environmental assessment cover page ... -...

Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pelican Project July 2012

LaCroix Ranger District, Superior National Forest St. Louis County, Minnesota Townships 63-69 North, Ranges 16-21 West

Pelican Project Environmental Assessment

July 2012 i Contents and Lists

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need Page

1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………..... 1-1

1.2 Organization of the Environmental Assessment ……………………………..... 1-3

1.3 Forest Plan Direction for Pelican Project Area ………………………………... 1-3

1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action ………………………………………………. 1-10

1.5 Proposed Action ……………………………………………………………….. 1-17

1.6 Decision to be Made …………………………………………………………... 1-20

1.7 Public Involvement and Issues with the Proposed Action …………………….. 1-20

Chapter 2: Comparison of Alternatives

2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….... 2-1

2.2 How a Range of Alternatives was Developed…………………………………. 2-1

2.3 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ………………………………………………. 2-2

2.4 Alternatives Considered and Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis ……. 2-5

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives Considered in Detail …………………………….. 2-9

Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 3-1

3.2 Treaty Rights …………………………………………………………………... 3-2

3.3 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW)………………………... 3-4

3.4 Vegetation ……………………………………………………………………... 3-5

3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species-Canada Lynx and Gray Wolf ………….. 3-19

3.6 Regional Forester Sensitive Species …………………………………………... 3-20

3.7 Management Indicator Species ………………………………………………... 3-22

3.8 Management Indicator Habitat………………………………………………… 3-25

3.9 Scenic Quality…………………………………………………………………. 3-35

3.10 Soils …………………………………………………………………………… 3-41

3.11 Water Quality …………………………………………………………………. 3-49

3.12 Non-native Invasive Plants …………………………………………………… 3-67

3.13 Other Determinations ………………………………………………………… 3-75

Chapter 4: Lists and References

4.1 Lists of Preparers and Contributors …………………………………………….. 4-1

4.2 Distribution Lists ……………………………………………………………….. 4-2

4.3 References and Literature Cited ………………………………………………… 4-3

Appendices

Appendix A: Vegetation Treatment Descriptions and Unit Specific Design Criteria

Appendix B: Proposed Treatments by Stand Unit for Alternative 2

Appendix C: Operational Standards and Guidelines

Appendix D: Monitoring Plan

Appendix E: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Appendix F: Response to Scoping Comments

Appendix G: Economics

Appendix H: Herbicide Proposal


July 2012 ii Contents and Lists

LIST OF TABLES

Number Table Name Page 1-1 Landscape Ecosystems in the Pelican Project Area……………………... 1-6

1-2 Dry Mesic Red and White Pine Landscape Ecosystem Vegetation

Composition in the Pelican Project Area………………………………… 1-8

1-3 Dry Mesic Red and White Pine Landscape Ecosystem Age Class

Distribution in the Pelican Project Area…………………………………. 1-8

1-4 Mesic Birch-Aspen-Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem Vegetation

Composition in the Pelican Project Area………………………………… 1-9

1-5 Mesic Birch-Aspen-Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem Age Class

Distribution in the Pelican Project Areas………………………………… 1-9

1-6 Lowland Conifer Landscape Ecosystem Age Class Distribution in the

Pelican Project Area …………………………………………………….. 1-10

1-7 Proposed Action: Vegetation Management Primary Treatments……….. 1-19

1-8 Summary of Transportation System Proposed Actions. OML stands for

Objective Maintenance Level. The Forest Plan (p. Glossary 17-18)

defines OML 1, 2, and 3 as well as OHV (off-highway vehicle).............. 1-20

2-1 Summary of Proposed Action: Comparison of Activities and Acres by

Primary Treatment Type and Alternative……………………….……….. 2-3

2-2 Summary of Proposed Secondary Treatment and Reforestation

(following a primary treatment as described in Table 2-1)……………… 2-4

2-3 Summary of Transportation Proposed Actions. OML stands for


defines OML 1, 2, and 3 as well as OHV (off-highway vehicle)………... 2-5

2-4 Comparison of Amount and Type of Fuel Reduction…………………… 2-10

2-5 Summary of Acres Proposed to Meet Objectives in Purpose and Need… 2-16

2-6 Summary of Transportation System Proposed Action. OML stands for



2-7 Summary of Transportation Proposed Actions. OML stands for



2-8 Summary of Special Use Requests (Forest Plan, page 2-52 & 2-53)……. 2-23

2-9 Gravel Pits Located within the Pelican Project Area…………………….. 2-24

3.2-1 Proposed Changes affecting OHV access in the Pelican Project

Area………………………………………………………………………. 3-4

3.4-1 Vegetation Composition within the Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine LE

for the Pelican Project Area (Acres)……………………………………... 3-8

3.4-2 Vegetation Composition within the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-fir LE

for the Pelican Project Area (Acres)……………………………………... 3-9

3.4-3 Age Class Distribution within the Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine LE for

the Pelican Project Area……………………………………………….…. 3-10

3.4-4 Age Class Distribution within the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir LE for

the Pelican Project Area………………………………………………...... 3-10

3.4-5 Tree Species Diversity Objectives for the Dry-Mesic Red and White

Pine Landscape Ecosystem………………………………………………. 3-11

3.4-6 Tree Species Diversity Objectives for the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir

Landscape Ecosystem……………………………………………………. 3-12

3.4-7 Forest-wide1 (Percentages) Vegetation Composition within the Dry-

Mesic Red and White Pine LE…………………………………………… 3-13


July 2012 iii Contents and Lists

Number Table Name Page 3.4-8 Forest-wide

1 (Percentages) Vegetation Composition within the Mesic

Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir LE……………………………………………… 3-14

3.4-9 Forest-wide1 (Percentages) Age Class Distribution within the Dry-Mesic

Red and White Pine LE………………………………………………….. 3-15

3.4-10 Forest-wide1 (Percentages) Age Class Distribution within the Mesic

Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir LE……………………………………………… 3-15

3.8-4 Project Area Upland Edge and Upland Interior Habitats (MIH 11 and

12)………………………………………………………………………... 3-33

3.8-5 Project Area Large Patches of Upland Mature Forest (MIH 13)………… 3-33

3.8-6 Spatial Pattern MIH in Zone 1 and Forest-wide…………………………. 3-34

3.9-1 High SIO Viewsheds Within the Pelican Project Area………………….. 3-36

3.9-2 Indicator for Scenery Affects in High SIO Areas……………………….. 3-38

3.10-1 Acres of Harvest, Prescribed Fire, and Site Preparation on Harvested

Sites………………………………………………………………………. 3-43

3.10-2 Acres Impacted by Landings and Skid Trails1, 2

…………………………. 3-44

3.10-3 Miles and Acres of Road Added to the National Forest Road System1…. 3-46

3.11-1 Transportation System Management…………………………………….. 3-59

3.11-2 Results of Indicator 3 (60%) Analysis…………………………………… 3-65

3.12-1 Non-native Invasive Plants known in the Pelican Project Area…………. 3-69

3.12-2 Indicators for NNIP Analysis……………………………………………. 3-71

List of Tables in Appendices Appendix A:

A-1 Description of Primary Treatment Types for the Pelican

Project………………….............................................................................

A-1

A-2 Description of Other Treatment Types for the Pelican

Project…………………………………………………………………….

A-3

A-3 Forest Type ……………………………………………………………… A-4

A-4 Stand-specific Implementation Treatment Codes and Definitions for

Pelican Project …………………………………………………………..

A-5

Appendix B: B-1 Proposed Treatments by Stand Unit for Alternative 2…………………… B-1

Appendix C: C-1 Key to Numbering………………………………………………………... C-1

G-WS-8 Limits on Management Activities Designed to Safeguard Soil

Productivity on Superior National Forest………………………………... C-6

G-WS-8a Activity Limit Codes Used in Table G-WS-8……………………………. C-7

S-TM-4 Minimum trees per acres at five years of age necessary to adequately

restock forests after tree harvest. ………………………………………… C-11

Appendix E:

E-1 Road Changes in the Pelican Project Area based on Travel Management

Project Decision Implementation ………………………………………... E-2

E-2 Past and Present Fuel Projects…………………………………………… E-3

E-3 Past Wildfires 1985 to Present…………………………………………… E-4

E-4 List of Large Fires Greater than 20 Acres From 1985 to the Present……. E-4

E-5 Nonfederal Lands Proposed For Exchange……………………………… E-4

E-6 MNDNR Forest Management Activities in Pelican Project Area……….. E-5


July 2012 iv Contents and Lists

E-7 St. Louis County Forest Management Activities in Pelican Project Area.. E-5

E-8 Vegetation Management Decisions and Proposals that have been made

Within the DRW, MBA, and LCB Landscape Ecosystems……………… E-6

Appendix F:

F-1 People Who Submitted Comments on the Pelican Scoping Report……… F-1

Appendix G: G-1 Financial Efficiency Summary

1 Based on All Actions…………………... G-1

Appendix H: H-1 Herbicides Used to Release Conifer Vegetation………………………... H-4

LIST OF FIGURES

(INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS)

Number Figure Name Page 1-1 Pelican Project Management Areas………………………………….......... 1-5

1-2 Pelican Project Landscape Ecosystems…………………………………… 1-7

1-3 An example of one of Pelican’s primary treatments: a seed tree

cut…………………………………………………………………… 1-13

1-4 The Pelican Project’s proposed actions would promote white pine

regeneration……………………………………………………………….. 1-13

1-5 The Pelican Project would promote and maintain nest, perch, and roost

trees for the Bald Eagle…………………………………………………… 1-14

1-6 Understory mechanical fuel reduction in pine stand followed by

underburn to treat balsam fir……………………………………………… 1-15

2-1 Example of a stand before understory fuel reduction treatment………….. 2-20

2-2 Example of the same stand during understory fuel reduction treatments… 2-20

2-3 Example of the same stand after an understory fuel reduction treatment

before burning the piles…………………………………………………… 2-21

3.8-1 Existing 300+ Acre Mature and Older Upland Patches in the Pelican

Project Area……………………………………………………………….. 3-29

3.8-2 Acres of Mature and Older Forest in 300 Acres or greater Patches in Zone

1…………………………………………………………………………… 3-30

3.8-3 Number of Mature and Older Forest in 300 Acres or Greater Patches in

Zone 1…………………………………………………………………….. 3-31

3.11-1 Pelican 6th Order Watersheds and Water Resources Analysis Area……… 3-52

3.11-2 Pelican 4th Order Watersheds and Water Resources Analysis Area…….. 3-55

3.11-3 Relation of Pelican Project Area/Water Resources Analysis Limits to

Other Adjacent USFS Projects…………………………………………... 3-63

3.11-4 Percent Upland Watershed in Young and Open Condition in the Pelican

Project Area by 6th level watershed…………………………………….... 3-64

Appendices F-1 Preliminary Comparison of Initial Forest-wide Carbon Storage (not

including soil) to Projected 100-year Storage under Varying Harvest

Level and Disturbance Rates………………………………………….. F-23

H-1 Example of basal bark application (pictures from Auburn University

Extension and DowAgro)…………………………………………………. H-2

H-2 Examples of hack and squirt application (pictures from Auburn University

Extension and Bugwood Wiki, Invasive. org…………………………….. H-2


July 2012 v Contents and Lists

H-3 Cost Comparison of Conifer Release Using Mechanical and Chemical

Methods for 300 Acres……………………………………………………. H-5

List of Maps

Number Figure Name Page Map 1 Pelican Project Area Vicinity Map…………………………………........... 1-2

Map 2 Alternative 2………………………………………………………………. Insert

Map 3 Herbicide Treatment Vicinity Map……………………………………….. H-7

Map 4 Herbicide Treatment Map…………………………………………………. H-8


July 2012 vi Contents and Lists

Key for Acronyms

ATV all-terrain vehicle BA biological assessment BE biological evaluation BMPs Best Management Practices BWCAW Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan DBH diameter at breast height DNR Department of Natural Resources EA environmental assessment ELT ecological landtype FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FPIR Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless FR Forest Road FSH Forest Service Handbook GIS Geographic Information System HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IDT interdisciplinary team LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LE landscape ecosystems LTA landtype association MA management area MBA Mesic Birch-Aspen-Spruce-Fir MFRC Minnesota Forest Resource Council MIH Management Indicator Habitat MIS Management Indicator Species MMBF Million Board Feet MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NNIP Non-native Invasive Plants NNIS Non-native Invasive Species NRHP National Register of Historical Places PCE Primary Constituent Element RACR Roadless Area Conservation Rule RFSS Regional Forester Sensitive Species ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreational Opportunity Spectrum SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SNF Superior National Forest TES threatened, endangered, and sensitive TEUI Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory TMP Travel Management Project USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife Service WUI Wildland Urban Interface


July 2012 1-1 Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Pelican Project is to implement the Superior National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The project’s proposed activities are designed to

move the project area from its existing condition toward the desired conditions described in the

Forest Plan.

The key objectives of the Pelican Project are to improve forest vegetation age, composition,

structure, and spatial patterns. The proposed activities also address the transportation system

associated with the vegetation treatments and special use authorizations to access other

ownership.

Activities proposed to accomplish these objectives include harvesting (intermediate and

regeneration), timber stand improvement and reforestation activities, and decommissioning roads

no longer needed.

The LaCroix Ranger District of the Superior National Forest notified the public on September 2,

2011 that they were considering vegetation management and related road activities on National

Forest System land in the Pelican Project Area. The Pelican Project Area encompasses National

Forest System land near Orr, MN, east towards Buyck, MN and to the north in St. Louis County.

The project area is bounded by U.S. Highway 53 on the west, Voyageurs National Park on the

north, Lake Vermilion on the south (Township 63 North), and the Vermilion River on part of the

east. The project area is located within Townships 63 to 69 North and Ranges 16 to 21 West.

Some of the major lakes in the project area include the northwest portion of Lake Vermilion,

Moose, Myrtle, Kjostad, Elbow, Elephant, and Black Duck Lake. Pelican Lake sits just outside

the project area. The project area location is shown on Map 1, the Pelican Project Area Vicinity

Map.

Since the ownership within the project area (nearly 256,000 acres) is very mixed, only 47,000

acres (18 percent) are part of the National Forest System (NFS). Most of the remaining

ownership includes approximately 25 percent in private and other ownership or open water, 25

percent in Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 20 percent in St. Louis County, and 12

percent in Forest Capital Partners, LLC. Proposed activities are only located on NFS land.

This environmental assessment was prepared to provide the decision-maker (LaCroix District

Ranger) and the public with information about the potential effects of proposed vegetation

management activities and connected road actions in the project area. An interdisciplinary team

of resource specialists prepared this document.



Map 1: Pelican Project Area Vicinity Map



1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This environmental assessment (EA) is organized into four chapters with appendices and follows

the format established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR

1500-1508) for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The major

sections of the EA are as follows:

• Chapter 1: Purpose and Need. This section provides introductory material that explains

the purpose and need for the proposed action, provides background information about the

project area, presents the pertinent laws and regulations, and describes the issues to be

addressed.

• Chapter 2: Alternatives. This section describes the no action alternative and the action

alternative, both of which are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. This chapter also includes

mitigation measures and monitoring procedures that would be used in implementing the

action alternative (See Appendix D – Monitoring Plan). A summary comparison of the

environmental effects for each alternative is also provided.

• Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Effects. This section describes the

affected environment and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects likely to occur with the

implementation of each alternative.

• Chapter 4: References. This chapter provides names of the preparers and contributors to

this environmental assessment, a distribution list, references, and literature cited.

An important consideration in the preparation of this EA was the reduction of paperwork as

specified in 40 CFR 1500.4. The objective is to furnish enough site-specific information to

demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental effects of the alternatives and how

any adverse effects can be mitigated or avoided. Additional supporting information is in the

Pelican Project Record and is available at the LaCroix Ranger District Office in Cook,

Minnesota, or upon request.

This EA is tiered to the 2004 Forest Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final

EIS). Relevant analysis from the Forest Plan Revision Final EIS was incorporated by reference

rather than repeating the information.

1.3 FOREST PLAN DIRECTION FOR PELICAN PROJECT AREA

The Forest Plan divides the Superior National Forest outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Wilderness (BWCAW) into ten management areas (MAs). Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan (FP)

includes the desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines for each management area.

The Pelican Project Area includes three of these management areas. The northern two-thirds of

the project area are in the General Forest MA (FP, p. 3-6). The southern one-third of the project

area is in the General Forest - Longer Rotation MA (FP, p. 3-10), with the area along the west

side of the Vermilion River in the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers MA (FP, p. 3-

16). Figure 1-1 shows the location of the three MAs in the project area.

The interdisciplinary team used management area direction to guide development of the purpose

and need and the proposed action. The following is a brief summary of the desired vegetation



for each management area. See Forest Plan pp. 3-6 through 3-10 for more information on the

following management areas.

In the General Forest MA and General Forest-Longer Rotation MA, the desired condition is that

the forest is a variety of stand sizes, shapes, crown closures, and age structures. Natural

disturbances to the landscape are mimicked through management activities such as timber

harvest and management-ignited fires. A full range of silvicultural practices are used when

managing the vegetation.

In the General Forest MA, larger patch sizes are emphasized, especially those patches associated

with young, even-aged vegetative conditions. Vegetation would be managed to generally

represent young to mature (0 to 150 year old) vegetative growth stages, with more even aged

management than in General Forest – Long Rotation MA. Areas disturbed through management

activities are generally quickly re-vegetated with some recently harvested areas retaining a

partial canopy of older trees.

In the General Forest-Longer Rotation MA, vegetation would be managed to represent young to

old (0 to 250 year old) vegetative growth stages, with greater emphasis on managing for older

and larger trees than General Forest MA. Some larger patch sizes would occur within this area,

although those associated with young, even-aged vegetative conditions would be less frequent

than in the General Forest MA.

One-quarter mile of either side of the Vermilion River is in the Eligible Wild, Scenic and

Recreational River MA. The segment of the river in the Pelican Project Area is classified as

recreational along a seven mile section at Buyck, while the remainder is classified as scenic.

Vegetation management practices would promote the retention of long-lived trees species,

leading toward the development of a big tree character throughout the river corridor. A wide

range of silvicultural practices are allowed provided that the methods used would have no

substantial adverse effect to the river’s free flow, water quality, and outstanding values.



Figure 1-1: Pelican Project Management Areas



Landscape Ecosystem Objectives

Landscape Ecosystems (LE) are ecological areas characterized by their dominant vegetation

communities and patterns that are a product of local climate, glacial topography, dominant soils,

and natural processes such as succession, fire, wind, insects, and disease (FP, p. 2-55). The

Forest Plan uses landscape ecosystems to outline management objectives for forest vegetation

composition, age class, tree species diversity, and management indicator habitats (MIH).

Management in each landscape ecosystem would maintain or restore the forest to conditions

more representative of native plant communities and landscape scale patterns.

Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) represents habitats used by a wide variety of native plants

and animals, including management indicator species and sensitive species. MIH provide a

means of monitoring and evaluating the effects of actions on biotic resources including specific

species, communities, habitats, and interrelationships among organisms. Managing for MIH

objectives is a key component of providing for the full diversity of desired wildlife habitats.

The predominant landscape ecosystems in the Pelican Project Area are the Dry-Mesic Red and

White Pine (DRW, FP 2-64) and Mesic Birch-Aspen-Spruce-Fir LE (MBA, FP 2-67) as shown

in Table 1-1. The Pelican Project Area represents approximately fourteen percent of the total

Forest-wide Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine LE and two percent of the Mesic Birch-Aspen-

Spruce-Fir LE. The Lowland Conifer LE (FP, p. 2-76) is scattered throughout the three

previously mentioned LEs representing two percent of the Forest-wide total.

Table 1-1: Landscape Ecosystems in the Pelican Project Area

Landscape Ecosystem Acres %

Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine 26,300 56

Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce Fir 6,900 15

Mesic Red and White Pine 4,200 9

Lowland Conifer 2,700 7

Lowland Hardwood 1,300 3

Jack Pine-Black Spruce 300 <1

Non-Forest (upland and lowland) 5,000 10

Total 46,700* 100*

* Totals may not match exactly due to rounding in GIS area calculations.



Figure 1-2: Pelican Project Landscape Ecosystems



The following tables compare the age class and composition of the Pelican Project Area with

Forest-wide LE objectives. Forest Plan objectives are applicable to an entire landscape

ecosystem, and therefore are not directly applicable to smaller project areas. However,

management actions in project areas such as Pelican contribute to meeting Forest-wide

objectives based on opportunities in the specific area. Opportunities to move the existing

condition of the Pelican Project Area closer to the desired condition were used to develop the

Purpose and Need.

Tables 1-2 and 1-3 compare age class and composition of the Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine LE

within the project area to Forest-wide existing conditions in 2011 and Forest Plan objectives for

Decade 1.

Table 1-2: Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine Landscape Ecosystem Vegetation Composition in the Pelican Project Area

Upland Forest Type Pelican Project

Area

Forest-wide Existing

Condition 2011

Forest Plan Objectives Decade 1

2014 Acres1 % % %

Jack Pine 1,529 6 9 10

Red Pine 2,712 10 12 13

White Pine 4,481 17 11 9

Spruce-fir 1,357 5 8 11

Northern Hardwoods 897 3 1 1

Aspen 14,313 54 50 47

Paper Birch 1007 4 8 9

TOTAL:

26,296 99* 99* 100

1Acres are from data extracted from the FS Veg. Spatial database *Totals may not exactly match due to rounding.

Table 1-3: Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine Landscape Ecosystem Age Class Distribution in the Pelican Project Area

Age Class

Pelican Project Area


Condition 2011


2014 Uplands Acres1 % % %

0-9 3,638 14 7 10

10-49 9,013 34 38 44

50-99 11,067 42 39 32

100-139 2,512 10 16 14

140+ 66 0 0 0

TOTAL: 26,296 100 100 100 1Acres are from data extracted from the FS Veg. Spatial (database).



Tables 1-4 and 1-5 compare age class and composition of the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir LE

within the project area to Forest-wide existing conditions in 2011 and Forest Plan objectives for

Decade 1.

Table 1-4: Mesic Birch-Aspen-Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem Vegetation Composition in the Pelican Project Area

Upland Forest Type Pelican Project

Area


Condition 2011


2014 Acres1 % % %

Jack Pine 225 3 3 4

Red Pine 438 6 5 5

White Pine 1,471 22 3 3

Spruce-fir 264 4 25 26

Northern Hardwoods 114 2 5 4

Aspen 3,857 57 44 43

Paper Birch 420 6 15 14

TOTAL: 6,789 100 100 100 1Acres are from data extracted from the FS Veg. Spatial (database).

Table 1-5: Mesic Birch-Aspen-Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem Age Class Distribution in the Pelican Project Area

Age Class

Pelican Project Area


Condition 2011


2014 Uplands Acres1 % % %

0-9 1,652 24 6 10

10-49 2,476 36 37 45

50-79 1,090 16 21 15

80-99 1,389 20 24 21

100+ 182 3 11 9

TOTAL: 6,789 99* 99* 100 1Acres are from data extracted from the FS Veg. Spatial (database).

*Totals may not exactly match due to rounding.



Table 1-6 compares age class in the Pelican Project Area Lowland Conifer LE with Forest-wide

existing conditions in 2011 and Forest Plan Objectives for Decade 1.

Table 1-6: Lowland Conifer Landscape Ecosystem Age Class Distribution in the Pelican Project Area

Age Class Pelican Project Area Forest-wide

2011 Forest Plan Objectives

Decade 1

Lowlands Acres1 % % % 0-9 0 0 >1 3

10-39 130 8 6 5

40-79 257 15 23 18

80-159 1,305 76 67 69

160+ 33 2 2 4

TOTAL: 1,725 101* 99* 99* 1Acres are from data extracted from the FS Veg. Spatial (database). *Totals may not exactly match due to rounding in GIS area calculations.

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

An interdisciplinary team of natural resource specialists compared existing conditions of the

Pelican Project Area with desired conditions and objectives in the Forest Plan. The analysis

called the Pelican Mid-level Assessment considered many resources (vegetation, recreation,

wildlife, watershed, and others) and identified opportunities to move the project area toward

desired conditions. The District Ranger chose to address forest vegetation management and

associated transportation as the primary purpose and need for this project. Current vegetation

conditions in the Pelican Project Area do not meet Forest Plan desired conditions for landscape

ecosystems, vegetation composition, age, or spatial arrangement and size.

1.4.1 Spatial patterns

According to the Forest Plan, the desired condition of vegetation spatial landscape patterns is

diversity in size, shape, and distribution of forest patches. Gradually reestablishing diversity to

forest patches would restore conditions that more closely emulate landscape scale patterns that

result from natural disturbances and other ecological processes (D-VG-7, FP p. 2-22).

Vegetation patches are groups of forest stands of similar ages that may be made up of different

forest cover types. Large mature patches (300 plus acres) should be managed to maintain the

characteristics of mature or older native upland forest vegetation communities and promote the

maintenance or development of interior forest habitat conditions (O-VG-17, FP p. 2-24). The

current conditions of both young and mature forest patches are of lower quality for wildlife

habitat and have poorer spatial arrangement on the landscape than desired.

Forest Plan direction for management of patches within Spatial Zone 1 is to maintain or increase

the amount of interior forest habitat in a variety of upland and lowland vegetation communities.

The number and size of mature and older upland patches should be maintained or increased in

patches greater than or equal to 300 acres.



In mature and older upland forest patches, managed to maintain a size of greater than or equal to

300 acres, vegetation management treatments are allowable where they maintain a minimum of

50 percent (60 percent for red and white pine) canopy closure at time of treatment and favor

retention of larger and older trees characteristic of the patch (O-VG-22, 23, and G-VG-3; FP p.

2-26). There are nine of these patches in the Pelican Project Area within Spatial Zone 1 (FP, p.

2-25). Opportunities exist within these patches in the Pelican Project Area to improve the

existing stand condition and forest health while retaining their status as mature and older upland

patches. Aspen stands or portions of those would benefit from harvesting before they break up

and succeed to balsam fir, which would likely happen in many areas that do not get harvested.

Harvesting without planting would promote aspen regeneration, while planting would convert

stands to increase underrepresented forest types. Pine stands would also benefit from harvest

activities, promoting the regeneration and growth of existing young pine, which requires

openings in the forest canopy.

Most of the spatial landscape patterns (such as the size of young patches) in the Pelican Project

Area are smaller than would result from natural disturbances. This is primarily a result of

smaller harvest units in previous years. Harvesting mature stands of timber scattered amongst

these young stands would create large young upland patches that would provide large mature and

older upland forest patches in the future. These future large mature and older patches would

provide quality interior habitat and connectivity for a variety of wildlife species. As described in

Section 1.3, the General Forest Management Area emphasizes creating large, young patches to

mimic natural disturbances.

1.4.2 Landscape Ecosystem and Management Indicator Habitats (MIH)

A primary purpose of the Pelican Project is to maintain and promote native vegetation

communities that are diverse, productive, healthy, and resilient by moving the vegetation

component toward landscape ecosystem (LE) and management indicator habitat (MIH)

objectives described in the Forest Plan (O-VG-1, FP, p. 2-23). The Pelican Project has an

opportunity to move towards Forest Plan objectives for Decade 1 (2014) in the following

landscape ecosystems:

Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine (DRW) Landscape Ecosystem (FP, p. 2-64 – 2-66)

• Increase jack pine, red pine, spruce-fir, and paper birch

• Maintain white pine and decrease aspen

• Increase 0-9 age class and decrease 50–99 age class

Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir (MBA) Landscape Ecosystem (FP, p. 2-70 to 2-72)

• Increase jack pine and spruce-fir

• Maintain red pine, white pine, northern hardwoods, paper birch, and decrease aspen

• Increase 0-9 age class and decrease 50-79 and 80-99 age classes

Lowland Conifer (LLC) Landscape Ecosystem (FP, p. 2-76 to 2-78)

• Increase the 0-9 age class and decrease the 80-159 age class

• Maintain and/or improve the condition of black spruce forest types to increase forest

health



Create young (0-9 year old) age class

Young age class has been and continues to be an important component of the DRW and MBA

landscape ecosystems. In much of the project area, young forests are in the latter half of the

young age class (five to nine years old) and will be grown out of that age class by 2014.

Young age class has also been a component of the Lowland Conifer LE but to a lesser extent

than in the upland landscape ecosystems. Currently, Forest-wide and in the Pelican Project Area,

less than one percent of Lowland Conifer LE is in the young age class. The Forest-wide

objective is three percent for the LLC LE in the DRW LE (FP, p. 2-76). There is an opportunity

within the project area to increase the component of young lowland forest (MIH-9).

Species composition

Objectives for the DRW LE include increasing the amount of jack pine, red pine, spruce-fir and

paper birch while maintaining the amount of white pine and decreasing the amount of aspen (FP

p. 2-64). The current composition of these species, Forest-wide and within Pelican, is below

Forest Plan objectives for Decade 1 (Table 1-2 and Table 1-4).

The Pelican Project Area is above the Forest Plan objective for white pine stands in the DRW

and MBA LEs (17 percent and 21 percent, respectively). The characteristics of each landscape

ecosystem vary across the Forest. While the white pine component can be more difficult to

maintain in other parts of the Forest in the DRW and MBA LE, the Pelican Project Area can help

achieve the Forest Plan objectives across these LEs more efficiently and cost effectively than in

other project areas. The project area also naturally regenerates an additional white pine

component throughout stands not typed as white pine. However, young white pine has trouble

reaching the upper canopy in many established stands under current conditions. In the long term

without treatment, some of these stands would lose the older pine component through disease,

wind-throw, and old age; and not be replaced with young white pine. Balsam fir generally

replaces young white pine that does not grow into the canopy. There is a need to establish new,

and maintain current, white pine regeneration in the understory to promote multi-age/old growth

characteristics and to perpetuate white pine in the future.

The Forest Plan objective for jack pine by the end of Decade 1 is 10 percent in DRW LE and 9

percent in MBA LE. Currently, jack pine is under-represented in both the Pelican Project Area

and Forest-wide in DRW and MBA. Jack pine is a pioneer species and without disturbance

(harvest or wildland fire) jack pine stands tend to succeed to spruce-fir. To maintain or increase

this species component, it is necessary to harvest and regenerate old jack pine stands before they

succeed to spruce-fir and before they stop producing jack pine seed.



Figure 1-3: An example of one of Pelican’s primary treatments: Seed Tree Cut (paper birch).

Figure 1-4: The Pelican Project’s proposed actions would promote white pine regeneration.

1.4.3 Wildlife Including Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

Forest Plan direction for habitat of many wildlife species is addressed by LE and MIH objectives

described in the vegetation management section (page 1-11). By implementing the proposed



actions, habitat would be maintained, protected, and improved for a variety of species. These

include, but are not limited to, black bear, moose, ruffed grouse, and bald eagle. Other species

and habitat needs would be protected through project design following Forest Plan Operational

Standards and Guidelines (Appendix C).

There were areas identified within the Pelican Project Area to improve wildlife habitat through

management actions not associated with timber harvest. There are several sizeable fish bearing

water bodies where vegetation could be enhanced to promote or retain older red and white pine

trees. An opportunity also exists to improve forage areas, specifically blueberry and oak sites,

through prescribed burning. Waterfowl nesting habitat could be improved in the Pat Zackovik

Waterfowl Impoundment by harvesting trees without planting.

There are opportunities to decommission roads in the Pelican Project Area when the roads are no

longer needed. The Forest Plan identifies the need to maintain/restore habitat connectivity and

reduce road density for Canada lynx to reduce the risk of human caused mortality. Reducing

road densities is another non-harvest management action that would benefit certain wildlife

species, especially lynx. Maintaining or reducing road and trail densities below two miles per

square mile helps maintain the natural competitive advantage of lynx in deep snow (G-WL-8, FP

p. 2-30). In addition, Forest Plan direction is to maintain the minimum National Forest road

system needed to provide adequate access to both NFS and non-NFS land (D-TS-1 and 2, FP p.

2-47).

Figure 1-5: The Pelican Project would promote and maintain nest, perch, and roost trees for the

Bald Eagle.



1.4.4 Insects, Diseases, and Disturbance Processes

Fuel Reduction

The Forest Plan desired condition is one in which, “accumulation of natural and activity fuels are

treated to enhance ecosystem resiliency and maintain desired fuel levels” (D-ID-4, FP p. 2-19).

The Forest Plan also identifies the need to, “Treat areas of highest fire risk (based on Fire

Regime and Condition Class) to minimize effects of unwanted wildland fire” (O-ID-3, pg. 2-19).

In the Pelican Project Area there is a need to restore overall health and reduce hazardous fuel

levels in forest communities, especially along roadsides, by changing the vegetative condition

through vegetative management. Balsam fir is a significant component in the understory of

many stands; which increases the likelihood of active crown fire and decreases effectiveness of

suppression. High intensity fires result in increased risk to firefighter and public safety and an

increased chance of losing ecosystem components. In addition, the Lake and St. Louis County

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) provide direction to reduce the risk of wildfire,

protect life and property, and move an area back to the ecological condition associated with the

historical fire regime. Recognizing Forest Plan direction and supporting the CWPP, the

interdisciplinary team identified a need to reduce fuel levels and help restore a more historic fire

regime to the project area.

Before understory fuel treatment After fuel treatment

After underburn One year post-underburn

Figure 1-6: Understory mechanical fuel reduction in pine stand followed by underburn to treat

balsam fir.



Insects

The Pelican Project Area may experience a major loss of black ash forest type if an infestation of

the Emerald Ash Borer occurs (currently only in the southern part of Minnesota). Therefore, a

proactive effort is proposed to assess the existing condition of and treat monoculture black ash

stands near high risk corridors (such as highways and roads next to campgrounds, summer home

group areas, and high-use recreation areas), and black ash communities adjacent to harvest

stands. The Pelican Project Area would have an opportunity to underplant a variety of native

species associated with black ash stands, in an effort to maintain a forested stand in the event of

an infestation which would cause the stand to die off. In the absence of live mature trees these

stands would likely become a non-forested stand of mostly lowland brush species. Opening the

canopy up now would promote more shade-intolerant species like yellow birch and balsam

poplar.

1.4.5 Water Health, Riparian Areas and Soil Resources

Forest Plan direction encourages maintaining or increasing long-lived tree species such as white

pine, red pine, and white spruce in riparian areas to benefit both lake and stream riparian and

aquatic habitat conditions (O-WS-3, 4, 5, FP p. 2-12). Natural regeneration of these long-lived

species in riparian areas is often hindered by a thick understory of brush or balsam fir

regeneration. Riparian habitat reconnaissance in the project area indicates there are opportunities

to increase long-lived species in riparian areas by decreasing density of competitive understory

vegetation.

1.4.6 Recreation/Scenery and Vegetation Enhancement

Scenic Resources

Forest Plan direction states that within the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers MA,

vegetation management will generally be done to enhance the recreation experience, and to the

extent practical, improve scenic values within the context of the purposes for scenic rivers.

Vegetation management practices will also generally promote the retention of longer lived tree

species, leading toward the development of a big tree character throughout river corridors.

Forest Plan direction for areas with High Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) states that high scenic

quality is protected or enhanced in landscapes with outstanding scenic value and in high public

use recreation areas and corridors. The Vermilion River, Arrowhead Snowmobile Trail, Myrtle

Lake, and Silver Lake have High Scenic Integrity Objectives and thus provide an opportunity to

meet Forest Plan objectives for scenic resources by enhancing views, creating vistas,

encouraging vegetative diversity, and enhancing big tree appearance (D-SC-2, FP p. 2-45).

Recreation

Forest Plan direction states that within the General Forest and General Forest-Longer Rotation

MAs, dispersed recreation facilities such as campsites and trails (day use, backpacking,

portaging, bicycling, horseback riding, hunter walking, snowmobile, ATV use, interpretive) may

be provided for public use (D-GF-8, p. 3-7). There is an opportunity to improve the recreation

experience along the Bug Creek Trail by improving the trail tread and surrounding vegetation.



1.4.7 Minerals

All saleable material from gravel pits and quarries is referred to collectively as mineral materials.

This encompasses common varieties of sand, gravel, and rock. Aggregate from gravel pits

produce materials that are used in road construction and maintenance; trail construction and

maintenance; and site development for both public and private facilities. Forest Plan direction

states that the Forest Service will provide sand and gravel for public and private use in addition

to agency use (D-TS-1 and O-TS-1, FP pp. 2-47 and 2-49). There are 31 existing pits in the

Pelican Project Area that would need to be maintained to meet Forest Plan objectives.

1.4.8 Provide sustainable forest products

The Forest Plan identifies the need to provide commercial wood (including biomass) for

mills/plants in northern Minnesota at a level that is sustainable over time (D-TM-1, FP p. 2-20).

Approximately 12,000 acres of forest within the Pelican Project Area have been identified as

needing some type of treatment to balance age class distribution or species composition, improve

stand health and enhance growth, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce fuels in wildland urban

interface areas. Treatments to meet the other project objectives could be accomplished through

the sale of marketable wood products, including tops of trees for biomass. Timber harvesting on

the suitable forestland within the project area would meet the needs of sustaining a healthy forest

and providing an economic opportunity to local communities. Vegetation management has the

opportunity to provide wood products (including biomass) for businesses and mills in northern

Minnesota.

1.4.9 Tribal Rights and Interests

The Forest Plan identifies the need to provide opportunities for traditional American Indian land

uses and resources and facilitate the exercise of the right to hunt, fish, and gather as retained by

Ojibwe whose homelands were subject to treaty in 1854 and 1866 (D-TR-3, Forest Plan pg. 2-

37). The Forest Plan also identifies the need to maintain a consistent and mutually acceptable

approach to government-to-government consultation that provides for effective tribal

participation and facilitates the integration of tribal interests and concerns into the decision-

making process. All three bands, Fond du Lac, Bois Forte, and Grand Portage were consulted

with and were provided an opportunity to assist in the development of the proposed action for the

Pelican Project.

1.4.10 Transportation System

The Forest Plan identifies the need to provide a transportation system for long-term vegetation

management and access to federal and other public lands. There is a need within the Pelican

Project Area to add new and existing roads to the National Forest System to allow for long-term

vegetation management and access to other ownership. There are also existing roads no longer

needed that are causing resource damage. These roads would be decommissioned. Private and

non-NFS landowners have reasonable access to their land (D-TS-5, FP p. 2-47) and thus, would

be allowed special use authorizations.

1.5 PROPOSED ACTION While developing the proposed action, the interdisciplinary team collaborated with and reviewed

data from the State of Minnesota, St. Louis County, tribal representatives, and timber industry



representatives. This collaborative effort was utilized to ensure similar forest management

activities would occur across ownership boundaries. The proposed action is designed to meet

Forest Plan LE objectives for age, composition, and spatial arrangement of vegetation as well as

objectives for fuel reduction, wildlife habitat, soil, scenery, recreation, transportation, minerals,

tribal rights, riparian habitat, and sustainable forest products.

A. Vegetation Management The proposed action would create young age class on approximately 7,000 acres primarily

through coppice with reserves and clearcut with reserves. To the extent possible, the harvest

would create patches greater than 300 acres. The larger young patches would create less

fragmentation, and in the long term would become large mature patches. Some existing mature

patches would not be treated and would maintain forest connectivity and corridors for species

like the Canada lynx.

The proposed action would improve stand conditions using harvest and non-harvest treatments to

create multiple age classes and incorporating seeding, planting, and natural regeneration of a

diversity of species afterwards. The proposed action would also reduce hazardous fuel through

harvest and mechanical understory fuel reduction.

Implementation of this project area would occur across both the first (2004-2014) and second

(2015-2024) decades of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan limits the amount of even-aged harvest

(create young stands with harvest) that can occur within Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) in any one

decade. Therefore, even-aged harvests implemented in this project would not exceed standard S-

WL-1: Management activities on NFS land shall not change more than 15 percent of lynx habitat

on NFS land within an LAU to an unsuitable condition (zero to four year old age class) within a

10-year period (first or second decade of the Forest Plan) (FP, pg. 2-30).

The Pelican Project Area has opportunities to use herbicide on a limited basis as a tool for

enhancing the presence of long-lived conifer species through competition control. The use of

herbicide would be considered on a trial basis to determine ecosystems benefits, treatment

efficiency, and cost savings in comparison to prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. Spot

applications of herbicide – using hand held spraying devices - could increase the amount and

survival of long-lived conifer species, especially where multiple entries would be needed to

control aggressive, fast growing competing vegetation.

A summary of the acres proposed for each treatment type are shown in Tables 1-7 and 1-8 and is

displayed on the Proposed Action Map. Acres shown are counted only once, providing a picture

of the total acres proposed for treatment. The acres listed are the total acres of a stand; actual

treatment acres would typically be less as some areas of the stand may be inoperable or

mitigations may preclude treatment. Treatment types are grouped into five broad treatment

categories based on what the treatment would achieve. Measures provided in the tables are

preliminary estimates that may change based on additional on-the-ground information.



Table 1-7: Summary of Proposed Action: Vegetation Management Primary Treatments

Primary Treatment Description Proposed

Action Acres

Create young stands with harvest (7,090 total acres)

Coppice Cut (with leave trees) 3,326

Stand Clearcut (with leave trees) 2,552

Seed-Tree Cut 878

Two-Age Shelterwood 334

Improve Stand Condition with harvest (2,998 total acres)

Group Selection Cut 1,356

Commercial Thin 576

Improvement Cut 569

Sanitation Cut 497

Restore stand condition without harvest (1,251 total acres)

Control Understory Vegetation 960

Tree Release and Weed 208

Other Stand Tending or Prune 83

Reduce hazardous fuel (523 total acres)

Understory Fuels Reduction 523

Improve wildlife habitat (2,952 total acres)

Release and Weeding 2,327

Planting 599

Other 26

Total of all Treatment Types 14,814

Transportation and Trail System

The transportation system proposed action is summarized in Table 1-8. The Pelican Project

would decommission 20.3 miles of existing roads. Forest Plan standard S-TS-4 (pg. 2-50) states

to decommission roads that are not needed in the National Forest road and trail system and

special use permitted roads that are no longer needed. Decommissioning would make the road

unusable by motorized vehicles and stabilize the roadbed. Other project changes listed in Table

1-8 to the National Forest System roads are necessary for long-term management of the Forest.

Temporary roads are also needed as part of the proposed action. Temporary roads would only be

used for short periods of time, would not become part of the permanent forest transportation

system, and would be obliterated and effectively closed after all management activities have

been completed.

The Arrowhead Snowmobile Trail may be needed on a temporary basis to access proposed

harvest units in the Pelican Project Area (dual use potential; after use trails would be restored to

original or better conditions).



1.6 DECISION TO BE MADE

Based on the purpose and need identified for the Pelican Project, the scope of the project is

limited to decisions concerning vegetation management and related transportation system

activities.

The LaCroix District Ranger will decide whether or not to implement any of the proposed

management activities. If the District Ranger decides to conduct management activities, he will

then decide on the following:

• The amount and type of vegetation treatment activities, including reforestation

• The amount and type of related transportation system activities

• Relevant mitigation measures and monitoring actions

The District Ranger will also decide if the proposed management activities would have a

significant impact that would trigger the need to prepare an environmental impact statement.

1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION

Public, community, and agency involvement has occurred throughout the development of the

proposed action, issues, and alternatives. Issues are points of disagreement, debate, or dispute

about the potential effects of a proposed activity and are based on some anticipated outcome.

The purpose of public scoping is to identify environmental issues deserving of further study and

to de-emphasize other issues in the environmental effects analysis (40 CFR 1500.4g).

When developing the proposed action, the interdisciplinary team collaborated with representative

and specialists from 1854 Treaty Authority, Fond du Lac Band, Bois Forte Band, Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, St. Louis County, and timber industry.

The interdisciplinary team hosted a collaborative meeting attended by 1854 Treaty Authority and

Bois Forte representatives and specialists. The project was discussed in more detail at a meeting

with 1854 Treaty Authority and Bois Forte natural resource managers on July 18, 2011. Both

expressed concern about the use of herbicide as a management tool even on the small scale

identified in this project. They expressed concern about spraying moose browse, medicinal

plants, and berries; and the potential impact to wild rice production. On May 12, 2012, tribal

Table 1-8: Summary of Transportation System Proposed Actions. OML stands for Objective Maintenance Level. The Forest Plan (p. Glossary 17-18) defines OML 1, 2, and 3 as well as OHV (off-highway vehicle)

Proposed Action Miles Add as OML 1 1.2

Change from OML2 to OML1 0.4

Add as a long-term special use 2.1

Add as a temporary special use 1.7

Decommission 20.3

Construction of temporary roads 35.2



representatives were invited to tour the proposed herbicide units and were given a demonstration

of the application techniques that would be used in the Pelican Project. This alleviated some of

the concerns brought forward in the July 18 meeting. Other concerns were improving moose

habitat and browse, transportation into recently harvested stands for moose hunting, and

management impacts to cultural sites. The interdisciplinary team incorporated the feedback from

this meeting into the proposed action.

There were also meetings and discussions with MN DNR and St. Louis County land managers.

A meeting was held with the project wildlife biologist, silviculturist, and a MN DNR biologist to

ensure the proposed actions were in line with their wildlife management objectives in the area.

Additional meetings were held to discuss access into State and county land for land management

activities.

In September 2011, a scoping package requesting comments was mailed to 839 individuals,

groups, and agencies who either own land within or adjacent to the project area or who have

expressed an interest in these types of projects. A legal notice was also published in the Mesabi

Daily News newspaper on September 2, 2011. The scoping package was also available on the

Superior National Forest web page at www.fs.usda.gov/superior located under "Land and

Resources Management" then "Projects." We received 34 written and verbal responses from

individuals, groups, and agencies.

The Pelican Project was listed in the Superior Quarterly (a Schedule of Proposed Actions for the

Superior National Forest) starting in July 2011.

All scoping comments received were considered by the interdisciplinary team and District

Ranger. The interdisciplinary team placed the comments into one of two categories and

determined the best way to address the comment. Categories of comments include:

• Issues that drive an alternative: Issues based on extent of geographic distribution,

duration of effect, and intensity of interest or conflict generated. These issues are

analyzed in detail in the environmental assessment (EA).

• Issues that do not drive an alternative are those that: o Are not within the scope of the proposed action

o Are not relevant to the decision to be made

o Have already been decided by law, regulation, or policy, or

o Are conjectural or unsupported by scientific evidence. Issues about effects that

can be mitigated through further clarification of the proposed action, standards

and guidelines, or mitigation measures. These issues are only analyzed briefly.

The Response to Comments (Appendix F) includes responses to all comments received during

scoping.



This page is intentionally blank.


July 2012 2-1 Chapter 2 Alternatives

CHAPTER 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction This chapter describes how an adequate range of alternatives was developed for the Pelican Project. It describes each of the alternatives analyzed in detail, briefly describes the alternatives eliminated from further study, and the reasons why they were eliminated. This chapter presents the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives in a comparative form. The comparison of alternatives is by resource, and how each alternative would accomplish the purpose and need, thus providing a clear basis for choice among options. The environmental effects presented here are a summary of the information and analysis from Chapter 3. 2.2 How a Range of Alternatives was Developed The implementation guidelines (40 CFR 1500) developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) require that an environmental analysis must, “...rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated (Sec. 1502.14 (a)).” This direction does not mean every conceivable alternative must be considered or analyzed in detail, but the selection and discussion of alternatives must permit a reasoned choice and foster informed public participation and decision-making. A range of alternatives includes all reasonable alternatives analyzed in detail as well as those analyzed briefly. In making a decision, the District Ranger must consider all alternatives, whether analyzed in detail or briefly (CEQ 1981, Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 1a). The purpose and need for action defines the range of alternatives since all alternatives must in some way meet the purpose and need. Alternatives to the proposed action are usually developed to address unresolved issues about effects identified during scoping. No issues were raised for the Pelican Project from scoping that would necessitate the development of an alternative to analyze in detail. There were six alternatives suggested by the public during the public involvement period that were considered but were not carried forward for further study. Rationale for why these were not analyzed further is discussed in Section 2.4. The proposed action (Alternative 2), was included in the September 2, 2011 Scoping Report and was developed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to meet the purpose and need for the Pelican Project Area. In accordance with CEQ regulations, and as mentioned above, a no-action alternative (Alternative 1) is included in this analysis. This alternative is intended to serve as a control showing the environmental and social effects of taking no action, as well as to provide the deciding official the option of taking no action at this time. The Pelican Project EA analyzes the effects of two alternatives in detail. The amount of analysis of each alternative is appropriate because there is adequate disclosure of the trade-offs between resources, the effects of the alternatives, and how each meets the direction in the Forest Plan. These two alternatives, along with the alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail, are an adequate range of alternatives.



2.3 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Alternative 1 - No-action In this alternative, the proposed action would not take place and there would be no new vegetation or transportation management actions at this time. Existing management actions such as previously approved timber sales or road projects would continue. Forest succession processes would proceed naturally with the exception of any disturbances caused by exotic invasive plant and insect species (such as purple loosestrife and emerald ash borer) and reduction in influence of naturally-ignited wildfire by suppression actions needed to protect public safety, infrastructure, and private property. Existing road uses and recreational activities would also continue. Selection of this alternative would not preclude proposals and analyses of future management actions in the project area. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) was developed to meet the purpose and need for action in the Pelican Project Area (see Section 1.4 for the Purpose and Need). The proposed action would implement the Forest Plan; including moving the vegetation conditions toward the desired landscape ecosystem objectives for age class, spatial patterns, species composition, and management indicator habitats. Young age class is an important component to maintain or increase throughout the landscape ecosystems. To the extent possible, proposed harvests would create large (at a minimum greater than 100 acres) young forest patches. The larger young patches would create less fragmentation and in the long term, becoming large mature patches. Some existing mature patches would not be treated under Alternative 2 and they would maintain forest connectivity and corridors for species like Canada lynx. Alternative 2 would increase the young upland age class by 6,670 acres, and increase the lowland conifer young age class by 420 acres. In addition, it would decrease the amount of aspen by approximately 1,000 acres through harvest and planting or seeding of jack pine, white pine, red pine, or white spruce. Alternative 2 would increase the within-stand diversity in mature stands on approximately 4,475 acres through harvest and non-harvest treatments. Vegetation composition and within-stand diversity would improve on nearly 9,000 acres that would be planted or seeded. Some of these stands would also have timber stand improvement (TSI) activities to ensure the survival and vigor of the regeneration. Mechanical treatments with brush saws are typically used to release conifer regeneration, but another tool to release individual trees from competition is spot application of herbicide. The Pelican Project Area has opportunities to use herbicide on a limited basis as a tool for enhancing the presence of long-lived conifer species through competition control. The use of herbicide would be considered on a trial basis to determine ecosystems benefits, treatment efficiency, and cost savings in comparison to prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. Converting hardwood-dominated sites to long-lived pine species and increasing the amount of pine within our hardwood and aspen stands is an objective of our Forest Plan and highlighted in many of our NEPA documents. However, it is a costly endeavor that we have not always been



able to fully fund, particularly in the recent economic climate (Appendix H – Herbicide Proposal). A variety of other treatments would be implemented as well (see Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Hazardous fuel would be reduced by 572 acres through primary treatments and 617 acres through secondary treatments. Wildlife habitat would be maintained or improved, black ash stands would be treated to reduce the effect of an emerald ash borer infestation, and riparian habitat adjacent to lakes and streams would be enhanced. Roads causing resource damage or no longer needed for management purposes would be decommissioned. Special use authorizations would allow access to other landowners. More detailed information on Alternative 2 can be found in the appendices. Reviewing all of the information will provide a more complete picture of the alternative.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action Map displays the locations of the proposed treatments in the project area.

Appendix A gives a definition for each of the treatment types and mitigation measures. Appendix B lists the specific treatments and mitigation measures proposed for each unit. Appendix C lists the Operational Standards and Guidelines that apply to all units.

Operational Standards and Guidelines, based on the Forest Plan and Minnesota Forest Resource Council Guidelines, are an integral part of the proposal and are designed to minimize adverse effects.

Appendix D gives a description of monitoring activities that would occur under Alternative 2.

Appendix H provides proposed herbicide application background, techniques and products, cost comparisons, mitigations and project design criteria, and maps of application areas.

Appendix G gives a description of the financial efficiency of the project, comparing FS direct expenditures with estimated financial revenues.

Summary of Actions – Vegetation Management Summary of treatments are provided in Table 2-1 (primary treatments) and 2-2 (secondary and reforestation treatments). Unit acres listed are based on the total stand acres in our vegetation database. These numbers would likely decrease during implementation with further refinement of unit boundaries and locating inoperable areas.

Table 2-1: Summary of Proposed Action: Comparison of Activities and Acres by Primary Treatment Type and Alternative

Primary Treatment Description* Alternative 2

Acres* Create young stands with harvest (7,090 total acres)

Coppice Cut (with leave trees) 3,326 Stand Clearcut (with leave trees) 2.552 Seed-Tree Cut 878 Two-Age Shelterwood Cut 334



Table 2-1: Summary of Proposed Action: Comparison of Activities and Acres by Primary Treatment Type and Alternative

Primary Treatment Description* Alternative 2

Acres* Improve Stand Condition with harvest (3,220 total acres)

Group Selection Cut 1,269 Commercial Thin 575 Improvement Cut 879 Sanitation Cut 497

Restore stand condition without harvest (1,255 total acres) Control Understory Vegetation 903 Tree Release and Weed 208 Other Stand Tending, Prune, or Site Preparation (Hand) 103 Precommercial Thin 40

Reduce hazardous fuel (572 total acres) Understory Fuels Reduction 572

Improve wildlife habitat (3,096 total acres) Tree Release and Weed** 2,327 Planting 599 Other 170

Total of all Treatment Types 15,233 * All acreages are based on calculated GIS stand acreages. **These are total stand acreages, actual treatment areas will be less depending on amount and location of oak and blueberry habitat.

Table 2-2: Summary of Proposed Secondary Treatment and Reforestation (following a primary treatment as described in Table 2-1)

Treatment Description Alternative 2

Acres*

Secondary Treatment

Site Preparation for Planting, Seeding, or Natural Regeneration 7,245

Wildlife Habitat Improvement – Prescribed Burn* 2,327

Release regeneration from Competing Vegetation 804 Control Understory Vegetation (for planting; improve stand condition) 248

Hazardous Fuel Reduction Activities 617

Animal Control for TSI or Prune 35

Regeneration Method Plant 5,231 Seeding 2,934 Fill-in Planting 92 Natural Regeneration (units with no planned planting activities following a harvest)

3,520

* Acreages here are stand acreages; actual acres will be less depending on actual amounts and location of oak and blueberry habitat.



Summary of Actions – Transportation (Including Special Use Authorizations) Temporary and permanent road access would be needed to accomplish proposed vegetation management activities and provide special use authorization to access other ownership. The transportation system is summarized below in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Summary of Transportation Proposed Actions. OML stands for Objective Maintenance Level. The Forest Plan (p. Glossary 17-18) defines OML 1, 2, and 3 as well as OHV (off-highway vehicle). Proposed Action Miles

Add as OML 1 1.2 Change from OML2 to OML1 0.4 Add as a Long-term Special Use 2.1 Add as Temporary Special Use 1.7 Decommission 20.3 Construction of Temporary Roads 35.2

2.4 Alternatives Considered and Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis Some of the comments submitted by the public regarding the proposed action included suggestions for alternatives. Some of the public’s suggested alternatives were already part of, or incorporated into, the design of the proposed action and the no action alternative. Other comments were considered outside the project’s purpose and need or would not comply with Forest Plan direction or applicable environmental regulations. The IDT considered Alternatives A through F and eliminated them from detailed study for one or more of the following reasons:

Did not meet the project’s purpose and need Did not follow Forest Plan direction Beyond the scope of the Pelican Project Issue driving the alternative would be resolved during project implementation Was a duplication within the existing alternatives

Alternative A: No commercial harvest adjacent to private land or in High SIO areas

Some commenters raised concerns that the proposed treatments would negatively impact scenic roads, private lands, or roads leading to private property through changes to scenery and noise levels. This alternative was not considered in detail because the elimination of vegetation management, including but not limited to commercial harvest, adjacent to private land or in High SIO areas would greatly reduce the degree to which the project’s purpose and need would be met. This concern was addressed by incorporating mitigations on all units that fall within High SIO areas (see Appendix B for unit specific details). Mitigations would include summer harvest along snowmobile trails or limiting the winter harvest along the trail to Monday through Thursday, using curved boundaries, and strategically placing leave areas and leave trees to provide a more natural appearance to harvested units. Similar mitigations would be incorporated along private ownership in certain situations such as the following units: 42-77, 42-72, and 42-78. Unit 42-72 is lowland black spruce, a species that is typically clearcut and allowed to regenerate naturally through seeding. Also, there would be a 400-foot buffer from the Pelican River due to Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act (SNN) restrictions.



Since our Forest Plan guides us to leave some trees as reserve, we would likely place those reserves in groups along property lines to mitigate windthrow and reduce visual impacts. Unit 42-72 is mostly aspen with a white spruce/balsam fir component. Aspen is typically regenerated naturally with a clearcut (Foresters call this a coppice cut since the aspen regenerates from root suckers rather than from seed). Here again, we need to leave reserve trees, and in this case a legacy patch, since the clearcut is larger than 20 acres. The legacy patch is a minimum of five percent of the harvested area and must be representative of the harvested area. The legacy patch and reserve trees would again be placed to accomplish that goal as well as mitigate any visual impacts to private property (such as along the property line and grouped throughout the stand). Typically trees like red and white pine are reserved in these harvests as well as other species such as oak, yellow birch, and black ash, providing an open forested setting. Given the topographic relief and variation in this stand, a harvest would likely improve the ability to view wildlife and possibly provide vistas of the lake from the upland knobs. Finally, unit 42-78 is mostly aspen and is proposed to increase the amount of long-lived conifer such as red and white pine or white spruce. This area is also within the SNN restriction and cannot be commercially logged (even though the topography would likely preclude harvest anyway). Since harvest is not available as a tool for introducing disturbance to this stand, the treatment of a wildlife release and weed with a subsequent burn is planned for the rock outcrops to improve the mast production of blueberries and oak. The release and weed would typically be done by hand with brush saws or chainsaws and would reduce the amount of competing hardwoods to allow the more desirable conifer to grow. The burn occurs after the release and would generally be confined to areas where oak or blueberries occur.

Alternatives B: No herbicide use

Concerns were raised during scoping on herbicide and effects to the BWCAW, Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers, and Threatened and Endangered Species by Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness. The Sierra Club questioned the effectiveness of herbicides versus prescribed fire and was against the use of herbicide. The DNR commented that they would like to work with the USFS to avoid or limit the use of herbicide on sites with the potential for mast production. Other commenters supported the use of herbicide over prescribed fire. These timber stand improvement activities would take place using mechanical treatments even if herbicides are not used. Although this alternative was eliminated from detailed study, effects to the BWCA, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers and Threatened and Endangered Species were considered in detail in this EA in Appendix C (Operational Standards and Guidelines), Appendix H (Herbicide Proposal), Chapters 3.3, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, and the Biological Assessment and the Biological Evaluations. This alternative, no herbicide use, was not considered in detail because as shown in Chapter 3, the concerns people expressed about its use would not affect the resources they were concerned about. Furthermore, there would be no effect to the BWCAW or Inventoried Roadless Areas because of the distance between potential herbicide units, the acreage receiving herbicide (less than 100 acres), and the method of application (hand spraying individual stems or foliage). The locations



of the treatment units are identified in the EA and on the herbicide map located in Appendix H. As described in Appendix H, using herbicides as a tool to improve stand conditions would be done on a trial basis to determine if there is a monetary cost savings when compared with mechanical timber stand improvement activities while having little or no effects to other resources. This could allow more funds to be available for other types of treatments such as planting or seeding. Alternative C: Eliminate all biomass removal as a tool to reduce hazardous fuels Public comments suggested there should be no biomass removal on any sites. “The Sierra Club supports non-harvest restoration treatments, but does not support using any byproducts to sell as commercial biomass. Biomass is a vital component to a healthy forest because it provides future nutrients to the soil and important habitat for plant and animal species. How much and what types of biomass does the Agency plan to sell and which units will it come from? How will this removal of biomass affect wildlife? Good lynx denning habitat has large amounts of coarse woody debris, how will harvest of biomass affect lynx? How will this removal of biomass affect soils, and the future health of vegetation that will be deprived of these nutrients? No biomass removal should occur.” The alternative to eliminate all biomass removal was not considered in detail because it would unduly limit the options available to meet the purpose and need for vegetation management for this project. The specific treatments that would be used to meet the purpose and need may be modified in response to site-specific and market conditions, but a decision at this point to eliminate it from our “toolbox” would limit our ability to effectively achieve ecosystem objectives. Instead, we propose treatments to best meet the purpose and need and to protect and mitigate potential effects to the ecosystem, while considering a wide range of tools to achieve those objectives, including biomass removal. In general, the effects of certain vegetation treatments or biomass removal are similar regardless of how the wood is utilized. For example, biomass removal may be a tool used to reduce hazardous fuel (instead of cutting, piling and burning). The main differences in utilizing biomass instead of burning piled material are the absence of smoke generated, less cost to the government, less impact to soil in places where piles are burned, and providing a product to create energy that otherwise would be burned and lost. In some cases biomass removal may follow a harvest. Boles and tops of trees could be sold to a biomass facility as long as Forest Plan standards and guidelines are met. Limbs, branches, and tops from the harvested trees may be utilized for biomass if not required to be spread back on site because of nutrient poor soils. Where site preparation is planned for regeneration, logging debris would typically be hauled to the landing and burned; however, these sites would be good candidates for selling the biomass rather than burning. We have estimated that approximately five tons/acre could be available for removal after certain harvest activities (see Table 2-5). This differs from the amount we estimated in the scoping report (ten tons/acre) as this project does not propose the removal of existing down woody debris



that was included in previous estimates from the MN DNR analysis. (MN DNR MN Logged Area Residue Analysis, 2007). Potential impacts from biomass removal are described throughout this EA. Certain resource conditions may eliminate biomass removal as a tool to accomplish Forest Plan objectives. The Superior National Forest implements the Minnesota Forest Resource Council (MFRC) Voluntary Site-level Guidelines when managing forest resources (Forest Plan, p. 2-7, GS-FW-1). Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are intended to provide equal or greater protection than MFRC guidelines. Therefore, these guidelines would be followed during implementation of this project if and when biomass removal is utilized, limiting potential effects of this activity. Alternatives D and E: More final harvest in large patches or none at all During public scoping we received comments to both increase the amount of final harvest in large patches and also to abstain from any harvesting in patches. While one commenter encouraged the Forest Service to harvest larger volume of trees within the mature and older upland patches, an opposing commenter suggested that the Forest Service maintain and increase the number and size of larger mature patches in the Forest. As demonstrated by these comments, public opinion about harvesting in large forest patches is divergent. The Forest Service cannot create an alternative that will please everyone. These opposing alternatives were not considered in detail because they overly inhibit the options available to meet the purpose and need to increase young forest of jack pine, spruce-fir, and paper birch; and decrease older forests of aspen, spruce-fir, and jack pine. More final harvest in the mature and older upland patches would diminish the characteristics required to maintain it as a 300 plus acre patch, thus not meeting Forest Plan objectives. Based on Forest Plan objectives for creating young habitat, we find a balance by incorporating some treatment in large patches; increasing good young forest habitat, removing dead and dying aspen, and planting units that are surrounded by similar aged forested stands. The project area has nine mature upland patches greater than 300 acres. Forest Plan objective O-VG-23 states that we maintain or increase the acres and number of such patches. Forest Plan guideline G-VG-3 states that we maintain 50 percent canopy closure (60 percent for red and white pine patches) at the time of treatment in mature and older upland forest types managed to maintain patch sizes of 300 acres or more. Some patches would have parts on the edges harvested, but the overall patch size would be greater than 300 acres. Forested stands within large patches were selected for treatment because: 1) their shape was long and narrow; therefore, not providing quality or contiguous interior habitat, 2) the forest stands are over-mature and the canopy is deteriorating, and/or 3) they are adjacent to recent harvests on other ownerships, so if converted to young forest now these stands would provide future large mature patches after the existing large mature patches have declined. Alternative F: Create additional young acres in the lowland conifer The Minnesota Timber Producers Association and Minnesota Forest Industries suggested the Forest Service consider including additional acres of final harvest in lowland conifer stands.



“MTPA suggests that the Forest Service consider harvesting additional acres in the lowland conifer types to meet young forest age class objectives and provide timber for those mills that utilize lowland conifer species.” Ray Higgins, Minnesota Timber Producers Association This alternative was not considered because the Pelican Project is proposing to treat 22 percent of the available acres for final harvest in lowland conifer to meet Forest Plan objectives. This percentage, which is more than three percent in the project area, would meet the FP objective to provide commercial woods for local mills (O-TM-1) and move the project area to Forest-wide desired conditions. The actual percentage may be less depending on economic feasibility, and many stands have portions that are considered unproductive (unable to regenerate in 5-10 years due to low nutrient levels typically caused by a high water table); therefore, they would not be harvested. Nevertheless, these unproductive stands are often used to achieve desired conditions or multiple-use objectives project- and Forest-wide (FP, G-TM-1, p. 2-10). The Pelican Project Area currently has 1,978 acres of lowland conifer, 98 percent of which is black spruce. Eighty percent or 1,574 acres are in the 80-159 year age class with zero acres in the young age class. Forest Plan Objective is to have three percent in the young age class for that LE. 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives Considered in Detail 2.5.1 Comparison of Effects of Alternatives by Resource This section summarizes and compares the effects of the two alternatives analyzed in detail. The main points of each resource analyzed in Chapter 3 or the appendices are summarized here. For the detailed analysis including analysis methods, data, cumulative effects, etc., see Chapter 3 and relevant appendices. Alternative 1 (No–action) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), will be referred to as only Alternative 1 or 2 in these summaries. Treaty Rights During the project development, we met with the tribes and heard concerns from them with regards to non-native invasive species, herbicide usage, vegetation management objectives, prescribed fire, water resources, access and parking on temporary/decommissioned roads into harvested areas to hunt, habitat management that favors moose over deer, and birch bark gathering prior to timber harvesting. Prior to scoping the tribes biggest concerns were the use of herbicide as a vegetation management tool and road access into recent harvests. Some of their concerns on proposed herbicide treatments were alleviated after a field tour and demonstration of application techniques. There would be no new young upland forest created through harvests in Alternative 1; therefore, minimal new foraging habitat for moose and grouse would be created. Blueberry and oak sites would not be enhanced and could decrease in productivity through succession. There would be no new temporary roads built to access harvested units, nor would there be any road decommissioning. Alternative 1 would not improve stand conditions with timber stand improvement activities such as mechanical and herbicide application.



Alternative 2 would increase the amount of young upland forest by 6,670 acres, providing more foraging habitat for game species such as moose and grouse. Blueberry and oak sites would be maintained and improved through prescribed burning. In addition, the action alternative would increase the conifer component of stands, increasing thermal cover for moose. Birch bark gathering prior to timber harvesting is currently being discussed and coordinated at the Forest level. Vegetation Overall, Alternative 2 would move the Forest towards meeting LE objectives for species composition, age class distribution, and for tree species diversity within individual stands more than Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would result in approximately 1,000 acres of older-aged jack pine, aspen, and paper birch forest types succeeding to spruce-fir forest type in the DRW and MBA LEs. Alternative 2 would promote jack pine regeneration through harvest on approximately 80 acres that would succeed to spruce-fir in Alternative 1. Red and white pine forest types would increase by converting aspen, hardwoods, and balsam fir stands. Of the 820 acres of aspen proposed for conversion (DRW and MBA LEs), 470 acres would be converted to jack pine, 250 acres to red pine, 50 acres to paper birch, and 25 acres to white pine. Out of the 1,000 acres that would succeed in Alternative 1, 550 acres would be harvested (create young stands) in Alternative 2, with 140 acres proposed to be converted to a forest type other than aspen, and 450 acres would be allowed to succeed to spruce-fir.

Table 2-4 depicts the age class distribution for the Pelican Project Area under each alternative. Alternative 2 would create the most young age class and would move the forest closer to landscape ecosystem objectives. In Alternative 1, all stands currently in the young age class (0-9 years old) and immature age class would move into the next age class within ten years and the only stands moving into the 0-9 year age class would be through natural succession.

Table 2-4: Age Class Distribution within Pelican Project Area

Dry-Mesic Red and White Pine LE Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir LE

Age Class Existing

Condition (2011)

Alt 1 (2020)

Alt 2 (2020)

Age Class

Existing Condition

(2011)

Alt 1 (2020

Alt 2 (2020)

0-9 3,638 0 5,154 0-9 1,587 0 766 10-49 9,013 13,158 12,722 10-49 2,568 4,076 4,057 50-99 11,067 8,729 5,283 50-79 1,040 550 366

100-139 2,512 4,202 2,918 80-99 1,526 1,718 1,300 140+ 66 207 207 100+ 182 559 414

Total Acres 26,296 26,296 26,284* Total Acres 6,903 6,903 6,903

*The difference is acreage is due to a stand being identified as a lowland conifer type and not being included in this LE



Within-stand diversity direct and indirect effects would be minimal under Alternative 1. Much of the regeneration from succession would primarily be shade tolerant species such as balsam fir and spruce. Overtime, this would cause greater canopy closure, lessening the survival of shade intolerant species. In addition, this increase of balsam fir and tighter canopies through lack of management activities would increase the potential threat of a high severity wildfire.

In Alternative 2, within-stand diversity would increase through partial harvests of mature stands, interplanting in harvested stands, underplanting in mature stands, and releasing advanced pine and spruce regeneration. Additional mitigations such as leave trees, legacy patches, and other parts of treatment units not harvested would also help improve within-stand diversity. Treatments in stands not available for even-age harvest (large patches) would reduce the aspen, red maple, and balsam fir components of the stands, allowing other species to be more competitive. Existing red and white pine stands of various ages would be thinned to maintain stand health and vigor while reducing the risk and damage from fires, insects, and disease.

In Alternative 1, there would be no treatments in black ash stands which could result in the loss of forested stands in the event of an Emerald Ash Borer infestation. In Alternative 2, black ash stands would receive treatments to open the canopy allowing for natural or artificial regeneration of other species such as balsam poplar and yellow birch. It is imperative to maintain tree species and some canopy cover on black ash sites, to reduce the likelihood of lowland brush becoming dominant on the site. Increasing the tree species diversity would ensure some trees are maintained on site if an EAB infestation kills all the black ash within the stand.

Threatened and Endangered Species Alternatives 1 and 2 are not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx and are not likely to adversely modify lynx critical habitat. This is because human disturbance factors are minimized, prey habitat is maintained and improved, and lynx habitat would be maintained or improved. On January 27, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) removed the Endangered Species Act protection for the Gray Wolf Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 249/ December 28, 2011). As a result of the delisting, the gray wolf is currently considered a U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service are not required to consult on RFSS; however, the discussion of the gray wolf as a RFSS species is included within the Pelican Project Biological Assessment given the recent timeframe of the delisting. The use of analysis criteria is the same as when the gray wolf was federally-listed; however, as the species is incorporated into future project Biological Evaluations (BE), the analysis criteria may change due to the species new management status. Effects to gray wolf are summarized under 3.6 Regional Forest Sensitive Species. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Under Alternative 1, no improvements for many of the Forest’s wildlife species would occur. Species that utilize young forest for habitat or browse would move to areas outside the project area until natural succession occurs and depending on the health of the stands for natural regeneration.



Alternative 2 would implement the proposed actions; thus, habitat would be maintained, protected, and improved for a variety of species. These include, but are not limited to, black bear, moose, ruffed grouse, and bald eagle. Specifically, this alternative would promote white and red pine regeneration within one-half mile of fish bearing waters, increase soft and hard mast production for a variety of wildlife species, and improve waterfowl nesting habitat near the Pat Zackovik Waterfowl Impoundment. Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to northern goshawk, great gray owl, olive-sided flycatcher, bald eagle, Connecticut warbler, boreal owl, three-toed woodpecker, bay-breasted warbler, gray wolf, heather vole, little brown myotis, northern myotis, tri-colored bat, Freija’s grizzled skipper butterfly, Nabokov’s blue butterfly, taiga alpine butterfly, Quebec emerald dragonfly, headwaters chilostigman caddisfly, ebony boghaunter, wood turtle, black sandshell, creek heelsplitter, lake sturgeon, northern brook lamprey, shortjaw cisco or nipigon cisco. Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to great gray owl, Connecticut warbler, bay-breasted warbler, Freija’s grizzled skipper butterfly, Nabokov’s blue butterfly, taiga alpine butterfly, or wood turtle. For Alternative 2, the proposed activities may impact individuals of northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, bald eagle, boreal owl, three-toed woodpecker, gray wolf, eastern heather vole, little brown myotis, northern myotis, tri-colored bat, Quebec emerald dragonfly, headwaters chilostigman caddisfly, ebony boghaunter, black sandshell, creek heelsplitter, lake sturgeon, northern brook lamprey, shortjaw cisco or nipigon cisco; but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. (Biological Evaluation, located at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=36056). Vascular plants, lichens, and byrophytes Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to swamp beggar-ticks, floating marsh-marigold, linear-leaved sundew, neat spike rush, moor rush, auricled twayblade, fall dropseed muhly, American shoregrass, dwarf water lily, Oakes’ pondweed, awlwort, lance-leaved violet, Cladonia wainoi, large-leaved sandwort, Appalachian fir clubmoss, Arctoparmelia centrifuga, Arctoparmelia subcentrifuga, small shinleaf, cloudberry, fairy slipper, ram’s head ladyslipper, western Jacob’s ladder, Caloplaca parvula, Certraria aurescens, Frullania selwyniana, Menegazzia terebrata, Ramalina thrausta, Sticta fuliginosa, Usnea longissima, Pseudocyphellaria crocata, Canada yew, barren strawberry, Canada ricegrass, or Peltigera venosa. Proposed activities in Alternatives 1 and 2 may impact individuals of common moonwort, Michigan moonwort, pale moonwort, ternate grapefern, and least moonwort; but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Proposed activities in Alternative 2 may impact individuals of swamp beggar-ticks, floating marsh-marigold, linear-leaved sundew, neat spike rush, moor rush, auricled twayblade, fall dropseed muhly, American shoregrass, dwarf water lily, Oakes’ pondweed, awlwort, lance-leaved violet, Cladonia wainoi, large-leaved sandwort, Appalachian fir clubmoss, Arctoparmelia centrifuga, Arctoparmelia subcentrifuga, small shinleaf, cloudberry, fairy slipper, ram’s head ladyslipper, western Jacob’s ladder, Caloplaca parvula, Certraria aurescens,



Frullania selwyniana, Menegazzia terebrata, Ramalina thrausta, Sticta fuliginosa, Usnea longissima, Pseudocyphellaria crocata, Canada yew, barren strawberry, Canada ricegrass, or Peltigera venosa; but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. (Plants Biological Evaluation, located at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=36056) Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species (MIS) include the bald eagle, gray wolf, northern goshawk, and white pine. These species are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.7. The gray wolf, bald eagle and northern goshawk are sensitive species as well as Management Indicator Species, and potential effects to these species are considered under Regional Forester Sensitive Species. The gray wolf was on the Threatened and Endangered Species List but has since been removed; however, it was still analyzed in that capacity. Effects to white pine are described below. Alternative 1 would retain the current status of white pine. Within the short term, no changes are likely to increase the acreage of white pine. Over several decades the white pine component is likely to decline. Alternative 2 would increase the amount of white pine or enhance existing white pine through site preparation, stand improvement and planting activities. Alternative 2 would also help restore its presence across a wider area. Several species would benefit in the long term, including the bald eagle, pileated woodpecker, boreal owl, red squirrel, and black bear. Management Indicator Habitat Forest type and age MIH are all within Forest Plan objective levels for the landscape ecosystems in the Pelican Project and were determined not to drive the proposed actions. However, spatial MIH (patches) did influence project development. This project addresses Forest Plan objectives for mature forest patches (Spatial Pattern MIH). Under Alternative 1, vegetation in the project area would continue to mature and all existing upland patches would be maintained. One additional area would grow into a condition to be considered a large mature patch (Table 3.8-5). The patch is located just southeast of Elephant Lake and would be 499 acres in size. In some patches, the quality of interior forest conditions would continue to deteriorate. No new large young patches would be added to the landscape on federal lands. In addition, the landscape would continue to be fragmented based on land ownership boundaries.

Alternative 2 would maintain the number of existing 300-plus acre patches within the Pelican Project Area. Some harvesting of patches would occur on stands that are not contributing to the interior habitat of the patches. These actions were designed to minimize a reduction in interior habitat. Alternative 2 would result in a very slight decrease in management induced edge on the landscape than the 2011 existing condition (Table 3.8-6). Interior forest in Zone 1 would increase slightly from existing condition by 3,010 acres. Both the number and acres of large mature and older patches would increase from the existing condition and Forest Plan 2004 conditions. Alternative 2 would provide a mix of habitats to occur within the project area. In addition, large young patches would be created promoting browse for species such as deer and moose.



Soil Productivity and Wetlands Alternative 1 would have no direct effects to soil productivity because no soil disturbing activities would take place as a result of this alternative. However, the risk of a severe wildfire causing detrimental soil effects would increase. Alternative 2 has the potential to directly impact soil resources within treatment units, primarily due to the effects of landings, skid trails, harvest and mechanical activities, such as site preparation and fuels reduction. Landings and skid trails may compact soil, reduce water infiltration, and increase the potential for erosion. Pile burning can cause severe burning of the soil, but the area impacted is minimal. The application of herbicides on less than 100 acres of upland sites would have minimal impacts to soil, ground, or surface water when following MFRC guidelines and mitigations discussed in the herbicide proposal (Appendix H). Impacts to soil productivity would be minimal under Alternative 2 because appropriate mitigation measures and Operational Standards and Guidelines would be followed during implementation to reduce effects to soil resources. See Chapter 3.10; section 3.10.5-Environmental Consequences, for more discussion on effects and alternative comparisons. Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS) When direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are considered together, Alternative 1 emerges as the alternative with the lowest risk of Non-native Invasive Plants (NNIP) spread and subsequent negative impacts because there would be no ground disturbance with this alternative. However, risk of large, severe wildfire and suppression actions associated with protecting public and private property would increase, creating conditions favoring NNIS species establishment. Alternative 2 has a higher risk of NNIP spread and negative impacts than Alternative 1. Alternative 2 could cause NNIP to spread and degrade native plant communities, although the risk of impacts is relatively low. The majority of any new NNIP infestations would be along roads where they could be managed. The scale at which these effects would occur would be small because of the temporary road decommissioning associated with this alternative, Operational Standards and Guidelines, and ongoing NNIP treatments on the Superior National Forest. See Chapter 3.12; section 3.12.5-Environmental Consequences, for more discussion on effects and alternative comparisons. Water Quality Alternative 1 would result in no new short-term negative effects from harvesting or new road building. There could be some long-term negative impacts to watershed resource by not implementing the following actions: planting long-lived conifer species, decommissioning roads, or removing existing stream passage structures.

Alternative 2 could result in some direct or indirect negative effects to water quality and watershed health in the analysis area. Potential short-term negative effects associated with new temporary roads and stream crossings including erosion, run off, and stream flow and flood plain manipulation. These are expected to be minimal in stream reaches and downstream areas that are not immediately adjacent to or near proposed temporary road and stream crossing sites. Also, Operational Standards and Guidelines such as controlling access on susceptible soils and using setbacks from water resources would minimize any effects during project implementation.



Estimated positive, direct effects to aquatic resources include the management of riparian areas for extended rotation, long-lived conifer species, and/or increased basal area. Direct and indirect effects from planting and harvesting in these areas include providing shade and cover for aquatic organisms, and increasing in-stream habitat complexity with future large woody debris recruitment. In addition to this, aquatic resource improvement could result from decommissioning roads, reducing the Operational Maintenance Level (OML) of roads, and restoring the natural flow of streams by removing existing stream passage structures. There are no anticipated effects to the groundwater resource. See Chapter 3.11; section 3.11.5.1-Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects, for more discussion on effects and alternative comparisons. Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) Neither Alternative 1 nor 2 would have any impact to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness due to the distance between the project area and the BWCAW. The Pelican Project boundary is two miles from the BWCAW, at its closes point; however, the closest proposed treatment is approximately five miles from the BWCAW. The location of the project area in relevance to the BWCAW can be viewed on Map 2-Alternative 2. Existing conditions would remain unchanged and impacts to wilderness visitors in the form of sound from roads, vegetation management activities, and other sources outside of the BWCAW would continue to exist in their current state. Scenic Resources Implementation of Alternative 1 proposes no new management activities and therefore does not have short-term management related impact on the existing condition of areas with scenic management emphasis. However, Alternative 1 would not proactively move the forest toward the long-term Forest Plan desired conditions for the scenery resource. Tree species composition and structure on federal forested land would continue to change through natural processes (succession) only. Dead and dying balsam fir in the understory would continue to occur. There would be no stand conversion to conifer, conifer release, or diversity planting to enhance the long-term scenic integrity of the forest. Alternative 2 proposes treatments in the scenic management emphasis areas that would enhance scenery in the short term by restoring stand conditions without harvest (planting and release), as well as over the long term (improving stand conditions with harvest). Cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects represent minimal negative impacts to the scenery resources and may enhance the scenery resources in the long term by establishing more long-lived, big tree species in highly visible viewsheds. See Chapter 3.9; section 3.9.5-Environmental Consequences, for more discussion on effects and alternative comparisons. 2.5.2 Comparison of How Alternatives Meet Purpose and Need This section explains how each alternative would meet the objectives of the purpose and need (see Section 1.4 for the Purpose and Need). Table 2-5 shows which treatments would accomplish which objectives. Acres in this table are counted more than once because treatments often accomplish more than one objective. The acres listed are based on the acres in our vegetation database for each unit proposed for treatment. Acres that would actually be



implemented would be less because of further refinement of stand boundaries and operable areas during implementation. See Tables 2-1 and 2-2 for estimated treatment acres.

Table 2-5: Summary of Acres Proposed to Meet Objectives in Purpose and Need

Objective Alt. 1 Acres

Alt. 2 Acres 1

A. Landscape Ecosystem and Management Indicator Habitats Create young age class in the Upland LEs

Acres of stand clearcut, coppice cut, shelterwood cut, seed tree cut, and mechanical site preparation ( as primary treatment) 0 6,645

Create young age class in Lowland Conifer LE Acres of clearcut 0 426

Maintain white pine and create multi-aged stands Acres of uneven age harvest 0 1,356Acres of white pine regeneration2 0 2,350Acres of stand improvement in young white pine 0 446

Maintain or increase jack pine Acres of jack pine regeneration2 Acres of timber stand improvement (herbicide) to promote regeneration Acres of timber stand improvement (mechanical) to promote regeneration

0 0 0

950 45

293

Maintain birch Acres of birch regeneration2 0 1,215

Increase within-stand diversity Harvesting (selection, thin, and improvement cuts) Tree release, stand tending and TSI (mechanical) Tree release and TSI (herbicide)5

0 0 0

2,723 4,168 414

B. Spatial Patterns Create larger patches of young forest stands

Acres of large young patches greater than 300 acres 0 2,062Number of large young patches greater than 300 acres 0 5

C. Additional Wildlife Habitat ManagementPromote species and structural diversity in stands

Acres of mast improvement (oak and blueberry) 3 0 2,439 Acres of cedar regeneration2 0 80

Encourage longer lived species in riparian areas Acres of underplanting in riparian areas 0 599

D. Fuel Reduction Reduce hazardous fuel in area areas of concern

Acres of fuel reduction (as primary treatment) Acres of harvest for fuel reduction

0 0

533 182

F. Forest Products Provide sustainable timber products

Timber-Million Board Feet (MMBF)4

Woody Biomass-(Tons per acre) Non-merchantable biomass volume (Tons per acre)

0

20

0 5 0 5

1Acres are summarized from stand acres. Actual treatment acres would be less. 2Regeneration includes acres of species regenerated as a forest type or a component of a different forest type. 3These acreages would likely be less depending on exact location of blueberry and oak habitat. 4Calculation of MMBF is based on estimated treatment acres which would be less than stand acres. 5Total stand acres. Actual herbicide application would occur on 100 acres or less.



Create larger patches of young forest stands

Alternative 1 would not create any new large young patches as new management actions would not occur within the project area. Under Alternative 2, harvest units would be concentrated to create larger areas (greater than 300 acres) of young forest patches. Alternative 2 would create five patches of young forest greater than 300 acres. The five patches total 2,062 acres based on stand acres, but actual acres would be less due to treatment mitigations and harvesting constraints such as areas with steep terrain and remote access. The trend toward larger patches is consistent with the General Forest and General Forest – Longer Rotation Management Areas in the Forest Plan (FP, p. 3-6, D-GF-2, and p. 3-10, D-LR-2).

Promote species and structural diversity in stands

In the short term, or around 10 years, the structural and compositional changes resulting from Alternative 1 would be minimal; yet, the ongoing succession in each stand would continue. Stands of old aspen, paper birch, and jack pine would continue to decline, shrubs would become dominant in areas, and fir would continue to increase. Spruce would increase slowly, while red and jack pine regeneration would decline; white pine and cedar regeneration would continue at a low level for a few decades. In the long term, the forest would become dominated by spruce and fir. Alternative 2 would regenerate a broader diversity of species, including some that are currently decreasing across the landscape such as white pine, jack pine, and paper birch. These are important species for wildlife habitat. Table 2-5, Objectives A and C display the number of acres of regeneration and habitat creation that would occur in Alternative 2. Regarding wildlife habitat, white pine provides important habitat features. Benefits include: Super-canopy trees with strong large branches capable of supporting heavy nests for eagles and ospreys; large diameter trees suitable for primary and secondary cavity nesters such as pileated woodpecker and boreal owl, respectively; structure for black bears to escape predators because rough bark allows safe climbing; and foraging sites for woodpeckers, warblers, finches, and other birds on its bark, needles, and cones (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3.3.6-16). Encouraging natural regeneration of white pine and augmenting that with planted stock ensures white pine communities in the long term. The project would also maintain jack pine (Management Indicator Habitat 8) which provides important habitat for animals such as Nabokov’s blue, spruce grouse, brown creeper, and black-backed woodpecker (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3.3.1-13). Paper birch maintenance (as part of Management Indicator Habitat 4) provides habitat for species such as moose, deer, American woodcock, ringneck snake, rosebreasted grosbeak, veery, and chestnut sided warbler (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3.3.1-9). Structural diversity of vegetation provides for more wildlife species within the same space. Some of the harvesting in Alternative 2 would reduce structural diversity; however, almost 1,603 acres would be harvested using even and uneven age methods such as two-age shelterwood and group selection cuts which would increase structural diversity by creating two or more age



classes. Creating an age class of young pine underneath an overstory of mature pines, encouraging mixed stands of coniferous and deciduous trees, and maintaining differing stand ages across the landscape are all methods of assuring structural diversity. These project objectives aid in providing for over a hundred breeding bird species in the area.

Encourage longer lived species in riparian areas

Wide functional riparian areas are subdivided into two Riparian Management Zones (RMZs). The zone nearest to the lake or stream is called the “near-bank” zone; the zone further removed from the lake or stream is called the “remainder” zone. Forest Plan management direction for “near-bank “RMZs is to actively manage vegetation for the primary purpose of enhancing or restoring the functional linkage between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and to favor long-lived tree species such as white pine, red pine, black spruce, and tamarack on suitable sites and appropriate densities. Forest Plan management direction for “remainder” RMZs are to be managed for extended rotations of site-suitable tree species (FP, p. 2-8). Alternative 1 would not actively plant pine and/or spruce within the riparian area. Without any disturbance, balsam fir would begin to dominate many of the riparian areas. Alternative 2 would manage for conifers in the riparian area; about 599 acres would be underplanted with white pine or white spruce (only the best suited portions of each unit would be planted so actual implementation acres would be less). Overtime, conifers could grow into an overstory of trees creating shade for aquatic and wetland ecosystems, thermal cover for wildlife, and nest sites for riparian associated species such as eagles and osprey (D-WS-10, FP, p. 2-11).

Reduce hazardous fuel in areas of concern

Alternative 1 would not change existing fuel hazards in forest stands, adjacent roadways, and near wildland urban interface areas and other private property. Existing fuel volumes would increase throughout most forested land within the project area due to dead, dying, self pruning, and/or wind thrown trees. Excessive fuel loadings coupled with succession trends toward spruce/fir types could result in intense wildfires. Subsequently, values at risk, such as private property, future forest products, and recreation resources, would be negatively impacted in the event of wildfire within the project area. Alternative 2 would reduce fuel hazards on 715 acres (Table 2-6). Harvest activities, which also effectively reduce fuel loading, could be followed up with presecribed fire to improve regeneration and vigor of desired species. Additionally, 2,327 acres could be burned to improve oak and blueberry sites. In developing the primary treatments for the Pelican Project Area, a combination of surface fuels, ladder fuels, and crown fuels were targeted for treatment because these are primary attributes of a forest that influence a fire’s behavior. The different treatments reduce different fuel hazards. Surface fuel includes needles, leaves, grasses, forbs, shrubs, stumps, branches and boles, and dead and down trees. This type of fuel allows fire to spread along the surface. When surface fuel loadings are high, fires can burn with higher intensities and at a rapid rate of spread.



Ladder fuel includes shrubs and young trees that provide continuous fine fuels which reach from the forest floor into the crowns of the overstory. Ladder fuels allow fire to move from the surface to the crown fuels. Balsam fir is a typical ladder fuel in the project area. Crown fuel includes live and dead foliage, live and dead branches, and lichen of trees and tall shrubs that lie above the surface fuel, allowing fire to spread through the canopy. Crown fuel includes spruce, pine, and balsam fir species. When those species grow tightly together, fire can easily spread through the canopy.

Primary fuel reduction areas in the project area consists of forest stands with a mix of pine and hardwood species, and with an abundance of balsam fir and dead, down, and dying tree species.

Table 2-6: Comparison of Amount and Type of Fuel Reduction

Description of Treatment Acres

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Harvest where the Primary Purpose is Hazardous Fuel Reduction: Removes the crown fuel and crushes some of the ladder fuel through harvesting activity.

0

161

Harvest where the Primary Purpose is Hazardous Fuel Reduction Followed by a Low Intensity Burn: Removes the crown fuel and crushes some of the ladder fuel through harvesting activity. A prescribed burn following treatment would reduce the surface fuel and some ladder fuels, and maintain condition class for the site.

0 21

Understory Fuel Reduction as the Primary Treatment followed by a Prescribed Burn: Reduces the ladder fuel by piling, removing, or crushing. A prescribed burn following treatment would remove the piles. A low intensity underburn would reduce the surface fuel and some ladder fuel, and maintain condition class for the site.

0 524

Prescribed Burning by a Broadcast Burn, as the Primary Treatment for Fuel Reduction: Burning removes surface, ladder, and crown fuel in the stand, helps maintain condition class for the site, and reintroduces fire into the landscape.

0 9

Total acres for Fuel Reduction as the Primary Treatment: 0 715

Additional Treatments Proposed that Reduce Fuel Hazards

Prescribed Burning by a Low Intensity Underburn as the Primary Purpose for Vegetation and Wildlife Management: Burning reduces surface fuel, helps maintain condition class for the site, and regenerates desirable plant and tree species.

0 23

Prescribed Burning as a Secondary Treatment following a Harvest for the Purpose of Wildlife Management: A prescribed burn following treatment would reduce the surface fuel and some ladder fuel, and helps maintain condition class for the site.

0 3



Table 2-6: Comparison of Amount and Type of Fuel Reduction

Description of Treatment Acres

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Harvest Followed by Site Preparation Burn: Removes the crown fuel through the harvesting activity and crushes some of the ladder fuels through harvest activity. A site preparation burn removes the dead and down fuel hazards and prepares the forest floor seed bed for planting or natural regeneration of tree species.

0 1,100

Wildlife Habitat Release and Weeding followed by Prescribed Fire: Reduces ladder fuel and the arrangement of the surface fuel by thinning vegetation. Burning following treatment would reduce the surface fuel, regenerate desirable plant and tree species, and maintain condition class for the site.

0 2,327

Total Acres of Additional Treatments: 0 3,453

All Acres Total 0 4,168

Figure 2-1: Example of a stand before Figure 2-2: Example of the same stand during understory fuel reduction treatment. understory fuel reduction treatments. .



Figure 2-3: Example of the same stand from Figure 2-1 and 2-3 after an understory fuel reduction treatment before burning the piles.

In developing treatments for the Pelican Project Area, surface, ladder, and crown fuel were targeted for treatment because they are primary attributes of a forest that influence fire behavior (see p. 2-18 for descriptions of these fuel types). The different treatments reduce different fuel hazards. All fuel reduction treatments within Alternative 2 reduce hazardous fuel to a level in which fire behavior from a wildfire would be decreased. By decreasing fire behavior, firefighting tactics can be more effective. Primary fuel reduction treatments would be located near private property and along road ways. By treating near private property and roadways, defensible space would be increased. Defensible space is the area between a fire and values at risk where firefighters are able to take suppression actions. The combination of increasing defensible space and decreasing fire behavior increases the likelihood that fire suppression activities can be conducted to minimize impacts to values at risk. Transportation Forest Plan direction is to maintain the minimum National Forest road system needed to provide adequate access to both National Forest System and non- National Forest System land (D-TS-2, FP p. 2-47). In addition, maintaining road and snow-packed trail densities below two miles per square mile helps maintain the natural competitive advantage of lynx in deep snow (G-WL-8, FP, p. 2-30). Alternative 1 would make no changes to the existing transportation system. Alternative 2 would need approximately 36.7 miles of temporary roads to accomplish management objectives. Temporary roads are obliterated and rehabilitated upon completion of use and therefore would not be added to the National Forest Transportation System or available for public use (S-TS-4, FP, p. 2-50). All temporary roads would be obliterated using the following actions where appropriate (See more information in Appendix C-Operational Standards and Guidelines): Culverts and temporary bridges would be removed. Stream crossings would be returned to a

more natural state by returning the crossing to the approximate original contour and by



stabilizing the crossing banks through revegetation. Original drainages would be reopened and water diversions from roadbeds would be provided.

Water bars would be constructed on temporary roads or skid trails in areas with steep slopes. Areas at risk for erosion would be seeded.

Windrows of slash or rock along temporary roads would be flattened or spread out. Where available, nearby small balsam and spruce would be transplanted into road bed and

one cubic yard of rocks (embedded one-third of their depth), stumps, and slash would be randomly placed on the visible part of the road to ensure that passage does not seem feasible and is not attempted. Cuts and fills would be re-contoured to pre-road condition.

At the access point off the main road, the original ditch would be restored. Alternative 2 would decommission approximately 20.3 miles of road and add 1.2 miles of road to the National Forest Transportation System. See Table 2-7 for the Summary of Transportation Proposed Actions. Road densities within the Pelican Project would be below two miles per square mile. More information about the road density analysis can be found in the Biological Assessment, http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=36056 or in the BA summary located in Chapter 3.

Table 2-7: Summary of Transportation Proposed Actions. OML stands for Objective Maintenance Level. The Forest Plan (p. Glossary 17-18) defines OML 1, 2, and 3 as well as OHV (off-highway vehicle).

Proposed Action Alt. 1Miles

Alt. 2Miles

Map Identifier

Decommission (existing OML 2 roads) 0 0.9 D3, D5, D8, D9, D14, D33 Decommission (existing OML 1 roads)

0 18.9

D1-2 , D4, D6-7, D10-13, D15-31, D35-36, D39-52,

D54-56, D-61 Decommission (unauthorized roads) 0 0.4 D34, D57-59

Decommission (existing ATV trail) 0 0.1 D60

Add as OML 1(existing unauthorized road) 0 1.0 A1, A3, A4, A9 Add as OML 1(new construction needed for long term vegetation management) 0 0.2

A10

Change from OML2 to OML1 0 0.4 C1

Construction of temporary roads – all season 0 16.5 Not Applicable

Construction of temporary roads – winter only 0 18.7 Not Applicable Temporary road (existing unauthorized road to be decommissioned under TMP) 0 1.5

Not Applicable

More unauthorized roads were analyzed and would be decommissioned within the Pelican Project Area under the Forest-wide Travel Management Plan (TMP). Most of the roads to be decommissioned under the Pelican Project are OML 1 roads which are intermittent service roads and closed to the public. For more information, please refer to the transportation section in Appendix E of this document.



Special Use Authorization Six special use requests for access across federal land were received for the Pelican Project. Four of these requests are for long-term use; and two are for temporary access. All of these special use requests would be denied under Alternative 1. Under Alterative 2, these requests would be granted. Two existing long-term requests would decommission portions of the road through lowland areas, and new construction would occur on high ground. Another request is to change from a trail which receives ATV use, to a road. In this instance the existing route would be used but it would be widened to a single lane road using natural material to allow vehicle access. Refer to Table 2-8 for a summary of special use requests for the Pelican Project.

Table 2-8: Summary of Special Use Requests (Forest Plan, page 2-52 & 2-53).

Proposed Action Alt. 1Miles

Alt. 2Miles

Map Identifier

Change from long-term special use trail to road 0 0.8 C2 Re-route long-term special use road (existing sections would be decommissioned and included in Table 2-7)

0 1.0 SUP1, SUP2

Add as long-term special use road (existing road encroachment) 0 0.7

SUP3

Add as temporary special use for St. Louis County land managers (new construction) 0 1.7

SUP4, SUP5

Gravel Pits Alternative 1 would result in no additional vegetation management activities or associated road building. Gravel would still be in demand across the Pelican Project Area for maintenance of the current transportation system and for other agency needs. Gravel would also be needed for site development, maintenance, and construction of roads within private parcels of land. Alternative 2 would result in vegetation management activities that could require the use of gravel for the associated management of the transportation system. Thirty-one gravel pits would be available to meet the needs of the project and the need for gravel for other public and private developments. Table 2-9 lists the 31 gravel pits within the project area and their capacity allotments. Besides the anticipated continued need for gravel for administrative and community use, there are no other foreseeable future projects that would require a large amount of gravel. If the need arose, there would be adequate gravel available in the existing pits.



Table 2-9: Gravel Pits Located within the Pelican Project Area

Gravel Pit Name Current

Size Potential

Size Material

Available

Legal Description (acres) (acres) (cubic yards) Kjostad (T65N, R17W, Sec 18) 4.00 20.00 250,000 Brian (T65N, R18W, Sec 3) 0.10 1.00 14,000 South Pelican (T65N, R18W, Sec 4) 0.20 1.00 12,500 Clear Creek (T65N, R18W, Sec 7) 3.00 10.00 20,000 Myrtle (T65N, R18W, Sec 20) 0.10 1.00 14,000 Grade (T65N, R18W, Sec 21) 0.10 1.00 14,000 Polish (T65N, R18W, Sec 28) 0.10 1.00 14,000 Bog (T65N, R19W, Sec 4) 0.10 1.00 14,000 604 Pit (T65N, R19W, Sec 5) 1.00 20.00 100,000 Junction (T65N, R19W, Sec 11) 0.50 2.00 24,000 Novak (T65N, R19W, Sec 13) 5.00 40.00 50,000 North Vermigrade (T66N, R18W, Sec 20) 0.20 1.00 12,500 Chip (T66N, R18W, Sec 22) 0.30 3.00 43,000 Elephant Lake (T66N, R18W, Sec 30) 5.00 40.00 100,000 NW Bobs (T66N, R18W, Sec 31) 0.50 1.00 20,000 North Pelican (T66N, R18W, Sec 31) 1.00 2.00 10,000 Bobs (T66N, R18W, Sec 32) 1.00 5.00 10,000 Gizmo (T66N, R20W, Sec 10) 0.10 1.00 14,500 Lambert (T66N, R20W, Sec 15) 0.20 2.00 29,000 Ben (T67N, R19W, Sec 6) 0.20 1.00 12,500 Mighty Duck (T67N, R19W, Sec 17) 0.50 2.00 10,000 Ninemile (T67N, R19W, Sec 18) 4.00 40.00 100,00+ Progeny (T67N, R19W, Sec 19) 0.20 3.00 50,000 612 Pit (T67N, R19W, Sec 22) 0.50 1.00 8,000 Cripple (T67N, R19W, Sec 22) 0.10 1.00 14,500 East Chub (T67N, R19W, Sec 25) 8.00 40.00 100,000 Moose Ridge (T67N, R19W, Sec 28) 2.00 40.00 50,000 Fat Minnow (T67N, R19W, Sec 32) 0.10 1.00 14,500 Railroad River (T67N, R20W, Sec 2) 0.20 1.00 12,500 Champa (T67N, R20W, Sec 33) 1.00 3.00 25,000 Fawn Creek (T67N, R20W, Sec 35) 1.50 10.00 10,000

Provide sustainable timber products

The Pelican Project Area contains many acres of land classified as capable of producing timber. A Forest Plan desired condition is to provide sustainable timber sales and a continuous supply of timber to area mills (D-TM-1, FP, p. 2-20). Similarly, one emphasis of both the General Forest and General Forest – Longer Rotation MAs is timber production. These two MAs make up most of the project area. Nationwide, there is demand for forest commodities such as pulpwood and saw timber; this project would contribute to providing sustainable forest products.



Alternative 1 would not provide timber products from this area at this time. It would not preclude providing timber products in the future. Alternative 2 would provide approximately 20 million board feet. Harvesting the timber stands proposed in Alternative 2 would offer immediate economic returns to federal and local governments and to the timber industry. Harvesting in Alternative 2 would be a continuation of the economic returns from harvest similar to the return in the past ten years in the project area. Further discussion of economic impacts is presented in Appendix G.



This page is intentionally blank.

environmental assessment cover page ... -...

Documents