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

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<reated openings,
livestock grazing should be managed so
that impacts do not prevent shrubs and
trees from regenerating.

None

See Standard GRAZ S2

Same

Same

Guideline GRAZ G2

In aspen stands, livestock grazing should
be managed to contribute to their long¬
term health and sustainability.

None

See Standard GRAZ S3

Same

Same

Guideline GRAZ G3

In riparian areas and willow carrs,
livestock grazing should be managed to
contribute to maintaining or achieving a
preponderance of mid- or late-seral
stages24, similar to conditions that would
have occurred under historic disturbance
regimes.

None

See Standard GRAZ S4

Same

Same

Guideline GRAZ G4

In shrub-steppe habitats35, livestock

grazing should be managed in the
elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat
in LAUs, to contribute to maintaining or
achieving a preponderance of mid- or
late-seral stages, similar to conditions that
would have occurred under historic
disturbance regimes.

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Human uses management activities & practices

Objective25 HU Ol

Maintain22 the lynx’s natural
competitive advantage over other
predators in deep snow, by
discouraging the expansion of snow¬
compacting activities in lynx habitat19.

Same

Same

Same

Objective HU 02

Manage recreational activities to
maintain lynx habitat and connectivity.

Same

Same

Same

Objective HU 03

Concentrate activities in existing
developed areas, rather than
developing new areas in lynx habitat.

Same

Same

Same

Objective HU 04

Provide for lynx habitat needs and
connectivity when developing new or
expanding existing developed
recreation7 sites or ski areas.

Same

Same

Same

Objective HU 05

Manage human activities - such as
exploring and developing minerals and
oil and gas, placing utility corridors
and permitting special uses - to
reduce impacts on lynx and lynx
habitat.

Same

Same

Same

Objective HU 06

Same

Same

Same

Reduce adverse highway15 effects on
lynx by working cooperatively with
other agencies to provide for lynx
movement and habitat connectivity14,
and to reduce the potential of lynx
mortality.

Summary - 21

Summary - 22

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Standard36 HU SI

Allow no net increase in designated
over-the-snow routes5 or play areas
by l_AU17, unless designation serves to
consolidate use and improve lynx
habitat19.

This does not apply inside permitted
ski area boundaries, to winter logging,
to rerouting trails for public safety, to
accessing private inholdings or where
regulated by HU S3.

Standard HU S I , Same as Alt C

Allow no net increase in designated

over-the-snow routes or play areas

outside baseline areas of consistent snow

compaction 1 by LAU or in a combination of

immediately adjacent LAUs, unless

designation serves to consolidate use

and improve lynx habitat.

This does not apply inside permitted ski
area boundaries, to winter logging, to
rerouting trails for public safety, to
accessing private inholdings or to access
regulated by HU S3.

None

See Guideline HU Gl I

Use the same analysis boundaries for all
actions subject to this standard.

Standard HU S2

When developing or expanding ski
areas, locate trails, access roads and
lift termini to maintain22 and provide
lynx diurnal security habitat8 if it’s
been identified as a need.

None

See Guideline HU G 1 0

None

See Guideline HU GIO

None

See Guideline HU GIO

Standard HU S3

Winter access for non-recreation
special uses and mineral and energy
exploration and development, shall be
limited to designated routes6 or
designated over-the-snow routes5.

Same

Same

See Guideline HU G 1 2

Guideline13 HU G 1

Same

Same

Same

When developing or expanding ski
areas, provisions should be made for
adequately sized inter-trail islands that
include coarse woody debris, so
winter snowshoe hare habitat42 is
maintained.

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Guideline HU G2

When developing or expanding ski
areas, nocturnal foraging should be
provided consistent with the ski area’s
operational needs, especially where
lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands
of coniferous forest across mountain
slopes.

Same

Same

Same

Guideline HU G3

Recreation developments and
operations should be planned in ways
that both provide for lynx movement
and maintain the effectiveness of lynx
habitat.

Same

Same

Same

Guideline HU G4

For mineral and energy development
sites and facilities, remote monitoring
should be encouraged to reduce snow
compaction.

Same

Same

Same

Guideline HU G5

For mineral and energy development
sites and facilities that are closed, a
reclamation plan that restores33 lynx
habitat should be developed.

Same

Same

Same

Guideline HU G6

Guideline HU G6

Same as Alt C

Same as Alt C

Upgrading unpaved roads to
maintenance levels23 4 and 5 should be
avoided in lynx habitat, if the result
would be increased traffic speeds and
volumes, or a foreseeable
contribution to increases in human
activity or development.

Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx
should be used in lynx habitat when
upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance
levels 4 or 5, if the result would be
increased traffic speeds and volumes, or
a foreseeable contribution to increases
in human activity or development.

Summary - 23

Summary - 24

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Guideline HU G7

New permanent roads should not be
built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in
areas identified as important for lynx
habitat connectivity'4.

New permanent roads and trails
should be situated away from forested
stringers.

Same

Same

Same

Guideline HU G8

Cutting brush along low-speed21, low-
traffic-volume roads should be done
to the minimum level necessary to
provide for public safety.

Same

Same

Same

Guideline HU G9

On new roads built for projects,
public motorized use should be
restricted. Effective closures should
be provided in road designs. When
the project is over, these roads
should be reclaimed or
decommissioned, if not needed for
other management objectives.

Same

Same

Same

None

See Standard HU S2

Guideline HU G 1 0

When developing or expanding ski areas
and trails, access roads and lift termini
should be located to maintain and provide
lynx diurnal security8 habitat

Same as Alt C

Same as Alt C

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

None

See Standard HU S I

None Same

See Standard HU S3

Same Guideline HU Gl I

Designated over-the-snow routes 5 or play
areas should not expand outside baseline
areas of consistent snow compaction' by
LAU or in a combination of immediately
adjacent LAUs, unless designation serves
to consolidate use and improve lynx
habitat

This does not apply inside permitted ski
area boundaries, to winter logging, to
rerouting trails for public safety, to
accessing private inholdings or where
regulated by HU G / 2.

Use the same analysis boundaries for all
actions subject to this guideline.

Same Guideline HU G 12

Winter access for non-recreation special
uses and mineral and energy exploration
and development should be limited to
designated routes6 or designated over-
the-snow routes 5

Summary - 25

Summary - 26

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

LINKAGE AREAS - applies to linkage areas18, subject to valid existing rights

Objective25 LINK Ol

In areas of intermingled land
ownership, work with landowners to
pursue conservation easements,
habitat conservation plans, land
exchanges or other solutions to
reduce the potential of adverse
impacts on lynx and lynx habitat.

Same

Same

Same

Standard36 LINK SI

When highway15 or forest highway10
construction or reconstruction is
proposed in linkage areas18, identify
potential highway crossings.

Same

Same

Same

Standard LINK S2

Manage livestock grazing in shrub-
steppe habitats35 to contribute to
maintaining22 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 LINK G2

Guideline13 LINK Gl

NFS and BLM lands should be retained
in public ownership.

Same

Same

Same

None

See Standard LINK S2

Same

Same

Guideline LINK G2

Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats

should be managed to contribute to
maintaining or achieving a preponderance
of mid- or late-seral stages24, similar to
conditions that would have occurred
under historic disturbance regimes.

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Monitoring

Map the location and amount of Same as Alt B Same as Alt B Same as Alt B

snow-compacting use that coincided

with l/nx habitat19 in LAUs'7 during

the 1 998-2000 seasons for designated

over-the-snow5 and groomed routes

and areas, and areas of consistent

snow compaction1. Such activities

include snowmobiling, snowshoeing,

cross-country skiing, dog sledding, etc.

None None Annually monitor the acres o f vegetation Same as Alt D

management projects41 that occurred in
lynx habitat and in winter snowshoe hare
habitat42 during the previous fiscal year.

None None Document and evaluate the conditions Same as Alt D

under which Standard All S2 is applied.

Glossary

7 Areas of consistent snow compaction - An area of consistent snow compaction is an area of land or water that during winter is
generally covered with snow and gets enough human use that individual tracks are indistinguishable. In such places, compacted
snow is evident most of the time, except immediately after (within 48 hours) snowfall. These can be areas or linear routes, and are
generally found in near snowmobile or cross-country ski routes, in adjacent openings, parks and meadows, near ski huts or plowed
roads, or in winter parking areas. Areas of consistent snow compaction will be determined based on the area or miles used in 1998,
1999 or 2000.

3 Broad scale assessment - A broad scale assessment is a synthesis of current scientific knowledge, including a description of
uncertainties and assumptions, to provide an understanding of past and present conditions and future trends, and a characterization
of the ecological, social and economic components of an area. (LCAS)

3 Daylight thinning - Daylight thinning is a form of precommercial thinning that removes the trees and brush inside a given radius
around a tree.

4 Denning habitat (lynx) - Denning habitat is the environment lynx use when giving birth and rearing kittens until they are mobile.
The most common component is large amounts of coarse woody debris to provide escape and thermal cover for kittens. Denning
habitat must be within daily travel distance of winter snowshoe hare habitat - the typical maximum daily distance for females is

Summary - 27

Summary - 28

about three to six miles. Denning habitat includes mature and old growth24 forests with plenty of coarse woody debris. It can also
include young regenerating forests with piles of coarse woody debris, or areas where down trees are jack-strawed.

5 Designated over-the-snow routes - Designated over-the-snow routes are routes managed under permit or agreement or by the agency,
where use is encouraged, either by on-the-ground marking or by publication in brochures, recreation opportunity guides or maps
(other than travel maps) or in electronic media produced or approved by the agency. Hie routes identified in outfitter and guide
permits are designated by definition; groomed routes also are designated by definition. The determination of baseline snow
compaction will be based on the miles of designated over-the-snow routes authorized, promoted or encouraged in 1998, 1999 or
2000.

6 Designated route - A designated route is a road or trail that has been identified as open for specified travel use.

Developed recreation - Developed recreation requires facilities that result in concentrated use. For example, skiing requires lifts,
parking lots, buildings and roads; campgrounds require roads, picnic tables and toilet facilities.

8 Diurnal security habitat (lynx) - Diurnal security habitat amounts to places in lynx habitat that provide secure winter daytime
bedding sites for lynx in highly disturbed landscapes like ski areas. Security habitat gives lynx the ability to retreat from human
disturbance during the day, so they can emerge at dusk to hunt when most human activity stops. Forest structures that make human
access difficult generally discourage human activity in security habitats. Security habitats are most effective if big enough to provide
visual and acoustic insulation and to let lynx easily move away from any intrusion. They must be close to winter snowshoe hare
habitat. (LCAS)

g Fire use - Fire use is the combination of wildland fire use and using prescribed fire to meet resource objectives. (NIFC) Wildland
fire use is managing naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish resource management objectives in areas that have a fire
management plan. This term replaces prescribed natural fire. (Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy, August 1998)

10 Forest highivay - A forest highway is a forest road under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to
public travel (USC: Title 23, Section 101(a)), designated by an agreement with the FS, state transportation agency and Federal
Highway Administration.

77 Fuel treatment - A fuel treatment is a management action that reduces the threat of ignition and fire intensity or rate of spread, or is
used to restore fire-adapted ecosystems.

73 Goal - A goal is a broad description of what an agency is trying to achieve, found in a land management plan. (LCAS)

Guideline - A guideline is a particular management action that should be used to meet an objective found in a land management
plan. The rationale for deviations may be documented, but amending the plan is not required. (LCAS modified)

14 Habitat connectivity (lynx) - Habitat connectivity consists of an adequate amount of vegetative cover arranged in a way that allows
lynx to move around. Narrow forested mountain ridges or shrub-steppe plateaus may serve as a link between more extensive areas
of lynx habitat; wooded riparian areas may provide travel cover across open valley floors. (LCAS)

15 Highway - The word highway includes all roads that are part of the National Highway System. (23 CFR 470.107(b))

16 Isolated mountain range - Isolated mountain ranges are small mountains cut off from other mountains and surrounded by flatlands.
On the east side of the Rockies, they are used for analysis instead of sub-basins. Examples are the Little Belts in Montana and the
Bighorns in Wyoming.

17 LAU (Lynx Analysis Unit) - An LAU is an area of at least the size used by an individual lynx, from about 25 to 50 mi2 (LCAS). An
LAU is a unit for which the effects of a project would be analyzed; its boundaries should remain constant.

18 Linkage area - A linkage area provides connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat. Linkage areas occur both within and between
geographic areas, where basins, valleys or agricultural lands separate blocks of lynx habitat, or where lynx habitat naturally narrows
between blocks. (LCAS updated definition approved by the Steering Committee 10/23/01)

79 Lynx habitat - Lynx habitat occurs in mesic coniferous forest that experience cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of
snowshoe hare. In the northern Rockies, lynx habitat is generally occurs between 3,500 and 8,000 feet of elevation, and primarily
consists of lodgepole pine, subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. It may consist of cedar-hemlock in extreme northern Idaho,
northeastern Washington and northwestern Montana, or of Douglas fir on moist sites at higher elevations in central Idaho. It may
also consist of cool, moist Douglas fir, grand fir, western larch and aspen when interspersed in subalpine forests. Dry forests do not
provide lynx habitat. (LCAS)

20 Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition -Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition consists of lynx habitat in the stand initiation
structural stage where the trees are generally less than ten to 30 years old and have not grown tall enough to protrude above the
snow during winter. Stand replacing fire or certain vegetation management projects can create unsuitable conditions. Vegetation
management projects that can result in unsuitable habitat include clearcuts and seed tree harvest, and sometimes shelterwood cuts
and commercial thinning depending on the resulting stand composition and structure. (LCAS)

27 Low-speed , low-traffic-volume road - Low speed is less than 20 miles per hour; low volume is a seasonal average daily traffic load of
less than 100 vehicles per day.

22 Maintain - In the context of this amendment, to maintain means to provide enough lynx habitat to conserve lynx. It does not mean
to keep the status quo.

23 Maintenance level - Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by and maintenance required for a road. (FSH 7709.58,
Sec 12.3) Maintenance level 4 is assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate
travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. Some may be single lane; some may be paved or have dust

Summary - 29

Summary - 30

abated. Maintenance level 5 is assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally, roads are
double-lane and paved, but some may be aggregate surfaced with the dust abated.

24 Mid-seral or later - Mid-seral is the successional stage in a plant community that's the midpoint as it moves from bare ground to
climax. For riparian areas, it means willows or other shrubs have become established- For shrub-steppe areas, it means shrubs
associated with climax are present and increasing in density.

1 Objective - An objective is a statement in a land management plan describing desired resource conditions and intended to promote
achieving programmatic goals. (LCAS)

2bOld multistory structural stage - Many age classes and vegetation layers mark the old forest, multistoried stage. It usually contains
large old trees. Decaying fallen trees may also be present that leave a discontinuous overstory canopy. On cold or moist sites
without frequent fires or other disturbance, multi-layer stands with large trees in the uppermost layer develop. (Oliver and Larson,
1996)

: Old growth - Old growth forests generally contain trees that are large for their species and site, and are sometimes decadent with
broken tops. Old growth often contains a variety of tree sizes, large snags and logs, and a developed and often patchy understory.

28 Permanent development - A permanent development is any development that results in a loss of lynx habitat for at least 15 years. Ski
trails, parking lots, new permanent roads, structures, campgrounds and many special use developments would be considered
permanent developments.

g Prescribed fire - A prescribed fire is any fire ignited as a management action to meet specific objectives. A written, approved
prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements met, before ignition. The term replaces management ignited prescribed fire.
(NWCG)

30 Precommercial thinning - Precommercial thinning is mechanically removing trees to reduce stocking and concentrate growth on the
remaining trees, and not resulting in immediate financial return. (Dictionary of Forestry)

37 Red squirrel habitat - Red squirrel habitat consists of coniferous forests of seed and cone-producing age that usually contain snags
and downed woody debris, generally associated with mature or older forests.

32 Research - Research consists of studies conducted to increase scientific knowledge or technology. For the purposes of Standards
VEG S5 and VEG S6, research applies to studies financed from the forest research budget (FSM 4040) and administrative studies
financed from the NF budget.

33 Restore, restoration - To restore is to return or re-establish ecosystems or habitats to their original structure and species composition.
(Dictionary of Forestry)

34 Salvage harvest - Salvage harvest is a commercial timber sale of dead, damaged or dying trees. It recovers economic value that
would otherwise be lost. Collecting firewood for personal use is not considered salvage harvest.

35 Shrub steppe habitat - Shrub steppe habitat consists of dry sites with shrubs and grasslands intermingled.

36 Standard - A standard is a required action in a land management plan specifying how to achieve an objective or under what
circumstances to refrain from taking action. A plan must be amended to deviate from a standard.

372 Stand initiation structural stage - The stand initiation stage generally develops after a stand-replacing disturbance by fire or
regeneration timber harvest. A new single-story layer of shrubs, tree seedlings and saplings establish and develop, reoccupying the
site. Trees that need full sun are likely to dominate these even-aged stands. (Oliver and Larson, 1996)

38 Stem exclusion structural stage - In the stem exclusion stage, trees initially grow fast and quickly occupy all of the growing space,
creating a closed canopy. Because the trees are tall, little light reaches the forest floor so understory plants (including smaller trees)
are shaded and grow more slowly. Species that need full sunlight usually die; shrubs and herbs may become dormant. New trees
are precluded by a lack of sunlight or moisture. (Oliver and Larson, 1996)

39 Timber management - Timber management consists of growing, tending, commercially harvesting and regenerating crops of trees.

40 Understory re-initiation structural stage - In the understory re-initiation stage, a new age class of trees gets established after overstory
trees begin to die, are removed or no longer fully occupy their growing space after tall trees abrade each other in the wind.
Understory seedlings then re-grow and the trees begin to stratify into vertical layers. A low to moderately dense uneven-aged
overstory develops, with some small shade-tolerant trees in the understory. (Oliver and Larson, 1996)

41 Vegetation management projects - Vegetation management projects change the composition and structure of vegetation to meet
specific objectives, using such means as prescribed fire and timber harvest. For the purposes of this amendment, the term does not
include removing vegetation for permanent developments like mineral operations, ski runs, roads and the like, and does not apply
to fire suppression or to wildland fire use.

42 Winter snowshoe Imre habitat - Winter snowshoe hare habitat consists of places where young trees or shrubs grow dense - thousands
of woody stems per acre - and tall enough to protrude above the snow during winter, so hares can browse on the bark and small
twigs (Ruediger et al. 2000). Winter snowshoe hare habitat develops primarily in the stand initiation, understory reinitiation and old
forest multistoried structural stages.

Summary - 31

Comparing how the alternatives address the issue

Comparing alternatives

Table Summary-2. Comparing how the alternatives address the issues

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative

D

Issue: Effect on over-the-snow winter recreation

Ability to expand groomed routes
Grooming could expand under
direction in existing plans

♦ Grooming levels were stable
during the 1 990s & are not likely to
increase during the next 5 years
due to increased costs of
machinery & operations, & no
increases in funding from states

Ability to expand designated routes

♦ Designated ungroomed routes
could expand based on existing
plan direction

♦ For outfitter-guide permits,
changes in season of use are
possible, but there’s little ability to
expand because of permitting
process

Grooming could expand on about
3,500 miles of designated
ungroomed routes, except
additional grooming limited

♦ On designated ungroomed routes
on the Flathead, Gallatin, Targhee &
Ashley NF & the Upper
Columbia/Salmon BLM unit,
because most designated routes are
currently groomed

♦ New designated routes would not
be allowed above what exists today

♦ For outfitter-guide permits,
changes in season of use would be
limited

♦ For outfitter-guide permits, little
ability to expand would be found
anyway because of permitting
process

Grooming could expand

♦ On about 3,500 miles of designated
ungroomed routes

♦ In areas of consistent snow
compaction

♦ New designated routes would be
allowed in areas of consistent snow
compaction

♦ For outfitter-guide permits, changes
in season of use would be possible in
areas of consistent snow compaction,
but there’s little ability to expand
because of permitting process

Same as

Alternative

C

Same as

Alternative

C

Alternative

E

Same as

Alternative

C

Same as

Alternative

C

Summary - 33

Summary - 34

Alternative A

Effect on over-the-snow recreation
No change in over-the-snow
winter recreation

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative

D

♦ Present opportunities would
continue to exist

♦ In the few units where grooming
cannot expand, user experience
may change

♦ Outfitters could not expand
winter operations into new areas

♦ Present opportunities would
continue to exist

♦ All units would be able to provide
more groomed routes &
opportunities, so user experience
should not change

♦ Outfitters could expand services
into some new areas

Same as

Alternative

C

Alternative

E

Same as

Alternative

C

Comparing how the alternatives address the issue

Alternative A

Alternative B

Comparing how the alternatives address the issue

Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

Issue: Effects on wildland fire risk to communities

Limits imposed on fuel treatments that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat

Direction
in existing
plans

Precommercial thinning
allowed only
♦ Within 200 feet of
structures

Fuel treatment projects allowed
only

♦ Within 200 feet of structures

Direction in existing
plans

Fuel treatment projects allowed
only

♦ Within 200 feet of structures

♦ When a broad scale assessment
finds different historic forage levels

♦ To maintain or improve foraging
habitat in the long term

Ability to conduct fuel treatments outside winter snowshoe hare habitat

Direction Standards VEG SI through VEG S4 could limit fuel treatment in some circumstances - most projects
in existing could be designed to meet the standards
plans

Percent of fuel treatment program inside the WUI that may need to be relocated during next decade due Standards VEG S5 & VEG S6
^Qne 4 5% in high density forests ♦ 10% in high density forests ♦ Less than Alternative C

♦ 4% in low density forests ♦ 9% in low density forests ♦ Less than Alternative C None

Percent of fuel treatment program outside the WUI that may need to be relocated during next decade due Standards VEG S5 & VEG S6

Art/ • I • ■ I / . / . . . -

Direction in existing
plans

None

♦ 8% in high density forests

♦ 7% in low density forests
Effect on wildland fire risk

No change ♦ Constrains only fuel
treatments that use
precommercial thinning

♦ Could displace 6-11% of the
fuel treatment program

♦ May limit ability to reduce
fire size and intensity in some
places

1 7% in high density forests

♦ 1 3% in low density forests

♦ Constrains fuel treatments

♦ Could displace 12-22% of the
fuel treatment program

♦ Likely to limit ability to reduce
fire size and intensity in some
places

♦ Less than Alternative C

♦ Less than Alternative C

♦ Constrains fuel treatments

♦ Could displace 1 2-22% of the fuel
treatment program

♦ Likely to limit ability to reduce
fire size and intensity in some
places

None

♦ Would not
constrain fuel
treatment

♦ Would not limit
ability to reduce fire
size and intensity

Summary - 35

Summary - 36

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Issue: Effects on maintaining winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests

Activities allowed in lynx foraging habitat in multistoried forests outside wilderness

Direction Vegetation management

in existing projects other than

plans precommercial thinning

♦ But precommercial thinning
permitted within 200 feet of
structures

Only vegetation management
projects

♦ Within 200 feet of structures or
for research

Only vegetation management
projects

♦ Within 200 feet of structures or
for research

♦ To restore planted white pine,
western larch, ponderosa pine &
whitebark pine where 80% of the
forage habitat is retained

♦ To restore whitebark pine

Alternative E

Vegetation

management projects

♦To maintain or
improve foraging
habitat in the long
term

♦ Where there is
rationale to deviate
from the guideline

♦To develop future old growth
lodgepole pine

♦ When a broad scale assessment
finds different historic forage levels

♦To maintain or improve foraging
habitat in the long term

Effect on winter snowshoe hare habitat in
May be May be reduced by 3-4%
reduced by

multistoried forests outside wilderness
No reduction, forage habitat
maintained

4-5%

May be reduced by 2-3%, plus
some habitat improved.

May be reduced by 4-
5% plus some habitat
improved

Comparing how the alternatives address the issue

Comparing how the alternatives address the issue

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Issue: Effect on the ability to restore tree species and forest structures in decline

Ability to precommercially thin young regenerating forests to maintain or restore tree species in decline

Direction in
existing plans

Only when stands no longer Same as Alternative B, plus
provide foraging habitat, or ♦ Research & genetic tests
♦ Within 200 feet of
structures

Same as Alternative C, plus
♦ Daylight thinning around planted
white pine, western larch &
ponderosa pine retaining 80% of
forage habitat

♦ Restoring whitebark pine &
aspen

Same as Alternative C,
plus

♦ Fuel treatments
developed through a
collaborative process

♦ Thinning lodgepole pine to
promote future old growth

♦ When a broad scale assessment
finds different historic forage
levels

How much precommercial thinning could be done

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Reason for

Outside lynx

Inside lynx

Inside lynx

Inside lynx

Inside lynx

Inside lynx

Drecommercial thinning

habitat

habitat

habitat

habitat

habitat

habitat

Research

80 acres

1 ,450 acres

0

1 ,450 acres

1 ,450 acres

1 ,450 acres

Genetic tests

320 acres

220 acres

0

220 acres

220 acres

220 acres

Within 200 feet of dwellings

4, 1 70 acres

2, 1 90 acres

2, 1 90 acres

2, 1 90 acres

2, 1 90 acres

2, 1 90 acres

Restoration f

1 23,080 acres

232,620 acres

0

0

232,210 acres

0

Western white pine

19,610 acres

5 1,090 acres

0

0

5 1,090 acres

0

Whitebark pine

250 acres

9,1 10 acres

0

0

9,1 10 acres

0

Aspen

3,070 acres

3,050 acres

0

0

3,050 acres

0

Ponderosa pine

48,450 acres

1 1,660 acres

0

0

1 1,660 acres

0

Larch

45,280 acres

123, 1 60 acres

0

0

123,1 60 acres

0

Lodgepole

6,420 acres

34,550 acres

0

0

34,550 acres

0

Other

57, 1 70 acres

1 59,660 acres

0

0

0

0

Total thinning ^

1 84,820 acres

396, 140 acres

2, 1 90 acres

3,860 acres

236,480 acres

3,860 acres

f Restoration = western white pine + whitebark pine + aspen + ponderosa pine + larch + lodgepole
t Total thinning = research + genetics + within 200' of dwellings + restoration + other over ten years

Acres shown are total thinning-program request - it's likely historic average funding would be received to do only about 30% of what's requested

Summary - 37

Summary - 38

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Precommercial thinning deferred by amendment
No deferral 1 32,000 acres
Effect on tree species in decline

during next decade, based on historic average funding of about 34% of what’s requested
Same as Alternative B 56,000 acres Same as Alternative B

♦ Data

collected for
research & tree
improvement

♦ Contributes
to improving
conditions for
whitebark pine
& aspen

♦ Contributes
to improving
conditions for
western white
pine, western
larch,

ponderosa pine
& old growth
lodgepole

♦ No data collected for
research & tree
improvement

♦ Contributes to continued
decline of western white
pine, whitebark pine, aspen,
western larch & ponderosa
pine

♦ Contributes to decrease in
old growth lodgepole pine

Same as Alternative B, only

♦ Data is collected for research &
tree improvement

♦ Data collected for research &
tree improvement

♦ Contributes to improving
conditions for whitebark pine &
aspen

♦ Contributes to improving
conditions for western white
pine, western larch, ponderosa
pine & old growth lodgepole

Same as Alternative C,
except

♦ May contribute to
improving conditions
for whitebark pine and
aspen if they are
treated to restore
fire-adapted
ecosystems

Comparing how the alternatives address the issue

Comparing how the alternatives address the issue

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

issue:- What level of management direction should be applied to activities that the FWS remand notice found were not a.

threat to lynx populations?

Nature of management direction applied to grazing, minerals, roads & over-the-snow recreation

None

♦ Grazing

Objective GRAZ 01

Standards GRAZ SI -
GRAZS4

Standard LINK S2

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Objective GRAZ 01
Guidelines GRAZ G 1 -
G4

Guideline LINK G2

None

♦ Minerals

Objective HU 05

Standard HU S3

Guidelines HU G4 & HU

G5

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Objective HU 05
Guidelines HU G4,

HU G5&HUGI2

None

♦ Roads

Guidelines HU G6 - HU G9

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

None

♦ Over-the-snow recreation
Objective HU 01

Standards HU SI & HU S3

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Objective HU 01
Guidelines HU G 1 1 &
HU GI2

Summary - 39

Summary - 40

Table Summary-3. Comparing how management concerns are addressed in the alternatives

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Management concern: Size of area to which Standard VEG SI is applied - Standard VEG SI limits the amount of unsuitable habitat to 30%

Applies to an LAU, about 1 6,000 Applies to multiple Applies to sub-basin or isolated Same as Alternative C

to 25,000 acres - this size makes it contiguous LAUs - more mountain range, about 500,000 to

difficult to consider natural closely resembles the one million acres - this size about

disturbance processes because scale of many natural the scale of many natural

they often involve larger areas disturbances disturbances

Management concern: Standards that focus on particular methods, such as timber harvest & salvage logging

Standards VEG S2, VEG S4, VEG Standard VEG S4 None of the standards None of the standards

S5 & VEG S6

Management concern: Guidelines that focus on methods such as timber harvest & salvage logging
None Guideline VEG G6 Guideline VEG G7

Management concern: How denning habitat is considered
If less than 1 0% denning habitat, Same as Alternative B
then

♦ Defer projects in potential
denning habitat

If less than 1 0% denning habitat,
then

♦ Defer projects in potential
denning habitat, or

Same as Alternative D

Same as Alternative D, only
♦ Fuel treatments don’t have to meet
1 0% denning standard

♦ Leave enough standing trees &
coarse woody debris to provide
den sites

Management concern: Size of area for Standard HUS I over-the-snow routes

LAU this size makes it difficult to By LAU, or a combination Same as Alternative C Same as Alternative C

consider entire routes because of immediately adjacent

they often involve larger areas LAUs

Management concern: How lynx diurnal habitat is considered

Standard Guideline Same as Alternative C Same as Alternative C

Management concern: How upgrading roads is considered

Guideline to avoid upgrading or Guideline to avoid or Same as Alternative C Same as Alternative C

paving roads reduce effects on lynx

when upgrading or paving
roads

Comparing how management concerns are addressed in alternatives

Comparing how management concerns are addressed in alternatives

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Management concern: How adaptive management is incorporated

The 30% unsuitable habitat limit in Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B, plus

Standard VEG SI could be changed ♦ Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6

based on a broad scale assessment would allow precommercial

thinning if a broad scale
assessment finds different historic
forage levels

♦ Standard ALL S2 would allow
projects to proceed if they have
no adverse effects on lynx

Alternative E

Same as Alternative B, plus
♦ Standard ALL S2 would allow projects
to proceed if they have no adverse
effects on lynx, or projects that may
adversely affect lynx in the short term
but have beneficial effects in the long
term

Summary - 41

Summary - 42

Table Summary-4. Comparing how the LCAS risk factors are addressed in the Alternatives

Alternative A

Alternative B

LCAS risk factor
Most FS &

BLM plans
contain limited
or no direction

Amount of lynx habitat in unsuitable condition

♦ Standard VEG S I limits unsuitable habitat to 30%
per LAU unless a broad scale assessment finds
different historic levels

♦ Standard VEG S2 limits how much unsuitable habitat
can be created by timber harvest to 1 5% of an LAU
over a 1 0-year period

♦ Standard ALL S I requires vegetation management
projects to maintain connectivity

♦ Guideline VEG G I encourages creating foraging
habitat where it’s lacking

LCAS risk factor:

♦ Most plans
contain some
direction for
keeping dead &
down material

♦ Management
direction
inadequate or
lacking in three
FS & most
BLM plans

Denning habitat

♦ Standard VEG S3 requires retaining 10% denning
habitat: if less, projects in potential denning habitat
deferred

♦ Standard VEG S4 prohibits salvage after a
disturbance kills trees in patches smaller than five
acres; unless there is 10% denning habitat, or in
developed recreation sites, administrative sites or
authorized special use structures or improvements;
or in designated road or trail corridors where public
safety or access may be compromised

♦ Guideline VEG G2 encourages creating denning
habitat where it’s lacking

♦ Guideline VEG G3 says to restore or retain denning
habitat where it’s less likely to burned by wildfire

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

♦ Standard VEG S 1 limits

♦ Standard VEG SI limits

Same as

unsuitable habitat to 30%

unsuitable habitat to 30%

Alternative C,

per combination of

per sub-basin or isolated

only

adjacent LAUs unless a

mountain range unless a

♦ Standard VEG

broad scale assessment

broad scale assessment

S 1 would not

finds different historic

finds different historic

apply to fuel

levels

levels

treatment

♦ Standard VEG S2

♦ Drops Standard VEG S2,

♦ Standard VEG

changes to Guideline VEG

so no restrictions on how

S2 dropped,

G6

much unsuitable habitat

same as

♦ Changes Guideline VEG

G 1 to identify forest
conditions to target for
creating forage habitat

can be created by timber
harvest

♦ Guideline VEG G 1 same
as Alternative C

Alternative D

Same as Alternative B,

Standard VEG S3 same as

Same as

plus

Alternative B, only

Alternative D,

♦ Standard VEG S4 allows

♦ Allows projects to move

only

salvage logging within 200

towards 1 0% denning

♦ Standard VEG

feet of structures,

habitat by leaving standing

S3 does not

dwellings or outbuildings

trees & coarse woody
debris - Guideline VEG

G2 incorporated
♦ Standard VEG S4
changed to Guideline VEG
G7, so consider no salvage
harvest in patches smaller
than five acres if less than

1 0% denning per LAU

apply to fuel
treatment

Comparing how the LCAS risk factors are addressed in the alternatives

Comparing how the LCAS risk factors are addressed in the alternative

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C Alternative D

LCAS risk factor. Lynx foraging habitat (winter snowshoe hare habitat)

Most FS &

BLM plans
contain limited
or no
direction,
except for old
growth in
multistoried
stages

Standards VEG S5 & VEG S6 defer precommercial
thinning in foraging habitat

Other treatments:

♦ Could reduce high density forage by 3%

♦ Could reduce total forage by 2%

♦ Could
reduce high
density forage
by 14%

Standards VEG S5 & VEG
S6 defer all vegetation
management in foraging
habitat, but allows

♦ Research

♦ Within 200 feet of
structures

♦ Could reduce high
density forage by less
than 1%

♦ Could reduce total
forage by less than I %

♦ Could
reduce total
forage by 9%

Standards VEG S5 & VEG
S6 defers vegetation
management in foraging
habitat, but allows

♦ Research

♦ Within 200 feet of
structures

♦ Restoring western
larch, ponderosa pine &
planted western white
pine, where 80% of the
forage is retained

♦ Whitebark pine
restoration

♦ Promoting lodgepole
pine old growth

♦ When a broad scale
assessment has found
forage exceeds its
historic availability

♦ Aspen restoration in
stand initiation stage

♦ Improving or
maintaining long-term
foraging habitat in
multistoried stages

♦ Could reduce high
density forage by 8%

♦ Could reduce total
forage by 4%

Alternative E

Same as
Alternative B,
only

♦ Standard VEG

55 would not
apply to fuel
treatments or
research

♦ Standard VEG

56 changed to
less-restrictive
Guideline VEG
G8

♦ Could reduce
high density
forage by 5%

♦ Could reduce
total forage by
4%

Summary - 43

Summary - 44

Alternative A

Alternative B

LCAS risk factor: Wildland fire management

Most FS &

BLM plans
contain limited
or no
direction

♦ Objective VEG 03 says to conduct fire use
activities to restore ecological processes &
maintain or improve lynx habitat

♦ Vegetation standards would not require
suppressing fires or apply to wildland fire use

♦ Guideline VEG G4 says permanent travel routes
should avoid facilitating snow compaction, and
permanent firebreaks should avoid ridges or
saddles

LCAS risk factor: Winter recreation

Most FS & ♦ Standard HU SI says no net-increase allowed in

BLM plans groomed or designated over-the-snow routes per

contain limited LAU unless consolidating use or improving lynx
or no habitat

direction ♦ Standard HU S2 says when developing or

expanding ski areas, locate routes & access roads
to maintain & provide lynx diurnal security habitat

♦ Standard HU S3 restricts over-the-snow access
for non-recreation special uses, timber sales, etc.,
to designated routes

♦ Standard ALL S I says new or expanded
developments must maintain habitat connectivity

♦ Includes Guidelines HU G I , HU G2 & HU G3
that require considering lynx habitat & movement
needs

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Same as

Alternative B

Same as Alternative B, Same as Alternative C

Similar to

however

Alternative C

♦ Standard HU SI says no

♦ Standard HU

net-increase in groomed

S 1 changed to

or designated over-the-

less-restrictive

snow routes allowed per

Guideline HU

combination of adjacent

G 1 1 , which says

LAUs, unless

use should not

consolidating use,

expand

improving lynx habitat or
in areas of consistent

♦ Standard HU

S3 changed to

snow compaction

less-restrictive

♦ Standard HU S2

Guideline HU

changed to less-
restrictive Guideline HU

G 10

G 12

Comparing how the LCAS risk factors are addressed in the alternatives

Alternative A

Comparing how the LCAS risk factors are addressed in the alternative

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

LCAS risk factor: Highways

Most FS &

BLM plans
contain limited
or no
direction

♦ Standard LINK SI says within linkage areas,
potential highway crossings must be identified when
construction or reconstruction is proposed

♦ Guideline ALL G I encourages avoiding or
reducing effects on lynx when constructing or
reconstructing highways and forest highways

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

LCAS risk factor:
Some FS &

BLM plans
contain
direction
which may
conserve lynx,
but others
contain little
or no
direction

Forest & backcountry roads

♦ Guideline HU G6 discourages upgrading & paving
roads in lynx habitat where increases in human
activity would result

♦ Guideline HU G7 discourages building permanent
roads on ridge-tops & saddles

♦ Guideline HU G8 discourages cutting brush along
low-speed, low-traffic roads

♦ Guideline HU G9 encourages restricting public
motorized use on new roads built to access
projects & decommissioning new roads not needed
for other reasons

Same as Alternative B,
only

♦ Guideline HU G6
encourages avoiding or
reducing effects on lynx
when upgrading & paving
roads in lynx habitat
where increases in
human activity would
result

Same as Alternative C

Same as
Alternative B

Same as
Alternative C

Summary - 45

Summary - 46

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

LCAS risk factor:

Some existing

direction

(INFISH,

PACFISH)

partially meets

lynx

conservation
needs in most
plans

Livestock grazing

♦ Standard GRAZ SI says grazing shall be managed
to allow shrubs & trees to regenerate in fire- &
harvest-created openings

♦ Standard GRAZ S2 says grazing shall be managed
to ensure aspen propagation

♦ Standards GRAZ S3, GRAZ S4 & LINK S2 says
grazing shall be managed to achieve serai stage
distribution similar to historic patterns in wet
areas, willows & shrub-steppe habitats

Same as Alternative B

LCAS risk factor: Oil & gas leasing

Most FS & ♦ Standard HU S3 says motorized over-the-snow Same as Alternative B

BLM plans access for mineral & energy exploration & facilities

contain limited shall be restricted to designated routes

°. n . ♦ Guideline HU G4 encourages remote monitoring

direction

♦ Guideline HU G5 encourages developing
reclamation plans that improves lynx habitat

Alternative D

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

LCAS risk factor: Land ownership patterns

Most FS & ♦ Guideline LINK G I encourages retaining FS & Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

BLM plans BLM lands in public ownership

contain limited

or no

direction

Alternative E

Changes
standards to
guidelines,
changing the
requirements
from imperative
“shall” to less-
restrictive
“should”

Similar to
Alternative B,
only

♦ Changes
Standard HU S3
to Guideline HU
G 1 2, changing
the requirement
from imperative
“shall” to less-
restrictive
“should”

Same as
Alternative B

Comparing how the LCAS risk factors are addressed in the alternatives

Comparing how the alternatives affect lynx

Alternative A

Effects on lynx:
Individuals
No change

Populations
No change

Effects on lynx:
Individuals
Adverse
effects will
continue.

Populations
Adverse
effects will
continue.

Table Summary-5. Comparing how the alternatives affect lynx

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Effects of amendment (change in effects from Alternative A)

Individuals

Individuals

Beneficial effects;

Beneficial effects; all

all risk factors

risk factors

fully addressed.

substantially

Populations

addressed.

Beneficial effects;

Populations

all risk factors

Long-term beneficial

fully addressed.

effects; all risk
factors substantially
addressed.

Effects of plans as amended

Individuals

Individuals

Beneficial effects;

Beneficial effects; all

all risk factors

risk factors

fully addressed.

substantially

Populations

addressed.

Beneficial effects;

Populations

all risk factors

Beneficial effects; all

fully addressed.

risk factors

substantially

addressed.

Individuals

Some beneficial effects; some risk
factors related to denning and
foraging habitat only partially
addressed.

Populations

Some beneficial effects; some risk
factors related to denning and
foraging habitat only partially
addressed.

Individuals

Some beneficial effects; may be
some adverse effects over the
short term; some risk factors
related to denning and foraging
habitat only partially addressed.

Populations

Some beneficial effects; may be
some adverse effects over the
short term; some risk factors
related to denning and foraging
habitat only partially addressed.

Alternative E

Individuals

Some beneficial effects; some risk factors
related to denning and foraging habitat only
partially addressed.

Populations

Some beneficial effects; some risk factors
related to denning habitat only partially
addressed.

Individuals

Some beneficial effects; may be some adverse
effects over the short or long term; some risk
factors related to denning and foraging habitat
only partially addressed. Allowing fuel
treatment projects may result in adverse
effects.

Populations

Some beneficial effects; may be some adverse
effects over the short or long term; some risk
factors related to denning and foraging habitat
only partially addressed. Allowing fuel
treatment projects may result in adverse
effects.

Summary - 47

Summary - 48

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Effects on lynx; Contributes to conserving species
No Yes Yes

Alternative D

Alternative E

Partially

Many standards contribute to
conserving lynx but thinning
allowances may result in adverse
effects

Partially

Many standards contribute to conserving lynx
but vegetation standards that allow fuel
treatment may result in adverse effects

Comparing how the alternatives affect lynx

Comparing how the alternatives affect other resources

Table Summary-6. Comparing how the alternatives affect other resources

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Effects on threatened, endangered and proposed species other than lynx

All alternatives result in both limited reduction and improvement in habitat and are not likely to adversely affect listed or proposed species.
Species include: mammals including grey wolf, grizzly bear and woodland caribou; birds including Mexican spotted owl; fish including bull trout,
Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bonytail chub, Colorado squaw fish, humpback chub, Kendall Warm Springs dace, razorback sucker, sockeye
salmon, white sturgeon.

Effects on sensitive species

♦ All alternatives result in limited improvement in habitat for mammals including dwarf shrew and wolverine; birds including black-backed
woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, three-toed woodpecker, Williamson’s sapsucker and white-headed woodpecker; and amphibians including
boreal toad and northern leopard frog.

♦ All alternatives result in both limited reduction and improvement in habitat and are not likely to adversely any sensitive species. Species
include: mammals including fisher and marten; birds including boreal owl, great grey owl, merlin, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, and
Swainson’s thrush; fish including artic grayling, Colorado River cutthroat trout, interior redband trout, ling, sicklefin chub, Snake River cutthroat
trout, sturgeon chub, torrent sculpin, westslope cutthroat trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

♦ All alternatives may cause limited reduction in habitat for two bird species Golden-crowned kinglet and Hammond’s flycatcher. The
alternatives are not likely to adversely affect these species.

Effects on management indicator species

♦ All alternatives result in limited improvement in habitat for mammals including beaver, bobcat and moose; birds including blue grouse, downy
woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, northern flicker, red-breasted nuthatch, ruby-crowned kinglet; three-toed woodpecker, yellow bellied
sapsucker, yellow warbler

♦ All alternatives result in both limited reduction and improvement in habitat and are not likely to adversely any species. Species include:
mammals including black bear, elk, red squirrel, mule deer and white-tailed deer; birds including pileated woodpecker; fish including Bonneville
cutthroat trout, brook trout, cutthroat trout, large mouth bass, rainbow trout, sculpin, trout; and macro-invertebrates

Effects on fish & aquatics

Negligible effect Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Effects on plants - threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species

Beneficial or no effect to all species Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Summary - 49

Summary - 50

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Effects on timber management

♦ May reduce opportunities for
regeneration harvest where there are
large areas of unsuitable habitat - about
1 3% of the LAUs exceed the 1 5%
timber & 30% disturbance standards

♦ Could increase opportunities for
regeneration harvest where foraging
habitat is lacking

♦ Some projects may have to be
deferred or locations changed where
denning habitat is lacking, but denning
habitat generally is not lacking

Effects on range

Limited effects Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

♦ In some cases, livestock management
may need to be intensified or structural
improvements added

♦ Most likely to affect grazing on units
east of the Continental Divide without
aquatic direction in existing plans

Same as Alternative B, only

♦ Less likely that the amount of
unsuitable habitat would
constrain regeneration harvest

♦ Timber harvest in multistoried
foraging habitat could be
deferred or modified to avoid
reducing habitat

Same as Alternative C, only
♦ Some timber harvest could take
place in multistoried foraging
habitat, especially when it can be
designed to maintain & improve
forage conditions

Alternative E

Same as Alternative D, only
♦ Timber harvest for fuel
treatment would not be
affected by any of the
vegetation standards

Same as Alternative B, only
♦ May have fewer effects
because standards changed
to less-restrictive guidelines

Comparing how the alternatives affect other resources

Alternative B

Comparing how the alternatives affect other resources

Alternative C Alternative D

Effects on developed winter recreation

♦ Would not preclude further Same as Alternative B, only Same as Alternative C

development ♦ Less likely to affect timing of ski

♦ New ski areas & expansions would area 0Perat'0ns
have to incorporate design measures to

provide lynx habitat need

♦ Could affect timing of operations,
where ski runs are located & costs
associated with development

Effects on minerals

♦ No affect on availability Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

♦ Some potential to increase costs for
mineral exploration & development

Effects on highways

Little effect anticipated Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

♦ Need to incorporate wildlife crossings
in highway design, is already being done
by state & federal agencies

Effects on forest roads
No restrictions on existing roads

♦ New roads built in lynx habitat may
be restricted to public use

♦ Upgrades to existing roads that result
in increased traffic speeds or volumes
are discouraged

Same as Alternative B, only
♦ Where upgrades to existing
roads result in increased traffic
speeds or volumes, they may be
allowed if designed to reduce
effects on lynx

Same as Alternative C

Alternative E
Less than Alternative C

Same as Alternative B, only
♦ May have fewer effects
because standards changed
to less-restrictive guidelines

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative C

Summary - 51

Summary - 52

Alternative B Alternative C

Effects on changing land ownership

Limited effect on land exchanges Same as Alternative B

♦ Discourages disposing of lynx habitat
by exchanging it away

♦ Lynx habitat could be acquired
Effects on land uses

Projects would need to maintain lynx Same as Alternative B
habitat connectivity

Economic effects from limiting precommercial thinning

♦ Based on historic average funding, Same as Alternative B

about 120 jobs/year could be reduced

& labor income decreased by $ 1 .3
million/year

♦ Based on full funding, about 360
jobs/year could be reduced & labor
income decreased by $4 million/year

Alternative D
Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

♦ Based on historic average
funding, about 70 jobs/year could
be reduced & labor income
decreased by $800, 000/year

♦ Based on full funding, about 210
jobs/year could be reduced &
labor income decreased by $2.3
million/year

Economic effects from limiting increases to groomed & designated over-the-snow routes

No effect to the economy Less than Alternative B Same as Alternative C

♦ Existing uses would continue

♦ Some undesignated routes may see
increased use

♦ May be some local effects because
outfitters cannot expand, but most
cannot expand now

Alternative E

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative C

Comparing how the alternatives affect other resources

Alternative B

Comparing how the alternatives affect other resources

Alternative C Alternative D

Social effects

♦ Higher use on existing designated or
groomed over-the-snow routes could
occur, changing user experience $

♦ Fewer employment opportunities due
to decreases in precommercial thinning

Effects on environmental justice
♦ No effects to any minority or low-
income population or community

♦ Over-the-snow user experience
should not change as a result of
Alternative C

♦ Fewer employment
opportunities due to decreases in
precommercial thinning

Same as Alternative B

Same as Alternative C, only
♦ Employment opportunities
more like no-action alternative,
Alternative A

Same as Alternative B

♦ Input from all persons & groups has
been considered

Alternative E

Same as Alternative C

Same as Alternative B

t Grooming levels have been stable during the past five years & are not likely to increase during the next five, because the costs of machinery
& grooming operations have increased, while the funding from the states to do grooming has not increased.

o U.S. GOVERTOTENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2003-689-257/15119

Summary - 53

BLM Library
Denver Federal Center
Bldg. 50, OC-521
P.O. Box 25047
Denver, CO 80225

Figure 1-1

Northern Rockies
ff Amendment

BLM Libraty

RMVeLFederal Center
BWg- 50, OC-52 J

P-0. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225

Colville
NF A

Glacier

National

Park

Idaho

Panhj

UP

Lolo'lJF

JlSSOUl

Clear

BLM

Upper

Columbia

Salmon

'Orofino

Umatilla4

Hamiltp /

Canada
Montan

Choteau

as of

November 2003

Great Falls

J-lelena

Figure 1-1

Northern Rockies
Lynx Amendment

Area

Lynx habitat
&

linkage areas

Lynx Habitat
BLM lands

Motional bnroct lanrlc in thio omonHmnnt

^ k | Ui ■ • VX >_/ 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