Table of Contents. Abstract i Summary S- 1 - Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1

Similar documents
FORESTED VEGETATION. forests by restoring forests at lower. Prevent invasive plants from establishing after disturbances

Revising the Nantahala and Pisgah Land Management Plan Preliminary Need to Change the Existing Land Management Plan

FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT FOR SAGEHEN ALLOTMENT #0208

Wausau and Marathon County Parks, Recreation, and Forestry Department Forestry Division 2015 Work Plan

ANGORA FIRE RESTORATION PROJECT

18 voting members 44 stakeholders 114 list. Senators: Wyden & Merkley Representative DeFazio

Nevada Pinyon-Juniper Partnership Proposed Demonstration Area A Brief Introduction. Presented by Jeremy Drew Project Manager Resource Concepts, Inc.

SEC PURPOSE. SEC DEFINITIONS. SEC COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM.

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Notices

Roaring Fork Valley Restoration Strategy

How To Know If A Forest Service And Bmd Plan Postfire Rehabilitation And Restoration

2014 Feather River Post-Fire Restoration Reforestation

How To Know What You Want To Know

Colorado Natural Heritage Program

Decision Memo. Restore Act Land Acquisition

Managing Fire Dependent Wildlife Habitat without Fire. A Land Management Practice That: 100 Years of Fire Suppression in Ponderosa pine ecosystems

May 9, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Power Fire Restoration Project (CEQ# )

WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT 1

Response Levels and Wildland Fire Decision Support System Content Outline

Using an All lands Framework for Conservation of Ecosystem Services

Integrating Landscape Restoration and CWPP

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

Past and Current Research on Natural Resource Issues in the Blue Mountains

Fayette County Appraisal District

Angora Fire Restoration Activities June 24, Presented by: Judy Clot Forest Health Enhancement Program

Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A: Contractor Survey

September 25, Dear Concerned Citizen:

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Waldo Canyon Fire. Mark Shea Watershed Planning Supervisor August 23, 2012

PART I. NOMINATOR PART II. SHORT ANSWERS

King Fire Restoration Project, Eldorado National Forest, Placer and El Dorado Counties, Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

Environmental Assessment for Travel Management on the Magdalena Ranger District

Forestry Merit Badge Workbook

Programs and approximate percentage of workload required by this position are as follows:

Statement Rick D. Cables Rocky Mountain Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LOMPOC AREA

Consulting Foresters for Private Landowners

National Retardant NEPA USFWS Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) Tracking Sheet

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

MULTI-AGENCY COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN CHECKLIST 1

The Greater Sage-Grouse:

Smoke Management Plan

American Forest Foundation (AFF) Standards of Sustainability for Forest Certification

Chapter 1b - Priority Map Development

Northern Long-eared Bat - Interim Final 4(d) Rule Questions and Answers

Angeles National Forest Fiscal Year 2012

HFQLG Project Evaluation Form

The Middle Fork of the American River Restoration Project Tahoe National Forest

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT HABITAT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT FUNDING

Myre-Big Island State Park

Categorical Exclusion Documentation Format for Actions Other Than Hazardous Fuels and Fire Rehabilitation Actions

DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN FOR MCGIRTS CREEK PARK FOR

Wilderness Management and Environmentally Manageable Wildlife Refuge Facilities in Kansas

Forest-Related Job Announcements (listed alphabetically by job title)

Environmental Law Primer. Adapted from Vermont Law School s Environmental Law Primer for Journalists

Revision of Land and Resource Management Plan for the Santa Fe National Forest;

APPLICATION FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FOREST LAND

Appendix A: Land Protection Plan

2002 (Revised 09/2009)

Biodiversity Concepts

SILVICULTURE OF THE COLORADO FRONT RANGE LANDSCAPE RESTORATION INITIATIVE

Weed Survey and Mapping

1.7.0 Floodplain Modification Criteria

Sec. 22a-1a page 1 (4-97)

Chapter 5. Managing Regenerating and Young Forest Habitat

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Environmental Assessment

Collaborative Partnerships and Landscape-Scale Fire Restoration on the Bayou Ranger District in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas, USA

Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National Forests

What You Should Know: Choosing a Consulting Forester

North Carolina s Forestry Present-Use Valuation (PUV) Property Tax Program

Using Aerial Photography to Measure Habitat Changes. Method

SCS Interim Standard For Natural Forest and Plantation Forest Management Certification in Australia

Untreated (left) and treated (right) Sierra Nevada forests in Amador County, CA. Photos: Sierra Nevada Conservancy

PART I DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT STATE OF HAWAII Class Specifications for the

Forest Service Must Acknowledge Cumulative Effects of 4FRI and Grazing

Addendum D. Nomination of Moody Wash ACEC

USDA Forest Service Proposed Soil and Water Restoration Categorical Exclusions Frequently Asked Questions Table of Contents

Fuels Treatments Reduce Wildfire Suppression Cost Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge May 2012

The Rising Cost of Fire Operations: Effects on the Forest Service s Non-Fire Work

Management Plan Template For Conservation Easements Held by CPW

2009 Station Fire. Past. Present. Future. Successes and Challenges in Postfire Recovery

File Code: Date: June 24, 2013 Subject: Mulberry River Watershed Improvement and Access Project

Department of the Interior. Departmental Manual

Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Plan

Ranger Report About Deforestation of the Rainforest

Third-Party Forest Certification in British Columbia

USDA Farm Program Agencies

COMPARTMENT REVIEW RECORD OF CHANGES AND DECISIONS. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Atlanta Management Unit Year-of-Entry

Integration of Forestry & Wildlife Management

CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I. TYPE AND PURPOSE OF ACTION

FWRC. Cooperators: Delta Wildlife, Inc. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University

GENERAL NPDES PERMIT FOR PESTICIDE APPLICATION POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES. Leslie Lowry Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fire Management needs assessment and priority actions

Forest Resources of the Gila National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests

Potential Economic Benefits to Santa Ana River Watershed of Forest Restoration. Barbara Wyse, Senior Economist

How To Manage A Forest

LIVING LANDS Helping Land Trusts Conserve Biodiversity

Transcription:

Table of Contents Abstract i Summary S- 1 - Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 1 Document Structure 1 Background 1 Management Direction 3 Forest Service Direction on Management of Fire in Wilderness 4 Purpose and Need for Action 5 Proposed Action 6 Decision Framework 7 Public Involvement 7 Issues 8 Chapter 2. Alternatives 11 Introduction 11 Alternatives Considered in Detail 11 Alternative 1 No Action 11 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 11 Alternative 3 17 Alternative 4 23 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 27 Monitoring 29 Comparison of Alternatives 29 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 39 Introduction 39 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 39 Wildlife Habitat 40 Existing Conditions 40 Environmental Consequences 46 Alternative 1 No Action 47 Alternative 2 52 Alternative 3 60 Alternative 4 67 Wildlife 76 Focus Species 77 Management Indicator Species (MIS) 112 Species of Local Concern (SOLC) 124 Threatened, Endangered and R2 Sensitive Species 161 ii

Raptors 163 Migratory Birds 164 Silviculture 166 Alternative 1 No Action 166 Common to All Alternatives 166 Alternative 2 166 Alternative 3 166 Alternative 4 167 Black Elk Wilderness 168 Existing Condition 168 Environmental Consequences 170 Fire and Fuels 174 Existing Conditions 174 Environmental Consequences 183 Soils and Hydrology 201 Soils 201 Hydrology 208 Scenery 218 Existing Conditions 218 Environmental Consequences 219 Recreation 228 Existing Conditions 228 Environmental Consequences 231 Range, Noxious Weeds and Botany 235 Existing Condition 235 Environmental Consequences 238 Heritage Resources 249 Existing Conditions 249 Environmental Consequences 251 Transportation 252 Existing Condition 252 Environmental Consequences 255 Economics 258 Financial and Economic Efficiency 258 Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity 260 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 260 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 261 Cumulative Effects 261 Other Required Disclosures 261 Chapter 4. List of Preparers and Distribution of the DEIS 263 Preparers 263 Distribution of this DEIS 266 iii

Chapter 5. Literature Cited, Glossary, Index 271 Literature Cited 271 Glossary 286 Index 302 Table of Tables TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT AREAS ACREAGE AND PERCENT WITHIN THE NORBECK WILDLIFE PRESERVE PROJECT AREA 3 TABLE 2. SITES PROPOSED FOR MECHANICAL TREATMENT WHERE WHOLE TREE YARDING IS PREFERRED IN ALTERNATIVE 2 17 TABLE 3. SITES PROPOSED FOR MECHANICAL TREATMENT WHERE WHOLE TREE YARDING IS PREFERRED IN ALTERNATIVE 3 22 TABLE 4. ACRES OF HABITAT OBJECTIVES PROPOSED FOR ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH MECHANICAL (MECH) AND PRESCRIBED BURNING (RX BURN) TREATMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE 30 TABLE 5. ACRES OF HABITAT OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED WITH PRESCRIBED BURNING CONCURRENT OR SEPARATE FROM MECHANICAL TREATMENTS 30 TABLE 6. TYPES OF TREATMENTS PROPOSED FOR EACH HABITAT OBJECTIVE 31 TABLE 7. ACRES OF MECHANICAL AND PRESCRIBED BURNING TREATMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE 31 TABLE 8. EFFECTS TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES BY ALTERNATIVE 33 TABLE 9. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS 37 TABLE 10. EXPECTED TIMBER VOLUMES BY ALTERNATIVE 37 TABLE 11. COVER TYPES OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA (26,727 ACRES) _ 41 TABLE 12. EXISTING ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 41 TABLE 13. EXISTING PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 42 TABLE 14. EXISTING WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 43 TABLE 15. REGION 2 STRUCTURAL STAGES AND CORRESPONDING CONIFER SUCCESSIONAL STAGE 46 TABLE 16. ACRES AND PERCENTAGE OF CONIFER SUCCESSIONAL STAGES IN MANAGEMENT AREA 5.4A 46 TABLE 17. COMPARISON OF COVER TYPES FOR EXISTING CONDITION AND ALTERNATIVE 1AT YEAR 2020 47 TABLE 18. ALTERNATIVE 1 ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES IN YEAR 2020 48 TABLE 19. COMPARISON OF PONDEROSA PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION AND ALTERNATIVE 1PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020 49 TABLE 20. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS 50 TABLE21. ALTERNATIVE 1 PROJECTED WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA IN YEAR 2020 51 TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF COVER TYPES FOR EXISTING CONDITION, NO ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2 AT YEAR 2020 53 TABLE 23. ALTERNATIVE 2 ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES IN YEAR 2020 54 TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF PONDEROSA PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION, ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION, AND ALTERNATIVE 2, PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020. 56 TABLE 25. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS 57 TABLE 26. ALTERNATIVE 2 PROJECTED WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES, PROJECT AREA IN YEAR 2020 57 TABLE 27. COMPARISON OF COVER TYPES FOR EXISTING CONDITION, NO ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2 AND 3 AT YEAR 2020 60 TABLE 28. ALTERNATIVE 3 ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES IN YEAR 2020: 62 iv

TABLE 29. COMPARISON OF PONDEROSA PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION, ALTERNATIVE 1 NO ACTION, AND ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3, PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020. 63 TABLE 30. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS 64 TABLE 31. ALTERNATIVE 3 PROJECTED WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA AT YEAR 2020 64 TABLE 32. COMPARISON OF COVER TYPES FOR EXISTING CONDITION AND ALL ALTERNATIVES AT YEAR 2020 67 TABLE 33. ALTERNATIVE 4 ASPEN STRUCTURAL STAGES IN YEAR 2020 68 TABLE 34. COMPARISON OF PONDEROSA PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITION, AND ALL ALTERNATIVES, PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020 68 TABLE 35. EXISTING AND PROJECTED PINE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 4 AT YEAR 2020; FOR AREAS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE BLACK ELK WILDERNESS 69 TABLE 36. PROJECTED WHITE SPRUCE STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA IN YEAR 2020: 69 TABLE 37. FOCUS SPECIES WITHIN THE NORBECK WILDLIFE PRESERVE (GRIEBEL ET AL. 2007) 77 TABLE 38. HABITAT OBJECTIVES AND FOCUS SPECIES WHICH WOULD BENEFIT 78 TABLE 39. ACRES OF MECHANICAL AND BURNING TREATMENTS FOR HABITAT OBJECTIVES BY ALTERNATIVE 79 TABLE 40. CONIFER STRUCTURAL STAGES, IN PONDEROSA PINE, AT YEAR 2020 UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1 ( NO ACTION ) 81 TABLE 41. CONIFER STRUCTURAL STAGES, IN PONDEROSA PINE, AT YEAR 2020 UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2 82 TABLE 42. CONIFER STRUCTURAL STAGES, IN PONDEROSA PINE, AT YEAR 2020 UNDER ALTERNATIVE 3 82 TABLE 43. CONIFER STRUCTURAL STAGES IN PONDEROSA PINE AT YEAR 2020 UNDER ALTERNATIVE 4 82 TABLE 44. MIS LIST AND RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION IN PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSIS 113 TABLE 45. SOLC LIST AND RATIONALE FOR PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSIS 124 TABLE 46. R2 SENSITIVE SPECIES ANALYZED IN THE NORBECK WILDLIFE PROJECT 161 TABLE 47. ACRES OF PONDEROSA PINE MECHANICALLY TREATED TO A LOW OR MEDIUM INSECT RATING BY ALTERNATIVE 168 TABLE 48. EXPECTED TIMBER VOLUMES BY ALTERNATIVE 168 TABLE 49. FIRE REGIMES IN THE BLACK HILLS (USDA FOREST SERVICE, 2005) 175 TABLE 50. FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS (FRCC) RATING DESCRIPTIONS (HANN ET AL., 2003) 176 TABLE 51. FIRE HISTORY IN NORBECK FROM 1950 TO 2008 177 TABLE 52. NORBECK PROJECT LARGE FIRE HISTORY 178 TABLE 53. BLACK ELK WILDERNESS LARGE FIRE HISTORY 178 TABLE 54. EXISTING FIRE HAZARD RATINGS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA - 2009 182 TABLE 55. FIRE HISTOGRAM SUMMARY 199 TABLE 56. SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 201 TABLE 57. EROSION HAZARD RATINGS OF MAJOR SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 202 TABLE 58. ACRES OF MECHANICAL TREATMENT ON SOILS SUBJECT TO COMPACTION, BY ALTERNATIVE 206 TABLE 59. HUC 6 WATERSHEDS 208 TABLE 60. HUC 7 WATERSHEDS 209 TABLE 61. WATERSHED CONDITION 209 TABLE 62. WATERSHED CONDITION 210 TABLE 63. BENEFICIAL USES 211 TABLE 64. DEVELOPED RECREATION: CAMPGROUND SITE STANDARDS 228 TABLE 65. DEVELOPED RECREATION: DAY USE SITE STANDARDS 229 TABLE 66. DEVELOPED RECREATION: TRAILHEAD SITE STANDARDS 229 TABLE 67. DEVELOPED RECREATION: RESIDENCE TRACTS 230 TABLE 68. TRAILS IN THE NORBECK WILDLIFE PROJECT AREA 230 TABLE 69. TRAIL USE 232 TABLE 70. HISTORICAL GRAZING USE BY ALLOTMENT 236 TABLE 70. HABITAT PREFERENCES OF FOUR R2 SENSITIVE AND SIX BLACK HILLS SOLC PLANTS 242 TABLE 71. ROAD JURISDICTION FOR ALL ROADS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 252 TABLE 72. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADS IN THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 253 v

TABLE 73. ROAD MANAGEMENT - SYSTEM ROADS MILES FOR THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 253 TABLE 74. ROAD MANAGEMENT CLOSED MOTORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED ROADS MILES FOR THE NORBECK PROJECT AREA 254 TABLE 75. TRAIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRAIL MILES THAT MAY BE USED FOR HAULING 254 TABLE 76. ALTERNATIVE 2 MILES 256 TABLE 77. ALTERNATIVE 3 MILES 256 TABLE 78. ALTERNATIVE 4 MILES 257 TABLE 79. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS BY ALTERNATIVE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 259 Table of Figures FIGURE 1. TYPICAL STAND STRUCTURE FOR EACH FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS (FRCC) ------------------------------ 176 FIGURE 2. FIRE HISTORY OCCURRENCE FROM 1950 TO 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 178 FIGURE 3. NORBECK COMMUNITIES AT RISK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 180 FIGURE 4. EXITING FIRE HAZARD RATING ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 182 FIGURE 5. ALTERNATIVE 1 FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 185 FIGURE 6. ALTERNATIVE 2 FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 187 FIGURE 7. ALTERNATIVE 2 HABITAT OBJECTIVES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 188 FIGURE 8. ALTERNATIVE 3, NON-WILDERNESS ONLY, FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM ---------------------------------------- 190 FIGURE 9. ALTERNATIVE 3 HABITAT OBJECTIVES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 191 FIGURE 10. ALTERNATIVE 3, WILDERNESS ONLY, FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM---------------------------------------------- 192 FIGURE 11. ALTERNATIVE 3 FINAL FIRE SIZE HISTOGRAM -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 194 FIGURE 12. ALTERNATIVE 4 HABITAT OBJECTIVES. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 196 FIGURE 13. FIRE HAZARD IMPROVEMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 199 FIGURE 14. FSPRO FIRE SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 200 FIGURE 15. PRESCRIBED BURNING HABITAT OBJECTIVE COMPARISON -------------------------------------------------------- 200 FIGURE 16. GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE PROJECT AREA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 236 Appendices Appendix A Vicinity Map and Treatment Activities Maps Appendix B Design Criteria Appendix C Monitoring Plan Appendix D Treatments by site Appendix E Findings: Silviculture Appendix F Past, Present, Future Activities Appendix G Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation Appendix H Post-Sale Projects vi