BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES. Forestwide Recreation and Administrative Site Hazard Tree Removal

Transcription

1 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES Forestwide Recreation and Administrative Site Hazard Tree Removal Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National Forest Prepared By: Laura Conway, Forest Biologist, Lewis and Clark NF Signature /s/ Laura Conway Date 7/25/2011 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PROPOSED PROJECT SPECIES ASSESSMENTS Grizzly Bear Determination of Effects Canada Lynx Determination of Effects Canada Lynx Critical Habitat Determination of Effects CONSULTATION LITERATURE CITED MAPS 1. Vicinity 2. Grizzly Bear Habitat Map Area 1 3. Grizzly Bear Habitat Map Area 2 4. Grizzly Bear Habitat Map Area 3 5. Grizzly Bear Habitat Map Area 4 6. Grizzly Bear Habitat Map Area 5 7. Lynx Habitat Map Area 1 8. Lynx Habitat Map Area 2 9. Lynx Habitat Map Area Lynx Habitat Map Area Lynx Habitat Map Area

3 3

4 SUMMARY The Lewis and Clark National Forest (LCNF) proposes to remove hazard trees in the immediate vicinity of recreation sites, administrative sites, and permitted recreation residences on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District (RMRD). This Biological Assessment analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on the Threatened Grizzly Bear and Canada Lynx and on designated Canada Lynx Critical Habitat. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS Implementation of the proposed Federal action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Threatened grizzly bear and Canada lynx, and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect designated Canada lynx critical habitat. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its implementation regulations, and FSM , the Lewis and Clark National Forest is required to request written concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with respect to determinations of potential effects on Threatened Grizzly Bear and Canada Lynx. NEED FOR RE-ASSESSMENT BASED ON CHANGED CONDITIONS The Biological Assessment findings are based on the best current data and scientific information available. A revised Biological Assessment must be prepared if: (1) new information reveals affects, which may impact threatened, endangered, and proposed species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this assessment; (2) the Proposed Plan is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an affect, which was not considered in this assessment; or (3) a new species is listed or habitat identified, which may be affected by the action. 4

5 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to assess the possible effects of a proposed federal action on the threatened, endangered, and proposed species and their habitats. Threatened, endangered, and proposed species are managed under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (PL , as amended) and the National Forest Management Act (PL ). Under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Federal agencies shall use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species, and shall insure any action authorized, funded, or implemented by the agency is not likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species; or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat (16 USC 1536). This Biological Assessment analyzes the potential effects of the proposed federal action on all threatened, endangered, and proposed species known or suspected to occur in the Proposed Project influence area (Table 1). This species list was confirmed on 30 June 2011 by referencing the FWS website: The list for the Rocky Mountain Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest was most recently updated on the website on 26 May Life history information on these species can be found in the reference document The Distribution, Life History, and Recovery Objectives For Region One Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Terrestrial Wildlife Species (2001) and is incorporated by reference in this Biological Assessment. Additional information is found in Lewis and Clark National Forest Evaluation and Compliance with National Forest Management Act Requirements to Provide for Viability and Diversity of Animal Communities (USDA Forest Service 2011). Table 1. Threatened, Endangered And Proposed Species and Habitats Known Or Suspected To Occur Within The Influence Area Of The Proposed Plan. Species/Habitat Status Occurrence Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Threatened Known to occur throughout Rocky Mountain RD Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened; Critical Habitat Known to occur throughout Rocky Mountain RD; Entire RMRD included in Unit 3 of Proposed critical habitat 5

6 FOREST PLAN GUIDANCE FOR WILDLIFE AND FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan requires, in Forest-Wide Management Standard C-2 (threatened and endangered species, Forest Plan pp through 2-34), that the forest comply with all provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and any other laws, orders or regulations pertaining to threatened or endangered species. The Forest Plan also directs managers to maintain active communication with research and to use current research for implementing projects in Threatened and Endangered species habitat (Standard C-2-4). Standard C-2-11 directs the Forest to establish an active public information and education program addressing Threatened and Endangered species management and emphasizing protective measures. The Forest Plan provides direction to manage motorized use on NFS lands to reduce effects on wildlife during periods of high stress (Standard C-1-6). It requires use of the Rocky Mountain Front Interagency Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program Guidelines (RMF Guidelines) for managing activities in specific wildlife habitats (C-1-11), and directs managers to work with other agencies to develop, schedule, and implement wildlife habitat improvement projects (Standards C-1-12 and C-1-13). Forest Plan guidance specific to individual species is addressed in the appropriate species assessment below. PROPOSED PROJECT The Lewis and Clark National Forest proposes to remove hazard trees in the vicinity of recreation sites, administrative sites, and permitted recreation residences (Recreation and Administrative Site Hazard Tree Reduction Project Vicinity Map, page 30). These hazard trees are a result of the current mountain pine beetle activity observed on the forest. Hazard trees include dead, dying and structurally unsound trees; primarily lodgepole, ponderosa, and whitebark pine. At a minimum, identified hazard trees would be felled with a chainsaw. The resulting log may be left on site, piled and burned to reduce fuel loading, removed as firewood, or removed under a commercial timber sale. Logs that are removed would be whole-tree yarded to a landing area. Landing slash may be chipped and spread on site, chipped and removed, or piled and burned. No permanent or temporary roads would be constructed for this proposed action. For the purposes of analysis, an area of up to 200 feet from the recreation, administrative, and recreation residence sites is considered part of the proposed action. Actual treatment areas would be dependent on the height and location of actual hazard trees in the area. On the Rocky Mountain Ranger District, approximately 460 acres are analyzed for treatment in 42 areas across the district. A project vicinity map and map of the proposed treatment areas is attached (page 30). Table 2 lists the treatment sites and approximate acreage for each area. 6

7 Table 2: Sites proposed for hazard tree removal and acreage of analyzed area. SITE NAME ACRES Aspen Creek recreation residence tract 7.0 Beaver trailhead and Perry Cabin recreation residence 17.3 Benchmark area 53.4 Benchmark campground 32.8 Blacktail recreation residence tract 7.1 Bliss Cabin recreation residence 2.9 Bureau recreation residence tract Cave Mountain campground 12.7 Cooley Cabin recreation residence 2.9 Double Falls campground/golie cabin/recreation residences 32.3 Double Falls recreation residence tract 18.8 Double Falls tract and Whitewater tract 15.2 Elk Creek trailhead 2.9 Elko campground 2.9 Gibson Reservoir boat launch 1.7 Glad Creek recreation residence tract 16.2 Green Gulch trailhead 2.9 Green Timber recreation residence cabin 2.9 Hannan Gulch Guard Station 2.9 Hannan recreation residence tract 14.2 Kench cabin 2.9 Lick Creek recreation residence tract 8.6 Lower Home recreation residence tract Middle Fork Teton trailhead 2.9 Marias Pass 19.8 Massey Creek recreation residence tract 18.0 Middle Home recreation residence tract 12.8 Mills Falls campground 2.9 Mortimer Gulch campground 9.1 Mortimer Gulch trailhead 8.5 Mortimer recreation residence tract 15.5 Mule Creek recreation residence tract 13.1 Norwegian recreation residence tract 6.8 Ron Janikula trailhead 2.9 South Fork Sun campground and trailhead 16.2 South Fork Teton trailhead 8.6 Squirrel Creek Cabin recreation residence 2.9 Straight Creek trailhead 2.9 Upper Home recreation residence tract 7.1 Van DeReit Memorial Pilots campground 2.9 Wood Lake campground 21.9 Wood Lake picnic area 2.9 TOTAL

8 SPECIES ASSESSMENTS GRIZZLY BEAR (Ursus arctos) Legal Status The grizzly bear is currently listed as a Threatened species throughout the conterminous United States. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan identifies 5 recovery zones, based on ecosystem characteristics, in which grizzly bear populations could be self-sustaining (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The RMRD is entirely within the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Recovery Zone, which extends approximately 20 miles eastward from the NF boundary to U.S. Highway 89, northward across U.S. Highway 2 into Glacier National Park, west of the RMRD into the Flathead and Lolo National Forests, and south of the RMRD into the Helena National Forest. Recovery of grizzly bears in the NCDE is contingent on (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993): presence of 10 females with cubs inside GNP and 12 females with cubs outside GNP over a running six-year average both inside and outside the Recovery Zone (excluding Canada) occupation of 21 out of 23 Bear Management Units (BMUs) by females with young from a running 6-year sum of verified sightings and evidence, with no 2 adjacent BMUs unoccupied known human-caused mortality not to exceed 4%, during any 2 consecutive years, of the population estimate based on the most recent 3-year sum of females with cubs; no more than 30% of this mortality limit shall be females occupation of the Mission Mountains portion of the ecosystem In 2007 the USFWS initiated a 5-year review of the status of the grizzly bear in the NCDE. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee is currently working on development of a Conservation Plan for grizzlies in the NCDE. Local Population and Habitat Status Information about the local population, habitat status, and local habitat use on the Rocky Mountain Front is available in Lewis and Clark National Forest Evaluation and Compliance with National Forest Management Act Requirements to Provide for Viability and Diversity of Animal Communities (USDA Forest Service 2011). This section will briefly summarize and update the information presented there. According to recent work by the United States Geological Survey (USGS; pdf), approximately 765 grizzly bears inhabit the entire NCDE. Results of that work also indicate that grizzly bear numbers appear to have increased in the NCDE over the past 10 years, females appear to be well distributed throughout the area, and the population has expanded beyond the original 1993 Recovery Area boundary. Efforts are currently underway to more specifically analyze grizzly bear population trend in the NCDE. 8

9 Direct and indirect Effects Table 3 shows the proposed treatment acres by bear management unit, subunit, treatment area, management situation and habitat. The maps on pages 31 to 35 show grizzly bear habitat in relation to proposed treatments. The entire RMRD has been divided into Bear Management Units (BMUs) and Subunits to facilitate analysis of project effects and to evaluate recovery goals. Each BMU Subunit approximates the size of an adult female grizzly bear s annual home range. USDA Forest Service (2011, Table 2 page 81) shows the acres of each subunit by ownership and wilderness designation. The proposed project includes five of the BMUs on the RMRD to varying degrees. In the Badger Two Medicine Bear Management Unit (BMU), 0.03 percent of the Two Medicine subunit is proposed for treatment. In Birch Teton BMU, 0.03 percent of the Teton subunit is proposed for treatment. In Dearborn Elk Creek BMU the Scapegoat subunit has less than 0.01 percent proposed for treatment. The South Fork Sun Beaver BMU has the most proposed treatment, with 0.2 percent of the South Fork Willow subunit and 0.05 percent of the West Fork Beaver Subunit proposed. In the Teton Sun River BMU, 0.06 percent of the Deep Creek Subunit and 0.02 percent of the Pine Butte Subunit are proposed for treatment. Table 3: Proposed Treatments in Grizzly Bear Habitat Bear Management Unit (acres) Subunit (acres) Treatment Area Badger Two Medicine (216,340) Birch Teton (207,937) Two Medicine (62,806) Teton (113,253) Management Situation Bear Habitat Acres (% of subunit) Marias Pass MS-3 Spring 19.8 (0.03%) Cave Mountain Campground Subunit total MS-3 and Spring (0.03%) MS-3 Spring 12.7 (0.01%) Dearborn Elk Creek (185,931) Scapegoat (100,941) Elko Campground MS-1 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) Middle Fork Teton Trailhead MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) Massey Creek Tract 6 MS-3 Spring 13.4 (0.01%) none 1.8 Massey Creek Tract (0.002%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) Subunit total MS-1 (0.003%) MS-3 (0.03%) Spring (0.03%) Elk Creek Trailhead MS-1 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) Subunit total MS-1 and Spring (0.003%) 9

10 Bear Management Unit (acres) South Fork Sun Beaver Willow (263,262) Subunit (acres) South Fork Willow (120,783) Treatment Area Management Situation Bear Habitat Acres (% of subunit) Aspen Creek Tract 3 MS-3 Spring 7.0 (0.006%) Benchmark Area MS-1 Spring 5.1 (0.004%) MS-3 Spring 48.4 (0.04%) Benchmark Campground Double Falls Campground and Double Falls Tract 10 Double Falls and Whitewater Tract Glad Creek Tract 6 Glad Creek Tract Green Timber Cabin Recreation Residence Lick Creek Tract Mule Creek Tract 4 Mule Creek Tract Recreation Residence MS-3 Spring 31.6 (0.03%) None 1.2 (0.001%) MS-3 Spring 32.4 (0.03%) MS-3 Spring 18.8 (0.02%) MS-3 Spring 15.2 (0.01%) MS-3 Spring 13.3 (0.01%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) MS-3 Spring 8.7 (0.007%) MS-3 Spring 10.2 (0.008%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) Ron Janikula Trailhead MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) Sun Fork Sun MS-3 Spring 16.2 Campground and (0.01%) Trailhead Squirrel Creek Cabin Recreation Residence Straight Creek Trailhead Van DeReit Memorial Pilots Wood Lake Campground MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) MS-3 Spring 21.9 (0.02%) 10

11 Bear Management Unit (acres) Teton Sun River (191,957) Subunit (acres) West Fork Beaver (142,479) Deep Creek (104,748) Treatment Area Wood Lake Picnic Area Beaver Trailhead and Perry Cabin Recreation Residence Bureau Tract 4 Bureau Tract Recreation Residence Management Situation Bear Habitat Acres (% of subunit) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) Subunit total MS-1 MS-3 Spring (0.004%) (0.20%) (0.20%) MS-3 Spring 17.3 (0.01%) MS-3 Spring 7.9 (0.006%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) Kench Cabin MS-1 Spring 2.9 (0.002%) Lower Home Tract 6 MS-3 Spring 7.8 (0.006%) Middle Home Tract 2 MS-3 Spring 4.2 (0.003%) Middle Home Tract MS-3 Spring 8.7 (0.006%) Norwegian Tract Recreation Residence Upper Home Tract 5 Recreation Residence MS-3 Spring 5.1 (0.004%) None 1.7 (0.001%) MS-3 Spring 6.5 (0.005%) None 0.6 (0.0004%) Subunit total MS-1 MS-3 Spring (0.002%) (0.04%) (0.04%) Blacktail Tract 3 Recreation Residence MS-3 Spring 7.1 (0.007%) Bliss Cabin Recreation Residence MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) Cooley Cabin Recreation Residence MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) Gibson Boat Launch MS-1 None 0.4 (0.0004%) MS-3 Spring 0.6 (0.0006%) None 0.8 (0.0008%) 11

12 Bear Management Unit (acres) Subunit (acres) Pine Butte (87,210) Treatment Area Hannan Gulch Guard Station Hannan Tract 2 Hannan Tract 4 Hannan Tract Recreation Residence Mortimer Gulch Campground Mortimer Gulch Trailhead Mortimer Tract 2 Mortimer Tract Recreation Residence Mortimer Tract Recreation Residence Management Situation Bear Habitat Acres (% of subunit) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) MS-3 Spring 5.7 (0.005%) MS-3 Spring 5.7 (0.005%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) MS-3 Spring 9.1 (0.009%) MS-3 Spring 8.5 (0.008%) MS-3 Spring 10.0 (0.01%) None 0.8 (0.0008%) MS-3 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) MS-3 Spring 1.8 (0.002%) Subunit total MS-1 (0.0004%) MS-3 (0.06%) Spring (0.06%) Green Gulch Trailhead MS-1 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) Mills Falls Campground MS-1 Spring 2.9 (0.003%) South Fork Teton Trailhead MS-1 Spring 8.6 (0.01%) Subunit total MS-1 and Spring (0.02%) The Forestwide Recreation and Administrative Site Hazard Tree Removal is proposed on approximately 451 acres (0.07 percent) of spring habitat across the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. None of the proposed activities are within denning habitat. The largest proposed treatment area is approximately 32 acres. Each of the treatment areas may provide some spring and summer grizzly bear forage such as grasses, forbs, and possibly big game. However, the proposed treatment areas are within recreation and administrative sites, with long established human use which reduces their value as habitat. Grizzly bears have likely adjusted to the established spatial and temporal patterns of use by humans. 12

13 Following direction in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 1986), the RMRD has been stratified into Management Situations (MS) to prioritize habitat and multiple-use management in relation to grizzly bear recovery. Nearly all (98%, or over 760,000 acres) of the RMRD, is classified as MS-1, which contains grizzly bear population centers and habitat key to species survival and recovery. The remaining 2% of the RMRD is classed as MS-3, which are NFS lands with a high degree of human influence, such as campgrounds, recreation residences, resorts, and major trailhead facilities, which make grizzly presence untenable for humans or grizzlies. Treatments are proposed on approximately 29 acres (0.004 percent) of MS-1 habitat and 428 acres (3.0 percent) of MS-3 habitat. There are eight separate treatment areas in the MS-1 habitat, as shown in Table 3. The Proposed Project would have the following impacts: Possible reduction in the potential hiding cover on small, isolated acreages across the District. Human activities for implementation would be restricted between 15 April and 1 July resulting in minimal impact to grizzly bears. Displacement of bears due to implementation outside the spring period would occur primarily in MS-3 habitat in which grizzly bear presence is not to be encouraged and concerns about displacement of bears are minimal. Potential displacement of bears due to implementation outside the spring period in MS-1 habitat occurs on a very small number of acres (29), spread across 6 subunits, and would be short duration (less than 2 days) in each area treated. The proposed action would not result in increased visitor use of the areas. All individuals associated with implementation of the project would continue to be required to adhere to the Food Storage Order. Compliance with the LCNF Forest Plan The LCNF Forest Plan includes a variety of standards and guidelines that either directly or indirectly address management of grizzly bears and grizzly bear habitat management. Table 4 below summarizes Forest Plan standards that are relevant to the proposed project and displays how the Proposed Plan complies with those standards. Table 4. Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan Standards for Grizzly Bear and Management of Roads and Motorized Trails. Forest Plan Standards Manage motorized use on NFS lands to reduce effects on wildlife during periods of high stress (Wildlife & Fish C-1-6) Method of Compliance for TPSA Motorized use was analyzed in the Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2007b). This proposed action does not alter any motorized use on the RMRD. 13

14 Forest Plan Standards Use the Interagency Wildlife (RMF) Guidelines to manage land-use activities occurring within the habitat of these species on the RMF (Wildlife & Fish, C-1-11) Maintain active communication with research and use current research for planning and implementation of projects in T&E species habitat (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-4) Use the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines to coordinate multiple-use activities and manage T&E habitat (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-5; C-2-7, C-2-8) Limit firewood cutting on timber harvest roads, and permanently close after 2-3 years (Timber, E-2-4) Use the Interagency Wildlife Guidelines to avoid or mitigate conflicts between road construction and use and T&E species (Facilities/Travel Planning, L-2-33) Implement seasonal or year-round closures on existing or proposed roads if they are necessary to allow grizzly use of important habitat, to reduce conflict, or to meet habitat objectives (Facilities/Travel Planning, L-2-34) Method of Compliance for TPSA Interagency Wildlife Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions to implementation of project. Activity associated with implementation of project to occur only after 1 July. Ongoing involvement with NCDE subcommittee and other groups at Forest and District level. Project implementation meets guidelines for timber management in MS-1 as described IGBC Guidelines by restricting activities to occur only after July 1 and analyzing the effects to grizzlies and their habitat. Hazard tree removal would only be conducted on existing, open roads in recreation and administrative sites. This project does not propose road construction. Road use follows the 2007 Travel Plan. This project does not propose road construction. Road use follows the 2007 Travel Plan. Project Effects in the Context of Other Federal Activities Due to the widespread nature of this proposed action, there is a long list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. Forest Health Protection projects, including group selection harvest, slash piling, pile burning, verbenone installation, verbenon/carbaryl site preparation, MCH installation, and carbaryl application are detailed in the document Past, Present, and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions Rocky Mountain Ranger District and Highwood, Big Snowy, Little Snowy, Castle, and Crazy Mountains Hazard Tree Removal Project (project file). This document also identifies planting after the 2007 stand replacing fires in the area of the Massey Recreation Residence tract. Other vegetation projects with decisions being implemented or soon to be signed include Benchmark Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Sun River Range EA (burning). 14

15 In addition to the projects listed above, mountain pine beetle activity across the forest is killing lodgepole, limber and ponderosa pine trees. On the RMRD there are very few acres of pure pine type; most of the district is mixed conifer with some species not affected by the mountain pine beetle (Douglas fir, spruce, subalpine fir, etc.). In areas with a pine component, canopy cover is decreasing, snags and downed wood is increasing, and areas are opening up. This could lead to possible increases in forage species where canopy cover is reduced, as well as reduced hiding cover and thermal cover. Removal of the hazard trees would add cumulatively to the disturbance of species from ongoing project implementation, and to removal of snags for snag dependent species. Other habitat changes would not result from this project. Specifically for grizzly bear, there are no new proposed roads, no increases in recreational activity, and no increased potential for human-bear conflicts with these projects. The Benchmark project proposes to impact approximately 4% of the mapped spring habitat in the South Fork Willow subunit, which would cumulatively add to the 0.20% of spring habitat proposed for treatment under this project. Of the habitat affected by the Benchmark project, 76% is expected to have a neutral or beneficial impact to grizzly habitat, while 24% is expected to have no measureable effect. Due to the small percentage of the South Fork Willow subunit involved in both projects (0.7% of the subunit), and the type of effects expected (no measurable effect to a beneficial effect), the cumulative effects of the proposed action are minimal and not expected to affect current bear use of the area or habitat. Determination of Effects I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect grizzly bears. My determination is based on the following rationale: 1. The proposed project would not increase Total or Open Motorized Route Density or decrease Core area. The project would fully comply with the 2007 Travel Management decision, which was determined to be NLAA with respect to grizzly bears. 2. The NCDE Food Storage Order has been enforced effectively in both the front country and the back country on the RMRD since its inception. Extensive public education efforts are in place, and all permitted activities include provisions regarding the Order. All personnel, whether agency or contract, associated with project implementation or monitoring would be required to comply with the Order. Stipulations to this effect would be included in any contracts associated with the project. 3. Hazard tree removal has been and would continue to be minimal. Treatments would have minimal impacts on grizzly bear spring forage in localized areas. These activities would not result in adverse cumulative impacts to grizzly bears or their habitat. No planting or seeding is to take place as part of the project. 15

16 4. The project would comply with the IGBC Guidelines for activities on both MS-3 and MS-1 lands. Activity associated with project implementation in spring habitats would not occur between 1 April and 1 July. Temporary displacement of individual bears is expected to be minimal to nonexistent as proposed activities occur near existing human use. 5. The project is in compliance with all Forest Plan Standards regarding grizzly bears and/or Threatened and Endangered species. Recommendations for Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects Adverse effects are not likely to occur under the Proposed Plan. Ongoing education of the public and permittees regarding the Food Storage Order and Travel Management Plan, as well as enforcement of those regulations, are key to maintaining minimal impacts to grizzly bears. CANADA LYNX (Lynx canadensis) Legal Status The Canada lynx is listed as Threatened throughout the contiguous Unites States. Management of lynx on LCNF lands is directed by the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment (NRLA; USDA 2007a), which adds specific management direction to Forest Plans, including the LCNF Forest, in the form of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD). In February 2009 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a revised Canada Lynx Critical Habitat designation that included the Rocky Mountain Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark National Forest within the Northern Rockies Unit (Unit 3) of Critical Habitat (Fed. Reg. V.74, No.36). The Project Area and surrounding lands have been identified as containing the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) required for lynx conservation: boreal forest types that have multi-storied conifer habitat supporting a viable snowshoe hare population, adequate annual snowfall, sites for denning, and sufficient matrix habitat to connect patches of boreal forest. Potential impacts to lynx Critical Habitat are discussed in a separate section below. Local Population and Habitat Status Information about the local population, habitat status, and habitat use is available in USDA Forest Service This section will briefly summarize the information presented there. Prior to 2007, lynx habitat management was guided on the LCNF by the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; Reudiger and others 2000). As part of compliance with the LCAS, lynx habitat and 27 Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) were mapped for the RMRD. The proposed project falls within seven LAUs as shown in Table 5. The maps on pages 36 to 40 show lynx habitat in relation to proposed treatments. 16

17 Table 5: Proposed Treatments by Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) LAU acres Acres treated Percent of LAU treated Acres denning treated Acres foraging treated Acres travel treated Acres nonhabitat treated RM % RM % RM % RM % RM % RM % RM % TOTAL % Potential lynx habitat has been mapped for the RMRD using SILC1 vegetation data portraying existing cover types. Foraging habitat was mapped to include all forested cover types that fall within the subalpine fir and moist Douglas-fir habitat type descriptions and including small areas of interspersed shrub and riparian types. These types may include areas that are currently in varying seral stages, including various ages of lodgepole pine forest. Denning habitat was mapped to include only the medium and large size classes with moderate to high canopy cover of the above cover types, with the intent of capturing older, more structurally complex stands. All other coniferous forest types were classified as travel habitat. Generally, foraging habitat as mapped is more than the mature, multi-story habitat that the 2007 NRLMD describes as high-quality snowshoe hare habitat with respect to Standard VEG S6 (USDA Forest Service 2007a); it includes other habitat that supports snowshoe hares and/or alternate prey species. The denning habitat category may also include foraging habitat, including some mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat. Neither the existing habitat model nor the vegetation data layers currently available for this area allow us to separately identify patches of high-quality snowshoe hare habitat, or to separately identify foraging habitat that exists within mapped denning habitat. Verification of the mature, multi-story component of foraging habitat must currently be done on a project unit scale using on-the-ground field methods that are not designed for extrapolating to a broader scale. Difficulty of access to the large expanses of remote, offroad and off-trail areas on the RMRD limits the amount of ground verification that can be done. Extrapolation of field sampling to larger areas is not possible given the limitations of the currently available vegetation layers that would have to be used for such an effort. Thus the existing habitat map represents the best available means by which to estimate lynx habitat over a relatively broad scale, such as the scale of a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU; see below), a ranger district, or an entire National Forest. Field data collection, however, is the best way to identify specific stands of mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat at the scale of the project unit and specifically for determining compliance with the NRLMD VEG S6 Standard (see below). 17

18 Habitat that is not currently suitable, which is habitat of the types discussed above that falls within a LAU but does not currently meet the requirements of foraging, denning, or travel habitat due to past fire or vegetation management activity, has been mapped for the Jefferson Division but not for the RMRD. At the time the habitat map for the RMRD was made, very little vegetation management activity or fire had occurred within lynx habitat. Possible past effects of activities were incorporated into the Existing Condition. Since that time, some vegetation management and several fires have occurred. Within the project area, habitat that is not currently suitable consists entirely of recently burned areas, with no habitat currently mapped as such due to timber harvest or vegetation management projects. Non-habitat is also identified in the map layer, and comprises natural openings, cliffs and rock slides and other areas that do not now contain lynx habitat and are not expected to ever provide lynx habitat. Using the habitat map described above, approximately 141 acres of the proposed 238 acres in LAUs are mapped potential lynx habitat. Table 5 displays the acres proposed by LAU and habitat designation. Although the acres are mapped as lynx habitat, the structure of the forest in those treatment areas do not provide suitable denning or snowshoe hare habitat due to clearing, previous removal of hazard trees, and grazing by livestock. In addition, since the areas are experiencing bug kill the suitability of habitat is already reduced. Project Effects Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action is to remove hazard trees within campgrounds, recreation residence and administrative sites. These sites have a long history of human use, with associated clearing of trees and removal of downed wood and snags for fuelwood. The hazard trees are dead or dying, or in the case of lodgepole pine may be structurally unsound if the stand is thinned by bug kill. The trees proposed for removal do not currently provide snowshoe hare foraging habitat. Removal of the hazard trees would not render the habitat unsuitable as lynx foraging habitat. Smaller, live green trees will be left in place where they exist. Removal of the hazard trees may result in faster natural regeneration of the areas, by allowing more sunlight to the forest floor. This can also increase forb and grass growth which can suppress seedling establishment. Lynx Analysis Unit RM23 has the most acres proposed for treatment (Table 5), with only 0.9 percent of the LAU within proposed treatment areas. Of those 175 acres, only 16 acres are mapped foraging habitat and 93 acres are mapped travel habitat. In all seven LAUs, approximately 9 acres of mapped denning habitat, 17 acres of mapped foraging habitat, and 100 acres of mapped travel habitat are proposed for treatment. Although mapped as potential habitat, current uses and past activities (clearing, grazing, recreational use) have those acres in a currently unsuitable condition for lynx denning or foraging, or snowshoe hare habitat. The proposed removal of hazard trees would not alter denning and foraging habitat more than current conditions. Treatments in travel habitat would not make the areas unsuitable as travel habitat, and treatments are on small acreages in localized areas and travel habitat would continue to be available in the immediate surrounding area. 18

19 Effects at Rocky Mountain Ranger District Scale Across the Rocky Mountain Ranger District, percent of mapped denning habitat, 0.01 percent of mapped foraging habitat, and 0.1 percent of mapped travel habitat is proposed for treatment. Overall, less than 0.04% of the total mapped lynx habitat on the RMRD would be potentially affected by the proposed treatments. These acres are currently suitable for travel, however are not suitable for foraging or denning. The proposed action would not alter the existing condition. Compliance with the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment to the Forest Plan The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan was completed in 1986, many years before Canada lynx were listed as a Threatened species. Therefore no specific measures for protection of Canada lynx or their habitat were included in the Plan. The LCNF Forest Plan has been amended by the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment to incorporate the NRLMD into the Forest Plan. The NRLMD spells out several standards regarding vegetation management activities and practices that apply to this project. Although the NRLMD does not require compliance with its standards on unoccupied units or portions of units, such as the Jefferson Division of the LCNF, Regional direction recommends that the standards be applied to all units regardless of whether they are occupied. Table 6 displays the projects compliance with the NRLMD. The Project complies with all Standards, as well as the Objectives and Guidelines of the NRLMD. Table 6. Consistency of Proposed Project with Applicable Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Objectives, Guidelines and Standards All Management Practices and Activities Existing Situation Objective ALL 01 Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, and in linkage areas Standard ALL SI New or expanded permanent development must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area Vegetation Management Activities And Practices Objective VEG 01 Manage vegetation to mimic or approximate natural succession and disturbance processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the conservation of lynx. The project maintains habitat connectivity as no travel habitat would be made unsuitable by the proposed action. This action does not proposed new or expanded permanent development. Mountain pine beetle activity across the forest is creating a large scale disturbance and natural succession. This proposed action does not alter those processes. 19

20 Objective VEG 02 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 03 Conduct fire use activities to restore ecological processes and maintain or improve lynx habitat. Objective VEG 04 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. Standard VEG S1 - Stand initiation structural stage limits Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management 48 projects that regenerate 37 timber, except for fuel treatment 13 projects.. No winter snowshoe hare habitat is altered by the proposed action. Fire use activities are not proposed in this action. This project occurs in administrative and recreation areas, where vegetation management is minimal and geared toward maintaining vegetation (trees primarily) on site. This project does not regenerate timber. The Standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages 44 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 - Limits on regeneration from timber mgmt. projects Standard VEG S2 applies to all vegetation management 48 projects that regenerate 37 timber, except for fuel treatment 13 projects. This project does not regenerate timber. The Standard: Timber management projects shall not regenerate 37 more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands in an LAU in a ten-year period. 20

21 Standard VEG S5 Precommercial thinning limits Standard VEG S6 Multi-storied stands & snowshoe hare horizontal cover Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management 48 projects that regenerate 37 timber, except for fuel treatment 13 projects. The Standard: Vegetation management projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional 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). Guideline VEG G1 Lynx habitat improvement Vegetation management 48 projects 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 44 stands for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole stands). Winter snowshoe hare habitat 50 should be near denning habitat 6. Guideline VEG G4 Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire 34 activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided. This project is not a Precommercial thinning project therefore the standard does not apply. This project does not regenerate timber. In addition, the project is in compliance as all activities proposed are within 200 feet of administrative sites, recreation sites, and special use permit structures. This is not a vegetation management project. The only proposed fire in this project is removal of slash piles. No firebreaks are proposed. 21

22 Guideline VEG G5 Habitat for alternate prey species Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel 36, should be provided in each LAU. Guideline VEG G10 Fuel treatments in the WUI Fuel treatment projects in the WUI 49 as defined by HFRA 17, 48 should be designed considering standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation. Guideline VEG G11 Denning habitat 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 should be designed to retain some coarse woody debris 4, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat 6 in the future. This project would not change existing habitat in the LAUs. The only proposed fire in this project is removal of slash piles. Denning habitat is not altered by this project. Project Effects in the Context of Other Federal Activities Due to the widespread nature of this proposed action, there is a long list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. Forest Health Protection projects, including group selection harvest, slash piling, pile burning, verbenone installation, verbenone/carbaryl site preparation, MCH installation, and carbaryl application are detailed in the document Past, Present, and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions Rocky Mountain Ranger District and Highwood, Big Snowy, Little Snowy, Castle, and Crazy Mountains Hazard Tree Removal Project (project file). This document also identifies planting after the 2007 stand replacing fires in the area of the Massey Recreation Residence tract. Other vegetation projects of note with decisions being implemented or soon to be signed include Benchmark Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Sun River Range EA (burning). In addition to the projects listed above, mountain pine beetle activity across the forest is killing lodgepole and ponderosa pine trees. On the RMRD there are very few acres of pure pine type; most of the district is mixed conifer with some species not affected by the mountain pine beetle (Douglas fir, spruce, subalpine fir, etc.). In areas with a pine component, canopy cover is decreasing, and snags and downed wood are increasing. This could lead to possible loss of snowshoe hare foraging habitat, particularly in mature, two-story habitat where the overstory is affected by pine beetle. A loss of denning habitat is also possible with loss of mature trees. Removal of the hazard trees would add 22

23 cumulatively to the disturbance of species from ongoing project implementation. Other habitat changes would not result from this project. In 2007 three large fires burned on the RMRD. The Fool Creek Fire burned approximately 66,017 acres on the Flathead and Lewis and Clark National Forests. On the LCNF, the fire burned into portions of 5 LAUs, including the RM 9 LAU where 20.9 acres are proposed for treatment. The Ahorn Fire burned approximately 48,412 acres on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, Bureau of Reclamation and private lands. On the LCNF, the fire burned into portions of 6 LAUs, including RM19 and RM23 where 2.9 and acres, respectively, are proposed for treatment. The Skyland Fire burned 45,097 acres on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, on the Blackfeet Nation, 3386 on the Flathead National Forest, and 411 acres on private. On the LCNF, the Skyland Fire burned into portions of 4 LAUs, including LAU RM1 where 19.8 acres are proposed for treatment. The acreage of each LAU, acreage of lynx habitat in each LAU prior to the fire, and acreage and percent of lynx habitat that burned are displayed in Table 7 below. As much as 15%-20% of the area affected by fire may be unburned (Green and Shovic 2007), but it is difficult to estimate whether the unburned areas occurred in mapped lynx habitat. Therefore the estimates in the table below represent the maximum amount of lynx habitat that may have been affected by fire. We assume that acres affected by fire have been rendered unsuitable as lynx habitat (travel, forage, and denning) for a period of at least 10 years (USDA 2007a), although this may not universally be the case. Table 7. Lynx Habitat affected by the 2007 Ahorn, Fool Creek, and Skyland Fires LAU Name Total Acres Acres of mapped Lynx Habitat Acres of Lynx Habitat Affected by Fire Percent of Total Lynx Habitat in LAU Affected by Fire RM1 23,220 15,175 7, % RM2 22,925 17,930 10, % RM3 38,380 17, % RM4 30,415 9,615 2, % RM6 27,380 11,555 1, % RM7 22,790 11,465 3, % RM8 37,370 25,125 11, % RM9 20,320 13,095 7, % RM11 34,670 15, % RM17 37,920 23,285 10, % RM18 15,660 12,100 9, % RM19 29,215 22,230 12, % RM20 20,535 15,850 4, % RM21 30,330 24,520 1, % RM23 19,475 13, % 23

24 Of the LAUs impacted by the 2007 fires, RM1, RM9, RM19 and RM23 are proposed for hazard tree removal (Table 5). Mapped travel habitat (110.5 acres) proposed for treatment would remain travel habitat post treatment due to some green trees remaining after treatment and the small size of the individual treatment areas. Mapped foraging (16.5 acres) and denning habitat (5.2 acres) are not currently suitable as foraging and denning habitat due to the human uses and associated vegetation removal in the proposed treatment areas. There is no disturbance to lynx remaining from the fires in Therefore there are no cumulative effects on acres proposed for hazard tree removal from the fires. Specifically for lynx, there are no new proposed roads open to the public and no increases in recreational activity. The Benchmark project does propose impacts to approximately 1.8% of RM23 (347 acres), which would cumulatively add to the 0.9% (175 acres) of RM23 proposed for treatment under this project. Of the habitat affected under Benchmark, 105 acres of mapped potential foraging habitat (0.8% of the foraging habitat within the LAU as estimated by the habitat model) would be affected by the proposed treatments; as well as 14 acres of mapped denning habitat and 167 acres of travel habitat. As the Hazard Tree project is not expected to alter current habitat conditions, there would be no cumulative effect to habitat. There would be a cumulative disturbance effect from implementation of the proposed projects. Determination of Effects I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect lynx. My determination is based on the following rationale: 1. The project would potentially affect a very small acreage (about 141 acres, or 0.09%) of lynx habitat within seven LAUs, leaving over 99% of the lynx habitat in the LAU unaffected. 2. Treatment areas within lynx habitat are small and scattered, leaving contiguous patches of foraging, denning and travel habitat intact throughout the LAUs. 3. All treatment units that are within lynx habitat are located in the immediate vicinity of existing recreation residences, administrative sites, or campgrounds. Treatments therefore would occur in areas likely already influenced by human presence. 4. Impacts of other federal actions on lynx, their habitat, and prey species would be negligible in combination with the Proposed Project. 5. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in potential for direct mortality of lynx or their prey. 6. The proposed project would not increase road densities or areas of snow compaction. The project would fully comply with the 2007 Travel Management decision, which was determined to be NLAA with respect to lynx. 7. The project would not alter snowshoe hare winter habitat. 8. Temporary displacement of lynx is expected to be minimal. 9. The project is in compliance with all Forest Plan Standards regarding lynx and/or Threatened and Endangered species. 24

25 Recommendations for Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects No adverse effects are anticipated. CANADA LYNX CRITICAL HABITAT Status The RMRD is within Unit 3 (Northern Rockies Unit) of the revised designated Critical Habitat for Canada lynx (Fed. Reg.V.74 No.36). As such, the project area and surrounding lands have been identified as containing the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) required to maintain and conserve lynx populations: boreal forest types that have multi-storied conifer habitat supporting a viable snowshoe hare population, adequate annual snowfall, sites for denning, and sufficient matrix habitat to connect patches of boreal forest. Areas designated as critical habitat will require some level of management to address the current and future threats to the lynx and to maintain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species (Fed. Reg.V.74 No.36). Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis Specific effects to lynx habitat, in terms of acreage potentially affected by the Proposed Project, are discussed above in the species assessment for Canada lynx and will not be repeated here. Effects to designated lynx critical habitat will be placed in the perspective of the potential impacts to the PCEs, and to the ability of the LAU and the area to continue to function as effective habitat for lynx. It is appropriate to evaluate effects of the Proposed Project at the LAU scale because this is the appropriate level of analysis established by the LCAS (Reudiger and others 2000), and this is the landscape scale used by lynx (Fed. Reg. V 74, No. 36, p. 8644). The anticipated effects of the Proposed Project on the PCEs are displayed in Table 8 below. Table 8. Potential impact on Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for Canada lynx Critical Habitat. Critical Habitat Primary Constituent Element (PCE) : Boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages and containing: 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 Is the PCE present and will it be maintained post-treatment? The seven LAUs contain roughly 91,000 acres of mapped potential lynx habitat. Proposal would alter 141 acres of habitat or less, which is < 0.2% of mapped habitat. This includes roughly 26 acres mapped as foraging or denning (which contains foraging habitat), or about 0.04% of roughly 72,200 acres of mapped potential foraging/denning. The proposed project would not alter currently suitable snowshoe hare habitat. 25