Deputy Regional Forester, Resources, Rocky Mountain Region Colorado Field Supervisor Wyoming Field Supervisor

Transcription

1 TO: From: Southern Rockies National Forest Supervisors Colorado and Wyoming Ecological Services Offices Deputy Regional Forester, Resources, Rocky Mountain Region Colorado Field Supervisor Wyoming Field Supervisor MEMORANDUM We are pleased to provide you with this Implementation Guide to the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA). This Guide is the culmination of a noteworthy interagency and interdisciplinary cooperative venture over the past few months. A Guide that provided clarification, guidance, and other tools to help with interpreting and understanding the many parts of this broad, programmatic decision was originally recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Biological Opinion and accepted by the Regional Forester in his October 28, 2008, decision. Your staffs were instrumental in helping shape the format and content of this Guide, either serving on the development team or providing critical input and reviews of early drafts. This version of the Guide was substantially improved by this ongoing input and feedback from the field. We wish to express our appreciation and gratitude to the interagency Implementation Guide team for their dedication and commitment to this project. The team members had to absorb this task into already busy schedules, and, from the outset, embraced the challenge to create a suite of tools that would most help the field in practical and consistent interpretation and implementation of this complex decision, as well as expediting project interagency consultations. Team members worked under an accelerated timeline understanding the importance of getting such a Guide to the field as soon as possible. We believe they have done an admirable job and hope you agree that this Guide will be a valuable reference for use in our offices for years to come. The team consisted of the following people: Forest Service: Peter McDonald (co-team lead), Jim Thinnes, Julie Grode, Alan Williamson, Doreen Sumerlin, Elizabeth Roberts, and George Panek Fish and Wildlife Service: Leslie Ellwood (co-team lead), Kurt Broderdorp, and Ann Belleman This Guide is intended to be a dynamic tool that was designed in binder format specifically to permit replacement and addition of materials over time as important new information comes in about lynx, agency policies, and lessons learned from implementation of the decision in the field. You and your staffs are encouraged to provide ongoing feedback, questions and suggestions for the Guide and its content to our respective Regional Office and Field Offices.

2

3 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Record of Decision October 2008

4 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave. S.W., Washington D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer.

5 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Record of Decision Lead Agency: Cooperating Agency: Location: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Colorado Department of Natural Resources Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests Boulder, Clear Creek, Grand, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Park and Weld Counties, CO Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Delta, Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa, Miguel, Montrose, Ouray, Saguache, and San Juan Counties, CO Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Albany, Carbon, Converse, Laramie, and Platte Counties, WY Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco, and Routt Counties, CO Pike-San Isabel National Forests Alamosa, Baca, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Custer, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Jefferson, Lake, Las Animas, Otero, Park, Pueblo, Saguache, and Teller Counties, CO Rio Grande National Forest Alamosa, Archuleta, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Hinsdale, Mineral, Rio Grande, Saguache, and San Juan Counties, CO San Juan National Forest Archuleta, Conejos, Dolores, Hinsdale, LaPlata, Mineral, Montezuma, San Juan, San Miguel, and Rio Grande Counties, CO White River National Forest Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit Counties, CO Responsible Official: /s/ Antoine L. Dixon Oct. 29, 2008 Rick D. Cables Date Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region

6

7 Table of Contents Summary of Decision... 1 Introduction... 2 Status of Lynx in the Southern Rockies... 2 Listing of the Lynx under the Endangered Species Act... 2 Risks to Lynx and Lynx Habitat... 3 Changed Conditions: Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic... 4 Purpose and Need for Action... 5 The Decision... 5 Rationale for the Decision... 6 Vegetation Management... 6 Fire and Fuels Management Livestock Grazing Management Recreation Management Minerals and Energy Development Forest Roads Linkage Areas Habitat Connectivity Response to the FWS Biological Opinion Consideration of Conservation Recommendations Public Involvement Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D - DEIS Preferred Alternative Alternative F - FEIS Preferred Alternative Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study Findings Required by Laws, Regulation, and Policies National Environmental Policy Act National Forest Management Act Endangered Species Act National Historic Preservation Act Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112) Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land Equal Employment Opportunity, Effects on Minorities, Women Wetlands and Floodplains (Executive Orders and 11990) Implementation and Appeal Provisions Effective Date and Transition Opportunity for Administrative Appeal Further Information and Contact Person... 33

8 ATTACHMENT Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Management Direction... 1 Required Monitoring... 9 Glossary ATTACHMENT

9 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment This decision amends the following Land and Resource Management Plans: 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan, Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests 1983 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Medicine Bow National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, December 2003 Pike-San Isabel National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, 1984 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Rio Grande National Forest, 1996 Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision San Juan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1983 Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 Revision for the White River National Forest Summary of Decision The Forest Service is charged with managing various renewable resources so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people, with due consideration given to the relative values of the resources, and without impairment of the productivity of the land (Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960). Under the Endangered Species Act, the agency is required to use its authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. In this decision, I consider how to amend Land and Resource Management Plans (Plans) to add consistent management direction that will conserve the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, while at the same time allowing management and use of other natural resources in the Southern Rocky Mountains. I have selected Alternative F-modified (Attachment 1). With this decision, the eight Land and Resource Management Plans (Plans) listed above are amended to incorporate the goal, objectives, standards and guidelines, and monitoring requirements of Alternative F-modified. My decision provides management direction that contributes to conservation of the lynx in the Southern Rocky Mountains, meets the Purpose and Need, responds to public concerns, and incorporates the terms and conditions contained in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s Biological Opinion. My decision is consistent with applicable law, regulation and policy. This decision supersedes the 2006 Lynx Conservation Agreement in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area. The White River and Medicine Bow National Forests previously completed revisions of their Plans (in 2002 and 2004, respectively) and incorporated management direction for lynx. By amending all eight Plans in the Southern Rockies, this decision assures consistent management direction. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s 2008 Biological Opinion for this amendment supersedes previous 1

10 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Biological Opinions for lynx that were issued for the White River Revised Plan, Medicine Bow Revised Plan, and Rio Grande MIS Amendment. Introduction Status of Lynx in the Southern Rockies The lynx is a highly specialized predator, adapted to prey on snowshoe hares. Lynx inhabit coniferous forests in the spruce-fir zone that experience cold, snowy winters and provide a snowshoe hare prey base. In the Southern Rockies, lynx habitat generally occurs between 8,000 and 12,000 feet in elevation, with forest cover dominated by spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, and aspen-conifer mix. Low-elevation forests and forests on dry sites, such as ponderosa pine and climax lodgepole pine, do not support snowshoe hares and are not lynx habitat. The Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area encompasses about 14.6 million acres of National Forest System lands, of which about 7.5 million acres have been mapped as lynx habitat. Mapping of lynx habitat and delineation of lynx analysis units was completed by the Forest Service in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as agreed under the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement (2000, 2005, 2006b). As new information becomes available and site-specific analysis occurs, habitat mapping will continue to be updated and refined. The Southern Rocky Mountains are at the southern margin of the range of lynx. Historically, there was a strong record of lynx presence in the Southern Rockies. However, after conducting statewide surveys beginning in 1978, the Colorado Division of Wildlife concluded that the resident population was extremely small, and probably too small to be self-sustaining. In 1999, the Colorado Division of Wildlife initiated a reintroduction project to augment the population. To date, 218 lynx have been released into southern Colorado, and at least 103 kittens have been born in the wild (Shenk 2007). While success of the reintroduction effort looks promising, whether the lynx population in Colorado will become self-sustaining is still unknown. Listing of the Lynx under the Endangered Species Act On March 24, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Canada lynx (United States Distinct Population Segment) as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The single factor threatening the lynx in the contiguous United States was the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, specifically the lack of guidance in National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Plans) and BLM Land Use Plans for conservation of lynx, and the potential for those Plans to allow or direct actions that could adversely affect lynx. In response to litigation and a court order on their listing decision, on July 3, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a Clarification of Findings in the Federal Register, commonly referred to as the Remand Notice. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2

11 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Service reviewed the threats to lynx at the population level, and confirmed that Threatened status remained appropriate for the United States Distinct Population Segment. The effects of timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning and fire suppression in the Southern Rocky Mountains were determined to constitute a threat to the species at a low magnitude, because a significant proportion of lynx habitat is in nondevelopmental land allocations, a relatively small amount of thinning occurred in the period prior to listing, and significant additional funding for thinning is not anticipated. The lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect key habitat attributes was determined to pose a moderate threat to lynx. The Remand Notice also concluded that several activities addressed in the LCAS, such as forest roads, mining, grazing, and packed snow trails, may have local effects on individual lynx, although there is no evidence that they pose a threat at the population level. Risks to Lynx and Lynx Habitat Between 1998 and 2000, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jointly compiled the best available information about the lynx across the contiguous United States. Two products resulted from these efforts: Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggiero et al. 2000), often referred to as the Science Team Report, and the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000). The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) identified possible risk factors to lynx and lynx habitat, established a basis for assessing the adequacy of existing Plans, and recommended lynx conservation measures. The following section summarizes how the risk factors were considered in this decision. The LCAS identified risk factors affecting lynx productivity (pp. 2-2 to 2-15) as: timber management, wildland fire management, livestock grazing, recreational uses, forest backcountry roads and trails, and other human developments. These common activities on National Forest System lands may affect lynx productivity by altering the snowshoe hare prey base. The likely effects of these activities on lynx in the Southern Rockies were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement, and management direction to guide these activities on National Forest System lands is included as part of this decision. The LCAS identified risk factors affecting mortality (pp to 2-17) as: trapping, shooting, predator control, highways, and predation by other species. These factors can directly cause lynx deaths. State regulations no longer permit trapping of lynx in the planning area, although incidental capture of lynx during furbearer harvest seasons is possible. Incidental or illegal shooting likewise may occur. However, trapping and hunting are regulated by state agencies, while predator control activities are conducted by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife Services. This decision does not provide management 3

12 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment direction for trapping, shooting or predator control activities since they are authorized and conducted by the other agencies. Highways (generally defined as having two or more paved lanes, high speeds and high traffic volumes) are a known source of direct mortality of lynx. Depending on the situation, certain aspects of the management of highways may fall under the authority of the Forest Service. Therefore, this decision includes management direction for National Forest System lands that is applicable to highways. Lynx are thought to have a competitive advantage in places where deep, soft snow in mid-winter tends to exclude other predators, a time when availability of prey is most limiting for lynx. Because some activities, such as winter recreation, may compact the snow and thereby provide other predators (e.g., coyotes) with access into lynx habitat, the potential for increased competition and predation was considered. Guidance for these activities on National Forest System lands is included in this decision. The LCAS identified risk factors affecting movement (pp to 2-19) as highways and associated development, and private land development. Within lynx home ranges, highways and associated high-intensity uses and developments may constrain habitat use and impede daily movements. At a broader scale, lynx are known to disperse and make exploratory movements across long distances and varied habitat and terrain. Maintaining connectivity within and between lynx subpopulations is an important consideration to maintain long-term persistence. However, the Forest Service has limited authority over highways and no authority to manage activities on private land. This decision provides guidelines applicable to maintaining connectivity, within the limits of the Forest Service s jurisdiction. Changed Conditions: Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic A large-scale mountain pine beetle epidemic is occurring in Colorado and southern Wyoming. It is expected that the vast majority of the approximately 2 million acres of mature lodgepole pine stands will be killed during this outbreak. A substantial portion of this mortality, estimated at about 1.5 million acres, will affect lynx habitat. The mountain pine beetle is a native insect, and functions as a natural disturbance agent in this area. The unusually large extent of this particular epidemic is the result of a convergence of several factors: large acreages of forests that were susceptible to insect attack because of tree size, age and density; several years of drought that weakened the trees natural defenses; and several consecutive years with warm winter temperatures that favored beetle survival and reproduction. Because of its very large extent, vegetation management actions cannot stop the spread of the current beetle epidemic. In the aftermath of the epidemic, however, forest 4

13 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment management can influence the diversity within stands and across landscapes, to reduce the probability of repeating the cycle. Maintaining some degree of management flexibility so that managers are able to influence the development of future forest conditions was an important consideration to me in making this decision. Alternative F was modified to provide additional management flexibility for this purpose. Monitoring of projects that utilize this additional flexibility will yield new information about which treatments are most effective in moving beetle-impacted areas toward the desired future condition. Purpose and Need for Action The Purpose and Need for this amendment is to establish management direction that conserves and promotes the recovery of lynx, and reduces or eliminates potential adverse effects from land management activities and practices on national forests in the Southern Rockies, while preserving the overall multiple-use direction in existing Plans. The Decision This decision amends eight Land and Resource Management Plans. I have selected Alternative F with modifications of the language for standards VEG S5 and VEG S6. With this decision, the new management direction contained in Alternative F-modified amends the Plans for the Arapaho-Roosevelt, Medicine Bow, Routt, Pike-San Isabel, Rio Grande, San Juan, White River and Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests to provide consistency throughout the Southern Rocky Mountains Amendment area. The amended Plan language is provided in Attachment 1. The management direction is designed to strike a reasonable balance in providing for the conservation of lynx habitat while also allowing appropriate levels of human uses to occur. The decision adds one goal, 13 objectives, 7 standards, and 34 guidelines related to all activities (ALL), vegetation management (VEG), grazing management (GRAZ), human uses (HU), and linkage areas (LINK). Goals are general descriptions of desired results; objectives are descriptions of desired resource conditions; standards are management requirements designed to meet the objectives; and guidelines are recommended management actions that will normally be taken to meet the objectives, but are not required. Under this decision, standards are applied only to vegetation management activities that have the potential to directly affect snowshoe hare prey and thus may impact lynx at the population level. Other activities that may have possible adverse effects on individual lynx are subject to guidelines. Any deviations from guidelines would be considered only after analysis of site-specific conditions, and in compliance with Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation requirements. The application of guidelines will be monitored to verify the assumption that guidelines will be followed in most cases. 5

14 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment The definition of lynx habitat is included in the glossary (see Attachment 1). This decision does not designate lynx habitat, but rather establishes the management direction that will be applied to mapped lynx habitat. Mapping will continue to be refined over time, using the best available information. Alternative F-modified incorporates the requirements (Terms and Conditions and Reporting Requirements) of the Biological Opinion (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008), and supersedes any requirements specific to lynx that were established under previous Biological Opinions for amended or revised Plans (i.e., Medicine Bow Revised Plan, White River Revised Plan, and Rio Grande MIS Amendment). The direction given in this decision to promote and facilitate lynx conservation will be reviewed and reconsidered when each Plan is revised, and Plan direction updated as needed to respond to new information and remain consistent with law, regulation and policy. Rationale for the Decision Based on the analysis, I have determined that Alternative F-modified contributes to conservation and recovery of lynx, while allowing appropriate levels of other human uses and activities to occur. This decision will allow some possible adverse effects on lynx to occur, for example by exempting fuels treatment projects in the wildland urban interface (WUI) from the required standards on up to 3 percent of lynx habitat by national forest, as well as allowing other exceptions including additional forest thinning (up to 1 percent by LAU) within lynx habitat. By placing certain limits on the activities that could have adverse effects to lynx, this decision will provide for long-term persistence of this species while accommodating other multiple uses. The following section provides additional explanation for why I selected Alternative F- modified. As an aid to the reader, a side-by-side comparison of the management direction under Alternative B (the Proposed Action, which represents the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy), Alternative F (the FEIS Preferred Alternative), and Alternative F-Modified is provided in Attachment 2. Vegetation Management Vegetation management can directly affect lynx habitat, particularly by altering habitat for its primary prey, the snowshoe hare. The amount and quality of snowshoe hare habitat, especially winter habitat, directly affects lynx survival, reproduction, and population persistence. Objectives for vegetation management Objectives define the desired conditions for lynx habitat. Four objectives, VEG O1, VEG O2, VEG O3, and VEG O4 are identified for vegetation management in the context of natural ecological processes. Based on comments on the Draft EIS, the wording of the 6

15 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment objectives under Alternative F was changed slightly to improve clarity, but the intent is the same as in the LCAS. Standards and guidelines for vegetation management Standard VEG S1. The intent of this standard is to provide a distribution of stand age classes that would maintain lynx habitat over time (Brittell et al. 1989). The LCAS recommended that if a lynx analysis unit (LAU) (an area approximating the size of the home range of a female lynx) has more than 30 percent of its lynx habitat in a currently unsuitable condition, then vegetation management projects should not move additional acres into a stand initiation stage. Lynx habitat in a currently unsuitable condition includes those forests in a stand initiation structural stage that are not yet tall enough to provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. These conditions are created by stand-replacing wildfires, prescribed burns that remove all of the vegetation, or regeneration timber harvest. The LCAS recommendation is reflected in Alternative B Standard VEG S1. Some people commented that the 30 percent threshold was too high or too low, or should not be constrained to a single LAU. In lynx habitat, large stand-replacing fires are often the dominant type of disturbance. None of the alternatives change the 30 percent criterion, since we had no basis for a different threshold. Under Alternatives C and D, the standard would apply to a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. In their comments on the Draft EIS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service favored application of the standard to a single LAU in order to maintain a good distribution of lynx habitat at the scale of a lynx home range. Alternative F-modified applies the management direction to a single LAU to ensure a variety of structural stages are provided within a home range. This may result in timber harvest being more concentrated in some areas to compensate for area where timber management is deferred to meet this standard. Some changes in wording were made to clarify what is meant by habitat currently in unsuitable condition and to apply an exemption for fuels treatment projects within WUI. Standard VEG S2. The LCAS also recommended that timber harvest not change more than 15 percent of lynx habitat within a decade to an unsuitable condition (i.e., stand initiation structural stage that is too short to provide winter snowshoe hare habitat). The purpose of this standard was to limit the rate of management-induced change in lynx habitat. This criterion has only rarely been exceeded in the past. Standard VEG S2 was changed to Guideline VEG G6 in Alternative C and dropped as a standard or guideline in Alternative D. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns that dropping Standard VEG S2 could appreciably reduce the amount of lynx habitat in a short period of time and allow negative effects to accumulate. Based on these comments, Standard VEG S2 was retained in Alternative F-modified. The standard was reworded to clarify that it only applies to timber management 7

16 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment practices that regenerate the stand (clearcut, seed tree, shelterwood, and selection harvests), and to add an exemption for fuels treatment within WUI. This standard is not expected to have any effect on timber harvest. Standard VEG S5. The LCAS recommended no precommercial thinning within lynx habitat since it directly impacts winter snowshoe hare habitat. Some people suggested that this standard should apply to all vegetation management projects, since activities such as fuel treatments or prescribed burning could also reduce horizontal cover. Others suggested that precommercial thinning should be allowed, using an adaptive management approach, where it could be done to promote or prolong winter snowshoe hare habitat. In Alternative F-modified, Standard VEG S5 applies to precommercial thinning, which is the predominant activity in young regenerating forests that has a direct effect in reducing winter snowshoe hare habitat (Ruggiero et al. 2000, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a, 2000b, 2003). Fuels treatment projects within WUI would be exempt from compliance with Standard VEG S5, which could affect up to 3 percent of lynx habitat by national forest. Precommercial thinning would be allowed adjacent to administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings, for research and genetic tests, and to restore aspen where it is in decline. This is estimated to have cumulatively little effect on lynx habitat. In addition, precommercial thinning would be allowed to occur up to the historical levels, which was analyzed for Alternative A. This additional flexibility to allow precommercial thinning using modified techniques is needed to explore methods for influencing stand development in the aftermath of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. The need for precommercial thinning is expected to increase over the next years as an expected wave of new regeneration in areas currently experiencing high levels of tree mortality reaches critical size and density. New thinning methods will be tried, to determine which best meet the aims of sustaining snowshoe hare and lynx habitat, while also improving stand composition and growth. The various types of thinning allowed under the exceptions are anticipated to have some adverse effects on lynx. However, the overall amount of impact under Alternative F-modified will be limited. In their 2003 Remand Notice, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the effects of timber harvest, precommercial thinning and fire suppression in the Southern Rocky Mountains constituted a low magnitude threat to lynx, in part because a relatively small amount of activity occurred during the period prior to listing. In their Biological Opinion (2008), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified nondiscretionary terms and conditions (T&C) to minimize the potential for incidental take as a result of the exceptions under VEG S5. T&C 1 limits the total area subject to the exemptions and exceptions to no more than 4.5 percent (3 percent for WUI and 1.5 percent for other exceptions). Under T&C 2, exceptions for research and to restore aspen 8

17 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment are not allowed in any LAU in which VEG S1 is exceeded (that is, more than 30 percent of the LAU is in the stand initiation stage). Furthermore, precommercial thinning in LAUs in which VEG S1 is exceeded is limited to areas that do not yet provide snowshoe hare habitat. These requirements were incorporated into Alternative F-modified. Standard VEG S5 does not apply to non-lynx habitat such as ponderosa pine and climax lodgepole pine. Within lynx habitat, precommercial thinning has occurred primarily in lodgepole pine stands that are seral to spruce-fir, and to a lesser extent in spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, white fir and occasionally aspen stands. With the exception provided under Alternative F-modified, historical levels of thinning could be continued, using modified techniques. No change in annual timber outputs is expected, although this standard may influence what material is harvested and where. Standard VEG S6. The LCAS (as updated in 2004) recommended providing habitat conditions through time to support winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forests. Multistory forest structures can develop from natural processes, such as wildfire or insects and diseases, or from management actions like timber harvest that create small openings where young trees and shrubs can become established and grow. In their comments, some people said the management direction should preclude all activities that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forest. Recent research in northwest Montana and southern Colorado demonstrated that mature multistory forests provide important winter snowshoe hare habitat that may support higher hare densities than younger regenerating stands (Squires and Ruggiero 2007, Shenk 2007). Compared to Alternatives C and D, Alternative F provides stronger protection for multistory forest conditions. Alternative F-modified provides clarification that the emphasis is on sustaining winter snowshoe hare habitat, and that uneven-aged management practices will be employed to maintain and encourage desired habitat attributes. Within WUI, fuels treatment projects would be exempt from this standard. In their Biological Opinion (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008), non-discretionary terms and conditions (T&C) were identified to minimize the potential for incidental take as a result of the exemptions and exceptions. T&C 1 limits the total area subject to the exemptions and exceptions to no more than 4.5 percent (3 percent for WUI and 1.5 percent for other exceptions). Under T&C 2, exceptions for research and for unevenaged management are not allowed in any LAU in which VEG S1 is exceeded (that is, more than 30 percent of the LAU is in the stand initiation stage). These requirements were incorporated into Alternative F-modified. Uneven-aged management may shift species composition to a greater proportion of subalpine fir, which is a less desirable species for wood fiber production. Overall, however, Alternative F-Modified would allow a moderate to high level of flexibility to achieve timber management objectives on suitable timber lands, and to respond to insect and/or disease concerns. 9

18 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Standard VEG S6 is an important component of management to sustain lynx habitat. Reductions in winter snowshoe hare habitat would be allowed for activities within 200 feet of structures, for research or genetic tests, for incidental removal during salvage harvest, and for uneven-aged management practices that are employed to maintain and encourage multistory attributes of the stand, which would be expected to have only minor effects. Guideline VEG G1. The LCAS included a guideline to encourage vegetation management practices that would improve lynx foraging habitat (i.e., winter snowshoe hare habitat) where it is currently lacking, in proximity to denning habitat. There was little public comment concerning this guideline. Under Alternative F- modified, the intent was retained. The wording was changed to clarify that lodgepole pine stands with little understory currently, and where snowshoe hare habitat can be improved, should be priority areas for treatment to enhance habitat conditions. Guideline VEG G11. During the first few months of life, denning habitat must be available throughout the home range to give kittens an escape route from predators and cover from the elements. The most important feature of denning habitat is large woody debris: typically piles of wind-thrown trees, root wads, or large downed trees. The LCAS recommended two standards and two guidelines related to denning habitat, which are reflected under Alternative B as Standards VEG S3 and VEG S4 and Guidelines VEG G2 and VEG G3. Some people commented that the agency should allow more flexibility by recognizing that denning habitat can be created through timber harvest practices. Some disagreed with a requirement to retain at least ten percent denning habitat, and others thought more should be required. Some people proposed that all old growth be protected to provide denning habitat. Some people said that all salvage harvests should be deferred. Some new information about lynx denning habitat became available after the DEIS was prepared. In Colorado, Merrill and Shenk (2006) reported that 20 dens were found on steep slopes in the Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir zone at an average elevation of about 11,000 ft. Most were located in forest stands, but five were located near tree line along rock and boulder fields. In various other studies, lynx denning habitat was found in a variety of forest structural stages, from young regenerating forests to old forests. Habitat mapping indicates that 20 to 40 percent of most LAUs currently provide denning habitat. Furthermore, denning habitat will be maintained in areas managed for old growth forest characteristics and in non-developmental land allocations. This information, combined with the research showing a lynx use of a greater variety of habitat for denning, indicates that denning habitat is not expected to be a limiting factor for lynx in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area. However, it is still advisable for vegetation management practices to consider the abundance and distribution of denning habitat in project design, and to retain or create habitat components (piles of down wood, or standing dead trees) in areas where it is 10

19 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment found to be lacking. Under Alternative F, some guidance for denning habitat was retained but simplified into Guideline VEG G11. No effects on forest health or timber harvest are expected due to this guideline. Fire and Fuels Management With the exception of objective VEG O3, which specifically addresses wildland fire use, the vegetation objectives, standards and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression or wildland fire use. VEG O3 encourages fire use activities that would restore ecological processes and maintain or improve lynx habitat. After the 2000 wildfire season that burned substantial acreage of forested land, the Forest Service reviewed and refined the agency s goals and priorities for wildland fire management (USDA Forest Service 2001). Priority for selection of hazardous fuel treatment projects on National Forest System lands in collaboration with Federal, State, and other agencies, as well as Tribes and communities, generally is as follows: (1) Closest proximity to communities at risk in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI); (2) Strategic areas outside the WUI that prevent wildland fire spread into communities or critical infrastructure; (3) Areas outside of WUI that are in Condition Classes 2 or 3; and (4) Other considerations. Lynx habitat consists of high-elevation spruce/fir and lodgepole pine forests and may include some mesic mixed-conifer forests. Generally, these areas have not been affected to any large degree by fire exclusion, in contrast to lower-elevation and dryer forests with shorter fire return intervals. However, some existing stands may be susceptible to extreme fire behavior because of high incidences of insect and disease-caused tree mortality or the amount of tree limbs that provide ladder fuels. Lynx habitat may also occur in WUI. Standards and guidelines related to fuels treatments Most lynx habitat is currently in Condition Class 1, meaning large, stand-replacing fires occur infrequently, every 100 to 200 years, in these forests. Fire is a natural process in these ecosystems, but some of these Condition Class 1 forests can still pose a threat to communities. Many comments were received on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS regarding fuels treatments. Some people suggested there be no exemptions for fuels treatments. Several groups suggested that only fuels treatments near human residences and other structures be allowed, because these areas are generally not appropriate for lynx habitat anyway. Some said the agencies should define WUI more specifically. Others liked the exemptions as they were written in Alternative D. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cautioned against exempting a broad range and unknown number of actions from Plan direction. They felt that the exemption, as 11

20 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment worded in Alternative D, was too vague to assure an adequate analysis of potential effects upon lynx or lynx habitat, and could result in adverse effects to lynx. After reviewing the public comments, national direction regarding fuels treatments, and analysis of the effects on lynx, I decided to modify the fuels treatment exemption. The intent is to allow fuels treatments to reduce the hazard to communities, while continuing to provide for the conservation of lynx in the Southern Rockies. Exemption to VEG S1, S2, S5 and S6. Under Alternative F-Modified, fuels treatment projects within the WUI as defined by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) are exempt from the vegetation standards, up to a certain limit. HFRA describes WUI as generally being ½ mile to 1 ½ miles in width (see Attachment 1, p. 15, Glossary). Our analysis showed that about three percent of lynx habitat falls within one mile of communities in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area. In the Final EIS, each forest s five-year fuels treatment program was reviewed, and we found that a cap of three percent would accommodate all identified fuels treatments needs. Therefore, under Alternative F-modified, up to three percent of the total lynx habitat on a National Forest (administrative unit) is exempt from adhering to the vegetation standards. The cap limits the overall amount of lynx habitat that would be impacted to a small percentage. Nevertheless, the exemption could result in local adverse effects on lynx. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that fuel treatment projects should not result in more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. This was incorporated into the management direction (see Attachment 1). Guideline VEG G10. Guideline VEG G10 was added to Alternative F-modified, which says fuels treatment projects within the WUI should be designed considering Standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6. The intent in adding this guideline is to recognize that while these vegetation standards are not required for fuels treatment projects within the WUI, in many cases projects can be designed to reduce hazardous fuels while still providing for lynx needs. This guideline ensures lynx are considered in the project design, but allows flexibility in situations where implementing the standards would otherwise prevent the project from meeting hazardous fuels objectives in the WUI. Summary for Vegetation Management: The vegetation management direction set forth in Alternative F-modified focuses on conserving the most important components of lynx habitat: a mosaic of young and mature multistory forests with high levels of horizontal cover and coarse woody debris. These components will sustain lynx habitat and the snowshoe hare prey base across all seasons. The standards will be applied for all vegetation management actions in lynx habitat, with exceptions that may be applied on less than 5 percent of lynx habitat. Collectively, application of the standards for vegetation management is expected to minimize adverse effects on lynx and promote the survival and recovery of lynx populations. The standards and guidelines place some limits on timber harvest and thinning that may reduce Long Term Sustained Yield by 0 to 6 percent by forest. Annual timber 12

21 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment outputs would not change, although there may be changes in what material is harvested and where. Fuels treatments in the WUI would not have to comply with the vegetation standards, up to a cap of three percent of lynx habitat by national forest. This will accommodate all identified fuels treatment needs. Livestock Grazing Management Livestock grazing could have local effects on lynx foraging habitat in areas that grow quaking aspen and willow in riparian areas. Local impacts could affect individual lynx. However, no information exists to indicate that grazing poses a threat to overall lynx populations (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003, p ). In addition, appropriate grazing management can rejuvenate and increase forage and browse in key habitats. The LCAS recommended four standards for grazing management. These are reflected in Alternative B. Standards GRAZ S1, GRAZ S2, GRAZ S3, and GRAZ S4 provide management direction for grazing in fire and harvest-created openings, aspen stands, riparian areas and willow carrs, and shrub-steppe habitat. Many people who commented on Alternative D, the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS, said the guidelines should be changed to standards in the final alternative. Some said the grazing guidelines should be retained. Some people recommended that grazing should not be allowed at all. Guidelines GRAZ G1, G2, G3 and G4. Under Alternative F-modified, the management direction for grazing is in the form of guidelines. These guidelines provide project design criteria for managing grazing in fire and harvest-created openings, aspen, willow, riparian areas, and shrub-steppe habitats. For the most part, existing direction and current practices provide equivalent guidance. Therefore amending the Plans to incorporate these guidelines would have only minimal direct or indirect effects on current livestock grazing on NFS lands. Recreation Management Over-the-snow winter recreation Lynx have very large feet relative to their body size, providing them with a competitive advantage over other carnivores in deep snow. The LCAS recommended two objectives and two standards relating to winter dispersed recreation, which are reflected under Alternative B as Objectives HU O1 and HU O3, and Standards HU S1 and HU S3. All alternatives contain Objectives HU O1 and HU O3 that discourage expansion of snowcompacting human activities. All alternatives would allow existing special use permits and agreements to continue. In comments on the Draft EIS, some people said they thought allowing no net increase in groomed or designated routes was insufficient, and asked that no dispersed over-the- 13

22 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment snow use be allowed off groomed or designated trails. Some recommended that the management direction be in the form of a standard, not a guideline. Other people said standards related to over-the-snow use should be removed. They said there is no evidence to show that coyotes and other predators use packed snow trails to compete with lynx for prey, and the amount of compaction created by snowmobiles is insignificant compared to the compaction created naturally by the weather. They were concerned that if such language was introduced into Plans, it could be difficult to change and would restrict the places where snowmobiling is allowed. Others wanted an allowance made to increase snowmobile use. Multi-species predator and prey relationships in the boreal forest are complex. The degree to which lynx and coyotes compete for snowshoe hares in the western United States is unknown. In some regions and studies, coyotes were found to use supportive snow conditions more than expected. For example, Bunnell et al. (2006) reported that the presence of snowmobile trails was a highly significant predictor of coyote activity in deep snow areas, and suggested that coyotes may use compacted routes to access lynx habitat and compete with lynx for snowshoe hare prey. On the other hand, Kolbe et al. (2007) found that compacted snow routes did not appear to enhance coyotes access to lynx and hare habitat, and that there was little evidence that compacted snowmobile trails increased competition between coyotes and lynx during winter in Montana. In their final listing rule (2000b) and remanded rule (2003), FWS concluded there is no evidence that competition exists that may exert a population-level impact on lynx, although adverse effects on individual lynx are possible depending on the situation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Current research indicates that prohibiting snow-compacting activities or reducing dispersed recreation use would be unwarranted. At the same time, an alternative to drop all direction limiting snow compaction was not developed in detail, because snow compaction may affect individual lynx. I decided to include guideline HU G10 in Alternative F-modified, which says that designated over-the-snow routes or play areas should not expand outside of the baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless it serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. There may be some cases where expansion of over-the-snow routes would be warranted and acceptable, or where research indicates there would be no harm to lynx, and this guideline provides the flexibility to accommodate those situations. Guideline HU G12 limits access for non-recreation uses to designated routes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded the Objectives HU O1 and O3 and Guidelines HU G10 and G12 would maintain habitat effectiveness for lynx by limiting the expansion of compacted snow routes. This conclusion will be tested through monitoring required as part of this decision. 14

23 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Developed recreation There are 25 existing alpine ski areas in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area, encompassing 82,704 permitted acres. Most ski areas were constructed well before the lynx was listed (Hickenbottom et al. 1999, p. 70). The LCAS identified risk factors associated with ski areas, including possible short-term effects on denning, foraging, and diurnal security habitat, and long-term effects on movement within and between home ranges (LCAS, p. 2-10). The LCAS recommended Objectives ALL O1, HU O2, HU O3, and HU O4; Standards ALL S1 and HU S2; and Guidelines HU G1, HU G2, HU G3, and HU G10. Objectives and standards regarding linkage areas (LINK O1 and LINK S1) are also applicable to management of developed recreation. In commenting on the Draft EIS, some people said ski areas should be removed or at least prevented from expanding. Others said there is no evidence that ski area development and activities need to be constrained to conserve lynx. Under Alternative F-modified, the management direction would only apply to the development of new ski areas and to expansions of existing ski areas, and would not affect existing ski area facilities or operations, with minor exceptions. Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in their 2003 Remand Notice that there is no evidence showing that recreational activities exert a population-level impact on lynx, Alternative F-modified applies guidelines, rather than standards. To assure that lynx habitat connectivity is maintained, Alternative F-modified includes standards ALL S1 and LINK S1. The management direction in Alternative F-modified will minimize the potential impacts of ski areas and other developed recreation sites on lynx habitat. Existing facilities and operations would not be affected. New developments and expansions would need to be designed in accordance with the management direction, which in most cases would have only minor effects. Minerals and Energy Development The main impact identified in the LCAS related to minerals and energy development was the potential for plowed roads to provide competing predators with access into lynx habitat. LCAS recommendations are reflected in Alternative B, Objectives ALL O1, HU O1, and HU O5, Standards ALL S1 and HU S3, and Guidelines HU G4 and HU G5 which provide management direction for mineral and energy development. Some comments on the Draft EIS said more constraints should be placed on oil and gas, coal, or geothermal resource exploration and development. Others emphasized the importance of mineral and energy resources and said there is a need to develop more flexible guidelines and management tools. All objectives, standards and guidelines except standard HU S3 remain essentially the same in all alternatives. Under Alternative F-modified, Standard HU S3, which 15

24 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment requires use of designated routes for mineral and energy development, was changed to Guideline HU G12, to be consistent with management direction regarding over-thesnow routes discussed above. The management direction in Alternative F-modified will minimize the potential impacts of mineral and energy development on lynx by encouraging remote monitoring to reduce snow compaction, reclaiming closed sites and facilities, and limiting access to designated routes. This will minimize the impacts on lynx while allowing exploration and development activities to proceed. Forest Roads The LCAS recommended several guidelines to address potential impacts of upgrading, cutting and brushing, and public use of forest roads. Alternative B incorporated LCAS recommendations in Guidelines HU G6, HU G7, HU G8, and HU G9. All the action alternatives, including the selected alternative, contain these guidelines. In commenting on the Draft EIS, some people said more restrictions on roads were needed to conserve lynx. They wanted new road construction halted, road densities identified and existing roads closed or eliminated, or they wanted the road guidelines turned into standards. Other people said there should be no road-related standards or guidelines, saying no evidence exists that roads harm lynx. Unlike high-speed highways, the types of roads managed by the Forest Service do not have the high speeds and high use levels that would create barriers to lynx movements or result in significant mortality risk. Roads may reduce lynx habitat by removing forest cover, but this constitutes a minor amount of habitat. Along less-traveled roads where roadside vegetation provides good hare habitat, sometimes lynx use the roadbeds for travel and foraging (Koehler and Brittell 1990). Research on the Okanogan NF in Washington showed that lynx neither preferred nor avoided forest roads, and the existing road density did not appear to affect lynx habitat selection (McKelvey et al. 2000). Available information suggests lynx do not avoid roads (Ruggiero et al. 2000) except at high traffic volumes (Apps 2000). No information was found to indicate that further restrictions on road building are needed to conserve lynx. However, upgrading roads and roadside brushing may degrade lynx habitat. I believe the guidelines in the selected alternative provide useful management direction for project design and decision-making, with only minor effects to the existing road system, resource programs and the traveling public. Linkage Areas Highways Highways impact lynx by fragmenting habitat and impeding their movement. With human population growth, highways tend to increase in size and traffic density. As 16

25 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment traffic lanes, volumes, speeds, and rights-of-way increase, the effects on lynx are increased. The LCAS recommended one objective, two standards, and a guideline directly or indirectly related to highways and connectivity. These are reflected in Alternative B, Objective ALL O1, Standards ALL S1 and LINK S1, and Guidelines ALL G1 and LINK G1. Objective ALL O1 and Standard ALL S1 are intended to maintain connectivity. Standard LINK S1 provides a process for identifying wildlife crossings across highways. Guideline Link G1 encourages retaining in public ownership National Forest System lands located within linkage areas. In comments on the Draft EIS, some people said more should be done than just identifying highway crossings. Others questioned whether wildlife will even use highway crossing structures. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified connectivity as an important consideration in the Southern Rockies (USDA Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b and 2003). The selected alternative will provide management direction for those aspects within the authority of the Forest Service that will contribute to the conservation of lynx. Only minor effects to the existing road system, resource management programs, and the traveling public would be anticipated as a result of the management direction under Alternative F- modified. The Colorado Department of Transportation (DOT) and Wyoming DOT coordinate with the Forest Service to identify areas where efforts could be made to reduce lynx mortality and to improve highway permeability to lynx movement. There will be some additional time and costs associated with evaluating and implementing methods to avoid or reduce effects of highways on lynx. Coordination Coordination among different land management agencies and landowners is important to the recovery of lynx, because lynx have large home ranges and may move long distances. The LCAS recommended working with other landowners to pursue solutions to reduce potential adverse effects. This recommendation is reflected in Alternative B, Objective LINK O1. This objective is the same among all alternatives. Habitat Connectivity Maintaining habitat connectivity is particularly important in the Southern Rockies Amendment area, which is separated from lynx habitat to the north in Wyoming and distant from populations of lynx in the Northern Rockies and Canada. Objective ALL O1 and standard ALL S1 assure that all management projects in lynx habitat will consider the need to maintain habitat connectivity within and between LAUs and in linkage areas. 17

26 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Response to the FWS Biological Opinion In its Biological Opinion on the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the management direction would not jeopardize the continued existence of lynx, but that some adverse effects to lynx would still be anticipated. The Biological Opinion contains an incidental take statement that describes the anticipated level of incidental take of lynx that may occur as a result of implementing this decision. It also provides reasonable and prudent measures that are necessary to minimize the impacts of the take and sets forth terms and conditions which must be complied with in order to implement the reasonable and prudent measures. Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and Terms and Conditions The Biological Opinion identified one reasonable and prudent measure (RPM) with two associated terms and conditions (T&C). The T&Cs are incorporated into the management direction. RPM #1: The Forest Service shall minimize harm of lynx from pre-commercial thinning and other vegetation management projects by ensuring that lynx home ranges, as represented by LAUs, either retain sufficient lynx habitat (when sufficient lynx habitat already exists in an LAU) or lynx habitat is not substantially reduced (when sufficient lynx habitat does not already exist in an LAU). The following terms and conditions implement RPM #1: T&C 1. The Forest Service shall ensure that timber management projects conducted under the exemptions and exceptions from standards VEG S1, S2, S5, or S6 in occupied habitat do not occur in greater than 4.5 percent of lynx habitat on any Forest (340,972 acres total in SRLA area) for the life of the amendment (15 years). T&C 2. In lynx habitat, pre-commercial thinning and vegetation management projects allowed per Exceptions 2 and 3 in VEG S5 and Exceptions 2 and 4 in VEG S6 shall not occur in any LAU in which VEG S1 is exceeded (i.e., no more than 30 percent of LAU in stand initiation structural stage). Furthermore, consistent with the proposed action (Exception 5[b] in VEG S5), pre-commercial thinning in LAUs in which VEG S1 is exceeded is limited to areas that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. Pre-commercial thinning activities shall consider prescriptions that reduce impacts to snowshoe hare habitat, as indicated in emerging research. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified several monitoring and reporting requirements related to the above terms and conditions. We have incorporated these elements in the selected alternative (see Attachment 1, page 9). 18

27 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Consideration of Conservation Recommendations The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified five conservation recommendations, which are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery programs, or to develop needed information. The following summarizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s recommendations. Recommendation 1. The Forest Service is commended for initiating important efforts to increase our understanding of lynx and lynx habitat. We recommend that the Forest Service should continue to be a leader in these arenas, and to provide a leadership role for the Lynx Biology Team and Lynx Steering Committee. To the extent possible, seek to gain additional information as identified in the lynx recovery outline items 6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.6.3, and Recommendation 2. The Forest Service should continue to provide logistical and financial support of the Colorado Division of Wildlife s management efforts as well as current and future research that will assist in evaluating the impacts of human activities on lynx and their habitat. Recommendation 3. The Forest Service should, in conjunction with, and with financial assistance of partners, conduct an analysis along with any associated research to determine the level at which recreational use may contribute to barrier effects to wildlife movement, including lynx. The Forest Service is also encouraged to develop a strategy that combines analysis of level of use, seasons of use, and relevant research to establish techniques to minimize impacts to lynx. This analysis should be initiated as soon as practicable. Recommendation 4. The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will jointly develop Implementation Guidelines within six months of the issuance of the Record of Decision. Recommendation 5. The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should continue to jointly update lynx habitat maps within the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area. Subject to available funding, I intend to continue our efforts as they relate to recommendations 1, 2, and 3. I also agree that development of Implementation Guidelines would be useful, and we will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare them. Updating lynx habitat maps will continue to be done as needed, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Public Involvement This Record of Decision is the culmination of eight years of study, collaboration, planning, and public participation. Throughout this period, as various documents including the proposed action, Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS, Final EIS, and Record 19

28 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment of Decision became available, they have been posted on our official website at To determine the scope of public interest in lynx management on the national forests, we published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register on March 28, 2000, which was revised on June 30, Comments were solicited from individuals, organizations, and other federal, state and local agencies interested in or affected by the proposed action. We also hosted several open-house meetings during the scoping period to provide information and gain an understanding of people s issues and concerns. On January 30, 2004, we published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register. This notice began a 90-day public comment period. We hosted open-house meetings in March and April of 2004 to provide the public with a better understanding of the Draft EIS and its alternatives. Open houses were held at several different locations throughout the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area. We accepted public comments on the Draft EIS received through the mail and . The public comment period ended on April 29, 2004, with about 240 comments received. The White River National Forest originally was not included in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment, because the Revised Plan (2002) had already incorporated management direction to conserve the lynx. On December 30, 2004, the Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issued the findings from his discretionary review of the Forest Service Chief s earlier decision regarding public appeals of the White River National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. As part of his decision, Deputy Under Secretary Dave Tenny directed the Forest Service to include the White River in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. The Deputy Under Secretary s discretionary review decision is available at Preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS for the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment was required by Deputy Under Secretary Tenny s instructions. We published a Notice of Intent to prepare the Supplemental Draft EIS in the Federal Register on December 30, The Supplemental Draft EIS added information and analysis specific to the White River National Forest to the material already provided for the other six national forests in the January 2004 Draft EIS. The Notice of Availability of the Supplemental Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 24, The 90-day comment period ended on February 21, An additional 32 comments were submitted. The public comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, together with information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment team, and Forest Service staff in the Southern Rockies, were used to formulate Alternative F, to correct errors, and to update information in the Final EIS. Responses to the public comments are presented in Appendix I of the Final EIS. 20

29 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Alternatives Considered in Detail The exact language of the management direction (goal, objectives, standards, and guidelines) under each action alternative can be found in the Final EIS. The management direction of Alternative F-modified is included in this Record of Decision as Attachment 1. A comparison of Alternatives B, F, and F-modified, with the modifications shown in italics, is provided in Attachment 2. Alternative A - No Action Analysis of a no-action alternative is required by the National Environmental Policy Act and Forest Service planning procedures. The analysis of Alternative A in the Final EIS considers the effects of implementing the direction in the Plans in their current form, including any previous amendments or revisions. In this case, no action means no change to the current Plans. Therefore, except for the Medicine Bow and White River Forest Plans (revised in the spring of 2002 and fall of 2004, respectively), the No Action alternative does not include specific conservation measures for lynx. Although selecting Alternative A means we would not incorporate additional conservation measures into the Plans, this would not void the existing Conservation Agreement or the Forest Service s ongoing responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Alternative B - Proposed Action The Proposed Action was developed from conservation measures recommended in the LCAS to address activities on National Forest System lands that can affect lynx and their habitat. (See Appendix E in the Final EIS for a crosswalk from the LCAS to the proposal as written in the scoping letter, to the Proposed Action, Alternative B; See Table 2-1 of the Final EIS for a comparison of all alternatives.) Alternative B was used to initiate public scoping. Alternative C Alternative C was designed to respond to issues concerning over-the-snow recreation management and maintaining foraging habitat in multistory forests, while providing a level of protection to lynx comparable to Alternative B. Alternative C would add direction to the Plans that is similar to the LCAS, but would have fewer restrictions on new over-the-snow trails and more restrictions on management actions in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forests. Alternative D - DEIS Preferred Alternative Alternative D was designed to provide greater emphasis on management of other multiple uses, particularly to address wildland fire risk. Alternative D would add direction that is similar to the LCAS, but has fewer restrictions on new over-the-snow trails and collaborative fuel reduction projects, and more restrictions on management actions in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forests. Based on the Remand 21

30 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Notice (USDI FWS, 2003), standards for grazing and other human uses were changed to less-restrictive guidelines. Alternative F - FEIS Preferred Alternative Alternative F was developed from public comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, by drawing from parts of the other alternatives, and by working collaboratively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with a consultation agreement established for this project. Since it was derived from parts of the other alternatives, the effects of Alternative F fall within the range of effects of the alternatives that were analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Alternative F addresses many concerns that were expressed about Alternative D, the Draft EIS/Supplemental Draft EIS preferred alternative. Many people commented that they thought Alternative D would not meet the purpose and need because it did not provide adequate protection for lynx habitat. Alternative F was designed to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms for those risk factors found to be a threat to lynx at the population level, as identified in the 2003 Remand Notice. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study Six additional alternatives were not considered in detail. Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative management direction. These were primarily suggestions for specific standards and guidelines to manage a particular resource, rather than complete alternatives covering the full spectrum of lynx conservation and recovery. The rationale for not analyzing these alternatives (standards or guidelines) in detail is generally based on a comparison to the proposed action and other fully developed alternatives and whether it meets the purpose and need. These alternatives and the rationale for not considering them in detail can be found in the Final EIS, Chapter 2. Findings Required by Laws, Regulation, and Policies National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires analysis of decisions to ensure the anticipated effects on the environment within the analysis area are considered prior to implementation (40 CFR ). The analysis for the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment followed the NEPA guidelines as provided by the Council on Environmental Quality. Alternatives were developed based on the Purpose and Need, the primary issues, public comments, and lynx habitat needs as identified by the LCAS, research, and other publications. Five alternatives were considered in detail, including the No Action Alternative as required by NEPA. Additional management direction was considered 22

31 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment but eliminated from detailed study (Final EIS, Chapter 2). The range of alternatives is appropriate given the scope of the proposal, the public issues expressed, and the Purpose and Need for action (Final EIS, Chapter 1). Unavoidable adverse effects The selected alternative does not represent an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Ground disturbance cannot occur without further site-specific analyses, Section 7(a)(2) consultation required under ESA, and decision documents. For a detailed discussion of effects of this decision, see Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. Environmentally preferable alternative(s) Regulations implementing NEPA require agencies to specify the alternative or alternatives which are considered to be environmentally preferable (40 CFR (b)). The environmentally preferable alternative causes the least damage to the biological and physical environments and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources. Based on the description of the alternatives considered in detail in the Final EIS and in this ROD, we determined that Alternative F-modified best meets the goals of Section 101 of the NEPA, and is therefore the environmentally preferable alternative for this proposed federal action. In their 2003 Remand Notice, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, and fire suppression may have adverse populationlevel impacts on lynx. The vegetation standards in the selected alternative minimize adverse effects on lynx from the timber management program. Standard VEG S1 limits the amount of lynx habitat that is in the stand initiation stage to 30 percent of each LAU at any time, ensuring a continuous rotation of all forest stages through time that supply lynx habitat in each LAU. Standard VEG S2 allows no more the 15 percent of the lynx habitat to change to the stand initiation stage through timber harvest in a 10-year period. This limits the rate of change within an LAU to ensure sufficient habitat is available to support lynx at any given point in time. Precommercial thinning directly impacts snowshoe hare and lynx habitat. Standard VEG S5 precludes precommercial thinning except in certain situations that would have little effect upon lynx or their habitat, but would achieve other multiple use resource objectives. While these exceptions have little effect on lynx (about 1.5 percent of lynx habitat) they have important positive impacts on other resources by maintaining aspen, allowing fuel reduction near buildings, and permitting thinning to occur in order to explore methods to sustain snowshoe hare habitat over time, reduce hazardous fuels outside WUI, improve forest health, and increase timber production. Alternative F-modified allows for management of fuels in the WUI under Guideline VEG G10. Under VEG G10, fuel reduction projects in the WUI should consider applying the VEG standards, but may deviate from them, up to a cap of 3 percent of the lynx habitat on each National Forest. Lynx habitat is still evaluated as part of the site- 23

32 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment specific decision-making process; however, if the fuel reduction needs are such that any of the four VEG standards cannot be met while at the same time meeting the fuels treatment objective, the project may proceed. Since the LCAS was published, it has become clear that mature multistory stands with dense horizontal cover are especially important to lynx. Under Alternative F-modified, Standard VEG S6 is instrumental in maintaining winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forests, which will help sustain lynx habitat. The selected alternative contains guidelines for the various activities on National Forest System land that may have adverse affects on individual lynx, but are not expected to have an adverse population-level impact. Thus, standards were changed to guidelines for activities such as livestock grazing, recreation, and forest road management. The selected alternative contributes to lynx conservation and recovery on National Forest System lands, but allows flexibility for management of other resources and public uses. Considering all this, the selected alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because it causes the least damage to the biological and physical environments and best protects, preserves, and enhances natural resources. National Forest Management Act Significance determination This proposal was initiated on March 28, 2000, which was before the transition period of the 2000 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) planning regulations. It was prepared using the provisions of the 1982 NFMA planning regulations. The 2008 NFMA planning rule also allows the use of the provisions of the 1982 NFMA regulations during the transition period. The NFMA provides that forest plans may be amended in any manner, but if the management direction results in a significant change in the plan, the same procedure as that required for development and approval of a plan shall be followed. The 1982 regulations at 36 CFR (f) require the agency to determine whether or not a proposed amendment will result in a significant change in the plan. If the change resulting from the amendment is determined not to be significant for the purposes of the planning process, then the agency may implement the amendment following appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of NEPA procedures. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1920, section (Jan. 31, 2006) identifies factors to consider in determining whether an amendment is significant or non-significant for those plans using planning regulations in effect before November 9, Changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from: 1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 24

33 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment 2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site analysis. 3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities. Examples of significant changes include: 1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected. 2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period. The selected alternative will change in plans similar to examples of non-significant changes #1 and #3. The effects of this decision are not similar to either example of significant plan changes. These findings are discussed in further detail below. Changes in standards and guidelines are minor The selected alternative adds one goal to forest plans: conserve Canada lynx. This goal is consistent with other goals in existing plans and other legal requirements to provide for habitat needs for threatened and endangered species. The selected alternative adds several objectives to the plans. These objectives require consideration of natural ecosystem process and functions, and consideration of lynx habitat needs. The additional objectives provide more specific guidance to provide for habitat needs for threatened and endangered species, but do not alter the overall objectives of the Plan. The proposal does not change any Management Area designation. The selected alternative adds seven standards and 24 guidelines. The addition of these new standards and guidelines are minor as discussed below. Changes would not significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected. The management direction would not substantially alter outputs for grazing, minerals, energy, transportation systems, and developed recreation areas, such as ski areas or winter recreation sites. These activities will not be prohibited by the management direction; however, habitat needs for lynx will need to be considered when managing these resources. The new direction will also not substantially alter timber outputs, even though it may affect the mix of products as well as growth and yield. The selected alternative limits precommercial thinning in winter snowshoe hare habitat in young regenerating forests, with some exceptions specified in Standard VEG S5, such as for defensible space, research studies, and to restore aspen where it is in decline. In addition, precommercial thinning may be allowed up to levels in order to explore methods to sustain snowshoe hare habitat over time, reduce hazardous fuels outside WUI, improve forest health, and increase timber production. Limiting 25

34 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment precommercial thinning may reduce growth and yield of some lodgepole pine stands, and the potential to produce some products in the future; however, overall cubic foot volume would not be measurably affected. Limiting precommercial thinning would reduce Long-Term Sustained Yield (LTSY) on the Forests. The effect on LTSY would vary with age at the time of thinning, species, site quality, rotation length, final product, etc. Based on average conditions in the analysis area, the LTSY reduction is assumed to be 1,800 cubic feet per acre. The precommercial thinning programs in lynx habitat have historically been concentrated in young lodgepole pine stands. Approximately half of this lodgepole pine is seral to spruce-fir and considered lynx habitat. Future volume reductions and forest health concerns resulting from precommercial thinning restrictions would be greatest in the seral lodgepole pine stands. However, the effect of the sawtimber volume reduction on actual harvest volumes would be relatively small. In addition, the ASQ would not be affected on any units because the management direction does not preclude timber harvest. Standards VEG S1 and S2 may defer regeneration harvest in some areas, but Guideline VEG G1 encourages projects creating winter snowshoe hare habitat where it is currently lacking. Timber outputs have historically been well below the level of LTSY in these plans. Therefore, changes in LTSY are unlikely to lead to changes in outputs, especially as measured in cubic feet. There could be changes in what material is harvested and where. Changes would not have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period. There are approximately 14.6 million acres within the seven National Forests in the planning area. Of this, approximately 7.5 million acres has been mapped as lynx habitat (see table 3.1). Of the 7.5 million acres of mapped lynx habitat, approximately twothirds are in land allocations that allow for developmental actions. The most noticeable effects are likely to be the location and amount of precommercial thinning. It should be noted that precommercial thinning is not constrained on areas outside lynx habitat. Summary: Considering the three factors, I determined this management direction is not a significant change under the National Forest Management Act to the eight forest plans because it imposes minor changes over a limited area of these national forests. The duration of this decision will vary across the amendment area. As required under the National Forest Management Act, Land and Resource Management Plans are revised every ten to fifteen years. The White River and the Medicine Bow Plans are the most recently revised (2002 and 2004, respectively). The Pike-San Isabel, the San Juan, and the Gunnison, Uncompahgre and Grand Mesa National Forests are currently revising their Plans. 26

35 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Viability determination This management direction was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 NFMA regulations for amending land and resource management plans. According to the 1982 regulations, fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native species in the planning area (36 CFR ). For the purpose of this decision, the planning area is the range of lynx encompassed by the national forests subject to this decision. This is based on a biological delineation of the Southern Rockies Geographic Area made in the LCAS. A viable population is one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well-distributed in the planning area. It is not possible to reliably predict future population demographics for lynx, and continued existence of lynx may be influenced by threats that exist outside of Forest Service jurisdiction (e.g., linkage areas across other ownerships). Based on the best scientific information available, and for the specific reasons provided below, this management direction will provide habitat to support persistence of lynx in the Southern Rockies in the long term. The LCAS was used as the basis for developing the selected alternative. The Remand Notice (2003), and other new information and research were also evaluated, and became the basis for updating standards and guidelines based upon the current state of knowledge regarding threats to lynx since the LCAS was compiled. An assessment of lynx persistence outcomes was disclosed in the Final EIS. While the selected alternative may allow some negative impacts to occur to individual lynx, it is expected to maintain habitat quality and connectivity, and will provide for persistence of the lynx population in the Southern Rockies over the long-term. All of the lynx habitat within the provisional core area as defined in the Recovery Outline (USDI FWS 2005) will be subject to the management direction for lynx conservation. In its Biological Opinion (2008), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the selected alternative will support lynx populations in the Southern Rocky Mountains Lynx Amendment area, and will contribute to recovery of the lynx. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(1) Conservation of Threatened and Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act creates an affirmative obligation... that all federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. In its Biological Opinion (2008), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the selected alternative is consistent with Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act, which directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. 27

36 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment On September 12, 2005 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Recovery Outline for Canada lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). The outline is intended to serve as an interim strategy to guide and encourage recovery efforts until a recovery plan is completed. In the Recovery Outline, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service categorized lynx habitat as: 1) core areas; 2) secondary areas; and 3) peripheral areas. The areas with the strongest long-term evidence of the persistence of lynx populations within the contiguous United States are defined as core areas. The Southern Rocky Mountains was identified as a provisional core area, due to the uncertainties associated with the reintroduction project. In the Recovery Outline, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presented four preliminary recovery objectives. Following is a summary of the findings in the Biological Opinion (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) regarding how the selected alternative meets the recovery objectives. Preliminary recovery objective 1: Retain adequate habitat of sufficient quality to support the long-term persistence of lynx populations within each of the identified core areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded the selected alternative fulfills this objective and adequately manages the provisional core area of the SRLA area to support lynx recovery. Preliminary recovery objective 2: Ensure that sufficient habitat is available to accommodate the long-term persistence of immigration and emigration between each core area and adjacent populations in Canada or secondary areas in the United States. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded the selected alternative contributes to this recovery objective in part, although some concerns remain regarding connectivity within the Southern Rockies and between the Northern Rockies and Southern Rockies. Preliminary recovery objective 3: Ensure habitat in secondary areas remains available for continued occupancy by lynx. Since the entire SRLA area is a provisional core area, this objective does not apply. Preliminary recovery objective 4: Ensure threats have been addressed so that lynx populations will persist in the contiguous United States for at least the next 100 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that although plans do not apply for 100 years and thus cannot directly fulfill this objective, the selected alternative will allow lynx populations to persist on federal lands in the planning area within the foreseeable future. The selected alternative addresses the threat (inadequate regulatory measures) to the Distinct Population Segment within lynx habitat in the SRLA by limiting, reducing or avoiding major adverse impacts of federal land management on lynx, as well as addressing other impacts or influences that do not rise to the level of a threat. 28

37 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Section 7(a)(2) Interagency Consultation A biological assessment (BA) was prepared to assess the effects of the selected alternative on all listed species. For all listed species, except for Canada lynx, the selected alternative would have no effect or would be not likely to adversely affect them. While the management direction in the selected alternative would contribute to improved lynx conservation, individual lynx still could be adversely affected as a result of the exemptions and exceptions to the vegetation standards for fuel treatments projects and precommercial thinning. The July 2, 2007 BA, as supplemented on April 25, 2008, was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for formal consultation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the no effect and not likely to adversely affect determinations, and provided a Biological Opinion on the effects of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment on the United States Distinct Population Segment of Canada lynx (USDI FWS 2008). The Biological Opinion acknowledges that the selected alternative is likely to have overall beneficial effects to lynx by addressing the primary threat identified at the time of listing: the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Acknowledging that some adverse effects could still occur, primarily due to the allowance for fuel treatment projects and precommercial thinning, the Biological Opinion concluded that the selected alternative is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Canada lynx. The Biological Opinion identifies incidental take, and reasonable and prudent measures with associated terms and conditions to avoid or minimize take. These measures have been incorporated into the selected alternative through this decision. Further section 7(a)(2) consultation will occur on future site-specific projects and activities if they may affect lynx. Future consultations will reference back to the Biological Opinion issued on this decision to ensure the effects of the specific projects are within the effects anticipated in the Biological Opinion issued on this decision (USDI FWS 2008). Critical Habitat On November 9, 2006, FWS published the final rule for the designation of Canada lynx critical habitat (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 217, pp to 66061). On Feb. 28, 2008, FWS published a new proposed rule. No National Forest System lands in the Southern Rockies were initially designated, nor were any included in the new proposal to be designated as critical habitat. Therefore, no critical habitat would be adversely modified as a result of implementation of this decision. National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and subsequent amendments require that federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. 29

38 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment As required under the Act, and as practiced in the Rocky Mountain Region, site-specific project areas are subject to requirements for survey, identification of resources, determination of eligibility, evaluation of effect, consultation and resolution of adverse effects, if any. This decision is programmatic and does not authorize site-specific activities. Projects will comply fully with the laws and regulations that ensure protection of cultural resources. It is my determination that this decision complies with the NHPA and other statues that pertain to the protection of cultural resources. Clean Air Act This decision is programmatic and does not authorize site-specific activities. Projects undertaken following the management direction will comply fully with the laws and regulations that ensure protection of air quality. It is my determination this decision complies with the Clean Air Act and other statutes that pertain to the protection of air quality. Clean Water Act This decision is programmatic and does not authorize site-specific activities. Projects undertaken following the management direction will comply fully with the laws and regulations that ensure protection of water quality. It is my determination this decision complies with the Clean Water Act and other statutes that pertain to the protection of water quality. Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112) Executive Order directs federal agencies not to authorize any activities that would increase the spread of invasive species. This decision is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. It is my determination that this decision complies with Executive Order Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) Executive Order directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. I determined from the analyses disclosed in the Final EIS that this decision complies with Executive Order Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land The selected alternative is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. It is my determination based on the analyses disclosed in the Final EIS that prime farmland, rangeland, and forest land will not be affected by this decision. Equal Employment Opportunity, Effects on Minorities, Women The Final EIS describes the impacts to social and economic factors in Chapter 3. The selected alternative will not have a disproportionate impact on any minority or low- 30

39 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment income communities. I determined the selected alternative will not differentially affect the civil rights of any citizens, including women and minorities. Wetlands and Floodplains (Executive Orders and 11990) This decision is programmatic and does not authorize site-specific activities. I determined the selected alternative will not have adverse impacts on wetlands and floodplains and will comply with Executive Orders and Implementation and Appeal Provisions Effective Date and Transition The management direction will become effective 7 days after publication of the notice of availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register. Requests to stay implementation of the amended plans shall not be granted pursuant to 36 CFR This decision supersedes the 2006 Lynx Conservation Agreement in the Southern Rockies. The White River and Medicine Bow National Forests previously completed revisions of their Plans (2002 and 2004, respectively). Although those Revised Plans already incorporated management direction to provide habitat for lynx, this decision amends all eight Plans in the Southern Rockies to assure consistent management direction across the region. The 2008 Biological Opinion for this amendment supersedes any requirements specific to lynx that were established under previous Biological Opinions for amended or revised Plans (i.e., Medicine Bow Revised Plan, White River Revised Plan, and Rio Grande MIS Amendment). The National Forest Management Act requires that permits, contracts, and other instruments for use and occupancy of National Forest System lands be consistent with the current Plan. However, this requirement is conditioned as follows: 1) These documents must be revised only when necessary; 2) These document must be revised as soon as practicable; and 3) Any revisions are subject to valid existing rights. In developing this amendment to eight Plans, pre-existing site-specific decisions and associated effects were considered to be part of the baseline against which the alternatives were evaluated. Therefore, their implementation is not in conflict with the amended Plans. I have determined it is not necessary to apply the amended management direction retroactively to pre-existing use and occupancy authorizations, such as timber sale contracts, livestock grazing permits, and ski area permits. However, I have also determined that deciding officers have the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to modify previous decisions or authorizations if they are not consistent with the amended management direction. Some decisions recently made but not yet 31

40 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment implemented will be reviewed, adjusted and implemented to meet the management direction in the amended Plans. Opportunity for Administrative Appeal This decision is subject to review pursuant to 36 CFR Any appeals must be postmarked or received by the Appeal Reviewing Officer within 45 days of the date the legal notice is published in the Denver Post, the newspaper of record. Appeals sent through the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to: USDA Forest Service, Attn: EMC Appeals Mail Stop Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC Appeals sent through FedEx, UPS, or a courier service must be sent to: USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination, Attn: Appeals Yates Bldg., 3CEN th Street, SW Washington, DC Appeals may be hand-delivered to the above address during regular business hours, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; or sent by fax to (202) ; or by to appeals-chief@fs.fed.us. ed appeals must be submitted in rich text format (.rtf) or Word (.doc) and must include the decision name in the subject line. Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CFR and include at a minimum: A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 217; The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; Identify the decision to which the objection is being made; Identify the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer; Specifically identify the portion(s) of the decision or decision document to which objection is made; The reasons for the appeal, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy and, if applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy; and Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks. 32

41 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Further Information and Contact Person The Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Final EIS, the Summary, this Record of Decision and the FWS Biological Opinion, as well as other background documents are available on the Web at For further information regarding the Final EIS, Record of Decision, or related documents, contact: Nancy Warren or Martha Delporte USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region 740 Simms St. Denver, CO Telephone: (303) or (303)

42 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment References Cited Apps, C.D Space-use, diet, demographics and topographic associations of lynx in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: a study. Pages Chapter 12 In Ruggiero, L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp. Brittell, J.D., R.J. Poelker, S.J., Sweeney, and G.M. Koehler Native cats of Washington. Unpubl. report, Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA 169 pp. Bunnell, K.D., J.T. Flinders and M.L. Wolfe Potential impacts of coyotes and snowmobiles on lynx conservation in the Intermountain West. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3): Hickenbottom, J.R., B. Summerfield, J. Aardahl, G. Halekas, M. Hilliard, L. Jackson, D. Prevedel, J. Rupe Biological assessment of the effects of National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans on Canada lynx. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden Utah. 149 pp. Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Brittell Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares. J. Forestry 88: Kolbe, J.A., J.R. Squires, D.H. Pletscher and L.F. Ruggiero The effect of snowmobile trails on coyote movements within lynx home ranges. J. Wildlife Manage. 71(5): McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, and Y.K. Ortega History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. Pages Chapter 8 In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp. Merrill, G. and T. Shenk Colorado lynx den site habitat, progress report Unpubl. report. U.S. Forest Service and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 8 pp. Ruediger, B,J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy (LCAS). USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Publication Number R , Missoula, MT. 142 pp. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (Tech. Eds.) Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp. Shenk, T Lynx research update Sept. 6, CDOW Unpubl. Report. 4 pp. Squires, J.R. and L.R. Ruggiero Winter prey selection of Canada lynx in northwestern Montana. J. Wildlife Manage. 71(2): USDA Forest Service A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment. 10-year comprehensive strategy. August U.S. Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington DC. 21 pp. 34

43 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, the National Association of State Foresters and the National Association of Counties Memorandum of Understanding for the development of a collaborative fuels treatment program. USFS Agreement #03-MU pp. USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 12 pp. USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 9 pp. USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Occupied Mapped Lynx Habitat Amendment to the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. Unpublished. 5 pp. USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 13 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Biological opinion on the effects of National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans on Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the contiguous United States. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 70 pp. + appendix. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Endangered and threatened animals and plants; determination of threatened status for the contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx and related rule. Federal Register March 24, Vol. 65, No. 58, pages USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; notice of remanded determination of status for the contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx; clarifications of findings; final rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 68, No pp USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan Outline: Contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx. Unpublished. Montana Field Office, Helena, Montana. 21 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment on the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the contiguous United States. Unpublished. Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, Colorado. 85 pp. 35

44 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

45 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ATTACHMENT 1 The Selected Alternative

46 Record of Decision Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment

47 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Management Direction The management direction applies to lynx habitat on the following National Forests in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area: Medicine Bow Routt National Forests (two separate Plans), Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Pike-San Isabel National Forests, Rio Grande National Forest, San Juan National Forest, and White River National Forest. GOAL 14 Conserve the Canada lynx. ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL). The following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to all management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat and in linkage areas, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to wildland fire use. Objective 30 ALL O1 Maintain 26 or restore 40 lynx habitat 23 connectivity 16 in and between LAUs 21, and in linkage areas 22. Standard 44 ALL S1 New or expanded permanent developments 33 and vegetation management 50 projects 36 must maintain 26 habitat connectivity 16 in an LAU 21 and/or linkage area 22. Guideline 15 ALL G1 Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or reconstructing highways 18 or forest highways 12 across federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses. Standard 44 LAU S1 Changes in LAU 21 boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat information and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office. Attachment 1-1

48 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES (VEG). The following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to vegetation management projects 36 in lynx habitat within lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat. With the exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically concerns wildland fire use, the objectives, standards, and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, or removal of vegetation for permanent developments such as mineral operations, ski runs, roads, and the like. None of the objectives, standards, or guidelines apply to linkage areas. Objective 30 VEG O1 Manage vegetation to mimic or approximate natural succession and disturbance processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the conservation of lynx. Objective VEG O2 Provide a mosaic of habitat conditions through time that support dense horizontal cover 19, and high densities of snowshoe hare. Provide winter snowshoe hare habitat 51 in both the stand initiation structural stage and in mature, multi-story conifer vegetation. Objective VEG O3 Conduct fire use 11 activities to restore 40 ecological processes and maintain or improve lynx habitat. Objective VEG O4 Focus vegetation management 50 in areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat 52 but presently have poorly developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover. Standard 44 VEG S1 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management 50 projects 36 that regenerate 38 forested stands, except for fuel treatment 13 projects 36 within the wildland urban interface 51 (WUI) as defined by HFRA 17, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects 36 within the WUI 51 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a National Forest or administratively combined National Forests). In addition, fuel treatment projects may not result in more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. For fuel treatment projects 36 within the WUI 51 see guideline VEG G10. The standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages 45 limit disturbance in each LAU as follows: Attachment 1-2

49 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects 36. Standard VEG S2 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S2 applies to all timber management 47 projects 36 that regenerate 38 forests, except for fuel treatment 13 projects 36 within the wildland urban interface 51 (WUI) as defined by HFRA 17, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects 36 within the WUI 51 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a National Forest or administratively combined National Forests). For fuel treatment projects 36 within the WUI 51 see guideline VEG G10. The standard: Timber management 47 projects 36 shall not regenerate 38 more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands within an LAU in a ten-year period. This 15 percent includes the entire stand within an even-age regeneration area, and only the patch opening areas within group selections. Salvage harvest within stands killed by insect epidemics, wildfire, etc. does not add to the 15 percent, unless the harvest treatment would cause the lynx habitat to change to an unsuitable condition 24. Standard VEG S5 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial thinning 35 projects, except for fuel treatment 13 projects that use precommercial thinning as a tool within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 may occur on no more than three percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a National Forest or administratively combined National Forests) for the life of this amendment. For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Precommercial thinning practices and similar activities intended to reduce seedling/sapling density are subject to the following limitations from the stand initiation structural stage 45 until the stands no longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. Precommercial thinning 35 may occur only: 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies 39 or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning 5 around individual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline; or Attachment 1-3

50 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 4. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional/state levels of the Forest Service and FWS, where a written determination states: a) That a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or b) That a project is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynx or its habitat, but would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat. 5. In addition to the above exceptions (and above and beyond the three percent limitation for fuels projects within the WUI 51 ), precommercial thinning may occur provided that: a) The additional precommercial thinning does not exceed one percent of the lynx habitat in any LAU for the life of this amendment, and the amount and distribution of winter snowshoe hare habitat within the LAU must be provided through appropriate site-specific analysis and consultation; and b) Precommercial thinning in LAUs with more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat currently in the stand initiation structural stage 45 is limited to areas that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat 52 ; and c) Projects are designed to maintain lynx habitat connectivity 16 and provide snowshoe hare habitat over the long term; and d) Monitoring is used to determine snowshoe hare response. Exceptions 2 and 3 may not occur in any LAU in which VEG S1 is exceeded (i.e., more than 30 percent of LAU in stand initiation structural stage). Note: This standard is intended to provide snowshoe hare habitat while permitting some thinning, to explore methods to sustain snowshoe hare habitat over time, reduce hazardous fuels, improve forest health, and increase timber production. Project design must ensure any precommercial thinning provides an appropriate amount and distribution of snowshoe hare habitat with each LAU over time, and maintains lynx habitat connectivity within and between LAUs. Project design should focus on creating irregular shapes for the thinning units, creating mosaics of thinned and unthinned areas, and using variable density thinning, etc. Standard VEG S6 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management 50 practices within multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests 29, except for fuel treatment 13 projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA 17, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects 36 within the WUI 51 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a National Forest or administratively combined National Forests). Attachment 1-4

51 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction For fuel treatment projects 36 within the WUI 51 see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Vegetation management projects 36 that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat 52 in multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests 29 may occur only: 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, and special use permit improvements, including infrastructure within permitted ski area boundaries; or 2. For research studies 38 or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest 41 (e.g., removal due to location of skid trails); or 4. Where uneven-aged management (single tree and small group selection) practices are employed to maintain and encourage multi-story attributes as part of gap dynamics. Project design must be consistent with VEG O1, O2 and O4, except where impacts to areas of dense horizontal cover are incidental to activities under this exception (e.g., construction of skid trails). Exceptions 2 and 4 may not occur in any LAU in which VEG S1 is exceeded. Guideline VEG G1 Vegetation management 50 projects 36 should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce or not available. Priority for treatment should be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage 46 stands to enhance habitat conditions for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole stands). Winter snowshoe hare habitat 52 should be near denning habitat 6. Guideline VEG G4 Prescribed fire 34 activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided. Guideline VEG G5 Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel 37, should be provided in each LAU. Guideline VEG G10 Fuel treatment projects 36 within the WUI 51 as defined by HFRA 17 should be designed considering Standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation. Guideline VEG G11 Denning habitat 6 should be distributed in each LAU in the form of pockets of large amounts of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles of small wind thrown trees ( jack-strawed piles). If denning habitat appears to be lacking in the LAU, then projects 36 should be designed to retain some coarse woody debris 4, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat 6 in the future. Attachment 1-5

52 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT (GRAZ): The following objectives and guidelines apply to grazing projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat. They do not apply to linkage areas. Objective 30 GRAZ O1 Manage livestock grazing to be compatible with improving or maintaining 26 lynx habitat 23. Guideline 15 GRAZ G1 In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating. Guideline GRAZ G2 In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of aspen. Guideline GRAZ G3 In riparian areas 41 and willow carrs 3, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages 28, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Guideline GRAZ G4 In shrub-steppe habitats 43, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs 21, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. HUMAN USE PROJECTS (HU): The following objectives and guidelines apply to human use projects, such as special uses (other than grazing), recreation management, roads, highways, and mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly. They do not apply to linkage areas. Objective 30 HU O1 Maintain 26 the lynx s natural competitive advantage over other predators in deep snow, by discouraging the expansion of snow-compacting activities in lynx habitat 23. Objective HU O2 Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity 16. Objective HU O3 Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat. Objective HU O4 Attachment 1-6

53 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing new or expanding existing developed recreation 9 sites or ski areas. Objective HU O5 Manage human activities, such as special uses, mineral and oil and gas exploration and development, and placement of utility transmission corridors, to reduce impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. Objective HU O6 Reduce adverse highway 18 effects on lynx by working cooperatively with other agencies to provide for lynx movement and habitat connectivity 16, and to reduce the potential for lynx mortality. Guideline 15 HU G1 When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris 4, so winter snowshoe hare habitat 51 is maintained. Guideline HU G2 When developing or expanding ski areas, lynx foraging habitat should be provided consistent with the ski area s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes. Guideline HU G3 Recreation development and recreational operational uses should be planned to provide for lynx movement and to maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat 23. Guideline HU G4 Remote monitoring of mineral and energy development sites and facilities should be encouraged to reduce snow compaction. Guideline HU G5 A reclamation plan should be developed (e.g., road reclamation and vegetation rehabilitation) for closed mineral and energy development sites and facilities that promote the restoration of lynx habitat. Guideline HU G6 Methods to avoid or reduce effects to lynx habitat connectivity 16 should be used when upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5 27, where the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or contribute to development or increases in human activity. Guideline HU G7 New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity 16. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers. Guideline HU G8 Attachment 1-7

54 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Cutting brush along low-speed, low-traffic-volume roads 25 should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety. Guideline HU G9 If project level analysis determines that new roads adversely affect lynx, then public motorized use should be restricted. Upon project 36 completion, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives. Guideline HU G10 Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction 1, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings, or to access regulated by Guideline HU G12. Use the same analysis boundaries for all actions subject to this guideline. Guideline HU G11 When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, consider locating access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security habitat 10. Guideline HU G12 Winter access for non-recreation special uses and mineral and energy exploration and development should be limited to designated routes 8 or designated over-thesnow routes 7. LINKAGE AREAS (LINK): The following objective, standard, and guidelines apply to all projects within linkage areas in occupied habitat, subject to valid existing rights. Objective 30 LINK O1 In areas of intermingled land ownership, work with landowners to pursue conservation easements, habitat conservation plans, land exchanges, or other solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. Standard 44 LINK S1 When highway 18 or forest highway 12 construction or reconstruction is proposed in linkage areas 22, identify potential highway crossings. Guideline 15 LINK G1 National Forest System lands should be retained in public ownership. Guideline LINK G2 Attachment 1-8

55 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats 43 should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages 28, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Required Monitoring 1. Maps of the location and intensity of snow compacting activities and designated and groomed routes that occurred inside LAUs during the period of 1998 to 2000 constitute baseline snow compaction. Changes in activities and routes are to be monitored every five years after the decision. 2. When fuels treatment and vegetation management project decisions are signed, report the following: a) Acres of fuel treatment in lynx habitat by Forest and LAU, and whether the treatment is within or outside the WUI as defined by HFRA. b) Whether or not the fuel treatment met the vegetation standards or guidelines. If standard(s) were not met, report which standard(s) was not met, why it could not be met, and how many acres were affected. c) Application of exceptions in Standard VEG S5: For areas where any of the exceptions 1 through 5 listed in Standard VEG S5 were applied, report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, and LAU) and whether or not Standard VEG S1 was within the allowance. d) Application of exceptions in Standard VEG S6: For areas where any of the exceptions 1 through 4 listed in Standard VEG S6 were applied, report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, and LAU) and whether or not Standard VEG S1 was within the allowance. e) Total acres of lynx habitat treated under exemptions and exceptions to vegetation standards, to assure the 4.5 percent limit is not exceeded on any Forest over the life of the amendment (15 years). 3. Application of guidelines: a) Summarize what guideline(s) was not followed and why. b) Document the rationale for deviations to guidelines. Attachment 1-9

56 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Glossary 1 Area of consistent snow compaction An area of consistent snow compaction is an area of land or water that during winter is generally covered with snow and gets enough human use that individual tracks are indistinguishable. In such places, compacted snow is evident most of the time, except immediately after (within 48 hours) snowfall. These can be areas or linear routes, and are generally found in or near snowmobile or cross-country ski routes, in adjacent openings, parks and meadows, near ski huts or plowed roads, or in winter parking areas. Areas of consistent snow compaction will be determined based on the acreage or miles used during the period 1998 to Broad scale assessment A broad scale assessment is a synthesis of current scientific knowledge, including a description of uncertainties and assumptions, to provide an understanding of past and present conditions and future trends, and a characterization of the ecological, social, and economic components of an area. (LCAS) 3 Carr Deciduous woodland or shrub land occurring on permanently wet, organic soil. (LCAS) 4 Coarse woody debris Any piece(s) of dead woody material, e.g., dead boles, limbs, and large root masses on the ground or in streams. (LCAS) 5 Daylight thinning Daylight thinning is a form of precommercial thinning that removes the trees and brush inside a given radius around a tree. 6 Denning habitat (lynx) Denning habitat is the environment lynx use when giving birth and rearing kittens until they are mobile. The most common component is large amounts of coarse woody debris to provide escape and thermal cover for kittens. Denning habitat must be within daily travel distance of winter snowshoe hare habitat the typical maximum daily distance for females is about three to six miles. Denning habitat includes mature and old growth forests with plenty of coarse woody debris. It can also include young regenerating forests with piles of coarse woody debris, or areas where down trees are jack-strawed. 7 Designated over-the-snow routes Designated over-the-snow routes are routes managed under permit or agreement or by the agency, where use is encouraged, either by on-theground marking or by publication in brochures, recreation opportunity guides or maps (other than travel maps), or in electronic media produced or approved by the agency. The routes identified in outfitter and guide permits are designated by definition; groomed routes also are designated by definition. The determination of baseline snow compaction will be based on the miles of designated over-the-snow routes authorized, promoted or encouraged during the period 1998 to Designated route A designated route is a road or trail that has been identified as open for specified travel use. 9 Developed recreation Developed recreation requires facilities that result in concentrated use. For example, skiing requires lifts, parking lots, buildings, and roads; campgrounds require roads, picnic tables, and toilet facilities. Attachment 1-10

57 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 10 Diurnal security habitat (lynx) Places in lynx habitat that provide secure winter bedding sites in highly disturbed landscapes such as ski areas. Security habitat gives lynx the ability to retreat from human disturbance. Site characteristics and stand conditions make human access difficult and discourage human activity. Security habitats are sufficiently large to provide effective visual and acoustic insulation and to let lynx easily move away from any intrusion. Lynx security habitat must be in proximity to winter snowshoe hare habitat. (LCAS) 11 Fire use Fire use is the combination of wildland fire use and using prescribed fire to meet resource objectives. (NIFC) Wildland fire use is the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish resource management objectives in areas that have a fire management plan. The use of the term wildland fire use replaces the term prescribed natural fire. (Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy, August 1998) 12 Forest highway A forest highway is a forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to public travel (USC: Title 23, Section 101(a)), designated by an agreement with the FS, state transportation agency, and Federal Highway Administration. 13 Fuel treatment A fuel treatment is a type of vegetation management action that reduces the threat of ignition, fire intensity, or rate of spread, or is used to restore fireadapted ecosystems. 14 Goal A goal is a broad description of what an agency is trying to achieve, found in a land management plan. (LCAS) 15 Guideline A guideline is a particular management action that should be used to meet an objective found in a land management plan. The rationale for deviations may be documented, but amending the plan is not required. (LCAS modified) 16 Habitat connectivity (lynx) Cover (vegetation) in sufficient quantity and arrangement to allow for the movement of lynx. Narrow forested mountain ridges or shrub-steppe plateaus may serve as a link between more extensive areas of lynx habitat; wooded riparian communities may provide cover across open valley floors. (LCAS) 17 HFRA (Healthy Forests Restoration Act) - Public Law , passed in December The HFRA provides statutory processes for hazardous fuel reduction projects on certain types of at-risk National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands. It also provides other authorities and direction to help reduce hazardous fuel and restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions on lands of all ownerships. (Modified from Forest Service HFRA web site.) 18 Highway The word highway includes all roads that are part of the National Highway System. (23 CFR (b)) 19 Horizontal cover The visual obscurity provided by vegetation that extends to the ground or snow surface, primarily provided by tree stems and tree boughs, but may also be provided by shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, and landscape topography. Attachment 1-11

58 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 21 LAU (Lynx Analysis Unit) An LAU is an area of at least the size used by an individual lynx, from about 25 to 50 square miles (LCAS). An LAU is a unit for which the effects of a project would be analyzed; its boundaries should remain constant. 22 Linkage area A linkage area provides landscape connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat. Linkage areas occur both within and between geographic areas, where blocks of lynx habitat are separated by intervening areas of non-lynx habitat such as basins, valleys, or agricultural lands, or where lynx habitat naturally narrows between blocks. (LCAS updated definition approved by the Steering Committee 10/23/01) 23 Lynx habitat Lynx habitat occurs in mesic coniferous forest that experience cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare. In the southern Rocky Mountains, lynx habitat generally occurs between 8,000 and 12,000 feet in elevation. Primary vegetation consists of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, aspen-conifer mix and lodgepole pine on spruce-fir habitat types. On cool moist sites, Douglas-fir and aspen, when interspersed with subalpine forests, may also contribute to lynx habitat. Dry forest types (e.g., ponderosa pine, climax lodgeople pine) do not provide lynx habitat. (LCAS) 24 Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition consists of lynx habitat in the stand initiation structural stage where the trees are generally less than ten to 30 years old and have not grown tall enough to protrude above the snow during winter. Stand replacing fire, insect epidemics or certain vegetation management projects can create unsuitable conditions. Vegetation management projects that can result in unsuitable habitat include clearcuts and seed tree harvest, and sometimes shelterwood cuts and commercial thinning depending on the resulting stand composition and structure. (LCAS) 25 Low-speed, low-traffic-volume road Low speed is less than 20 miles per hour; low volume is a seasonal average daily traffic load of less than 100 vehicles per day. 26 Maintain In the context of this decision, maintain means to provide enough lynx habitat to conserve lynx. It does not mean to keep the status quo. 27 Maintenance level Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by and maintenance required for a road. (FSH , Sec 12.3) Maintenance level 4 is assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most level 4 roads have double lanes and an aggregate surface. Some may be single lane; some may be paved or have dust abated. Maintenance level 5 is assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally, level 5 roads are have double lanes and are paved, but some may be aggregate surfaced with the dust abated. 28 Mid-seral or later Mid-seral is the successional stage in a plant community that is the midpoint as it moves from bare ground to climax. For riparian areas, it means willows or other shrubs have become established. For shrub-steppe areas, it means shrubs associated with climax are present and increasing in density. Attachment 1-12

59 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 29 Multi-story mature or late successional forest This stage is similar to the old multistory structural stage (see below). However, trees are generally not as old, and decaying trees may be somewhat less abundant. 30 Objective An objective is a statement in a land management plan describing desired resource conditions and intended to promote achieving programmatic goals. (LCAS) 31 Old multistory structural stage Many age classes and vegetation layers mark the old forest, multistoried stage. It usually contains large old trees. Decaying fallen trees may be present that leave a discontinuous overstory canopy. On cold or moist sites without frequent fires or other disturbance, multi-layer stands with large trees in the uppermost layer develop. (Oliver and Larson, 1996) 32 Old growth Old growth forests generally contain trees that are large for their species and the site, and are sometimes decadent with broken tops. Old growth often contains a variety of tree sizes, large snags, and logs, and a developed and often patchy understory. 33 Permanent development Any development that results in a loss of lynx habitat for at least the duration of a Forest Plan, approximately 15 years. Ski trails, parking lots, new permanent roads, structures, campgrounds, and many special use developments would be considered permanent developments. 34 Prescribed fire A prescribed fire is any fire ignited as a management action to meet specific objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements met, before ignition. The term prescribed fire replaces the term management ignited prescribed fire. (NWCG) 35 Precommercial thinning Precommercial thinning is mechanically removing trees to reduce stocking and concentrate growth on the remaining trees, and not resulting in immediate financial return. (Dictionary of Forestry) 36 Project - All, or any part or number of the various activities analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Analysis, or Decision Memo. For example, the vegetation management in some units or stands analyzed in an EIS could be for fuel reduction, and therefore those units or stands would fall within the term fuel treatment project even if the remainder of the activities in the EIS are being conducted for other purposes, and the remainder of those units or stands have other activities prescribed in them. All units in an analysis do not necessarily need to be for fuel reduction purposes for certain units to be considered a fuel reduction project. 37 Red squirrel habitat Red squirrel habitat consists of coniferous forests of seed and cone-producing age that usually contain snags and downed woody debris, generally associated with mature or older forests. 38 Regeneration harvest The cutting of trees and creating an entire new age class; an even-age harvest. The major methods are clearcutting, seed tree, shelterwood, and group selective cuts. (Helms, 1998) 39 Research Research consists of studies conducted to increase scientific knowledge or technology. For the purposes of Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6, research applies to Attachment 1-13

60 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction studies financed from the forest research budget (FSM 4040) and administrative studies financed from the NF budget. 40 Restore, restoration To restore is to return or re-establish ecosystems or habitats to their original structure and species composition. (Dictionary of Forestry) 41 Riparian area An area with distinctive soil and vegetation between a stream or other body of water and the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains and valley bottoms that support riparian vegetation. (LCAS) 42 Salvage harvest Salvage harvest is a commercial timber sale of dead, damaged, or dying trees. It recovers economic value that would otherwise be lost. Collecting firewood for personal use is not considered salvage harvest. 43 Shrub steppe habitat Shrub steppe habitat consists of dry sites with shrubs and grasslands intermingled. 44 Standard A standard is a required action in a land management plan specifying how to achieve an objective or under what circumstances to refrain from taking action. A plan must be amended to deviate from a standard. 45 Stand initiation structural stage The stand initiation stage generally develops after a stand-replacing disturbance by fire, insects or regeneration timber harvest. A new single-story layer of shrubs, tree seedlings, and saplings establish and develop, reoccupying the site. Trees that need full sun are likely to dominate these even-aged stands. (Oliver and Larson, 1996) 46 Stem exclusion structural stage (Closed canopy structural stage) In the stem exclusion stage, trees initially grow fast and quickly occupy all of the growing space, creating a closed canopy. Because the trees are tall, little light reaches the forest floor so understory plants (including smaller trees) are shaded and grow more slowly. Species that need full sunlight usually die; shrubs and herbs may become dormant. New trees are precluded by a lack of sunlight or moisture. (Oliver and Larson, 1996) 47 Timber management Timber management consists of growing, tending, commercially harvesting, and regenerating crops of trees. 48 Uneven-aged timber management - Uneven-aged management develops a stand with trees of three or more distinct age classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups of 2 acres or less (based on The Dictionary of Forestry Helms,1998). Group openings do not exceed 20% of the stand in a single entry, but individual tree selection can occur throughout an entire stand or between the groups. 49 Understory re-initiation structural stage In the understory re-initiation stage, a new age class of trees gets established after overstory trees begin to die, are removed, or no longer fully occupy their growing space after tall trees abrade each other in the wind. Understory seedlings then re-grow and the trees begin to stratify into vertical layers. A low to moderately dense uneven-aged overstory develops, with some small shadetolerant trees in the understory. (Oliver and Larson, 1996) 50 Vegetation management Vegetation management changes the composition and structure of vegetation to meet specific objectives, using such means as prescribed fire Attachment 1-14

61 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction or timber harvest. For the purposes of this decision, the term does not include removing vegetation for permanent developments like mineral operations, ski runs, roads and the like, and does not apply to fire suppression or to wildland fire use. 51 Wildland urban interface (WUI) Use the definition of WUI found in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The full text can be found at HFRA 101. Basically, the wildland urban interface is the area adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified in the community wildfire protection plan. If there is no community wildfire protection plan in place, the WUI is the area 0.5 mile from the boundary of an at-risk community; or within 1.5 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community if the terrain is steep, or there is a nearby road or ridgetop that could be incorporated into a fuel break, or the land is in condition class 3, or the area contains an emergency exit route needed for safe evacuations. (Condensed from HFRA. For full text see HFRA 101.) 52 Winter snowshoe hare habitat Winter snowshoe hare habitat consists of places where young trees or shrubs grow densely thousands of woody stems per acre and tall enough to protrude above the snow during winter, so snowshoe hare can browse on the bark and small twigs (LCAS). Winter snowshoe hare habitat develops primarily in the stand initiation, understory reinitiation and old forest multistoried structural stages. Attachment 1-15

62 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

63 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction ATTACHMENT 2 Comparison of Alternatives B, F, and F-modified

64 Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

65 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action ALL O1. Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity. ALL S1. New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation management practices and activities must maintain habitat connectivity. ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative ALL O1. Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, and in linkage areas. ALL S1. New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation management practices and activities must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area. ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED (Same as Alt. F) ALL S1. New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation management projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area. ALL G1. Techniques to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or reconstructing highways. Techniques could include underpasses or overpasses. LAU S1. LAU boundaries would not be adjusted except through agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, based on new lynx habitat information. VEG O1. Manage vegetation to be consistent with historical succession and disturbance processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the conservation of lynx. VEG O2. Maintain or improve lynx habitat, with an emphasis on continued availability of high-quality foraging habitat in juxtaposition to denning habitat. VEG O3. Conduct fire use activities to restore ecological processes and maintain or improve lynx habitat. ALL G1. Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or reconstructing highways or forest highways across federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses. LAU S1. Changes in LAU boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat information and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office. (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alt. F) VEG O1. Manage vegetation to mimic or (Same as Alt. F) approximate natural succession and disturbance processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the conservation of lynx. VEG O2. Provide a mosaic of habitat conditions (Same as Alt. F) through time that support dense horizontal cover, and high densities of snowshoe hare. Provide winter snowshoe hare habitat in both the stand initiation structural stage and in mature, multi-story conifer vegetation. (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) VEG O4. Design regeneration harvest, reforestation, and thinning to develop characteristics suitable for lynx and snowshoe hare habitat. VEG O4. Focus vegetation management in areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover. (Same as Alt. F) Attachment 2-4

66 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action VEG S1. Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historical levels of unsuitable habitat, limit disturbance within each LAU as follows: if more than 30 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU on NFS lands is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur as a result of vegetation management activities or practices. This standard does not apply to: 1. Wildland Fire Use practices and activities that restore ecological processes, or maintain or improve lynx habitat. 2. Wildfire suppression. ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative VEG S1. Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management practices and activities that regenerate forested stands, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages limit disturbance in each LAU as follows: If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects. Note: Fuel treatment projects that create stand initiation structural stage will be included in the 30 percent calculation meaning that if a fuel treatment project w/in the WUI creates more than 30 percent, then other management practices and activities designed to regenerate more acres would have to be modified or deferred until the standard can be met.) ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED VEG S1. Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management projects that regenerate forested stands, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). In addition, fuel treatment projects may not result in more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages limit disturbance in each LAU as follows: If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects. Attachment 2-5

67 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action VEG S2. Timber management practices, such as timber harvest and salvage sales, shall not change more than 15 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU to an unsuitable condition within a 10-year period. VEG S3. Maintain denning habitat within a LAU in patches generally larger than 5 acres comprising at least 10 percent of the lynx habitat. Where less than 10 percent denning habitat is present in a LAU, defer vegetation management practices and activities in stands that have the highest potential to develop denning-habitat. ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative VEG S2 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S2 applies to all timber management practices and activities that regenerate forested stands, except for fuel treatment projects within the WUI as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Timber management practices and activities shall not regenerate more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands in an LAU in a tenyear period. ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED N/A (See Guideline VEG G11) (Same as Alt. F) VEG S2 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S2 applies to all timber management projects that regenerate forests, except for fuel treatment projects within the WUI as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 may occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Timber management projects shall not regenerate more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands in an LAU in a ten-year period. This 15% includes the entire stand within an even-age regeneration area, and only the patch opening areas within group selections. Salvage harvest within stands killed by insect epidemics, wildfire, etc. does not add to the 15%, unless the harvest treatment would cause the lynx habitat to change to an unsuitable condition 24 This standard does not apply to: 1. Wildland Fire Use practices and activities that restore ecological processes. 2. Wildfire suppression. Attachment 2-6

68 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action VEG S4. Following a disturbance, such as blowdown, fires, insects, or pathogens mortality that could contribute to lynx denning habitat, salvage harvest may only occur when the affected area is smaller than 5 acres in the following situations: 1. Developed recreation sites, administrative sites, or authorized special use structures or improvements; 2. Designated road and trail corridors where public safety or access has been or may be compromised; and 3. LAUs where denning habitat has been mapped and field validated, provided that at least 10 percent denning habitat is retained and is well distributed. 4. Within the structure ignition zone (200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings and/or associated outbuildings). 5. Wildfire suppression. 6. Removal of dead or down trees for personal use (i.e., firewood collection). VEG S5. Precommercial thinning may be allowed only when stands no longer provide snowshoe hare habitat (e.g., self-pruning processes or stand composition and/or stand structure do not provide snowshoe hare cover and forage availability during winter conditions with average snow pack). The following precommercial thinning activities may occur prior to the stands no longer providing snowshoe hare habitat: 1. Conducted within the structure ignition zone (200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings and/or associated outbuildings). ALTERNATIVE F ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED FEIS Preferred Alternative N/A (See Guideline VEG G11) (Same as Alt. F) VEG S5 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S5 applies to precommercial thinning practices and activities, except for fuel treatment projects that use precommercial thinning as a tool within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. VEG S5 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S5 applies to precommercial thinning practices and activities, except for fuel treatment projects that use precommercial thinning as a tool within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 may occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. This standard does not apply to: 1. Wildfire suppression. 2. Wildland Fire Use. 3. Developed recreation sites, administrative sites, or authorized special use improvements including within permitted ski area boundaries. The Standard: Precommercial thinning practices and activities that reduce snowshoe hare habitat, may occur from the stand initiation structural stage until the stands no longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat only: 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings; or The Standard: Precommercial thinning practices and similar activities intended to reduce seedling/sapling density are subject to the following limitations from the stand initiation structural stage until the stands no longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. Attachment 2-7

69 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional/state levels of the Forest Service and FWS, where a written determination states: a. that a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or b. that a project is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynx or its habitat, but would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat; or 4. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning around individual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline. ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED Precommercial thinning may occur: 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning around individual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline; or 4. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional/state levels of the Forest Service and FWS, where a written determination states: a) that a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or b) that a project is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynx or its habitat, but would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat. 5. In addition to the above exceptions (and above and beyond the three percent limitation for fuels projects within the WUI), precommercial thinning may occur each year within the historical levels (see Note 1 below) provided that: a) The additional precommercial thinning does not exceed one percent of the lynx habitat in any LAU for the life of this amendment, and the amount and distribution of winter snowshoe hare habitat within the LAU must be provided through appropriate site-specific analysis and consultation; and b) Precommercial thinning in LAUs with more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat currently in the stand initiation structural stage is limited to areas that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat; and c) Projects are designed to maintain lynx habitat connectivity and provide hare habitat over the long term; and d) Monitoring is used to determine snowshoe hare response. Attachment 2-8

70 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED Note 1: This standard is intended to provide snowshoe hare habitat while permitting some thinning, to explore methods to sustain snowshoe hare habitat over time, reduce hazardous fuels, improve forest health, and increase timber production. Project design must ensure any precommercial thinning provides an appropriate amount and distribution of snowshoe hare habitat within each LAU over time, and maintains lynx habitat connectivity within and between LAUs. Project design should focus on creating irregular shapes for the thinning units, creating mosaics of thinned and unthinned areas, and using variable density thinning, etc. Attachment 2-9

71 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action VEG S6. Management practices and activities in mature and late successional, multi-layered Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir stands shall provide for winter snowshoe hare habitat. This standard does not apply to: 1. Designated road and trail corridors where public safety or access has been or may be compromised; 2. Practices and activities conducted within the structure ignition zone (200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings and/or associated outbuildings). 3. Wildfire suppression. 4. Wildland Fire Use. 5. Developed recreation sites, administrative sites, or authorized special use improvements including within permitted ski area boundaries. ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative VEG S6 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management practices and activities that regenerate forested stands, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI, see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Vegetation management practices and activities that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional forests may occur only: 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, and special use permit improvements, including infrastructure within permitted ski area boundaries; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest (e.g. removal due to location of skid trails). (NOTE: Timber harvest is allowed in areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover [e.g. uneven age management systems could be used to create openings where there is little understory so that new forage can grow.) ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED VEG S6 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management practices within multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 or VEG S6 may occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI, see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Vegetation management projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory mature or late successional conifer forests may occur only: 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, and special use permit improvements, including infrastructure within permitted ski area boundaries; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest (e.g., removal due to location of skid trails). 4. Where uneven-aged management (single tree and small group selection) practices are employed to maintain and encourage multi-story attributes as part of gap dynamics. Project design must be consistent with VEG O1, VEG O2, and VEG O4, except where impacts to areas of dense horizontal cover are incidental to activities under this exception (e.g., construction of skid trails). Attachment 2-10

72 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action VEG G1. Where little or no habitat for snowshoe hares is currently available, vegetation management practices should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs preferred by snowshoe hares. Preference should be given to mesic sites and mid-seral stage stands. Provide for continuing availability of lynx foraging habitat in proximity to denning habitat. VEG G2. Where recruitment of additional denning habitat is desired, vegetation management practices should retain sufficient standing dead trees and coarse woody debris, consistent with the likely availability of such material under natural disturbance regimes. The juxtaposition of denning and foraging habitat should be maintained or improved. VEG G3. Vegetation management should provide for the retention or restoration of denning habitat on landscape settings with a low probability of loss from stand replacing fire events. VEG G4. Fire management activities should not create permanent travel routes that would facilitate snow compacting activities. Construction of permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided. ALTERNATIVE F ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED FEIS Preferred Alternative VEG G1 Vegetation management practices and (Same as Alt. F) activities should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce or not available. Priority should be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage stands to enhance habitat conditions for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole stands). Winter snowshoe hare habitat should be near denning habitat. NA. (See Guideline VEG G11) (Same as Alt. F) NA. (See Guideline VEG G11) (Same as Alt. F) VEG G4 Prescribed fire activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided. (Same as Alt. F) Attachment 2-11

73 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action VEG G5. Habitat for alternate prey species (primarily red squirrel) should be provided in each LAU. ALTERNATIVE F ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED FEIS Preferred Alternative (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alternative F) (N/A - See VEG S6) (See Standard VEG S6) (Same as Alt. F) (N/A - See VEG S2) (See Standard VEG S2) (Same as Alt. F) (N/A - See VEG S4) (See Guideline VEG G11) (Same as Alt. F) VEG G10 Fuel treatment projects within the WUI (Same as Alt. F) as defined by HFRA should be designed considering standards VEG S1, S2, S5 and S6 to promote lynx conservation. VEG G11 - Denning habitat should be distributed in (Same as Alt. F) each LAU in the form of pockets of large amounts of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles of small wind thrown trees ( jack-strawed piles). If denning habitat appears to be lacking in the LAU, then projects should be designed to retain some coarse woody debris, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future. GRAZ O1. Manage livestock grazing to be compatible with the improvement or maintenance of lynx habitat. (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alternative F) GRAZ S1. In fire- and harvest-created openings, manage livestock grazing to ensure impacts do not prevent successful regeneration of shrubs and trees. (See GRAZ G1) (Same as Alt. F) GRAZ S2. In aspen stands, manage livestock grazing to ensure impacts do not prevent or inhibit sprout survival sufficient to perpetuate the long-term viability of the clones. GRAZ S3. Manage livestock grazing in riparian areas, and willow carrs, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or later-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. GRAZ S4. Manage livestock grazing in shrub steppe habitats, in the elevational ranges that encompass forested lynx habitat (within LAUs) to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar the conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. (See GRAZ G2) (Same as Alt. F) (See GRAZ G3) (Same as Alt. F) (See GRAZ G4) (Same as Alt. F) Attachment 2-12

74 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action (NA See GRAZ S1) (NA See GRAZ S2) (NA See GRAZ S3) (NA See GRAZ S4) ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative GRAZ G1. In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating. GRAZ G2. In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term viability of the aspen. GRAZ G3 In riparian areas and willow carrs, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. GRAZ G4 In shrub-steppe habitats, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of midor late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED (Same as Alt. F) GRAZ G2. In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of aspen. (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alt. F) Attachment 2-13

75 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action HU O1. Maintain the lynx s natural competitive advantage over other predators in deep-snow by discouraging the expansion of snow compacting activities in lynx habitat. HU O2. Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity. HU O3. Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat. HU O4. Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing or expanding developed recreation sites or ski areas. HU O5. Manage human activities, such as special uses, mineral and oil and gas exploration and development, and placement of utility transmission corridors, to reduce impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. HU O6. Reduce adverse highway effects on lynx by working cooperatively with other agencies to provide for lynx movement and habitat connectivity, and to reduce the potential for lynx mortality. HU S1. Allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes outside of baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, within the lynx habitat matrix, by LAU unless the grooming or designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. ALTERNATIVE F ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED FEIS Preferred Alternative (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alternative B) HU O4. Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing new or expanding existing developed recreation sites or ski areas. (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) (See Guideline HU G10) (Same as Alt. F) This does not apply within permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, reroutes that reduce public risks from avalanches, access to private inholdings, roads and trails designed and managed for non-winter use, and to other access regulated by HU S3. Special Use Permits, authorizations, or agreements could be allowed to expand inside baseline routes and baseline areas of consistent snow compaction. Grooming could be allowed to expand in side baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, and on routes that have been designated but not groomed in the past. Attachment 2-14

76 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action HU S2. When developing or expanding ski areas, locate trails, access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx diurnal security habitat if it is identified as a need. HU S3. Winter access for non-recreation special uses, and mineral and energy exploration and development, shall be limited to designated routes or designated over-the-snow routes. HU G1. When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris to maintain lynx foraging habitat. HU G2. When developing or expanding ski areas, nocturnal foraging opportunities should be provided consistent with the ski area s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes. HU G3. Recreational development and recreational operational uses should be planned to provide for lynx movement and to maintain effectiveness of lynx habitat. HU G4. Remote monitoring of mineral and energy development sites and facilities should be encouraged to reduce snow compaction. HU G5. A reclamation plan should be developed (e.g. road reclamation and vegetation rehabilitation) for closed mineral and energy development sites and facilities that promote the restoration of lynx habitat. HU G6. Upgrading unpaved roads that would result in increased speeds and traffic volume or that would foreseeably contribute to development or increases in human activity in lynx habitat should be avoided. This applies to upgrading roads to higher maintenance levels (to maintenance levels 4 or 5) that would result in substantially increased speeds, traffic volume or potential future use. HU G7. New permanent roads should not be built on ridge tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers. ALTERNATIVE F ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED FEIS Preferred Alternative (See HU G11) (Same as Alt. F) (See Guideline HU G12) (Same as Alt. F) HU G1. When developing or expanding ski areas, (Same as Alt. F) provisions should be made for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris, so winter snowshoe hare habitat is maintained. HU G2. When developing or expanding ski areas, (Same as Alt. F) lynx foraging habitat should be provided consistent with the ski area s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes. (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alternative C) (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) Methods to avoid or reduce effects to lynx habitat connectivity 16 should be used when upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, where the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or contribute to development or increases in human activity. Attachment 2-15

77 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action HU G8. Cutting brush along low-speed, lowvolume roads should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety. HU G9. On new roads built for project-specific activities, public motorized use should be restricted. Provide for an effective closure in the initial design of the road. Upon project completion, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives. NA (See HU S1) NA (See HU S2.) NA ALTERNATIVE F ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED FEIS Preferred Alternative (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) HU G9 If project level analysis determines that new roads adversely affect lynx, then public motorized use should be restricted. Upon project completion, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives. HU G10 Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings or to access regulated by Guideline HU G12. Use the same analysis boundaries for all actions subject to this guideline. HU G11 When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, consider locating access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security habitat. HU G12 Winter access for non-recreation special uses and mineral and energy exploration and development should be limited to designated routes or designated over-the-snow routes. (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alt. F) Attachment 2-16

78 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action LINK O1. In areas of intermixed land ownership, work with landowners to pursue conservation easements, habitat conservation plans, land exchanges, or other solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. LINK S1. When highway construction or reconstruction is proposed in linkage areas, identify potential highway crossings LINK S2. Manage livestock grazing in shrub steppe habitats to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. LINK G1. National Forest System lands should be retained in public ownership. NA - See LINK S2. ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alternative B) ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED (See LINK G2) (Same as Alt. F) (Same as Alternative B) (Same as Alt. F) LINK G2. Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of midor late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. LINK O1. In areas of intermingled land ownership, work with landowners to pursue conservation easements, habitat conservation plans, land exchanges, or other solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. LINK S1. When highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction is proposed in linkage areas, identify potential highway crossings. (Same as Alternative F) Attachment 2-1

79 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Monitoring Requirements ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action 1. Map the location and intensity of snow compacting activities and designated and groomed routes that occurred inside LAUs during the period of within one year and monitor every five years. ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative 1. Map the location and intensity of snow compacting activities and designated and groomed routes that occurred inside LAUs during the period of 1998 to The mapping is to be completed within one year of this decision, and changes in activities and routes are to be monitored every five years after the decision. 2. Annually report the number of acres where any of the exemptions 1 through 4 listed in Standard VEG S5 were applied. Report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, and LAU). ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED 1. Maps of the location and intensity of snow compacting activities and designated and groomed routes that occurred inside LAUs during the period of 1998 to 2000 constitute baseline snow compaction. Changes in activities and routes are to be monitored every five years after the decision. 2. When fuels treatment and vegetation management project decisions are signed, report the following: a) Acres of fuel treatment in lynx habitat by forest and LAU, and whether the treatment is within or outside the WUI as defined by HFRA. b) Whether or not the fuel treatment met the vegetation standards or guidelines. If standard(s) are not met, report which standard(s) are not met, why they could not be met, and how many acres were affected. c) Application of exception in Standard VEG S5: For areas where any of the exceptions 1 through 5 listed in Standard VEG S5 were applied, report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, and LAU) and whether or not Standard VEG S1 was within the allowance. d) Application of exception in Standard VEG S6: For areas where any of the exemptions 1 through 4 listed in the Standard VEG S6 were applied, report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, and LAU) and whether or not Standard VEG S1 was within the allowance. e) Total acres of lynx habitat treated under exemptions and exceptions to vegetation standards, to assure the 4.5 percent limit is not exceeded on any Forest over the life of the amendment (15 years). Attachment 2-2

80 Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ALTERNATIVE B Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE F FEIS Preferred Alternative 3. Report the acres of fuel treatment in lynx habitat within the wildland urban interface as defined by HFRA when the project decision is approved. Report whether or not the fuel treatment met the vegetation standard. If standard(s) are not met, report which standard(s) were not met, why they were not met, and how many acres were affected. ALTERNATIVE F-MODIFIED 3. Application of guidelines a) Summarize what guideline(s) was not followed and why. b) Document the rationale for deviations to guidelines. Attachment 2-3

81 SRLA Implementation Guide: Overview and Q&As Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Overview and General Q&As

82 SRLA Implementation Guide: Overview and Q&As This section of the Implementation Guide for the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) provides general Questions and Answers not addressed elsewhere in other dedicated sections of the Guide. Additional Questions and Answers related to specific topics (i.e., vegetation management, grazing, human use, habitat mapping) are provided in those related sections throughout the remainder of the Guide. The following questions came from personnel with the Southern Rockies National Forests (Arapaho-Roosevelt; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison; Medicine Bow-Routt; Pike and San Isabel; Rio Grande; San Juan; White River), as well as internally within the interagency Implementation Guide team. 1. What is the purpose of the Implementation Guide? Answer: The Implementation Guide is essentially a user guide and toolbox to assist Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service personnel in understanding, implementing and streamlining projects and section 7 consultations under the SRLA. The Guide provides important clarification and guidance about the SRLA, as well as several helpful tools and templates. It was developed by an interagency team that included Forest Service members from the SRLA EIS team, as well as additional representatives of the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service from the Ecological Services Office, National Forest, and Regional Office levels. The Guide is not intended to substitute for the SRLA decision or serve as a stand alone document for knowing and properly implementing the decision. Rather the Guide complements and should be used alongside the SRLA decision and associated documents to foster a fuller understanding and more consistent application of the SRLA in projects and consultations. The Guide is meant to be a dynamic toolbox to be supplemented and improved on over time to take in important new information and continue to be relevant and useful to the National Forests, Ecological Service offices, and Regional Offices in project planning, implementation, and interagency coordination in the Southern Rockies. 2. What is the process for updating the Guide? Answer: Recommendations for corrections, updates, or additions to the Guide can be made at any time. The agencies request that submissions or recommendations from the field not routinely come through individuals, but be vetted through the Level 1 and/or Level 2 teams and reflect recommendations endorsed by those interagency bodies. This prior endorsement should streamline resolution of recommendations. The designated agency contacts to receive recommendations and lead final disposition of those recommendations are the Fish and Wildlife Service s Colorado Ecological Services office designee (currently Leslie Ellwood) and the Forest Service s Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Program Leader for the Rocky Mountain Region/Southern Rockies National Forests (currently Nancy Warren). These contacts will coordinate further internal and cross-agency reviews as needed, including with other Level 1 teams in Colorado and Wyoming. These agency leads will also have the ability to propose updates to the Guide and will coordinate any proposals ahead of time with their respective field units and/or streamlining teams. The field offices will be notified through official correspondence about any final corrections or additions that the agencies have agreed should be made to existing copies of the Guide. 2

83 SRLA Implementation Guide: Overview and Q&As 3. How is the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) direction different than the management direction provided in the LCAS? Answer: Most of the guidance provided in Chapter 7 (Conservation Measures) of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) has been incorporated in some form in the SRLA. Some of the LCAS guidance remains unchanged in the SRLA, while other guidance has been either modified or combined into new standards or guidelines. Additionally, where it was determined that specific risk factors were not negatively affecting the U.S. distinct population of Canada lynx as a whole, some LCAS standards became guidelines in the SRLA (e.g., grazing). Another change is that the SRLA places an increased emphasis on the importance of multi-story stands as lynx habitat. Table S-1 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (pg. S-6) provides a crosswalk of the standards and guidelines between the LCAS and SRLA. Also, Appendix D in the Biological Assessment contains a crosswalk with a rationale for changes. The Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion, and many other related documents, are available on the SRLA web site at as well as on the CD included with this Implementation Guide binder. 4. What is the continued role of the LCAS now that the SRLA is in effect? Answer: The LCAS has for several years provided the agencies with the best available information and management guidance until final management direction for the lynx could be added to Forest Plans. While the LCAS remains a valuable reference document, its usefulness to the Forest Service has diminished with issuance of the SRLA decision that contains much of the LCAS guidance plus the best available information that emerged since the LCAS was first published in late 2000 (the LCAS has never been officially revised and updated). The SRLA decision now takes precedence in guiding management of the National Forests relative to lynx conservation. 5. What lynx guidance do the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service follow do they still use the LCAS? Answer: Because the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service do not have a current, signed Conservation Agreement, they likely have flexibility to incorporate provisions of the SRLA Record of Decision (ROD) in their decision documents. As part of the ESA Section 7 consultation process, the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service would likely be looking closely at the SRLA since it incorporates new scientific information after the LCAS was completed. 6. How should the Forest Service manage a LAU if it is jointly managed by different Federal agencies, such as Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service and National Park Service? Answer: The Forest Service should manage that portion of the LAU under its jurisdiction according to the management direction specified in the Record of Decision, while continuing to coordinate with the other Federal agency. 3

84 SRLA Implementation Guide: Overview and Q&As 7. How is occupied lynx habitat defined in the Southern Rockies? Answer: All lynx habitat in the Southern Rockies is considered to be occupied. This designation is based on observations of individual lynx, as well as documented reproduction in the Southern Rockies. The question of occupied habitat versus unoccupied habitat is more of an issue in the Northern Rockies, where some Forests are considered to be unoccupied. 8. How will new information, such as lynx habitat information, project activities, human use, etc., influence the applicability of these standards? Answer: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the best available information be used to inform decision-making. If new information could lead to a change in the Record of Decision, a Supplemental Information Report (SIR) could be prepared. As described in the reinitiation statement in the Biological Opinion, the formal consultation should be reinitiated if (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action on listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the BO; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect not considered in the BO; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. 9. Do changes in data or current information that results in a No Effect call require peer review or consultation, when the original information or data would have resulted in a may effect or adverse effect call? Answer: Documentation of a No Effect determination is required to be maintained in Forest Service records. See discussion in Section 8: Habitat Mapping later in this Implementation Guide, regarding the procedure to follow if the new information is the result of a change in the lynx habitat mapping. 10. Now that the SRLA is in place, can the standards and guidelines be changed? Answer: The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that projects be consistent with the Forest Plan. All Forest Service personnel implementing projects in lynx habitat will need to follow the guidance provided in the SRLA. At the Forest level, a Forest Supervisor can choose to do a site-specific Forest Plan amendment, which would allow that Forest to not be consistent with a standard in that specific project area. That site-specific amendment should be specifically stated in the external scoping process and would need an appropriate section 7 consultation. Deviations from guidelines must be documented in the annual reporting to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the NEPA document and/or decision document. 11. Do I need to consider the SRLA decision for pre-existing authorizations, or projects for which a decision was already signed? Answer: The SRLA Record of Decision considered pre-existing, site-specific decisions and associated effects and included these in the baseline. Therefore, their implementation is not in conflict with the decision and amended Forest Plans. Further, it is not necessary to apply the SRLA management direction retroactively to pre- 4

85 SRLA Implementation Guide: Overview and Q&As existing use and occupancy authorizations, such as timber sale contracts, livestock grazing permits, ski area permits, and so on. However, deciding officers have the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to modify previous decisions or authorizations if they are not consistent with the amended management direction. Some decisions recently made but not yet implemented should be reviewed, adjusted and implemented to meet the management direction in the amended Plans. Consultation and Coordination 12. Are all projects that follow the SRLA considered to have adverse effects? Answer: Projects that are consistent with the SRLA can have either a No Effect, May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA), or May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) determination. There is no specific metric, such as acres or percentage of a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) affected, that distinguishes a NLAA project from a LAA project. This will likely be based on site-specific conditions and characteristics of the project, project area, and lynx and lynx habitat there. The project evaluation should include several considerations, such as: 1) condition of the LAU (e.g., percentage of habitat in unsuitable/early Stand Initiation Structural Stage (SISS), amount and condition of hare habitat, surrounding habitat, etc., 2) amount of lynx habitat affected by a proposed project, especially snowshoe hare habitat, and 3) project design (e.g., Will project be consistent with Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2, and VEG O4?). While some projects are so large or small that a LAA or NLAA determination, respectively, is a likely conclusion, many projects will occur within the grey area and require more substantive consideration and deliberation. 13. Does the use of an exemption or exception for a vegetation management project under the SRLA automatically mean that the project will have an adverse effect and will require the preparation of a Biological Opinion? Answer: No, proposed projects that use an exemption or exception could be considered either a NLAA or LAA project, with the difference depending on the scope and impacts of the proposed action as well as the condition of the LAU. For instance, a treatment that reduces only minimal amounts of dense horizontal cover in a LAU in good condition could be considered a NLAA project. Each project needs to be evaluated individually on a site-specific basis. However, all acres treated through the use of an exemption or exception need to be counted towards the Forest's cap, regardless of whether or not the projects are considered NLAA or LAA. Furthermore, projects can be considered to have an "adverse effect" even if the project meets the conditions of the exemption and exceptions. In its programmatic Biological Opinion for the SRLA, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with the Forest Service's determination that implementation of the SRLA, which could collectively affect 340,972 acres of lynx habitat in the Southern Rockies through the use of the exemption and exceptions, would result in adverse effects to the Canada lynx. The Fish and Wildlife Service then evaluated whether these adverse effects to lynx would rise to the level of jeopardizing the continued existence of the Canada lynx 5

86 SRLA Implementation Guide: Overview and Q&As in the Southern Rockies, and determined that these adverse effects would not rise to a jeopardy level. 14. Since the SRLA section 7 consultation was a programmatic one, what will be the consultation process for individual projects? Answer: Individual project consultations under the SRLA are considered Tiered consultations, whether they are formal or informal. In a Tiered formal consultation for vegetation management projects that use the exemptions and exceptions, a short-form Biological Opinion is prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service that tiers to the analysis, conclusions and Incidental Take Statement found in the Tier One, or programmatic, Biological Opinion (in this case, the Biological Opinion on the SRLA). In a Tiered informal consultation, the Fish and Wildlife Service will provide a concurrence letter. See Section 6: ESA Tools later in this Implementation Guide for an example of a project and Tiered Biological Opinion for a formal consultation under the SRLA. Also, Forest Service personnel will be able to use the Colorado lynx screens for NLAA determinations, where appropriate. 15. Why does the SRLA Biological Opinion only provide Incidental Take for specific vegetation projects and not other types of activities? Answer: During the section 7 consultation process, it was possible to anticipate the amount of lynx habitat that could be affected and this was primarily based on fuels treatments within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas and other vegetation treatments. However, there was not sufficient information available to anticipate the amount of lynx habitat that could be affected by other project types addressed in the SRLA, such as roads, ski areas, etc. The incidental take provided in the SRLA Biological Opinion was only for specific vegetation treatments. Therefore, other project types that may have an adverse effect will require a separate formal consultation and Biological Opinion. 16. How long will tiered consultations take? Answer: Projects that fit within the Tiered consultation process, both informal and formal, should be completed within 30 days upon receiving a request for concurrence with a complete Biological Assessment. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service anticipates that some of the early projects to go through a consultation involving the SRLA may take longer than 30 days while the process is still being sorted out. The goal and trend over time will be to move to the 30-day consultation. 17. How will the Fish and Wildlife Service consult on formal projects that include activities that use the exemption and exceptions that occur both within and outside the WUI? Answer: Projects that have adverse effects and utilize an exemption or exceptions to the SRLA vegetation standards will result in the preparation of a Tier 2 streamlined Biological Opinion, regardless of whether the project occurs inside or outside the WUI. However, if a project will have adverse effects but has a combination of activities, some of which use the exemption/exceptions and some activities that do not use any of these, the Fish and Wildlife Service would then prepare a traditional Biological Opinion 6

87 SRLA Implementation Guide: Overview and Q&As (e.g., not a Tier 2 streamlined Biological Opinion). Similarly, if a project will have adverse effects and will not use an exemption or exception, the Fish and Wildlife Service would prepare a traditional Biological Opinion. In addition, if Forest Plan standards would not be met by the proposed project and the project cannot use the exemptions and exceptions, a site-specific Forest Plan amendment would then be required. Annual Monitoring and Reporting 18. How to track lynx habitat changes and where we are re: 1) the 30% by LAU in stand initiation structural stage; 2) the 1.5%, 3%, and 4.5% thresholds by Forest; 3) monitoring #2a; and 4) monitoring # 2e (the 4.5% threshold)? Answer: See annual reporting section of the Guide and reporting forms there. 19. What tool to use to keep track of treated acres so that we can meet the 3% standard for fuel reduction projects? Answer: See Section 6: ESA Tools later in this Implementation Guide for monitoring requirements and tracking forms. 20. It is unclear if we are to report at the time of the project decision, at the time of project implementation, or both. The SRLA decision says report on the required monitoring items when vegetation management project decisions are signed. However, it is not uncommon for implementation acres to be less than those identified for the proposal at the time of signing. Answer: By reporting, the point is that each Forest should keep track of the required monitoring elements by project. This can be done at signing and again later if the actual post-project acres are different. Once a year the Regional Forester will collect the annual forms from all of the Southern Rockies forests and provide them to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These forms should contain the actual numbers associated with implementation of each project listed in the spreadsheets. 21. Will the FACTS database be the tabular database used for reporting? Under VEG S2 only group selection areas will be counted as acres treated as part of the overall impact calculation; in some cases, the entire unit will be reported as treated in the fuels arena. If FACTS is used, we need direction and/or additional activity codes for treatment in lynx habitat. Answer: Reporting of projects affecting lynx habitat is primarily by the annual reporting forms found in Section 6: ESA Tools in this Implementation Guide. 22. What s the plan to tally the % of WUI treated by Forest? We need to know that we are under the 3% cap if we cannot meet all the standards of S1, S2, S5 and S6. Who manages this tally? It s possible that a single district can treat all 3% and leave the other districts with no way to legally accomplish their work. 7

88 SRLA Implementation Guide: Overview and Q&As Answer: It could be possible for one Ranger District to use all of a Forest s 3% fuels exemption over the life of the Plan amendment. All Ranger Districts and the Supervisor s Office need to coordinate on the annual Forest-wide treatment priorities. 23. How will the Wyoming FWS office be made aware of the cumulative annual changes in LAUs? Will the RO send a copy of the annual reporting to both the CO and WY FWS offices? Answer: The Forest Service annual report will go to the FWS Colorado Field Office in Lakewood, which will then coordinate with their other offices in Colorado and Wyoming. Lynx Screens 24. Ensure SRLA comments are communicated to the Lynx screen revision team, so that the revised screens help clarify issues raised now. Answer: As the Lynx Implementation Guide team discovers SRLA information leading to a potential screen update/edit, these will be forwarded to the Region 2 Regional Office. 8

89 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES This section of the Guide is organized into four parts: 1) SRLA Vegetation Management Direction; 2) Discussion of Key Concepts; 3) Questions and Answers; and 4) Examples of Vegetation Projects. Part 1. SRLA Vegetation Management Direction The following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to vegetation management projects in lynx habitat within lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat. With the exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically concerns wildland fire use 1, the objectives, standards, and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, or removal of vegetation for permanent developments such as mineral operations, ski runs, roads, and the like. None of the objectives, standards, or guidelines apply to linkage areas. Objective VEG O1 Manage vegetation to mimic or approximate natural succession and disturbance processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the conservation of lynx. Objective VEG O2 Provide a mosaic of habitat conditions through time that support dense horizontal cover, and high densities of snowshoe hare. Provide winter snowshoe hare habitat in both the stand initiation structural stage and in mature, multi-story conifer vegetation. Objective VEG O3 Conduct fire use activities to restore ecological processes and maintain or improve lynx habitat. Objective VEG O4 Focus vegetation management in areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover. 1 Note: Since the SRLA decision was issued, the Forest Service as an agency has abandoned use of the term wildland fire use in its fire management lexicon. Instead, the agency refers to the fact that for all wildfires affecting National Forest System lands, the Forest Service develops a response that may be based on multiple ecological, social, and legal issues or objectives, including opportunities to achieve restoration of ecological processes and maintaining or improving lynx habitat.

90 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Standard VEG S1 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management projects36 that regenerate forested stands, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: (WUI Fuels Exemption) Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a National Forest or administratively combined National Forests). In addition, fuel treatment projects may not result in more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages limit disturbance in each LAU as follows: If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects. Standard VEG S2 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S2 applies to all timber management projects that regenerate forests, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: (WUI Fuels Exemption) Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a National Forest or administratively combined National Forests). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The standard: Timber management projects shall not regenerate more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands within an LAU in a ten-year period. This 15 percent includes the entire stand within an even-age regeneration area, and only the patch opening areas within group selections. Salvage harvest within stands killed by insect epidemics, wildfire, etc. does not add to the 15 percent, unless the harvest treatment would cause the lynx habitat to change to an unsuitable condition. 2

91 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Standard VEG S5 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial thinning projects, except for fuel treatment projects that use precommercial thinning as a tool within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: (WUI Fuels Exemption) Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 may occur on no more than three percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a National Forest or administratively combined National Forests) for the life of this amendment. For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Precommercial thinning practices and similar activities intended to reduce seedling/sapling density are subject to the following limitations from the stand initiation structural stage until the stands no longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. Precommercial thinning may occur only: (VEG S5 Exceptions) 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning5 around individual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline; or 4. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional/state levels of the Forest Service and FWS, where a written determination states: a) That a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or b) That a project is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynx or its habitat, but would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat. 5. In addition to the above exceptions (and above and beyond the three percent limitation for fuels projects within the WUI), precommercial thinning may occur provided that: a) The additional precommercial thinning does not exceed one percent of the lynx habitat in any LAU for the life of this amendment, and the amount and distribution of winter snowshoe hare habitat within the LAU must be provided through appropriate site-specific analysis and consultation; and b) Precommercial thinning in LAUs with more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat currently in the stand initiation structural stage is limited to areas that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat; and c) Projects are designed to maintain lynx habitat connectivity and provide snowshoe hare habitat over the long term; and d) Monitoring is used to determine snowshoe hare response. Exceptions 2 and 3 may not occur in any LAU in which VEG S1 is exceeded (i.e., more than 30 percent of LAU in stand initiation structural stage). Note: This standard is intended to provide snowshoe hare habitat while permitting some thinning, to explore methods to sustain snowshoe hare habitat over time, reduce hazardous fuels, improve forest health, and increase timber production. Project design must ensure any 3

92 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management precommercial thinning provides an appropriate amount and distribution of snowshoe hare habitat with each LAU over time, and maintains lynx habitat connectivity within and between LAUs. Project design should focus on creating irregular shapes for the thinning units, creating mosaics of thinned and unthinned areas, and using variable density thinning, etc. Standard VEG S6 Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management practices within multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: (WUI Fuels Exemption) Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 3 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a National Forest or administratively combined National Forests). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10. The Standard: Vegetation management projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests may occur only (VEG S6 Exceptions): 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, and special use permit improvements, including infrastructure within permitted ski area boundaries; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest (e.g., removal due to location of skid trails); or 4. Where uneven-aged management (single tree and small group selection) practices are employed to maintain and encourage multi-story attributes as part of gap dynamics. Project design must be consistent with VEG O1, O2 and O4, except where impacts to areas of dense horizontal cover are incidental to activities under this exception (e.g., construction of skid trails). Exceptions 2 and 4 may not occur in any LAU in which VEG S1 is exceeded. 4

93 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Guideline VEG G1 Vegetation management projects should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce or not available. Priority for treatment should be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage stands to enhance habitat conditions for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole stands). Winter snowshoe hare habitat should be near denning habitat. Guideline VEG G4 Prescribed fire activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided. Guideline VEG G5 Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel, should be provided in each LAU. Guideline VEG G10 Fuel treatment projects within the WUI as defined by HFRA should be designed considering Standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation. Guideline VEG G11 Denning habitat should be distributed in each LAU in the form of pockets of large amounts of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles of small wind thrown trees ( jack-strawed piles). If denning habitat appears to be lacking in the LAU, then projects should be designed to retain some coarse woody debris, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future. Part 2. Discussion of Key Concepts Several concepts and terms are important to better understanding of the standards, guidelines, and objectives for vegetation management. These terms/concepts include A) Exemptions and Exceptions to Vegetation Standards, B) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and Communities at Risk, C) Currently Unsuitable Habitat, D) Winter Snowshoe Hare Habitat, E) Incidental Damage, and F) Uneven-aged Management. A) Exemption and Exceptions to Vegetation Standards The SRLA provides specific guidance and direction in the form of standards, guidelines, and objectives for vegetation management activities in lynx habitat on the Southern Rockies National Forests. There are management exemptions and exceptions in which deviations from the vegetation standards are allowed, within limits established over the 15-year life of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. Exemption to Vegetation Standards - The WUI exemption allow for up to 3 percent of the lynx habitat per Forest to be treated in a manner that does not meet the vegetation standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6. This exemption only applies to fuels projects within the WUI areas. Specifically: Under the exemption to VEG S1, fuels reduction projects in the WUI can result in more than 30 percent of a LAU in the stand initiation structural stage (aka currently 5

94 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management unsuitable) as long as these projects cumulatively occur on no more than 3 percent of the lynx habitat per Forest and result in no more than 3 adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard (e.g., no more than 3 adjacent LAUs can have more than 30 percent of the LAU in the stand initiation structural stage). Under the exemption to VEG S2, fuels reduction projects in the WUI can result in more than 15 percent of the lynx habitat per LAU regenerated (i.e., stand initiation structural stage or currently unsuitable) in a 10-year period as long as these projects cumulatively occur on no more than 3 percent of the lynx habitat per Forest. Note that this standard specifies regeneration treatments, which is the cutting of trees that create a new age class. Primary methods of regeneration harvests are clear cuts, seed tree, shelterwood, and group selection cuts. Therefore, fuels reduction projects in the form of tree thinning, which generally do not create a new age class, would not count towards the 15 percent limit, while group selection patch cuts that do create a new age class would count towards the 15 percent limit. Under the exemption to VEG S5, fuels reduction projects in the WUI in the form of pre-commercial thinning would be allowed in all age classes of lynx habitat as long as these projects cumulatively occur on no more than 3 percent of the lynx habitat per Forest. Pre-commercial thinning projects include thinning practices and similar activities that are intended to reduce seedling/saplings densities. Pre-commercial thinning that occurs outside the WUI is not exempt from VEG S5 and can occur only 1) in stands that no longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, or 2) in accordance with the conditions of Exception 5 in VEG S5 (see discussion below). Under the exemption to VEG S6, fuels reduction projects in the WUI that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests can occur as long as these projects cumulatively occur on no more than 3 percent of the lynx habitat per Forest. Vegetation management projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests in areas outside the WUI may only occur in accordance with the conditions of the exceptions to VEG S6 (see discussion below). Note - The 3 percent WUI exemption from vegetation standards was derived by an effects analysis of the communities at risk in the Southern Rockies (FEIS 2008; included on the CD accompanying this Implementation Guide). This analysis determined that the lynx habitat encompassed by a one-mile buffer around all the communities at risk represented approximately 3 percent of the total lynx habitat within the Southern Rockies amendment area. Therefore, the vegetation standards were modified in the FEIS to include this 3 percent exemption for fuels treatments in WUI in order to provide greater flexibility for fuels management. Exceptions to Vegetation Standards S5 and S6 - The exceptions to VEG S5 and S6 allow for some additional vegetation treatments, either within or outside of WUI areas, for the purposes of protecting structures, for research, for promoting conservation of aspen, for incidental removal of trees during salvage harvest, and for some additional pre-commercial thinning. 6

95 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Exceptions to VEG S5 allow for: (Exception 1) Pre-commercial thinning projects within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or buildings. (Exception 2) Pre-commercial thinning projects for the purposes of research studies or genetic tree tests that evaluate genetically-improved reforestation stock. (Exception 3) Pre-commercial thinning projects that remove conifer in aspen stands, or as daylight thinning around individual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline. Aspen is considered to be in decline where evidence suggests that aspen has been reduced from its historic proportion of the landscape. Evidence of decline includes nearby applicable research or studies; comparison of historical and recent aerial photographs; numerous stands with dead or dying mature aspen with little or no aspen regeneration, etc. (Exception 4) Pre-commercial thinning projects that, based on new, peer-reviewed information, would not likely adversely affect lynx, or would have only short-term adverse effects and long-term beneficial effects to lynx and its habitat. Projects allowed under Exception 4 must be accepted by regional/state levels of the Forest Service and the Service and must include a written determination from the Service. (Exception 5) Additional pre-commercial thinning (above and beyond the 3 percent limitations for fuels projects within the WUI) provided that: a) the additional thinning does not exceed 1 percent of the lynx habitat in any LAU for the life of the amendment; b) pre-commercial thinning in LAUs with more than 30 percent in the stand initiation structural stage is limited to areas that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat; c) projects are designed to maintain lynx habitat connectivity and snowshoe hare habitat over the long term; and d) monitoring is used to determine snowshoe hare response. This exception may occur either within or outside of WUI areas. Additionally, if the baseline of the LAU is above 30% unsuitable/stand initiation structural stage, Exceptions 2 and 3 of VEG S5 may not be used. Exceptions to VEG S6 allow for specific vegetation management projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests, as follows: (Exception 1) Vegetation projects within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, and special use improvements, including infrastructure within permitted ski area boundaries. (Exception 2) Vegetation projects for the purposes of research studies or genetic tree tests that evaluate genetically-improved reforestation stock. (Exception 3) Incidental removal during salvage harvest, such as from a skid trails, temporary roads, landings, hazard tree removal (see additional discussion below on Incidental Damage). The impacts to lynx habitat from salvage harvests will differ depending on whether the stand was killed by a fire event or by an insect epidemic. Salvage harvest does not count towards the regeneration total unless the harvest treatment would cause the lynx habitat to change to a stand initiation structural stage. (see additional discussion below on Salvage Harvest). 7

96 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management (Exception 4) Where uneven-aged management (single tree and small group selection) practices are employed to maintain and encourage multi-story attributes as part of gap dynamics. Project design must be consistent with VEG 01, 02, and 04, except where impacts to areas of dense horizontal cover are incidental to activities under this exception (e.g., construction of skid trails). The amount of lynx habitat that can be treated under Exception 4 in VEG S6 is limited by VEG S1 and S2. The regeneration treatments in small openings, skid trails and landings created by group selections count towards the regeneration treatments tracked under VEG S1 and S2; individual tree removal does not count towards the regeneration totals, but will likely result in some reduction of snowshoe hare habitat. Reduction of snowshoe hare habitat from individual tree removal does not count against caps, but will result in relatively minor effects. Additionally, if the baseline of the LAU is above 30% in stand initiation, Exceptions 2 and 4 of VEG S6 may not be used. Collectively, the total area that could be impacted by exceptions to VEG S5 and S6 (excluding Exception 5 in VEG S5 and Exception 4 in VEG S6) would affect no more than 0.5 percent of the lynx habitat per Forest, based on the Incidental Take statement in the Biological Opinion. Projects treated under Exception 5 in VEG S5 are limited by the condition that precommercial thinning will not exceed 1 percent of lynx habitat per LAU, and these acres are tracked under the 1% cap. There are no limits to the amount of lynx habitat that can be treated under Exception 4 in VEG S6, with the exceptions of limitations under VES S1 and S2. Given the guidelines for this exception, projects implemented under this exception are generally not anticipated to result in take of Canada lynx. In the event that take is anticipated in individual projects, those effects will be addressed in a second tier biological opinion, as needed. Table 3 from the Biological Opinion is provided below to help clarify the percentages of lynx habitat that can be treated per the various exemptions and exceptions. 8

97 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Table 3. Total Acres of Vegetation Treatments Possible per Forest under Exemptions and Exceptions to VEG S1, S2, S5 or S6 over the Life of the SRLA. National Forest Total NFS Lynx habitat Acres Acres of Treatment in WUIs under Exemptions to VEG S1, S2, S5, or S6 (3% of Lynx Habitat) Acres of Treatment under Exceptions 1-4 in VEG S5 and Exceptions 1-3 in VEG S6 (0.5% of Lynx Habitat) 1 Acres of Treatment under Exception 5 in VEG S5 (1% of Lynx Habitat per LAU) 2 Acres of Total Treatment under Exemptions and Exceptions to VEG S1, S2, S5, or S6 (4.5% of Lynx Habitat) Arapaho- 690,082 20,702 3,450 6,900 31,054 Roosevelt GMUG 1,641,664 49,250 8,208 16,416 73,875 Medicine 1,192,466 35,774 5,962 11,924 53,661 Bow/Routt Pike-San 826,156 24,785 4,131 8,261 37,177 Isabel Rio 1,035,420 31,063 5,177 10,354 46,593 Grande San Juan 1,048,567 31,457 5,243 10,485 47,186 White River 1,142,794 34,284 5,714 11,427 51,426 Total: 7,577, ,315 37,885 75, , Note that there are no limitations on the number of acres that can be treated under Exception 4 in VEG S6 resulting from the Biological Opinion, with the exception of the limitations under VEG S1 and S Although acres are presented per Forest in this table, actual amounts of pre-commercial thinning under Exception 5 in VEG S5 will be limited to 1 percent of lynx habitat per LAU. B) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and Communities at Risk As directed by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), the Forest Service has been giving increased attention to fuels management within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The area encompassed by the WUI is identified in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). If there is no CWPP in place, the WUI is identified as: 1) the area 0.5 miles from the boundary of an at-risk community; 2) within 1.5 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community if the terrain is steep or there is a nearby road or ridge top that could be incorporated into a fuel break or the land is in condition class 3; or 3) the area contains an emergency exit route that requires hazardous fuel reductions to provide safer evacuation from the at-risk community. At-risk communities are defined in HFRA as: A) i an interface community identified in 66 Fed. Reg. 753, January 4, 2001, or ii) a group of homes with basic infrastructure and services [such as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes] within or adjacent to Federal lands; B) in which conditions are conducive to a large scale fire event; and C) for which there is a significant threat to human life or property. For the purposes of the SRLA, 9

98 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management we are not placing a dependence on the need to have group of homes with a basic infrastructure and services in order to qualify as a community at risk, but rather focus on conditions that are conducive to a large scale fire event for which there is significant threat to human life or property. For the SRLA, A copy of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and its definitions of WUI and Communities at Risk is available on the CD accompanying this Implementation Guide, or online at: C) Currently Unsuitable Habitat and Habitat in Stand Initiation Structural Stage The use of the phrase Lynx Habitat Currently in Unsuitable Condition from the LCAS has been replaced in the SRLA with the term stand initiation structural stage (SISS). The LCAS definition of currently unsuitable habitat was Areas within identified/mapped lynx habitat that are in early successional stages as a result of recent fires or vegetation management, in which the vegetation has not developed sufficiently to support snowshoe hare populations during all seasons. The SRLA definition of stand initiation structural stage is The stand initiation stage generally develops after a stand-replacing disturbance by fire, insects, or regeneration harvest. A new single-story layer of shrubs, tree seedlings, and saplings establish and develop, reoccupying the site. Many biologists in the Southern Rockies are more familiar with the phrase Lynx Habitat Currently in Unsuitable Condition, having used the term for many years. Hence, at least early on in the SRLA use of the terms interchangeably is to be expected and the terms are largely synonymous. Habitat that is currently unsuitable generally does not have an overstory, and, for the purposes of the SRLA, we are using a canopy closure of 0-10 percent to help further describe habitat that is currently unsuitable or SISS. Furthermore, once vegetation is beyond the SISS, all forest types that provide lynx habitat (prey and forage) are considered suitable. D) Winter Snowshoe Hare Habitat and Dense Horizontal Cover (e.g., High quality Snowshoe Hare Habitat) High snowshoe hare abundance and density have been observed when dense horizontal cover is present at the snow surface up to approximately two (2) meters above the surface (Wolfe et al. 1982; Shaw 2001; Squires and Ruggiero 2007). Wolfe et al. (1982) suggested that during winter, areas with less than 40% vegetation cover (using Nudds 1977 methodology) at or near snow level or surface were not suitable in winter to snowshoe hares. Squires (pers. comm. with K. Broderdorp 2008, 2009) suggested that during the winter, lynx avoided areas with horizontal cover below 35% (using the 0.5 m X 2 m cover board). This 35% horizontal cover level represents the lower hinge point for lynx use during the winter. Therefore, for the purposes of quantifying snowshoe hare habitat, if the horizontal cover measurement is 35%, it should be considered Dense Horizontal Cover (DHC) unless more site-specific information suggests a different value. If DHC occurs from the surface of the actual or average snow depth and up to approximately two (2) meters above that surface, the site should be considered to have winter snowshoe hare habitat. Determining/measuring DHC serves to address the applicability of VEG S6 in the context of the SRLA. This means that if DHC is present within a stand and DHC is above mean snow 10

99 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management depth, VEG S6 may apply. Refer to more detailed discussions elsewhere in this section regarding VEG S6 applicability and reporting requirements. Much of the DHC discussion herein and within the SRLA framework focuses on DHC 35%, coupled with its occurrence above mean snow depth. However, little information is presented here discussing circumstances where VEG S6 does not apply. Many multi-story, or even-aged timber stands, may not contain horizontal cover 35%. That does not necessarily translate to an absence of snowshoe hares, but may contain hares at lower densities. As stated elsewhere, the 35% DHC correlates to areas where lynx are believed to be most frequently located. Therefore, project level analysis should recognize that vegetation management may still reduce snowshoe hare habitat, but at lower DHC levels treated acres do not count against caps established in the programmatic BO. The effects analysis should still document estimates of snowshoe hare habitat reduction against the environmental baseline and the corresponding response by lynx. Using an acceptable methodology (see Guide Section 7: Habitat Monitoring), a Forest Service biologist, silviculturist, or other suitable designatee can measure the horizontal cover. Use of the methodology provided in the Monitoring section of this document would be an acceptable method for making the determination. If no data are available, assume DHC is present and VEG S6 applies if the site is in a multi-story mature or late successional conifer forest. Because of the variability of snow depths, if horizontal cover is measured in the summer as a surrogate for winter measurements of winter snowshoe hare habitat availability, measurements should be taken from ground level up to approximately three - four meters (nine - 13 feet) above ground level at higher elevations. At lower elevations, measuring horizontal cover up to approximately two - three meters above ground level may be sufficient. If measurements are taken during the winter, horizontal cover would be measured one - two meters above the snow. E) Incidental Damage Incidental damage is allowed in both Exception 3 and Exception 4 of VEG S6. Skid trails, temporary roads, landings, hazard tree removal, trees damaged/killed from felling other trees are all considered incidental impact or removal. After discussion with several USFS Region 2 silviculturists, a reasonable rule of thumb for what is incidental removal for either salvage harvest or uneven-aged management would typically be 15-20% of the understory. However, there may be several factors about projects and project areas that affect this estimate or actual levels of unavoidable damage. Field reviews should result in an estimate of how much of the incidental understory removal would actually affect winter snowshoe hare habitat. VEG S6 only applies in lynx habitat when there is sufficient live understory tall enough to provide for winter snowshoe hare habitat and the stand is considered a multi-story stand or late successional stand. While reduction of winter snowshoe hare habitat must be estimated related to caps established in the BO, incidental damage to vegetation within stands where VEG S6 does not apply may still result in reduced snowshoe hare habitat, and should be documented in the biological assessment. 11

100 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management In many cases, keeping the incidental damage to 15% or 20% may need to be accomplished by, for example, carefully locating the designated skid trails, larger spacing between skid trails, placing landings in open areas, logging during the winter, and quality oversight by the timber sale administrator and the Forest Service representative. In the case of the broad effects of mountain pine beetle on forest stands, 100% salvage of the overstory may result in more than incidental removal of the understory. Typically these stands are no longer considered multi-storied, even though they may provide limited snowshoe hare habitat in the live understory. In each case, the biologist should work closely with the silviculturist during the NEPA planning to estimate this indirect loss and document it in the Biological Evaluation or Assessment. Forest Plan standards come into play when estimating these incidental impacts. Typically the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH ) has management direction to limit soil compaction from skid trails to no more than 15% of the stand in order to protect soil quality. Also, the timber sale contract has a standard provision to protect regeneration: B(T)6.32 Protection of Residual Trees and B(T)6.42 Skidding and Yarding. If the Forest ID Team during the NEPA process determines that additional measures are needed to protect regeneration, they can be identified as project design features/criteria to be included later in the appropriate C provision during contract preparation. The amount of incidental damage to winter snowshoe hare habitat (dense horizontal cover one-two meters above average snow levels) needs to be tracked if it is currently providing snowshoe hare habitat, and would indirectly be removed or damaged. The biologist and silviculturist should estimate this in the environmental analyses and documents, including the effects analysis report (i.e. biological evaluation or assessment), based on site-specific conditions. Post-treatment monitoring will need to occur to evaluate the amount of incidental damage that actually occurred. F) Uneven-aged Vegetation Management Uneven-aged management is recognized as a proactive approach to mimic natural gap dynamics that maintain or encourage multi-story attributes while accomplishing other resource management objectives. Gaps are created naturally in the canopy of stands from small bug infestations, diseases, blowdown pockets of trees, and other natural influences. The general principle of uneven-aged vegetation management, as identified in Exception 4 in VEG S6, is the small group selections that consist of small forest openings (approximately 1-2 acres in size) in which the openings created by group selection will not exceed 20 percent of a stand in a single entry, but individual tree selection can occur throughout an entire stand or between the groups. Therefore, uneven-aged treatments will approximate natural succession and disturbance processes while maintaining and providing habitat conditions that support lynx and snowshoe hare through time in both the stand initiation structural stage and in mature, multi-story conifer vegetation (VEG O1 and 02). Additionally, uneven-aged treatments will be focused in areas that have the potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly-developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover (VEG O4). There are many possible examples of treatments that meet the objectives VEG O1, O2, and O4, including: 12

101 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Harvesting a mature lodgepole stand with very little understory, which would regenerate and improve snowshoe hare habitat in years. In a spruce-fir or mixed conifer stand, an uneven-aged treatment should focus the location of the patches or small groups in those areas of each stand that have less than 35% horizontal cover at up to two meters above the average snow depth. The intent of VEG O4 is to focus vegetation treatment in areas that could improve snowshoe hare habitat. It does not mean that it requires 100% of treatments to be in poorly-developed understory. The intent of Exception 4 was to encourage uneven-aged management in multistoried stands to provide both snowshoe hare habitat within these stands and meet other Forest Plan objectives for vegetation treatments. There are no limits to the amount of lynx habitat that can be treated under Exception 4 in VEG S6, with the exception of limitations under VEG S1 and S2. Given the guidelines for this exception, projects implemented under this exception are generally not anticipated to result in take. In the event that take is anticipated in individual projects, those effects will be addressed in a second tier Biological Opinion, as needed. Part 3. Questions and Answers for Vegetation Management General 1. Can most lynx habitat issues be addressed during sale lay out procedures? Answer: Lynx habitat issues should be addressed at all phases of project planning: project design, NEPA, section 7 consultation, and implementation. The more that can be addressed early and often such as during lay-out procedures, the more likely the project will be compatible with the SRLA and avoid unintended consequences or costly surprises later. 2. There are possible effects to logging operations that may occur during the "Normal Operating Season" under the timber sale contracts. A common practice on our timber sales is to brush out any existing roads that will be used to haul logs. Is this allowed? Answer: Yes, this activity is allowed (see HU G8). Clearing of overgrowth over an existing road to allow trucks to get through would not count against the acre caps under the SRLA management exemption and exceptions. 3. Are SRLA timeframes dynamic or static? What is the baseline for the time period in any particular treatment area and once a particular area reaches said time period, what mechanism will be in place to remove that stand from the overall calculation? Answer: The 10-year timeframe for VEG S2 is separate from the 15-year life span of the SRLA decision. The baseline for the 10 year timeframe in VEG S2 is the 10-year period preceding the current NEPA analysis for a vegetation treatment project proposal. In that sense, the timeframe could be seen as dynamic, or basically a moving 10-year period that shifts relative to the date of analysis of the current project proposal. The 15- year timeframe of the SRLA is static and began October 29, 2008, with the signing of the Record of Decision by the Regional Forester. This will be needed by the Forests and Region 2 Regional Office to track the use of exemptions and exceptions to the 13

102 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management VEG standards and to be able to transfer that information annually to the Fish and Wildlife Service under the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion. Additionally, a stand will be considered suitable when the vegetation height is greater than two meters above the average snow depth and canopy cover is greater than 10 percent. 4. There is confusion created by having lynx habitat defined interchangeably as mature forest stands for denning and young stands for forage. (For example: can t harvest more than 15% lynx habitat refers to mature and 30% limit of unsuitable lynx habitat refers to young stands). Answer: Actually, both VEG S1 and S2 address vegetation treatments that regenerate forested stands, resulting in the creation of early seral forested stands. VEG S1 limits all forms of natural and man-made regeneration (fire, insect, blowdown and timber management) to 30% of an LAU, while VEG S2 only addresses timber management projects that regenerate stands, limiting the amount of acreage in stand initiation stage resulting from timber management to 15% of the LAU over a ten-year period. 5. Are we now required under the SRLA to routinely do intensive field surveys and monitoring of dense horizontal cover in our project areas? Is the cover board methodology the only procedure we can use to quantify snowshoe hare habitat? Answer: There is no direct requirement under the SRLA to conduct specific levels of monitoring for implementation of the decision. The importance of dense understory as snowshoe hare habitat has been known for some time, but was emphasized in the SRLA analyses and final decision. Some early project consultations affected by the SRLA revealed uncertainties and inconsistencies within and between the agencies about how this habitat should be measured and to what extent or frequency necessary to adequately inform project planning and section 7 consultations. The central point is for Forests to be thinking about how best to address this management need and how much monitoring may be needed to understand the location and condition of understory vegetation relative to project areas and against some yardstick of dense understory/high quality hare habitat. The monitoring effort is necessarily a Forest-level decision likely based on considerations of current information gaps and internal Forest needs for developing informed projects, conducting rigorous effects analyses, and coordinating between the agencies in section 7 consultations. Project areas with clearly low horizontal cover would not need field sampling, nor would areas of obviously high cover in the understory. It will be important to document those conditions, ideally including photographs and field notes. For those gray areas where it is difficult to discern if the cover meets DHC, personnel can either assume it does exist and conduct project planning and effects analyses accordingly, or alternatively sample some project areas. Over time, with some strategic sampling including photographic records, the expectation is that Forest biologists will become increasingly proficient in assessing habitat conditions and extent of DHC in project areas largely from photographic documentation, much like has been done for fuels assessments for many years. Section 7 of this Implementation Guide provides one procedure for doing field surveys and 14

103 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management monitoring of understory. For larger projects, it may be appropriate to monitor and track stands that represent only a subset of the total treatment unit. Other procedures such as counting stem densities may also be appropriate. Whatever approach is used, the technique should be closely coordinated between the local Forest and FWS biologists to ensure agreement that it is the most appropriate for the situation. 6. Does VEG O1 apply to all forest types? If so, should we be mimicking stand replacement fires in lodgepole systems? Answer: VEG O1 applies to all forest types that are considered lynx habitat. The intent of VEG O1 is to mimic natural succession and disturbance processes that create future habitat while maintaining habitat components for conservation of lynx. However, in both seral lodgepole pine and spruce-fir stands, we would likely not be treating vegetation at the scale of a large, stand replacing wildfire. Wildland fires managed to address multiple objectives including restoration of ecological processes and maintaining and improving lynx habitat is encouraged under Objective VEG O3. 7. Does VEG G4 contradict direction for ski runs, Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs), and other vegetation treatments? Answer: VEG G4 states that prescribed fire activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate snow compaction and that permanent firebreaks should avoid ridges and saddles. If the Forest Service proposes to construct a permanent fire break on a ridge or saddle, the project should be evaluated to determine the importance of the firebreak and whether or not a firebreak in a different location could serve a similar function. If the analysis determines that the firebreak is important at that location, then the firebreak project should proceed and the reason for not following the guideline should be documented in the annual report. Note that the vegetation management standards and guidelines do not apply to removal of vegetation for permanent developments, such as ski runs. 8. Define consider VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 in VEG G10. If we choose not to meet those standards in the fuel treatment project, does the 3% rule still apply? If so, is that the only rule? Answer: Consider means that the vegetation objectives, guidelines, and standards should be followed wherever possible. This is in the spirit of the SRLA decision, although the decision also provides flexibility to affect habitat for several reasons including fuels management. If the project is able to meet the vegetation standards and does not require the use of exemptions, the acres treated will not need to count towards the 3% fuels exemption cap. However, other standards and guidelines provided in the SRLA may still apply, and the expectation is that most projects can be designed in a way that achieves multiple objectives. 15

104 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Salvage Harvest 9. Does salvage harvest in stands killed by beetles, wildfire, or other disturbances get counted against the management standards and thresholds? Answer: Salvage harvest within currently unsuitable lynx habitat cannot further change its condition. Such stands have a dead overstory resulting from insect epidemics, wildfire, or other natural disturbances and lack multi-story structure. Salvage of these stands does not create additional unsuitable lynx habitat because the stand is already currently unsuitable. The SRLA does not limit salvage harvest in non-multi-story stands where the overstory is dead and the understory does not yet provide winter hare habitat. 10. If areas proposed for salvage do not have dense horizontal cover (i.e., > 35% horizontal cover), is it correct that the standard VEG S6 does not apply? Answer: That is correct that VEG S6 does not apply. However, if the salvage harvest creates currently unsuitable habitat (i.e., stand initiation structural stage) then those acres of currently unsuitable habitat should be counted towards VEG S1 and S2. Furthermore, if underdeveloped understory (i.e., height of understory vegetation is not yet suitable) exists in the project area, the effects analysis for the project should include some consideration of any effects to lynx that might be realized in setting back or delaying the continued development of that understory. This evaluation would just be part of the analysis and not intended to imply that SRLA management standards, exemptions, or exceptions apply. 11. If dense horizontal cover is present in a project area but avoided, do we only count those acres affected incidentally by the salvage harvest towards the cap? Answer: The question suggests that the dense horizontal cover would in fact not be completely avoided in all cases. The SRLA decision does emphasize avoidance where possible, and otherwise minimizing incidental damage where complete avoidance is not possible. Incidental damage under Exception 3 in VEG S6 is part of the 0.5% cap under the SRLA decision. Exemptions and Exceptions 12. Do all vegetation projects count towards the 4.5% cap per Forest regardless of whether or not the projects are formal or informal? Answer: Yes, all vegetation treatments that use the exemptions and exceptions count towards the 4.5% cap per Forest (with the exception of Exception 4 in VEG S6), regardless of whether or not those projects have been determined to be adverse effect (LAA) projects or not likely (NLAA) projects. Note that there is not a cap or limit on the number of acres that can be treated using Exception 4 in VEG S6. The intent is to allow uneven-aged vegetation management that maintains and creates multi-storied stands, while still being consistent with VEG O1, O2, and O4. For more detailed discussion about the connections among the SRLA management exemptions, exceptions, and caps, see the earlier section entitled A) Exemptions and Exceptions to Vegetation Standards above. 16

105 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management 13. Is it true that all allowed actions under VEG S5 & VEG S6 are considered exceptions? Clarify. Answer: The exceptions are the allowed actions for pre-commercial thinning (VEG S5) and reducing winter snowshoe hare habitat in mature multi-storied or late successional forest through vegetation management projects (VEG S6). The exemptions, often referred to as the WUI fuels exemptions, are also allowed under VEG S5 and S6 only for fuels reduction projects in WUI areas. See Table 3 from the Biological Opinion in this Section of the Guide (Part 2. Discussion of Key Concepts). 14. If LAUs are greater than 30 percent currently unsuitable, do the 1 percent and 3 percent caps still apply? Answer: Yes, the caps always apply regardless of the condition of the LAUs. If a Forest cap is reached before the 15 year estimated life of the SRLA, formal consultation will need to be reinitiated by that Forest. Note that the exemption for fuels treatments in WUI areas allows for standard VEG S1 (e.g., no more than 30 percent of LAU can be currently unsuitable) to be exceeded, although the 3 percent cap per Forest still applies. Also note that the standard VEG S1 states that there cannot be more than three adjacent LAUs that exceed the VEG S1 standard as a result of fuels treatment projects. This condition means that there cannot be a fourth adjacent LAU that exceeds the VEG S1 standard as a result of fuels treatment projects in a given Forest (administrative unit). 15. What happens if the 3% caps are exceeded? Answer: If any of the caps are exceeded (e.g., 3% fuels exemption cap, 0.5% exception cap, or 1% precommercial thinning cap) on a Forest, then that Forest will need to reinitiate consultation. It is anticipated that some Forests that are experiencing a mountain pine beetle or spruce beetle epidemic will likely reach those caps sooner than other Forests. 16. What are the percentages of impact to lynx habitat that are allowed for the various exemptions and exceptions? Answer: The exemptions and exceptions are as follows: The WUI Fuels Exemptions under VEG S1, S2, S5 and S6 allow for up to 3% percent cumulatively of the lynx habitat per Forest (or combined administrative unit). The exceptions to VEG S5 and S6 allow for up to 0.5% percent of lynx habitat per Forest (excluding Exception 5 in VEG S5 and Exception 4 in VEG S6). Exception 5 in VEG S5 allows for up to 1% of lynx habitat per Forest (but with the condition that it also cannot exceed 1 percent of lynx habitat in any LAU). Collectively, the combined exemptions and exceptions add up to 4.5 % of the lynx habitat per Forest. 17

106 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Exception 4 in VEG S6 is not limited by the number of acres that can be treated under this exception since, given the guidelines for this exception, it is generally not anticipated to result in take. In the event that take is anticipated in future projects, those effects will be addressed in a second tier biological opinion, as needed. Because habitat conditions have changed since the Biological Assessment was completed, the cap from the Biological Opinion may be reached by some Forests more quickly than estimated. In this case, consultation may be reinitiated by the individual Forest related to their needs. It would not, however, lead to a site specific Plan amendment, as the cap was a result of the Biological Opinion, not Forest Plan standards. 17. Is there a limit to the amount of treatment in an individual LAU? Can we have >30% currently unsuitable habitat in a LAU but continue to put most of our Forest s WUI exception/exemption treatments in that same LAU? Seems that as long as we provide connectivity and some habitat through the LAU, then we can do this? This would fall within WUI exceptions for 30%, 15% in 10 years. WUI includes much more than residences, so this could account for lots of acres. Answer: Fuels reduction projects in the WUI are exempt from standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6. These exemptions mean that fuels reduction projects are allowed to: 1) exceed the VEG S1 standard (e.g., lynx habitat in LAU cannot exceed 30 percent unsuitable); 2) exceed the VEG S2 standard (e.g., vegetation treatments cannot convert more than 15 percent of lynx habitat in a LAU to unsuitable within a 10-year period); 3) exceed VEG S5 (e.g., no pre-commercial thinning in areas providing lynx winter forage habitat; and 4) exceed VEG S6 (e.g., no removal of winter snowshoe hare habitat in multi-storied stands or late successional forests), as long as the treatments are consistent with the other standards and guidelines in the SRLA. Use of the fuels exemptions is cumulative for the combined VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6, rather than for each standard. However, fuels treatments within the WUI that use the 3% fuels exemption should still try follow the vegetation standards as much as possible, as provided in VEG G10, which states that fuel treatment projects within the WUI as defined by Healthy Forest Restoration Act should be designed considering Standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation. Even though the amended Forest Plans now allow for the vegetation standards to be exceeded under in specific provisions, the project may result in an adverse effect determination a project-specific Biological Assessment. 18. The exemption to VEG S1 says that Fuels treatment projects may not result in more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. What does this mean? Answer: This part of the exemption means that it there are three adjacent LAUs that have exceeded standard VEG S1 (no more than 30% of lynx habitat is currently unsuitable), then fuels treatment projects cannot result in a fourth adjacent LAU 18

107 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management exceeding the VEG S1 standard. Therefore, fuels treatment projects in WUI areas can continue to occur in the three adjacent LAUs even if more than 30% of the lynx habitat in the LAU is currently unsuitable, but fuels project in the fourth LAU cannot exceed the 30% currently unsuitable. The amount of acres that can be treated in the three adjacent LAUs is limited by the 3% cap per Forest. It is important to remember that the VEG S1 standard states that If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects. It is only because of the exemption to the standard that allows fuels treatment projects in WUIs to exceed the 30% currently unsuitable amount. If a fuels treatment project is outside a WUI or if the vegetation treatment is for purposes other than fuels reduction, then the 30% currently unsuitable amount cannot be exceeded. Note that if a fuels treatment project does not result in regeneration (i.e., stand initiation structural stage), then the treatment can proceed even if the 30% unsuitable amount has been exceeded. Additionally, it does not matter what caused the 30% currently unsuitable to be exceeded (fire, insect, vegetation treatment. Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUI) and Communities at Risk 19. Are powerline corridors considered WUI for purposes of applying the SRLA management direction, especially the management exemptions and exceptions to vegetation clearing activities within and along the corridors? Answer: In most cases, powerline corridors are not considered to be WUIs. We recognize that vegetation clearing occurs along powerline corridors for the purposes of access, fuels reduction, and hazard mitigation. However, this vegetation clearing results in a permanent removal of vegetation, somewhat analogous to permanent vegetation removal and maintenance along ski runs at ski areas. Therefore, the SRLA vegetation management standards do not apply, since they refer to vegetation regenerating activities. There is one exception to the issue of powerline corridors and WUIs, namely, if a CWPP identifies a powerline corridor as part of their WUI, then the fuels treatment activities in that specific WUI can use the WUI fuels exemption (i.e., 3 percent of lynx habitat per Forest). 20. How are treatments recommended in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan addressed in this plan? Are they exempt from these standards? Answer: The area encompassed by the WUI is identified in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) or by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act WUI definition. Fuels treatments in WUI areas are exempted from the standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 for up to 3 percent of the lynx habitat per Forest. 21. Does the WUI vary in size from place to place? How do we apply it consistently across our Forest under the SRLA decision? Answer: According to the HFRA definition that was also adopted in the SRLA decision, the area of a WUI is identified in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 19

108 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management (CWPP). If there is no CWPP in place, the WUI then is considered the area 0.5 mile 1.5 miles from an at-risk community. The actual distance within that range is dependent on terrain and other factors. See Part 2, Discussion of Key Concepts, Wildland Urban Interface and Communities at Risk, for a more detailed definition. The definition of WUI is also found in the Glossary of the SRLA decision, Attachment page 1-15 (a copy of the decision is in Section 1 of this Guide). 22. Are adverse effects allowed for projects outside the WUI? Answer: Projects with adverse effects are allowed both within and outside of WUI areas. Incidental take has been provided in the Biological Opinion for specific vegetation treatments that utilize the exemptions and exceptions, although a Tier 2 consultation will still need to occur. The exemptions can occur only within the WUI, while the exceptions may occur both within and outside of the WUI. The Fish and Wildlife Service will use a streamlined Tier 2 Biological Opinion for adverse affect projects that use the exemptions and exceptions. Projects that are determined to result in an adverse effect but do not use the exemption and exceptions will have a separate Biological Opinion prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Stand Initiation Structural Stage and Unsuitable Habitat 23. Quantify stand initiation structural stage. When does stand initiation structural stage stop providing winter hare habitat (e.g., diameter, height, crown closure, height differentiation, canopy base height, stems/acre)? Glossary says where the trees are generally less than 10 to 30 years old and have not grown tall enough to protrude above the snow during winter" in many cases year old trees protrude well above the snow. Answer: Stand initiation structural stage is the silviculture terminology used for early successional stage of a forested stand. The early portions of the stand initiation stage do not provide winter snowshoe hare forage since the vegetation is generally below the snow. The later portion of stand initiation structural stage may provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. At some point, in sapling-sized lodgepole pine (late early to mid successional), the branches ( crowns ) at the bottom of the tree have selfpruned to levels above the average snow pack or get too high for snowshoe hares to use. At this point, the stand no longer provides winter snowshoe hare habitat. Stand initiation and stem exclusion structural stage are also defined in the glossary. 24. Given the current mountain pine beetle epidemic, how much overstory needs to be gone (dead) for the stand to be considered unsuitable? Answer: It depends on the understory and the height of the advanced regeneration. If the advanced regeneration is at least 1-2 meters above average snow depth, the stand may still be considered suitable. If there is very little understory regeneration, or the understory is only 1-2 meters above the average snow depth, and 90% of the overstory is dead, the stand could be considered to be currently unsuitable. 20

109 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management 25. How high above the snow does crown lift have to be to prohibit hare use? Answer: Hodges (2000) says 0.5 meter, but to account for varying snow levels, we are suggesting one-to-two meters over average snow level. 26. Is summer/other habitat now combined with currently unsuitable (stand initiation stage)? A statement in the Biological Opinion (page 44) suggests there is no separate summer habitat (other) category, or should we call other/summer foraging habitat something else to clarify it? This would cause almost all LAUs to have >30% habitat in stand initiation stage, limiting our management options. Answer: The current lynx habitat mapping criteria is still in place. The other foraging habitat is still considered currently suitable habitat. 27. Clarify vegetation management activities and practices statement (p. 1-2 attachment of Record of Decision): The following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to vegetation management projects in lynx habitat within LAUs in occupied habitat. With the exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically concerns wildland fire use, the VEG objectives, standards, and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, or removal of vegetation for permanent developments such as mineral operations, ski runs, roads, and the like. None of the VEG objectives, standards, or guidelines applies to linkage areas. Does this statement mean that these activities do not count toward the 30%, 15%, 3%, 1% limitations or exceptions/exemptions? How would we track changes to lynx habitat if a wildfire or highway construction caused an LAU to go over 30% stand initiation stage but these changes didn t apply to the standards, guidelines, and objectives? We could continue to push a LAU far beyond 30% in the stand initiation stage. Answer: Permanent losses of habitat are not limited by the SRLA VEG standards and guidelines, which are only concerned with vegetation regenerating activities. The VEG standards do not apply to wildland fires and wildfire suppression, because those are unplanned activities that may be beneficial to lynx over the long term. However, we still will need to track the current conditions of the vegetation/lynx habitat after wildfires, blowdowns and insect invasions/epidemics. Accordingly, live vegetation treatments can occur in LAUs exceeding the 30% early stand initiation structural stage only by using the appropriate exemptions or exceptions. VEG S5 28. Is Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) thinning allowed in lodgepole pine? If so, what are the quantifiable specifications (age, density, acreage?) Answer: Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial thinning, as defined in the ROD, including timber stand improvement (TSI). Fuel treatments within a WUI are exempt from the standards up to 3% of the lynx habitat per Forest, combined with the exemptions for all VEG standards. VEG S5 limits precommercial thinning and similar activities, from stand initiation structural stage until the stand no longer provides snowshoe hare habitat (crowns have lifted above approximately 1-2 meter above average snow level). The tree species allowed to be thinned are not specified. The decision to provide flexibility in the aftermath of the mountain pine beetle epidemic 21

110 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management (ROD page 8) is intended to allow thinning in lodgepole pine. The age and density are not specified, but the intent is to explore methods to sustain hare habitat over time while meeting other resource objectives. 29. Is TSI thinning allowed in spruce/fir? Answer: TSI thinning in spruce/fir or other mesic mixed conifer stands within lynx habitat may conflict with standard VEG S6 if multistory conditions exist and dense horizontal cover is present. If VEG S6 does not apply (e.g. a regenerating spruce/fir stand without an overstory), then a TSI thinning could be implemented. However, thinning is limited to 1% of the lynx habitat within the LAU if the project is outside a WUI. If the proposed thinning treatment is considered to be a fuels reduction project and is within a WUI, then the project is exempt from standards, VEG S5 and S6, but is still limited to 3% (combined) of the lynx habitat per Forest. NOTE: Biologists, silviculturists, and other should identify desired conditions (presumably to improve snowshoe hare habitat) and then develop prescriptions to achieve those conditions. Monitoring is needed to determine the pros and cons of the thinning, including hare response. 30. How is the term research defined as part of VEG S5? Answer: Before using this exception (Exception 2 in VEG S5 and Exception 2 in VEG S6), it is recommended that a study design be developed using sound scientific methodologies. One intent of this exception is to encourage experimentation of methods to pre-commercially thin in order to improve snowshoe hare habitat for a longer period of time (i.e., delay crown lift in young lodgepole pine stands). 31. Please clarify phrase in VEG S5 Exception 5a and the amount and distribution of winter hare habitat within the LAU must be provided through appropriate site-specific analysis and consultation. Answer: This statement refers to the need to analyze the amount and location of precommercial thinning activities that may affect winter hare habitat within the context of the amount and distribution of existing winter hare habitat throughout the LAU. For the purposes of analysis and consultation, this information will provide site-specific effects to the amount and availability of winter hare habitat within the LAU. There is no set amount of winter hare habitat identified to be maintained within a LAU in the SRLA. However, the amount of PCT that can occur within any LAU is limited to 1% for projects occurring outside the WUI. VEG S6 32. What are some of the vegetation projects that are assumed to "reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat." Answer: In stands that are currently providing snowshoe hare habitat, all vegetation treatments have the potential to reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat. However, in the 22

111 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management case of salvage of dead trees, the only potential for reduction of snowshoe hare habitat is the indirect, or incidental, damage or removal of the understory or remaining live overstory. 33. Define metrics for winter snowshoe hare habitat, and snowshoe hare habitat and what measurements we can use to indicate that we have reduced hare habitat. What thresholds are we looking for? Answer: The metrics for defining snowshoe hare habitat including winter snowshoe hare habitat (e.g., dense horizontal cover) are discussed earlier in this section. Most vegetation management treatments in a multi-storied mature or late successional conifer forest that contains winter snowshoe hare habitat are likely to reduce that habitat. Any reduction of winter snowshoe hare habitat in these forests is only permitted if it is part of an exemption or exception, such as salvage or uneven-aged management. 34. Who determines if a stand is: multi-storied and/or mature or late successional? Answer: Either the biologist or the silviculturist can determine if the stand is a mature multi-stored or late successional stand. For the purposes of the SRLA, a stand will be considered multi-storied mature or late successional, if it contains at least two layers of live vegetative structure, combined with an overstory that provides at least 40 percent canopy (mature overstory) closure. In addition, for the stand to be considered winter snowshoe hare habitat, there must be the presence of dense horizontal cover, resulting from advanced regeneration and/or low-lying branches. 35. Will a definition of multi-storied mature or late successional and dense horizontal cover take into consideration the varying range of these stand/vegetation characteristics over changing elevation, aspect, topography? (e.g., dense cover on north-facing spruce-fir may have many more stems/acre than dense cover on southwest-facing slopes). Answer: Dense horizontal cover in this context is related to snowshoe hare habitat. See discussion above. 36. When does salvage harvest change suitable lynx habitat to currently unsuitable condition? Provide sideboards/guidance. Answer: Salvage harvest within currently unsuitable lynx habitat will not change suitable lynx habitat to unsuitable habitat. Such stands have a dead overstory resulting from insect epidemics, wildfire, and other natural disturbances and lack multi-story structure. Also, their understories are the equivalent of the early stand initiation structural stage (SISS) that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat [e.g., lacks adequate horizontal cover to meet snowshoe hare needs (see dense horizontal cover discussion above). The SRLA ROD (see Guide Section 1: Record of Decision) defines lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition as synonymous with early SISS where the trees generally have not grown tall enough to protrude above the snow in winter. 23

112 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Salvage of these stands does not contribute towards the 15% limit in VEG S2, because the stand is already currently unsuitable. However, the project-specific Biological Assessment should consider effects to the existing understory from the salvage activities. For example, in areas with extensive effects from mountain pine beetle, we should do what we can to minimize impacts to the understory as much as possible even if it is not yet winter hare habitat. The SRLA does not limit salvage harvest in nonmulti-story stands, where the overstory is dead and understory does not yet provide winter hare habitat. However, some biological consideration should be made to be consistent with the SRLA objectives. Instead of 100% salvage of a stand, the prescription could have areas with limited salvage or exclude some islands with good understory that could become winter snowshoe hare habitat in the near future. 37. How can we meet VEG O4 and Exceptions 3 & 4 in VEG S6? Considering activities (temporary roads, skid trails, landings, cleared width to move harvest equipment through a stand, hazard trees removal, whole tree skidding, and economically viable projects), is it feasible to have only incidental removal or to encourage multi-story attributes? Answer: Yes, it is feasible. Biologists, silviculturists, and sale administrators need to work together in the design and implementation of the projects. Uneven-aged management allows removal of approximately 20% of the stand and the removal should be focused, where possible, in areas that could benefit from regeneration. 38. If understory is already poor, is it reasonable to expect a multi-story stand, especially after skid trails, temporary roads, landings are added? Answer: If understory is already poor due to overstory competition, this is exactly where we need to be treating to improve snowshoe hare habitat. (See discussion of Uneven-aged Management in Part 2 of this section). 39. Does VEG S6 apply to a project in a late-successional forest that does not have dense horizontal cover? Answer: No, since it only applies to vegetation management projects that affect dense horizontal cover (winter hare habitat). See dense horizontal cover discussion earlier in this paper. 40. What are appropriate silvicultural treatments in spruce/fir (green sales) lynx habitat? Answer: Silviculture treatments that do not reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat are allowed. In addition, the following exceptions are allowed: 1. Treatments within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, etc; 2. Research studies and/or genetic tree tests; 3. Salvage harvest with incidental impacts; and 4. Uneven-aged management is appropriate. 41. The statement that: uneven-aged management practices will be employed to maintain and encourage desired habitat attributes, in the 4 th paragraph on page 9 of the ROD 24

113 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management seems to go beyond the requirements of VEG S6 (e.g., projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat may only occur: exemption 4) where uneven-aged management practices are employed Answer: This statement in the ROD explains why uneven-aged management is encouraged, while recognizing it may reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat. The explanation is not intended to extend the requirements of VEG S Does VEG S6 exclude all even-aged prescriptions under the assumption that they will reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat? This would not be true for the case where advanced regeneration is established and the final seed tree removal is the proposed treatment. If the treatment is even-aged, but does not reduce snowshoe hare habitat is it allowable under VEG S6? If so, this should be clarified. Answer: If it would not reduce snowshoe hare habitat, it is allowable. However, it is unlikely there would be very many vegetation management projects in multi-storied stands that would not have the potential to reduce snowshoe hare habitat. However, multi-storied conifer stands do not always provide dense horizontal cover. The intent of VEG S6 is to encourage the management of spruce-fir and mixed conifer, multi-storied stands as uneven-aged stands. For example, if a stand has been managed in the past under a shelterwood and is ready for the final overstory removal or seed tree removal, the prescription could still start managing the stand as uneven-aged by harvesting patches of the overstory and understory in group selections. 43. Are all (or just those that reduce hare habitat) uneven-aged regeneration treatments considered an exception under VEG S6, and therefore subject to the reporting requirements listed in the Required Monitoring ROD Attachment 1-9 (item 2d), and the 4.5% maximum area allowed in exemptions for each National Forest? Answer: VEG S6 does not restrict vegetation management projects that do not reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat. Treatments that do not diminish habitat are not an exemption or an exception to VEG S6, and do not need to be tracked as part of the required monitoring. However, it is unlikely there would be very many vegetation management projects in multi-storied conifer stands that would not have the potential to reduce snowshoe hare habitat. When uneven-aged management is used under Exception 4, the treatments themselves are only limited by VEG S1 (30% of each LAU currently unsuitable) and VEG S2 (15% change to currently unsuitable condition over a 10-year period due to timber projects). They do NOT have to be tracked under the Required Monitoring for the exceptions. 44. How do we track patch openings within uneven-aged harvests (group selection)? [FACTS reporting at the stand level (harvest unit) and not individual patches.] Answer: The ROD does not describe how monitoring will be accomplished. However, it is unlikely FACTS will be used to fulfill this requirement. Although FACTS may not be the mechanism to monitor openings for the SRLA, group selection cuts should be entered in FACTS using activity code The business rule for this activity is to report only the acres actually harvested in the groups. This can be an estimation, because groups may or may not be mapped using GPS, or are otherwise spatially- 25

114 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management displayed. The silviculture prescription can be used to provide the estimate, if better information is unavailable. See Guide Section 6: ESA Tools for more information about how to annually track projects, habitat changes, and use of management exemptions and exceptions by Forest. 45. Are we completely barred from doing any project work in areas with dense horizontal cover/high quality lynx foraging habitat? Answer: No. The habitat should be avoided to the maximum extent possible, where it occurs in the project area. But the area is not automatically off limits to project work simply because it contains dense horizontal cover. Uneven-Aged Management 46. Recognizing the emphasis on uneven-aged management under the SRLA decision, is even-aged management completely forbidden? Are there no situations under which even-aged management practices could be used, or seen as a tool for improving habitat for lynx and hares? Answer: Even-aged management is not completely forbidden under the SRLA decision and has a place in the toolbox for managing forest and habitat. For example, even-aged management intended as a strategy to open up mature lodgepole pine forest and accelerate understory development is permissible and encouraged under the SRLA. The litmus test is whether a proposal makes sense in terms of encouraging habitat or improving habitat quality relative to current conditions. Conversely, proposing evenaged management in spruce-fir forest that currently has habitat value to the Canada lynx would likely be inconsistent with the SRLA, unless perhaps it is a long-term habitat maintenance project. This would need close scrutiny. 47. If uneven-aged management is used to maintain or encourage dense horizontal cover and the project is designed to avoid the existing dense vegetation, would any of the project acres affected be counted towards the 0.5% Forest cap? Answer: The area impacted would be counted towards the 0.5% cap where dense horizontal cover is incidentally damaged during implementation of the project, or where the project has changed the multi-storied stand characteristics. Compromising existing habitat in the interests of maintaining it over some longer term needs careful deliberation and coordination. Furthermore, projects that encourage habitat restoration and development and avoid dense horizontal cover do not count towards the 0.5% Forest cap. Part 4. Vegetation Project Examples Example 1. Lodgepole Pine Fuels Reduction Project Scenario A Existing Condition: A mature seral lodgepole pine stand is currently suitable lynx habitat and is within 0.5 miles of a community-at-risk (considered to be a WUI). 26

115 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Desired Treatment (Prescription): The stand is proposed for a fuels reduction thinning treatment. Fifty of the 100 acres of lynx habitat in the stand are proposed for thinning. SRLA Applicability: The project will use the exemption to VEG S5 to conduct the thinning. Therefore, the 50 acres that are treated will be tracked towards the 3% fuels exemption per Forest. The thinning treatment does not contribute to the amount of unsuitable habitat in the LAU (tracked under VEG S1 and S2) since the treatment will not result in regeneration (i.e., stand initiation structural stage/currently unsuitable). (Note that if the proposed project was outside a WUI, then the thinning would be limited by the conditions in Exception 5 in VEG S5. The treatment would be restricted to 1% of the lynx habitat in the LAU and would count towards the 1% cap per Forest, rather than the 3% WUI exemption per Forest.) Example 2. Lodgepole Pine Fuels Reduction Project Scenario B Existing Condition: A mature seral lodgepole pine stand contains suitable lynx habitat and is within a WUI that has experienced considerable beetle mortality and is currently over 30% unsuitable. The LAU is adjacent to three other LAUs that also have more than 30% of the lynx habitat in unsuitable condition. Desired Treatment (Prescription): The stand is proposed for a fuels reduction treatment. The prescription is the creation of a number of small forest openings, which are often referred to as Finney bricks. SRLA Applicability: Because the proposed project would exceed the conditions described in VEG S1 by conducting a regeneration treatment in a fourth adjacent LAU that has more than 30% unsuitable habitat, the project should not proceed as planned. (Note these other considerations and options: This restriction does not apply to salvage activities in stands that are already dead and does not involve green tree treatments; An acceptable revision of the proposed treatment would be to design a fuels reduction project that does not result in a stand initiation structural stage in the fourth LAU; Work can continue to proceed and the WUI exemption used in one or more of the first 3 LAUs regardless of any limitations on working in the 4 th one) Example 3. Lodgepole Pine Salvage Scenario A Existing Condition: A mature lodgepole pine stand in lynx habitat has heavy mortality (>90%) from mountain pine beetle. There is little existing understory. The stand is currently unsuitable lynx habitat. Desired Treatment (Prescription): The stand is proposed for salvage harvest while retaining a few scattered live trees. The silvicultural prescription is a clearcut with reserve trees since USFS policy FSM requires a salvage prescription only be used for intermediate harvests (no regeneration required). A regeneration harvest prescription is required if the cutting will begin the regeneration process. 27

116 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management SRLA Applicability: The salvage treatment does not contribute to the amount of unsuitable habitat in the LAU (tracked under VEG S1), since the stand is already unsuitable. The salvage harvest does not contribute to the 15 percent threshold in the VEG S2 standard, even though there is a regeneration (clearcut with reserves) prescription, since the stand is already unsuitable. The VEG S6 standard is not applicable because the stand is not a multi-storied mature or late successional conifer forest. The harvest does not require the use of an exemption or an exception and, therefore, does not contribute to the 4.5 percent cap. (Note that WUI is not an issue for this example since the proposed treatment is not a fuels reduction project.) Example 4. Lodgepole Pine Salvage Scenario B Existing Condition: A mature lodgepole pine stand in lynx habitat has heavy mortality (> 90% mortality) from mountain pine beetle and pockets of dense regeneration are present (stand had been previously thinned). The stand is currently suitable lynx habitat due to the regeneration. The stand is proposed for salvage harvest while retaining a few scattered live trees. The stand is in a WUI. Desired Treatment (Prescription): The prescription is the same as the previous example, Scenario A. The stand is proposed for salvage harvest while retaining a few scattered live trees. The silvicultural prescription is a clearcut with reserve trees since USFS policy FSM requires a salvage prescription only be used for intermediate harvests (no regeneration required). A regeneration harvest prescription is required if the cutting will begin the regeneration process. Applicability to SRLA: The salvage treatment does contribute to the amount of unsuitable habitat in the LAU (tracked under VEG S1), since the stand is suitable and because regeneration harvest will occur. The salvage harvest also contributes to the 15 percent threshold in the VEG S2. However, the VEG S6 standard is not applicable because the stand is not a multi-storied mature or late successional conifer forest (due to the dead overstory). The harvest does not require the use of an exemption or an exception and, therefore, does not contribute to the 4.5 percent cap. (Note that if the stand was multi-storied, then project would require the use of Exception 3 in VEG S6 and the winter snowshoe hare habitat that is impacted would be tracked towards the 0.5% cap per Forest. If a stand initiation structural stage is created, those acres should also count towards VEG S1 and S2.) (Note that WUI is not an issue for this example since the proposed treatment is not a fuels reduction project.) Example 5: Spruce Salvage Scenario Existing Condition: A late successional spruce-fir stand in lynx habitat has heavy mortality in the large spruce trees from spruce beetle. There is a well developed understory with 40 acres of the proposed 60-acre unit considered dense horizontal cover, based on pre-harvest monitoring. The stand currently provides quality lynx habitat. 28

117 SRLA Implementation Guide: Vegetation Management Desired Treatment (Prescription): The silvicultural prescription is to salvage harvest most of the dead large spruce trees. The stand will remain stocked and there will be no regeneration harvest. The pre-harvest estimate is that 20 percent of the winter snowshoe hare habitat (i.e., dense horizontal cover) (or 8 acres) will likely be damaged and considered incidental removal during the salvage harvest. Applicability to SRLA: The salvage would not contribute to the unsuitable habitat (VEG S1 standard) in the LAU since there will be no regeneration harvest. The salvage harvest also does not contribute to the 15 percent threshold in the VEG S2 standard. Exception 3 in VEG S6 applies since the stand is mature multi-storied and the proposed treatment is salvage. Project design criteria need to be developed to reduce incidental removal associated with the salvage and should include, for example, retaining clumps with dense understory, retaining isolated spruce snags, designated skid trails, etc. The option of winter logging should also be considered. Post-harvest implementation determines that incidental damage of lynx habitat affected only 15% of the winter snowshoe hare habitat, rather than 20%, and the acres of lynx habitat contributing to the exceptions are revised from 8 acres to 6 acres. (Note that WUI is not an issue for this example since the proposed treatment is not a fuels reduction project.) Example 6: Uneven-aged Treatment in Spruce-Fir Stand Existing Condition: A late successional spruce-fir stand in lynx habitat has a well developed understory, with 40 acres of the proposed 60-acre unit considered winter snowshoe hare habitat (i.e., dense horizontal cover) based on pre-harvest monitoring. The stand currently provides quality lynx habitat. Desired Treatment (Prescription): The silvicultural prescription is for uneven-aged management in the form of group selection (i.e., small patch cuts) and individual tree salvage harvest. Uneven-aged treatments typically create patch cuts in 20% of the stand, so the project will create 8 acres of currently unsuitable habitat in the form of small forest openings. Additionally, the pre-harvest estimate is that 10 percent of the dense horizontal cover (or 4 acres) will likely be damaged and is considered incidental removal during the uneven-aged treatment due to skid trails, temporary roads, and landings. Applicability to SRLA: The group selection would contribute to unsuitable habitat (VEG S1 and S2 standards) in the LAU since there will be regeneration harvests in the small patch cuts. Exception 4 in VEG S6 also applies to the project, but acres treated under this exception are not restricted by the 0.5 % cap. Project design criteria need to be developed to reduce incidental removal associated with the uneven-aged treatment and should include, for example, retaining clumps with dense understory, retaining isolated spruce snags, designated skid trails, etc. The option of winter logging should also be considered. Post-harvest implementation monitoring confirms that 10% of lynx habitat is impacted by incidental damage from skid trails, etc. The area contributing to the exceptions remains as estimated at 4 acres. (Note that WUI is not an issue for this example since the proposed treatment is not a fuels reduction project.) 29

118 SRLA Implementation Guide: Grazing and Human Uses Livestock Grazing Management Human Uses Management This section of the Guide is organized into two parts: 1) SRLA direction for grazing management, 2) Grazing Questions and Answers, 3) SRLA direction for human use projects, and 4) Human Uses Questions and Answers. Also attached to this section is a copy of the June 10, 2009, Forest Service letter clarifying SRLA management direction related to ski areas. Part 1. SRLA Direction for Grazing Management LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT (GRAZ): The following objectives and guidelines apply to grazing projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat. They do not apply to linkage areas. Objective GRAZ O1 Manage livestock grazing to be compatible with improving or maintaining lynx habitat. Guideline GRAZ G1 In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating. Guideline GRAZ G2 In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of aspen. Guideline GRAZ G3 In riparian areas and willow carrs, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Guideline GRAZ G4 In shrub-steppe habitats, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

119 SRLA Implementation Guide: Grazing and Human Uses Part 2. Questions and Answers on Grazing Management 1. GRAZ G1: In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating. How do we measure and differentiate impacts from wildlife (e.g., elk, moose) from livestock? Answer: The Biological Opinion and Record of Decision do not include specific direction for how to implement this guideline. That is left to the local expertise on the Forest and should be coordinated between the biology and range staffs. Field monitoring of timing and intensity of browsing and wildlife and/or livestock sign are recommended. If in doubt, exclosures may be used to reduce grazing pressure, regardless of source. It is important to keep in mind that SRLA direction is focused on management and outcomes we have influence over, while factoring cumulative grazer impacts locally in the grazing management strategies. For areas affected by fire and tree harvest activities, the point is to ensure that managers are assessing the timing, duration, and season of use (utilization) by livestock in ways that the local grazing pressure we have control over is managed in actual or potential lynx habitat to promote, rather than further detract from, timely vegetation and habitat recovery. 2. GRAZ G1: Do we have to manage for shrub and tree regeneration when fire and harvest activities are used to retain openings being encroached upon by shrubs and trees (e.g., desired/natural conditions are openings but fire exclusion, etc. has resulted in woody species encroachment)? Answer: The intent of the guideline is to allow for woody species recovery within lynx habitat in areas where such species were set back or removed by wildfire or timber harvest. If the desired or natural condition of these areas is as openings, woody species recovery may not be appropriate and other management objectives would prevail. 3. GRAZ G2: In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of aspen. Clarify/quantify what this means. Answer: The intent of this guideline is founded in some of the original guidance in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (page 2-13). Aspen provides important winter habitat where it occurs as a seral species in subalpine forests, and where it occurs as a climax species in proximity to conifer forest. Young, densely regenerating aspen stands with a well-developed understory provide summer habitat for hares and other alternate prey types. Livestock grazing can be a factor in the decline or loss of aspen when heavy browsing retards growth of young stems. Most, if not all, Forest Plans provide management standards and/or guidelines that establish livestock utilization objectives for woody browse to accomplish the same long-term health and sustainability objectives. Allotment Management Plans provide additional guidance for desired conditions. 2

120 SRLA Implementation Guide: Grazing and Human Uses 4. GRAZ G3: In riparian areas and willow carrs, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Define and clarify these concepts. Answer: The Record of Decision Glossary (ROD Attachment 1-12; see Section 1 of this Guide) defines mid-seral or later successional stage for riparian areas as areas where willows or other shrubs have become established. The intent of this guideline can be found in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (page 2-13 and 14; available on the Binder CD). Because woody riparian habitats often serve as connections between patches of prime lynx habitat within a home range, and provide summer and fall hare habitat within high elevation forested matrices, managing riparian systems for the woody species/shrub stage maintains summer lynx habitat and habitat connectivity and helps address recovery objectives like those discussed on page 28 of the SRLA ROD. 5. GRAZ G4: In shrub-steppe habitats, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Is this already stated in the ARP Forest Plan? Answer: The SRLA decision and management direction supersedes previous management direction in all Forest Plans of the Southern Rockies National Forests, except where existing Forest Plan direction is likely more beneficial to lynx conservation than the SRLA on the management issue. In the situation, the Forest Plan direction prevails. Use of Herbicides 6. In the ROD, page 30 invasive species are addressed. However, I didn t see any direction addressing the use or effects of herbicides on lynx habitat. In the recent PEIS Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States (USDI 2007), several herbicides were restricted within lynx habitat (e.g. 2,4-D). Is BLM direction compatible with FS direction? Answer: The ROD addresses invasive species only in the context of Findings Required by other Laws, Regulation and Policies under Invasive Species Executive Order No herbicides are restricted by the SRLA; however several VEG objectives, standards and guidelines may apply to a herbicide use project, if the proposed project will reduce dense horizontal snowshoe hare cover by reducing shrub and herbaceous species. The pre-screened activities in the Colorado lynx screens also provide some guidance for assessment of noxious weed treatments relative to lynx habitat effects: biological control and roadside treatments are considered No Effect ; remote treatments are Outside the Blanket Concurrence and require individual concurrence/consultation of predicted effects with FWS. BLM direction, at this time, appears more restrictive, but not inconsistent with, SRLA direction. However, it is possible that Forest Service herbicide project analyses could lead to site-specific 3

121 SRLA Implementation Guide: Grazing and Human Uses herbicide restrictions in lynx habitat. This should be determined based on the sitespecific analyses that precede proposed activities. Part 3. SRLA Direction for Human Use Projects HUMAN USE PROJECTS (HU): The following objectives and guidelines apply to human use projects, such as special uses (other than grazing), recreation management, roads, highways, and mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly. They do not apply to linkage areas. Objective HU O1 Maintain the lynx s natural competitive advantage over other predators in deep snow, by discouraging the expansion of snow-compacting activities in lynx habitat. Objective HU O2 Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity. Objective HU O3 Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat. Objective HU O4 Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing new or expanding existing developed recreation sites or ski areas. Objective HU O5 Manage human activities, such as special uses, mineral and oil and gas exploration and development, and placement of utility transmission corridors, to reduce impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. Objective HU O6 Reduce adverse highway effects on lynx by working cooperatively with other agencies to provide for lynx movement and habitat connectivity, and to reduce the potential for lynx mortality. Guideline HU G1 When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris4, so winter snowshoe hare habitat is maintained. Guideline HU G2 When developing or expanding ski areas, lynx foraging habitat should be provided consistent with the ski area s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes. Guideline HU G3 Recreation development and recreational operational uses should be planned to provide for 4

122 SRLA Implementation Guide: Grazing and Human Uses lynx movement and to maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat. Guideline HU G4 Remote monitoring of mineral and energy development sites and facilities should be encouraged to reduce snow compaction. Guideline HU G5 A reclamation plan should be developed (e.g., road reclamation and vegetation rehabilitation) for closed mineral and energy development sites and facilities that promote the restoration of lynx habitat. Guideline HU G6 Methods to avoid or reduce effects to lynx habitat connectivity should be used when upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, where the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or contribute to development or increases in human activity. Guideline HU G7 New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers. Guideline HU G8 Cutting brush along low-speed, low-traffic-volume roads should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety. Guideline HU G9 If project level analysis determines that new roads adversely affect lynx, then public motorized use should be restricted. Upon project completion, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives. Guideline HU G10 Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings, or to access regulated by Guideline HU G12. Use the same analysis boundaries for all actions subject to this guideline. Guideline HU G11 When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, consider locating access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security habitat. Guideline HU G12 Winter access for non-recreation special uses and mineral and energy exploration and development should be limited to designated routes or designated over-the-snow routes. 5

123 SRLA Implementation Guide: Grazing and Human Uses Part 4. Questions and Answers for Human Use Projects HU Ski Areas 7. How will this SRLA impact ski areas wanting to expand outside their permit boundary with additional ski lifts, trails, roads, snowmaking, snowgrooming, brush cutting, etc.? Answer: Human Use Objective HU O3 directs that activities should be concentrated in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat. In the context of ski areas, HU O3 refers to development of new ski areas, rather than additional developments within the current permit boundary or Forest Plan allocation associated with existing ski areas. This objective is not intended to prohibit ski area expansions within the existing permitted ski area boundary or Forest Plan allocation (which may be different), recognizing that further developments remain subject to sitespecific planning and analysis. HU O3 also does not preclude the amendment or revision of Forest Plan management area allocations or changes to ski area permit boundaries. When amending, revising or changing management area allocations or permit boundaries, this objective must be taken into consideration. For further details, refer also in this section of the Guide to the June 10, 2009, memo from the Region 2 Deputy Regional Forester to the SRLA Forests clarifying SRLA management direction relative to ski areas. 8. HU G1: Define/quantify adequately sized inter-trail islands. Answer: There is no clear size of inter-trail islands. Biologist should focus on the function of the inter-trail islands by evaluating within the local context of habitat present and human use impacts locally. The intent of the guideline is to maintain intertrail islands that provide a visual and auditory buffer for lynx during the daytime. 9. Do the SRLA vegetation management standards apply to ski areas? Answer: In general, the SRLA vegetation management standards do not apply to permanent developments and removal of vegetation associated with ski areas, such as ski runs and associated infrastructure. Permanent losses of vegetation and habitat are not governed by the SRLA VEG standards and guidelines, which are focused on vegetation regenerating projects. Vegetation management practices and activities in ski areas are governed primarily by the habitat connectivity requirements of the SRLA decision (ALL O1 and ALL S1). Project design features and mitigation, such as providing inter-trail islands and lynx security habitat, should be incorporated into project decisions as needed to be consistent with the SRLA. With the ongoing beetle outbreak, the ski areas may increasingly propose salvage activities within the permit boundaries in order to remove dead and dying trees. Salvage is a vegetation management project and could be governed by the vegetation management standards of the SRLA. This has yet to be explored further given the lack of any substantial proposals so far. 6

124 SRLA Implementation Guide: Grazing and Human Uses 10. Is a ski run considered a recreation site or special use permit improvement allowing treatment within 200 feet? Answer: The 200 feet refers to an exception for thinning around structures that applies only to vegetation management standards. The vegetation standards largely do not apply to ski runs. See also Question # Can we have LAA determinations outside of listed exemptions/exceptions? Example: Large ski area expansion inconsistent with HU guidelines or simply a desire to harvest winter foraging habitat beyond S6 allowances. ) Answer: Yes, we can have May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect determinations outside exemptions and exemptions. The Forest Service can do a harvest beyond VEG S6 allowances but would need to do a site-specific Forest Plan amendment and section 7 consultation. HU 05 (Oil and Gas) 12. Question: What guidance is there for oil and gas activities in lynx habitat? Answer: HU G4, G5 and G12 address oil and gas activities in lynx habitat. The road guidelines, HU G6 and G7, would also be relevant. Possibly others depending on the site-specific nature of the proposed activities, but those are the main ones. HU G9 13. Can we have LAA determinations outside of listed exemptions/exceptions? Example: If project level analysis determines that new roads adversely affect lynx, then public motorized use should be restricted. Upon project completion, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives. Could the Forest decide to leave roads open for public use? Answer: The ROD (page 29; Implementation Guide: Section 1) states that further consultation will occur on future site-specific projects and activities if they may affect lynx. Future consultations will reference back to the Biological Opinion issued on this decision to ensure the effects of the specific projects are within the effects anticipated in the Biological Opinion. However, the Biological Opinion goes on to say that the effects analysis assumes guidelines will be followed unless such compelling reasons exist (page 42). Finally, the Biological Opinion (page 55) states that the SRLA may allow for some new project-specific roads to receive motorized use if the Forest Service determines that the impacts to lynx will be insignificant and discountable. The incidental take statement in the Biological Opinion covers effects resulting from the exemptions and exceptions for vegetation management only. If, in the above example, HU G9 is not followed (and the compelling reason is documented), formal consultation resulting in a new Biological Opinion and new incidental take statement would be necessary. 7

125 SRLA Implementation Guide: Grazing and Human Uses HU G Can the Forests make changes to the snow compaction base maps if there were snow routes that were accidently excluded? If so, what it the process? Answer: Yes, if the forest can document that the routes were open and being regularly used (at least once per week) in 2000, which is the baseline year. 15. How do we address outfitting and guide proposals that want to ski, snowshoe, snowmobile off existing trails or roads? Answer: If they are proposals that use existing snow compaction baseline routes it is allowable with no extra effort. If they are proposing a new snow compaction, then some consolidation of routes or other route closures should be considered. 16. Is snow compaction based on individual LAUs or a combination of LAUs? How do we track/update the compaction baseline? Answer: Guideline HU G10 as described in the ROD says that Designated over-thesnow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. The Forest needs to track those LAUs that are combined for snow compaction purposes. 17. Do the exceptions for HU G10 (no net increase in snow compaction) include ANILCA and non-anilca cases? Answer: The exception for accessing private inholdings would apply to any access for private inholdings, both ANILCA and non-anilca. 18. What is the intent of the exception for rerouting trails for public safety: Swap trails of similar length? Rerouting versus adding trails? Answer: This direction refers to the approach that best resolves the safety issue while also minimizing net increase of established compacted routes. Whether that involves rerouting or swapping trails should be based on a site-specific analysis and guided by this SRLA management objective. 8

126 Forest Service Rocky Mountain Regional Office 740 Simms Street Golden, CO Voice: TDD: File Code: /1920-2/2670 Date: June 10, 2009 Route To: Subject: To: Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment - Clarification Forest Supervisors In November 2008, the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision amended seven Land and Resource Management Plans (forest plans) in Colorado and southern Wyoming. This amendment provides the management direction for lynx conservation while preserving multiple-use direction in existing forest plans. It is essential this management direction is interpreted and applied consistently across the Southern Rocky Mountains. In their July 25, 2008 Biological Opinion (later replaced by the Sept. 7, 2008 Biological Opinion that was issued in response to our revised Biological Assessment), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that the two agencies jointly develop an Implementation Guide to provide additional information and guidance to assure consistent implementation of the decision. In the Record of Decision (page 19), I acknowledged this recommendation and agreed to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an Implementation Guide. Accordingly, an interagency team was formed in January of 2009, and has been working together to produce an Implementation Guide. In their appeal of the Record of Decision, several questions seeking clarification were raised by Colorado Ski Country U.S.A. This memo is intended to clarify how certain objectives, standards and guidelines should be interpreted and applied to ski areas. Specifically, I am clarifying one aspect of Objective ALL O1 and Standard ALL S1; the relationship between Human Use Objectives and Guidelines; and the interpretation of Human Use Objective HU O3. This memo will also be incorporated into the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment Implementation Guide. Application of ALL O1 and ALL S1 with Respect to Tree Removal. ALL O1. Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, and in linkage areas. ALL S1. New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation management practices and activities must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area. The intention of Objective ALL O1 and Standard ALL S1 is not to prohibit all tree removal within existing permitted ski area boundaries. Rather it is intended that project design features or mitigation, such as providing inter-trail islands and lynx security habitat, should be incorporated into project decisions as needed to meet this objective and standard. It s Cool to Be Safe Printed on Recycled Paper

127 Forest Supervisors 2 Relationship between Human Use Objectives and Guidelines, as Applicable to Ski Areas. HU O1. Maintain the lynx s natural competitive advantage over other predators in deep-snow by discouraging the expansion of snow compaction activities in lynx habitat. HU O2. Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity. HU O3. Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat. HU O4. Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing or expanding developed recreation sites or ski areas. HU G1. When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris, so winter snowshoe hare habitat is maintained. HU G2. When developing or expanding ski areas, lynx foraging habitat should be provided consistent with the ski area s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes. HU G3. Recreational development and recreational operational uses should be planned to provide for lynx movement and to maintain effectiveness of lynx habitat. HU G10 Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings or to access regulated by Guideline HU G12. Use the same analysis boundaries for all actions subject to this guideline. HU G11 When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, consider locating access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security habitat. As you know, Forest Service objectives are not constraints on project or activity decisionmaking, rather they are intended outcomes and are aspirational in nature. Guidelines provide information and guidance for project and activity decisionmaking to help achieve objectives. Please note that definitions for objectives, standards and guidelines are included in the Glossary contained in the Record of Decision (Attachment 1, pages 10-15). In the context of developed ski areas, it is intended that HU O1, HU O2, HU O3 and HU O4 could generally be achieved over time if ski area projects are designed in accordance with HU G1, HU G2, HU G3, and HU G11. HU G10 specifically does not apply inside the ski area permit boundary. The guidelines will assist with site-specific planning and design. Interpretation of Human Use Objective HU O3. HU O3. Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas in lynx habitat. Human Use Objective HU O3 refers to developing new areas. In this context, new areas refers to development of new ski areas, rather than additional developments within the permit boundary or Forest Plan allocation for skiing. This objective is not intended to prohibit ski area expansions within the existing permitted ski area boundary or Forest Plan allocation, recognizing that further developments are subject to site-specific planning and analysis.

128 Forest Supervisors 3 Human Use Objective HU O3 does not preclude the amendment or revision of forest plan management area allocations or changes to ski area permit boundaries. When amending, revising or changing management area allocations or ski area permit boundaries, this objective must be taken into consideration. Implementation of Guidelines Finally, it is important to recognize that under the October 28, 2008 Record of Decision, standards were established for habitat connectivity and for certain vegetation management activities, which have the potential to impact lynx at the population level. For other activities, including ski area operations and development, guidelines were established, rather than standards, with the intention to minimize effects on individual lynx while allowing greater flexibility at the project level. While guidelines provide greater flexibility, it is expected that ordinarily they will be followed. Where the guidelines are not followed, the rationale must be documented, and summarized in the annual report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If you have any further questions about these clarifications, please contact Nancy Warren at or Peter McDonald at Thank you in advance for your efforts to assure consistent implementation of the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. /s/ Maribeth Gustafson (for) ANTOINE L. DIXON Deputy Regional Forester, Resources cc: Melanie Mills Ezekiel J. Williams (zwilliams@duckerlaw.com) Nancy Warren Stephen Sherwood Kenneth K Tu

129 SRLA Implementation Guide: Linkages and Connectivity LINKAGE AREAS AND HABITAT CONNECTIVITY The section of the Guide is organized into three parts: 1) SRLA Guidance on Linkage areas, 2) Discussion and Clarification for Linkage Areas, and 3) Questions and Answers for Linkage Areas. [NOTE: The June 9, 2009, clarification letter to the Southern Rockies National Forests concerning SRLA direction relative to ski areas, including application of ALL O1 and ALL S1 and several SRLA Human Use objectives and guidelines, is housed in Section 4 of this Implementation Guide.] Part 1. SRLA Guidance on Linkage Areas ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL). The following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to all management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat and in linkage areas, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to wildland fire use. Objective ALL O1 Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, and in linkage areas. Standard ALL S1 New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation management projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area. Guideline ALL G1 Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or reconstructing highways or forest highways across federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses. Standard LAU S1 Changes in LAU boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat information and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office.

130 SRLA Implementation Guide: Linkages and Connectivity LINKAGE AREAS (LINK): The following objective, standard, and guidelines apply to all projects within linkage areas in occupied habitat, subject to valid existing rights. Objective LINK O1 In areas of intermingled land ownership, work with landowners to pursue conservation easements, habitat conservation plans, land exchanges, or other solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. Standard LINK S1 When highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction is proposed in linkage areas, identify potential highway crossings. Guideline LINK G1 National Forest System lands should be retained in public ownership. Guideline LINK G2 Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Additional SRLA management direction is also provided in the following objectives, standards, and guidelines: Recreation Projects HU O2: Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity HU O4: Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing new or expanded existing developed recreation sites or ski areas HU G3: Recreation development and recreational operational uses should be planned to provide for lynx movement and to maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat HU G7: New permanent roads should not be built on ridge tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers. Forest Roads and Highway Projects HU G7: New permanent roads should not be built on ridge tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers 2

131 SRLA Implementation Guide: Linkages and Connectivity Part 2. Discussion and Clarification for Linkage Areas and Habitat Connectivity The intent of the SRLA guidance to maintain habitat connectivity is to maintain suitable lynx habitat across a Landscape Analysis Unit (LAU) and between LAUs. The SRLA does not provide a specified measure or amount to quantify adequate habitat connectivity. Biologist should use baseline information, any connected actions, and effects of the proposed action to determine if the proposed project would impede lynx movement within an LAU or between LAUs. To ensure consistency with ALL S1, biologists should consider incorporating additional relevant Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines. ALL S1 is related to several other in the SRLA decision: ALL G1, LINK O1, LINK S1, LINK G1, LINK G2, HU O2, HU O4, HU O6, HU G3, HU G6, and HU G7. Forest Vegetation Management/Condition and Habitat Connectivity Refer to the relevant definitions in the ROD Glossary (Attachment 1) and especially the following definitions (pages 1-11 and 1-12): Lynx habitat connectivity: Cover (vegetation) should occur in sufficient quantity and arrangement to allow for the movement of lynx. Narrow forested mountain ridges or shrubsteppe plateaus may serve as a link between more extensive areas of lynx habitat; wooded riparian communities may provide cover across open valley floors. Linkage area: Provides landscape connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat. Linkage areas occur both within and between geographic areas, where blocks of lynx habitat are separated by intervening areas of non-lynx habitat such as basins, valleys, or agricultural lands, or where lynx habitat naturally narrows between blocks. To correctly interpret and apply ALL S1, local habitat conditions and context as well as the type of lynx movement to be provided must first be identified. The characteristics of lynx daily, within-home range movements differ significantly from long-distance dispersal movements. Movements of >100km (60 mi) are thought to represent long-distance dispersals. Dispersing lynx have been documented to travel up to 1,100 km (660 mi). Dispersal is most commonly observed in the spring by juveniles, and in the taiga, during the winter-spring period in low years of the snowshoe hare cycle (Mowat et al. 2000). In southern boreal forests, lynx have been documented making exploratory movements of 20-30km during the summer months (Aubry et al. 2000; Squires et al. 2000). Dispersing lynx do not restrict their movements to forest cover and have been documented to crossing large areas of grassland, desert, agricultural lands, large rivers and lakes, and other unsuitable habitats. Anecdotal evidence indicates that lynx making exploratory movements may utilize forest cover when available (Squires et al. 2000). In contrast, lynx moving within their home ranges are generally searching for food, and are strongly associated with forest cover (Brand et al. 1976). Preliminary winter habitat-use data from Colorado (Shenk 2006) indicate that percent canopy cover of overstory trees used by lynx for long beds, kill sites, travel, and den sites exceeded 40%. In Montana, Squires et al. (2006) indicated that lynx preferentially foraged in large-diameter spruce-fir forests with 3

132 SRLA Implementation Guide: Linkages and Connectivity high horizontal cover, and tended to avoid sparse, open forests in winter. Squires and his collaborators found seasonal differences in habitat use, with lynx expanding their summer habitat use to include younger, more open forests with a dense deciduous and shrub component that provided summer foraging habitat and maintained adequate concealment cover. This deciduous component associated with the Northern Rockies forests in summer is unlikely in the Southern Rockies forests (Squires pers. comm. with Kurt Broderdorp, May 2009), suggesting the seasonal changes and expansion in habitat use is also unlikely in the forests here. The Southern Rockies National Forests in planning vegetation management and tree-cutting projects, or otherwise attempting to understand changes in Forest cover relative to connectivity, should evaluate whether reduction of forest canopy cover below approximately 40% will continue to provide for lynx movement and represent functional habitat. Connectivity of Habitats: Connectivity of habitats should be managed both within and between LAUs. 1. Within a LAU, maintain suitable lynx habitat within an LAU. (Winter foraging habitat and Summer foraging habitat) Winter Foraging Habitat: Winter is a limiting season for lynx as well as other wildlife species. Winter foraging areas are those that have the structural characteristics that provide cover and food for snowshoe hares in the deep snow conditions of winter (USFWS 2008). These areas also provide yearlong habitat for hares. The following list describes winter foraging habitat characteristics found in the Southern Rockies: Mature multi-story Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir stands that support snowshoe hare Lodgepole pine mix stands that support snowshoe hare Snow should not be compacted by human activities. Summer Foraging Habitat: In the summer months snowshoe hares shift their diet to a higher proportion of grasses, forbs, and herbaceous portions (new growth) of shrubby species that are not available in winter. As a result, additional areas may be occupied in the summer. The following list describes summer foraging habitat characteristics found in the Southern Rockies: Riparian areas Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir stands that support snowshoe hare Regenerating lodgepole pine stands Lodgepole pine mix stands that support snowshoe hare 2. Between LAUs, maintain suitable habitat connectivity between LAUs and through designated linkage areas or other areas containing important habitat connectivity. Federal agencies consider the following cumulative effects of private land development and expansion of recreational facilities in and adjacent to lynx habitat that may reduce the ability of lynx to move throughout their home range or interact with other individuals in the larger subpopulation (Ruediger et al. 2000). 4

133 SRLA Implementation Guide: Linkages and Connectivity Maintain habitat connectivity within linkage areas Design projects to allow for movement through a linkage area (i.e. wildlife bridges) Identify and maintain public land areas that could provide important connectivity points, particularly in areas with adjacent private land development Additional impacts to movement corridors may include the following: Winter dispersed and developed recreation Oil and gas developments Highway development and expansion Land exchanges Part 3. Questions and Answers for Linkage Areas and Habitat Connectivity 1. Will lynx linkage areas be managed using the same standards as lynx habitat? Answer: In Linkage areas that are not in LAUs, only LINK objectives, standards, and guidelines apply. In linkage areas that are in LAUs, all direction applies. 5

134 From the 10/28/08 SRLA ROD, Attachment 1-9: Required Monitoring 2 When fuels treatment and vegetation management project decisions are signed, report the following: a) Acres of fuel treatment in lynx habitat by Forest and LAU, and whether the treatment is within or outside the WUI as defined by HFRA. b) Whether or not the fuel treatment met the vegetation standards or guidelines. If standard(s) were not met, report which standard(s) was not met, why it could not be met, and how many acres were affected. c) Application of exceptions in Standard VEG S5: For areas where any of the exceptions 1 through 5 listed in Standard VEG S5 were applied, report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, and LAU) and whether or not Standard VEG S1 was within the allowance. d) Application of exceptions in Standard VEG S6: For areas where any of the exceptions 1 through 4 listed in Standard VEG S6 were applied, report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, and LAU) and whether or not Standard VEG S1 was within the allowance. e) Total acres of lynx habitat treated under exemptions and exceptions to vegetation standards, to assure the 4.5 percent limit is not exceeded on any Forest over the life of the amendment (15 years). 3 Application of guidelines: a) Summarize what guideline(s) was not followed and why. b) Document the rationale for deviations to guidelines.

135 WUI Fuels Treatments and Use of Management Exemptions {Name} NF - {Date} {3% cap = XXXX total acres 4 ] Project Name Decision Date General Project Location (RD, drainage, etc.)1 LAU Name/No. Acres of Lynx Habitat Treated in WUI per LAU Acres of Lynx Habitat Treated in WUI Where Exemptions to VEG Standard(s) Were Applied2 Which VEG Standard(s) Were Exempted? (VEG S1, S2, S5 or S6)3 Total Acres of Lynx Habitat Treated by Exemptions (Up to 3% of Lynx Habitat per Forest) (Cumulative Total per Forest) Rationale for Applying Exemptions to Standards Do Any 3 Adjacent LAUs Exceed Standard VEG S1? i.e. CWPP exists, Other USFS WUI fuels treatment, NA 1 Add more detail via cell comment as needed 2 Fuels projects in the WUI that do not meet VEG S1, S2, S5, or S6 standards are allowable, except they shall be limited to affecting no more than 3% of the Forest's lynx habitat over the life of the Amendment (15yrs) 3 See SRLA ROD, Attachment 2 for a description of exceptions under each VEG standard 4 The 3% per Forest in the SRLA decision was based on the one-mile WUI defined in HFRA

136 Project Name Decision Date Exceptions to Lynx Habitat Management Standards {Name} NF - {Date} General Project Location (RD, drainage, etc.) LAU Name/No. * = Combination of Exceptions 1-4 under VEG S5 and Exceptions 1-3 under VEG S6. Which Exceptions Were Used? Acres of Treatments under Exceptions 1-4 in VEG S5 Acres of Treatments under Exceptions 1-3 in VEG S6 Combined Exceptions Under VEG S5 and VEG S6 (Up to 0.5% of Lynx Habitat per Forest)* (Add 2 previous columns) Acres of Treatments under Exception 5 in VEG S5 (Up to 1% of Lynx Habitat per Forest)

137 Rationale for Guidelines* Not Followed {Name} NF - {Date} Project Name Decision Date Guideline Number** Rationale For Not Following Guideline While Still Meeting Objectives of the SRLA * A guideline is a particular management action that should be used to meet an objective found in a land management plan. The rationale for deviations may be documented, but amending the plan is not required. ** See Attachment 1 of the SRLA decision for a summary of Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines.

138 {Name} NF Summary of Exemptions and Exceptions to Lynx Habitat Management Standards Mo./day/year through Mo./day/year Fuel Treatment Exemptions in Lynx Habitat Acres of Lynx Habitat Acres of Lynx Treated Habitat Treated Outside WUI Acres of Lynx Habitat Treated Inside WUI Acres of Lynx Habitat Treated in WUI Where Exceptions to Standard(s) are Applied Forest Allocation per Incidental Take Statement Current Forest balance (acres) VEG S5 and S6 Exceptions in Lynx Habitat Acres Treated Forest acreage allocation per Incidental Take Statement Current Forest balance (acres)

139 Project Name Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment 1 Ranger District, National Forest/Grassland Version May 2009 Prepared by: NAME Title Date Reviewed by: NAME Title Date Submitted to: NAME Title 2 1 Meets the standards for both a Biological Evaluation (FSM ) and Biological Assessment (50 CFR (f)). 2 Usually the Line Officer.

140

141 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to present the analysis and determination of effects of the alternatives on federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and proposed) and Forest Service sensitive species (FSM ). This biological evaluation report (BE) conforms to legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C (c), 50 CFR (f) and ). Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a) (2) requires that federal agencies ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally-listed species, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Forest Service policy requires that a review of programs and activities, through an effects analysis document (referred to in current Forest Service policy as a biological evaluation or BE), be conducted to determine their potential effect on threatened and endangered species, species proposed for listing, and Regional Forester-designated sensitive species (FSM ). Under the ESA, the effects analysis report is called a biological assessment (BA) and must be prepared for federal actions that are major construction activities to evaluate the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species and critical habitats. The contents of the BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the nature of the federal action (50 CFR (f)). A BE may be used to satisfy the ESA requirement to prepare a Biological Assessment. Preparation of a Biological Evaluation as part of the NEPA process ensures that TEPS species receive full consideration in the decision-making process. This document is also intended to display types of information specific to analyzing projects under the Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (SRLA). The aim is to help ensure that the appropriate information is used in the effects analysis and provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that leads to streamlined consultations on SRLA projects. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Briefly describe the purpose and need for the action proposed, the location, and the alternatives being considered, so that the reader quickly understands the scope and nature of the project. Include enough information about the proposed action and alternatives so that the Biological Evaluation can stand alone. Maps, photos and other illustrative materials are very helpful in building a clear understanding of the area and what actions are proposed. The action area is all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action, and not merely the immediate project area. Describe the project or action, including: What actions are being proposed; When the action will take place, including timeline or implementation schedules; How the action will be accomplished.

142 For the SRLA, be sure to address:»which objectives, standards and guidelines apply to the project»which exemptions and exceptions will be used and the number of acres that will likely count toward the Forest caps on habitat change.»how the project is consistent with SRLA guidance (either details in a narrative or provided in table form) and rationale for not following guidelines in design of the project»identify any applicant(s).»identify the action area, including: Current conditions, and relevant historical conditions; Existing developments and human uses; Current management emphasis. III. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED [Placeholder text that can be used as is: On [date], a list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species that may be present in the action area [was requested from] [was submitted to] the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Concurrence with the list of species was received on [date]. The following list includes threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and/or designated critical habitat that are located on the [name of Ranger District or National Forest/Grassland], or that are located adjacent to or downstream of the project and could potentially be affected. A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information included Forest Service records and files, the State Natural Heritage Program database, state wildlife agency information, and published research (citations). Candidate species have sufficient information on their biological status and threats to warrant a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened, but development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Species that are candidates for listing under the ESA are automatically placed on the Region 2 Regional Forester s sensitive species list. The analysis and determination of effects for candidate species are included as part of the biological evaluation for sensitive species (the next section of this document). No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. The following table documents the

143 rationale for excluding a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then additional survey is needed, or presence can be assumed and potential effects evaluated. ] Common Name Mexican spotted owl Least tern Scientific Name Strix occidentalis lucida Sterna antillarum Status Threatened Known/suspected to be present? Yes Endangered No No Suitable habitat present? Yes - winter Designated Critical Habitat present or could be affected? Yes Rationale if not carried forward for analysis Not known to occur in Larimer Co. Field visits on [date] confirmed no suitable habitat is present. IV. CONSULTATION TO DATE Summarize meetings, site visits, and correspondence that were important to the informal and/or formal consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If no consultation has been conducted, state this fact. Previously completed consultation on the Forest Plan or other programmatic plans may be germane to project analyses and can be documented. For the SRLA:» Mention if the project represents a tiered consultation from that conducted under the SRLA decision. V. SPECIES INFORMATION Species Common Name Scientific Name Briefly summarize current distribution, status, and trend in relation to recovery goals. For the Canada lynx:» It should be sufficient to acknowledge that all lynx habitat for the National Forests in the Southern Rockies is identified as occupied in the SRLA decision. (FWS will likely be more interested in status and condition of habitats and especially snowshoe hare habitat within the LAU(s) where the project occurs.) Describe occurrence of the species in the project area (season(s) of occurrence, etc.), habitat use, and results of any field surveys or inventories. If habitat exists for the species in the project area but field surveys have not been conducted, assume the species is present and conduct further analysis of the project accordingly Briefly describe life history and habitat associations, focusing on aspects that relate to the impact of the action, such as sensitivity to noise, inundation, fire, effect on prey base, etc.

144 For the Canada lynx:» Tier to discussion in the Biological Opinion for the SRLA (accessed by USFS personnel on the Region 2 intranet at under Canada lynx)) and your description of the project proposal, including things like timing, duration and location of the component activities needed to implement the action. Identify threats/limiting factors, and relationships to management actions. Use the best available scientific information, with sources cited. Sources may include: Recovery Plans, R2 Species Assessments available at Conservation Strategies, published literature, other accepted guidelines for the species, personal communications with experts, etc. Critical Habitat Describe primary constituent elements of critical habitat those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, as identified in the FWS final rule designating the critical habitat. Identify how the management action may affect the primary constituent elements. For the SRLA, NO critical habitat has been designated for the Canada lynx. VI. EXISTING CONDITIONS Describe existing conditions in the action area, including the estimated amount and distribution of habitat, on federal and other ownerships. Summarize relevant goals, objectives, and desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. This is an important section, so give detailed attention and be thorough in painting a clear picture for your reader. Under the ESA, the environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all federal, state, and private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated effects of proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early Section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with this consultation (50 CFR ). For the SRLA, be sure to address:»existing condition in the LAU/s (acres of lynx habitat, types of lynx habitat present, condition of habitat, acres of lynx habitat in early seral stage, presence of horizontal cover). Include conditions relative to SRLA standards and guidelines to determine necessity for use of exemptions or exceptions (e.g. horizontal cover measurements down to the stand level, and within stand as necessary to meet conditions of exceptions). If information about horizontal cover is unavailable using methodology agreed to between the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service during informal consultation, assume that optimal conditions exist and proceed with your analysis accordingly.»the total acres of habitat affected by SRLA exceptions and exemptions to-date.

145 »Where WUI areas are and acres in project area Table. Environmental Baseline Statistics of lynx habitat in the XXX LAU. (Use individual table for each LAU) Habitat Description Acres Habitat in LAU Net Field Validation Results (acres) Updated Acres of Habitat in LAU Updated % of Lynx habitat in LAU Winter Foraging Denning Other Suitable (sum of above) Unsuitable/(Stand Initiation Structural Stage) Total Lynx Habitat Non-habitat This table is designed to display lynx habitat for individual LAUs and is part of the environmental baseline Table. Environmental Baseline PCT Treatments (acres) since 10/28/08 Treatment under Exception 5 of VEG S5 (1% of lynx habitat/forest) 1 Treatment under Exception 5 of VEG S5 (1% of lynx habitat/lau) 2 1 This column does not necessarily need to be reported at the project level. However, it will help to provide a cumulative total for yearly reporting. 2 This column requires project by project reporting because of the 1%/LAU limit on PCT. At first, this column will be reported as zero (0) because PCT has not been permitted up to this point. As PCT projects are completed, the percent of habitat treated with PCT within a LAU will be used to populate this column. You will need to provide additional columns if PCT is proposed for more than 1 LAU per project. VII. EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES [For each alternative, describe the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives on the species and its habitat, and their significance. Particularly focus the analysis on key threats or limiting factors for the species. Address the incorporation and effectiveness of design criteria intended to conserve listed species and their habitat.

146 Identify any incomplete or unavailable information, and how this uncertainty was accommodated or addressed. ESA regulations define the effects of the action to include: direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Under NEPA, cumulative impacts are the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. In contrast, under ESA the estimated effects of future federal activities are not included, because those future federal actions will be subject to their own Section 7 consultation at the appropriate time. If the BE is intended to fulfill both ESA and NEPA requirements, clearly distinguish the potential effects caused by future federal vs. non-federal actions, so that they can be properly separated for section 7 consultation purposes. Analysis of effects should address the incorporation and effectiveness of any design criteria. REMEMBER: The version of this report that goes to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should either present the analysis for one alternative only (proposed action), or clearly state the preferred alternative for which the Forest is initiating consultation. Section 7 consultation should not be initiated by the Forest Service until there is a well-developed proposal] For the SRLA, be sure to address:»the acres of lynx habitat that will be affected by the project and changes by LAU (use table below)»the acres of lynx habitat that will be converted to unsuitable (stand initiation structural stage / early seral stage) (add to table below)»the condition of lynx habitat and hare habitat after treatment»exemptions and exceptions that applied to the action and acres involved (use table)»species response and prey response to proposed change in habitat. It is not sufficient to merely state the impact (e.g. uneven age management of XXX acres). If a standard applies due to presence of dense horizontal cover, you need to state that snowshoe hare habitat has been reduced on XXX acres, followed by relating that habitat change to animal response. Connect the dots between vegetation/habitat changes and hares and lynx response.

147 Table. Statistics of lynx habitat change in the XXX LAU resulting from project. (Use individual table for each LAU) Habitat Description Acres Treated by Project Net Change LAU Statistics Updated Acres of Habitat in LAU Updated % of Lynx habitat in LAU Winter Foraging Denning Other Suitable (sum of above) Unsuitable//(Stand Initiation Structural Stage) Total Lynx Habitat Non-habitat This table is designed to report the changes to lynx habitat within the LAU as a result of your project. Table. Project Level Reporting of Exemptions and/or Exceptions at LAU scale (proposed action) LAU Name Acres of Treatment within WUIs under Exemptions to VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 Acres of Treatment under Exceptions 1-4 to VEG S5 and 1-3 to VEG S6 (specify which exception(s) used) Acres of Treatment under Exception 5 of VEG S5 (1% of lynx habitat/forest) Acres of Treatment under Exception 5 of VEG S5 (1% of lynx habitat/lau) Acres of Treatment under Exception 4 to VEG S6 (acres) 1 This table is designed to account for the acres treated for a project that require an exemption or exception to one of the standards. Most of the information reported in this table will be reported annually relative to Forest level caps as displayed in the BO. Filling in information related to VEG S6 requires a determination of how many acres will be treated where dense horizontal cover (DHC) is present (measured or assumed). If DHC is not measured, then DHC is assumed to be present and entire stand acreage must be included in table. This may require knowledge of dense horizontal cover at the stand level. Review and understand the standards and exceptions during project development to ensure consistency with SRLA. 1 There is no cap to worry about under exception 4. However, treatments using this exception will reduce hare habitat and may affect the overall ability of the LAU to support lynx. VIII. DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT AND RATIONALE [Under ESA, analysis of the effects of the action must consider direct and indirect effects of the action, together with other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that

148 action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. The environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early Section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR ). For each species, provide the reasoning for the determination, summarizing and drawing from the analysis of effects. There may be a mix of beneficial and adverse effects deriving from the various components and aspects of the proposal, which must be considered and balanced in reaching the final determination of effect.] [For federally-listed threatened and endangered species, the potential effects of the action on the species must be evaluated to determine whether formal consultation is necessary. State one of the following determinations of effect for the species:] No effect' when the action will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat. May affect, not likely to adversely affect' -- where effects are expected to be insignificant (unmeasurable, and would not reach the level of take) or discountable (extremely unlikely to occur). May affect, beneficial -- where effects are expected to be wholly positive without any adverse effects. ``May affect, likely to adversely affect'' -- where effects are expected to be adverse or detrimental.] [For designated critical habitat, the potential effects of the action on the species and designated critical habitat must be evaluated to determine whether formal consultation is necessary. State one of the following determinations of effect for the species, and for any critical habitat:] No effect' when the action will have no effect on the primary constituent elements of the critical habitat. May affect, not likely to adversely modify' -- where effects are expected to be insignificant, critical habitat would remain functional, and primary constituent elements would retain their ability to conserve the species. May affect, beneficial -- where effects are expected to be wholly positive without any adverse effects. ``May affect, likely to destroy or adversely modify'' -- where effects are expected to be adverse or detrimental, and the critical habitat would no longer function to provide its essential role in conserving the species.] [For species proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered, the potential effects of the action on the proposed species or proposed critical habitat must be evaluated to determine whether conferencing is needed, using the following wording:] No effect' -- where no effect is expected.

149 Not likely to jeopardize continued existence or adversely modify proposed critical habitat -- where effects are expected to be beneficial, insignificant (unmeasurable), or discountable (extremely unlikely to occur). Likely to jeopardize continued existence or adversely modify proposed critical habitat -- where effects are expected to reduce appreciably the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species or to impair the ability of critical habitat to support survival and recovery of the species. [Keep in mind that, if requested by the Federal agency and deemed appropriate by FWS, conferencing may be conducted in accordance with consultation procedures for listed species. An option is to conference at the May Affect level, rather than the Jeopardy level, to facilitate a smoother transition when/if the species is listed.] [Repeat rationale and determination of effect for each species] If desired, after presenting the above information for each TEP species and any critical habitat, a summary of the determinations of effect can be presented in a table (example below). Common Name Canada Lynx Scientific Name Lynx canadensis Determinations of Effects Status A1t 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Threatened No Effect NLAA NLAA LAA IX. SENSITIVE SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS [The following list includes sensitive species, or their habitats, that are located on the [name of Ranger District or National Forest/Grassland], or that are located adjacent to or downstream of the project and could potentially be affected. A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information included Forest Service records and files, the State Natural Heritage Program database, state wildlife agency information, and published research (citations). No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. The following table documents the rationale for excluding a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then potential effects are evaluated.]

150 Common Name Gunnison Sage-grouse Boreal Toad Scientific Name Centrocercus minimus Sterna antillarum Status Sensitive, Candidate Sensitive, Candidate Known/suspected to be present? Yes No Suitable habitat present? Yes - winter No Rationale if not carried forward for analysis Not known to occur in this area. Field visits on [date] confirmed no suitable habitat is present. X. SENSITIVE SPECIES INFORMATION [Species Name Briefly summarize current distribution, status and trend of the population. Scientific Name Describe occurrence in the project area of the species and its habitat (season(s) of occurrence, etc.), and results of any field surveys or inventories. Describe relevant habitat associations and life history traits. Avoid exhaustive life history descriptions. Address (briefly) habitats and components that may be used by the species within the project area. Identify threats/limiting factors and describe actions that may be detrimental. Identify any incomplete or unavailable information.] XI. EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES Existing Conditions [Describe existing conditions in the project and cumulative effects analysis areas, including the estimated amount and distribution of habitat on federal and other ownerships. Summarize relevant goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan.] Direct and Indirect Effects [For each alternative, describe the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives on the species and its habitat, and their significance. Under NEPA, direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable (50 CFR ). The National Forest Management Act requires that Forest Plans provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities. Under the 1982 NFMA regulations, a viable population : the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area (36 CFR ). The planning area is the area of the National Forest System covered by the forest plan (36 CFR 219.3). Under the 2005 NFMA regulations, there is no viability requirement, but a project must be consistent with the LRMP.]

151 Cumulative Effects [Under NEPA, Cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (50 CFR ).] Determination of Effect and Rationale [For species listed as sensitive species by the Regional Forester, briefly provide the reasoning for the determination, summarizing and drawing from the analysis of effects. State one of the following determinations of effect for the species: No impact' -- where no effect is expected. Beneficial impact' -- where effects are expected to be beneficial, and no negative effects are expected to occur. May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing -- where effects in the project area are not expected to be significant, and the species and its habitat will remain well distributed. Likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing -- where effects are expected to be detrimental and substantial, and the species and its habitat will not be maintained in sufficient numbers or distribution through time. [Repeat for each species] If desired, after presenting the above information for each sensitive species, a summary of the determinations of effect can be presented in a table (example below).] Common Name Townsend's Big-eared Bat Northern Goshawk Scientific Name Plecotus townsendii Accipiter gentilis Determinations of Effects Status A1t 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Sensitive No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Sensitive No Impact MAII MAII No Impact XII. RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS [Use this portion (if needed) of the document to identify any recommended actions that may be useful or desired, but ARE NOT PART OF THE PROPOSED ACTION evaluated

152 above. Be sure these conservation measures or mitigations are not already stated in the Forest Plan and not already part of the EA or EIS. The above determinations of effect could change if these recommended measures are subsequently incorporated into the project with the project decision. Describe whether and how effect to species and determinations of effect would change, should such actions be applied.] VIII. RESPONSIBILITY FOR A REVISED BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION [Placeholder text that can be used as is: This Biological Evaluation was prepared based on presently available information. If the action is modified in a manner that causes effects not considered, or if new information becomes available that reveals that the action may impact endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species that in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, a new or revised Biological Evaluation will be required. ] IX. CONTACTS [List all contacts, contributors, and sources of expertise. Document personal communications (note: check with the source to be sure they agree with the content attributed to them). Document informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., dates of any meetings, telephone calls, field trips).] X. LITERATURE CITED [List scientific literature that was cited in the text.]

153 IN REPLY REFER TO: United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Colorado Field Office P.O. Box 25486, DFC (65412) Denver, Colorado Dear: On (date), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received the biological assessment prepared by the for. ETC>>>>>add paragraph(s) summarizing project details On August 20, 2008, the Service issued a biological opinion on the effects of the Southern Rocky Mountains Lynx Amendment on the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)(lynx) in the contiguous United States, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C et seq.). The biological opinion was identified as the first-tier of a tiered consultation framework, with the review of subsequent projects that may affect lynx as being the second-tier of consultation. For projects that will result in adverse effects to lynx and are consistent with, and fully analyzed under, the first-tier biological opinion, the Service will provide a letter that confirms that the project is in compliance with the programmatic biological opinion on Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. For projects that would result in adverse effects to lynx but were not fully analyzed in the first-tier biological opinion, a second-tier biological opinion will be prepared. For projects that will result in insignificant and discountable affects to lynx, the Service will provide a concurrence letter. In the Forest Plan lynx amendment, a limited range of specific fuel or timber management projects can use the exceptions or exemptions from amendment standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6. In our first-tier biological opinion, we were able to analyze the effects of such projects on lynx and also provide an incidental take statement for these activities because the Forest Service provided explicit estimates on the number of acres that would be impacted under the exceptions and exemptions. Thus, the incidental take statement exempted incidental take for those specific management projects. The effects of the proposed action fall within the range of effects analyzed in our first-tier biological opinion. The Service has reviewed your biological assessment and finds that the effects of this project were adequately analyzed in the first-tier biological opinion and that

154 Page 2 the project conforms to the first-tier incidental take statement, because: 1) The proposed sitespecific project falls within the scope of the first-tier biological opinion; 2) The effects of the proposed action are consistent with those anticipated and analyzed in the first-tier biological opinion, regarding the specific fuel or timber management projects that use the exemptions and exceptions to standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 and result in lynx habitat degradation; 3) The total acres of lynx habitat treated in the proposed action is well within the total acres anticipated for the Forest and analyzed in the first-tier opinion and incidental take statement; the total acreage of lynx habitat treated or proposed to be treated to date through Forest decisions, including the proposed action, is acres; and 4) The proposed action adheres to the appropriate terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent measures identified in the first-tier biological opinion. The Service bases our conclusion on the information and analyses contained in the biological assessment for this project, our August 20, 2008 biological opinion and the information we relied upon to develop the opinion. The proposed project was fully analyzed under the firsttier biological opinion and take was exempted under the first-tier biological opinion. Therefore, this letter serves as a confirmation that the proposed project is in compliance with programmatic biological opinion on Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. As you know, the incidental take statement in the first-tier biological opinion required the Forest Service to prepare and maintain an up-to-date record documenting the contract year and (1) the amount of lynx habitat impacted, (2) the size of the units treated, and (3) the location in which harvest or precommercial thinning of lynx habitat occurred. The Forest Service must submit an updated record with this information with each second tier review and also submit a final record to the Service s Colorado Field Office (Lakewood) by April 1 of each year for the preceding fiscal year. We look forward to receiving your report. As provided in 50 CFR , reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental anticipated in the first-tier biological opinion is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the first-tier opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the first-tier opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease, pending reinitiation.

155 Page 3 We appreciate your efforts to ensure the conservation of threatened and endangered species as part of your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, as amended. If you have questions or comments related to this issue, please contact me or Leslie Ellwood of this office at Sincerely, Susan Linner Colorado Field Supervisor

156 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Monitoring Horizontal Cover Guidance for Assessing Horizontal Cover in the Understory Within Lynx Habitat on the Southern Rockies National Forests 1 Background This paper provides preliminary guidance for National Forests in the Southern Rockies to use in the early stages of implementing the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA). It provides guidance to personnel for conducting an initial qualitative assessment of habitat in a project area and determining whether more rigorous quantitative assessment in the field is needed during project development. If more systematic evaluation is needed to support project planning and section 7 consultation, this paper provides a methodology that has been used in the Northern Rockies for measuring horizontal cover that can be compared to cover levels that the agencies can agree equates to good snowshoe hare habitat. This may or may not be the same as that identified in the Northern Rockies. Dense horizontal cover is an important determinant of snowshoe hare presence and abundance within lynx habitat. This cover may occur in both young structure and multistoried stands, with the latter more important to lynx during the winter period. Assessment of horizontal cover at the project level is important in determining whether these areas are likely to provide important foraging habitat for lynx. The objective is to determine whether multistoried stands provide winter snowshoe hare cover above a threshold value (discussed below). If the threshold value is met or exceeded, the stands are subject to the provisions of Standard VEG S6 in the SRLA Record of Decision (USFS, October 28, 2008). Determining need for quantitative field monitoring at the project level In many situations, a simple qualitative ocular evaluation of horizontal cover in the project area will clarify whether there is obviously little horizontal cover, much horizontal cover, or whether a quantitative measurement is needed. In the first example where the horizontal cover is clearly low, the Forest is unlikely to need any further quantitative evaluation of horizontal cover from the field. Ideally, Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service personnel can visit the project site together to confirm this. If that is not possible, the Forest Service biologist should collect appropriate information including photographs to support the biological evaluation and assessment, as needed. In the second example where understory cover is obviously high, no further field quantitative sampling is needed either. Appropriate information including photographs should again be collected and documented. In the third example where the understory is in some in-between condition and it is not clearly apparent what the cover level is, this scenario would likely require field quantitative sampling to determine where the different cover levels are distributed in the project area. 1 This paper was originally developed by Tim Bertram and Jim Claar (USFS Region 1) as interim guidance for use on the National Forests in the Northern Rockies. Portions of it were substantially modified here by the Implementation Guide team for application to National Forests in the Southern Rockies. The team accepts responsibility for the content of this revised paper.

157 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Monitoring Methods could include cover board measurements or evaluation of stem density or other data. The appropriate method and sampling protocol should be determined by FS personnel including biologists, silviculturists, and/or vegetation ecologists in coordination with FWS as needed. Assessing habitat suitability and functionality based on field monitoring The agencies continue to explore the quantitative connection between horizontal cover in the understory and snowshoe hare presence and abundance on the National Forests in the Southern Rockies. Based on approach and information from John Squires work in the Northern Rockies (see attachment), these are considerations for project-level field sampling of horizontal cover: 1. Delineate stands within mapped lynx habitat to be evaluated for horizontal cover. 2. Measure and assess horizontal cover and habitat functionality: Below 35% of measured horizontal cover, a Forest should evaluate whether habitat functionality continues to be maintained. At this point in time, there is no scientific certainty about quantitatively what constitutes functional understory cover for snowshoe hares in the Southern Rockies. The intent here is to begin establishing some trigger for more in-depth evaluation and discussion of potential changes in habitat functionality relative to current condition and changes in vegetation brought about by natural or projectrelated factors. The procedure for measuring horizontal cover in the field is discussed later. This value corresponds to the lower hinge horizontal cover values reported by John Squires for a variety of lynx activity areas in Montana. Further, recent unpublished graduate research (Nate Burg pers. comm. May 2009 with Kurt Broderdorp) suggests strong correlation between high hare density and similar horizontal cover levels as Squires found for lynx use areas and previously reported (i.e. Wolfe et al. in 1982). Burg s data on hares and horizontal cover were collected by Mr. Burg during the summer months and conditions thought to more closely represent those in the Southern portion of the species range (i.e. Wyoming and Colorado). While not representing a firm threshold, this cover level provides a basis for Forests to further evaluate potential changes in habitat function and for validation over time of its relation to snowshoe hare occupation and abundance. Horizontal cover is best measured and evaluated in winter during average mid-winter snow depth conditions. If winter sampling is not possible, summer measurements of horizontal cover should be taken from ground level up to 4 meters above the ground. 3. Stratify stands to be sampled Stands that clearly (a) fall below the threshold value and (b) those that are clearly above the threshold value do not need to be sampled. Photo documentation of stands that fall into either category (a) or (b) is advisable. (See photo documentation under No. 8.) If there is a question as to whether a stand meets the threshold criteria or not then that stand should be sampled. The attached 2

158 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Monitoring series of 6 photos provide examples to use as a guide in making this determination. Click on the hyperlink to view the photos: 4. Sampling methodology Use the methodology developed by John Squires of the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Missoula, Montana. The attached document provides details of that methodology. Record and summarize data as described in this methodology. Click on the hyperlink to view the methodology: 5. Randomize plot locations. Plots need to be randomly located to minimize as much bias as possible. 6. Plot sampling intensity It is difficult to provide a specific formula for determining an adequate number of horizontal cover plots in a given stand within lynx habitat. Plot number will vary depending upon the uniformity of each stand. An 80% confidence level is desirable to provide a fairly high certainty that the recorded cover values are truly representative of the stand. However, sampling at this level may require a large number of plots and because funding, personnel and time are limiting it may not be possible to sample at this level. The following is an objective, unbiased method that can be used: a) After initial stratification, sample horizontal cover on 20% of the acres to be assessed at the rate of one plot per 10 acres. Example: The project area has 5,000 acres of mapped lynx habitat that are classified as multi-storied. Screening of these acres indicates that 4,000 acres either clearly meet or do not meet the 35% horizontal cover threshold value and therefore horizontal cover measurements are deemed not necessary on those acres. The remaining 1,000 acres of multistoried stands need to be assessed, therefore: 1,000 ac. x 0.20/10 = 20 horizontal cover plot measurements needed b) Each plot needs to be randomly located. Use GPS units to locate these plot centers in the field. c) Each stand sampled should have at least two plots d) The number of plots should be increased if the stand is highly variable. 7. Record digital photographs at each plot. Take photos according to the following methodology: a) Use a digital camera set at the widest focal length and record this value. (Note: Most point and shoot digital cameras have a wide angle setting of mm although some may be as wide as 28 mm. The widest setting is preferred.) b) Record photos from the plot center in each of the same four cardinal directions where horizontal cover is estimated from the cover boards. Check the photos after each exposure to ensure the photos are properly exposed. c) Record all pertinent data for each photo including: i. Project name ii. Recorder(s) iii. Date iv. Location 3

159 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Monitoring v. Elevation vi. Cardinal direction of photograph vii. Other (Weather condition that may affect the photograph) d) Download and back-up copies of photos upon return to the office. These photos will provide supportive documentation for the evaluation of horizontal cover in the project record. Other knowledgeable people can also review them if there is any uncertainty about whether the photos are representative of dense horizontal cover. 8. Record and summarize data for each plot and collectively for all plots taken within each stand sampled and record information for these plots as described under section 8.c) above. Include photos taken for each respective plot and provide a copy of all the information and summaries in the project file. This is a field-tested approach that provides a systematic procedure to measure horizontal cover in multi-storied or regenerating stands where it is unclear whether hares use the habitat. While a horizontal cover threshold of suitability for snowshoe hares in the Southern Rockies is unclear as yet, the approach in this paper provides a reasonable starting point for quantifying habitat and beginning to better assess habitat conditions relative to hare presence and abundance. This may also be a useful approach to determine when management standards under the SRLA apply. The procedure will also be applicable to addressing the monitoring requirement under the Management Standard VEG S5 exception to evaluate experimental precommercial thinning treatments. The best procedure for determining hare population response is still under consideration and development for the Southern Rockies systems. Nonetheless, hare presence/absence information from the field while conducting horizontal cover surveys will contribute to our growing understanding of selected and preferred habitat conditions. This should continue to be ongoing work between the agencies in building this understanding. 4

160 Excerpts from PowerPoint Presentation by John Squires at Lynx Workshop in Missoula, MT Feb 20, 2008: Measuring Horizontal Cover of Forests Associated with Lynx Habitat Use John R. Squires, Wildlife Research Biologist Nick DeCesare, Field Coordinator USDA-FS Rocky Mountain Research Station Missoula, Montana 2000 Milo Burcham

161 Estimating Horizontal Cover Measurement Method: We used a 0.5 m x 2 m cover board (divided into 4, 0.5 m2 square blocks; Nudds 1977) to provide an ocular estimate of horizontal cover (visual obscurity). We took 4 horizontal cover readings at each plot; 2 board readings were taken at the ends of the transect and 2 others at 11.2 m from plot center perpendicular to the transect. Nudds, T. D Quantifying the vegetative structure of wildlife cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin 5:

162 Estimating Horizontal Cover 0.5 m 50 cm 25 cm 25 cm 2 m 50 cm 10 cm

163 Estimating Horizontal Cover Four readings per plot: 10 m 10 m Observer 10 m 10 m

164 Horizontal Cover?? Top = Mid-top = Mid-bottom = 30 % Bottom = 90 Board Average = 56 % Plot Average Board Average = 56 % Board Average = 87 % Board Average = 90 % Board Average = 45 % Plot Average = 70 %

165 Estimated sample size across a range of mean horizontal cover values (assumptions: probability = 0.90, precision = 0.20, SD = 18) Horizontal Cover

166 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Mapping Updating Lynx Habitat Mapping Clarification and Guidance Introduction In the Biological Opinion for the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified five conservation recommendations. Among those recommendations is one that states: The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should continue to jointly update lynx habitat maps within the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment area. The Record of Decision for SRLA (page 19) states that: Updating lynx habitat maps will continue to be done as needed, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Glossary for the SRLA Management Direction (Attachment 1-12) defines lynx habitat. Lynx habitat occurs in mesic coniferous forest that experience cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare. In the southern Rocky Mountains, lynx habitat generally occurs between 8,000 and 12,000 feet in elevation. Primary vegetation consists of Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, aspen-conifer mix and lodgepole pine on spruce-fir habitat types. On cool moist sites, Douglas-fir and aspen, when interspersed with subalpine forests, may also contribute to lynx habitat. Dry forest types (e.g., ponderosa pine, climax lodgepole pine) do not provide lynx habitat. For purposes of this SRLA Implementation Guide, the phrase re-mapping of lynx habitat will refer to the process of remodeling lynx habitat at the broad scale which updates that Forest s lynx habitat map. It does not refer to the changes in habitat conditions within the previously mapped lynx habitat that occur due to vegetation management, fire, insects, disease, etc. At the end of this portion of the Guide is an example of the process that the Medicine Bow- Routt National Forests are currently using to better identify lynx habitat as they update their lynx habitat mapping. This process is currently ongoing and includes the involvement of the R2 Regional Office and the FWS. Although the specific forest cover types, elevation breaks and percentages of spruce-fir tree components provided in this example may not be appropriate for mapping lynx habitat on other Forests within the SRLA area, the methodology and rationales used may be useful to other Forests that are undertaking an update to their lynx habitat maps. Background In an August 22, 2000, letter the Lynx Steering Committee provided direction to all federal agencies with lynx conservation responsibilities, to address lynx habitat mapping as follows: Criteria and Procedures for Lynx Habitat Mapping 1) Information contained in the Science Team Report (Ruggiero et al. 2000a) provides the starting point for lynx habitat mapping. The outer boundary that should be used for each geographic area is shown in Chapter 8 (McKelvey et al. 2000): Figs 8.20 for western U.S., Fig. 8.22

167 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Mapping 2 for the Great Lakes, and Fig for the Northeast (these are combined into the insert map entitled Vegetation Types and Elevation Zones Associated with Lynx Occurrences ), with the following exceptions. In southern Colorado and northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington, the Rocky Mountain Conifer Forest type as depicted in Fig should be added to the outer boundary. These areas were lost in the transition to Fig due to vagaries of the Kuchler delineations of vegetation subtypes, rather than lack of historical occurrences (K. McKelvey, pers. comm. 2000). 2) In the western U.S., lynx occurrences generally are found only above 4,000 ft. elevation (McKelvey et al. 2000). Areas below 4,000 ft. usually should be excluded. Note that elevation ranges are specified in the geographic area descriptions in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. 3) Within the boundaries defined by the first two steps, map vegetation that could contribute to lynx habitat, as described for each geographic area in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, using the finest-scale vegetation information that is available. The following clarifies primary and secondary vegetation for the western U.S. a) Mesic subalpine fir forests in the western U.S. are extensions of boreal forests. Subalpine fir habitat types dominated by cover types of spruce/fir, Douglas-fir, and seral lodgepole pine should be mapped as primary vegetation. These types must be present to support foraging, denning and rearing of young. b) Other cool, moist habitat types (e.g., some Douglas-fir, grand fir) may contribute to lynx habitat where intermingled with and immediately adjacent to primary vegetation. These types are described as secondary vegetation. c) Lynx do not appear to be associated with dry forest habitat types (e.g., ponderosa pine, dry Douglas-fir, and dry or climax lodgepole pine) except to move among mesic stands (Ruggiero et al. 2000b). These dry types should not be included as vegetation contributing to lynx habitat. 4) The next steps are to identify lynx habitat within a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU), which involves consideration of several additional factors: a) Determine whether the amount and spatial arrangement of vegetation is sufficient to warrant delineating a LAU (amount, patch size, inter-patch distance). b) Evaluate land ownership pattern (to assess feasibility of achieving lynx conservation objectives on federally administered lands, to determine appropriate size and configuration of the LAU, etc.). c) Review occurrence records of all types to assess validity of identifying the area as lynx habitat location, pattern, consistency, year in relation to

168 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Mapping Canadian population cycles. Evaluate the records as described in Chapter 8 (McKelvey et al. 2000). Lack of records in an area does not necessarily indicate lack of habitat; conversely, detections do not necessarily indicate lynx habitat. Independently, occurrence records indicate only occurrence. Collectively, as a data set, occurrences can reveal habitats that likely are important to lynx. d) Snow depth information may be useful to exclude ungulate winter ranges and areas that do not retain adequate snow cover during the winter. Note: Once identified as lynx habitat, there is no longer a distinction between primary and secondary vegetation. Conservation measures of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) apply to lynx habitat. On August 15-16, 2007, a meeting among RO renewable resources staff, Forest biologists and silviculturists, ecologists, and GIS specialists took place to facilitate discussion and clarification of lynx habitat mapping direction issues. The following are the clarifying points pertaining to lynx habitat mapping derived from that meeting: 1) Continue to follow the Aug. 22, 2000 memo from the Lynx Steering Committee for mapping or updating existing maps of lynx habitat. Items 2-5 are some discussion points and clarification specific to Region 2. 2) Identify primary and secondary vegetation. (Secondary vegetation may contribute to lynx habitat when intermingled with and immediately adjacent to primary vegetation.) Then delineate the LAU, meeting the criterion of providing at least 10 mi 2 of primary vegetation. Use existing polygons to define the LAU boundaries to the extent possible. Once the LAU is delineated, all the primary and secondary vegetation is considered lynx habitat, and there is no longer a distinction made between them. Maps should be updated as needed to reflect field verification, in coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dry forest such as ponderosa pine and climax lodgepole pine are not lynx habitat. Climax vs. seral lodgepole pine can be differentiated using habitat type maps, CVU (or R2Veg) stand data (>5% presence of spruce/fir can be used to infer subalpine fir habitat type), or understory indicator plant species. Elevation may be one other metric used to differentiate habitat types Primary Vegetation Spruce-fir cover type Seral lodgepole pine cover type on subalpine fir habitat types Note: In addition to the lodgepole pine cover type, other moist conifer cover types such as Douglas-fir, white fir or blue spruce that currently dominate subalpine fir habitat type sites, should also be included as primary vegetation. This situation is what differentiates these cover types from those situations listed below where they would be considered secondary vegetation. 3

169 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Mapping 4 Aspen mix Note: Since this meeting was held, aspen mix is currently described as any aspen cover type with a > 5% spruce-fir tree component. Secondary Vegetation Pure aspen Note: Since this meeting was held, pure aspen is currently described as any aspen cover type with a < 5% conifer tree component. Moist Douglas-fir Note: This may also include other cool, moist conifer cover types that do not occur on subalpine fir habitat sites, such as white fir or blue spruce. Riparian willow Sagebrush 3) Buffer only secondary vegetation. Note: Buffering 300 meters in to secondary habitat from primary, based upon Miller snowshoe hare data and R2 biologists discussions (Ft Collins, 2008). This buffer distance was derived from a nearest neighbor distance analysis performed on snowshoe hare pellet data collected from Miller, ) Mountain shrub and sagebrush Note: Mountain shrub was included as secondary habitat in the initial mapping on some Forests. Based on lynx habitat use data from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, it has subsequently been determined that mountain shrubland receives little use and should be excluded from secondary vegetation (Randy Ghormley, pers. comm. 11/26/07). Notes on LAU Size and Delineation: The LCAS provided some general guidance on delineating LAUs within mapped lynx habitat. The size of a LAU was to approximate the home range size of a female lynx and should include at least 10 square miles (6,400 acres) of primary vegetation (lynx habitat). Within the SRLA area, the range of home range sizes needed to provide this amount of primary vegetation and support a reproductive female lynx has not been clearly established. However, Shenk (2008; pers. comm., K. Broderdorp 2009) reported the average home range of reproductive female lynx in southern Colorado at approximately 75.2 km 2 (18,582 acres), with a range of approximately km 2 (12,000-60,000 acres). Current information on female home range size in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming is lacking. When evaluating the size of LAUs, particular attention should be paid to: 1) the amount of primary vegetation within the LAU, 2) the quality and productivity of the primary vegetation in terms of producing and sustaining high quality snowshoe hare habitat over time, 3) the overall ecology of the area in terms of disturbance frequencies, amounts and patterns. It is important to delineate LAUs that contain sufficient amounts of high quality primary vegetation to function properly for a reproductive female (not too small). It is equally important to delineate LAUs that are not so large as to mask vegetation management practices that may adversely impact one or more lynx home range conditions. Throughout the southern Rockies,

170 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Mapping watershed boundaries have been the primary source for delineating LAUs. These watersheds can vary considerably in size. This may lead to some LAUs consisting of multiple smaller watersheds or some larger watersheds containing multiple LAUs. Additionally, attention needs to be given to highways with high traffic volumes which may create a man-made home range (LAU) boundary (e.g. I-70, Highways 9, 40, 50, 550, 160, etc.). Questions and Answers: Habitat Mapping 1. Will there be a FWS review of adjustments to LAU boundaries? Answer: Yes, there will be FWS review of adjustments to LAU boundaries. Also, those Forests that are updating their lynx habitat maps will coordinate those efforts with the FWS. The Regional Office will have the final approval. 2. Define/quantify climax versus seral lodgepole. Answer: First, some clarifying definitions of ecological terms: Sere = a sequence of seral stages that plant communities pass through from a very early seral to climax condition. Seral = one of many successional stages plant communities may pass through, e.g. very early, early, early mid, mid, late (upper) mid, late and climax. Climax = the last seral stage in the Sere. Forest Cover Type = a descriptive term used to group stands of similar characteristics and species composition (due to given ecological factors) by which they may be differentiated from other groups of stands. In practice, forest cover type refers to the dominant overstory tree species (e.g. lodgepole pine) or combination of species where none dominates over the other (e.g. mixed conifer). In lodgepole pine cover types where lodgepole pine is the dominant overstory tree species and is the dominant, self-reproducing tree species in the understory, it would be classified as the climax tree species for the site. Where lodgepole pine is NOT the dominant tree species self-reproducing in the understory, or is not self-reproducing at all, it would be classified a seral species. Situations may occur where the lodgepole pine cover type has Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, Bristlecone pine or Limber pine the dominant reproducing understory tree species. In these cases, lodgepole pine would be a seral species, rather than reflect the expected climax forest type. 3. We need a clear remap of young stands that defines them as snowshoe hare habitat in relation to denning proximity. We can t have every patch of ground with regen called snowshoe hare habitat especially if there is no denning nearby. Who will be responsible for the remapping efforts? Answer: Each Forest will be responsible for remapping habitat on their Forest using the new remapping guidelines. The need for snowshoe hare habitat to be proximate to available denning habitat is not a criterion for updating mapped lynx habitat. 4. If your map says you re in lynx habitat and ground-truthing says it s not, what recourse do we have? Can we revise that digital map? Who can make the on the ground decision (only biologists)? What would be the criteria? 5

171 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Mapping Answer: Assuming that the appropriate mapping direction was followed and your lynx map displays primary and secondary vegetation (lynx habitat), wholesale adjustments will likely be unnecessary. However, the accuracy of the data used to update a Forest s lynx habitat map may not be specific enough to identify all stands capable of supporting lynx habitat accurately. It is important for biologists and silviculturalists to complete a field review of those stands that may be questionable, particularly those that are in the early to mid structural stages. Identifying and distinguishing primary vegetation will require an understanding of the successional pathways for a particular area. Even though existing conditions may not reflect the site potential for a stand to become a spruce-fir habitat type, it may still be lynx habitat. Seral conditions may be present with little evidence of what the stand will develop in to. If you ground truth and determine that the mapping criteria for a particular stand or area were incorrect, then it may be appropriate to consult with your silviculturist and then make the appropriate changes. Substantial changes in mapping should be coordinated with the USFS Region 2 Regional Office and the FWS. 5. Does lynx habitat include all mature stands that meet lynx criteria, any stand that will someday meet the lynx criteria and also any stand that does and could some day provide forage to a snowshoe hare? What are the limits to these broad criteria? Answer: There are a wide variety of forest, shrub and non-forest conditions that provide forage for snowshoe hare. Snowshoe hare densities can vary considerably within these habitats depending on the quantity, quality and distribution of forage and its availability throughout the year. Landscape conditions which constitute available lynx habitat will be those which have the capability of supporting relatively high densities of snowshoe hare year round. It is expected that lynx habitat is dynamic and may or may not support snowshoe hares at a given point in time. 6. What happens when we remap lynx habitat and have a (likely) reduction in mapped lynx habitat how will the exemptions and exceptions be revised? Answer: The 3% exemption and 1.5% exception will still apply, but with the likelihood that total acres of habitat will be lowered, that actual number of treatable acres will likely be lower than shown in the current SRLA BO. Revising the acres allowed under the exemptions and exceptions will be part of the process used to update a Forest s identified lynx habitat and will include involvement by the FWS and the Regional Office. 7. Habitat definitions from the 2004 Draft SRLA were specific and helpful - they are not in the final - can they come back? (e.g. lynx habitat, denning habitat, trees/acre, specific measures for multi-storied stands, average understory height, tons/acre CWD, CWD height). Answer: Habitat definitions are present in the ROD. If there are specific habitat definitions that are still appropriate to the southern Rockies and currently not present in the SRLA, they should be identified. The decision is more general to allow specific criteria to be adjusted as new information becomes available. 8. What happens when a project that already has NEPA and section 7 completed has the lynx habitat remapped and results in changes in the number of acres and exemption percentages? 6

172 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Mapping Answer: A letter to FWS explaining and updating the changes and document any change in the effects of the action as appropriate. Remember to adjust your accounting when generating any future reports. If the changes result in a Forest exceeding their allocation under an exemption or exceptions, then section 7 consultation may need to be reinitiated for the amendment (i.e. effects of the action (amendment) not previously considered). 9. What correlation (ie cvu coefficients (hss?)) is going to be made to assign the specific structural stage to a particular stand in cvu? Answer: Common Vegetation Unit (CVU) data is used in the R2Veg data tables, which provide the Habitat Structural Stages (HSS) for each stand. HSS are generally not used in the SRLA, however there may be a correlation between some SRLA terms and some HSS in R2Veg. HSS 1T and 2T would likely represent the stand initiation phase used in VEG S1. HSS 4B, 4C, and 5 with multiple layers would likely represent multi-story mature or late successional forests used in VEG S Confusion about re-mapping. Difference between updating your current maps based on changed conditions (e.g. timber harvest, fires, fuels treatments, insect/disease effects) versus RE-MODELING lynx habitat to refine/exclude dry habitats (e.g. dry lodgepole). Forests need to actively re-map/track changes to habitat conditions. Forests should consider whether or not they need a new model. Answer: Recommendation #5, under the Consideration of Conservation Recommendations section (identified by the USFWS) in the Record of Decision states that the FS and FWS should jointly update lynx habitat maps within the SRLA area. The Regional Forester s response to this recommendation states that updating lynx habitat maps will continue as needed in coordination with the FWS. These and other statements in the SRLA relevant to updating lynx habitat maps refer to the on-going process of defining and maintaining lynx habitat maps. Some Forests are currently evaluating approaches to more accurately differentiate the drier lodgepole pine cover types from those that are capable of producing primary vegetation for lynx habitat. 11. Define dry lodgepole pine. What % of other species may be present?stand characteristics, including growth rates, densities, crown height and retention, etc., vary greatly between cover types collectively considered as lynx or snowshoe hare habitat (spruce-fir and lodgepole pine being the key types, but also including aspen and cool-moist mixed conifer). Clarification of the above should take into account these varying characteristics, either allowing broad ranges (or descriptions) across all types, or more specific ranges per cover type. Answer: The lodgepole pine cover type occurs on a broad range of sites in the southern Rockies, from very dry sites where it may be considered climax to high elevation moist sites where it currently intermingles with spruce and fir and will eventually develop into a spruce-fir habitat type. Even though some of the drier lodgepole pine sites exhibit a scattering of the plant species that may indicate that the stands are seral to spruce-fir, their ability to develop into a spruce-fir habitat type may be limited. Within the full spectrum of sites on which the lodgepole pine cover type occurs, it becomes necessary to distinguish those that are capable of producing quality snowshoe hare habitat in a reasonable time frame. The historical disturbance return interval may be an approach to identifying the reasonable time frame portion of 7

173 SRLA Implementation Guide: Habitat Mapping this equation. It will be up to each individual Forest, working with the Regional Office and their FWS counterparts, to provide rationale for the mapping criteria used to update their lynx habitat maps. Example - Updating Lynx Habitat on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Lynx habitat mapping criteria currently being investigated for identifying the primary vegetation on the MBR uses the following: 1. All spruce-fir cover types; regardless of tree size; 2. All lodgepole pine cover types above a specific elevation (8800 feet)* with a spruce-fir tree component of >10%*; and 3. All aspen stand with a >5%* spruce-fir tree component, regardless of elevation. (*Investigative studies on snowshoe hare occurrences on these Forests (Miller, 2005) indicate some correlation between consistent hare occurrence and lodgepole pine stands with a 10-15% spruce-fir tree component above 8800 feet, and with aspen conifer mix stands regardless of elevation. Additionally, field review of stands in several areas on the MBR indicate that lodgepole pine stands with a spruce-fir tree component of < 10% generally do not exhibit the capability of producing quality snowshoe hare habitat in a reasonable amount of time. Representatives of the MBR, R2 Regional Office of the USFS, and the FWS met several times in 2009 to discuss these mapping criteria and generally agreed that these may more accurately reflect lynx habitat at the broad Forestwide scale.) 8

174 Lynx Habitat Images Examples from National Forests in the Southern Rockies Background Habitat images presented in this guide are examples of potential snowshoe hare and lynx habitat taken on some Southern Rockies National Forests. They are provided as a courtesy and without official endorsement, since interpretations may differ as to the quality of snowshoe hare/lynx habitat depicted in the images, especially without quantitative field measurements and data associated with the images. Nonetheless, these examples may be helpful in planning discussions for qualitative and quantitative interpretations, as well as for training the eye of field-going personnel for field reconnaissance. Ideally these examples will stimulate and expand interest in gathering and consolidating additional hare/lynx habitat images from throughout the National Forests and across different forest types and conditions. Images associated with field vegetation and habitat measurements and other local features are particularly valuable. 1 Additional suitable images will be added to the Implementation Guide over time, which will be periodically updated as knowledge and information about hare/lynx habitat needs grow. Forest personnel are encouraged to submit representative images for supplementing this guide, and to continue to capture habitat images as they work in the field. Lynx Den Sites The Colorado Division of Wildlife s annual report for 2006 depicting images of actual den sites used by lynx in Colorado. Medicine Bow-Routt NFs The photos provided by the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest were taken for either two purposes 1) during field verification of lynx habitat for vegetation management projects following local protocol (2000-present), or 2) during the snowshoe habitat relationship study conducted on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest ( ). Both methods have quantitative measurements and/or a qualitative assessment that was used to evaluate lynx habitat. Photographs were taken either by Melissa Dressen, Jason Szyba, David Topolewski, or Robert Skorkowsky. 1 Two useful references for planning photo point monitoring are: Popp, John B.; Lundquist, John E Photo series for quantifying forest residues in managed lands of the Medicine Bow National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-172. Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 105 p (available online at Hall, Frederick C Photo point monitoring handbook: part A field procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- GTR-526. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p. 2 parts (available online at

175 White River NF The photos provided by the White River National Forest were taken for a winter inventory and monitoring project (winter 2008-present). This inventory and monitoring project is being conducted on all major ski areas located on the White River National Forest. Overall goals of this project are to quantify and qualify the spatial distribution of available habitat connectivity, winter foraging habitat, and security habitat within each Landscape Analysis Unit (LAU) and between LAUs through linkage areas. To asses the quality of suitable habitat, horizontal cover measurements were taken at randomly selected polygons. These photos illustrate specific sample points on two different ski areas. The photos have qualitative measurements for the amount of horizontal cover present during the winter. Photographs were taken by Marcus Swan, Carol Burlingame, and Robert Rodriguez. Arapaho-Roosevelt NFs The photos were taken on a June 22, 2000 field trip with Jan Burke and Ken Emmert (Sulphur District Timber Staff), Doreen Sumerlin (Sulphur District Wildlife Biologist) and Gary Patton (FWS) to observe and discuss the attributes of regenerating coniferous stands and what conditions currently provided suitable conditions for snowshoe hares. Observations (qualitative) of cover, available forage and pellet presence were used to determine suitability. Cover boards were not used so dense horizontal cover estimates are not available.

176 Lynx Habitat Examples: Arapaho Roosevelt NF, Sulphur Ranger District All Photos taken June 26, 2000

177 Currently Unsuitable Lynx Habitat Thinned to 8 x 8 spacing 5 years previous Average tree height=15 feet: Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=533 PICO

178 Currently Unsuitable Lynx Habitat Thinned to 8 x 8 spacing 5 years previous Average tree height=15 feet: Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=533 PICO

179 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned wildfire regeneration Average tree height=15 feet: Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=10333 PICO

180 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned wildfire regeneration Average tree height=15 feet Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=10333 PICO

181 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned harvest regeneration Average tree height=15 feet: Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=3700 PICO, 233 POTR

182 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned harvest regeneration Average tree height=15 feet Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems/acre=3700 PICO, 233 POTR

183 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned harvest regeneration Average tree height=15 feet: Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=3700 PICO, 233 POTR

184 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned harvest regeneration Average tree height=15 feet: Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=3700 PICO, 233 POTR

185 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned harvest regeneration Average tree height=15 feet Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=3700 PICO, 233 POTR

186 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned harvest regeneration Average tree height=15 feet Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=3700 PICO, 233 POTR

187 Suitable Lynx Habitat Unthinned harvest regeneration Average tree height=15 feet: Average snow depth=4-6 feet Estimated Stems per acre=3700 PICO, 233 POTR

188 Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest Lynx Habitat Guide Lodgepole Pine Cover Types Prepared by Melissa Dressen and Jason Szyba May, 2009

189 Unsuitable Lynx Habitat/Stand Initiation Structural Stage: Post-harvest. Trees less than years old with open canopy and stems beneath winter snow depths.

190 Unsuitable Lynx Habitat/Stand Initiation Structural Stage: Post-harvest. A new single-story layer establishing and developing, reoccupying the site. Lack of continuous canopy.

191 Suitable Lynx Habitat: Dense horizontal cover >35% and available above the snow (1-3m). Presence of snowshoe hare tracks.

192 Suitable Lynx Habitat: Crown lift occurring. No longer snowshoe hare habitat, but is still suitable lynx habitat (may provide secondary prey habitat).

193 Suitable Lynx Habitat/Seral lodgepole pine: Lodgepole pine cover type on a subalpine fir habitat type. Spruce or fir regenerating in understory. Stand on left further along in succession.

194 Unsuitable Lynx Habitat/Climax Lodgepole Pine: No spruce or fir regeneration in understory. Last seral stage in the sere.

195 Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest Lynx Habitat Guide Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Cover Types Prepared by Melissa Dressen and Jason Szyba May, 2009

196 Unsuitable Lynx Habitat/Stand initiation Structural Stage: Post-harvest (10-30 years). A new multi-story layer establishing and developing, reoccupying the site. Lack of continuous canopy.

197 Suitable Lynx Habitat: Post fire (>200 years). A midseral and multi-story canopy reoccupying the site. Dense horizontal cover >35% and available above the snow (1-3m).

198 Suitable Lynx Habitat: A late seral multi-story stand. Decaying fallen trees may be present. Dense horizontal cover >35% and available above the snow (1-3m).

199 Rio Grande National Forest Lynx Habitat Photos

200 Non-Lynx Habitat Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Photo Credit: Randy Chappell, 10/08

201 Non-Lynx Habitat Ponderosa Pine Forest Photo Credit: Dale Gomez, 6/07

202 Currently Unsuitable Created Opening. Photo Credit: Dale Gomez, 7/07.

203 Currently Unsuitable Million Fire (may also be considered non-lynx habitat). Photo Credit: Dean Erhard, 6/02.

204 Secondary (Alternate) Foraging Habitat Mature Aspen Forest Photo Credit: Dale Gomez, 7/08

205 Currently Lower Quality Lynx Habitat Open spruce-fir with little understory and regeneration. Does not meet DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

206 Currently Lower Quality Lynx Habitat Open stand of aspen/spruce-fir. Does not meet DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

207 Currently Lower Quality Lynx Habitat Open spruce-fir stand with little understory and regeneration. Does not meet DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

208 Developing Lynx Habitat Aspen stand with well developed spruce-fir understory. May meet DHC. Photo Credit: Dale Gomez, 6/08.

209 Developing Lynx Habitat Twenty year old clearcut with moderate regeneration surrounded by a older forest component. Does not meet DHC. Photo Credit: Dale Gomez, 9/07.

210 Developing Lynx Habitat Mixed aspen/spruce-fir stand. May meet DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

211 Good Quality Habitat Multi-storied stand with a healthy regeneration component. Meets DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

212 Good Quality Habitat Multi-storied stand with regeneration and some downed woody debris. May meet DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

213 Good Quality Habitat Multi-storied stand with a healthy regeneration component. Meets DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

214 High Quality Habitat Mature forest with regeneration and downed woody debris. Meets DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

215 High Quality Habitat Mature forest with good regeneration and downed woody debris. Meets DHC. Photo Credit: Doug Clark, 6/09.

216 High Quality Lynx Habitat Mature forest with good regeneration and woody debris. Meets DHC. Photo is of an actual den site. Photo Credit: CDOW, Fuel Model 10

217 White River NF Lynx Habitat examples - Liz Roberts, 2008/09 Breckenridge Ski Resort Polygon 508 Information about the stand from R2Veg: Cover type: TLP/TSF Size class: M Habitat Structure: 3B Tree cover: 65% Photos: BSR_polygon508 Average percent horizontal cover: 6.6%

218 Breckenridge Ski Resort Polygon 623 Information about the stand from R2Veg: Cover type: TLP Size class: M Habitat Structure: 3C Tree cover: 85% Photos: BSR_polygon623 Average percent horizontal cover: 0%

219 Keystone Ski Resort Point 8 Information about the stand from R2Veg: Cover type: TSF Size class: M Habitat Structure: 3B Tree cover: 65% Photos: KSR_point8_canopyCover, KSR_point8a, KSR_point8c, and KSP_point8d Average percent horizontal cover: 49% KSR_point_8_canopyCover

220 Keystone Ski Resort Point 8 (cont.) KSR_point8a

221 Keystone Ski Resort Point 8 (cont.) KSR_point8c

222 Keystone Ski Resort Point 8 (cont.) KSP_point8d

223 Keystone Ski Resort Point 10 Information about the stand from R2Veg: Cover type: TSF Size class: M Habitat Structure: 3B Tree cover: 70% Photos: KSR_point10a, KSR_point10b Average percent horizontal cover: 38% KSR_point10a

224 Keystone Ski Resort Point 10 (cont.) KSR_point10b

225 Keystone Ski Resort Point 14 Information about the stand from R2Veg: Cover type: TSF Size class: M Habitat Structure: 3B Tree cover: 70% Photos: KSR_point14b, KSR_point14c, KSR_point14d, KSR_point14f Average percent horizontal cover: 35% KSR_point14b

226 Keystone Ski Resort Point 14 (cont.) KSR_point14c

227 Keystone Ski Resort Point 14 (cont.) KSR_point14d

228 Keystone Ski Resort Point 14 (cont.) KSR_point14f