environmental assessment checklistdnrc.mt.gov/public-interest/environmental-docs/...jun 29, 2017...

Morrill Hardwood Slashing 2017 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

1

Environmental Assessment Checklist

Project Name: Morrill Hardwood Slashing 2017 Proposed Implementation Date: June 2017 Proponent: Stillwater Unit, Northwest Land Office, Montana DNRC County: Flathead

Type and Purpose of Action

Description of Proposed Action: The Stillwater Unit of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is proposing the Morrill Hardwood Slashing project. The project is located along Lower Whitefish Road (refer to Attachments A-1 Vicinity Map and A-2 Project Map) and includes the following sections:

Beneficiary Legal

Description

Total Acres

Treated Acres

Common Schools Public Buildings MSU 2nd Grant MSU Morrill S30,32 T33N R22W 62.7 62.7 Eastern College-MSU/Western College-U of M Montana Tech University of Montana School for the Deaf and Blind Pine Hills School Veterans Home Public Land Trust Acquired Land

Objectives of the project include:

• Reduce the amount of hardwood trees competing with crop trees to improve growth and vigor of crop trees.


2

Proposed activities include:

Action Quantity Proposed Forest Improvement Treatment # Acres Hardwood Slashing 62.7

Duration of Activities: One Week

Implementation Period: Summer 2017 The lands involved in this proposed project are held in trust by the State of Montana. (Enabling Act of February 22, 1889; 1972 Montana Constitution, Article X, Section 11). The Board of Land Commissioners and the DNRC are required by law to administer these trust lands to produce the largest measure of reasonable and legitimate return over the long run for the beneficiary institutions (Section 77-1-202, MCA). The DNRC would manage lands involved in this project in accordance with: The State Forest Land Management Plan (DNRC 1996), Administrative Rules for Forest Management (ARM 36.11.401 through 471), The Montana DNRC Forested State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)

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

Project Development

SCOPING: Initial reconnaissance and development of the project was started in late winter 2015. Due to the small scale of this project, no formal scoping process took place. A site visit was made by the DNRC wildlife biologist to assess potential impacts to wildlife habitat. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM (ID):

• Project Leader: Les Thomas, Forester, Stillwater Unit • Decision Maker: Mike McMahon, Forest Mgmt. Supv., Stillwater Unit • Wildlife Biologist: Leah Breidinger, NWLO • Hydrologist: Marc Vessar, NWLO

Internal issues and concerns were incorporated into project planning and design and will be implemented in associated contracts. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION, LIST OF PERMITS NEEDED:

• United States Fish & Wildlife Service- DNRC is managing the habitats of threatened and endangered species on this project by implementing the Montana DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP and the associated Incidental Take Permit that was issued by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) in February of 2012 under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. The HCP identifies specific conservation strategies for managing the habitats of grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and three fish species: bull trout,


3

westslope cutthroat trout, and Columbia redband trout. This project complies with the HCP. The HCP can be found at www.dnrc.mt.gov/HCP.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No-Action Alternative: No hardwood slashing would occur. Action Alternative: Reduce competition of hardwood tree species to improve growth and vigor of crop trees. This will be accomplished by slashing, or cutting, hardwood tree species within five feet of any crop tree species that is four feet tall or greater.

Impacts on the Physical Environment

Evaluation of the impacts on the No-Action and Action Alternatives including direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts on the physical environment. VEGETATION: Vegetation Existing Conditions: In Units 1 and 2, the current cover type is mixed conifer, and the desired future condition is western white pine. Unit 3 is western white pine cover type, which is the desired future condition. Both units 1 and 2 have multi-storied stand structures. Unit 1 has scattered trees as well as clumps of trees in the overstory, with regeneration species and size variable and scattered as well. Seedlings and sapling species are predominately grand fir and western larch, with some western white pine and Douglas-fir, lodgepole and ponderosa pine, and minimal Engelmann spruce and western red cedar. Unit 1A (above the road) stocking varies from lightly stocked to well stocked, and averages about 250 trees per acre, while the smaller part (2.5 acres) Unit 1B (below the road) is heavily stocked and ranges from 700 to 2,000 trees per acre. Unit 2 is three-storied and is very well stocked, with seedling, sapling and pole-sized regeneration. Species composition is grand fir, western larch, sub-alpine fir, Douglas-fir, and a small number of other species such as western white pine and lodgepole pine. Unit 2 ranges from 3,000 to 5,000 trees per acre. Unit 3 is mostly a single storied canopy of regeneration, although there are a few scattered overstory trees and clumps of trees. Species are predominantly grand fir and western larch, with some Douglas-fir and western white pine, and lodgepole and ponderosa pine as well. Stocking is highly variable, from lightly stocked to heavily stocked. Non-commercial hardwood tree species, including cottonwood and birch, are found throughout all three units, and in places are competing with commercial crop tree species for light, water, and nutrients. Hardwood tree stocking is often excessive, most notably on old landings where densities surpass 1,000 trees per acre.

http://www.dnrc.mt.gov/HCP/default.asp


4

Vegetation Impact Can

Impact Be Mitigated?

Comment Number Direct Secondary Cumulative

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

Noxious Weeds X X X Rare Plants X X X Vegetative community X X X No V-1 Old Growth X X X

Action Noxious Weeds X X X Rare Plants X X X Yes V-2 Vegetative community X X X No V-3 Old Growth X X X

Vegetation Comments: V-1: Under the No-Action Alternative no hardwood slashing would occur. No change in current cover type would occur. Growth of crop trees in the proposed units would be expected to slow, and growth and proliferation of hardwoods would continue to increase.

V-2: Several plant species of concern and one species of potential concern are listed with the Montana Natural Heritage Program as being found in the general vicinity of the project area. These species of concern include: Moonwort (Botrychium sp. (SOC)), Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulus), and Pale Corydalis (Corydalis sempervirens). The species of potential concern is moonwort (Botrychium sp. (Non-SOC)). Although none of these species are known to currently exist within any of the proposed units, there is a remote possibility of finding the Moonwort and/or Pale Corydalis within the proposed units. Whitebark pine is not found within the project area.

V-3: Under the Action Alternative in the Project units, no change in current cover type would occur. Varying amounts of hardwood trees would be cut to reduce competition for light, water, and nutrients, thereby improving growth and vigor of crop trees. Vegetation Mitigations: If any plant species of concern are identified within the units, the instance will be recorded with the Montana Natural Heritage Program and measures will be taken to protect the plants from damage from hardwood slashing activities. SOIL DISTURBANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY: Soil Disturbance and Productivity Existing Conditions: The three proposed slashing units are on landtypes 26C7/8, 23-9 and 73. Soils associated with these landtypes are considered to be moderately erosive. The proposed units were harvested as part of the Chicken Werner Timber Sale and Best Management Practices (BMPs) were applied to minimize soil disturbance and erosion. Less than 15 percent of the unit areas were impacted by moderate or high impact skid trails.


5

Soil Disturbance and Productivity

Impact Can Impact Be Mitigated?



Physical Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement)

X X X S-1

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

Action Physical Disturbance (Compaction and Displacement)

X X X S-1

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

Soil Comments: S-1: Additional compaction, displacement and erosion are not expected from either alternative because all work would be completed with chainsaws. Cumulative impacts to the soils from compaction and displacement in the form of reduced soil productivity is considered low. Soil Mitigations: Apply all applicable Forestry BMPs. WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY: The proposed activity is very small compared to the Swift Creek watershed. Additionally, a fully stocked stand will remain post action. Water Quality and Quantity Existing Conditions: Swift Creek, within the Stillwater State Forest, is managed with a low degree of risk for adverse impacts. This includes managing modelled annual water yield increases below any threshold of concern based on beneficial uses and channel condition. Water quality within the watershed is considered high and protected through the use of BMPs to minimize the risk of adverse impacts from sediment delivery, temperature increases and reduction of recruitable woody debris.

Water Quality & Quantity




Water Quality X X X W-1 Water Quantity X X X W-1

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


6

Water Quality & Quantity Comments: W-1: Water quality and quantity would not be impacted by either alternative. Because the Swift Creek watershed is managed with a low a degree of risk and Forestry BMPs are implemented to minimize water quality impacts, cumulative effects to water quality and quantity are considered low.

Water Quality & Quantity Mitigations: Apply Forestry BMPs as necessary to minimize impacts to water quality. FISHERIES: Fisheries Existing Conditions: This project is located within the Swift Creek watershed, however there are no streams or Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) within the units. Swift Creek contains bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout as well as non-native competing species. No-Action Alternative: No direct or indirect impacts would occur to affected fish species or affected fisheries resources beyond those described in Fisheries Existing Conditions. Cumulative effects (other related past and present factors; other future, related actions; and any impacts described in Fisheries Existing Conditions) would continue to occur. Action Alternative (see Fisheries table below):

Fisheries Impact Can




Sediment X X X F-1 Flow Regimes X X X Woody Debris X X X Stream Shading X X X Stream Temperature X X X Connectivity X X X F-2 Populations X X X F-3

Action Sediment X X X F-1 Flow Regimes X X X Woody Debris X X X Stream Shading X X X Stream Temperature X X X Connectivity X X X F-2 Populations X X X F-3

Fisheries Comments: F-1: Because Forestry BMPs have been implemented within the Swift Creek watershed for multiple decades, the risk of sediment delivery to streams has been minimized. Therefore, the cumulative impact of sediment delivery is considered low.


7

F-2: Fish connectivity is primarily affected by inadequate sizing of structures at road crossings. DNRC has replaced crossings within the Swift Creek drainage to minimize the impacts to fish connectivity, however some crossings may impact some life stages during high flows.

F-3: Populations would generally be affected by competing species introduced over the years. Because non-native species are present in Swift Creek and native species are continuing to reproduce, the cumulative impact is considered low.

Fisheries Mitigations: none WILDLIFE:

No-Action Alternative: The proposed hardwood slashing would not occur. In the short-term, no changes to the availability of coniferous or hardwood trees would occur. In the long-term, hardwood trees including cottonwood and birch would mature and habitat would increase for wildlife species preferring deciduous trees while species preferring coniferous forests may not use the Project Area. Action Alternative (see Wildlife table below):

Wildlife

Impact Can Impact be Mitigated?


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

Endangered Species

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

X X X Y WI-1

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

X X X

Sensitive Species

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

X X X

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

X X X


8

Wildlife

Impact Can Impact be Mitigated?


No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Coeur d'Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) Habitat: Waterfall spray zones, talus near cascading streams

X X X

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

X X X

Common loon (Gavia immer) Habitat: Cold mountain lakes, nest in emergent vegetation

X X X

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

X X X

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

X X X

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

X X X

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

X X X


9

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

X X X

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

X X X

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Habitat: Late-successional ponderosa pine and larch-fir forest

X X X

Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) Habitat: Caves, caverns, old mines

X X X

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

X X X

Big Game Species

Elk X X X Y WI-2 Whitetail X X X Y WI-2 Mule Deer X X X Y WI-2

Wildlife Comments: WI-1 Grizzly bear – The Project Area is considered grizzly bear recovery zone habitat associated with the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) (USFWS 1993) and use of the area by bears is likely to occur. Hardwood slashing focusing primarily on removal of cottonwood and birch less than 5 inches in diameter would occur in approximately 63 acres to decrease competition with coniferous trees. Post-harvest these stands will continue providing hiding cover considering the high density of deciduous shrubs. No roads would be constructed and accessibility of the area would not change. Spring timing restrictions would apply to Unit 3 from April 1-June 15 to provide security for grizzly bears. Units 1 and 2 are adjacent to the Lower Whitefish Road, which is open to the public and slashing would be permitted during the


10

spring period in these units. Visual screening would be retained along the Lower Whitefish Road.

WI-2 Big game – The proposed hardwood slashing would occur in approximately 63 acres and would remove some trees that are preferred browse species for ungulates, as well as increase sight distances into the units. However, many deciduous browse plants used by ungulates such as rocky-mountain maple would remain post-harvest. Additionally, retention of visual screening along open roads would be required, reducing the potential adverse effects. No change to road density or accessibility of the area to the public would occur.

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

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

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

Prohibit contractors and purchasers conducting contract operations from carrying firearms while on duty as per ARM 36.11.444(2) and GB-PR2 (USFWS and DNRC 2010).

Retain visual screening along the Lower Whitefish Road to increase security for wildlife. Retain all snags in the harvest units. Prohibit mechanized activities in Unit 3 from April 1 – June 15 as per GB-NR3 to provide

security for grizzly bears.

AIR QUALITY:

Air Quality Impact Can




Smoke X X X Dust X X X

Action Smoke X X X Dust X X X

Air Quality Comments: N/A Air Quality Mitigations: N/A


11

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES / AESTHETICS / DEMANDS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES:

Will Alternative result in potential

impacts to:




Historical or Archaeological Sites X X X Yes H-1

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

X X X

Action Historical or Archaeological Sites X X X

Aesthetics X X X No H-2 Demands on Environmental Resources of Land, Water, or Energy

X X X

Archaeological/Aesthetics Comments: H-1: DNRC’s archeologist examined the original harvest in 1999 and no cultural or archeological resources were found.

H-2: Tree cutting and resulting slash within the units will be noticeable from open roads. The change to the visual aesthetic would be very minor. The slash produced from cutting hardwoods would start to break down and decompose within a few years.

Archaeological/Aesthetics Mitigations: If any archaeological sites are found, work will stop until a DNRC archaeologist can examine and document the site, and a site-specific plan formed to continue work without damaging the site.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THE AREA:

• Chicken Werner Timber Sale Environmental Assessment (EA) (Winter 2000)


12

Impacts on the Human Population

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


impacts to:




Health and Human Safety X X X

Industrial, Commercial and Agricultural Activities and Production

X X X

Quantity and Distribution of Employment

X X X

Local Tax Base and Tax Revenues X X X

Demand for Government Services X X X

Access To and Quality of Recreational and Wilderness Activities

X X X

Density and Distribution of population and housing

X X X

Social Structures and Mores X X X

Cultural Uniqueness and Diversity X X X

Action Health and Human Safety X X X

Industrial, Commercial and Agricultural Activities and Production

X X X

Quantity and Distribution of Employment

X X X

Local Tax Base and Tax Revenues X X X

Demand for Government Services X X X


13


impacts to:



No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Access To and Quality of Recreational and Wilderness Activities

X X X

Density and Distribution of population and housing

X X X

Social Structures and Mores X X X

Cultural Uniqueness and Diversity X X X

Human Population Comments: N/A Human Population Mitigations: N/A Locally Adopted Environmental Plans and Goals: N/A Other Appropriate Social and Economic Circumstances: No immediate return to the trust would result from either alternative. No other potential uses of the trust other than current uses have been identified at this time. References DNRC 1996. State forest land management plan: final environmental impact statement (and

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

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

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

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

Name: Les Thomas Title: Management Forester Date: May 22, 2017


14

Finding

Alternative Selected Following a thorough review of the EAC and Department policies and rules, the decision has been made to select the Action Alternative. The Action Alternative meets the intent of the project objectives as stated in Section I – Type and Purpose of Action. Specifically, the project would:

• Reduce the amount of hardwood trees competing with crop trees to improve growth and vigor of crop trees. Hardwood trees in close proximity to commercial tree species would be cut down over approximately 63 acres.

Significance of Potential Impacts The identified resource management concerns have been fully addressed in the environmental analysis that was conducted. Specific project design features and various recommendations of the resource management specialists have been implemented to ensure that this project will fall within the limits of acceptable environmental change. Taken individually and cumulatively, the proposed activities are common practices, and no project activities will be conducted on important fragile or unique sites. I find there will be no significant impacts to the human environment as a result of implementing the Action Alternative. In summary, I find that the identified adverse impacts will be controlled, mitigated, or avoided by the design of the project to the extent that the impacts are not significant. Need for Further Environmental Analysis

EIS More Detailed EA X No Further Analysis

Environmental Assessment Checklist Approved By:

Name: Michael McMahon Title: Forest Management Supervisor Date: June 9, 2017

Signature: /s/ Michael J McMahon


15

Attachment A- Maps


16

A-1: Project Vicinity Map

Morrill Hardwood Slashing Project VICINITY MAP

Name: Morrill Hardwood Slashing Project Legal: T33N R22W Sec.30,32


17

A-2: Project Harvest Units

environmental assessment checklistdnrc.mt.gov/public-interest/environmental-docs/...jun 29, 2017...

Documents