressed by several commenters, improved recreational opportunities will increase visitation, potentially increasing or, at least, supporting, the tourism economies of local communities. This issue is analyzed in chapter 3.

Climate Change While developing the proposed action, the interdisciplinary team considered the best available information on observed and projected climate trends and anticipated impacts to forests. The team worked with staff from the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science to consider adaptation strategies or incremental adjustments for the Black Torch project. These strategies or adjustments will help put the Forest in a better position to adapt or become more resilient to continued climate change. More information on climate change trends and tactics can be found in individual resource sections in chapter 3 of this document and in the project record.


21

Chapter 2 – Alternatives This chapter describes the alternatives that were analyzed in detail, including a no action alternative. This chapter also gives a brief description of alternatives or options considered but not analyzed in detail. Finally, this chapter compares the alternatives considered in detail, briefly outlining the differences among them, and providing a clear basis for choice by the responsible official. This comparison is based on the proposed activities, objectives and the environmental effects described in chapter 3.

Project design features that apply to each of the action alternatives are listed in appendix E. Forest Plan standards and guidelines are included. All of the features identified are an integral part of the action alternative. These features reduce or prevent environmental impacts. Impact analysis for the modified proposed action alternative described in chapter 3 presume that these features are effectively implemented along with the project activity. For example, in order to decrease the potential for soil compaction or erosion from harvest activity, the Forest Plan directs us to operate heavy equipment only when soils are not saturated or when the ground is frozen in order to reduce or eliminate compaction and rutting. Chapter 3 includes a brief summary of how the identified features work to reduce or avoid impacts to forest vegetation, soil resources and productivity, water quality and watersheds, wildlife and terrestrial management indicator species, forest access and recreational opportunities, scenic integrity, and socioeconomics.

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Four alternatives, including the proposed action from the scoping report, were analyzed briefly. The analysis, although not detailed, provides valuable information that will be considered when deciding which actions to take in the project area.

Proposed Action Described in the Scoping Document In March 2016 a scoping package for the proposed Black Torch project was distributed to the public. The package included a proposed action description outlining the management activities the interdisciplinary team had determined at the time would best accomplish the purpose and need for action of the project.

This original proposed action was not carried forward for detailed analysis, primarily because concerns were identified from the public during the scoping process that were incorporated into a modified proposed action. A description of these changes is located under the Issues Used to Drive Changes to the Proposed Action section in chapter 1.

The team conducted further field reconnaissance and analysis and made modifications that would better meet project objectives (the purpose and need). The team incorporated updated data and information on specific stands. The modified proposed action described below in detail is analyzed in chapter 3.

Not Exceeding the Temporary Openings Limitation of 40 Acres The interdisciplinary team considered analyzing an alternative that would not exceed the limitation on temporary openings of 40 acres. Their thought process is described in detail in the

Black Torch

22

project record. The team did split 15 stands (1,017 acres) into 47 smaller stands – five of those smaller stands remained slightly more than 40 acres. Limiting the temporary opening size would not meet the purpose and need of the project to address forest health concerns. The existing condition of the stands exceeding 40 acres proposed for treatment warrants harvesting the entire stand at one time to have the best potential for successfully regenerating aspen. The district ranger decided that due to forest health concerns on these stands, the overall benefit to the project area and the Forest was greater to treat these stands in their entirety, rather than dropping acres to stay under the limit.

No New National Forest System Road Construction A concern was expressed during scoping about the impacts of new road construction. The interdisciplinary team considered developing an alternative with no new system road construction. The treatment areas in need of new road construction cannot be accessed using temporary roads or by other transit methods. The stands needing the new road access, about 1,187 acres, would need to be dropped from the proposed action, so the purpose and need of the proposed project would not be met and objectives for the proposed project area would not be achieved.

Late Successional Habitat Improvement A request was made during scoping to consider an alternative focused on later successional species. That alternative included treating early successional forest (aspen and balsam fir) with an improvement cut. The improvement cut would reduce the aspen and balsam fir component and encourage the development of the northern hardwood component. The treated stands would still be typed as aspen or balsam fir after the cut, although the hardwood component would comprise a greater percentage of the stocking than before. At the next periodic entry in 15-20 years, these stands would be well on their way toward becoming northern hardwood stands through growth of the northern hardwood component coupled with the decline of the mature aspen and balsam fir components. The goal of this alternative would be to move from early successional species to later successional species. This type of treatment would be very similar to that described for objective 7, complementary management of early successional species adjacent to old growth and RNAs (Forest Plan, page 2-4), specifically with the focus of creating a forest with late successional species and managing for habitat that would benefit wildlife species preferring late successional forests. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project, specifically managing for early successional forest types, improving age class distribution, and improving early successional habitat for wildlife. Forest Plan objectives for MA 1A would also not be met in the project area.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

No Action Alternative In this alternative the proposed action would not take place. No additional vegetation management, wildlife habitat improvement projects or transportation management would occur.

Under the no-action alternative, current conditions would continue to guide management of the project area. Activities that would not require an environmental analysis, such as dispersed recreation use, annual road maintenance, snowmobile trail use and maintenance, and wildfire suppression, would continue.


23

Natural succession would take place in the long term; early successional species, such as aspen or birch, would succeed to later successional species of red maple, sugar maple or brush where there is inadequate tree regeneration.

Selection of this alternative would not preclude future management actions in the project area. The no-action alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project, but it is included to show comparison between the modified proposed action and baseline conditions.

Modified Proposed Action The interdisciplinary team developed this alternative using information and data gathered from the project area, with direction from the responsible official, to specifically address the differences between current conditions in the project area and the Forest Plan’s desired conditions. The proposed action has been modified to address concerns raised during scoping. See the Issues Used to Drive Changes to the Proposed Action section for a description of what changes were made from the original proposed action.

Overall, an estimated 14,920 acres across the Black Torch project area have been proposed for some type of treatment to accomplish the purpose and need.

More detailed information on the modified proposed action can be found in the appendices. Reviewing all of the following information will provide a more complete picture of this alternative. Appendix B includes maps, which display the locations of the proposed treatments and activities proposed under the modified proposed action. Appendix E lists standards and guidelines that are based on the Forest Plan, Wisconsin’s Forestry BMPs for Water Quality Field Manual (WDNR 2010a) and other guidelines to minimize adverse effects. This appendix includes features that apply to the entire project as well as design features for specific stands.

Wildlife Habitat Improvements The modified proposed action has incorporated management strategies to improve early successional habitat for wildlife species dependent on young aspen, such as elk, ruffed grouse, golden-winged warbler and American woodcock. The creation of temporary openings at various times throughout the life of the project will also improve habitat for these species. The creation of three permanent openings as described in Issues Used to Drive Changes to the Proposed Action and shown in the maps in appendix B will improve elk habitat. The complementary management around MA 8E and MA 8G, focusing on the conversion of aspen to northern hardwoods and mesic conifers, which amounts to about 240 treatment acres, will also improve habitat for wildlife species dependent on later successional forests, such as red-shouldered hawks and northern goshawks.

Vegetation Management To reduce the rate of early successional species loss within the proposed project area and ensure that suitable aspen acres are not lost, treatment of aging areas and those aspen and balsam fir/aspen stands converting to non-aspen forest types were given the highest priority.

Harvest timing - A concern was raised during scoping about harvest timing, indicating a preference for harvesting aspen stands all at once to provide a large block of aspen to improve elk habitat. The proposed activities would be scheduled over more than a decade to ensure a continuum of age diversity through the foreseeable future. If all the stands currently at rotation age would be harvested at the same time, the problem of a skewed age class distribution would

Black Torch

24

continue. Delaying the treatment of older stands may also result in less aspen regeneration. To address that problem, the older and/or less vigorous stands would be scheduled for harvest first.

We took a two-step approach to harvest timing, lumping stands needing to be treated as soon as possible, older and/or less vigorous stands, in time period 1 and then lumping stands that could wait at least five years in time period 2. Five years was used as the general guideline as it is the approximate time it takes aspen to reach 12 feet in height, thus the stand would no longer be considered a temporary opening (Forest Plan, page 2-4). The staggered timing approach to harvesting has multiple benefits that include reducing the amount of temporary opening in the project area at a given time and greater diversification of age classes, meeting objective 2 of the purpose and need. The exact timing of harvest of any one stand will depend on the timing of the given timber sale contract – often timber sale contracts are implemented over multiple years. More details about this approach are available in the response to comment number 10-3 in appendix D and the project record.

Silvicultural Treatments

The following treatments have been identified as useful for moving stands towards desired conditions. The acreage of proposed treatments can be found in table 2-1.

Clearcut – A regeneration harvest method that removes all the live overstory trees in a stand, except for reserve trees left on site for management objectives other than regeneration. The result is a new age class of trees that grows following the harvest treatment. This method allows for natural regeneration of shade-intolerant forest species.

Improvement Cut, Aspen Convert to Hardwood and Mesic Conifers – This entails the removal of individual trees (retaining 60-90 percent canopy closure) to improve health, growth, quality, and species composition of the residual stand. A fully stocked stand remains after harvest. The intent is to reduce the amount of aspen in the stand, favoring existing conifer or hardwood components. This treatment will be used in stands near MA 8E and MA 8G in the project area.

Individual Tree Selection – This entails removal of select individual trees of all size classes, more or less uniformly throughout a stand, creating or maintaining a multi-aged structure. Individual tree selection promotes growth of remaining trees and regeneration of seedlings. This treatment is typically used with northern hardwoods (red and sugar maple, yellow birch).

Overstory removal – Removal of residual overstory from previous shelterwood, reducing competition to existing understory.

Shelterwood – A regeneration harvest method that removes most of the overstory except to retain a partial live overstory to provide seed and shade for regeneration. Reserve trees are also left on site for management objectives other than regeneration. The result is a new age class of trees that grows following the harvest treatment. The partial overstory that is left would be removed once seedlings and saplings are established (unless stated otherwise). All shelterwood treatments could include mechanical site preparation or prescribed burning for seeding or planting. Mechanical site preparation results in exposed mineral soil in order to provide conditions for establishment and growth of tree seedlings.

Shelterwood and Plant – A regeneration harvest method that removes most of the overstory except to retain a partial live overstory to provide seed and shade for regeneration. Reserve trees are also left on site for management objectives other than regeneration. These stands will be


25

underplanted with long-lived species, such as white pine. The result is a new age class of trees that grows following the harvest treatment. In these stands, any live overstory remaining once the seedlings are established will remain on site. The intent of balsam fir shelterwood treatments with planting is to regenerate a stand of longer-lived tree species by encouraging natural establishment of hardwoods and by planting longer-lived species, such as white pine. All shelterwood treatments could include mechanical site preparation or prescribed burning for seeding or planting.

Temporary Openings – This proposal includes timber harvest that would create temporary openings. Under this proposal, there would be 368 openings (ranging from three to 175 acres in size) created by clearcut or shelterwood harvest, followed by overstory removal, which are proposed in order to reach vegetation composition objectives for young aspen, balsam fir, and paper birch. Regenerating the aspen, balsam fir, and paper birch would help achieve Forest Plan direction for species composition and age class distribution. Increasing the acres of aspen and paper birch regeneration would ensure that foraging habitat for ruffed grouse and other early successional habitat dependent species remains available on the landscape. As required by the Regional Office and 36 CFR Part 219, the temporary opening proposal will be reviewed by the regional forester prior to final decision.

Thinning – This is an intermediate treatment that reduces stand density to improve growth and diversity. It can be used on a variety of forest types and is commonly used in pine plantations. In a couple of treatments outlined in table 2-1, the stands would also be underplanted with white pine to encourage the establishment of longer-lived species.

Biomass Harvesting – Biomass harvest refers to removal of tip or topwood of the trees being harvested on a site. There are different methods of processing topwood. Whole tree harvest is one method. This allows removal of the entire harvested tree. Processing generally occurs at a landing. Fuel rod or topwood removal is another method. This entails limbing and processing at the stump and removing the main stem from four-inch diameter inside bark to about one-inch diameter inside bark. The remaining fine woody debris would be left at the stump.

The following tables include a summary of proposed vegetation treatments.

Table 2-1 gives a detailed breakdown of the types of harvest activities proposed by objective. The current forest type and proposed acres of harvest are identified. Many of the harvest treatments being proposed were developed to meet more than one need or objective for the project area.

Black Torch

26

Table 2-1. Treatments proposed to meet the need to improve or maintain forest health.

Treatment by Forest Type Group by Objective (rounded to the nearest 10)

Scoping Proposed Treatment

Acres*

Modified Proposed Treatment

Acres

Reason for Change

Objective 1. Maintain the early successional forest types on the landscape Clearcut, Aspen (followed by site preparation)

6,030 5,970 Complementary management

Clearcut, Aspen (will be maintained as permanent openings)

0 50 Elk habitat improvement

Clearcut, Balsam fir (followed by site preparation)


Clearcut, Mixed hardwood/aspen stand and regenerate to aspen (followed by site preparation)

10 Stays the same

Shelterwood cut, Paper birch (followed by site preparation)

630 Stays the same

Objective 2. Improve age class distribution Clearcut, Aspen (followed by site preparation) (same acres as above)


Clearcut, Aspen (will be maintained as a permanent opening) (same acres as above)


Clearcut, Balsam fir (followed by site preparation) (same acres as above)


Clearcut, Mixed hardwood/aspen stand and regenerate to aspen (followed by site preparation) (same acres as above)

10 Stays the same

Total acres of regenerated aspen and balsam fir (50 acres of permanent opening is not included in total)

7,530 7,440

Shelterwood Cut, Paper birch (same acres as above)

630 Stays the same

Clearcut, Red pine (followed by site preparation), then plant with red pine

110 Stays the same

Clearcut, Jack pine (followed by site preparation), plant with red pine

10 Stays the same

Objective 3. Improve early successional habitat for wildlife Regeneration of early successional forest types (aspen, mixed aspen, balsam fir, paper birch acres combined)



27



Acres*


Acres

Reason for Change

Clearcut, Aspen (will be maintained as a permanent opening) (same acres as above)


Objective 4. Reduce stocking levels in overstocked forested stands Individual Tree Selection, Hardwood 4,980 4,620 Even-aged

management Thinning, Spruce 290 Stays the

same

Thinning, Red pine 660 Stays the same

Thinning, White pine 160 Stays the same

Thinning, Oak 20 Stays the same

Thinning, Hardwood and spruce followed by white pine underplanting (Black Lake Campground)

40 Stays the same

Thinning, Hardwood for even-aged management

0 160 Even-aged management

Objective 5. Maintaining forest types of intermediate shade tolerance Shelterwood, Balsam fir (followed by site preparation) with white pine underplanting

30 Stays the same

Shelterwood, Oak (followed by site preparation), then later overstory removal

40 Stays the same

Shelterwood, Hardwood convert to oak (followed by site preparation), then later overstory removal

10 Stays the same

Shelterwood, Hardwood convert to paper birch (followed by site preparation), then later overstory removal

10 Stays the same

Shelterwood, Maintain intermediate shade-tolerant component (followed by site preparation)


Shelterwood, Maintain intermediate shade-tolerant component


Overstory removal, Hardwoods (stands that only need overstory removal)

150 Stays the same

Black Torch

28



Acres*


Acres

Reason for Change

Overstory removal, Jack pine to release existing white pine

20 Stays the same

Thinning, Hardwood for even-aged management


Objective 6 – Restore healthy forest conditions on areas damaged by spruce decline Clearcut, Spruce (followed by site preparation), then plant with red pine

30 Stays the same

Clearcut, Spruce (followed by site preparation), then regenerate to aspen

20 Stays the same

Objective 7 – Convert aspen to northern hardwoods and mesic conifers adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G (Forest Plan, page 2-4) Improvement cut, Aspen convert to hardwood and mesic conifers

180 210 Complementary management

Vegetation Treatment Total (Estimated Acres)

14,920 14,920

*The acreage numbers may be duplicated throughout the table because the same treatments can be used to achieve multiple objectives.

Table 2-2 lists the acres of treatment by harvest type. This table focuses on the overall acres by harvest treatment and forest types lumped together. Table 2-3 identifies the other associated treatments proposed, such as tree planting, site preparation and deer repellant application. Table 2-4 lists estimated volume in million board feet by harvest type.

Table 2-2. Proposed harvest treatments.

Harvest Type Scoping Proposed Treatment Acres

Modified Proposed Treatment Acres

Clearcut Total 7,700 7,670 Overstory Removal Total 170 170 Shelterwood Total 720 920 Thinning Total 1,170 1,320 Selection Total 4,980 4,630 Improvement Cut Total 180 210 Harvest Total 14,920 14,920


29

Table 2-3. Other proposed vegetation treatments.

Activity Scoping Proposed Treatment Acres

Modified Proposed Treatment Acres

Aspen site preparation (does not include 50 acres for permanent openings)

7,560 7,470

Aspen site preparation – permanent openings, may include the following: prescribed burning, pile and burn, stump removal, dozing, plowing, and or planting

0 50

Canopy gap cleaning for natural regeneration of hardwoods

4,980 4,630

Site preparation for natural regeneration of paper birch, may include mechanical site preparation or prescribed burning

640 640

Site preparation for natural regeneration of oak, may include mechanical site preparation or prescribed burning

50 50

Site preparation for natural regeneration of mid-tolerant species, such as yellow birch, may include mechanical site preparation

0 90

Mechanical site preparation for planting 180 180 Post-harvest tree planting 220 220 Conifer planting in the riparian zone of the East Fork of the Chippewa River

30 30

Release of planted trees 250 250 Deer repellant application (areas planted with white pine

100 100

Table 2-4. Estimated volume in million board feet (MMBF) by harvest type. Harvest Type MMBF from Scoping

Proposed Action MMBF from Modified

Proposed Action

Clearcut 77.0 76.7

Overstory removal 1.2 1.2

Shelterwood 4.3 5.5

Thinning 5.9 6.7

Selection 19.9 18.5

Improvement cut 0.7 0.8

Harvest Total 109 MMBF 109 MMBF

Black Torch

30

Transportation The road proposal for this action was developed using current information. Routes identified as being likely needed for use to access the proposed vegetation treatment areas were selected using a variety of information, including Geographic Information System (GIS), topographic maps, soil surveys, existing road maps, aerial photographs, wildlife and botanical surveys, field verification, and heritage surveys. All transportation-related actions are listed in table 2-5 and shown on the maps in appendix B.

All existing roads used to access the proposed treatment areas will be reviewed for maintenance needs in order to accommodate log trucks and equipment as necessary. Roads used for vegetation treatment access and product removal would be improved as needed to provide safe use while mitigating resource effects. To provide safe access for haul vehicles, the following road work may be needed.

Road maintenance – Activity that results in the basic upkeep of the road in its current condition. Any of the National Forest System roads used for the project that are in good condition may be maintained during the project. Maintenance activities generally include: blading, brushing, removal of roadside hazard trees, repair and/or replacement of road surfaces; cleaning, repair or installation of drainage structures, such as culverts, ditches and dips, dust abatement, removal and installation of closure barriers, and installation or repair of signs. Maintenance activities generally do not disturb ground outside of the existing roadway (toe of fill or top of cut) other than removal of material around culvert inlets. Maintenance can help with BMP compliance.

New system road construction – About 10 miles of new specified roads are proposed to provide long-term access to northern hardwood stands, pine stands and other areas that need to be entered at least every 20 years. Most of these miles are for extensions of existing roads and would be closed after timber harvest to protect various resources and prevent an increase in open road density. Some would be maintained as open to provide public access to the Forest.

Temporary road construction – About 19 miles of temporary roads are proposed for construction to provide access to timber harvest areas, such as aspen clearcuts, that would not need to be entered again for 30 or more years. These roads would be decommissioned after use and are not included in road density figures listed in table 2-6.

Road reconstruction – About four miles of existing roads would be reconstructed. Existing culverts would be replaced, as needed. Reconstruction generally includes work to improve or restore National Forest System roads. Improvements would provide for serviceability for project haul vehicles and logging equipment and for proper hydrologic function and stream protection in accordance with applicable BMPs. Actions can include clearing and grubbing, reconditioning and surface improvement, construction of drainage dips, culverts, riprap fills or other drainage or stabilization features with potential disturbance outside of the established roadway (toe of fill to top of cut), stream crossing replacements, roadway realignment, widening to accommodate vehicles and logging equipment, and widening of curves as needed to accommodate off-tracking of log trucks and other equipment. Reconstruction also includes the actions described in the maintenance category, including removal of roadside hazard trees. Reconstruction would improve road conditions for safe and efficient haul of forest products.

Opening of road to public use – About 19 miles of National Forest System roads currently not open to the public are proposed for opening to public vehicles and off-highway vehicles 65 inches or less. This would provide additional public access for recreation, hunting, fishing and


31

gathering. The mileage of open roads is included in total road and open road density calculations in table 2-6.

Closure of road to public use – About 2.5 miles of National Forest System roads currently open to the public are proposed for closure to public vehicles and off-highway vehicles to protect natural resources, avoid recreation use conflicts, address local government concerns, and/or address safety issues. Closure devices may include gates, berms, rocks, trees, stumps or other effective means. Road closures differ from decommissioning in that these roads would still be present on the landscape to provide long-term access for forest management. The mileage of closed roads is included in total road density calculations, but it is not included in open road density calculations in table 2-6.

Road decommissioning – About 60 miles of roads are proposed for decommissioning within the project area. About five of these 60 miles are currently open to public use. The remaining 55 miles are currently closed to public use or are unauthorized. Many are not passable by a vehicle because they are overgrown. Road decommissioning includes activities that result in the restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state. Decommissioned roads are not planned to be used again and are removed from the transportation inventory.

A number of roads were proposed for decommissioning because of resource impacts. A number of roads are proposed for decommissioning because there were multiple roads available within a quarter-mile skid distance, the average skid distance used as a standard for the Region 9 appraisal system or just because the roads were no longer needed for administrative use. This is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for road decommissioning and landscape restoration (pages 2-36 and 2-37).

Table 2-5. Transportation system improvements. Treatment Type Treatment from

Modified Proposed Action*

Roads added to the National Forest System as Closed Roads

Unauthorized road added to the system as a closed road 40.49

New system road construction added as a closed road 10.05

Total miles 50.54

Temporary Road Construction

Total miles 19.22

Reconstruction**

Closed road reconstruction 0.25

Open road reconstruction 1.29

Unauthorized road reconstruction – roads would be added to the system as an open road after timber harvest is completed

1.78

Black Torch

32

Treatment Type Treatment from Modified Proposed

Action*

Total miles 3.32

Road Opened for Public Use

Closed system road changed to open system road 7.64

Unauthorized road changed to open system road 10.85

Total miles 18.49

Road Closed to Public Use

Open system road changed to closed system road 2.51

Total miles 2.51

Special Use Permit

Total miles 0.08

Road Decommissioning

Closed road proposed for decommissioning 5.07

Open road proposed for decommissioning 4.69

Unauthorized road proposed for decommissioning 50.60

Total miles 60.36

Road maintenance is an ongoing activity; some level of road maintenance will take place regardless of this proposed action.

Affected Acreage (calculations are based upon a 20-foot travel way clearing)

Disturbance from 10.05 miles of new road construction Calculated as follows: 20 feet X 53,064 feet / 43,560 feet2

24.36

No additional disturbance for road reconstruction ** 0.00

Disturbance from decommissioning closed roads (372 entrances) Calculated as follows: Number of entrances X 200 feet X 16 feet / 43,560 feet2

27.33

Disturbance from decommissioning open roads (22 entrances) Calculated as follows: Number of entrances X 200 feet X 16 feet / 43,560 feet2

1.62

Total acres of disturbance 53.30

* These calculations were based on lengths and areas measured in a GIS. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. ** Proposed road reconstruction will take place on the existing footprint. Totals will vary slightly on other tables because open road figures exclude State Highways.


33

The Forest Plan FEIS (page 3-238) defines and measures road density in two ways: total road density and open road density. Total road density describes the total miles of all types of roads – including those under the jurisdiction of local, State or Federal authorities - per square mile of National Forest System land. In addition, the Forest Plan FEIS defines “upper limits,” which represent the maximum total road density allowed in a specific area based on Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) designations. Open road density describes the miles of National Forest System roads open to public use, per square mile of National Forest System land. Total road density also has “upper limits” assigned based on ROS designations.

The ROS system is a method used by the Forest Service to inventory and zone recreation opportunities of the land based on physical, social and managerial attributes. The FEIS (page 3-243) describes the ROS classifications. The ROS designations for the Black Torch area are Roaded Natural, Semi-primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural Remote and Non-motorized. The upper density limits for these designations, as defined in the Forest Plan FEIS, are included in table 2-6 for comparison.

Table 2-6. Change in road density from the modified proposed action. System and Unauthorized Forest Plan

Density Upper Limits

Existing Density

Modified Proposed

Action

Change from

Existing

Non-motorized – Open road density 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00

Non-motorized – Total road density 3.00 2.45 1.56 -minus 0.89

Roaded Natural / Roaded Natural Remote / Semi-primitive Motorized** - Open road density

4.00 0.52 0.69 +0.17

Roaded Natural / Roaded Natural Remote / Semi-primitive Motorized** - Total road density

4.00 2.71 2.27 -minus 0.44

Roaded Natural is the predominant experience on the Forest. Some areas that fit the Roaded Natural description were zoned for Non-motorized with Full Vegetation Management, a unique classification to the Forest. About 9,652 acres with this description are included in this project area.

Semi-primitive Motorized is described as predominantly natural-appearing setting with a moderate probability of experiencing isolation. This setting is characterized by a pre-dominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size (generally more than 2,500 acres).

Roaded Natural Remote is also unique to this Forest and is intended to represent a Semi-primitive Motorized type of experience in a smaller setting (less than 2,500 acres).

Black Torch

34

Non-motorized is unique to this Forest and is intended to provide non-motorized recreation in intensively-managed forestlands. It is managed to maintain early-successional habitat for non-motorized hunting opportunities.

The modified proposed action was designed to meet the purpose and need described in Chapter 1 and includes all applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Table 2-1 summarizes the amount of activities being proposed. More detailed information about each proposed activity and location for the modified proposed action is included in appendices B and E. All applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and design features are listed in appendix E.

Alternative Comparison Table 2-7 briefly displays the core issues and objectives for the project and quantifies the expected impacts for each alternative. It is organized by objective and issue as organized in chapter 3, which includes more in-depth identification of the objectives and issues, the potential impacts, and design features used to reduce or eliminate impacts.

Table 2-7. Comparison of the no action and the modified proposed action.

Objective/Issue No Action Modified Proposed Action

Objective 1: Maintain early successional forest types on landscape (acres)

Aspen 17,609 17,399

Balsam Fir 1,953 1,903

Paper Birch 802 812

Jack Pine 389 359

Total 20,753 (assumes existing acreage would stay the same over the next ten

years) – over the long-term this would change

20,473 for a decrease of 280 acres of early successional forest

Objective 2: Improve age class distribution

Aspen 0-10 age class (%) in 2027 (desired condition 15-25%)

5 39


4 4


46 47

Aspen 46 or more age class (%) in 2027 (desired condition 5-15%)

45 10

Balsam fir 0-10 age class (%) in 2027 (desired condition 15-25%)

5 81


35



0 0


5 5

Balsam fir 46 or more age class (%) in 2027 (desired condition 5-15%)

90 13

Paper birch 0-20 age class (%) in 2027 (desired condition 20-30%)

3 79


0 0


0 0

Paper birch 61 or more age class (%) in 2027 (desired condition 20-30%)

97 21

Red pine 0-20 age class (%) in 2027 (desired condition 10-20%)

1 10


41 40


56 49

Red pine 101 or more age class (%) in 2027 (desired condition 20-30%)

2 2

Objective 3: Improve early successional habitat for wildlife (acres treated)

0 8,130

Objective 4: Reduce stocking levels in overstocked forested stands (acres treated)

0 5,950

Objective 5: Maintain forest types of intermediate shade tolerance (acres treated)

0 650

Objective 6: Restore healthy forest conditions on areas damaged by spruce decline (acres treated)

0 50

Black Torch

36


Objective 7: Convert aspen to northern hardwoods and mesic conifers adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G (acres treated)

0 210

Objective 8: Provide a sustainable flow of wood products while meeting habitat and landscape needs (estimated MMBF produced)

0 109

Soil compaction and rutting Modified proposed action Slight risk – 8,365 acres (61%) Moderate risk – 4,000 acres (29%) Severe risk – 1,394 (10%)

0 Implementation of guidelines would result in

0-3% detrimental soil disturbance

Soil erosion and displacement Modified proposed action Slight risk – 13,376 acres (97%) Moderate risk – 379 acres (3%) Severe risk – 4 (<1%)

<0.18 tons/acre/year Implementation of guidelines would result in

no detrimental effects from soil erosion

Soil productivity 14,849 (>99%) 14,550 (>97%)

Riparian management zones (RMZs)

No conversion to long-lived species

181 acres with potential for impact – with design feature implementation

should be negligible impact – no long-term

impact to water quality – Long-lived species

underplanting within RMZ would improve RMZ

Road activities in RMZs and wetlands

One mile of road within wetlands and 271 feet within RMZs would

continue to impact wetlands and RMZs

Decommissioning one mile of road located in

wetlands and 271 feet of road in RMZs would have

beneficial impact

Elk 0 50 acres of new larger permanent openings

Northern goshawk Model Model


37

Objective 9: Provide access to the Forest through the development of a cost-effective road system with minimal environmental impacts.

Non-motorized – Open road density according to Forest Plan 0.00 miles per square mile

0.02 0.00

Non-motorized – Total road density according to Forest Plan 3.00 miles per square mile

2.45 1.27

Roaded Natural/Roaded Natural Remote/ Semi-primitive Motorized – Open road density according to Forest Plan 4.00 miles per square mile

2.71 2.33

Roaded Natural/Roaded Natural Remote/ Semi-primitive Motorized – Total road density according to Forest Plan 4.00 miles per square mile

2.71 2.33

Meeting scenic integrity objectives (SIO)

High SIO exceedance (miles of road/trail)

0 2.14

Moderate SIO exceedance (miles of road)

0 19.3

Low SIO exceedance (miles) 0 0

Black Torch

38

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences This chapter presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives. The chapter is organized by resource area and each resource includes a discussion of the affected environment and environmental consequences. The affected environment describes the current condition of the resource indicators and trends relative to their status. The environmental consequences sections describe the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives.

Direct effects occur at the same time and place as the initial action. Indirect effects occur as a result of the initial action, but are either later in time or are spatially removed from the action. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impacts of actions when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such further action.

Table 3-1 lists the major vegetation management projects that have occurred across the Forest in the recent past, are being implemented currently, and some projects that are just beginning to be considered or analyzed (reasonably foreseeable projects). Impacts from past actions not listed here are generally assumed to be integrated in corporate databases and are accounted for in the described existing conditions for the various resources discussed in this chapter. These are the project that have been considered in any cumulative impact analysis for this project when relevant to determining a cumulative impact or difference between alternative impacts. Each resource identifies which projects may have been included and gives a brief description of why.

The interdisciplinary team examined and analyzed data to estimate the effects of each alternative. The data and level of analysis were proportionate with the importance of the possible impacts (40 CFR 1502.15). The effects are quantified where possible, although qualitative discussions may also be included.

Table 3-1. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions contributing to cumulative effects.

West Zone Projects (Medford-Park Falls, Great Divide and Washburn Districts)

Cayuga Fishbone

Early Successional Habitat Improvement (ESHI) (Forestwide)

Kidrick

Chequamegon Salvage and Restoration Greenwood

Chequamegon Red Pine Thinning Medford Aspen II

Spruce Decline II North Boundary Salvage

Northwest Sands Riley WMA

Twentymile Twin Ghost

Twin Lakes Washburn Pine Thinning


39

East Zone Projects (Eagle River-Florence and Lakewood-Laona Districts)

Boulder Doubtfire

Early Successional Habitat Fishel

Grubhoe Honey Creek - Padus

Lakewood SE Long Rail

McCaslin Morgan Lake

NW Howell Phelps

Polecat Pine Townsend

State and Private Activities Considered

Private Forest Management – vegetation management activities are unknown

2,360 acres owned by private individuals or incorporated owners within the project

owners

Board of Commissioners for Public Lands Forest Management – About 17 acres of

northern hardwood forest next to Highway 77 planned for an individual selection

treatment.

About 320 acres scattered across the project area north of Highway 77 are owned by the

State of Wisconsin

Forest Vegetation The analysis will describe how silvicultural treatments would affect the health and diversity of forest stands proposed for treatment in the Black Torch analysis area and the effect on vegetation composition regarding the Forest Plan’s desired condition. Detailed analysis of the effects to forest vegetation is located in the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report in the project record.

Analysis Parameters

Analysis Methods Analysis of forest vegetation begins with querying data. Data used for vegetation analysis are from the Forest’s Field Sampled Vegetation (FSVeg) tabular and spatial databases. Forest vegetation data were collected using plots scattered across individual stands. The data includes information, such as forest type, species make-up, stocking levels, average diameter, stand age and condition, etc. These data were summarized and used to make recommendations on which stands would be proposed for treatment for this project.

Data for 68 percent of the acres proposed for treatment in the Black Torch project were gathered between 2007 and 2015. Data for 25 percent of the acres proposed for treatment were gathered between 1997 and 2006. Data for six percent of the acres proposed for treatment were collected prior to 1987. Newer data is considered more reliable. A responsive strategy will be used if current stand conditions are not as represented by the data. For example, stands could be dropped

Black Torch

40

from the project or the proposed treatment could be altered to something suitable to the actual condition. Harvest history for the project area was extracted from the Forest Service Activity Tracking system (FACTS) database.

Measurement Indicators All proposed vegetation management activities are located in MA 1A. Resource indicators measured as part of this analysis are listed in table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to forest vegetation.

Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure

Source

Early Successional Forest

Amount of Early Successional Forest

Acres of Early Successional Forest in MA 1A

Forest Plan Table 3-1, page 3-3

Age Class Distribution Stand Age Percent in Age Class by Forest Cover Type

Forest Plan Standards/ Guidelines

Improve Early Successional Habitat for Wildlife

Amount of Early Successional Forest

Acres of Early Successional Forest Regenerated

Forest Plan Goal

Reduce Stocking Levels in Overstocked Stands

Stands Exceeding Stocking Level Guidelines

Treatment Acres in Overstocked Condition Within MA 1A

Forest Plan Guidelines, Appendix FF

Maintain Forest Types of Intermediate Shade Tolerance

Forest Types of Intermediate Shade Tolerance

Treatment Acres of Stands With Trees of Intermediate Shade Tolerance

Forest Plan Goal

Restore Healthy Forest Conditions on Areas Damaged by Spruce Decline

Healthy Forest Acres Damaged by Spruce Decline that are Restored

Forest Plan Goal

Convert Aspen to Northern Hardwoods and Mesic Conifers Adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G

Complementary Management

Treatment Acres of Complementary Management Adjacent to MAs 8E and 8G

Forest Plan S/G

Provide a Sustainable Flow of Wood Products While Meeting Habitat and Landscape Needs

Volume MMBF of Wood Made Available for Sale

Forest Plan Goal

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Direct and Indirect Effects Boundaries

The spatial boundary for direct and indirect effects is the boundary of the individual stands. This is where actions and changes would take effect. The temporal boundary for effects of vegetation


41

treatments is from the start of harvest activities to five years after harvest (roughly 2017 to 2032). This allows time for stands to be harvested, certified as regenerated (if applicable) and recover from any stresses from harvesting activities. After this time, the state of any given stand would be considered the existing condition.

Cumulative Effects Boundaries

The spatial boundary for cumulative effects of vegetation treatments is the 63,460-acre project area boundary. It encompasses the proposed vegetation management activities. No effects to forest vegetation are expected beyond the boundaries of the stands being treated. The temporal boundary for cumulative effects of vegetation treatments is the same as for direct and indirect effects, from the start of harvest activities to five years after harvest (roughly 2017 to 2032) for the same reasons as described above for direct and indirect effects boundaries.

Affected Environment

Forest Composition The Black Torch project area is comprised of three MAs. Each MA has a set of management directions and goals. Ninety percent of the Black Torch analysis area is MA 1A (56,648 acres). The rest of the analysis area is made up of MA 8E – RNAs (467 acres) and MA 8G – Old Growth and Natural Feature Complexes (2,374 acres) (Forest Plan, pages 3-51 and 3-57). Table 3-3 shows the Black Torch acreage within each MA, by forest type. No vegetation management activities are proposed for MAs 8E and MA 8G.

Table 3-3. Existing Black Torch acreage by major forest type and management area. Forest Type Group 1A (acres) 8E (acres) 8G (acres) Total (acres)

Aspen 17,609 43 267 17,919

Balsam Fir 1,953 2 12 1,967

Hardwoods 7,766 35 379 8,180

Hemlock 58 0 16 74

Jack Pine 389 0 0 389

Lowland Conifer 13,363 245 669 14,277

Lowland Hardwoods 2,828 0 144 2,972

Lowland Opening 8,331 130 705 9,166

Oak 76 0 0 76

Paper Birch 802 3 33 838

Red Pine 1,666 8 14 1,688

Spruce 822 0 2 824

Black Torch

42

Forest Type Group 1A (acres) 8E (acres) 8G (acres) Total (acres)

Upland Opening 674 1 11 686

White Pine 311 0 122 433

Other (water bodies and non-FS) * * * 3,971*

Total 56,648 467 2,374 63,460

* Other (blank in GIS) consists of water bodies and non-FS lands, including 334 acres in MA 1A (non-FS ownership that are labeled as MA 1A incorrectly), seven acres in MA 8G, 2,836 acres of Other and 794 acres of water bodies.

The existing forest type structure is mostly the result of harvest activities that took place starting in the early 1900s. Most of the merchantable timber was harvested resulting in landscape-scale regeneration. Timber harvesting since the 1960s has provided some age class diversity, but most species age classes remain out of balance compared to the Forest Plan goals, as described in more detail later in this analysis (Forest Plan, pages 2-5 to 2-11).

The existing area of upland forest types within MA 1A of Black Torch are displayed in table 3-4. All forest types are within the desired composition range except northern hardwoods. Northern hardwoods are four percent over the high end of the desired composition range.

Table 3-4. Management Area 1A – Black Torch vegetation existing condition and desired composition.

Forest Type Group Existing Acres Existing Percentage of Upland Acres

Desired Composition (%)

Aspen 17,609 55 50-75

Balsam Fir 1,953 6 0-10

Paper Birch 802 2 0-5

Jack Pine 389 1 0-2

Red Pine/White Pine 1,977 6 5-15

Northern Hardwoods 7,766 24 5-20

Oak 76 1 0-5

Permanent Openings 674 2 1-4

Other Forest Types (hemlock, spruce)

880 3 0-5

Forest types are also combined and summarized in three groups (Forest Plan, page 3-3). Early successional (aspen, balsam fir, paper birch, and jack pine) has a desired range of 50-92 percent. Red pine/white pine has a desired range of 5-15 percent. Hardwoods (northern hardwoods and oak) have a desired range of 5-25 percent (Forest Plan, page 3-3). All three of the combined forest type groups are within the desired composition range.


43

Within MA 1A, sixty-seven percent (37,988 acres) are classified as suited for timber production, which means they are part of the land base used for determining the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) and are planned for timber production on a regulated basis (Forest Plan, page EE-14). The remaining 33 percent of MA 1A lands within Black Torch have been classified as unsuited for timber production. These lands are either non-forest, not cost effective for meeting forest objectives, or physically unsuited because of low site index (growth potential).

Aspen (Populus tremuloides) - Aspen is a focal species in the Black Torch project area. It is of great importance to wildlife species that rely on early successional forest and was the subject of scoping comments from interest groups as well as individuals. At 17,919 acres, aspen covers more area than any other forest type within the Black Torch project area.

As described in Chapter 1, aspen is a shade-intolerant species and is considered a “pioneer” tree species on intensively disturbed sites. About 6,754 acres (38 percent) of the aspen stands in the project area are beyond the standard rotation age of 45 years (Forest Plan, page 2-4).

Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea) - Balsam fir, occurring on about 1,967 acres of the proposed project area, has the ability to become established and grow under the shade of larger trees. Typically, balsam fir grows in mixed stands with aspen, paper birch, maple and other species. Rotation ages are generally between 45 and 60 years of age (Forest Plan FEIS Appendix F, pages F-7 and F-8).

Spruce budworm has been defoliating balsam fir within the project area over the past decade and is causing mortality of older balsam fir, accelerating the succession pattern towards longer-lived species, such as red maple. As stated in Chapter 1, about 85 percent of the balsam fir stands in the project area are older than 45 years.

Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera) - Paper birch is not a major species within the Black Torch project area, occupying only about 838 acres. Paper birch is a sun-loving species that regenerates areas after widespread disturbances, such as stand-replacement fires. Ninety-seven percent of the existing paper birch in the project area is in the 61 years old or more age class.

Jack Pine (Pinus banksiana) - Jack pine, occurring on about 389 acres of the proposed project area, is one of the most shade-intolerant species in its native range and is considered a “pioneer” tree species on sites recovering from intense disturbance, such as wildfire, windstorms followed by wildfire or other events that leave a site devoid of vegetation. Ground conditions as a result of intense disturbance events are favorable to jack pine seeding. The species is generally associated with wildfire, due to the adaptation of its cone, which only releases its seed when it is subjected to relatively high temperatures. Due to fire suppression, these conditions rarely occur, so the effects of fire must be simulated by other means (FEIS Appendix F, page F-5).

Much of the existing jack pine in the project area has been planted in the past 10 years on sites formerly occupied by white spruce plantations. The white spruce was in decline and salvaged as part of the Spruce Decline and Spruce Decline II projects. One jack pine stand over 90 years old (standard rotation age is 60, Forest Plan, page 2-4), was underplanted with white pine in 1994.

Red Pine (Pinus resinosa) - Red pine is not tolerant of shade. It grows best in even-aged stands. Multi-aged red pine stands (old red pine over young red pine) are highly susceptible to shoot blight (Sirrococus and Diplodia). Red pine seedlings and saplings are killed when growing under infected overstory trees (Nicholls et al 1984).

Black Torch

44

Five red pine stands in the project area were identified with crown dieback and reduced growth. A site visit to one of the stands with a forest pathologist in July 2016 confirmed shoot blight pathogens Sirrococus and Diplodia were present. It was also noted that very little diameter growth has occurred since the last thinning in 1991.

Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra) - Northern red oak is found as an associate in many stands within the Black Torch project area. Only three stands, for a total of 76 acres, are classified as the northern red oak forest type (50 percent or more of the trees being northern red oak). Northern red oak is classified as intermediate in shade tolerance. It is less tolerant than some of its associates, such as sugar maple, and basswood, but more tolerant than white ash (Sander 1990).

White Pine (Pinus strobus) - There are 430 acres in 23 stands classified as white pine forest type within the project area. White pine is intermediate in shade tolerance.

White Spruce (Picea glauca) - White spruce, occurring on 820 acres of the proposed project area, is intermediate in tolerance to shade. It is equally or less tolerant than black spruce, hemlock, balsam fir, and sugar maple. It is more tolerant than aspen or paper birch (Nienstaedt and Zasada 1990).

Over the last 15 years, spruce decline has killed thousands of acres of white spruce across the Forest, including the Black Torch project area. Spruce decline is caused by a combination of factors, including spruce budworm, needle cast fungi, drought stress, root disease, and marginal site conditions. Three white spruce stands within the analysis area are showing signs of spruce decline with significant mortality.

Northern Hardwoods - Northern hardwoods make up 251 stands in the Black Torch project area, accounting for 8,180 acres. The northern hardwoods forest type is typically dominated by sugar maple. Common associates are red maple, basswood, yellow birch, white ash, red oak, and hemlock. Over 5,000 acres of northern hardwoods within the project area were determined to be in an overstocked condition (Forest Vegetation Resource Report – Appendix A in the project record). By keeping density at recommended levels, optimal stand growth and vigor are maintained. Trees in an overstocked stand experience declining growth rates, decreasing vigor, and increased susceptibility to insects and disease.

No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts This alternative would propose no new management activities in the analysis area. Any previously approved activities from other projects would be implemented as planned. No harvesting would take place as a result of the Black Torch project; therefore, no wood products would be made available to the local economy. Mature and overmature stands would follow natural successional pathways.

Early Successional Forest Types on the Landscape - Over the long term, successional trends will influence the species composition as short-lived, early-successional species become overmature, die and are replaced by more shade-tolerant longer-lived species. This is difficult to predict where and when they will occur, so for this project, the assumption for the no action alternative will be no change in species composition over the next 10 year period. Ten years was chosen as the time period because it is a convenient time period for comparing alternatives and is consistent with the Early Successional Habitat Improvement (ESHI) project analyzed in 2012 (USDA Forest Service 2012a).


45

Aspen is not a long-lived species. By age 50, decay pathogens start to become a concern and are a major deterrent to growing aspen on long rotations (Perala and Russell 1983). After 50-70 years, these stands will begin to deteriorate. The deterioration of the aspen stand begins when the crowns of older trees can no longer grow fast enough to fill voids in the canopy left by dying trees. By age 60-80 years, many aspen trees will have died, and succession to more shade-tolerant trees will begin (Katovich et al. 1998). There are 4,975 acres of aspen 60 years old or more within the project area. Deteriorating clones, genetically identical trees connected underground by roots, will produce significantly fewer root suckers following harvest or catastrophic disturbances than their healthy counterparts (Bates et al. 2013).

Wildfires have largely been eliminated from the Great Lakes landscape through active fire suppression. Man-caused disturbance events, such as timber harvesting, are used to maintain aspen on landscape scales because of the lack of natural disturbance. In the absence of stand replacement disturbances, aspen stands will gradually convert to types dominated by more shade-tolerant species.

Balsam fir stands break up at fairly young ages and tend not to persist into old ages. In the absence of disturbance, the sites tend to become occupied by longer-lived and more shade-tolerant species, such as red and sugar maple.

Ninety-seven percent of the existing paper birch in the project area is in the 61 years old or more age class. If not regenerated by some sort of disturbance, the paper birch type will be replaced by more shade-tolerant types, such as oak or northern hardwoods.

Age Class Distribution - In the short term, species age class distributions would shift with the passage of time. Over the long term, acres would drop out of the oldest age class as early successional forest types gradually succeeded to longer-lived species. Without large scale natural disturbance, such as fire or a large wind event, there would be no recruitment into the youngest age class.

Tables 3-5 through 3-8 show how the existing age class distribution would change in the next ten years under the no action alternative. It is assumed the existing forest will continue to age while the forest type composition remains the same.

Table 3-5. Aspen age class distribution in project area from the no action alternative.

Age Desired Condition

2017 Existing

Condition

2022 No Action

2027 No Action

0-10* 15-25% 4% 8% 5%

11-20 15-25% 8% 1% 4%

21-45 45-55% 51% 52% 46%

46 or more* 5-15% 38% 38% 45%

*the amount of area in the 0 to 10 year age class and 46 year or more age class changes as implementation of timber sales from the Cayuga, Early Successional Habitat Improvement (ESHI), Chequamegon Salvage and Restoration Projects are completed.

Black Torch

46

Table 3-6. Balsam fir age class distribution in project area from the no action alternative.


2017 Existing

Condition

2022 No Action

2027 No Action

0-10* 15-25% 0% 5% 5%

11-30 35-45% 4% 3% 0%

31-45 25-35% 10% 4% 5%

46 or more* 5-15% 85% 88% 90%

*the amount of area in the 0 to 10 year age class and 46 year or more age class changes as implementation of timber sales from the Cayuga, ESHI, Chequamegon Salvage and Restoration Projects are completed.

Table 3-7. Paper birch age class distribution in project area from the no action alternative.


2017 Existing

Condition

2022 No Action

2027 No Action

0-20* 20-30% 0% 3% 3%

21-40 20-30% 0% 0% 0%

41-60 20-30% 3% 1% 0%

61 or more* 20-30% 97% 95% 97%

*the amount of area in the 0 to 20 year age class and 61 year or more age class changes as implementation of timber sales from the Cayuga Project is completed.

Table 3-8. Red pine age class distribution in project area from the no action alternative.


2017 Existing

Condition

2022 No Action

2027 No Action

0-20 10-20% 1% 1% 1%

21-60 25-35% 53% 45% 41%

61-100 25-35% 45% 54% 56%

101 or more 20-30% 0% 0% 2%

Early Successional Habitat for Wildlife - Improvements to early successional habitat for wildlife would not be implemented. Species currently in place would continue to grow older and succession to more shade-tolerant, longer-lived species would occur. Additional wildlife openings would not be created and maintained.


47

Stocking Levels in Overstocked Forested Stands - Overstocked stands would not be treated to reduce stocking to levels identified in the Forest Plan. Tree growth would stagnate and mortality would increase as trees compete for available light, nutrients, and water (Spurr and Barnes 1980). Tree vigor would decrease while susceptibility to forest insects and disease would increase (Gilmore and Palik 2006). Mortality of individual trees would release neighboring trees.

Forest Types of Intermediate Shade Tolerance - Tree species of intermediate shade tolerance would not be promoted and developed through partial harvest of existing overstory trees. Only canopy openings created through natural disturbance, for example, windthrow and natural mortality, allow for regeneration or the release of the existing understory. Additional recruitment of seedlings would also require natural disturbances (Frehlich 2002). Growth would stagnate, along with likely increases in mortality, as trees compete for available light, nutrients, and water, except where natural disturbances occurred.

Forest Conditions on Areas Damaged by Spruce Decline - Stands damaged by spruce decline would not have merchantable wood salvaged and restored to fully stocked levels of healthy trees. Natural regeneration would occur, but the timeframe would be longer. Species more appropriate for site conditions, such as aspen and red pine, may or may not replace white spruce. Adjacent seed sources, weather patterns, and natural disturbances, like wind or fire, would influence future species composition in these stands.

Conversion of Aspen to Northern Hardwoods and Mesic Conifers Adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G - Succession from aspen to hardwoods and mesic conifers would not be accelerated in stands adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G. Succession would still occur, but at a slower pace. Existing understories of hardwoods and conifers would require natural disturbances to create gaps in the canopy, providing for increased light, nutrients, and water.

Sustainable Flow of Wood Products while Meeting Habitat and Landscape Needs - No harvesting would occur, therefore, no wood products would be made available to the local economy as a byproduct of meeting habitat needs identified in the MA 1A direction of the Forest Plan.

There are no direct or indirect effects from the no action alternative, therefore, there would be no cumulative effects.

Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts See appendix E for detailed modified proposed action vegetation treatments.

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures All Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be met, except for the guidelines limiting temporary openings to 40 acres or less (Forest Plan, page 2-4) and temporary opening size adjacent to areas of high and moderate scenic integrity objectives (SIO) identified in the Forest Plan on pages 2-29 to 2-30, which is discussed in more detail in the Report on Scenic Integrity Objectives and Recreational Opportunities located in the project record. The existing condition of the stands proposed for treatment that would exceed the temporary opening guidelines, warrants harvesting the entire stand at one time to have the best potential for successful regeneration. If portions of stands were dropped from treatment, they would likely succeed to other forest types and not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project.

Black Torch

48

Direct and Indirect Effects

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 Objective 1: Maintain the Early Successional Forest Types on the Landscape

Table 3-9 displays the existing amounts of early successional forest in MA 1A and what it would look like after implementation of the modified proposed action.

Table 3-9. MA 1A – Early successional forest type existing condition and after implementation.

Forest Type Group

Existing Acres

% Existing Upland Acres

Acres after Implementation

% Upland acres after

Implementation

Desired Composition (percentage)

Aspen 17,609 55 17,399 54 50-75

Balsam Fir 1,953 6 1,903 6 0-10

Paper Birch 802 2 812 2 0-5

Jack Pine 389 1 359 1 0-2

* These percentages refer to the MA 1A-Upland Forest Type Composition Objectives listed in table 3-1 of the Forest Plan.

There are 17,609 acres of aspen in Black Torch MA 1A. The modified proposed action would treat about 6,210 (5,970 clearcut regenerate to aspen, 50 acres clearcut/convert to permanent opening, 190 acres improvement cut/convert to northern hardwoods and mesic conifers). About 10,260 acres of aspen in MA 1A are under the age of 40 and not proposed for treatment. This totals a net decrease of 210 acres of aspen within MA 1A.

About 762 acres of aspen were proposed for treatment in other projects and are scheduled for harvest in upcoming timber sales. The remaining MA 1A aspen, about 380 acres, were not proposed treatment because of lack of access, mainly aspen islands within large swamp complexes, or the stands already started to break up, reducing the amount of volume available for a timber sale to a negligible amount.

Thirty acres of balsam fir would receive a shelterwood treatment and be underplanted with white pine. Another 20 acres would receive an improvement cut to encourage succession from balsam fir towards hardwoods adjacent to MAs 8E and 8G. This would result in a net decrease of 50 acres of balsam fir.

Paper birch would increase by ten acres as one hardwood stand would receive a shelterwood harvest to obtain paper birch regeneration.

Jack pine would decrease by 30 acres. Twenty acres of jack pine were underplanted with white pine in 1994. The jack pine overstory would be removed to release the white pine understory. A ten acre jack pine stand would be clearcut and planted to red pine, which is more appropriate for the site.

While there would be a decrease of 280 acres of early successional forest within the project, conditions would remain within the desired composition ranges for MA 1A.


49

Resource Indicator and Measure 2 Objective 2: Improve Age Class Distribution

Early successional forest types planned for a regeneration harvest in the modified proposed action were assigned into one of two time periods for treatment. The first time period would be about the first five years of project implementation. The second time period would be about years five to ten of project implementation. Assigning stands to one of the two time periods for treatment allows for prioritizing the need for treatment, spreading the regeneration harvests across the project area at any given point in time, and a greater diversification of age classes over time, which would create a mosaic of early successional forest types across the project area.

The following series of tables shows how the existing species age class distribution would change in the next ten years with the modified proposed action.

Aspen - Aspen stands greater than 40 years in age were considered for treatment. Standard rotation age of aspen is 45 years (Forest Plan, page 2-4). Reasons some aspen stands over age 45 were not proposed for treatment in the Black Torch Project include:

• About 762 acres are part of timber sales that have not been implemented yet from the Cayuga, ESHI, and Chequamegon Salvage Project decisions. These acres are accounted for in table 3-9.

• About 310 acres of aspen are in MAs 8E and 8G.

• Some stands are surrounded by wetlands with no reasonable access.

Table 3-10 displays the change in aspen age class from implementing the modified proposed action. There would be a reduction in the 46 year or more age class and an increase in the 0-10 year age class. These actions would put the 46 year or more age class within the desired condition while the 0-10 year age class would be greater than the desired condition. With active management over the next 50 years, the age class distribution described in the Forest Plan (page 2-5) desired condition for aspen can be achieved while maintaining aspen on the landscape.

Table 3-10. Aspen age class distribution in project area from the modified proposed action.


2017 Existing

Condition

2022 Modified

Proposed Action

2027 Modified

Proposed Action

0-10 15-25% 4% 34% 39%

11-20 15-25% 8% 1% 4%

21-45 45-55% 51% 52% 47%

46 or more 5-15% 38% 12% 10%

About 5,970 acres of aspen would be harvested and regenerated to aspen. An additional 30 acres of other forest types would be converted from other forest types to aspen. About 4,610 acres of aspen would be assigned to the first time period for harvest described above. About 1,360 acres would be assigned to the second time period for harvest.

Black Torch

50

After or concurrent with harvest, site preparation for aspen regeneration would occur. This would include reducing the average residual crown cover (two inches in diameter or larger) to less than five percent (excluding reserve islands and reserve species).

Balsam Fir - Balsam fir stands greater than 40 years in age were considered for treatment. The standard rotation age of balsam fir is 45 years (Forest Plan, page 2-4). Reasons some balsam fir over age 45 were not proposed for treatment in the Black Torch Project include:

• About 87 acres are part of timber sales yet to be implemented from the Cayuga and ESHI decisions. These acres are accounted for in table 3-10.

• About 14 acres of balsam fir are in MAs 8E and 8G.

• Stands are surrounded by wetlands with no reasonable access.

Table 3-11 displays the change in balsam fir age classes from implementing the modified proposed action. The existing age class distribution of balsam fir is heavily skewed toward the 46 year or more age class. The modified proposed action would heavily skew it towards the 0 to 10 year age class. Regenerating the majority of the balsam fir stands now will maintain this early successional forest type within the project area. Future projects could consider regenerating the remaining smaller amounts of balsam fir when they reach the minimum rotation age of 30 to further improve future age class distribution.

Table 3-11. Balsam fir age class distribution in project area from the modified proposed action.


2017 Existing

Condition

2022 Modified

Proposed Action

2027 Modified

Proposed Action

0-10 15-25% 0% 66% 81%

11-30 35-45% 4% 3% 0%

31-45 25-35% 10% 4% 5%

46 or more 5-15% 85% 27% 13%

About 1,470 acres of balsam fir would be harvested and regenerated to balsam fir. About 1,170 acres of balsam fir would be assigned to the first time period for harvest as described previously. About 300 acres would be assigned to the second time period for harvest.

After or concurrent with harvest, site preparation for regeneration would occur. This would include reducing the average residual crown cover (2 inches in diameter or larger) to less than 5 percent (excluding reserve islands and reserve species).

Paper Birch - Paper birch stands greater than 55 years in age were considered for treatment. The standard rotation age of paper birch is 60 years (Forest Plan, page 2-4).

The existing age class distribution of paper birch is nearly all in the 61 year or more age class. The modified proposed action would treat three-quarters of it in the 0 to 10 year age class (table 3-12). Regenerating the majority of the paper birch stands now will maintain this early successional forest type within the project area. Future projects may consider regenerating


51

remaining smaller amounts of paper birch when they reach the minimum rotation age of 30 or older to further improve future age class distribution.

Table 3-12. Paper birch age class distribution in project area from the modified proposed action.


2017 Existing

Condition

2022 Modified

Proposed Action

2027 Modified

Proposed Action

0-20 20-30% 0% 41% 79%

21-40 20-30% 0% 0% 0%

41-60 20-30% 3% 1% 0%

61 or more 20-30% 97% 58% 21%

About 630 acres of paper birch would receive a shelterwood harvest and would be regenerated to paper birch. Half of the paper birch stands would be treated in the first time period as described previously and half in the second time period. An additional 10-acre hardwood stand would be converted to a paper birch stand through shelterwood harvest in the first time period. Prescribed burning after the shelterwood seed harvest may be used to create understory conditions conducive to regenerating birch in the stand. If parameters for a prescribed burn do not occur after the harvest, mechanical site preparation would be used. Mechanical site preparation would consist of a rake or anchor chains used to expose mineral soil. Mineral soil is needed to provide suitable conditions for birch seedlings to establish (Perala and Alm 1989).

All regeneration treatments are monitored with stocking surveys. Should paper birch regeneration not be successful, suitable understory species, such as oak or white pine, would be planted. Once paper birch seedlings are at least one foot tall the remaining overstory would be removed to release the shade-intolerant seedlings.

Red Pine - Red pine stands with poor crown condition and greater than the minimum rotation age of 50 years were considered for regeneration treatment. Table 3-13 shows the red pine age class distribution in the project area. The standard rotation age of red pine is 100 years, and the minimum rotation age is 50 years (Forest Plan, page 2-4).

Table 3-13. Red pine age class distribution in project area from the modified proposed action.


2017 Existing

Condition

2022 Modified

Proposed Action

2027 Modified

Proposed Action

0-20 10-20% 1% 10% 10%

21-60 25-35% 53% 44% 40%

61-100 25-35% 45% 46% 49%

101 or more 20-30% 0% 0% 2%

Black Torch

52

Clearcutting proposed in five red pine stands, about 110 acres, is to address observed crown decline while working towards the desired age class distribution. An additional 10 acres of jack pine and 30 acres of spruce would be clearcut and planted with red pine. The 0-20 year age class would be at the bottom range of the desired condition, but progress would be made going from one percent to 10 percent. Future proposals could continue to diversify age class distribution by identifying stands for regeneration.

The five red pine stands proposed for clearcut range in age from 77 to 86 years. The jack pine stand is 77 years old. The white spruce stands are 84 and 85 years old and being impacted by spruce decline. After harvest, the five red pine, one jack pine, and two white spruce stands would be prepared for planting using a roller chopper pulled by a skidder to break up slash, increasing the decomposition rate. A disk trencher pulled by a skidder would then be used to expose mineral soil for planting red pine seedlings. The planted red pine seedlings would be released within 10 years of establishment by cutting adjacent saplings shading the planted trees.

Resource Indicator and Measure 3 Objective 3: Improve Early Successional Habitat for Wildlife

Early successional habitat for wildlife includes aspen, balsam fir, paper birch, and upland openings, and 8,130 acres of early successional forest would be regenerated in the modified proposed action.

Three permanent openings, totaling 50 acres, ranging in size from 10 to 25 acres, would be created within the core range of the Clam Lake elk herd. About 20 acres of smaller openings, ranging in size from 0.2 to three acres, are difficult to access for maintenance and would be allowed to revert back to forest. The areas converted to permanent wildlife opening would be removed from the suited for timber production land base while 20 acres of smaller openings would be added to the suited for timber production land base. This amounts to about a 30-acre reduction in lands suited for timber production or less than one tenth of one percent of the area within the Black Torch project classified as suited for timber production.

Resource Indicator and Measure 4 Objective 4: Reduce Stocking Levels in Overstocked Forested Stands

The modified proposed action would reduce stocking levels on 5,950 acres of stands currently overstocked.

This would be accomplished through individual tree selection harvests on 4,620 acres of northern hardwood stands. This uneven-aged treatment would reduce stocking levels to those identified in table 2-4 on page 2-8 of the Forest Plan. Canopy gaps, small openings in the canopy, would be created throughout each stand and occupy about 10 percent of the stand area (Forest Plan, page 2-7). Individual gap size would range from 25 to 60 feet wide. Larger canopy gaps would be placed near mid-tolerant species that would have a competitive advantage over more shade-tolerant species. Smaller gaps would be placed near shade-tolerant species, giving them a competitive advantage over less shade-tolerant species. Poor quality stems larger than one inch would be cut in canopy gaps, so vigorous regeneration could develop resulting in a new age class becoming established in the understory.

Thinning on 1,290 acres of spruce, red pine, white pine, oak, and northern hardwood stands would reduce stocking to levels identified in the Forest Plan (pages 2-10 to 2-13 and FF-1 to FF-


53

2). Thinning would increase the availability of soil nutrients, moisture and sunlight, improving stand quality and tree vigor and allowing residual trees to increase in size and value. Thinning is not intended as a regeneration treatment, but temporary small openings in the canopy, resulting from thinning, could promote regeneration of shade-tolerant species. Thinning would not result in a change of forest type.

Forty acres of spruce and hardwood within the Black Lake Campground would be thinned and then underplanted with white pine. These stands would receive the same thinning treatment as that described above with the addition of white pine planted in the understory after the harvest. There would be no mechanical site preparation treatment for planting. The planted white pine seedlings would be released within 10 years of establishment by cutting adjacent saplings shading the planted trees.

Resource Indicator and Measure 5 Objective 5: Maintain Forest Types of Intermediate Shade Tolerance

The modified proposed action would maintain and promote forest types of intermediate shade tolerance on 650 acres. Shelterwood harvests that retain a partial overstory for seed and shade would be used to establish regeneration. Where regeneration is already present, an overstory removal harvest would remove the majority of the remaining overstory to release the established regeneration. Thinning would be used as an intermediate treatment.

A shelterwood harvest would be applied in a 30-acre balsam fir stand, adjacent to Highway GG north of Clam Lake. It would be planted with white pine after harvest. A patch scarifier pulled by a skidder would be used to prepare the site for planting. There would not be an overstory removal in this stand. Rather, the balsam fir would be left to shelter the white pine from tip weevil damage, which would be released over time as the balsam fir died naturally.

A 40-acre northern red oak stand would be regenerated using the shelterwood system. After the shelterwood seed cut, a prescribed burn would be done to create conditions favorable for oak regeneration (Demchek et al. 2013). If the parameters for a burn were not present, equipment such as a dozer mounted rake or anchor chains would be used to expose mineral soil by cutting through the accumulated leaf litter. Once oak seedlings were two to four feet tall, the overstory oaks would be removed leaving the seedlings in a free to grow position.

The shelterwood system would be used to treat 220 acres of northern hardwood stands. Site preparation in two 10 acre stands would include prescribed fire or mechanical treatment to establish paper birch in one stand and oak the other. Ninety acres would receive mechanical site preparation with a dozer mounted rake to expose mineral soil near yellow birch seed trees. One hundred ten acres would not receive site preparation as the target species (ash, basswood, red maple) can regenerate without exposed mineral soil. Once regeneration is two to four feet tall, the overstory of northern hardwoods would be removed.

Four hardwood stands, totaling 150 acres, have advanced regeneration established as a result of previous treatments. The overstory hardwoods would be removed in these stands releasing the regeneration to a free to grow condition.

One 20-acre jack pine stand, underplanted with white pine in 1994, would have the overstory removed. The white pine has reached the lower crowns of the jack pine and needs to be released for optimal growing conditions.

Black Torch

54

About 190 acres of northern hardwoods would be thinned. These stands have been identified for even-aged management based on the amount of mid-tolerant species present as described in appendix C of the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report located in the project record. Thinning would favor mid-tolerant species of good form. The residual trees would increase in size and value due to increased availability of soil nutrients, moisture, and sunlight (Nyland 2002).

Five stands adjacent to the East Fork of the Chippewa River would be underplanted with white pine in portions of the stands within 150 feet of the river. No harvesting would occur within 100 feet of the river, but there may be an overlap of the harvest area and planting area from 100 to 150 feet of the river. Table 3-14 lists the stands that would have white pine planted. Planting conifers in this riparian area would provide conifer thermal cover for fish habitat in about 30 years. The planted trees would eventually contribute large woody debris to the river (Forest Plan, page 2-16).

Table 3-14. East Fork of the Chippewa River white pine underplanting.

Stand Forest Type Modified Proposed Action Harvest

470/1 Aspen Clearcut

470/7 Northern Red Oak Shelterwood

471/9 Paper Birch Shelterwood



Resource Indicator and Measure 6 Objective 6: Restore Healthy Forest Conditions on Areas Damaged by Spruce Decline

Three white spruce stands on 50 acres affected by spruce decline would be regenerated. One 20-acre stand has an aspen component and would be regenerated to aspen. The 30 acres in the other two stands would be planted with red pine. Red pine was chosen after a review of site characteristics such as soil type and habitat type. After harvest the stands to be planted would be prepared for planting using a roller chopper pulled by a skidder to break up slash, increasing the decomposition rate. A disk trencher pulled by a skidder would then be used to expose mineral soil for planting the red pine seedlings. The planted red pine seedlings would be released within 10 years of establishment by cutting adjacent saplings shading the planted trees.

The sites will be restored with healthy red pine and aspen regeneration. As the red pine matures it would be thinned in future projects to promote vigorous growth of trees. The stand that regenerates to aspen would contribute to the MA 1A desired composition for early successional species.

Resource Indicator and Measure 7 Objective 7: Convert Aspen to Northern Hardwoods and Mesic Conifers Adjacent to MA 8E (RNAs) and MA 8G (Old growth)


55

Forest plan guidelines call for management activities adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G to be designed to complement vegetation in those RNAs and old growth. About 210 acres of aspen and balsam fir would receive an improvement cut because they are adjacent to McCarthy Lake and Cedars RNA and three areas classified as old growth white cedar. The improvement cut would open up about half the canopy to encourage existing hardwood and white pine regeneration.

The direct effect would be hardwoods, white pine, and balsam fir regeneration having more resources to survive and grow into the overstory. Over the long-term, the remaining aspen and balsam fir in the overstory would die naturally, allowing hardwoods to make up the majority of the overstory.

As a result of this treatment, adjacent cedar stands in MA 8E and MA 8G would have less deer browsing and better odds of cedar regeneration becoming established. In contrast, if the aspen and balsam fir stands were clearcut, more browse pressure in the area would be expected. Aspen leaves and new browse are very important summer foods for deer in Wisconsin (Blouch 1984). Therefore, one way to reduce deer browsing is to not regenerate aspen.

Resource Indicator and Measure 8 Objective 8: Provide a Sustainable Flow of Wood Products While Meeting Habitat and Landscape Needs

Implementing the modified proposed action would make about 109 million board feet (MMBF) of wood volume available to the local economy. This would contribute toward satisfying demand for wood products through environmentally responsible harvest (Forest Plan, page 1-6). The actual amount offered may vary from the estimates in table 3-15 due to areas excluded from harvest during sale layout in accordance with BMPs and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Socioeconomic benefits of the modified proposed action are described in more detail in the Socioeconomics section of this document.

Table 3-15. Estimated volume in million board feet (MMBF) by harvest type. Harvest Type MMBF from Modified Proposed Action

Clearcut 76.7

Overstory removal 1.2

Shelterwood 5.5

Thinning 6.7

Selection 18.5

Improvement cut 0.8

Harvest Total 109 MMBF

Effects of the Proposed Action on Climate Change The Black Torch interdisciplinary team used the Forest Adaptation Resources: Climate change tools and approaches for land managers (FAR) workbook to consider the potential climate change impacts and vulnerabilities in the project area. Climate change effects will likely occur

Black Torch

56

over the long term. Effects of the proposed activities are designed to occur over a shorter time frame, but the activities do set the stage for future management options.

The proposed activities would temporarily result in a decline in carbon stocks in treated stands, but some of the harvested biomass will be used to produce forest products in the form of pulpwood and lumber. Therefore, carbon will be sequestered as wood products for a period of years to decades. Total carbon losses may be negligible over the long term, as long as stands recover after a disturbance (Janowiak 2014).

Harvesting activities across forest types result in stands that are more vigorous, due to an increase in available sunlight, soil moisture, and soil nutrients (Nyland 2002). Tree vigor is directly related to an ability to withstand stressors, such as insect/disease outbreaks and drought. Fully stocked stands of trees growing vigorously sequester more carbon in comparison to stressed trees on poorly stocked sites (Nave et al. 2017).

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects

Past Forest Service decisions that may contribute to effects on vegetation within the Black Torch area are listed in table 3-16. Treatments resulting in changed vegetation conditions from these decisions that have not been completed and recorded in FSVeg Spatial are included in table 3-16 in the Past and Ongoing Decisions column. Completed and recorded treatments are considered part of the existing condition, which was the starting point for this analysis. Table 3-16 shows the remaining acres of treatments yet to be completed from other projects that overlap the Black Torch project area boundary.

Table 3-16. Remaining treatment acres within Black Torch from overlapping projects.

Activity Acres Past and Ongoing Decisions Clearcut - Aspen 762 Cayuga, ESHI, Chequamegon Salvage Clearcut – Balsam Fir 87 Cayuga, ESHI Shelterwood – Paper Birch 27 Cayuga Thinning - Red Pine 956 Chequamegon Red Pine Thinning, Red Pine

Salvage, Cayuga, Spruce Clearcut (regenerate aspen)

57 Spruce Decline II

Individual Tree Selection – Northern Hardwoods

702 Cayuga

Shelterwood-Northern Hardwoods (N. Hdwd regen)

29 Cayuga

Improvement cut and Shelterwood – Aspen convert to Hardwoods

151 Cayuga

Thinning – Hardwoods 220 Cayuga, Chequamegon Salvage Reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in this analysis include any actions that would result in changes to the forest vegetation in the project area. At this time, there are no foreseeable future projects within the project that would have such effects.


57

Plat books for Ashland and Sawyer counties were reviewed to determine the amount and types of owners within the Black Torch boundary. About 2,360 acres are owned by private individuals or incorporated owners. The majority of these parcels are 40 acres or less with many small tracts located adjacent to lakes. There are no known plans on private lands for vegetation management activities.

About 320 acres are owned by the State of Wisconsin and managed by the Board of Commissioners for Public Lands. This ownership is scattered across the project area north of Highway 77. Most of the state lands are in lowland forest. About 17 acres of northern hardwood forest adjacent to Highway 77 has been planned for an individual tree selection treatment. It is expected to be treated in the next few years (Board of Commissioners for Public Lands 2017). The effects of this treatment would be the same as those identified for Objective 4.

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects Resource Indicator and Measure 1 Objective 1: Maintain the Early Successional Forest Types on the Landscape

Past decisions still being implemented within the project area will result in a net reduction of 94 acres of early successional forest. This includes the 151 acres of aspen along Highway GG north of Clam Lake converting to hardwoods over time as well as 57 acres of spruce converting to aspen in the Spruce Decline II project. The modified proposed action and continued implementation of past projects within the Black Torch project area would result in a total of 20,379 acres being maintained as early successional forest in MA 1A. This is about 63 percent of the upland area within MA 1A and within the Forest Plan range of 50 to 92 percent (Forest Plan, page 3-3).

For calculating the amount of early successional forest types, we have assumed that no natural succession occurs during the time period, an assumption that is true only in the immediate short term. Early successional forest types succeed to long-lived forest types gradually. Different stands, however, succeed at different rates. Quantifying these natural processes is problematic due to differing site conditions and sporadic weather events. With 45 percent of the area in early successional forest types in the project past rotation age, there is a need for treatment to maintain them on the landscape before succession to longer lived types occurs.

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects Resource Indicator and Measure 2 Objective 2: Improve Age Class Distribution

As noted earlier in this report, all known or reasonably foreseeable projects are already incorporated into the age class distribution. Projected shifts in age class distribution as a result of the Black Torch project, past actions, and past projects still being implemented are shown in tables located in the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report located in the project record. The projected shifts are similar to those depicted in tables 3-10 through 3-14.

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects Resource Indicator and Measure 3 Objective 3: Improve Early Successional Habitat for Wildlife

Past decisions still being implemented within the project area will regenerate 933 acres of early successional forest, including 762 acres of aspen, 87 acres of balsam fir, 27 acres of paper birch, and 57 acres of spruce regenerated to aspen. When these activities are combined with the Black Torch modified proposed action, 9,063 acres of early successional forest would be regenerated,

Black Torch

58

with Black Torch making up 90 percent of the cumulative regeneration from the start of harvest activities to five years after harvest, the temporal boundary for cumulative effects.

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects Resource Indicator and Measure 4 Objective 4: Reduce Stocking Levels in Overstocked Forested Stands

Past decisions still being implemented within the project area will thin 956 acres of red pine and 220 acres of northern hardwoods, and 702 acres of northern hardwoods will receive individual tree selection harvest. These activities along with the Black Torch modified proposed action would result in 7,828 acres of overstocked stands being treated.

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects Resource Indicator and Measure 5 Objective 5: Maintain Forest Types of Intermediate Shade Tolerance

Past decisions still being implemented within the project area will thin 220 acres of northern hardwoods and regenerate 29 acres of northern hardwoods. When combined with the Black Torch modified proposed action a total of 899 acres would be treated to promote and maintain tree species of intermediate shade tolerance.

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects Resource Indicator and Measure 6 Objective 6: Restore Healthy Forest Conditions on Areas Damaged by Spruce Decline

The Spruce Decline II decision is still being implemented within the project area, so 57 acres affected by spruce decline are being salvaged and regenerated to aspen. When combined with the Black Torch modified proposed action a total of 107 acres affected by spruce decline would be restored to healthy forest conditions.

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects Resource Indicator and Measure 7 Objective 7: Convert Aspen to Northern Hardwoods and Mesic Conifers Adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G

The Cayuga decision includes converting an eight-acre aspen stand to hardwoods adjacent to MA 8E (McCarthy Lake and Cedars RNA). When this action is completed and combined with the Black Torch modified proposed action, a total of 218 acres of complementary management would have occurred adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G. This would reduce browse pressure from deer in comparison to conditions that would be expected if aspen was regenerated adjacent to the cedar stands within MA 8E and MA 8G.

Forest Vegetation Cumulative Effects Resource Indicator and Measure 8 Objective 8: Provide a Sustainable Flow of Wood Products While Meeting Habitat and Landscape Needs

The remaining treatment acres from past decisions listed in table 3-16 are estimated to be about 18 MMBF in volume. Of this total about eight MMBF has already been included in a timber sale contract. Most of the remaining volume to be sold is from the ESHI and Chequamegon Red Pine Thinning projects.

The remaining past project volume combined with the volume estimated in the Black Torch modified proposed action is 127 MMBF.


59

Summary Under the no action alternative, successional trends would influence species composition as short-lived, early successional species become overmature, die and are replaced by more shade-tolerant, longer-lived species. Over the long-term, acres would drop out of the oldest age class as early successional forest types gradually succeeded to longer-lived species. Improvements to early successional habitat for wildlife would not be implemented. Overstocked stands would not be treated to reduce stocking to levels identified in the Forest Plan. Tree species of intermediate shade tolerance would not be promoted and developed through partial harvest of existing overstory trees. Tree growth would stagnate and mortality would increase as trees competed for available light, nutrients, and water. Stands damaged by spruce decline would have merchantable wood salvaged and restored to fully stocked levels of healthy trees. Succession from aspen to hardwoods and mesic conifers would not be accelerated in stands adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G. Succession would still occur, but at a slower place. No wood products would be made available to the local economy.

Under the modified proposed action, early successional age class distributions described in the Forest Plan for species, such as aspen, balsam fir, and paper birch, would be achieved and maintained on the landscape. Red pine and white spruce stands currently with forest health problems would be regenerated or replaced with more appropriate tree species for the local environment. Early successional habitat would be improved for wildlife through the establishment and maintenance of larger openings and the management of vegetation specifically for early successional species.

Stocking levels in overstocked forested stands would be reduced. Forest types of intermediate shade tolerance would be maintained. Aspen would be converted to northern hardwoods and mesic conifers adjacent to MA 8E and MA 8G per complementary management guidelines in the Forest Plan. As a result, adjacent cedar stands in MA 8E and MA 8G would have less deer browse and better odds of cedar regeneration becoming established. A sustainable flow of wood products into the local economy while meeting habitat and landscape needs would be provided. The estimated volume to be produced would be 109 MMBF.

The modified proposed action would temporarily result in a decline in carbon stocks in treated stands, but some of the harvested biomass will be used to produce forest products in the form of pulpwood and lumber. Therefore, carbon will be sequestered as wood products for a period of years to decades. Total carbon losses may be negligible over the long term, as long as stands recover after a disturbance.

Cumulative effects are described in detail above. The modified proposed action and continued implementation of past projects within the Black Torch project area would result in a total of 20,379 acres being maintained as early successional forest in MA 1A, 9,063 acres of early successional forest would be regenerated, 7,828 acres of overstocked stands would be treated, a total of 899 acres would be treated to promote and maintain tree species of intermediate shade tolerance, a total of 107 acres affected by spruce decline would be restored to healthy forest conditions, a total of 218 acres of complementary management would have occurred next to MA 8E and MA 8G, and a total of 127 MMBF would be provided to the local economy over the next 15 years.

Black Torch

60

Soil Resources and Productivity Rutting and erosion of soils caused by roads and road construction were expressed as a concern during public scoping. Potential impacts to soils from biomass removal were also expressed as a concern. Soil disturbance caused by heavy equipment used for harvesting, site preparation activities and prescribed burning may have negative effects on soil physical, chemical and biological properties and could reduce long-term forest site productivity. An evaluation of the impacts to soils was done for this project (Project Record, Soil Resource Report for the Black Torch Project) and is summarized here.

The soil resources of the Forest are mapped and characterized within a multi-scale, hierarchical, ecological classification framework as described by Cleland et al. (1997). Land type phases (LTP) provide the most site-specific scale of soil information by defining similar ecological conditions relating to soil texture, moisture, nutrients, drainage class, slope and other physical, chemical and biological characteristics. LTP maps have been intersected with proposed treatment areas to identify the specific soil type(s) for each area (Black Torch Soil Resource Report, Appendix A). LTP/soil maps and descriptions are available at the Forest Rhinelander office.

Affected Environment The proposed treatment areas occur within 22 different LTP map units that are primarily in the Glidden Drumlins and the Chequamegon Washed Till and Outwash Land Type Associations. The primary glacial landforms are rolling drumlins, outwash plains, and collapsed moraines. Topography is nearly level to moderately steep, with about 97 percent of the treatment areas having less than 15 percent slopes, three percent of the areas ranging from 15 to 30 percent slopes, and less than one percent of areas ranging up to 45 percent slopes. Soil types associated with each actual treatment area are listed in appendix A of the Soil Resource Report located in the project record, with more detailed ratings for potential effects from proposed activities.

There are no known areas within the Black Torch Project boundary where productivity of the land has been permanently impaired due to past vegetation management activities (USDA Forest Service 2004b). On-site monitoring of soil resource impacts within the district has shown no long-term impairment of the land from similar project activities on similar soil types as listed in Table 1 of the Soil Resource Specialist Report located in the project record (USDA Forest Service 2001a, 2003a, 2007a, 2009a, 2011a, 2015a). All proposed treatment areas were field investigated by resource specialists collecting site-specific data for this project. The area was visited in 2015 to observe and record existing soil resource conditions. Less than 0.5 percent of the areas visited had detrimental soil resource effects from past treatments. About 82 percent of stands proposed for treatment have had no previous harvests in the past 30 years, 17 percent of the stands have had one previous harvest, and less than one percent of stands have had two previous harvests in the past 30 years; as documented in the Forest timber stand history files. All treatment areas would have had harvests dating beyond the 30 year records. Currently, based on post-harvest monitoring more than 99 percent of all acres proposed for treatment within the project area boundary are maintained in a non-detrimentally disturbed condition, with less than 0.5 percent (75 acres) estimated to be detrimentally disturbed as a log landing, main skid trail, or temporary road from previous management activities.


61

Analysis Parameters

Analysis Methods

Measures, Indicators, and Thresholds Risk of soil disturbance exists whenever ground-based equipment is used in forest operations. The areal extent of potential disturbance for each treatment unit is equal to the amount of ground traveled by the equipment needed to accomplish the activity. A 2002 study on the Ottawa National Forest found skid trails comprise 16 percent and haul roads one percent of total managed stand area, on average (Buckley et al. 2002). Sale administrators on the Forest estimate that skid trails comprise about 11 percent or less of a managed stand with the equipment used in 90 percent of the harvest operations (Schumacher 2002). Harvesters have a 24- to 32-foot reach and average 45 to 50 feet between trails. Annual timber sale monitoring since 1998 continues to indicate landings and temporary haul roads occupy less than one percent of total managed stand area, on average, across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009a, 2009b). Harvest layout, type of equipment, operator knowledge, and careful sale administration also influence the areal extent of potential disturbance. For this report a conservative estimate of 13 percent is used as the measure of ground traveled within a managed stand for all harvest activities. Equipment used to mechanically treat vegetation and/or scarify soil to prepare sites for planting or natural regeneration may travel from 50 to 75 percent of a treatment area (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1998).

Soils vary in resiliency to heavy equipment impacts based on specific physical properties, such as surface texture, wetness, and soil strength at the time of operation. To measure the potential risk of operating heavy equipment on the proposed treatment areas, criteria-based interpretations derived from standard soil rating criteria are used to assess each site-specific soil type (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1998). Interpretive ratings have been generated for each soil type on the Forest from the National Soil Information System database, where the soil properties of each LTP on the Forest are stored. A rating ranging from slight to very severe is generated for each potential hazard or activity, such as potential for erosion, potential for rutting, or harvest equipment operability. Ratings are given for the most limiting soil and season and describe the degree to which the hazard is likely. Ratings also identify the limiting factor and suggest precautions needed to minimize potential soil disturbance from the activity. In addition, the risk of soil disturbance is further evaluated based on best available and applicable research, site-specific field observations, monitoring of similar activities on many treatment areas with the same soil type, and the professional judgment of an experienced soil scientist.

Interpretive ratings that measure the potential for soil disturbance are then used to develop design measures that reduce or eliminate the risk to degrade the soil resource. For example, a treatment area rated severe for potential soil rutting due to wetness and low strength would be assigned a frozen ground only operating requirement, thereby reducing the risk for soil rutting to slight, with no detrimental effects to the soil resource expected.

Measurement techniques defined by Region 9 (USDA Forest Service 2012b) are used to measure existing soil disturbance from previous activities. These methods are primarily ocular qualitative assessments followed up by quantitative monitoring where management practices appear to have produced unacceptable results. Quantitative monitoring is done in accordance with the Region 9 soil quality standards and guidelines using the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009). This protocol defines soil indicators into classes that can be

Black Torch

62

measured consistently, efficiently and economically. It provides estimates of total areal site soil disturbance and applies a confidence interval around the monitoring results. The estimates are based on sample size determined by variability within a predetermined confidence level (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009).

Field monitoring of soil resource impacts for LTPs across the Forest has consistently shown that initial harvest entries leave on average between zero to three percent of a treatment area in a detrimentally disturbed condition from compaction of major skid trails, temporary haul roads and log landings (USDA Forest Service 2001c, 2003b, and 2004d). Second harvest entries use existing trails, roads and landings and may detrimentally disturb about one to two percent of additional land area (USDA Forest Service 2000). Subsequent harvest entries use existing trails, roads and landings with little additional detrimental soil disturbance expected. Mechanical site preparation equipment delivers fewer pounds per square inch to the ground than loaded harvest equipment and generally does not cause detrimental soil disturbance.

The Forest goal for soils, as described in the Forest Plan, is to provide desired physical, chemical and biological soil processes and functions on the Forest to maintain or improve soil productivity (USDA Forest Service 2004a). The Forest Service Manual for Soil Management in Region 9 sets soil quality standards (USDA Forest Service 2012b) and measurement techniques to determine detrimental soil conditions.

Forest-wide standards and guidelines for soils (Forest Plan, page 2-3) states the Forest will use the Region 9 manual guidelines for measuring detrimental disturbance threshold values for soil displacement, erosion, rutting, nutrient loss, compaction, burning, and maintaining ground cover. Region 9 minimum measurement standards include:

• Detrimental erosion – Presence of rills, gullies, pedestals and soil deposition.

• Detrimental displacement – Removal of the forest floor and surface mineral soil removal, gouging or piling. Surface soil mixed with subsoil or subsoil partially or totally exposed.

• Detrimental compaction – Increased compaction and soil structure change from granular to massive or platy, at a depth greater than 30 centimeters.

• Detrimental rutting – Wheel tracks and depressions highly evident with depth greater than 10 centimeters.

• Detrimentally burned – Depth of char is greater than five centimeters. Duff and litter layer completely consumed. Surface soil is water repellent. Surface is reddish or orange in color.

In addition to the Region 9 standards above, the Forest also implements the following measurement standard:

• Detrimental loss of productivity – a 15 percent reduction in long-term soil productivity based on any combination of the above thresholds, organic matter loss and/or impaired nutrient cycling.

The indicator of the effects of soil disturbance is the intensity, areal extent and duration of the impacts for each treatment area. Detrimental disturbance exists when the severity of soil impacts exceeds the Region 9 measurement standards over a large enough area for a long enough time to cause an unfavorable ecosystem response. The results of this analysis take into careful consideration how the proposed treatment areas and ecosystem will respond to each particular soil property disturbance. The ways in which different ecosystems respond to soil property


63

change are dependent on multiple variables, such as geography, parent material, climate, and treatment type. For this analysis, we analyzed soil resource reports and post-harvest monitoring results from nearby areas, on similar soil and treatment types to determine what the acceptable upper limit of detrimental disturbance is (USDA Forest Service 2001b, 2003b, 2007a, 2009a, 2011a, 2015a). Our analysis concluded that it would take greater than a 15 percent total average of detrimental soil disturbance, as defined above, across all treatment areas, before there would be any measurable, negative and long term sustained ecosystem response on this particular project area.



The “affected area” for analysis of direct and indirect effects of the proposed activities to the soil resource is that portion of a treatment area where activities would take place. As described previously, equipment would travel about 13 percent of the acres harvested and about 50 to 75 percent of the acres mechanically treated for planting or natural regeneration. Potential effects to the soil resource are reasonably confined to the soil directly beneath where the activity would take place, such as the operation of machinery to cut and remove trees. For example, heavy equipment causing soil compaction that reduces pore space for air, roots and water within a portion of one treatment area does not affect pore space on adjacent areas.

The duration for short-term effects to soil is considered to be less than 10 years or the shortest amount of time between treatment entries. The duration for long-term effects is considered to be longer than 20 years. The 20-year time period is also compatible to the Forest Plan planning period and the average time between timber harvest thinning, selection and shelterwood activities. Clear cut rotations are typically 40 to 50 years.


The analysis boundary for cumulative effects will be the LTPs within treatment areas for the Black Torch Project. LTPs are mapped ecological units whose natural boundaries best define site-specific soil resource information on the Forest. Expanding the cumulative effects analysis area would only serve to dilute the effects to soils from all proposed project activities by including lands with no existing detrimental soil conditions and no present or future plans for treatment. The time span for cumulative effects analysis for the soil resource is the past 30 years. This time period is chosen because the Forest has data records of harvest activities for this time period that allows consideration of multiple harvest impacts per treatment area. Also, soil impacts, particularly detrimental soil compaction, may take several decades for natural recovery. The period of time for natural recovery varies by soil characteristics and severity of compaction and while freeze-thaw cycles may hasten recovery, the effects may be assumed to persist for several decades (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2004).

No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts Soil Compaction and Rutting - The potential for soil compaction and rutting is very low, since no new activities involving operation of heavy equipment in the project area are proposed. Existing compaction from previous harvest entries would gradually be mitigated through natural soil forming processes, plant root development, and freeze-thaw cycles (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2004). The no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on soil resources from soil compaction or rutting.

Black Torch

64

Soil Erosion and Displacement - The potential for soil erosion and displacement is very low, since no new ground-disturbing activities are proposed in this alternative. Geologic erosion would continue at a minimal rate of less than 0.18 tons/acre/year (Patric 1976). The no action alternative would have no new direct or indirect effects on soil resources from erosion or displacement. Soil Productivity - The potential for impacts to soil productivity are very low, since there would be no new ground or vegetation disturbing activities. Natural soil formation processes would continue, biomass would accumulate, organic matter would accumulate and be incorporated into the soil surface, and the biological and geochemical cycles would continue. Inputs to the system would include atmospheric deposition and weathering of parent materials. Annual nutrient balances based on estimated inputs and outputs would tend to increase as succession progresses (Pritchett 1987). The decommissioning of 60.8 miles of existing roads would not be completed as proposed in the modified proposed action, therefore, returning this land (103 acres, assuming a 14-foot road bed) to productive soil resource would not occur. No adverse nutrient loss would occur with the no action alternative, therefore, there would be no appreciable effects to the soil resource or long-term productivity of the land. No risk to the long-term productivity of the land is expected from this activity.

There are no new direct, indirect, or cumulative detrimental effects to the soil resource as a result of the no action alternative. The cumulative detrimental effects would remain equal to the past detrimental effects, which are conservatively estimated to be less than 0.5 percent (75 acres) of the Black Torch Project area.

Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts This alternative has the potential to affect soil resources through timber harvest operations, road construction/reconstruction/decommissioning, mechanical site preparation and prescribed burning. Appendix A of the Soils Resource Report located in the project record lists treatment area specific information, including soil type, rating hazard, soil limiting factor, and design measures. The following tables summarize the site-specific ratings by type of activity or potential soil disturbance. All ratings given are before soil resource protection measures have been assigned.

A rating of slight indicates little or no restrictions are necessary for equipment use or no rutting or erosion is likely. A moderate rating indicates one or more limitations reduce site suitability for equipment use, or ruts are likely without some seasonal restrictions, or erosion control measures may be needed. A severe rating indicates limitations that make equipment use difficult without major seasonal restrictions or special equipment, or the soil would rut readily without operating restrictions, or significant erosion would be expected without costly control measures. Based on post-harvest soil monitoring results, implementing the identified site-specific design measures will reduce the potential risk of soil impacts by a minimum of one rating level. Thus, a rating of moderate for erosion would be reduced to slight, and so on.

The following tables summarize the potential for soil impacts from project actions. Table 3-17 displays equipment use ratings for acres of proposed treatment. These ratings include equipment use for harvesting, road construction, and mechanical site preparation. Table 3-18 displays treatment acres rated for potential soil compaction and rutting from all proposed activities. Table 3-19 displays treatment acres rated for potential soil erosion and displacement from all proposed activities.


65

Table 3-17. Woodland equipment use rating.

Soil Disturbance Risk Modified Proposed Action Acres (%)

Slight 8,228 (60)

Moderate 4,133 (30)

Severe 284 (10)

Table 3-18. Potential for soil compaction and rutting.


Slight 8,365 (61)

Moderate 4,000 (29)

Severe 1,394 (10)

Table 3-19. Potential for soil erosion and displacement.


Slight 13,376 (97)

Moderate 379 (3)

Severe 4 (<1)

Soil Compaction and Rutting - As shown in table 3-18 above, potential for soil compaction and rutting from operation of heavy equipment is slight for 61 percent of the treatment areas in the modified proposed action that have loamy textured, moderately well to excessive drained soils. The operating season would be year round, except for periods of excessively wet conditions, such as annual spring thaw or major rainfall events.

Potential for compaction and rutting is moderate for about 29 percent of the treatment areas that are on a silt loam and fine sandy loam textured, moderately well drained soils. These finer soils hold moisture in surface horizons longer and lose strength when near saturation. These soils hold up well to equipment use when dry because as soil moisture content decreases, soil strength increases and compaction potential decreases (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2004). Therefore, a protective measure restricts the operating season to winter (frozen ground) or dry summer/fall for each treatment area with a moderate rating to minimize the potential for detrimental soil disturbance. All sites meeting these criteria are identified by “winter or dry summer/fall” in the “Recommended Operating Season” column of appendix E.

Potential for compaction and rutting is severe for about 10 percent of the proposed treatment areas due to poor internal drainage on all or a portion of the treatment areas. These soils are wet near the surface year round, and a design measure listed in appendix E restricts equipment

Black Torch

66

operation to frozen ground only. Five year results of a long-term site productivity study concluded that harvesting aspen when soils were frozen had little effect on physical soil properties and produced a fully stocked stand of aspen suckers (Stone and Elioff 1998). Effects to the physical properties of all soils with poor internal drainage are minimized through frozen ground operation of heavy equipment, regardless of forest type. By restricting the harvest operations to frozen ground, the potential risk for compaction and rutting is reduced to slight for these treatment areas.

Potential for compaction and rutting is also reduced by operating low ground pressure equipment over snow, forest floor, logging slash, and surface rock. Harvesters with 24-inch wide tracks, and 24-inch wide, four- to eight-wheeled rubber-tired forwarders are the type of equipment commonly used on the Forest. A Michigan study intentionally tested the latest harvesting equipment on wet, fine sandy loam soil and found no compaction or rutting that exceeded acceptable limits (Miller et al. 2001). About 86 percent of the soils in the proposed treatment areas are moderately well or better drained, with loamy textures that provide good support for heavy equipment when the surface is dry, with minimal rutting and compaction risk.

During project implementation, on-site inspections are performed by sale administrators to ensure contract provisions to protect soil resources are enforced. Main trails near log landings have repeated use by harvesting equipment and, therefore, have a higher potential for compaction, depending on moisture conditions if the ground is not frozen. There would be an increase in soil surface strength and density (bulk density) on the main skid trails from multiple passes of equipment, with detrimental compaction (increased compaction and soil structure change from granular to massive or platy, at a depth greater than 30 centimeters) expected on about one to two percent of the treatment areas. About 922 acres of paper birch, oak and hardwood shelterwood harvests would have a second entry overstory removal harvest within three to five years. Existing landings and main skid trails would be used with no new detrimental compaction or rutting expected on these loamy soils. Potential for long-term detrimental compaction or rutting is minimized by limiting the operating conditions to dry or frozen ground. Soil scientists and resource specialists have monitored similar sites harvested on these and similar LTPs/soils. Findings to date indicate no evidence of reduced productivity due to compaction and rutting (USDA Forest Service 2001a, 2003a, 2007a, 2009a, 2011a, and 2015a). Log landings where wood is temporarily stored until it can be trucked away are primarily located next to haul roads in the road right of way and would be detrimentally compacted during harvest operations. The decking and removal of wood products would occupy about one quarter to one half of an acre for each 60 to 80 acres of harvest in most cases, or about 0.4 to 0.6 percent of a harvest unit, and would not add appreciably to the total areal extent of detrimentally disturbed soil. Some landings would be scarified and revegetated, and some would be left to recover naturally. The period of time for natural recovery varies by soil characteristics and severity of compaction and while freeze-thaw cycles may hasten recovery, the effects may be assumed to persist for several decades (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2004).

The modified proposed action includes about 3.3 miles of road reconstruction and 10.1 miles of new road construction. Permanent roads are not part of the productive land base and are not considered in assessing detrimental compaction and rutting.

The modified proposed action includes constructing 19.2 miles (65.2 acres, assuming a 28-foot maximum clearing width) of temporary roads. Temporary roads are not part of the permanent transportation system and are subject to soil quality standards. The soil within about a 28-foot wide clearing limit could be detrimentally compacted during construction, and the 14-foot road


67

surface would be compacted from repeated hauling of wood products. This would be a short-term effect, as temporary roads would be decommissioned upon completion of the proposed project (Forest Plan, page 2-36). Decommissioning the new temporary roads and existing roads (60.8 miles) as proposed may involve disking to loosen compaction and/or allow natural processes to eliminate existing compaction over time, returning this land to productive forest.

The modified proposed action includes using tractor or skidder attached equipment to salmon blade, disc trench, roller chop and bracke scarify a maximum of 966 acres of the treatment areas for planting, and natural regeneration. Additionally, up to 50 acres in three separate treatment areas may include stump removal, dozing, plowing and planting to create wildlife openings targeted mainly for elk habitat. All areas proposed for mechanical site preparation are also proposed for a harvest treatment. Soil compaction and rutting risk is slight for about 59 percent, moderate for about 25 percent, and severe for about 16 percent of the mechanical site preparation treatment areas. Areas proposed for site preparation are rated slight for rutting and compaction risk due to having loamy textured, moderately well to excessive drained soils. The operating season would be year round, except for periods of excessively wet conditions, such as annual spring thaw or major rainfall events. Areas proposed for site preparation are rated moderate for silt loam and fine sandy loam textured, moderately well drained soils and severe due to poor internal drainage on all or a portion of the treatment areas. A protective measure restricts the operating season to winter (frozen ground) or dry summer/fall for each treatment area with a moderate rating and winter only for those rated severe to minimize the potential for detrimental soil disturbance. Site preparation equipment delivers fewer pounds per square inch to the ground surface than loaded harvest equipment, but does travel about 50 to 75 percent of a treatment area and has potential for compaction and rutting. The same seasonal restrictions assigned for harvesting would limit equipment use to dry or frozen ground conditions when soil strength is high, minimizing risk for soil compaction or rutting from the lighter mechanical site preparation equipment. The salmon blade and disk trench equipment would actually reduce surface compaction on main skid trails that are crossed. There would be no short- or long-term detrimental compaction or rutting expected from site preparation activities.

Up to 29 miles of dozer blade or fire plow constructed mineral soil line are proposed to contain fire in prescribed burn areas. All prescribed burn areas are also proposed to be harvested and include optional site preparation with salmon blade. See appendix E for site-specific soil protection measures. There would be no detrimental compaction or rutting from one or two passes with a tracked dozer during fire line construction when all soil protection measures are implemented.

In summary, harvest activities would be designed to use existing roads, main skid trails, landings and back-in spurs to the extent possible to avoid or minimize soil compaction and rutting across treatment areas. Operating seasons based on soil type would be stipulated in the timber sale contracts and soil moisture conditions and harvest equipment impacts would be monitored by Forest Service timber sale administrators. Harvesting operations would be stopped when soils become saturated to the extent that detrimental compaction and rutting is likely or begins to occur. Forest Plan guidelines listed in appendix E would apply to all treatment areas.

Long-term detrimental soil compaction on main skid trails, temporary roads and landings from operation of heavy equipment would occur on about one to two percent of each treatment area. Post-harvest monitoring reports referenced in the Soil Resource Report (located in the project record) consistently show that initial harvests result in zero to three percent detrimental soil disturbance, on average, and winter operations result in zero to two percent detrimental soil

Black Torch

68

disturbance. The extent, intensity and duration of compaction would be minimized for about 98 percent of all treatment areas proposed through operating requirements and soil protection guidelines. This is a conservative estimate, yet well within Region 9 soil quality standards. Long-term productivity of the land would not be impaired by soil compaction or rutting from the proposed activities.

Soil Erosion and Displacement - As shown in table 3-19 above, the potential for erosion and displacement is slight for 97 percent of the treatment areas, indicating little or no erosion or displacement is likely. These areas have slopes that range up to 15 percent, but commonly have four to 10 percent gradients.

The potential for erosion and displacement is moderate for three percent of the treatment areas, indicating some erosion is likely if mineral soil remains exposed to rainfall. Skid trails down short steep slopes, when unavoidable, need to be stabilized with simple erosion control measures, such as covering with logging slash or constructing water bars to protect exposed mineral soil until the site is revegetated. Slopes may range up to 35 percent, but commonly have 15 to 25 percent gradients.

The potential for erosion and displacement is severe for less than one percent of the proposed treatment areas, indicating erosion is likely if mineral soil remains exposed to rainfall. Slopes in these proposed treatment areas range from 20 to 45 percent.

Operation of equipment on slopes approaching 30 percent should be avoided where possible through treatment area layout, or trees should be cut by hand and cabled from above or below. Harvesting machines may also reach trees from above and below on short steep areas. Keeping equipment off of steep areas and cabling trees will avoid exposing excessive mineral soil. Appendix A of the Soil Resource Specialist Report located in the project record lists site-specific stands where steep slopes are a limiting factor. Implementing appropriate erosion control measures for exposed mineral soil on steep slope areas will reduce the potential risk for erosion from moderate to slight.

Forest floor cover, such as litter, slash and surface rock, protects the soil from erosive forces of raindrop impact and runoff. An undisturbed and totally covered forest soil usually yields no surface runoff, thus, it has no sheet and rill erosion (Dissmeyer and Foster 1980). Tracked or rubber tired harvesting machines (fell, limb and cut to length) and rubber-tired forwarders (haul) would be used in 90 percent of the tree harvest operations in the project area and the average ground traveled is 11 percent or less of a sale unit for all harvest types (Schumacher 2002). The two machines typically operate on the same trails and run on top of slash generated from the harvested trees surface rock and forest floor litter. Potential to expose mineral soil is minimal. Verry (1972) found no evidence of accelerated erosion after clear-cutting an aspen stand in Minnesota. A few scattered areas (25 to 50 square feet each) of exposed soil may occur within harvest areas due to maneuvering tracked machines over uneven ground. These isolated areas will revegetate naturally within one or two growing seasons and are not an erosion concern. Operation of this type of harvesting equipment does not remove the surface organic or mineral soil layers, thus, soil displacement rarely occurs. In some harvest operations, full-length trees are pulled to a landing with a grapple skidder, allowing the limbed tree tops to drag on the ground. This will cause some mixing of the organic and mineral soil materials, but is not considered detrimental displacement (USDA Forest Service 2012b).

Log landings (described in the previous section) are often located on open areas adjacent to woods roads, and the wood is placed directly on the undisturbed ground surface. A landing “spur”


69

within or adjacent to a harvest unit, may be approved by the timber sale administrator, when decking wood along the haul road is not permitted. A spur typically is an area about 40 feet by 100 feet, and wood is placed on undisturbed ground, if possible. Some spurs may require clearing of trees, stumps, rocks or other debris. Some soil may be displaced in this process. Potential for soil erosion of either type of log landing is very low because level, well drained upland areas are generally designated, and natural ground cover is kept in place, or if removed, would be re-established by natural or artificial seeding within one or two growing seasons. Main forwarder/skid trails near landing areas would have more exposed mineral soil due to repeated use. These areas would also revegetate naturally within two growing seasons or be stabilized with a slash cover or other erosion control measures through the timber sale contract, as needed.

Potential for soil erosion and displacement exists when mineral soil is exposed during the road construction process. All road construction projects follow Forest Plan guidelines that require using Wisconsin Forestry BMPs (WDNR 2010a) and Wisconsin Construction Site BMPs Handbook to stabilize disturbed soil during and after use. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Soil, Water Resources and Transportation Systems would be followed. No detrimental soil erosion would be expected. Detrimental soil displacement would occur on portions of new temporary roads (19.2 miles proposed) where the organic surface and a portion of the mineral soil may be bladed off when removing stumps and debris to prepare the roadbed. Temporary roads would be decommissioned upon completion of vegetation management activities and proven soil stabilization practices, such as water bars, seeding, and mulching, would be applied, where appropriate, following Wisconsin Forestry BMPs (WDNR 2010a). No long-term detrimental displacement effects to the project area are expected from temporary road construction and use. Road reconstruction on existing forest roads (3.3 miles proposed) would be maintained as part of the transportation system necessary to manage the forest and provide public access for recreation. The lands committed for use as system roads, trails, and other administrative facilities are not considered detrimentally disturbed conditions.

Decommissioning of the newly constructed temporary roads (19.2 miles) and existing roads (60.8 miles) for this project may involve disking to loosen compaction, which would expose and displace some mineral soil in the process. However, these roads would most likely be allowed to revegetate and rely on natural processes to eliminate compaction, returning this land to productive forest over time. In either case, the goal is to stabilize these sites and eliminate erosion potential. Mitigation measures would be identified, as needed, to further minimize potential for erosion while these sites are stabilized.

Mechanical site preparation to prepare the ground surface for planting or natural regeneration of targeted tree species is proposed for a maximum of 966 acres of the treated areas. Up to an additional 50 acres in three separate treatment areas may also include mechanical site preparation, including stump removal, dozing, plowing and planting for wildlife openings targeted mainly for elk habitat. Erosion and displacement risk is slight for 98 percent, and moderate for two percent of the site preparation areas. The moderate rating is due to slopes ranging from 15 to 35 percent. The remaining 98 percent proposed for mechanical site preparation treatment is rated slight for erosion and equipment operation due to slopes ranging from zero to 15 percent. The tractor or skidder attached equipment used to prepare 50 to 75 percent of the sites for planting or natural regeneration would not expose enough continuous mineral soil for there to be an erosion concern, even on the steeper slope areas. Soils on the steepest sites are excessively drained with sandy loam surface textures beneath the forest floor organic materials. Infiltration and permeability rates are moderately rapid in the surface and rapid to very rapid in the subsurface layers, indicating water readily enters and moves through the soil, with low runoff potential. Equipment used to

Black Torch

70

scarify the surface will cause some mixing of the organic and mineral soil materials, but this is not considered detrimental displacement (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Areas where forest floor materials are scraped away exposing areas of mineral soil would be scattered and discontinuous with good infiltration, so surface erosion would not be expected, even on the areas with steeper slopes. The exposed mineral soil areas will revegetate naturally within one or two growing seasons, and no surface erosion is likely. Areas where erosion would be anticipated or do occur would include seeding to help revegetate. See appendix A of the Soil Resource Report located in the project record for sites where steep slopes may be a limiting factor. Prescribed burning as a site preparation option is proposed on 696 acres to prepare oak and paper birch sites for natural regeneration. Low to moderate intensity broadcast burning would not totally consume the organic layer, create water repellent conditions, or expose enough mineral soil to allow surface erosion. A line of bare mineral soil will be constructed around the perimeter of most burn areas as a firebreak and will total a maximum of about 29 miles for proposed prescribed burns in the modified proposed action. The organic layer and upper two inches of mineral soil would be displaced to the side of the fire break by a tractor and fire plow (about eight feet wide), or dozer blade (up to 15 feet wide). The exposed soil for control lines would seed in naturally or would be artificially seeded to establish ground cover within two growing seasons. Water bars would be constructed, if needed, on short steep slope areas. There would be short-term detrimental displacement of soil along the entire length and width of these constructed firebreaks with no detrimental surface erosion expected.

Geologic erosion would continue at a minimal rate of less than 0.18 tons/acre/year (Patric 1976). Patric (1976) also notes the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting the view that soil losses from responsibly managed forest land are slight compared to those that accompany most other land uses.

In summary, all proposed ground-disturbing activities would be designed to eliminate or minimize potential for soil erosion and displacement. Where possible, operation of heavy equipment up and down steep slope areas approaching 30 percent gradients where exposed soil will readily erode would be avoided. Roads and landings would be located on level ground and exposed soil on steep slopes during and after use would be stabilized to control erosion. Soil displacement where machines are piling biomass would be minimized through careful operation. Forest Plan guidelines would apply to all treatment areas (see appendix E).

There would be no short or long-term detrimental soil disturbance effects from soil erosion on project sites or adjacent areas when Forest Plan Soils and Transportation System guidelines are followed. There would be short-term detrimental disturbance effects from soil displacement on project sites where landing areas, back-in spurs, or temporary roads require clearing of stumps, rocks and other debris. No treatment areas or adjacent areas in the Black Torch Project would suffer long-term impairment of the soil resource from erosion or displacement, should the Modified Proposed Action be implemented.

Effects to Soil from Prescribed Fire - There is potential for soil impacts to 696 acres proposed from prescribed fire as a site preparation option in the modified proposed action. See the prescribed burn and fire control line discussions specific to soil compaction, rutting, erosion and displacement in the two previous sections.

A moderate to high intensity prescribed burning would be desired to reduce competing vegetation, open serotinous cones (jack pine) and provide a favorable mineral soil seedbed for natural regeneration of oak or paper birch. Up to 100 percent of the ground in a burn unit may be


71

affected by the fire or less, depending on fuels and conditions. Fuels would consist of scattered slash from shelterwood (hardwood, paper birch, oak). Prescribed burning would be done in the spring or fall when the litter layer is moist.

The severity and duration of a prescribed fire determines the effects on the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. While a “hot” burn is desired to accomplish the natural regeneration objectives, a low to moderate intensity broadcast burn is most likely, given the fuel types/loading and prescribed burn plan required conditions for burning. Thus, a mechanical treatment fall back option is also planned for all proposed prescribed fire areas. Low ground surface temperature prescribed fires combust only surface fuels and transfer little heat downward. The proposed controlled fires would not be severe with no areas of heavy fuel buildup like slash piles or windrows of debris. A portion of the understory vegetation and forest floor debris would be burned. Prescribed fires seldom remove more than 50 percent of the surface organic layers, and the soil organic fraction of the A horizon is not generally affected by light burns. Effects to the soil resource from proposed prescribed burning may include: an increase in available phosphorous, potassium, calcium, and magnesium for one to five years; increased surface and mineral soil carbon, increase in pH; some nitrogen loss through volatilization and leaching, with temporary increased availability to re-sprouting vegetation; minimal increase in mineral soil temperature during the burn due to moist, insulating humus layer; minimal increase in soil surface temperature until vegetation covers the blackened surface; initial decrease in soil microbes and bacteria followed by sharp increases as rainfall leaches nutrients into the soil; a decrease in earthworm populations; and an increase in soil animals, such as arthropods, for example, beetles, ants, centipedes, millipedes, springtails, spiders, ticks, and mites (Pritchett and Fisher 1987). More details on the long-term effects of fire disturbance on soil organic matter and chemistry are included in the Soil Resource Report located in the project record.

There would be no short- or long-term detrimental soil disturbance effects from the prescribed burning proposed in the modified proposed action. The intensity and duration of the burns would not be severe (as defined previously) and would not impair soil physical, chemical or biological properties.

Soil Productivity - The potential for proposed treatment activities to impact inherent soil productivity of the proposed treatment area is low. Soil productivity could be reduced from the proposed activities, if excessive organic matter and nutrients were removed through harvesting, soil erosion, prescribed burning or soil displacement. Productivity could also be reduced if soil physical properties, such as structure or porosity, were impaired by compacting or rutting soil beyond acceptable limits for a treatment area (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Potential for detrimental long-term soil impacts from compaction, rutting, erosion, and displacement are determined to be low, as described in the two previous sections, indicating the proposed actions will not adversely affect the inherent productivity of the soil resource in the treatment areas.

Proposed new temporary road construction of about 19.2 miles would remove about 65.2 acres (assuming a 28-foot maximum clearing width) of productive soil resource for the short term. These temporary roads would be decommissioned and restored to productive land over time when project activities are completed.

The proposed 10.1 miles of new road construction would compact new soil areas and change the land use for 24.4 acres of land (assuming a 20-foot maximum clearing width) from productive forest to part of the permanent transportation system needed to manage the Forest. Proposed re-construction of 3.3 miles of existing roads involves land already removed from the productive land base for transportation and does not constitute a change to soil productivity from this project.

Black Torch

72

Permanent system roads and trails are dedicated land uses and not considered detrimental soil conditions. Decommissioning 60.8 miles of existing roads would return about 103 acres (assuming a 14-foot road bed) to productive land over time.

Mechanical site preparation to mix the forest floor organic material with the underlying mineral soil surface horizon, as described in the previous sections, is expected to increase long-term site productivity of the forest community through successful establishment, survival and growth of the desired pine, oak or paper birch tree species on up to 966 acres. More details on the benefits of site preparation on soil productivity are described in the Soil Resource Report located in the project record. There are no short- or long-term detrimental effects to soil productivity expected from proposed mechanical site preparation treatments.

Cutting trees and removing the merchantable bole or whole-tree (bole plus crown) would remove a portion of the treatment area organic matter and nutrients (nitrogen [N], phosphorus [P], potassium [K], calcium [Ca] and magnesium [Mg]). The ratio and amount of nutrients in tree components (e.g. foliage, branches, bole, bole bark, stump and roots) and thus, the amount removed, varies by species, age, stocking and site quality. Alban et al. (1978) determined the organic matter and nutrient distribution in vegetation and soil for aspen, white spruce, red pine and jack pine on similar soil types in northern Minnesota. They found most nutrients are concentrated in the soil, with only six to 23 percent of the N, Ca, and Mg, and only 21 to 50 percent of the P and K found in the vegetation (includes a small percentage of each nutrient in the understory vegetation). Perala and Alban (1982) found the species order of nutrients in trees on both a loam and sand soil to be aspen>spruce>red pine>jack pine for all nutrients, except red pine>spruce for Mg. Oaks are similar to aspen in accumulating relatively large amounts of nutrients, especially Ca (Johnson and Todd 1987). Pastor and Bockheim (1984) found nutrient concentrations in aspen to be higher than mixed hardwoods (sugar maple) on the same soil in Vilas County, Wisconsin. About 50 to 60 percent of the above ground tree nutrients for both hardwoods and conifers are in the bole, of which half is in the bole wood and half in the bole bark (Alban et al. 1978, Mann 1988). Nutrient removal from merchantable bole and bark harvest is not considered excessive, as these nutrients can generally be replaced by mineral weathering and atmospheric deposition (Silkworth and Grigal 1982). Also, bole-only harvest areas retain nutrients in: forest floor organic materials (humus layers), mineral soil nutrient capital, tree stumps, decaying root systems, existing fine and coarse woody debris, top wood stem, foliage and branches (slash), remaining trees (if thinning), shrub and herb layer, and in the 10 to 15 percent or more of tree biomass that is not removed due to breakage during harvest (Alban and Perala 1990, Grigal 2004). Leaching of nutrients below the rooting zone occurs naturally and would be increased for a short time following the disturbance of bole only harvesting due to decreased losses of potential water infiltration from vegetative intercept. Silkworth and Grigal (1982) found leaching losses of N, P, K, and Mg due to harvesting to be less than inputs by precipitation and weathering.

All LTP/soil map units on the Forest have been evaluated for potential to allow biomass (tree crown and branches) removal based on specific soil physical, chemical and biological characteristics. The Forest Plan has a soils guideline in clearcuts to retain logging slash in place (limbing at the stump) where topsoil is less than one inch thick, or where organic matter is less than two percent. This guideline is intended to protect long-term productivity of coarse sandy soils with low nutrient reserves. Soil types that meet these criteria are identified in the Forest LTP database and are assigned a “No” rating in the Biomass Harvest Acceptable column in appendix E for stands that occur on these soil types and are proposed for treatment. In addition, the WDNR developed Forestland Woody Biomass Harvesting Guidelines (Bronson et al. 2014) with the


73

guideline “Do not harvest fine woody material on dry nutrient-poor sandy soils”, with jack pine stands as an exception. The Forest LTP/soils database also identifies the soils restricted from biomass harvest based on the state criteria for nutrient-poor sand soils (less than three percent clay content in the upper 40 inches), which has been correlated with low Ca, K, and Mg content.

Of the 589 forest stands proposed for harvest, no stands are represented with a majority of nutrient-poor sandy soils that will be restricted from biomass removal based on Forest and WDNR soil risk ratings (see appendix E). One small soil inclusion mapped as Pelissier gravelly sandy loam on 15 to 45 percent slopes, which occupies less than four acres or nine percent of stand ID 09130200067050, would not be eligible for biomass harvest and would be excluded during pre-harvest layout.

Soil respiration, also referred to as soil-carbon dioxide (CO2) evolution or soil- CO2 efflux, is the total CO2 production/release in intact soils resulting from the respiration of soil organisms, roots, and mycorrhhizae, and is a major flux in the global carbon cycle (Raich and Schlesinger 1992). This activity is sustained by organic matter inputs to soil from above (surface litter) and below ground (root detritus), with annual soil respiration rates primarily controlled by seasonal soil temperature and soil moisture, among vegetation types at the landscape scale (Zheng et al. 2005). Laporte et al. (2003) noted contradictory results from multiple studies monitoring soil surface CO2 efflux after forest harvesting, with increases, decreases, and no effect to soil respiration documented after logging disturbance. Comparing northern hardwoods single tree selection, shelterwood, and clear felling with an uncut control, Laporte et al. (2003) found logging had limited impact on overall soil respiration, but emphasized microsite differences, noting lower soil respiration on the drier and warmer mechanically disturbed or scarified microsites during the growing season following harvest. Mallik and Hu (1997) found increased soil respiration following site preparation in the mixed wood aspen-balsam fir-white spruce-black spruce-paper birch type due to soil mixing that accelerated microbial activity and increased organic matter decomposition, however, soil temperature was not increased enough to make a significant difference in soil respiration. Weber (1990) found soil respiration rates returned to pre-treatment levels after three growing seasons following aspen clear-cuts, clear-cut, and burned treatments. Striegl and Wickland (1998) found clearcutting mature jack pine reduced CO2 emissions by 60 percent in the first growing season, but expected soil respiration and photosynthetic uptake should increase substantially in the years following a clearcut, as surface-soil microbial communities reestablish, tree roots decompose, and rooted ground cover plants and trees are reestablished.

Tang et al. (2008) used a chronosequence approach to study age succession of soil carbon fluxes and stocks on the Chequamegon-Nicolet and Ottawa National Forests. Soil respiration and carbon stocks were measured on a recent clearcut and burned stand, a blowdown and partial salvage stand, a clearcut with residual overstory, a complete clearcut, young and intermediate aged aspen stands, mature northern hardwoods, and old growth stands. Soil respiration increased during stand establishment, peaked at intermediate age, and then decreased with age. Total soil carbon at 0 to 60 centimeters initially decreased after harvest and then increased after stands established, compensating for the loss of carbon during harvest (Tang et al. 2008). Removal of merchantable tree boles or whole trees (bole plus crown), and mechanical site preparation will affect soil respiration rates and carbon uptake following proposed treatments, but will be expected to return to pre-treatment levels as studies suggest, without detrimental effects to the long-term productivity of the land or to the carbon balance of ecosystems from a local to global scale.

Soil organic carbon was assessed in the 2004 FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2004b), which indicates through the literature cited that the Forest would continue to be a carbon sink, little to no

Black Torch

74

change in soil carbon could be expected after all types of forest harvesting proposed, and projects an increase in soil carbon storage through implementation of the Forest Plan. More recent studies specific to Wisconsin forests indicate the Forest to be a net sink of carbon, even after accounting for all associated emissions (Gower and Ahl 2006). Ten year results from a North American long-term soil productivity experiment, with harvest plots in Minnesota and Michigan, indicate when forest floors are retained there is no general decline in soil carbon with time, slash removal does not reduce soil carbon storage to 30 centimeters through 10 years, and the primary inputs to soil carbon come from the decay of fine roots that remain from the harvested stand, not logging slash (Powers et al. 2005). Soil organic carbon would be increased initially on all harvest treatment areas due to the decaying root systems of the harvested trees.

Given the uncertainty of future greenhouse gas emissions and related climate change, there is a consequent level of uncertainty in ecosystem change that simply cannot be fully resolved (Swanston et al. 2011). Current models from multiple sources (Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts 2011) predict that increased average temperature may result in drier, longer summers and shorter more precipitous winters. This will likely have an effect on how our soil resources perform under management objectives for this project; assuming climate change effects do occur before complete implementation. Increased reliance on Forest Plan guideline “Operate heavy equipment only when soils are not saturated or when the ground is frozen” will be a crucial defense mechanism for protecting the soil resources immediately. With the predicted possibility of less frequent but more intense rain/snow events and shorter duration of frozen ground conditions, increased vigilance during sale administration using this Forest Plan guideline by default will serve as a proactive response for mitigating any possible detrimental effects to our soil resource from rutting, compaction, erosion and/or displacement. Models also predict a likely reduction of soil moisture throughout the growing season as well as longer growing seasons in general (Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts 2011). Although the silvicultural implications to this are not discussed here, this may affect overall soil productivity by reducing the amount of available water for plant growth. However, if soil moisture does remain adequate, a longer growing season may actually increase forest productivity. From a soil disturbance standpoint, reduced soil moisture may generally have a positive effect on rutting susceptibility on soils with fine surface texture by increasing load bearing strength and decreasing soil deformation properties. Continued reliance on the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory, coupled with our integrated ecological classification system, will no doubt serve as a key mechanism for identifying what soil and plant interactions are being affected and what reactionary steps will be necessary to continue to protect our soil resources from the possible negative consequences of climate change. The Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory also serves as a foundation to allow scientists to spatially target the impacted areas and formulate a monitoring strategy. This will be especially important for monitoring change on the more vulnerable systems, such as those that occur on drier and more nutrient poor soils. Natural soil formation processes would continue. Biomass and organic matter would accumulate from the open lands and managed forest vegetation and be incorporated into the soil surface. The biological and geochemical nutrient cycles would continue. Inputs to the system include atmospheric deposition and weathering of mineral soil parent materials. Annual nutrient balances based on estimated inputs and outputs would tend to increase as succession progresses (Pritchett and Fisher 1987).


75

Considering all potential effects to the soil resource discussed above, we estimate that proposed treatments would have no long-term direct or indirect detrimental effects to soil productivity of project sites. Long-term productivity of the land would be maintained on more than 97 percent of all treatment areas.

Since analysis has indicated negligible off-site erosion potential, cumulative impacts to the soil resource in the project area would not affect surrounding LTPs on federal land or land in other ownerships. Potential effects to the soil resource are reasonably confined to the soil directly beneath where the activity would take place, such as the operation of machinery to cut and remove trees. System roads, trails, and other administrative facilities are dedicated land uses necessary to access and manage the Forest and are not considered detrimental soil conditions when assessing cumulative affects to soil quality within or adjacent to the project area. The permanent transportation system on the Forest continues to be reduced over time. The 2011 Travel Management Project and motor vehicle use map commits a relatively small amount (0.21 percent) of the Forest land base to motor vehicle use, compared to the 4,656 miles (8,102 acres or 0.54 percent of the Forest) that were open to motor vehicles in 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2011b).

Past Actions - Numerous historic, natural- and human-caused ground-disturbing events, such as, windstorms, turn of the century (late 1800s to early 1900s) logging and associated fires, road and railroad building, have taken place in and around the area of cumulative effects analysis. While these events have influenced the existing condition of the soil resource, there are no known adverse residual impacts.

Activities, such as timber harvesting and road building, have occurred over the past 30 years and were implemented following contract operating restrictions, Forest Plan standards and guidelines (1986 to present), and site-specific design measures to mitigate soil resource impacts on Forest Service lands. The Forest End of Decade Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 1998a) covering management activities implemented between1986 and 1996 indicated no appreciable effects to the long-term productivity of the land. About 82 percent of stands proposed for treatment have had no previous harvests in the past 30 years, 17 percent of the stands have had one previous harvest, and less than one percent of stands have had two previous harvests in the past 30 years; as documented in the Forest timber stand history files. These activities have left less than one percent of those areas in a detrimentally disturbed condition from compacted skid trails, landings, or temporary roads. On-site monitoring of soil resource impacts across the district has shown no long-term impairment of the land from similar project activities on the same soil types as listed in Table 1 of the Soil Resource Report located in the project record (USDA Forest Service 2001a, 2003a, 2007a, 2009a, 2011b, 2015a).

Site-specific field monitoring within the project area has verified that there are no proposed treatment areas with long-term impairment (detrimental disturbance is within threshold values listed previously) to the soil resource from past activities. As a conservative estimate, about 0.5 percent (75 acres) of the proposed treatment areas (14,924 acres) will be considered disturbed from any and all past activities. About 99.5 percent of the managed soil resource in the proposed treatment areas is maintained in a non-detrimentally disturbed condition. The Forest has also implemented Wisconsin Forestry BMPs for Water Quality since 1995, and recent field monitoring indicates that 99 percent of the time there will be no adverse impacts to water quality from soil erosion/sedimentation when BMPs are applied correctly (Cooper et al. 1998, Holland 2004, and Shy and Wagner 2007). BMPs are not 100 percent effective. The remaining one percent would include potential soil erosion and sedimentation. Current conditions indicate key soil properties

Black Torch

76

affecting ecosystem health and sustainability, such as porosity, organic matter content and nutrient availability are representative of the natural range of soil conditions inherent to the landscape of the Forest (USDA Forest Service 1998b). Healthy populations of soil microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, exist in the favorable environment of the forest floor litter layer and soil surface organic matter (Pritchett and Fisher 1987), which will remain in place.

No appreciable long-term effects to the soil resource or long-term productivity of the land from past activities have been identified in the proposed treatment areas.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions - Proposed actions would include ground-disturbing activities. Assessment of potential direct and indirect impacts from activities in the modified proposed action indicates another two percent of the treatment areas may be detrimentally compacted by heavy equipment. However, based on Region 9 soil threshold values discussed previously, no appreciable short or long-term detrimental soil disturbance would be expected. Monitoring indicates adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, site-specific design measures, and contract provisions would eliminate or minimize potential adverse impacts from compaction, rutting, erosion, displacement, or nutrient removal. About 97 percent of the managed soil resource on federal land within the proposed treatment areas would be maintained in a non-detrimentally disturbed condition.

The 2004 Forest Plan FEIS soils effects analysis on page 3-82 stated that of the 1,494,000 acres of Forest System land, 1.3 to 1.5 percent is projected to have potential ground-disturbing activities proposed annually through the first decade for all alternatives, leaving more than 98.5 percent with no disturbance, and 85 percent undisturbed over the decade. The actual average annual harvested area from 2004 to 2010 was 8,990 acres or 0.60 percent per year. This was less than half the predicted amount, leaving 99.4 percent undisturbed annually and 95 percent undisturbed over the first decade. Annual harvest area from 2006 to 2015 (10 years) averaged slightly less at 8,803 acres or 0.59 percent per year. No appreciable long-term effects to the soil resource or long-term productivity of the land from present and reasonably foreseeable activities have been identified in the project area.

At this time no other specific actions are known to be planned within the Black Torch Project area of cumulative effects analysis for the soil resource. The effects of implementing the modified proposed action when added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would not result in appreciable adverse cumulative effects to the quality of the soil resource in the project area.

Summary As shown in table 3-20, more than 99 percent of the proposed treatment areas are currently in good condition and soil properties are well within their natural range of variability. Monitoring results across the Forest indicate that zero to one percent of current land is detrimentally disturbed from past harvest activity. Soils on project sites pose a low risk potential for detrimental disturbance from the conventional ground-based logging, mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, and transportation system activities proposed. The project would adhere to identified Forest Plan standards and guidelines and resource protection measures for specific soil types, eliminating or minimizing potential adverse soil resource impacts. At most, an additional two percent of the soil resource in the treatment areas would sustain long-term detrimental impacts from the above proposed activities. Based on monitoring results, more than 97 percent of the treatment areas in the modified proposed action would remain in a non-detrimentally disturbed


77

condition, which meets National and Regional soil quality standards discussed previously. The remaining three percent will be the cumulative effects from past and expected new disturbance. Based on minimal direct and indirect effects on soil compaction, rutting, erosion, displacement, or productivity, the modified proposed action would not impair the long-term productivity of the areas proposed for treatment or adjacent areas. This determination is based on the best available science including; literature reviews, peer reviews, and ground-based observations.

Table 3-20. Potential for soil erosion and displacement summary.

Soil Resource Impacts No Action Acres (%) Modified Proposed Action Acres (%)

Total treatment area 0 14,924

Direct and indirect long-term detrimental disturbance (predicted)

0 299 (2)

Past detrimental disturbance 75 (0.5) 75 (0.5)

Cumulative detrimental disturbance 75 (0.5) 374 (2.5)

Long-term productive soil resource 14,849 (>99) 14,550 (>97)

Water Quality and Watershed Impacts Related to Erosion Concerns were raised during internal and public scoping that activities associated with timber harvesting, including permanent road construction, road re-construction, and road decommissioning may impact streams and other surface water bodies in the project area. Some believe logging and road building will generally increase peak flows and sediment loads in streams, resulting in undesirable effects to down-stream aquatic resources.

Affected Environment The Black Torch project area encompasses 53,430 acres. The existing condition of the aquatic resources was looked at from a watershed scale. The standard watershed map system used by State and Federal agencies consists of multiple levels referred to as the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) system. The 1st level is the largest scale of watershed mapping and each 1st level watershed has been sub-divided into smaller 2nd level watersheds. Watersheds in each mapping level are progressively subdivided into smaller watershed mapping levels. This analysis used the 6th level HUC sub-watersheds, where on average, all delineated 6th level watersheds within the project area encompass 10,000 to 40,000 acres. The project area falls within twelve different 6th level watersheds.

National Forest ownership within the 12 6th level watersheds ranges from 41 to 96 percent. National Forest ownership is important because it determines the degree of influence the Forest will have in any particular watershed (Forest Plan FEIS 2004, page 3-5). More details about watershed and ownership are available in the Aquatics Specialist Report in the project record.

Black Torch

78

Wetlands - According to the WDNR (1993) wetland type coverage map, there are a total of 27,128 acres of wetland within the project area. This does not include all small isolated wetlands within the project boundary as some wetlands are very small, and they are not easily identified. The types of wetlands found within the project area are listed in table 3-21.

Table 3-21. Wetland types within the project area.

Wetland Type Acres within the Project Area

Emergent/wet meadow 492

Forested 19,843

Open water 97

Scrub/shrub 6,696

Streams - A variety of stream types occurs within the project area. See appendix B for maps depicting streams within the project area. Streams within the Forest have been classified using two classification systems; WDNR Trout Class (WDNR 2002) and the Chequamegon-Nicolet Stream Classification System (USDA Forest Service 2004e). A list of streams and their classification types as well as the description of the Chequamegon-Nicolet Stream Classification System is included in the Aquatics Specialist Report located in the project record. Three classified trout streams occur within the project areas; Brunet River (Class II), Brush Creek (Class II), and the McCarthy Creek (Class II). Class II streams have some natural reproduction, but not enough to use available food and space. Stocking may be required to maintain a desirable sport fishery (WDNR 2002).

Lakes - Numerous lakes occur within the project area with the majority being small, unnamed lakes. The nine named lakes within the project area are listed in the Aquatics Specialist Report located in the project record. See appendix B for maps depicting lakes within the project area.

Riparian Areas - Of the 53,430 acres of national forest system lands in the project area, there are about 3,286 riparian acres. The Forest Service Manual defines a riparian ecosystem as the transitional area between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem. See figure 3-1 below. It is identified by soil characteristics and distinctive vegetation communities that require free or unbound water. Aquatic ecosystems are the stream channel, lake, or estuary bed, biotic communities, and habitat features that occur therein (Forest Service Manual 2526.05, page 18). Wetlands are those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with frequency sufficient to support, under normal circumstances, vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction (Forest Service Manual 2527.05, page 23).


79

Figure 3-1. Riparian Area Functions (Global Forest Watch 2017).

Riparian areas influence wood, nutrients, temperature, sediment, and channel dynamics. Maintaining the riparian areas ecological function provides for good quality macroinvertebrate and fish habitat. Riparian areas function to:

• Provide large woody debris for aquatic and terrestrial portions of the riparian area

• Provide soil and bank stability • Control water temperature • Regulate water quality • Store and conserve water • Provide nutrient and food to aquatic

systems

• Moderate microclimate • Provide diverse and productive sites for

aquatic and terrestrial plans and animals • Provide habitat continuity and travel

corridors for wildlife • Support distinct habitats and communities

Due to the extensive timber harvests of the late 1800s/early 1900s, recent (within the past several decades) management activities within riparian areas and natural disturbances, such as beaver activity, have created a general lack of large, mature, long-lived trees and/or tree species diversity in some riparian areas. In addition, historical logging activities cleared wood from streams and lakes to make rivers suitable for log drives. Because of this past activity, most of the riparian areas across the Forest are relatively young with over half of the upland acres in short-lived species (Forest Plan FEIS, page 3-9). To maintain appropriate riparian structure and function, riparian areas should be managed for tree species diversity, large trees and shade where soils permit. Among other things, this would provide for terrestrial wildlife habitat, long-term large woody debris recruitment to aquatic and terrestrial portions of riparian areas, soil and bank stability, water temperature control, and riparian area microclimate moderation.

Riparian areas defined in this analysis were based on the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) defined in the Wisconsin’s Forestry BMP’s for Water Quality (WDNR 2010a). An RMZ is an

Black Torch

80

area where management practices are modified to protect water quality, fish and other aquatic resources. There are about 3,286 riparian acres within the project area (table 3-22).

Table 3-22. Riparian acreage within the project area by watershed (100-foot RMZ).

HUC 6 Watershed Total RMZ acres in Watershed

Total RMZ in Project Boundary

Iron River 899 268

Brunsweiler River 1,457 163

Torch River 1,380 623

HW West Fork Chippewa River 62 5.8

Red Ike Lake – WF Chippewa River 1,815 18

Moose River 1,396 902

Moose Lake-Chippewa River 2,435 116

Venison Creek 710 0

Blaisdel and Bear Lakes-EF Chippewa River 607 13

Fishtrap Creek 866 835

East Fork Chippewa River 463 265

Loretta Lake-Brunet River 259 77

Trout Stream Riparian Areas, Aspen and Beaver - The continued regeneration of early successional species like aspen within the riparian area has resulted in an ample supply of the preferred food source for beaver. Beaver can adversely affect trout habitat by blocking migration, reducing shade through flooding, increasing water temperature, and causing sedimentation of spawning areas and altering habitat, which causes increased competition from other fish species (USDA Forest Service 2002). The Forest has over 1,200 miles of stream designated as trout water. Significant efforts have been made over the last two decades to restore the coldwater community, particularly to maintain free-flowing conditions. Part of this effort has been to reduce the amount of aspen next to trout streams to discourage beaver activity within those streams.

Road Activities in RMZs and Wetlands – The Forest landbase, including the project area, is well-roaded. Many of these road corridors have been in place since the early logging days. Roads can disrupt aquatic systems in a variety of ways, particularly at stream crossings, roads within riparian areas and roads through wetlands. Culverts can be undersized, resulting in frequent washouts, ponding upstream, poor fish passage and habitat degradation. Roads that


81

cross wetlands can result in changes in the wetland hydrology, particularly when there is not adequate cross drainage.

Analysis Parameters Harvest area thresholds for peak snowmelt and storm flow runoff were identified using existing research regarding the effect of aspen clearcutting on stream flows in the Lake States. A GIS was used to identify and calculate the total acreage of proposed treatment areas (by type) located within RMZs.

Riparian Management Zone – Treatment areas with boundaries within 100 feet of the water resources listed above were considered in this analysis. One hundred feet is the largest RMZ; streams greater than or equal to three feet wide, trout streams and lakes have a 100-foot RMZ, while streams less than three feet wide and less than one foot wide as well as intermittent streams have a 35-foot RMZ. In areas where there is a steep slope next to a waterbody, RMZs are extended to the top of the slope break to minimize impacts to water quality. The RMZ is an area where management practices are modified to protect water quality, fish and other aquatic resources (WDNR 2010a).

Although no quantitative thresholds for water quality are defined in the Forest Plan, it implies a general, forest-wide protection to provide for ecologically healthy streams, riparian areas, lakes and wetlands. These standards specifically require protection of hydrologic function and maintenance of natural hydrologic regimes in aquatic ecosystems as well as to design and maintain activities that could affect water quality in accordance with Wisconsin’s BMP’s (Forest Plan, pages 2-1 to 2-3). An effect to water quality would exceed the threshold if long-term impacts would occur. Short-term effects would not exceed the threshold.

Peak Flows - An open area analysis examines the relationship between non-forested areas and changes in the timing, magnitude, and duration of water runoff from snow melt and rain events.

The potential effect of aspen clearcutting on peak flows is a function of the proportion of a watershed that is harvested or in an open condition at any point in time. For snowmelt, this would include forest stands less than 16 years old, permanent upland openings and non-forested wetland, such as sedge meadow, open bog and shrub swamp. The recommended threshold of open condition where peak flows from snowmelt would begin to increase to the point where they could adversely affect stream channels, water quality (i.e., sediment) and aquatic habitat is 60 percent or more of a watershed in an open landscape condition described above (Verry 2000). For rainfall runoff, open area would include forest stands less than nine years old and permanent upland openings. There is no clear consensus regarding a threshold for storm runoff because additional factors can confound the response. These include the potential effects of soil compaction, the location of harvest areas relative to runoff source areas, and possible de-synchronization of peak flows can occur as watershed size increases. The potential for compaction will vary by soil type and ground conditions at the time of harvest (i.e., dry or frozen ground during harvest operations). A threshold of 35 percent of the watershed in an open landscape condition (less than nine years old and permanent upland openings) was selected as the threshold because of the following:

• According to Verry (2000), harvesting 71 percent of a watershed caused peak storm flows to double the first few years following clearcut timber harvest,

Black Torch

82

• The recovery of the watershed to pre-harvest conditions was relatively rapid and occurred within six to nine years (Verry 2000), and

• The Forest has mitigation measures to minimize compaction. This water resource effects analysis used all available aquatic ecological classification and inventory, water resource information, current research, and professional judgment of resource specialists. The effects of the alternatives proposed for this project area were assessed on a site-specific basis and project design features have been incorporated into the proposal to ensure the quality of the water resources within and adjacent to the analysis area are maintained. Resource indicators and measures listed in table 3-23 were used to focus the analysis. The treatment of some stands within the project area were removed from the proposal early in the analysis due to a variety of reasons, one of which related to their location relative to various water resources. Many stands were deferred because access would involve complicated wetland or stream crossings. Lakes, streams, ponds, riparian areas, and wetlands within and adjacent to proposed treatment areas have been identified.

Table 3-23. Resource indicators and measures for water quality and watershed impacts. Resource Element

Resource Indicator Measure Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect

Effects

Peak flow – Snowmelt runoff

Sediment delivery and stream channel

morphology

% of watershed in open landscape condition

(forest <15 years old + non-forest upland + non-

forest wetland)

See table 3-26

12.5%-28.6%

Peak flow – Storm flow runoff

Sediment delivery and stream channel

morphology

% of watershed in open landscape condition

(forest <9 years old + non-forest upland)

See table 3-27

7%-25%

Harvest activities in RMZs and wetlands

Vegetation disturbance or change

Acres of vegetative treatment in RMZs and

wetlands

181 acres in RMZs

0 acres in wetlands

Riparian ecosystem habitat

Growth and retention of long-lived tree species within the RMZ that

would contribute to future recruitment of large woody debris within

RMZ

Acres of riparian harvest treatments to promote the growth and retention of long-lived tree species

88 acres

Road activities in RMZs and wetlands

Sediment delivery # of stream crossings removed or length of road

wetland crossings removed

1.0 miles of wetland road crossing

decommissioned and 271 feet

decommissioned in RMZ


83



The spatial boundary for direct and indirect effects is the Black Torch project area. The potential for short- and long-term effects were addressed on a watershed basis analyzing effects to the 6th level HUC watersheds that lie within the project area. RMZ widths described above and identified in Wisconsin Forestry BMPs for Water Quality Manual (WDNR 2010a) were used for this analysis.


The water resources within the project area were also looked at from a watershed scale to assess potential cumulative effects. Twelve 6th level HUC watershed boundaries that lie within and outside the project area (the Aquatics Specialist Report in the project record has more detail) were used for the cumulative effects boundary. These boundaries were chosen because this watershed size will provide the most comprehensive boundary when analyzing the cumulative effects to water quality from the proposed treatments. Sediment movement downstream can be variable and dependent upon landform characteristics.

Long-term effects for direct, indirect and cumulative effects are those expected to last longer than one year after treatment or mitigation is completed, while those expected to last less than one year were considered short-term. Short-term effects would be expected to occur during the first growing season or the time it takes exposed soil to become stabilized and revegetated. Long-term effects would be expected to occur in a subsequent growing season, where the short-term effects would be more prominent on the landscape, and it will take longer for the sediment to flush downstream. Boundary distances and long- versus short-term effects criteria were chosen to be consistent with the Wisconsin’s Forestry BMPs for Water Quality Monitoring program.

No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts Riparian Management Zones – If the no action alternative would be implemented, the long-term health of these riparian areas may be affected as there would be no conversion to long-lived species in these areas. Over time, these areas would naturally convert to other species that may not be favorable to the long-term health of the riparian ecosystem. Riparian areas provide large woody debris for the aquatic and terrestrial portions of the riparian area, soil and bank stability, diverse and productive sites for aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. Maintaining healthy riparian ecological function provides for macroinvertebrate and fish habitat as well as stable banks and channel morphology for water quality.

Road Activities in RMZs and Wetlands – Roads hydrologically connected to wetlands and streams would not be decommissioned. These roads may contribute sediment or alter the hydrologic function of connected wetlands and streams. In the no action alternative about one mile of road adjacent to wetlands and 271 feet of road within RMZs would not be decommissioned. Roads that are open and dead-end or are located within the RMZ of wetlands and lakes have the potential to encourage off-road vehicle use. These activities may cause resource degradation, but there are Forest standards and guidelines developed to help reduce off-road use and preserve hydrologic function as well as overall integrity of aquatic ecosystems.

Black Torch

84

There are no new direct, indirect or cumulative effects to aquatic resources as a result of the no action alternative. The riparian areas would have no conversion to long-lived species, and roads located through wetlands or that cross streams would remain in place.

Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts Table 3-24 below summarizes the total acreage of proposed treatments located in the RMZs for the modified proposed action. Of the 3,286 riparian acres within project area, up to 181 RMZ acres (5.4 percent of total RMZ acres) fall within stands proposed for harvest. The modified proposed action includes 88 acres of RMZ harvest treatments where the desired future condition of the stand is to promote the growth and retention of long-lived tree species. The modified proposed action also proposes 42 acres of underplanting after selection, thinning or shelterwood harvest.

Table 3-24. Summary of proposed activities located in RMZs. Proposed Treatment Modified Proposed Action Activities (acres)

Clearcut 92

Selection 34

Shelterwood 25

Thinning 29

Underplanting 42

Salmon blade 20.92

Canopy gap clearing 34

Overstory removal 0.02

A detailed list of proposed vegetation treatments near waterbodies is summarized in the Aquatics Specialist Report in the project record.

Treatments proposed in the modified proposed action adjacent to riparian areas would follow BMPs for water and wetland quality and Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wildlife, fish, soil, and water resources. Impacts to water quality are negligible from these types of harvests when project design features listed in appendix E are properly implemented and maintained. Stands identified in the project design features where harvest operations would be restricted to frozen ground conditions would not have an impact on water quality (see appendix E for a complete list of seasonally restricted stands). Selection harvests expose a minimum amount of soil, and vegetative cover does not change (Spangenberg and McLennan 1983). Sedimentation would not be expected to occur because equipment operations would not take place within a minimum of 15 feet of the ordinary high water mark, except on roads or at stream crossings, designated trout streams and streams greater than or equal to three feet wide and wider. Wheeled or tracked equipment operation within 15


85

feet of the ordinary high water mark would occur only when the ground is frozen or dry. For streams less than three feet wide and less than one foot wide, wheeled or tracked equipment operation within 15 feet of the ordinary high water mark would only occur during dry or frozen ground conditions. At least 60 basal area is required to be left within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of lakes, designated trout streams and streams three feet wide and wider and within 35 feet of streams less than 3 feet wide. Erosion and sediment yield from timber harvest areas are usually low because ground cover is often provided by residual vegetation, logging slash and rapid re-growth of vegetation (Verry 1972, Spangenberg and McLennan 1983). Even when erosion does occur, it frequently is not delivered to waterbodies because of the low relief and undulating terrain, which is quite typical of the project area (Verry 1972). Project design features, which include BMPs and Forest Plan standards and guidelines, when properly implemented, would ensure that project activities would not cause long-term impacts to water quality. Proposed treatment areas would be monitored during project implementation to ensure contract specifications and design features are followed. The effectiveness of the proposed design features are based upon monitoring results compiled from the WDNR. During the mid-1990s, the Forests also participated in the development of "Wisconsin's Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality" (WDNR 2010a) and support their use to minimize sediment and other non-point sources of water pollutants. The use and effectiveness of BMPs across all land ownerships in Wisconsin, including the National Forest, were monitored by interdisciplinary and interagency teams from 1995 to 2015. BMPs have been applied correctly a vast majority of the time when needed and have been extremely effective in protecting water quality. The field evaluations indicated that 99.8 percent of the time, no adverse impact to water quality occurred when a BMP was applied correctly where needed. The most recent monitoring on Federal and Industrial timber sales was conducted in 2014 where 29 timber sales were monitored throughout the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Overall BMP application rates on Federal lands have significantly improved since the start of the monitoring program. The highest percentage rate of correctly applied BMPs was RMZs at 100 percent. Implementation and Effectiveness of Wisconsin’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 1995-2014, a more in-depth analysis of BMP monitoring results, is available in the project record. Moreover, according to the 2010 Wisconsin Statewide Forest Assessment, the WDNR BMP program is considered a success as studies have shown that silviculture is not a significant source of water quality impairment in Wisconsin (WDNR 2010b).

The WDNR research division is currently conducting a research project entitled “Effectiveness of Riparian Management Zone Best Management Practices for Preserving Stream Health in Timber Harvest Areas”. The objective of the study is to determine if there are any meaningful changes to stream habitat, fish assemblages, and macroinvertebrate assemblages after vegetative treatments that use Wisconsin BMPs for water quality. Preliminary results suggest that they have not been able to detect significant changes in composite habitat and fish measures after harvesting under existing BMP guidelines (WDNR 2010c). The study is on-going.

In 2012 the Forest Service developed and started implementation of a National BMP program to have a nationally consistent, systematic and objective approach to BMP monitoring across all of the nation’s national forests. The Forest Service is continually monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs across various land management activities, i.e. ground-based harvesting, recreation management, road construction, mining, prescribed burning, etc. On the Forest, ground-based skidding and harvesting operations were monitored on six different timber sale units. Results rated BMP implementation and effectiveness as ‘excellent’. In addition, 2014

Black Torch

86

nationwide monitoring results indicate the highest percentage of ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ evaluations were in the mechanical harvesting category. Harvest activities have a long history of emphasis on the use of BMPs to protect water quality (USDA Forest Service 2015a).

Riparian areas provide large woody debris for the aquatic and terrestrial portions of the riparian area, soil and bank stability, diverse and productive sites for aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. Maintaining healthy riparian ecological function provides for macroinvertebrate and fish habitat as well as stable banks and channel morphology for water quality.

Road Activities in RMZs and Wetlands – About 7.5 miles of road are next to or are located within wetlands and 0.8 of a mile of road is located within RMZs. Table 3-25 lists the proposed activities for roads that cross wetlands or are found within the RMZ. All new temporary roads would be decommissioned once harvest is completed. Over one mile of existing road (13 percent of total wetland length) through wetlands will be decommissioned and will follow the design criteria listed in appendix E.

Table 3-25. Proposed road activities in wetlands and RMZs. Proposed Activity Wetland (feet) RMZ (feet)

Road decommissioning 5,637 271

New road construction 542 47

Temporary road construction 1,978 11

All roads recommended for construction or reconstruction would be designed with proper cross drainage to maintain hydrologic function across the landscape. All appropriate permits needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the WDNR would be obtained prior to construction activities, where needed. This may include Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for storm water drainage.

Peak Flows - An open area analysis was conducted for selected 6th level watersheds. There are 12 different 6th level HUCs associated with the project area. A screening process was developed to pick those 6th level HUCs that had the highest potential for impact as it relates to open area. Watersheds that were smaller in size and had the highest amount of proposed harvest were used for the open area analysis. Five 6th level HUCs were selected.

Peak Flow – Snowmelt Runoff - The recommended threshold where peak flows from snowmelt would begin to increase to the point where they could adversely affects stream channels, water quality (i.e., sediment) and aquatic habitat is 60 percent or more of a watershed (Verry 2000). The analysis indicates that the open area created by this project and existing open area ranged from 12.5 to 29 percent, these are below the 60 percent threshold required to detrimentally alter hydrologic function. Existing snowmelt open area for the five watersheds range from 8.40 percent to 24 percent. Adding the additional open area potentially created in the modified proposed action increases open area four to 12 percent across the five watersheds. Table 3-26 displays the full analysis for the five selected watersheds.


87

Table 3-26. Open area analysis for the Black Torch project area – snow melt (60% threshold). Selected 6th level Watershed (WS)

Iron River

Torch River

Moose River

Moose Lake-Chippewa

River

Fishtrap Creek

Total WS area 18,105 31,753 37,973 14,838 11,402

Forest type 99 (upland opening) acres in WS

379 1,826 3,896 2,262 1,373

Forest type 97 (lowland opening) acres in WS

945 1,937 1,929 277 299

Year of origin aspen/2000 within WS (snowmelt)

113 545 441 457 32

** Non Forest Service open land in WS

78 595 457 537 169

Total acres open land 1,514 4,903 6,724 3,533 1,873

Existing open area 8.40% 15.44% 17.70% 24.00% 16.40%

Modified proposed action clearcut (acres)

759 1,299 2,605 796 1,392


Percentage of total open area created by this project plus the existing open area

12.50% 19.50% 24.60% 29.00% 28.60%

** Urban open, water, agriculture, young aspen, clearcut, low open, upland open

Peak Flow – Rainfall Runoff - A threshold of 35 percent of the watershed would provide reasonable protection from adverse increases in peak storm flows. The analysis indicates that open area created by this project and the existing open area ranged from seven to 25 percent, these are below the 35 percent threshold required to detrimentally alter hydrologic function (Verry 2000). The existing rainfall open area for the five selected watersheds range from 2.80 to 19.60 percent. Adding in the additional open area potentially created in the modified proposed action increases open area by three to 12.30 percent across the five watersheds. Table 3-27 displays the full analysis for the five selected watersheds.

Black Torch

88

Table 3-27. Open area analysis for the Black Torch project area – rainfall (35% threshold). Selected 6th level Watershed (WS)

Iron River

Torch River

Moose River

Moose Lake-Chippewa

River

Fishtrap Creek

Total WS area 18,105 31,753 37,973 14,838 11,402

Forest type 99 (upland opening) acres in WS

379 1,826 3,896 2,262 1,373

Year of origin aspen/2008 within WS (snowmelt)

82 205 128 359 13

** Non Forest Service open land in WS

64 240 53 294 63

Total acres open land 524 2,271 4,078 2,915 1,448

Existing open area 2.80% 7.10% 10.70% 19.60% 12.69%

Modified proposed action clearcut (acres)

759 1,299 2,605 796 1,392


Percentage of total open area created by this project plus existing open area

7.00% 11.20% 17.60% 25.00% 25.00%

** Urban, upland opening, clearcut, young aspen

Biomass – After further evaluation of stands for potential biomass harvesting and to address concerns about biomass harvesting expressed during public scoping, the interdisciplinary team determined that about 157 stands (4,959 acres) would be proposed for no biomass harvesting due to the occurrence of suitable American marten habitat. The remaining 432 stands (9,965 acres) would be eligible for biomass harvesting. Those stands eligible for biomass harvesting are listed in appendix E.

Appendix E lists all the proposed stands that fall within the 100-foot RMZ. The WDNR developed Forestland Woody Biomass Harvesting Guidelines (2009) where proposed harvest units would retain and scatter tops and limbs (< four inches in diameter) from 10 percent of trees in the general harvest area (e.g. one average –sized tree out of every 10 trees harvested). Potential for long-term detrimental water quality impacts is minimized because ground cover would be provided by residual vegetation, logging slash and rapid re-growth of vegetation. In addition, if erosion would occur, it frequently is not delivered to water bodies because of the low relief and undulating terrain, which is quite typical of the project area.

Additional guidance was also added to the 2010 BMPs. For streams equal to and greater than three feet wide, trout streams and lakes, fine woody material (material less than four inches in diameter at the large end) (WDNR 2009) would not be harvested within 50 feet of the ordinary


89

high water mark. For streams less than three feet and one-foot wide fine woody material would not be harvested within 15 feet of the ordinary high water mark.

Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable clearcut harvest activity acres located within the cumulative effects area for water quality and watershed impacts related to erosion were identified. To simplify the analysis, the total acres of clearcut harvest acres were tallied for the total area within the five 6th level HUC watersheds used for direct and indirect effects. Clearcut harvest acres from Forest Service vegetation management projects include: Cayuga, Chequamegon Salvage, Chequamegon Red Pine Thinning, and Twin Ghost.

Peak Flow – Snowmelt Runoff and Rainfall Runoff – Snowmelt runoff and rainfall runoff open area increased by three to five percent (see tables 3-28 and 3-29). The modified proposed action would represent the worst case scenario, meaning the most acres clearcut or the greatest amount of treatments that contribute towards the rainfall/snow melt calculations. Clearcut activities located in wetlands were eliminated from the rainfall runoff calculation. See table 3-30 below for a summary of past, present or reasonably foreseeable clearcut harvest activities located within the cumulative effects boundary. It can also be noted that for % rainfall open area the harvest ages out once the stand reaches nine years of age and is no longer considered a clearcut or open area. Many stands within the Cayuga and Twin Ghost project areas have already been harvested and will age beyond nine years before all the clearcut harvests in the modified proposed action are completed. As such the % open area for rainfall will decrease prior to full implementation. Overall, impacts to runoff from snowmelt or rainfall would be negligible as the percentages are well below the threshold.

Table 3-28. Open area cumulative effects analysis for the Black Torch project area – snowmelt (60% threshold).

Selected 6th level Watershed (WS)

Iron River Torch River Moose River

Moose Lake-Chippewa

River

Fishtrap Creek

Total WS area 18,105 31,753 37,973 14,838 11,402

Action Open Area Percent

12.50% 19.50% 24.60% 29.00% 28.60%

Cumulative Open Acres

594 878 528 767 9

Cumulative Open Area Percent

15.80% 22.00% 26.00% 34.00% 28.70%

Black Torch

90

Table 3-29. Open area cumulative effects analysis for the Black Torch project area – rainfall (35% threshold).

Selected 6th level Watershed (WS)

Iron River Torch River Moose River

Moose Lake-Chippewa

River

Fishtrap Creek

Total WS area 18,105 31,753 37,973 14,838 11,402

Action Open Area Percent

7.00% 11.20% 17.60% 25.00% 25.00%

Cumulative Open Acres

594 878 528 767 9

Cumulative Open Area Percent

10.30% 14.00% 19.00% 30.00% 25.00%

RMZ Vegetation Management - Activities, such as timber harvesting and road building, have occurred over the past 15 to 25 years and were implemented following Forest Plan standards and guidelines, site specific design features to mitigate aquatic resource impacts, or contract operating restrictions on Forest Service lands. The Forest has also implemented Wisconsin Forestry BMPs for Water Quality since 1995, and recent field monitoring indicates that 99.8 percent of the time there are no adverse impacts to water quality (Kafura and Kreigel 2015a and 2015b). Monitoring activity details are further described in the Aquatic Specialist Report in the project record.

Overall monitoring results indicated that all BMPs were applied correctly. Monitoring team comments indicated that the sale layout/activities implemented excellent stream protection; where some areas the RMZ was extended to the top of slopes and some RMZs no harvest operations occurred. RMZ harvest activities also promoted the growth and retention of long-lived species. Sale units also used existing roads to minimize additional ground disturbance (Kafura and Kreigel 2015a and 2015b).

Table 3-30 summarizes the past, present and reasonable foreseeable activities that have/would occur within the RMZ area on Forest Service Lands. Harvest activities and/or planting activities located on other government or private lands were not calculated. The five watersheds selected for analysis all have over 90 percent Federal ownership within the watershed, as such, activities on private lands would have minimal impacts.

Table 3-30. Summary of past, present and reasonably foreseeable harvest in RMZs (acres). 6th level Watershed Clearcut Shelterwood Selection Thinning Salvage

Fishtrap Creek 0 0 0 0 0

Iron River 3 0 23.00 0 5.13

Moose River 1.99 1.28 0 0 0

Moose Lake – Chippewa River

1.42 0 0 0 0

Torch River 7.58 1.40 0 13.14 0


91

Road Activities in RMZs and Wetlands - Many of the roads within the area have been in place since the early logging era. Over the years, the road mileage has increased, but it is still based on roads located during the early logging era. It has contributed to changes in drainage patterns, increased sediment loads, fish passage problems, and loss of riparian habitat (Forest Plan FEIS, pages 3-19 to 3-25). Poorly designed, located, constructed or maintained roads and trails can be significant sources of stream sediment. Roads and trails with undersized culverts that fail frequently are considered the largest sources of sediment in streams because failure typically produces several tons of sediment and the entire volume is delivered to the stream. Most failed culverts were originally installed many years ago without adequate design. When these sites fail, fill is often replaced over the same culvert to make the road or trail passable but the problem is perpetuated (Forest Plan FEIS, pages 3-19 to 3-25).

All project activities would be implemented with site specific design features to mitigate potential adverse effects to aquatic resources. If all design features, as identified in the project design features table for aquatic resources, are implemented and maintained during project activities, there would be no long-term impairment of water quality from these activities.

Road surface, ditch, and embankment erosion and occasional culvert washouts do occur within the cumulative effects area. Any road maintenance proposals will include replacing existing culverts with larger diameter and longer pipes, as well as re-shaping the roads to include water diversion outlets, crowning, moving the road low point to one or both sides of the stream crossing, resurfacing with gravel, providing a 2:1 embankment ratio at each end of the culvert, armoring the ends of culverts with rock rip rap, and providing for erosion control. Erosion control would include re-vegetating with native or non-invasive seed, application of weed-free mulch or straw erosion control blanket, and installation of silt fence to be removed once re-vegetation takes place.

Summary Timber harvest treatments proposed in the modified proposed action and that are adjacent to riparian areas would follow BMPs for water quality, as well as Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wildlife, fish, soil, and water resources. BMPs, when properly implemented, would ensure that project activities would not cause long-term impacts to water quality. During harvest operation stands would be monitored on a regular basis to ensure project design features are implemented and maintained. All of the project design features, when properly implemented and maintained, would ensure that project activities would not impair water quality.

As a result of the proposed clear cut harvest activities for the modified proposed action the thresholds for snowmelt runoff or rainfall runoff would not be reached.

Harvest activities proposed in the modified proposed action would promote the long-term health of riparian areas as stand treatments would promote the growth and retention of long-lived species. In some of the stands where natural regeneration may be difficult, riparian underplanting of long-lived species would be an associated treatment for those select stands. The modified proposed action would help the district meet Forest Plan goals and objectives.

Decommissioning 1.0 mile of road located within wetlands and 271 feet of road in RMZs in the modified proposed action would help to improve hydrologic functions by restoring cross drainage and reducing sediment inputs. The elimination of these road segments would help the Forest achieve Forest Plan Objective 1.3d to relocate, in this case eliminate, existing roads and trails out of RMZs to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and hydrologic impacts.

Black Torch

92

Wildlife and Terrestrial Management Indicator Species Concerns raised during public scoping about the potential effects of proposed activities on wildlife species not addressed in the BE in appendix F will be addressed in the following analysis. The project BE in appendix F analyzes impacts to threatened, endangered and regional forester sensitive species, which are summarized in table 3-31, therefore, the effects discussed in this section will focus on acres of habitat gained, lost or preserved for multiple species of interest occurring on the district. Responses to some questions raised during public scoping regarding wildlife and federally listed threatened, endangered and regional forester sensitive species appear in appendices C and D.

The BE was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Forest Service Manual Directives sections 2670.31, 2670.5, and 2672.4 (USDA Forest Service 2005 and USDA Forest Service 2009c) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). The Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to make a determination of no effect, may effect, not likely to adversely affect, or may affect, likely to adversely affect regarding the impacts of any Federal action on federally listed species (table 3-31). The Forest Service Manual requires the Forest Service to address the viability of regional forester sensitive species to avoid any impacts that may cause a trend toward listing (USDA Forest Service 2009c). National forests determine whether their actions would likely have no impact, beneficial impact, may impact individuals but not likely cause a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability, or likely to result in a trend to Federal listing or loss of viability to regional forester sensitive species (table 3-31).

Table 3-31. Wildlife threatened, endangered and regional forester sensitive species effects determinations for species known to occur or with potential habitat in the project area and evaluated in detail in the BE (appendix F).

Species Status No Action Modified Proposed Action

Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered Species

Gray (Timber) wolf FE NE NE

Northern long-eared bat FT NE MA - LAA

Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Spruce grouse RFSS NI MINT

Wood turtle RFSS NI NI

American marten RFSS NI MINT

Little brown myotis RFSS NI MINT

Tri-colored bat RFSS NI MINT

Black-backed woodpecker RFSS BI MINT

Determinations: BI = Beneficial Impact, FE = Federally Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, RFSS = Regional Forester Sensitive Species, MINT = May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability, NE = No Effect, NI = No Impact, MA - NLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affect, and MA - LAA = May affect, likely to adversely affect


93

In addition to this analysis, several documents discuss impacts implementation of the Forest Plan would have on wildlife habitat. The Forest Plan FEIS discloses impacts on indicator habitats and wildlife species associated with these habitats. Additionally, impacts the Forest Plan direction would have on management indicator species, regional forester sensitive species, and federally listed threatened and endangered species are discussed in the FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2004b). The Forest Plan Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2004c) and Endangered Species Act Section 7 concurrence letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2004) also discuss Forest Plan impacts on regional forester sensitive species and federally listed species.

The general topic areas analyzed are the amount of aspen for early successional species, including American woodcock, ruffed grouse, and golden-winged warbler, the amount of aspen and acres of open habitat for elk and deer, impacts of biomass removal, impacts of timber harvest on northern goshawk and big brown bat and the impacts of roads on wildlife.

Measures Because different species have varying habitat requirements, the following analysis will describe general habitat requirements, including current condition and trends, with a short description of how individual species may be impacted by the no action and the modified proposed action. The focus of the analysis will be acres of habitat gained, lost or preserved. More detailed analysis for each species is available in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

Affected Environment Wildlife species associated with young forest habitats are numerous and diverse, ranging from black bear, wolves (analyzed in the BE in appendix F) and goshawk to chestnut-sided warblers, American woodcock, and golden-winged warbler, to mention a few. Some species use this habitat for foraging directly; some are predators foraging for prey species, while other species find both nesting and foraging in early successional habitat. Three habitat components comprise early successional habitat conditions for these species:

• Well-distributed age classes of young forest (often dominated by aspen or mixed aspen) in proximity to one another,

• Varying age classes of alder within proximity to forest habitats, and

• Openings half an acre or larger nested within blocks of forest/shrub habitats.

The analysis for early successional wildlife species will focus on aspen habitat and upland openings, since alder is not considered a limiting habitat factor on the district.

Assessments conducted on the Forest indicate a negative trend in the amount of young age class aspen, as well as aspen cover types across the Forest (Quinn et al. 2006, Quinn and Schmidt 2007). Surveys from the 1940s found aspen to compose about 44 percent of the Nicolet side of the Forest and 34 percent of the Chequamegon side. Since that time, aspen cover has been gradually decreasing. Only about 339,683 acres of aspen occur on the Forest. Of that acreage, only about 39,302 acres (11 percent) meet the description of regenerating aspen on the Forest. Although the Forest Plan does not define what age group identifies regenerating aspen, the analysis in the FEIS defines this management indicator habitat on page 2-55 as “aspen less than 20 years of age.” These assessments note that harvest to regenerate aspen has decreased on the Forest as compared to the past, and that there is a substantial percentage of aspen cover type that is beginning to succeed to other forest types due to advanced age.

Black Torch

94

Aspen management will have impacts on many species, including American woodcock, ruffed grouse, and golden-winged warbler, due to the fact that they are typically associated with early successional habitat (regenerating aspen). These species are also of high public interest, supported by the comments received during public scoping, and have shown some recent population declines at regional and/or state levels.

There are 686 acres of identified openings in the project area. Those acres of upland openings represent one percent of the total upland area within the project area. The upland openings vary from open with sparse grass vegetation to those that are so brushy they contain greater than 50 percent surface coverage of alder, hazel, willow or small trees (less than five feet high). Included in the 686 acres are 296 acres of openings, which are actively maintained for wildlife. The actively maintained openings range in size from less than one acre to 16 acres in size and are kept open through a mixture of mowing, brush saw, chainsaw and prescribed fire practices to keep woody vegetation from encroaching.

Ruffed grouse – Ruffed grouse are one of the species most closely tied to the aspen resource. Throughout much of its range, aspen appears to be the most important plant for ruffed grouse (Gullion 1984). Optimum habitat for grouse includes 6-15 year old aspen with 20-25,000 stems/acre (Dessecker and McAuley 2001). Counts of drumming males in spring indicate that northern hardwood forests typically reach a density of 1-2 drumming males/ 40 hectares, while aspen forests in the Lake States can support 4-8 drumming males/ 40 hectares (Dessecker and McAuley 2001). Sapling and small pole-stage stands 6-25 years old are used for cover in spring and fall (Gullion 1984). Nesting generally occurs in more mature, open forests. Broods, however, are seldom found very far from dense cover (Dessecker and McAuley 2001). In times and areas of continuous snow cover, flower buds of mature male aspen provide the most important food source (Gullion 1984). Because of their varying life cycle habitat needs, ruffed grouse need more age class diversity than any other species using young forests (Gullion 1984). Because of this need for a variety of aspen age classes, optimal grouse habitat is thought to consist of a mix of small regenerating stands interspersed with mature stands. Ruffed grouse are non-migratory and tend to spend their entire life within a relatively small area; the male territory is usually no more than 6-10 acres (Gullion 1984).

The cyclic nature of ruffed grouse populations is well documented, with peaks in the population occurring at about 10-11 year cycles, followed by population declines. Statewide, ruffed grouse population indices showed a one percent increase in Wisconsin between 2015 and 2016 (Dhuey 2016). This increase was the first increase in ruffed grouse indices since 2011. The Wisconsin ruffed grouse populations are currently in the trough of the population cycle and are likely on the increase. However, the population trends between 1964 and the present would indicate that the Wisconsin grouse population is trending downward over the long term. This downward trend is likely due to the long-term aging of Wisconsin’s forests (Dhuey 2016). More details on ruffed grouse habitat and populations are available in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

American woodcock - Like ruffed grouse, American woodcock are a young forest species. In fact, they use many of the same habitats, including various ages of aspen/mixed aspen and paper birch. Habitat used by woodcock from April through October is identical to that used by ruffed grouse, with the exception of openings needed by woodcock as spring display grounds for males (Gullion 1984). Woodcock, however, are not tied as closely to specific plant assemblages, as long as the habitat provides the required structural features.


95

Habitat management beneficial to grouse generally benefits woodcock (Dessecker and McAuley 2001, Gullion 1984, WMI 2009). Clearcutting of aspen types can provide the dense shrub/sapling conditions that woodcock prefer. However, due to the specific diet of American woodcock, other factors must be considered. American woodcock feed primarily on earthworms and other invertebrates. Gullion (1984) reported that earthworms make up 90 percent of their diet, therefore, conditions that are suitable for earthworms are important in considering effects of management.

Yearly spring singing-ground surveys are conducted across the eastern United States. There has been a long-term (1968-2016) decline of 0.68 percent per year in woodcock populations in the central region, which includes the state of Wisconsin. However, the 10-year trend estimate for the central region has not indicated a significant decline (-0.25 percent/year) and are indicative of a stationary population. Wisconsin showed a non-significant short-term increase and a non-significant long-term decrease (Seamans and Rau 2016). The North American Woodcock Conservation Plan calls for the creation of over three million acres of restored/created habitat in this region in addition to what currently exists in order to halt this long-term trend and restore singing-ground numbers back to 1970s population levels (300,000+ singing males within Bird Conservation Region 12)(WMI 2008). More details on woodcock habitat and populations are available in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

Golden-winged warbler - Golden-winged warblers, a neotropical migrant songbird with a breeding range centered on the northern Great Lakes and northwest into Canada, are similar to woodcock in that they strongly favor both young aspen and lowland shrubs, especially alder. Historically, the species was most likely associated with abandoned beaver meadows and other areas subject to frequent disturbance; today, they are often associated with human-caused disturbance (Hunter et al. 2001). The common habitat features described by the Golden-winged Warbler Atlas Project are dense herbaceous growth and shrubs, with scattered trees within the territory, and often a forested edge, with less than 60 percent herbaceous growth and less than 10 percent forest cover (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2008).

Hanowski (2002) found that on the Chequamegon portion of the Forest, alder was the most commonly used habitat, with other types most used being tamarack, open areas, and recently harvested sites; aspen was generally not used after 10 years of age. The species is described as a habitat generalist, occurring wherever shrubs are present, such as roadside edges. Martin et al. (2007) conducted a research project on golden-winged warbler habitat use and abundance in northern Wisconsin that had seven out of 42 survey plots on National Forest System lands on the Park Falls land base. The study found that 3-7 year old aspen supported the highest densities of golden-winged warbler and were considered most suitable. This is likely due to the great number of aspen stems, but enough light is able to reach the ground to create the thick understory vegetation used by golden-winged warblers. Martin et al. (2007) also believe that young aspen habitat may be a key cover type in north-central Wisconsin for maintaining this species across the region. While the study noted that shrub swamp (alder) supported significantly lower densities of golden-winged warblers than did young aspen resulting from clearcutting, it was suggested that alder habitat may be an important component of the landscape for the persistence of the warbler over time as they seem to provide cover that supports a low, static abundance of golden-winged warblers.

Golden-winged warbler populations are declining throughout all of their range as early-successional habitats develop into mature forest and as upland and wetland habitats are lost to

Black Torch

96

human development (Buehler et al. 2006). These declines are resulting in extirpation of the species from areas that have supported golden-winged warblers for at least the last century (Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio).

Given these rates of decline, the isolation of eastern populations from north-central populations is expected in the next few decades along with additional extirpation in the East (Roth et al. 2012). The North American Breeding Bird Survey data from 1966–2013 for the Eastern Region, shows that golden-winged warbler populations have declined 2.3 percent. However, for the period of 2005-2013 the population has increased 0.2 percent in this region. Causes for the declines include principally habitat loss from maturation of fields and other early successional habitats into mature forest, loss of wetlands, and loss of habitat to human development. Loss of quality stopover and wintering habitat may also be contributing to declines. In addition, a generally warming climate may be pushing golden-winged warblers northward and into higher elevations, with blue-winged warblers filling in the gaps (Niemi et al. 2014).

Without significant conservation attention, population declines are likely to continue resulting in extirpation of the species from an extensive portion of its range. Golden-winged warbler populations are in danger of becoming isolated, with a relatively large but declining population (thousands of breeding pairs) in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ontario, and another, much smaller, fragmented population (hundreds of breeding pairs) centered in the Appalachians from Georgia-North Carolina-Tennessee to New York. Golden-winged warblers have been identified as a national Bird of Management Concern by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, golden-winged warblers are listed as a high priority species in bird conservation plans in most of the Bird Conservation Regions in which they occur. These actions to date, however, have resulted in little specific management to address the habitat loss issue.

The breeding bird survey done by the Natural Resources Research Institute (Etterson et al. 2007), on behalf of the Forest, did not find any significant trends on the Chequamegon land base from 1991-2006. However, a breeding bird survey conducted by Dr. Howe (Niemi 2012) showed some significant decreasing trends for golden-winged warbler on the Nicolet land base. It is likely that the current habitat condition (20+ years for alder and 45+ years for aspen, paper birch and aspen/mixed forest) is the cause for the lack of any significant detection of this species. More details on golden-winged warbler habitat and populations are available in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

White-tailed deer - Deer are habitat generalists and can use a wide variety of forest and non-forest types, however they are generally most abundant in early successional forests; aspen, jack pine, and regenerating forests of all types are preferred by deer (WDNR 1998). Deer are primarily browsing animals, but do some grazing in spring and early summer. Upland openings are also known to provide favorable deer forage. Studies have confirmed that use of openings can be very heavy, especially during spring and fall, with use 3-5 times expected random use (McCaffery 1990). Openings large enough to provide sufficient sunlight can offer dense grass and herbaceous growth. This forage is important in spring as deer are recovering from winter prior to fawning, and in fall as protein-rich forage prior to the onset of winter (McCaffery 1990).


97

The project area is located in Ashland and Sawyer counties, which are in the Northern Deer Management Zone, and has an estimated fall deer density of 14 and 19 deer/square mile, respectively. Post-hunt deer population estimates for the Northern Forest Zone, which includes the project area, increased 31 percent from 2015 to 2016. Population estimates for the Northern Forest Zone generally increased during the early to mid-2000s (Figure 3-2).

Figure 3-2. White-tailed deer population trends in Wisconsin’s Northern Forest Deer Management Zone 2002-2015 (WDNR 2016). The winter severity index (figure 3-3) is used to measure the impacts of winter conditions on the deer herd. The factors used to determine the winter severity index are number of days with a minimum temperature of zero degrees and days with snow depth 18 inches or more between December 1st and April 30th (Woodford 2007). Significant direct winter mortality usually becomes apparent with a winter severity index of over 80, which is considered “severe” (WDNR 2001). The winter of 2016-2017 and 2015-2016 within the project area both had a winter severity index ranging from 20-25 or “mild”. While the winter of 2014-2015 the winter severity index ranged from 35-40, which is still considered “mild.”

Chronic wasting disease is also present in the Wisconsin deer herd. While the majority of this disease affects the southern half of the state, surveillance indicates a recent detection in the northwest portion of the state. The recent disease detections in this area as well as locational data collected within the former core chronic wasting disease management zone indicate the disease is spreading. More details on deer habitat and populations are available in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

Deer over-browsing has been a concern in recent years, largely as a result of high deer numbers and increasing evidence of the impact the deer herd is having on ecosystems in Wisconsin.

Black Torch

98

Figure 3-3. Winter severity index 1960-2016.

Elk - Elk are highly adaptable animals found in a large variety of habitats and are known to exhibit a wide variety of forage preferences. Most studies indicate that elk prefer eating grasses and sedges over woody vegetation. Elk tend to use open grassy habitats in spring and fall. Forbs, woody twig growth, leaves, and warm season grasses (if available) are the main sources of summer forage. In winter, elk subsist on all available forage types. However, woody browse is sometimes the major source of winter forage available to elk (WDNR 2000).

Elk were reintroduced to the Forest in spring of 1995. A portion of the district was chosen for the release in part because of the suitability of existing habitat types. Habitat suitability focused on winter cover, winter food, and spring food. For winter food, a variety of types may be used, but studies have shown that elk favor aspen and use proportionally more aspen stands than available (USDA Forest Service 2004c). Quality spring forage is important for elk to replenish energy reserves and includes green grasses, forbs, and sedges as well as young aspen stands. Although the district does not have enough permanent openings to be rated as optimal habitat, it was felt as of the year 2000 that the current herd was obtaining adequate spring nutrition (WDNR 2000).

The WDNR management plan for the elk herd includes two management zones. The core range is centered in the district and includes the Clam Lake release area. It also includes the former Navy Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) corridor, a facility that has resulted in a concentration of upland openings. The buffer range includes most of the rest of the district and some outlying state, county, and private lands. The project area is located within both the core range and buffer range and currently holds the majority of the elk population. The elk management plan recommended maintaining current aspen levels within the core range, but did not recommend any special habitat management for elk outside of the core range (WDNR 2000).

Elk population augmentation efforts for the Clam Lake elk herd resumed with a release of 31 Kentucky elk on July 18, 2017. At that time, the elk population was estimated to be about 165 individuals spread throughout the several hundred square mile elk range (WDNR 2017). More


99

details on elk habitat and populations are available in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

Northern goshawk - The northern goshawk, listed as a management indicator species in the Forest Plan, is a large, forest-dwelling raptor generally associated with mature deciduous, conifer, or mixed forest (Boal et al. 2001, Boal et al. 2003). These forest types of southern Ontario and the northern portions of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are the southernmost extent of its current breeding range (Kennedy and Andersen 2001).

The goshawk is morphologically well adapted for life in forested lands and is considered a habitat generalist as it occupies most of the forested types in its range. Specific nesting habitat information is limited for eastern populations due to a lack of studies that examine nest site placement in the context of available habitat features. A summary of western data indicated that goshawks tend to select stands with relatively large trees and high canopy closure (Kennedy and Anderson 2001). Rosenfield et al. (1998) supported this conclusion as his mean nest-tree height was 25 meters, tree diameter at breast height was 41 centimeters and canopy closure was 82 percent. He also reported that goshawks are flexible in the vegetation types used for nest site, using pine plantations, maple and maple-oak uplands, black ash swamps, and aspen monotypes within forest fragments. Nest tree selection in Wisconsin has been reported to occur mostly in deciduous trees, followed by aspen, conifer and white pine (Roberson et al. 2003). A number of studies indicate that nests may be located near natural or man-made openings in the overstory as they provide travel corridors, reduce flight barriers for fledglings, and increase prey diversity (Population Viability Analysis 2000).

Northern goshawks are active and opportunistic hunters that take large prey, including snowshoe hares, ruffed grouse, larger songbirds, squirrels, and other species that occupy the ground-shrub zone (Population Viability Analysis 2000). Snags, downed logs, openings, large trees, shrubby understories, and interspersion of vegetation structural stages (grasses to old forests) are important habitat features for prey species used by the goshawk. Currently, the goshawk is an uncommon resident in the north and an uncommon migrant in the central and southern parts of the state. However, exceptional numbers of goshawks may occur about every 8-10 years when ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare populations are low in the bird’s northern range (Robbins 1991).

In Wisconsin, Bruggeman et al. (2009) estimated 903± 110 individuals, and on the Forest the estimate was 442±224 goshawks based on detection probabilities. A review of these results by Curnutt (2009) indicated that the northern goshawk Minimum Viable population estimate is likely secure for more than 40 generations, a commonly applied threshold of viability. Based on these results, the Forest will continue to implement current Forest Plan standards and guidelines for this species to ensure continued abundance and distribution and ensure compliance with our Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act Memorandum of Understanding with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Forest will also continue with current survey and monitoring efforts until the next bio-regional effort occurs and this would be consistent with our need to sustain localized trend data for Forest management indicator species. More details on northern goshawk habitat and populations are available in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

Monarch butterfly - The monarch butterfly is currently under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for potential listing under the Endangered Species Act. North American monarchs form two fairly distinct populations. The western migratory population breeds in the western United States and Canada, and winters near the California coast. The eastern migratory population breeds in the central and eastern United States and in southern Canada, and winters in

Black Torch

100

central Mexico (in the eastern part of the state of Michoacán and western part of the state of México) (North American Monarch Conservation Plan 2008).

Monarch butterflies go through a four stage lifecycle: egg, larva (caterpillar), pupa (chrysalis) and adult. This cycle is completed in about 30 days. To begin the cycle an adult female will lay eggs on milkweed leaves and within 3-5 days the caterpillar hatches. The caterpillar will feed exclusively on the milkweed plant during 10-14 days of continued growth. During that period of 10-14 days the caterpillar will molt five times. After that 10-14 day period the caterpillar will pupate and spend the next 9-14 days in a chrysalis during which time it is metamorphosing into the adult form. During the summer adults live for 2-6 weeks, however, the migrating generation of monarchs will live all winter (about 6-9 months).

Monarch larvae feed exclusively on plant species in the subfamily Asclepiadoideae, milkweed. In North America, there are 27 different native milkweed species as well as a few species in closely related genera, which have been recorded as larval food plants for the monarch (Jepsen et al. 2015).

Because monarchs are so widespread in their summer habitat use, the easiest way to estimate current populations and to document population trends is through observations at the overwintering sites. Based on individual tagging and recapture rates it is known that the late summer population is considerably larger than the number reaching the overwintering sites. This indicates that most individuals do not survive the migration to the overwintering sites and, therefore, do not contribute to the next generation in the spring (Brindza et al. 2008, Jepsen et al. 2015).

Using an estimate of 50 million monarchs per hectare (Slayback et al. 2007) the eastern North American population is estimated to have had an annual average of 463 million individuals from 1994 to 2003. The highest population estimate was for the winter of 1996-1997, with more than one billion individuals. In 2011, 2012 and 2013 annual estimates dropped to 144.5 million, 59.5 million and 33.5 million, respectively (Butler 2014). More details on monarch butterfly habitat and populations are available in the Wildlife Specialist Report located in the project record.

Big Brown Bat – Big brown bats are found in various habitats, including mixed landscapes of deciduous woodlands, farmlands, edges near water and urban areas. In the summer months, females may form large colonies in bat houses and other manmade structures, in addition to their traditional roosts under loose tree bark and in natural crevices. During the winter, big brown bats can be found hibernating in natural structures, such as caves and deep rock crevices, as well as manmade structures, such as mines and human dwellings.

Big brown bats are generalists both in their foraging behavior and in their habitat selection. They can be found feeding over water, in forests or in clearings. Numerous feeding studies have documented the benefits these animals provide to agriculture through the species they forage for, including a variety of beetles, stink bugs and numerous species of moths and leafhoppers (Bat Conservation International 2017, Whitaker 1995).

Population trends are undetermined for big brown bats on the Forest. However, mist net surveys conducted on the Forest since 2006 have documented the presence of big brown bats on all five ranger districts. These surveys and population trends are described in more detail in the northern long-eared bat analysis in the BE in appendix F and the Wildlife Specialist Report in the project record.


101

The big brown bat is a threatened species in Wisconsin and is a proposed addition to the Eastern Region regional forester sensitive species list for the Forest. White-nose syndrome, similar to the bats described in the BE in appendix F, is the reason the big brown bat is proposed to be added to the list, not because of current scarcity or viability concerns on the Forest.

No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts Under the no action alternative, harvesting of aspen or any other forest type, biomass removal, new opening maintenance and new system and temporary road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, closure and decommissioning would not occur. Early successional habitats would passively move towards other forest types and ages that do not favor habitat for young forest species. Aspen generally converts to hardwoods on heavy soils, conifer on lighter soils, and sometimes to non-forest brush species, such as hazelnut or willow/alder/dogwood. This depends on site conditions, any present advanced regeneration, and nearby seed sources, in addition to soil types. This passive conversion is thought to take about 60 years from when aspen is around age 65 (Theisen 2008). There may be periods during this natural conversion that would provide some early-successional habitat, but this depends on many factors. It would likely not have the lush undergrowth or number of stems of aspen per acre that is used by early successional habitat-reliant species.

The long-term loss of aspen, paper birch and mixed aspen as a habitat type via natural successional processes would be the most significant impact of the no action alternative. There are currently 9,484 acres of aspen, paper birch, mixed aspen forests over age 65 that would likely be lost as a habitat type by initiation of the conversion process. These stands are at the point where failure to regenerate will ensure conversion to non-habitat forest types. Once the present aspen has died off, if not harvested, it would be difficult and expensive to bring aspen back to that site.

Aspen is best managed for early successional habitat through systematic rotational clearcutting to provide a variety of age classes and spatial arrangements. There would be a negative trend on ruffed grouse, American woodcock and golden-winged warbler numbers within the project area from the no action alternative. This anticipated trend would be an overall permanent loss of potential habitat for these species via natural conversion and succession.

Deer are habitat generalists and can use a wide variety of forest and non-forest types, however they are generally most abundant in early successional forests; aspen, jack pine, and regenerating forests of all types are preferred by deer (WDNR 1998). Given that deer are habitat generalists, the no action alternative would not be expected to have a large immediate effect on the population. However, eventually aspen stands would convert away from aspen to other forest types which would be less preferred by deer.

Upland openings are also known to provide favorable deer forage. Under the no action alternative there would be no change in the amount of upland opening habitat available to deer.

Elk are known to key in on aspen as a preferred browse species, however they also use large un-forested areas to graze. Elk prefer larger upland openings than deer. Under the no action alternative there would be no change in the amount or size of upland opening habitat available to elk and availability of preferred habitat would still be low.

Northern goshawks will use mature aspen stands for nesting (aspen ages 50-65), however aspen older than 65 falls below the 80 percent crown closure threshold and is no longer suitable for

Black Torch

102

goshawk habitat (Theisen 2008). If an aspen stand is replaced by hardwood species, the new stand would provide suitable nesting habitat once the stand reached a maturity of about 60 years. If the aspen stand is replaced by conifer or shrub habitat then the nesting habitat would be lost permanently. The overall result to goshawks under the no action alternative is potential long-term loss of habitat, depending on the path of forest succession.

Monarch butterfly larvae feed exclusively on milkweed species, which grow in full sun to partial shade environments. Under the no action alternative the three larger openings would not be created or maintained for wildlife habitat and would allow the aspen stands, which provide for suitable light conditions, to succeed to forest stands that are not conducive to the growth of milkweed plants, thus the no action alternative would, at a minimum, not be beneficial to monarchs and may even be detrimental in the long term.

The no action alternative would keep additional trees on the landscape, which may be used by big brown bats, and, therefore, would have a beneficial impact to big brown bats. However, the majority of trees being treated under the Black Torch project are aspen, which are not a preferred roost species for these bats, so the no action alternative would be neither beneficial nor detrimental overall to big brown bats.

Cumulative Effects With about 473 acres of 0-10 year old aspen currently within the Black Torch project area, there would likely be a small negative affect on habitat for species dependent on early successional habitat in the short-term (next 5-8 years) as the current young aspen matures past age 10. However, overall, there would be a largely negative trend in early successional habitat as a result of the no action alternative. This trend would result from the loss of capability to regenerate aspen, paper birch and mixed aspen stands to regain habitat. This would forgo regeneration of treatment of 9,484 acres of aspen. During this time, most of the 473 acres of habitat that currently exists in the Black Torch project area would mature and no longer be 0-10 years old, thus this would further reduce the amount of available suitable habitat.

Cumulatively, the state of regenerating aspen on the Forest, and thus habitat for the above species, is outlined in Quinn and Schmidt (2007). This paper outlines the current rapid decline of regenerating aspen on the Forest: “The current level of about 71,000 acres of regenerating aspen forest is the baseline for evaluating the effect of implementing the 2004 Forest Plan. However, this baseline is already below the level anticipated in the current and past Forest Plans. Current age diversity in aspen is heavily skewed toward overmature age classes. An even higher rate (about 6,000 acres annually) of regeneration treatment is needed to achieve age diversity goals of the Forest Plan. If not implemented, declines in total aspen cover anticipated over a century in time will occur within one to two decades.” The no action alternative would continue the rapid rate of decline of early-successional habitat on the Forest. The no action alternative would not help meet age diversity goals of the Forest Plan, which would require 6,000 acres of aspen harvested annually (Quinn and Schmidt 2007), having an overall negative trend on early successional habitat and those species dependent on it.

Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts As displayed in table 3-9, the project area would provide 17,399 acres of aspen for early-successional habitat after implementation of the modified proposed action, with aspen regeneration on 6,000 acres (5,970 acres of aspen regenerated to aspen and 30 acres of other forest types regenerating to aspen). This will provide young aspen habitat for current and future


103

early-successional habitat dependent species, such as ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and golden-winged warbler, as well as white-tailed deer, elk, northern goshawk and monarch.

Under the modified proposed action by 2022, as displayed in table 3-10, the percentage of early successional (0-10 years old) aspen habitat will have been increased from the currently existing four percent to 34 percent. By 2027, the percentage of early successional (0-10 years old) aspen will increase further to 39 percent. Additionally, by 2022, under the modified proposed action, the undesirable amount of aspen in the greater than or equal to 46 year old category will be brought into line with Forest Plan goals.

Staggering the timing of the harvest into two time periods as described in chapter 2 will spread the regeneration harvests across the project area at any given point in time. This would allow for a greater diversification of age classes over time, recapturing aspen/mixed aspen and paper birch before it is lost to maturation and creating a mosaic of early successional forest types with varying age classes across the project area. This mosaic will provide the necessary early successional habitat diversity across the landscape needed by ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and golden-winged warbler.

Relative to the habitat objectives of this project, early successional habitats by nature are often simplified habitats that contain very limited structural diversity (Forest Plan, page 3-3) when compared to other forest types. Thus, biomass/whole tree harvesting would not likely have significant impacts to forest structure and the desired future conditions of even-aged management objectives. Provided sufficient material remains on the ground to address soil, water or other needs, biomass/whole tree harvest can provide benefits to ruffed grouse and American woodcock by removing cover (brush piles or structure) that predators can lay in wait to ambush these and other wildlife species associated with early successional forest habitat. While predation is a normal part of the environment and species have adapted to cope with this, providing some predator abatement via biomass/whole tree harvest does provide some potential recruitment benefit. Gullion (1984) notes that the best protection from predation for ruffed grouse and woodcock is by providing these species with the opportunity to see predators (e.g., snakes, weasels, fisher, skunks, fox, raccoon) before the predator finds them. Both American woodcock and ruffed grouse have protective or cryptic coloration, which allows them to blend in with the ground litter in a motionless position to avoid predators. Gullion (1984) indicates that the safest cover for ruffed grouse is a forest floor with an open condition containing minimal downed material or horizontal cover. Hence, harvest of this material for biomass using BMPs does have some habitat benefit to the species using this habitat regime.

The modified proposed action would ensure the continuance of aspen on the landscape, which is a preferred habitat for deer. Additionally, although the openings that would be created under the modified proposed action are larger than deer require or prefer, deer would still use the perimeter of the openings and benefit from the forage that would grow in the forest openings.

Elk are known to key in on aspen as a preferred browse species, however, they also use large un-forested areas to graze. Elk prefer larger upland openings. Input received from the WDNR, as well as other interested individuals, encouraged the Forest to increase the size of the aspen clearcut areas to provide larger blocks of regenerating aspen for elk habitat and to increase the sizes of the forest openings that are maintained for wildlife habitat. Under the modified proposed action larger aspen temporary openings would be regenerated, which would increase the amount of preferred browse available for elk. Opening habitat is considered to be an important habitat component for elk and American woodcock (Gregg 1984, WMI 2008). Throughout the project area several small openings (totaling 20 acres) will be allowed to return to a forested condition,

Black Torch

104

and three large openings (totaling 50 acres) will be created within the current Clam Lake Elk herd range. While elk in Wisconsin are considered generalists, they have demonstrated an affinity for both temporary and permanent openings for which to forage. Both new clear cuts and managed openings provide elk with forbs and other non-browse forage. This forage can be critical for pregnant cows during fetal development stages (Stowell 2017).

With elk as a consideration, along with other species that use larger openings, 326 acres of openings, including 233 acres of existing opening, 50 acres of new permanent openings, and 13 acres of cleared hunter walking trails, which are also used by wildlife, would be maintained within the project area to sustain and improve use by elk and other wildlife that desire larger openings for breeding, feeding, and brood rearing. The overall change from the modified proposed action is an increase in wildlife opening habitat of 30 acres and an increase in the size of the openings available within the current Clam Lake elk herd range.

Northern goshawk will benefit by keeping aspen stands on the landscape, which they are known to use for nesting habitat. The modified proposed action would create suitable nesting habitat in 50 years as opposed to more than 60 years or not at all.

The monarch butterfly would benefit from the creation of new larger openings and keeping aspen on the landscape as they provide light conditions more suitable for common milkweed than later successional species do.

No big brown bat-accessible mine openings, caves or other structures used for fall swarming or winter hibernation habitats are known to exist on the Forest. Thus, there would be no direct impact to winter hibernacula. However, some activities from the modified proposed action may have indirect effects on preferred summer roosting habitat (table 3-32).

Table 3-32. Potential indirect effects on preferred big brown bat summer roosting habitat. Proposed Treatment Modified Proposed Action Activities

Clearcut A regeneration harvest method that removes essentially all the live overstory trees in a stand, except for reserve trees left on site for management objectives other than regeneration. The result is a new age class of trees that grows following the harvest treatment. This method allows for natural regeneration of forest species which are light tolerant. The desired future condition is an even-aged stand, reset to age zero. However, some reserve trees and reserve islands are left in the stand to promote diversity that helps meet objectives in the Forest Plan and Water Quality BMPs. Regeneration can be from natural seeding, direct seeding, root suckering, planted seedlings or advance reproduction

Shelterwood/Seed Tree A regeneration harvest method that removes essentially most of the overstory except to retain a partial live overstory to provide seed and shade for regeneration. Reserve trees are also left on site for management objectives other than regeneration. The result is a new age class of trees that grows following the harvest treatment. The partial overstory that is left would be removed once seedlings and saplings are established (unless stated otherwise).


105

Proposed Treatment Modified Proposed Action Activities

Shelterwood and Plant A regeneration harvest method that removes essentially most of the overstory except to retain a partial live overstory to provide seed and shade for regeneration. Reserve trees are also left on site for management objectives other than regeneration. These stands will be underplanted with long lived hardwood and conifer species (white pine, red pine, hemlock, and oak). The result is a new age class of trees that grows following the harvest treatment. In these stands, any live overstory remaining once the seedlings are established will remain on site.

Post-harvest Activities Following harvest, some stands will require site preparation, including mechanical and hand scalping treatments, and piling and burning of piles. Planting or seeding to meet regeneration or species diversity objectives are also proposed for some stands. Animal control (deer repellent) and release of planted seedlings are planned for some areas. Temporary roads would be built to access some treatment units and then decommissioned. Slash treatments to reduce fire hazards are planned within certain activity units.

These effects would be similar to those described in the BE in appendix F for northern long-eared bat, little brown myotis, and tri-colored bat. As stated in the BE, while there are some species-specific differences in use of summer roosting and foraging habitat between the little brown, tri-color, northern long-eared bats, we do not have adequate information to analyze these individual differences at the project scale. However, there is enough similarity in the type of roosting and foraging habitat among the four bats, including the northern long-eared bat, species to analyze them together at the project scale. Therefore, the analysis for the big brown bat is presented under the northern long-eared bat section under the federally listed species in the BE. All assumptions, direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the northern long-eared bat are applied to the big brown bat.

Cumulative Effects With about 473 acres of 0-10 year old aspen currently within the project area, implementation of the modified proposed action would improve habitat for species dependent on early successional habitat.

As described previously, cumulatively, the state of regenerating aspen on the Forest, and thus habitat for the above species, is outlined in Quinn and Schmidt (2007). This paper outlines the current rapid decline of regenerating aspen on the Forest: “The current level of about 71,000 acres of regenerating aspen forest is the baseline for evaluating the effect of implementing the 2004 Forest Plan. However, this baseline is already below the level anticipated in the current and past Forest Plans. Current age diversity in aspen is heavily skewed toward over mature age classes. An even higher rate (about 6,000 acres annually) of regeneration treatment is needed to achieve age diversity goals of the Forest Plan. If not implemented, declines in total aspen cover anticipated over a century in time will occur within one-to-two decades.” The modified proposed action would stop the decline of early-successional habitat in the project area and would help meet age diversity goals of the Forest Plan, which would require 6,000 acres of aspen harvested annually (Quinn and Schmidt 2007), having an overall positive trend on early successional habitat and those species dependent on it.

Black Torch

106

Summary Disturbance from the modified proposed action could include such activities as increased human presence during logging operations, increased truck traffic and noise generated from trucks, saws and logging equipment. It is not anticipated that these activities would negatively impact the species described above. These types of activities would not be new occurrences in their environment, and the animals may already have a certain tolerance for them. It is likely that individuals in the vicinity of these activities would move away from these activities to undisturbed areas inside or outside of the project area. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the protection of northern goshawk nests will be implemented to avoid impacts to northern goshawk nests.

The project BE in appendix F analyzes impacts to threatened, endangered, and regional forester sensitive species, and the effects determinations are listed in table 3-31. The no action alternative would not benefit early successional habitat conditions for species, such as ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and golden-winged warbler. There are currently 9,484 acres of aspen, paper birch, mixed aspen forest over age 65 that would likely be lost as a habitat type by initiation of the conversion process. These stands are at the point where failure to regenerate will ensure conversion to non-habitat forest types. There would be a negative trend on ruffed grouse, American woodcock and golden-winged warbler numbers within the project area from the no action alternative. This anticipated trend would be an overall permanent loss of potential habitat for these species via natural conversion and succession. Because deer are habitat generalists, conversion from early successional habitat to other forest types would not have an effect, but long-term these other forest types would probably be less preferred by deer. Under the no action alternative there would be no change in the amount or size of upland opening habitat available to elk and there would still be a low availability of preferred habitat. The overall result to goshawks under the no action alternative is potential long-term loss of habitat, depending on the path of forest succession. Under the no action alternative the three larger openings would not be created or maintained for wildlife habitat and would allow the aspen stands, which provide for suitable light conditions, to succeed to forest stands that are not conducive to the growth of milkweed plants, thus, the no action alternative would, at a minimum, not be beneficial to monarchs and may even be detrimental in the long term.

The modified proposed action would provide for early successional habitat with aspen regeneration on 6,000 acres (5,970 acres of aspen regenerated to aspen and 30 acres of the other forest types regenerating to aspen). This will provide young aspen habitat for current and future early successional habitat dependent species, such as ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and golden-winged warbler, as well as white-tailed deer, elk, northern goshawk and monarch butterfly. The larger openings would benefit elk, and the edges would still be used by deer. Monarch butterfly would also benefit from the openings because of the improved conditions for the growth of common milkweed. Northern goshawk will benefit by keeping aspen stands on the landscape, which they are known to use for nesting habitat. Noise disturbance from harvest activities would impact individuals. It is likely that individuals in the vicinity of these activities would move away from these activities to undisturbed areas inside or outside of the project area. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the protection of northern goshawk nests will be implemented to avoid impacts to northern goshawk nests.

The open road density from implementation of the modified proposed action would increase slightly as a result of the modified proposed action potentially impacting wildlife because of decreased habitat acreage from road building and increased human access to wildlife habitat. The


107

total road density, however, will decrease from road decommissioning and road closures, having a beneficial effect by putting more land back into a productive state, which can eventually lead to increased forest cover and wildlife habitat.

Forest Access and Recreational Opportunities Concerns relative to project effects on recreational users, such as hunters, campers and general forest users, mainly relative to recreational access, were expressed during public scoping. Motorized access to hunting opportunities was specifically mentioned as a potentially positive aspect and a negative aspect of the project. Concerns were also expressed about increasing road densities within the project area. Specific questions about roads and access of decommissioned roads are also addressed in the responses to comments in appendix D.

Affected Environment The transportation system in the project area is made up of Wisconsin state highways, county highways, town roads, National Forest system roads and private roads.

The functional classes of National Forest System roads include arterial, collector, and local. Arterial roads provide service to large land areas and form an integrated network of primary travel routes. Collector roads serve smaller land areas than arterial roads; they collect traffic from local roads and usually connect to arterials. Their location and standards are influenced by both long-term multi-resource service needs and travel efficiency. Local roads make up the majority of road miles and are usually determined by a single specific resource activity, typically vegetation management, rather than travel efficiency.

Arterial roads generally have a crushed gravel surface with occasional asphaltic surfacing and provide high levels of user comfort. Collectors usually have crushed gravel surfacing or improved native surfacing and are meant to accommodate lower traffic levels and user comfort due to unstable and variable surface conditions. Local roads range from coarse aggregate to pit run gravel to native surface and have a singular use connecting arterial and collector roads to specific terminal facilities or activities. Local roads within the project area will be used primarily for vegetation management and will be closed to public use, decommissioned or put into storage when all activities have been completed.

The history of road system development is described in detail in the Transportation Specialist Report for the Black Torch Project located in the project record. In summary, some road alignments date back to the mid-1800s, with the majority of the main road network being developed in the 1930s, and local roads being developed in the 1970s when the Forest Service was allowed to build access roads to proposed timber sales in advance of timber sale activity. This program has provided a large portion of the local road system that the Forest continues to use.

The Forest also constructs and uses temporary roads as access for Forest management activities when continuous long-term road access for a particular area is not needed. Temporary roads are not part of the inventoried National Forest Road System and are obliterated after use.

The public uses national forest system roads to access campgrounds and other administrative sites during the peak camping season from June through August. Recreational hunters use the system in the project area in pursuit of small game, black bear and white-tailed deer most often from

Black Torch

108

August through November. The public also uses various roads within the project area to access trailheads located within the project area and other parts of the Forest.

The Forest Plan FEIS defines “upper limits” which represent the maximum total road density allowed in a specific area based on Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) designations. Open road density describes the miles of Forest Service roads open to public use per square mile of National Forest System land. Open road density also has “upper limits” assigned based on ROS designations, which are also described on page 33 of this document. Existing road density calculations by ROS within the project area are listed in table 3-33. As described in Chapter 2 of this document, the FEIS, Chapter 3 (page 3-238) defines and measures road density in two ways: total road density and open road density.

Table 3-33. Existing road density. System and Unauthorized Forest Plan Density Existing Density

Non-motorized – Open road density 0.00 0.02

Non-motorized – Total road density 3.00 1.03

Roaded Natural / Roaded Natural Remote / Semi-primitive Motorized - Open road density

4.00 0.52

Roaded Natural / Roaded Natural Remote / Semi-primitive Motorized - Total road density

4.00 2.75

Several town and Forest roads have also been designated as off-highway vehicle routes in this project area and provide connections to established off-highway vehicle systems.

About 426 miles of trail are located within the district. District trails, both motorized and non-motorized, are interspersed throughout the landscape with locations inside federally designated wilderness areas, semi-primitive and general forest areas. The composition and total amount of trails within the district and within the project area are listed below in table 3-34.


109

Table 3-34. Miles of motorized and non-motorized trail within the project area (rounded to nearest tenth).

Trail Type Total Miles of Trail on Great Divide Ranger

District (miles)

Total Miles of Trail within Project Area

(miles)

Off-highway Vehicle/Snowmobile 258.3 23.9

Hunter walking 40.3 15.5

Hiking 68.2 3.9

Mountain bike* 39.9 0

Cross-country ski* 18.8 0

*Included to document that there are no mountain bike or cross-country ski trails in the project area.

Analysis Methods The Travel Management Rule, published November 9, 2005, requires each administrative unit or ranger district to designate those national forest system roads, trails and areas on national forest system lands open to motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year. It also requires designated roads, trails and areas be identified on a motor vehicle use map. After designated roads, trails and areas have been identified on a motor vehicle use map, motor vehicle use inconsistent with those designations is prohibited under 36 CFR 261.13. The first motor vehicle use map was produced on the Forest in January 2009.

The Black Torch travel analysis reviewed all local roads (maintenance levels 1 and 2) within the project area, including all unauthorized or undetermined roads. Road maintenance levels are defined on page EE-12 of the Forest Plan FEIS. Unauthorized or undetermined roads are roads not on the National Forest System. They may be user-developed roads or other roads built during past timber sales, unaccounted for and/or improperly closed.

Each local road within the analysis area was assessed by the interdisciplinary team for its value (high, moderate or low) with respect to its function in providing access to private in-holdings, providing access to hunting, recreation and/or gathering opportunities, and providing access for administrative purposes, including timber. Each road was also evaluated for risk (high, moderate, low or very low) it posed to water resources (aquatic/water quality), NNIP spread, threatened, endangered and regional forester sensitive wildlife and plant species, soils, ecological reference areas and heritage sites. The effects of proposed activities to natural and cultural resources are analyzed in those relative resource areas. These criteria and values and risks evaluated as part of the analysis are described in more detail in the Transportation Specialist Report for the Black Torch Project located in the project record.

A forest-wide scale analysis on maintenance level 3-5 roads, the arterial and most of the collector roads, the “backbone” of the National Forest Road System titled “Roads Analysis Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest” was completed in 2002.

Measurement Indicators Based on Forest Plan direction, total and open road density relative to ROS is the main measurement indicator regarding effects to the overall National Forest Road System. Miles of

Black Torch

110

roads increased or decreased by treatment type is another indicator. Value and risk ratings are also measurement indicators used as part of this analysis. Details on values and risks can be found in the Transportation Specialist Report for the Black Torch Project located in the project record.

Miles of motorized and non-motorized trails potentially impacted by harvest activities are also evaluated as part of this analysis.



The direct and indirect effects analysis boundary includes the overall project area, which is about 63,460 acres in size with 53,430 acres being part of the National Forest System. The direct and indirect effects duration is 15 years, which is the reasonably expected maximum time period for the proposed activities of this project to be completed.


The cumulative effect analysis area for the transportation system is the west side of the Forest and Federal, state, local government and private lands intermixed within that. This includes Forest System lands within Washburn, Great Divide and Medford-Park Falls ranger districts. This area was selected because it includes a transportation system that will be used and managed for similar needs as the roads in the project area. Traffic to and from the project area also uses many of the roads within this cumulative effects analysis area with similar users and needs.

The cumulative effects analysis boundary for trails and recreational opportunities is the same as the direct and indirect effects boundary, the overall project area, because project activities will take place within that project area and potentially impact trails and trail and recreational users within the project area. Table 3-16 in the Forest Vegetation section includes a list of projects that would still potentially overlap with Black Torch project area and is used here because these projects would potentially still be impacting some of the project area trails and recreational opportunities within the project area.

The cumulative effects duration is 15 years for the transportation system, trails and recreational opportunities, which is the reasonably expected maximum time period for the proposed activities of this project to be completed.

No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts Under the no action alternative, current conditions would continue to guide the management of the project area. Annual road and trail maintenance would continue. The Black Lake Campground and Trail, located within the project area, would still not be maintained in the winter months.

The new system and temporary road construction, road reconstruction, opening and closure of roads to public use and road decommissioning as described in the modified proposed action would not occur. Public, private, and administrative access would remain the same. Road densities would remain the same as listed in table 3-33. The no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on road density, public access or recreational opportunities.


111

Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects from the no action alternative because no direct or indirect effects to public access or recreational opportunities would occur.

Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts The modified proposed action was developed using current information. Routes identified as being likely needed for accessing the proposed vegetation treatment areas were selected using a variety of information, including GIS, topographic maps, soil surveys, existing road maps, aerial photographs, wildlife and botanical surveys, field verification and heritage surveys. All transportation-related actions are listed in table 2-5 and are shown in appendix B.

The public access value rating used in the transportation system analysis is typically based on any known activity, other than private and administrative use, where people use roads for motorized use. Road segments are rated on the type of activities the segment supports, including dispersed or developed recreation (campgrounds, trailheads, viewing areas), traditional forest activities (woodcutting, forest products gathering) and civil and municipal activities (postal and school bus routes).

The National Forest Road System also provides access to many different types of landowners, power lines, rock sources, communication sites, and other special use permit sites. When the road provides access to other landowners, the Forest Service is obligated to provide for reasonable access if there are no other options. Because of the need to provide and manage this access, this factor is heavily weighted in the travel analysis for this project. This includes access for hunting, fishing, berry picking, special use permits, camping, accessing rivers or lakes and any other use that is deemed significant.

Roads with administrative value are based on the extent of Forest Service use for administrative needs, which include: administrative sites, heritage sites, repeater sites, special use sites, weather stations, ecosystem management and fire management activities.

All existing roads used to access the proposed treatment areas will be reviewed for maintenance needs in order to accommodate log trucks and equipment, as needed. In order to provide safe access for project implementation, any roads used for vegetation treatment access and product removal would be improved, as needed, while mitigating resource effects, by implementing the following activities.

The Forest establishes and constructs new local roads primarily for administrative and management use. The development of about 10.05 miles of new roads are essential to meeting the purpose and need of the project. Such roads would be closed to general public motorized vehicle traffic as described on page 31 of this document. Foot traffic is welcome on all Forest roads.

Preparation for timber harvests is a major source of reconstruction of National Forest System local roads. Reconstruction of these roads may include corner realignment, vertical realignment, gravel or occasionally wood chip placement to stabilize soils and culvert or other drainage structures to protect hydrologic function. A little over three (3.32) miles of road (authorized and unauthorized) would be reconstructed within the project area. The improved unauthorized roads, about 1.78 miles, would then be added to the National Forest System as maintenance level 2 and will be open to public access after the timber harvest is completed.

Black Torch

112

The modified proposed action would decommission 50.60 miles of unauthorized forest roads and 9.76 miles of National Forest System roads. This means that they will be permanently removed from the transportation system, except to track the effectiveness of decommissioning efforts and allowed to return normal ecological functions. These roads were determined to be high risk and low to moderate value and/or are not needed for long-term access. The majority of the roads designated for decommissioning are not on the motor vehicle use map. About five (4.69) of the 60.36 miles to be decommissioned are currently open to public use. The remaining miles are currently closed to public use or are unauthorized. Many are not passable by a vehicle because they are overgrown, so there will be no change in public, private or administrative access to these areas.

These decommissioning activities would have beneficial effects for other resource areas, as described in other sections of this document, and an adverse effect to public and recreational access to those localized areas of the Forest from the permanent removal of 4.69 miles currently open to public use. All temporary roads within the project area will also be decommissioned after sale activity concludes.

The effects on road density based on the ROS from the modified proposed action are shown in table 3-35.

Table 3-35. Proposed road density as a result of the modified proposed action (99.16 square miles). System and

Unauthorized Forest Plan

Density (miles per

square mile)

Upper Limits

Existing Road

Density (miles per

square mile)

Modified Proposed

Action Road

Density (miles per

square mile)

Comparison to Existing (miles per

square mile)

Difference from

Forest Plan

(miles per square mile)

Non-motorized – Open road density

0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 +0.02

Non-motorized – Total road density

3.00 1.03 2.64 +1.61 -0.36

Roaded Natural / Roaded Natural Remote / Semi-primitive Motorized** - Open road density

4.00 0.52 0.68 +0.16 -3.32

Roaded Natural / Roaded Natural Remote / Semi-primitive Motorized** - Total road density

4.00 2.75 2.31 -0.44 -1.69


113

Table 3-36 below shows the total amount of trails and trail types located within the project area providing public access to the project area and the percent of each type of trail that could be impacted by timber harvest activity. Notable trails are the Black Lake Trail, Dead Horse Run Off-highway vehicle trail and Motorcycle Trail/Snowmobile Trail 25, Fish Trap Off-highway vehicle Trail/Snowmobile Trail 5, and Snowmobile Trail 8. Users of hiking trails and hunter walking trails would potentially be affected by the modified proposed action directly through use of the trails for timber hauling or indirectly through noise disturbance from the use of large equipment or vehicles near the trails.

Table 3-36. Miles of motorized and non-motorized trail in the project area and percent potentially affected by the modified proposed action (rounded to nearest tenth).

Trail Type Total Miles of Trail within Project Area (miles)

Percent of Trail Affected by the Modified Proposed Action

Off-highway Vehicle/Snowmobile 23.9 9.3

Hunter walking 15.5 38.5

Hiking 3.9 5.7

Mountain bike 0 0

Cross-country ski 0 0

The Dead Horse Run and Fish Trap trails are managed for dual use, meaning, they accommodate both off-highway vehicle use in the summer and fall months and snowmobile use in the winter months. This type of trail designation increases the possibility of user conflicts for those specific segments. Although these trails may be affected over the course of the project, not all lengths would be impacted at the same time. Typical management direction with regard to motorized trails is to allow logging truck and other timber harvest activity along these routes. Allowing timber harvest activity on trails creates opportunities to repair trail deficiencies, such as brushing, culvert replacement, and tread resurfacing. However, during implementation, trail users would see temporary trail closures and reroutes. When there is a need to use the trail for logging activities, management direction is to ensure the trail tread is improved or repaired to its previous condition prior to harvest activities (Forest Plan, page 2-27). Evidence of logging will be apparent.

The Black Lake Campground and Trail are not maintained in the winter months. Any harvest in the units in or around the campground would be done during winter months to avoid conflicts with campers and hikers in this area. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for motorized and non-motorized trails and over-the-snow vehicles will be adhered to.

Noise from project activities would be mitigated somewhat through communicating with trail cooperators, so they can inform their members about potential project activities, and plan their trail use accordingly. Information about implementation activities is also posted on trailhead and campground boards during the operating season.

Black Torch

114

Adding roads to the National Forest Road System and improving roads and trails would provide more and better public access and access to recreational opportunities within the project area. Decommissioning some roads and closing some roads to public access would decrease public access and access to recreational opportunities in specific locations in the project area. Those visitors preferring to have less motorized access for their activities, may be adversely affected by the noise from project implementation and the increase of public access to specific locations in the project area. Those visitors preferring to have more motorized access would be adversely affected by the decommissioning of 4.69 miles of currently open roads.

Cumulative Effects Four recent projects on the west side of the Forest were reviewed as relevant to cumulative effects relative to road density. These projects are Northwest Sands, Twin Ghost, Park Falls Hardwood and Medford Aspen II. The road density changes from these projects are listed in table 3-37.

Table 3-37. Recent project effects on road density – West Zone.

Project Name Open Road Density Miles per Square Mile

Total Road Density Miles per

Square Mile

Net Road Density

(Open/Total)

Before After Before After

Northwest Sands 1.98 1.87 3.42 2.14 -0.11/ -1.28

Twin Ghost 3.63 2.53 4.77 3.63 -1.1/ -1.14

Park Falls Hardwood 1.04 1.30 3.15 2.82 +0.26/ -0.33

Medford Aspen II* NA NA NA NA NA

Black Torch 0.44 0.58 2.87 2.37 +0.14/ -0.50

*No travel analysis process rationale was submitted due to the programmatic nature of the project.

All of the above projects did not analyze the same ROS areas as Black Torch, making it difficult to compare the road density changes based on the ROS. However, the open road and total road density numbers do give a general indication of a cumulative trend toward decreasing total road density as directed by the Forest Plan.

The proposed total road density for the Black Torch project is within the acceptable limits set by the Forest Plan. The increase in open road density will not significantly impact the Forest-wide total road density due to the continual closing and decommissioning efforts of previous and ongoing projects being implemented across the Forest.

Relative to cumulative effects to trails and recreational users, the projects listed in table 3-16 would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines for motorized and non-motorized trails and over-the-snow trail use.

With the implementation of those same Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the Black Torch project, the modified proposed action should contribute minimally to the overall cumulative effects to forest access and recreation opportunities for the project area.


115

Summary Under the no action alternative, annual road and trail maintenance would continue. The new system and temporary road construction, road reconstruction, opening and close of roads to public use and road decommissioning as described in the modified proposed action would not occur. Public, private, and administrative access would remain the same. Road densities would remain the same, therefore, there would be no impact to forest access and recreational opportunities from the no action alternative.

Under the modified proposed action, the open road density within the project area would increase from the addition of unauthorized and newly constructed roads to the National Forest Road System. However, the total road density would decrease. Public access will be improved from the addition of the unauthorized and newly constructed roads to the Road System, and reconstruction of some roads and general maintenance of most of the roads in the project area. However, there would localized inconvenience from harvest activities and closure and decommissioning of some roads and the use of some trails for harvest activities. Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be implemented to minimize those impacts to trail users.

Scenic Integrity Objectives This analysis will focus on the extent of harvest management activities, especially the creation of temporary openings, used along High Scenic Integrity and Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) Areas, which may include roads, trails, recreation use areas, and waterbodies within the project area.

Although this particular issue does not relate directly to the purpose and need for the project, it was brought forward through the internal and public scoping process for the Black Torch project as an issue to be analyzed. One comment states “The public is concerned that the proposed action would create openings visible from High Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) viewpoints that could lead to a reduction in scenic integrity.” Another comment states, “In light of the fact that openings will occur naturally in the project area if the Forest Service simply leaves older stands alone, the Forest Service should carefully consider whether it should be violating its own Scenic Integrity Objectives, particularly in locations listed as High SIO viewpoints.”

Affected Environment All National Forests and Grasslands participate in a National Visitor Use Monitoring Program which occurs rotationally on the Forest every five years. Information gathered from this program is used to produce estimated volumes of recreation visits and also to gather descriptive information about the visits. A recent monitoring period was conducted during the 2015-2016 year, however, the data for this time period has not been compiled and is not yet available for review. Data collected in the 2011 National Visitor Use Monitoring period conducted from September 1, 2010, through September 30th, 2011, are available. Survey results are vast in scope due to data compilation at the national, regional and forest level. District or project level surveys are not available. To assist in determining a baseline for scenic views related to visitor use, during the 2011 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey, respondents were asked to rate their Satisfaction for Visits to Undeveloped Areas (General Forest Areas). Fourteen separate elements were addressed and can be viewed in the 2011 Visitor Use Report (USDA Forest Service 2011c). One of the elements relating to SIO is satisfaction with “Scenery”. There were 63 observations for scenery that were rated. Ratings were given a score of 1 through 5 where 1= Very Dissatisfied and 5= Very Satisfied. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed gave a satisfaction rating of Very

http://apps.fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/nvum/results/ReportCache/2011_A09013_Master_Report.pdf

Black Torch

116

Satisfied, which indicates that scenery is an important resource to those visitors surveyed on the Forest during the 2011 National Visitor Use monitoring period.

Landscape character gives a geographic area its visual and cultural image and consists of a combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes that make each landscape identifiable or unique. Existing landscape character may range from predominantly natural landscapes to those that are heavily culturally influenced. The landscape character units are derived from an ecological framework utilizing ecological land descriptions and existing landscape uses. Ecological units are the mapped landscape analysis units used for ecosystem planning and management. The visual image created by the physical, biological, and cultural factors in the ecological land unit description helps define the landscape character for scenery management. For a full description of landscape character associated with this area see the Forest Plan FEIS (pages 3-38, 3-39, and 3-40).

Within this project, the landscape is characterized by mature and over mature mixed upland and lowland hardwood and conifer. Early logging activity is evident along some of the travel routes, most of which has been masked by a dense understory of balsam fir and hazel. The project area landscape is dominated by early successional forest types, which show previous management activities. Although there has been some timber salvage activities within the project area boundary due to severe wind events, which have occurred over the last 10 years, much of the area has received minimal prescriptive management activity, therefore, signs of decay and diminishing forest health are evident.

The designated High SIO areas as listed in Forest Plan Appendix HH within the project area are: State and Federal Highway 77, County Road GG (Forest boundary west to intersection with Forest Road 184), County Road GG (County M north to intersection with Forest Road 193), GG (Hwy 77 south to intersection with Forest Road 176), Forest Roads 172, 173 (Forest Road 172 to north end of Black Lake), Black Lake Hiking Trail, and Black Lake Campground and Picnic Area.

The designated Moderate SIO areas within the project are: County Highway GG (Forest Road 176 south to Forest boundary) and Forest Roads 164 (Forest Road 1643 to County GG), 170, 172, 173 (Forest Road 1666 to Forest Road 176), 174, 176, 182, 183, 190, 193, 195, 249, 250, 283, 308, 335, 337, 347, 620, 621, 747, 792, 1661, 1666, 1965.

Within these areas only stands that are visible from roads or major lakes influence the SIO. In all cases, only treatments visible from affected viewpoints (selected roads or lakes) or within the established zones along these viewpoints are included in the analysis. Stands that are not visible from an affected viewpoint or close to it are not considered to have an effect on the SIO for the typical forest visitor. Table 3-38 provides a summary of the existing condition.


117

Table 3-38. Miles of SIO Areas; existing condition.

Resource Element

Resource Indicator

Measure Existing Condition - No Action

High Scenic Integrity Objective

State and Federal Highways; Hiking Trails and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

21.5 Miles 21.5 miles of no treatment method resulting in no new temporary openings

Administrative Site (High Scenic Integrity Objective)

Campgrounds &Trailheads

1 1 Campground & Trailhead with no treatment method resulting in no new temporary openings

Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective

SIO Level 2 Roads 79 Miles 79 miles of no treatment method resulting in no new temporary openings.

State and Federal Highways; Hiking Trails and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers The current visual composition of these corridors are dominated with early successional forest types. Early successional forest types are short-lived. Aspen, balsam fir, paper birch, and jack pine, are early successional forest types within the project area. These forest types have aged beyond what is normally acceptable for management purposes and, as they continue to age, visitors will continue to see dead and dying trees along these routes. Forest users who use these roads typically use them as a through route to destinations outside the project area and forest boundary. The desired future condition is for early successional forest types to regenerate either naturally or through replanting.

The East Fork of the Chippewa River is an eligible wild and scenic river located on the southern boundary of this project. No new temporary openings are proposed in this project within the river corridor, defined as a quarter mile on each side of the river, which adheres to Forest Plan standards and, therefore, will not be further analyzed. Management activities are proposed near the corridor, and due to the adherence to RMZ guidelines, SIO will not be affected. Since management activities are proposed near the East Fork of the Chippewa River, the lengths of each will be considered within the analysis, since it is within the project boundary.

Campgrounds and Trailheads Two campgrounds, Black Lake Campground and East Twin Campground, are located within the project boundary, but only one, the Black Lake Campground would be impacted by project activities and is included in the analysis. Current scenic conditions in this campground are of the typical forest visual type as mentioned above. Signs of previous wind storms in 2014, from clean-up efforts and tree damage, are still apparent. Although some treatment is proposed within the campground to remove overmature and damaged trees for visitor safety, there are no new proposed temporary openings prescribed within the campground, therefore it will not be further analyzed.

Black Torch

118

SIO Level 2 Roads The current visual compositions of these corridors are also dominated with early successional forest types. Early successional forest types are short-lived. These forest types have aged beyond what is normally acceptable for management purposes, and, as they continue to age, visitors will continue to see dead and dying trees along these routes. Forest users of these roads typically traverse them to and from campgrounds or trail heads, hunting and fishing locations, visiting privately owned property and general transportation needs. The desired future condition is for early successional forest types to regenerate either naturally or through replanting.

Analysis Parameters

Analysis Methods The method used to analyze the effects were based on a GIS exercise of the proposed activity areas involving High and Moderate SIO areas. Distance was measured along proposed activity boundaries along High and Moderate SIO roads and trails to determine whether the areas met or exceeded guidelines in the Forest Plan (pages 2-29 through 2-33).

SIOs are defined as the visual impact for management of an area of the Forest, defining its permissible variation from the landscape’s valued scenic character. Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness of an area and is stated in degrees of deviation from the existing landscape character. The degrees of deviation are used to describe the existing scenic integrity and the Forest Plan’s SIOs.

High SIO – A scenic integrity level referring to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be present, but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident.

Moderate SIO – A scenic integrity level referring to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.

Low SIO – A scenic integrity level referring to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears moderately altered.” Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes, such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed, but compatible or complementary to the character within (USDA Forest Service 1995).

As with all GIS exercises, there may be discrepancies with vegetation boundaries and road/trail locations, due to slight variations in GIS data and “on the ground” distances. Mitigation measures would be established to correct for these variations prior to full implementation.

Measurement Indicators Indicators used to determine the extent of effects to scenic integrity are listed in table 3-39.


119

Table 3-39. Scenic integrity indicators and measures for assessing effects.

Resource Element Resource Indicator

Measure Source: 2004 Forest Plan

High Scenic Integrity Objective

Temporary Opening

Miles - Treatment less than or equal to 130 feet along a road or trail

Page 2-29

Administrative Site (High Scenic Integrity Objective)

Temporary Opening

Miles - Treatment less than 600 feet from perimeter of site

Page 2-29

Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective

Temporary Opening

Miles - Treatment less than 300 feet along a road or trail

Page 2-30



The spatial boundary for direct and indirect effects on scenery would be the area within the project boundary, since visual effects on designated SIO travel routes, as outlined in the Forest Plan (Appendix HH-3 and HH-4), are limited to the designated open travel routes associated with the project. Not all of these stands would be treated immediately. Appendix B of the Vegetation Resource Report located in the project record shows the approximate timeframes and proposed treatment method where “0” equals one to five years and “5” equals five to fifteen years. The temporal boundary for direct and indirect effects would be the start of harvest activities lasting between five and ten years after all harvest activities are complete through the project area (roughly 2017 to 2032). This allows time for stands to be harvested, certified as regenerated, if applicable, and recover from any stresses from harvesting activities. After this time, the state of any given stand would be considered the existing condition.

Short-term scenic effects of timber harvesting and vegetation management are often the most noticeable until the growth of grasses, shrubs, and remaining trees begin to soften the effects of harvest operations. Short-term effects are especially noticeable when the viewer has an up-close view of the treatment site usually in the foreground viewing distance. Long-term effect, which for this analysis is considered beyond five years after harvest, vary by the treatment and the logging method used.


The spatial boundary for cumulative effects would again be the project area due to SIO being directly affected only within this project as mentioned above. The temporal boundary for cumulative effects to SIO for each stand treated, could last five to 10 years post-harvest or until regeneration has reached a height of 12 feet tall or when the average crown closure is greater than 20 percent (Forest Plan, page 2-4).

No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts The no action alternative would by name, not provide any type of management activity within this project area. By not taking action, the purpose and need of this project would not be achieved. The viewshed within this project area would be affected through non action over time as well. Since the stands being addressed are early successional forest types, they would continue

Black Torch

120

to deteriorate and die creating views along these routes of fallen, rotted trees. Although there is value with respect to this type of action, it does not provide the scenic quality forest users would anticipate while recreating in the general forest area.

This alternative, over time, as stated above would directly affect scenic resources. Presently, there are no planned management activities within this project area that would affect SIO by creating new temporary openings. Ongoing projects have met SIO guidelines, therefore, they would not contribute to the cumulative effects to SIO within the project area.

Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts The modified proposed action includes varying types of harvest techniques to meet the desired conditions as described in the Forest Plan. The harvest techniques, which are used for early successional forest types that would affect scenic integrity include, but are not limited to, clearcuts, overstory removal, and shelterwood cuts.

Proposed activities within 14 stands would exceed the guidelines for temporary openings along High SIO Areas, and proposed activities within 79 stands would exceed the guidelines for temporary openings along Moderate SIO Areas. All of the areas proposed are within MA 1 areas (early successional forest type) and have an average age exceeding the typical age for rotation as described previously in this document. As outlined in the Disturbance Regime in the Forest Plan for all Early Successional Forest Types, (pages 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6) “Human-caused disturbance that maintains early successional communities is evident, frequent, and intensive. Management activities such as clearcutting and shelterwood harvests maintain early successional ecosystems.” Although the views along these routes would be affected in the short-term (about five years until the stands regenerate to greater than twelve feet in height or greater than 20 percent crown cover), long-term benefits could include a healthier forest, which would be less prone to insects and disease, and increased habitat for wildlife, such as ruffed grouse and white-tailed deer and other species associated with this type of vegetation.

Even though the guidelines may not be fully met, mitigation measures would be prescribed to alleviate the appearance of temporary openings by strategically leaving reserve islands of trees and individual reserve trees within the viewshed.

Direct effects of the proposed treatment would create temporary openings that would be visible from the road/trail corridor, as well as views of logging equipment within the stand and while in transport along the travel route, and the associated noise disturbance with these types of operations, which could negatively affect viewer opportunities. Depending on when the proposed treatment would occur, scenic views of logging operations could be mitigated by conducting activities during low visitor use seasons.

Post treatment, evidence of logging operations would also be visible until masked by vegetation growth occurring during the spring growing season. Conversely, with the creation of temporary openings “within months of a carefully planned clear-cut, the site is lush with new growth that many wildlife love, and at no loss to environmental quality. White-tailed deer are attracted to the nutritious twig litter left over from an aspen clear-cut. Later, the deer return to feed on the sun-loving plants that invade the newly harvested area. The thickets, which quickly sprout, provide excellent hiding places, not only for does and their fawns, but for ruffed grouse. Ruffed grouse raise their broods in young aspen stands where they find both food and shelter from preying goshawks and owls. Bear, rabbit, woodcock, butterflies, and a wide variety of songbirds, such as indigo buntings, towhees, song sparrows, yellow warblers, yellowthroats and chestnut-sided


121

warblers also find food and shelter in these young stands” (Judd et al. 2017). These temporary openings could also lead to increased opportunities for bird and wildlife viewing enthusiasts and increased opportunities for hunters during the appropriate seasons for large and small game.

Table 3-40 shows the total amount of stands (589) proposed to be treated within the project area. About 16 percent of the stands proposed will exceed guidelines as they relate to travel corridors within the project area. The stands exceeding Forest Plan guidelines are listed in appendix E.

Table 3-40. Miles of affected SIO areas (rounded to nearest tenth).

Scenic Integrity Objective

# of Stands to be

Treated

# of Stands

Exceeding SIO

Total Miles of Road/ Trail/ River Within

SIO Black Torch

Total Mile of Road/ Trail/ River Within

SIO on Great Divide

Ranger District

Total Miles of Road/ Trail Exceeding

SIO

High 44 14 21.5 Miles 324.9 Miles 2.14 Miles of Road/Trail

Moderate 105 79 81.8 Miles 432.1 Miles 19.3 Miles of Road

Low 440 0 54.8 Miles 431.8 Miles 0 Miles

High SIO - A total of 44 stands are proposed for treatment within the High SIO corridor. Given the total amount of open roads within the district boundary versus the total amount of roads where treatment is to occur within the High SIO area of the project, six tenths of one percent of total miles to exceed the forest plan guideline could be considered a nominal effect. The stands that will exceed the guidelines consist mainly of overmature aspen, paper birch, and balsam fir, which range from 60 to 87 years of age. Harvesting these stands meets the purpose and need of the project to promote a healthy forest. Where opportunities exist for stand specific mitigation, efforts to alleviate the negative visual impact, applications such as strategically leaving reserve islands of trees along routes, which coincide with main user access to recreation sites, would be applied. Other mitigation efforts, such as implementation timeframes and trail closures, would be applied for user safety. The Black Lake Trail is located within a developed recreation site and is not maintained in the winter months, so use of this trail would be limited by proxy. Harvesting this unit during the winter months would be recommended to prevent conflicts with campers and hikers in this area. Design standards for motorized and non-motorized trails and over the snow vehicles will adhere to specific guidelines where user and harvest implementation would compete.

Moderate SIO - The Moderate SIO designation allows for moderate forest management activities to occur. Given the 324.9 miles of open roads within the district boundary versus the 19.3 miles of roads where treatment is to occur within the Moderate SIO area of the project, one could argue that about four percent of the total miles to exceed the forest plan guideline would be considered moderate activity. Guidelines as defined in the Forest Plan (page EE-6): A required course of action or level of attainment that promotes the achievement of Forest Plan goals and

Black Torch

122

objectives, but which can be adjusted or modified if site-specific project conditions warrant a deviation. Guidelines are developed when: 1). Professional expertise is needed to address resource management questions; 2). Site conditions are variable; and 3). They contribute to the achievement of goals. A project-level analysis and signed decision (by the responsible official) are required in order to deviate from an established guideline. Forest users who travel these routes would see forest management activities from the travel way. Mitigation efforts, such as creating buffers along the road edge, strategically leaving reserve islands of trees and reserve trees along routes, which coincide with main user access to recreation sites, would be implemented. Recommended harvest timeframes occur during the low use recreation/camping seasons. Typically, the low use season for camping activities on the Forest occurs after Labor Day. Design standards for motorized and non-motorized trails and over the snow vehicles will adhere to specific guidelines where user and harvest implementation compete.

Low SIO – According to Forest Plan guidance (page 2-30), areas not classified as High or Moderate SIO Areas fall under the low SIO category. Therefore, all motorized and non-motorized trails not identified as either High or Moderate will be considered as Low SIO. The remaining 440 stands to be treated are considered to be in the Low SIO viewshed. Because of this designation, it is anticipated that forest users could see forest management activities readily evident. Design standards for motorized and non-motorized trails and over the snow vehicles will adhere to specific guidelines where user and harvest implementation compete.

Harvest guidelines for all SIO areas where forest trail users could be impacted would include items such as signing, limiting the activities to weekdays (no nights, weekends or holidays), maintaining a hard-packed snow base of four inches on snowmobile trails, and crossing trails at 90 degree angles. Immediately clean any logging slash and debris from the trail, directional felling away from the trail, pull back slash from within 20 feet of the trail, reducing slash height down to 24-36 inches as well as other site specific measures would be implemented to minimize user conflicts.

Cumulative Effects Past Forest Service decisions that may contribute to effects on SIO within Black Torch include Spruce II (salvage), ESHI, Cayuga, Twin Ghost, 2014 Red Pine Salvage, Chequamegon Salvage, and Chequamegon Red Pine Thinning. Treatments that have been completed and recorded are considered part of the existing condition. The decisions listed above were able to achieve the purpose and need for their respective projects by maintaining adherence to the standards and guidelines with regard to scenic integrity. The actions associated with these projects would not affect the analysis for the Black Torch project. Reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in this analysis include any actions that would result in changes to the forest vegetation in the project area. At this time, there are no foreseeable future projects within the project area that would have such effects. The direct and indirect effects of the Black Torch project would provide the largest increment to the cumulative effects to scenic integrity within the project area.

Summary Under the no action alternative, the viewshed within the project area would be affected through non action as early successional forest types continue to deteriorate and die, creating views along routes of fallen, rotted trees. Although there is value with respect to no action, it does not provide the scenic quality forest users would anticipate while recreating in the general forest area.


123

Harvest techniques used for the management of early successional forest types would affect scenic integrity. Proposed activities that would exceed the guidelines for temporary openings along High SIO Areas and Moderate SIO Areas are listed in appendix E. Even though the guidelines may not be fully met, mitigation measures would be prescribed to alleviate the appearance of temporary openings by strategically leaving reserve islands of trees and individual reserve trees within the viewshed.

Socioeconomics A number of concerns were expressed during public scoping about the need to supply wood products to meet demand. A comment was also made about improved wildlife habitat providing better wildlife viewing opportunities, such as elk, and hunting opportunities, which contribute to the local economies of northern Wisconsin.

This analysis summarizes the economic and potential social impacts of implementing the Black Torch Project as related to the forest products industry and tourism. The analysis is focused on the economic impacts and the economic efficiency of the modified proposed action alternative versus the no action alternative. The removal of forest products through timber harvest and economics are both directly related to the Need to Supply Wood Products to Meet Demand and Objective 8 in Chapter 1 of the Black Torch Environmental Assessment.

The Forest provides both direct and indirect economic benefits to not only Wisconsin, but surrounding states. Forest products industries in Wisconsin account for 65,000 jobs and an economic output of nearly $25 billion (Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts 2016). These jobs are primarily, but not limited to, converting timber to a variety of wood products, forestry, logging, and the supporting transportation and service industries.

In 2015, the forest products industry created $3.4 billion in wages to the Wisconsin economy. Forestry in both Ashland and Sawyer counties, the two counties in which the Black Torch project fall in, is the number three and two employer, respectively. Both counties are number one for forest products output (total value of the industry for the local economy) (WDNR 2014a and b).

Forest products from the Forest are produced in many locations including, but not limited to: local communities on or adjacent to the Forest, the Fox River and Wisconsin River valleys, and the Duluth/Superior area. In addition to forest products, tourism and recreation also contribute to the sustainability of communities in Ashland and Sawyer counties.

The Forest Plan FEIS addresses the economic sustainability of local communities, including employment and income. It also takes into consideration recreation and tourism, commercial wood products, and sustainable timberlands. This analysis is tiered to the forest wide socioeconomic analysis in the Forest Plan FEIS (pages 3-306 to 3-364).

Tourism is an integral part of the Wisconsin economy. According to the 2010 Census, 34 percent of total housing units in the (Northwest) region are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Businesses that cater to tourism, such as motels, resorts, campgrounds, bed &breakfasts, and retail stores complement the hundreds of miles of biking, snowmobiling, and off-highway vehicle trails as well as the many parks, golf courses, historic sites, waterfalls, ski hills, cross-country ski trails, Lake Superior, and area attractions.

The economic benefit of tourism extends far into the counties within the region, making a contribution to schools and local governments. Local revenues (property taxes, sales taxes,

Black Torch

124

lodging taxes, etc.) and state revenues (lodging, sales, and meal taxes) amounted to almost $48 million as a result of tourism in the Northwest Region (Northwest Regional Planning Commission [NWRPC] 2016). Tourism generates millions in tax receipts, and its broad range of employment creation provides jobs that support the state’s economic health. In 2015, the tourism industry in Wisconsin generated $19.3 billion (Wisconsin Department of Tourism 2017).

There are economic impacts in the form of increased costs to local governments associated with tourism and resource management. Increased costs typically associated with proximity to national forests include a higher demand for law enforcement, fire protection, road maintenance and construction, sewer and water systems, and various social services. Although they cannot be readily quantified, public land-related tourism and resource management can create sizeable financial burden on local governments (Forest Plan FEIS 2004).

Affected Environment Total forestland area in Ashland County, located in northwestern Wisconsin, covers 445,256 acres, with 243,601 acres publicly owned (WDNR 2014a). The majority of the publicly owned forestlands in Ashland County (about 180,630 acres or 74 percent) are located on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2007b). The population of Ashland County from 2015 census data is 15,993 people. The median household income in 2015 dollars is $39,381, and the poverty level is 15.7 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2017a).

Total forestland area in Sawyer County, also located in northwestern Wisconsin, covers 663,238 acres, with 303,435 acres of publicly owned forestland (WDNR 2014b). About 126,685 acres (42 percent) of the public forestland in Sawyer County are on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004b). The population in Sawyer County from 2015 census data is 16,483 people. The median household income in 2015 dollars is $41,665, and the poverty level is 16.7 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2017b).

Economic Indicator 1- Twenty Five Percent Fund, Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976, Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 There are three types of payments that can be made each year to local governments to partially offset funding shortfalls from untaxed National Forest System lands. Those payments include: the Twenty Five Percent Fund, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRSCSDA), and the Payment In Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (PILT). The Twenty Five Percent Fund authorizes the Forest Service to pay counties that contain National Forest System land 25 percent of the annual net revenues derived from timber sales, special use permit fees, etc. (USDA Forest Service 2004b). The Twenty-five Percent Fund payments are based on a seven year rolling average of receipts from national forests located in the State.

SRDCSDA is an alternative to Twenty Five Percent Fund payments. SRDCSDA payments to counties do not fluctuate with Forest revenues like Twenty Five Percent Fund payments. Table 3-41 shows the SRSCSDA payments to Ashland and Sawyer counties for fiscal year 2015. This legislation was not reauthorized for fiscal year 2016, so table 3-41 also shows the payment to the counties from Twenty Five Percent Fund Act that fiscal year.

The PILT program consists of Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable Federal lands within their boundaries (U.S. Department of Interior 2017). The amount of payment received is based on acres. Ashland County has 180,524 acres of national forest land, and Sawyer County has 118,111 acres of national forest land. Table


125

3-41 also shows the PILT payments received by Ashland and Sawyer Counties in fiscal year 2016.

Table 3-41. Payments to Ashland and Sawyer counties.

County SRSCSDA Payment1 PILT Payment2 Twenty Five Percent Fund1

Ashland $237,624.54 $468,392 $142,954.57

Sawyer $127,270.13 $300,243 $100,155.85

1 Source: https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/securepayments/projectedpayments 2 Source: https://www.nbc.gov/pilt/counties

Economic Indicator 2- Employment Forestry related occupations are embedded throughout the economy of Sawyer County as evidenced by three of the top 10 employers being forestry related. They include Louisiana Pacific, Trussworks, and Arclin (Sawyer County 2010).

Table 3-42 summarizes the number of forestry, logging, sawmill, pulp and paper (Sawyer County only), and wood products jobs by county in 2014 (WDNR 2014b). The table also includes the number of tourism industry jobs in 2015 for both counties (Wisconsin Department of Tourism 2017). According to the WDNR report, every 10 jobs in forestry supports an additional eight jobs for both Ashland and Sawyer Counties. Therefore, there are an estimated additional 941 jobs (indirect employment) currently.

Table 3-42. Number of jobs by sector for Ashland and Sawyer counties.

Sector Number of Jobs

Ashland County

Forestry/logging 101

Pulp and paper 0

Sawmills and wood products 399

Tourism 577

Sawyer County

Forestry/logging 253

Pulp and paper 41

Sawmills and wood products 383

Tourism 971

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/securepayments/projectedpayments

Black Torch

126

Economic Indicator 3- Income Generated Table 3-43 summarizes the income by sector and county for the jobs listed in Table 3-42. Forestry generates $56.3 million of total labor income in both Ashland and Sawyer counties. In comparison, tourism generates $30.9 million in total labor income (WDNR 2014a and b). The availability of quality natural resources within Sawyer County offers a wide array of outdoor recreational opportunities that support the local tourism industry (Sawyer County 2010).

Table 3-43. Income by county and sector.

Sector Total Labor1,2 Income

Ashland County

Forestry $24.4 million

Tourism $13 million

Sawyer County

Forestry $31.9 million

Tourism $20.9 million

1 Source: WDNR 2014a and b 2 Source: Wisconsin Department of Tourism 2017 for 2015.

Table 3-44 lists the revenue generated from fiscal year 2017 timber sales sold (as of the time of this analysis) and appraised values for the remaining sales scheduled for the fiscal year. Timber sales for this fiscal year will generate an estimated $155,408 in payments to Bayfield, Ashland, and Sawyer counties. Payments will generally be higher than this estimate based on the bids received for timber sales.

Table 3-44. Fiscal year 2017 revenues from timber sales on the Great Divide Ranger District.

Fiscal Year 2017 Timber Sale Revenue Estimated 25 Percent Payment

Sold timber sales $172,692.18 $43,173

Fiscal Year 2017 Appraised Values Estimated 25 Percent Payment

Remaining timber sales

$448,942.83 $112,235

Estimated Fiscal Year 2017 Totals

$621,635 $155,408

Tourism is important to the economies of both Ashland and Sawyer counties. In 2015, tourism generated $34.5 million (in direct visitor spending) in Ashland County. In Sawyer County, tourism generated $85.6 million (in direct visitor spending) (Wisconsin Department of Tourism 2017).


127

Economic Indicator 4- Harvest Volume Since 2011, the Forest has steadily increased the amount of timber sold each year. In 2016, the Forest sold 114.8 MMBF. Table 3-45 shows the amount of timber sold on the district for the last three fiscal years. This steady increase in volume target (and the sale of the volume) reflects the demand for national forest timber on the district and the Forest.

Table 3-45. Timber volume sold for the Great Divide Ranger District.

Fiscal Year Volume Sold (MMBF)

2014 14.8

2015 17.5

2016 20.7

The timber target for fiscal year 2017 on the district is 14.5 MMBF. This decrease in target is not due to a decrease in demand, but rather as a result of impacts to the district land base from a flood event in July 2016. The timber target for fiscal year 2018 is 18 MMBF. Future harvest volume targets for the Forest and the district are projected to either remain constant or increase.

Economic Indicator 5- Potential Biomass Harvest Woody biomass is the submerchantable portion of harvested trees, usually expressed in tons per acre, and can be either green or dry. There are 9,945 acres suitable (based on soils) for biomass removal in stands selected for treatment in the Black Torch project. On the district, biomass is generally offered as optional volume in timber sale contracts, meaning the purchaser may opt not to remove it from the site; therefore, there may be no utilization. An example of an industry that converts biomass into a product is the Great Lakes Renewable Energy, Inc. in Hayward (Sawyer County), which produces wood fuel pellets.

Analysis Parameters

Analysis Methods To complete the economic analysis for this report, it was necessary to retrieve data from a variety of sources. The net present value was calculated to assess the economic and financial efficiency of the modified proposed action and the no action alternatives by discounting revenues and costs. The detailed data used for these calculations are available in the Socioeconomic Report in the project record. The costs considered in the analysis include the administrative, reforestation, and transportation costs associated with the modified proposed action alternative.

The revenues calculated in the analysis include those generated from Forest Service timber sales in the Black Torch project area, and the treatments proposed in the modified proposed action.

Besides costs and revenues, there were direct and indirect benefits of implementing the modified proposed action, such as employment created or sustained and payments to counties, which needed to be calculated.

Black Torch

128

Measurement Indicators Table 3-46 lists the economic indicators and measures considered in this analysis.

Table 3-46. Economic indicators and measures for assessing effects.

Economic Indicator Measure Source: 2004 Forest Plan

Payments to Counties (25% fund, PILT1, SRSCSDA2)

Dollars paid to Ashland and Sawyer Counties

-The Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act of 1908 -PILT -SRSCSDA

Employment Jobs created or sustained Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

Income Generated Present value of future costs and revenues (NPV3)

36 CFR 219.12(k)

Harvest Volume MMBF4 Forest Plan Goal

Potential Biomass Harvest Green tons per acre Forest Plan Goal

1 Payment in Lieu of Taxes. 2 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. 3 net present value. 4 thousand million board feet.

Biomass produced is separated out as a separate indicator for three reasons. Biomass is sold differently (at a flat rate) than pulpwood and sawtimber volumes. Also, biomass is currently offered as optional volume in the Forest Service timber sale contracts, so purchasers may opt not to remove the biomass from the site. Finally, not all sites are suitable for biomass harvest due to soil types as analyzed in the Soil Resources and Productivity section.

Some of the direct economic benefits of biomass harvest include: providing jobs and income through new and existing woody biomass industries, such as wood pellets and industrial fuel, decreasing energy costs by substituting woody biomass for other fuels, and providing employment and economic stability to rural, forest-dependent communities. Some of the indirect economic benefits include: lessening the potential of wildfire near communities, attracting investments in new industry/markets and stabilizing existing markets, and complementing traditional utilization of higher value wood products (https://www.fs.fed.us/woodybiomass/).



The boundary used to evaluate the socioeconomic impacts for this analysis is Ashland and Sawyer counties. Communities in these two counties would receive the greatest impact from social and economic standpoints. Effects to the social and economic resource are expected to last until 2030. Timber sales are generally three year contracts, and it is estimated the last timber sale from the proposed project would be sold in 2027.

https://www.fs.fed.us/woodybiomass/


129


The spatial boundary used for analyzing cumulative effects of the economic resource was Ashland and Sawyer counties. The temporal boundary for cumulative effects is 2027, when the (estimated) last timber sale would be sold out of the Black Torch project.

No Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts Under the no action alternative, none of the management activities in the modified proposed action would occur. Therefore, there are no revenues generated or costs incurred from the project area. The net present value under this alternative would be zero.

The no action alternative would not help sustain or create jobs for the local economy in the project analysis area. The harvest volume generated from timber sales sold to local mills in Wisconsin and surrounding states would not be produced under this alternative; therefore, there would be no receipts contributed to the Twenty Five Percent Fund from this project. If SRSCDA legislation continues to not be reauthorized in future years like it was in fiscal year 2016, then the Twenty Five Percent Fund would be used for payments to counties. In this scenario, Ashland and Sawyer counties would only receive payments from timber sales generating revenue in existing vegetation management projects on the district. Those projects, outlined in further detail in table 3-16, have a fifth of the volume (remaining to be harvested) of the Black Torch project. Also, some of those projects are in Bayfield County, so payments for those projects would go there and not to Ashland or Sawyer counties.

There would be no cumulative effects from the No Action alternative of the Black Torch project as there are no direct or indirect economic effects.

Modified Proposed Action Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Impacts The estimated total cost of implementing the modified proposed action is $2,766,266. The projected revenue generated from the modified proposed action is $4,161,271. Both of these numbers are in 2017 dollars.

The modified proposed action has a net present value of $1,421,856.33. This means the future revenues generated from the modified proposed action exceeds the total costs by this amount, making it a good investment from an economic standpoint.

Objective 8 of the modified proposed action is to “provide a sustainable flow of wood products while meeting habitat and landscape needs”. The economic impact of the modified proposed action alternative includes 109 MMBF of timber and 17,901 tons of biomass available for conversion into a variety of products or energy, respectively. The sale of the harvested timber and biomass volume from this alternative generates revenue, which in turn comes back to Ashland and Sawyer counties in the form of payments. The inflow of timber supports or creates jobs in the local economy.

Table 3-47 summarizes and compares the modified proposed action versus the no action alternative in terms of payments to counties, employment, income generated, harvest volume, and potential harvest volume.

Black Torch

130

Table 3-47. Economic measures for modified proposed action versus no action.

Resource Element Measure No Action Modified Proposed Action

Payments to Counties (25 Percent fund, PILT1)

Dollars paid to Ashland and Sawyer

Counties

$0 $1,040,317.94

Employment Jobs created or sustained

0 2,243

Income Generated (net present value)

Present value of future costs and revenues

$0 $1,421,856.25

Harvest Volume MMBF 0 109

Potential Biomass Harvest

Green tons produced 0 17,901

1 Payment in Lieu of Taxes.

Economic Indicator 1- 25 Percent Fund, PILT, SRSCSDA Payments to counties, based on 25 percent of the gross receipts from timber sales, is a direct effect of the modified proposed action. About $1,040,317, which is 25 percent of the estimated gross receipts generated from future timber sales in the Black Torch project area, would be paid to Ashland and Sawyer counties. This number does not include potential revenues generated from biomass harvest because biomass harvest is considered optional in a timber sale contract.

An indirect effect of counties receiving payments includes improvements to local infrastructure (e.g. transportation, communication), which benefits tourism.

Economic Indicator 2- Employment The modified proposed action has both direct and indirect effects to employment, and therefore income to the local economy. Direct effects from implementing the modified proposed action include the employment and income generated from harvesting, hauling, processing, and manufacturing forest products. An indirect effect would be sustaining or increasing ancillary/support jobs in the transportation and service industries. As stated previously, every 10 jobs in forestry supports eight additional jobs in the county for both Sawyer and Ashland counties (WDNR 2014a and b).

Table 3-48 summarizes employment projections for 2014-2024 by industry for the entire state of Wisconsin provided by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. Employment in Natural Resources and Forestry (statewide) is projected to increase during that period. A shift in employment is projected from pulp and paper production to other wood producing manufacturing, including engineered wood products, plywood, and veneer.


131

Table 3-48. Wisconsin long-term industry employment projections 2014-2024 (Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development 2016).

Industry Employment Change Entire State (2014-2024)

Natural Resources and Mining 2.57

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 1.92

Wood product manufacturing 2.75

Sawmill and Wood Preservation -0.05

Veneer, Plywood, Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing

8.10

Other Wood Product Manufacturing 1.93

Paper Manufacturing -8.6

Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills -19.4

Converted Paper Product Manufacturing -1.3

In the Northwest region of Wisconsin, made up of 10 counties including Sawyer and Ashland Counties, projected employment in Natural Resources (which includes mining) from 2012-2022 is expected to decline 11 percent (Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development 2015).

Complex modeling, used to model the economic efficiency and impacts for alternatives for the Forest Plan, predicted employment in the Northern Wisconsin Economic Impact Area would on average increase eight percent. This impact area includes Sawyer and Ashland counties. The estimated employment created from the modified proposed action was calculated using this percentage as it is the only analysis information available that is specifically tailored to the Forest land base. There is no consistency between how forestry/natural resources is analyzed in terms of employment in Wisconsin as it is often included with either agriculture or mining.

Economic Indicator 3- Income Generated Income generated by the modified proposed action has both direct and indirect effects. The net present value of the modified proposed action will directly impact the district and the Forest. A direct effect is labor income (from employment created/sustained). The Timber Resource Program on the Forest generates approximately $433.3 million of labor income (Forest Plan FEIS 2004). The labor income is spent in the local communities, which in turn will help to sustain those communities and will benefit tourism (an indirect effect).

Economic Indicator 4- Harvest Volume Another direct effect of the modified proposed action is the 109 MMBF of volume that would be provided to local mills for conversion into a variety of forest products.

Black Torch

132

Economic Indicator 5- Potential Biomass Harvest The net present value of all of the biomass available (17,901 green tons) under the modified proposed action is $18,142. This is future value of all of the biomass volume available. In reality, the amount of biomass harvested will likely be somewhere in between zero and the maximum.

Timber harvesting activities in the modified proposed action, which would be in addition to existing harvest activities on the district, would increase production 109 MMBF over a 10 year period.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Past - The district has the following vegetation management projects with signed decisions: Cayuga, ESHI, Chequamegon Red Pine Thinning, Red Pine Salvage, Chequamegon Salvage, and Spruce II Salvage. Timber sales from these projects will have an additional effect to the social and economic resources.

Present - The district has about 20.3 MMBF remaining to be harvested under the six different vegetation management projects listed above. Table 3-49 lists the remaining harvest volume by project on the district as of March 14, 2017.

Table 3-49. Remaining harvest volume for Great Divide Ranger District by project.

Project Name Remaining Harvest Volume (MMBF)

Cayuga 7.7

ESHI 5.6

Chequamegon Red Pine Thinning 4.4

Red Pine Salvage 0.06

Chequamegon Salvage 2.3

Spruce II Salvage 0.23

Total 20.3

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions - Timber harvest will continue to occur on private and public lands adjacent to the Black Torch project area within Ashland and Sawyer counties. The volume generated from those harvesting activities is difficult to predict.

Summary The no action alternative would not implement any of the management activities described in the modified proposed action, therefore, there would be no revenues generated. The no action alternative would not help sustain or create jobs for the local economy in the project analysis area. The harvest volume generated from timber sales sold to local mills in Wisconsin and


133

surrounding states would not be produced, therefore, there would be no receipts contributed to the various payments made to Ashland or Sawyer counties.

Implementation of activities described under the modified proposed action would generate local and regional jobs, wood products for the local economy and enough revenue to provide payments to Ashland and Sawyer counties.

Black Torch

134

Page intentionally left blank.


135

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers and Distribution This section lists the names of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing this document and the associated analyses and reports.

Mike Martin – District Ranger, B.S. Outdoor Recreation and Resource Management from Indiana University – 24 years of experience

Sue Reinecke – Forest Fisheries Biologist, B.S. Marine Biology from the University of Tampa – 27 years of experience

Steven Spickerman – Ecologist, B.S. Natural Resources Management from Utah State University – 28 years of experience

Gerred Carothers – District Silviculturist, B.S. Forest Management from the University of Stevens Point – 20 years of experience

Loreen Lomax – Forest Archaeologist, M.A. Humanities : Cal-State University (Dominguez Hills), B.S. Anthropology, Minor History Cal-State University (Bakersfield) – 25 years of experience

Kim Potaracke – Forest Archaeological Technician, B.S. Biology, Minor Anthropology from University of Wisconsin – LaCrosse – 27 years of experience

Chad E. Jacobson – Assistant District Ranger – Recreation, B.S. Parks and Recreation Management from Lake Superior State University – 11 years of experience

Jerry Petruzalek – GIS Specialist, B.S. Geography from University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point – 13 years of experience

Casey Krogstad – District Forester/Certified Silviculturist, B.S. Forest Resource Management from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities – 17 years of experience

Mark Farina – Forest Soil Scientist, B.S. Soil Science from the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point – 17 years of experience

Carrie Nelson – District Wildlife Biologist, B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities – 15 years of experience

Sarah Holmes – Natural Resource Specialist, B.S. Biology from the University of Wisconsin-Superior and B.S. Education from Northland College – 10 years of experience

Chris Geidel – Supervisory Fire Engine Operator, B.S. Resource Management from the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point – 17 years of experience

Leigh Neitzel – Civil Engineering Technician, B.S. Forest Management from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point – 7 years of experience

Paul Tikusis – Forester, B.S. and M.S. Forestry from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale – 7 years of experience

Joe Huck – Supervisory Forester, B.S. Forest Science from University of Wisconsin – Madison – 10 years of experience

Ginger Molitor – District National Environmental Policy Act Planner, M.S. Watershed Science from Colorado State University and B.S. Wildlife and Biology from the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point – 21 years of experience

Black Torch

136

The following are those agencies and tribes who were formally contacted or consulted during the analysis of this project. Comments were also sought from organizations and individuals, including landowners adjacent to the analysis area. Adjacent landowners were notified of the proposed project and the opportunity to provide input. The complete mailing list is available in the project file.

Agencies

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Division of Forestry

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Northern Region

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Bureau of Wildlife

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Green Bay Field Office

Ashland County Forestry Department Sawyer County Forestry Department

Tribes

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission


137

References Alban, D.H., D.A. Perala and B.E. Schlaegel. 1978. Biomass and nutrient distribution in aspen,

pine, and spruce stands on the same soil type in Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 8(3): 290-299.

Alban, D.H. and D.A Perala. 1990. Impact of Aspen Timber Harvesting on Soils. In: Gessel, S.P., D.S. Lacate, G.F. Weetman and R.F. Powers.: Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils 7th North American Forest Soils Conference, 1988 July 24-28 (Vancouver, BC. University of British Columbia), 377-391.

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2006. Ruffed Grouse Conservation Plan. D. Dessecker, G.W. Norman and S.J. Williamson eds. 93 pp.

Bat Conservation International. 2017. Species Profiles – Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat. Located on the World Wide Web at: http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/species-profiles/detail/1890. Accessed August 15, 2017.

Bates, C.B, C.R. Blinn and A.A. Alm. 2013. Agroforestry: Regenerating quaking aspen: Management recommendations. Published by the University of Minnesota Extension, Regents of the University of Minnesota. Available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/agroforestry/regenerating-quaking-aspen/. Accessed on August 14, 2017.

Blouch, R. I. 1984. Whitetail Population and Habits in the Northern Great Lakes States and Ontario, in Wildlife Management Institute: White-tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. (Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books), pp. 391-410.

Boal, C.W., D.E. Andersen, and P.L. Kennedy. 2001. Home range and habitat use of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in Minnesota. Final Project Report. Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. St. Paul, MN. 48 pp.

Boal, C.W., D.E. Andersen, and P.L. Kennedy. 2003. Home range and residency status of northern goshawks breeding in Minnesota. Condor. 105:811-816.

Board of Commissioners for Public Lands. 2017. Upcoming Timber Sale Documentation for TS-201701 in Ashland County. Available on the World Wide Web at: http://bcpl.wisconsin.gov/category_print.asp?linkcatid=3882&linkid=1439&locid=145. Accessed March 20, 2017.

Brindza, L.J., L.P. Brower, A.K. Davis, T. Van Hook. 2008. Comparative success of monarch butterfly migration to overwintering sites in Mexico from inland and coastal sites in Virginia. Journal of the Lepidoperists’ Society. 62(4), 2008,189-200.

Bronson, D.R.; G.J. Edge, C.R. Hardin, S.K Herrick, and T.G. Knoot. 2014. Wisconsin’s forestland woody biomass harvesting guidelines. WI DNR Division of Forestry and Wisconsin Council on Forestry; Madison, WI. 48 pp.

Bruggeman, J.E., D.E. Anderson, and J.E. Woodford. 2009. Bioregional monitoring for northern goshawks in the western Great Lakes States. St. Paul, MN.

http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/species-profiles/detail/1890

http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/species-profiles/detail/1890

http://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/agroforestry/regenerating-quaking-aspen/

http://bcpl.wisconsin.gov/category_print.asp?linkcatid=3882&linkid=1439&locid=145

Black Torch

138

Bruggeman, J.E., D.E. Andersen, and J.E. Woodford. 2011. Northern goshawk monitoring in the western Great Lakes bioregion. Journal of Raptor Research. 45:290-303.

Buckley, D.S., T.R. Crow, E.A. Nauertz and K.E. Schulz. 2002. Influence of Skid Trails and Haul Roads on Understory Plant Richness and Composition in Managed Forest Landscapes in Upper Michigan, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, In Press, 12 pp.

Buehler, D.A., J.L. Confer, R.A. Canterbury, T.C. Will, W.C. Hunter, R. Dettmers, and D. Demarest. 2006. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Golden-winged Warblers, Vermivora chrysoptera, in the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6XXX-2006, Washington, D.C.

Butler, C.A. 2014. The need for milkweed: Report on the international initiative to address the decline of the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus). News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 56(3): 128-135.

Cleland, D.T., P.E Avers, W.H. McNab, M.E. Jensen, R.G. Bailey, T. King, and W.E. Russell. 1997. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. In: Boyce, M.S. and A. Haney eds. Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. pp. 181-200.

Cooper, L., J. Filbert and S. Holaday. 1998. Wisconsin’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality, The 1995-1997 BMP Monitoring Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry. Madison, Wisconsin. 74 pp.

Cooper, T. 2008. Stepping Down the Habitat Goals of the American Woodcock Conservation Plan for Upper Great Lakes Woodcock and Young Forest Initiative. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Management Institute.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2008. Golden-winged warbler atlas project; locating suitable habitat. Available on the world wide web at: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/page.aspx?pid=2679#. Accessed February 19, 2008.

Curnutt, J. 2009. Conservation assessment for northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in the Western Great Lakes Region. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. Milwaukee, WI.

pp. 99.

Demchek, M. C., T. Radke and M. Arik. 2013. Observations of the impact of soil scarification and fire on oak accumulation on shelterwood sites. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 30(2):92-94.

Dessecker, D.R. and D.G. McAuley. 2001. Importance of early successional habitat to ruffed grouse and American woodcock. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(2): 456-465.

Dissmeyer, G.E. and G.R. Foster. 1980. A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forest land. Tech. Pub. SA-TP 11. Atlanta, GA: USDA Forest Service. 40 pp.

Etterson, M., N. Danz, J. Lind, J.M. Hanowski, G.J. Niemi. 2007. Breeding bird monitoring in Great Lakes National forests: 1991-2006. Center for Water and the Environment, Natural Resources Research Institute, Univeristy of Minnesota-Duluth. Technical Report: NRRI/TR-2007/05. 30 pp.

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/page.aspx?pid=2679


139

Frehlich, L.E. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Gilmore, D.W. and B.J. Palik. 2006. A revised manager’s handbook for red pine in the North Central Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-264. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 55 pp.

Global Forest Watch. 2017. Schematic diagram of riparian area. Available on the World Wide Web at: http://globalforestwatch.ca/publications/20040119A_files. Accessed June 30, 2017.

Gower, S.T. and D.E. Ahl. 2006. Carbon and greenhouse gas budgets for Wisconsin forests and its product chains. Final report to Wisconsin focus on energy. Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Madison, WI. 101 pp.

Gregg, L. 1984. Population ecology of woodcock in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Technical Bulletin No. 144. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 51 pp.

Grigal, D.F. 2004. An update of forest soils. A technical paper for a generic environmental impact statement on timber harvesting and forest management in Minnesota. David F. Grigal Forestry/Soils Consulting, Roseville, MN 55113.

Gullion, G.W. 1984. Managing Northern Forests for Wildlife. Publication 13,442, Miscellaneous Journal Series, University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. Published by the Ruffed Grouse Society.

Hanowski, J. 2002. Habitats and landscapes used by breeding golden-winged warblers in western Great Lakes forests. Loon, 74(Fall): 127-133.

Holland, K. 2004. Wisconsin’s forestry best management practices for water quality, the 2003 best management practices monitoring report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry. Madison, Wisconsin. 45 pp.

Hunter, W.C., D.A. Buehler, R.A. Canterbury, J.L. Confer, and P.B. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(2): 440-455.

Janowiak, M. K., L.R. Iverson, D.J. Mladenoff, E. Peters, K.R. Wythers, W. Xi, L. A. Brandt, P.R. Butler, S.D. Handler, P.D. Shannon, C. Swanston, L.R. Parker, A.J. Amman, B. Bogaczyk, C. Handler, E. Lesch, P.B. Reich, S. Matthews, M. Peters, A. Prasad, S. Khanal, F. Liu, T. Bal, D. Bronson, A. Burton, J. Ferris, J. Fosgitt, S. Hagan, E. Johnston, E. Kane, C. Matula, R. O'Connor, D. Higgins, M. St. Pierre, J. Daley, M. Davenport, M. R. Emery, D. Fehringer, C.L. Hoving, G. Johnson, D. Neitzel, M. Notaro, A. Rissman, C. Rittenhouse, and R. Ziel. 2014. Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis for Northern Wisconsin and Western Upper Michigan: A Report from the Northwoods Climate Change Response Framework Project. General Technical Report NRS-136. USDA Forest Service.

Jepsen, S., D.F. Schweitzer, B. Young, N. Sears, M. Ormes, and S.H. Black. 2015. Conservation status and ecology of the monarch butterfly in the United States. Arlington, VA: NatureServe and Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 28 pages.

http://globalforestwatch.ca/publications/20040119A_files

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/mjanowiak

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/liverson

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/lbrandt

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/sdhandler

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/cswanston

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/snmatthews

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/mpeters

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/aprasad

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/ekane

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/people/memery

Black Torch

140

Johnson, D.W. and D.E. Todd. 1987. Nutrient export by leaching and whole-tree harvesting in a loblolly pine and mixed oak forest. Plant and Soil 102: 199-109.

Judd, M.K, D.S. Schwartz, T. Peterson, and K. Elliot. 2017. To Cut or Not to Cut? Managing Your Woodland for Wildlife. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources PUBL-WM-225. Available on the World Wide Web at: http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0244.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2017.

Kafura, D. and N. Kreigel, 2015a. Wisconsin’s forestry BMPs for water quality, 2014 BMP monitoring report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, PUB-FR-554-2015, Madison, Wisconsin, 80 pp.

Kafura, D. and N. Kreigel, 2015b. Wisconsin’s forestry BMPs for water quality, 2013 BMP

Monitoring Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, PUB-FR-555-2015, Madison, Wisconsin, 88 pp.

Katovich, S., D. McDougall and Q. Chavez. 1998. Impact of forest stressors on the tree species of the Nicolet National Forest-Past, present and future. NA-TP-02-98. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.

Kennedy, P.L. and D.E. Anderson. 2001. Research and monitoring plan for northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) in the western Great Lakes region. 83 pp.

Kennedy, P.L. and D.E. Anderson. 2004. Research and monitoring plan for northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) in the western Great Lakes region.

Laporte, M.F., L.C. Duchesne and I.K. Morrison. 2003. Effect of clearcutting, selection cutting, shelterwood cutting and microsites on soil surface CO2 efflux in a tolerant hardwood ecosystem of northern Ontario. Forest Ecology & Management 174:565-575.

Mallik, A.U. and D. Hu. 1997. Soil respiration following site preparation treatments in boreal mixwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 97: 265-275.

Mann, L.K., D.W. Johnson, D.C. West, D.W. Cole, J.W. Hornbeck, C.W. Martin, H. Reikerk, C.T. Smith, W.T. Swank, L.M. Tritton, and D.H. Van Lear. 1988. Effects of whole-tree and stem-only clearcutting on post-harvest hydrologic losses, nutrient capital, and regrowth. Forest Science 34(2):412-428.

Martin, K.J., R.S. Lutz, and M. Worland. 2007. Golden-winged warbler habitat use and abundance in northern Wisconsin. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 119:523-532.

McCaffery, K.R. 1990. Forest openings for deer in northern Wisconsin. From a presentation at the Fragmentation Workshop in Dubuque, IA.

Miller, R.O., R. Heyd, R. Rummer and D. Jerome. 2001. Gentle logging system evaluation (Quantitative Measurement Report). Michigan State University, Upper Peninsula Tree Improvement Center. Escanaba, MI. 14 pp.

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: USDA Forest Service. 76 pp.

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0244.pdf


141

Nave, L., B. Walters, K. Hofmeister, C. Perry, U. Mishra, G. Domke, and C. Swanston. 2017. The Role of Reforestation in Carbon Sequestration. Reforestation Matters: A Science Foundation for Forest Service Decision-making. Portland, OR. In preparation for publication in New Forests.

Nicholls, T. H., A. J. Prey and D. H. Hall. 1984. Red Pine Diseases and Their Management in the Lake States. In: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters (SAF) Region V Technical Conference-Managing Red Pine. SAF Publication 85-02.

Niemi, G.J., N.P. Danz, A. Peterson, P. Dolan-Linne, and M.A. Etterson. 2009. Breeding bird monitoring in western Great Lakes National Forests 1991-2008. NRRI Technical Technical Report NRRI/TR-2009/10, University of Minnesota, Duluth.

Niemi, G.J. 2012. Ups and downs of forest birds. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. 75(441): 27-31.

Nienstaedt, H. and J.C. Zasada. 1990. Silvics of North America Volume 1. Conifers-White Spruce. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 654.

North American Monarch Conservation Plan. 2008. Prepared by the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

Northwest Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2016. The Northwest Wisconsin Region’s 2015-2019 Vision for Prosperity Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2016 Annual Update.

Nyland, R.D. 2002. Silviculture Concepts and Applications. 2nd edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Page-Dumroese, D., A.M. Abbott, and T.M. Rice. 2009. USDA Forest soil disturbance monitoring protocol, volume 1 – rapid assessment. FS-WO-82A. Moscow, ID: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Pastor, J. and J.G. Bockheim. 1984. Distribution and cycling of nutrients in an aspen-mixed-hardwood-spodosol ecosystem in northern Wisconsin. Ecology 65(2):339-353.

Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil erosion in the eastern forest. Journal of Forestry. 74 (10):571-577.

Perala, D. A. 1977. Manager’s handbook for aspen in the North Central States. General Technical Report NC-36. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 30 pp.

Perala, D.A. and Alban, D.H. 1982. Biomass, nutrient distribution and litterfall in Populus, Pinus and Picea stands on two different soils in Minnesota. Plant and Soil 64(2):177-192.

Perala, D.A. and Alm, A.A. 1989. Regenerating paper birch in the Lake States with the shelterwood method. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 6:151-153.

Perala, D.A. and J. Russell. 1983. Aspen. Agricultural Handbook No. 445. In: Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States. Russell M. Burns Technical Compiler. USDA Forest Service. pp. 113-115.

Black Torch

142

Population Viability Analysis. 2001. Population viability assessment in Forest Plan Revision: National Forests of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Internal process description developed by a U.S. Forest Service Region 9 Interdisciplinary Team.

Potter, B.A., G.J. Soulliere, D.N. Ewert, M.G. Knutson, W.E. Thogmartin, J.S. Castrale, and M.J. Roell. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Snelling, MN. 124 pp.

Potts, R., E. Gustafson, S.I. Steward, F.R. Thompson, K. Bergen, D.G. Brown, R. Hammer, V. Radeloff, D. Bengston, J. Sauer and B. Sturtevant. 2004. The changing midwest assessment: land cover, natural resources, and people. General Technical Report NC-250. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 87 pp.

Powers, P.F., D.A. Scott, F.G. Sanchez, R.A. Voldseth, D. Page-Dumroese, J.D. Elioff and D.M. Stone. 2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management 220: 31-50.

Pritchett, W.L. and R.F. Fisher. 1987. Properties and management of forest soils. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 494 pp.

Quinn, B. and V. Lopez. 2006. Internal Report: An assessment of mature northern hardwood interior forest on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Park Falls, WI. 16 pp. plus attachments.

Quinn, B., D. Eklund, M. StPierre, and L.J. Schmidt. 2006. Aspen and deer trends on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest: Internal Report. Park Falls, WI. 17 pp. plus attachments.

Quinn, B. and L.J. Schmidt. 2007. An assessment of regenerating aspen management indicator habitat on the Chequemegon-Nicolet National Forest: Internal Report. Park Falls and Rhinelander, WI. 14 pp.

Raich, J.W. and W.H. Schlesinger. 1992. The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus 44B:81-99.

Roberson, A.M., D.E. Andersen, and P.L. Kennedy. 2003. The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) in the western Great Lakes region: a technical conservation assessment. Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Robbins, S.D. 1991. Wisconsin birdlife: Population and distribution – past and present. The University of Wisconsin Press. 702 pp.

Rosenfield, R.N., J. Bielefeldt, D.R. Trexel, and T.C.J. Doolittle. 1998. Breeding distribution and nest-site habitat of northern goshawks in Wisconsin. The Journal of Raptor Research 32: 189-194.

Roth, A.M., R.W. Rohrbaugh, T. Will, and D.A. Buehler, editors. 2012. Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan. Available at: http://gwwa.org/resources/GWWAPlanDraft129_Chap2.pdf


143

Safford, L. O. 1983. Silvicultural guide for paper birch in the Northeast. Research Paper NE-535. Broomall, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 29 pp.

Safford, L. O., J.C. Bjorkbom, and J.C. Zasada. 1990. Paper Birch, in Silvics of North America, Volume 2, Hardwoods. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654, Washington DC. pp. 158-171.

Sander, I.L. 1990. Silvics of North America Volume 2. Hardwoods-Northern Red Oak. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654, Washington DC.

Sawyer County. 2010. Sawyer county comprehensive plan – January 2010. Available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.sawyercountygov.org/. Accessed March 31, 2017.

Schumacher, P. 2002. Field measurements and calculations to determine the percentage of ground traveled by timber harvesting equipment on the Lakewood-Laona Ranger District. Unpublished memo. 2 pp.

Seamans, M.E. and R.D. Rau. 2016. American woodcock population status, 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 17 pp.

Shy, K. and C. Wagner. 2007. Wisconsin’s forestry best management practices for water quality, 2006 best management practices monitoring report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, PUB-FR-391-2007, Madison, Wisconsin, 35 pp.

Silkworth, D.R. and D. F. Grigal. 1982. Determining and evaluating nutrient losses following whole-tree harvesting of aspen. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 46:626-631.

Slayback, D.A., L.P. Brower, M.I. Ramirez, and L.S. Fink. 2007. Establishing the presence and absence of overwintering colonies of the monarch butterfly in Mexico by the use of small aircraft. American Entomologist. 2007;53:28-39.

Spangenberg, N. E. and R. McLennan. 1983. Effects of silvicultural practices on water quality in northern Wisconsin. Technical Completion Report, Project Number A-095-WIS, University of Wisconsin, Water Resources Center, Madison, WI. 17 pp.

Spurr, S. H. and B. V. Barnes. 1980. Forest Ecology. John Wiley & Sons.

Stone, D.M. and J.D. Elioff. 1998. Soil properties and aspen development five years after compaction and forest floor removal. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 78:51-58.

Stowell, L. 2017. Personal communication between Carrie Nelson, Wildlife Biologist, Great Divide Ranger District and Laine Stowell, WDNR Wildlife Biologist, at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Project Advisory Committee meeting.

Striegl, R.G. and K.P. Wickland. 1998. Effects of a clear-cut harvest on soil respiration in a jack pine – lichen woodland. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 28: 534-539.

Swanston, C., M. Janowiak, L. Iverson, L. Parker, D. Mladenoff, L. Brandt, P. Butler, M. St. Pierre, A. Prasad, S. Matthews, M. Peters, D. Higgins, A. Dorland. 2011. Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and synthesis: a report from the Climate Change Response Framework Project in northern Wisconsin. Gen. Tech. Rep NRS-82. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 142 pp.

http://www.sawyercountygov.org/

Black Torch

144

Tang, J, P.V. Bolsatd, and J.G. Martin. 2008. Soil carbon fluxes and stocks in a Great Lakes forest chronosequence. Global Change Biology. (2009)15, 145-155.

Theisen, M. 2008. Aspen management and its usefulness to goshawk. Unpublished USDA Forest Service document. 2 pages.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2017a. Data USA: Ashland County, Wisconsin. Available on the World Wide Web at: https://www.census.gov/. Accessed on March 31, 2017.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2017b. Data USA: Sawyer County, Wisconsin. Available on the World Wide Web at: https://www.census.gov/. Accessed on March 31, 2017.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701. December 1995. 104 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1998a. End-of-decade monitoring report for the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, 1986-1996. Unpublished. Rhinelander, WI. 76 pp.

USDA Forest Service, 1998b. Soils assessment of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Unpublished. Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, Rhinelander, WI. 17 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Harvest impact monitoring report for the Eagle River-Florence Ranger District. Florence, WI. 4 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Timber sale activity review for the Great Divide Ranger District. Hayward, WI. 8 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Elevation sale soil resource impact monitoring. Lakewood-Laona Ranger District. USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, WI. 2 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2001c. Timber sale activity review for the Washburn Ranger District. Washburn, WI. 13 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Timber sale activity review - Soil impacts evaluation for the Great Divide Ranger District. Hayward, WI. 4 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Timber sale activity review - Soil impacts evaluation for the Lakewood-Laona Ranger District. Lakewood, WI. 4 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Also available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/cnnf/landmanagement/planning. 163 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement. R9-CN-FEIS-0404. USDA Forest Service, Rhinelander, WI.

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices A-P to accompany the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan. Rhinelander, WI.: R9-CN-FEIS-Appendices-0404.

USDA Forest Service. 2004d. Timber sale activity review – Soil impacts evaluation for the Washburn Ranger District. Washburn, WI. 4p

https://www.census.gov/

https://www.census.gov/

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/cnnf/landmanagement/planning


145

USDA Forest Service. 2004e. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Stream Classification System. Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals. Forest Service Manual 2670-2671. Washington, D.C. 23 September 2005.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Soil impacts monitoring on the Great Divide Ranger District. Glidden, WI. 9 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Twentymile Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Soil impacts monitoring on the Lakewood-Laona Ranger District. Lakewood, WI. 21 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Soil impacts monitoring on the Medford-Park Falls Ranger District. Medford, WI. 18 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Soil impacts monitoring on the Eagle River-Florence Ranger District. Eagle River, WI. 8 pp.


USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Soil impacts monitoring on the Washburn Ranger District. Washburn, WI. 3 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals. Forest Service Manual 2600. Washington, D.C. 24 July 2009.


USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Soil resource report for the 2011 Travel Management Project. Rhinelander, WI. 3 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. National Visitor Use Monitoring Data. Rhinelander, WI: Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Early Successional Habitat Improvement Environmental Assessment: Eagle River-Florence Ranger District, Great Divide Ranger District, Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, and Medford-Park Falls Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. 58 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Soil Management, R9 Supplement, Forest Service Manual R9RO 2550-2012-1. USDA Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI. 6 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012c. Fiscal Year 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Rhinelander, WI: USDA Forest Service, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. 59 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. National Best Management Practices Monitoring Summary Report, Program Phase-In Period 2013-2014. FS-1070. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. 37 pp.

Black Torch

146

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Soil impacts monitoring on the Great Divide Ranger District. Glidden, WI. 4 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015c. Summary Report of National BMP Evaluations for Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 2013-2014. Unpublished.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998. National Forestry Manual. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Interior. 2017. Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Available on the World Wide Web at: https://www.doi.gov/pilt. Accessed March 31, 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017a. Learn About Environmental Justice. Available on the World Wide Web at: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice. Accessed on August 18, 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017b. Environmental Data Maps for Wisconsin. Available on the World Wide Web at: https://www.epa.gov/wi/environmental-data-maps-wisconsin. Accessed on August 18, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered Species Act Section 7 concurrence letter. March 22, 2004.

Verry, E. S. 1972. Effect of aspen clearcutting on water yield and quality in Northern Minnesota. In: Watersheds in Transition Symposium Proceedings, American Water Resources Association, Urbana, Ill. pp. 276-284.

Verry, E. S. 1986. Forest harvesting and water: The Lake States experience. Water Resources Bulletin 22(6):1039-1047.

Verry, E. S. 2000. Water flow in soils and streams: Sustaining hydrologic function. In: E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Doloff, Editors: Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States; (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC). 99-124.

Verry, E.S., J. R. Lewis, and K. N. Brooks, 1983. Aspen clearcutting increases snowmelt and storm flow in north central Minnesota. Water Resources Bulletin 19(1):59-67.

Weber, M.G. 1990. Forest soil respiration after cutting and burning in immature aspen ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management. 31:1-14.

Whitaker, J. 1995. Food of the big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus from maternity colonies in Indiana and Illinois. American Midland Naturalist. 134(2): 346-360.

Wildlife Management Institute (WMI). 2008. American Woodcock Conservation Plan: A summary of and recommendations for woodcock conservation in North America. J. Kelly, T.R. Cooper and S. Williamson eds.

WMI. 2009. Best management practices for woodcock and associated bird species: Upper Great Lakes Woodcock and Young Forest Initiative.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Wetland Type Coverage Map.

https://www.doi.gov/pilt

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice

https://www.epa.gov/wi/environmental-data-maps-wisconsin

https://www.epa.gov/wi/environmental-data-maps-wisconsin


147

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1998. Wisconsin’s Deer Management Program: The Issues Involved in Decision-Making. 2nd Edition. PUBL-SS-931-98.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Clam Lake Elk Herd. Written and edited by Andrew C. Pils, Bureau of Wildlife Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Management Workbook for White-tailed Deer, Second Edition. Bureaus of Wildlife Management and Integrated Science Services. Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Wisconsin trout streams. PUB-FH-8062002. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2010a. Wisconsin’s forestry best management practices for water quality: Field manual for loggers, landowners, and land managers. PUB FR-093 2010. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2010b. Wisconsin statewide forest assessment. Division of Forestry. pp. 147-171. Available on the World Wide Web at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ForestPlanning/assessment.html. Accessed March 15, 2017.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2010c. Effectiveness of riparian management zone best management practices for preserving stream health in timber harvest areas. Poster for Examples of Aquatic Research for Programs in Forestry, Watershed, and Fisheries Management.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014a. Forest Economy-Ashland County.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2014b. Forest Economy-Sawyer County.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2016. White-tailed deer population status 2016. J. Stenglein and R. Rolley.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2017. Third year of reintroduction effort provides 31 Kentucky elk to Wisconsin’s northwoods. News Release: July 18, 2017. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2015. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (ES202) Search. Available at: http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/daindustry.aspx?menuselection=da. Accessed on March 31, 2017.

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2016. Wisconsin Long Term Industry Employment Projects 2014-2024.

Wisconsin Department of Tourism, 2017. Available at: http://industry.travelwisconsin.com/research/economic-impact. Accessed on March 31, 2017.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ForestPlanning/assessment.html

http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/daindustry.aspx?menuselection=da

http://industry.travelwisconsin.com/research/economic-impact

Black Torch

148

Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. 2011. Wisconsin’s Changing Climate: Impacts and Adaptation. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 217 pp.

Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts. 2016. Climate Wisconsin 2050 Scenarios of a State of Change: Forestry. November 2016.

Woodford, M.P. 2007. Winter Severity Indices for 2006-2007. Pages 59-63 within Wisconsin Wildlife Surveys, August 2007 (editors J. Kitchell and B. Dhuey). Volume 17, Issue 5. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Wildlife Research Section, Madison, WI. PUB-SS-970.

Zheng, D., J. Chen, J. and J.M. LeMoine. 2005. Influences of land-use change and edges on soil respiration in a managed forest landscape. Forest Ecology and Management. 215:169-182.

united states agriculture black torch forest...

Documents