United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Ottawa National Forest Supervisor’s Office

E6248 US2 Ironwood, MI 49938 (906) 932-1330 (906) 932-0122 (FAX)

1

File Code: 1950 Date: May 5, 2014

Dear Interested Party,

The Ottawa National Forest is proposing to regenerate (clear cut) an average of approximately 1,700 acres of aspen per year for the next 10-20 years, up to 30,000 acres in total, to provide for wildlife habitat and maintain the aspen forest type on the landscape. The USDA Forest Service has prepared this scoping letter in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Ottawa National Forest 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)1, and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This scoping letter is being mailed to you because you have indicated an interest in this type of project or because you have a residence or property near the project area. This letter outlines the purpose and need for the project and describes the Proposed Action. Scoping is a process that is conducted early in a project’s development to seek input from interested parties and to aid the Responsible Official in designing the project and associated environmental analysis. Where is the project located?

The Aspen Management Project area is located on the Bergland, Bessemer, Iron River, Kenton, Ontonagon, and Watersmeet Ranger Districts, in Baraga, Gogebic, Iron, Houghton, and Ontonagon Counties, Michigan. The project area consists of mature and over-mature aspen stands throughout management areas (MAs)2 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a, and 4.2a of the Ottawa National Forest. The MAs in this project area emphasize early successional communities and/or high proportions of aspen/birch forest types. The project area covers approximately 30,000 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands. The attached maps show the potential treatment stands based on best available stand information. Field verification would occur prior to implementation and stands would be selected for treatment based on the current age and condition of the stands. The project area excludes aspen stands located in other MAs (including Wild and Scenic River corridors and Special Interest Areas); areas harvested within the last 30 years; areas recently evaluated in other vegetation management projects; areas with >75% unsuitable soil types; and classified old growth stands.

1 The Forest Plan and its associated documents are located on the Ottawa’s website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ottawa/landmanagement/planning. 2 The Forest Plan divides the Ottawa into several Management areas with differing emphases, similar to zoning. The desired conditions and management direction for these areas are outlined in the Forest Plan Chapter 3.

2

Why is the Forest Service proposing activities in the project area?

Aspen is a shade intolerant, early successional, species and requires disturbances such as clear-cutting, breakup of soil, wind, or fire to become established and maintained on the landscape. Aspen regenerates mostly by root suckering but sometimes can reproduce through seed. Aspen is relatively short-lived and cannot reproduce under shade, so without disturbance aspen stands would be replaced over time by more shade tolerant species, usually within a single generation. Because of these characteristics, even-aged management activities such as clearcutting is the primary silvicultural system for managing aspen. It is used to mimic natural disturbances that created and maintained this species in the past. The purpose of this proposal is to manage the aspen stands identified to meet Forest Plan goals and objectives for vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife-based recreation over the next 10-15 years. The purpose and need for wildlife resources within the project area are to:

maintain and enhance early successional (or young forest) habitats for wildlife species that benefit from them, including, but not limited to, golden-winged warbler, ruffed grouse, woodcock, white-tailed deer, snowshoe hare, and the predators that benefit from these species (Forest Plan page 2-8);

support wildlife-based recreational opportunities not limited to wildlife viewing and hunting; and

progress towards achieving the Forest Plan objective of maintaining 12,000 acres of aspen in the 0-9 year age class (Forest Plan page 2-8).

Currently there are approximately 10,700 acres of aspen in the 0-9 age class, and without continued management, this figure would decrease annually as the stands age. There is an overall need to increase the amount of early-successional habitats across the Forest in the next few years in order to move towards the Forest Plan objective. There is also a need to create at least 1,200 acres of early successional aspen each year to maintain this wildlife objective over the long term. In addition, the purpose of the proposal is also to work towards meeting Forest-wide goals and objectives to provide a diversity of vegetation types and age classes, as well as to work towards achieving the desired vegetation conditions in MAs 1.1a, 3.1a, 4.1a and 4.2a (Forest Plan pages 2-2, 2-6, 3-4, 3-18, 3-23, and3-29). According to the best available information, the percentage of aspen currently meets the Forest Plan desired condition in these MAs. However, it does not meet the desired mix of age classes. Aspen has been decreasing for the past several decades on the Ottawa (and in the region in general) as it matures and transitions to

mixed hardwood and conifer. While the Forest Plan objectives seek to provide a full range of age classes for aspen, current conditions are skewed towards over-mature age classes. Over 42%

Figure 1: Mature aspen with trunk rot. Photo Credit: Brandon Braden

3

of aspen on the Ottawa is over 60 years of age and is at risk of converting or is beginning to convert to other species (2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report). Therefore, there is a need to manage stands over time to create the desired range of age conditions. During development of the Forest Plan in 2006, it was estimated that 109,000 acres of aspen on lands suitable for timber management would be maintained on the Forest over time to support achievement of the goals, objectives, and desired conditions (Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 3-59). It was determined that maintaining 109,000 acres would require an emphasis on regeneration over the next 10-20 years and an estimated average annual regeneration harvest of 20% of suitable acres per decade (or 1,700 acres per year) to create new early successional stands. Currently, aspen harvest averages about 690 acres per year (2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report). Therefore, in order to maintain aspen on the landscape at the desired percentages and move towards achieving Forest Plan desired conditions, there is a need to increase the pace of aspen regeneration over the next several years to compensate for these lower than expected harvest rates, and to maintain an average of 1,700 acres of regeneration per year for the next 10-20 years. To reduce the rate of successional loss of mature aspen within the project area and ensure that suitable aspen acres are not lost, there is a need to prioritize treatment of aging areas and those aspen stands that are converting to non-aspen forest types. To meet this need, it may be necessary to create temporary openings that exceed 40 acres through clearcut harvest. The Forest Plan allows for temporary openings greater than 40 acres on a case-by-case basis after 60 days of public notice and review by the Regional Forester (Forest Plan page 2-23). What is the Forest Service proposing to do?

In order to achieve the purpose and need (to maintain aspen on the landscape, to provide a range of age conditions, and to provide early successional aspen for wildlife habitat), the Ottawa National Forest proposes to regenerate mature aspen stands within the project area using clearcut harvests. The proposal includes the following:

Aspen Regeneration: Regeneration of an average of approximately 1,700 acres per year of mature aspen stands over the next 10-20 years, resulting in a total of up to 30,000 acres within the project area.3

Roads: Maintenance, reconstruction, or temporary road construction, as needed to access stands for harvest. However, there may be a need for some minor road construction to relocate system roads to reduce their impacts to natural resources. In this case all new

3 The proposed action is developed to fully achieve the purpose and need for this project. However, it must be recognized that funding levels and other management restrictions may not allow for full achievement of these goals. The extent of implementation would depend on a variety of factors and would influence the degree to which the proposal can achieve the desired conditions.

Figure 2: Healthy aspen stand in summer. Photo Credit: Dave Steffensen, USFS

4

roads would be objective maintenance level 1 (closed to motor vehicle use) and the old road would be decommissioned. Note that the proposal does not include any changes or adjustments to public motorized vehicle use.

Design Criteria: As part of this proposal, the interdisciplinary team has developed design

criteria to achieve management objectives for other resources and minimize or eliminate any potential effects to natural and cultural resources in the treatment stands (attached). These include habitat enhancement features for wildlife; measures to reduce the spread of invasive species, and a number of protective measures for rare plants and animals, riparian areas, fisheries, soil resources, visual quality objectives, recreation opportunities, and cultural resources.

Prioritization of stands for treatment would be based on a range of conditions identified by the interdisciplinary team such as: stand age and condition, providing a diversity of age conditions across the landscape, accessibility of the stands, potential resource effects, economic viability of the harvest, and relation to other stands proposed for treatment. In addition, the interdisciplinary team evaluated the initial proposed action and objectives to determine how a changing climate may affect the achievement of these objectives. The team also identified adaptation strategies that could be applied to improve effectiveness of the project and to achieve long-term goals for maintaining aspen on the landscape. Although aspen is a species that is moderate to highly vulnerable to climate change in the long term (Janowiak et al. 20144), in the short term, lack of disturbance or management is the greatest influence on aspen decline. Therefore, it is critical to manage these declining stands in the near future. In doing so, this project creates a young cohort of aspen on the sites which we anticipate would have the most success under the range of future climate projections, ensuring the opportunity for long-term maintenance of aspen on the landscape. How is this project different than past proposals on the Ottawa?

Typical vegetation management projects on the Ottawa have included an evaluation of forested conditions for several forest types, including aspen, hardwoods, and conifers within one project area. This approach has not allowed us to address concerns about the health and resiliency of the aspen forest type across the landscape. Therefore, this project focuses on management of the aspen forest type across a larger portion of the Forest. The interdisciplinary team is anticipating that at the landscape scale, stand conditions would vary and require different types of design criteria. This project would be planned with the best available information, which may not be complete and all site-specific information would not be available before a decision would be made. Therefore, closer to the time of implementation, the site-specific stand conditions present would be evaluated through field inventory and survey and the appropriate design criteria would be identified and implemented to ensure that resources such

4 Janowiak, M.K et. al. 2014 (In press). Forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern

Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the Northwoods Climate Change Response Framework. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

5

as wildlife, water, rare plants, and soil would be protected under the variety of expected stand conditions and potential negative effects would be minimized. For example, some design criteria would require field surveys prior to implementation to ensure that rare or sensitive resources found are avoided. Because many of these resources may change over time, completion of surveys and inventories closer to the time of implementation can better ensure the most accurate information is used to implement the project and protect these resources. Due to the long term nature of implementation of the project, the interdisciplinary team would develop an implementation guide, which would include monitoring, to ensure treatments are consistent with the final decision and that treatments are resulting in the intended effects. How can interested individuals submit comments?

Comments would be most useful if received, or postmarked, within 30 days. A comment form is attached. This project is subject to the pre-decisional administrative review process, also known as the objection process (36 CFR 218, Subpart B). Only individuals or entities who submit timely and project-specific written comments for this comment period or during other designated comment periods for this project will establish standing to file an objection at the time a draft Decision is published. Comments must meet the requirements in 36 CFR 218.25 (a)(3) to establish eligibility to object. A summary of those requirements is attached for your reference. Any comments received regarding this proposal are part of the public record and, therefore, are available for public review upon request. Submitting your input or otherwise expressing interest during this 30-day comment period will ensure that you remain on the mailing list for this project. If you wish to reference scientific literature in your comment letter, I request that you send a copy of the reference you have cited and explain why you feel it is pertinent to this project. This will allow me to fully evaluate your comments; if I do not receive a copy of the literature, I may not be able to include it in making my decision. Please address your comments to Susanne Adams, Team Leader, 1209 Rockland Road, Ontonagon, MI 49953. Office hours, for those who wish to hand deliver, are 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays). Alternatively, comments may be submitted by facsimile (or TTY) at 906-852-3618, or by email at comments-eastern-ottawa@fs.fed.us (please put “Comments on the Aspen Management Project” in the subject line). What are the next steps? After this 30-day scoping period ends, the comments received will be evaluated by the interdisciplinary team and Responsible Official to determine whether the design of this project needs to be changed, or if alternatives to the Proposed Action are necessary. An environmental assessment (EA) will then be prepared to disclose information regarding: (1) the results of the public comment period; (2) the expected outcomes and effects of project implementation; (3)

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 1

Aspen Management Project Proposed Design Criteria

(v. 3/31/14) As part of the proposed action, the interdisciplinary team has developed the following design criteria to achieve management objectives for other resources and minimize or eliminate any potential effects to natural and cultural resources in the treatment stands. These include habitat enhancement features for wildlife; measures to reduce the spread of invasive species, and a number of protective measures for rare plants and animals, riparian areas, fisheries, soil resources, visual quality objectives, recreation opportunities, and cultural resources. Design criteria are organized by activity (vegetation management and transportation management) and resources protected. Some apply throughout the treatment areas, but others would be applied under certain conditions (e.g. on steep slopes). A. Vegetation Management (Aspen clearcuts) Project-wide design criteria for vegetation management:

A1) Retention of habitat features for wildlife

a. If present, retain 1 island (0.1-0.5 acre) of mast-producing, hardwood species (oaks,

cherries, birch, etc.) or long-lived conifer pockets for every 10 acres (if greater than 10 acre stand). Where practicable, design treatment units with irregular shapes and edges while retaining clumps of long-lived conifers, oaks, yellow birch and cherry species.

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

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

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

hydrology

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

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

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 2

c. To the extent feasible, where biomass harvest is utilized (on unrestricted soils), retain downed fine woody debris[1] present before harvest except on roads, skid trails, and landings; as well as retaining fine woody debris resulting from incidental breakage of tops and limbs in the general harvest area. Residues should be dispersed throughout the site, rather than accumulated. The overall intent is to maintain soil nutrients and provide for wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

d. To the extent possible, retain existing large woody debris. The large woody debris can be moved to allow for safe operations in the harvest area (i.e. off roads, skid trails and landings). Tops and limbs used to stabilize soil, typically on roads or skid trails, should be left in place following harvest operations. Exceptions include where tops and limbs fall into wetlands, streams and meadows where they are to be removed per timber sale contract direction (language also described in site specific riparian design criteria and State BMPs). Tops and limbs may be used to cross small wet drains but must be removed prior to sale close-out.

Site-Specific/Conditional Design Criteria for Vegetation Management Activities

A3) Fine woody debris retention on sensitive sites:

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

b. Do not remove fine woody debris (i.e. no biomass harvest) on dry, nutrient-poor sandy soils. A list of ELTPs for which this design criteria applies is in the project file.

A4) Protection of aquatic features and habitat:

When aspen management stands are located near streams, wetlands, ponds, and lakes, site-specific riparian area protection would be developed by aquatic resources specialist and applied (see project file, Riparian Matrix). Riparian design criteria would be utilized for all activities within and immediately adjacent to riparian corridors and riparian areas which are typically identified during sale/contract preparation activities. These measures are to ensure that vegetation manipulation within the riparian corridors and riparian areas maintains or enhances riparian function.

a. Wetlands: When wetlands must be crossed for timber management and there are no other reasonable alternatives to crossing, then the following would be implemented: (1) cross at the narrowest point of the wetland and as close to right angles as feasible; (2) maintain cross drainage during and after the project is completed; (3) place easily removable materials such as mats, small pipe bundles, corduroy (log stringers), or other similar cross drainage structures to minimize damage due to fill removal (Blinn, et al, 1998, pp. 21-29); and (4) where there are no road

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

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 3

improvements to permit dry season operation, specify “winter only” use with specific sales administration guidelines regarding when use is and is not appropriate.

b. Cold water and cold transitional trout streams: Where aspen occurs within 400 feet of either the bankfull width or water inundated area on cold and cold-transitional trout streams as identified by the Forest fish biologist, do not regenerate the aspen.

c. Other streams: All streams within the sale areas possessing a defined bed and bank would be designated as a protected stream course in the timber sale contract.

d. Incised valleys: Incised valleys associated with perennial streams (LTA 20) would have wider riparian area and riparian corridor designations in order to protect the steep valley slopes from mass wasting. Specific designations would be included in the site-specific riparian area protections.

e. Where aquatic features to be protected are identifiable on maps they would be included on timber sale maps for timber contract protection. Small unmapped wetlands, ponds, seasonal ponds, lakes, rivers or drainways identified during sale preparation activities may be excluded from the sale area by paint. The method used would be at the discretion of sale preparation personnel. This measure is to protect soil quality/productivity and water quality.

A5) Protection of sensitive soil: Design features are applicable to ground disturbing activities such as commercial timber harvest and non-commercial vegetation treatments. Where applicable to a timber sale contract, the following design features are in addition to timber sale contract provisions for protection of soil and water quality. Procedures include “Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Practices on Forest Land” issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

a. Slopes greater than 35%:

i. Generally, sale area layout activities would exclude all mapped slopes greater than 35%.

ii. Equipment operations would be prohibited on all slopes greater than 35% except in special situations where equipment operations on a very short slope would greatly facilitate timber sale operations and/or reduce impacts to soils in other areas. These skid trails would be approved by sale administration personnel or in consultation with a soil scientist on a case by case basis.

b. Slopes between 18%-35%:

i. Equipment operations on slopes between 18% - 35% will be evaluated on a case by case basis by Forest Service personnel. If necessary, sale area layout may exclude these slopes within cutting units or areas would not be marked to avoid soil resource damage.

c. For timber harvest, the season of operation would follow Soil Scientist guidelines for the ELTP being operated on (see Project File). Typically these guidelines would be used to develop operating restrictions, rather than referring to normal operating seasons. Operation outside of these periods must be agreed to under the provisions of the contract.

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 4

d. To address soil productivity concerns within stands located on droughty or sandy upland sites, (see project file for a map and list of the droughty and sandy upland map units) maintain even slash distribution throughout the stand, as specified in the timber sale contract. Retaining a few small brush piles for wildlife purposes would be acceptable.

e. Two Ecological Classification System (ECS) study plot center points are located in the project area (see Project file for stand numbers). Protection measures include prohibiting all harvest and machinery travel within a 50 foot radius of the plot center and protecting the three marked bearing trees.

B. Transportation Management Activities (road maintenance, reconstruction, relocation and temporary road construction) Project-wide design criteria for transportation management:

B1) Installation of closure devices to prevent unauthorized motorized use:

a. Selection of a road closure device and closure procedures would follow the road access management guidelines for local roads on the Ottawa (see project file). Road closures can be conducted using berms or gates or transplanting trees and shrubs from nearby or adjacent sites into the road surface area. This is to discourage unauthorized use and subsequent aquatic and soil resource impacts.

b. Wherever practical, a closure device should be placed at the entrance of a network of roads rather than closing each individual segment.

B2) Reducing impacts to visuals, soil and water from log landings:

a. Where possible, log landings would be located a minimum of 100 feet from collector roads, unless specified otherwise to meet visual quality objectives.

b. For the protection of soils and water bodies, when possible, locate landings on well to moderately-well drained uplands. Landings would be placed in areas where slope would direct sediment away from water bodies and would not be located within riparian corridors where possible. Landings would be located at least 150 feet from seasonal ponds and they would be located, designed, and managed such that they do not contribute sediment to seasonal ponds.

c. Logging debris (chips, bark, etc.) at landings will be reduced to a thickness that will not severely restrict vegetative growth on the area as determined by sale administration personnel.

B3) Temporary and permanent road construction (protection for soil and water and prevention of non-native invasive plants):

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 5

a. Temporary roads used during a timber sale would be blocked following harvest completion in such a manner as to inhibit all forms of motorized use, following design criteria B1 above.

b. Temporary roads used during a timber sale would be located to avoid riparian corridors where possible to avoid sedimentation and impacts on riparian function.

c. As necessary to attain stabilization of roadbed and fill slopes of temporary roads, the remaining roadbed would be returned to the original landscape contour and all crossing structures would be removed. Drainage structures across streams and wetlands and all fills associated with drainages and wetlands would be removed to permit normal maximum water flows which would include some floodplain area and normal wetland function.

d. Permanent system roads may only be constructed under the following conditions:

i. Where existing roads are resulting in resource impacts due to poor location, new roads may be constructed nearby to relocate a system road in a more appropriate site. In this case, the existing system road would be decommissioned and closed.

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

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

e. Where permanent road crossing structures are proposed for installation (new or replacement) on fish bearing streams, design them to allow passage of aquatic organisms (Forest Plan pg. 2-3 and 2-34).

f. Retain native vegetation in and around project activity to the maximum extent possible consistent with project objectives (Forest Plan p. 2-13). Any permanent construction roads should be developed to retain the most shade possible, consistent with contract clauses, to lower the potential for NNIP infestations.

B4) Revegetation of disturbed areas:

a. Freshly disturbed soil areas, such as landings and un-surfaced road beds may be left to re-vegetate naturally, if non-native invasive plant colonization potential and erosion potential are low. If erosion potential is high, or the area is prone to colonization by non-native species, seed the area to encourage re-vegetation. Seed would be a local native seed mix, or a non-native, non-persistent seed mix appropriate to the site, and approved by a Forest botanist.

b. Where the risk of erosion exists on low-use OML 1-2 roads, or on decommissioned roads within the project area, seeding may also be done as a part of a post-sale activity,. Seed would be a Forest Service approved local, native plant mix, whenever feasible and available. If unavailable, a non-invasive seed mix approved by the Forest botanist would be used.

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 6

B5) Place skid trails to prevent sedimentation and impacts to riparian function:

a. Designated skid trails would direct activities outside of riparian corridors as quickly as possible, would minimize the number of skid trails within riparian corridors, and would avoid steep slopes (D) and greater)) within the riparian corridors where possible to avoid sedimentation and impacts on riparian function.

C. Design Criteria Applicable for all activities C1) Protective measures for raptors (Forest Plan page 2-30)

a. No harvest zone of 300' radius around active red-shouldered hawk nests: Timing is

yearround. Active is defined as the red-shouldered hawk pair present in current year or immediately previous year.

b. Approximately 30-acre nest protection area where no disturbance-causing activities would be allowed between March 16 to Sept. 01 for red-shouldered hawks. Disturbance-causing activities include layout/tree marking, road work, logging, hauling, opening maintenance, tree planting and TSI efforts. Nests would be verified by a wildlife biologist or wildlife technician. If a known nesting area has been inactive for two years, or more, prior to treatment, then a wildlife biologist and district ranger may remove or modify some or all of the buffers. Modifications or additional protection measures could be made on a case-by-case basis by the wildlife biologist and district ranger, including evaluation of existing road/trail use within the area.

c. Approximately 30-acre nest protection area where no disturbance-causing activities

would be allowed between March 16 to August 01 for goshawks. Disturbance-causing activities include layout/tree marking, road work, logging, hauling, opening maintenance, tree planting and TSI efforts. Nests would be verified by a wildlife biologist or wildlife technician. If a known nesting area is inactive for the current nesting season, then a wildlife biologist and district ranger may remove or modify some or all of the buffers. Modifications or additional protection measures could be made on a case-by-basis by the wildlife biologist and district ranger, including evaluation of existing road/trail use within the area.

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

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

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

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

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 7

c. Unless they are a safety concern, existing tree tip-ups should not be straightened (righted) by operators, in order to retain habitat for certain species of concern, low competition germination sites, and contribute to pit and mound microtopography (Forest Plan p. 2-28).

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

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

C3) Protection of Cultural Resources

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

b. All archaeological and historic sites that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or whose NRHP status remains unevaluated will not be disturbed. Sites will be avoided by all project activity. The area protected will include a buffer zone extending up to 30 meters (100’) beyond the site boundary, within which no vegetation removal or other activities will be permitted.

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

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

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

f. If Ottawa NF high or medium priority non-native invasive plants (see ONF NNIP List in project file; Forest Plan p. 2-12)) are previously documented or located in surveys, treatment plans or measures to avoid propagule spread (such as scheduling of harvests to leave infested stands until last) may be recommended (Forest Plan 2-13). The Responsible Official would make the final decision on prevention and control measures.

g. Consistent with contract clause, operators shall use reasonable measures to make sure each piece of equipment that will work off a paved or level 3 (collector) road is visually free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter or other debris that could contain or hold seed, eggs or other propagules (pieces that could start a new infestation) prior to arriving at the Forest. Reasonable measures shall not require the disassembly of equipment components or use of any specialized inspection tools. Equipment shall be considered free of soil, seeds, and other such debris when a visual inspection does not disclose such material. Consistent with contract clause, operators must advise the Forest Service of measures taken to clean equipment and arrange for Forest Service inspection prior to such equipment being placed in service. The Forest Service shall have two days, excluding weekends and federal holidays, to inspect equipment after it has been made available for inspection. After inspection, or after two days, activities may proceed.

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 8

h. Freshly disturbed soil areas, such as landings, unsurfaced road beds, and open areas where culverts are removed, may be left to revegetate naturally if non-native invasive plant colonization potential and erosion potential are low. If erosion potential is high, or the area is prone to colonization by non-native species, seed the area to encourage revegetation. Seed should be a local native seed mix, or a non-native, non-persistent seed mix appropriate to the site (Forest Plan p. 2-13) and approved by a Forest botanist.

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

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

C5) Protection of Recreation Opportunities

a. Where treatments stands are located within developed trails or recreation sites, a

recreation specialist would be contacted to help design the sale to reduce impacts. The following measures would be implemented to protect the trails and developed recreational sites, including ensuring the continued safe use of existing trail systems.

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

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

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

iv. If harvest activities are required by prescription to operate during the snowmobile season designated by the State of Michigan (typically December 1 to March 31), temporary reroutes of the snowmobile trails will be required. Coordination between timber and recreation will occur before the snowmobile season to allow time for the responsible clubs to designate alternative routes with the MDNR, or complete clearing of the route to mitigate safety concerns. Hauling equipment or logs will be limited to weekdays only during winter harvest activities to reduce user conflict between snowmobilers and logging trucks where dual use exists.

b. Any harvest operations being planned along or adjacent to the North Country hiking Trail shall have all remaining limbs and/or tops removed at least 25 back from the center of the trail. All limbs and/or tops remaining from 25 feet out to 50 feet from the trail center shall be lopped and scattered to a height not exceeding 24 inches above the ground surface.

c. Where practical, along collector roads, closure devices on system roads should have a setback to allow for dispersed camping sites or parking areas. The closure device (berm or gate) should be placed to allow room for dispersed camping sites and/or parking. Additional site hardening may occur if needed at these sites.

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 9

C6) Protection Visual Quality Objectives

There are five classes of Visual Quality Objectives in the Forest Service Visual Management System. Each class allows a different degree of acceptable alteration to the existing landscape. Since the Ottawa Forest Plan considers the Visual Management System and Visual Quality Objectives Current and Valid, Forest Service Visual Management system and Visual Quality Objectives defined in the Ottawa Forest Plan will be adhered to in conducting this Aspen Management Project (Forest Plan Appendix G).

a. Modification and Maximum Modification VQOs: Since the majority of the project areas fall into the visual quality objective classes of “Modification” and “Maximum Modification” the management activity may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape; however, the outcome of the activity should visually blend in to the environment by the casual observer similar to what one would observe from alterations caused by natural occurrences. Activities such as structures, roads, slash and root wads must remain visually subordinate to the area composition when viewed by the general public.

b. Retention and Partial Retention VQOs: Any harvest operations that are located within retention or partial retention designated areas are more restrictive on allowable visual disturbance. In these areas the following criteria should try to be incorporated:

i. In Retention, Partial Retention, and Modification stands adjacent to well-traveled County Roads and Forest Roads OML 3 and 4 the following criteria shall apply:

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Design Criteria Aspen Management Project Page 10

c. Clearcuts greater than 40 acres: All clear cut areas proposed up to and larger than 40 acres in size located in sensitivity Level 1 or level 2 shall (areas seen from primary travel routes, use areas, and major water bodies where up to one fourth of the Ottawa visitors may have a major concern for the scenic qualities) upon completion remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape in order to maintain scenic integrity. This can be completed using a variety of layout and harvesting methods that blend with the natural existing areas form, line, color or texture. Examples could include paralleling harvest edges with existing contours, feathering harvest areas and roads and avoid creation of unnatural hard straight lines and shapes on the landscape.