Environmental Assessment

Environmental

Assessment United States Department of Agriculture South Fowl Lake Snowmobile Forest Service Access November 2005

Gunflint Ranger District, Superior National Forest, Cook County, Minnesota

Township 64 North, Range 3 East

For Information Contact: Terry Eggum Tofte Ranger District P.O. Box 2159 Tofte, MN 55615 (218) 663-8085 E-mail: [email protected]

South Fowl EA Page i

Table of Contents

Page Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Organization of the EA 1 1.3 Management Direction and Desired Future Condition 2 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action 3 1.5 Proposed Action 4 1.6 Decisions to be Made 4 1.7 Scoping / Public Involvement 4 1.8 Issues 5 1.8.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) 5 1.8.2 Soils Resource impacts 6 1.8.3 Off Highway Vehicles 6 1.8.4 Forest Vegetation 6 1.8.5 Wilderness Values 6 1.8.6 Human Use Patterns and Safety 6 1.8.7 Land Ownership 6 1.8.8 Economics 6 1.8.9 Issues Not Analyzed Further 6 1.9 Other Analysis 8 1.10 Availability of the Planning Record 8

Chapter 2. Comparison of the Alternatives 2.1 Introduction 9 2.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail 9 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail 10 2.4 Description of Activities 17 Table 2-1. Description of Activities 17 Table 2-2. Design Elements and Mitigation Measures 17 2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 20 Table 2-3. Monitoring of Activities 21 2.6 Comparison of the Alternatives 21 Table 2-4. Comparison of Trail Distances and Corridors 21 Table 2-5. Comparison of Alternative Soils Disturbance and 22 Construction Costs. Table 2-6 Comparison of the effects determinations by Alternative 23 Table 2-7. Comparison of the number of sensitive species in each 23 category of impact by Alternative. Table 2-8. Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative. 24 2.7 Impacts Beyond the Scope of Management Alternatives 24

South Fowl EA Page ii

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction 25 3.2 Issues 26 3.2.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) 26 Table 3-1: Road and Trail Density Per Alternative. 30 Table 3-2: Comparing the number of “determinations” by 35 category for each alternative. 3.2.2 Soils Resource Impacts 35 Table 3-3: Ecological Land Types located along alternative 36 trail routes Table 3-4: Comparsion of soil disturbance. 40 Table 3-5: Cumulative Compacted Acres. 41 3.2.3 Off Highway Vehicle Impacts 41 Table 3-6: Corridors on federal land offering cross-country 43 access. 3.2.4 Forest Vegetation 43 Table 3-7: New Construction by alternative. 45 3.2.5 Wilderness Values 48 3.2.6 Human Use Patterns and Safety 52 Table 3-8: Safety Situation Comparison 55 3.2.7 Land Ownership 56 3.2.8 Economics 57 Table 3-9. Comparison of Alternative Costs 57 Table 3-10. Expected affects to Education and Enforcement 58 Programs 3.3 Other Analysis 58 3.3.1 Heritage Resources 58 3.3.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 59 3.3.3 Short-term, Unavoidable Adverse Effects 59 3.3.4 Relationship Between Short-term Uses and Long-term 60 Productivity 3.3.5 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice 60 3.3.6 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land 61 3.3.7 Floodplains 61

Chapter 4. Lists and References 4.1 Lists of Preparers and Contributors 62 4.2 Distribution Lists 62 4.3 References Cited 65 4.4 Acronyms and Abbreviations 67 4.5 Glossary 68

South Fowl EA Page iii

List of Appendices

letter Title A Snowmobile Emissions/Air Quality Discussion

List of Photographs

Number Title Photo 2-1 Trail typical of Alternative 2 design. Photo 2-2 Trail typical of Alternative 3 design. Photo 2-3 Photo of Arrowhead trail shoulder which would be widened for trail under Alternative 4. Photo 2-4 Parking lot at junction of Arrowhead Road and the South Fowl Lake Road. Photo 3-1 View of steep existing trail in Section 11. Photo 3-2 Mountain maple brush along Alternative 2 route. Photo 3-3 Example of natural mortality near the Border Route Trail Photo 3-4 View from Royal Lake in the BWCAW looking south towards the Alternative #2 route (on the ridge).

Photo 3-5 View of Royal Lake from Alternative 2 route on ridge.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion. age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

South Fowl EA Page iv

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction On June 16, 2004, the Gunflint Ranger District of the Superior National Forest (SNF) notified the public that it was proposing a legal snowmobile access from McFarland Lake to South Fowl Lake on the Canadian border.

There has been a historic access sometimes known as the Tilbury Trail, from the McFarland area to South Fowl for more than 40 years. User developed access via the Royal River are visible in aerial photos dating from 1961 to the present. There were no wilderness conflicts with this use until the 1978 legislation defined the current Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) boundaries. These new boundaries (as of 1978, see shaded area on map) extended 400 feet south and east of the Royal River and Royal Lake, making the route no longer appropriate as not conforming with wilderness management, nor wilderness law.

In the early 1990s a formal proposal was made to the District Ranger for a special use permit to establish the Tilbury route as a snowmobile and ATV route through the BWCAW. Since this was not legally possible and there was an existing legal access (see below), this access was denied.

There is current legal access for snowmobiles leads from McFarland Lake south along the Arrowhead Trail (Cook County Road 16) to the South Fowl Road (State Forest management road), then east and north along this road until it turns into an unnamed trail to South Fowl. A parking lot is located at the intersection of the Arrowhead and South Fowl Lake Roads. Immediate access to South Fowl is on property formerly owned by R. Nelson, but currently owned by The Nature Conservancy.

Drawbacks for this route include an unsafe dual use situation created by snowmobiles sharing the Arrowhead Trail with other vehicle traffic. Steep hills and curves on the Arrowhead Trail create conditions that have lead to snowmobiler fatalities on similar County Roads in Cook County. Likewise at times, though not frequently, the State South Fowl Road is plowed for management purposes creating an additional dual use situation. In addition the unnamed trail has a steep section that is narrow (one lane) with poor sight distance. Snowmobiles must accelerate quickly to make it up the steep hill and hope there is no one coming down since there is no room for two sleds traveling in opposite directions. Also, this route is not as direct a route between McFarland and South Fowl as was the Tilbury trail.

1.2 Organization of the Environmental Assessment This Environmental Assessment is organized into four chapters and three 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:

South Fowl EA Page 1

• Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – Provides introductory material that explains the purpose and need for the proposed action, provides background information about the project area, pertinent laws and regulations, and describes the issues to be addressed.

Chapter 2: Alternatives – Describes the No-action Alternative and all action alternatives (the proposed action), which are analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. This chapter also includes mitigation measures and monitoring procedures, and describes the tools and techniques that would be used in implementing the action alternatives. A tabular summary comparison of the environmental effects of the alternatives is also provided in this chapter.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Effects – Describes the affected environment and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects likely to occur with the implementation of each alternative.

Chapter 4: References – Provides a list of the preparers and contributors, a list of references cited, and a distribution list.

Appendix: o A. Snowmobile Emissions/Air Quality Discussion

1.3 Management Direction, Desired Future Condition This environmental assessment is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Superior National Forest Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan dated July 2004, as permitted by 40 CFR 1502.2. The Forest Plan established multiple use goals, objectives, standards and guides for direction in management of the Forest. Proposal alternatives have been evaluated in terms of guidance provided by this plan. Relevant discussion from these documents has been incorporated by reference rather than repeated (40 CFR 1502.21).

The Forest Service, MNDNR, and Cook County Board would like to provide a safe winter access between McFarland and South Fowl Lakes. A viable alternative to the illegal route is desired. This access should be routed to reduce the dual use of roads by snowmobiles and other vehicular traffic, for safety reasons.

The vicinity of the alternate route proposals are in the area between and south of McFarland and South Fowl Lakes. Two management areas (MA) are involved as designated by the Superior Forest Plan: General Forest Longer Rotation MA and Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized Wilderness MA.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a formal Forest Service planning system designed to delineate, define and integrate outdoor recreation opportunities in land and resource management.

South Fowl EA Page 2

General Forest Longer Rotation MA (Forest Plan, Page 3-9) emphasizes land and resource conditions that provide a wide variety of goods and services that include scenic quality, recreation opportunities, and access to those opportunities. The ROS class for this MA is Roaded Natural or characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interactions between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and design of facilities. Management activities are directed to move the area toward Roaded Natural characteristics. Open roads provide access to resources and roaded recreational opportunities. The setting for this MA is described as where recreation use and/or lake density is high, or the potential for recreation use is high. Snowmobile trails and lake access may be provided in this area.

Semi-primitive Non-motorized Wilderness MA (Forest Plan, Page 3-45) in the project vicinity is within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and has the ROS classification of Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. This designation is comparatively (to the General Forest Longer Rotation MA) more restrictive to reduce the impacts on recreation and to reduce interaction between users. Semi-Primitive Non-motorized Wilderness provides visitors with a semi-primitive experience in a moderately unmodified natural environment. The Semi-primitive Non-motorized Wilderness MA is generally located along the main wilderness travel routes, where a visitor can expect to encounter others and solitude is not one of their highest expectations. Some, but not a high degree of challenge, risk and freedom is provided here.

One half mile from the northernmost alternative (Alternative #2), lies a “potential botanical special interest area” (Royal River, W1/2NE, Sec 3) as described in the Forest Plan on page 3-57.

The Border Route Trail is a long distance hiking trail, which traverses the ridge above Royal Lake and enters the wilderness near Little John Lake. The Trail outside the wilderness would be intersected by all of the alternatives.

The Forest Service uses the Scenery Management System (SMS) to classify landscapes and set goals and objectives for maintaining, enhancing, restoring, and monitoring scenic integrity. The alternatives are located in areas of both High and Moderate Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIO).

An area with a High SIO is a landscape where the valued landscape character is intact with only minute, if any, deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest possible level. The proposed route and the three alternatives fall within the High SIO.

1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action Winter recreation use of the Fowl Lakes (North and South) is well established and snowmobiling is legal and an acceptable forest use as long as it does not impinge on the

South Fowl EA Page 3

BWCAW. Snowmobilers use the Fowl Lakes for pleasure rides and they use snowmobiles to pull ice-fishing gear to the Fowls and lakes beyond (using legal routes through Canada. The historic access to South Fowl through the wilderness is not viable or legal. The current legal alternative routes snowmobiles from the McFarland Lake area down the plowed driving surface of the Arrowhead Trail to the State South Fowl Lake Road. The Superior National Forest does not encourage the shared use of plowed roads by snowmobiles and other motor vehicles due to safety risks. Cook County Board of Commissioners have similar concerns. Pulling ice fishing shanties and gear up and down the steep hill in section 11 is both impractical and highly unsafe. Therefore, a safer access route is needed for snowmobiles between McFarland and South Fowl Lakes.

The purpose of this project is to develop an adequate, legal snowmobile access from the McFarland Lake area to South Fowl Lake on the Gunflint Ranger District, Superior National Forest. This access would fill the public’s desire of access without threatening private land or damaging the wilderness resources. The Forest Service is undertaking this project now because the Tilbury Trail is not legal, and is closed and a safe route does not exist. A route designated by the Forest Service, in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR and Cook County will restrict use to a safer route, better able to handle the existing use.

1.5 Proposed Action The proposed action alternative starts at the south shore of McFarland Lake heading south across Wooley’s Bluff road a short distance, then east to the Arrowhead Trail. This proposal then parallels west edge of the Arrowhead Trail creating a 10-12 foot wide trail along or just outside the road ditch, but within the ROW (See map). Vegetation would be cleared over the tread, with a grass/forb cover encouraged on the tread itself. The existing parking area at the junction of the Arrowhead Trail and the South Fowl Lake Road would be re-surfaced with crushed gravel. The trail would then follow the South Fowl Lake Road easterly and north towards South Fowl Lake. On the north end of this road, the trail down the steep hill in section 11 would be reconstructed for safer use. From there the route heads east to the lake on the existing route over state, federal, and The Nature Conservancy property. This proposed route has been coordinated with the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources offices in Grand Marais and Grand Rapids, Cook County, and The Nature Conservancy Duluth office.

1.6 Decisions to be Made Based on the environmental analysis in this document, the Gunflint District Ranger will decide on the following: • Whether or not to implement a trail construction project. • If needed, select the most appropriate trail route. • Select the appropriate mitigation measures. • Whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement is warranted.

1.7 Scoping/Public Involvement The Forest Service uses an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of specialists and public involvement to determine issues, concerns and possible solutions. Opportunities for comment enable citizens, resource specialists from other agencies, Native American

South Fowl EA Page 4

tribes, and local governments to express their ideas and views. Public comment was solicited through legal public notice as well as individual invitation using a mailing list of known interested parties.

General Public In mid-2003, the District Ranger Dennis Neitzke discussed the Royal River (Tilbury) trespass, enforcement activities, County concerns, and alternative routes with the Cook County Board of Commissioners. These discussions occurred at County Board meetings on July 22, and September 23, 2003 and were well attended by the interested public.

On June 16, 2004, a detailed scoping package requesting comments on the project was mailed to 388 individuals, groups or agencies that have identified their interest in this type of project. A legal notice including a description of the proposed action was published in the Cook County News Herald on June 24, 2004. The legal notice provided an access, phone number, and an E-mail address for those who wish to request a copy of the more detailed scoping package. The entire scoping package was also available online at www.superiornationalforest.org (now: www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/). Comments were requested to be submitted within 60 days after the publication of the legal notice in the Cook County News Herald. This constituted the official notice opportunity for the South Fowl Access project (36 CFR 215.5, 36 CFR 295.3).

Some scoping respondents have raised the concern that one comment period is not sufficient for this project analysis. Although this initial comment period met regulation 36CFR215 requirements, the District Ranger has decided to add an Environmental Assessment review period due to the protracted analysis process and because some of the alternatives are slightly different than presented in the original package.

Thirty-two responses were received from 29 individuals or groups (including one message with 68 signatures). A copy of their comments with Forest Service response is in the project record, which will be available after the publishing of the Decision Notice.

Agencies and Tribes 1.8Comments on the scoping package were solicited from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, The Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, Cook County, the US Army Corps of Engineers, The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, and local Native American tribes on various aspects of the project. These contacts were made before and after the scoping period to help clarify and identify issues.

1.8 Issues Issues were developed through public involvement and scoping by agency specialists. The interdisciplinary team reviewed the public comments from the public and within the Forest Service. Internal comments identified key areas where potential effects were a resource concern. As with most comment processes, a mixture of relevant and non- relevant (outside the decision scope) comments were received. A copy of comments received and FS responses are presented in Appendix B of this document. The team

South Fowl EA Page 5

distilled relevant comments into related categories, and from these categories determined the substantive issues to be addressed.

1.8.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) There is concern about the effects of the project on Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species. Several respondents extolled the uniqueness of the ecological communities in the project area. Federal land in the project area falls within the SNF-42 Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU).

1.8.2 Soils Resource Impacts: Both agency and public respondents expressed concern over potential soil damage through trail construction and use.

1.8.3 Off Highway Vehicles OHV issues include unauthorized use of the trail by ATVs and associated resource damage to soils and vegetation, cross-country use and enforcement.

1.8.4 Forest Vegetation. Scoping raised many concerns including possible impacts to old growth, fragmentation, riparian corridors, native plant communities, and non-native invasive species.

1.8.5 Wilderness Values The proximity to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness makes potential impacts to wilderness resources and values a concern. Noise, sightings, and emissions from snowmobiles were enumerated as items to analyze in terms of wilderness impacts. Wilderness values have been distilled into the following four categories, for administrative purposes: Natural Integrity, Apparent Naturalness, Opportunities for Solitude, and Opportunities for Primitive Recreation.

1.8.6 Human Use Patterns and Safety The provision of adequate, safe, access to the Fowl Lakes from the McFarland Lake area is the driving issue for this project proposal. Additional issues include increased accessibility to the Border Route Trail, snow-free access to the Fowls, and the multiple use of the new trail.

1.8.7 Land Ownership Lands issues include project effects on adjacent landowners.

1.8.8 Economics Several respondents felt the comparative trail construction costs and maintenance costs should be addressed in the analysis.

1.8.9 Issues Not Analyzed Further

1.8.9.1 Coordination with Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources.

South Fowl EA Page 6

One respondent requested that more information on coordination and collaboration with MDNR be presented in the EA. The State Dept. of Natural Resources was consulted in the development of preliminary alternatives as well as the location of the proposed route on state property. Besides the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, private landowners, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Cook County Board of Commissioners were consulted.

1.8.9.2 Collaboration for long-term management. Several respondents including The Nature Conservancy suggested postponing the project decision until the Forest Service, Minn. DNR and The Nature Conservancy collaborate on a determination of ecological significance and long-term management strategy for the combined ownership.

The recently (September 2004) completed Superior National Forest Plan Revision addressed the long term management goals for the area and has designated it for General Forest Longer Rotation and Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized management areas. Through the planning process, a careful analysis was completed of the Superior National Forest outside the BWCAW to determine appropriate management strategies. The Forest identified candidate research natural areas, unique biological areas, proposed wilderness study areas and semi-primitive areas. Those areas are mapped with appropriate goals, objectives, standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan. The management area for the South Fowl Lake vicinity, outside the wilderness, was not identified for any of these special management areas.

After detailed review of the project, MDNR has responded with support for the project (Spoden, 9/24/2004) and has not requested postponement for further study.

Postponement of the project analysis would not be responsive to the current situation.

1.8.9.3 Restoration of old routes. Repair of OHV damage to the illegal Tilbury route was submitted as a part of the proposed project. Though part of the background for the access proposal, restoration of the old route is out of the scope of this project. Regardless the outcome of this proposal, the damage and associated trespass is being addressed. Disposition of the damage at the old route is not relevant to choosing the best legal route.

1.8.9.4 State Harvest Operations The scoping package incorrectly stated that no vegetation management activities were planned for the State properties in the next 5 years. MDNR’s (Draft) Border Lakes Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan lists a number of stands, which will be visited in the next decade and could be scheduled for treatment in the area of the State’s Stump Lake and South Fowl Lake Roads. This situation is further discussed in the Forest Vegetation and Human Use and Safety issues sections of this document.

South Fowl EA Page 7

1.8.9.5 One Comment Period Several respondents stated that the public should be allowed to comment on the analysis and final route decision. Although this initial comment period met Regulation 36 CFR 215 requirements, the District Ranger has decided to add an Environmental Assessment review period due to the protracted analysis process.

1.8.9.6 Narrow Trail. One respondent suggested a trail less than 10-12 feet wide. See Section 2.2 for more discussion.

1.9 Other Analysis In addition to the issues identified, the EA presents a discussion of specific topic area required under NEPA, NFMA, and other laws. These include the following: 1.9.1 Heritage Resources 1.9.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 1.9.3 Short-term Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided 1.9.4 Relationship Between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 1.9.5 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice 1.9.6 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land 1.9.7 Flood Plains

1.10 Availability of the Planning Record. This EA’s objective, in general, is to provide enough site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the environmental effects of the alternatives and how adverse effects can be mitigated.

More detailed information on the project and analysis is in the planning record. The planning record is available upon issuance of the Decision Notice, at the Gunflint Ranger District office in Grand Marais, Minnesota. Other reference documents, such as the 2004 Forest Plan, are available at public libraries around the region, as well as all Superior National Forest offices.

South Fowl EA Page 8

Chapter 2. Alternatives

2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the alternatives in detail, how a range of alternatives was developed and a summary of the environmental consequences.

In accordance with NEPA, a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is included in this analysis. The alternative is intended to serve as a control showing the environmental and social effects of the no action, as well as to provide the deciding officer the option of no action.

If there are unresolved issues about effects, alternatives are developed. Alternatives are used to display the effects of different actions when there is a dispute about potential effects. The purpose and need for action (Section 1.4) sets the range of alternatives since all alternatives must in some way meet the purpose and need.

2.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail In developing the proposed action, the interdisciplinary team considered numerous alternatives trail routes. The routes proposed were designed to minimize adverse effects and resolve issues.

Based on Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Regional Office input, the project proposal as presented in the June 2004 scoping package was dropped from further consideration. Construction of a snowmobile trail adjacent to the State South Fowl Road was not supported by that agency. They supported use of the South Fowl Road itself, which will be analyzed as the Modified Proposed alternative.

There is an old woods road in Sections 10 and 11, running from the Arrowhead Trail east to the un-named trail at the terminus of the South Fowl Lake Road. Locals say this was one of the original roads in the area and was used when the Pigeon River dam was re- built in the 1930s. Using this road as an alternative route was not carried further because of extensive impact to private ownership and because it would not be substantially different from the proposed route

The Nature Conservancy suggested a clearing width less than the standard design. While the reduced impacts of a narrower corridor are understood, it would not provide a safe facility for higher speed two-way snowmobile traffic. Several feet of cleared “shoulder” are required to offset the snow-laden vegetation leaning into the travel surface. The 16-foot standard was applied to most of the action alternatives, although a narrower trail is proposed in Alt. #2 below, considering the inherent slower speeds of that route.

South Fowl EA Page 9

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail Action alternatives would at least partially involve construction of new corridor through vegetation not previously opened. The standard design 10 to 12 foot wide running surface requires at minimum a 16-foot clearing width. New corridor construction would consist of vegetation clearing (flush-cut stumps where possible) and blading (dozing) to shape the running surface. In some alternatives, existing trail or road corridors would also be used. Some of the existing corridors will require blading. Either situation will require water control devices such as ditching, waterbars or culverts, and trail signing. Proposed parking areas would receive additional gravel surfacing.

Alternative 1: No Action There would be no new management actions proposed at this time. The current legal access between McFarland Lake and South Fowl Lake using the Arrowhead Trail (Cook County Road #16), the South Fowl Road (SFR #328) and the unnamed trail on State and The Nature Conservancy property would not be adjusted nor enhanced, but would continue to be used. This alternative signifies an official snowmobile route of 6.24 miles from McFarland Lake to South Fowl Lake. See Table 2.1 for comparative distances between lakes.

In this and Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 the summer ATV access to South Fowl Lake would remain as established from the Arrowhead Road/South Fowl Road intersection east, with some route improvement in Section 11. The federal portion used in Section 12 would become official OHV trail (access) and be added to the trail inventory.

Alternative 2: Modified North Route This alternative has been modified from its form as presented in the scoping package to a narrower width trail. Alt. 2 begins at McFarland Lake and travels to the east. The parking area for the Little John wilderness entry point would be used to service this trail. It crosses the Arrowhead Trail, the Border Route hiking trail, and the former Tilbury trail before moving southeast, ascending to a bench on the ridge above the Royal River. The route follows the ridge in an east-southeast direction about 1.3 miles, then down-slope northeast to level ground and directly east to South Fowl Lake. The total length would be approximately 2.22 miles (2.8 acres opened), with 1.62 miles on federal land and .6 miles on State. The entire length would be new construction. One thousand feet of the route where it ascends the west side of the ridge would be the standard16 foot clearing, but the remainder would be a maximum of 10 feet (8 foot tread) to minimize resource impacts. The Little John wilderness entry point parking area is satisfactory as a snowmobile trailhead and would be graded and resurfaced with crushed gravel.

South Fowl EA Page 10

Photo 2-1, Photo showing typical trail under Alternative 2. Design speed would be slower, rougher and would have more curves.

The resulting curved, narrow trail should encourage slower snowmobile speeds.

Disposition of snowmobile traffic on the Arrowhead trail would be a County Board of Commissioner’s decision.

The trail would be constructed in cooperation with the Cook County Board of Commissioners and the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR). The trail would be maintained with the cooperation of user groups, the Forest Service and MN DNR. The trail would be monitored by the Forest Service for problems related to erosion or overuse.

Specific mitigation measures for Alternative 2 are: • Construction standards for Alt. 2 will be the minimum necessary to provide safe passage while protecting sensitive resources in the area: Except for the portion ascending the bench in Section 10, clearing will be limited to

South Fowl EA Page 11

handtools (chainsaws). The route will be marked by the Forest Service, avoiding as many trees as possible. • The trail will ascend the ridge from the west end by means of a switchback to avoid erosion problems caused by steep inclines. This is the only portion of the trail where the 16-foot clearing width may be used. • Mechanized construction equipment will be limited to blade work on the switchback and skidder arrangement of logs in the narrowest portion of the bench. • Where the trail is routed over steep talus slopes, it will be placed on the contour utilizing logs to form the tread laid parallel to the trail. Blowdown and standing trees that must be removed from the treadway can be used, but additional trees must be brought in from locations other than the ridge itself. Skidder equipment may be required. • During construction, care must be taken to avoid blocking drainages and seeps. These locations must be located prior to construction. • OHV barriers on this route must be well constructed, well maintained and effective. • Signs at both ends of this route will alert the public to the uniqueness of the area and ask for cooperation in preserving and not spoiling the area. • This route should not be seeded with perennials: native plants should volunteer in exposed areas. Annuals such as oats or grain rye may be seeded in areas of exposed soil if and where erosion may be a concern in the initial two years following construction, before native vegetation covers the soil. ♣• Additional mitigation measures, which apply to all action alternatives, are found in Table 2.2 Design Elements and Mitigation Measures of this document.

Alternative 3: South Route This route begins on the south shore of McFarland Lake near an old resort site. The trail crosses Wooley’s Bluff Road, proceeding south towards the Stump River. The State’s Stump River Road is then used as it travels eastward, connecting with the Arrowhead Trail (Cook County Road #16) where it travels south adjacent to the west side of the county road until its intersection with the South Fowl Lake Road (State Forest Road #328). From this point, the trail follows the South Fowl Lake Road as do Alternatives 4 and 5. After an adjusted descent down the hill in Section 11, this route follows the existing route east to the South Fowl Lake over state, federal, and The Nature Conservancy property. The existing parking area at the junction of the Arrowhead Trail and the South Fowl Lake Road would be re-surfaced with crushed gravel. The total length would be approximately 5.44 miles (10.5 acres occupied), with 1.16 miles on federal land, 4.18 miles on State, and 0.1 miles on The Nature Conservancy property. Although 10.5 total acres would be used, 8.6 acres (4.44 miles) of this is existing corridor. New corridor construction would total approximately 1mile, or approximately 1.9 acres of newly opened area.

South Fowl EA Page 12

Photo 2-2, Photo showing typical newly constructed trail through forest as might be found in Alternative 3.

In this and Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 the summer ATV access to South Fowl Lake would remain as established from the Arrowhead Road/South Fowl Road intersection east. The federal portion used in Section 12 would become official OHV trail (access) and be added to the trail inventory.

To effectively shift snowmobile traffic from the Arrowhead Trail to the new route the County Board would have to take action to encourage the change in road use.

South Fowl EA Page 13

Mitigation measures, which apply to all action alternatives, are found in Table 2.2 Design Elements and Mitigation Measures of this document.

Alternative 4: Modified Proposed Action The scoping package proposed action was modified to meet requirements of MDNR on State property and suggestions by The Nature Conservancy. This route closely follows the original scoping package proposal, however the South Fowl Lake Road itself would be used rather than a constructed trail adjacent to it, and the last 0.84 miles of the existing route would be followed including The Nature Conservancy property on the lake. See Section 1.5 of this document for the route description.

Alternative 4 would establish a trail in the right of way on the west side of the Arrowhead Trail running south to where the South Fowl Lake Road intersects. As in Alternative 3, it uses the South Fowl Lake Road and ends on Nature Conservancy property. Total trail would be approximately 5.07 miles in length with 1.05 miles on federal, 0.64 miles on private land, 3.28 miles on State property, and 0.1 miles on The Nature Conservancy property.

Photo 2-3, Photo of Arrowhead Trail. Shoulder would be widened and smoothed to accept a trail with a 12 foot running surface.

Of the total 9.8 acres used, 9 acres (4.67 miles) are within existing corridors. In these corridors, 1.93 miles (3.74 acres) of new construction would take place. Approximately 0.4 miles of trail would be new corridor construction opening 0.8 acres. The existing

South Fowl EA Page 14

parking area at the junction of the Arrowhead Trail and the South Fowl Lake Road would be re-surfaced with crushed gravel.

In this and Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 the summer ATV access to South Fowl Lake would remain as established from the Arrowhead Road/South Fowl Road intersection east. The federal portion used in Section 12 would become official OHV trail (access) and be added to the trail inventory.

To effectively shift snowmobile traffic from the Arrowhead Trail to the new route the County Board would have to take action to encourage the change in road use.

Mitigation measures, which apply to all action alternatives, are found in Table 2.2 Design Elements and Mitigation Measures of this document.

Alternative 5: Shortened Route Several respondents proposed a shortened route, which would not use McFarland Lake as a trail terminus, but rather use the parking area at the intersection of the Arrowhead Trail and the South Fowl Road as the western trailhead. From there the trail would follow the route of Alternatives 3 and 4, using the South Fowl Road. Then after using an adjusted descent down the hill in Section 11, this route follows the existing route east to the South Fowl Lake over state, federal, and The Nature Conservancy property. This alternative is essentially the No Action Alternative (No.1) with an improved route at the steep hill in Section 11 and re-surfacing of the parking area at the intersection of the Arrowhead Trail and the South Fowl Lake Road. The total trail would be 2.84 miles in length (5.5 total acres impacted) with 0.16 miles on federal land on the lake end, 2.58 miles of State land, and 0.1 miles on The Nature Conservancy property. Less than 0.1 miles of trail would be new construction, impacting approximately 0.19 acres.

South Fowl EA Page 15

Photo 2-4, Parking lot at intersection of Arrowhead Trail and South Fowl Road would be graveled and involved in all alternatives except Alt. 2.

In this and Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 the summer ATV access to South Fowl Lake would remain as established from the Arrowhead Road/South Fowl Road intersection east. The federal portion used in Section 12 would become official OHV trail (access) and be added to the trail inventory.

Disposition of snowmobile traffic on the Arrowhead trail would be a County Board of Commissioner’s decision.

The trail would be maintained with the cooperation of user groups, the Forest Service and MN DNR. The trail would be monitored by the Forest Service for problems related to erosion or overuse.

This alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need statement (Section 1.4) in that McFarland Lake is not directly served, however it does provide a useful comparison as suggested by respondents.

Mitigation measures, which apply to all action alternatives, are found in Table 2.2 Design Elements and Mitigation Measures of this document.

South Fowl EA Page 16

2.4 Description of Activities Table 2-1 describes the various activities proposed in more detail and Table 2-2 described the design elements and mitigation measures. Design elements are taken from established Forest Service policies, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and Federal and State laws and regulations. Each of these design elements is designed to limit or avoid potential adverse effects. During the analysis, if adverse effects were identified that could be avoided; a site-specific mitigation measure was developed to ensure protection of the resource.

Standard practices for water quality protection would be used in designing, constructing and maintaining the trail. These actions would include measures needed to stabilize exposed soil and divert runoff to minimize trail erosion and resulting sediment contribution to streams, lakes and wetlands. Each drainage or wetland crossing would be analyzed as needed to meet permitting, notification and other requirements of the Minnesota Protected Waters Permitting program, US Army Corps of Engineers Sect. 404 permitting and Executive Order 11990.

Table 2-1: Description of Activities

Activity Description Trail New snowmobile trail would be constructed by tree/shrub removal on Construc- travel way approximately 16 feet wide (see figure 3 for typical new trail tion photo). In the case of trail parallel to the Arrowhead Trail, the cleared road corridor would be increased up to 16 feet wider. Some areas may require blasting or removal of rock. Most of the running surface would have to be bladed to shape the tread. The trail tread would be seeded to encourage vegetation cover. The trailhead(s) will be signed at Arrowhead Trail entrances. The trail itself would be posted with directional, warning, and reassurance (markers) signs. Alternative 2 includes standards (10 Ft. clearing width) that differs from those above for reasons discussed in Chapter 3 of this document.

Parking The parking area at the junction of the Arrowhead Trail and the South Areas Fowl Road, or at the Little John entry Point, would be bladed and re- surfaced with crushed gravel if selected for use.

Table 2-2: Design Elements and Mitigation Measures Resource Design Elements and Mitigation Measures Threatened, A survey for sensitive plants will be required prior to any Endangered construction, with result evaluated in the Biological Evaluation and and Sensitive recorded in the project file. Species Appropriate threatened, endangered, and sensitive fauna species and

South Fowl EA Page 17

Table 2-2: Design Elements and Mitigation Measures Resource Design Elements and Mitigation Measures habitat impacts will be evaluated and recorded in the Biological Evaluation. Retain any tree with a large stick nest and buffer it with a two-chain radius (132’) until the District biologist can be consulted and a determination is made. Trail junctions and access points will be gated and signed, prohibiting snow free motorized vehicle use. Barriers to Border Route Trail should be particularly well protected. Sensitive plants are of particular concern. See Alternative Map for locations. If any threatened, endangered or sensitive species, or their nest or den is found during project operations, these operations would be temporarily halted in the area. A biologist would be consulted and appropriate mitigation measures would be carried out prior to restarting operations using recommendations from the Forest Plan, recovery plans and conservation strategies. For Alternatives 2 and 3, no construction will take place during the denning/nesting period (March 1st-August 30th). Trail Design Tread: All stumps and protruding rocks within the clearing limits are to be removed or made flush with the ground. Disturbed soil shall be seeded with weed free seed approved by the Forest Service. See Section 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail, Alternative 2 for a seeding exception. Trail Width: 10’-12’ trail tread with 2 foot clearing limits on both sides (16-foot total cleared width). See Section 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail, Alternative 2, for an 8 foot exception. Excavation work would be kept to a minimum to reduce soil exposure and possible erosion. Rocks and soil disturbed during construction would be used where possible in trail construction. Excesses would be deposited at agreed upon waste areas and seeded. Cut banks would be revegetated with an approved seed mix. Alternative 2 would have no excavation from South Fowl Lake westward to the hill that descends toward the old Tilbury Trail. Grade: Maximum sustained 8-15% Pitch: Maximum 25-35% Clearing height: Minimum 7’ above normal snow depth or 10; above ground, whichever is greater. Turning radius: 25 feet. Surface: Minimum 4 inches of snow required before grooming. Alternative 2 would not be groomed. Brushing: Encroaching brush will be removed or treated on an as needed basis. Trail signs: Principal sign locations should be at trail intersections,

South Fowl EA Page 18

Table 2-2: Design Elements and Mitigation Measures Resource Design Elements and Mitigation Measures intersections with roads, trailheads, and steep downhill grades or other caution areas. Reassurance markers (orange snowmobile diamonds) will be placed as needed. Signs other than reassurance will be mounted on 4”x 4” wood or appropriate metal posts at a level of 4 ‘above the snow surface. Warning and stop signs will be placed at all snowmobile trail/road crossings. Snowmobiles will be required to stop at each intersection. Other traffic will also be made aware of the crossings. Intersections will be made at right angles to provide good line of sight. Plants When seeding the trail, known occurrences of tansy, bull thistle, Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, St. John’s wort, plumeless thistle, and goutweed will be pulled prior to project completion. Monitoring for the selected route will be included in the Forest-wide protocol for invasive species. Heritage If any new heritage resource sites are located during the course of Resources project activities, work in the new site location will be immediately halted and a Heritage Resource professional consulted and appropriate mitigation measures would be carried out prior to restarting operations. Riparian Area Minimize filling in wetlands. Provide for adequate cross drainage. Waste excavated material will be disposed of in non-wetland areas above the ordinary high water mark of lakes and streams. Equipment would not be fueled or maintained in riparian areas or wetlands. Slash would be pulled back 100 feet from ponds/drainages. Construction of parking lots will generally be 150 feet from streams or lakes. Soils Deposition of residual clearing debris into wetlands is prohibited. Stream crossings will be designed to minimize erosion. During non-frozen trail surface conditions, close trail to all motor vehicle traffic on federal lands. When equipment is used for trail construction to shear off the brush and small trees, the ground will be in frozen or in dry condition to lessen the impact to the soil layers. An alternative would be using a chipper/mulcher machine to take down the brush, stumps and small trees without leaving piles of debris. In alternatives containing ELTs 14, and/or 16 Limit trail- constructing activities to the normal dry period (generally July 1 –

South Fowl EA Page 19

Table 2-2: Design Elements and Mitigation Measures Resource Design Elements and Mitigation Measures Sept 15). In alternatives containing ELTs 1, and/or 6 limit activity to frozen soil (frozen to a depth that will support equipment that is being used). To reduce chances of the trail intercepting and channeling surface runoff and acting as a conduit for sediment delivery to streams or wetlands, the trail will be located on the contour whenever possible and the number and length of sloping segments will be minimized. In addition, erosion control measures such as water bars, would be constructed where needed. Bridges, culverts and water bars would be installed where necessary to protect the disturbed area from erosion. All disturbed soil will be seeded, mulched and rip-rapped as needed. Trail will be designed so that stream crossings are not located at low points in the grade, to avoid direct runoff from the trail in to the stream. OHV If motorized vehicles such as ATVs and motorcycles cannot be Prohibitions successfully controlled, the Forest Service has the option of closing the trail and restoring the area. Access points on trail will be gated (metal pipe) and locked during the snow free season, where OHV use must be controlled. Access points to the Border Route Trail will be blocked. Closure points will be posted with Forest Supervisor’s closure orders and map. News release on trail restrictions will be published in Cook County newspapers. Specific enforcement patrols will be scheduled as needed the first two years of trail operation. Visuals Do not pile slash along the existing or proposed trail. Slash will either be removed or spread out and cut low to the ground. Evidence of staking, painting, ribbon lines and other temporary activities will be minimized, removed or cleaned up imediately following project completion.

2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring assesses if the project was implemented as designed and if the project design elements or mitigation measures are effective in protecting natural resources and their beneficial uses. Table 2-3 shows the monitoring strategy proposed.

South Fowl EA Page 20

Table 2-3. Monitoring of Activities Trail Construction and Management Objective Ensure that the design elements, mitigation measures (listed in Table 2-2) and contract provisions are implemented during the construction phase. Methods Review of construction contract specifications and visual inspection of construction activity. Frequency Trail area would be visited on a regular basis during the construction phase. Responsibility Recreation Specialist, Contracting Officer’s Representative

Objective Ensure that signs and structures (gates and barriers) prohibiting snow free motorized trail use are installed, and violations are not occurring. Methods Field checks. Frequency Every two weeks the first year after construction, then as once per month or as often as warranted. Responsibility Trails Technician.

Objective Ensure erosion and sedimentation control measures are effective. Methods Field checks. Frequency Monthly, the first year, or immediately after substantial rain events. Responsibility Trails Technician.

Objective Ensure non-native invasive plant species are not established. Methods Plant surveys. Frequency Annually. Responsibility Biologist

2.6 Comparison of the Alternatives This section summarizes the major conclusions of Chapter 3 and presents them in a comparative format. Table 2-4 summarizes comparative distances by alternative. Alternative trail construction will involve use of some existing corridors such as the Arrowhead road and opening of new corridors through existing vegetation.

Table 2-4. Comparison Trail Distances and Corridors between McFarland and South Fowl Lakes. Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 No Action North Route South Route Proposed Short Route Total trail 6.24 Mi. 2.22 Mi. 5.44 Mi. 5.07 Mi. Must be length. trailered, then 2.84 Mi. Length new 0 2.22 Mi. 1.32 Mi. 2.33 Mi. 0.1 Mi. construction (clearing

South Fowl EA Page 21

and/or dozing). Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 No Action North Route South Route Proposed Short Route New 0 2.22 Mi. 1 Mi. 0.4 Mi. 0 corridor opened New trail in 0 0 .32 Mi. 1.93 Mi. 0.1 Mi. existing** travel corridor

Length of 0 0 4.44 Mi. 4.67 Mi. 2.84 Mi. trail 1n existing travel corridor Closest 0.6 Mi. 0.09 Mi 0.7 Mi. 0.7 Mi. 0.7 Mi. Distance to BWCAW ** Arrowhead Trail, Stump River Road, South Fowl Lake Road, Un-named Trail for South Lake Road to South Lake.

Table 2-5 compares alternative soils impacts and construction costs. Construction costs include: clearing, blading (dozing), parking area surfacing, and signing. Design elements are listed above.

Table 2-5. Comparison Alternative Soils Disturbance and Construction Costs. Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 No Action North Route South Route Proposed Short Route New acres 0 .6 Ac 2.6 Ac 4.5 Ac 0.19 Ac disturbed by new construction Length of 0 2.22 Mi 1.32 Mi. 2.33 Mi. 0.1 Mi. Cleared Corridor Construction 0 $16,260 $19,810 $22,120 $9,680 Costs

South Fowl EA Page 22

Table 2-6. Comparison of the effects determinations by Alternative. T & E sp Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Bald Eagle No effect May affect but No effect No effect No effect not likely to adversely affect

Gray wolf May affect but May affect but May affect but May affect but May affect but not likely to not likely to not likely to not likely to not likely to adversely adversely adversely adversely adversely affect affect affect affect affect

Canada lynx May affect but May affect but May affect but May affect but May affect but not likely to not likely to not likely to not likely to not likely to adversely adversely adversely adversely adversely affect affect affect affect affect

Table 2-7. Comparison of the number of sensitive species in each category of impact by Alternative. Sensitive sp. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 36 SNF Sensitive Species No impact 33 20* 19 24 32 May impact 3 17 17 12 4 individuals, not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability *Alternative 2 included one more plant species than the other alternatives. It is an aquatic plant and Alt. 2 is the only one proposing a new landing at South Fowl Lake. See Biological Evaluation, Appendix B.

NOTE: The above determinations and the number of species per determination depend on the effectiveness of the trail closures. Three of these species are very sensitive and could be impacted by human activities on the North Route (Alternative 2) during the snowfree season. Human activities, especially involving motorcycles and/or ATV’s, could reduce the viability of three plants and cause a trend to federal listing. This is a principal reason for the mitigation stating the tail could be closed/obliterated if recreationists ignore the seasonal closures and use the trail with motor vehicles.

South Fowl EA Page 23

Table 2-8. Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative**. Indicator Pre-2003*** Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Lynx/Roads Miles of 8.84 6.44 8.46 9.04 8.67 6.54 Roads/Snow compacted routes in the Project Area Miles of 29.2 26.8 28.8 28.0 27.2 26.8 Road/Snow compacted routes in LAU SNF 42 Miles of 0.68 0.62 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.62 Road/Snow compacted routes per sq.mi. (43.2 sq.mi. in LAU) Recreation**** Miles of N/A 5.76 5.76 3.73 2.2 5.76 potential dual trail use. ** This includes the immediate area of the project as depicted on the project map. *** For comparison, this column shows the miles of roads and compacted snow trail existing while the illegal trail (2.4 miles) through the wilderness was being used. This route was closed in the fall of 2003, but was still used illegally. The assessment includes a reduction of trail as directed by the Forest Plan, because the illegal trail will be obliterated in conjunction with placing a new trail. **** Potential dual use includes use of the Arrowhead Trail (3.56 miles), Stump River Road (1.09 miles) and the State So. Fowl Lake Road (2.2 miles). Winter vehicle use of the State roads is dependant on harvest operations.

2.7 Impacts Beyond the Scope of Management Alternatives. Regardless of the alternative selected, there are activities/uses, which in all likelihood will continue in the project area, or will not be substantially changed by one alternative over another.

The current use of the South Fowl Road for winter access to South Fowl Lake is expected to continue, and is part of Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5. Although Alternative 2 offers a direct route between McFarland Lake and South Fowl Lake, South Fowl Road and the Arrowhead Trail complete a loop ride, which has been established over the years of use of the illegal route.

As discussed in Section 3.2.3, numerous access points for potential illegal cross country OHV use are found on almost any forest road on National Forest land or along boundaries between federal and other ownerships. Selection of one of the proposed routes over another will not result in a substantive change in that situation.

South Fowl EA Page 24

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction This chapter presents the aspects of the environment that trail construction and occurrence could affect. The “Affected Environment” portion of each section below describes the current condition of the resource. The “Environmental Effects” portion of each section below describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives.

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) examined and analyzed data to estimate the effects of each alternative. The data and level of analysis were commensurate with the importance of the possible impacts (40 CFR 1502.15). The effects are quantified where possible, although qualitative discussions are also included. Acres and miles may vary slightly in implementation based on field verification using Geographic Positioning System (GPS) data. The accuracy of the estimated acreage or mileage is sufficient for the analysis.

Environmental effects are the consequences of implementing the alternatives on the physical, biological, social, and economic environment. The assessments consider three levels of effects for each indicator:

• Direct effects are impacts that may occur at the same time and place as the initial action. • Indirect effects are impacts that may occur following the initial action and may be spatially removed from the action (occur in a different place). • Cumulative effects result from the incremental impacts of actions that when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such further action. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Alternative trail proposals are found within the south halves of Sections 2 and 3 and the full Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of T. 65 N., R.3 E.: the area between and south of McFarland and South Fowl Lakes. Each resource area has determined the appropriate boundaries to assess cumulative impacts. Impacts are within some variable distances greater than the area affected by the proposed trail tread itself.

The State of Minnesota owns a sizeable portion of the land in the project area. State management activities could affect any of the proposed trails, and any of the proposed trails could affect state management. The MNDNR provided information concerning plans for access to state land for forest management. The MNDNR Forestry Department plans to examine twelve stands near the Stump River Road and South Fowl Lake Road within the next decade for potential treatments (Border Lakes Analysis Area).

The Arrowhead Road Right-of-Way crosses private ownership, which is included in Alternative 4.

South Fowl EA Page 25

Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 access South Fowl Lake on The Nature Conservancy property.

3.2 Issues

3.2.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife and Plants (TES) Federally Listed Species: A Biological Evaluation (B.E.) was prepared according to Forest Service directives contained in Chapter 2670. It contains a list of Threatened and Endangered species that could potentially exist in the project area, a description of their preferred habitats, and a determination of how the proposed actions could affect the species.

Summary of the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Assessment Matrix The federally listed species of concern in this project area are the Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis), the gray wolf (Canis lupus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The assessment of the sensitive species began with the 85 species on the current sensitive species list for the Superior National Forest. Using the records and literature available along with plant surveys in 2003 and 2004, 39 species are known to occur or are likely to occur in the analysis area (including the three federally listed species). Each of the alternatives could affect all these species in some way, either directly, indirectly, and/or cumulatively. The main consideration focuses on human disturbance and direct destruction by human activity. The following is a summary of the Biological Evaluation.

Bald eagle: Affected Environment -The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to bald eagle were analyzed within the northeast corner of the project area from South Fowl Lake to Little John Lake and north of the cliff features. Eagles typically use this type of riparian habitat on the SNF; nest trees occur in this area and at least one breeding territory occurs here. Effects are possible from trail use during the nesting season between mid-March and mid-July when some of the more wary birds could be sensitive to human activities within a quarter mile of the nest.

Environmental Effects Direct Effects – None; no construction during nesting.

Indirect Effects – Human population and recreation are likely to increase in the project area. More access would be used year around. Improved access to South Fowl Lake could increase use during sensitive courtship. Alternative 2 would allow snowmobile traffic closer to the potential nest sites than the other alternatives.

Cumulative Effects – More recreational trails and timber sale roads are possible in the project area. More year-round anglers/visitors could pollute the lake and diminish the fish stock.

Determination - Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 are not likely to affect the bald eagle. Human activity on these trails would be well away from likely nesting areas. Most snowmobile and ATV use occurs before and after the most sensitive part of the breeding season.

South Fowl EA Page 26

Eagles are more likely to begin courtship after mid-March here when snowmobile conditions are deteriorating.

Alternative 2 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the eagles in this territory. This alternative proposes a trail about a third of a mile from the location of the last used nest and is close to potential nesting sites. As with the other alternatives, late season snowmobile use may coincide with courtship, but diminishes quickly after the beginning of March. Eagles have a history of successfully nesting in the area while snowmobiling has occurred regularly on the Royal River trail. That trail is as close to or closer to potential nesting structure than is being proposed in Alternative 2, so the effects would likely be very slight.

The alternatives would not affect any Eagle habitat.

Gray wolf: Affected Areas – Analysis for direct effects to wolves included each proposed trail corridor. Analysis for indirect effects considered the area within Lynx Analysis Unit 42. LAU’s are used as the analysis unit for both lynx and wolf (see Programmatic Biological Opinion for SNF Plan, p16). Average LAU sizes (40,000 acres) are good for assumed pack territories; roads densities for both species can be determined for the same area; and vegetation management has similar effects to both lynx and wolf. The cumulative effects includes LAU 42 and the remainder of T64N, R3E, (about seven sections) owned by the state, and bordering the east side of this LAU. The project area occurs in the northeast corner of LAU 42; including the extra sections, south of the project area where human influence is most likely gives a more balanced assessment area for cumulative effects. These state-owned sections are not in an LAU.

Direct Effects – Trail construction would take place outside of denning season so direct effects are unlikely.

Indirect Effects – The possible effects could occur year around. The selected trail could increase year around human occurrence in the project area. That would imply increasing chances for human/wolf conflict. Concern includes disturbance, vehicle collision, trapping, shooting, and chasing. Snowmobile and ATV use on and off the proposed trails could especially involve chasing and shooting.

Cumulative Effects – Increasing and improved recreational facilities in the analysis area could add to the likelihood of more human activity on the proposed snowmobile trail, which would increase the risk to wolves.

The Minnesota DNR has, is, and will probably continue to schedule timber sales on their property in the analysis area. The timber sale access roads could provide more corridors for snowmobile and ATV riders to use. Assuming ATV use on CC16, all the alternative trails could link with these probable, access roads in all seasons. Certainly, lake ice would link all these corridors in the winter making a connection between the South Fowl Lake end of Alternative 2 and the other corridors. More likely use would be with ATV’s

South Fowl EA Page 27

by hunters, resulting in some risk of wolf shooting. Some snowmobile riders could consider these temporary roads good to explore. This possible, increasing potential on state land may or may not happen, depending on if and how the state managers close these roads and how effective the closures are.

Determination - All of the alternatives may affect but are not likely to adversely affect wolves or wolf habitat in the area.

All of the alternatives may provide the potential for wolf shooting and chasing. However, chances are low for this to occur. Snowmobile riders would generally rather stay on a groomed/compact surface, and wolves can readily move off these trails. A snowmobile rider could chase wolves in a few large open areas off the trails. These are generally not continuous timber sale blocks, and are temporary openings. It would be rare for a snowmobile rider to carry a firearm. Chance killing resulting from this snowmobile trail would never achieve the level necessary to reduce the local wolf population.

Most of the routes in Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 follow existing roads and trails. Alternatives 2 and 3 create new travel corridors, but the trails themselves are not likely to affect wolves. Mitigations would have trails constructed before and after denning season. Also, wolves are not repelled by roads and trails but use them for travel (Mech, pers. comm.).

The wolf recovery plan asks us to maintain the road density of well-surfaced roads at less than one mile per square mile. Any road density management would only be on federal land. The current density of roads suited to passenger vehicles (0.25 miles per square mile) would remain unchanged in all alternatives.

The trial mileage added in Alt 2, 3, and 4 would increase the potential for summer ATV use in the analysis area. A safer trail provided in any of the alternatives may increase ATV use. However, ATV use would not be allowed on the new sections of trail constructed in these alternatives. As with snowmobiles, the potential for shooting, hunting, or collision would not threaten the wolf population. The number killed in the near future would probably remain similar to that of the recent past. Illegal hunting or shooting is outside the jurisdiction and the authority of the Forest Service.

Snowmobile and ATV traffic on these segments may affect wolf behavior near them. Wolf denning would probably not occur near the new trail segments of Alt 2 and 3. Because of topography and vegetation, wolves would probably avoid the forested areas between the cliffs and the Royal River, and the area near the new segments of Alt 3. These potential changes in trail location and use, and probable wolf responses would likely have no bearing on the wolf population and general movement in the area.

The Superior NF allows cross-country travel with snowmobiles. However, most snowmobile use occurs on groomed and/or designated routes. There is little advantage to traveling off the designated route. No matter which alternative is chosen, these trails would continue to channel snowmobile travel, mostly in currently used corridors.

South Fowl EA Page 28

The alternatives and their proposed actions would make insignificant changes to the wolf habitat. Human/wolf interactions are the basis for almost all the effects.

Canada lynx: Affected Areas – As per the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, the Forest Plan (2004), Appendix E states that LAU’s are to be the lowest unit of land on which to assess direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to lynx populations and habitat. However, direct effects are not readily addressed in such a large area. For this project, direct effects were considered within each proposed trail corridor. Indirect effects were considered within Lynx Analysis Unit 42, because the indirect effects center on road/trail densities and use, which can be ascertained using LAU statistics. The cumulative effects includes LAU 42 and the remainder of T64N, R3E, (about seven sections) owned by the state, and bordering the east side of this LAU. The project area occurs in the northeast corner of LAU 42; including the extra sections, south of the project area where human influence is most likely gives a more balanced assessment area for cumulative effects.

Direct Effects – Trail construction would occur outside of denning season, between March and mid-July, so the likelihood of direct effects would be quite low.

Indirect Effects - Indirect effects could occur all year since lynx are residents of this National Forest.

The Forest Plan B.A. (2004) cited two major factors leading to adverse effects: compacted snow with its potential to increase access to lynx competitors, and increased human access and population pressure resulting in direct threats from collision, shooting, trapping, and chasing. The selected trail could increase compacted snow favoring bobcat, a lynx competitor. Coyotes are a competitor, but are not likely in the project area.

Cumulative Effects – Cumulative effects are possible year around because lynxes inhabit the project area and human activities occur year around.

Increasing and improved recreational facilities in the analysis area could add to the likelihood of more human activity on the proposed snowmobile trail, which would increase the risk to the lynx. State timber harvests would also add to the potential roads for recreation vehicles.

The Minnesota DNR has and will probably continue to schedule timber sales on their property in the analysis area. Timber sale roads could provide more corridors for snowmobile and ATV riders to use. More likely use would be with ATV’s by hunters, resulting in some risk of lynx shooting. Compacted snow would be possible which could favor bobcat and could lead to lynx/bobcat competition. These impacts are not assured depending on if and how the state managers close these roads and how effective the closures are.

South Fowl EA Page 29

Determination - All of the alternatives may affect but are not likely to adversely affect lynxes or lynx habitat in the area.

Implementing the limit on snow-compacting roads and trails per square mile on federal land should minimize the potential for bobcat and coyote incursion. The project sits in the 50 square mile Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) 42. Currently it has 29.2 miles of roads and snow compacting trails, including the illegal trail along the Royal River. The illegal trail would be closed in all alternatives, so we can start by subtracting its 2.4 miles, leaving 26.8 miles. By adding the new segments of trail proposed by each alternative to the base 26.8 miles, the resulting figure would show a net increase or decrease from the current mileage.

As stated in the Superior National Forest Plan, managers should attempt to maintain the snow compacting road and trail mileage in each LAU below two miles per square mile. The current road and snow trail density is 0.68 miles per square mile. All the alternatives would decrease the ratio of miles road and trail to LAU. Alternative 2 actually would decrease the mileage by 0.2 miles, from the current 2.4 miles of illegal trail to 2.2 miles of designated trail; but this difference is too slight to change the overall ratio of miles per square mile in the Lynx Analysis Unit.

Table 3-1: Road and Trail Density per Alternative (miles/sq. mile of road and snow compacting trail). Current Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Density No North South Proposed Short Action Route Route Rte. Route Density in 0.68 0.62 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.62 miles/sq. mile

The new trail mileage constructed in Alt 2 (2.22 mi.), Alt 3 (1.32 mi.), and Alt 4 (0.4 mi.) would help decrease compacted snow from snowmobiles compared to the current, yet they would increase the potential for summer ATV use in the analysis area.

ATV users may violate the gates proposed for each of these new trails. Even if these violations are relatively frequently, it is unlikely that the use would result in more collisions between ATV’s and lynxes. Information gathered from anecdotal and applied research (Minnesota Canada Lynx Project) has shown that lynxes are aware of roads/trails, but do not avoid them or the vehicles using them. They may exist close to these routes without undue stress, but it would be very unlikely for an ATV to strike any lynx on a trail.

Recreational opportunities are likely to expand in the analysis area. The Grand Portage State Forest is currently involved in a statewide inventory of potential off highway vehicle (OHV) trail opportunities. The Grand Portage Band is proposing a snowmobile

South Fowl EA Page 30

trail, approximately three miles south of the project area, which would connect Grand Marais area snowmobile trails to the Reservation

Human development and human presence in the greater area, including the analysis area, seems assured. Human - wildlife contact will probably increase; some of it is likely to be negative. Outright killing of lynxes by humans and accidental collision between vehicle and lynx is always possible. However, all the proposed routes (Alternative 2 is shorter by 0.2 miles, not enough to indicate a difference from the current condition.) reduce the potential mileage from which lynx may be harmed.

The SNF allows cross-country travel with snowmobiles. However, most snowmobile riders use groomed and/or designated routes. Except for the currently illegal route into the BWCAW, there is no advantage to traveling/touring off a designated route. There are always those who will romp around off the trail in open areas, but most riders stay on compacted snow routes. Lynxes are likely to choose denning sites away from these corridors.

Region 9 Sensitive Species: Affected Environment - This analysis area is part of the Shallow Rove Slate Landtype Association. Recognized for a century as being ecologically and botanically unique, the area harbors rare communities including the rarest plants in Minnesota (Gerdes, 2001). The sedentary and diabase rock here is associated with calcareous – slightly more basic, nutrient rich soil compared with the poorer soils more typical of the Canadian Shield (Schwartz and Thiel, 1976). Relatively rich soils, particularly in the Royal River drainage, along with steep, moist, north-facing cliffs, and contrasting areas of shallow, dry soils near deeper, more moist soils provides the base for a unique assemblage of plants (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2003).

Summary of the Sensitive Species Assessment Matrix The B.E. analyzed 85 species currently listed as sensitive on the Superior National Forest. Thirty-nine of these species are known to occur in the project area or possibly occur there. The list has 12 animals (including the three federally listed species above), 22 vascular plants, and 5 lichens. Each is assessed against the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects expected with the five alternatives. The assessments assume the mitigation measures and design elements are applied.

Six of the 22 (27%) are disjuncts or at the extreme edge of their range. Maidenhair spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes), Short sedge (Carex rossi), Large-leaved sandwort (Moehringia macrophylla), Sticky locoweed (Oxytropis borealis viscida), Encrusted saxifrage (Saxifraga paniculata neogaea), Smooth woodsia (Woodsia glabella). (Disjunct – occurring in small populations separated from the main range of a species, usually by hundreds or thousands of miles). Four of the seven isolated species are arctic or alpine disjuncts, and are very rare for this part of the continent.

South Fowl EA Page 31

Twenty-one species known to occur or could occur in the project area are on both the state and Forest lists. Along with the federally listed gray wolf and bald eagle, they include two animals, fourteen vascular plants, and three lichens

Surveys for sensitive plants occurred in June and July of 2003, and July of 2004. One of the Superior National Forest sensitive plants, Canada Yew (Taxus canadensis), was found in several areas in the Alternative 2 corridor in the mature/old-growth forest and at the talus slopes. Black-throated blue warblers (Dendroica caerulescens), a SNF sensitive bird, was heard in a few spots in this area. Blunt-fruited sweet cicely (Osmorhiza depauperata), state listed as Species of Concern, was among the plants noted along this route.

Direct Effects – The trail tread and trail corridor itself is where the direct effects are possible. Three of the birds are raptors and trail construction could affect them at distances within about 600 meters. (This figure is an assumption and not based on research in the area.) A sensitive plant torn out or buried while moving the soil, shaping the trail with mechanized equipment is the most likely direct effect. It could happen at any time of year, and in this case, the heather vole (Phenacomys intermedius) could be included. Direct effects to birds are possible from March through mid-August. Trail construction could destroy a nest or cause a breeding pair to abandon their territory or nest.

Indirect Effects – The indirect effects would be localized at the proposed trail corridor, and assumes roughly 100 meters either side of the tread. Also, in the case of peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) effects could reach to the tops of adjacent cliffs; and for goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) effects could reach out perhaps 600 meters either side of the trail. This potential would occur between March and mid to last of July.

It is difficult to assume specific effects of these alternatives; there are many highly variable factors. Nevertheless, the alternatives creating new corridors in the forest could lead to: - the effects accompanying the creation of forest edge, e.g. change in exposure to sunlight, more drying of soil and duff, changes in plant composition and structure. - if the presumed seasonal trail closures are not effective, mechanical damage from ATV use could create more ecological disturbance than would snowmobiles. - a high likelihood noxious plants will be carried into these corridors.

These changes can destroy habitat for many sensitive species and create it for others species.

Cumulative Effects – Cumulative effects could generally be from activities and changes within the general project area, and could include a continental scale when considering potential effects of global warming. There are no specific timeframes.

South Fowl EA Page 32

Determination – Direct effects to sensitive plants are possible with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 where new trail is constructed. Direct effects to sensitive birds are not likely because none of the trails would be constructed between March and August.

Analysis of effects in the B.E. indicates Alternative 1 and 5 have the least risk to sensitive species. It appears that Alternatives 2 and 3 carry about equal risk and may affect about half the species. Alt. 4 carries a moderate amount of risk, since it could negatively affect a third of the species.

Although Alternatives 2 and 3 are somewhat similar, Alternative 2 may carry with it more impact. The differences result from where these alternatives occur on the landscape. Virtually all the known sensitive species in the area occur on the cliffs between McFarland and South Fowl Lakes, on the north side of these cliffs, or in the Royal River drainage. Alternative 3 could affect more species south of the cliffs in the proposed new corridor and along CC 16. Most of those, or 12 of 17, have not been collected in the area, but are possible. Many of these species can be found elsewhere in the state. The habitat Alternative 3 would cross is unlikely to include sensitive species. Alternative 4 includes the same plants as Alternative 3 but fewer of them. By contrast, Alternative 2’s proposed route is where most of the known sensitive species occur. (See B.E. analysis matrix)

Disturbance is the primary concern for all these species. Whichever snowmobile trail is designated, there is the potential for use by ATV riders in snowfree seasons. ATV use brings compounded risk for many of these sensitive species. More recreationists in the area will bring more potential for permanent destruction of the plants themselves and their delicate microhabitats.

Noxious weeds occur in the analysis area as they do in many other areas. Disturbed soil can encourage noxious weeds to become established. Hawkweed (Hieracium, spp.), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), St. John’s- wort (Hypericum perforatum), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), and sweet clover (Melilotus spp.) are noxious weeds in the area and may become established on the trails.

Humans disperse seeds that attach to clothing and on mechanical equipment. Seeds are spread more easily during the snowfree seasons when both plants and humans are active. Alternatives 1, 5, and over 90 percent of the route for Alternative 4 have and may continue to have many of these weeds. They are on well-traveled roads where seed deposition and transfer will continue. The new trails of 2, 3, and some of 4 may show noxious weed growth because seeds could naturally move, be transported to, or be latent in the exposed soil. Trail closures of Alternatives 2 and 3 would help reduce the potential spread of noxious weeds. Weeds found during trail monitoring may be pulled and/or sprayed with herbicide. If the trail design of Alternative 2 is achieved as requested, the chances for noxious weeds to become established in the most sensitive section of the trail would be low.

South Fowl EA Page 33

Other noxious pests such as gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) and various species of earthworms are transported much like plants. Gypsy moths can cause significant forest damage. The caterpillars defoliate forests on a large scale. Alien worms are known to alter the surface soil and plant populations and communities (Gundale 2005). The 2005 report from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture indicates that gypsy moths have already dispersed to northeastern Minnesota in large numbers ahead of that expected. Anglers have fished South Fowl Lake for many decades by anglers who could transport worms as bait. The soil around the lake has not been tested for worms. The potential to spread gypsy moths may be foregone; worms may yet be spread. Educating the public to address effects of releasing worms is not within the scope of this assessment.

Alternatives 1 and 5 would have least indirect effects because ATV use would continue on currently used roads.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 create new trail that could be prone to encouraging invasive species. Potential ATV use on them would likely have an attending effect of spreading weed seeds.

Alternative 2 would construct 2.2 miles of new trail, and could have the most effects of weed introduction. Alternative 2 would be created in an area known for its diverse array of sensitive plants (see Biological Evaluation). The three sensitive disjunct plants (above) within the Alternative 2 corridor could be affected by recreation, non-native invasives, small population problems, climate change, and possibly collecting. The plants involved are rare enough that their small population leaves them vulnerable to stresses from the other threats. Effects caused by changes in microhabitat, alien worms, and by more aggressive, non-native plants could reduce the viability of some of these plants or eradicate them.

The trail would offer a link to access fishing opportunities on South Fowl Lake, and this would be a strong enticement for anglers to violate the closures. Climbers may seek out the nearby cliffs. If so, the snowmobile trail and the Border Route Trail would receive more summer disturbance than anticipated, which would lead to possible water erosion and invasion by noxious weeds. Moreover, trampling and ledge cleaning could directly affect the sensitive disjuncts occurring on the cliffs.

To mitigate these potential threats, Alternative 2 is to be a narrow trail in the most sensitive section, and is to be constructed with minimal use of heavy equipment. If the trail closure are effective during snowfree seasons the chances would be low for human caused disturbance and non-native species transport and introductions.

Alternative 3 would construct one mile of new trail. By joining with an existing timber sale road and widening a short distance of CC16, it would disturb soil on another 1.6 miles of road/trail. It would have the longest new tread at the standard 16 foot width in which invasive species could be established. If the gates are effective during snowfree seasons, any noxious weeds are more likely to become established by natural dispersion

South Fowl EA Page 34

and latent seeds than from human seed transport. Alien worms are least likely to be introduced (if they have not already) in most of the new trail because it is least likely of all the alternatives to be used to reach a fishing access.

Alternative 4 would create 2.33 miles of new trail, the most of the alternatives. However, 1.93 miles of that is on the shoulder of an existing road. Although noxious species are very likely to spread into the new construction, it would be on an existing corridor where weeds already occur. This new tread is to be seeded with a cover mix, but invasive weeds already on site could become mixed with the cover. Ongoing transport of seed from within and outside the analysis area is more likely to affect the tread of this possible trail more than the other alternatives because it parallels a well traveled road.

The State plans to harvest timber in the area on a recurring basis. Each time an access road is built into harvest areas it expands the potential for non-natives to expand their range of occurrence. More trails for mechanized off road vehicles are being considered within and very near the analysis area. Heavy equipment carries seed from place to place (Westbrook 1998), and these new timber sale roads and recreation trails would become likely sites for noxious weed establishment. The greater the reservoir of plants the easier it would be for these plants to spread. ATV activity on all these corridors would help facilitate seed transport.

The following table indicates possible number of sensitive species affected under the three categories of effect applied in Biological Evaluations:

Table 3-2: Comparing* the number of “determinations” by category for each alternative. (Numbers are taken from the attached analysis matrix. Thirty six species were assessed for impacts leaving out The federally listed eagle, wolf, and lynx.) Alt No impact May impact May impact individuals but not individuals and likely likely to cause a trend to result in a trend to to federal listing or federal list or a loss of loss of viability viability 1 32 3 0 2 18 18** 0 3 18 17 0 4 23 12 0 5 32 3 0 *The determinations assumed the mitigation measures were carried out and were effective. **Alternative 2 includes one more plant species than the other alternatives. Pond reed grass (Calamagrostis lacustris) is an aquatic plant, included because Alternative 2 is the only one proposing a new landing at South Fowl Lake.

3.2.2 Soils Resource Impacts: Both agency and public respondents expressed concern over potential soil damage through trail construction and use.

South Fowl EA Page 35

Impacts to soils on federal land are differentiated using the ecological land type (ELT) involved. The ELT descriptions presented in Table 3-2 below can help predict susceptibility and impacts of each ELT to damage through construction and OHV use.

The National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units in Ecosystem Management by Cleland and others (1997) discusses the classification system used for this project. This system classifies and maps ecological units based on associations of climate, topography, soils, water, and potential natural communities. Within this hierarchical system, mapping units range from provinces that are thousands of square miles in size, to land type associations (LTAs) that are broad geographic areas, to ecological land types (ELTs) that are more site-specific. Alternative trail routes encompass 1 to 5 different ELTs. The dominant ELTs that occur in the alternative routes trails are ELTs 14 and 16, although some of the wetter soils types are present and must be addressed.

Table 3-2 provides a brief description of the ELTs located within the South Fowl Access alternatives area. More detailed information concerning project area ELTs can be found in the project file and the Northern Minnesota ecological classification system information guide (USDA Forest Service, 1995).

Table 3-3: Ecological Land Types located along alternative trail routes. Associated ELT Description Alternative Lowland, moist loamy soils with plant communities that are Alt.2, (North Route) transitional between uplands & lowlands. Somewhat poorly drained soils are susceptible to rutting and compaction when saturated. Classified as riparian. Water movement is primarily subsurface. Most mechanical operations are limited to frozen soil condition or during 1 dry periods. Trees are susceptible to wind throw. Trails require design features to solve water related problems. Potential Effects: Rutting can lead to water channeling and erosion. Compacted soils resist revegetation. Lowland, acidic to neutral organic soils composed of decaying woody Alt. 2, Alt. 3 (North and plants and forbs with plant communities adapted to permanently wet South Routes) soils. Soils are susceptible to rutting and compaction due to continuous saturated conditions. Classified as riparian. Permeability rate is slow and ponding is common. Most mechanical operations are 6 limited to frozen soil conditions. Trails require design features to solve problems associated with the permanently saturated deep organic material. Potential Effects: Use in non-frozen conditions would result in rutting, standing water, and vehicles sinking into soils. Upland, moderately well-drained, sandy loam to silt loam soils with a Alt. 1, Alt. 2, Alt. 3, Alt. subsurface layer of dense soil that retains water for longer periods of 4, Alt. 5 time in some locations, and plant communities that have relatively (All Routes) 14 high requirements for nutrients & moisture. Subsurface layer of dense soil will retain water long enough to create temporarily saturated soil in wet conditions and be more susceptible to rutting & compaction. Construction activities are limited to the normal dry period or when

South Fowl EA Page 36

Associated ELT Description Alternative soil is frozen. Soils are suited for intensive recreation activities. Trail tread would compact easily and tend to be muddy and slippery during wet periods, and could become drainways for surface runoff. Plant communities will respond vigorously to day-lighting. Potential Effects: Rutting can lead to water channeling and erosion. Compacted soils resist revegetation. Upland, well-drained sandy loam or loam soils, 20 to 40 inches deep Alt. 3, Alt. 4 (South and over bedrock. Plant communities have adapted to dry conditions and Proposed Routes) shallow soils depths to bedrock. Soils susceptible to nutrient loss due to the thinner surface organic layer and shallow soil depth. Trails should be constructed on contour where slopes exceed 18%. 16 Windthrown trees are common. Soils can support dispersed recreation facilities. There is limited on-site borrow for trail construction. Day lighting will increase the density of shrubs and forbs. Potential Effects: Nutrient loss could lead to difficulties in revegetation. Use in dry periods could result in soil loss through wind and water erosion. Upland, droughty loam, and sandy loan soils, less than 8” deep over Alt. 3 (South Route) bedrock, with bedrock outcrops occurring on 5 to 30% of the ground surface. The duration of snow pack and frost is shorter than adjacent ELTs. Plant communities have adapted to very dry conditions. Mosses commonly cover the ground. Ground cover is extremely 18 difficult to maintain. Soils are susceptible to nutrient loss due to the thinner surface organic layer and shallow soil depth. No on-site borrow sources. Ground cover is extremely difficult to maintain. Potential Effects: Nutrient loss could lead to difficulties in re-vegetation. Use in dry periods could result in soil loss through wind and water erosion.

Table 2-2 in chapter 2, details construction features designed to mitigate soils impacts from trail construction and use.

Direct and Indirect Effects Shown in Table 3.2 above, the direct effects to soils from vehicle traffic are compaction, rutting and erosion (nutrient loss). The following discussion will represent the ecological land type for each alternative with the associated potential for those effects from trail construction and use.

The only non-roaded, federal land involved in Alternatives 1 and 5 is the existing access between state property and The Nature Conservancy property in Section 12. Located on ELT 14 and the bottom of a slope, the soil is considered suitable for intensive recreation activities. However, ELT 14 is susceptible to rutting and compaction during wet conditions. The soil is most durable in dry or frozen conditions.

South Fowl EA Page 37

Photo 3-1. View of the steep hill in section 11. After decades of use, erosion is nominal.

Observations of the existing trail where it descends the steep hill in Section 11 show that some erosion is taking place. Given the number of years the trail has been in place, the erosion appears to be continual at a low rate. Rocks in the soil within the trail act to preserve the soil from serious erosion; however, at the same time, those rocks make travel very rough. This eroding section of trail is on state property and should be repaired whether or not it is part of this project. Repair would include water channeling or drainage devices, and a switchback may be required.

Alternative 2, the North Route includes ELT 14 with inclusions of exposed talus and shallow soil over talus. The location on the side-hill of the north-facing ridge would direct runoff across the trail tread, necessitating water-channeling features.

Construction techniques will be more limited in Alternative 2. A blade would be used on the west ascent to the bench and log skidding on the narrow portion of the bench.

South Fowl EA Page 38

The eastern third of the trail is down off the bench into ELTs 1 and 6, and includes the riparian area near South Fowl Lake. These soils are poorly drained or saturated and require trail design features to solve water related problems. Construction activities using heavy equipment are limited to frozen soil conditions, where a blade can skim along the ground surface removing vegetation and lowering the worst irregularities. Winter shearing of vegetation on the eastern one third may be necessary, but is not anticipated. Snowmobile use during frozen conditions would be compatible and would not cause compaction, or rutting, however vehicle use of these wet soils during non-frozen conditions would result in rutting and compaction.

Alternative 3, the South Route, crosses a mixture of lowland (ELT 6) and well-drained upland soils including ELT 18 that has a shallow soil layer above bedrock. Trail construction is not normally allowed on ELT 18 due to impacts to soil productivity (Forest Plan Table G-WS-8, Page 2-16). ELT 6 portions will require design features to mitigate problems caused by the saturated organic material. Snowmobile use during frozen conditions would be compatible and would not cause compaction, rutting or erosion. With the exception of ELT 18, the route is susceptible to rutting and compaction if used during non-frozen conditions, especially the lowland areas. Summer vehicle use would result in soil impacts without proper design features in all but the driest conditions. Upland types (ELT 14 & 16) are suited to recreational uses.

The portion from McFarland Lake to the Stump River Road would be new construction, which would by design cause compaction. Winter only use would not cause erosion or rutting. Summer use of the new segment would likely cause some rutting in wet weather and some erosion, although the expected soil movement is minimal. Such summer, motorized use would be mitigated by physical and legal closure.

The southern half of the trail would be on the Stump River Road. It is a former, timber sale access road, and may only need shaping in places. Snowmobile use would not raise water quality issues for the Stump River.

The portion of the route following South Fowl Lake Road to the trail down the steep hill would have impacts from trail rerouting. South Fowl Lake Road has been compacted for vehicle travel and no further impacts are anticipated. As stated above, erosion control measures are expected on the eroding segment that goes down the steep hill in Section 11 (ELT 14) to promote soil stability. Switchbacks, as an option, would provide features to facilitate water movement off the trail, thereby reducing erosion potential. The trail by design would be compacted and vehicle traffic would prevent vegetation from growing back. The soil is most durable in dry or frozen conditions. Rocks in the soil within the trail clearing would continue to provide support and preserve the soil from erosion. In this alternative, those rocks should stay below the surface and not obstruct the trail as they do currently.

Alternative 4, the modified project proposal, is located on well-drained upland soil types, ELTs 14 and 16. Both are suited to recreation uses, although will require design features to control water runoff problems. Road shoulders along the Arrowhead road would be

South Fowl EA Page 39

compacted, however, the topography is not extreme, and erosion control techniques should be effective. Impacts during non-frozen seasons are anticipated since the road would be designed for vehicle traffic in the summer. As in Alternatives 1, 3 and 5, impacts to that portion of the route on the South Fowl Lake Road are not anticipated since it is compacted for heavier vehicle traffic.

Potential impacts to Alternative 5 are similar to those discussed under Alternatives 3 and 4 for the South Fowl Lake Road and on east.

The general width of the proposed trails is 16 feet for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. Although this would not be the actual width of the running surface, the trail would be cleared and shaped with a blade, and therefore 16 feet is used to calculate the impacted acreage during construction. Table 3-3 summarizes the acreage impacted. As shown, some areas in existing trail or road corridors will be shaped with a blade, but this would not be considered new construction.

Table 3-4: Comparison of soil disturbance. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 No Action North South Proposed Short Route Route Rte. Route Total acres of 0 0.6 Acres 6.7 Acres 5.9 Acres 1.7 Acres soil disturbance* *. Acres of soil 0 0.6 Acres 2.6 Acres 4.5 Acres 0.19 Acres disturbance by new construction. ** Some blading occurs on existing corridors – not constituting new construction.

Cumulative Effects To determine cumulative effects for an appropriate analysis area scale we reviewed the direct and indirect effects to determine potential trail impacts to the soil that could accumulate in concert with other sources in the McFarland – South Fowl Lakes area (See Table 3-4). The primary trail effects from a soils perspective are compaction, rutting, and erosion. Both rutting and compaction have very local, almost micro site impacts and are generally measured at the stand level, and may include impacts to nearby vegetation. Rutting and compaction could lead to erosion that moves soil and causes other effects in a broader area, dependant on how far the soil might move.

Observations of existing roads and driveways in the project area indicate that soil movement is normal for a gravel road. Winter use of any alternative would not add to the existing condition. Summer use of the South Fowl Lake Road and trail would add minor amounts of erosion, the volume almost too small to measure.

South Fowl EA Page 40

Compaction from management activities generally results from road and trail construction, as well as logging activity. State and tribal planners are contemplating some trail proposals near the immediate project area. However, with no definite plans for other trails, Table 3.4 displays the cumulative acres that would be compacted throughout the project area. This assumes trail construction with a 16 foot open corridor and a 12 foot wide compaction area. The analysis area selected for this measurement was eight square miles where roads and trails could be affected by this proposal.

Table 3-5: Cumulative Compacted Acres. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Location Miles Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Arrowhead Road 2.4 6.6 6.5 6.8 9.2 6.5 North Route. 2.2 0 2.7 0 0 0 So. Fowl Road & Trail 2.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 South Route 2.4 1.4 1.4 3.5 1.4 1.4 Timber Sales * 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 McFarland Spur 0.4 0 0 0 0.6 0 Homes, Parking, ** 15 15 15 15 15 campgrounds, etc. Total Acres compacted 32.7 35.2 35.1 36 32.7 Percent of the Cumulative .57% .64 % .61% .62% .57% Area * Acreages for timber sales are estimated from timber sale data provided by the State and use the same calculations for acres compacted per acre treatment as has been calculated for National Forest timber sales. ** Estimates were calculated for homes, driveways, access drives and spurs for campgrounds and public areas plus parking areas and the MDNR helispot.

As the following discussion indicates (section 3.2.3 below), illegal OHV use would impact trail surfaces and steps need to be taken to mitigate that potential impact (See Table 2-2). Rutting would be the most common form of impact from summer OHV use.

3.2.3 Off Highway Vehicle Impacts Off Highway Vehicle issues include potential damage to soils and vegetation on or near the approved route, potential access for illegal cross-country use, and need for enforcement.

Cross country travel is illegal on federal lands and is essentially a federal issue at this point. In general, illegal cross-country travel by OHV is difficult because of thick vegetation; brush and windfalls, there are countless opportunities for attempted ATV access on the Superior National Forest. This concern is not specific to the McFarland – South Fowl area. By definition, illegal OHV cross-country use requires no developed facility (trail). It is the traverse of undeveloped land. Potential access for cross-country use of federal property is available at any edge of federal land, be it a travel route or the abutting boundary with other ownership. There are no practical physical measures to take to reduce all potential cross-country access of OHVs from either new trail or existing travel routes. It follows that the addition of travel routes (new snowmobile trail) will

South Fowl EA Page 41

provide more risk of illegal access proportional to the length of the added route. Public education and enforcement patrols are the most effective mitigation measures available.

Direct and Indirect Effects Potentially areas covered by all management alternatives (see alternative map), including the No Action alternative (Alt. 1), could experience soil (direct and indirect effects) damage through illegal OHV operation, including the running surface of the trails. An indirect effect of trail construction would be damage to vegetation in an adjacent to the trail, particularly in the event the trail leads to increase cross-country travel by OHVs.

Table 2-2 shows mitigation measures designed to address impacts of illegal (snow-free, motorized) vehicle use on the constructed trails themselves. Trails will be gated, signed, and patrolled on federal property during snow free seasons. Public education efforts will be a direct and indirect method of mitigation.

The Arrowhead Trail and the South Fowl Lake Road corridors will remain open offering legal and illegal OHV opportunity regardless of what management alternative is selected.

Alt. 1, OHV impacts would not directly result from this analysis decision. In all alternatives, the illegal trail closure and posting will be maintained and monitored for enforcement. Likewise, enforcement patrols would also address illegal cross-country incursions off of existing corridors. There are 3.77 miles of open corridors on federal lands (including the Border Route Trail) in the project area, which represents risk for cross-country entry (See Table 3-5). The Arrowhead Trail, South Fowl Road, the Stump River Road, and the un-named trail to South Fowl Lake may remain open to legal OHV use.

Alternative 2 (North) has the most new federal trail, offering the most opportunity for illegal trail use and cross-country access to federal land (See Table 3-5 below.). While this route travels closest to the BWCAW (0.09 Mi., Table 2-4), incursions into the wilderness from the ridge are expected to be minimal if any, because of the steep terrain. Additional enforcement would be necessary to maintain integrity of the area.

Alternative 3, constructs 0.8 miles of new corridor onto National Forest lands opening an opportunity for illegal OHV travel. As of the preparation of this document, OHV travel on Stump River Road is legal. Additional enforcement would be necessary to maintain integrity of the area.

Alternative 4 travels adjacent to the Arrowhead Trail in Section 10 and though crossing private property, in actuality does not make that property more vulnerable to OHV cross- country access than other alternatives do, since it only widens the existing travelway. Alt. 4 would introduce 0.4 miles of corridor to the federal property in Section 9 increasing the risk of access for cross-country travel.

Alternatives 1, 3, 4, & 5 all use the State’s South Fowl Lake Road, which currently leads legal OHV use to the federal property in Section 12, just short of actual access to the lake

South Fowl EA Page 42

on The Nature Conservancy property. Potentially these alternatives allow the risk of access for cross-country travel in Section 12, although it would not be an additional risk above the existing situation. Special posting of federal closure information at the Arrowhead Trail and South Fowl Lake Road parking area and at the entrance to federal property will aid in education and enforcement.

All action alternatives include barriers on the Border Route Trail and gates to mitigate potential OHV intrusions.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for OHV’s includes the McFarland – South Fowl area with all alternative routes. On all ownerships there are about 3.5 miles of road, which are currently open to legal use of OHVs. Non “street-legal” OHVs are not licensed for use on the Arrowhead Trail, and this situation is not anticipated to change. Currently, OHV use is allowed on State Forest roads and the Wooley’s Bluff Road. The ongoing State OHV inventory and opportunity study may or may not continue this allowance in the Grand Portage State Forest portion of the project area. Alternative 1 would not increase the road and trail miles, therefore would not affect the potential for illegal use. Alternative 2 would add 2.22 miles of corridor, Alternative 3 would add 1 mile of new corridor, Alternative 4 would add 0.4 miles of new corridor, and Alternative 5 would add no new corridor that could lead to illegal use by OHVs, depending on the land agency position on cross-country use.

As stated above, access for illegal cross-country OHV use exists at boundaries of, and travelways that enter federal property. The Arrowhead Trail, the Wooley’s Bluff Road, the South Fowl Lake Road, and Stump River Road corridors will remain open, offering legal and illegal OHV access regardless of what management alternative is selected. This existing situation is a recognized risk, though similar to other general forest areas. Mitigation for illegal cross county use can only be through education and enforcement patrols. Observations of this area during this project analysis have demonstrated this area is not a destination for OHV recreational riders, however there is some use by those who know the area. If the selected alternative adds new trail, additional risk would be proportional to the added distance.

Table 3-6: Corridors on federal land offering potential cross-country access. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 No Action North South Proposed Short Route Route Route Rte. Total miles of 3.77 Mi. 5.27 Mi. 4.57 Mi. 4.17 Mi. 3.77 Mi. open trail corridor on federal land. Need for No Increase Increase Increase No Change Education Change and enforcement.

South Fowl EA Page 43

3.2.4 Forest Vegetation Scoping raised concerns including possible impacts to old growth, fragmentation, riparian corridors, native plant communities, and non-native invasive species (noxious weeds). See the Section 3.2.1 sensitive species discussion.

The project area is within the Mesic Aspen/Birch/Spruce-Fir and Mesic White/Red Pine Landscape Ecosystems as described in the SNF Plan. Some of the area is in younger forest from recent timber harvests and much of it is over-mature forest in an area characterized by rock outcroppings and varied topography with steep slopes. This situation limits where vegetation management can occur, as well as limiting the placement of trails.

Photo 3-2. Dense mountain maple brush growing along the route for Alternative 2 above Royal Lake due to natural mortality of aspen and paper birch. Most of the trail construction would be through brush and small trees. Mature tree cutting would be avoided where practical along the route.

The older stands have reached a state of decline where many of the trees are falling over or breaking off part way up the trunk. Most of the balsam fir has died or is dying due to old age or the Spruce budworm. Aspen trees are primarily affected by fungi that enter the tree through dead branches or other wounds, and then spreads through the affected

South Fowl EA Page 44

portion causing rot and breakage at the weakened area. The birch in the area are also dying or breaking apart due to old age or disease. There are fairly healthy longer-lived species (maple, cedar, white pine, etc.) also present as scattered forest types or individual trees within the other stands.

Photo 3-3 An example of natural mortality in forested stands above the ridge line, near the Border Route Trail

Forest Plan management direction for the area (Longer Rotation MA 10.2) is for generally longer rotations and more uneven-aged and partial harvests as compared to the other major management area (General Forest MA 10.1). A greater emphasis is placed on developing larger tree character. Forest opening sizes, shapes, and habitat conditions are to mimic the scale, pattern, and ecological function of large-scale disturbances.

New construction would remove forest cover to some extent in all the action alternatives. Direct impacts for the basic snowmobile trail would be permanently removed trees and shrubs in an average 16 foot corridor. In Alternative 4 the trail is constructed adjacent to the Arrowhead Trail and is assumed to add 14 feet to the existing cleared Right-of-Way.

South Fowl EA Page 45

Table 3-7: New Construction by alternative. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 No Action North South Proposed Short Route Route Rte. Route Miles Total 0 2.22 1.32 2.33 0.1 Dozing/blading

Acres Soil 0 4.5 2.6 4.5* 0.19 Disturbance * Mostly in an existing corridor.

New construction mileage as presented in Table 3.6 above gives a relative comparison of the alternatives. Opening the canopy along new routes would tend to allow additional sunlight and wind to reach the forest floor with a potential indirect effect of changing the soil and plant moisture, and consequently the microclimate. However, natural mortality occurring in the area is having a similar effect in scattered areas of the forest. There is abundant brush and small trees in the upland area both from natural and human induced activities. Individual tree spacing, particularly along the ridge for Alt. 2 is often greater than the width of the proposed trail.

None of the alternatives if selected would inhibit the goals of management for long rotations with uneven-aged and partial cuts, as directed for MA 10.2 in the Forest Plan. The emphasis of developing larger tree character is attainable, although no direct management prescriptions exist at this time. As mentioned earlier in this section, the mature condition of the aspen and birch is contributing to the break-up of the stands. Clearing treefalls will be on ongoing maintenance activity on the trails.

Cumulative Effects From a forest vegetation standpoint, cumulative effects of the proposed trail alternatives can be considered from a viewpoint of several levels of scale. Since the alternative with the greatest acre impacts is below 5 acres, the appropriate scale would be the nine square miles (5760 acres) that the general McFarland – South Fowl area. Considerations would be past, present, and future activities for vegetation manipulation.

Harvests have occurred on federal land (approximately 340 acres) within the last 10 years. There are no harvests currently scheduled for Federal land although the area could be evaluated for vegetation treatment in the next few years.

There also has been some recent harvesting on State land in the project area (approx. 300 acres) in the last 1-9 years. As stated earlier, twelve stands of state forest are scheduled for examination for treatment within the next decade. The State’s Border Lakes Plan lists these vegetation treatments near the two State roads in the project area. There are 4 stands (16 total acres) classified as high risk-low volume near the Stump River Road in Section 15 and potentially could be treated. Along and near the South Fowl Lake Road are 8 stands (234 acres) scheduled for potential thinning or even-aged harvest after prescriptions are developed.

South Fowl EA Page 46

Combined, these proposals would affect 890 acres or 15% of the area. Nearly all of the harvest would be followed by natural regeneration so little if any change is expected in species composition. The 0.1 to 4.5 acres of trail construction would not return to forest vegetation.

Invasive Plants Noxious weeds (also called noxious, alien, exotic, non-native harmful) are aggressive, non-native plants that out-compete or destroy native plants and/or the habitat that supports them. Noxious weeds can also damage soil and water, impact endangered species, and change ecosystem function. They are generally a threat to natural plant diversity and have destroyed well over a hundred million acres in the United States; they infest over three million acres annually; and they invade about 5,000 acres per day on federal land (Westbrooks, 1998).

The loss of local native plants is to be expected as non-natives move into an area. The most sensitive location in this project area would be on the cliffs and north of the cliffs between McFarland and South Fowl Lakes. As discussed under sensitive species, this area forms habitat supporting perhaps the rarest plants in Minnesota. Changes brought on by noxious weeds in moisture, light, soil chemistry, and space could reduce the potential area for and occurrence of some of the sensitive plants.

Disturbing the soil and opening the canopy, could result in the indirect effect of providing a seed bed for invasive plants (Ferguson 2003). A forest inventory of noxious weeds locations last year found two invasive weeds, tansy and bull thistle, in the parking lot for the Little John Lake canoe landing; and tansy on CC 16 near the intersection of SFR 328. Two other more destructive weeds were discovered earlier. Purple loosestrife was found at the Little John Lake canoe landing. During the last couple of years, purple loosestrife plants were pulled from the site. Leafy spurge has been found on a campsite on the west end of McFarland Lake (Gerdes, pers. com.). USFS portage crews have pulled some of these plants, also. Effects from these eradication treatments have not been assessed yet.

Noxious weed species possible in the area include the species above and hawkweed, spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, plumeless thistle, St. John’s wort, bird’s foot trefoil, and sweet clover.

SNF roads and trails, like elsewhere, provide a favorable seedbed, and/or disturbance along these corridors induces latent seed in the soil to germinate. Animals, especially humans, inadvertently transport noxious weed seeds into and along these roads and trails. Alien invasive plants are likely to be transported into and possibly around the analysis area in all alternatives, because ATV use will likely continue on CC 16 and SFR 328 no matter the alternative chosen. Certainly, road vehicles are driven into the area on CC 16 from outside the area on a constant basis.

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternatives 1 and 5 would have least effect because ATV use would continue on currently used roads.

South Fowl EA Page 47

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 create new trail (see comparison tables in chapter 2). Soil disturbed in the construction would encourage invasive species. The entrances to these trails are to be gated in the snowfree season to minimize potential ATV use on them. ATV use can rut and expose soil leading to erosion and noxious weed germination, with and an attending effect of spreading weed seeds.

Of these new trails, Alternative 2 could have the most effects of weed introduction. About half the trail length of 2.2 miles would be created in an area known for its diverse array of sensitive plants (See Biological Evaluation). Changing microhabitats and encouraging more aggressive, non-native plants, could reduce the viability of some of these plants or eradicate them. If the seasonal trail closures were not effective, ATV use would compound the effects. However, the Alternative 2 trail construction is to have a narrow tread (8 feet) and minimal use of heavy equipment, which should lead to less soil disturbance than would be likely with typical trail construction.

Alternative 3 would have the longest tread on which invasive species could be established. It develops 1.32 miles of new trail and could re-disturb parts of another 2.1 mile of currently existing corridor, including the Stump River Road.

Alternative 4 would only create 0.4 miles of new trail corridor, but it also increases the width of possible seed bed along CC 16. This new tread is to be seeded with a cover mix, but invasive weeds already on site could become mixed with the cover. The total potential would occur on 2.33 miles, only slightly less area than Alternative 3 would create. Ongoing transport of seed from within and outside the analysis area is more likely to affect the tread of this possible trail more than the other alternatives because it parallels a well traveled road.

In general, invasives possible in alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are more likely to occur along the trails and not spread significantly into surrounding forest (Ferguson 2003). However, depending on the species and the type of dominant trees and shrubs, some of these species would be capable of advancing well beyond the trail edges.

Cumulative Effects The State plans to harvest timber in the area on a recurring basis. Each time an access road is built into harvest areas it expands the potential for non-natives to expand their range of occurrence. Heavy equipment carries seed from place to place ( Ferguson 2003), and these new timber sale roads would become likely sites for noxious weed establishment. The greater the reservoir of plants the easier it would be for these plants to spread. ATV activity on all these corridors would help facilitate seed transport.

3.2.5 Wilderness Values The proximity to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) makes potential impacts to wilderness resources and values a concern. For the purposes of this analysis, impacts to wilderness values are tied to sights and sounds of motorized vehicles upon wilderness visitors.

South Fowl EA Page 48

Some commenters cited snowmobile emissions as a cause for concern. Appendix A discusses snowmobile emissions and air quality. The predominant wind patterns flow from west to east or northwest to southeast.

The portion of the BWCAW in the project area is managed as Semi-Primitive Non- Motorized, where visitors can expect a “semi-primitive” wilderness experience in a predominantly un-modified natural environment.

As described in the BWCAW Mgt. Plan and Implementation Schedule, the area is further described (Page 3-4) as “generally located along main travel routes, where a visitor expects to encounter others more frequently, and solitude is not one of their highest priorities. A lesser degree of challenge, risk, and freedom is provided here.” Winter or summer, wilderness visitors near the project area, are likely to be traveling on Royal Lake or along the Royal River between John and North Fowl Lakes.

Actual winter use of this area is light, based on observed permit data. Over the last 4 years an average of 8 parties have been recorded as submitting self issued permits for wilderness visits, during the non-quota season (October through April) at the Little John entry point. What isn’t known is the direction these parties traveled. Observations during winter patrol have not noted any foot travel along Royal River or Lake.

The Border Route Trail does not enter the wilderness in the project area.

Wilderness values have been distilled into the following four categories, for management purposes: Natural Integrity, Apparent Naturalness, Opportunities for Solitude, and Opportunities for Primitive Recreation. Though the expectation for this area may not be of the highest quality experience, the four categories of wilderness values are valid for gauging the comparative impacts of alternatives on the wilderness visitor.

Research has been done on decibel levels of snowmobiles manufactured after different dates. They have been made progressively quieter and in situations where snowbanks and vegetation intervene between the snowmobile and the listener, the sound can be reduced substantially (Soom, 1975).

Measurements could be calculated for a range of sound impacts on observers at various locations in the wilderness, from operating snowmobiles at a variety of locations on the alternative routes. For the purposes of this analysis, such detailed data appears to be moot as explained below.

Wilderness visitors are less tolerant of impacts to their experience than recreationists in other areas of a National Forest are. According to Clark and Stankey: “..even the faint sound of a vehicle might constitute a noise in a wilderness, while in a developed, modern campground the same sound might not even be noticed……Since noise is an interpretation of sound in a particular context or setting, the appropriateness of a sound depends upon a person’s expectations for a particular setting.” (Ref: Predicting Impact

South Fowl EA Page 49

of Noise on Recreationists, Part I, Roger N. Clark, Ph.D, and George H. Stankey, Ph.D, U.S. E.P.A., 1980). Despite this point, wilderness visitors to Management Area 5.2b may well understand that the experience here is a “moderately” unmodified natural environment where solitude should not be one of the highest expectations (Section 1.3).

Regardless of the above discussion, Forest Service managers are directed (Forest Service Manual, 2320.6) to choose preservation of the wilderness resource over human influence or activity. The presence, sight or sound of motorized equipment has been recognized as an impact on the integrity, naturalness, and solitude found in wilderness. It follows then that wilderness visitors would consider any sight or sound of snowmobile emanating from one of the alternative routes as negative in terms of wilderness values.

Direct and Indirect Effects Legal use of a snowmobile trail in the proximity of the BWCAW could be audible or even visible to wilderness users near the Royal River.

Under the No Action alternative, Alt 1, snowmobile use would be legal in the McFarland Lake area, along Arrowhead Trail and on both North and South Fowl Lakes. Snowmobiling in the McFarland Lake area and along Arrowhead Trail put use a little more than one half mile from the BWCAW boundary with some topographical features and a forest setting between snowmobile use and the wilderness boundary. Our experience during winter patrols demonstrated that sounds can be heard from Royal River and Lake, but would be muffled and distant. Snowmobiling is fairly common on the Fowl Lakes and it could legally be immediately adjacent to the wilderness boundary on both those lakes. Snowmobile sounds would be much more audible to wilderness users on Royal Lake or River. However, the snowmobiles would not be visible to wilderness users until wilderness users approached the shores of the Fowl Lakes.

Of the action alternatives, Alt. 2, the North Route is closest to the wilderness and most likely to have an impact on the wilderness visitor. This route traverses the upper third of a 380 foot high North facing ridge. The base of this ridge is within the wilderness; Royal Lake and much of the Royal River being within 2,000 feet of the top of this ridge. Photos taken from the east shore of Royal Lake show portions of the proposed North Route as visible from the wilderness. See photo 3-1 below. None of the other alternatives would be visible from the BWCAW with the exceptions as described for no action.

South Fowl EA Page 50

Photo 3-4 View from Royal Lake in the BWCAW looking south towards the Alternative #2 route (on the ridge).

Photo 3-5 Eye level photo of Royal Lake from proposed route for Alternative 2.

South Fowl EA Page 51

The sound of snowmobile traffic on Alt 2 is likely to carry to Royal Lake and beyond. The route is approximately 230 feet above Royal Lake with an immediate backdrop of 150 feet of cliffs to the top of the ridge, which would direct sounds toward the wilderness. Intervening deciduous trees would provide little sound reduction.

Sounds from Alts 3, 4, and 5 could reach the BWCAW, although the probable source location, the slope decent in the SE ¼ of section 11, is ½ mile farther from the wilderness than Alt.2, and the ridge here is more likely to direct sounds toward South Fowl Lake outside of the wilderness. These alternatives would be similar, if not the same as no action.

Cumulative Effects For the purposes of this analysis, the target area for impacts would have to be the portion of the BWCAW (Section 2, 3, and 11) adjacent to the closest trail alternative, Alt. 2. Impacts to a wilderness resource can be impacts in time and impacts in space. Those categorized in time would be sights, sound, or odors; once any one of these is removed, the impact is gone. Those impacts in space would be those that leave a lasting impact, and could be experienced repeatedly. An obvious example is a trail cut through the wilderness. This proposal does not impact the wilderness in space Page 50 – the route can be seen. Therefore, the cumulative effects are those that can be experienced by a visitor who might be affected during a trip through this part of the BWCAW (Royal River and Lake area). A sound that cannot be heard by a visitor to this area is not a cumulative impact.

As discussed for no action, at some locations along the Royal River, motor use is likely audible from either the Arrowhead Trail or the Fowl Lakes. Both North and South Fowl Lakes are open to snowmobile operation. There are no projections of an increase in snowmobile use, however if any one of the proposed trail were to increase use, new snowmobile sounds would be combined with this existing situation.

Other sources of sounds might come from logging activity. Any potential logging operations are likely to be on State land south of the ridge in Sections 10, 11, and 12. Topography and forested setting should substantially reduce harvest and hauling sounds if they do reach the wilderness. Predominant wind patterns of west to east (or northwest to southeast) would not tend to carry logging sounds into the wilderness

Other than those described in no action and Alternative 2, no vehicle sightings or motor emissions are anticipated to impact the BWCAW as a result of the proposed or other area activities.

3.2.6 Human Use Patterns and Safety The provision of adequate, safe, access to the Fowl Lakes from the McFarland Lake area is the driving issue for this project proposal. Additional issues include increased accessibility to the Border Route Trail, snow-free access to the Fowls, and the multiple use of the new trail.

South Fowl EA Page 52

Primarily, administrative agencies are concerned about the dual use situation in which snowmobiles are sharing the roadway with other larger vehicles on the Arrowhead Trail. Currently this situation is legal, but the Cook County Commissioners would prefer to separate the two uses. There is some concern that dual use may continue on the Arrowhead Trail, no matter what alternative is chosen.

Potential dual use could occur when the South Fowl Lake Road or the Stump River Road is used for timber harvest access on State property, though not on the scale caused by general public traffic on the Arrowhead Trail. It is recognized that risk is much greater on the busier, higher speed Arrowhead Trail than on the State roads.

The steep slope in the SE ¼ of Section 11 currently in use is narrow and considered a hazard for simultaneous, two-way traffic.

Direct effects for safety are measured through the amount of dual use that would likely occur under any of the alternative. Those can be displayed in terms of miles of dual use. Indirect effects of dual use would be collisions that occur between snowmobiles and full sized vehicles. Accident ratios are too difficult to estimate or displayed. It is assumed that the more dual use, the greater the potential for an accident. A second indicator of effects for safety is the hazard reduction through reconstruction of the trail on the steep slope in Section 11. Correspondingly, an assumed indirect effect would be a similar reduction in potential for an accident.

Direct effects for accessibility to the Border Route Trail are the number of intersections with the trail, while the indirect effects are corresponding increase in potential for illegal use of the trail.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative would continue the status quo of dual use of the Arrowhead Trail, and potential dual use on the State’s South Fowl Lake Road and the unnamed trail to South Fowl Lake.

Snowmobile riders could either ride the Arrowhead Trail or trailer the sleds to the intersection with South Fowl Lake Road. Cook County approved the use of Arrowhead Trail for snowmobiles in 1992. However, there is the continuing concern of mixing snowmobiles on roads traveled by regular vehicle traffic, especially in sections with steep hills or sharp curves.

The State Forestry Department is analyzing their lands in the project area (Border Lakes Analysis) so there is potential dual use on the South Fowl Lake Road in connection with timber harvests and truck hauling operations.

The current condition of the steep slope on the un-named trail leading to South Fowl Lake is only wide enough for one snowmobile; users cannot go up and down the hill at the same time. This alternative would continue use of that unsafe slope in Section 11.

South Fowl EA Page 53

South Fowl Road and the un-named trail would continue receiving OHV traffic, which would be a legal snow free access to South Fowl Lake. This traffic over federal property in Section 12 would constitute an approved OHV access trail and should be included on the Superior N. F. trail inventory as such.

Alternative 2 would offer an alternative to riding the Arrowhead Trial, with a direct connection between McFarland and South Fowl Lakes. In terms of administratively reducing dual use, this alternative is potentially the most successful. However, the Arrowhead Trail may be seen as an opportunity to snowmobile in a loop back to McFarland Lake. The loop would be completed by using the Section 11 slope, despite the risks, and the South Fowl Lake Road. The intersection with the Arrowhead Road would have traffic warning signs on both the snowmobile trail and the county road.

As with Alternative 1, the South Fowl Lake Road and the Un-named trail would continue receiving OHV traffic, which would be a legal snow free access to South Fowl Lake. This traffic over federal property in Section 12 would constitute an approved OHV access trail and should be included on the Superior N. F. trail inventory as such.

Alternative 2 departs from the standard 12 foot tread/16 foot clearing standard using an 8 foot tread/ 10 foot clearing strategy. The winding route is expected to slow traffic to a safe speed.

Alternative 3, the South Route, avoids connection with the Arrowhead Trail corridor until it ties in parallel to the running surface approximately 0.22 mile north of the junction with South Fowl Lake Road. This eliminates some of the proximity to other motor vehicles, which is indicative of Alternative 4. Included are the Stump River and South Fowl Lake Roads, which have the potential of dual use during State logging operations (Border Lakes Analysis). The hazardous slope in Section 11 would be widened enough so that snowmobile traffic could go up and down hill at the same time. This option would provide no legal means for riders to loop back to McFarland Lake. However, it would increase the attractiveness of using the illegal Royal River Trail to complete a snowmobile loop to McFarland Lake. The intersection with the Arrowhead Road would have traffic warning signs on both the snowmobile trail and the county road.

All alternatives would maintain the Border Route Trail intersection with the unnamed trail in Section 11. Additionally, Alternative 2 also intersects the BRT in Section 3.

South Fowl Road and the Un-named trail would continue receiving OHV traffic, which would be a legal snow free access to South Fowl Lake. This traffic over federal property in Section 12 would constitute an approved OHV access trail and should be included on the Superior N. F. trail inventory as such.

Alternative 4, the modified proposal, runs over 2 miles along side of the Arrowhead Trail running surface. The presumption is, if a trail is within the right of way for Arrowhead Trail, that snowmobile riders would use the trail and not the driving surface of Arrowhead. Then the trail would follow the South Fowl Lake Road, which has the

South Fowl EA Page 54

potential of dual use during State logging operations (Border Lakes Analysis). The hazardous slope in Section 11 would be improved as described in Alt. 3. The intersection with the Arrowhead Road would have traffic warning signs on both the snowmobile trail and the county road.

This option would provide no legal means for riders to loop back to McFarland Lake. However, this alternative would increase the attractiveness of using the illegal Royal River Trail to complete a snowmobile loop to McFarland Lake. Enforcement would need to at a higher level than for Alt. 2.

With Alternative 4 there would be one intersection with the Border Route Trail, in Section 11.

Alternative 5, the shorter route, assumes that users from McFarland Lake would trailer snowmobiles to the South Fowl Lake Road parking area. As in Alternatives 3 and 5 the South Fowl Lake Road would be the trail to South Fowl Lake. The Arrowhead trail would remain an attractive option to connect to McFarland Lake. The South Fowl Lake Road has the potential of dual use during State logging operations (Border Lakes Analysis). The hazardous slope in Section 11 would be improved for safer passage.

This option would provide no legal means for riders to loop back to McFarland Lake. However, it would increase the attractiveness of using the illegal Royal River Trail to complete a snowmobile loop to McFarland Lake. Enforcement would need to at a higher level than for Alt. 2.

With Alternative 5 there would be one intersection with the Border Route Trail, in Section 11.

Table 3-8: Safety Situation Comparison Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 No Action North South Proposed Short Route Route Rte. Route Legal Not part of Reasonable Reasonable Not legal, Dual Use of access, but alternative alternative but Arrowhead completes offered offered attractive. Trail loop.

South Fowl EA Page 55

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 No Action North South Proposed Short Route Route Rte. Route Potential Yes, part of Not part of Yes, part of Yes, part of Yes, part of Dual Use of access access, but access access access S. Fowl Lk completes Road loop.

Potential N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A Dual Use of Stump River Rd. Section 11 Unimproved Unimproved Improved Improved Improved Slope

Cumulative Effects None of the alternatives would present a dual use situation in the project area other than those discussed above.

The Grand Portage State Forest is currently involved in a statewide inventory of potential OHV trail opportunities. Within several years, trail proposals could be made in the Grand Portage State Forest, near the project area. However, none is proposed at this time. Additional dual use situations could result, but final implementation of such a proposal is only speculative and this point and far from certain.

The Grand Portage Band has a snowmobile trail proposal, approximately three miles south of the project area, which would connect the Gunflint Snowmobile Trail to the Reservation. This proximity, if completed, could attract riders to make the connection to the area via the Arrowhead Trail.

3.2.7 Landownership Lands issues include project effects on adjacent landowners.

Direct and Indirect Effects The purpose and need statement of this analysis specifically mentioned connecting the McFarland Lake area to South Fowl Lake to afford property owners on McFarland Lake a safe, approved snowmobile route to South Fowl. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 provide routes off the Arrowhead Trail. Alternatives 1 and 5 do not specifically provide a connection between McFarland and South Fowl.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) property on the shore of South Fowl Lake will probably continue to be used regardless of management alternative selected. The State South Fowl Lake Road will likely remain open to snowmobiles and will lead users over the existing route to TNC property. During the scoping process, TNC spokesperson Chris Dunham suggested continued use of the existing route so use should not be a negative

South Fowl EA Page 56

development. Access for TNC and Rob Nelson to their property will probably continue by this route.

When R. Nelson sold property to TNC in Section 12, he retained 5 acres including the family cabin. As with the TNC property, this parcel will probably continue to be accessed by the South Fowl Lake Road and the existing snowmobile route, regardless of the management alternative selected

Alternative 1, No Action, affects TNC and Nelson property as discussed above.

Alternatives 3 and 4 move snowmobile traffic from the south shore of McFarland Lake across the Wooley’s Bluff Road. One owner of adjacent shoreline expressed concern that this route directs riders near her property making it vulnerable to trespass. Another owner expressed a concern that snowmobile trail on Wooley’s Bluff Road would interfere with potential future snowplowing of that road. The scoping package did indicate that Wooley’s Bluff Road would be part of the proposed alternative, but this route was modified, and use of the road dropped during analysis. The trail crosses Wooley’s Bluff Road and should not interfere with snowplowing if it becomes a future option. In terms of the potential trespass, snowmobile riders currently travel Arrowhead Trail and Wooley’s Bluff Road is not gated, therefore the option of riding that road currently exists. There could be some increase in potential by riders crossing the road itself.

Alternative 4 proposed expansion of the Arrowhead Trail corridor to accommodate the snowmobile trail parallel to the road. This trail construction crosses 0.6 mile of Mark and Gene Foster’s private ownership. Mark Foster contacted the Gunflint District and stated that he was supportive of the proposal (Phone conversation with T. Eggum, 3/29/2005).

All action alternatives make some use of State ownership (Grand Portage State Forest). The US Forest Service has coordinated alternative development with MDNR offices in Grand Marais, Two Harbors, and Grand Rapids.

As discussed in Section 3.2.3. above, potentially ownerships touched by all management alternatives, including the No Action alternative (Alt. 1), could experience soil damage through illegal OHV operation, including the running surface of the trails. Public education and enforcement patrols are the most effecting mitigation measures available.

Cumulative Effects There are no other similar projects or activities in the area that would impacts analysis area land owners.

3.2.8 Economics The South Fowl Access is not likely to become a tourism attraction in and of itself, since it is not connected to long-range trail systems. Most of the use of the South Fowl Access would likely be by local recreationists who wish to access South Fowl Lake. Users may come from outside of Cook County for winter fishing, but the project is not expected to

South Fowl EA Page 57

generate substantial new use of the area or significant economic benefits. Several respondents however were concerned with the costs involved with the proposed trail project. Table 3-5 compares construction and maintenance costs for each alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Maintenance costs comprise a per year value for activities including removing deadfall, brushing, sign maintenance/replacement, drainage structure maintenance/repair, and inspection time. Approximate costs are $650 per mile.

Construction costs include clearing, dozing/blading, seeding, gravel surfacing (parking), and sign purchase and installation. Approximate costs include: clearing @$3,000/mile, dozing @ $2,000/mile, surfacing @ $3.50 per yard of gravel, $1,300/gate, $300/barrier, and $30/sign.

Table 3-9. Comparison of Alternative Costs. Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Maintenance 0 $1,430 $2,236 $1,956 $547 Costs Construction 0 $16,260 $19,810 $22,120 $9,680 Costs

Costs for enforcement patrols are budgeted through the Enforcement program vary depending on each part of an alternative. There is no hard and fast way to estimate the effects of implementing each alternative would have on the costs of education and enforcement. However, experience has shown that working with people to find suitable options tends to decrease that need while removing or not providing options tends to increase that need.

Table 3-10. Expected affects to Education and Enforcement Programs Issue Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Illegal Trail Increased Decreased No change No change Increased OHV use need need to slight to slight need decrease. decrease. North N/A Increased N/A N/A N/A Route OHV need use McFarland N/A N/A Increased N/A N/A to Stump need River OHV Use Cross- No Change Increased Increased Increased No Change Country need need need Access

South Fowl EA Page 58

Cumulative Effects The Gunflint District has about 580 total miles of trail, and 164 miles of snowmobile trail to maintain and administer. The trail budget fluctuates from year to year and relies heavily on trail organizations for assistance in trail maintenance. Much of the Forest Service resources go to administration; working with trail partners who volunteer to maintain trails, completing environmental analysis of proposals, resolving conflicts and issues, etc. The proposed project and the surrounding area are a small part of the recreation, trail, wilderness, and law enforcement programs as a whole.

3.3 Other Analysis

3.3.1 Heritage Resources The Forest Service’s policy to avoid impacts to all heritage resources on NFS land inherently eliminates direct effects. Appropriate survey techniques provide a reasonable and good faith effort to discover heritage resources. Past and current management activities avoid direct impacts to known heritage resources by using no-treatment buffers. In addition, previously unknown heritage resources are reported to the Heritage Program when discovered.

Forest Service Archeologists conducted a heritage review in July, 2004, comparing records of past surveys and known heritage resource locations with the proposed trail locations. There are no known direct impacts to heritage resources from past or current activities.

The Superior National Forest has a draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the Minnesota SHPO that directs the types of survey and consultation for heritage resources. The heritage review procedures were reviewed by SHPO and are consistent with the provisions of the draft Programmatic Agreement. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action alternatives on heritage resources were evaluated following the provisions of the PA. Based on the completed surveys, including data review and analysis, with the specified project design elements, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to heritage resources under either of the alternatives.

3.3.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible commitments are decisions affecting non-renewable resources such as soils, wetlands, and heritage sites. Such commitments are considered irreversible, because the commitment would deteriorate the resource to the point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time or at great expense. Commitments are also irreversible if the resource has been destroyed or removed.

Loss of soil due to erosion is an irreversible commitment of resources. However, no significant soil loss from soil erosion is anticipated under any alternative because the project would incorporate Forest Plan standard and guidelines, and mitigation measures specified in this document.

South Fowl EA Page 59

Loss of heritage resource sites resulting from accidental damage or vandalism would be an irreversible commitment of resources. The standards and guidelines, survey methodology prior to activities, and mitigation measures specified in this document provide reasonable assurances that there would be no irreversible loss of heritage resources.

Irretrievable commitments of natural resources are commitments that result in the loss of productivity or use of resources due to management decisions made in the alternatives. These opportunities would be foregone for the period of time that the resource cannot be used.

Trail construction would take soils out of productivity during use and be an irretrievable loss of site productivity. Overall, for all alternatives the acreage effects would be small.

The change in visual quality of an area due to vegetative manipulation activities would be an irretrievable commitment of resources. The action alternative would have some irretrievable commitments in the short-term.

3.3.3 Short-term Unavoidable Adverse Effects Implementation of any action alternative would result in some adverse environmental effects that cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided. The interdisciplinary procedure used to identify specific treatments was designed to eliminate or lessen the significant adverse consequences. In addition, applied standards and guidelines, mitigation measures, and monitoring would further limit the extent, severity, and duration of these effects. The specific environmental effects of the alternatives are described above in this chapter and project design elements, mitigation measures, and monitoring are described in Chapter 2.

Although the formulation of alternatives included avoidance of potentially adverse environmental effects, some short-term adverse impacts may occur. The intensity and duration of these effects depend on the alternative and mitigation measures applied to protect the resources. Monitoring procedures and mitigation measures have been planned to reduce these effects.

Ground disturbing activities have the potential to temporarily increase sediment loads in some streams. This could displace fish, reduce resident fish reproductive success, and alter aquatic invertebrate populations. However, mitigation measures such as locating trails on the contours, installation water run-off bars in roads and trails, and seeding (where needed) would contribute toward minimizing the impacts of sediment on fish and their habitat.

Disturbance, displacement, or loss of wildlife habitat may occur as a consequence of habitat loss or increased human activity in the project area.

All of the action alternatives would result in some noise from trail construction operations. Recreation is an important use of the project area and the serenity of the

South Fowl EA Page 60

forest and nearby wilderness is valued by many recreation users. However, noise from the action alternatives is expected to be of short duration and would generally occur during times of low recreational use when practical.

3.3.4 Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity All alternatives would come under the mandate of the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, which requires the Forest Service to manage Forest System lands for multiple uses (including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and watershed). All renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. As a renewable resource, trees can be reestablished and grown again if the productivity of the land is not impaired.

Maintaining the productivity of the land is a complex, long-term objective. All alternatives protect the long-term productivity of the project area through the use of specific standards and guidelines, and mitigation measures.

Soil and water are two key factors in ecosystem productivity, and these resources would be protected in all alternatives to avoid damage that could take decades to rectify. Quality and quantity of water from the project area may fluctuate until ground cover is established, but no long-term effects to the water resources are expected to occur as a result of management actions.

The abundance and diversity of wildlife species depends on the quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat, whether used for breeding, feeding, or resting. Conditions under all alternatives would tend to remain relatively stable without impact to wildlife productivity.

3.3.5 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice The phrase "Civil Rights" implies fair and equal treatment under the law, both within the agency and in its relations with the public (FSH 1909.17, 33.26). It is Forest Service policy that Forest Service employees conduct official business so that: "1) the Forest Service eradicates all forms of discrimination from its programs and activities; 2) all levels of the organization are supportive of affirmative action; 3) there are no economic or social barriers which limit program participation; and 4) all programs and services are equally available to all persons, without exceptions" (Forest Service Manual 1703).

Executive Order (EO) 12898 of February 11, 1994, requires each federal agency to "make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations" (EO 12898, Section 1-101).

Under all alternatives, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of the project on environmental justice.

South Fowl EA Page 61

3.3.6 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land All alternatives are in keeping with the intent of the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for prime farmland. The project area does not contain any farmlands or rangelands. Prime forestland does not apply to land within the National Forest System.

3.3.7 Flood Plains There will be no known significant adverse effects on wetlands, riparian areas, or floodplain as a result of any of the management alternatives.

South Fowl EA Page 62

Chapter 4. Lists and References

4.1 List of Preparers and Contributors. The following is a list of the core interdisciplinary Planning Team. This section also lists additional Forest Service staff that contributed to the development and preparation of this Environmental Assessment.

Interdisciplinary Planning Team (Core): ID Team Leader: Jim Twaroski, Terry Eggum LeRoy Pratt: Engineering/Costs Tom Kaffine: Trails Rick Brandenburg: Wilderness Impacts/Ownership Wayne Russ: Wildlife/TES

Other Contributors: Lissa Grover: Plants David Woodard: Heritage Resources David Bartol: Silviculture Greyling Brandt: Mapping/Gis John Olson: Construction Costs.

4.2 Distribution Lists Organizations Sent Scoping Packages: 1854 Authority Golden Eagle Lodge American Canoe Association Gunflint Trail Association American Lands Alliance Great Lakes School of Log Building Associated Contract Loggers Inc. Hedstrom Lumber Company, Inc. Bear Track Outfitting Hungry Jack Lodge Biewer Wisconsin Sawmill, Inc. Ice Age, N. Country National Scenic Trails Buchanen Forest Products John B. Ridly Research Library Judy Bundy Living Trust Kuehl Logging Camp Nebagamon Kooch. County Land Dept. Camp Voyageurs, Inc. KOZY AM Radio Cascade Lodge Lake County Board of Commissioners Carlton County Land Commissioner Lake County Highway Department Clearwater Cabin Owners LaTourelle's Resort Clearwater Canoe Outfitters McFarland Cabin Club Conservationists with Common Sense Michael West Logging Construction Cook County Coalition of Lake Assoc. Minn. Center for Environmental Advocacy Cook County Courthouse Minnesota Land Trust Cook County News-Herald Minnesotan’s for Responsible Recreation Cook County Snowmobile Club Minnesota Rovers Outing Club Cornell College MN DNR Fisheries Defenders of Wildlife MN DNR Forestry Duluth Public Library MN DNR Natural Heritage Program Fond Du Lac Reservation MN DNR Trails and Waterways Fond Du Lac Resource Management Division MN Office of Tourism-Northeast Region Forestry Library, University of Minnesota MN Power/Land and Water Fowl Lake Cabin Partnership MSPN Friends of the BWCA Mundt & Associates

South Fowl EA Page 63

Nolau Emergincy Services St. Louis County Land Dept. North Country Trail Assoc/MN Parks and Trails Star Tribune Newspaper NE Minnesotans for Wilderness Stora-Enso North America North Shore Forest Products Superior Hiking Trail Assoc. Northern Lights Timber Superior National Forest Northern Tier High Adventure Bases, BSA Superior Wilderness Action Network Northwind Lodge and Canoe Outfitters The Nature Conservancy Natural Resources and Research Institute Edwin Thoreson, Inc. Ojibway Licensed Summer Home Group Town of Crystal Bay Ontario Parks, MNR Trout Lake Resort Piragis Northwoods Co. Trout Unlimited Quetico Superior Foundation University of Minnesota Range Landscape Inc.Saganaga/Seagull Homeowners Assoc. U.S. EPA Sawbill Canoe Outfitters Town of Vermillion Sierra Club - North Star Chapter Voyageur Canoe Outfitters Sierra Club Forest Task Force Voyageur Outward Bound Silver Bay Public Library Voyageurs Lutheran Ministry Solbakken Resort Wilderness Society Spirit of the Wilderness WSCN Minnesota Public Radio Trustees, Wheaton College Larry J. Larson, Inc. Jack Pine Lodge Balir, Cook, and Hoy Oberstar, David -- Fryberger Law Firm

Individuals Sent Scoping Packages: Abrahamson, Duane Alt, Joanne Anderson, Arthur Anderson, Carl Anderson, Curt Anderson, Chel Anderson, Frederick Anderson, Terry & Barbara Angell, Irv & Jeanne Arent, David Austin, Dave -- Boise-Cascade Baiho, Raymond & Pamila Baker, Robert Barnabee, Bob & Connie Barr, Clyde Basset, Tim Baumgardner, R. & B. Bates, Bruce Bellehumeur, Julie Bent, Henry Berdusco, John Berzinski, Ken & Barb Beymer, Robert Blomberg, CA & Doris Bisco, Ray Bone, Denny Bonoff, Barry Boyd, Michael Brumbaugh, Earl Buckman, Mark & Kathy Buetow, John & Gloria Bullard, Dorothy Caldwell, Elwood and Florence Campbell, Jim Carlson, Cara Carlson, Chance Carlson, Joe Carlson, Nobel Carlson, Ronald Carlson, Roy Carpenter, Lorraine & Jerry Carver, Merril Casper, Michael Christensen, Michael Cieluch, Chuck Clarke, Alison Colberg, Dale & Donna Collier, Michael Cowherd, Cliff & Emmalie Cowherd, C.R. Dalbec, Nacy Dalgaard, Mark DeBoer, J./Mcloone N. DePesa, Michael & Alyssa Doering, Edgar Donek, R. C. Doyle, Steve Drabik, Harry Duncan, Cam Dunn, Robert Duvall, Jeffrey

South Fowl EA Page 64

Earley, Steve Eklund, L. G. Ekroot, Vincent Emery, Donald Epperly, David Erickson, Stephen Erickson, Brent Feiock, Carol & Tony Feldick, Sandy Fellows, Jeff Fenner, Ray Fenwick, Bob Flint, Richard and Carol Foster, Mark & Gene Frenzel, L.D. Friel, Bernard Frye, Richard Fullen, Warren Furlong, Thomas Gagnon, Curtis Gates, Clyde Gaylord, Thomas & Patricia Gecox, William Georg, Fank & Pat Germain, Don Gilyard, Glenn Giroux, Gary & Kaye Glader, Gene Glynn, Dennis & Elaine Gockel, Andrew Green, Jan Gross, James Guckenberg, David Gustafson, Duane Hafner, Thomas and Susan Hager, Richard & Susan Hansen, Jeffery Hansen, William Hanson, Tregve Hagstrom, John Hanson, Clyde Harris, George Hartzell, F4ranklin & Elenore Hedman, Stephen Heinz, Jim Hendrickson, Tom Henke, Bruce Henry, Brian Hess, David & Anne Homa, Steve Horak, Jan Hoy, Joan, et.al. Hucall, Ronald Hughes, Bill Hughes, Joyhn Hummel, Joan Hyde, Johnnie and Bert Ingram, Donald Ion, William Isenberg, Lonny Iverson, Mary Jannett, Rick Jensen, Herbert Johnson, Warren Johnson, James and Edith Johnson, Charles Johnson, Darrel Johnson, Ted Johnson, Tom Sr. Johnson, Judie Jones, David Jorstad, Steve & Ann Kainz, Bruce Kasparek, Bertilla Kelly, Tom Kizzek, Brian Klett, David Kreag, Glenn Kreofsky, Steven Kroening, Martin Kruggel Kryzer, Dave and Lisa Kubik, Martin Lachenmayer, Richard Lande, Mike Landess, William and Marcia Langley, Bradley LaPanta.Cronle Larson, Larry Larson, Peter Lenz, Thomas Leschak, Peter Levig, Mike Lind, Ken & Bev Lindberg, Alan Lipke, Allen Lloyd, Doug Long, Scott and Sue Loufek, Carole Jean Lovold, Mary Lyght, John Mackey, Kevin Mages, Robert Manson, Marion & David Martigan, Graham & Marie Martinez, Michael Matchette, Darrell Matsis, Eleanor Mathew, Alan Maxham, Glenn McClure, John Mc Cormack, Dorothy

South Fowl EA Page 65

McCann, Brian McDonald, Steve& Linda McDonnell, Diane McNamara, Joseph & Susan Melbe, Kathleen Mellor, Bruce Merit, Greg Mianowski, Walter Milanese, Rebecca and Martin Miller, Sylvia Miller, Bruce Mills, Russel & Ruth Todd Monson/Linda Ruehlow Moroney, Richard & Lois Morrison, Bob & Susan Motschenbacher, Judi Munane, Roger Neilson, Dennis Nelms, Eric Nelson, Eugene Nelson, Eugene Nelson, Eugene Nelson, Kaye Nelson, John & Ruth Nelson, Robert Neustel, Scott Nicoliason, Chris & Lilian Nicholls, Kenneth Nisbet, T. A. Jr Norris, Evan Nygard. James O’leary, Karen Olson, Harlan Olson, Robert & Kay Pasko, Brian Passe, Derrick Payne, Ray Pearson, Robert Pearo, Gerald Peterson, D. Robert Peterson, Nancy Probst, Jean & Tom Popehn, Ralph Potter, Ron Rabold, Franklin Ramberg, Stephen and Kathry Rawitzer, Thomas & Barbara Raymond, Michael Ringen, Jon & Catherine Ringer, Alan Ripp, Jean & Chris Jr Robinson, Sally Rodriquez, Patricia/Sprain, Michael Roff, Randy Rolf, Kristin Ross, Jim & Judy Salo, Wilmar Schei, Larry & Sue Schweiger, John Seaberg, Kurt Seliskar, August Sherve-Ose, Anne Silence, Rhonda Simons, Nicolas Sly, Marilyn Smestad, Daniel Smith, Fred & Fran Smith, Steven & Scott Soeters, Arthur & Carol Solber, Kenneth & Ella Speck, Lloyd Squires, Linda Stange, Mark Steele Family Trust Stevens, Robert & Cynthia Sten, Zachariah Stirratt, James & Arlene Stodola, Jr., Robert Stone, Larry Streitzel, Jennifer & Mark Strobel, Mark and Joan Sutphin, Ronald Swanson, Bill & Helen Swanson, Robert & Yvonne Throckmorton, Doug Tibbets, Mark & Barbara Todd, John Trebatowski, Leroy Truex, Mary Tveiten, Ronald Van Tassel, James Vinton, Russ & Kathleen Vizano, Chris Vora, Robin Waddington, Neal Wallace, Doug Walton, Bob and Sandy Weida, Bill & Jane Wetzel, Thomas Whitten, Bob Wilkinson, John Williams, Dyke Williams, Susan Wilson, Don Wirt, David Wirth, Jessica Wobster, Eugene & Marjorie Wolfe, Teresa Young, Kim Zieper, Robert Zink, Jim Zopf, Lee

South Fowl EA Page 66

4.3 References Cited Clark, R.N., Harrison, R.T., Stankey, G.H., Predicting Impact of Noise on Recreationists. Forest Service, USDA, Equipment Development Center, San Dimas, CA, April 1980.

Cleland, D.T., P.E. Avers, W.H. McNab, M.E. Jensen, R.G. Bailey, T. King and W.E. Russell. 1997. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. In: Ecosystem management applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources. Ed. Boyce, M.S. and A. Haney. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Pp. 181-2000.

Foster, M. Phone communication with Forest Service employee Terry Eggum on March 29, 2005.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2005 Draft Border Lakes Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan, Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.

Spoden, C., Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, written comment to District Ranger D. Neitzke, Sept. 24, 2004.

Soom, A., Bollinger, J.G., Emission and Propagation of Snowmobile Noise. Proceedings of the Third Interagency Symposium on University Research on Transportation Noise. Salt Lake City, UT, November, 1975.

USDA Forest Service 1995. Northern Minnesota Ecological Classification System information Guide. USDA Forest Service, Superior National Forest.

2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Forest Plan Revision, Vols. I, II, and III. Chippewa and Superior National Forests. Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. On file with Forest Supervisor, Superior National Forest, 8901 Grand Ave. Place, Duluth, Minnesota 55808.

2004 Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 280 pp. On file with: Forest Supervisor, Superior National Forest, 8901 Grand Ave. Place, Duluth, Minnesota 55808.

1993 BWCA Wilderness Management Plan and Implementation Schedule. Superior National Forest, Duluth, Minnesota.

Forest Service Manual: 1703 Civil Rights

2320 Wilderness Management

South Fowl EA Page 67

2670 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals

Forest Service Handbook !909.17 Economic and Social Analysis Handbook

Regulations, Executive Orders and legislation cited. 36 CFR 215.11 – Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and Activities; specifically Decisions Subject to Appeal.

40 CFR 1500-1508 – Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act

33 CFR 323.4 – Discharges not requiring permits. Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill material into the Waters of the United States. U.S. Corps of Engineers. July, 2001

Federal Land Use Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of October, 1976.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) (Public Law 91-224).

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). 36 CFR part 219. 90 Stat. 2949, et.seq.: 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended 1980 and 1992). (Public Law 89-670, 96-515, and 102-575).

Executive Order 119900 – Protection of Wetlands.

Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low Income Populations. Signed February 11, 1994. 59FR7629.

4.4 Acronyms and Abbreviations ATV all-terrain vehicle BE biological evaluation BMPs Best Management Practices CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DFC desired future condition DNR Department of Natural Resources ECS Ecological Classification System ELT ecological land type FR Forest Road GIS Geographic Information System IDT interdisciplinary team LAU Lynx Analysis Unit LCAS Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy

South Fowl EA Page 68

LE landscape ecosystem LTA Landtype Association MA Management Area MFRC Minnesota Forest Resources Council MFRG Minnesota Forest Resources Guidelines NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NSU Northern Superior Uplands OML Operation Maintenance Level RFSS Regional Forester Sensitive Species RNV Range of Natural Variability TES threatened, endangered, and sensitive USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USDA United States Department of Agriculture

4.5 Glossary Access – Opportunities to approach, enter, and make use of public or private land. Age class – One of the intervals into which the age range of trees is divided for classification. All-terrain Vehicle (ATV) – A motorized flotation-tired vehicle of not less than three low pressure tires, but not more than six tires, that if limited in engine displacement of less than 800 cubic centimeters and total dry weight less than 900 pounds. Biological Evaluation (BE) – An assessment to ensure that actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in destruction or adverse modifications of critical habitat of Federally endangered or threatened species, contribute to loss of viability of native or non-native desirable species, or cause a trend toward Federal listing of any species (Forest Service Manual 2672.4-4.1.) Bogs – Wetlands that are dominated by sphagnum moss, often with plants in the heath family, characterized by low pH and the accumulation of organic material. Canopy – The overhead branches and leaves in a forest stand. Canopy closure – A measure of the extent to which the crowns of trees are nearing general contact with each other. Classified Road – Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System land that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including state roads, county roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service. Clearcut – Removal of all or almost all trees in the stand with a single cutting. Closure – An administrative order restricting either the location, timing, or type of use in a specific area. Compaction (soil) – Compression of the soil resulting in reduced soil pore space, decreased movement of water and air into and within the soil, decreased soil water storage, and increased surface runoff and erosion. Consultation/Consulting Parties – A portion of the review process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act during which consulting parties consider ways to resolve adverse effects on historic properties. The consulting parties include, at a minimum, the responsible federal agency and the SHPO. Other interested parties, such as the ACHP, Indian tribes, and local governments, will also be invited to consult. Crown – The part of a single tree bearing live branches and leaves. Crown closure – The point at which crown perimeters within a canopy touch. Crown cover – The ground area covered by the crowns of trees or woody vegetation as delimited by the vertical projections of crown perimeter, and commonly expressed as a percent of total ground area. Crown cover measures the extent to which the crowns of trees are nearing general contact with each other. Desired future condition (DFC) – Description of land and resource conditions if all long-term goals are achieved. Detrimental Soil Disturbance – A reduction in a soils capacity to perform its biologic, hydrologic, and/or ecological functions. Typically caused by compaction, displacement, erosion, or nutrient loss. Displacement – Movement of soil due to pressure applied from mechanical equipment. Can remove or disturb the duff layer or cause ruts to form.

South Fowl EA Page 69

Ecological Classification System (ECS) – A Forest Service and interagency classification system based on hierarchical levels of classification. Eight levels progress from hundreds of thousands of square miles to less than 100 acres. Includes Land Type Association (LTA), Ecological Land Type (ELT), and Land Type Phase (LTP) levels. Ecological Land Type (ELT) – A classification level in the Ecological Classification System. Each ELT represents an area of land with a distinct combination of natural, physical, chemical, and biological properties that cause it to respond in a predictable and relatively uniform manner to the application of given management practices. In a relatively undisturbed state and/or at a given stage of plant succession, an ELT is usually occupied by a predictable and relatively uniform plant community. The sizes of ELTs generally range from ten to a few hundred acres. Economic Efficiency − Economic efficiency is a term used to describe how well inputs are used to achieve outputs when all inputs and all outputs are identified and valued. Because some outputs and effects cannot be adequately valued, true quantitative measures of economic efficiency often cannot be obtained Also: The competence of a business or the worth of a process, piece of equipment, or machine as judged by output per unit cost of the resources used. Edge Effect or Edge Habitat – Effects or distinct habitat types that occur near the edge of a patch. These effects can include increased predation, nest parasitism, and physical changes in microclimate, light availability, and wind that can result in a different vegetation composition compared to interior forest. Edge effects can extend 400 feet or more into forest patches. Endangered species – An official designation given by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that is applied to any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – A statement of environmental effects required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. It must follow the requirement of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, and directives of the agency responsible for the project proposal. Environmental Justice – The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people within the affected area in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Erosion – Detachment of soil particles under the influence of water and/or wind. Even-aged –Timber management actions that result in the creation of stands of trees in which the trees are essentially the same age. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed-tree harvest methods produce even-aged stands. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) –Passed in 1976, this law provides a “multiple- use” framework for managing America's public lands that focuses on the needs of present and future generations. Financial Efficiency – Financial efficiency is a term used to describe how well public resource inputs are used to achieve outputs when all inputs and outputs are identified and valued. Floodplain – Any normally dry land area that is susceptible to being inundated by water from any natural source. This area is usually low land adjacent to a river, stream, watercourse, ocean, or lake. Forest Patch – A group of forest stands of similarly-aged forest that may be made up of different forest cover types. Fragmentation – Breaking up of contiguous forested areas into progressively smaller patches of different ages and/or forest types with an increasing degree of isolation from each other. Geographic Information System (GIS) – A computerized method used for inventory and analysis, which can layer large volumes of spatial data, or maps, to identify how landscape features interrelate. Habitat – The natural environment of a plant or animal. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered to be food, water, cover, and living space. Harvest Unit – A unit consisting of one or more stands that would receive similar treatments concurrently. Heritage Resource – A district, site, building, structure, or object that contains evidence of past human activities. Interdisciplinary Team – A group of individuals with different training assembled to perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one scientific discipline is sufficiently broad enough to adequately solve the problem. Interior Forest – A large contiguous forest with a closed or partially open canopy of relatively mature trees, minimally influenced by adjacent cover types or edge habitat. Intermittent stream – A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from rainfall or run-off from some surface source, such as melting snow.

South Fowl EA Page 70

Invasive species – Organisms, usually non-native, that spread rapidly and occupy a location, inhibiting or crowding out the native species. Key Habitat – The habitat type known or suspected to be the current limiting factor or of greatest management concern for a species or species group in the vicinity of the project area. Key habitat typically includes breeding habitat if the species is known to breed in northern Minnesota, but may include foraging or roosting habitat. Key habitat is used for analysis of the potential effects of the different alternatives on wildlife species. Landing – A cleared area in the forest to which logs are brought and loaded onto trucks for transportation. Landscape Ecosystem (LE) – The land and vegetation systems that occur naturally on the landscape. Landscape Ecosystem units were specifically developed for assessing and analyzing ecosystems in Northern Minnesota. Landtype Association (LTA) – A level in the Ecological Classification System hierarchy that addresses broad land areas and ranges in size from 10,000 to 25,000 acres. These units typically have similarities in geologic processes, bedrock types, soil complexes, stream types, lakes, wetlands, and vegetative communities. Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) – Areas approximating the size of the annual home range of a female Canada lynx, used as a means of tracking and evaluating cumulative effects on the lynx. Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) – A document developed to provide a consistent and effective approach to conserve Canada lynx on federal lands in the lower 48 States. Maintenance Level 1 Roads – Roads that are intermittently closed to vehicular traffic for periods exceeding one year, but receive basic maintenance during closed periods because they will be needed again for future management activities. Management Area (MA) – Portions of a landscape with similar management objectives and a common management prescription. Management areas emphasize one of the nine possible goals or “desired future conditions” of the land as described in the Regional Planning Guide (1983). Specific direction for each management area is described through management practices, standards, and guidelines. Management Indicator Habitats (MIH) – Habitats that represent a wide variety of native species, including the majority of Management Indicator Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species that are part of that habitat. Management Indicator Species (MIS) – Native wildlife species of the Superior National Forest selected to represent the community types and habitats that may be affected by management activities. Marshes – Wetlands dominated by grasses and grass-like plants, including sedges and rushes. Mature Tree or Stand – A tree or stand that has attained full development, particularly in height, and is in full seed production. Mesic – Sites or habitats characterized by intermediate moisture conditions, neither decidedly wet nor dry. Million board feet (MMBF) – The amount of wood contained in one million unfinished boards, each measuring one inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide. Mitigation – Action taken for the purpose of eliminating, reducing, or minimizing negative impacts of management activities on the environment. Monitoring –A systematic process of collecting information to evaluate changes in actions, conditions, and relationships over time and space relative to a pre-determined standard or expected norm. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – Public law that outlines specific procedures for integrating environmental considerations into agency planning. Congress passed NEPA in 1969 to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment. One of the major tenets of NEPA is its emphasis on public disclosure of possible environmental effects of any major action on public land. The Act requires a statement of possible environmental effects to be released to the public and other agencies for review and comment. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) – Public law of 1976 that provides for planning and management of National Forests and requires the preparation of forest plans. Natural Regeneration –A plant or plant community established through a naturally-occurring process such as seeding, sprouting, or suckering. Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS) – Non-native species are any species that occupy an ecosystem outside its historical range. Invasive species are any species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Non-native invasive species are those species that spread from their original native habitat, to one that is not their native habitat. NNIS explode in population because they are not in their original ecosystem where they were kept in check by many factors,

South Fowl EA Page 71

such as parasites and predation. Frequently these species are aggressive and difficult to manage. NNIS differ from noxious weeds in that NNIS can be animals or plants, and they are strictly non-native species. Northern Superior Uplands (NSU) Ecological Section -- An ecological unit defined by glacial deposits, topography, distribution of plants and regional climate. Noxious weeds – Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment. Nutrient Cycling – Circulation or exchange of elements such as nitrogen and carbon between non-living and living portions of the environment. Includes all mineral and nutrient cycles involving mammals and vegetation. Old Forest – An age class older than the mature age class Old-growth – Old growth forests are forests that have developed relatively free of stand replacement disturbances over a long period of time. Old-growth consists of late successional stages of naturally- occurring forests dominated by long-lived species, and containing large trees and tree fall gaps. Old- growth stands has multiple canopy layers, high levels of structural diversity, and a high frequency of snags and downed logs of various sizes and stages of decay. The minimum age for old-growth is 120 years for all species except white spruce (90 years) and black spruce (80 years). Objective Maintenance Level (OML) – The intended level of maintenance to be received by each classified road. OMLs range from OML1 to OML5. Overmature tree or stand – A tree or stand that has attained full development, particularly in height, and is declining in vigor, health, and soundness. Overstory – The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory. Patch – A group of forest stands of similarly-aged forest that may be made up of different forest cover types. Perennial stream – A stream that maintains water in its channel throughout the year. Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) – A native animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern on the Superior National Forest. Such concern may be prompted by a significant current or predicted downward trend, either in population numbers, or the availability of habitat capable of supporting the existing distribution of the species. Reserve Trees – Individual trees or groups of trees retained in a stand after a harvest for the purpose of providing seed, stand structure, habitat, or for aesthetic considerations. Riparian Area – The area of direct interaction between terrestrial and aquatic environments. Riversides and lakeshores are typical riparian zones. Road Density – The number of miles of road per square mile in a land area.. Sediment – Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension and being transported from its site of origin by the forces of air, water, gravity, or ice. Sensitive species – Plant and animal species for which population viability is a concern; the designation of “sensitive species” is given by the Regional Forester. Seral – A plant and animal community that is in a transitional stage of succession, being either short or long term. If left alone, the seral stage will pass, and another plant and animal community will replace it. Skid – Haul logs by sliding from stumps to a collection point. Slash – The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or after a storm, fire, or other event. Slash includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, bark, etc. Snag – A standing dead or dying tree. Soil nutrients – Components in the soil that are necessary for plant growth such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other micronutrients. Soil productivity – The ability of a soil to provide nutrients, water, and structure for plant growth. Stand – A contiguous area of vegetation that is similar in species, age, and condition. Subsection – A classification unit based on the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. Succession – The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. It includes changes in species, structure, and community processes, and is reasonably predictable. Temporary Road – A road that is authorized for short-term use and is not intended to be part of the forest transportation system. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) – Federally listed threatened and endangered animals and Region 9 Forester’s Sensitive Species. Endangered Species are those plant or animal species listed by the Secretary of the Interior as being in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future

South Fowl EA Page 72

throughout all or a significant portion of its range, per the ESA. Threatened Species are those that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Trail – A linear travelway for purpose of travel by vehicles 50 inches in width or less, pack animals, or people. Understory – The tree, shrub, and other plant species growing within the shade provided by a tree canopy. Wetlands – Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Woody Debris – Large pieces of wood in stream channels or on the ground, including logs, pieces of logs, and large chunks of wood; provides streambed stability and/or habitat complexity. Also called coarse woody debris or down woody debris.

South Fowl EA Page 73

Appendix A Air Quality

Air quality in this area of Minnesota is generally considered to be good as measured by the Pollutant Standard Index (PSI). The index, provided by EPA, is a system for measuring and rating the pollution levels of five of the six criteria pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act (measurements of lead are not included). The PSI uses a scale ranging from 0 to 500 corresponding to good, moderate, unhealthful, very unhealthful, or hazardous. The EPA determines the index value on a daily basis for each of the measured pollutants. The EPA reports the highest pollutant and the PSI for the day. In Cook and Lake County from 1995 to 1999, an average of 95% of days had a good PSI rating and 5% of days had a moderate rating. No days were unhealthful or hazardous.

The area is currently subject to air pollutants from mobile mechanical sources, e.g., vehicles, snowmobiles, outboard motors and chainsaws. Due to dissipation by wind, pollutants from these sources typically do not attain concentrations high enough to warrant measurement or to result in degradation of sensitive resources.

In 1998, the Department of Natural Resources commissioned an Air Quality Modeling Study for the proposed extension of the North Shore State Trail (a heavily used snowmobile trail). The study looked at carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, benzene, acetaldehyde, 1,3 butadiene and formaldehyde. The conclusion of the modeling was that State Ambient Air Quality Standards or Health Risk Values would not be exceeded. The estimated amount of snowmobile use modeled was appropriate for the North Corridor Trail, which would be many times as much snowmobile use as would occur on the South Fowl Access.

The amount of snowmobile use will remain the same under all alternatives. Under all alternatives, levels of pollutants would fall within the ranges currently experienced. No violation of state or federal ambient air quality or visibility standards would occur.

South Fowl EA Page 74