HIDDEN BUGS SALVAGE TIMBER SALE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Southwestern Land Office Clearwater Unit April 2007 HIDDEN BUGS SALVAGE TIMBER SALE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Checklist EA: 8 pages Appendix A, Vicinity map: 1 page Appendix B, Sale Map: 1 page Appendix C, Watershed and Soils Analysis: 7 pages Appendix D, Wildlife Analysis: 18 pages Appendix E, Initial Proposal: 1 page CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project Name: Hidden Bugs Salvage Timber Sale Proposed Implementation Date: Summer 2007 through Fall 2008 Proponent: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Clearwater Unit Location: Section 18, Township 16 North, Range 15 West County: Missoula I. TYPE AND PURPOSE OF ACTION The Clearwater Unit of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is proposing to harvest an estimated 800 thousand board feet of timber from approximately 125 acres. The proposed harvest area is located about 4 miles southwest of Seeley Lake, in Section 18 of Township 16 North, Range 15 West (Attachment A, Vicinity Map). Under the proposed action, DNRC would harvest lodgepole pine that is dead, dying, and susceptible to mountain pine beetle attack. Approximately 4 miles of road maintenance, /4 mile of road building, and 1/4 mile of road abandonment would occur. If the Action Alternative is selected, activities could begin in July 2007. Implementation of the proposed harvest would generate an estimated $160,000 in revenue to the M.S.U. 2 nd Grant. The lands involved in this proposed project are held by the State of Montana in trust for the M.S.U. 2 nd Grant (Enabling Act of February 22, 1889; 1972 Montana Constitution, Article X, Section 1 1 ). 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). Specific objectives of the project are to capture value of dead and dying trees, prevent future value loss, and promote appropriate forest types within the project area. Secondary objectives are to improve the transportation system, reduce fuel loading within stands, and control the spread of noxious weeds. I. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AGENCIES, GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED: Provide a brief chronology of the scoping and ongoing involvement for this project. DNRC sent scoping letters on January 1 1 , 2007 to adjacent landowners and other interested parties (Appendix E, initial proposal). A public notice was run in the Missoulian and Seeley Swan Pathfinder; notices were also posted at the Seeley Lake Post Office and Rovero's Gas Station. Six written comment letters and one phone call were received and used to identify concerns and modify the proposed action. DNRC specialists were consulted, including: Mike McGrath, Wldlife Biologist; Jeff Collins, Hydrologist; and Patrick Rennie, Archeologist. Sarah Pierce prepared this environmental assessment and Craig Nelson, Forest Management Supervisor of the Clearwater Unit, will be the decision maker 2. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION, LIST OF PERMITS NEEDED: Slash burning would be done in compliance with statewide cooperative agreements as well as any local restrictions. 3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No Action: None of the proposed harvest or roadwork would occur at this time. Current land use activities would continue. Timber Harvest Alternative: Under this alternative, DNRC would continue current uses, and also harvest lodgepole pine. Dead and dying lodgepole pine, as well as those highly susceptible to mountain pine beetle, would be harvested. The harvest would include salvage of individual and groups of lodgepole within stands currently infested by mountain pine beetle. All other species would be retained unless within a skid trail or landing area. Up to 800 thousand board feet would be harvested from approximately 125 acres (Attachment B, Proposed Harvest Units and Roads Map). The majority of this would be harvested by one timber sale in the late summer and autumn of 2007. One six-acre harvest unit, that would require winter operations, could be sold as a subsequent timber permit. Timber would be harvested with ground-based methods. The harvest activity may require the construction of approximately % mile of low standard road and the maintenance and use of existing roads on both state and private land as designated haul routes. In addition, approximately % mile of existing road would be abandoned and one or more gates or other road closures may be installed. No Harvest Alternative: During scoping for the proposed project, one commenter suggested an alternative to carry out only restoration activities, specified as an alternative to remove or fix roads with design flaws. This alternative would not meet the project objective of capturing timber values, and would not be economically feasible to carry out, so it was not studied in detail. However, DNRC shares the concerns about roads and did incorporate road improvements and abandonment into the timber harvest alternative. III. IMPACTS ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT • RESOURCES potentially impacted are listed on the form, followed by common issues that would be considered. Explain POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS following each resource heading. • Enter "NONE" If no impacts are identified or the resource is not present. 4. GEOLOGY AND SOIL QUALITY, STABILITY AND MOISTURE: Consider the presence of fragile, compactable or unstable soils. Identify unusual geologic features. Specify any special reclamation considerations. Identify any cumulative impacts to soils. No substantial direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to soils resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed action alternative. No unstable slopes or unique geology features are present. Geology is stable quartzites and argillites overlain by glacial till deposits. Predominate forest soils are Winfall gravelly loams on 4-30% slopes (small areas up to 40%) forming in deep glacial till. Erosion risk is moderate where soils are disturbed. Low levels of short-term on-site erosion of road surfaces, cut slopes and fill slopes are expected during and shortly after road construction, while revegetation establishes. Proposed harvest units include areas of past (>30 yrs ago) selection harvest. Proposed harvest would use existing roads and segments of existing skid trails where feasible. Planned ground skidding operations should have low direct, in-direct and cumulative impacts based on implementing BMP's and mitigation measures. Mitigations include season of use limits, general skidding plans, retaining woody debris for nutrients and prompt revegetation of disturbed sites on roads to protect soil resources. For detailed analysis, please refer to Attachment C, Soils, Watershed, and Fisheries Report. 5. WATER QUALITY, QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION: Identify important surface or groundwater resources. Consider the potential for violation of ambient water quality standards, drinking water maximum contaminant levels, or degradation of water quality. Identify cumulative effects to water resources. No substantial direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to water quality, water quantity or downstream beneficial uses are expected to result from implementation of the proposed action alternative. The proposed salvage harvest of dead, dying and high risk trees would have a minor reduction of canopy cover and no measurable water yield increase compared to the current conditions and trend for reduced canopy. There is a discontinous stream within the project area that ends in a meadow and there is no steam connectivity off the projcet area. Low levels of short-term on-site erosion of road surfaces, cut slopes and fill slopes during and shortly after road construction, abandonment, or obliteration can be expected while revegetation becomes established There is low potential risk of sediment delivery from proposed and existing roads. DNRC will mark and maintain suitable water resource protection boundaries (SMZ's, RMZ's, WMZ's) adjacent to the discontinuous stream and wetlands consistent with State Forest Land Management rules and applicable laws. For detailed analysis, please refer to Attachment C, Soils, Watershed, and Fisheries Report. 6. AIR QUALITY: What pollutants or particulate would be produced? Identify air quality regulations or zones (e.g. Class I airshed) the project would influence. Identify cumulative effects to air quality. Under the action alternative, there would be some influence to local airsheds. Over 70% of the emissions emitted from prescribed burning is less than 2.5 microns (National Ambient Air Quality PM 2.5). High, short- term levels of PM 2.5 may be hazardous. Within the typical column of biomass burning, the chemical toxics are: Formaldehyde, Acrolein, Acetaldehyde, 1,4 Butadiene, and Polycyclic Organic Matter. Federal, state and local agencies enforce rules for open, controlled burning. The post thinning burning of piled debris would produce particulate matter. All burning would be conducted at times of adequate ventilation and within existing rules, plans, and regulations. Air quality is analyzed by estimating emissions from prescribed burns. The air quality analysis area for the proposed action is located in Montana Airshed 3B. The Montana Airshed Group is responsible for determining both air shed number and impact zones. The project area is not located in any of the impact zones. Prior to burning be used, a "Prescribed Fire Burn Plan" would be been done for the area. Cumulative effects to air quality would not exceed the levels defined by State of Montana Cooperative Smoke Management Plan (1988) and managed by the Montana Airshed Group. Prescribed burning by other nearby airshed cooperators (for example Plum Creek Timber Company) would have potential to affect air quality. All cooperators currently operate under the same Airshed Group guidelines. The State, as a member, would burn only on approved days. This should decrease the likelihood of additive cumulative effects. 7. VEGETATION COVER, QUANTITY AND QUALITY: What changes would the action cause to vegetative communities? Consider rare plants or cover types that would be affected. Identify cumulative effects to vegetation. The project area (section 18) consists primarily of mixed conifer, Douglas-fir/western larch, and subalpine fir cover types. All of these cover types have a component of lodgepole pine. Approximately 289 acres (98%) of the 296 acre project area is forested. Most (234 acres) of the project area is in the sawtimber size class and has medium or high total stocking. Stands within the project area currently have a high susceptibility and risk of mountain pine beetle damage, based on the species, age, stand density, elevation, and existing mountain pine beetle presence. Lodgepole pine within the project area are dead, infested, or at risk. At the larger scale, DNRC lands managed by the Clearwater Unit are approximately 85% forested, mostly in the ponderosa pine and western larch/Douglas-fir cover types. Compared to the desired future condition at this scale, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and mixed-conifer cover types are slightly over-represented while ponderosa pine and western larch/Douglas-fir are slightly under-represented. Overall, however, about 84% of these lands do have a cover type that matches the desired future condition. This area falls within climatic section 332B, which was historically about 79% forested. Wthin the climatic section, the historically dominant cover type was lodgepole pine, followed by Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine on lower slopes (Losensky, 1997). DNRC has adopted old-growth definitions based on Green et al. (1992). None of the stands in the project area meet DNRC's definition of old-growth. No recorded threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species were found in the project area (MNHP, 2007). A concern was raised that the area is susceptible to noxious weeds. No Action: No harvest would occur at this time. Compared to the existing condition, no immediate changes would be expected. Mountain pine beetle would likely continue to infest and kill lodgepole and ponderosa pine within the DRNC ownership and surrounding area. Some of the dead trees would likely be blown down, creating openings within the stands. Overtime, some natural conifer regeneration would probably establish in areas with a seed source and favorable microclimate. Weed treatment could occur as funding allows. Timber Harvest Alternative: DNRC would harvest and remove lodgepole pine that are dead, dying, or highly susceptible to mountain pine beetle attack. Changes to the vegetation would include an immediate reduction in numbers of live and dead lodgepole pine on 125 acres. Other species, including ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir would be retained. One of the largest available snags or snag recruits per acre would be retained. The proposed harvest would reduce stems per acre in the harvest units, which cover 42% of the project area. The cover types would remain the same, although the component of lodgepole pine would be reduced in all harvested stands. The remaining trees would have increased growth as more resources would be available per tree. While regeneration is not a goal of the prescription, some lodgepole and Douglas-fir would likely become established through natural regeneration in openings. In addition, DNRC would plant appropriate species for the site (western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir) in larger openings. On the adjacent Forest Service ground, the proposed fuel reduction project would reduce stand density on 388 acres. Overtime, other adjacent land would grow from sapling to pole and sawtimber size classes of mixed conifer species. At the larger scale, the proposed harvest in combination with other current and potential salvage projects would reduce stand density on less than 1% of the area managed by the Clearwater Unit. No sensitive plants have been identified in the project area. To prevent introduction of new weeds, off-road equipment will be cleaned and inspected prior to entry into harvest areas. Newly disturbed roads and landing will be seeded to grass. Roadsides with existing weed would be controlled with herbicide The proposed action would be expected to result in minor direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on forest vegetation. 8. TERRESTRIAL, AVIAN AND AQUATIC LIFE AND HABITATS: Consider substantial habitat values and use of the area by wildlife, birds or fish. Identify cumulative effects to fish and wildlife. Please refer to Attachment D, Wildlife Report, and Attachment C, Soils, Watershed, and Fisheries Report. 9. UNIQUE, ENDANGERED, FRAGILE OR LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES: Consider any federally listed threatened or endangered species or habitat identified in the project area. Determine effects to wetlands. Consider Sensitive Species or Species of special concern. Identify cumulative effects to these species and their habitat. Refer to Attachment D Wildlife Report, and Attachment C, Soils, Watershed, and Fisheries Report. 10. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: Identify and determine effects to historical, archaeological or paleontological resources. Based on the topography of the sale area and lack of previously identified cultural resources, DRNC Archaeologist Patrick Rennie did not recommend additional investigative work. If any archaeological sites are found, they would be protected. No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources are expected as a result of the proposed action. 11. AESTHETICS: Determine if the project is located on a prominent topographic feature, or may be visible from populated or scenic areas. What level of noise, light or visual change would be produced? Identify cumulative effects to aesthetics. The proposed sale area is not visible from any populated areas. Portions of the section are visible from slopes to the south and east of the area. Wthin the project area, harvested stands would look more open with fewer trees per acre. Viewed from a further distance, the harvest would create openings that would fill in over time. These would blend in with the existing mosaic of openings and dense areas on surrounding ownerships. The proposed project would be expected to have a low risk of negatively affecting the aesthetic quality of the area. Some noise from harvesting equipment and log hauling may be heard within the project area and on haul routes. This is expected to be short in duration and temporary. Due to the location, the relatively small area and the short duration of the proposed project, there would be no measurable cumulative effects on aesthetics. 12. DEMANDS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OF LAND, WATER, AIR OR ENERGY: Determine the amount of limited resources the project would require. Identify other activities nearby that the project would affect. Identify cumulative effects to environmental resources. No impacts are likely to occur under either alternative. 13. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THE AREA: List other studies, plans or projects on this tract. Determine cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of current private, state or federal actions in the analysis area, and from future proposed state actions in the analysis area that are under MEPA review (scoped) or permitting review by any state agency. In 1986, DNRC completed the Hidden Lake Timber Sale, which included 60 acres of harvest within section 18. The harvest units were small clearcut and seedtree units that have since regenerated into lodgepole and mixed conifer sapling stands. DNRC's stand level inventory, used for analyses in this environmental assessment, reflects the past harvest and current conditions of those stands. At the scale of the Clearwater Unit, two additional salvage sales totaling 297 acres are ongoing or have been scoped. Some private ownerships are currently harvesting timber in neighboring parcels. The Lolo National Forest is planning the Hidden Lakes Fuels Reduction project in section 13 of Township 16N, Range 16W, adjacent to the western boundary of DNRC's section 18. This project would include 388 acres of fuels reduction and construction of temporary and short- term road. IV. IMPACTS ON THE HUMAN POPULATION • RESOURCES potentially impacted are listed on the form, followed by common issues that would be considered. Explain POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS following each resource heading. • Enter "NONE" If no impacts are identified or the resource is not present. 14. HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY: Identify any health and safety risks posed by the project. Human health would not be impacted by the proposed timber sale or associated activity. Safety considerations and temporary risks would increase for the professional contractors working within the sale area. Log truck traffic would increase but safety concerns would be minimized by posting signs and imposing a speed limit for log trucks on shared roads. There are no unusual safety considerations associated with the proposed timber sale. The general public and local residents would not face increased health or long term safety hazards because of the proposed timber sale. 15. INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTION: Identify how the project would add to or alter these activities. The section is not currently leased for grazing. Over time as openings are created by harvesting or dying trees, forage production would be expected to increase slightly under either alternative. 16. QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT: Estimate the number of jobs the project would create, move or eliminate. Identify cumulative effects to the employment market. People are currently employed in the wood products industry in the region. Due to the relatively small size of the timber sale, there would be no measurable cumulative impact from this proposed action on employment. 17. LOCAL AND STATE TAX BASE AND TAX REVENUES: Estimate tax revenue the project would create or eliminate. Identify cumulative effects to taxes and revenue. People are currently paying taxes from the wood products industry in the region. Due to the relatively small size of the timber sale, there would be no measurable cumulative impact from this proposed action on tax revenues. 18. DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES: Estimate increases in traffic and changes to traffic patterns. What changes would be needed to fire protection, police, schools, etc.? Identify cumulative effects of this and other projects on government services Aside from contract administration, there would be minimal impact related to demand for government services due to the relatively small size of the timber sale, the short-term impacts to traffic, and the small possibility of a few people temporarily relocating to the area. 19. LOCALLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS AND GOALS: List State, County, City, USFS, BLM, Tribal, and other zoning or management plans, and identify how they would affect this project. The DNRC operates under the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP, DNRC 1996) and Administrative Rules for Forest Management (ARM 36.11.401 through 450, DNRC 2003). The SFLMP established the agency's philosophy for management of forested trust lands. The Administrative Rules provide specific guidance for implementing forest management projects. 20. ACCESS TO AND QUALITY OF RECREATIONAL AND WILDERNESS ACTIVITIES: Identify any wilderness or recreational areas nearby or access routes through this tract. Determine the effects of the project on recreational potential within the tract. Identify cumulative effects to recreational and wilderness activities. This section is open year round for non-motorized public access. Some snowmobile use does occur in the general area during the winter. There are no wilderness areas in the vicinity. Under the action alternative, one or more gates may be installed to continue limiting access to non-motorized use. Slash within harvest units may decrease walk-in traffic. Winter harvest of one six-acre unit would include some hauling approximately 1 mile of road that may also be used by snowmobiles. This would be of short duration and on an open road that is shared by log trucks, other vehicles, and snowmobiles on a regular basis. Due to the context and intensity of the proposed action, no measurable effects to access and recreation are expected. 21. DENSITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND HOUSING: Estimate population changes and additional housing the project would require. Identify cumulative effects to population and housing. There would be no measurable cumulative impacts related to population and housing due to the relatively small size of the timber sale, and the fact that people are already employed in this occupation in the region. 22. SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND MORES: Identify potential disruption of native or traditional lifestyles or communities. No measurable impacts related to social structures and mores would be expected under either alternative. 23. CULTURAL UNIQUENESS AND DIVERSITY: How would the action affect any unique quality of the area? No measurable impacts related to cultural uniqueness and diversity would be expected under either alternative. 24. OTHER APPROPRIATE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES: Estimate the return to the trust. Include appropriate economic analysis. Identify potential future uses for the analysis area other than existing management. Identify cumulative economic and social effects likely to occur as a result of the proposed action. No Action: A recreational license for outfitting on the DNRC parcel would continue to generate estimated annual revenue of S25.00. Timber Harvest Alternative: Revenue from the recreational license would continue. The timber harvest would generate additional revenue for the M.S.U. 2 nd Trust. The estimated return to the trust for the proposed harvest is $160,000 based on an estimated harvest of 800 thousand board feet and an overall stumpage value of $200.00 per thousand board feet (MBF) ($29.00 per ton, based on similar recent timber sales). Costs related to the administration of the timber sale program are only tracked at the Land Office and Statewide level. DNRC doesn't track project-level costs for individual timber sales. An annual cash flow analysis is conducted on the DNRC forest product sales program. Revenue and costs are calculated by land office and statewide. These revenue-to-cost ratios are a measure of economic efficiency. The most recent revenue-to-cost ratio of the Southwestern Land Office was 2.43. This means that, on average, for every $1.00 spent in costs, $2.43 in revenue was generated. Costs, revenues, and estimates of return are estimates intended for relative comparison of alternatives. They are not intended to be used as absolute estimates of return. EA Checklist Prepared By: Name: Sarah Pierce Date: April 16, 2007 Title: Forester, Clearwater Unit V. FINDING 25. ALTERNATIVE SELECTED: Timber Harvest Alternative 26. SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS: This Environmental Analysis has been completed for Hidden Bugs Salvage Sale. After a thorough review of the EA, project file, response to the scoping letters, Department policies, standards and guidelines, and the State Land Management Rules, I have taken the decision to choose the Timber Harvest alternative. I have found that this EA and project will achieve the following: This project will salvage dead and dying timber before it loses its economic value. This is explained in EA part 3 Alternatives Considered, EA part 24 Other Appropriate Social and Economic Issues, and is required by law in MCA 77-5-207. The No Harvest Alternative that is discussed within part 3 of the EA will not achieve the law described within MCA 77-5-207 Salvage timber program. This project will reduce the susceptibility of residual trees to epidemic insect and disease infestations and outbreaks. This is explained in EA part 7 Vegetation Cover, Quantity, and Quality. The project may also plant trees native to the area (Douglas-fir, western larch, and ponderosa pine) to decrease similar concerns in the future. Through treatment, this area will see decreased fuel levels and hazards against adjacent lands. This project will help control the spread of noxious weeds in the project area. This information is found in EA part 7 Vegetation Cover, Quantity, and Quality, and Attachment C Soils, Watershed, and Fisheries Report. This project will improve the transportation system for the project area. This is described in EA part 5 Water Quality, Quantity, and Distribution. This is also described within the Attachment C Soils, Watershed, and Fisheries Report. 27. NEED FOR FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: EIS More Detailed EA No Further Analysis EA Checklist Approved By: Name: Craig V. Nelson Title: Forest Management Supervisor Signature: /s/ Craig V. Nelson Date: April 16,2007 References Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). 1996. State Forest Land Management Plan. Montana DNRC, Forest Management Bureau. Missoula, MT. DNRC. 2003. Montana Administrative Rules for Forest Management. Montana DNRC Trust Land Management Division, Forest Management Bureau. Missoula, MT. 87p. Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, MF Jurgensen, TB Jain, JR Tonn, DS Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountain. USDA For. Serv. Int. Mtn. Res. Sta. INT-RP-477. 13pp. Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 1992. Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Region 1. Missoula, MT. Losensky, J. 1997. Historical vegetation of Montana. Contract #970900. Montana DNRC. Missoula, MT. 109pp. Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2007. Information on Plant and Animal Species of Special Concern. Report on file at DNRC Clearwater Unit. Greenough, MT. 6pp. t bq M V &■* **«j l/> ^ 1 o > CO CO (1) O) CO > CO CO (0 U) 3 m 0) E "D O ■D re ■ ^M < X o ° £ o (D ON CL O CN CO co C .E in ■n ra o n« » <- in in B O O " « n k £ S m n. a. o o CD "c