Biological Assessment For the Maple Hill Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 Biological Assessment For the Maple Hill Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment Prepared by: Wayne Russ Wildlife Biologist Date: December, 2008 Gunflint and Tofte Ranger Districts, Superior National Forest Page 1

2 Executive Summary This Biological Assessment (BA) documents the potential effects to the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and gray wolf (Canis lupus), both federally listed as threatened species, and effects to their designated critical habitat that could result from proposed vegetation management project and associated activities as documented in the Maple Hill Project Environmental Assessment (USDA, Forest Service, 2008). The BA tiers to the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the revision of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp ) and provides more specific information on site-specific effects of the project to threatened and endangered species. The findings (determination of effect) of the BA are summarized in Table 1 below. The proposed action is Alternative 2. Table A: Determination of Effect of Alternatives for Maple Hill Project on the Canada Lynx and its Proposed Critical Habitat; and the Gray Wolf and its Critical Habitat. Species ALT 1 No Action ALT 2 Proposed Action Rationale Canada Lynx NLAA pch: NLAM NLAA pch: NLAM 1. These alternatives may affect but are not likely to adversely affect lynx because: They would comply with all applicable Forest Plan management direction related to Canada lynx and its habitat. The project lies in LAU s 38 and 39. Changes in the percent of unsuitable habitat in these LAU s would not approach limits prescribed in the Forest Plan. Hare habitat is plentiful, would remain above 55 percent of either LAU, and would not change by alternative; Denning habitat is in surplus currently at >50 percent of the either LAU, and would not drop below 42 percent in either alternative. Habitat connectivity is at least 87 percent now and would be maintained above 88 percent, in either alternative. However, this habitat surrounds Devil Track Lake and is not connected across the project area, but rather is connected to the habitat continuum surrounding the project area. In the settled area around Devil Track Lake lynx travel may be impeded by human and pet activities, but this is not within Forest Service control, and travel in and out of the area is unimpeded. Page 2

3 The existing road and compacted trail density will not change by alternative. Only temporary roads would be built and then closed. The road and trail mileage would actually decrease under Alt 2. Cumulative effects from state and private owners could be both positive and negative, but are expected to be minimal because the majority of the LAU is in federal ownership. 2. The Forest Plan BA (USDA Forest Service 2004b, pp ), the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp ) and this project address relevant Primary Constituent Elements of lynx habitat - those physical and biological features under management control (hare and denning habitat, and interconnected and adjacent habitats) that are essential to the conservation of the species. These alternatives of the Maple Hill project maintain these Primary Constituent Elements within this decade. Gray Wolf NLAA CH: NLAA NLAA CH: NLAA 1. These alternatives may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the wolf because: They would comply with all applicable Forest Plan management direction which is tiered to the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (1992). Suitable forest habitat for the wolf and its prey would be maintained by either alternative. Moose and especially deer forage would remain distributed throughout because recent harvests and canopy decline has and is promoting shrubs, saplings, and forbs. Total road miles in the area would remain unchanged with either Alternative 1 or 2. As a contemporary factor, previously unclassified roads would be closed and densities would decrease slightly in the project area with either alternative when the Travel Management decision document (USDA Forest Service, 2008) becomes effective. The Superior NF Supervisor is to make a decision on that document at any time. The density of high standard roads (OML 3-5) is 1.2 miles/square mile for LAU 38 and 1.5 miles/square mile for LAU 39; Page 3

4 NE = No Effect NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect LAA = Likely to adversely affect NLAM = Not likely to adversely modify Proposed critical habitat: Forest Service determines NLAM Once critical habitat is designated, NLAM call reverts to FWS, not FS. these densities would not change; there are no options to reduce these densities. 2. Within critical habitat, the Recovery Plan emphasizes the need for space (for growth and movement of packs), food, and cover sufficient to assure the survival of gray wolves (USDI FWS 1992). Specifically, the Plan encourages management activities that maintain or develop these factors in critical habitat and minimize activities that would permanently remove forest cover, such as road construction and human development. Neither alternative would remove habitat, however, Alt. 2 would alter the vegetation and improve prey habitat. 3. These alternatives would comply with all applicable Forest Plan management direction related to Gray Wolf and its habitat. 1.0 Introduction This Biological Assessment (BA) documents the potential effects to the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and gray wolf (Canis lupus), both federally listed as threatened species, and effects to their designated critical habitat that could result from proposed vegetation management project and associated activities as documented in the Environmental Assessment for the Maple Hill Project (USDA, Forest Service, 2008). This BA was prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual Directives sections , (3), and , the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and the National Forest Management Act of Information provided by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (Letter from Field Supervisor Tony Sullins, 10/10/2008) confirms the species and critical habitat that should be considered for projects conducted on the Superior National Forest: Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) and Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), both listed as threatened Canada Lynx critical habitat (proposed), and Gray Wolf critical habitat Page 4

5 2.0 Consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service The Forest Service has initiated consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) seeking concurrence with the determination of effects in this BA, which concludes that the proposed action (Alternative 2) for the Maple Hill Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx or gray wolf. In addition to consultation requested for this project, programmatic consultation was recently undertaken for Forest Plan revision. The history of this consultation is documented in the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the revision of the forest plans (USDA Forest Service 2004b, pp. 6-7). The relevance of program-level consultation to this project includes those agreements between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service reached on defining elements of species ecology and biology, risk factors and general effects, analysis parameters, monitoring, and management direction in the revised Forest Plan. The BA provides more specific information on how relevant information in the program-level BA is incorporated. Additionally, other factors relevant to this project not discussed in detail in program-level consultation will be discussed in detail in this BA. Lynx: Although the Forest Plan Programmatic BA consultation and conference on Canada lynx occurred prior to proposed critical habitat designation in February 2008 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b), most of the risk factors to lynx that were analyzed also address the Primary Constituent Elements of proposed Critical Habitat. Therefore, the Programmatic BA also has similar relevance to proposed Critical Habitat as it does to lynx itself. In the Federal Register on February 28, 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed revising the Canada lynx Critical Habitat designation to include all of the Superior National Forest (and other additional lands in Northeastern Minnesota) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b). On March 4 th, 2008, the Twin Cities Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service sent a letter to the Superior NF advising the Forest Supervisor of the proposed change in critical habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008c). The proposal includes almost all the Superior NF east of U.S. Highway 53. Critical Habitat has not yet been established; we are proceeding as if all the Superior NF will officially be included. Wolf: As a result of the increasing Minnesota population and the development of viable populations in neighboring states, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently removed Endangered Species Act protection for the Gray Wolf Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment. The final rule to delist this Distinct Population Segment was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2007, and took effect on March 12, Since that time, about eighteen months, the Forest Service has considered the wolf a sensitive species (Regional Forester s Sensitive Species List, USDA Forest Service, 2004c). They have been included in all Biological Evaluations written for management projects during that time with the objective of averting and mitigating adverse effects in order to maintain wolf viability and population health, and prevent relisting as a federally threatened or endangered species. On September 30, 2008, Susan Oetker, FWS Biologist and liaison between the Superior NF and the Fish and Wildlife Service, sent a letter via stating, our delisting of the Page 5

6 Great Lakes population of grey wolf was vacated- in other words, it is still a threatened species (Oetker, , 2008). District Judge, Paul Friedman, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, so ordered in response to a law suit brought by the Humane Society of the United States and several other animal protection groups against the delisting by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. The FWS must satisfy the court that it is not arbitrary and capricious in simultaneously designating the Great Lakes Segment as a distinct wolf population and removing it from the Federal List of Threatened Species (Friedman, 2008). Until this is resolved, the wolf will again be included in Superior NF Biological Assessments for management projects. 3.0 The Proposed Action: Location: The Maple Hill Project is on the Superior National Forest, Gunflint Ranger District, Cook County, Minnesota. It is roughly within the one to two mile zone surrounding Devil Track Lake just north of Grand Marais, Minnesota, Township 62 North and Ranges 1 West and 1 East. The area encompasses approximately 6,123 acres of National Forest System land. (Map attached) o Ecological Setting: Table 3-1: Ecological Setting Maple Hill Project Area Landscape Ecosystem Percent of Project Area Acres Mesic Birch-Aspen 88 5,395 Sugar Maple Lowland Conifer Total 6,123 Data source: From data run 9/24/08. Forest Service CDS stand data. Figures adjusted on 11/4/08 to reflect previous land acquisitions. o Overview of species Affected Environment: Table 3-2: Acres and Percent of each Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) within the Maple Hill Project Area Lynx Analysis Unit Gross Acres Acres of LAU in Project Area % of LAU in Project Area LAU 38 40,213 ~2,961 7 LAU 39 27,367 ~3, Data source: Based on mapped acreage. Page 6

7 Assessments for the gray wolf assume the Lynx Analysis Units for road densities, possible human activities, and implied habitat affecting denning potential, prey abundance, and thermal and hiding cover. Table 3-3: Percent of Gray Wolf Management Zones in the Maple Hill Project Area Wolf Percent of Project Area (Critical habitat) Zone Data source: 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf o Other relevant setting features: The project area surrounds the 1,873 acre Devil Track Lake and includes roads, houses, and business surrounding the lake. The extent of the project area was chosen to meet the primary goal of reducing the potential for wildfire to threaten the residents of the area. The activities, therefore, are relatively close to the lake. Proposed action summary The Maple Hill Project is designed to reduce fuel and burning potential by harvesting mature trees and eliminating fuel on federal land. The alternatives are described in Chapter 1 of the Maple Hill Environmental Assessment (EA). The Operational Standards and Guidelines are listed Appendix D. Alternative 2, the action alternative, includes the following activities: Primary Treatments (acres) Clearcut with Reserves 782 Patch Clearcut 106 Seed-Tree Cut 25 Shelter-wood - 63 Two-aged shelterwood Understory Fuels Reduction- 77 Secondary Treatments - (acres) Slash Disposal 568 Mechanical Site Prep 367 Site Preparation Burn Reforestation - (acres) Natural regeneration 673 Interplanting 330 Convert to pine Page 7

8 Transportation Construct temporary roads with a combined mileage of approximately 4 miles to access stands; these temporary roads would then be obliterated when treatment is finished. Purpose of the action: The purpose of the action is to implement the Forest Plan and is described in the Maple Hill EA, Chapter 1. Briefly, the intent is to: 1. Reduce hazardous fuels in wildland urban interface areas. The purpose of this project is to reduce the volume, concentrations, and proximity of fuel to existing structures to reduce potential wildland fire. Natural fuels have accumulated because humans have diminished the incidence of natural fire in the last 100+ years. 2. Provide sustainable timber products. The Maple Hill Project Area contains many acres of land classified as capable of producing timber. A Forest Plan desired condition is to provide sustainable timber sales and a continuous supply of timber to area mills (Forest Plan, 2004, pp D-TM-1 and O-TM-1). 3. Enhance the Devil Trout Grouse Management Area (GMA). The Devil Trout Grouse Management Area (Hunter Walking Trail System) was established in It encompasses about 500 acres on National Forest System land and about 300 acres of State land. Aspen forest dominates the area. Small five to 20 acre clearcuts and walking trails encourage grouse and hunting on foot. Small harvests have occurred on the National Forest System land in 1985 and Approximately 5.5 miles of hunter walking trails were established. Action is needed now to establish another age class of young aspen forest within the Devil Trout GMA. Time frame of the action: Anticipated timeframes of the action are described in the Maple Hill EA. Generally, the harvests are likely to start in 2010 and the final planting would occur ideally by 2012, but will rely on when the harvest is completed. The harvests could occur in summer, fall, and winter. Some units have specific harvest times such as winter or summer to avoid damaging their soils. Seasonal restrictions are noted on unit cards. Sites are prepared for planting in summer, fall, and winter, and planting occurs in spring. Purchasers have five years to harvest their timber, so planting could occur after The year 2014 marks the first decade of the Forest Plan and is used as our benchmark to measure cumulative changes to management indicator habitats. Page 8

9 Project activities analyzed in program-level BA Table 3-4: Project activities analyzed in program-level BA Proposed actions Alt. 1 No Action Alt. 2 Addressed in Program-level BA? Timber Harvest NA X Y Reforestation NA X Y Temporary roads NA X Y Hazardous fuel reduction NA X Y 4.0 Status of the Species Canada Lynx: Ecology (see section 4.3 of program-level BA) Home range and dispersal: Burdett et. al. (2008 p.42) reports that mean annual home range size was much larger for males (134 km 2 ) than for females (56 km 2 ), and differed from previous lynx home range estimates by Mech (1980) in Minnesota. However, the results for females include and is likely controlled by the high number of females with maternal dens or traveling with kittens < 5 months old. These numbers are probably affecting the averages. Males had a tendency to increase their home ranges during breeding months while movements of females showed little change. Burdett also states that females generally exhibited less home-range overlap than males. He reports long-distance movement being more common in male lynxes. These long distance movements are often attributed to behavioral response to low hare abundance, however, from examinations of body mass of wide-ranging lynxes and metabolic requirements, his data suggest males may adjust their breeding season movements up or down based on female density. While some male lynxes traveled widely throughout January-March, one male had a March home range of <10 km 2 when it had access to > 2 females in the area. Female movements showed little change during the breeding months. Females with kittens consistently occupied small home-ranges. This was most evident during the May-June denning season. The sizes of the Superior National Forest s LAUs were based on the approximate size of lynx home ranges defined in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruedigger et. al., 2000). Burdett et. al. (2008) found that core area he defined for male and female lynx with GPS telemetry are generally within the spatial extent suggested by these LAU guidelines. Page 9

10 Diet and Habitat: A study by Hanson and Moen (2008, p. i) of lynx diet based on scat analysis indicated that in northeastern Minnesota, as in all other parts of its range, snowshoe hare are the most important component of Canada lynx diet. Snowshoe hare remains were found in 76% of scats. If scats in which only white tailed deer hair was found were eliminated, snowshoe hare remains were found in 97% of scats. (The researchers believe most if not all deer hair found was from bait stations used during radio-telemetry project). The study found predation or scavenging on other species including deer, marten, grouse, and other birds. They also found one instance of scavenging or possible predation on another lynx. Burdett (in Hanson and Moen (2008) also found 92% of predation events were snowshoe hare while he snow-tracked lynx. Even though snowshoe hare density in Minnesota is similar to density at low parts of the cycle in northern hare populations (McCann, 2006 in Hanson and Moen, 2008), alternate prey species do not seem to be as important in Minnesota lynx diet compared with other lynx populations (Aubrey, 2000 in Hanson and Moen, 2008). Following six GPS collared lynxes (three males, three females) Burdett (2008, pgs , ) reports lynx consistently selected against lowland conifer and selected for forest edges. Lynxes did not use lowland-conifer forests for hunting or resting. This consistent selection against lowland-conifer forest was unexpected because lowland-conifer forests have traditionally been considered good habitat for snowshoe hares in the northern Great Lakes states (Buehler and Keith, 1982; Pietz and Tester, 1983; Fuller and Heisey, 1986 in Burdett, 2008). Most lowland-conifer forests in the Burdett study area were black spruce dominated wetlands on actively accumulating peat formations. Discrepancies with previous studies may result from hares using more diverse lowland-conifer with denser under stories containing cedar, tamarack, willow and alder or previous studies may have been conducted when hares were more abundant and using sub-optimal habitat. Lynx used regenerating (10-30 year old) and mixed forests where these forest types were available. Lynx used upland-conifer and mixed forest and open areas in proportion to their availability. Burdett saw little use of upland conifer forest despite previous reports to the contrary (Wolf, 1980; Hoving et. al., 2005 in Burdett, 2008). Lynx consistently selected core areas and home ranges where there were regenerating forests (10-30 years old), reflecting, Burdett suggests, the greater abundance of hares in these forests. Most hare kills were short-distance chases that occurred during lynx movements and few kills originated from hunting beds. The increased use of hunting beds in mixed forests may indicate lynx used this hunting strategy in areas where hares are less abundant (Burdett, 2008, p.110). Page 10

11 The above suggests a key component of habitat management for lynx in Minnesota is the creation and maintenance of successional forest through timber harvest and natural or prescribed fire. Den site selection: In Burdett s (2008, p. 63) study area, although lynx selected against lowland conifer for foraging, these forests often provide denning habitat and breeding females continued to show increased use of these forests during summer and fall when kitten mobility remained limited. In Minnesota, at the larger scale, it appears that potential den sites may be associated with wetland areas. There was an increase in lowland conifer cover type because dens were often located in low-lying wet areas. Dens themselves were on upland but adjacent to wetter low-lying areas (Moen and Burdett, 2008, p.14). Moen and Burdett (2008, p. 9) found that presence or absence of horizontal and vertical cover appears to be more important than whether a den site is located on mature or regenerating forest. Den sites in Minnesota were associated with downed trees in areas of 20 square meters to >1 hectare. The common theme seemed to be lower stem densities (stem dbh >5cm) near the den than in the surrounding area; often a dense growth of saplings <5cm, although it doesn t appear the den must be surrounded entirely by this cover; and a high proportion of conifer in the vegetation immediately surrounding the den. Although conifer species were more common near the site, more of them were dead as compared with the surrounding forest. The Forest Plan BA Model Parameters (USDA, 2004, app. D) identifies old forest (generally 80+ for conifer and 60+ for hardwoods) as lynx denning habitat. Moen and Burdett s (2008, p.9) findings emphasize micro-site rather than the importance of age of the forest for denning habitat. Given this new information, it appears the amount of suitable denning habitat generated by our models is quite inaccurate. However, the model may still capture the forests most likely to blow down, and those near lowlands could provide good micro-sites for denning. Selection of den site location does not appear to occur very many days before parturition. Date of parturition in Minnesota was May 7 th (+ 2 days) for 3 adult females based on GPS collar locations, female and kittens left the den at about 7 weeks (Moen and Burdett, 2008, pg. 8). Mortality: The programmatic Biological Assessment (USDA FS, 2004b) identified paved roads as one of several factors contributing to lynx mortality across its range. At that time, most documented lynx road mortality was in relocated animals suggesting that introduced animals may be more vulnerable to highway mortality than resident lynx (Brocke et. al., 1990, in USDA FS, 2004b). Since the programmatic BA was written more information has become available on lynx road mortality. It is Page 11

12 evident by the data that follows, paved and gravel roads are both factors that contribute to resident lynx mortality. o In Minnesota, between 2001 and 2006, 5 lynx are known to have been killed on roads (USDA FS, 2007): 2 were on paved highways (speed limits mph) 2 were on paved secondary roads (speed limits?-60 mph) 1 was on a gravel Forest Service Road (OML 3) (speed limits mph) The Minnesota DNR and Natural Resources Research Institute have not maintained current records of lynx mortality. o In Maine, since 2000, eleven lynx have been killed on roads; nine were on higher speed, gravel, logging roads and two on paved public roads. Most mortality occurred on two-lane haul roads where higher traffic volume and speed would occur. These roads are open to the public, and public traffic volume exceeds logging traffic by several-fold (McCollough, 2007). Trapping, hunting, and other potential sources of human caused mortality are indirectly influenced by roads and are address in the programmatic BA. Since 2002, 5 lynx are known to have been shot and 17 lynx are known to have been trapped in Minnesota. Of the trapped lynx 9 were released alive (MN DNR, 2008). Interspecific relationships with other carnivores: Researchers and managers have suggested that the presence of compacted snowmobile trails may allow coyotes to access lynx habitat from which they were previously excluded by deep, unconsolidated snow. This could then allow coyotes to more effectively compete with lynx for snowshoe hares, the lynx s primary prey. Kolbe et. al. ( 2007, pg. 1409) reports coyotes did not travel closer to compacted snowmobile trails than random expectation (coyote x distance from compacted trails = 368 m, random expectation = 339 m) and the distance they traveled from these trails did not vary with daily, monthly, or yearly changes in snow supportiveness or depth. However, they strongly selected for naturally shallower and more supportive snow surfaces when traveling off compacted snowmobile trails. Coyotes were primarily scavengers in winter (snowshoe hare kills composed 3% of coyote feed sites) and did not forage closer to compacted snowmobile trails than random expectation. The overall influence of snowmobile trails on coyote movements and foraging success during winter appeared to be minimal in the study area (western Montana). This study provides important information on lynx relationship with coyote but currently has few if any management implications for the SNF for two reasons; coyotes are not prevalent on the SNF due to the presence of wolves and the relationship between compacted snow trails and bobcats remains unknown. Population dynamics: No new information Page 12

13 Population Status (see section 4.4 of program-level BA) North America: No new information Minnesota: The Minnesota DNR does not currently maintain an active lynx record. The last entries were in November, 2006: o 426 reports with location information have been received to date o 63 (15%) reports have been verified as lynx o 161 (38%) reports have had enough evidence to be considered probable o 202 (47%) reports are unverified o 35 (8%) reports are assumed to provide evidence of reproduction Superior National Forest: The Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) study has captured and collared 33 lynx on the Superior NF. Adults and yearlings wore collars for over 15,000 radio-days, while kittens (animals radio-collared at < 1 year old) wore collars for about 3,500 days. Movements and habitat use have been documented including den locations. From adult radio-collared females had 31 kittens in 10 litters. Status of eight kittens that were marked at the den site or radio-collared is five dead and three alive after two years. Only one animal collared as a kitten still has a transmitting radio collar. Of the 33 lynx radio-collared 17 are dead. Mean duration of monitoring was 1.6 years, with 21 of 33 lynx monitored for one to three years. Lynx have maintained a continuous presence from 2003 to date. At least 78 unique individual lynx have been identified genetically through 3/4/2008 with additional samples to be submitted this year (Moen et. al., 2008). Minnesota s lynx-hare cycles: No new information Population Status in Project Area: Project site-specific surveys: No surveys were conducted in the project area. The NRRI lynx study included the project area. Personnel connected with that study surveyed the area without much sign to report (Burdette, pers. comm.). One of the collared lynx in the study for a time roamed the area just southwest of Devil Track Lake and adjacent to the project area. Much of that habitat is lowland conifer (Burdette, pers. comm.). A further assessment of the lynx data resulting from the NRRI lynx study focuses on the potential for denning habitat across the Superior NF. Habitat parameters based on those surrounding the 10 dens discovered during the study were applied in a systematic way across the landscape to find the areas with the highest likelihood for lynx to den. The resulting map shows that the portion of the Superior NF in which the Gunflint RD lies only has scattered denning habitat, whereas the landscape in the center of the Forest has a significant amount of denning habitat (Moen, et. al., 2008). This doesn t mean lynx do not den in the Gunflint RD. Certainly, many other aspects of the habitat here seems good, but the lynxes that Moen and Burdette followed were Page 13

14 predominantly in the center of the Forest. Their surveys seemed to show the resident population of lynx was more numerous where favorable conditions for denning are more common. However, the denning model is based on 10 dens, and we do not know all the parameters necessary for lynx occupancy. Until we redefine our denning habitat parameters for assessment we will follow the assumptions made for the Forest Plan (2004, App. E), generally that is older, conifer dominated forest. Much of the forested habitat surrounding Devil Track Lake does not appear to be good habitat for lynx, especially given the presence of human settlement. Some of the mixed forest/lowland/riparian area in the northern and northwest corner of the project area may be suited for hare, but the majority of the area is aspen dominated with less conifer than is ideal for lynx and hare (Burdett, 2008). Factors Affecting Lynx Environment (see section 4.5 of program-level BA) Roads and trails: No new information Winter dispersed recreation: No new information Trapping and shooting: No new information Vehicle collisions: See mortality above. Other factors: Gray Wolf Ecology (see section 3.3 of program-level BA) Breeding habitat: No new information Home range and dispersal: The MN DNR wolf status report (Erb, 2008) indicates that the broad distribution of wolves in Minnesota has not changed since the mid to late 1990 s. The duration between surveys has recently been shortened from 10 years to 5 years, and the latest surveys continue to indicate that wolf range has stabilized; there has been no consistent increasing or decreasing trend in the amount of occupied range. Average territory size was essentially identical during the last 2 wolf surveys. Average pack size does appear to have slightly declined through time, likely due in part to space-use and competition in an increasingly saturated wolf range (Erb, 2008). Diet: No new information Population Status (see section 3.4 of program-level BA) North America and Minnesota: Page 14

15 In 1974, when the wolf was first protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Minnesota population was estimated at 750 and their range estimated at 15,000 square miles. Today, the population is thought to be about 3,000 (2,192 3,525) and their range is about 28,500 square miles (Erb, 2008). This population level is well above what was considered to be the recovery total of 1,250 to 1,400 by year Today, wolves live in areas with higher road and human densities than previously believed could be suitable for wolf survival, although these two factors still limit the areas suitable for wolf packs. Wolves continue to disperse to areas in west-central and east-central Minnesota (just north of Minneapolis/St. Paul), North and South Dakota, and Wisconsin, but their occupied range and population size has remained essentially unchanged for the past decade. The current population is probably near the expected, theoretical upper density limit and is near the upper end of previously recorded densities in North America (Erb, 2008) The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN DNR, 2001) which was in effect until the recent relisting, has established a goal to maintain a minimum population of 1,600 wolves (in Zone A) to ensure the long-term survival of the wolf in Minnesota. Gray wolf subpopulations are stable or increasing in Wisconsin and Michigan as well as in Minnesota. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed Endangered Species Act protection for the Gray Wolf Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment in The final rule to delist this Distinct Population Segment was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2007, and it took effect on March 12, 2007 (USDI, 2007). Wolf management on the SNF then became governed by the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN DNR, 2001). The wolf was added to the list of Sensitive Species known as the Regional Forester s Sensitive Species List (USDA FS, 2004c) on the Superior National Forest, and management objectives changed from seeking to recover the species to seeking to maintain, protect, and enhance its habitat and prevent federal relisting. On Sept 29, 2008, a federal court overturned the decision to delist, returning gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region to their status as Threatened. Superior National Forest: Since 1969, the wolf population on the Superior NF has averaged about 1 wolf per sq. mi. (Forest Plan Programmatic BA, 2004b, p51). Wolves may be more numerous now than before 1900 (Forest Plan Programmatic BA, 2004b, p51). It also appears that human persecution before protection under the Endangered Species Act was a major factor in depressing wolf numbers (Forest Plan Programmatic BA, 2004b, p55). The Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) for the Forest Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004), considered the human-caused mortality to be the major limiting factor to wolves (pp13 and 14) Page 15

16 and that road access control is important to minimizing adverse effects to wolves (p.17). Summary of wolf mortality in Minnesota: No new information. Population Status in Project Area: Project site-specific surveys: No direct surveys for white-tailed deer, moose, or beaver are done in the project area. The MNDNR conducts aerial moose surveys in winter for the entire moose range in northeast Minnesota. The MNDNR is currently concerned about the state-wide decline in the moose population. State biologists along with those of federal agencies, and 1854 Authority are currently engaged in a research project now in its third year to determine the cause of the decline. The current moose population for the northeast range is ~7, (Lenarz, 2008a). Moose probably number 0.20 to 0.50 per square mile (pers. est.) in the project area. Known occurrences: Wolves and wolf sign have been observed throughout the project area, though the exact number of individuals or packs, or patterns of use are not known. However, suitable foraging habitat is abundant and well distributed across the project area, deer and moose occur throughout, and despite the concentration of human settlement, we assume wolves occupy the whole area. 3.5 Factors Affecting Wolf Environment Prey habitat: Wolves are habitat generalists. Type, age, and structure of vegetation do not directly affect their distribution. However, in their northern Minnesota range vegetation condition is important to their primary prey species: moose (Alces alces), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and beaver (Castor canadensis). Each of these prey species is currently present within the project area. However, deer are, by far, the most numerous of the three species. Moose habitat is moderately good in the area, and beaver habitat has been declining for a couple of decades here as in most areas of the Superior NF. This area is in deer permit area 126 which currently averages 11 deer per square mile in the fall (Lenarz, 2008b). I would estimate that would translate into a fall population of about deer per square mile. The MNDNR now recognizes that the deer herd in general is too high throughout most of Minnesota and are managing to reduce it. Through public meetings in, 2006, the MNDNR has established a goal of reducing the spring deer numbers in zone 126 to six per square mile (Cornicelli, 2006). The project area has a few drainages that support beaver, but the potential is rather limited. Most of that occurs in the upper reaches of Junco Creek, Olson Lake tributary, and the unnamed creek east of Junco Creek; virtually all of which lie outside the stands proposed for treatment in this project. These and the lesser streams in the area, as is the case over much of the Superior National Forest, are providing marginal beaver habitat because stream edges have not been disturbed in decades. Page 16

17 Young aspen, willow, and birch have been replaced by conifer. Moreover, the MNDNR Fisheries Division considers Junko and the Olson Lake creeks to be trout streams, and actively manages against beaver inhabitation on these and other trout streams. Beaver populations are not currently surveyed. Older monitoring data show a decreasing trend since the early 1990s to levels similar to the late 1980s (Forest Plan Programmatic BA, 2004b, p62). Nevertheless, beaver occur in the project area. Given this scenario of wolf prey, i.e. declining moose and beaver populations, and an attempt to reduce the deer populations, it would seem the wolf population in the area could be limited and may decline. This is not necessarily so, however. As stated above the wolves in Minnesota have increased in number since the 1970 s while moose numbers have remained relatively constant, deer numbers were lower than they are now, and beaver numbers were somewhat higher. While the wolf population has been at a constant status for the last decade or so they have certainly not utilized all the biomass potential available in their prey populations. Except for periodic declines usually caused by severe winters, the deer numbers have generally increased over the last century, and especially since 1970 when the MNDNR imposed its current deer management strategy (MNDNR, 2005). There appears to be considerable leeway for prey levels to drop before wolves would be affected. Human access: No new information Other factors: No new information 5.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences CANADA LYNX: A. Analysis Area: Table 3 in Overview Section above shows all Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) that overlap the Maple Hill Project Area. They are LAU 38 and 39, and activities are proposed in each. Direct/Indirect Effects Analysis Area: Habitat Indicators: The analysis area is federal lands within LAU s 38 and 39. See Superior National Forest Plan Appendix E: Canada Lynx, Section 5. Scales of Analysis, pg E-4, for definition of LAU (USDA Forest Service, 2004). Human Disturbance Indicators: The analysis is based on federal roads and trails within LAU s 38 and 39. Cumulative Effects Analysis Area: Cumulative effects considers all ownerships and roads within LAU s 38 and 39. However, the focus is on state land management since the state manages most of the public land in the area that is not federal. Past actions are taken into account in the existing condition. Present and foreseeable future actions are considered. See Superior National Forest Plan Appendix E: Canada Lynx (USDA Forest Service, 2004) for a description of project risk factors and area of analysis considered in the Cumulative Effects Page 17

18 analysis for this species. Activities outside of the project area but within these LAU s were considered in addition to those proposed in the EA. Analysis timeframe: o Existing condition: 2008; and 2004 is the base year to assess cumulative change on federal lands. o Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative effects: 2014 The year 2014 marks the first decade of the Forest Plan and is used as our benchmark to measure changes to management indicator habitats. B. Effects Analysis: The effects indicators are selected from the list below. Indicators On February 28, 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed revising the Canada lynx Critical Habitat designation to include all of the Superior National Forest (and other lands in Northeastern Minnesota) as Critical Habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008b). Critical Habitat must contain Primary Constituent Elements, as required by 50 CFR , which are physical and biological features of habitat essential to the conservation of the species. Lynx Critical Habitat: Proposed critical habitat for lynx is defined as boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages and containing these Primary Constituent Elements : a) Presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred habitat conditions, including dense understories of young trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude above the snow; b) Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time; c) Sites for denning having abundant coarse, woody debris, such as downed trees and root wads; and d) Matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest, non-forest, or other habitat types that do not support snowshoe hares) that occurs between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition (at the scale of a lynx home range) such that lynx are likely to travel through such habitat while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range. The important aspect of matrix habitat for lynx is that these habitats retain the ability to allow unimpeded movement of lynx through them as lynx travel between patches of boreal forest. Each of the selected analysis indicators below is included to address both lynx and lynx Critical Habitat. They are appropriately included as indicators for the newly proposed lynx Critical Habitat because they address the Primary Constituent Elements of lynx habitat. The exception is that these do not address snow depth. However, at the scale of Minnesota s proposed critical habitat, snow depth is adequate, and, perhaps more important, it is not a factor that national forest management can control. Page 18

19 Table 5 below includes a cross reference between Critical Habitat and the Primary Constituent Elements Table 5-1: Analysis Indicators selection and rationale. Forest Plan BA Indicator PCE Use? Rationale for exclusion 1a. Snowshoe hare habitat a acres Y 1b. Percent of unsuitable a, b, c, d Indicator 12, below, provides N habitat on NFS land measure needed. 2. Acres of red squirrel habitat d Y 3. Denning habitat in patches c > 5 acres Y 4. Travel (or Matrix) Habitat - a, c, d Percent of lynx habitat in LAUs with adequate canopy cover- upland forest > 4 years Y old and lowland forest > 9 years old 5. Miles of ATV trails b There are no designated ATV trails allowed in the project area. This project does N not propose any addition to the ATV 6. Miles of snowmobile trails allowed 7. Miles of temp and OML 1&2 roads 8. Policy on cross-country use of ATVs and snowmobiles 9. Policy on use of ATVs and snowmobiles on OML 1&2 roads Other Indicators usually needed to address lynx 10. Acres of snowshoe hare habitat in which within stand structure will be increased thru diversity and underplanting of conifer on SNF lands. b b b a N Y N N N trail system. This project proposes no change in the snowmobile trail system. This project proposes no change to the cross-country use of ATVs or snowmobile policy. This project proposes no change to the policy on ATVs and snowmobile use of OML 1 and 2 roads. Rationale for inclusion The stand diversity is not likely to change markedly. White and red pine, and birch would be interplanted on 319 ac., but 684 ac. would be clearcut. The diversity in the clearcut acreage would decline as aspen would likely dominate for Page 19

20 Table 5-1: Analysis Indicators selection and rationale. Forest Plan BA Indicator PCE Use? Rationale for exclusion the first several decades. 11. Acres and % of lynx a, c, d This will usually be required to habitat currently unsuitable on provide information to examine G- Y all ownerships WL-3 (minimum of 30% unsuitable 12. Cumulative change to unsuitable condition on NFS lands. (S-WL-1) 13. Road and compacted trail density on all ownership. Other Indicators examples that may be needed to address lynx #X. Miles of roads to be decommissioned and new OML 1 roads to be closed on NFS lands #X. Miles of road where RMVs are allowed on NFS lands. a, c, d b b b Y Y N N on all ownerships) This will usually be required to provide information to examine S- WL-1 (minimum of 15% unsuitable in 10 yr on NFS) This will usually be required to provide information to examine G- WL-8 Rationale for inclusion Existing Conditions and Effects Table 5-2: Indicator - 1a: Snowshoe Hare Habitat. Existing Condition Acres and Percent of habitat after project implementation LAU Alternative 1 Snowshoe Hare Habitat (no action) Alternative 2 Acres % Acres % Acres % 38 15, , , , , , Data source: LAU assessment model run for SNF (10/17/08) Indicator - 1a: Snowshoe Hare Habitat Changes to hare habitat shown in the above table indicates minimal, temporary, and necessary loss of foraging, denning, or travel habitat. On a regular basis forested stands are opened, in this case through timber harvest, and in which hare forage improves as saplings and shrubs regenerate. As written above under Diet and Habitat, collared lynx in the recent lynx study here in the Superior NF selected for Page 20

21 regenerating forest, spending most of their time in favorable hare habitat. The Forest Plan (2004, p.2-70) age class objectives for the Mesic Birch/Aspen/Spruce-Fir LE include maintaining 10 percent of the forest in regeneration (0 9 age class). These figures were analyzed by the Forest Plan Biological Assessment (2004) and are assumed beneficial to lynx survival. Hare habitat declines similarly either through harvest or succession in either alternative. That acreage lost through harvest is temporary and would become hare habitat again in three (hardwood) to five (conifer) years. Hare forage potential will likely remain in the 60 to 80 percent range in these LAU s through time. All stands to be harvested contain and are adjacent to other forms of lynx habitat hare, squirrel, denning, and travel. The results of the activities would be as it is currently; denning would be adjacent to hare habitat, would be adjacent to squirrel habitat, etc. In most project areas a continuum forest cover links almost all lynx habitats together. In this case, Devil Track Lake prevents easy access for lynx to travel north and south. However, the habitat continuum radiates outward from the lake. Table 5-3: Indicator - 2: Red Squirrel Habitat. Existing Condition Acres and Percent of habitat after project implementation LAU Alternative 1 Red Squirrel Habitat (no action) Alternative 2 Acres % Acres % Acres % 38 5, , , , , , Data source: LAU assessment model run for SNF (10/17/08) Indicator - 2: Red Squirrel Habitat The upland conifer component will increase under either alternative. Currently, all upland conifer, forest types make up only 15 percent of the project area. But there is, of course, a conifer component to most of these stands. The conifer component is increasing in older stands Forest-wide, and stands are converting to conifer dominance through time. This increase is anticipated and fits with the objectives of the Forest Plan (2004) and indicates two factors: First, much of the Superior is in this same condition; the percentage of older forest is growing. As aspen and birch stands age, natural succession leads to an increase in spruce and balsam fir. Eventually, without disturbance these stands will be dominated by spruce and fir. Second, this national forest has increased efforts to maintain and convert to stands of pines, spruce, or tamarack; and to plant conifer species in many stands regenerating to birch and aspen. This effort along with natural succession will help restore more conifer dominance on the landscape, and more natural stand diversity to benefit native wildlife. The proposed project would harvest 1066 acres of forest, 80 percent of that is hardwood dominated with spruce and fir in the understory. Much of this spruce and fir would be harvested; indeed, the intent is to reduce the fir fuel component. However, 393 acres would be planted with red and white pine, and/or prepared for natural regeneration of conifers. Most of this reforestation, or 330 acres, would be inter and under-planting for forest diversity, and the resulting pine component would not offer the Page 21

22 same fuel hazard as spruce and fir. The pine offers good red squirrel forage and would maintain red squirrel potential in the project area over time. Table 5-3: Indicator - 3: Denning Habitat in patches > 5 acres. Existing Condition Acres and % of habitat patches (>5 ac) after project implementation LAU Forested Denning habitat in Alternative 1 Lynx Habitat patches (no action) Alternative 2 Acres Acres % Acres % Acres % 38 23,143 11, , , ,576 7, , , Data source: LAU assessment model run for SNF (10/17/08) Indicator - 3: Denning Habitat in patches > 5 acres The Forest Plan calls for maintaining denning habitat on at least 10 percent of lynx habitat. As obvious in the above table, that potential would be maintained on half the area with potential for lynx despite the alternative. The model for this analysis assumes lynx select old forest for necessary denning structure. The slight decline with the No Action Alternative relates to successional forest changes. The slight decline under Alternative 2 relates to changes in stand ages due to harvest. From research cited above under Den site selection using stand age to indicate denning may be a false presumption. It appears good horizontal structure with a downed tree and shrub and sapling screening could serve for denning in forest of any age. But, proximity to lowland conifer may be more important. The potential for lynx seems good Forest-wide because favorable structure is very common and widespread across the Forest, and the likelihood of good structure near lowlands is quite high as well. Denning is quite possible in this project area; however, the potential may be lower here because there are no extensive lowland areas. Table 5-4: Indicator - 4: Travel Habitat with Adequate Canopy Cover (upland forest > 4 years old and lowland forest > 9 years old). LAU Total habitat (forested and non-forested) Existing Condition Forested habitat upland and lowland Acres and % of forested habitat after project implementation Alternative 1 (no action) Alternative 2 Acres Acres % Acres % Acres % 38 24,863 22, , , ,095 14, , , Data source: LAU assessment model run for SNF (10/17/08) Page 22