chapter 3: environmental consequencesa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Barker Project Environmental Assessment

September 2015 3-1 Chapter 3

Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives. The

chapter is organized by resource area and each resource includes a discussion of the “Affected

Environment and Environmental Effects”. The “Affected Environment” describes the current

condition of the resource indicators and trends relative to their status. The “Environmental

Effects” describes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives. Direct effects are

impacts that occur at the same time and place as the initial action. Indirect effects are impacts

that occur as a result of the initial action, but are either later in time or are spatially removed

from the action. Cumulative effects result from the incremental impacts of actions when added to

other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or

person undertakes such further action. These potential cumulative actions are described in

Appendix F.

The interdisciplinary team examined and analyzed data to estimate the effects of each alternative.

The data and level of analysis were proportionate with the importance of the possible impacts

(40 CFR 1502.15). The effects are quantified where possible, although qualitative discussions

may also be included.

The vegetation analysis used data from the Forest Service Spatial database. The database

includes information, such as forest type, age, basal area and site index. It is continually being

updated based on field reconnaissance and past forest altering activities. Data used for the Barker

Project analysis was extracted from FS Spatial in 2014. Acreage figures in FS Spatial are

estimates; acreages may change slightly during implementation based on more extensive field

verification.

Road and trail data used in the analysis is from the INFRA tabular database and was used in

conjunction with the GIS Travel Routes spatial database. These databases are continually

updated and editing generally involves correcting errors, such as inconsistent lengths or locations

and inventorying unclassified roads, between the INFRA and GIS Travel Routes. The

interdisciplinary team considered the possible inaccuracies and limitations of the vegetation and

road/trail data. The team concluded that it is the best available information; it is adequate

information for the analysis conducted and for drawing conclusions. The basic data and central

relationships are sufficiently established in their respective sciences, so that additional data and

increasing accuracy are unlikely to reverse or nullify the understood relationships. Thus,

additional data that adds precision would be welcomed, but is not necessary, because the current

data is sufficient enough to provide adequate information for the decision-makers to make a

reasoned choice among the alternatives.



3.2 Treaty Rights

Introduction

Tribes are considered to be sovereign nations; therefore, the United States government and its

departments have a responsibility to recognize this status. The federal relationship with each

tribe was established by and has been addressed through the Constitution of the United States,

treaties, executive orders, statutes, and court decisions. Government-to-government consultation

between the federal government and federally recognized American Indian Tribal governments

acknowledges the sovereign status of these tribes. This consultation supports Executive Order

13175 (November 6, 2000), which recognizes the sovereignty of federally recognized American

Indian tribes and the special government-to-government relationship.

Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, the government of the United States made treaties with

the Ojibwe that ceded areas of land in northern Minnesota to the federal government. In return,

specific reservations were created for the tribes’ use and other considerations were specified.

Article 11 of the 1854 Treaty states that Ojibwe within the treaty area would continue to have the

right to hunt and fish on lands they ceded. A court decision has confirmed this right to hunt, fish,

and gather without regulation by the State of Minnesota (Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa v.

Carlson, 1995).

Tribal interests and uses on National Forest lands are protected through various statutes. The

Federal Trust Doctrine requires that federal agencies manage the lands under their stewardship

with full consideration of tribal rights and interests, particularly reserved rights where they exist.

The Superior National Forest has a role in maintaining these rights, because it is an office of the

federal government that is responsible for natural resource management on lands subject to these

treaties. The Superior National Forest is located on lands ceded by the Ojibwe to the United

States in 1854 and 1866. Three bands, Grand Portage, Fond du Lac, and Bois Forte (Nett, Lake),

live in proximity to the Forest and are directly affected by these treaties. The tribes consider

many areas in the Superior National Forest important to them for cultural, historic, traditional,

and spiritual reasons.

When developing the proposed action, the interdisciplinary team members consulted with the

1854 Treaty Authority, Bois Forte Band, Fond du Lac Band, and Grand Portage Band. Biologists

and specialists shared data on wildlife habitat and ecology of the area.

Through inter-governmental discussions on this project and past projects, they have expressed

concern about habitat for game species, such as deer, moose, and ruffed grouse, as well as access

to the National Forest System land for hunting and gathering opportunities. The Barker Project

proposes to change the vegetation age class distributions and species composition which could

result in a change to available habitats for game species. This analysis addresses these concerns.



Indicators

Indicator 1: Acres of young Management Indicator Habitat (MIH) 4.

The change in the amount of young (0-9 years) aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer forests

(Management Indictor Habitat 4) in the Barker Project Area is used as an indicator of the effects

on particular game species, such as grouse, moose, and deer. MIH 4 provides important foraging

opportunities for these species.

Indicator 2: Acres of young MIH 4 within one quarter mile of existing roads.

The difference in acres of young MIH 4 that would occur within one quarter mile of existing

roads in the Barker Project Area is used as an indicator. These acres are used as an indicator,

because one quarter mile is a reasonable distance to walk when participating in hunting

opportunities.

Analysis Parameters

The geographic boundary of the Barker Project Area was used for analyzing the direct and

indirect effects for game species. A ten year period was used to analyze effects of the proposed

treatment units, including access roads to treatment. This timeframe provides a reasonable

estimate of when the majority of the actions would be completed.

Affected Environment

Game species use different habitats throughout the year to meet their life history requirements.

Grouse for example, will use mature aspen forest during the winter, but younger stands for brood

cover in the summer. Mature spruce-fir forests provide important thermal cover for deer and

moose in the winter and young aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer forests (MIH4) provide

important foraging opportunities for these game species.

Currently, 52 acres of aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer forests (MIH 4) in the project area

are less than ten years old (Table 3-TR-1) and more than half of these acres are located near

existing roads.

Table 3-TR-1: Comparison of Young MIH 4 Acres by Alternative.

Analysis Area

Existing Condition 2014

Alternative 1 2024

Alternative 2 2024

Alternative 3 2024

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Barker Project area1 52 0.1 0 0 2,629 4.9 2,087 3.9

Project area acres that are within ¼

mile of existing roads2

34 <0.1 0 0 1,854 3.4 1,371 2.5

Forest-wide3 21,582 - 31,008 - 33,637 - 33,095 -

1Data source: June 2015 aml runs for MIH. Percentage based on all Forest Service lands in Barker



Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1 no action will be taken. There would be no harvesting that would create

young aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer habitat and the forest in the project area would

continue to change through natural processes. In ten years (2024), all of the 52 acres of existing

young aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer forests (MIH4) would move into the sapling, pole

age class. Within the project area, there would be zero acres of young MIH 4; the foraging

habitat for game species, such as deer, moose, and grouse. The lack of MIH 4 would reduce

hunting opportunities in the project area and although no action would be taken under this

alternative, forest-wide the amount of young MIH 4 acres would increase.

Alternative 2


In ten years, Alternative 2 combined with other past, present and future actions would create

2,629 acres of young aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer habitat. As displayed in Table 3-TR-

1, 70 percent of these acres would be within a quarter mile of existing roads; which would

provide an increase for hunting opportunities. Cumulatively, the amount of acres of young MIH

4 would provide more opportunities for brood cover and foraging habitat forest-wide; creating

the potential to increase the populations of game species forest-wide. This is reflected in Table 3-

TR-1.

Alternative 3


In ten years, Alternative 3 combined with other past, present and future actions would create

2,087 acres of young aspen-birch and mixed aspen-conifer habitat. As displayed in Table 3-TR-

1, 65 percent of these acres would be within a quarter mile of existing roads providing an

increase for hunting opportunities. Cumulatively, the acres of young MIH 4 in Alternative 3

would provide opportunities for brood cover and foraging habitat forest-wide; creating the

potential to increase the populations of game species forest-wide. This is reflected in Table 3-

TR-1.



3.3 Vegetation

Introduction

This section discusses the effects that each alternative is expected to have on landscape

ecosystems. Landscape ecosystems represent the most current and best scientific information to

use in analyzing forest vegetation and they are described and delineated in the Forest Plan (FP)

(FP, pp.2-55 to 2-78). Forest Plan Landscape Ecosystem objectives seek conditions more

representative of native vegetation communities than those that currently exist.

Indicators

The Forest Plan provides four objectives for each

landscape ecosystem; 1) age class distribution, 2)

species composition, 3) Management Indicator

Habitats, and 4) within-stand diversity. Since these

objectives are measurable, they provide a good way

to compare how the Barker Project’s alternatives

would move toward the Forest Plan’s desired

condition. Age class distribution, species

composition, and within-stand diversity are discussed

in this section. An analysis of Management Indicator

Habitats is in the Barker Project Record.

Indicator 1: Age Class.

Each forest stand is in an age class. Age class is broken down by decade or a range of decades,

such as 0-9, 10-49, or 50-79. Each landscape ecosystem has a different set of age class ranges.

Table 3-VEG-1 and Table 3-VEG-2 displays the age classes for the Sugar Maple (SMA) and Mesic

Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir (MBA) Landscape Ecosystems.

Indicator 2: Composition.

Forest type describes the dominant vegetation at the stand level and is delineated by areas that

have similar species, such as white pine, aspen, white spruce, balsam fir, etc. The forest type of a

stand is based on the tree species that is most dominant in the stand, but other species may be

present in smaller components. As an example, a stand could be typed paper birch but could also

have aspen, balsam fir, or spruce in the stand. Forest composition refers to the amount of

different forest types, such as jack pine, paper birch, and aspen across the project area or

landscape ecosystem.

Indicator 3: Within-Stand Diversity.

Tree species diversity objectives in the Forest Plan differ from the composition (forest type)

objectives, because they address the desired direction for total percentage of trees within a stand,

instead of the total acres of forest type. For this analysis, within-stand diversity or stand

complexity refers to the vertical structure and associated species diversity at the stand scale.

Vertical structure is the bottom to top configuration of vegetation within a forested stand and

varies with forest type and ages. This includes components, such as snags, nest trees and coarse

woody debris.

Landscape Ecosystems characterize the dominant vegetation communities and patterns, which are a product of local climate, glacial topography, dominant soils, and natural processes, such as succession, fire, wind, insects, and disease (FP, p. 2-55).



Indicator 4: Forest Changes around Bally Creek Ski Trails as a Result of Vegetation Management.

Whether or not treatment occurs around Bally Creek Ski Trails is the main difference between

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. This indicator analyzes the changes in the forest, such as

composition or age class, in the site specific area of the Bally Creek Ski Trail System.

Analysis Parameters

The geographic area selected for analyzing the direct and indirect effects of the four indicators is

the Sugar Maple and Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-fir Landscape Ecosystems in the Barker Project

Area, because the proposed treatment units are in these landscape ecosystems. The model used

for analysis includes all Landscape Ecosystems in the project area and this data can be found in

the Barker Project Record. The direct and indirect effects analysis covers only National Forest

System land.

Two geographic boundaries with different spatial scales were selected for analyzing the

cumulative effects for age class and composition indicators. The first analysis area included all

ownership in the Sugar Maple and Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-fir Landscape Ecosystems in the

project area. 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 second boundary

included all National Forest System land in the Sugar Maple and Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-fir

Landscape Ecosystems forest-wide. This boundary was chosen, because at this scale changes in

age class and composition can be compared directly to Forest Plan Landscape Ecosystem

objectives.

The cumulative effects analysis area for the within-stand diversity indicator includes all National

Forest System land and other ownerships in the project area. This boundary was chosen, because

the activities on all ownerships in the project area would affect within-stand diversity and the

other ownerships are adjacent to National Forest System land.

The analysis area for the direct, indirect and cumulative effects for indicator 4 is the forest within

one quarter mile of the Bally Creek Ski Trail System. See Figure 3-SQ-1 and 3-SQ-2 for maps of

the area. This boundary was chosen, because the site specific changes in treatments are within

this area. The analysis timeframe for short term effects is ten years and long term effects are

twenty or more years.

The base year of the analysis and existing condition is 2015. The existing condition is a reliable

snapshot of past cumulative effects on forest types and age class. The composition and age class

distribution of the area in the year 2015 would reflect all prior harvest, stand replacing natural

disturbances or any other activity which affected forest type and/or stand age.

The analysis time frame for direct and indirect effects is between the years 2015 and 2024. This

is an appropriate timeframe, because proposed actions would occur within this timeframe. In

addition, all of the current acres of young age class would move out of the age class during this

time. An analysis year of 2024 provides a picture of what the relative contribution would be from

both management treatments and succession.

The analysis time frame for cumulative effects on landscape ecosystems is between 2015 and

2024. This analysis used the same modeling assumptions as used in the Forest Plan Revision

Environmental Impact Statement. The model made assumptions about when older short-lived



species, such as aspen, would succeed to younger forest and what the new forest type would be.

The model is described in “Succession Modeling Rules for the Dualplan Harvest Model (Forest

Plan FEIS, Appendix B).”


The forest that exists today evolved as a result of both natural and human processes. The logging

that occurred during the late 19th century, followed by

widespread slash-fueled wildfires, altered the composition

and structure of the original forests. Recent timber

management and fire suppression activities have

contributed to current forest conditions. Natural

disturbances and forest succession have also taken place

to varying degrees on managed and unmanaged lands

within the Barker Project Area. The forest that exists

today is different from the forest that would have evolved

under purely natural processes.

The current age class distribution, composition and within

stand diversity of the Barker Project Area is shown in the

tables under Environmental Consequences.

The forest surrounding the Bally Creek Ski Trail System

is of particular interest in this project area. The Bally

Creek area in general, is composed of older aspen and

paper birch stands. The forest is a mix of paper birch,

aspen and fir forest types and is between 80 and 100 years

old. In many places there is a thick understory of balsam

fir regenerating naturally. In addition to a plantation of 30

year old white spruce and balsam fir next to the main entrance of the ski trail system.

This area was affected by a spruce budworm infestation in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Spruce

budworm is a natural pest, but during severe infestations it kills many trees of all sizes. The

larvae of this caterpillar feeds on the new buds and needles of spruce and, unlike its name,

prefers balsam fir. Many of the balsam fir trees in the Bally Creek area were killed during the

last infestation and have since fallen over adding dead and down material to the forest floor.


Direct and Indirect Consequences of All Alternatives

Indicator 1: Age Class

Tables 3-VEG-1 and 3-VEG-2 display the projected age class distribution under each of the

alternatives in the Sugar Maple and Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystems,

respectively, in the Barker Project Area in 2024 compared to the existing conditions (2015). In

addition to changes created by alternatives, the tables take into account past actions and changes

to the age class distribution that would likely occur naturally through succession.

Figure 3-VEG-1: Example of a Forested Stand in the Barker Project Area.



Alternative 1 would not create a young age class in the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystems in

the project area; Alternative 2 would create 2,825 acres of young age class; Alternative 3 would

create 2,390 acres of young age class. In the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape

Ecosystem, Alternative 1 would not create a young age class in the project area; Alternative 2

would create 919 acres of young age class; Alternative 3 would create 915 acres of young age

class. Most of the acres being converted to young age class in Alternatives 2 and 3 are in both

Landscape Ecosystems and are in stands 50 to 99 years old (70%) and the rest are from stands

100 to149 years old (30%). Without a natural disturbance, such as a wildfire or man-made

disturbances, a young age class would likely not be created in the Barker Project Area under

Alternative 1. Young age class is a desirable component of a productive, healthy and resilient

forest community (D-VG-3, FP, pg. 2-22, O-VG-1, FP, pg. 2-23).

The effect of Alternative 1 is that more stands would remain in the older age classes. In ten years

more stands would move into the 100 to149 and 150+ age classes in the Sugar Maple Landscape

Ecosystem and into the 80 to 99 and 100+ age classes in the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir

Landscape Ecosystem. More of the trees would be taller with larger diameters and overstory

crowns. This would benefit species that depend on older trees and users of forests that enjoy

characteristics of mature forests. More of these trees could be susceptible to insects, diseases,

wildfire, and strong weather events in both the Sugar Maple and Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir

Landscape Ecosystems. Insects and diseases in general, are more likely to attack older trees that

have been weakened through events, such as drought, overcrowding, and mechanical damage.

However, there are always exceptions; white pine blister rust is an example of a disease that is

very prevalent in young white pine trees and is prevalent on the Superior National Forest.

In addition to harvesting, there would be approximately 23 miles of temporary roads created in

Alternative 2 and 22 miles of temporary roads created in Alternative 3. The forest condition

would be considered open while the roads were being used. It is expected that within ten years,

after the end of road use, the area would be re-vegetated and moving towards a forested

condition.

Table 3-VEG-1: Age Class Distribution in 2015 and 2024 of the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem in the Barker Project Area for all Alternatives.

Age Class

Existing Condition Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2015 2024 2024 2024


0-9 400 1 0 0 2,825 9 2,390 7

10-49 7,474 23 6,242 19 6,148 19 6,148 19

50-99 11,684 36 9,129 28 7,812 24 8,083 25

100-149 12,298 37 16,041 49 14,628 45 14,792 45

150+ 911 3 1,353 4 1,353 4 1,353 4

TOTAL: 32,766 100 32,765 100 32,766 101 32,766 100

Analysis of Forest Service Lands within the Barker Project Area. Data extracted from: b7_ag_2015_sma_061715.dbf,

b14_ag_2024_sma_061915.dbf, b21_ag_2024_sma_062315.dbf, b28_ag_2024_sma_062215.dbf.



Table 3-VEG-2: Age Class Distribution in 2015 and 2024 of the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem in the Barker Project Area for all alternatives.

Age Class

Existing Condition Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2015 2024 2024 2024


0-9 52 1 0 0 919 13 915 13

10-49 2,089 29 2,216 30 2,112 29 2,112 29

50-79 806 11 737 10 552 8 552 8

80-99 1,555 21 1,189 16 941 13 945 13

100+ 2,782 38 3,142 43 2,760 38 2,760 38

TOTAL: 7,284 100 7,284 100 7,284 100 7,284 100

Analysis of Forest Service Lands within the Barker Project Area. Data extracted from: b7_ag_2015_mba_061715.dbf,

b14_ag_2024_mba_061915.dbf, b21_ag_2024_mba_062315.dbf, b28_ag_2024_mba_062215.dbf.

Indicator 2: Composition

Tables 3-VEG-3 and 3-VEG-4 display acres of each forest type present currently (2015) and the

number of acres that would be present under each of the alternatives in the Sugar Maple and

Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem in the Barker Project Area in the year

2024. In addition to changes created by the alternatives, the results take into account the likely

changes to forest composition that would occur naturally; through succession during the next ten

years (Forest Plan Appendix B p17-18). In the absence of a large disturbance, shade-tolerant

species (balsam fir, spruce, and maple) would increase in dominance since they can regenerate

under a mature forest canopy. Early successional, shade-intolerant species (aspen, birch, pine)

age and are supplanted since they are not able to regenerate as successfully under these

conditions.

Under Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, the aspen forest type would decrease the most in

Alternative 1, because the stands would age and succeed to spruce-fir or northern hardwoods in

the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem and to spruce-fir in the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir

Landscape Ecosystem. Proposed actions in both landscape ecosystems, collectively, would

decrease the amount of aspen forest type present. In the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem, the

paper birch forest type would decrease in all Alternatives, with the most substantial decrease in

Alternative 2 and the least substantial decrease in Alternative 1. The paper birch forest type

would decrease only marginally in the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem in

all of the Alternatives. Spruce-fir forest type increases in all alternatives in both landscape

ecosystems, as well as the northern hardwoods in the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem.

This would mean the aspen and paper birch would continue to decrease and the amount of spruce

fir and maple would increase in the next ten years. Spruce fir stands would likely remain as

spruce-fir except in the case of the oldest stands. Balsam fir doesn’t live as long as spruce and is

particularly susceptible to spruce budworm, a native pest. More stands could be susceptible to a

spruce budworm infestation, killing many of the older fir and to a lesser extent spruce. A large

infestation is not expected in the next 10 years. The northern hardwood forest type grows on



deeper soils and is longer lived, so it would be expected to remain constant in the next ten years.

Small scale disturbance would create openings, but since maple regenerates well underneath an

overstory this type would likely be maintained.

Table 3-VEG-3: Comparison of Forest Type Acres within the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem in the Barker Project Area.

Forest Type

Existing Condition

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2015 2024 2024 2024

Jack pine 0 0 0 0

Red pine 1,855 1,855 1,891 1,891

White pine 635 635 635 635

Spruce-fir 4,913 5,230 5,136 5,128

N. Hardwoods 16,729 17,667 17,534 17,638

Aspen 5,411 4,512 5,418 5,185

Paper birch 3,223 2,867 2,152 2,290

TOTAL: 32,766 32,766 32,766 32,766

Analysis of Forest Service Lands within the Barker Project Area. Data extracted from:

b7_scu_2015_sma_061715.dbf, b14_scu_2024_sma_061915.dbf, b21_scu_2024_sma_062315.dbf,

b28_scu_2024_sma_062215.dbf.

Table 3-VEG-4: Comparison of Forest Type Acres within the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem in the Barker Project Area.

Forest Type

Existing Condition

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2015 2024 2024 2024

Jack pine 0 0 0 0

Red pine 248 248 255 248

White pine 45 45 45 45

Spruce-fir 1,920 2,420 2,353 2,371

N. Hardwoods 2,469 2,469 2,469 2,469

Aspen 1,947 1,576 1,716 1,705

Paper birch 655 526 445 445

TOTAL: 7,284 7,284 7,284 7,284 Analysis of Forest Service Lands within the Barker Project Area. Data extracted from: b7_scu_2015_mba_061715.dbf, b14_scu_2024_mba_061915.dbf, b21_scu_2024_mba_062315.dbf, b28_scu_2024_mba_062215.dbf.



Tables 3-VEG-3 and 3-VEG-4 show the changes in composition of the Barker Project Area

through proposed actions and successional modeling. Table 3-VEG-5 shows, by alternative, the

specific acres of each forest type that would be converted to another forest type through actions

in the Barker Project. In the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem, the paper birch forest type

would regenerate back to an aspen/white spruce/fir forest type verses remaining as paper birch

on 426 acres in Alternative 2 and 421 acres in Alternative 3. This would also happen to 87 acres

in the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem in both Alternatives 2 and 3. Paper

birch doesn’t regenerate as aggressively as aspen in harvested areas due to aspen’s ability to

sprout new shoots from its root system. The rest of the acres in the paper birch forest type for

both landscape ecosystems would be maintained (794 acres in Alternative 2 and 666 acres in

Alternative 3) through a combination of mechanical site preparation, seeding, planting, and

natural regeneration.

In Alternatives 2 and 3 in the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem, 36 acres would be converted

to a mixed pine forest type with a component of birch through planting of white pine and paper

birch. An additional 103 acres of fir-aspen/paper birch would convert naturally to an aspen/white

spruce/fir forest type.

Table 3-VEG-5: Forest Type Conversion due to Proposed Management Activities in the Sugar Maple (SMA) and Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir (MBA) Landscape Ecosystems in the Barker Project Area.

Existing Forest Type

Resulting Forest Type

Acres

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

SMA:

Paper Birch Aspen/W.Spruce/Fir 0 426 421

Mixed Pines 0 36 36

Fir-Aspen/Paper Birch Aspen/W.Spruce/Fir 0 103 103

MBA:

Paper Birch Aspen/W.Spruce/Fir 0 87 87

TOTAL: 0 652 646

Indicator 3: Within-stand Diversity

Table 3-VEG-6 shows the Forest Plan objectives for within-stand tree species diversity and what

is likely to happen to the individual species under each alternative in the Sugar Maple and Mesic

Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystems in the Barker Project Area. Barker has the

typical boreal mixed species composition, but also contains a substantial component of maple

forest types.

Under Alternative 1, within-stand diversity would be created primarily by succession as a result

of the older aspen and birch dying and being replaced by spruce, fir, northern hardwoods and

brush. Disturbances would likely be small-scale, which would maintain more of the present

species mix, but would create micro-climates for natural regeneration.



The same process of succession would happen in Alternatives 2 and 3 outside of the treated

stands. Most of the even aged and understory fuels treatments would reduce the amount of

species diversity. Table 3-VEG-7 shows the trees species that would be planted in the Sugar

Maple and Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem under the different alternatives

to increase the diversity of species. Under-planting, interplanting, planting, seeding, and

releasing areas with known advanced regeneration would increase the pine, cedar, birch, and

spruce component in those stands. Tamarack would be planted in Alternatives 2 and 3, which

would increase within stand diversity in riparian areas. Mitigations, such as leave trees, legacy

patches, and other parts of treatment units not harvested, would also help improve within-stand

diversity.

Table 3-VEG-6: Changes in Within-Stand Tree Species Diversity by Alternatives in the Sugar Maple (SMA) and Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir (MBA) Landscape Ecosystem in the Barker Project Area.

Species (Forest Plan Objective)

Change in Prevalence of Species within Stands

Paper birch

(maintain SMA,

increase MBA)

The paper birch component in most mature stands would be expected to decrease in all three

alternatives. Paper birch is a disturbance based species that is replaced by more shade tolerant species

as the stands age, unless a disturbance occurs allowing birch to regenerate. There would be more paper

birch in the young stands created in Alternatives 2 and 3 since harvesting would create conditions

favorable to paper birch regeneration, with slightly less of an increase in Alternative 3. Paper birch

would be planted in Alternatives 2 and 3, with an additional 150 acres being planted with a mix of

species that includes paper birch in Alternative 2.

Balsam fir

(increase SMA,

decrease MBA)

Balsam fir would be expected to increase in Alternative 1, through succession, given the assumption

that a natural fire of significant size would not occur in the next 10 years. Balsam fir would be

expected to increase in Alternatives 2 and 3, except in the treatment units (where it would decrease),

with fir increasing less in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2.

N. white cedar

(increase

SMA/MBA) &

Yellow birch

(increase SMA)

Under Alternative 1, northern white cedar would likely be maintained and yellow birch would likely

decrease. Cedar is shade tolerant and can therefore regenerate in the understory of mature stands.

Yellow birch will likely decrease, because it requires disturbance in order to regenerate. Cedar and

yellow birch would be expected to increase under both Alternatives 2 and 3. Cedar and yellow birch

would also be planted in Alternatives 2 and 3, with an additional 150 acres being planted with a mix of

species that includes birch and or cedar in Alternative 2.

White pine

(increase

SMA/MBA)

White pine regeneration would be expected to decrease in Alternative 1 through succession. This is

expected even though white pine has a moderate tolerance of shade. White pine has not shown to

successfully regenerate itself in the project area, likely due to the blister rust fungus, absence of

mineral soil, and browse damage. In Alternatives 2 and 3, white pine regeneration would be expected

to increase primarily through planting. An additional 150 acres would be planted with a mix of

species that include pine, under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 3. There would also be an

expected increase in natural regeneration of this species in the treatment areas where enough mineral

soil is exposed, light increased and overstory pine available to cast seed.

White spruce

(increase

SMA/MBA)

White spruce would be expected to increase in all three alternatives due to the ability of this species to

grow well under various light conditions and take advantage of mineral soil exposed after harvesting.

White spruce would be planted in Alternatives 2 and 3, with an additional 150 acres being planted in a

mix with other species in Alternative 2.

Aspen (decrease

SMA/MBA)

In Alternative 1, aspen would be expected to decrease as succession introduces a higher amount of

shade loving species such as fir and spruce to the project area. Aspen would be expected to also

decrease in Alternatives 2 and 3, except in the treatment units (where it would increase) since it has

the ability to sprout suckers from the root system of the cut trees in the harvested openings. Because

fewer stands would be treated in Alternative 3, aspen would be expected to decrease slightly less in

Alternative 3 than Alternative 2.

Black spruce

(increase SMA,

maintain MBA)

Black spruce would be expected to increase in all three alternatives due to the ability of this species to

grow well under various light conditions and take advantage of mineral soil exposed after harvesting.

Black spruce would also increase slightly in both Alternatives 2 and 3 in the MBA Landscape

Ecosystem, due to planting.



Table 3-VEG-7: Acres of Species Planted in the Barker Project Area for All Alternatives.

Tree Species Acres

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

SMA:

Pine (Jack, Red, and White) 0 1,429 1,285

N. White Cedar and Yellow

Birch* 0 822 678

Paper Birch* 0 859 715

White Spruce* 0 539 395

Tamarack 0 81 81

TOTAL: 0 1,669 1,526

MBA:

White and/or Red Pine* 0 225 219

Jack Pine and/or Black Spruce 0 20 20

Northern White Cedar* 0 218 212

Paper Birch* 0 218 212

White Spruce* 0 218 212

Tamarack 0 44 44

TOTAL: 0 289 282 Analysis of Forest Service Lands within the Barker Project Area. Data

extracted from: Barker_2015_07_07_jun.accdb. *Acres are counted more

than once since several species can be planted in the same unit.

Structural diversity in many of the harvested stands in Alternatives 2 and 3 would decrease. All

clearcut with reserve harvests would leave a minimum of 6 to12 leave trees per acre which

would mitigate simplifying structural diversity to some extent (D-VG-6, FP, p. 2-22, and O-VG-

8, FP, p. 2-23). Also, for stands greater than 20 acres regenerated with clearcuts, five percent of

the stand would be retained in legacy patches of live trees (G-TM-5, FP, p. 2-20). Mitigations for

other resources that add additional legacy areas would further contribute to maintaining

structural diversity. Standing dead and un-merchantable trees would be left to become future

coarse woody debris, snags, and cavity nest trees, except in instances where they are piled in a

secondary treatment. Treatments other than clearcuts, such as patch clearcut, and thinning would

leave additional mature overstory that would contribute to the vertical structure in the units.

Structural diversity in Alternative 1 as well as areas outside of the treatment units in both Action

Alternatives would increase. Regenerated forbs and brush would fill in the openings created by

dead trees and more woody debris would occupy the forest floor. The vertical layers of

vegetation in the stands would be more complex and include a larger amount of snags.

Indicator 4: Forest Changes around Bally Creek Ski Trails.

Under Alternative 1 and Alternative 3, no units in the Bally Creek Ski Trail area would be

treated. These units are a mix of old paper birch, aspen and fir forest types with a thick

understory of balsam fir that is regenerating naturally. In the long term, these units would

succeed from early successional hardwoods to shade-tolerant spruce-fir, of which the spruce is

long-lived. The result would be a forest where the majority of the overstory is spruce and fir

verses aspen and birch. The forest would contain a mixture of species and be multi aged with

several layers of vegetation heights as well as downed logs and snags to provide structural



diversity. Cedar is present in the understory to a small extent but the deer pressure isn’t as

prevalent and they would be expected to survive.

There is currently no scientific method for predicting when spruce budworm infestations will

occur, but a population buildup is most likely when the majority of the balsam fir is in the

canopy, at least 50 years old and densely packed. Infestations follow a southwest to northeast

pattern across the State and currently there is defoliation centered in both St. Louis and Lake

Counties. It is expected to move into Cook County in the next five years. The stands in the Bally

Creek area are 80+ years old, but since a lot of the fir was killed in the last infestation, the fir

range from 20 to 40 years old and are mixed within the vertical layers of the units. There could

be an infestation within the next 10 years, but it would be more likely that an outbreak would

occur in the next 20 to 30 years (personal communication, Steve Katovich).

Alternative 2 would harvest about 300 to 500 acres in the Bally Creek area. The harvest would

remove most of the overstory trees and create a young forest (age class). Some of the harvest

units would be treated mechanically to reduce the amount of balsam fir, aspen shoots and brush

while exposing mineral soil for planting. A mix of pine, birch, spruce and cedar would be

planted on 150 acres in units around the Bally Creek Ski Trail System and would contribute to a

more diverse mix of species in the area. Trees grow at different rates, but in 5 to 10 years most

would be expected to reach six feet. Some of the harvest units would regenerate naturally to

aspen and paper birch. Balsam fir is prevalent in the area and would seed in naturally along with

spruce in the next 10 to 20 years. The impacts of a spruce budworm infestation in the future

would be less in these treated units. The untreated forest around the trails would continue to age

and succeed to shade tolerant species as described under Alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects of All Alternatives

Indicator 1: Age Class

All Ownership in Barker Project Area: This section of the cumulative effects analysis considers

vegetation management projects on federal, state and private lands within the Barker project

area. The analysis considered any vegetation management projects from the past, present and

into the future that have or would create young forest.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) is currently proposing stand

examinations and harvest needs on 315 acres in the Barker Project Area and an additional 788

acres are planned for harvest on state land (Appendix F). These 1,103 acres were analyzed in this

project as a harvest to create young age class and constitute about 7% of the state land in the

project area. This estimate is based on areas proposed for survey and not for actual treatment;

therefore, the actual harvest acres would likely be much lower.

There are no known plans for harvesting on private lands (Appendix F). Besides the Barker

Project, there are no other reasonable foreseeable projects on National Forest System land that

would create young age class by 2024.

When looking at activities on all ownerships in the project area, Alternatives 2 and 3 would

create more young age class than Alternative 1. Creation of young age class would move towards

Forest Plan Objectives.

Forest-wide Landscape Ecosystem: This section of the cumulative effects analysis considered

vegetation management projects on National Forest System land in the Sugar Maple and Mesic



Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystems across the Superior National Forest. The analysis

included any vegetation management projects across the Forest from the past, present and into

the future that have or would create young forest. Appendix F lists which projects were included

in the analysis.

The 32,766 acres of Sugar Maple within the Barker Project Area represent 67% of the forest-

wide Sugar Maple. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 exceed the Forest Plan objectives for decade two in

the young age class, while Alternative 1 maintains the existing condition (Table 3-VEG-8). The

7,284 acres of Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir within the Barker Project Area represent only 15%

of the forest-wide Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir. Therefore, all of the alternatives only slightly

affect forest-wide trends. All of the alternatives slightly move the forest closer to Forest Plan

objectives for decade two in the young age class (Table 3-VEG-9). There would be more stands

in the older age classes under Alternative 1 in the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem and under

all of the alternatives in the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem. The effects of

more forest in the older age classes are described under the Direct and Indirect Effects for all

alternatives for Indicator 1: Age Class.

Table 3-VEG-8: Forest-wide Age Class Distribution for the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem

Age Class

Decade 2 Objectives

2024

Existing Condition

2015

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

2024 2024 2024

% % % % %

0-9 4 1 1 7 6

10-49 33 28 26 25 25

50-99 27 40 30 28 28

100-149 33 28 40 37 38

150+ 3 2 3 3 3

TOTAL: 100 100 100 100 100

Data extracted from: b11_ag_2024_sma_062015.dbf, b18_ag_2024_sma_062215.dbf,

b25_ag_2024_sma_062115.dbf, Forest Plan p2-73; percent of upland forest types only, lowlands

were removed from the calculations.



Table 3-VEG-9: Forest-wide Age Class Distribution for the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem

Age

Class

Decade 2

Objectives

2024

Existing

Condition

2015

Alternative

1

Alternative

2

Alternative

3

2024 2024 2024

% % % % %

0-9 11 3 4 5 4

10-49 48 38 41 40 41

50-79 10 17 13 13 13

80-99 17 28 23 23 23

100+ 14 15 19 19 19

TOTAL: 100 100 100 100 100

Data extracted from: b11_ag_2024_mba_062015.dbf, b18_ag_2024_mba_062215.dbf, b25_ag_2024_mba_062115.dbf, Forest Plan p2-70; percent of upland forest types only, lowlands were removed from the calculations.

Indicator 2: Composition

All Ownership in the Barker Project Area: Harvested state lands could be expected to regenerate

to maple, aspen, and birch types along with some planting and seeding of conifers. There are no

expected composition changes on private lands in the Barker Project Area. Cumulatively, little

change in composition is expected across all ownerships in the project area.

In the future there might be changes in species composition due to a warmer climate in the

Barker Project Area. Balsam fir, black spruce, paper birch, aspen, white spruce and tamarack are

at their southern range limits and are predicted to face increasing climate stress through the 21st

century. These boreal species are expected to decline in the future, particularly balsam fir and

black spruce. Conversely, temperate hardwoods that are at their northern range are expected to

be more tolerant of warmer year-round conditions and a slightly drier growing season. White

pine and particularly red and sugar maple are expected to increase and species, such as northern

red oak could move into the area. The results are more mixed for how cedar, yellow birch and

red pine are expected to do in the future. Under a low sensitivity climate change model they

increase, but under a moderate climate change model they decrease. The changes are more

dramatic in the latter half of the century particularly under the moderate prediction model

(Minnesota Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis, S. Handler, et al, 2014).

The Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem comprises 67% of the Barker Project Area and could be

more tolerant to the stresses of climate change due to the deeper soils and a large amount of

northern hardwoods present (39%). All Alternatives would have more acres of the northern

hardwood forest type compared to the Forest Plan objectives in 2024 and might be less

susceptible to climate change stressors. They would also have more acres of aspen forest types

which are predicted to decline. All alternatives would have fewer acres of the spruce-fir and

paper birch forest types as compared to the Forest Plan objectives in 2024. The spruce-fir type

includes a higher amount of balsam fir and black spruce which are expected to have a large

decrease in the future and could further exacerbate the stressors on this type.



The Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem only comprises 15% of the Barker

Project Area. However, trees in this ecosystem might be more susceptible to climate change

stressors since they contain a large portion of the boreal species, such as paper birch and aspen.

The biggest difference in all of the alternatives compared to the Forest Plan objectives in 2024 is

that there would be more acres in the spruce fir forest type. The effect would be the same as

described above.

Alternatives 2 and 3 have more acres of forest type aspen and spruce fir in the younger age

classes and could be in a more thrifty condition to withstand a warmer climate. In addition,

Alternative 2 and to a lesser extent, Alternative 3 would introduce a young component of diverse

species, mostly within other forest types. Some of these species like white pine are predicted to

increase while others, such as paper birch and white spruce, are expected to decrease.

Forest-wide Landscape Ecosystem: The composition of the landscape ecosystem forest-wide is

virtually the same for all alternatives, with the exception that there is a 2% difference in aspen

and paper birch forest types between Alternatives in the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem

(Tables 3-VEG-10 and 3-VEG-11). Even though Alternatives 2 and 3 change the forest type

(composition) of some units, the overall change is so small that it is not noticeable at the

landscape scale. The increase in spruce-fir and northern hardwoods and decrease in aspen would

be a result of succession.

Table 3-VEG-10: Forest-wide Vegetation Composition for the Sugar Maple Landscape Ecosystem.

Upland Forest Type

Decade 2 Objectives

Existing Condition

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

2024 2015 2024 2024 2024

% % % % %

Jack pine 0 0 0 0 0

Red pine 5 5 5 5 5

White pine 2 2 2 2 2

Spruce-fir 15 12 13 13 13

N. Hardwoods 38 39 42 42 42

Aspen 24 27 25 27 26

Paper birch 16 15 14 12 13

TOTAL: 100 100 100 100 100

Data extracted from: b11_scu_2024_sma_062015.dbf, b18_scu_2024_sma_062215.dbf,

b25_scu_2024_sma_062115.dbf, Forest Plan p2-73; percent of upland forest types only, lowlands were

removed from the calculations.



Table 3-VEG-11: Forest-wide Vegetation Composition for the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir Landscape Ecosystem.

Upland Forest Type

Decade 2 Objectives

Existing Condition

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

2024 2015 2024 2024 2024

% % % % %

Jack pine 4 3 3 3 3

Red pine 5 5 5 5 5

White pine 4 3 3 3 3

Spruce-fir 26 24 29 29 29

N. Hardwoods 4 5 5 5 5

Aspen 42 45 41 41 41

Paper birch 14 14 13 13 13

TOTAL: 100 100 100 100 100

Data extracted from: b11_scu_2024_mba_062015.dbf, b18_scu_2024_mba_062215.dbf,

b25_scu_2024_mba_062115.dbf, Forest Plan p2-70; percent of upland forest types only, lowlands were

removed from the calculations.

Indicator 3: Within-stand Diversity

The effects to within-stand tree diversity across all ownerships in the project area are similar to

those effects on National Forest System land, because of the limited amount of actions on lands

under other ownership. The possible future harvests on state land would simplify some of the

structural and/or species diversity within the proposed stands; however, the amount of area

affected would be small.

Under Alternative 1, the within-stand diversity would be created primarily by succession as a

result of the aspen and birch dying and being replaced by spruce, fir, northern hardwoods and

brush. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, along with succession, additional species diversity would be

generated through harvests of mature stands (i.e., clearcut, selection cuts, and thinning), diversity

plantings and under-plantings, releasing areas with known advanced regeneration of target

species (e.g. pine), and forest type conversions. In Alternative 2, slightly more acreage would be

harvested, which would simplify some of the structural or species diversity within additional

proposed stands. However, more acreage would be treated through diversity planting in

Alternative 2 than Alternative 3.

Indicator 4: Forest Changes around Bally Creek Ski Trails.

In the long term, the forest around the Bally Creek Ski Trails would continue to succeed to shade

tolerant species, such as spruce and fir. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, no treatment would occur, so

natural succession would occur across the whole area. In the long term, the amount of spruce-fir

would increase and the amount of aspen or paper birch would decrease. Under Alternative 2, the

harvested areas would be set back to young forest. Some of the units would be planted to a diverse

mix of tree species and some units would naturally regenerate to aspen or paper birch, resulting in

more hardwoods in the area in the long term. However, the majority of the forest around the ski

trails is not being treated and would follow natural succession processes, including spruce budworm

infestations.



3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Introduction

The Barker Project Biological Assessment (BA) documents the potential effects to federally

proposed, candidate, threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat that could

result from vegetation management and other activities proposed in the Barker Project.

The rationale for analysis indicators selected is consistent with Forest Plan direction and a

detailed analysis of effects for each federally listed species can be found in the Barker Biological

Assessment. The Barker Project Biological Assessment tiers to the Programmatic Biological

Assessment for the Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2004) and the Programmatic

Biological Assessment for the gray wolf, Canada lynx and their critical habitats (USDA Forest

Service 2011). Rather than repeat the information from the biological assessment, this section

summarizes the key findings and determinations and incorporates by reference, the Barker

Project Biological Assessment that is available on the Superior National Forest website at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/superior/projects and upon request.

The determination of effects is used in conference and consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service to help them determine whether or not a proposed action is likely to affect or

jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed species. The following definitions are

used to make a conclusion on the effects of a project to proposed threatened and endangered

species:

No Effect – used when there are no effects.

May affect, but not likely to adversely affect – used when it is determined that direct or

indirect effects on listed species from the proposed alternatives are expected to be

discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial.

May affect and is likely to adversely affect – used if any adverse effect to listed species

may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed alternatives and the effect is not

discountable, insignificant or beneficial, or the effect will harm, harass or wound the

species.

Determination of Effects Summary for Canada Lynx

Alternative 1 Determination for Canada Lynx: No effect

Determination for Canada Lynx Critical Habitat: No effect

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Determination for Canada Lynx: May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Determination for Canada Lynx Critical Habitat: May affect, not likely to adversely modify

critical habitat

Alternative 2 would comply with Forest Plan management direction related to lynx and lynx

critical habitat for all indicators. Effects from this alternative are expected to be beneficial,

insignificant or discountable for the following reasons:

Forest conditions would continue to provide for lynx denning and foraging within the

analysis area. Snowshoe hare habitat is expected to change by a small percentage from

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/superior/projects



those conditions expected in the No-Action Alternative. Lynx connectivity habitat would

remain high on federal lands.

An increase in conifers, as a forest stand component due to planting, would improve hare

cover habitat.

The change in the amount of habitat in an unsuitable condition as a result of federal

management actions over 10 years would remain below 12 percent for all Lynx Analysis

Units.

Unsuitable habitat on all ownerships would remain below 30%.

Temporary road creation and subsequent closure are expected to have a short-term,

insignificant effect on lynx. Road management conditions are not expected to change in

the Barker Project Area.

Cumulative effects are expected to be minimal and buffered by the high percentage of

federal ownership in these Lynx Analysis Units.

Protection will be provided if any lynx den sites are found.

Alternative 3 would comply with Forest Plan management direction related to lynx critical

habitat for all indicators. Effects from this Alternative are expected to be beneficial, insignificant,

or discountable for the following reason:

Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2, apart from no harvest taking place in the Bally

Creek Ski Trail System. Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts than Alternative 2,

though in terms of effects to lynx, the difference between the Action Alternatives (2 & 3)

is negligible.

Determination of Effects for Gray Wolf

Alternative 1 Determination for Gray Wolf: No effect

Determination for Gray Wolf Critical Habitat: No effect

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Determination for Gray Wolf: May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Determination for Gray Wolf Critical Habitat: May affect, not likely to adversely modify critical

habitat

Alternative 2 would comply with Forest Plan management direction related to gray wolf and its

critical habitat for all indicators. Effects from this Alternative are expected to be beneficial,

insignificant, or discountable for the following reasons:

Forest conditions would continue to provide adequate winter thermal cover for deer and

moose in the Barker Project Area.

There is little high-quality foraging habitat (young MIH 1) available in the Barker Project

Area. Alternative 2 would be beneficial to wolves by creating more foraging habitat for

deer and moose. However, foraging habitat is not a limiting factor for deer as it is widely

available and dispersed throughout the wolf’s mapped critical habitat on the Superior

National Forest.

Temporary road creation and subsequent closure are expected to have a short-term,

insignificant effect on wolves. Road management conditions are not expected to change

in the Barker Project Area.



Cumulative effects are expected to be minimal and buffered by the high percentage

(79%) of federal ownership in these Lynx Analysis Units.

Protection will be provided if any wolf dens are found.

Alternative 3 would comply with Forest Plan management direction related to gray wolf and its

critical habitat for all indicators. Effects from this alternative are expected to be beneficial,

insignificant, or discountable for the following reasons:

Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2, apart from no harvest taking place in the Bally

Creek Ski Trail System. Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts than Alternative 2;

though in terms of effects to wolves, the difference between the effects of the Action

Alternatives (2 & 3) is negligible.

Determination of Effects for Northern Long-eared Bat

Alternative 1

Determination for Northern Long-eared Bat: No effect

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3

Determination for Northern Long-eared Bat: May affect and is likely to adversely affect northern

long-eared bat

This determination is a result of proposed activities planned during the breeding and summer

active periods (generally April through October) that may remove unknown summer roost sites,

potentially injuring or killing individuals. Reasonable and prudent measures in the Barker OSGs

minimize the likelihood of jeopardizing the species. Furthermore:

Activities that could negatively impact individuals are limited in scope and duration;

affecting less than 1% of all available suitable summer habitat in the Project area at any

given time.

Barker Operational Standards and Guidelines for large tree and snag retention are

expected to provide and/or protect some of the trees suitable for summer roosting.

Upland forests greater than nine years old in the Barker Project Area would constitute at

least 92% percent of all forested habitat by 2024. Loss of suitable summer roost habitat

alone is not likely to have significant population-level effects (USDI FWS 2015b).

Cumulative effects are expected to be minimal and buffered by the high percentage

(79%) of federal ownership in these Lynx Analysis Units.

Summer bat roosting locations found during project activities would be protected by

project mitigations that would reduce adverse effects to individuals.

If either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 is the selected, the Fish and Wildlife Service may or may

not require additional reasonable and prudent measures that further reduce the likelihood of

jeopardizing the species. Those findings will be provided in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s

Biological Opinion, which will be added to the project record upon completion.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would comply with Forest Plan management direction related to

threatened and endangered species for all indicators. Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts

than Alternative 2; though in terms of effects to the northern long-eared bats, the difference

between the Action Alternatives (2 & 3) is negligible.



3.5 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Introduction

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) are species for which population viability is a

concern due to one or a combination of several factors: habitat and species rarity or poor

distribution; a declining trend in population; risk to habitat integrity; and population

vulnerability. Information on how species were screened and selected is provided in the Forest

Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Forest Plan FEIS, Volume 2, pp. B-25 to B-

26). The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list for the Superior National Forest was most

recently updated by the Regional Forester in 2011.

The Biological Evaluation (BE) is the tool used to consider the effects of a project on Regional

Forester’s Sensitive Species. 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 throughout the range. The analysis of effects results in one of the following

determinations:

No impact – used when there is no impact

Beneficial effects – used when 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 –used when in the planning area effects are a high risk, 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 effects of the Barker Project alternatives to Regional Forester Sensitive Species are

documented in three biological evaluations: (1) terrestrial animals, (2) aquatic species, and (3)

vascular plants, lichens, and bryophytes. The Barker Project Biological Evaluations are available

on the Superior National Forest website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/superior/projects under

the Barker Project EA and in the Barker project record.

Summary of the Determined Effects on Terrestrial Animals

Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, would have no impact on any terrestrial RFSS.

Alternative 2 would affect slightly more habitat than Alternative 3, but at the scale of this

analysis (project scale) both alternatives are so similar that they would have the same impacts to

terrestrial RFSS. Proposed activities under Alternatives 2 & 3 would have no impact on Eastern

heather vole, taiga alpine butterfly, Nabokov's blue butterfly, Freija's grizzled skipper, or wood

turtle, and they may impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or

loss of viability for little brown bat, tri-colored bat, bald eagle, northern goshawk, boreal owl,

great gray owl, American three-toed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler,

and Connecticut warbler.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/superior/projects



Summary of the Determined Effects on Aquatic Species

Alternative 1 would have no impact on any aquatic RFSS. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would

have identical impacts based on the indicators analyzed for aquatic RFSS. Alternatives 2 and

Alternative 3 would have no impact on the lake sturgeon, nipigon cisco, and shortjaw cisco since

there are no known occurrences within the project area. Alternative 2 and 3 may impact

individuals or the habitat of northern brook lamprey, creek heelsplitter and black sandshell

mussels, Quebec emerald dragonfly, ebony boghaunter dragonfly and headwaters chilostigman

caddisfly, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of

viability to the populations or species.

Summary of the Determined Effects on Vascular Plants, Lichens and Bryophytes

Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on swamp beggar-ticks,

floating marsh-marigold, linear-leaved sundew, neat spike rush, moor rush, auricled twayblade,

American shore-grass, fall dropseed muhly, dwarf waterlily, Oakes’ pondweed, awlwort, lance-

leaved violet, Appalachian fir club moss, large-leaved sandwort, encrusted saxifrage,

Arctoparmelia centrifuga, Arctoparmelia subcentrifuga, Cladonia wainoi, small shinleaf,

cloudberry, fairy slipper, ram’s head lady’s slipper, Caloplaca parvula, Cetraria aurescens,

Frullania selwyniana, Menegazzia terebrata, Pseudocyphellaria crocata, Ramalina thrausta,

Sticta fuliginosa, Usnea longissima, moschatel, triangle grapefern, goblin fern, New England

sedge, Chilean sweet cicely, Braun’s holly fern, Canada yew, barren strawberry, or Peltigera

venosa.

The proposed activities in Alternatives 1 and 2 may impact individuals of Douglas hawthorn,

common moonwort, Michigan moonwort, pale moonwort, ternate grapefern, and least

moonwort, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

The proposed activities in Alternative 2 may impact individuals of swamp beggar-ticks, floating

marsh-marigold, linear-leaved sundew, neat spike rush, moor rush, auricled twayblade,

American shore-grass, fall dropseed muhly, dwarf waterlily, Oakes’ pondweed, awlwort, lance-

leaved violet, Appalachian fir club moss, large-leaved sandwort, encrusted saxifrage,

Arctoparmelia centrifuga, Arctoparmelia subcentrifuga, Cladonia wainoi, small shinleaf,

cloudberry, fairy slipper, ram’s head lady’s slipper, Caloplaca parvula, Cetraria aurescens,

Frullania selwyniana, Menegazzia terebrata, Pseudocyphellaria crocata, Ramalina thrausta,

Sticta fuliginosa, Usnea longissima, moschatel, triangle grapefern, goblin fern, New England

sedge, Chilean sweet cicely, Braun’s holly fern, Canada yew, barren strawberry, or Peltigera

venosa, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.



3.6 Soil Productivity and Wetlands

Introduction

This section addresses concerns that proposed management activities may impact soil quality and

productivity through erosion, compaction, displacement, and nutrient drain. An analysis of these

impacts for implementing the Forest Plan was also performed in Chapter 3.6 of the Chippewa

and Superior National Forests Forest Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Statement,

Volume I (USDA Forest Service 2004). Appendix D of the Barker EA summarizes the Forest

Plan Standards and Guidelines (referred to in this document as Operational Standards and

Guidelines) for resources, including soils, which would be used for implementation. Forest Plan

standards and guidelines for the soil resource comply with Region 9 Soil Quality Standards

(USDA Forest Service 2012). Additionally, Appendix D incorporates the Best Management

Practices (BMPs) referenced in this document. BMPs are outlined in Sustaining Minnesota

Forest Resources: Voluntary Site-level Forest Management Guidelines (Minnesota Forest

Resource Council 2005) and are used by other landowners and agencies. Minnesota Forest

Resource Council (MFRC) BMPs are mitigations used to minimize impacts to the environment

that can occur during management activities. Forest Plan standards and guidelines are expected

to provide equal or greater protection to the resources addressed by the MFRC guidelines. Forest

Plan direction would take precedence in any situation where MFRC BMPs appear to be in

disagreement with standards and guidelines.

Indicators

Indicator 1: Acres affected by mechanical treatment.

The first indicator for the soil resource is acres proposed for mechanical treatment and associated

temporary roads, skid trails and landings. This indicator analyzes the differences between

alternatives related to the potential influence mechanical treatments have on erosion, compaction

and displacement.

Indicator 2: Miles of system road being decommissioned and constructed.

The second indicator for the soil resource is miles of road being decommissioned and

constructed. This indicator examines the difference in the amount of road that would be used for

vegetation management and the potential impacts from erosion, compaction, and displacement.

This indicator also examines the difference in the amount of road being decommissioned and as

a result, the amount of land being returned to a productive status.

Indicator 3: Acres of site preparation and slash disposal on nutrient sensitive Ecological Land Types (ELTs).

The third indicator for the soil resource is proposed acres of slash disposal, site preparation,

biomass harvest and prescribed burning on ELTs 8, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 18.This indicator highlights

the differences between alternatives related to the effects these particular treatments have on

potential nutrient drain on nutrient sensitive sites.



Indicator 4: Acres of wetland within proposed mechanical treatment.

The forth indicator is acres of proposed mechanical treatment on ELTs 2, 5 and 6.This indicator

highlights the differences between alternatives related to the potential effects of mechanical

operations to wetlands.

Analysis Parameters

The Analysis Area used to examine the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative

includes the mapped terrestrial ecological units (TEUs) and ecological landtypes (ELTs) on

National Forest System land within the Barker Project Area, where management activities are

proposed. Ecological landtypes are mapped TEUs whose natural boundaries best define site-

specific soil resource information for the Superior National Forest. Potential effects to the soil

resource are logically confined to the soil directly beneath where the activity takes place. An

example would be a piece of heavy equipment causing soil compaction that reduces pore space

for air, water, and roots within a section of a treatment area that does not impact pore space on

adjacent areas.

The time period used for analyzing the direct and indirect effects of the proposed activities is

fifteen years. The time period for cumulative effects is fifteen years prior to and after proposed

management activities. This time frame was selected because the effects of the management

actions would diminish over time and would not be measurable fifteen years from the time the

management activity has occurred.


The classification system used for the Barker Project is discussed in the National Hierarchical

Framework of Ecological Units by Cleland and others (1997). This system classifies and maps

ecological units based on associations of climate, topography, soils, water, and potential natural

communities. An overview of the Ecological Classification System for ecological units is useful

to understand the soils information presented in this document, including design criteria.

Within this hierarchical system, mapping units range from provinces that are thousands of square

miles in size, to landtype associations (LTAs) that are broad geographic areas, compared to

ecological landtypes (ELTs), which are more site-specific. The province is the largest unit

representing the climate zones of North America. The Superior National Forest falls into the

Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (212) with short, warm summers and long, cold winters.

Within the province there are increasingly smaller ecological units called sections, subsections,

landtype associations, and ecological landtypes.

The Barker Project Area is located in the Northern Superior Uplands Section (212L), the North

Shore Highlands (212Lb) Subsection, and the North Shore Ground Moraine (212Lb02), Cabin

Lake Till Plain (212Lb05), Honeymoon Mountain Ground Moraine (212Lb08), Sawtooth

Mountain Bedrock Complex (212Lb10), and Tettegouche Ground Moraine (212Lb11) LTAs.

Often treatment units contain multiple ELTs. Lists of all the ELTs and acreage for each treatment

unit are located in the project record.

More detailed information concerning project area LTAs and ELTs can be found in the project

record.



Table 3-SOIL-1: Wetland ELT Acres within the Barker Project Area.

Table 3-SOIL 2: Transitional and Upland ELT Acres within the Barker Project Area


Alternative 1


Alternative 1 would result in no future vegetation management activities in the Barker Project

area; therefore, no impacts would occur. No new roads would be constructed and no existing

roads would be decommissioned. As a result, these roads would remain open for motor vehicle

traffic in their current condition. Existing resource damage, such as erosion and rutting, would

persist.

Additional damage from continued use could also occur. This damage would potentially result in

sediment delivery to adjacent waterways and wetlands. Consequently, overall soil quality would

decline in the impacted area, resulting in a diminished capacity to support vegetation and

function for watershed health. Areas of road that would not be decommissioned under

Alternative 1 would remain unproductive.

ELT Description Acres

ELT 2 Poorly drained loamy soil 6,670

ELT 4 Poorly drained clay soil 1,369

ELT 5 Poorly drained acidic organic soil 3

ELT 6 Poorly drained organic soil 5,506

Total: 13,548

ELT Description Acres

ELT 1 Somewhat poorly drained loamy soil 5,289

ELT 3 Somewhat poorly drained clay soil 524

ELT 8 Well-drained sand and gravel soils 46

ELT 9 Droughty gravel and sand soils <1

ELT 10 Moderately well-drained clay soils 1,130

ELT 11 Well-drained sandy loam and loamy sand soil with gravely

subsurface and thin surface organic layer 5,443

ELT 12 Poor to well-drained, bouldery, loamy soil <1

ELT 13 Well-drained sandy loam and loamy sand soil with gravelly

subsurface 39

ELT 14 Moderately well-drained, sandy loam to silt loam soils 34,400

ELT 15 Well-drained to moderately well-drained, silt loam to clay loam

soils 1,650

ELT 16 Well-drained sandy loam or loam soils 4,221

ELT 17 Well-drained sandy loam soils 746

ELT 18 Droughty loam and sandy loam soils 21

Total: 53,510



Alternative 2 and Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Indicator 1: Acres affected by mechanical treatment.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in future vegetation management activities. By following

Operational Standards and Guidelines described in Appendix D, these treatments would result in

minimal impacts to the soil.

To determine overall impacts to soil quality, the amount and area impacted and the degree of

impact was analyzed. Table 3-SOIL-3 shows the acres of harvest and the acres of mechanical site

preparation or mechanical site preparation and prescribed fire.

Table 3-SOIL-3: Acres of Harvest and Mechanical Site Preparation

Treatment Type Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Harvest1 0 6,114 5,925

Site Preparation2 0 1,837 1,815

1Acres shown are stand acres. Actual treated acres would be less than the

acres shown to account for legacy patches, reserve islands, and other

resource protection measures. 2Acres of site preparation could include mechanical treatments or

prescribed fire treatments for the purpose of site preparation.

Much of the impact to the soils within the harvest areas, including mechanical site preparation, is

associated with landings and primary skid trails. Landing and primary skid trail impacts to soil

include soil compaction; which results in reduced water infiltration and increased potential for

erosion. Also, soil compaction resulting from vehicle and skidder traffic usually results in

reduced vegetation growth and regeneration. Units scheduled for summer harvest would have the

greatest potential for compaction. Frost action and floral and faunal activity tend to reduce

compaction within three to eleven years after activity (Mace 1971; Thorud and Frissell 1976;

Zenner et. al 2007; Puettmann et. al. 2008). The projected amount of area impacted by landings

and skid trails are shown in Table 3-SOIL-4.

Table 3-SOIL-4: Acres Impacted by Landings and Skid Trails

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Acres of landings and skid trails 0 244 237

Acres of slash disposal, site preparation, and

prescribed burning on low nutrient Ecological

Landtypes

0 473 427

Acres of wetland within mechanical treatment units 0 850 835 1Landings calculation assumed 1% of harvested area would be utilized (See Forest Plan).

2Skid trail calculations assumed 3% of harvested area would be utilized. Figures obtained by averaging

actual monitoring data on the Superior National Forest.

Management activities could also include biomass utilization. Biomass utilization would be

allowed on those soils listed in Table G-WS-8 of the Forest Plan (p. 2-16) as being acceptable

areas for “Whole tree Logging.” Those soils are considered to have a high nutrient capacity,



because of their soil characteristics; therefore, they would not likely be susceptible to detrimental

nutrient loss as a result of biomass harvest. Additional areas analyzed for slash removal, but not

included in those ELTs acceptable for “Whole tree Logging”, may also include biomass

utilization. The analysis of the associated impacts is included in the Indicator 3 discussion.

Nutrient removal associated with harvest activity and biomass utilization is a potential impact to

site productivity. Results of the five-year analysis of treatment areas in the long-term site

productivity study on the Marcell Experimental Forest in northern Minnesota indicated that total

tree harvest had no impact on site productivity. Aspen stands where total tree harvest occurred

within the study area, produced 40,400 suckers per hectare. This is well within the typical range

of 25,000 to 50,000 per hectare (Stone and Eiloff 1998). Impacts to site productivity associated

with harvest activity in the Barker Project Area are expected to be minimal.

Impacts of temporary road construction include compaction and displacement of soil and

potential sediment delivery to nearby wetlands and waterways. However, the impacts would be

minimized by using existing corridors where possible. Impacts would also be greatly reduced

through the use of BMPs along with Forest Plan standards and guidelines (S-TS-3, G-TS-13).

Most of these impacts would be short-term (less than fifteen years). Once treatment activities

were completed the road would be rehabilitated and revegetated.

Indicator 2: Miles of system road being decommissioned or constructed.

There are no roads decommissioned or constructed in the Barker Project.

Indicator 3: Acres of mechanical site preparation and slash disposal on low nutrient ELTs.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would include 473 acres and 427 acres of mechanical site preparation and/or

slash disposal, respectively; which could include prescribed burning or biomass utilization, on

low nutrient ELTs (ELTs 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 18). Those ELTs impacted are shown in Table 3-

SOIL-5.

Table 3-SOIL-5: Acres of Nutrient Low ELTs (8, 11, 16, and 17) with Mechanical Site Preparation and/or Slash Disposal within the Barker Project Area

ELT Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

ELT 8 0 <1 <1

ELT 11 0 349 304

ELT 16 0 90 90

ELT 17 0 33 33

TOTAL 0 473 427

Short term reductions in soil nutrients are possible in those areas where mechanical site

preparation and/or slash disposal would occur, which in the short term could reduce vegetative

growth. This reduction of soil nutrients would occur infrequently, every 60-100 years depending

on the rotation age; therefore, having minimal impact (Grigal 2004). Over time, nutrients are

replaced from the atmosphere, parent materials below, and to a lesser extent, from the

regenerating stand.



Figure 3-SOIL-1: Typical Slash Disposal Treatment (Note the amount of material left on the site).

The Clara Environmental Assessment modeled the amount of slash that would be left after

different treatments (USDA 2009). The Clara EA estimated slash disposal would reduce the

amount of material from 17.5 tons per acre before treatment to 10 tons per acre after treatment

(Clara Table 3-FUEL-5 p. 3-75). Thus, over half of the biomass would remain on site after

treatment to provide nutrients and reduce potential erosion. The remaining 10 tons would include

a substantial proportion of twigs, leaves, and needles. These fine materials would be more

readily available as nutrients than larger branches (MFRC Site Level Biomass Harvest

Guidelines p. 14), and contain a substantial proportion of nutrients compared to the rest of the

tree (Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3.6-13). Precipitation, dust deposition and nitrogen fixation would also

add nutrients to sites (MFRC Site Level Guidelines, p. 18).

Indicator 4: Acres of wetland within proposed mechanical treatment.

Alternatives 2 and 3 include 850 acres and 835 acres of wetland ELTs or less than one percent of

the Barker Project Area for mechanical treatment, respectively. Not all wetland acres within the

Project Area would be impacted because some of the mapped wetlands would be excluded from

the units during implementation. For wetlands that would be treated, Operational Standards and

Guidelines require that all mechanical operation occur during frozen conditions. Under frozen

conditions effects to wetlands, such as rutting or compaction, would not occur or would be

minimal. Through the use of Operational Standards and Guidelines and based on past

experience, it is anticipated the Barker Project would have minimal impacts to wetlands. Table 3-

Soil-6 displays the wetland ELT treatment acres within each alternative.

Table 3-SOIL-6: Wetland ELT Acres Proposed for Treatment within the Barker Project Area.

ELT Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

ELT 2 0 610 597

ELT 4 0 24 24

ELT 6 0 216 214

Total 0 850 835



Cumulative Effects

Management activities on non-federal lands would have minimal impacts to the soil through the

implementation of BMPs. Monitoring of impacts from timber harvest on public and private land

in Minnesota show minimal amounts of erosion and rutting as a result of timber harvest

activities. Erosion that resulted in sediment delivery to a wetland or water body from roads and

skid trails was observed 4 percent and 0.5 percent respectively. Rutting from management

activities was detected in 11.3 percent of 6,147 locations assessed for rutting. Of those locations

where rutting was observed, 64 percent had less than 5 percent of the surface area in ruts. Also,

on 88.7% of the sites rutting was limited to roads, skid trails and landings (Dahlman 2008).

Minimal cumulative effects are anticipated through the use of Forest Plan standards and

guidelines and the use of BMPs.

No discernible impacts to long-term soil productivity have been identified as a result of past

management activities within the Barker Project Area. Grigal (2004) reviewed the analysis for

long-term site productivity completed as a portion of the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement (GEIS) done for timber harvest in the state of Minnesota. In his review of the GEIS,

he concluded that updated nutrient budgets and results of long-term studies indicate the nutrient

capital is sufficient to tolerate numerous biomass removals and harvest rotations with minimal

impacts to site productivity for most mineral soils in Minnesota. Known past and reasonably

foreseeable future management actions that would occur on land impacted by proposed

management activities would have minimal cumulative impacts to the soil resource.

While uncertainty exists around some aspects of climate change, there is considerable agreement

that by the end of the century soil moisture regimes and soil nutrient cycling are highly likely to

experience noticeable changes (Handler et. al. 2014). These changes could result in changes to

ecosystem function, although to what degree is uncertain based on differences in climate change

scenarios and potential shifts in forest composition. However, predicted changes to climate

within the analysis time frame in conjunction with other activities in the analysis area are not

likely to result in appreciable cumulative effects to soils. By following BMPs and/or Forest Plan

guidelines for the soil resource, management activities would not be anticipated to exacerbate the

impacts of climate change to the soils.



3.7 Non-Native Invasive Plants

Introduction

Non-native invasive species are generally defined by two characteristics: 1) they were not

historically (i.e., pre-European settlement) present in a region’s ecosystems, and 2) they have the

ecological ability to invade and persist in native plant and animal communities, and often

become dominant species at the expense of native species.

Ground disturbance associated with Barker Project activities could create conditions favorable to

the introduction or spread of non-native invasive plants (NNIP). This potential effect is analyzed

in this section; which describes the NNIP that are currently known to exist in the Project Area, as

well as the effects of the alternatives on NNIP.

Indicators

Indicator 1: Miles of new upland road construction on National Forest System land.

This indicator is useful for distinguishing among alternatives, because currently the vast majority

of terrestrial non-native invasive plant impacts are along roads on the Superior National Forest.

New roads are areas that are likely to be invaded by non-native invasive plants.

Indicator 2: Acres of treatment units within 50 feet of NNIP occurrence.

This indicator is useful for distinguishing among alternatives, because NNIP occurrences near

vegetation treatment units have the highest likelihood of spreading as a result of management

activities. The areas where they would likely spread are those where ground disturbance has

occurred, such as nearby units. This analysis only includes inventoried NNIP populations, not

NNIP for which no inventory exists, such as orange and yellow hawkweed, or oxeye daisy.

Analysis Parameters

The area covered by the analysis of direct and indirect effects includes all lands administered on

the Superior National Forest System land within the Barker Project Area. This area was selected,

because this is where project activities would occur and cause the direct and indirect effects. The

area covered by the cumulative effects analysis includes lands of all ownerships within the

Barker Project Area. This cumulative effects analysis area was selected, because private lands

within the project area boundaries share a number of physical characteristics (e.g. soils,

landforms, etc.) with adjacent National Forest System lands. These characteristics influence land

uses, which in turn influence NNIP distribution throughout the project area; so the Barker Project

boundary makes a logical analysis unit for cumulative effects.

The time period for direct effects is ten years from the time project activities begin, because no

effects of the project activities would occur until implementation, and because most project

activities should be completed within ten years. Indirect and cumulative effects, for the most

part, are also confined to this ten year time frame; however, when evaluating whether any effects

are likely to occur from climate change, long-term time frames are also considered.




Table 3-NNIP-1 displays the non-native invasive plants that are known to occur in the analysis

area. This list was developed based on results from NNIP inventory data collected on the

Superior National Forest. Non-native invasive plants are typically spread in several ways, such

as vehicle wheels or bodies, livestock, wildlife, boat traffic, or human foot traffic. Non-native

invasive plants typically enter an area along a corridor of ground disturbance, such as a road or

trail. Depending on numerous factors, such as shade tolerance, degree of invasiveness, dispersal

mechanisms, and habitat availability, NNIP may or may not spread into adjacent forested or non-

forested ecosystems. Typical areas that have some weed infestation in the analysis area are

roadsides, trails, portages, gravel pits, parking areas, campgrounds, helispots, and administrative

sites.

Mesic forested sites with shady understories on the Superior National Forest are fairly resistant

to invasion by most NNIP. NNIP that disperse into such plant communities tend to get out-

competed quickly by native shrubs, forbs, and trees. However, some NNIP are exceptions to this

general observation. For example, common buckthorn, Siberian peabush, and Tatarian

honeysuckle can thrive in the understory of mesic native plant communities. There are no

known occurrences of any of these species in the Barker Project Area.

Conversely, there are a number of native plant communities typical of droughty, shallow-soiled

sites that are susceptible to invasion by NNIP. These sites have less abundant shrub and forb

layers, and as a result are more susceptible to being invaded by NNIP, especially if some ground

disturbance occurs. These types of sites correspond to Ecological Landtypes (ELTs) 7, 9, 11, 16,

17, and 18. Most susceptible among these are rock outcrops, which correspond to ELT 18. ELT

18 is zero to eight inches of soil over bedrock. The amount of actual rock outcropping within

areas of mapped ELT 18 would be less. There is very little (less than 1% of analysis area)

mapped ELT 18 in the analysis area.

In general the analysis area has a low level of NNIP infestations (Table 3-NNIP-1). Orange

hawkweed, yellow hawkweeds, and oxeye daisy are the most abundant NNIP. They are found at

low abundance levels along most roads in the analysis area and pose a moderate ecological risk

to native plant species. Two high ecological risk species, spotted knapweed and Canada thistle,

are less abundant; totaling approximately 3 acres of infestations, but are still found scattered

along roadsides throughout the project area. The moderate ecological risk species, wild parsnip,

common tansy and St. Johnswort, occupy approximately 5.4 acres in the analysis area. The

following analysis only considers the effects of moderate and high risk species. The low risk

species do not pose enough of a threat to native plant communities to warrant consideration in

the analysis.



Table 3-NNIP: Non-native Invasive Plants Known in the Barker Project

Species MN

Status* Life History/

Habitat Summary Acres

Ecological Risk**

Spotted knapweed

Centaurea maculosa P

Short lived perennial, spread entirely by

seeds, dry to mesic uplands (Wilson and

Randall 2002)

1.7 High

Canada thistle

Cirsium arvense P

Perennial, spread by seed and rhizome,

occupies disturbed sites (Lym and

Christianson 1996)

1.3 High

Bull thistle

Cirsium vulgare

No

status

Biennial, spread by seed, occupies disturbed

sites (Lym and Christianson 1996) 0.2 Low

Orange hawkweed

Hieracium auranticum

No

status


widespread in disturbed upland sites

(Callihan et al. 1982)

29.8*** Moderate

Yellow hawkweeds

Hieracium sp.

No

status

Several similar non-native invasive yellow

hawkweeds occur in Project Area;

perennial, spread by seed and rhizome,


(Gleason and Cronquist 1991)

29.8*** Moderate

St. Johnswort

Hypericum perforatum

No

status

Herbaceous perennial; spread by seed and

lateral roots, dry to mesic uplands (Krueger

and Sheley 2002)

0.2 Moderate

Oxeye daisy

Leucanthemum vulgare

No

status



(Krueger and Sheley 2002)

29.8*** Moderate

Lupine

Lupinus polyphyllus

No

status

Perennial, spread by seed; road rights-of-

way (Czarapata 2005) 0.2 Low

Wild parsnip

Pastinaca sativa

No

status

Tap-rooted perennial, spread by seed; only

flowers once; wide range of disturbed

habitats (Czarapata 2005)

0.005 Moderate

Common tansy

Tanacetum vulgare P

Herbaceous rhizomatous perennial, spread

mostly by seed; disturbed uplands (LeCain

and Sheley 2011)

5.2 Moderate

* P = Prohibited noxious weed (Minnesota Statutes 18.76 to 18.91) that must be controlled.

R = Restricted noxious weed (Minnesota Statutes 18.76 to 18.91) – importation, sale, transportation is illegal.

** Species represents either a low, moderate, or high threat to natural communities (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Risk given in table represents risk in most susceptible habitat.

*** Estimated acres based on miles of road in Project Area.


Alternative 1


Although all there are no miles of new upland road construction, no acres of treatment units

within 50 feet of a NNIP occurrence, and no ground disturbance under Alternative 1, this

alternative would still have direct effects on NNIP. Any non-native invasive plant in the analysis

area would continue to exist and would probably be spread in the analysis area along typical

corridors for weed dispersal (roads, trails, gravel pits, and parking lots). Any public or

administrative vehicle use in the analysis area (passenger vehicles, trucks, road maintenance

equipment, All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)) would have the potential to spread NNIP. Wildlife and

human foot traffic in the analysis area would also have the potential to spread NNIP, but the



likelihood of spread by these means would be lower than from vehicle use. Overall, this

alternative would have the least amount of ground disturbance; therefore, the least risk of weed

spread.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)



Approximately 12.6 miles of new upland road relocation and temporary roads would be

constructed in Alternative 2. Non-native invasive plant species are likely to spread along the

sides of some of the new upland road construction in the analysis area. Some species like oxeye

daisy and orange and yellow hawkweed, are already found along most roads in the analysis area,

and would probably quickly colonize the sides of some new upland roads. However, the

ecological consequences of the spread of these species would be minor since they primarily stay

on roadsides and do not compete well with native upland vegetation.

Other species, such as Canada thistle and spotted knapweed, are not as common in the analysis

area, but have a high ecological risk (Table 3-NNIP-1). These species can outcompete native

vegetation and degrade wildlife habitat. Project activities would probably cause some of these

species to spread, and most new infestations would be confined to the disturbed areas. There is a

risk that these species could spread to nearby undisturbed susceptible habitat (like wetland edges

for Canada thistle) and degrade native plant communities.

Tansy, wild parsnip, and St. Johnswort have a moderate risk of ecological consequences. Project

activities would probably cause new infestations of these species in disturbed areas such as along

temporary roads. The ecological consequences of the spread of these species would be minor,

since they primarily stay on roadsides and do not compete well with native upland vegetation.

Furthermore, roadside infestations are easier to find and manage than infestations in forested

communities.

A number of factors would minimize NNIP impacts in Alternative 2. Some of the potential NNIP

spread would be offset by the fact that all of the new roads proposed in the Barker project area

are temporary roads and would be decommissioned after use. As native forbs, shrubs, and trees

start to revegetate decommissioned roads after road use stops, these species would gradually

begin to outcompete moderately invasive species like yellow hawkweed. Herbicides were used

to treat weed infestations across the project area during the past two years, and some potential

NNIP spread would be offset by the 2.4 acres (117 sites) and 2.4 acres (74 sites) of weed

treatments conducted in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Similar acreage is expected to be treated in

2015. Lastly, the risk of NNIP spread would be minimized by an Operational Standard and

Guideline that specifies treatment of known infestations prior to mechanical or burning

treatments. This would also reduce the risk of spreading NNIP.

For these reasons, there would be a low risk of impacts from weed spread tied to road

construction.

Indicator 2: Acres of treatment units within 50 feet of NNIP occurrence.

Approximately 2,798 acres of vegetation treatment units would occur within 50 feet of an

inventoried NNIP occurrence in Alternative 2. For this alternative there is a risk that NNIP



occurrences near a treatment unit could spread to the unit as a result of ground disturbance

associated with the treatment (timber harvest or mechanical site preparation). The risk of NNIP

spread would be minimized by an Operational Standard and Guideline that specifies treatment of

known infestations prior to vegetation management activities. Furthermore, as noted above for

indicator 1, herbicides were used in 2013 and 2014 to treat invasive plant infestations in the

analysis area, which will help reduce the risk of future NNIP spread. Alternative 2 would have a

greater risk of weed spread associated with vegetation treatments than Alternative 1, but

following Operational Standards and Guidelines would minimize the risk of ecological

consequences of NNIP spread a result of management activities.

Table 3-NNIP-2: Indicators for NNIP Analysis.

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

1. Miles of new upland road

construction on NFS lands 0 12.6 12.5

2. Acres of treatment units within 50 feet of

NNIP occurrence. 0 2,798 2,759

Alternative 3



Approximately 12.5 miles of upland temporary road would be constructed in Alternative 3

(Table 3-NNIP-2). Road construction would have the same types of effects on the spread of

NNIP as described for this indicator in Alternative 2; however, the magnitude of effects would

be slightly less than what they would be for Alternative 2 since slightly fewer miles of roads are

proposed for construction. This indicator suggests that there would be a slightly greater weed

spread under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 3. As with Alternative 2, some of the effects

of this potential weed spread in Alternative 3 would be offset by weed treatments conducted in

2013 and 2014 in the analysis area, the fact that the new roads would all be temporary roads, and

the use of Operational Standards and Guidelines.

Indicator 2 – Acres of treatment units within 50 feet of NNIP occurrence.

Approximately 2,759 acres of vegetation treatment units would occur within fifty feet of an

inventoried NNIP occurrence in Alternative 3 (Table 3-NNIP-2). The types of effects of timber

harvest on weed spread would be similar to those described above for Alternative 2; however,

the magnitude of effects would be slightly less for Alternative 3 since fewer acres of harvest

units occur within fifty feet of an NNIP occurrence. This indicator suggests that there would be a

slightly less weed spread under Alternative 3 resulting from vegetation management treatments.

As with Alternative 2, the potential effects of weed spread under Alternative 3 would be

minimized by weed treatments conducted in 2013 and 2014 in the analysis area, the fact that the

new roads would all be temporary roads, and the use Operational Standards and Guidelines.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Based on the analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (Appendix F), the

cumulative effects of the Barker Project on NNIP would be negligible and would not differ much

between Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Some effects would be negative and others would be beneficial.



Past actions influenced the composition and distribution of NNIP in the cumulative effects

analysis area. For example, the development of a transportation system (roads and railroads) and

a recreational trail system provided corridors for the introduction and spread of these species.

Mixed land ownership patterns in the analysis area have also contributed to the development of

the transportation system and NNIP spread. Most non-native invasive plant species were

introduced unintentionally. Past timber harvest in the cumulative effects analysis area has also

contributed to NNIP. Cumulatively, these past actions influenced the present composition and

distribution of these species in the analysis area.

NNIP would continue to spread in the analysis area under all alternatives as a result of present

and reasonably foreseeable actions on National Forest System land and lands under other

ownership. The effects of NNIP would continue to be concentrated in developed areas

(roadsides, trails, and power lines) and not undeveloped forestlands. Some road construction is

likely on state and county lands in the analysis area. For example, some new roads could be built

in connection with state or county timber harvest, and this could result in a small amount of

NNIP spread. Also, ongoing special use authorizations (Appendix F) could also contribute to

some small increases in NNIP along the special use roads. Overall, road construction and use of

existing roads in the cumulative effects analysis along travel corridors for Alternatives 1, 2, or 3,

could lead to small increases in NNIP infestations on both National Forest System land and lands

under other ownership

Timber harvest on non-federal ownership, such as future vegetation management on state lands

(projected 396 acres of vegetation treatments, Appendix F), would also make a small

contribution to the spread of NNIP. Also, there is an ongoing demand for gravel from gravel pits

in the analysis area, which could lead to some spread of NNIP.

On April 27, 2006, Forest Supervisor Jim Sanders signed a decision to implement a forest-wide

NNIP management project, which would provide for treatments of NNIP in the project area

(USDA Forest Service 2006) under all alternatives. In the Barker Project Area 2.4 acres (117

sites) and 2.4 acres (74 sites) of invasive plants were treated in 2013 and 2014, respectively. A

similar amount of acreage is expected to be treated in 2015. This is a beneficial effect with

respect to NNIP spread, because it would minimize the impacts from NNIP that may have been

caused by project activities directly, indirectly and cumulatively.

It is difficult to quantify a threshold for cumulative weed impacts. One way of approaching this

question is to compare the abundance of NNIP on high risk sites in the project area to their

abundance on high risk sites forest-wide. There are approximately 10.8 acres of NNIP infesting

sites at increased risk of NNIP invasion (i.e. ELTs 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 18) in the analysis area.

This represents a small fraction (approximately 1%) of NNIP on high risk sites forest-wide,

which further demonstrates that the Barker Project activities would pose minimal risk to the

cumulative effects of weed spread.

Monitoring a sample of the Barker Project activities for NNIP spread would help detect new

infestations that arise as a result of project activities; new infestations would be treated under the

2006 Forestwide NNIP Management EA. Monitoring results to date suggest that Superior

National Forest invasive plant mitigations are successful in minimizing the spread of these

species. Monitoring of harvested stands treated under the Silver Island Environmental

Assessment (Tofte Ranger District) found only 0.008 acres of new infestations that appeared tied

to harvest activities (USDA Forest Service 2007). No spread was observed into forested stands;



for example, one stand next to Sawbill Landing (which has a heavy spotted knapweed

infestation) was thinned and burned, but no spotted knapweed was found in the treated stand. In

2007 monitoring of harvested stands treated under the Virginia EIS (Laurentian Ranger District)

found only 0.1 acres of new infestations on skid trails and landings in harvest units, but no

infestations within the regenerating stands themselves (USDA Forest Service 2008). For these

reasons, the cumulative impacts of the Barker Project on NNIP would be negligible.

Projected climate change in the project area is also likely to contribute to cumulative effects.

Projected warmer temperatures and elevated carbon dioxide in the project area might allow

current invasive species to expand their range and new species to colonize the project area. The

Barker Project area receives high recreational use and the cumulative effects of increased

temperatures and trail use could potentially exacerbate NNIP populations in the area under future

projected conditions.



3.8 Water Quality

Introduction

There is concern about the water quality and watershed health in the Barker Project Area. The

proposed harvest treatments and temporary road construction through uplands and lowlands to

access forest stands in the project area may negatively affect the water quality of the lakes,

streams and open water wetlands. This section addresses the direct, indirect and cumulative

effects to water quality and watershed health.

Indicators

Three indicators were chosen from the Forest Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to

evaluate the effects to water quality from harvest

activities: temporary road construction on ecological

landtypes (ELT) 1-6 (lowlands); number of new

temporary water crossings to access to harvest units;

and the percentage of watershed in upland open and

upland young forest less than 16 years old (Forest Plan

FEIS, pp. 3.6-1 – 3.6-60).

Indicator 1: Miles of new temporary roads crossing lowlands to access vegetation treatment sites.

Indicator 1 evaluates the potential effects of new temporary road construction crossing ELTs 1-6

to access the proposed vegetation treatment sites. ELTs 1-6 are classified as lowlands as defined

in the Forest Plan. This is a good indicator for assessing the potential to inundate or desiccate

habitat due to water level and/or flow regime disruption. If not properly designed and mitigated,

roads crossing lowlands can lead to changes in hydrologic function and may directly affect

aquatic populations and habitat.

Indicator 2: Number of new temporary water crossings to access vegetation treatment sites.

Indicator 2 evaluates the potential effects of water crossings to aquatic species measuring the

potential change in sediment input, stream flow regimes, channel conditions, stream

connectivity, and fish migration barriers. This can lead to aquatic habitat loss.

Indicator 3: Proportion of upland open and upland young forest within each 6th level hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed.

Indicator 3 assesses the portion of upland open and upland young forest within each sixth level

HUC watershed that occurs within or intersects the project area. The goal is that vegetation

treatment activities would not increase total combined acreage of upland young forest (<16

years) and upland openings above 60% of the total area of any sixth level watershed on all

ownerships (Forest Plan, S-WS-1, pp. 2-13). Indicator 3 has also been chosen for analysis,

because potential effects from vegetation treatment and other activities associated with the action

alternatives could influence peak stream flows. This could potentially reshape stream channels,

A watershed is defined as the

area from which all surface

water drains to a common point,

commonly thought of as the area

that drains water into a given

lake or stream (Forest Plan

Glossary-30). The mapping

system for watersheds consists

of multiple levels. These

watershed levels are described in

detail in the Forest Plan FEIS

pages 3.6-1 -3.6-2.



increase erosion, and decrease biological integrity, which would be evident at the watershed

scale (Verry et al. 2000).

Analysis Parameters

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Indicator 1 includes both lands

within and outside of the project area that are within one mile of any new proposed temporary

road construction that is needed to access treatment units. This analysis area was chosen, because

effects to watershed health, such as water quality, from roads are evident within one mile or less

of a road (Verry et al. 2000). Indicator 2 would include lands within the project area, because

effects to aquatic habitat from road crossings are evident at the crossing location. Indicator 3, the

cumulative effects analysis, includes lands of all ownerships of the sixth level HUC watersheds

that intersect the project area. This was selected because watersheds: (1) are natural integrators

of effects related to water flow and water quality, (2) account for the amount of open and young

forest resulting from harvest on National Forest lands, and (3) can be used to evaluate similar

conditions on other lands within the watershed (FEIS pp. 3.6-5 and 3.6-6).

The timeframe selected for Indicator 1 is 20 years, because the effects from road construction

and vegetation treatment activities may be observable for many years following the initial impact

of activity. The timeframe for Indicator 2 is 10 years as identified in the Forest Plan, FEIS (pp.

3.6-6). The timeframe selected for Indicator 3 is 10 to 20 years, because sediment into the stream

flow and the channel conditions can be measured during this timeframe as well as measuring

vegetation growth (FEIS pp. 3.6-6).


The Barker Project Area contains approximately 3,186 acres of named lakes, many miles of

named streams, and numerous intermittent streams, open water wetlands, ephemeral ponds, wet

meadows, seeps, and springs. They flow into the Northwest Lake Superior basin. The named

lakes and streams are classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as

supporting cold-water and warm-water fisheries. Cold-water fisheries originates from the family

Salmonidae (trout species such as brook, brown, and splake) and warm-water fisheries from the

following families: Percidae (walleye pike); Catostomidae (white sucker); Esocidae (northern

pike, muskellunge); and Centrarchidae (bass) families; along with numerous minnow species of

the Cyprinidae family (chubs, dace, and shiners).

Within the Barker boundary there are other aquatic wildlife, such as reptiles and amphibians, that

are associated with open water wetlands, ephemeral ponds, wet meadows, seeps, and springs.

Many rely on ephemeral wetlands for successful metamorphosis from larva to adult. They are the

following: Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum), Blue-spotted Salamanders (Ambystoma

laterale), and Wood Frogs (Rana sylvatica) (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994). Some reptiles and

amphibians, while not dependent on ephemeral wetlands, opportunistically use these habitats.

Breeding amphibians sometimes number in the thousands in these wetlands, while other species,

such as the Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and Snapping Turtle (Chelydra

serpentina) can benefit from foraging on the temporarily abundant prey.



Indicator 1 and 2: Roads and Crossings

Roads and trails are often the primary source of sediment in streams and lakes associated with

land use activities. Any new road or trail construction can concentrate surface runoff and

accelerate the rate of runoff. Most impacts occur during initial road construction and gradually

decrease as roadside vegetation is reestablished and disturbed soil surfaces stabilize. Currently,

there are 138 miles of roads and 171 miles of trails on all land ownership within the Barker

Project Area (see Barker Mid-Level Reports).

There are approximately 82 known road and trail stream crossings within the Barker Project

Area. Coarse level stream crossing surveys identified three culverts in need of maintenance

and/or replacement (see Barker Mid-Level Reports). It is important to replace undersized and

perched culverts, especially with the current concerns about climate change and its impacts from

predicted increases in heavy precipitation events. Increases in flooding and soil erosion can cause

infrastructure damage and increases the likelihood of landslides and stream bank erosion, as

demonstrated during the June 2012 floods in northern Minnesota.

Indicator 3: Watersheds

When assessing the effects to water quality, sixth level twelve digit HUC watersheds are

examined. The surface water from watersheds eventually drain into a given lake or stream and

the watersheds’ ecological composition, structure and function can be impacted through land

management activities such as road building, water crossings, and harvesting, in addition to

natural disturbances such as floods.

The Barker Project Area is divided into eighteen sixth level HUC watersheds. Table 3.8-1 shows

the total acres of each watershed, acres of each watershed inside the project area, and percent of

the total watershed in upland young or open condition.

Table 3-WQ-1: Sixth-level Watersheds in the Barker Project Area.

Watershed Name Watershed

Acres

Watershed Acres in Barker

Percent Watershed in Upland Young

Caribou Creek 11,954 11,617 13.0

Caribou River-Frontal Lake Superior 16,548 6,076 10.8

City of Grand Marais-Frontal Lake Superior 9,113 634 19.4

City of Lutsen-Frontal Lake Superior 7,913 216 11.4

City of Tofte-Frontal Lake Superior 16,631 5,912 7.9

Cross River 13,104 4,276 8.5

Deer Yard Lake-Frontal Lake Superior 9,488 2,958 6.4

Devil Track River 20,086 137 28.3

Good Harbor Bay-Frontal Lake Superior 6,874 166 15.3

Heartbreak Creek 11,327 2,724 6.2

Houghtaling Creek 8,117 1,133 27.1

Lower Cascade River 22,455 6,657 18.3

Lower Temperance River 24,586 7,232 10.4

Manitou River 16,128 2,039 10.6

Mistletoe Creek 10,915 3,975 26.5

Poplar River 26,728 8,118 14.0

Taconite Harbor-Frontal Lake Superior 19,571 6,993 11.8

Tait River 12,979 666 25.3




Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1

All Indicators

There would be no new direct, indirect or cumulative effects for any indicator under Alternative

1. No new temporary roads would be constructed over ELTs 1-6 (lowlands), no new crossings

would be constructed to access the vegetation treatment activities, and no additional young forest

would be created through vegetation treatment activities other than what would naturally occur.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3

Indicator 1: Miles of new temporary roads crossing ecological landtypes 1-6 (lowlands) to access vegetation treatment sites.

Alternatives 2 & 3 would construct 3 miles of new temporary roads on ELTs 1-6 (lowlands).

This could potentially change water levels or flow regimes in lowlands, which could impact

aquatic habitat. This could lead to blockage of cross-drainage and down road, channelization

which could take 20 years to recover (MFRC Guidelines, Forest Roads pp. 44). Adherence to the

Barker Project Operational Standards and Guidelines found in Appendix D and site specific

mitigation measures associated with each prescription during project implementation would

minimize the impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat from the temporary road construction

crossing lowlands in either alternative.

Impacts to the water quality within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW)

from the temporary roads crossing lowlands would be minimal to nonexistent, since they are

greater than a mile from the border and mitigation measures are in place to reduce any impacts.

The effects to water quality and watershed health from roads are generally evident and relevant

within one mile or less of the road (Verry et al. 2000).

Indicator 2: Number of new temporary water crossings to access vegetation treatment sites.

Alternatives 2 and Alternative 3 would insert 6 temporary water crossings (2 intermittent and 4

perennial streams) on temporary roads created to access timber stands. Water crossings can

increase sediment transport, disrupt natural stream flow and flood flow, reduce riparian function,

and impede aquatic organism passage. Following Forest Road guidelines in the Minnesota Forest

Resources Council Voluntary Site Guidelines and installing culverts/bridges of sufficient size to

handle hydrologic flows for the site would minimize impacts, and enhance the water quality and

overall watershed health of the project area. The water crossing would be removed after the

roadbed is closed and decommissioned.

Indicator 3: Proportion of upland open and upland young forest within each 6th level watershed.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would convert some of the land into upland open forests, but the watersheds

would remain below the 60 percent threshold (Table 3.8-2). Thus, it is expected that peak stream

flows within the Barker Project Area would have minimal effects on the health of the water

quality and potentially reshaping stream channels that would increase erosion and decrease the

biological integrity.



Table 3-WQ-2: Proportion of upland open and upland young forest within each 6th level watershed under alternatives by 2024.

Watershed Name Alternative 1

2024

Alternative 2

2024

Alternative 3

2024

Caribou Creek 13 17 17

Caribou River-Frontal Lake Superior 11 12 12

City of Grand Marais-Frontal Lake Superior 19 22 22

City of Lutsen-Frontal Lake Superior 11 12 12

City of Tofte-Frontal Lake Superior 8 12 12

Cross River 9 10 10

Deer Yard Lake-Frontal Lake Superior 6 8 8

Devil Track River 28 29 29

Good Harbor Bay-Frontal Lake Superior 15 16 16

Heartbreak Creek 6 7 7

Houghtaling Creek 27 31 31

Lower Cascade River 18 23 22

Lower Temperance River 10 12 12

Manitou River 10 10 10

Mistletoe Creek 26 35 35

Poplar River 14 17 17

Taconite Harbor-Frontal Lake Superior 12 12 12

Tait River 25 27 27 Data source: June 2015 aml runs for the Barker Project.

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3

The list of potential cumulative actions in Appendix F was reviewed, and the past, present and

reasonably foreseeable future actions that may contribute to cumulative effects that affect water

quality were considered. This would include any road construction and/or water crossings related

to a timber sale, trail construction that crosses water, fuels reduction (prescribed burns), special

use permits for road access, routine road maintenance activities, private development, and the

percent of the watershed in upland open and upland young forest exceeding sixty percent.

State lands encompass eight percent (about 5,600 acres) of the project area and private lands

approximately nine percent (about 6,500 acres) of the project area. The state is currently proposing

stand examinations on about 199 acres within the project boundary and there is an additional 396

acres setup or sold timber sales (Bushmaker, 2015). Minimal harvesting is anticipated on private

lands within the project boundary since these areas are relatively small and typically used for

recreational activities. Best management practices are followed by state managers, and their

planned timber sales would not raise the percent of young and open stands in watersheds in the

Barker Project Area above the 60% threshold.

Fuel reduction activities in this area are ongoing and approximately 200 to 300 acres are being

treated. Mitigation measures would be followed to reduce impacts to water quality.

There are 14 special use permits that are ongoing within the Barker Project Area Two roads are

expected to be decommissioned following permit expiration. The other roads and/or trails are

expected to be renewed or have no decommissioning requirements. Decommissioning roads

would reduce impacts to water quality.



Overall impacts to water resources and biota from erosion and sediment, compaction, rutting,

chemical contamination, and changes in water flow would be reduced by implementing the

Barker Project Operational Standards and Guidelines, site specific mitigation measures, the

Superior National Forest Management Plan standards and guidelines, and the MFRC guidelines.



3.9 Scenic Quality at Bally Creek Ski Trails

Introduction

During the Barker Project scoping period, concerns were raised by members of the public about

visual quality on the Bally Creek Ski Trail System. The proposed harvest and fuel reduction

activities along these trails may affect scenic qualities of the forest for trail users. The Bally

Creek Ski Trails are primarily used during the winter months as ski trails, but they are also used

during the snow-free season by hikers and hunters. Potential effects to the scenic quality of these

trails are analyzed in this section.

The United States Forest Service utilizes the Scenery Management System as a framework for

the orderly inventory, analysis, and management of scenery. This system is applied to every acre

of National Forest land administered by the Forest Service and to all Forest Service activities

including timber harvesting (Landscape Aesthetics- A handbook for Scenery Management pp

12).

Indicators

Indicator 1: Change in scenery along the Bally Creek Ski Trail System as a result of vegetation management

The quality of the visiting, traveling, recreating, and sightseeing experience is dependent on the

aesthetic character of the surrounding forest. This indicator will describe the different changes in

scenery between alternatives.

Analysis Parameters

The analysis area for the direct and indirect effects is the National Forest System lands within the

Barker Project Area that are adjacent to trails within the Bally Creek Ski Trail System. This

analysis area was chosen, because the trails in this system have High Scenic Integrity Objectives

and they were identified during the scoping period as an area that the recreating public is

interested in protecting. Actions within this analysis area have the highest probability of

impacting the scenic resource along this trail system. Most of the actions proposed in the Barker

Project that are not adjacent to these trails would not be visible from the trail system and those

actions will not be analyzed in this section.

This analysis will consider the effects of the Barker Project on trails within the Bally Creek Ski

Trail System that are adjacent to proposed mechanical treatment units. Effects to the recreation

resource include seeing and hearing harvest activities, including the effects to the scenic resource

after harvesting is completed. The effects will be described via a qualitative description of the

effects and in terms of scope and duration of the effects to the scenic resource.

The time periods analyzed for direct and indirect effects are short term (one to ten years) and

long term (greater than twenty years). The analysis area for the cumulative effects is lands on all

ownership adjacent to the Bally Creek Ski Trail System. This analysis area was selected, because

actions on other ownership along the trails in this system and the associated viewshed would

affect the scenic quality along the trails.



The time period for the direct and indirect effects is ten years. All of the activities are expected to

be completed within ten years. This time frame is appropriate, because the effects of the project

on the recreation resource would occur predominantly while the timber harvest or other project

work was occurring. The effects from these activities would result from seeing and hearing

mechanized activity. The greatest amount of noticeable change to scenery would occur directly

after harvest from logging debris, site preparation activities, and changes in vegetation

composition and structure. After ten years the harvested area would be re-vegetated and logging

slash would have settled. Underplanting and release treatments are not analyzed, because they

would have a negligible impact on the current forest-type within this ten year period.

The time period for cumulative effects extends beyond twenty years. This time period is

appropriate, because the activities proposed in the Barker Project are designed to improve forest

health, diversity, and scenic quality over the long-term. Under the action alternatives, effects

may not be realized until new trees have become established as it would take more than twenty

years for the long-lived species to be large enough to become a dominant part of the scenic

landscape.


The Bally Creek Ski Trails are a valuable recreation experience that provides area residents and

tourists with a remote skiing experience that has a closed in character that is different from other

ski trails on the Gunflint Ranger District. These trails are often used by skiers, because it allows

them to ski on narrow, single-track trails while also providing an opportunity to avoid ski trails

with higher levels of use. Since many of the skiers of the Bally Creek Ski Trail System are

travelling at a slower speed, they are observing the scenic components of the trail system for a

longer amount of time then other trails where the method of travel is at a higher speed.

The Bally Creek Ski Trails fulfills a niche in the Superior National Forest Ski Trail System by

providing a location where users can find single-track trails that are used by skiers seeking a

remote or isolated feeling. These trails are also very popular on high wind days due to the closed

in character of the surrounding forest. These stands help to protect skiers from high wind

velocities and provide area residents and skiers an opportunity to ski on days where other ski trail

systems may be more exposed to weather conditions.

Due to the location of the Bally Creek Ski Trail System, the snow conditions are often different

than other ski trail networks in close proximity to Lake Superior. The Bally Creek Ski Trails

often have skiable snow earlier in the winter than other trail systems and that snow often lasts

longer into the spring than other ski trail systems in the area. The grooming on this trail system is

primarily completed by a snowmobile dragging a track setter, as opposed to other ski trail

systems which use larger grooming equipment such as a piston bully or snow cat. Due to the

different grooming methods and different snow conditions, the Bally Creek Ski Trail System

provides a different type of skiing experience than other trails on the Gunflint Ranger District.

Several miles of trails on the periphery of the Bally Creek Ski Trail System were built after past

vegetation management activities. These trails provide an existing example of what ski trails

look like several years after harvests have been completed.




Alternative 1 – No-Action


No new management actions would occur under Alternative 1; therefore, there would be no

direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1. The forest would continue to mature at current rates

and many of the trees in the area would start to die of old age. The scenic quality of the area

would change over time as trees that are at the end of their lifespan die out; creating gaps in the

forest canopy. The understory species primarily consist of balsam fir and spruce, which would

likely become the dominant species if no vegetation management activities were completed in

this area. This would reduce the diversity of the forest in this area and would have a

corresponding impact on scenic quality.

Cumulative Effects

Existing and foreseeable future visual and noise impacts from multiple sources within and

adjacent to the Bally Creek Ski Trails would continue to impact recreation users. This includes

noise from vehicle traffic on roads, noise generated by landowners on private property near the

Bally Creek Ski Trails, and timber harvesting activity on privately owned lands or lands

managed by other government entities. Trees in stands adjacent to the Bally Creek Ski Trail

System would continue to age and eventually die. The primary composition of the vegetation

surrounding this trail system would be comprised primarily of short-lived conifers such as spruce

and balsam fir.

Alternative 2


Effects to scenic resources that are proposed within Alternative 2 of the Barker Project Area are

analyzed in this section. Concerns surrounding the effects to visuals and scenery resulting from

timber harvesting activity near the Bally Creek Ski Trail System were raised by members of the

public. Alternative 2 contains 9 stands that are proposed for harvest adjacent to or visible from

trails in the Bally Creek Ski Trail System.

Trail users would experience the effects of vegetation management treatments most prominently

while they are hiking or skiing on trails adjacent to treatment activities. The duration in which

visitors would experience the effects of harvesting activities on skiing and hiking trails is much

greater per unit than those experienced on mechanized trails. Conversely, hikers and skiers

would not travel as long of a distance as mechanized trail users, so the effects based upon the

number of treatment units are reduced. Units proposed for harvest or mechanical treatment along

ski trails are identified in Table 3-SQ-1. The length of trail that would be impacted under each

alternative is shown in Table 3-SQ-2.



Table 3-SQ-1. Units proposed for harvest or mechanical treatment along Bally Creek Ski Trails- Alternative 2

Unit

Number Ski Trails

Proposed

Treatments1

Unit

Acres

Treatment

Acres

219-19 Bally Creek to Cascade Connector Trail CC 162 120

219-22 Bally Creek to Cascade Connector Trail CC 100 40

221-09 Biddle Boys, Sundling Loop, Nunsted Mill CC, MSP 120 80

221-19 Moose Yard CC, MSP 11 7

221-24 Sundling Creek Loop, Wildlife Pond CC, MSP 7 5

221-26 Wildlife Pond CC 5 3

221-28 Sundling Creek Loop CC, MSP 8 5

223-09 Buckwheat Alley CC, MSP 57 37

223-35 Eagle Mountain Overlook, Road Run CC 39 15 1Abbreviations for treatments are: MSP = Mechanical Site Prep and CC = Clear Cut with reserves.

Table 3-SQ-2. Distance of Visual Impacts to Trails that could occur under Alternative 2 based on Acres of Each Unit

Unit Number Ski Trails Trail Distance

(feet)1

219-19 Bally Creek to Cascade Connector Trail 3,000

219-22 Bally Creek to Cascade Connector Trail 2,000

221-09 Biddle Boys 2,000

221-09 Sundling Loop 3,000

221-09 Nunsted Mill 1,000

221-19 Moose Yard 500

221-24 Sundling Creek Loop 1,000

221-24 Wildlife Pond 100

221-26 Wildlife Pond 250

221-28 Sundling Creek Loop 250

223-09 Buckwheat Alley 200

223-35 Road Run 2,500

223-35 Eagle Mountain Overlook 500 1 Distance is based on unit acres; actual treatment acres would be less so the distance of impact would be less

than shown.

Alternative 2 proposes even-aged harvests in nine units that would likely be visible from the

Bally Creek Ski Trails. The nine units proposed for even-aged harvests in close proximity to the

Bally Creek Ski Trails total approximately 510 acres. As shown in Table 3-SQ-1, actual

harvested acreage would be less (about 312 treatment acres) than unit acres after areas are

excluded from harvest based upon slope, protection of ski trail intersections, sub-merchantable

timber, and reserve islands. It is difficult to project the actual acreage of these harvest units until

layout has been completed.

Alternative 2 also proposes 200 feet of understory fuels reduction along the Bally Creek Road

(FR 158). This treatment would have an impact on scenery from the road by reducing the amount

of coniferous ladder fuels in the understory. Understory fuels reduction treatments would be

completed in the snow-free season and the vegetation that would be cut would be chipped on-site



or piled and burned. This understory fuels reduction treatment would provide a greater site

distance from the road to recreationists in the area.

Timber harvests in these stands would be completed in the snow-free season and those harvests

would follow operational standards and guidelines for high scenic integrity areas, which state

that temporary openings from harvest activity would be similar in size, shape and edge

characteristics to natural openings in the landscape being viewed. Temporary openings would

mimic a natural disturbance process typical for the area, so that when ground cover has been

established the opening appears to be a natural occurrence.

The Scenery Management System identifies the following characteristics as important

considerations for managing scenic resources (Landscape Aesthetics- A Handbook for Scenery

Management page 19):

Landscape Character: including existing landscape character attributes, potential

landscape character, and the relative scenic attractiveness of various landscapes within a

geographic area.

Visual Sensitivity of Landscape: based on the context of the landscape being viewed,

perceptual factors of people viewing those landscapes and different visual characteristics

of a landscape.

Scenic Integrity: including the continuum of scenic integrity levels, current integrity of

landscapes, role of structures in the landscape, guidelines for determining cumulative

scenic effects, and examples of scenes with various human actions that affect scenic

integrity.

In determining the effect to the scenic resource from a proposed activity, consideration is given

to the visual resource in which work is being proposed, the character of the area, the sensitivity

level of users of the area, and the degrees of acceptable alteration to the natural landscape.

The Bally Creek Ski Trail System is highly desired by the recreating public for its landscape

character and scenic integrity. These characteristics would be emphasized during layout of any

vegetation management activities to reduce the short-term effects while maximizing the long-

term scenic benefits that could be achieved through the proposed activities.

In addition to these considerations, other site-specific measures to lessen impacts to recreation

and scenic quality may include retaining vegetative screening adjacent to winter trails to

minimize drifting snow, minimal plowing of winter roads used by winter recreation visitors, and

informing regular users of the area when harvest is likely to occur. All stands proposed for

harvest under this alternative would be harvested in the snow-free season to reduce the impacts

to the ski trail system.

The harvest activities proposed in Alternative 2 are designed to improve the long-term (greater

than 20 years) scenic quality of this trail system. Short term impacts (1-10 years), such as cleared

vegetation, greater sight distances in openings, a potential change in snow drifting patterns due to

openings, slash and other evidence of timber harvesting would be noticeable by skiers and other

trail users. These vegetation management activities would be designed to promote a more diverse

forest that would include long-lived species. These actions are proposed to reduce the risk of

disease or insect outbreak in these stands while also reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.



There are also miles of trails in the Bally Creek Ski Trail System that would not be impacted by

vegetation management activities as shown in Map 3-SQ-1.



Research has shown that diversity in landscapes is a desirable factor when evaluating scenic

quality (Landscape Aesthetics- A Handbook for Scenery Management page 30). Similar research

has shown that short term deviations from the scenic integrity of a landscape to produce a long-

term character goal are acceptable. The activities proposed in Alternative 2 are designed to have

a short term (1-10 years) impact on the scenic integrity of the Bally Creek Ski Trail System with

the goal of achieving a healthier, diverse, and viable forest for the long-term. The impacts to

scenery along the Bally Creek Ski Trails would also be reduced through mitigation measures,

such as not harvesting portions of a unit, placing legacy patches (reserve areas) along trails to

break up views of the harvest, buffering the edge of trails where appropriate, removing slash

within 100 feet of trails, and minimizing the size of openings that can be seen from the trail.

Cumulative Effects

Vegetation management activities proposed under Alternative 2 would have both short and long

term impacts on the scenic quality of the Bally Creek Ski Trail System. The removal of overstory

vegetation in these stands and the associated reforestation activities would promote a more

vibrant and diverse stand, the trail system would have much more variability including some

open vistas, increased opportunities for wildlife viewing, and the diversity of skiing opportunities

would be increased as some sections of trails would provide a more open skiing experience while

other sections would retain the closed in character that currently exists. In addition, existing and

foreseeable future visual and noise impacts from multiple sources within and adjacent to the

Bally Creek Ski Trails would continue to impact recreation users. Included would be noise from

vehicle traffic on roads, noise generated by landowners on private property near the Bally Creek

Ski Trails, and timber harvesting activity on privately owned lands or lands managed by other

government entities.

Alternative 3


Effects to scenic resources that are proposed within Alternative 3 of the Barker Project area are

analyzed in this section. Concerns surrounding the effects to visuals and scenery resulting from

timber harvesting activity near the Bally Creek Ski Trail System were raised by members of the

public. Alternative 3 was prepared in response to those concerns and contains only one unit that

is proposed for harvest near trails in the Bally Creek Ski Trail System.

Unit 223-009 is proposed for harvest under Alternative 3 which is in close proximity to the

Buckwheat Alley Trail. Impacts to the scenic quality of this trail would be mitigated by retaining

residual timber between the trail and the proposed vegetation management treatment.

Approximately 200 feet of the Buckwheat Alley Trail is in close proximity to the stand.

Mitigations would be utilized, such as placing legacy patches (reserve areas) along trails to break

up views of the harvest, buffering the edge of trails where appropriate, removing slash within

100 feet of trails, and minimizing the size of openings that can be seen from the trail with the

desired outcome of reducing the effects to the scenic character of the trails. Map 3-SQ-2 displays

the stands proposed for harvest in the vicinity of the Bally Creek Ski Trail System. Unit 223-049

is also adjacent to ski trails. However, the proposed treatment is pruning and release of pine;

therefore, minimal or no impacts to scenic quality would be expected from this treatment.



Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, units directly adjacent to the Bally Creek Ski Trails would not be

harvested and the units would remain in their existing condition. Trees in these units are reaching

the end of their lifespan and some are already dying and falling over. The remaining mature trees

in these stands will likely die from old age, disease, or insect outbreak sometime in the next 10 to

20 years. The understory which consists of short-lived species, such as balsam fir would become

the dominant vegetation in the area and timber stand dynamics would not be altered by

vegetation management activities.

Over time it is likely that many of the existing over-mature trees in the stands adjacent to the

Bally Creek Ski Trail System will die and replacement for those trees will take years to become

established. It is likely that the stands adjacent to the Bally Creek Ski Trails would consist of

short-lived species and brush in the foreseeable future. Insect or disease outbreak could have

devastating impact on the scenic quality of the area. The short-term effects to the scenic quality

of the trail network would be minimal to nonexistent under Alternative 3, but the long-term

viability of these stands could be compromised under Alternative 3.

Also, existing and foreseeable future visual and noise impacts from multiple sources within and

adjacent to the Bally Creek Ski Trails would continue to impact recreation users. Included would

be noise from vehicle traffic on roads, noise generated by landowners on private property near

the Bally Creek Ski Trails, and timber harvesting activity on privately owned lands or lands

managed by other government entities.



3.10 Other Determinations

Heritage Resources

This project is managed for heritage resources as outlined in the Heritage Resources Standards

& Guidelines in the Forest Plan (pp. 2-38 and 2-39) and in accordance with Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended in 36 CFR Part 800 and the

Programmatic Agreement Among the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (The United

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Superior National Forest; The Minnesota

State Historic Preservation Officer; The Bois Forte Band of Chippewa; The Grand Portage

Band of Chippewa and The Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa) regarding the

process for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for

undertakings on the Superior National Forest of the U.S. Forest Service, signed 2015 (PA).

To satisfy the Forest’s responsibilities for undertakings under Section 106 of the NHPA, a

heritage resource inventory has been conducted for the project area. During the spring of

2015, Heritage Resources staff conducted an in-depth office review of proposed treatment

stands in the Barker Project Area. Examination of heritage sites, survey atlases, aerial photos,

and the use of LiDAR and GIS data helped to determine the adequacy of prior heritage survey

coverage and the potential for previously undiscovered heritage resources within units

proposed for treatment. The analysis area for heritage resources includes all proposed

treatment units and proposed road treatments, including access roads to treatment units and

proposed road decommissioning within the project boundary.

No new vegetation management actions would occur under Alternative 1; therefore, there

would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to heritage resources. Alternatives 2 and 3

include treatment units that contain or are adjacent to known heritage resources. Ground

disturbing activities including timber harvest, mechanical site preparation, understory fuel

reduction, site preparation burns, slash disposal, and road treatment activities have the

potential to adversely affect heritage resources through surface and subsurface artifact and

feature displacement. Indirect effects from vegetation management actions and construction of

temporary roads into units could occur as a result of increased access to and visibility of

heritage resources; increasing the likelihood of artifact looting.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts to all heritage resource sites would be avoided through

application of Operational Standards and Guidelines (S-HR-9, Appendix D) and site specific

mitigation measures. Heritage resource sites would be excluded from the treatment units, with

the boundaries marked (where appropriate) in the field prior to project implementation.

Should previously unknown heritage resources be identified during project implementation,

project activities would cease and the Forest Archaeologists would be contacted. Appropriate

measures would be developed to ensure site protection in consultation with the Minnesota

State Historic Preservation Officer and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers representing the

Bands in the 1854 ceded territory. Forest Service timber sale contracts contain enforceable

measures for protecting any previously undiscovered heritage resource that might be

encountered during treatment operations. Post treatment monitoring of mitigation measures or

site buffers, and maintenance of confidentiality with respect to heritage resource locations

would effectively eliminate post treatment impacts. In turn, heritage resources would

experience no indirect effects under Alternatives 2 or 3. As all heritage resource sites would



be avoided through project design from current project activities and predictable future project

activities, it is anticipated there would be no cumulative effects from the action alternatives.

Site and stand specific mitigations are outlined in the CRRR, located in the project record.

Moose

The moose population in Northeastern Minnesota has been declining for the last 10 years.

Causes for the decline have been attributed to disease, parasites, warming temperatures,

higher deer densities, and changes in habitat; however, causes are still being investigated. The

Minnesota Moose Research and Management Plan, developed to address concerns about the

declining population, makes habitat management recommendations that include increasing

stand complexity, following natural disturbance patterns, encouraging browse species, and

protecting and enhancing summer thermal cover (MNDNR 2011).

The Barker Project Area is located within Minnesota’s primary moose range. Aerial surveys

have identified the Barker Project Area as having moderate moose density numbers compared

to the surrounding landscape. To the south of the project area by Lake Superior there are

lower moose numbers and to the north of the project area, farther inland, there are higher

moose numbers. Vegetation management activities could improve moose foraging and

thermal cover habitat in this area. Regeneration through harvest of some mature stands is

needed to stimulate new growth of young trees and shrubs which would provide browse for

moose. Retention and planting of conifer trees in stands would increase stand complexity and

provide long-term thermal cover for moose. Locating treatment units adjacent to wetlands,

lowland black spruce, and riparian forests would provide thermal cover adjacent to new

browse.

Indicators of (1) forage and (2) thermal cover were used to evaluate moose habitat in the

Barker Project area and are based on indicators used in the Forest Plan (USDA FEIS, Vol. 1,

3.3.4.2, 2004):

Table 3-MOOSE-1: Indicators of moose habitat quality on National Forest System (NFS) lands in Barker projected under each Alternative.

Indicator

Existing Condition

2015

Alternative 1 2024

Alternative 2 2024

Alternative 3 2024


Acres and percent of young upland forest <10 years old (MIH 1)

452 0.8 0 0 3,744 6.9 3,335 6.1

Acres and percent of upland conifer >9 years old on all uplands (MIH 5)

9,281 18.1 10,638 19.6 585 10,520 10,520 19.4

Data source: Barker aml runs in June 2015. Acres may not be exact due to rounding.

Alternative 1 proposes no management activities; therefore it would do less than the other

alternatives to create forage for moose. Without management actions or natural disturbance

events, foraging habitat is expected to decrease over the next decade. Model results without



these disturbances show no young forest (<10 years old) on National Forest System lands in

the Barker Project area by 2024. Natural disturbance events and management activities on

non-federal lands will continue to provide some foraging opportunities across the landscape.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would create young upland forest, increasing the available forage for

moose. There would be slightly more foraging habitat created with Alternative 2 (6.9%) than

with Alternative 3 (6.1%) by 2024. Moose tend to favor early successional browse species,

such as quaking aspen, paper birch, mountain ash, willow, red-osier dogwood, and beaked

hazel, which would regenerate following harvest. Additionally, red maple is browsed when

available and balsam fir may be consumed during the winter. Shrub and tree regeneration

following management activities with either alternative would provide another 10 to 20 years

of forage.

Thermal cover would continue to be available to moose under all of the alternatives. Less than

20 percent of the forest in Barker Project area is typed as upland conifer, which is projected to

increase over the next decade. The difference between the No-Action and Action Alternatives

on effects to upland conifers (spruce and fir) is negligible at the project scale. Underplanting

and interplanting of conifers is planned in both Alternatives 2 and 3, and will improve stand

diversity as recommended in the moose management plan. Riparian habitats, wetlands, and

lakes would be protected according to the Barker Project and Forest Plan Operational

Standards and Guidelines.

Moose foraging habitat is relatively scarce in the Barker Project Area. Several stands were

identified as being good targets for creating young forest, specifically for moose foraging.

This consists of 1,488 acres of clearcut with reserves and 1,267 acres of mechanical site

preparation in these units, with a mixture of planting and natural regeneration. Mechanical

treatments in these units should improve the moose habitat by stimulating some or a lot of

their preferred browse species.

chapter 3: environmental consequencesa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Documents