Table Of ContentNORTH FORK BY TWO
TIMBER SALE PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
March 31, 2008
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation - Stillwater Unit
NORTH FORK BY 2 TIMBER SALE PROJECT VICINITY MAP
NORTH FORK BY TWO
PROPOSED TIMBER SALE PROJECT
FINDING
An Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) 77-5-222, Montana Codes
has completed the Environmental Annotated (MCA).
Assessment (EA) for the proposed
2) Improve the long-term
North Fork by Two Timber Sale
productivity of timber
Project.
stands by increasing vigor,
The project area is located on 2 reducing the incidence of
sections of State land in Flathead insect infestations and
County (see VICINITY MAP [inside disease infections, and
front cover] for their general regenerating portions of the
locations). Specifically, the stands where growth is
project is located in Section 16, decreasing. Actions would
T37N, R22W, and Section 36, T36N, be done in a manner that
R22W. Revenue generated from these maintains site productivity
lands would benefit the Common and favors the retention and
Schools Trust. regeneration of appropriate
species mixes (desired
After a thorough review of the EA,
future conditions
project file, public correspondence,
[Administrative Rules of
Montana statutes, State Forest Land
Montana [ARM] 36.11.405]).
Management Plan (SFLMP), and adopted
rules, I have made the following 3 3) Reduce the potential of
decisions: wildfires along the North
Fork Road and in stands
1. ALTERNATIVE SELECTED:
adjacent to private
Two alternatives are presented ownership and residences by
and were fully analyzed in the reducing forest fuel
EA: loadings.
• The No-Action Alternative 4) Secure permanent access into
includes existing activities, State lands through cost-
but does not include a timber share agreements with U.S.
harvest. Forest Service (USFS) and
purchase easements from
• The Action Alternative proposes adjacent private landowners.
to:
5) Minimize the visual impacts
1) Harvest 2 to 3 million board
of timber harvesting and
feet (MMbf) of sawtimber to
road building on State lands
(a) generate revenue for the
in the project area.
appropriate school trusts
and (b) contribute a 6) Reduce the spread of noxious
sufficient amount of sawlog weeds with a monitoring and
volume to meet the treatment program.
requirements of sustained
yield for the DNRC timber-
management program, as
mandated by State Statute
I have selected the Action diseases, fires, or wind before
Alternative with the following value is lost to decay,
requirements and for the provided such harvesting is
following reasons: economically warranted (MCA 77-
5-207).
• Mitigations and specifications
identified in the EA will be • The analyses of identified
implemented as prescribed, as issues did not reveal
will the standard mitigations information to persuade DNRC to
listed in APPENDIX B - choose the No-Action
STIPULATIONS AND Alternative prior to this
SPECIFICATIONS. decision.
• The Action Alternative meets • The Action Alternative includes
the PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION, activities to address concerns
(Page I-1) and PROPOSED expressed by the public and
OBJECTIVES (Page I-2); the local government entities with
specific project objectives are jurisdiction; these include,
listed on page I-2 of the EA. but are not limited to, the
following:
• The lands involved in this
project are held by the State 1) The project is designed to
of Montana in trust for the not harvest where
support of specific beneficiary potentially sensitive plant
institutions. The Department communities exist within
of Natural Resources and wetland complexes. Portions
Conservation (DNRC) is required of the project area were
by law to administer these surveyed by a botanist to
trust lands to produce the find and document the
largest measure of reasonable presence of plant species of
and legitimate return over the concern as ranked by Montana
long run (Enabling Act of Natural Heritage Program
February 22, 1889; 1972 Montana (MNHP). The botanist
Constitution, Article X, observed no sensitive plant
Section 11; and, 77-1-202, species. Additionally,
MCA). The SFLMP and associated project activities will not
rules provide the management take place in or immediately
philosophy and framework to adjacent to the large
evaluate which alternative wetland complex in the Mud
would maximize real income Lake Section; harvest units
while sustaining the production have been designed to
of long-term income. protect all wetlands
involved.
• On March 13, 2003, DNRC adopted
Administrative Rules for Forest 2) The project is designed to
Management (ARM 36.11.401 retain trees of particular
through 450). This project is species, age class, and
designed in accordance with stocking densities.
these Rules. Additionally, postharvest
activities such as planting
• The proposed timber sale and site preparation are
project contributes to the
designed to provide for
harvest level mandated by State
regeneration. These actions
Statute (Montana Codes
should move the timber
Annotated [MCA] 77-5-222).
stands being entered toward
• DNRC is required to salvage desired future conditions.
timber damaged by insects,
3) Snags, snag recruits, and and postharvest treatments
course woody debris will be should reduce the risk of
retained in the area to large, intensive, stand-
provide for important replacement wildfires on
wildlife habitat. Public State lands and for adjacent
access for motorized use neighbors. (Page III-8)
will not change; thus,
Refer to APPENDIX B -
minimal change to elk
STIPULATIONS AND
security and grizzly bear
SPECIFICATIONS for a list of
security areas are
common mitigations applied to
anticipated (Pages III-43
timber sale projects.
and III-61).
2. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
4) With the location and design
of harvest units and For the following reasons, I find
proposed transportation that implementing the Action
systems, no fisheries Alternative will not have
resources in the Mud Lake significant impacts on the human
analysis area are expected environment:
to be affected by actions
• I find that no impacts are
associated with the action
regarded as severe, enduring,
alternative. No direct or
geographically widespread, or
indirect impacts to the
frequent. Further, I find that
presence or distribution of
the quantity and quality of
native bull trout, westslope
various resources, including
cutthroat trout, or sculpin
any that may be considered
are expected in the Moose
unique or fragile, will not be
Creek analysis area (Page
adversely affected to a
III-30 and III-32).
significant degree. I find no
5) Approximately $393,234 will precedent for future actions
be generated and deposited that would cause significant
into the account of the impacts, and I find no conflict
Common Schools Trust; with local, State, or Federal
approximately $68,250 will laws, requirements, or formal
be deposited into the Forest plans. In summary, I find that
Improvement account. (Page the identified adverse impacts
III-35) will be avoided, controlled, or
6) State, private, and USFS mitigated by the design of the
haul roads used for project project to the extent that the
activities will be impacts are not significant.
maintained to comply with
• Locally Adopted Environmental
Best Management Practices
Plans and Goals – In June 1996,
(BMPs). Grading, seeding,
DNRC began a phased-in
and dust abatement will be
implementation of the SFLMP.
conducted as necessary.
The SFLMP establishes the
(Page II-5)
Agency’s philosophy for the
7) Proposed harvest treatments management of forested trust
will reduce stocking land. In May 2003, DNRC
densities and remove dead adopted rules concerning the
trees from existing timber SFLMP. The SFLMP philosophy
stands. Postharvest hazard and associated rules are
reduction, site preparation, incorporated in the design of
and stand improvement work the proposed project.
will reduce fuel loads. The
combination of both harvest
• Recreational Activities – 3. SHOULD DNRC PREPARE AN
Recreational opportunities will ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
continue and will not be (EIS)?
negatively affected by the
Based on the following
proposed project.
considerations, I find that an
• Precedent Setting and EIS does not need to be prepared:
Cumulative Impacts – The
• The EA adequately addresses the
project area is located on
issues identified during
State-owned lands that are
project development and
“principally valuable for the
displays the information needed
timber that is on them or for
to make the decisions.
growing timber or for watershed
protection” (MCA 77-1-402). • Evaluation of the potential
impacts of the proposed North
• Taken individually and
Fork by Two Timber Sale Project
cumulatively, the proposed
indicates that no significant
activities are common practices
impacts would occur.
and no project activities are
being conducted on important • The ID Team provided adequate
fragile or unique sites. opportunities for public review
and comment. Public concerns
• The proposed project conforms
were incorporated into the
to the management philosophies
project design and analysis of
of DNRC and is in compliance
impacts.
with existing laws, rules,
policies, and standards
applicable to this type of
proposed action.
Brian Manning
Unit Manager
Stillwater State Forest
March 31, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VICINITY MAP (back of front cover)
FINDING
CHAPTER I — PURPOSE AND NEED
Introduction to Proposed Action................................... I-1
Purpose of Proposed Action........................................ I-1
Objectives of Proposal............................................ I-2
Environmental Assessment (EA) Process............................. I-2
Proposed Schedule of Activities................................... I-3
Other Agencies with Jurisdiction/Permit Requirements.............. I-3
Other Environmental Reviews Related to the Project................ I-3
Issues and Concerns............................................... I-4
Issues Dropped from Further Consideration......................... I-6
CHAPTER II — ALTERNATIVES
Introduction...................................................... II-1
Development of Alternatives....................................... II-1
Alternative Descriptions.......................................... II-2
Prescription Treatments........................................... II-7
Mitigations....................................................... II-8
Summary of Environmental Effects.................................. II-12
CHAPTER III—EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Introduction...................................................... III-1
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.......................... III-1
Vegetation Analysis............................................... III-2
Introduction ................................................... III-2
Background ..................................................... III-2
Analysis Methods ............................................... III-2
Analysis Area .................................................. III-2
Covertypes and Age Classes ..................................... III-3
Insects and Diseases ........................................... III-6
Forest Fuels ................................................... III-7
Noxious Weeds .................................................. III-8
Soils Analysis.................................................... III-10
Introduction ................................................... III-10
Analysis Methods ............................................... III-10
Analysis Area .................................................. III-10
Existing Conditions ............................................ III-11
Alternative Effects to Soils ................................... III-11
Watershed and Hydrology Analysis.................................. III-18
Introduction ................................................... III-18
Analysis Methods ............................................... III-18
Analysis Area .................................................. III-18
Existing Conditions ............................................ III-18
Alternative Effects to Watershed and Hydrology ................. III-21
Fisheries Analysis Summary........................................ III-26
Objective ...................................................... III-26
Analysis Area .................................................. III-26
Analysis Methods ............................................... III-28
Existing Conditions ............................................ III-29
Environmental Effects to Fisheries ............................. III-30
Economic Analysis................................................. III-34
Methods ........................................................ III-34
Existing Condition ............................................. III-34
Alternative Effects to Economics ............................... III-35
Wildlife Analysis................................................. III-38
Introduction ................................................... III-38
Analysis Area .................................................. III-39
Analysis Methods ............................................... III-39
Coarse-Filter Assessment ....................................... III-40
Fine-Filter Assessment ......................................... III-44
Threatened and Endangered Species ............................ III-44
Sensitive Species ............................................ III-54
Elk Security ................................................... III-60
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
APPENDIX B - STIPULATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX C - LIST OF PREPARERS
APPENDIX D - GLOSSARY
ACRONYMS (front of back cover)
NORTH FORK BY TWO
PROPOSED TIMBER SALE PROJECT
CHAPTER I
PURPOSE AND NEED
INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED ACTION harvesting activities have been
The Department of Natural Resources completed.
and Conservation (DNRC), Stillwater
If the action alternative is
Unit, is proposing the North Fork by
selected, DNRC would proceed with
Two Timber Sale Project. The
the acquisition of a cost-share
proposed action is to harvest timber
easement with the U.S. Forest
and acquire easements to the harvest
Service (USFS). Access to the north
areas. The proposed timber harvest
side of the Moose Creek Section
is located in Section 16, T37N, R22W
(Section 36) is through private
(the Mud Lake Section is located
property and 30 feet of USFS-managed
approximately 16 miles northwest of
land; the ultimate objective of DNRC
Polebridge), and Section 36, T36N,
is to obtain a permanent easement,
R22W (the Moose Creek Section is
although at the time of project
located approximately 6 miles
implementation, a temporary road use
northwest of Polebridge). The gross
agreement may be the avenue to
sale area encompasses 1,280 acres of
harvesting the timber.
State Common School trust lands in
Flathead County (see VICINITY MAP PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
inside the front cover). The
The lands involved in the proposed
easements DNRC proposes to acquire
project are held in trust by the
are within the North Fork Flathead
State of Montana for the support of
River drainage and are displayed in
specific beneficiary institutions,
CHAPTER II, FIGURE II-1 – ROAD
such as public schools, State
EASEMENT MAP and TABLE II-2 – DNRC
colleges and universities, and other
EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUESTS.
specific State institutions, such as
Two alternatives, an action and a the School for the Deaf and Blind
no-action alternative, are proposed. (Enabling Act of February 22, 1889;
If the action alternative to harvest 1972 Montana Constitution, Article
timber is selected, an estimated 2 X, Section 11). The Board of Land
to 3 million board feet (MMbf) of Commissioners (Land Board) and DNRC
timber would be harvested from are legally required to administer
approximately 580 acres using a these trust lands to produce the
variety of silvicultural treatments largest measure of reasonable and
(refer to CHAPTER II – ALTERNATIVES legitimate long-term return for
for maps and descriptions of these beneficiary institutions
silvicultural treatments). The type (Section 77—1-202, Montana Codes
of treatment selected for each stand Annotated [MCA]).
would depend on the existing
On May 30, 1996, DNRC released the
condition and the desired future
Record of Decision on the State
condition for that particular stand.
Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP).
Along with existing roads, 0.25
The Land Board approved the SFLMP’s
miles of new road and less than 1.0
implementation on June 17, 1996. On
mile of short spur road would access
March 13, 2003, the Department
the proposed harvest units. The
adopted the Forest Management Rules
spur roads would be built to minimum
(Administrative Rules of Montana
standards and reclaimed after
[ARM] 36.11.401 through 450). The
SFLMP outlines the management
philosophy, and the proposal will be agreements with USFS and adjacent
implemented according to the Forest private landowners.
Management Rules. The philosophy
• Minimize the visual impacts of
is:
timber harvesting and road
“Our premise is that the best way building on State lands in the
to produce long-term income for project area.
the trust is to manage
intensively for healthy and • Reduce the spread of noxious weeds
biologically diverse forests. with a monitoring and treatment
Our understanding is that a program.
diverse forest is a stable forest
that will produce the most ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)
reliable and highest long-term PROCESS
revenue stream… In the
foreseeable future, timber EA DEVELOPMENT
management will continue to be
This EA was prepared in compliance
our primary source of revenue and
our primary tool for achieving with the Montana Environmental
biodiversity objectives.” Policy Act (MEPA) of 1971. The
intent of MEPA is to foster better
OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSAL decisions and wise actions by
ensuring that relevant environmental
DNRC has set the following specific
information is available to the
project objectives to meet the SFLMP
public officials and citizens before
and Forest Management Rules:
decisions are made and actions are
• Harvest 2 to 3 MMbf of sawtimber taken. MEPA requires the State
to generate revenue for the Common government to consider environmental
School trust and contribute a impacts in its decisionmaking
sufficient amount of sawlog volume process.
to meet the requirements of
PUBLIC SCOPING
sustained yield for the DNRC
timber-management program, as The public scoping process begins
mandated by State Statute 77-5- during the initial stage of an EA
222, MCA. and is used to inform the public
that a State agency is proposing an
• Improve the long-term productivity
action. The public is invited to
of timber stands by increasing
identify issues of concern and
stand vigor, reducing the
suggest alternatives to the proposed
incidence of insect infestations
action.
and disease infections, and
In February 2007, DNRC solicited
regenerating portions of the
public participation in the North
stands where growth is declining.
Fork by Two Timber Sale Project by
Silviculture prescriptions would
advertising in the Hungry Horse News
be designed to maintain site
weekly newspaper and sending an
productivity and favor the
initial proposal to neighboring
retention and regeneration of
landowners.
appropriate species mixes (desired
future conditions [ARM An Initial Proposal, which described
36.11.405]). the proposed action, was mailed to
individuals, agencies, industry
• Reduce the potential of wildfires
representatives, and other
along the North Fork Road and in
organizations that have expressed
stands adjacent to private
interest in Stillwater State
ownership and residences by
Forest’s management activities.
reducing forest fuel loadings.
The comment period for the Initial
• Secure permanent access into State
Proposal was 30 days. Received were
lands through cost-share
