chapter 3: environmental consequencesa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-2 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-3 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-4 Chapter 3
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
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
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
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-5 Chapter 3
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).
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-6 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-7 Chapter 3
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).”
Affected Environment
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.
Environmental Consequences
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-8 Chapter 3
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
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-9 Chapter 3
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
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-10 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-11 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-12 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-13 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-14 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-15 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-16 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-17 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-18 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-19 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-20 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-21 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-22 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-23 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-24 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-25 Chapter 3
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.
Affected Environment
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-26 Chapter 3
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
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-27 Chapter 3
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,
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-28 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-29 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-30 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-31 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-32 Chapter 3
Affected Environment
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-33 Chapter 3
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
Perennial, spread by seed and rhizome,
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,
widespread in disturbed upland sites
(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
Perennial, spread by seed and rhizome,
widespread in disturbed upland sites
(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.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-34 Chapter 3
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)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Indicator 1: Miles of new upland road construction on National Forest System land.
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-35 Chapter 3
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
Direct and Indirect Effects
Indicator 1: Miles of new upland road construction on National Forest System land.
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-36 Chapter 3
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;
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-37 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-38 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-39 Chapter 3
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).
Affected Environment
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-40 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-41 Chapter 3
Environmental Consequences
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-42 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-43 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-44 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-45 Chapter 3
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.
Affected Environment
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-46 Chapter 3
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 – No-Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
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
Direct and Indirect Effects
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-47 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-48 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-49 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-50 Chapter 3
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
Direct and Indirect Effects
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-51 Chapter 3
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-52 Chapter 3
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.
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-53 Chapter 3
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-54 Chapter 3
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 % Acres % Acres % Acres %
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
Barker Project Environmental Assessment
September 2015 3-55 Chapter 3
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.