Pearl Project. Kawishiwi Ranger District, Superior National Forest Biological Evaluation

Pearl Project Kawishiwi Ranger District, Superior National Forest Biological Evaluation Region 9 Regional Forester s Sensitive Species: Terrestrial Animals July 2014 Contents 1. Executive Summary... 2 2. Introduction... 2 2.1. Project Description... 3 2.2. Analysis Area and Methods... 5 3. Description Of The Affected Species... 6 4. Environmental Consequences... 12 4.1. Effects from Changes to Forest Overstory, Forest Age, and Spatial Patterns... 12 4.2. Effects from Other Management Activities... 17 4.3. Cumulative Effects Including Nonfederal Lands... 22 4.4. Determinations... 22 5. References..23 Prepared by: /s/ Kari Kirschbaum Date: July 22, 2014 Wildlife Biologist

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alternative 1 would have no impact on the gray wolf, little brown myotis, tri-colored bat, heather vole, bald eagle, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, Connecticut warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, great gray owl, boreal owl, taiga alpine butterfly, Nabokov s blue butterfly, Freija s grizzled skipper, or wood turtle. For Alternative 2, the proposed activities would have no impact on Freija s grizzled skipper or wood turtle. The proposed activities in Alternative 2 may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the gray wolf, little brown myotis, tricolored bat, heather vole, bald eagle, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, Connecticut warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, great gray owl, boreal owl, taiga alpine butterfly, and Nabokov s blue butterfly. 2. INTRODUCTION This Biological Evaluation (BE) evaluates the effects of the proposed Pearl Project on Regional Forester-listed sensitive species (RFSS - U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Manual sections 2670.3, 2670.5 (3), 2672.4). The species evaluated in this report include all terrestrial animal species on the revised R9 sensitive species list (USDA Forest Service 2011b). Sensitive aquatic animals and sensitive plants are covered in separate biological evaluations for this project. The Canada lynx (federally threatened) and the northern long-eared bat (proposed as endangered) are covered in a separate biological assessment. The Biological Evaluation (BE) is the tool used to consider the effects of a project on RFSS. The determinations in a BE address the question of how alternatives affect species viability at the local level, and resulting implications for species viability and distribution on the Superior National Forest. The analysis of effects results in one of the following determinations: No impact Beneficial effects used when the proposed alternative is determined to be wholly beneficial without potential negative impacts. May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability used when it is determined the proposed alternative may cause some negative effects, even if overall effect to species may be beneficial. High risk of loss of viability in the planning area (National Forest), but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or likely to result in a loss of viability and a trend toward federal listing. The management objective is to maintain viable and well-distributed representation of all native species that occur on the Superior National Forest (National Forest Management Act Regulation 219.19 and 219.26, Secretary of Agriculture Regulation 9500-4, USDA Forest Service Manual 2670.12, 2670.22, and 2670.32, and Forest Plan p. 3-4). I used the following working definitions for viability and well-distributed from Iverson and René (1997): Viability - the likelihood that habitat conditions will support persistent and welldistributed populations over time; Well-distributed - species and habitat distribution are based on the current and historic natural distribution and dispersal capabilities of individual species, and dispersal includes the concepts of metapopulation dynamics and gene flow. Superior National Forest 2

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Pearl Project Area is located in portions of Lake and St. Louis Counties, Minnesota. The vicinity map (Figure 1) shows the general location of the Pearl Project Area. The project lies approximately five miles east of Babbitt, Minnesota and two miles south of Birch Lake. Its eastern edge is in the vicinity of Dragon and Gander Lakes. The southern extent is near Sand Lake along Hwy 2. The project area falls within Townships 59, 60 and 61 North and Ranges 9, 10, 11 and 12 West. It encompasses approximately 127,000 acres, of which approximately 75,000 acres (57 percent) are National Forest System lands. Proposed activities would occur only on National Forest System lands. The project area is outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). Figure 1. Vicinity Map Superior National Forest 3

The key objective of the Pearl Project is to promote healthy vegetation communities that are consistent with the desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan, incorporating the potential effects of climate change. Our monitoring and midlevel analysis has shown that there is need to promote diverse, productive, and healthy native forest communities; provide sustainable forest products; reintroduce fire into fire dependent ecosystems; reduce hazardous fuels; improve riparian function, moose habitat, habitat for sensitive plants, recreational opportunities; and provide an adequate road system. Activities proposed to accomplish these objectives include harvesting (thinning and regeneration) and reforestation activities (such as site preparation, planting, diversity planting, or release). Other non-harvest treatments include prescribed burning, mechanical fuel reduction, and clearing brush along trails and campsites. Additional proposed actions include constructing and obliterating temporary roads to access units and decommissioning roads no longer needed. Proposed activities also address changes to the transportation system associated long-term federal, nonfederal, and public access needs. The environmental assessment (EA) considers the No-action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the action alternative (Alternative 2). Alternative 2 is summarized below in the tables below. Table 2. Summary of Proposed Secondary Treatments and Reforestation Treatment Description Acres Post-harvest Treatments in Younger Forest TSI* herbicide hand application 490 Site Preparation Variety of methods 4,040 Site Preparation - Burn 260 Site Preparation - Herbicide broadcast application 500 Post-harvest Treatments in Older Forest TSI herbicide broadcast application 190 Prescribed Fire - Underburn 6,080 Riparian habitat improvement 100 Post-Nonharvest Treatments in Older Forest TSI herbicide hand application 10 Prescribed Fire - Underburn 44 Fuels Treatment 260 Reforestation and Planting Natural Regeneration 7,470 Diversity Planting 3,080 Conversion Planting and/or seeding 1,180 *TSI stands for Timber Stand Improvement Table 3. Summary of Transportation Proposed Actions-OML stands for Objective Maintenance Level. The Forest Plan (p. Glossary 17-18) defines OML 1, 2, and 3 as well as OHV (off-highway vehicle). Proposed Action Miles Add as long-term special use 0.3 Change from special use to OML 2 road 0.4 Add as OML1 road 0.5 Trail change from open to Class I ATVs to open to Class II ATVs 0.6 Decommission 0.8 Utilization of existing trails for management activities 4.6 Utilization of existing roads for management activities 12.4 Utilization of unclassified roads for management activities that were to be decommissioned under 1.17 Superior National Forest 4

Construction of temporary roads 50.3 In addition to the activities listed in the tables above, biomass removal could occur on harvest units with secondary treatments of slash disposal or site preparation and on nonharvest units with primary treatments of understory fuel reduction or site preparation. Biomass removal would not occur on units where soil mitigations call for retaining slash and would follow Operational Standards and Guidelines as described in the Forest Plan G-FW-1, p. 2-7 and in the MFRC document MFRC-BM-1 through 16, p. 21-30. The proposed action also includes improvements at two campsites at Beetle and Dunnigan Lakes. Improvements include the installation of a fire grate, latrine, and removal of brush to improve access. 2.2 ANALYSIS AREA AND METHODS This Biological Evaluation applies a coarse-filter and a fine-filter approach in evaluating sensitive species effects; similar to the process used in the Forest Plan BE (USDA 2004a). The coarse-filter approach uses broad-scale measures of habitat called Management Indicator Habitats (USDA 2004c). Management Indicator Habitats are groupings of forest cover types which are further divided by age classes (see flow chart, Figure 1). For example, we look at the distribution and availability of mature MIH 6 (spruce-fir forest types) as habitat for bay-breasted warbler. The coarse-filter approach for this project uses Management Indicator Habitats for the dominant landscape ecosystem (LE) within Pearl: Dry Mesic Red and White Pine, Jack Pine-Black Spruce, and the Lowland Conifer-A. Most changes to age class and forest type would occur in these LEs. Table 4. Landscape Ecosystems in the Pearl Project Landscape Ecosystem % of Area Jack Pine-Black Spruce 30 Dry Mesic Red and White Pine 40 Mesic Birch-Aspen 6 Lowland Conifer A 18 Lowland Conifer B 6 The site-level or fine-filter approach addresses species needs by managing specifically for high quality potential habitat or known locations of sensitive species. Existing databases and projectlevel surveys were used to identify important habitats in Pearl (see Description of Affected Species). This fine-filter approach is especially important for preventing or mitigating direct effects. For example, we apply a no-harvest buffer around known eagle nests to avoid direct harm or disturbance to individual nesting birds. These protection measures can be found in the design criteria and mitigation measures for Pearl (Appendix B, EA) and in Section 6 in this document. The other important step before making a viability determination for each of the sensitive species in Pearl was to consider natural history information, population size, and population trends. Natural history information has been covered in detail in other biological evaluations on the Superior National Forest and is not covered in this document (USDA 2011a, USDA 2004b). Information on population and population trends can be found in the 2009 Forest Monitoring Report on Sensitive Species (USDA 2011c). I have reviewed these documents and have added Superior National Forest 5

any new information on these species to the project record. A recent informational paper was written to summarize existing knowledge for the three new bat species added to the Superior National Forest RFSS list in 2011 (USDA 2011d). Figure 2. Management Indicator Habitats of the Superior National Forest Plan Wildlife Habitat Terrestrial Habitat Aquatic Habitat Forested Habitat Non-Forested Habitat MIH 9: Lowland Forests MIH 1: Upland Forest MIH 2: Upland Deciduous Forest MIH 5: Upland Conifer Forest MIH 3: Northern Hardw ood Forest MIH 6: Upland Spruce-Fir Forest MIH 4: Aspen-Birch and Mixed Aspen-Conifer Forest MIH 7: Red and White Pine Forest MIH 8: Jack Pine Forest The geographic boundary selected for analyzing the direct and indirect effects is the Pearl Project Area. This is appropriate because the area s large size contains known or potential populations, individuals, and enough habitats of many sensitive species to evaluate the effects of proposed activities. The direct and indirect effects analysis includes National Forest System land only while cumulative effects include activities on all ownerships. This boundary was chosen because activities on all ownerships in the project area would affect age class and composition at the project or local scale. The analysis time frame for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is between the years 2013 and 2020. This time span is an appropriate timeframe for the project area because most proposed actions would occur within this timeframe. In addition, most of the current acres of young age class would move out of the age class during this time. An analysis year of 2020 yields a clearer picture of what the relative contribution would be from both management treatments and succession but does not represent most existing young forest acres. Past management actions are accounted for in the existing condition. Projected forest conditions are compared to the ecosystem objectives for 2024, the second Decade s benchmark of the Forest Plan. Superior National Forest 6

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED SPECIES I reviewed existing reports and databases to determine which species are expected or known to occur in the Pearl Project Area. Attachment 1 for this BE lists species and whether there is a known occurrence or suitable habitat in the Pearl Project Area. The Forest Monitoring Report provides a summary of the methods and references used to monitor sensitive species populations and track individuals across the Forest (2011a). The Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Information Systems Biotics Database is the primary source for known occurrences but I also used survey results and incidental reports from the project area (MNDNR 2014). The decision to do project-level surveys was based on our level of knowledge about the species in the project area and the likelihood of effects from proposed actions. Additional animal surveys were completed for Canada lynx, bald eagle, northern goshawk, boreal owl, great gray owl, olive-sided flycatcher, and Connecticut warbler. Additional information on project level surveys is available in the Pearl Project Record. Table 5 lists the Regional Forester Sensitive species analyzed in this biological evaluation, the MIH and other habitat features or indicators used to determine potential effects from the Pearl project, the determination made, and a brief summary of the rationale for that determination. Superior National Forest 7

Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Rationale for Determination* Gray wolf MIH 1, 2, and 5 all ages Human disturbance ALT1: NO Deer density is high and not likely to be affected by this project; human activity in the woods would increase slightly. Little brown myotis or bat Tri-colored bat MIH 1 Upland forest all ages MIH 1 Upland forest all ages; MIH 2 Upland deciduous mature + Hibernacula. Abundance of suitable roost trees. Hibernacula. Abundance of suitable roost trees. ALT1: NO Mature and older upland forest (MIH 1) would decrease under Alt 2 but is expected to remain abundant under both alternatives. Mitigations would ensure that many live suitable roost trees are retained in addition to snags in the harvest units, and most of the project area would remain untreated. Summer harvesting may impact individuals. ALT1: NO Mature and older upland forest (MIH 1) would decrease under Alt 2 but is expected to remain abundant under both alternatives. Mitigations would ensure that many live suitable roost trees are retained in addition to snags in the harvest units, and most of the project area would remain untreated. Summer harvesting may impact individuals. Superior National Forest 8

Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Rationale for Determination* Heather vole MIH 8 Jack pine all ages Vaccinium sp. ALT1: NO Actions could create new habitat, enhance existing habitat, or disturb habitat and individuals. Bald Eagle MIH 7 Red and white pine mature + Large diameter white pine. Mature white pine within ½ mile of fishbearing waters Northern goshawk MIH 1 Upland forest mature + ; MIH 13 Mature upland patches High canopy cover, large diameter trees. Mature upland patches greater than 100 acres ALT1: NO No known active nests in project area. Mitigations to protect any known occupied sites would be applied. Riparian habitat improvement would release long-lived conifers and planting white pine would increase nesting habitat in the long term. ALT1: NO Habitat impacts expected to be within Forest Plan projections. Mature and older MIH1 expected to decrease under Alternative 2 but remain abundant and well distributed. Patches would also decrease but remain well distributed. Creation of young forest blocks would provide future mature patches for this species. Superior National Forest 9

Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Boreal owl Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class MIH 4 Aspen-birch mature+; MIH 9 Lowland conifer all ages MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Large diameter hardwoods with cavities. Lowland patches greater than 500 acres Rationale for Determination* ALT1: NO Upland nesting habitat would remain abundant under both alternatives. Suitable nest trees would be retained in accordance with mitigation RT-BO. Foraging habitat would remain abundant; increase under Alternative 2. While there are no nests known to occur, one boreal owl response was heard during project surveys. Olive-sided flycatcher MIH 9 Lowland conifer all ages Snags ALT1: NO Wintering grounds are likely cause of decline. Some harvest would occur in lowland conifer habitat, which may affect individuals but most stands should remain suitable. Minimal impact to riparian habitats. Bay-breasted warbler MIH 6 Upland spruce-fir mature+; MIH 9 Lowland conifer mature + Spruce budworm outbreaks. Mature upland and lowland conifer patches greater than 50 acres. ALT1: NO Mature and older upland spruce-fir forest (MIH6) and lowland conifer forest would decrease under Alternative 2 but would remain abundant in the project area. Individuals may be disturbed by project actions. Superior National Forest 10

Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class Connecticut warbler MIH 9 Lowland conifer mature + MIH 8 Jack Pine mature +; American three-toed woodpecker Great gray owl MIH 6 Upland spruce-fir mature +; MIH 8 Jack pine mature +; MIH 9 Lowland conifer mature + MIH 1 Upland forest young and mature + and young; MIH 4 -Aspenbirch mature + and young; MIH 9 Lowland conifer young MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Lowland conifer habitat within a matrix of large patches of lowland and upland conifer habitat. Insects; snags for nesting; fire; large lowland patches Large diameter snags for nesting; open areas for foraging. Large lowland patches Rationale for Determination* ALT1: NO Total amount of mature and older jack pine (MIH8) would increase slightly under Alternative 2; whereas the amount of mature and older lowland conifer (MIH9) would decrease. Some declining aspen stands would be converted to jack pine, providing future habitat in the long term. Project activities may impact individuals. ALT1: NO Mature and older upland spruce-fir forest (MIH6), jack pine forest (MIH8), and lowland conifer forest (MIH9) would decrease under Alternative 2, but would remain abundant in the project area. Individuals may be disturbed by project actions. Jack pine restoration would improve future habitat condition. ALT1: NO Upland nesting habitat would remain abundant under both alternatives. Foraging habitat would increase under Alternative 2. While there are no nests known to occur, great gray owls have been observed in the project area. Trees with large stick nests would be buffered. Superior National Forest 11

Table 5. Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Pearl Project Area Terrestrial Animals Species Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) and Age Class MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Rationale for Determination* Taiga alpine butterfly MIH 9 Lowland conifer all ages Sedges ALT1: NO Overall amount of habitat would not change, though age structure will shift. Proposed management activities would have little impact on nonforest habitats. Nabokov's (or Northern) blue butterfly Freija's grizzled skipper MIH 8 -Jack pine No MIH association Presence of dwarf bilberry; fire Upland acidic meadow, scrubby willow, barrens Wood turtle MIH 2 mature +; MIH 10 Riparian habitats with open sandy areas for nesting ALT1: NO Nearest occurrence is seven miles from project boundary. Not expected, but could potentially occur in project area. Timber harvest and fuel reduction could stimulate growth of host plant. Slight increase in jack pine forest type could provide additional suitable habitat. ALT1: NO ALT2: NO Known only from one location on SNF which is 16 miles outside the project area. Proposed management activities would have little impact to nonforest habitats. ALT1: NO ALT2: NO No impact to habitat: no records for project area. Only known to occur on Laurentian District. * NO = no impacts/effects, MINL = may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability, BI = Beneficial impacts (only), LFLV = likely to result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Superior National Forest 12

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 EFFECTS FROM CHANGE TO FOREST OVERSTORY, FOREST AGE, AND SPATIAL PATTERNS 4.1.1 Direct effects from Vegetation Management Activities Under Alternative 1, the No-action Alternative, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would be expected. The proposed action (Alternative 2) includes many project activities that have the potential to cause direct effects to individuals if they occur in occupied habitat. These effects can range from minor disturbance to physical harm to individuals. For example, noise associated with a timber harvest, or smoke and noise associated with fuels reduction may cause disturbance to wildlife of many species that occur there. In many cases the individuals can leave the activity area and find alternate habitat nearby. However, in cases where individuals are not mobile, or nests or other non-mobile features are present, or the disturbance occurs during a critical time of year, such activities can cause harm to individuals. For example, the removal of an occupied bat roost tree has to potential to kill individuals, particularly if non-volant pups are present. Ongoing disturbance can cause breeding birds to abandon their nest. To minimize the risk of disturbance or harm, mitigations have been applied where there are known occurrences of RFSS species. For example, mitigation SR-BE restricts activities within 660 feet of known bald eagle nests during the nesting season. However, there are likely to be unknown occurrences of RFSS. In these cases, project implementations staff would apply mitigations where they become aware of locations of RFSS species. However, there would remain a risk of direct impacts to individuals from project activities occurring in suitable habitat. A complete list of mitigations is included in Appendix B. 4.1.2 Indirect and Cumulative Effects from Vegetation Management Activities Landscape Ecosystem and Management Indicator Habitats 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are analyzed below. The remaining MIH are either encompassed in the discussions of those MIH that are covered, or would include no treatments or such small amount of treatment that it would have discountable or insignificant effects. MIH 1 UPLAND FOREST Species: Gray wolf, northern goshawk, great gray owl, little brown myotis, tri-colored bat, and migrating birds. Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) 1 includes all upland forest types and encompasses many of the other indicators (Forest Plan, Appendix C). Forest types in MIH 1 include spruce-fir, aspen-birch, pines, and mixed hardwood conifer stands. Some of the sensitive species covered by this indicator have broad habitat requirements or more specific habitat requirements that have not been identified. Two bat species were recently added to the Superior RFSS list because of the recent threat of white-nosed syndrome and the alarming declines in bat populations in eastern states. Whitenosed syndrome describes the disease of bats which have been infected by the fungus, Pseudogymoascus destructans. Bats encounter this fungus in caves where they hibernate in the winter. The fungus was found in 2012 in the Soudan Mine, about 17 miles from the project area boundary. There are no known winter hibernacula in the Pearl Project Area. A small Superior National Forest 13

hibernaculum near Ely is approximately 13 miles from the project boundary. These two bat species will roost in a variety of tree species and ages, typically in cavities, cracks, crevices, or under peeling bark (USDA 2012e). Younger stands provide an abundance of insects and may be important as foraging areas (Taylor 2006). Young upland stands are also important to great gray owls and other avian predators as a place to find prey. Regenerating shrubs, aspen, and birch provide browse for deer and moose, important prey species for the gray wolf. These young stands also provide food and cover for fledgling songbirds. Mature upland forests provide large diameter trees and closed canopy conditions two habitat features preferred by the northern goshawk and great gray owls. Goshawks have a large home range and are generally associated with large mature patches of upland forest. The Forest Plan has objectives for maintaining large forest patches (greater than 100 acres) to provide quality habitat for goshawk and other interior forest species. Indirect and Cumulative Effects The overall amount of MIH 1 in the project area is not expected to change under either alternative. However, forest types and age classes will shift under both alternatives. Under both alternatives, the project area is expected to experience a slight increase in the amount of upland conifer forest, and a decrease in the amount of aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer forest. Within-stand diversity is expected to improve in Alternative 2 but not in Alternative 1. MIH 1 YOUNG FOREST One objective of the Forest Plan is to maintain a full range of forest age classes from young to old, including old-growth. There would be more young forest for early successional wildlife species under Alternative 2 than under the No-action Alternative or the current condition (Fig. 3). Under the No-action Alternative, the amount of young forest would decrease, though forests would continue to regenerate in small amounts from succession and natural disturbance events such as wind storms and fire. Under the No-action Alternative, tree species diversity would not improve as it would in Alternative 2. MIH 1 MATURE AND OLDER FOREST Mature and older forest in the Pearl Project Area would increase under the No-action Alternative, and decrease under Alternative 2 by 2020 (Figure 3). The Forest Plan FEIS concluded that mature and older forest acres would decrease (FP EIS Volume 2, p. D-11) and that sensitive species using these habitats would remain viable and well-distributed (FP EIS Volume 1, pp. 3.3.1-26). I have concluded that under both alternatives, mature forest would remain abundant and well-distributed in the project area, and sufficient mature upland habitat would remain for the RFSS species that use this habitat. Superior National Forest 14

40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Figure 3. Percentage of young, mature, and oldgrowth upland forest (MIH1) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Young % Mature % Old plus % Existing Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) For area-sensitive species such as the northern goshawk, there would be an increase in the number and acres of large upland patches (greater than 300 acres) in Alternative 1, and a decrease in the number and acres of mature upland patches in Alternative 2. However, under Alternative 2, the quality and number of patches is projected to increase over the long term. Project planners aimed to improve existing patches and create future high-quality patches by regenerating older stands that are degenerating and becoming brushy, and by consolidating harvest units adjacent to other recent harvests on federal and nonfederal land to create larger patches with less edge and better interior forest conditions. The Forest Plan FEIS indicated that by following forest type and age objectives, the Forest would likely lose acres and numbers of upland mature patches and connectivity (Forest Plan FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 3.2-60 to -61) in all three spatial zones for at least two decades. MIH 4/MIH 2 ASPEN-BIRCH AND MIXED ASPEN-CONIFER FOREST Species: Boreal owl, great gray owl, gray wolf, and tri-colored bat. Two RFSS bird species, boreal owl and great gray owl, are associated with older aspen, birch, and mixed aspen-conifer forest and adjacent lowlands. Boreal owls nest in tree cavities found in older, large diameter hardwoods. Cavities are created as aspen and birch grow older and become diseased and when these trees are discovered by primary excavators like the pileated woodpecker. Great gray owls use old stick nests in large diameter trees, often aspen or birch. The proximity of these nesting structures to upland and lowland foraging habitat is an important consideration for both of these owls. Gray wolf and tri-colored bat use a variety of forest types and ages, including some MIH 2 habitats. Because there is a negligible amount of MIH 3 northern hardwood forest in the Pearl Project Area, changes to MIH 2 will be the same as changes to MIH 4. As a result, the discussions MIH 4 below also apply to MIH 2 and the species that occupy the more general MIH 2 habitats. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Aspen-birch forest would make up a smaller percentage of the forest composition in the Pearl Project Area by 2020 under either alternative, decreasing slightly more under Alternative 2. Superior National Forest 15

There would also be a decrease in the proportion of mature and older aspen-birch forest under Alternative 2, compared to the existing condition and the No-action Alternative (Fig. 4). These older age classes would still be well-represented on the landscape. Under Alternative 2, the percent of mature and older forest in MIH 4 would fall below Forest Plan objectives in the project area, but remain above Forest Plan objectives in MIH 4 Forest-wide. Enough habitat would remain in these older age classes to provide a source of larger diameter aspen and birch as nesting and roosting structures. There would also continue to be scattered large aspen and birch across the landscape as a component of other forest types. Mature and old-growth MIH 4 stands in proximity to lowland foraging areas would decrease in the short term, though mitigations and operational standards and guides that require retention of riparian buffers and large suitable nest tree would minimize the effective reduction in nesting habitat. Under Alternative 2, the amount of young MIH 4 is projected to increase, providing additional foraging habitat for great gray owls. Figure 4. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth aspen-birch and aspen conifer forest (MIH 4) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Young % Mature % Old plus % Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) MIH 6/MIH 5 UPLAND SPRUCE-FIR FOREST Species: Bay-breasted warbler and American three-toed woodpecker Bay-breasted warblers breed throughout the spruce-fir forest of Canada and the northern-most parts of the U.S. following the range of spruce budworm (Maxson 1999). This species is associated with mature spruce-fir forests where disease outbreaks occur. Mature spruce-fir patches greater than 50 acres is an indicator for bay-breasted warbler in the Forest Plan Biological Evaluation. American three-toed woodpeckers typically inhabit mature or old-growth coniferous stands with abundant insect-infected dead and dying trees (Leonard 2001). In this region, they seem to nest mainly in spruce and balsam snags and mature trees. Dependence on insect-infected dead and dying timber frequently results in populations showing an association with forest disturbances such as fire, wind throw, floods, insect outbreaks, and disease. In particular, three-toed woodpecker populations often show an increased abundance in early post-fire successional seres. Superior National Forest 16

Indirect and Cumulative Effects Spruce-fir would make up a greater percentage of the Pearl Project Area by 2020 under both alternatives (Pearl EA 3-6). When compared to the existing condition, there would be a small decrease in acres of the mature age class under Alternative 2, and a smaller increase under the No-action Alternative (Figure 5). The percentage of MIH 4 in the mature age class would show a decline for both alternatives; however, this is due to the increase in total acres of MIH 4 more so than a decrease in mature MIH 4 acres. Patches of mature spruce-fir forest would remain well distributed under either of the alternatives. Alternative 2 would increase young spruce-fir forest. Habitat availability for bay-breasted warbler in the future would depend on factors that are difficult to predict such as spruce budworm abundance and climate change. If warming trends continue, the range of spruce-fir may shift northward and habitat may be less available on the Superior National Forest in following decades. The minimal change in mature and older age classes under both alternatives is expected to provide adequate habitat for late-successional forest species like the bay-breasted warbler and the American three-toed woodpecker. The percentage of mature and older spruce-fir forest at 2020 would exceed the 2024 Plan objectives under either alternative. 40.0 35.0 30.0 Figure 5. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth upland spruce-fir forest (MIH 6) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Young % Mature % Old plus % Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) MIH 7/MIH 5 RED AND WHITE PINE FOREST Species: Bald eagle Bald eagles use suitable habitat on the Forest during the spring and summer for breeding, nesting, and raising young. Suitable nesting habitat consists of stands dominated by mature and old growth timber or younger forest with a remnant component of older super (above) canopy trees located within 0.25 miles streams and lakes bearing predominantly shallow water fish species. On the Superior National Forest, 85 percent of nest trees selected by eagles are largediameter, old age, white pine (Lindquist and Rogers 1992). Superior National Forest 17

Indirect and Cumulative Effects The proportion of red and white pine forest in the project area would remain stable under Alternative 1 and increase slightly under Alternative 2 (Figure 6). The proportion of mature and older red and white pine forest would increase under both alternatives due to succession. Under both alternatives, the amount of suitable habitat for bald eagles is expected to increase. Under Alternative 2, a small amount of young red and white pine forest would be created, providing a source of future eagle nesting habitat. 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 6. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth red and white pine forest (MIH 7) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Young % Mature % Old plus % Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) MIH 8/MIH 5 JACK PINE FOREST Species: Heather vole, Connecticut warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, and Nabokov s blue butterfly. Heather voles are found in a wide variety of northern habitats, including coniferous forests, forest borders, heath shrublands, willow thickets, rocky hillsides, and moist meadows. Most sites where Jannett (2005) found heather voles contained jack pine and black spruce forest types. Vaccinium species (the blueberry genus) are often present where heather voles are found. Upland forests and openings with ericaceous ground cover and not far from water appear to be preferred habitat. Connecticut warblers breed in short-needle conifers with low ericaceous shrubs. They forage on the ground and in low shrubs. On the Superior National Forest, Connecticut warblers occur primarily in black spruce and jack pine forest types. American three-toed woodpeckers typically inhabit mature or old-growth coniferous stands with abundant insect-infected dead and dying trees (Leonard 2001). Additional description of the habitat preferences of American three-toed woodpeckers can be found in the MIH 6 section in this BE. Nabokov s blue butterflies prefer open sandy, grassy, jack pine areas with abundant blueberry and dwarf bilberry (Vaccinium ceespitosum) primarily on the Vermillion moraine (USDA FS 2002g, MacLean 2001). This habitat may be present in the project area. Habitat needs for Freija s grizzled skipper are less well understood on the Superior National Forest, but habitat is Superior National Forest 18

thought to be provided by upland grasslands, acidic meadows, and small grassy openings in boreal forest. Threats to both of these butterfly species include forest succession that results in suppression or exclusion of Vaccinium species and grasses. Our ability to analyze the effects of management actions is limited due to a poor understanding of population status and habitat relationships of both species. Indirect and Cumulative Effects The total amount of jack pine forest in the Pearl Project Area is expected to decrease by approximately 500 acres under the No-action Alternative, and increase by approximately 600 acres under Alternative 2. The amount of young jack pine forest would increase significantly under Alternative 2, whereas young jack pine forest would be absent from the project area by 2020 under the No-action Alternative (Figure 7). In the near future, habitat would remain available for these species under both alternatives. However, under the No-action Alternative, jack pine forest would become increasingly uncommon over the long term, and habitat availability would decline. 60.0 Figure 7. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth jack pine forest (MIH 8) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) 0.0 Young % Mature % Old plus % MIH 9 LOWLAND FOREST Species: Boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, Connecticut warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, great gray owl, and taiga alpine butterfly. Mature lowland conifer forest provides important foraging habitat for boreal owls and American three-toed woodpeckers, as well as breeding habitat for bay-breasted warblers, olive-sided flycatchers, and taiga alpine butterflies. Boreal owls use lowland conifer forests for foraging. Nest sites are usually within 200 yards of large areas of productive mature lowland conifer, primarily black spruce. American three-toed woodpeckers typically inhabit mature or old-growth coniferous stands with abundant insectinfected dead and dying trees (Leonard 2001). According to Green and Niemi (2002), black spruce/tamarack stands are the vegetation community most likely to contain three-toed woodpeckers in Minnesota. Additional description of the habitat preferences of American threetoed woodpeckers can be found in the MIH 6 section. Superior National Forest 19

Bay-breasted warblers breed throughout the spruce-fir forest of Canada and the northern-most parts of the U.S. following the range of spruce budworm (Maxson 1999). This species is associated with mature upland and lowland spruce-fir forests where disease outbreaks occur. Olive-sided flycatchers nest most frequently in larger (>50 acres) black spruce-tamarack bogs or in large openings with residual trees. Foraging habitat structure of live and dead snags is an important component in the breeding range of this species. Taiga alpine butterflies prefer shady, mature black spruce-tamarack forest. They may also occur in younger lowland conifer or more open lowland conifer with low site productivity. Young lowland conifer habitat can provide foraging habitat for great gray owls. Great gray owls use lowlands as important foraging habitat, including bogs, selective, and clear-cut logged areas with residual perches, natural meadows, and open forests within one and one-half miles of the nest. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) 9 includes all lowland conifer and lowland mixed conifer types dominated by black spruce or tamarack. The total amount of lowland conifer habitat in the project area is not expected to change under either alternative. However, the age distribution within this MIH is expected to shift under both alternatives (Figure 8). Under the No-action Alternative, young MIH 9 habitat would remain uncommon in the project area. The amount of mature lowland conifer would decrease as stands age into older age classes. Under Alternative 2, mature stands would also decrease as some are harvested to create young habitat. 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 8. Percentage of young, mature, and old growth lowland forest (MIH 9) in the Pearl Project Area by Alternative Young % Mature % Old plus % Current Alternative 1 (2020) Alternative 2 (2020) 4.2 EFFECTS FROM OTHER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES The discussion below describes anticipated indirect and cumulative effects from nonharvest proposed activities throughout the project area. Changes to the understory: understory fuels reduction, timber stand improvement (herbicide and mechanical), browse shearing, underplanting, and reforestation. Superior National Forest 20

The composition, age, and structure of understory vegetation is equally or more important than the forest overstory for many RFSS animal species. For some species there may be a direct association with an understory plant. For example, the host plant for the Nabokov s blue butterfly is dwarf bilberry whereas the larval host plant for the taiga alpine butterfly is believed to be a sedge or grass. For other species like the Canada lynx, the understory can be a factor in determining whether their preferred prey, the snowshoe hare, is available. A dense understory of shrubs and young trees provides hiding cover for prey as well as being a food source. Nearly all of the treatments listed in Tables 1 and 2 would temporarily change the understory. Some treatments, like clearcut with reserves followed by mechanical site preparation or piling and burning, would remove a high percentage of the existing vegetation. In other treatments, like thinning or patch clearcut, much of the understory vegetation would remain. Some of the understory treatments, like underplanting and reforestation, are expected to benefit RFSS species by increasing the species and structural diversity of the forest. Alternative 2 includes hand and broadcast application of herbicides (Glyphosate, Triclopyr, and Sulfometuron methyl). Herbicides would be applied in some stands as a site preparation treatment for regenerating birch and converting aspen to jack pine. Herbicide would also be used to diversify the understory in red pine stands by reducing dense hazel brush. In some stands, herbicide may also be used to release individual long-lived conifers. Herbicide would be prepared and applied in conformance with label directions, MFRC guidelines for herbicide application, Forest Service Manual 2150 (Pesticide Use Management and Coordination), Forest Service Handbook 2109.14 (Pesticide Use Management and Coordination Handbook), the Forest Service Health and Safety Code Handbook Chapter 22.1 and all federal, State, and local regulations. Herbicide use would have no impact on most RFSS species because it will not be applied in suitable habitat, or because Best Management Practices would minimize the risk of individuals coming in contact with herbicide. Individuals of species that use recent clearcuts or mature red pine stands may have some risk of encountering herbicide. Herbicides proposed for use are generally considered to have low toxicities at the rates at which they are applied. Additional information on the herbicides proposed and their characteristics can be found in the Water Resources section (3.8). Proposed treatments in the Pearl Project Area would temporarily change habitat conditions for some of the sensitive species, and direct or indirect effects could occur to some individuals. I expect these effects to be insignificant due to the amount of undisturbed habitat remaining and mitigations to protect known sensitive species populations. Habitat changes would also be temporary since the understory generally begins to regenerate within a few years of a disturbance. Thinning and riparian habitat improvement Thinning dense closed-canopy spruce or pine plantations will increase the light reaching the forest floor and allow understory plants, shrubs, and trees to increase. The addition of deciduous shrubs and saplings can increase bird species richness by 20 to 35 species (Green 1995). Thinning red pine allows the trees to gain diameter and as the tree ages, there are increased opportunities for large cavities to develop or be created by woodpeckers providing nesting or roosting sites for little brown bats and tri-colored bats. Superior National Forest 21

Riparian habitat improvement involves the removal of small groups of deciduous trees and brush to release existing long-lived conifers to grow more freely, or to create an opening which is then planted to conifer. These activities would temporarily change habitat conditions for some of the sensitive species, and direct or indirect effects could occur to individuals. Human disturbance: road management RFSS terrestrial wildlife species can be affected by the human disturbance associated with new road building and road use. Large carnivores like the gray wolf hunt along road corridors where they are at increased risk from vehicle collisions and poaching. Bald eagle and northern goshawk are two RFSS bird species that are sensitive to disturbance near their nest. Some butterflies experience mortality along roads when they use roads as flight corridors or as places to find moisture and nutrients. Temporary roads proposed for this project are not expected to result in high mortality for any species since they would receive a low level of use and would be closed upon completion of activities. We will continue to monitor large stick nests and known eagle and goshawk nests in the project area and apply a buffer to active nests to minimize disturbance during critical nesting periods. Prescribed Burning The Superior National Forest is a fire-adapted landscape in which wildfires and prescribed fires play an important role in creating habitat for sensitive species. Fire-killed or damaged trees attract wood-boring insects that provide a food source for birds, such as the American three-toed woodpecker. Fire-damaged dead and dying trees are also used as nesting structures and perches. Fire can create openings in the canopy and remove competing vegetation, allowing species like dwarf bilberry (Vaccinium caespitosum), the larval host plant for the Nabokov s blue butterfly, to flourish. Fire is an important tool in the regeneration of jack pine forest (MIH 8) which is a habitat indicator for heather vole, American three-toed woodpecker, Connecticut warbler, and Nabokov s Blue Butterfly. Understory burning in red and white pine stands protects existing mature pine and creates a seed bed for young regenerating pine. The prescribed burning proposed in the Pearl Project Area includes underburning in older red and white pine forest to reduce the potential risk of high-intensity crown fires and allow for an increase in structural and species diversity in these stands. The proposed project also includes a small amount of prescribed burning in brush and grass systems to rejuvenate growth and improve wildlife habitat, along with a small amount of burning in harvested stands to regenerate jack pine. Introducing fire into these systems helps to maintain and increase these forest types on the landscape. Generally in these understory burns, materials that are consumed include small down, dead, woody material and live forbs, shrubs, and seedlings. Some live mature trees may be burned, but the intent is to maintain the existing canopy. There is the small possibility of disturbance to sensitive species during these activities; however, overall effects from the proposed burning treatments would improve habitat conditions and be beneficial. Superior National Forest 22

Climate Change Many of the sensitive species on the Superior National Forest are at the southern edge of their ranges and may be impacted by climate change as temperatures continue to warm and species of both plants and animals shift northward. Chapter 1 includes a summary of threats to northern Minnesota forests, and the adaptation actions that were incorporated into the proposed action to address some of those threats. The 2010 State of the Birds Report (National American Bird Conservation Initiative 2010) lists the three-toed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, and Connecticut warbler at medium vulnerability to climate change in boreal forest habitat. Habitat loss is the major factor affecting populations of all these birds. In addition to these bird species, many RFSS and non- RFSS species have the potential to be adversely or beneficially affected by the climatic and habitat changes that are predicted to occur. While this project cannot mitigate all of the potential risks posed by climate change, adjustments in the proposed action are intended to put some stands in a better position to adapt to climate change, reducing the potential impact to RFSS and other species. 4.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS INCLUDING NONFEDERAL LANDS Appendix C in the EA contains a full list of past, present, and expected future management projects contributing to cumulative effects. Most of these are expected to have little impact to RFSS in the project area, or to have impacts similar to those described above for Pearl Project activities. Changes to the vegetation from other federal projects or from activities on nonfederal land are expected to be minimal. State lands encompass approximately 19 percent (22,900 acres) of the project area. Based on discussions with State resource personnel there are approximately 1,200 acres that are proposed to be harvested in the next few years, with herbicide spraying on approximately 32 acres in 2014. Effects of these activities are expected to be very similar to those described for similar activities above, as the State and Forest Service follow the same MFRC guidelines. County land encompasses just one percent of the project area, while private lands encompass 15 percent of the ownership within the project boundary. These lands are not expected to experience much management since many of these properties are used for residential or recreational purposes such as private homes or resorts. Mineral exploration has been occurring to the north and west of the project area for several years. This exploration is expected to continue into the future, and may include some exploration in the north part of the Pearl Project Area. This exploration typically involves clearing of short temporary roads and small drill pads, both of which are generally used for a short period of time and then closed. While this activity results in some habitat loss and temporary fragmentation, the primary impact is disturbance, which is significant but temporary. Mineral exploration activities are reviewed by biologists and mitigations are applied to avoid impacts to known species occurrences and minimize impacts to unknown individuals. 4.4. DETERMINATIONS Alternative 1 would have no impact on the gray wolf, little brown myotis, tri-colored bat, heather vole, bald eagle, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, Connecticut Superior National Forest 23