Barker Project - Biological Evaluation

Transcription

1 Barker Project - Biological Evaluation Region 9 Regional Forester s Sensitive Species: Terrestrial Animals Gunflint & Tofte Ranger Districts, Executive Summary Alternative Determination Species No Action (1) No impact All species Action Alternatives (2 & 3) No impact Adverse effects: may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability Eastern heather vole, taiga alpine butterfly, Nabokov's blue butterfly, Freija's grizzled skipper, wood turtle 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, Connecticut warbler Prepared by: /s/christopher Beal Date: 9/3/2015 Chris Beal, Wildlife Biologist Reviewed by: /s/susan Catton Date: 9/3/2015 Susan Catton, Forest Biologist

2 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS AREA AND METHODS DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED SPECIES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES EFFECTS FROM CHANGES TO FOREST OVERSTORY, FOREST AGE, AND SPATIAL PATTERNS MIH 1 Upland Forest MIH 4 Aspen-birch and Mixed Aspen-conifer Forest MIH 6 Upland Spruce-fir Forest MIH 7 Red and White Pine Forest MIH 9 Lowland Conifer Forest EFFECTS FROM OTHER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Changes to the Understory Temporary roads Thinning CUMULATIVE EFFECTS INCLUDING NONFEDERAL LANDS DETERMINATIONS BARKER OPERATIONAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE) LITERATURE CITED Page 2 of 22

3 1 Introduction This Biological Evaluation (BE) evaluates the effects of the proposed Barker Project on Regional Foresterlisted sensitive species (RFSS - U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) Manual sections , (3), ). The species evaluated in this report include all terrestrial animal species on the revised R9 sensitive species list (USDA FS 2011), except for those federally listed. The Canada lynx, gray wolf, and northern long-eared bat are covered in a separate Biological Assessment (BA). Sensitive aquatic animals and sensitive plants are covered in separate biological evaluations for this project. The determinations in a BE address the question of how Alternatives affect species viability at the local level, and resulting implications for species viability and distribution on the. The analysis of effects results in one of the following determinations: No impact Beneficial effects used when the proposed Alternative is determined to be wholly beneficial without potential negative impacts. May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability used when it is determined the proposed Alternative may cause some negative effects, even if overall effect to species may be beneficial. Likely to result in a loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing The management objective is to maintain viable and well-distributed representation of all native species that occur on the (National Forest Management Act Regulation and , Secretary of Agriculture Regulation , USDA Forest Service Manual , , and , and Forest Plan p. 3-4). The following working definitions for viability and well-distributed were used (Iverson and René 1997): Viability - the likelihood that habitat conditions will support persistent and well-distributed populations over time; Well-distributed - species and habitat distribution are based on the current and historic natural distribution and dispersal capabilities of individual species, and dispersal includes the concepts of metapopulation dynamics and gene flow. 1.1 Project Description The Barker Project area is located in Cook and Lake County, Minnesota. The Vicinity Map (Barker Scoping shows the general location of the Barker Project area. Townships included in the Project area, from west to east, are: Township (T) 59 North (N) Range (R) 6 West (W), 5W, 4W; T60N, R4W, R3W, R2W; T61N, R3W, R2W, R1W. The Barker Project area encompasses approximately 71,000 acres, of which around 56,000 acres are National Forest System land. Proposed activities would occur only on National Forest System lands. The purpose of the action is to implement the Forest Plan by moving the Project area towards desired future conditions for vegetation and landscape ecosystems, as described in the Barker Scoping Report (USDA FS 2014). The key objectives are to: promote diverse, productive, and healthy native vegetation communities; create young forest; increase within-stand diversity; improve moose habitat; enhance Page 3 of 22

4 habitat in the Caribou Hunter Walking Trail system; improve riparian function; improve health and productivity in red pine and white spruce plantations; improve productivity of stands with low tree stocking; reduce hazardous fuels; provide sustainable forest products; manage use of Forest Road 333; and manage vegetation at recreation sites for long term forest health. The No Action and proposed Action Alternatives are described in the Barker Project EA. Alternative 2 is the action with the most potential for effects (Table 1). Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2, apart from fewer treatments in the Bally Creek Ski Trail area. The Action Alternatives (2 & 3) are summarized below: o o o o o Timber harvest: A combination of clear cuts with reserves, selection cuts and thinning. Site preparation for planting: Mechanical site preparation of varying amounts per stand depending on stand condition and objectives. Reforestation: Includes natural regeneration as well as planting and seeding of conifer. Planting of white pine, red pine, white spruce, and other tree species to improve within stand diversity. Road management: Creation and subsequent removal and revegetation of temporary access roads. Hazardous Fuel Reduction: Understory removal, slash disposal and low intensity pile burns. Table 2 shows the dominant Landscape Ecosystems (LE) in the Barker Project area, and in which LEs treatments are concentrated. Sugar Maple is the dominant LE cover in the Project, and is where most treatments are planned. Mature upland forest patches were analyzed for size and configuration with the goal of retaining mature forest blocks greater than 300 acres (see Appendix G of the Barker EA). Mature forest patches less than 300 acres in size were configured to retain interior forest whenever possible. Young upland forest was consolidated where possible to create large, young forest patches and reduce the likelihood of future habitat fragmentation. Approximately 23 miles of temporary roads would be constructed to access some of the proposed treatment units. All temporary roads would be effectively closed to motorized traffic as soon as the treatments are complete and access is no longer needed, and decommissioned upon completion of management activities. Approximately one mile of snowmobile trail would be used to access treatment units. Forest Road 333, currently open to all public vehicle use from April 1 to November 30, would change to closed to highway legal vehicles. Closure of the road to highway vehicles would protect the road surface and poor soils during wet conditions. ATV use and administrative access would continue. Page 4 of 22

5 Table 1: Summary of proposed actions for each Action Alternative (2 & 3). Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Primary Treatments Total acres: 8,342 7,889 Clearcut with Reserves 3,802 3,349 Mechanical Site Preparation Pre-commercial Thinning Release and/or Prune 8 8 Selection Cut Thinning 1,927 1,927 Underplant Understory Fuels Reduction 1,803 1,803 Understory Fuels Reduction/Mechanical Site Preparation Variable Thinning Secondary Treatments Total acres: 3,305 3,116 Mechanical Site Prep Mechanical Site Prep/Slash Disposal and Pile Burn Release and/or Pruning Slash Disposal/Pile and Burn Underplanting Understory Fuels Reduction Regeneration Methods Total acres: 4,466 4,013 Interplant 1,333 1,310 Natural Regeneration 2,378 2,076 Plant Seeding Underplant Species to be Planted or Seeded Total acres: 2,088 1,937 Black Spruce Jack Pine Jack Pine and/or Black Spruce Paper Birch Pine, Birch, Spruce and/or Cedar Tamarack White and/or Red Pine White and/or Red Pine and Paper Birch White and/or Red Pine, and White Spruce White and/or Red Pine, White Spruce and/or Cedar White and/or Red Pine/Tamarack White Pine White Pine and Paper Birch Yellow Birch and Cedar Yellow Birch, Paper Birch and White Pine Page 5 of 22

6 Table 2: Barker Project Area summarized by Landscape Ecosystems (only includes NFS lands and does not include non-forested cover types). Planned activities acres indicate which LEs will be affected by the action Alternatives (Alt 2 & 3). Landscape Ecosystem (2015) Acres 1 % of Forested Area Alt. 2 Planned Activities Alt. 3 Planned Activities ac 2 % ac 2 % Sugar Maple 32, , , Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-fir 7, , , Lowland Conifer C (MSM) 6, Cedar 5, Lowland Conifer B (MRW-MBASF) 1, Mesic Red and White Pine 1, Other LEs Total 54, , , data extracted from June 2015 aml runs and stand data. Total may be slightly off due to rounding. 2 data extracted from June 2015 stand data with proposed Alternatives, based on the total acres of affected stands; actual treated acres are likely to be smaller. 1.2 Analysis Area and Methods The applies a coarse-filter and a fine-filter approach in evaluating effects to sensitive species, similar to the process used in the Forest Plan BE (USDA FS 2004a&b). The coarse-filter approach uses broad-scale measures of habitat called Management Indicator Habitats (MIH, USDA FS 2004c). Management Indicator Habitats are groupings of forest cover types which are further divided by age classes (see flow chart, Figure 1). The fine-filter (i.e. site level) approach addresses species needs by managing specifically for high quality potential habitat or known locations of sensitive species using existing databases, project-level surveys and site-specific knowledge. This fine-filter approach is especially important for preventing or mitigating direct effects. For example, we apply a no-harvest buffer around known eagle nests to avoid direct harm or disturbance to individual nesting birds. These protection measures can be found in the Operational Standards and Guidelines (OSGs) section of this BE (Section 4). Natural history information, population size, and population trends were also considered during evaluation of effects to sensitive species in Barker. Natural history information has been covered in detail in other Forest-wide Biological Evaluations on the and is not covered in this document (USDA FS 2011, FS USDA 2004b). Information on population and population trends can be Page 6 of 22

7 found in the 2009 Forest Monitoring Report on Sensitive Species (USDA FS 2009); any new information on these species since has been added to the project record. Figure 1: Management Indicator Habitats of the Plan Wildlife Habitat Terrestrial Habitat Aquatic Habitat Forested Habitat Non-Forested Habitat MIH 9: Lowland Forests MIH 1: Upland Forest MIH 2: Upland Deciduous Forest MIH 5: Upland Conifer Forest MIH 3: Northern Hardw ood Forest MIH 6: Upland Spruce-Fir Forest MIH 4: Aspen-Birch and Mixed Aspen-Conifer Forest MIH 7: Red and White Pine Forest MIH 8: Jack Pine Forest The geographic boundary selected for analyzing the direct, indirect and cumulative effects is the Barker Project area. This is appropriate because the area s large size contains known or potential populations, individuals, and enough habitats of many sensitive species to evaluate the effects of proposed activities. The direct and indirect effects analysis includes National Forest System land only while cumulative effects include activities on all ownerships. The analysis timeframe for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is between the years 2015 and This ten year span is an appropriate timeframe for the project area because most proposed actions would occur within this timeframe. Past management actions are accounted for in the existing condition. 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 yields a clearer picture of what the relative contribution would be from both management treatments and succession, but does not represent new and existing young forest acres. Page 7 of 22

8 2 Description of the Affected Species In order to determine which species would be in the Barker Project Area, existing reports and databases of known occurrences and suitable habitat were reviewed (on file, Barker project record). The Forest Monitoring Report provides a summary of the methods and references used to monitor sensitive species populations and track individuals across the forest (USDA FS 2009). The Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Information Systems Biotics Database is the primary source for known occurrences (MNDNR 2015), but survey results and incidental reports from the project area were also used. The decision to do projectlevel surveys was based on our level of knowledge about the species in the project area and the likelihood of effects from the proposed actions. Surveys were conducted for bald eagle and northern goshawk. Detailed information on project level surveys is available in the Barker Project Record. Table 3: Determinations of effects for both Action Alternatives (2 & 3) to Regional Forester Sensitive Species (Terrestrial Animal) in the Barker Project area (USDA FS 2011). Gray wolf and northern longeared bat have been listed as federally Threatened since the last update to the RFSS list, and are analyzed in a separate document (see Barker Biological Assessment). Species Mammals Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus Management Indicator Habitat (MIH), and Age Class MIH 1 Upland forest, all ages MIH 1 Upland forest, all ages MIH 2 Upland deciduous, mature+ MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Winter hibernaculum caves, mines, tunnels, buildings; Summer large diameter trees, loose bark, snags, wetlands, riparian Same as little brown bat Determination 1 : Rationale MINL: Creation of young forest in MIH 1 would remove suitable roost habitat, but may improve foraging opportunities by increasing edge habitat. Suitable roost habitat is widespread across the project area. Summer harvesting may impact individuals. Any discovered roosts or hibernacula would be protected. Riparian and snag habitat would be protected by Barker Operational Standards and Guidelines (OSGs). MINL: Creation of young forest in MIH 1 would remove suitable roost habitat, but may improve foraging opportunities by increasing edge habitat. Suitable roost habitat is widespread across the project area. Summer harvesting may impact individuals. Any discovered roosts or hibernacula would be protected. Riparian and snag habitat would be protected by Barker OSGs. Eastern heather vole Phenacomys ungava MIH 8 Jack pine, all ages Vaccinium sp. No Impact: There are only 144 acres of MIH 8 in the Barker Project area, and no activities are planned. Page 8 of 22

9 Species Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Boreal owl Aegolius funereus Great gray owl Strix nebulosa American three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Management Indicator Habitat (MIH), and Age Class MIH 7 Red and white pine, mature+ MIH 1 Upland forest, mature+ MIH 13 Mature upland patches Nesting MIH 4 Aspen-birch, mature+ Foraging MIH 9 Lowland conifer, all ages Nesting MIH 1 Upland forest, mature+ Foraging MIH 5 Upland conifer forest, young MIH 9 Lowland conifer, young MIH 6 Upland spruce-fir, mature+ MIH 8 Jack pine, mature+ MIH 9 Lowland conifer, mature+ MIH 9 Lowland conifer, all ages MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Large diameter white pine; mature white pine within ½ mile of fish-bearing waters High canopy cover; large diameter trees; within-stand complexity; mature upland patches greater than 100 acres Nesting Large diameter hardwoods with cavities Foraging lowland patches greater than 50 acres Nesting large diameter snags Foraging open areas for foraging; large lowland patches Insects; snags for nesting; fire; large lowland patches Snags Determination 1 : Rationale MINL: Known sites in project area would not be affected. Some white pine will be felled. Planting of white pine will slightly increase the acres of MIH 7 in the project area, benefitting the species in the long term. MINL: Forest standards and guidelines for MIH 13 would be maintained (see Appendix G of the Barker EA). More than 70 percent of MIH 1 would remain suitable under any Alternative by Any existing or newly discovered territories would be protected by Barker OSGs. MINL: The Action Alternatives (2 & 3) would convert 24-27% of mature+ into young forest in MIH 4, reducing available nesting habitat, but would keep at least 200 more acres in MIH 4 than the No Action Alternative. Nesting habitat adjacent to foraging habitat would be well-distributed across the project area. MINL: Creation of young forest in MIH 1 and MIH 9 would improve foraging habitat availability. Mature+ stands of MIH 4 & 5 would decrease available nesting habitat. No known nest sites occur, and trees with large stick nests will be protected. MINL: There are only 144 acres of MIH 8 in the Barker Project area, and no activities are planned. Harvest would reduce both overall acres and mature+ acres of MIH 6, but snags would remain abundant and well-distributed (Barker OSGs). Very little change to MIH 9 would occur, though ~3% will be converted from mature to young through harvest. MINL: Impacts at wintering grounds are more likely the reason for population decline than impacts at breeding grounds. Snags are abundant in the project area, and some would be retained in harvest areas (OSGs) Very little change to MIH 9 would occur. Page 9 of 22

10 Species Bay-breasted warbler Setophaga castanea Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis Invertebrates Taiga alpine butterfly Erebia mancinus Nabokov's blue butterfly Plebejus idas nabokovi Freija's grizzled skipper Pyrgus centaureae freija Reptiles Wood turtle Glyptemys insculpta Management Indicator Habitat (MIH), and Age Class MIH 6 Upland spruce-fir, mature+ MIH 9 Lowland conifer, mature+ MIH 9 Lowland conifer, mature+ MIH 8 Jack Pine, mature+ MIH 9 Lowland conifer, all ages MIH 8 Jack pine No MIH association MIH 2 mature+ MIH 10 MIH Related Microhabitats and Other Indicators Spruce budworm outbreaks; mature upland and lowland conifer patches greater than 50 acres. Lowland conifer habitat within a matrix of large patches of lowland and upland conifer habitat Sedges Presence of dwarf bilberry; fire Upland acidic meadow, scrubby willow, barrens Riparian habitats with open sandy areas for nesting Determination 1 : Rationale MINL: MIH 6 will increase in acres under all Alternatives, though harvest will convert over 8% of mature+ to young forest. Very little change to MIH 9 would occur, though ~3% will be converted from mature to young through harvest. Patches of MIH 6 and MIH 9 greater than 50 acres will remain distributed across the Project area. MINL: There are only 144 acres of MIH 8 in the Barker Project area, and no activities are planned. Very little change to MIH 9 would occur, though ~3% will be converted from mature to young through harvest. No Impact: Few treatments are planned in lowland habitats, and none that would impact nonforest habitats. No Impact: There are only 144 acres of MIH 8 in the Barker Project area, and no activities are planned. No Impact: No species records for the area. No Impact: No species records for the area. 1 No Impact, BE = Beneficial effects, MINL = Adverse effects, may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability, ADLI = Adverse effects, likely to result in a loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing. Page 10 of 22

11 3 Environmental Consequences 3.1 Effects from Changes to Forest Overstory, Forest Age, and Spatial Patterns MIH 1 Upland Forest Species evaluated: Little brown bat, tri-colored bat, northern goshawk, great grey owl MIH 1 includes all upland forest types and encompasses many of the other indicators (USDA FS 2004a&c). Forest types in MIH 1 include spruce-fir, aspen-birch, pines, maples and mixed hardwood conifer stands. Many of the sensitive species covered by this indicator have broad habitat requirements, or more specific habitat requirements that have not been identified. This indicator also encompasses the broad spectrum of upland habitats used by migratory birds. Two bat species were recently added to the Superior RFSS list because of the recent threat of whitenosed syndrome and the alarming decline in bat populations in eastern states. White-nosed syndrome describes the disease of bats which have been infected by the fungus, Pseudogymoascus destructans. Bats encounter this fungus in caves where they hibernate in the winter. The fungus was found in Soudan Mine, less than 100 miles west of the project area reported in Minnesota. There are no known winter hibernacula in or within five miles of the Barker project area. Both species will roost in older trees, and females may use these trees as maternity roosts (USDA FS 2012). Younger stands provide an abundance of insects and may be important as bat foraging areas. Young upland stands are important hunting grounds for great gray owls and other avian predators, while also providing food and cover for songbirds and migratory birds. Mature upland forests provide large diameter trees and closed canopy conditions two habitat features preferred by the northern goshawk and nesting great gray owls. Goshawks have a large home range and are generally associated with large mature patches of upland forest. Great grey owls often use abandoned nests of goshawks or other forest raptors, although they forage in open and sparsely forested habitats. The Forest Plan has objectives for maintaining large forest patches (see Appendix G of the Barker BA) to provide quality habitat for goshawk and other interior forest species. Direct and Indirect Effects Upland forest is the most prevalent mapped MIH in the Barker Project area covering approximately 41,000 acres, and most of the proposed harvest and treatments would occur in MIH 1 (Figure 2). Under the No Action Alternative (1), more stands would move into the mature+ age class (80%) whereas in Alternative 2 & 3 harvest would convert ~8% of currently mature+ forest into a young age class, benefitting early successional wildlife species. One objective of the Forest Plan is to maintain a full range of forest age classes from young to old. Generally speaking, managing for a mix of age classes welldistributed across the landscape will provide habitat for the diverse life history requirements of all wildlife species. Page 11 of 22

12 Figure 2: Distribution of age classes within MIH 1 (Upland Forest) by alternative. MIH 1 is split into deciduous (MIH 2) and coniferous (MIH 5) forests. Acres shown only include those in the Barker Project area. Page 12 of 22

13 The loss of acres of mature+ upland forest represents a loss in preferred habitat for these sensitive species. However, Alternative 2 & 3 may improve habitat quality in the long run by shifting the withinstand diversity of tree species in harvested and treated stands towards a more desirable state. Additionally, a more even distribution of age classes in the project area could improve forest resiliency to disturbances (especially pest outbreaks) and may increase the abundance of prey species that prefer younger forest or a mosaic of forest age classes. The Forest Plan FEIS concluded that while mature and older forest acres would continue to decrease in the second decade of implementation, sensitive species using these habitats would remain viable and well-distributed (USDA FS 2004c, Volume 1, pp ). Individual bats are at risk of mortality anytime overstory trees are removed during the summer active season. This threat to individuals would be partially mitigated by protections for discovered roost sites (see Section 4) and by the small percentage of habitat under treatment compared with the broad availability of roosting habitat within the Project area (and beyond). Mature upland habitat would remain well-distributed across the Project area under all alternatives, providing roost trees and foraging opportunities for the two bat species added to the sensitive species list in For northern goshawk, there would be a reduction in the number of large upland patches (greater than 300 acres) in Spatial Zone 2 and in patch acres by 2024 under Alternative 2 or 3 compared to Alternative 1, but all relevant Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines would be maintained and mature and older upland forest would still make up the vast majority of stands (see Appendix G of the Barker EA). Mature upland patches would still be well-distributed within Spatial Zone 2 and the Barker Project area and would continue to provide suitable habitat for goshawks and other forest interior species under all alternatives (Figure 3). Figure 3: Location and distribution of patches larger than 300 acres in the Barker Project area under each alternative by Only stands in Spatial Zone 2 are displayed. Page 13 of 22

14 MIH 4 Aspen-birch and Mixed Aspen-conifer Forest Species evaluated: Boreal owl, great gray owl Two RFSS bird species- boreal owl and great gray owl- are associated with older aspen, birch and mixed aspen-conifer forest and adjacent lowlands. The boreal owl nests in tree cavities found in older, large diameter hardwoods. Cavities are created as aspen and birch grow older and become diseased, and when these trees are discovered by primary excavators like the pileated woodpecker. Great gray owls use old stick nests in large diameter trees, often aspen or birch. The proximity of these nesting structures to upland and lowland foraging habitat is an important consideration for both of these owls (see MIH 9 discussion). Direct and Indirect Effects Acres of MIH 4 are expected to decline in the Barker Project area under all alternatives. Roughly 1,800 acres will shift towards other forest types owing to succession, as the aspen-birch overstory is lost due to age-related mortality and is replaced by a young cohort of shade tolerant conifers (see MIH 6). Nearly 70% of mature+ age class is maintained in the No Action Alternative, but fewer overall acres of MIH 4 remain when compared with Alternatives 2 & 3. The Action Alternatives propose many acres of harvest and treatments in MIH 4, converting 27% and 24% of mature+ age class to young forest under Alternatives 2 & 3 respectively. For both owl species, this represents a reduction of available nesting habitat. This reduction will be partially offset by operational standards and guidelines (see Section 4) that require the maintenance of habitat features such as leave trees, snags and reserve patches in harvested areas. Enough habitat would remain in the older age classes to provide a source of larger diameter aspen and birch as nesting and roosting structures. There would also continue to be large aspen and birch component well-distributed across the landscape in other MIH types. Figure 4: Distribution of age classes within MIH 4 (Aspen-birch and Mixed Aspen-conifer Forest) by alternative. Acres shown only include those in the Barker Project area. Page 14 of 22

15 MIH 6 Upland Spruce-fir Forest Species evaluated: Bay-breasted warbler, American three-toed woodpecker The bay-breasted warbler breeds throughout the spruce-fir forest of Canada and the northern most parts of the U.S. following the range of spruce budworm (Maxson 1999). This species is associated with mature spruce-fir forests where the disease outbreaks occur. Mature spruce-fir patches greater than 50 acres is an indicator for bay-breasted warbler in the Forest Plan Biological Evaluation (USDA FS 2004b). American three-toed woodpecker is most often found on the northern portion of the forest, and prefers decadent coniferous forests and recently disturbed areas where bark beetles, their chief prey, flourish (USDA FS 2004b). Direct and Indirect Effects Acres of upland spruce-fir forest would increase in the Barker Project area under all alternatives, largely owing to forest succession as a decadent aspen-birch overstory ages out in places and is replaced by a young spruce-fir cohort. Fewer acres of MIH 6 occur under Alternative 2 & 3 (see MIH 4), and approx. 8% of this habitat type would be converted into young forest through harvest. At the project level, this represents a small change in the age class and spatial distribution of this habitat type; effects to baybreasted warbler and American three-toed woodpecker will be minimal. Patches of mature spruce-fir greater than 50 acres in size would remain distributed across the project area under all of the Barker Alternatives. Figure 5: Distribution of age classes within MIH 6 (Upland Spruce-fir Forest) by alternative. Acres shown only include those in the Barker Project area. Page 15 of 22

16 MIH 7 Red and White Pine Forest Species evaluated: Bald eagle Bald eagles are known to use suitable habitat on the Forest during the spring and summer for breeding, nesting, and raising young. Suitable nesting habitat consists of stands dominated by mature and old growth timber or younger forest with a remnant component of older super (above) canopy trees located within a ¼ mile of streams and lakes bearing predominantly shallow water fish species. Nests are sometimes found more than a ¼ mile from a water body. On the, 85 percent of nest trees selected by eagles are large-diameter, old age, white pine (Lindquist 1995). Limiting factors for eagles appear to be suitable nesting and roosting sites, disturbance from humans during the nesting season, and contaminants. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternatives 2 and 3 could have minor beneficial effects on habitat for bald eagles. There are no management activities proposed in the vicinity of any known eagle nests. Underplanting and interplanting of red and white pine is expected to create approximately 40 more acres of new habitat that could provide future nest trees. A limited number of mature white pine in other MIH could be harvested but the loss of these trees would be offset by the addition of young white pine to the project area (see Table 1). Figure 6: Distribution of age classes within MIH 7 (Red and White Pine Forest) by alternative. Acres shown only include those in the Barker Project area. Page 16 of 22

17 MIH 9 Lowland Conifer Forest Species evaluated: Great gray owl, boreal owl, bay-breasted warbler, American three-toed woodpecker, Connecticut warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, and taiga alpine butterfly The species listed above are associated with mature lowland forest habitats. The great gray owl and the taiga alpine butterfly are two species that use young lowland black spruce stands or nonproductive lowlands. Great gray owls will use other young forest types and non-forest openings for foraging so the lack of young black spruce is not expected to be a limiting factor. Habitat associations for taiga alpine are poorly understood, but in Minnesota they have been found where pole-sized black spruce trees form a park-like environment with small bushy trees dotting the understory (MNDNR 2012). There are only two occurrences of taiga alpine on the forest and no records in the Barker Project area. Direct and Indirect Effects There would be very little young black spruce regenerated as a result of any Barker Action Alternatives due to the limited amount of harvesting proposed in lowlands (less than 400 acres; see Table 2). Black spruce is a long-lived species, and habitat availability is not expected to be a concern in the near future. Individual species encountered could be negatively impacted by the proposed harvests, but they would have little to no effect on lowland patches or forest age distribution, and the effects to sensitive species would be indiscernible at the landscape scale. Figure 7: Distribution of age classes within MIH 9 (Lowland Conifer Forest) by alternative. Acres shown only include those in the Barker Project area. As discussed above (see MIH 4) the proximity of nesting habitat and foraging habitat is especially important for great gray and boreal owls. Mature+ MIH 9 is an indicator of good boreal owl foraging habitat, while young MIH 9 and MIH 5 are indicators of good great gray owl foraging habitat. Changes to nesting habitat indicators and spatial arrangement of good potential nesting habitat with foraging habitat are shown in Figure 8. The reduction of mapped potential nesting habitat under Alternative 2 & 3 would improve the availability and distribution of foraging habitat for great grey owl. The availability and distribution of boreal owl foraging habitat does not change significantly under any alternative. Across the Project area, Alternative 2 & 3 would provide for close proximity of nesting and foraging habitat for both sensitive owl species. Page 17 of 22

18 Figure 8: Nesting habitat (mature+ MIH 4 & MIH 5 are selected) and foraging habitat (great grey = young MIH 9 and MIH 5; boreal = mature+ MIH 9) for the sensitive owl species in the Barker Project area by Page 18 of 22

19 3.2 Effects from Other Management Activities Changes to the Understory Activities: Understory fuels reduction including piling and burning slash, mechanical site preparation and reforestation The composition, age and structure of understory vegetation is of equal or greater importance than the forest overstory for many RFSS animal species. A dense understory of shrubs and young trees provides hiding cover for prey species. For some species, there may be a direct association with an understory plant. For example, the host plant for the Nabokov s blue butterfly is dwarf bilberry whereas the larval host plant for the taiga alpine butterfly is believed to be a sedge or grass. Nearly all of the treatments listed in Table 1 would temporarily change the understory (see Barker EA). Some treatments, like clearcut with reserves followed by mechanical site preparation, would remove a high percentage of the existing vegetation. In other treatments, like thinning or patch clearcut, much of the understory vegetation would remain. There are approx. 1,850 acres of fuel reduction planned in the Project area as a primary treatment. In these stands, the overstory would remain but much of the understory would be removed (trees <6 dbh) to reduce the fuels hazard in those stands. Some secondary treatments, like reforestation, are expected to benefit RFSS species by increasing the species and structural diversity of the forest. The proposed treatments in the Barker Project Area would temporarily change habitat conditions for some of the sensitive species, and direct or indirect effects could occur to individuals. These effects would be insignificant due to the amount of undisturbed habitat remaining and standards and guidelines that leave important wildlife features (such as snags and reserve trees) and protect any wildlife sites discovered (nests, roosts). Habitat changes would also be temporary, since the understory generally begins to regenerate within a few years of a disturbance. Temporary roads RFSS terrestrial wildlife species can be affected by the human disturbance associated with new road building and road use. Bald eagle and northern goshawk are two RFSS bird species that are sensitive to disturbance near their nest. Butterflies experience mortality along roads when they use roads as flight corridors or as places to find moisture and nutrients. Approximately 23 miles of temporary roads are proposed under Alternatives 2 & 3. They are not expected to result in high mortality for any species since they would receive a low level of use and would be closed and allowed to return to a natural state upon completion of activities. There are no known eagle or goshawk nests in the vicinity of proposed temporary roads. Large stick nests in the project area will be monitored if adjacent to planned activities, and a buffer applied to prevent nest disturbance if one of these sensitive bird species is discovered. Thinning Thinning dense closed-canopy spruce or pine plantations will increase the light reaching the forest floor and allow understory plants, shrubs, and trees to increase. The addition of deciduous shrubs and saplings can increase bird species richness by 20 to 35 species (Green 1995). Thinning can improve habitat conditions for migratory birds. Thinning red pine allows the trees to gain diameter and as the tree ages there are increased opportunities for large cavities to develop or be created by woodpeckers providing nesting or roosting sites for little brown and tri-colored bats. Page 19 of 22

20 3.3 Cumulative Effects including Nonfederal Lands A discussion of cumulative effects including activities on lands regardless of ownership can be found in Appendix F of the Barker EA. Some sensitive species on the are at the southern edge of their range and may be impacted by climate change as temperatures continue to warm and species of both plants and animals shift northward. However, changes to RFSS habitat from climate change within the timeframe of this analysis (ten years) are not expected to affect the determinations made in this BE. Harvest of timber on adjacent State land (~8% of the area within the Barker Project boundary) will add to the amount of forest converted to young age classes in Barker (up to roughly 600 additional acres). However, mature+ age classes make up the majority for every Management Indicator Habitat in which treatments are proposed, and will remain well-distributed throughout the Barker Project area. Underplanting and interplanting of conifer species will improve the within-stand diversity in units selected for treatment on Federal lands, and will improve the quality of those stands in the long run. Biomass and fuel treatments may change understory shrub density, but long-term forest cover is more likely to be protected with reduced fuel loadings. Private land development and road building will continue, as will increased recreational demand in Barker. Taking all ownerships into account, low standard road densities may increase slightly; however, existing roads and grown-in corridors are likely to be used for the majority of access needs. Temporary roads (~23 miles) created for this project would have a short-term negative impact on some species, but would be decommissioned and are unlikely to have a measurable effect even when considered along with nonfederal temporary roads. 3.4 Determinations Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative, and would have no impact on any RFSS. Alternative 2 would affect slightly more habitat than Alternative 3 (see Table 1), but at the scale of this analysis (project scale) both alternatives are so similar as to have the same impacts to RFSS. Proposed activities under these Action Alternatives 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, tricolored bat, bald eagle, northern goshawk, boreal owl, great gray owl, American three-toed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, bay-breasted warbler, and Connecticut warbler. Page 20 of 22

21 4 Barker Operational Standards and Guidelines (RFSS Terrestrial Wildlife) This section includes the project-specific operational standards and guidelines (OSG) relevant to RFSS that developed for the Barker Project area. This does not include every OSG that may contribute to the protection of these species or their habitats. For a complete list including Forest Plan OSGs, please refer to Appendix D of the Barker EA. Terrestrial & Aquatic Wildlife (WL) BR-WL-1 BR-WL-2 BR-WL-3 BR-WL-4 A list of species of concern and important habitat components will be provided by the Biologist to the implementation crew prior to layout operations. If any threatened, endangered or sensitive animals or their nests, dens or roost trees are found during planning layout or operations, activities would be temporarily halted in the area and the Biologist would be notified. The Biologist would assess the risk to species and where appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented prior to restarting operations. The Forest Plan, recovery plans and conservation strategies will be used when making mitigation recommendations. Northern Long-eared, little brown, and tri-colored bats Known, occupied roost trees will not be cut during the pup season (June 1 July 31), and no clearcuts or similar harvest methods that remove overstory trees (apart from hazard tree removal) will be permitted within a ¼ mile buffer during that period. If bat hibernacula were discovered in or adjacent to the Project area, no activities would be permitted within a ¼ mile buffer. Bald Eagle In harvest units within ¼ mile of lakes and streams suitable for bald eagle foraging, all supercanopy red pine and white pine will be retained where possible. Page 21 of 22

22 5 Literature Cited Green, J.C Birds and Forests: A management and conservation guide. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, MN. 182 pp. Iverson, G.C., and B. René Conceptual approaches for maintaining well-distributed, viable wildlife populations: a resource assessment. Pages 1-23 in K.R. Julin, compiler, Assessments of wildlife viability, old-growth timber volume estimates, forested wetlands, and slope stability. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-392. Lindquist, E.L Bald eagle and osprey nesting habitat on the. Administrative report. On file with Forest Supervisor,, 8901 Grand Ave. Place, Duluth, Minnesota p. Maxson, G Species Data Records for black-throated blue warbler and bay-breasted warbler. For viability assessment for Forest Plan Revision (2004). On file Superior NF. Duluth, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) Natural Heritage and Non-Game Research Program: Rare Features Database: rare plant and animal occurrences on the. St. Paul, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Species profile: Taiga alpine (Erebia mancinus). St. Paul, MN. USDA Forest Service (USDA FS) Barker Project Scoping Report., Grand Marais, MN. Available online: Status of three cave hibernating bats on the : A summary of available information and Forest Plan Management Direction. On file in Project record. 2011a. Revised Regional Forester Sensitive Plants and Animal List for the., Duluth, MN Fiscal Year 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. Available online: a. Land and Resource Management Plan (a.k.a. Forest Plan)., Duluth, MN. USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Regional Forester Sensitive Animals Biological Evaluation for the Chippewa and Superior National Forests Forest Plan Revision.. Duluth, Minnesota. 201pp. 2004c. Forest Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)., Duluth, MN. On file with Forest Supervisor,, 8901 Grand Ave. Place, Duluth, Minnesota Most USDA Forest Service, Plan Revision documents are available at Page 22 of 22