BLM LIBRARY 880671 USDA Forest Service USDI Bureau of Land Management January 2004 Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment National Forests in Montana, parts of Idaho, Wyoming and Utah Bureau of Land Management units in Idaho and parts of Utah QL 737 . C23 N67 2004b BLM Library Denver Federal Center Bldg. 50, OC-521 p.O. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80225 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. I'D Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Summary Responsible Agency: USDA Forest Service Cooperating Agency: USDI Bureau of Land Management Brad Powell Rick Cables Responsible Regional Forester, Region 1 Regional Forester, Region 2 Officials PO Box 7669 PO Box 25127 Missoula, MT 59807 Lakewood CO 80225 K. Lynn Bennett State Director for Idaho BLM 1387 South Vinnell Way Boise, ID 83709 Sally Wisely State Director for Utah BLM 324 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84145. Jack Troyer Regional Forester, Region 4 Federal Building 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 For further information, contact: Send comments to: Jon Haber, Project Manager Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment FS Region 1 PO Box 7669 Missoula, MT 59807 Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment FS Region 1 PO Box 7669 Missoula, MT 59807 By e-mail: comments-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us Comments must be received by April 1 5, 2004 Abstract: The Forest Service and BLM are proposing to amend plans on 18 National Forest and four BLM administrative units to incorporate direction to manage lynx habitat. The DEIS was developed to meet the Purpose and Need of the amendment and to respond to primary issues. The Purpose and Need is to incorporate management direction that conserves and promotes the recovery of the Canada lynx, by reducing or eliminating adverse effects from land management activities on NFS and BLM lands, while preserving the overall multiple-use direction in existing plans. Lynx was listed as a threatened species in 2000 due the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in existing plans. Public comments collected during scoping were used to identify primary issues, management concerns, alternatives and the scope of the DEIS. Five alternatives, including no action, were fully developed and considered. All action alternatives would incorporate varying degrees of management direction for vegetation, fire, grazing, recreation, minerals, roads and highways. An additional 21 alternatives were also considered but not fully developed. Alternative E is the preferred alternative. Reviewer Comments: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service and BLM with their comments during the review period so the agencies can analyze and respond to all the comments at the same time, use information received to prepare the final EIS, and avoid undue delay in making the decision. Reviewers are asked to structure comments clearly to help the agencies understand their positions and recommendations (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if they are not raised until the final statement is completed (City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). The most helpful comments are specific and address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives (40 CFR 1503.3). Summary Purpose and need The Purpose and Need for the proposed amendment is to incorporate management direction that conserves and promotes recovery of the Canada lynx, by reducing or eliminating adverse effects from land management activities on national forest system and BLM lands, while preserving the overall multiple-use direction in existing plans. Background Canada lynx occupy habitat in Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In the western United States, lynx habitat is found primarily on federal lands. Lynx inhabit moist coniferous forests that experience cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare. Lynx habitat is primarily found on moist sites that support subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine forests. In extreme northern Idaho and northwestern Montana, cedar-hemlock forests also are considered lynx habitat. Lynx habitat is generally found at mid to upper elevations. The bottom elevation ranges from 3,500 feet in the northern to 7,000 feet in the southern portions of the Northern Rockies lynx amendment area. On July 8, 1998, the FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) proposed to list the Canada lynx as a threatened species under ESA (the Endangered Species Act). The FS (Forest Service) and BLM responded to the declining status of lynx in 1998 by establishing a team of international experts in lynx ecology to collect and summarize scientific data. This resulted in the publication Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. Based on this information, an interagency team of government biologists developed the LCAS, Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. The LCAS recommended conservation measures for federal lands in the contiguous United States. The conservation measures focus on managing vegetation within the historic range of variability, maintaining dense understory conditions for prey, minimizing snow compaction, and identifying and maintaining connectivity within and between habitat areas. Summary - 1 In December 1999, the FS and BLM prepared a BA, a Biological Assessment fHickenbottom et al. 1999) of 57 FS land and resource management plans and 56 BLM land use plans. The assessment found the existing plans were likely to adversely affect lynx because they did not contain direction to conserve lynx. In February 2000, five Regional Foresters and four FWS Regional Directors signed a Lynx Conservation Agreement to promote the conservation of lynx and its habitat. In August 2000, the BLM Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning and two FWS Regional Directors signed a similar agreement. Both conservation agreements require the agencies to review and consider the recommendations in the LCAS before making any decisions about actions in lynx habitat. The agreements say changes in long-term management direction will be made by amending or revising existing plans. In April of 2000, the FWS listed the lynx as a threatened species. In its Listing Decision, the FWS said, "We conclude that the single factor threatening the contiguous United States Distinct population segment of lynx is the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in National Forest Land and Resource Plans and BLM Land Use Plans. " Formal consultation on existing plans required by ESA was completed on October 25, 2000, when the FWS issued its BO, Biological Opinion. In the BO, the FWS said existing plans as applied together with the conservation agreements, were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of lynx. In March 2001, the FS and BLM developed schedules to amend or revise their land use and resource management plans. In September 2001, the FS and BLM initiated the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment, a proposal to amend existing plans for 22 units in the northern Rockies. In July 2003, the FWS issued a Notice of Remanded Determination of Status for the contiguous United States population of lynx. In it, the FWS reaffirmed its decision to list the lynx as threatened, rather than endangered. Proposed action In order to provide conservation and recovery of the Canada lynx the FS and the BLM propose to amend land and resource management plans for 18 national forests (NF) in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, and land use plans for four BLM administrative units in Idaho and Utah. Collectively these will be referred to as " existing plans." The FS is the lead agency responsible for preparing this amendment; Idaho and Utah BLM are cooperating agencies. The original Proposed Action was based on conservation measures in the LCAS as a way to achieve lynx conservation. Measures from the LCAS were reorganized and rearranged to make it easier to include them in the existing plans. Every effort was made to preserve the intent of the measures in the LCAS. Summary - 2 Alternative B, the Proposed Action, has changed from how it was described during scoping. It was rewritten to provide clearer management direction : •< ■ by organizing it better and eliminating duplication. The original Proposed Action is now Alternative B and has changed somewhat from how it was described in the fall of 2001 when the agencies asked for public comments on the scope of the proposal. It was rewritten to provide clearer management direction by organizing it better and eliminating duplication. Throughout this document, references to the Proposed Action mean Alternative B, the DEIS Proposed Action. The proposed amendment would add or modify management direction consisting of one or more of the following: ♦ Goals , which are general descriptions of desired results; ♦ Objectives , which are descriptions of desired resource conditions; ♦ Standards, which are management requirements designed to meet the objectives; and ♦ Guidelines, management actions normally taken to meet the objectives. The existing plans contain general resource management direction. Plans do not compel management activities to occur. Whether goals and objectives are achieved depends on agency budgets and competing priorities. Standards may prohibit some management activities from occurring; however, standards can be changed through subsequent plan amendment or revision. Guidelines are recommendations and following them is discretionary. The LCAS identified risks to lynx and lynx habitat. The BA found many of the risk factors were not addressed in existing plans. Reducing or eliminating these risks is part of the Purpose and Need for this amendment. Risk factors affecting lynx productivity ( productivity means the ability to continue to reproduce) include ♦ Timber management ♦ Wildland fire management ♦ Livestock grazing ♦ Recreational uses ♦ Forest backcountry roads and trails ♦ Other human developments Risk factors affecting mortality include ♦ Trapping ♦ Shooting ♦ Predator control ♦ Highways ♦ Predation by other species Risk factors affecting movement ♦ Highways and associated development ♦ Private land development The FWS decision to list lynx as threatened was based on a subset of these risks, which threaten the lynx population as a whole. Threats to lynx populations influenced by national forests and BLM land management include timber harvest regimes and fire suppression, as well as the lack of guidance to address these threats in existing plans. Summary - 3 Administrative units included in the amendment Table 1. Administrative units and plans that would be amended Forest Service Idaho national forest units <*■" « iHanmnmsciB rr FS region Land and resource management plan Clearwater 1 Clearwater forest plan Idaho Panhandle 1 Idaho Panhandle forest plan Nez Perce 1 Nez Perce forest plan Salmon-Challis 4 Salmon forest plan 4 Challis forest plan Caribou-Targhee 4 Targhee forest plan Montana national forest units FS region . . ’ - ' ; ; Beaverhead-Deerlodge 1 Beaverhead forest plan 1 Deerlodge forest plan Bitterroot 1 Bitterroot forest plan Custer 1 Custer forest plan Flathead 1 Flathead forest plan Gallatin 1 Gallatin forest plan Helena 1 Helena forest plan Kootenai 1 Kootenai forest plan Lewis and Clark 1 Lewis and Clark forest pian Lolo i Lolo forest plan Utah national forest units FS region . . ; ; x- . -if o l : < 'SF ■ ■ ■ ■ , W, , . . , . , ! ■ X * * j-r AtW-s/*' s** Ashley 4 Ashley forest plan Wyoming national forest units FS region Bighorn 2 Bighorn forest plan Bridger-Teton 4 Bridger-Teton forest plan Shoshone 2 Shoshone forest plan Bureau of Land Management ‘ ^ \ “ J [ Idaho districts BLM field office Land use plan Lower Snake River Four River Cascade resource management plan Salmon Lemhi resource management plan Upper Columbia/ Challis Challis resource management plan Coeur Emerald Empire management framework Salmon/Clearwater d’Alene plan Cottonwood Chief Joseph management framework plan Idaho Falls Medicine Lodge MFP Upper Snake River Pocatellof Pocatello resource management plan j Shoshone Sun Valley management framework plan Utah field office >• - >; ' 1 1 jfi <■ i. ' ■ A ■ >; \ V.' . < Salt Lake Cityf Randolph management framework planf -f These units do not have lynx habitat, so only the linkage direction in this amendment applies Summary - 4 Alternatives Public involvement The public has been involved in this amendment from the time when the FS and BLM first began trying to determine the scope of public interest in the project, on September 11, 2001, when a notice was published in the Federal Register , Volume 66, Number 176, 47160-47163. Originally, the comment period was scheduled to end on October 26, 2001, but it was extended to December 10, 2001. An official website was created at www . fs . fed . us / r 1 / planning / lynx .html, providing information about the amendment, including the information used to develop the Proposed Action. Open-house meetings were held to provide a better understanding of the lynx proposal and to gain an understanding of public issues and concerns. Open houses were held in: ♦ Idaho at Bonners Ferry, Challis, Coeur d'Alene, Coolin, Grangeville, Idaho Falls, Orofino and Salmon; ♦ Montana at Billings, Bozeman, Dillon, Great Falls, Hamilton, Helena, Kalispell, Libby and Missoula; and ♦ Wyoming at Cody, Jackson Hole, Riverton and Sheridan. FS and BLM units mailed out more than 6,000 letters about the proposed amendment and upcoming meetings to their mailing lists of people interested in land management issues. Tribes with aboriginal territories located inside the amendment area were identified and individual letters written to each of them. The letters asked for their participation and identified local federal contacts. The governor's office for each state within the amendment area was also contacted about their briefing needs. The 1,890 public responses to the scoping notice that were received by December 17, 2001, were evaluated and summarized in a report called Summary of Public Comments. Many responses were signed by more than one person. Responses received after December 17, 2001, but before the release of this DEIS, were also considered. In mid-May 2002, an eight-page update was mailed to the more than 2,000 addresses of the people who responded to the scoping notice. On August 15, 2002, a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 158, pp. 53334-53335. The agencies are preparing an EIS because of the level of interest expressed during scoping. Issues The scoping process was used to identify conflicts associated with the Proposed Action and to identify issues to use as a basis for developing alternatives. Comments that addressed the effects of Summary - 5 the Proposed Action were sorted into primary issues , discussed below. Five primary issues were identified. They reflect conflicts between lynx conservation and alternative uses of natural resources. 1. Over-the-snow trails Issue: What are the effects of limiting the growth of groomed or designated over- the-snow routes, on opportunities for over-the-snow recreation? 2. Wildland fire risk Issue: What are the effects of the lynx amendment on the risks of wildland fire to communities? 3. Winter snow shoe hare habitat in multistoried forests Issue: What is the effect on lynx of allowing projects in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests? 4. Precommercial thinning Issue: What are the effects of limiting precommercial thinning, on restoring tree species that are declining and on stand structures that are declining? 5. FWS Remand decision Issue: What level of management direction should be applied to activities that the FWS remand notice found were not a threat to lynx populations? The primary issues were used to develop alternatives to the Proposed Action that meet the Purpose and Need. Several management concerns were also identified as a basis for formulating alternatives. Additional management concerns addressed in alternatives Internal agency comments, as well as some public comments, expressed other concerns about the Proposed Action, largely involving procedural or administrative considerations rather than environmental consequences. Some people thought the Proposed Action would increase the complexity, cost or rigidity of management without comparable benefits for lynx. These concerns have been addressed by developing different language in alternatives. Such management concerns include: ♦ The scale of analysis imposed by Standards VEG SI and ITU SI; ♦ Standards that focus on particular methods, such as timber harvest and salvage logging; ♦ Flow denning habitat is considered; ♦ Flow lynx diurnal habitat is considered; ♦ Fiow upgrading roads is considered; and ♦ How adaptive management is incorporated. Alternatives considered in detail The range of alternatives was determined by evaluating the comments and the Purpose and Need; and considering the level of scientific information available to warrant a different approach, the FWS Listing Decision and ESA requirements. Summary - 6 Within these parameters, the alternatives developed display a reasonable range to guide future projects, respond to the issues and meet the Purpose and Need. Five alternatives were developed in detail. Table Summary-1 shows the differences in management direction between the action alternatives, B, C, D and E. ♦ Alternative A is the no-action alternative. In this case, no action means no change, no amendment to existing plans to address new information about lynx. ♦ Alternative B, the Proposed Action, was developed from conservation measures recommended in the LCAS. Alternative B addresses activities on NF and BLM lands that can affect lynx and their habitat. ♦ Alternative C was designed to respond to issues of over-the-snow recreation management and foraging habitat in multistoried forests, while providing a comparable level of protection to lynx as Alternative B, the Proposed Action. ♦ Alternative D was designed to address the issues of managing over-the-snow recreation and multistoried forests, similar to Alternative C. Alternative D also allows some precommercial thinning in winter snowshoe hare habitat, but still contributes to lynx conservation. ♦ Alternative E addresses the issue of wildland fire risk while contributing to lynx conservation. It also responds to statements made in FWS's Remand Notice that grazing, minerals, forest roads and over-the-snow activities do not affect lynx populations. Management direction considered, but not in detail Some public comments gave suggestions for management direction that would have created other alternatives. A number of such alternatives to management direction were considered but dismissed from detailed consideration, for reasons summarized and discussed in the DEIS. The rationale for not analyzing these alternatives in detail is based primarily on the narrowly defined Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. Suggested alternatives were compared to the Proposed Action and the other fully developed alternatives, to see whether they represented a distinctly different approach but still met the Purpose and Need. Based on this analysis, the following alternative direction was not considered in detail: 1) Proposed action used in scoping 2) Include a standard for type conversions 3) Limit the size of clearcuts and other regeneration-harvest units 4) Drop Standard VEG SI that allows no more than 30 percent unsuitable habitat or change the percentage 5) Drop the 10 percent denning standard or increase it 6) Prohibit harvest in old growth or mature timber 7) Drop the criteria in VEG S4 that allow salvage logging Summary - 7 8) Add standards and guidelines to direct when and where wildland fire should be allowed to burn 9) Prohibit grazing on federal lands, add more standards about grazing or drop them 10) Remove all over-the-snow standards, let over-the-snow use increase, or further restrict or prohibit it 11) Include winter-logging road restrictions in the over-the-snow standard 12) Remove ski areas or don't let them expand 13) Ban road construction, provide more road-building restrictions, turn the roads guidelines into standards or drop the road-related guidelines 14) Limit road densities 15) Prohibit logging in lynx travel corridors 16) Establish only objectives for lynx management, not standards 17) Apply lynx conservation measures to areas that have not been mapped as lynx habitat or apply them only to occupied lynx habitat 18) Develop lease stipulations for oil and gas leasing 19) Move lynx into unoccupied habitat 20) Restrict hare hunting 21) Include all the recommendations in the LCAS. Nature of effects The amendment is programmatic in nature, consisting of direction that would be applied to future management activities. It does not prescribe site- specific activities on the ground, or irreversibly commit resources. CEQ regulations define direct effects as those occurring at the same time and place as the amendment. There are no direct environmental consequences of the amendment; therefore the analysis in the DEIS discusses only indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives. Direct effects would result from site- specific projects, and will be evaluated when those decisions are made. In analyzing effects, it's assumed the standards would be met because complying with standards is mandatory. The analysis of effects is based primarily on projections of how future activities and areas would change because of the proposed standards. Such projections are inherently uncertain. It's also assumed that the objectives generally would be achieved and the guidelines generally followed, though that may not always be true. The baseline for effects disclosed in this chapter is the existing plans. The effects of existing plans have been previously determined and disclosed. The DEIS describes changes in effects resulting from incorporating lynx conservation measures. Summary - 8 Generally, effects are presented as changes from existing plans, represented by Alternative A. Some effects on lynx are presented by comparing them to Alternative B, the Proposed Action, which was designed to conserve lynx. Cumulative effects include the effects of the existing plans as disclosed in accompanying NEPA documents and incorporated by reference. Significance of effects NEPA requires an EIS to be prepared for proposals that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A DEIS was prepared based on the level of public interest for this amendment. The overall effect of the action alternatives is to reduce the likelihood of effects from future projects. The analysis in the DEIS has not identified any environmental effects likely to be significant. The DEIS discloses indirect effects of not taking future actions. Decision framework The DEIS has been prepared to evaluate the effects of the Proposed Action, and to look at alternative ways of achieving the Purpose and Need, while responding to the primary issues and management concerns. The responsible officials will decide whether or not to amend FS and BLM plans to incorporate direction for lynx conservation and recovery, and if so what that direction would contain. Due to agency-specific planning regulations, the BLM and FS will publish separate decision documents for their respective amendments. Responsible officials Kathleen McAllister, Deputy Regional Forester for the Northern Region, has been directing the preparation of the DEIS. The responsible officials are: ♦ Brad Powell, Regional Forester, Northern Region, Region 1, PO Box 7669, Missoula, Montana 59807; ♦ Rick Cables, Regional Forester, Rocky Mountain Region, Region 2, PO Box 25127, Lakewood CO, 80225; ♦ Jack Troyer, Regional Forester, Intermountain Region, Region 4, Federal Building, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401; ♦ K. Lynn Bennett, State Director for Idaho BLM, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709; and ♦ Sally Wisely; State Director for Utah BLM, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84145. Summary - 9 Table Summary-1. Crosswalk between Alternative B, the Proposed Action, and the other action alternatives C, D & E Differences between the alternatives have been italicized. If a conflict exists between this management direction and an existing plan, the more restrictive direction applies. Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E ALL PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES - applies to lynx habitat19 in LAUs!7& linkage areasl8!8, subject to valid existing rights Goal12 Conserve the Canada lynx. Same Same Same Objective25 ALL 0 1 Maintain22 or restore33 lynx habitat19 connectivity14 in and between LAUs'7, and in linkage areas18. Same Same Same Standard36 ALL S 1 New or expanded permanent developments28 and vegetation management projects41 must maintain22 habitat connectivity14. Same Same Same Standard ALL S2 None None A project proposal that deviates from one or more lynx standards may proceed without amending the plan, subject to ESA requirements, if a written determination is made that the project is not likely to adversely affect lynx. The regional forester or BLM state director must approve any project proposed under this measure before the decision is made. A project proposal that deviates from one or more lynx standards may proceed without amending the plan, subject to ESA requirements, either: 1. If a written determination is made that the project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or 2. If it may result in short-term adverse effects on lynx but if long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat would result Guideline13 ALL G 1 Same Same Same Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or reconstructing highways15 or forest highways10 across federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses. Summary -11 Summary - 12 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E SPECIFIC PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES - applies only to lynx habitat 19 in LAUs'7, subject to valid existing rights LAU boundaries Standard36 LAU SI Same Same LAU'7 boundaries will not be adjusted except through agreement with the FWS, based on new information about lynx habitat19. Vegetative management activities & practices Objective25 VEG Q I Same Same Manage vegetation to be more similar to historic succession and disturbance processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the conservation of lynx. Objective VEG 02 Same Same Maintain or improve lynx habitat19, emphasizing high-quality winter snowshoe hare habitat42 near denning habitat4. Same Same Same Objective VEG 03 Same Same Same Conduct fire use9 activities to restore33 ecological processes and maintain or improve lynx habitat. Objective VEG 04 Same Same Same Design regeneration harvest, reforestation and thinning to develop characteristics suitable for winter snowshoe hare habitat. Alternative B Alternative C Standard36 VEG S I Unless a broad scale assessment2 has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of unsuitable habitat20, limit disturbance in each LAU'7 as follows: If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat19 in an LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no additional habitat may be made unsuitable by vegetation management projects41. Standard VEG S2 Timber management projects39 shall not change more than 1 5 percent of the lynx habitat on NFS or BLM lands in an LAU to an unsuitable condition in a ten-year period. Standard VEG S3 Maintain22 at least ten percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU as denning habitat4 in patches generally larger than five acres. Standard VEG S I Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of unsuitable habitat, limit disturbance in each LAU or in a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs as follows: If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU or a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs is currently in unsuitable condition, no additional habitat may be made unsuitable by vegetation management projects. This standard does not apply to prescribed fire29. Use the same analysis boundaries for all vegetation management projects subject to this standard. Alternative D Standard VEG SI Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of unsuitable habitat, limit disturbance in each sub¬ basin or isolated mountain range16 as follows: If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in a sub-basin or isolated mountain range is currently in unsuitable condition, no additional habitat may be made unsuitable by vegetation management projects. Use the same analysis boundaries for all vegetation management projects subject to this standard. Alternative E Standard VEG S I Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of unsuitable habitat, limit disturbance in each LAU or in a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs as follows: If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU or a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs is currently in unsuitable condition, no additional habitat may be made unsuitable by vegetation management projects. This standard does not apply to fuel treatment" projects identified through processes such as that described in A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 1 0-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. Use the same analysis boundaries for all vegetation management projects subject to this standard. None None None See Guideline VEG G6 Same as Alt B Standard VEG S3 Maintain at least ten percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU as denning habitat in patches generally larger than five acres. Standard VEG S3 Maintain at least ten percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU as denning habitat in patches generally larger than five acres. Summary - 13 Summary - 14 Alternative B Where less than ten percent denning habitat is present in an LAU, defer vegetation management projects in stands that have the highest potential to develop denning habitat. Standard VEG S4 After a disturbance kills trees in areas five acres or smaller that could contribute to lynx denning habitat, salvage harvest34 may occur only in: 1 . Developed recreation7 sites, administrative sites, or authorized special use structures or improvements; or 2. Designated road or trail corridors where public safety or access has been or may be compromised; or 3. LAUs where denning habitat has been mapped and field-validated, provided at least ten percent is retained and well distributed. Alternative C Standard VEG S4 After a disturbance kills trees in areas five acres or smaller that could contribute to lynx denning habitat, salvage harvest may occur only in: 1 . Developed recreation sites, administrative sites, or authorized special use structures or improvements; or 2. Designated road or trail corridors where public safety or access has been or may be compromised; or 3. LAUs where denning habitat has been mapped and field-validated, provided at least ten percent is retained and well distributed; or 4. Within 200 feet of dwellings or outbuildings. Alternative D Where less than ten percent denning habitat is present in an LAU, either: 1. Defer vegetation management projects in stands that have the highest potential to develop denning habitat; or 2. Move towards ten percent denning habitat by leaving enough standing trees and coarse woody debris to be similar to what would be there naturally. None See Guideline VEG G1 Alternative E Where less than ten percent denning habitat is present in an LAU, either: 1 . Defer vegetation management projects in stands that have the highest potential to develop denning habitat; or 2. Move towards ten percent denning habitat by leaving enough standing trees and coarse woody debris to be similar to what would be there naturally. This standard does not apply to fuel treatment projects identified through processes such as that described in A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 1 0-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. None See Guideline VEG G7 Alternative B Alternative C Standard VEG S5 Precommercial thinning30 projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat42 during the stand initiation structural stage37 may occur only: I . Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings or outbuildings. NOTE: Some thinning projects, such as white pine pruning or Christmas tree harvest, may occur if winter snowshoe hare habitat is not reduced. Standard VEG S5 Vegetation management projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat during the stand initiation structural stage may occur only: 1 . Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies 32 or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock. NOTE: Some vegetation management projects, such as white pine pruning or Christmas tree harvest, may occur if winter snowshoe hare habitat is not reduced. Sumrrw Alternative D Alternative E Standard VEG S5 Vegetation management projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat during the stand initiation structural stage may occur only: 1 . Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For daylight thinning3 of planted rust- resistant white pine where 80 percent of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is retained; or 4. To restore 33 whitebark pine; or 5. For daylight thinning to release larch or ponderosa pine where 80 percent of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is retained; or 6. To develop future old growth27 characteristics in lodgepole; or 7. When a broad scale assessment 2 determines that the amount winter snowshoe hare habitat in the stand initiation stage exceeds what would be expected under the normal range of historic conditions; or 8. For conifer removal in aspen or daylight thinning around individual aspen trees. NOTE: Appendix G includes examples of 3, 5, 6 and 7. Standard VEG SS Precommercial thinning30 projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat during the stand initiation structural stage may occur only: 1 . Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For fuel treatment projects identified through processes such as that described in A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. -15 Summary - 16 Alternative B Standard VEG S6 Precommercial thinning projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat during the understory-reinitiation40 or old-multistory structural stages26 may occur only: I . Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings or outbuildings. Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Standard VEG S6 Vegetation management projects41 that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat during the understory-reinitiation or old-multistory structural stages may occur only: 1 . Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies32. Standard VEG S6 None Vegetation management projects that $ee Gu/de/ine VEG G8 reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat during the understory-reinitiation or old-multistory structural stages may occur only: 1 . Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies; or 3. To maintain planted rust-resistant white pine where 80 percent of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is retained ; or 4. To restore whitebark pine; or 5. To release larch or ponderosa pine where 80 percent of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is retained; or 6. To develop future old growth characteristics in lodgepole; or 7. When a broad scale assessment 2 determines that the amount of winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory structural stages exceeds what would be expected under the normal range of historic conditions. 8. When improving or maintaining winter snowshoe hare habitat in the long term. NOTE: Appendix G includes examples of 3, 5 and 6. Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Guideline13 VEG G 1 Guideline VEG G 1 Same as Alt C Same as Alt C Vegetation management projects41 should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods and Vegetation management projects should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods and shrubs where shrubs where such habitat is scarce or such habitat is scarce or not available not available. Priority should be given to stem-exclusion, Winter snowshoe hare habitat 42 closed-canopy structural stage38. should be near denning habitat4. Winter snowshoe hare habitat should be Vegetation management projects should be planned to extend the production of winter snowshoe hare habitat when forage quality and near denning habitat. Vegetation management projects should be planned to extend the production of winter snowshoe hare habitat when quantity is declining. forage quality and quantity is declining. Guideline VEG G2 Same None None Where more denning habitat is See Standard VEG S3 See Standard VEG S3 desired, leave standing trees and coarse woody debris in amounts similar to what would be there naturally. Denning habitat should be near winter snowshoe hare habitat. Guideline VEG G3 Same Same Same Vegetation management projects designed to retain or restore33 denning habitat should be located where there is a low probability of stand-replacing fire. Guideline VEG G4 Same Same Same Fire use9 activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided. Summary - 17 Summary - 18 Alternative B Guideline VEG G5 Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel31, should be provided in each LAU. Alternative C Same f, Alternative D Same Alternative E Same None See Standard VEG S2 Guideline VEG G6 Timber management projects 39 should not change more than 15 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU into an unsuitable condition during a ten-year period. None None None See Standard VEG S4 None See Standard VEG S4 Guideline VEG G7 After a disturbance that kills trees in areas five acres or smaller which could contribute to lynx denning habitat, salvage harvest34 should not occur unless at least ten percent denning habitat in an LAU is retained and well distributed. Same as Alt D None None None Guideline VEG G8 See Standard VEG S6 See Standard VEG S6 See Standard VEG S6 Vegetation management projects41 should provide habitat conditions through time that maintain 22 winter snowshoe hare habitat42 during the understory reinitiation40 or old-multistory structural stages. Vegetation management projects should be used to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat where dense understories are lacking. Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Livestock grazing activities & practices Objective25 GRAZ Ol Same Same Same Manage livestock grazing to be compatible with improving or maintaining22 lynx habitat19. Standard36 GRAZ SI In fire- and harvest-created openings, manage livestock grazing to make sure impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating. Same Same None See Guideline GRAZ G 1 Standard GRAZ S2 In aspen stands, manage livestock grazing to contribute to their long¬ term health and sustainability. Same Same None See Guideline GRAZ G2 Standard GRAZ S3 In riparian areas and willow cams, manage livestock grazing to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages24, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Same Same None See Guideline GRAZ G3 Standard GRAZ S4 In shrub-steppe habitats35, manage livestock grazing in the elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat19 in LAUs'7, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. Same Same None See Guideline GRAZ G4 Summary - 19 Summary - 20 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E None See Standard GRAZ SI Same Same Guideline13 GRAZ Gl In fire- and harvest_/ III Cl I I »S^I I • • » W » IV National Forest lands not in this amendment BLM Administrative Boundaries ^ 2oneS sizes have no significance) Highways Lakes Lynx Habitat and linkage areas are subject to change as information is updated. ATTENTION This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc... Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products based on new inventories, new or revised information, and if necessary in conjunction with other federal, state or local public agencies or the public in general as required by policy or regulation. Previous recipients of the products may not be notified unless required by policy or regulation. For more information i contact the Northern Region IS staff-GIS. Wyoming Colorado • Rock Springs i]>:SfoSflV5 BLM Library Denver Federal Center Bldg. 50, OC-521 BO. Box 25047 Denver, CO 80225