Table Of Content

TYLER CREEK TIMBER SALE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ^Ej fr Ik S"P^ Rvhk' *~sk MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION MISSOULA UNIT OCTOBER 2005 MontanaStateLibrary 3 0864 1006 2867 9 TYLER CREEK TIMBER SALE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDING 5 Alternative Selected 5 Significance ofImpacts 6 Water Quality 6 WaterYield 6 Cumulative Watershed Effects 6 Cold Water Fisheries 7 Noxious Weeds 7 Economics 7 Old Growth 8 Wildlife 8 Keeled Mountainsnail 8 Precedent setting and Cumulative Impacts 8 Should DNRC Prepare an EIS? 9 SUMMARY 10 Introduction and Description ofthe ProposedAction 10 Project Need 10 Vicinity Map 12 Project Objectives 13 ProjectArea 13 EA Development 13 Public Scoping 14 Concerns Raised During Public Scoping 14 Decision Notice 14 Supplemental EA 14 Exhibits 2-4 15 Exhibits5-6 16 SALE MAP 17 DESCRIPTION-ALTERNATIVE D 18 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE D 19 Analysis Area 19 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 19 Mitigations Common to allT&E Species 19 AffectedEnvironment:BaldEagle 19 Issue 19 Effects ofthe No-ActionAlternative 20 Effects ofAlternative D 20 AffectedEnvironmentrGrizzlyBear 21 Issue 21 Effects ofthe No-Action Alternative 22 Effects ofAlternative D 23 AffectedEnvironment:GrayWolf 23 Issue 23 Effects ofthe No-ActionAlternative 24 Effects ofAlternative D 24 Affected Environment:Lynx 25 Issue 25 Effects ofthe No-Action Alternative 26 Effects ofAlternative D 26 SENSITIVE SPECIES 27 AffectedEnvironmentrFlammulatedOwl 27 Issue 27 Effects ofthe No-ActionAlternative 27 Effects ofAlternative D 28 AffectedEnvironmentrPileatedWoodpecker 29 Issue 29 Effects ofthe No-ActionAlternative 29 Effects ofAlternative D 30 Affected Environment:Boreal Owl 31 Issue 31 Effects ofthe No-ActionAlternative 31 Effects ofAlternative D 31 Affected EnvironmentrFisher 31 Issue 31 Effects ofthe No-ActionAlternative 31 Effects ofAlternative D 32 AffectedEnvironment:Black-backed Woodpecker 32 Issue 32 Effects ofthe No-ActionAlternative 33 Effects ofAlternative D 33 AffectedEnvironment:Peregrine Falcon 33 Issue 33 Effects ofthe No-Action Alternative 34 Effects ofAlternative D 34 OTHER SENSITIVE SPECIES 34 CoeurdAlene Salamander 34 Common Loon 34 Harlequin Duck 34 Mountain Plover 34 Townsend's Big-Eared Bat 34 Northern Bog Lemming 35 Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse 35 Ferruginous Hawk 35 SPECIES CONSIDERED SENSITIVE BYTHE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM 35 Keeled Mountainsnail 35 Issue 35 Exhibits8-9 35 Effects ofthe No-Action Alternative 35 Effects ofAlternative D 36 BIG GAME 36 Affected Environment 36 Issue 36 Effects ofthe No-Action Alternative 36 Effects ofAlternative D 38 Cumulative EffectsAssociated With Other DNRC Projects 39 Wildlife Related Mitigation Measures 39 SOILS AND HYDROLOGY 40 OLD GROWTH 40 Table 1 41 Exhibit#10-Old Growth Map 42 Effects ofNo-Action Alternative 43 Exhibits 11-13 44 Effects ofAlternative D 44 Cumulative Effects to Old Growth 45 No-Action Alternative 45 Alternative D 46 LIST OF PREPARERS 47 BIBLIOGRAPHY 48 FINDING TYLER CREEK TIMBER SALE ALTERNATIVE SELECTED 1. Three alternatives were presented and the effects ofeach alternative were fully analyzed in the EA: 1. Alternative A: No Harvest 2. Alternative B: Harvest including some designated > 20" DBH trees 3. Alternative C: Harvest with no > 20" DBH trees removed The original Decision Maker for this project selected Alternative B for implementation. Due to an infestation ofDouglas-fir beetle, which has caused a significant amount ofmortality within the project area, another alternative (Alternative D) was developed and analyzed in a Supplemental EA. The Alternative D: Harvest including beetle killed trees > 21" DBH which retain commercial value proposes to harvest approximately 2.5 million board feet (MMBF) from 386 acres. The three previous alternatives did not address the recent epidemic of Douglas Fir Beetle. For the following reasons, I have selected Alternative D: a) Alternative D: Harvest including beetle killed trees > 21"DBH which retain commercial value. This alternative meets the Purpose of Action and Project Objectives as described on pages and 2 ofthe 1 Supplemental EA. Implementation ofthis alternative would produce an estimated $750,000 ($300.00/MBF) to the Common School (CS) grant. b) The analysis ofidentified issues did not disclose any reason compelling DNRC the not to implement the timber sale. c) Alternative D: Harvest including beetle killed trees > 21"DBH includes mitigation activities to address environmental concerns identified during both the Public Scoping phase and the project analysis. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS 2 For the following reasons, I find that implementation ofAlternative D: Harvest including beetle killed trees > 21" DBH will not have significant impacts on the human environment: a) Water Quality- A DNRC Hydrologist analyzed the effects ofthe proposed Alternative D and found the anticipated effects ofthe modified proposed actions are within the range ofeffects analyzed for underboth ofthe previous Action Alternatives B and C that were contained in the original EA. As a result ofthis analysis, it was concluded that there is little risk ofadverse impacts to water quality, cold-water fisheries and other beneficial uses occurring as a result of Alternative D. b) Water Yield- Results ofthe updated wateryield analysis indicate that the levels ofwater yield increases anticipated under Alternative D are still below those levels normally associated with detrimental impacts to stream channel stability and function, therefore, no significant impacts will occur. c) Cumulative Watershed Effects- A DNRC Hydrologist analyzed the proposed Alternative D and found the effects ofthe modified proposed action are within the range analyzed forunder both ofthe previous Action Alternatives B and C that were contained in the original EA. In fact, erosion control measures aimed at stabilization of existing stream crossings and other improvements to the existing road system are expected to result in a long-term improvement to downstream water quality and improved protection ofbeneficial uses still holds true under the proposed Alternative D. d) Cold Water Fisheries- A DNRC Hydrologist analyzed the effects of the proposed Alternative D and found the effects ofthe modified proposed action are within the range analyzed for under both ofthe previous Action Alternatives B and C that were contained in the original EA. As a result ofthis analysis, it was concluded that there is little risk ofadverse impacts to water quality, cold-water fisheries and other beneficial uses occurring as a result ofimplementing Alternative D. This conclusion applies to the potential risk ofdirect, indirect and cumulative adverse effects to water resources and beneficial uses of those cold-water resources, including cold-water fisheries. e) Noxious Weeds- Alternative A: No Harvest (No Action) would result in weeds slowly advancing along the edges ofexisting roads and from adjacent private land creating a net cumulative detriment to weed free resources. Alternative D: Harvest including Beetle Killed trees > 21" DBH would include control efforts which would promote revegetation and emphasize treatment ofany new noxious weeds. This would include 2 years ofmonitoring and controlling spot infestations as needed. f) Economics- Implementation ofAlternative D will provide approximately $750,000 in short-term revenue to the Common School Trust and does not limit the DNRC's options for generating revenue from these sites in the future. g) Old Growth- Implementation ofAlternative A: No Action, would have negative short and long term effects upon the old growth stands that currently exist within the proposed project area by increasing the threat to the current stands posed by both inter-tree competition and increasing fuel loads. Alternative D: Harvest including Beetle Killed Trees > 21" DBH, would reduce the number ofsmall trees, thereby reducing inter-tree competition and removing ladder fuels which would increase the probability ofretaining old growth characteristics along with increased vigor in the remaining trees. This action would have a long- term positive effect on this resource. h) Wildlife- The proposed harvest operations present a minimal likelihood ofnegative impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species. Those potential impacts that do exist have been mitigated to levels within acceptable thresholds. The same is true for those species that have been identified as "sensitive" by the DNRC. Alternative D presents a low risk ofcumulative effects due to mitigations for wildlife travel and cover. Two locked gates on the main road accessing the area also lessen human disturbance. i) Keeled Mountainsnail - The proposed harvest operations present a minimal likelihood ofnegative impacts to the Keeled Mountainsnail population. Alternative D requires Equipment Restriction Zones to be placed around areas ofknown orpotential snail habitat located within cutting units. The May 18, 2005 field survey found a healthy population ofsnails outside any cutting units in an area where there would be no harvest activity or human disturbance. The harvest activities would actually decrease the potential for loss ofsnail populations or habitat by eliminating the threat ofcatastrophic wildfire. PRECEDENT SETTING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS- 3. The project area is located on State- owned lands, which are "principally valuable for the timber that is on them or for growing timber or for watershed" (MCA 77-1-402). The proposed action is similar to past projects that have ' occurredinthearea. SincetheEAdoesnotidentifyfutureactionsthatare neworunusual,theproposedtimberharvestisnotsettingprecedencefora futureactionwithsignificant impacts. Takenindividuallyandcumulatively,the identified impactsoftheproposed timbersalearewithinestablishedthreshold limits. Proposedtimbersale activitiesarecommonpracticesandnoneoftheprojectactivitiesare being conductedonfragileoruniquesites. Theproposedtimbersaleconformstothemanagementphilosophy adoptedby DNRCandisin compliancewithexistinglaws,policies,guidelines,and standardsapplicabletothistypeofaction. SHOULDDNRCPREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)? Basedonthefollowing, I findthatanEISdoesnotneedtobeprepared: a) The EAadequatelyaddressedtheissuesidentifiedduring projectdevelopment, anddisplayedtheinformationneeded tomakethepertinentdecisions. b) Evaluationofthepotential impactsoftheproposedtimber saleindicatethatsignificantimpactstothehuman environmentwill notoccurasaresultofthe implementationofAlternative D: Harvest including Beetle KilledTrees>21"DBH. c) TheIDTeamprovidedopportunitiesforpublic reviewand comment duringproject developmentandanalysis. Rupkalvis j, ForestManagementSupervisor MissoulaUnit September29, 2005