united states department of agriculturea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

United States Department of Agriculture

Cretaceous Hills Ecological Restoration Project Scoping Document

Forest Service Shawnee National Forest

Hidden Springs Ranger District October 2014

For More Information Contact:

Name Amanda Kunzmann

U. S. Forest Service,602 North First Street Vienna, IL 62955

[email protected] 618-658-1328

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Scoping Document

Table of Contents Who is proposing the project? ......................................................................................................... 1 Why are we proposing to take action? ............................................................................................ 1 What is being proposed? ................................................................................................................. 2 Where is the project located? .......................................................................................................... 2 When will the project take place? ................................................................................................... 2 Why is this project important? ........................................................................................................ 3

What are the desired conditions? ................................................................................................ 3 What are the current conditions and what created them? ............................................................ 3 What is the need for change? ...................................................................................................... 5 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 6

Purpose and Need Goals .......................................................................................................... 6 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................... 7

What are we proposing to do? ......................................................................................................... 9 Summary of Proposed Activities ................................................................................................... 10 Forest Management ....................................................................................................................... 11 Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................................... 12

Development of Prescribed Burning Units ............................................................................... 13 Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A − Maps ...................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix B – Project Design Features, Monitoring, Compliance ................................................ 44

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 50 Prescribed Fire ....................................................................................................................... 51 Timing and other constraints and considerations .................................................................. 52 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................... 53 Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 53

Compliance ............................................................................................................................... 53 Vegetation Management ........................................................................................................ 53

Appendix C – Proposed Roadwork ............................................................................................... 55 Endnote References ....................................................................................................................... 58

List of Tables

Table 1. Forest Plan management goal codes used for tracking the purpose and need ................... 6 Table 2. Hills Project objectives by Forest Plan management direction and management

indicators ................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3. Hills Project proposed activities summary ...................................................................... 10 Table 4. Summary of proposed prescribed fire activities .............................................................. 13 Table 5. Project design features for the Cretaceous Hills Ecological Restoration Project ............ 44 Table 6. Fuel monitoring triggers for subsequent entries .............................................................. 52 Table 7. Fuel monitoring triggers for subsequent entries .............................................................. 54 Table 8. Roadwork proposed for the Hills Project ........................................................................ 55

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cretaceous Hills Restoration Project Vicinity Map ........................................................ iii Figure 2. Cretaceous Hills Restoration Project Area Map ............................................................. iv Figure 3. Cretaceous Hills Restoration Project Vicinity Map ....................................................... 17 Figure 4. Cretaceous Hills Ecosystem Restoration Project Area Map .......................................... 18

i

Cretaceous Hills Ecological Restoration Project

Figure 5. Burke Branch prescribed burning map overview ........................................................... 19 Figure 6. Burke Branch prescribed burning map view 1 ............................................................... 20 Figure 7. Burke Branch prescribed burning map view 2 ............................................................... 21 Figure 8. Burke Branch prescribed burning map view 3 ............................................................... 22 Figure 9. Burke Branch prescribed burning map view 4 ............................................................... 23 Figure 10. Burke Branch silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 1 .................................. 24 Figure 11. Burke Branch natural areas .......................................................................................... 25 Figure 12. Dog Creek prescribed burning map overview ............................................................. 26 Figure 13. Dog Creek prescribed burning map view 1 .................................................................. 27 Figure 14. Dog Creek prescribed burning map view 2 .................................................................. 28 Figure 15. Dog Creek prescribed burning map view 3 .................................................................. 29 Figure 16. Dog Creek prescribed burning map view 4 .................................................................. 30 Figure 17. Dog Creek prescribed burning map view 5 .................................................................. 31 Figure 18. Dog Creek silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 1 ....................................... 32 Figure 19. Dog Creek silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 2 ....................................... 33 Figure 20. Dog Creek silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 3 ....................................... 34 Figure 21. Dog Creek silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 4 ....................................... 35 Figure 22. Dog Creek silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 5 ....................................... 36 Figure 23. Dog Creek natural areas ............................................................................................... 37 Figure 24. Robnett Barrens prescribed burning map overview ..................................................... 38 Figure 25. Robnett Barrens prescribed burning map view 1 ......................................................... 39 Figure 26. Robnett Barrens prescribed burning map view 2 ......................................................... 40 Figure 27. Robnett Barrens silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 1 .............................. 41 Figure 28. Robnett Barrens silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 2 .............................. 42 Figure 29. Robnett Barrens natural areas ...................................................................................... 43

ii

Scoping Document

Figure 1. Cretaceous Hills Restoration Project Vicinity Map

iii


Figure 2. Cretaceous Hills Restoration Project Area Map

iv

Scoping Document

At a Glance: Project Summary

Who: Hidden Springs Ranger District, Shawnee National Forest

Why: Hardwood forests are converting from the fire-dependent oak-hickory forest type to a beech maple forest; non-native pine plantations are converting to shade-tolerant hardwood forests invasive species are displacing native plants and woody vegetation and altering some ecosystems within designated natural areas; accumulations of hazardous fuels pose a threat in portions of the analysis area.

What: Prescribed burning (approximately 15,127 acres); mechanical treatment to remove non-native pine (approximately 3,186 acres); treatment of non-native invasive plants; and development of vernal ponds and upland water sources for bats and other species; roadwork; and fireline construction.

Where: Shawnee National Forest in Pope and Massac Counties, Illinois

When: A decision is expected in 2015 and implementation could begin in 2015

Who is proposing the project? The Hidden Springs Ranger District (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Shawnee National Forest) is proposing the Cretaceous Hills Ecological Restoration Project (Hills Project). The project would include prescribed burning, mechanical treatment removal of non-native pine trees using commercial timber sales and smaller shade-tolerant hardwood trees, wildlife treatments, and herbicide application.

Why are we proposing to take action? To restore fire-dependent native vegetation and ecosystems; help control invasive plants; and reduce fuels.

The hardwood forest within the project area is slowly converting from a fire-dependent oak-hickory forest to a beech-maple forest. The conversion is occurring due to more than 50 years of aggressive fire suppression and more than 15 years of minimal active forest management. With the exception of native shortleaf pine at LaRue-Pine Hills (on the Forest’s western edge), loblolly pine and shortleaf pine on the Shawnee National Forest (Forest) are not native, but were planted beginning in the 1930s and 1940s to control erosion on depleted farmland.

Fire-dependent: natural communities that are adapted to and rely on the effects of fire

The Forest has numerous and abundant populations of invasive plant species (invasives) that pose an increasingly serious threat to plant and animal community health and diversity.

Two ice storms (2008 and 2009) created gaps in the tree canopy and contributed to dead and down fuel (fuel loading). While the ice storms were natural disturbances, their effect increased the presence of several non-native plant species such as Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum, also called Japanese stiltgrass).

Numerous roads, in various states of repair, exist in the area. The attached maps indicate which of these roads would be used to remove harvested timber and which will serve as fire control lines during prescribed burning. Most of the roads will require maintenance work. In some cases roads may need to be extended or relocated to

1


increase their utility or lessen their impacts upon adjacent resources. After tree removal is completed, roads would be managed to provide a mix of public and administrative access.

What is being proposed? Prescribed burning; mechanical treatment of non-native pines using commercial timber sales and smaller hardwood trees; treatment of intrusive plant species; development of vernal ponds and upland water sources for bats and breeding habitat for amphibians; roadwork; and fireline construction.

We would implement prescribed burning (the controlled application of fire to the land to accomplish specific land management goals) on up to approximately 15,127 acres of lands administered by the Forest Service.

Within this acreage (on up to approximately 3,186 acres of pine plantations) we would remove non-native, shortleaf and loblolly pine, using overstory removal, clearcutting, shelterwood establishment cutting, and commercial thinning. Where necessary to decrease competition with native species following harvesting, loblolly pine would be treated with herbicide. We would mechanically treat hardwood species that tolerate shade and compete with oak seedlings in order to accelerate the conversion of harvested areas to a diverse, native hardwood forest. Such species include box elder, red and sugar maple, American beech, elms and other shade-tolerant species. Where necessary, herbicide could also be used to reduce competition with oak. In addition, we would cut smaller oak trees with dead tops and/or poor form (i.e., those pulled over during ice or wind events) and those severely damaged during treatments in order to promote sprouting.

We would treat invasive and intrusive plants with a variety of treatments, such as herbicide, hand pulling, scorching, or by mechanical methods. Mapped infestations in units to be harvested and burned and along access routes would be monitored and treated as funding permits.

Connected activities would include improving or in some cases, reconstructing roads (reconstruction, and restoration) and constructing roads to provide access necessary for project implementation and constructing prescribed fire control lines.

Where is the project located? The project is located on the Shawnee National Forest in Pope and Massac Counties, Illinois, on National Forest System lands in portions of T14S, R5E; T14S, R06E; T15S, R06E; and T15S, R07E (3rd Principal Meridian). The project is approximately 41 miles southeast of Marion, Illinois, and 321 miles south of Chicago, Illinois. (See Vicinity Area and Treatment Overview maps in appendix A.)

We propose treatments in Robnett Barrens, Burke Branch, and Dog Creek Project Areas, although pine harvest is not proposed within the Burke Branch Inventoried Roadless Area. Proposed treatment units and road developments are identified on the Hills Project Treatment Area maps in appendix A.

When will the project take place? Our intent is to use public input to refine the proposal and then to complete all environmental analysis by May 1, 2015. That would allow field operations to begin in the summer of 2015, with follow-up treatments as necessary to achieve desired condition. It is expected that the project would require years to implement depending upon level of budget and staffing.

2

Scoping Document

At a Glance: Why is this project important?

Desired Conditions: The Shawnee National Forest Plan (2006) states (page 13), “a composite of plant and wildlife communities, diversity supported by the oak-hickory forest, and large unfragmented blocks of hardwood forest.” (Even-Aged Hardwood MA: page 59) a natural-appearing landscape with stands of hardwood trees…interspersed with permanent and temporary openings; oak and hickory and associated understories dominate. A system of well-maintained roads and trails provides access for recreational use and management. (Mature Hardwood MA: page 68) a landscape of natural ecosystems…dominant, mature, hardwood trees and associated vegetation are interspersed with openland ecosystems…a system of roads and trails provides access for recreational use and management. (Natural Areas MA: page 76) unique areas with a variety of wildlife species and diverse vegetation, predominantly in a natural-appearing condition.

Current Conditions: Hardwood forests are converting from the historic fire-dependent oak-hickory forest community to a beech-maple forest type; non-native pine plantations are converting to shade-tolerant beech-maple hardwood forests; non-native invasive species are displacing native plants and woody vegetation and altering some ecosystems within designated natural areas; and fuels have accumulated on the ground.

Need for Change: Based on the difference between Forest Plan desired conditions and current conditions, individual needs and opportunities have been developed for the Hills Project area to address management goals specified in the Forest Plan.

Project Objectives: Derived by comparing the need for change to Forest Plan goals that are specific to the Hills Project.

Why is this project important? What are the desired conditions? The 2006 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) desired condition is “a composite of plant and wildlife communities, diversity supported by the oak-hickory forest, and large unfragmented blocks of hardwood forest” (page 13). Oak and hickory species should range from 70 to 90 percent of stand basal area in the uplands and from 30 to 90 percent on low slopes adjacent to stream terraces and floodplains. Upland forest exists in areas that normally do not flood. Stand basal area is the cross-sectional area (square feet per acre) of all trees measured at 4.5 feet above ground level.

Basal area is the term used in forest management that defines the area of a given section of land that is occupied by tree trunks.

What are the current conditions and what created them? Broad vegetation cover types in the project area include approximately 67 percent hardwood, 31 percent pine plantation, and 2 percent open land. Both the hardwood forest and pine stands vary from a pulpwood condition class to a mature sawtimber condition class

3

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Forest_management?qsrc=3044

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Tree?qsrc=3044


Condition class: Pulpwood - typically hardwood trees 10 inches or less diameter at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground) and pine trees 8 inches or less diameter at breast height; sawtimber - typically hardwood trees larger than 10 inches diameter at breast height and pine trees larger than 8 inches diameter at breast height.

Diameter class: An interval into which a range of diameters of tree stems may be divided.

The hardwood forest within the analysis area is slowly converting from the fire-dependent oak-hickory forest type to a beech-maple forest type. The conversion is occurring due to more than 50 years of aggressive fire suppression and more than 15 years of minimal active forest management.

Oak-hickory forests are those in which upland oak and hickory species dominate. Species commonly associated with the oak-hickory forest type include tuliptree, American ash, black cherry, cottonwood, and black walnut. The beech-maple forest has increased from 2 percent of forests in Illinois to 26 percent between 1962 and 1985. Between 1985 and 1998, red and sugar maples increased on the Shawnee National Forest by 19 percent in the 1.0- to 2.9-inch diameter class and by 79 percent in the 3.0- to 4.9-inch diameter class. These hardwood forests increasingly lack the strong oak and hickory components important to wildlife dependent on hard masts (nuts and acorns). Fire-dependent herbaceous (non-woody) plants are also decreasing in abundance.

Non-native pines now occupy about 45,000 acres of the Forest. Without disturbance, as pine trees grow old and die at ages ranging from 150 to 450 years, they will eventually be replaced by shade-tolerant hardwood species in many areas. Shade-tolerant tree species such as sugar maple and beech would then dominate these hardwood stands at the expense of fire-dependent herbaceous and woody species, including the strong native oak and hickory component so important to mast-dependent wildlife. Pine would persist in some areas indefinitely where natural disturbance promotes pine regeneration and growth. In some areas, pine is now expanding into interior forest habitat and also seeding into natural areas, impacting the natural biodiversity of these special areas.

Shade-tolerant species can grow in shady conditions

Shade-intolerant species need abundant sunlight for growth and development

Two ice storms (one in 2008 caused minor tree damage, and one in 2009 caused widespread tree damage) created gaps in the tree canopy and contributed to dead and down fuel (fuel loading). The effect of the 2009 storm was uncommon, because of the amount of fuel it deposited. Pine stands were unnaturally dense because trees were planted close together, and many stands were never thinned. Based on data collected after the 2009 storm, it appears that increased fuel loading varies considerably across the project area due to the nature of these storms. Some areas appear relatively unaffected, while others nearby may have fuel loading that exceeds 40 tons per acre. In contrast, average desired fuel load is 10 to 12 tons per acre or less. Due to the intermingled nature of the damage, mapping this phenomenon is impractical.

While the ice storms were natural disturbances, their effect increased the presence of non-native plant species such as the Nepalese browntop across the project areas. This species is already spreading at an alarming rate across the Forest and the extreme tree fall in the Hills project area has accelerated this spread. This annual grass is contributing to the potential for increased fire behavior in the project area. We are uncertain how Nepalese browntop would affect forest regeneration following proposed treatments.

4

Scoping Document

Reduced canopy cover, however, may provide an opportunity to promote regeneration of oak and hickory, especially with the use of prescribed fire. Research indicates that a combination of canopy disturbance and prescribed fire is effective at promoting and restoring the oak-hickory forest community type.1 Properly timed burn sequences and application of herbicide can help control Nepalese browntop and favor establishment of native, fire-dependent species, including oaks and hickories.

The Forest has numerous and abundant populations of invasive plant species (invasives) that pose an increasingly serious threat to plant and animal community health and diversity. There is a need to protect and restore naturally functioning native ecosystems on the Forest by controlling current and future threats of invasive infestations. “Control” means, as appropriate, eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing invasives; preventing spread of invasives from areas where they are present; and taking steps such as restoration of native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive plant species and to prevent further invasions (Executive Order 13112 invasive species).

The ecosystem health and resilience of the Forest will be increasingly compromised as invasives continue to spread. Action is needed now because populations of invasive plant species currently occur on the Forest and are degrading natural communities. Inventoried and new or unknown infestations continue to spread unchecked and threaten the native diversity of plants and animals. Because of the extent of the current invasive plant species problem, and to be able to treat future infestations more effectively, we must develop a broader and more comprehensive approach, with more effective tools.

The Forest undertook the Invasive Species Management Environmental Assessment project in 2014 to treat invasives at specific locations. The Hills Project would follow the treatment design methods specified in the Invasive Species Management Environmental Assessment while focusing on project areas not addressed in that Decision. In particular, there is a need to plan for treating known invasives within pine stand treatment areas and natural area treatment zones.

Survey work has begun in the project area, but invasive populations can be dynamic on the landscape. As a result, new infestations would be inventoried, monitored, and evaluated to determine if they can be controlled using this strategy. Ecosystems within several designated natural areas within the project area are becoming altered by the presence of non-native pines and other invasive plant species and also by an increase in fuel loading resulting from ice storm damage. The natural areas include Robnett Barrens Ecological Area, Dog Barrens Ecological Area and Dean Cemetery East Ecological Area (dry mesic barrens), and Burke Branch Research Natural Area (mesic barrens, mesic floodplain forest, dry mesic upland forest).

Mesic: of, pertaining to, or adapted to an environment having a balanced supply of moisture.

What is the need for change? We determine a need for change by comparing the existing conditions with the Forest Plan desired conditions. Individual needs and opportunities were developed for the Hills Project Area. These needs and opportunities have been determined by comparing the existing conditions in the project area with the applicable Forest Plan direction. The needs and opportunities are displayed in the order of the Management Goals found in the Forest Plan, Chapter IV, Forest Management Direction, pages 19 through 25.

At the landscape scale, disturbance from the reintroduction of fire into the fire-dependent ecosystem is needed to move toward the Forest Plan desired condition for the oak-hickory forest type.i At the same time, it is necessary to

i Pages 13, 16, 59, 68, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 37, 43, 44, 47, 294, 295, 296, 297.

5

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/environment


control (to the extent possible) the invasive plant species that are altering the native ecosystems in the project area.

Non-native pines were planted throughout the project area in the 1930s and 1940s to stabilize the soil after decades of intensive agricultural use (i.e., cultivation and erosion impacts). That goal has been achieved. Much of the project area has been managed in the past using commercial harvest and prescribed fire. The project area contains many oak, hickory and other hardwood seedlings and saplings that would benefit from increased sunlight. Field observations show that the pine overstory is suppressing the growth of hardwood trees in the project area, particularly oaks and hickories, the hard mast of which tends to yield the greatest benefit for many wildlife species. The continued removal of the pines would further aid the development of native oaks and hickories by providing additional light and growing space. On the other hand, leaving the pines will tend to favor eventual conversion to a stand of the most shade-tolerant species, limiting native plant and animal community diversity and resilience.

Throughout the NEPA process, codes are used to track how well the proposed action meets the purpose and need. Table 1 displays the purpose and need codes associated with the Forest Plan management goals identified for this project.

Table 1. Forest Plan management goal codes used for tracking the purpose and need Forest Plan

Management Goal Category Purpose and Need Tracking

Code Management Goal G Special-Feature Management SF Management Goal K Forest Ecosystem Health and Sustainability EH Management Goal M Wildlife, Fish and At-Risk Species WF Management Goal N Transportation System Management T Management Goal S Fire Management FM

Project Objectives

Purpose and Need Goals The following purpose and need goals are derived from those detailed in appendix B. • SF 1: To restore the natural barren communities, there is a need to reintroduce fire into these fire-dependent

communities and to control invasive plants (USDA FS 2006 pages 178−193). • SF 2a: To restore the mesic barrens ecosystem, there is a need to reintroduce fire and to control non-native

invasive plants (USDA FS 2006 pages 188−190). • SF 2b: To restore the mesic floodplain forest, there is a need to open up the forest canopy, reintroduce fire,

and control invasive plants (USDA FS 2006 pages 171−172). • SF 2c: To restore the dry mesic upland forest, there is a need to open up the forest canopy, reintroduce fire,

and control invasive plants (USDA FS 2006 pages 166−168). • EH 1a: There is need to maintain/restore biological diversity in the project area by reducing, controlling, or

eradicating invasive plant species and non-native planted pine (USDA FS 2006 pages 15, 47). • EH 1b: There is a need to promote oak-hickory interior habitat (USDA FS 2006 pages 22 and 43). • EH 1c. There is a need to provide open canopy conditions and oak regeneration on ridge tops and upper

slopes to provide habitat for interior wildlife species (USDA FS 2006 page 44). • EH 2a: In non-native pine stands, where there is an existing hardwood understory that includes both shade-

tolerant and shade-intolerant (oak-hickory) species, there is a need to reduce or eliminate the pine overstory to

6

Scoping Document

create conditions favorable for the release of the hardwoods and the establishment of the oak-hickory forest type.

• EH 2b: At the landscape scale, there is a need to provide conditions that will restore the oak-hickory ecosystem (USDA FS 2006 pages 43−44).

• EH 3: There is a need to eradicate, control, or reduce non-native pine within and adjacent to the natural areas. Treatments adjacent to these areas need to include a buffering distance sufficient to prevent seed dispersal into the natural areas (USDA FS 2006 pages 47, 76).

• EH 4: There is an opportunity to provide jobs and products to the local economy through treatment of non-native pine stands.

• WF 1: To restore and maintain native vegetation in riparian habitat, there is a need to treat non-native invasive plants (USDA FS 2006 pages 22, 43, 47).

• WF 2a: There is a need to reduce non-native plants to improve landscape and wildlife habitat diversity (USDA FS 2006 pages 47, 59, 65, 69, 237).

• WF 2b: There is a need to reduce invasive plants including pine, promote development of the oak-hickory community, and ensure that forest interior habitat is maintained (USDA FS 2006 pages 21, 22, 43, 47, 59, 76, 297).

• WF 3a: There is a need to integrate and implement a forest pest management program to eliminate non-native invasive plants to prevent long-term reduction in habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and species of concern (USDA FS 2006 pages 12, 47, USFWS 2005 page 62).

• WF 3b: There is a need to maintain or restore oak-hickory to provide habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species that utilize this forest type (USDA FS 2006 pages 54, 294−295, USFWS 2005 page 62).

• WF 4: Maintain a diversity of fish-less, shallow-water breeding areas across the Forest in both upland and bottomland forests.

• FM 1: To mimic fuel-loading conditions commonly associated with fire-dependent communities more closely, there is a need to reduce fuel loading in the project area. This would allow for effective and safe suppression of wildfires, increasing firefighter and public safety.

• FM 2: To reduce the risk of wildland fire on all ownerships, there is a need to reduce fuel loading on federal and adjacent private lands to reduce the risk of wildland fire on all ownerships.

• FM 3: There is an opportunity to maintain and improve interagency cooperation through collaboration in the fire management program.

• FM 4: There is a need to restore the fire-dependent ecosystem’s form and function and reduce fuel loading. • FW77 (G): There is a need to provide a transportation system that will support the safe and efficient

implementation of Forest management (USDA FS 2006 pages 23, 50).

Project Objectives Table 2 displays, by resource, the project-specific objectives, the associated Forest Plan direction, and the analysis indicators used to assess the effects of proposed activities.

7


Table 2. Hills Project objectives by Forest Plan management direction and management indicators

Project Objective Purpose and Need Goals (see table 1)

Desired Treatment Effects Analysis Indicator Reason for Indicator

Selection A. Remove invasive pine and pine seed source in and adjacent to natural areas.

SF2b, SF2c, EH1a, EH 1b, EH 1c, EH 2a, EH 2b, EH 3, EH4, WF1, WF 2a, WF 2b, WF 3a,

Virtually all invasive pine and invasive pine seed source removed within 10 years (e.g., via clearcut or overstory removal treatments).

Area of complete invasive pine removal in and adjacent to natural areas within 10 years.

Area treated would indicate the extent to which invasive pine and invasive pine seed source are removed within 10 years.

B. Remove invasive pine and pine seed source farther from natural areas.

SF2b, SF2c, EH 1a, EH 1b, EH 1c, EH 2a, EH 2b, EH 4, WF 1, WF 2a, WF 2b, WF 3a

Virtually all invasive pine and invasive pine seed source removed within 10 years (e.g., via, overstory removal treatments).

Area of complete invasive pine removal farther from natural areas within 10 years.

Area treated would indicate the extent to which invasive pine and invasive pine seed source are removed within 10 years.

C. Reduce contribution of invasive pine to restore native hardwood forest where other resource objectives preclude complete pine removal during the initial entry.

SF2b, SF2c, EH 1a, EH 1b, EH 1c, EH 2a, EH 2b, EH 3, EH 4, WF 1, WF 2b, WF3b

Virtually all invasive pine and invasive pine seed source removed within 20 years of the initial entry (e.g., via shelterwood establishment cuts and subsequent commercial thinning treatments).

Area of complete invasive pine removal farther from natural areas within 20 years of the initial entry.

Area treated would indicate the extent to which invasive pine and invasive pine seed source are removed within 20 years of the initial entry.

D. Provide a diversity of conditions to ensure that habitat is provided for wildlife, including at risk species.

EH 1a, EH 1b, EH 1c, EH 2a, EH 2b, EH 3, EH 4, WF 2a, WF 2b, WF 3b, WF 4

Promote establishment of fire-dependent and acorn-producing species. Provide habitat for species that require declining early seral conditions and promote amphibian breeding habitat.

Acres of oak/hickory and seral habitat established. Acres and sites of breeding habitat developed.

Area treated would indicate the amount and extent of early forest structure and oak/hickory habitat established.

E. Restore entry-dependent ecosystems (including the oak-hickory forest community).

SF1, SF2a, SF2b, SF2c, EH 1a, EH 1b, EH 1c, EH 2a, EH 2b, EH 3, WF 2a, WF 2b, WF 3b, FM1, FM 2, FM 3, FM 4

Increased contribution of fire-dependent, shade-intolerant species relative to shade-tolerant, oak-competitor species.

Area prescribed burned within 20 years.

Area burned could realistically be measured and recorded. Future forest composition could be modeled, but output accuracy would likely be low. Extensive monitoring would be infeasible.

F. Reduce coverage and spread of invasive plants

SF1, SF2a, SF2b, SF2c, EH 1a, EH 2a, EH 2b, EH 3, WF 1, WF 2a, WF 2b, WF 3a, WF 3b, FM 4

Reduced coverage and spread of invasive plants.

Acres of invasive herbicide treatment within 10 years.

Area treated could realistically be recorded. Monitoring would be incorporated into any treatment plan, but extensive, monitoring outside of specific invasives treatment areas extending beyond 5 years could be infeasible.

G. Reduce fuel loading on both Federal and adjacent private lands.

FM 1, FM 2. FM 3, FM 4

Reduce fuel loading to levels commonly associated with fire-dependent communities on both Federal and adjacent private lands.

Acres of Federal and adjacent private land where prescribed fire has effectively reduced fuel loading.

Acres where fuel loading has been reduced could be used to measure effective reductions in potential fire behavior.

8

Scoping Document

Table 2. Hills Project objectives by Forest Plan management direction and management indicators

Project Objective Purpose and Need Goals (see table 1)

Desired Treatment Effects Analysis Indicator Reason for Indicator

Selection H. Transportation T Manage roads at

intended maintenance class consistent with future administrative and public access goals.

Miles of roads receiving BMP maintenance commensurate with use.

Simple to analyze, addresses public and administrative needs for roads.

In addition to the objectives identified in table 2, a couple of constraints should be recognized.

• First, the Forest Plan requires maintaining visual resources in the EH and MH management prescriptions. Therefore, we are only proposing clearcut treatments in and adjacent to natural areas where the need to remove the non-native, invasive pine and the associated seed source is most urgent. In addition, where overstory removal and concurrent logging damage could reduce stand basal areas to below 30 square feet per acre, we are erring on the side of caution by proposing the shelterwood establishment cut.

Viewshed – The total landscape seen or potentially seen from all or a logical part of a travel route, use area, or waterbody.

• Second, we want to maximize operational efficiency and limit risk. As a result, we are proposing to remove the pine in one or two entries rather than with the more expensive lighter three-step shelterwood system, for example. In this way, we hope to maximize the benefit-to-cost ratio and stretch funding to best achieve the project objectives. In the same way, we also hope to reduce risk associated with the uncertainty of future funding, availability of personnel, and public acceptance of numerous mechanical entries.

At a Glance: What are we proposing to do?

Vegetation treatments: overstory removal, clearcut, shelterwood establishment cut, timber stand improvement

Prescribed fire: landscape burning, activity fuel reduction

Non-native invasive plant treatments: prescribed burning, herbicide application, barren and glade restoration

Wildlife treatments: Vernal pond development

Project implementation activities: road reconstruction and restoration, construction of new system and temporary roads, refresh and construct new firelines

What are we proposing to do? The Forest Plan states that, “A combination of landscape-scale prescribed burns, shelterwood timber harvest, and timber stand improvement will be employed to interrupt succession to the beech maple forest type in those places where oak and hickory species have grown historically.”2 The Plan also states that pine removal will help convert non-native pine plantations to native hardwood forest to increase the biodiversity of the Forest and regional

9


landscapes.3 This goal emphasizes the maintenance of a healthy and sustainable hardwood-forest ecosystem with strong representation by oak-hickory forest community types. The goal also includes the production of timber products as a by-product of ecosystem restoration activities. This would utilize a renewable forest resource and support the need for wood products in an environmentally sound manner that is compatible with other uses.

Occurrences of invasives would be treated as they arise or are discovered in the project area, without initiating a new analysis each time. This would allow the Forest Service to control new infestations more quickly and efficiently. Treatment methods that do not conform to the established strategy would require a separate analysis process.

Summary of Proposed Activities Table 3 displays a summary of proposed activities. Proposed activity, quantity of the activity (acres, miles, etc.), and objectives addressed by the activity are identified. Some activities would be repeated as needed to achieve the goals and objectives outlined above.

Project design features can be found in appendix B.

Table 3. Hills Project proposed activities summary Activity Amount Addresses Project

Objectives (see table 2) Forest Management

Overstory Removal (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Code 4143) Initial entry

Acres: 489 A, B, and D

Clearcut (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Code 4113) Initial entry

Acres: 87 A and D

Shelterwood Establishment Cut (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Code 4131) Initial entry

Acres: 2,610 B, C, and D

Timber Stand Improvement Treatments – Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Code 4494) Initial Entry

Acres: 3,186 A, B, C, and E

Commercial Thin (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Code 4220) Second Entry

Acres: 2,610 B

Timber Stand Improvement Treatments – Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Code 4494) Second Entry

Acres: 2,610 A, B, C, and E

Prescribed Fire

Landscape Rx burning 15,127 acres D, E, F, G Activity fuel Rx burning 3,186 acres D, E, F, G

Non-native Invasive Plants Mechanical small tree and shrub removal in natural areas (Robnett, Dean East, Dog Creek, Burke Branch)

up to 445 acres F

Prescribed burning-Invasives 3,350 acres F

10

Scoping Document

Table 3. Hills Project proposed activities summary Activity Amount Addresses Project

Objectives (see table 2) Herbicide Acres 4,727 acres

Noxious Weeds (2,962) and Pine Stands(1,765); some of these acres are the same as listed under Prescribed burning-Invasives above

F

Mechanical small tree and shrub removal in natural areas (Robnett, Dean East, Dog Creek, Burke Branch)

up to 445 acres F

Wildlife Develop vernal ponds and gray treefrog habitat 25 acres D

Activities Associated with Project Implementation Roadwork

Construct New System Roads 4.3 miles T Road Reconstruction 22.0 miles T Culverts:

• Replace 5 T

• New 1 T

• New culverts or fords 14 T

Fords:

• Maintenance 2 T

• New 2 T

• New ford or bridge 1 T

Bridges:

• Temporary 2 T

• New 1 T

Firelines – needed to safely implement prescribed burning Using existing roads, creeks, and rights of way 103 miles D, E, F and G Newly constructed 113 miles D, E, F and G

Forest Management Non-native pines were planted throughout the project area to stabilize the soil after decades of intensive agricultural use. That goal has been achieved. Much of the project area has been managed in the past using commercial harvest and prescribed fire. The project area contains many oak, hickory, and other hardwood seedlings and saplings that would benefit from increased sunlight. Field observations show that the pine overstory is suppressing the growth of hardwood trees in the project area, particularly oaks and hickories, the hard mast of which tends to yield the greatest benefit for many wildlife species. The continued removal of the pines would further aid the development of native oaks and hickories by providing additional light and growing space. On the other hand, leaving the pines will tend to favor eventual conversion to a stand of the most shade-tolerant species, limiting native plant and animal community diversity and resilience.

11


The Forest Plan states that since the management objective for the pine-type is to restore pre-settlement conditions, any harvesting method that reduces the pine component and reduces pine regeneration potential could be used.

We propose mechanical treatments where we would remove invasive pine utilizing overstory removal, clearcut, and shelterwood establishment cut harvesting methods. Commercial thinning would be implemented during the second entry as a follow-up treatment to the shelterwood establishment cut. Although the shelterwood removal cut typically follows the shelterwood establishment cut, the terminology “commercial thinning” is more appropriate in this case.

Timber stand improvement treatments would be implemented on all pine units proposed for mechanical treatment, as funding permits. During these treatments, many smaller oak-competitor hardwood trees would be cut and resulting stumps treated with herbicides. Some understory oak treessuch as those damaged during recent ice storms now with dead tops or poor formwould also be cut, typically within 6 inches of the ground to produce quality sprouts. Healthy oak trees that are still standing straight would be retained, treated as a crop tree, and released from competition (i.e., poplar or ash trees).

We would mechanically treat identified units that include at least some pine trees and are located within the Robnett, Burke Branch, and Dog Creek project areas. As a result of past management history, some pine plantations proposed for treatment are no longer dominated by pine and may appear to be hardwood stands. The Burke Branch Project Area includes approximately 6,844 acres administered by the Forest Service, of which 6,210 acres are inventoried roadless. Although invasive pine plantations comprise approximately 20 percent (1,776 acres) of the Burke Branch Project Area, no mechanical treatment is proposed within the roadless area. The Forest Plan allows vegetation treatments within the Burke Branch roadless area for non-timber harvesting objectives, but prohibition on vehicular access precludes commercial harvesting in the immediate planning proposal.

Treatment timing and sequence would depend on environmental, operational, and funding constraints. Where constraints permit, however, treatment priority would be in and adjacent to natural areas. As feasible, mechanical treatment would precede initial burns by several years to provide time for development of oak root systems and increase the probability of post-fire sprouting

No commercial harvesting of hardwood trees is proposed, but some hardwoods with tree diameter at breast height less than 10 inches would be cut during timber stand improvement treatments. In addition, incidental cutting of hardwood trees of any size may be necessary during improvement, construction, and maintenance of roads, skid trails, firelines, and landings. Cutting of hardwoods and potential roost trees will be consistent with project design features.

Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire comprises a large part of the Proposed Action, including approximately 15,126 acres of landscape burning and approximately 3,186 acres of activity fuel removal (burning of logging slash/debris).

Table 4 displays a summary of the proposed prescribed burning activities. For a list of individual activities and maps, see appendix A. See below for a description of the various types of firelines.

12

Scoping Document

Table 4. Summary of proposed prescribed fire activities Prescribed fire by area Number of Burn Block Units Acres

Dog Creek 81 4,467 Burke Branch 84 6,838 Robnett Barrens 30 3,821 Total all areas 195 15,126

Associated firelines – all areas Miles Acres Existing – all areas 103 191

Existing roads 71 129 Creeks and streams 30 55 Rights-of-way 2 7

Constructed firelines – all areas 112 110

Level 1 roads − reopen 20 7

Hand lines 16 29 Bulldozer (interior lines) 11 11 Bulldozer ( lines along private) 65 63

*Includes 2 miles of roads to be created for timber harvest

Development of Prescribed Burning Units The Forest Plan standard and guideline FW51.1.2 (G) Fire Use (Prescribed Fire and Wildland Fire-Use Fire) (page 47) states:

Prescribed fire and wildland-fire use may be employed to accomplish oak and other species regeneration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildlife habitat management, ecological restoration, maintenance of fire-dependent plant communities, timberstand improvement and other management objectives. Preference should be given to landscape-scale burns. When possible, natural or existing features, such as streams, roads and trails, should be used as firebreaks.

Proposed prescribed burning units and the associated fire control lines for the Hills Project are displayed on maps in appendix A. These units were developed on National Forest System lands in the project area to meet the following:

• The need to use prescribed burning in the project area is to:

Reintroduce fire to the ecosystem to maintain the historic oak-hickory forest. This would help reverse the current conversion to dominance by mixed mesophytic, shade-tolerant species such as sugar maple and American beech. While these species were historically a component of the forest, they were a minor one.

Reduce excess fuel loading as a result of the 2008 and 2009 ice storms and many decades of fire suppression in the project area.

Reduce non-native invasive species while enabling fire-adapted native plants to be maintained or become reestablished.

• To identify potential earth-disturbing activities associated with prescribed fire; approximate locations for prescribed fire control lines have been identified. There is a desire by the Forest Service to provide flexibility for implementing prescribed burning within the project area over the coming years.

The initial intent of delineating burn units was to maximize the prescribed burning of Forest Service-administered land within the project area. This was accomplished by proposing prescribed fire control lines in locations that developed the largest logical burn units within Federal ownership while utilizing to the extent practical existing geographical features (roads, streams, rights-of-way).

13


The use of existing roads, streams or other barriers minimizes the amount of new control line construction necessary to manage a given prescribed burn, generally making implementation easier while reducing project cost. Efficient prescribed burning would entail the ignition of one or several of these large interior blocks of national forest while using a set of these existing barriers as control lines.

Typically, existing roads, streams or other features do not coincide with the boundaries between national forest and private lands. In most cases, limiting prescribed burning to areas encircled by existing control lines will leave unburned many acres of forest that would otherwise benefit. On the maps in appendix A, we show what these additional units would look like. In most cases, the private/forest boundary would require the construction of fire control lines, greatly increasing the amount of dozer work associated with the project. These additional dozer lines, and their environmental effects will be identified and disclosed in the environmental assessment. This focus on building the largest logical burn units first, then attempting to capture all possible National Forest System acres for burning, results in some burn units close to the Forest / private boundary that may contain:

• Very small potential burn units

• High ratios of dozer line proposed for the acres burned

• Burn units that have shapes that might make them difficult to implement

• Proposed control lines that are not in the best location with regard to topography and would represent a potential escape risk

Where burn units join private property, we have the ability to partner with the adjacent landowner and create a burn unit that includes both National Forest System lands and private property. This partnership is encouraged under the Wyden Amendment (Public Law 105-277, Section 323 as amended by Public Law 109-54, Section 434). The Wyden Amendment authorizes the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements with willing Federal, tribal, state, and local governments, private and nonprofit entities, and landowners for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and other resources on public or private land that benefit those resources within the watershed (FSM 1587.15). Partnering with private landowners in the location of fire control lines will greatly increase the likelihood that these smaller, irregular-shaped units will be included in the project and will also extend the ecological benefits of burning to private lands in the project area. The Forest Service already has some Wyden Agreements that do not appear on the maps.

If you are considering partnering with the Forest to accomplish prescribed burning, you need to consider the following:

1. An overall benefit to the Federal government must be demonstrated. Not all of the land you own may qualify.

2. The use of this authority is non-compulsory – the private landowner must be a willing participant and all activities would need to be under a signed, cooperative agreement.

By partnering with adjacent landowners through Wyden Agreements, several things may be accomplished.

• Increase the size of identified burn units along the Forest boundary by expanding the burn unit to an appropriate fire control feature on lands of other ownership, such as a road, agricultural land, stream, etc.

• Using existing features on lands of other ownership would likely reduce the overall amount of newly constructed control lines associated with the project, thereby, reducing costs and environmental effects and increasing benefits to a larger number of acres. These benefits include increasing the overall total number of acres treated to reduce fuels, encouraging the restoration of the native oak/hickory forest, and reducing non-native invasive species.

14

Scoping Document

• Partnering with adjacent owners could also reduce the risk of escaped fire in some instances or may enable the Forest Service to burn areas of National Forest System lands that might otherwise be difficult to implement if the Forest Service was limited to acres within its ownership boundary.

We encourage adjacent landowners who are interested in developing a Wyden Agreement to partner with the Forest Service for prescribed burning to let us know by providing comment during this Scoping period.

Proposed fireline locations displayed on the maps are based on our most current information. Before implementation, these control lines will be field verified to ensure that they are located in the appropriate location, and that the appropriate control line will be used (hand line, bulldozer, etc.), depending on circumstances at the time of implementation.

Burn units may be dropped or combined, or divided as appropriate at the time of implementation. Such changes would be compared to the analysis of effects prepared for this project before implementation would begin. As a result of combining burn units, some interior control lines would not be needed. This would typically result in less impact than analyzed for some resources.

We will consider the following when setting priorities for implementing prescribed burning. It should be noted this list is neither complete nor necessarily in order of importance.

• Opportunities to reduce fuel hazard and fire risk

• Ability to maintain and develop relationships with cooperators

• Benefits to special habitats/rare plants/natural areas

• Efficient return of fire to its natural role in the ecosystem with consideration for risks.

• Coordination with silvicultural and/or noxious weeds treatments

• Ability of the burn unit to meet multiple objectives as outlined in the environmental documentation and as identified by agency direction.

Transportation System road maintenance, construction, and reconstruction would occur to remove forest products, provide access for future management opportunities and to meet the Forest Plan goals for public access within the analysis area. Proposed locations, lengths, and types of use of roads are estimates. These locations, lengths, and types of use may vary during implementation.

15

Scoping Document

Appendix A − Maps

Figure 3. Cretaceous Hills Restoration Project Vicinity Map

17


Figure 4. Cretaceous Hills Ecosystem Restoration Project Area Map

18

Scoping Document

Figure 5. Burke Branch prescribed burning map overview

19


Figure 6. Burke Branch prescribed burning map view 1

20

Scoping Document


21



22

Scoping Document


23


Figure 10. Burke Branch silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 1

24

Scoping Document

Figure 11. Burke Branch natural areas

25


Figure 12. Dog Creek prescribed burning map overview

26

Scoping Document

Figure 13. Dog Creek prescribed burning map view 1

27



28

Scoping Document


29



30

Scoping Document


31


Figure 18. Dog Creek silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 1

32

Scoping Document


33



34

Scoping Document


35



36

Scoping Document

Figure 23. Dog Creek natural areas

37


Figure 24. Robnett Barrens prescribed burning map overview

38

Scoping Document

Figure 25. Robnett Barrens prescribed burning map view 1

39


Figure 26. Robnett Barrens prescribed burning map view 2

40

Scoping Document

Figure 27. Robnett Barrens silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 1

41


Figure 28. Robnett Barrens silviculture and roadwork treatment map view 2

42

Scoping Document

Figure 29. Robnett Barrens natural areas

43


Appendix B – Project Design Features, Monitoring, Compliance

Table 5. Project design features for the Cretaceous Hills Ecological Restoration Project Project Design

Feature # / Resource Area

Design Feature or Criteria Target species/habitat

1. Wildlife – Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species

During prescribed fires, consideration would be given to smoke sensitive areas downwind, including Indiana bat, gray bat and northern long-eared bat hibernacula. Smoke management will be incorporated into fire implementation plans and wildland fire situation analysis. No burning may take place within 500 feet of Brasher Cave.

Indiana, gray, and northern long-eared bats


Prescribed burns will be conducted under conditions that reduce or eliminate the dispersal of smoke into the known hibernacula. Indiana, gray and

northern long-eared bats


For protection of the Indiana, gray bat and northern long-eared bat maternity roosts and foraging habitat, prescribed burning will occur at the following times:

• Upland forest – September 1 to April 30. • Bottomland Forest – September 1 to March 31.

Indiana, gray and northern long-eared bats


For the protection of the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat roosting habitat:

• No more than 20 percent of the area within 2.5 miles of any known hibernacula would be burned (blackened) each year.

• No more than 50 percent of the area between 2.5 to 5 miles from any known hibernacula would be burned (blackened) each year.



If a cave or abandoned mine is identified during implementation, significant disturbance (including timber harvest and fire line construction) would be prohibited within 100 feet of a cave entrance or open, abandoned mine entrance when occupied by bats.



Forested corridors would be retained between caves or abandoned mines utilized by bats and foraging areas (e.g., stream or reservoir).



Within 5 miles of known roosts or hibernacula, known roost trees will not be removed through harvesting. Management of these areas should maintain a diversity of age, size and species classes of potential roost trees.

Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat

44

Scoping Document





Retain all standing dead trees unless removal is necessary for human safety or to accomplish project objectives. If a dead tree that is a potential roost tree must be removed, cutting can occur during the following periods: • November 16 to March 31 if the tree is less than or equal

to 5 miles from a hibernacula • October 1 to March 31 if the tree is more than 5 miles from

a hibernacula

Indiana bat and snag-dependent species


No commercial harvest of hardwoods would occur. Incidental cutting of hardwoods 10 inches or more in diameter may be necessary to maintain roads, skid trails, fire lines and landings. All trees removed will be evaluated by a wildlife biologist. If it is determined that a tree provides desired roost habitat conditions (e.g., exfoliating bark or cavities), then a mist net or exit survey would be required to document non-use by bats. The following would be implemented based on the results of the evaluation: • If the tree does not provide desired roost conditions and/or

non-use by roosting bats has been documented, it can be removed at any time of year.

• For trees that provide desired roost conditions and/or those where non-use by bats has not been determined, harvest would occur during the following periods: • November 16 to March 31 if the tree is 5 miles or less

from a hibernacula • October 1 to March 31 if the tree is more than

5 miles from a hibernacula

Indiana and northern long-eared bats


In order to promote regeneration of oak and hickory in shelterwood units, some cutting of shade-tolerant hardwoods less than 10 inches in diameter may be necessary. Unless mist net surveys, exit surveys or other surveys approved by the USFWS are done prior to cutting to identify known roosting habitats, any cutting of trees between 5 and 10 inches in diameter must be done as follows outside the summer roost period:

• Trees that are 5 miles or less from a hibernacula would be removed between November 16 and March 21.

• Trees that are more than 5 miles from a hibernacula would be removed between October 1 and March 31.

Indiana and northern long-eared bats


Large numbers of pine snags and damaged trees may provide potential Indiana bat roost trees. One year prior to timber removal, mist net surveys, exit surveys, or other surveys approved by the USFWS will be conducted. If an Indiana bat is documented, then the USFWS will be consulted prior to implementation. If Indiana bats are absent, then Pinus echinata could be removed at any time.

Indiana bat


If a den is found prior to or during implementation, it will be protected from human disturbance. Oak/hickory forests including early and late successional habitat and barrens habitat will be maintained within a 2- to 5-mile radius of known dens.

Timber rattlesnake

45






When burning openings with a shrub component, use control lines and/or firing techniques to maintain existing shrubs to the extent possible

Migrant loggerhead shrike and shrub nesting birds

14. Wildlife – Habitat and Species Diversity

For the protection of migratory bird nests and nestlings, growing season burns would be implemented as early or as late in the season as possible, preferably before April 15 and after August 1.

Migratory birds


On sites receiving timber stand improvement, trees and shrubs containing known bird nests will not be felled from April 1 through August 31. Migratory birds


In order to provide habitat for wildlife dependent on downed wood and when consistent with fuel management objectives, retain a component of coarse woody debris (i.e., logs over 3 inches), preferably at a rate of 5 to 7 tons per acre within burn units.

Species dependent on coarse woody debris


In order to maintain understory diversity and where consistent with fuel and silvicultural objectives, use control lines and/or firing techniques to maintain an understory shrub component on 10 to 25 percent of the treatment site.

Understory diversity


Maintained openings should not be used as landings or staging areas. Coordinate with the district biologist during layout and implementation of timber harvest or prescribed burning adjacent to these areas.

Maintained openings and old field habitat

19. Invasive Species – Public Affairs

Continue to raise awareness and inform and educate the public and forest visitors and staff about (1) the issue and effects of invasive species on the forest, (2) prevention activities, and (3) opportunities to participate in low-impact invasive species removal activities.

NA

20. Invasive Plant Treatments

Clean all equipment before entering and leaving project sites. NA


Workers should inspect, remove and properly dispose of plant parts found on clothing and equipment before entering or leaving the project area.

NA


All treatment locations will be marked with global positioning systems and tracked in the database of record.

NA


Known or new occurrences that cross ownership boundaries will be noted and data shared with landowners and other agencies.

NA

24. Invasive Species – Botanical

Protect rare plant resources, including State-listed threatened and endangered species, from mechanical or chemical treatments.

NA

25. Invasive Species – Wildlife

Retain all standing dead trees unless necessary to cut for human safety or to accomplish project objectives.

NA


To reduce the chances of affecting bat maternity roosts and foraging habitats, no prescribed burns shall be done in upland forests from May 1 through September 1.

NA

46

Scoping Document





For protection of nesting migratory birds, burns should be done as early or late in the season as possible, preferably before April 15 and after August 1.

NA


To protect eastern small-footed bats, fires will not be ignited near known-occupied rock outcroppings or cave entrances in the project area. No firelines would be constructed in or immediately adjacent to cave habitat.

NA

29. Invasive Species – Heritage

The Area of Potential Effects will be reviewed and inventoried as needed to ensure that all heritage resources are adequately protected.

NA

30. Invasive Species – Recreation and Visual

Ensure visitor safety before, during, and after burning activities. Burn areas should be closed to the public.

NA


Protect recreational improvements (campgrounds, trailheads and trail-signing).

NA


Damage to trails and roads used as firebreaks or for access should be repaired to standard.

NA

33. Invasive Species – Soil and Water

Use erosion-control measures, including seeding, for firelines that could erode soil into water resources.

NA


Avoid intense burns that remove forest-floor litter and expose excessive bare soil.

NA


Maintain soil-stabilization practices until the site is fully revegetated and stabilized.

NA


Apply guidelines for protecting water quality and riparian areas; guidelines for the reducing bare-soil disturbance; retaining native vegetation, and limiting soil disturbance as much as possible.

NA


Revegetate soils disturbed by management activities by allowing growth of existing on-site vegetation where possible and desirable or by planting or seeding native vegetation.

NA


Fueling or oiling mechanical equipment must be done away from aquatic habitats.

NA


When using pesticides in riparian areas and within 100 feet of sinkholes, springs, wetlands and cave openings, adhere to the following: Minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides; use only pesticides labeled for use in or near aquatic systems; and use only herbicides based on analysis that shows they are environmentally sound and the most biologically effective method practicable.

NA

47





40. Soil and Water Resources

Use the best management practices defined by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Division of Forest Resources to guide management activities with regard to streambank restoration and/or stabilization and management of large, woody debris.

NA


Minimize skid trail area (skid trails would normally be less than 15 percent of the mechanical treatment area) and avoid crossing streams as feasible.

NA


Construct and maintain water-control structures to divert water off the skid-trails.

NA


Fell trees away from streams and ponds where practicable and remove logging-slash by hand or cable far enough to prevent slash from accumulating in stream channels and ponds.

NA


Designate skid-trails, reusing previous skid-trails and log-landings. Skid-trails will normally avoid crossing streams when practical. Rip, seed, and mulch skid-trails and log landings as soon as practical after disturbance.

NA


Limit bare (mineral) soil exposure to 10 percent within each 150-foot length of streamside management zone. These limits apply to ground-disturbing activities within 100 to 300 feet of perennial streams, 50 to 150 feet of intermittent steams and 25 feet of ephemeral streams.

NA


Locate landings in the most suitable locations – as indicated by the Log Landing Location Rating – as feasible.

NA

47. Prescribed fire use

Prescribed fire and wildland-fire use may be employed to accomplish oak and other species regeneration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildlife habitat management, ecological restoration, maintenance of fire-dependent plant communities, timberstand improvement, and other management objectives. Preference should be given to landscape-scale burns. When possible, natural or existing features, such as streams, roads and trails, should be used as firebreaks

All

48. Air Quality – prescribed fire

All management-ignited prescribed fires shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of an approved burning plan. Smoke management planning must be used to control the effects of smoke emissions and meet air-quality standards. During prescribed fires, consideration shall be given to smoke-sensitive areas downwind of the burn, including Indiana bat and gray bat hibernacula.

NA

49. Transportation Road and route improvements would be implemented using applicable best management practices.

NA

50. Transportation Road and route improvements would be implemented in accordance with appropriate Forest Service design standards, based on the assigned maintenance level and standard of the road.

NA

51. Transportation Appropriate temporary traffic control, including signing, during implementation, to ensure worker and public safety.

NA

48

Scoping Document




52. Transportation Project implementation would utilize Forest Service engineering consultation and monitoring as necessary in order to accomplish the above measures

NA

49


Monitoring Monitoring and evaluation entail comparing results being achieved to those projected in the Forest Plan and project-level effects analysis. They provide the decision maker and the public information on the progress and results of project implementation.

Vegetative monitoring would be completed as follows.

1. To ensure that stands are adequately stocked within five years after regeneration harvests as required by National Forest Management Act. Based on local experience, stands are expected to naturally regenerate successfully; however, there is some uncertainty associated with impact of the non-native invasive grass, Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum) and other invasive species.

According to the Forest Plan, stocking surveys shall be made the first and third years after regeneration efforts (shelterwood, seed-tree, or clearcut harvesting).4 Minimum acceptable stocking in regenerated stands shall be identified in silvicultural prescriptions for specific stands. Depending on stocking survey results, site preparation and/or planting could be necessary. Artificial regeneration should be used when the conditions necessary for natural regeneration are not present, or when it is needed to maintain or restore desired species composition. Site-preparation may be required before planting when competition problems exist, such as when the predominant vegetation is a dense cover of briars, vines, scattered brush and small trees; or when heavy turf or dense weeds are present over more than 50 percent of the area. Browse control may also be necessary for successful regeneration, establishment, and growth of desirable tree species.

2. To determine if a stand is stocked with hardwoods and, therefore, ready for the second entry (commercial thinning) to remove all remaining pine.

Following the shelterwood establishment cut, the overstory should be removed 5 to 10 years after the advanced regeneration is determined to be adequate.5 We anticipate that the commercial thinning would, therefore, occur 10 to 20 years after the initial entry (after the shelterwood establishment cut). Monitoring must identify when advanced regeneration is adequate. Given a primary objective of restoring native hardwood forest (rather than maximizing oak regeneration) and to avoid creating openings, advanced regeneration would be considered adequate when stands contain more than 30 square feet per acre hardwood basal area (after accounting for logging damage anticipated during the subsequent commercial thinning). For example, if 10 square feet of hardwood basal area is expected to be lost during the commercial thinning, then stocking would be considered adequate when the mean stand hardwood basal area is more than 40 square feet per acre and we would schedule the commercial thinning for 5 to 10 years after this stocking is achieved.

3. To ascertain the need for herbicide control of pine regeneration subsequent to any mechanical or burn treatments in pine units.

Herbicide treatment of pine seedlings would be intended to prevent any pine seedlings from surviving long enough to join the midstory and overstory. Treatment of even a single stem may be justified if weeds are being treated in the immediate vicinity. In areas removed from other ongoing herbicide treatments, monitoring would help managers determine whether the pine seedlings are dying out in the understory or if they are surviving to potentially join the midstory and overstory, in which case herbicide treatment would be necessary.

50

Scoping Document

4. To determine composition and structure of regeneration and advanced regeneration for purposes of adapting treatments.

For example, if Nepalese browntop excessively impacts competition with oak regeneration, then we would re-evaluate the timing or sequence of invasive plant herbicide treatment.

Prescribed Fire We would monitor treatment units and reapply prescribed fire based on monitoring results. Examples of factors that would be considered include:

Time interval since last prescribed burn, Time of year when prescribed burning occurred, Fire intensity and duration, Impacts and effects on vegetation (including tree species composition), Impacts to invasives, and Smoke outputs.

We would implement subsequent prescribed burning as feasible to maximize and maintain treatment effectiveness and incorporate monitoring results.

We divided the project area into logical burn blocks. Where possible, burn blocks use roads, streams, and other features such as rights-of-way. Some fireline may need to be constructed. Numerous stands may comprise these burn blocks. Some stands are hardwoods where no harvesting will take place, some stands are pine units where no harvesting will take place, and some stands are pine units where harvesting will take place.

1. Fuels monitoring would be completed as follows: Prescribed fire burn blocks would be evaluated after burn completion, and fire effects would be noted in the prescribed burn plan to determine if objectives were met. Before implementing a follow-up burn in the same block, we would conduct a walkthrough after leaf and /or needle drop to assess the burn block’s ability to carry a prescribed fire.

2. Subsequent prescribed burn entry in forested stands with an overstory present would be triggered by a minimum of 1.5 tons per acre in surface litter and 1.5 inches of surface litter depth, evenly distributed throughout the block. The amount (in tons per acre) and depth (in inches) of surface material (primarily leaf litter or needle cast) in hardwood or pine stands with an overstory present would be estimated using the Digital Photo Series (http://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/dps/).

3. We would assess harvested pine units where the overstory has been drastically reduced or eliminated to determine the amount of activity fuel remaining on the site (tons per acre) combined with surface fuel accumulated on the site as a response to harvest and prescribed fire activity. In these stands, we would consider total unit biomass as well as distribution within the unit. A minimum of 9 tons per acre in total unit biomass evenly distributed throughout the unit would trigger conditions conducive to a subsequent burn.

Table 6 displays fuels monitoring criteria for subsequent burning.

51


Table 6. Fuel monitoring triggers for subsequent entries

Forest or Stand Condition Minimum Tons per Acre in Surface Litter

Minimum Surface Litter Depth

Digital Photo Series Equivalent

Hardwood 1.5 tons per acre 1.5 inches MO2, MO3

Pine Unit – unharvested or lightly harvested

1.6 tons per acre 0.6 inches MP01, MP11

Pine Unit − overstory has been drastically reduced or eliminated

N/A N/A < TP01

Once we achieve the desired landscape effects as shown by desired stand composition and structure (restoration), a shift to a maintenance burning interval and intensity would be possible. This most likely would be a less intense and less frequent application of prescribed fire. As implied earlier, this shift to maintenance-type prescribed burning would likely be 15 years or more from the initial restoration application of prescribed fire and could take several decades.

Timing and other constraints and considerations

Mesophytic: growing under conditions of well-balanced moisture supply.

Although preferred for promoting oak and hickory species, no growing season prescribed burning is allowed in the project area under the USFWS Biological Opinion of the Forest Plan due to concerns for the Indiana bat and gray bat. To protect these species, no landscape burning in upland forests would be implemented between September 1 and May 1.6 No burning in bottomland forests is planned.

When burning in pine stands, care must be taken to minimize subsequent pine sprouting. Winter burning is thought to promote the highest level of shortleaf sprouting and spring burning the least.7 Prescribed fire is also a very effective site-preparation method for loblolly pine regeneration.8 Monitoring pine stands would be essential after any mechanical or burn treatments to determine the need for herbicide control of pine regeneration. Herbicide treatment of pine seedlings would be intended to prevent pine from surviving long enough to join the midstory and overstory. Treatment of even a single stem may be justified if weeds are being treated in the immediate vicinity. In areas removed from other ongoing herbicide treatments, monitoring would help managers determine whether the pine seedlings are dying out in the understory or if they are surviving to potentially join the midstory and overstory, in which case herbicide treatment would be necessary.

Prescribed Burning – Nepalese browntop

Burning in September and October may best control Nepalese browntop, when it is flowering but before seed set.9 Repeated, and correctly timed, annual burning could impede Nepalese browntop seed production and diminish Nepalese browntop seed banks.10 Nepalese browntop, however, has high silica content and low heat of combustion, and may be difficult to burn.

52

Scoping Document

Spring and fall burns might best limit shortleaf pine sprouting and Nepalese browntop response, respectively. Periodic summer burning at intervals of three or more years might best promote oak. However, because of concerns for Indiana and gray bats, summer burning would not be used.

Invasive Species Monitoring and evaluation entail comparing results being achieved to those projected in the Forest Plan and project-level effects analysis. They provide the decision maker and the public with information on the progress and results of project implementation. We would survey samples of the project area to assess invasive species increase or decrease. Additionally, we would make an assessment to ensure that design criteria were implemented correctly. Follow-up treatment of invasives would be triggered by the continuing presence of the species in treated occurrences.

Transportation Assess road maintenance, construction, or reconstruction to determine if design criteria and Forest Service best management practices are being correctly implemented. Determine the extent to which transportation system improvements achieve Forest Plan goals for administrative and public access in the analysis area.

Compliance

Vegetation Management The Forest Plan (p. 16) estimates that pine stand conversions to hardwoods could produce about 3.6 million board feet per year during the first decade (2006−2015) of the Forest Plan. Thereafter, it is estimated that the annual output from the same activities would increase to 5.2 million board feet.11 In contrast, proposed initial treatments could yield approximately 45 million board feet.

We would monitor treatment units and reapply prescribed fire based on monitoring results. Examples of factors that would be considered include:

Time interval since last prescribed burn, Time of year when prescribed burning occurred, Fire intensity and duration, Impacts and effects on vegetation (including tree species composition), Impacts to invasives, and Smoke outputs.

We would implement subsequent prescribed burning as feasible to maximize and maintain treatment effectiveness and incorporate monitoring results.

We divided the project area into logical burn blocks. Where possible, burn blocks use roads, streams, and other features such as rights-of-way. Some fireline may need to be constructed. Numerous stands may comprise these burn blocks. Some stands are hardwoods where no harvesting will take place, some stands are pine units where no harvesting will take place, and some stands are pine units where harvesting will take place.

1. Fuels monitoring would be completed as follows: Prescribed fire burn blocks would be evaluated after burn completion, and fire effects would be noted in the prescribed burn plan to determine if objectives were met. Before implementing a follow-up burn in the same block, we would conduct a walkthrough after leaf and /or needle drop to assess the burn block’s ability to carry a prescribed fire.

53


2. Subsequent prescribed burn entry in forested stands with an overstory present would be triggered by a minimum of 1.5 tons per acre in surface litter and 1.5 inches of surface litter depth, evenly distributed throughout the block. The amount (in tons per acre) and depth (in inches) of surface material (primarily leaf litter or needle cast) in hardwood or pine stands with an overstory present would be estimated using the Digital Photo Series (http://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/dps/).

3. We would assess harvested pine units where the overstory has been drastically reduced or eliminated to determine the amount of activity fuel remaining on the site (tons per acre) combined with surface fuel accumulated on the site as a response to harvest and prescribed fire activity. In these stands, we would consider total unit biomass as well as distribution within the unit. A minimum of 9 tons per acre in total unit biomass evenly distributed throughout the unit would trigger conditions conducive to a subsequent burn.

Table 7 displays fuels monitoring criteria for subsequent burning.

Table 7. Fuel monitoring triggers for subsequent entries

Forest or Stand Condition Minimum Tons per Acre in Surface Litter

Minimum Surface Litter Depth

Digital Photo Series Equivalent

Hardwood 1.5 tons per acre 1.5 inches MO2, MO3

Pine Unit – unharvested, or lightly harvested

1.6 tons per acre 0.6 inches MP01, MP11

Pine Unit - overstory has been drastically reduced or eliminated

N/A N/A < TP01

Once we achieve the desired landscape effects as shown by desired stand composition and structure (restoration), a shift to a maintenance burning interval and intensity would be possible. This most likely would be a less intense and less frequent application of prescribed fire. As implied earlier, this shift to maintenance-type prescribed burning would likely be 15 years or more from the initial restoration application of prescribed fire and could take several decades.

54

Scoping Document

Appendix C – Proposed Roadwork The following table displays the roadwork proposed for the Hills Project.

Table 8. Roadwork proposed for the Hills Project

Road ID Road Name County Jurisdiction

Proposed Management

Level

Existing - Reconstruction

Mileage

New - Construction

Mileage

Dog Creek 485 485 Pope FS ML3 to junction

with 1417. ML1 from 1417 to 493

1.5 ----

485E Pope FS ML1 ---- 0.1 1406 Roe Rd Pope C County Road

Extend as necessary ML3, ML1 beyond gate

1.2 ----

1791 1791 Pope P No change ML 1 0.3 0.2 1417 Cemetery

Rd Spur A Pope FS ML3. E-W through

route 1.1 ----

487 Pope FS ML1 after sale 0.5 ----

493 Azotus Ch Rd

Pope FS ML2 out of landing.

0.4 ----

1422 1422 Pope FS ML2 0.4 0.1 1423 1423 Massac FS ML2 to perennial 0.6 ----

1417B Dog Creek Rd

Pope FS ML2 to landing. 0.4 ----

1406A Pope FS ML1 0.1 ---- 1406C Pope FS ML1 0.1 ---- 1406B Pope FS ML1 0.2 ---- 1425A 1425A Massac FS ML1 0.1 ---- 485B Pope FS ML1 0.1 0.1 485A FR #485

Spur Pope FS ML2 0.3 ----

1425 1425 Massac FS ML2 0.4 ---- 1422A Pope FS ML1 0.3 ---- 485AA 485AA Pope FS ML1 0.3 ----

401 North Alcorn Rd

Pope C ML3 1.3 ----

144MCW

Massac FS ML1 ---- 0.1

1402 Lewis Cemetery

Pope FS ML2 to stream ML1 after. County?

0.4 ----

140B Pope FS ML1 ---- 0.1

55




Proposed Management

Level


Mileage

New - Construction

Mileage 493A Pope FS ML1 ---- 0.1 485D Pope FS ML1 ---- 0.2 1400 Pope FS ML1 ---- 0.1

Dog Creek Totals 10.0 0.8

Robnett Barrens 1449 Massac Ck

Rd Pope FS Crosses private.

Another possible E-N route

1.1 ----

84B Pope FS ML1 ---- 0.1 497B 497B Massac FS Maintain current

level of access ML2

0.1 ----

497 Pine Mount Massac FS ML 2 1.2 ---- 1455 Robnett Rd Pope FS Maintain current

public access as ML3

2.1 ----

1455E Pope FS ML2 to hunt camp ML1 beyond

0.5 ----

1455D Roblob Spur

Pope FS ML1 0.2 ----

1455C Robnett Spur

Pope FS ML2 0.9 ----

1782 West Lewis Rd

Pope P Maintain current level of access aka PC155

0.8 ----

1455EA Pope FS ML1 0.2 ---- 1455CA Pope FS ML1 0.1 ---- 114MC Massac FS Tank trap ML1 0.1 ----

1714 1714 Pope FS Road would dead end to gate. Gate at or near where new road begins. ML2 to gate ML 1 thereafter

0.4 0.4

501 Bayou Rd Pope FS ML2 0.5 ---- 1473 Pope FS ML1. Gate after

use. 0.1 ----

1449B Massac FS ML1 after deer camp

0.1 ----

1449A Pope FS ML1 0.2 ---- 1455B Pope FS East portion ML1,

ML3?? 0.3 0.2

56

Scoping Document



Proposed Management

Level


Mileage

New - Construction

Mileage 1456A Pope FS Gate after use

could be changed to an extension of 497BA. ML1

0.1 ----

497BA 497BA Massac FS ML2 to powerline, ML1 after. Connect to 1456A if undesirable to use 1456 to PC62

0.3 ----

1456 Shadow Rd Pope FS Check for potential to create a through road. Not utilized for haul from 1456 to 1449. ML3.

0.7 ----

84A Pope C ML1 0.6 ---- 1456B Pope FS Gate new

construction. ML1 0.4 0.2

1714A Pope FS Move road to ridge top. Possible access to Rothamel. ML2

0.4

1456C Pope FS ---- 0.2 84AA Pope C ML1 ---- 0.1

1456BA Pope FS Tank trap ML1 ---- 0.1

1455BA Pope FS ML1 ---- 0.1 1455A SE Fence

Rd Pope FS ML1 ---- 0.2

1782B ML1 ---- 0.1 62PC Pope FS Tank trap after

use ---- 0.1

1450 Pope FS 0.2 1.1 Robnett Barrens Totals 11.1 3.4

Burke Branch 1837 1837 Pope FS 0.4 ---- 159A Pope FS 0.1 ---- 159C Pope FS 0.1 ---- 159D Pope FS 0.1 ---- 159B Pope FS 0.1 ----

1883A Pope FS 0.1 ---- 1837A Pope FS ---- 0.3

Burke Branch Totals 0.8 03

Project Total 22.0 4.3

57


Endnote References

1 Brose, Shuler, and Ward 2005; Brown and Smith 2000; and Franklin, Robertson, and Fralish 2003 2 Forest Plan: p. 16 3 USDA FS 2006, p. 22 4 USDA FS 2006, p. 39 5 USDA FS 2006, p. 153 6 Reference BO, w/page # 7 Shelton and Cain 2002 8 Trousdell, K. B. and O.G. Langdon, 1967. Disking and prescribed burning for loblolly pine regeneration. Journal of Forestry, 65(8), 548−551. 9 Gibson, Spyreas, and Benedict 2002 and Mohlenbrock 1986 10 Spyreas, pers comm 11 USDA FS 2006, p. 16 and 25

58

united states department of agriculturea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Documents