Biological Assessment of the Effects of National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans on Canada Lynx

J. Randal Hickenbottom (Initial Team Leader), USDA Forest Service, Pike-San Isabel National Forest, 19316 Goddard Ranch Ct., Morrison, CO 80465 Bob Summerfield (Final Team Leader), USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, 1101 U.S. Hwy. 2 W., Libby, MT 59923 Jeff Aardahl, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1620 L Street NW, Room 204, Washington, DC 20036 George Halekas, USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, WA 98855 Mark Hilliard, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709 Lynn Jackson, USDA Forest Service, Chippewa National Forest, Rt 3 Box 244, Cass Lake, MN 56633 David Prevedel, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Federal Bldg., 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401 John Rupe, USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, RR2, Box 200, Custer, SD 57730

Executive Summary

The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is identifies the potential effects resulting from proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 57 FS Land and Resource Management Plans Service (FWS) for listing as a threatened and 56 BLM Land Use Plans (collectively species under provisions of the Endangered referred to as Plans) within the 16 state area Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where lynx are proposed for listing. Five 1998a). Informal conferencing among FWS geographic areas were considered: Cascade and USDA Forest Service (FS) and USDI Mountains, Northern Rocky Mountains, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began in Southern Rocky Mountains, Great Lakes and the fall of 1998 under the direction of an the Northeast. The Plans are assessed as interagency Lynx Steering Committee. As a written and amended, but not including any part of this effort, a Science Report (Ruggiero subsequent policy direction which has not et al. in press 1999a) and a draft Lynx been officially incorporated into the Plans. Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. in press 1999) have been The BA makes a determination of effect prepared. Using these documents and other based on the not likely/likely to adversely currently available scientific and commercial affect standard of the Endangered Species Act information, this Biological Assessment (BA) (ESA), which will serve as the basis for both

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 1 of 149 conferencing and, if the lynx is listed, for (Appendix G). All Plans did not meet at least formal consultation. The definitions used for some of the criteria. Not meeting the criteria determination of adverse effects are those means there is a risk of adverse effects to lynx specified in the FWS ESA Section 7 in one or more of the following categories: Consultation Handbook (U.S. Fish and (1) reduction in habitat quantity or quality, (2) Wildlife Service 1998b) and Forest Service habitat fragmentation contributing to loss of Manual 2670.5(1). connectivity, (3) improved access for competing carnivores, or (4) direct mortality The assessment of direct, indirect, and to lynx. The effects may possibly occur to cumulative effects of the Plans was conducted individual lynx as well as to the population as at three scales: administrative unit (local), a whole. geographic area (regional), and distinct population segment (national). The The effects identified for individual assessment used two methods, as follows: administrative units are cumulative at the geographic area scale, affecting 1. A questionnaire filled out by the 93 subpopulations over a broader geographic administrative units covering 113 Plans extent. Also, the effects at the geographic addressed in the analysis was used to area scale accumulate to the distinct determine how well the Plans directly or population segment scale. indirectly incorporate an array of programmatic lynx conservation measures While most Plans do, either directly or recommended in the Lynx Conservation indirectly, incorporate some positive measures Assessment and Strategy (LCAS). for lynx, the BA makes the following findings: 2. A geographic information system (GIS) analysis using currently available data was 1. Within the Great Lakes geographic area, used to characterize historical and current weak direction to provide denning habitat, lynx habitat with respect to habitat coupled with the high percentage of the connectivity and likelihood for supporting geographic area in developmental lynx conservation. Inferences were drawn allocations (65 percent) may risk adversely about how the Plans, as well as other affecting lynx. cumulative effects, may potentially affect these factors. 2. Plans in the Great Lakes geographic area may risk adversely affecting lynx by a lack Since the conservation measures in the of direction to provide a mix of forest LCAS were designed to address specific risk species and age classes across the factors to lynx, the basic assumption was that landscape needed for lynx foraging. Plans failure of the Plans to either directly or in the Northern Rockies, Southern indirectly incorporate the programmatic Rockies, and Northeast geographic areas conservation measures may result in adverse may risk adversely affecting lynx foraging effects to lynx. The programmatic habitat by allowing type conversions and conservation measures were consolidated into because of limited direction pertaining to 15 evaluation criteria against which the Plans thinning. were assessed. 3. Plans within the Northern Rockies, The Plans showed varied success in Southern Rockies, and Northeast meeting the evaluation criteria, ranging from geographic areas generally direct an fully meeting some to not meeting others at all aggressive fire suppression strategy within

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 2 of 149 developmental land allocations. While landscapes. Plans within all geographic understandable in terms of protection of areas lack direction for coordinating resources and property, this strategy may construction of highways and other be contributing to a risk of adversely movement barriers with other responsible affecting lynx by limiting the availability agencies. These factors may be of foraging habitat within these areas. contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx. 4. Plans within the Southern Rockies, Great Lakes, and portions of the Northeast 9. Plans within the Northern Rockies, geographic areas provide weak direction Southern Rockies, Great Lakes, and for distributing lynx habitat components Northeast geographic areas are weak in across the landscape. This may be providing direction for coordinating contributing to the risk of adverse effects management activities with adjacent to lynx. landowners and other agencies to assure consistent management of lynx habitat 5. Plans within portions of the Northern across the landscape. This may contribute Rockies, Southern Rockies, Great Lakes, to a risk of adverse effects to lynx. and within the Northeast geographic areas allow levels of human access via forest 10. Plans within all geographic areas except roads that may present a risk of incidental the Northeast fail to provide direction for trapping or illegal shooting of lynx or monitoring of lynx, snowshoe hares, and access by other competing carnivores. their habitats. While failure to monitor The risk of road-related adverse effects is does not directly result in adverse effects, primarily a winter season issue. it makes the detection and assessment of adverse effects from other management 6. Plans within the Northern Rockies, activities difficult or impossible to attain. Southern Rockies, and Northeast geographic areas are weak in providing 11. For all geographic areas, forest guidance for new or existing recreation management has resulted in a reduction of developments. Therefore, these activities the area in which natural ecological may contribute to a risk of adverse effects processes were historically allowed to to lynx. operate, thereby increasing the area potentially affected by known risk factors 7. Plans within all geographic areas allow to lynx. The Plans have continued this both mechanized and non-mechanized trend. The Plans have also continued the recreation that may contribute to a risk of process of fragmenting habitat and adverse effects to lynx. The potential reducing its quality and quantity. effects occur by allowing compacted snow Consequently, Plans may risk adversely trails and plowed roads which may affecting lynx by potentially contributing facilitate the movements of lynx to a reduction in the geographic range of competitors and predators. the species. 8. Plans within portions of the Northern Determination of Effect Rockies and within the Southern Rockies, Great Lakes, and Northeast geographic A determination of effect is made areas provide weak direction for collectively for the 113 Plans at the distinct maintaining habitat connectivity within population segment scale. One determination naturally or artificially fragmented

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 3 of 149 for the entire distinct population segment was Critical habitat for the Canada lynx has not reasonable given that: been proposed to date and, therefore, a determination of effect of the existing Plans 1. The analysis showed that some adverse on critical habitat is not applicable. effects exist on each administrative unit and in each geographic area. Recommendations

2. Making a determination at the same scale The BA team recommends amending or at which the species is proposed for listing revising the Plans to incorporate conservation was reasonable from a biological measures that would reduce or eliminate the standpoint. identified adverse effects to lynx. The programmatic conservation measures listed in Based on the rationale described above, the draft Canada Lynx Conservation the Plans in total may affect and are likely to Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. in adversely affect the lynx. press 1999) should be considered in this regard, once finalized.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 4 of 149 Acknowledgments

This BA could not have been prepared Dani Hegwood in the Northern Regional without the assistance provided by many Office of the Forest Service for editorial and dedicated employees of the USDA Forest word processing support. Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. They supported the Lynx Joe Stringer in the Regional Office of the Biological Assessment Team in a variety of General Counsel for the Secretary of ways. The team recognizes that extraordinary Agriculture, and Marilyn Averill of the efforts were made by them because of the Regional Solicitor's Office of the Secretary of short time frame established for preparing this the Interior for their advice concerning legal document. We wish to thank and recognize and regulatory requirements pertaining to the the following individuals for their assistance, Endangered Species Act. and we regret any that we may have overlooked: Field biologists, planners, and other resource specialists of the Forest Service and Russell Reading, Jason Delpais and Chris Bureau of Land Management for providing Evans in the Intermountain Regional Office of information through the questionnaire, and for the Forest Service for their assistance with sending a copy of their resource management GIS and intranet web services. Regional and plans to the Lynx Biological Assessment National Forest GIS specialists for preparing Team in Ogden, UT. and submitting data used in the Assessment. The Lynx Science Team and Lynx Karen Carter, Trudy Pehrson, Tammy Biology Team for their draft reports which Smith, Helen Blackner, Lucy Ewing and many were used extensively throughout the BA. others in the Administration Division of the Intermountain Regional Office of the Forest The many individuals who reviewed draft Service for providing administrative support material contained in this document, and with computer systems, mail and faxes, authors who provided information and advice budgeting, and travel for team members. regarding lynx ecology and effects of human activities.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 5 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 6 of 149 Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Acknowledgments 5 Contents 7 List of Figures 8 List of Tables 9 I. Introduction 11 A. Purpose 11 B. History and Status 19 II. Canada Lynx Life History and Habitat Relationships 23 III. Conservation Biology Framework for Effects Assessment 33 IV. Effects Assessment 37 A. Methods 37 1. Examination of Individual Plans 37 2. GIS Analysis 39 B. Analysis of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 57 1. Effects at the National Forest and BLM Unit Scale 57 2. Effects at the Geographic Area Scale 57 a. Cascades Geographic Area 57 b. Northern Rockies Geographic Area 65 c. Southern Rockies Geographic Area 73 d. Great Lakes Geographic Area 80 e. Northeast Geographic Area 87 3. Effects at the Distinct Population Segment Scale 94 V. Determination of Effect 97 VI. Recommendations 101 VII. Authors 103 VIII. Contributors and Contacts 105 IX. References and Literature Cited 107 X. Appendices 113 APPENDIX A - Administrative Units Analyzed 115 APPENDIX B - Process for Determining Which Plans Are Covered by This BA 119 APPENDIX C - Lynx Habitat Descriptions for the Five Geographic Areas 121 APPENDIX D - Blank Questionnaire, including Supplemental Questions for BLM 133 APPENDIX E - Description of Habitat Mapping Products and Their Uses 141 APPENDIX F - Management Area Prescriptions 145 APPENDIX G - Rating Guidance and Evaluation Matrix 147

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 7 of 149 List of Figures Page Figure 1--States, Geographic Areas, and Administrative Units Considered 17 Figure 2--Lynx Records within Five Time Periods 25 Figure 3--Potential Lynx Habitat and Primary Areas of Occurrence (Primary Habitat) 31 Figure 4--Historical Lynx Habitat Distribution and Likelihood for Supporting Lynx Conservation 45 Figure 5--Lynx Habitat Distribution with Current Plan Direction and Likelihood for Supporting 47 Lynx Conservation Figure 6--Connectivity Potential 51 Figure 7--Potential National Connectivity Concerns 53 Figure 8--Example of a Potential Regional Connectivity Concern 55 Figure 9--Land Ownership of Primary Habitat in the Cascades Geographic Area 58 Figure 10--Proportion of Developmental and Nondevelopmental Allocations in the Cascades 61 Geographic Area Figure 11--Land Ownership of Primary Habitat in the Northern Rockies Geographic Area 65 Figure 12--Proportion of Developmental and Nondevelopmental Allocations in the Northern 68 Rockies Geographic Area Figure 13--Land Ownership of Primary Habitat in the Southern Rockies Geographic Area 73 Figure 14--Proportion of Developmental and Nondevelopmental Allocations in the Southern 75 Rockies Geographic Area Figure 15--Land Ownership of Primary Habitat in the Great Lakes Geographic Area 80 Figure 16--Proportion of Developmental and Nondevelopmental Allocations in the Great Lakes 83 Geographic Area Figure 17--Land Ownership of Primary Habitat in the Northeast Geographic Area 87 Figure 18--Proportion of Developmental and Nondevelopmental Allocations in the Northeast 89 Geographic Area

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 8 of 149 List of Tables Page Table 1--Potential Lynx Habitat. 29 Table 2--Primary Lynx Habitat. 29 Table 3--Evaluation Criteria. 38 Table 4--Summary Ratings for the Three Criteria Contributing to a Risk of Adverse Effects to 64 Lynx in the Cascade Mountains Geographic Area. Table 5--Summary Ratings for the Ten Criteria Contributing to a Risk of Adverse Effects to 72 Lynx in the Northern Rocky Mountains Geographic Area. Table 6--Summary Ratings for the Eleven Criteria Contributing to a Risk of Adverse Effects 79 to Lynx in the Southern Rocky Mountains Geographic Area. Table 7--Summary Ratings for the Eight Criteria Contributing to a Risk of Adverse Effects to 86 Lynx in the Great Lakes Geographic Area. Table 8--Summary Ratings for the Ten Criteria Contributing to a Risk of Adverse Effects to 93 Lynx in the Northeast Geographic Area. Table 9--Summary Ratings for all Criteria Contributing to a Risk of Adverse Effects to Lynx. 95 Table 10--Evaluation Criteria Contributing to a Determination of Likely to Adversely Affect 99 the Lynx.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 9 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 10 of 149 I. Introduction

A. Purpose This biological assessment (BA) This BA fulfills this requirement, although documents the potential effects of existing it does not consider possible destruction or Forest Service (FS) Land and Resource adverse modification of critical habitat, Management Plans (LRMPs), or "Forest because critical habitat has not been proposed Plans" and Bureau of Land Management or designated. In the July 8, 1998 Federal (BLM) Land Use Plans (LUPs) on the Canada Register notice, the FWS explained that for a Lynx (Lynx canadensis), hereafter referred to number of reasons "designation of critical as the lynx. LRMPs and LUPs are habitat for the contiguous United States collectively referred to as "Plans" in this population of the Canada lynx is not prudent." document. In a Federal Register notice on July 8, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife As this document was prepared, the FWS Service (FWS) proposed a distinct population was in the final stages of determining whether segment of the lynx within 16 states to be the lynx should be listed as threatened. The listed as threatened (U.S. Fish and Wildlife ESA regulation cited above explains that a BA Service 1998a). This BA evaluates 57 is often used to initiate a conference for LRMPs and 56 LUPs in 13 of these states: proposed species like the lynx if an action is Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Michigan, "likely to jeopardize" the continued existence Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Wyoming, of the species (50 CFR 402.10(a)). However, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and a jeopardy determination is not required to Washington. A list of these plans is in initiate a conference, since conferencing is Appendix A. The process for determining sometimes initiated at a "may affect" level. which plans are included is documented in Appendix B. In the Federal Register notice, For listed species, "formal consultation" is the FWS also listed Massachusetts, where required if an action "may affect listed species there are no FS or BLM units, and or critical habitat" (50 CFR 402.14). Formal Pennsylvania and New York, where FS units consultation is a process based on ESA are geographically separated from other lynx Section 7(a)(2) and concludes with the FWS habitats, and lynx have not been observed for issuance of a biological opinion. For several decades. Appendix B provides further proposed species, a conference report can be information on why these units were excluded. rolled over into a biological opinion if and when the species is listed (50 CFR 402.10(d)). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations at 50 CFR 402.12(a) describe the Conferencing among the FS, BLM and purpose of a biological assessment: FWS has already begun, so this BA is not necessary for determining if conferencing is "A biological assessment shall evaluate the needed. No "jeopardy" determination for the potential effects of the action on listed and lynx has been made or is required. Rather, the proposed species and designated and proposed purpose of this document is to determine to critical habitat and determine whether any what extent these 113 Plans may affect lynx, such species or habitat are likely to be to either conclude conferencing, or to set the adversely affected by the action and is used stage for subsequent consultation if lynx are in determining whether formal consultation listed. One determination is being made for all or a conference is necessary."

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 11 of 149 113 Plans within the distinct population levels. The BLM planning process is similar. segment because no individual Plan was found Plans are considered "programmatic" in that to result in a different determination. they may allow, but generally do not require, specific actions on the ground. Programmatic This BA will choose among the following plans are permissive, very similar to zoning possible determinations and outcomes: ordinances, and they generally do not mandate specific projects. The programmatic nature of • The Plans have no effect on the lynx. Plans makes their review more difficult. Past No further conferencing or experience has shown that many activities consultation is necessary. allowed under the Plans are never carried out • The Plans may affect and are likely to for a variety of reasons, such as funding beneficially affect the lynx. If the limitations and environmental or policy FWS concurs, no further conferencing considerations. or consultation is necessary. • The Plans may affect but are not likely While programmatic plans do not compel to adversely affect the lynx. If the on-the-ground actions to be carried out, the FWS concurs, no further conferencing scope of actions contemplated by the plans or consultation is necessary. can nevertheless be evaluated. The plans can • The Plans may affect and are likely to be evaluated by how well they foreclose adversely affect the lynx. potential projects with adverse effects and Conferencing will be conducted at the how well they contain measures that might "may affect" level, and formal mitigate adverse effects. A determination consultation would be initiated if the could be modified by a second determination lynx is listed prior to completion of when specific actions are actually proposed. conferencing. At the programmatic level, it is impossible How Adverse Effects are Determined to anticipate all the mitigation measures that could be applied within individual projects. In making a determination of potential Thus, it may be possible for the Plan effects, this BA looks at both programmatic consultation to be based on a "likely to guidance, such as goals, objectives, standards, adversely affect" determination, while and guidelines, and at land management mitigation measures at the project level may allocations, which set a framework under result in "not likely to adversely affect" which anticipated on-the-ground actions may determinations. occur on FS and BLM units. By focusing the analysis on existing Plans Definitions of adverse effect can be found as written and amended, this BA does not in the FWS ESA Section 7 Consultation cover any subsequent policies, strategies, or Handbook, p. 3-13 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife programmatic plans that have not been Service 1998b) and Forest Service Manual incorporated into LRMPs and LUPs through 2670.5(1). Plan amendments. Thus, Plan amendments such as the Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH, As discussed later, FS actions are and INFISH have been considered. Non- generally implemented after two levels of amending policies, such as individual unit decisions (a programmatic Plan and a lynx strategies or the Forest Service projectdecision), with consultation and moratorium on road construction in roadless preparation of a BA often occurring at both areas were not considered.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 12 of 149 Programmatic fire management plans are project level conservation measures. This BA generally required to allow the use of wildland was developed, in part, by comparing the fire for resource benefits. This BA viewed management direction in existing Forest Plans these fire management plans as direction to the risk factors and programmatic which is subsequent to the Plans, and thus conservation measures in the LCAS. The BA beyond the scope of this Assessment. If a Plan also used a GIS analysis of land management did not prohibit the use of fire to accomplish prescriptions in the Plans to assess landscape resource objectives, no further evaluation was spatial patterns and connectivity, which the conducted to determine if a fire management LCAS identifiies as important concerns in the plan was actually in place. The BA team conservation of lynx. recognizes that on units without fire management plans, implementation of fire Both the LCAS and this BA draw upon the suppression policies may not be in the best resources of a Science Team comprised of interest of lynx conservation. However, these expert scientists. The Science Team identified suppression policies are outside the scope of and interpreted the body of scientific this assessment of Plans. knowledge appropriate for consideration in making wise management decisions regarding This BA also does not cover project the lynx, and produced a report (Ruggiero et decisions. Thus, if these actions adversely al. in press 1999a) that is referenced affect the lynx, consultation will be required if throughout this BA. the lynx is listed. Projects will also need to follow the FS, BLM and FWS conferencing The Nature of Forest Service Forest Plans process initiated last year as part of a Lynx (LRMPs) Conservation Strategy Action Plan (USDA Forest Service 1998) and currently being The FS uses a two-level staged decision refined. Field unit biologists have been given making process. As described in the FS a draft Lynx Conservation Assessment and Manual: Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. in press 1999) to use in project design and effects "Planning for units of the National Forest determinations. System involves two levels of decisions. The first is the development of a Forest Plan that Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy provides direction for all resource and Science Team Report management programs, practices, uses, and protection measures. The second level of A draft LCAS has been developed by an planning involves the analysis and interagency team. That document will be implementation of management practices used in the conferencing/consultation process designed to achieve the goals and objectives to minimize or avoid adverse effects to the of the Forest Plan. This level involves site- lynx. The LCAS is not to be construed as a specific analysis to meet NEPA requirements recovery plan. It consists of possible actions for decision making" (FSM 1922, 53 Fed. to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to the Reg. 26807, 26809, July 15, 1988). lynx. As required by the 1976 National Forest Wherever possible, this BA references the Management Act (NFMA), a Forest Plan LCAS. The first half of the LCAS provides provides a framework for management of an an overview of lynx ecology, describes habitat entire Forest. It sets forth goals, objectives and population distribution, and risk factors. and limitations to actions in the form of The second half lists programmatic and standards and guidelines, both forestwide and

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 13 of 149 on subdivisions of the Forest called The Nature of BLM Land Use Plans (LUPs) "management areas." It establishes a framework for monitoring and evaluation. Public lands managed by BLM are administered under the direction of either Forest Plans are permissive in that they Resource Management Plans (RMPs) or the allow, but do not mandate, certain activities. older Management Framework Plans (MFPs), Plans specify minimum resource condition hereafter referred to as Land Use Plans goals. These are essential in achieving (LUPs). Plan decisions generally identify how management goals when allowable land use and where lands and resources will be activities have the potential for adversely managed or allocated for various purposes affecting lands and resources. Plan approval consistent with legal and regulatory does not create any on-the-ground requirements. The Federal Land Policy and environmental changes. Nor does it dictate Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as that any particular site-specific action must amended, requires that public lands be occur. Before an action implementing one of managed under the principles of multiple use these plans takes place, several events must and sustained yield. Such management transpire. First, a site-specific action (such as includes a broad range of requirements for a timber sale or a ski-area development) must protection of resources and resource values, be proposed. Next, the action is subject to for effective public involvement in the NEPA and NFMA analysis and public planning process, and for coordination with comment. Finally, the FS must approve the other federal agencies, Indian tribes, and state action. Thus, a Forest Plan is just the first and local governments. level of a two-level decision making process. The FS carries out its ESA Section 7 Public land management decisions are responsibilities at both decision levels. made in three levels: (1) LUPs, which are often general and allow for subsequent By establishing goals and objectives, management discretion in properly managing Forest Plans provide a framework for a lands and resources; (2) Activity or program- number of multiple use activities, including specific plans (e.g., plans for grazing vegetation management, recreation allotments, areas of critical environmental management, grazing, hardrock mining, oil concern, off-highway vehicle management and gas leasing, watershed restoration, fish areas, etc.) and (3) Project plans (e.g., vehicle and wildlife habitat management, fire/fuels route designations in specific areas, riparian management, land exchanges and acquisitions, restoration in specific watersheds or and a variety of special uses. Many of these wetlands, fences and exclosures, rangeland activities are specifically identified in the improvements, prescribed fire, etc.) LCAS as "risk factors" to lynx (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). BLM Plan-level decisions generally identify types of land uses that are allowed or Projects that will implement a Plan will prohibited in specific areas within a planning need to be consistent with its framework of or administrative unit. Decisions to allow goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, but certain land use activities to occur are made can also provide additional mitigation through an analysis that accounts for land and requirements specific to the project area. This resource occurrence; resource values; and makes it inappropriate to try to tie subsequent requirements of laws, executive orders, project level determinations to the Plan regulations and policies. Plans also allocate determination made by this BA. resources for consumptive activities such as

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 14 of 149 livestock grazing, forest products harvesting, FS and BLM, affect lynx. For the preparation minerals extraction, etc. Plans specify of this BA, uncertainty was addressed in minimum resource condition goals. These are several ways. essential in achieving management goals when allowable land use activities have the potential The most recent information on lynx, as for adversely affecting lands and resources. contained in the Science Team report (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999a) and the LCAS Planning decisions typically include (Ruediger et al. in press 1999), was used designation of administrative areas including throughout the BA. Other current information areas of critical environmental concern, representing the best scientific and research natural areas, wilderness study areas, commercial information was used, as proposed wild and scenic rivers, and proposed available. The professional judgment of the natural register properties; livestock grazing BA team was also applied. This document allotments and authorized forage consumption received a broad review at several federal limits for livestock; minimum habitat agency levels prior to finalization. Therefore, condition goals necessary to sustain or this BA is a compilation of the best knowledge conserve various wildlife species; land available at the time it was prepared. disposal and acquisition areas; and management standards for the use of Geographic Areas prescribed fire, vegetation manipulation and weed control. They also include For analysis purposes, the Plans are identification of off-highway vehicle grouped into five geographic areas as shown management categories (open, closed, or in Figure 1 and described in Appendix C. limited). Activity-level planning is generally The geographic areas are identified on the necessary to determine which routes of travel basis of their uniquely different forest in a given area will be closed or open for ecosystems, management histories, and vehicle use within the limited management current lynx population status. These five category. This would occur at the second geographic areas are: level of BLM planning. • Cascade Mountains BLM carries out its Section 7 • Northern Rocky Mountains responsibilities under the ESA at all three • Southern Rocky Mountains levels of planning. General, or first-level • Great Lakes plans, are essential in carrying out the two • major components of Section 7: stabilizing Northeast species and their habitat by preventing adverse impacts, and conserving species and their The five geographic areas correspond to habitats through a proactive conservation or those also used in the LCAS. This is a finer recovery strategy. scale than that described in the FWS July 8, 1998, Federal Register proposed listing notice Use of Best Available Information (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a), which identified only three geographic areas, As noted by the Science Team, many of combining the Cascades with the Northern and the factors that determine lynx distribution and Southern Rocky Mountains. This BA and the abundance are not well understood (Ruggiero LCAS have separated these latter three areas and McKelvey in press 1999). This creates due to differences in habitat types, differences uncertainty about the degree to which land in management, such as the Northwest Forest management activities, including those of the Plan, and spatial separation.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 15 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 16 of 149 Figure 1--States, Geographic Areas, and Administrative Units Considered Please see the website for this figure at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 17 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 18 of 149 B. History and Status

Administrative History of Canada Lynx be conducted and that FWS intended to begin Listing Events this status review.

Numerous activities preceded the Federal November 30, 1993: A second settlement Register proposed listing rule published on agreement was reached. FWS agreed to July 8, 1998 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service complete and publish the results of a status 1998a). The following dates and actions review throughout the lower 48 States by include major events in the administrative November 14, 1994. history: April 27, 1994: A petition to list the August 22, 1991: A petition to list the "North American" (Canada) lynx in the "North American" (Canada) lynx in the North contiguous United States and to emergency Cascades ecosystem of Washington as an list the southern Rocky Mountain population endangered species and to designate critical was received from the Biodiversity Legal habitat was received by FWS from the Foundation and four individuals. National Audubon Society and 11 other organizations. August 26, 1994: FWS published a notice October 6, 1992: FWS published a notice (59 FR 44123) indicating that the of a 90-day finding (57 FR 46007) indicating administrative 90-day finding found that the that the petition to list the "North American" petition received April 27, 1994, presented (Canada) lynx in the North Cascades did not substantial information indicating the provide substantial information. requested action for the contiguous United States population may be warranted, but there Early 1993: The Greater Ecosystem was not substantial information to indicate that Alliance and other organizations sued FWS an emergency listing of a southern Rocky over the negative 90-day finding announced Mountain population was warranted. on October 6, 1992 and submitted new information. December 27, 1994: FWS published a notice (59 FR 66507) stating the 12-month April 28, 1993: A settlement agreement finding results were that listing the Canada was reached whereby FWS agreed to re- lynx in the contiguous United States was not evaluate the negative 90-day finding warranted. The finding represented FWS's announced on October 6, 1992, in light of new administrative finding as a result of the status information that was submitted by the review agreed to in the April 28, 1993 lawsuit petitioners. settlement and the administrative 12-month finding for the petition received April 27, July 9, 1993: FWS published a notice (58 1994. FR 36924) indicating that the negative 90-day finding had been revisited, but that there still January 30, 1996: The Defenders Of was not substantial information to support the Wildlife and 14 other organizations and petitioned action. However, FWS announced individuals sued FWS in the U.S. District in the notice that it believed that sufficient Court, District of Columbia, over the not evidence existed to indicate that an in-depth warranted petition finding that was announced rangewide status review for the lynx should in the Federal Register on December 27, 1994.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 19 of 149 March 27, 1997: The court issued an The test for being classified as a distinct opinion and order setting aside the not population segment is based on two elements: warranted finding and remanded it back to discreteness and significance. Lynx in the FWS for further consideration. FWS was lower 48 United States are considered discrete ordered to publish a 12-month finding on the because the population is delineated by an status of the lynx within 60 days. international political boundary that coincides with differences in status and management. In May 27, 1997: FWS published a 12-month addition, the population of lynx in the lower petition finding (62 FR 28653) that the 48 states is considered significant because loss Canada lynx population in the contiguous of this population would cause a significant United States was warranted for listing under reduction in the range of the species. the Endangered Species Act but precluded by actions on other species of higher taxonomic July 8, 1999: FWS published a notice to status. This warranted but precluded finding extend the listing deadline (64 CFR 36836) automatically elevated the Canada lynx to from July 8, 1999 to January 8, 2000 to allow candidate species status. for time to obtain and review new information in a scientific report on Canada lynx from the September 15, 1997: Defenders of USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Wildlife et al. filed suit against FWS in the Research Station. U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, arguing that the FWS violated the Endangered August 1999: Science Team Report is Species Act in finding that listing the Canada released to the public and 30-day comment lynx population in the contiguous United period begins on FWS proposal to list. States was warranted but precluded (published in the Federal Register May 27, 1997). September 24, 1999: Comments were due on proposal to list. February 11, 1998: FWS and the Plaintiffs reached a settlement that called for the FWS January 8, 2000: FWS is scheduled to to publish a proposed rule to list the Canada publish a final decision on listing the Canada lynx in the contiguous United States by June lynx as a threatened species. 30, 1998. FS, BLM and other Administrative History July 8, 1998: FWS published a proposed rule (63 FR 36993) to list the contiguous An interagency lynx coordination effort United States population of the Canada lynx was initiated in March 1998, because it as threatened. Critical habitat was not appeared that the lynx would be proposed for proposed because the FWS concluded that listing under ESA. The agencies participating snowshoe hare and lynx denning habitat will in the project include the FS, BLM, FWS, always shift spatially and temporally across National Park Service (NPS) and the states the landscape as a result of natural fire, forest with responsibilities for managing lynx maturation, seasonal and human caused populations and habitat. A Lynx Steering changes. Canada lynx would reasonably be Committee composed of all participating expected to relocate in response to lynx agencies was established to provide oversight population levels, prey availability, and to several teams working on specific issues habitat conditions thereby making little use of related to the lynx. Two teams, the Science specific areas designated as critical habitat. Team and the Biology Team, have been The lynx was proposed for listing as a distinct charged with providing a scientific basis for population segment in the lower 48 states. lynx management and a lynx conservation

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 20 of 149 strategy, respectively. These teams released species viability or create significant trends their draft reports for review earlier in 1999. toward Federal listing (FSH 2670.32(4)). Publication of final reports is expected in late fall 1999. The BLM Special Status Species management policy manual (6840) requires The FS and BLM began an informal that species proposed for listing under ESA be conferencing process with the FWS in conserved in a manner comparable to that for September 1998 by identifying administrative a listed species, with the goal of taking actions units most likely to have responsibility for that will preclude the need to list these lynx habitat management (USDA Forest species, or to allow for recovery to the extent Service 1998). In January 1999, the FS and that the protection of the ESA is no longer BLM assembled an interagency team to needed. conduct this BA. This analysis considers the best scientific and commercial lynx There are 16 states in the contiguous information available, including most recent United States where the FWS considered information assembled by both the Science Canada lynx to have at one time been a Team and the Biology Team. resident species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a). As of August 1999, lynx Legal Status of Canada Lynx were classified as endangered by four states (Vermont-1972, New Hampshire-1980, In May 1997, the 12-month petition Michigan-1987 and Colorado-1976). Lynx finding of warranted for listing automatically are classified as threatened by Washington elevated the Canada lynx to candidate species (1993). Utah classifies the lynx as a sensitive status. In July 1998, the Canada lynx was species. Massachusetts officially classifies proposed for listing as a threatened species them as extirpated. The official status of lynx and regulation requires a final decision on in Pennsylvania is presumed extirpated. The listing within 12 months of the proposed rule. lynx is classified as a species of special This 12-month timeline was extended by 6 concern in Maine (1997). The lynx has been months on July 8, 1999. In September 1998, reclassified as a state protected species with a the FS and BLM began informal conferencing closed season in Wisconsin. Despite being with the FWS and are currently in that status. classified as small game or furbearers, Canada lynx are fully protected from harvest in New The lynx is a Regional Forester designated York (1967), Minnesota (1984), Wyoming sensitive species in FS Regions 1, 2, 4, 6 and (1973), Idaho (1997) and Oregon (1997). 9. Management of sensitive species is legally Canada lynx trapping seasons still occurred in addressed in NFMA, not ESA. The FS Montana through 1998/1999, but were directive system prescribes direction for severely restricted to a statewide quota of two managing sensitive species. Forests must lynx. Once the quota was reached, the state develop and implement management practices issued a notice that the season for lynx was to ensure that species do not become closed for the remainder of the year. The threatened or endangered because of FS Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks actions (FSH 2670.22). Additional direction Commission has suspended trapping during states that for sensitive species, include the 1999/2000 season. objectives in Forest Plans to ensure viable Several lynx conservation plans exist or populations throughout their geographic are under development. Such plans include the ranges (FSH 2672.32). Any Forest or project lynx habitat management guidelines for level decisions must not result in loss of Washington (Washington Department of

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 21 of 149 Wildlife 1993), the Idaho State conservation conservation and reestablishment of lynx and effort (Roloff 1995), Washington Department wolverine in the southern Rocky Mountains of Natural Resources conservation strategy (Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. 1997). (Washington Department of Natural As of August 1999, there was no Resources 1996), Boise-Cascade Timber comprehensive review of these plans to Corporation lynx habitat management plan in determine whether the guidelines in the plans Washington (Whitwill and Roloff 1996), are sufficient to maintain or increase lynx Kootenai National Forest Lynx Conservation populations. The degree to which these plans Strategy in Montana (Kootenai National are or will be implemented and monitored Forest 1997), and the draft strategy for the varies.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 22 of 149 II. Canada Lynx Life History and Habitat Relationships The following description of the life Ruediger et al. (in press 1999) report that history and habitat relationships of lynx is some important lynx habitats in the Rocky general and derived from other, more in-depth Mountains of the western U.S. are islands of publications. For a more detailed description coniferous forest surrounded by shrub-steppe see the FWS listing proposal for Canada lynx habitats, but the nature of lynx movements (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a), the between these habitats is poorly understood. report of the Interagency Canada Lynx Lynx have been documented using shrub- Science Team (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999a), steppe habitats that were near snowshoe hare the draft Canada Lynx Conservation habitats (within approximately 40 km) during Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. in jackrabbit population highs (Lewis and press 1999), and other sources referenced in Wenger 1998) and when seasonally preying these documents. on Wyoming ground squirrels (Squires and Laurion in press 1999). The occasional Lynx are medium-sized cats, specialized availability of abundant alternate prey may predators that are highly dependent on attract lynx into these habitats, in contrast to snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) for food. dispersal during periods of prey scarcity as Long legs and large feet make lynx highly documented in the north (Poole 1997, Mech adapted for hunting in the soft deep snow 1980). It is unknown whether these shrub- where snowshoe hares spend the winter steppe habitats are critical to lynx persistence (Quinn and Parker 1987). Canada lynx inhabit at the southern edge of their range, or whether primarily the boreal, sub-boreal, and western they are only used opportunistically with no montane forests of North America (Koehler real importance (Ruediger et al. in press and Aubry 1994). 1999).

In the contiguous United States, lynx McKelvey et al. (in press 1999b) found occur almost exclusively in the southern lynx locations within the contiguous U.S. to extensions of the boreal forest habitat types be closely associated with broadscale (McKelvey et al. in press 1999b); the Cascade vegetation types. In the West, 83 percent of Range of Washington and Oregon; the Rocky the locations fall within Kuchler's Rocky Mountains from Montana, Idaho, and Oregon Mountain Conifer Forest Form. For the Great south to Utah and Colorado; the western Great Lakes States, 88 percent of points are within Lakes region; and the northeastern United Bailey's Mixed Deciduous Coniferous Forest States region from Maine, south to New York Province. In the Northeast, Bailey's Mixed and Pennsylvania, and east to Massachusetts Forest-Coniferous Forest Tundra Province (McCord and Cardoza 1982, Quinn and Parker encompases 88 percent of the locations. In the 1987). Lynx inhabit a mosaic between boreal West and the Northeast, elevation zones that forests and subalpine coniferous forest or encompass most of the lynx points analyzed northern hardwoods (Barbour et al. 1980, by McKelvey et al. (in press 1999b) are higher McCord and Cardoza 1982, Koehler and than the average elevation in the states. Aubry 1994, M. Hunter pers. comm. 1994, Colorado Division of Wildlife et al. 1997). Habitat components necessary to support Figure 2 displays records of known lynx lynx include forests with large woody debris, occurrence within the U.S. (McKelvey et al. such as downed logs and windfalls, to provide in press 1999b). denning sites with security and thermal cover for kittens (McCord and Cardoza 1982,

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 23 of 149 Koehler 1990, Koehler and Brittell 1990). cover to escape from predators and protection Stand structure appears to be of more during extreme weather (Wolfe et al. 1982, importance than forest cover type (Mowat et Monthey 1986, Koehler and Aubry 1994). al. in press 1999), and denning habitat must be Lynx usually concentrate their foraging in available throughout the home range (Bailey areas where hare activity is high (Koehler et 1974). Based on information from the western al. 1979, Parker 1981, Ward and Krebs 1985, United States, Koehler and Brittell (1990) Hash 1990, Weaver 1993, Koehler and Aubry concluded sites selected for denning also must 1994), and do not hunt in large, open areas provide for minimal disturbance by humans with little or no cover (Koehler 1990, Koehler and proximity to foraging habitat, with and Brittell 1990). Although cover is denning stands at least 1 hectare (2.47 acres) important to lynx when searching for prey in size. Lynx seem to prefer to move through (Brand et al. 1976), lynx often hunt along the continuous forest, and particularly use ridges, edges of openings (Mowat et al. in press saddles, and riparian areas (Koehler 1990). 1999). An increase in daily cruising radius from 2.7 km (1.7 mi) during moderate to high hare The association between lynx and densities to 5.4 km (3.4 mi) during low hare snowshoe hare is considered a classic densities has been documented (Ward and predator-prey relationship (Saunders 1963, Krebs 1985). van Zyll de Jong 1966, Quinn and Parker 1987), and in much of its North American Particularly when dispersing during range, lynx populations are known to fluctuate periods of prey scarcity in the north, lynx are with the approximate 10-year hare cycle of known to make long distance movements, up abundance (Elton and Nicholson 1942). to 1,000 km (625 mi). Dispersing lynx have Aubry et al. (in press 1999) report that lynx been found to cross large rivers and lakes, food habits, home range sizes, densities, and and to occur in agricultural areas or far south reproductive characteristics in southern boreal of their normal range (Poole 1997, Mech forests are generally comparable to those 1980). reported for northern lynx populations during times of hare scarcity. Hodges (in press 1999) Some degree of geographic connectivity concludes that many southern snowshoe hare between Canadian and southern habitats populations are fluctuating and may be cyclic appears necessary for the persistence of like northern hare populations. If southern southern lynx populations (McKelvey et al. in hares fluctuate, lynx may be cyclic, as well press, 1999b). Though periodic increases in (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999b). lynx numbers in the contiguous United States may be accentuated by dispersal of transient Lynx also prey on red squirrels, especially animals from Canadian populations (Mech during periods of low snowshoe hare 1977, Brainerd 1985, Washington Department availability (van Zyll de Jong 1966). Red of Wildlife 1993), immigration pulses from squirrels, an important alternative prey in the North are believed to be incapable of southern lynx populations (Ruggiero et al. in demographically maintaining southern lynx press 1999b), are primarily associated with populations. Habitats of southern populations the coniferous forests of northern and western must support recruitment and survival North America. They are also common in (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999b). eastern forests containing some mature conifers or nut-bearing hardwoods. Red Snowshoe hare, the primary prey for lynx, squirrel densities tend to be highest in late prefer forests with stands of conifers and successional, closed-canopy forest with shrub understories that provide forage, and substantial quantities of coarse woody debris,

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 24 of 149 Figure 2--Lynx Records Within Five Time Periods Please see website for this figure at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 25 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 26 of 149 and lower in young stands that lack cone Regarding human impacts to lynx, production (Layne 1954, Obbard 1987). Ruggiero et al. (in press 1999b) conclude that, given current limited information, direct Maintenance of persistent snowshoe hare human impacts on lynx populations are and red squirrel populations requires a minimal; however, trapping mortality, either landscape mixture of coniferous stands with intentional or incidental, poses a significant dense understory cover along with stands of risk to the persistence of lynx in the southern mature and old-growth forest with abundant portions of its range. Ruggiero et al. (in press coarse woody debris (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999b) also state that, in general, roads do not 1999b). appear to be barriers to lynx movement. Nevertheless, they state fenced roads or large Lynx also prey opportunistically on other interstate highways could potentially form small mammals and birds, particularly when movement barriers. Ruggiero et al. (in press hare populations decline (Nellis et al. 1972, 1999b) found that existing data, though sparse, Brand et al. 1976, McCord and Cardoza do not indicate that roads are a major factor 1982). The summer diet also shows evidence for lynx. Ruediger et al. (in press 1999) state of a greater diversity of prey species (Koehler "Though documented occurrences of lynx and Aubry 1994, Quinn and Parker 1987). being killed on roads are not common, there is some recent evidence that paved roads may be There has been little research on lynx diet a concern in lynx habitat management," citing within the southern portion of its range except highway development that often fails to in Washington (Koehler 1990). In areas include features that facilitate animal characterized by patchy distribution of habitat, movement, and eight resident lynx alternate prey could include white-tailed documented as being killed on highways in jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), black-tailed Canada and Alaska. jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), ground squirrels, sage grouse (Centrocercus Habitat References urophasianus), and Columbian sharp-tailed The habitat descriptions and maps used in grouse (Tympanichus phasianellus) (Lewis this BA in reference to lynx and lynx habitat and Wenger 1998, Staples 1995, Quinn and may appear to have some inconsistency. This Parker 1987). is due to multiple vegetation and landform classifications and descriptions that have been In addition to the physical and forage published for various parts of North America, components of habitat, community factors which are based on different scales, and which exist, such as other predators which may may be appropriate for different applications compete with lynx for food, interfere with (Hann et al. 1997, Demarchi 1994, Franklin lynx behavior, or kill lynx. Noting that data and Dyrness 1973, Daubenmire and addressing the question are limited, Ruggiero Daubenmire 1968, Kuchler 1964, Bailey 1998 et al. (in press 1999b) state that in the and others). contiguous U.S., competitors, especially the coyote, likely influence lynx recruitment and The lynx habitat descriptions of forest survival, and that factors that facilitate community types in Appendix C were used to movement of generalist predators into areas provide FS and BLM offices with more occupied by lynx, such as compaction of snow detailed information about habitats to be by snowmobiles or snowshoes/skis, should be considered in filling out the questionnaire considered a conservation risk. contained in Appendix D.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 27 of 149 Potential habitat, as defined in this result in additional occurrence records or document, is based on Kuchler (1964 and better understandings of how lynx use habitats 1985) potential vegetation types in the western that might expand or contract what we depict U.S. and Bailey (1998) potential vegetation as primary habitat. Nevertheless, existing types in the Great Lakes and Northeast. direction for preparing Biological Potential habitat was used as a more Assessments (FSM 2672.42) requires the geographically inclusive classification than the identification of habitat using the best previously discussed habitat descriptions to information available. The close association of determine which Plans would be analyzed in lynx occurrences with particular vegetation the BA, and to conduct a comparison in the types represents the best scientific information effects analysis section. Of the potential lynx currently available for identifying lynx habitat, habitat within the scope of this BA, 44 and thus was chosen by the BA Team for this percent is on National Forest System lands, 3 purpose. The depiction of lynx habitat in this percent is on BLM-administered lands, and BA is consistent with lynx habitat as defined the remainder is on lands of other ownerships. and depicted in the LCAS. See Table 1 and Figure 3 for potential lynx habitat. Of the primary lynx habitat within the scope of this BA, 44 percent is on National Primary areas of lynx occurrence were Forest System lands, 2 percent is on BLM- determined by McKelvey et al. (in press administered lands, and the remainder is on 1999b) by superimposing lynx location other land ownerships. See Table 2 and records over Kuchler (1964) and Bailey Figure 3 for primary lynx habitat. (1998) classifications in the three western geographic areas and the two eastern Primary habitat in the Great Lakes and geographic areas, respectively. They Northeast geographic areas is displayed as characterize as primary areas of occurrence large areas of continuous boreal forest (with the Kuchler and Bailey classification types interspersed hardwoods and bogs). This is that contain 75 percent or more of the partly the result of primary habitat being superimposed lynx locations. Most of the mapped using Bailey's subsections, which remaining locations are in close proximity to contains inclusions of non-habitat. In reality, these types and well within the range of the spatial pattern of primary habitat is more mapping error. These primary areas of fragmented than depicted. This is due to these occurrence are hereafter referred to in this BA inclusions and habitat conversion resulting as primary habitat. from agricultural and residential development, as well as forest type conversion from The BA Team acknowledges that primary preferred to less desirable forest cover types habitat is not necessarily a definitive or for lynx (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). complete representation of habitat that lynx Inclusions of non-habitat also occur within the may use or require. Basing a representation of Kuchler vegetation types in the three western lynx habitat on known occurrences of the geographic areas, but not to the extent species is an extrapolation, especially without resulting from using Bailey's subsections in extensive radio-tracking or survey data the Great Lakes and Northeast geographic throughout the species' range. There likely are areas. inclusions of finer scale vegetation types, non- habitat (meadows, rocky areas, etc.) or Appendix E contains a more complete topography that lynx do not use within what description of habitat mapping products and we consider primary habitat. Likewise, their uses in this BA. intensive surveys or additional research could

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 28 of 149 Table 1--Potential lynx habitat (Kuchler and Bailey potential vegetation types).

Cascades No Rockies So Rockies Great Lakes Northeast Total

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's)

FS 12174 78 43214 71 15461 62 5635 13 1100 4 77589 44

BLM 302 2 2022 3 2304 9 0 0 0 0 4628 3

Other 3175 20 15615 26 7245 29 38165 87 28392 96 92592 53

Total 15651 100 60851 100 25010 100 43800 100 29492 100 174804 100

Table 2--Primary lynx habitat (primary areas of lynx occurrence, McKelvey et al. 1999b).

Cascades No Rockies So Rockies Great Lakes Northeast Total

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's)

FS 4112 99 23168 67 4987 76 4459 19 1097 7 37823 44

BLM 32 <1` 1559 5 349 5 0 0 0 0 1908 2

Other 48 1 9603 28 1255 19 19324 81 15048 93 45310 54

Total 4192 100 34330 100 6591 100 23783 100 16145 100 85041 100

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 29 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 30 of 149 Figure 3--Potential Lynx Habitat and Primary Areas of Occurrence (Primary Habitat) Please see website for this figure at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/ lynx.html

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 31 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 32 of 149 III. Conservation Biology Framework for Effects Assessment

Knowledge of lynx biology and ecology is matrix to allow successful animal dispersal limited. This constrains our ability to analyze and recolonization (Harrison 1991). with certainty how well Plans conserve lynx or lynx habitat. Nonetheless, we can use a The probability of persistence declines framework based on metapopulation biology with increasing fragmentation and isolation. and landscape ecology principles to conduct That does not mean that more isolated, and portions of our analysis. therefore more vulnerable, subpopulations are unimportant. Peripheral populations may Metapopulation Biology contain valuable genetic, physiological or behavioral adaptations that are unique to their Populations in nature exhibit continuous ecological success. Unfortunately, nothing is variation in their distribution and spatial known about geographic variation in these structure, reflecting the varying availability adaptations for lynx in northern or southern and connectedness of suitable habitat within areas (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999c). the changing landscape (Hanski and Gilpin 1997). Population persistence is sensitive Because suitable habitats in areas where to spatial landscape structure, and populations act as metapopulations are metapopulation models have been developed spatially separated, the persistence of a to predict population dynamics in fragmented metapopulation is dependent on the efficiency landscapes (Harrison 1991). In general, and success of dispersing animals in reaching populations have a higher probability of isolated patches of suitable habitat. When persisting in landscapes where suitable habitat patches are fragmented and connections patches are large and highly connected (Stith between patches do not exist, recolonization et al. 1996). In this scenario, the population becomes problematic and the metapopulation functions as a continuous demographic unit may be unable to persist, even though patches with frequent movement of individuals of suitable habitat remain (Meffe and Carroll between patches. In contrast, populations are 1997). Additional fragmentation and isolation highly prone to extinction (non-equilibrium of suitable habitat occurring as a result of metapopulation) with a spatial pattern land management activities can not only consisting of suitable habitat patches that are affect small isolated habitat patches too small and too distant from each other to supporting smaller populations but also large facilitate successful animal dispersal and contiguous patches supporting higher recolonization. An example of this is the population levels. Hanksi and Gilpin (1997) gradual loss of small boreal mammals from suggest that recognizing the importance of isolated mountain tops of the southwestern metapopulation structure will make U.S. Habitat that was once connected during conservation efforts more challenging, but the Pleistocene epoch has been isolated by also more likely to succeed in the long term. post-Pleistocene climatic warming (Brown 1971). Between these examples of high Additional Ecological Considerations probability of persistence to high probability of extinction, are the spatial types of Large, contiguous, well-connected areas of metapopulations where local populations are suitable habitat appear to be essential for the isolated and vulnerable to extinction but persistence of lynx populations (McKelvey et persist because they are sufficiently connected al. in press 1999a). Lynx populations are with other source patches in the landscape unlikely to persist in relatively small, isolated

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 33 of 149 areas of suitable habitat when opportunities Allen and Hoekstra (1992) suggest that for recolonization are reduced or eliminated. one of the primary causes for loss of ecosystem resiliency and sustainability is the Temporal factors create additional loss of context caused by management complexity for spatial metapopulation models. activities. Loss of context refers to the Densities of prey and predators change as prey difference between the area and planning habitat undergoes stand succession. There is horizon of management activities in also some evidence that southern lynx and comparison to the spatial and temporal scale hare populations have cyclic fluctuations of processes in natural ecosystems (McKelvey which potentially changes the dynamics of et al. in press 1999c). For example, the age local extinction and colonization (McKelvey class distribution and mosaic spatial pattern of et al. in press 1999c). In many areas of forest stands produced by large scale southern boreal forests, hare densities appear disturbance events in natural systems are more to be close to the lower limit required for lynx complex and diverse when compared to reproduction. This suggests that southern lynx results associated with conventional even-aged habitat at this threshold is probably a mosaic forest management approaches (McKelvey et of source and sink areas that shift with al. in press 1999a). disturbance and succession (McKelvey et al. in press 1999c). Source habitats are those Continued fire suppression, over time, can environments which produce surplus animals also alter vegetation mosaics and stand which must disperse in order to survive. Sink composition, and may reduce foraging habitat habitats do not produce enough animals to for hare (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). Fire persist without immigration from source exclusion may have permanently changed the environments. dominant successional pathways and stand composition in jack pine forests of the Great Landscape conditions have changed for Lakes geographic area. However, in western lynx from historical to current times. Fire, in ecosystems, the removal of fire from high southern boreal forests, is a dominant natural elevation boreal forests has not been as disturbance process (along with wind, insects, significant as in lower elevation warm/dry and disease) maintaining the mosaic of forest forests, such as ponderosa pine (Agee in press successional stages providing habitat for 1999). snowshoe hare, red squirrels and lynx (Agee in press 1999). In high severity boreal fire Successful dispersal of juvenile lynx and regimes, the majority of the land base is the ability to move long distances in burned by only a few large catastrophic fires. search of prey are key factors in connecting Maintaining ecosystem resiliency and and maintaining persistence in lynx sustainability for systems prone to such large metapopulations. Lynx have been documented disturbances requires very large spatial scales dispersing long distances (Mowat et al. in where the size of these large disturbances is press 1999). Human-created developments, small in relation to the total area (McKelvey et such as interstate highways, can interfere with al. in press 1999c). The dynamic dispersal and movement. High traffic volume landscape mosaic (patch size, pattern, highways (particularly fenced 4-lane interstate interconnectedness) associated with historical highways) likely impede movements and natural disturbance patterns and processes is dispersal (Apps in press 1999). Eighteen of offered as a template for a desired future 37 mortalities of translocated lynx were landscape condition supporting lynx attributed to vehicle collisions in an conservation (Ruediger et al. in press 1999, unsuccessful New York reintroduction McKelvey et al. in press 1999a). (Brocke et al. 1990). Recent mortalities to

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 34 of 149 transplanted lynx in Colorado resulting from breaking (St. Mary's River, St. Lawrence collisions with vehicles also highlight the risk. Seaway).

It would be difficult for a lynx to travel The analysis by McKelvey et al. (in press from the Washington Cascades south to the 1999b) of primary areas of lynx occurrence Oregon Cascades by crossing the Columbia (referred to in this document as primary lynx River. Such movements may have occurred habitat) identifies a close correlation between prior to human developments such as lynx occurrence and vegetation types. Lynx interstate highways, railroads, residential occur predominantly in ecoregions known as development on both sides of the river, and Laurentian Mixed Forest Province in the Great hydroelectric impoundments that have Lakes and Northeast, and Rocky Mountain widened the river. These impoundments also Conifer Forest Form in the Cascades, result in sustained large river flows throughout Northern Rockies and Southern Rockies. the year that were seasonally substantially less These ecoregions are southern extensions of under pre-dam conditions. boreal forests dipping from Canada into the contiguous U.S. Most lynx occurrences Factors that increase risk to outside of these ecoregions occur immediately metapopulation persistence include the adjacent to them, suggesting an even tighter fragmentation and isolation of suitable correlation between these habitats and primary habitat patches and the direct and occurrence. indirect effects of human activities on habitat utilization. Characteristic of metapopulations, Primary lynx habitat (see Chapter II for local extinctions are likely to occur in some definition) near the Canadian border but patches of the overall metapopulation, and within the U.S. tends to be abundant and then be offset by recolonization from other connected with larger areas of suitable habitat source populations. Litvaitis et al. (1991) in Canada. This contrasts with the fragmented, speculate that historical populations of lynx in more isolated, and smaller island patches of New Hampshire and Quebec were continuous, primary habitat found at the southern extent of and that immigrating lynx entered New the forested regions listed above. This pattern Hampshire on a regular basis. They further of habitat availability is reflected by the presume that large-scale timber harvesting and following examples: (1) well-connected agricultural and residential development along habitat in the northern Washington Cascades the St. Lawrence Seaway in southern Quebec becomes more linear and narrows in the isolated lynx populations in the Northeast southern Oregon Cascades, and (2) extensive geographic area. Lynx populations in New blocks of primary habitat in Montana and Hampshire were unable to persist without Wyoming become more isolated as one moves immigration of lynx from the north (Litvaitis south. et al. 1991). The spatial distribution of primary lynx Factors potentially influencing lynx habitat in the lower 48 states ranges from habitat availability, habitat utilization, and large areas of contiguous forests with a higher connectivity are numerous. These include likelihood of conserving lynx, to varying risk factors associated with certain timber degrees of naturally fragmented habitat where management practices, fire management, lynx require successful dispersal and dispersed recreation, developed recreation, recolonization of empty habitat patches in backcountry roads and trail use, livestock order to persist, and ultimately to a network of grazing, human development, trapping, small patches that are likely too isolated for a highways, land ownership patterns and ice population of lynx to persist (Figure 3).

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 35 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 36 of 149 IV. Effects Assessment A. Methods An assessment of the potential effects of work directly with the Plans. In cases where existing Plans on the Canada lynx was questionnaire responses did not provide conducted at three scales: administrative unit, sufficient information to evaluate a Plan, the geographic area, and distinct population Plan for that unit was reviewed by the BA segment. The assessment was based primarily team. If the information was still uncertain, on two analysis methods: an examination of personnel on the administrative unit were individual Plans' standards and guidelines and contacted, and the questions were discussed in a geographical information system (GIS) greater detail. analysis based on the Plans' land management allocations and other landscape features. In addition to the questionnaire, supplemental questions were asked of BLM 1. Examination of Individual Plans units for the purpose of more accurately characterizing the nature of lynx habitat on An examination of individual Plans was BLM-administered lands. The questions, conducted to determine the degree to which shown at the end of Appendix D, were they incorporate measures necessary to avoid developed to ascertain the amount of forested adversely affecting lynx at the programmatic lynx habitat on the units and its contiguity Plan level. The primary vehicle for this with similar habitats on other federal lands. assessment was a questionnaire (Appendix D) that assessed LRMPs on 57 National Forests Upon return of the completed and 56 LUPs on 36 BLM Resource Areas, questionnaires, questions addressing related Districts, or Field Office areas, within the area issues were grouped to form 15 evaluation in which lynx are proposed for listing (refer to criteria against which each Plan was rated. Appendix B for an explanation of how these These criteria relate directly to lynx habitat administrative units were selected). The needs and the risk factors and associated LCAS identified risk factors that may programmatic conservation measures adversely affect lynx. Where possible, the considered necessary to provide adequate lynx LCAS then described conservation measures, habitat (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). The both at the programmatic and project levels, assessment examined the effects of Plans on that would avoid or mitigate these adverse all lynx habitat (potential, primary, and effects. The BA questionnaire was designed connectivity). The evaluation criteria and the to identify whether each individual Plan questions used to develop them are displayed incorporates the programmatic conservation in Table 3. Table 3 also shows whether the measures. The Plans could achieve lynx activities associated with the criteria are most conservation either through incorporating likely to occur within developmental or programmatic conservation measures specific nondevelopmental land allocations in the to lynx or through other measures that Plans as described in Appendix F. indirectly conserve lynx. Some portions of the questionnaire required The questionnaire was used for this narrative responses (e.g., questions 36-39, 43), analysis because it provided a direct method and these were not used in developing the of quickly evaluating a large number of Plans evaluation criteria. Narrative responses were and it utilized the knowledge of people who used to further interpret how an individual

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 37 of 149 .

Table 3--Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria Question Nos. Allocation1/

1. DENNING HABITAT: Plan contains either specific or incidental 7, 8, 14a, 14b D/N direction that results in providing denning habitat. 2. FORAGING HABITAT: Plan contains either specific or incidental 7, 8, 17, 18 D/N direction that results in providing foraging habitat. 3. HABITAT CONVERSIONS: Plan prohibits habitat conversions that 10, 11 D would reduce habitat suitability for lynx. 4. THINNING: Plan provides direction for integrating lynx habitat needs 15, 16a, 16b D in stand thinning projects. 5. FIRE MANAGEMENT: Plan incorporates fire management direction 17, 18a, 18b D/N that helps maintain or improve lynx habitat. 6. LANDSCAPE PATTERNS: Plan direction either directly or indirectly 9, 12, 13, 14c D/N results in landscape vegetation patterns that maintain or improve lynx habitat suitability. 7. FOREST ROADS: Plan contains direction pertaining to roads that 23a, 23b, 24 D helps promote lynx conservation. 8. DEVELOPED RECREATION: Plan contains direction that mitigates 25a, 25b, 26a, D the effects of developed recreation on lynx and lynx habitat. 26b 9. NON-WINTER DISPERSED RECREATION: Plan contains direction 27, 29 D/N that mitigates the effects of non-winter dispersed recreation on lynx and lynx habitat. 10. WINTER DISPERSED RECREATION: Plan contains direction that 27, 28a, 28b, D/N mitigates the effects of winter dispersed recreation on lynx and lynx 30a, 30b habitat. 11. MINERALS AND ENERGY: Plan contains direction that mitigates 31 D/N the effects of minerals and energy development on lynx and lynx habitat. 12. CONNECTIVITY: Plan contains direction that mitigates potential 32, 33 D/N barriers to lynx movement and maintains habitat connectivity. Riparian management and other connectivity issues are considered. 13. LAND ADJUSTMENTS: Plan contains direction that maintains or 34, 35 D/N improves lynx habitat during land tenure adjustments. 14. COORDINATION: Plan contains specific direction for coordinating 40, 41 D/N issues that may affect lynx with nearby units and other agencies. 15. MONITORING: Plan contains direction for monitoring lynx and 42a, 42b D/N snowshoe hare or their habitats.

1/ The Allocation column in Table 3 identifies whether a given criterion is most likely to occur in nondevelopmental land allocations (N) (management prescriptions 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix F) or developmental land allocations (D) , (all other management prescriptions) or both (D/N). These are general guidelines and site-specific exceptions may occur.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 38 of 149 administrative unit's Plan did or did not assessment of effects. These tabular conserve lynx. summaries are not quantitative assessments because the amount of lynx habitat differs For each Plan assessed, one of the among administrative units and because the following ratings was assigned for each relevance of some evaluation criteria varies evaluation criterion and displayed in a matrix among geographic areas depending on the risk (Appendix G). The guidelines in Appendix G factors most important for each area. explain how the ratings were assigned. F The Plan fully meets the criterion; near 2. GIS Analysis certainty the criterion is met. S The Plan substantially meets the GIS analysis was conducted to provide a criterion; highly probable the criterion is met. spatial representation of habitat connectivity M The Plan marginally meets the and a comparative assessment (relative to criterion; criterion may or may not be met. supporting lynx conservation) of historical N The Plan does not meet the criterion; landscapes versus managed landscapes under criterion not met at all or is unlikely met. the programmatic direction of current Plans. U Unknown if the criterion is met; Based on this comparison, the BA team inadequate information to assess. reached some conclusions regarding the NA The criterion is not applicable on the potential effects of these Plans on large scale administrative unit. lynx habitat issues at the distinct population segment level and across each of the five FS and BLM administrative units were geographic areas. This GIS analysis is not a grouped in the matrix into five geographic population viability assessment (PVA). areas. A summary of the ratings for each McKelvey et al. (1999c) state that we cannot criterion was then presented narratively within build even the simplest deterministic models each geographic area, and the resulting needed for a formal PVA given the scarcity potential effects to lynx or their habitats were and uncertainty of data on lynx vital rates. described. Those criteria for which the risk of adverse effects was found to be significant The concepts of connectivity and within a geographic area were identified (e.g., metapopulation dynamics are useful tools in a preponderance of N and M ratings which understanding how species persist at a could result in effects which are not landscape scale. Because of limited research discountable, beneficial, or insignificant as on lynx in the conterminous U.S., little is defined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service known about the importance of these concepts 1998), and the effects carried forward as part to lynx ecology. Addressing the issues of of the rationale for the determination of effect. connectivity and metapopulation dynamics If it was not explicitly stated in the narrative tends to be speculative and conceptual because that the effects carried forward to the of the uncertainty of the science. The determination of effect, then the effects were practical challenges of conducting research at found to be discountable or insignificant for the scale of large geographic areas tend to that criterion. The ratings for those criteria limit research efforts. found to be presenting a risk of adverse affects to lynx were summarized in tabular form for Despite these limitations, the BA team each geographic area and for the entire distinct examined these spatial issues based on population segment (Tables 4-9). These concepts described in Chapter III summaries are only a general information Conservation Biology Framework for Effects display of the ratings in the larger matrix Assessment and insights drawn from the (Appendix G) and not a quantitative Science Report (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999).

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 39 of 149 A key component of this GIS assessment pine, and Douglas-fir) with minor inclusions is a map delineating potential habitat and of meadows and alpine non-habitat. The primary areas of lynx occurrence (primary estimated density of lynx in this area was habitat). Primary habitat is based on lynx about one lynx per 50 km2. Because we feel occurrence data from McKelvey et al. (in that the Okanogan population represents a press 1999b). likely minimum viable population, we are using 1800 km2 (695 mi2) of nearly Another interim product for this continuous habitat as a break point for Assessment categorized land allocations (and polygons that may be able to support lynx in associated activities) in the Plans into eight the short term without dispersal. broad management prescriptions. Much of this information was already assembled for The Lynx Science Team (Ruggiero et al. some geographic areas covered by this BA, in press 1999b) suggests that an area of at but in other areas some crosswalk of planning least 1250 km2 of contiguous suitable habitat codes and mapping was necessary. The may be necessary for a population of 25 lynx descriptions of management prescriptions are to persist in the short-term, but recognizes that contained in Appendix F. the actual conservation area would need to be considerably larger. The Lynx Science Team GIS analyses did not consider adjacent derives the 1250 km2 by simply multiplying Canadian habitats. Depictions of habitat the number of animals (25) times the density connectivity and likelihood for supporting of one lynx per 50 km2. The BA Team chose lynx conservation could differ along the to use the larger more conservative size for U.S./Canadian border if adjoining Canadian GIS analysis because it is based on the actual habitats were included. The addition of study area size upon which density estimates adjacent Canadian habitat would increase the were drawn, and addresses the qualifying area with moderate or higher likelihoods for comment by the Lynx Science Team that the supporting lynx conservation (e.g., the Purcell actual conservation area would need to be Range in Montana and British Columbia). considerably larger.

HIstorical Lynx Habitat Distribution and The following assumptions were used to Likelihood for Supporting Lynx develop Figure 4: Historical Lynx Habitat Conservation Distribution and Likelihood for Supporting 1/ As discussed in Chapter III, McKelvey et Lynx Conservation. al. (1999) suggest that lynx populations in relatively small, isolated patches of suitable 1. Primary lynx habitat is more tightly habitat are unlikely to persist when correlated with records of lynx occurrence opportunities for recolonization are reduced or and likely lynx habitat preference when eliminated. The BA team utilized 1800 km2 compared to more general habitat (695 mi2) of nearly continuous suitable habitat descriptions (i.e., potential lynx habitat). as a break point for describing polygons with a higher likelihood for supporting lynx 2. Large areas of primary habitat at least conservation. The 1800 km2 (695 mi2) size is 1800 km2 (695 mi2) in size are likely based on Koehler's (1990) study area of this more capable of supporting self-sustaining size in north central Washington which lynx populations without immigration supports a population of approximately 25 when compared to smaller areas. lynx. Koehler's study area consisted of Therefore, these larger areas contribute to extensive subalpine forest (primarily a higher likelihood of lynx persistence Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, lodgepole when compared to smaller areas.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 40 of 149 3. Contiguous patches of primary habitat are short range exploratory lynx movement preferred over scattered patches. (McKelvey et al. in press 1999b). The category of lower likelihood for supporting 4. If scattered, larger patches that are closer lynx conservation in Figure 4 refers to small together are preferred over smaller patches patches of primary habitat farther than 10 km further apart. (6.25 mi) from each other, or that do not aggregate to at least 1800 km2 in size. While 5. While all habitat patches in a less likely to maintain lynx occurrence, these metapopulation structure over time can smaller areas may function to support a play a role in conserving lynx and metapopulation. maintaining the broadest lynx geographic range, source habitats are critically Lynx Habitat Distribution with Current Plan important in conserving lynx. Direction and Likelihood for Supporting Lynx Conservation 6. In the long term, portions of large contiguous habitat patches are more likely The BA team then attempted to depict the to provide source environments which, likelihood of supporting lynx conservation combined with short dispersal distances, when management prescriptions, based on support higher likelihoods of conserving programmatic allocations, overlay the natural lynx populations. distribution of primary habitat as displayed in Figure 5 - Lynx Habitat Distribution with Utilizing these assumptions to assess Current Plan Direction and Likelihood for historical landscape capability, contiguous Supporting Lynx Conservation. We examined areas of primary habitat at least 1800 km2 current land allocations in lynx primary (695 mi2) in size were presumed to have a habitat and compared them to landscape higher likelihood for supporting lynx capabilities to provide areas of at least 1800 conservation. In considering contiguity of km2 (695 mi2) of contiguous suitable habitat. primary habitat, the BA team used GIS to Additional assumptions include the determine distances between patches of following: 1/ primary habitat within broader areas of potential lynx habitat. Patches of primary 1. Land management prescriptions 1 and 2 habitat within 10 km (6.25 mi) of each other (wilderness, designated roadless, National that in the aggregate totalled at least 1800 km2 Parks, and FWS Refuges) pose fewer (695 mi2) were presumed to have a moderate conservation risks to lynx and were likelihood for supporting lynx conservation. therefore considered to have a higher The 10 km (6.25 mi) distance was selected likelihood of supporting lynx conservation based on Lynx Science Team data that when compared to land management suggested this distance is within the error prescriptions 3 through 8 (see Appendix F, margin for lynx occurrence locations and Table 3, and text following these within a normal home range travel distance or

1/ The assumptions used in the analysis of likelihood of supporting lynx conservation were based on limited scientific information. The 1800 km2 (695 mi2) size rule for contiguous habitat and the 10 km (6.25 mi) rule for distance between habitat patches are two examples. Changes in these assumptions could result in considerable changes in the areas depicted on the maps. Additional research would help clarify the accuracy of these values. Because of these limitations, the results of this analysis should be viewed as general indicators of potential to conserve lynx across large landscapes rather than site-specifically accurate predictors of lynx occurrence. In some instances, lands identified as having a higher likelihood of lynx conservation may not now be supporting lynx, whereas lands in the lower likelihood category may in some cases be supporting resident lynx.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 41 of 149 assumptions). In general, direction in road management, and developed recreation management prescriptions 1 and 2 (Table 3). emphasizes maintaining natural disturbance patterns and processes. Conservation risks associated with the remaining evaluation criteria could occur in 2. Land management prescription 3, that all management prescriptions 1 through 8. In primarily has a natural disturbance general, however, lands associated with emphasis, but which also may allow management prescriptions 4 through 8, and to limited commodity removal, posed a lesser extent management prescription 3, are additional categories of conservation risk. more accessible to the risk of adverse effects. Therefore management prescription 3 was Therefore, conservation risks are often of a considered moderately capable of lesser magnitude and intensity in management supporting lynx conservation when prescriptions 1 and 2. compared with management prescriptions 1 and 2 (see Appendix F and Table 3). An additional consideration in evaluating Management prescription 3 activities are conservation risk deals with overall similar, but generally of lesser intensity, management direction. As previously when compared to management mentioned, the dynamic landscape mosaic prescriptions 4 through 8. associated with historical natural disturbance patterns and processes is offered as a template 3. Land management prescriptions 4 through for a desired future landscape condition 8 were assumed to provide lower potential supporting lynx conservation (Ruediger et al. for supporting lynx conservation (see in press 1999, McKelvey et al. in press Appendix F and Table 3). More intensive 1999a). Maintaining natural disturbance land management is associated with processes and patterns is considered a critical management prescriptions 4 through 8 factor for maintaining ecological resiliency when compared to management and sustainability in boreal ecosystems where prescriptions 1 through 3, in combination lynx reside (McKelvey et al. in press 1999a). with the absence of management direction Management prescriptions that contained emphasizing natural disturbance processes direction emphasizing maintaining natural and patterns. Therefore, the degree of risk ecological patterns and processes is assumed to be greater. (management prescriptions 1 through 3) were considered to pose less conservation risks than Considerations leading to the assumptions dissimilar management direction provided in used to assess current Plan direction and management prescriptions 4 through 8. likelihood of supporting lynx conservation include the following: Based on these considerations and assumptions, areas were grouped into four Examination of individual Plans indicates broad categories of likelihood (higher, that some programmatic conservation moderate to higher, moderate, and lower) for measures believed necessary to avoid or supporting lynx conservation. Contiguous mitigate risk of adverse effects to lynx may areas of primary habitat within management not be applied in all management prescriptions prescriptions 1 and 2 that are 1800 km2 (695 1 through 8. However, in comparison to mi2) or larger were considered to have a management prescriptions 1 and 2, higher likelihood of supporting lynx management prescriptions 3 through 8 pose conservation. Contiguous areas of primary the risk of adverse effects in four additional habitat within management prescriptions 1, key criteria: habitat conversions, thinning, 2, and 3 that are 1800 km2(695 mi2) or

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 42 of 149 larger were considered to have a `moderate to For assessing connectivity relative to higher' likelihood. Areas within management habitat components required by lynx, the BA prescriptions 1, 2, and 3 having smaller team relied upon several broad assumptions. blocks of primary habitat within 10 km While there is little scientific information (6.25 mi) of each other, that aggregate to regarding these assumptions, and lynx have meet the 1800 km2 (695 mi2) size were been documented travelling through a broad presumed to have a moderate likelihood. range of habitats, the BA team felt the Areas that either had primary habitat within assumptions were reasonable for displaying a management prescriptions 1, 2, and 3 that did coarse representation of habitat distribution not aggregate within 10 km (6.25 mi) to meet 2 2 potentially affecting connectivity within and the 1800 km (695 mi ) size, or had a between geographic areas. management prescription other than 1, 2, or 3, fell into the lower likelihood category. The 1. The overriding assumption is that results are discussed in part B of this chapter connectivity is more assured in habitats and displayed in Figure 5 - Lynx Habitat where lynx are known to reside and have a Distribution with Current Plan Direction and competitive advantage (such as primary Likelihood for Supporting Lynx Conservation. habitat), compared to reduced assurance in more open habitats (such as shrub-steppe All management prescriptions 1 through 8 and grassland) due to increased could contribute to increased effectiveness of vulnerability and lack of typical prey base. supporting lynx conservation with incorporation of programmatic and project level conservation measures designed to Additional assumptions used for mitigate known risk factors. For illustrative purposes include the following: developmental allocations, active management (tree harvesting, prescribed fire) may be 2. Habitat connectivity is more assured in needed to maintain or restore desired large, contiguous blocks of primary vegetation characteristics for lynx due to habitat. Connectivity becomes less assured human-induced limitations on natural when departing from this condition. ecological processes within these management prescriptions. 3. Habitat connectivity is more assured in primary habitat within management Connectivity prescriptions 1, 2 and 3 (due to reduced conservation risks), compared to primary Chapter III discusses the concept of habitat outside these management connectivity as it applies to lynx management. prescriptions. Concern about connectivity generally lies in two areas: 1) spatial distribution of habitat 4. Connectivity is more assured in primary components (eg. the Southern Rockies habitat than within potential habitat. geographic area may be disconnected from lynx habitats further to the north due to 5. Connectivity is more assured in potential intervening deserts in Wyoming and Utah), habitat than in other forest types (such as and 2) impediments to connectivity such as ponderosa pine in the West, or aspen in the high traffic volume highway corridors and East). shipping channels, along with the cumulative effects of development adjoining these 6. Connectivity is more assured in other corridors. forest types than in non-forest types (such

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 43 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 44 of 149

Figure 4--Historical Lynx Habitat Distribution and Likelihood for Supporting Lynx Conservation Please see website for this figure at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 45 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 46 of 149 Figure 5--Lynx Habitat Distribution with Current Plan Direction and Likelihood for Supporting Lynx Conservation Please see website for this figure at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 47 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 48 of 149 as shrub-steppe, grassland). Rationale for Determination of Effects

7. Habitat connectivity is more assured as The effects identified through the areas of habitat are closer to each other. combined questionnaire and GIS-based The BA team chose to limit analyses were used to form the rationale for a dispersal/connectivity consideration to 40 determination of effect of existing Plans on km (25 mi) based on the mean dispersal the distinct population segment of lynx distance identified by the Lynx Science proposed for listing (Chapter V). The Team (McKelvey et al. in press 1999b). assumptions carried consistently throughout the analysis were that: Based on these assumptions, an illustration of connectivity potential related to habitat 1. Certain risk factors have been identified distribution was portrayed across the distinct for lynx. population segment in Figure 6 - Connectivity 2. Conservation measures have been Potential. developed to avoid or mitigate these risk factors, where possible, at the Potential connectivity concerns related to programmatic and project levels. high traffic volume highway corridors, shipping channels, and associated 3. Plans can be assessed to determine development (Ruediger et al. in press 1999) whether they directly or indirectly are displayed in Figure 7. Figure 8 highlights incorporate the programmatic conservation potential concerns at the regional level and measures. focuses on the cumulative impacts in the Southern Rocky Mountains resulting from 4. Adverse effects to lynx are likely when the Interstate Highway 70 and ski area/recreation programmatic conservation measures are development. not incorporated in Plans.

Cumulative Effects It was also assumed that a determination of likely to adversely affect for Plans is Cumulative effects were addressed in appropriate when an adverse effect could several ways and integrated throughout the occur either to individual lynx or to the effects analysis. The GIS-based analysis of population as a whole. In other words, if it ownerships, such as National Parks, state was determined that a Plan may adversely lands, tribal lands, and private lands were affect either an individual lynx or some considered. The questionnaire-based analysis population segment through failure to include of administrative units considered the effects any one of the programmatic conservation of Plans on individual units and aggregated measures, then the Plan overall is likely to these effects to look at effects for each adversely affect lynx. geographic area and for the lynx distinct population segment overall. The This BA makes one determination of administrative unit, geographic area, and effect for the distinct population segment of distinct population segment assessments each lynx proposed for Federal listing. Making considered all the known risk factors believed multiple determinations of effect for to potentially affect lynx and that are individual administrative units or geographic reasonably foreseeable to occur under existing areas was considered. However, one Plans and on other land ownerships. determination for the entire distinct

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 49 of 149 population segment seemed reasonable given 2. Making a determination at the same that: scale at which the species is proposed for listing was reasonable from a biological 1. The analysis showed that there is a risk standpoint. of some adverse effects on each administrative . unit and in each geographic area.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 50 of 149

Figure 6--Connectivity Potential Please see website for this figure at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 51 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 52 of 149 Figure 7--Potential National Connectivity Concerns Please see website for this figure at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 53 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 54 of 149 Figure 8--Example of a Potential Regional Connectivity Concern Please see website for this figure at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 55 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 56 of 149 B. Analysis of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

1. Effects at the National Forest and BLM 1. Habitat may be eliminated or reduced in Unit Scale quality.

A total of 57 LRMPs and 56 LUPs was 2. Habitat may be fragmented and assessed for the 15 evaluation criteria connectivity reduced, resulting in isolated previously described. The results of this habitats, lowered productivity or potential analysis are displayed in the matrix in range reduction for lynx. Appendix G, and the reader is referred there for details of the effects at the administrative 3. Competing carnivores may have easier unit scale. The Plans showed varying success access to lynx habitat, resulting in in meeting the criteria, ranging from fully increased competition for food resources meeting (F) some criteria to not meeting or social competition for space. others at all (N). All Plans in every geographic area failed to meet one or more of 4. Risk of direct mortality to lynx from the criteria. Nine LRMPs and 26 LUPs did predators, including humans, may be not meet a majority of the criteria. Although a increased. determination of effect was not made for each individual Plan, all Plans could allow at least These effects are likely to impact some actions to occur at the programmatic individual lynx, as well as lynx level that would risk having adverse effects to subpopulations. The matrix in Appendix G lynx or lynx habitat. Additional effects may provides a visual depiction of where these occur at the project level, but these are beyond effects are likely to occur. the scope of this BA. 2. Effects at the Geographic Area Scale In general, LRMPs tended to meet more of the criteria than LUPs, but that was not The effects identified at the administrative universally the case. BLM lands tend to be at unit scale accumulate upwards to the the margins of forested lynx habitat, geographic area scale. The following representing only 2 percent of the primary discussion summarizes these effects for each habitat, and in many cases the evaluation geographic area, and the reader is again criteria pertaining to silvicultural activities did referred to Appendix G for further details. not apply to BLM units. BLM lands may be Some additional effects unique to this scale particularly important with respect to are also presented. Conclusory statements maintaining connectivity and providing about effects are based on the questionnaire alternate prey species during times of results, personal knowledge of BA team snowshoe hare scarcity. members, and other available information.

At the administrative unit scale, the result a. Cascades Geographic Area of Plans not meeting certain evaluation criteria means that some of the programmatic The Cascades geographic area includes ten conservation measures believed necessary to National Forests and five BLM District avoid or mitigate adverse effects to lynx may Offices (see Appendix A). The net area not be applied on those units. The effects of covered by these units is 20,543,780 acres, of this are likely to include the following: which 4,144,000 acres (20 percent) are

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 57 of 149 identified as primary lynx habitat. National natural disturbance processes Forest System lands comprise 99 percent of • Roads and winter recreation trails that the primary habitat in the geographic area. facilitate access to historical lynx BLM lands comprise less than one percent of habitat by competitors the primary habitat, and the remaining 1 • Incidental trapping percent is in other ownerships (Figure 9). • Predation BLM lands comprise the western fringes of • lynx habitat at lower elevations. All NF and Being hit by vehicles BLM Plans within this area were amended by • Obstructions to movements such as the Northwest Forest Plan and/or PACFISH, highways, dams, and urban growth and we evaluated these Plans as amended Spatial Patterns in Primary Lynx Habitat Risk Factors The distribution of primary habitat The LCAS identifies the following risk follows the north/south axis of the Cascades factors to lynx in this geographic area: Range (Figure 3). Primary habitat is widest, • largest and most contiguous at the Timber management that converts Washington/British Columbia boundary and cover type to less desirable tree becomes more linear and narrow in the species, and precommercial thinning southern Oregon Cascades. As a result, a that reduces habitat suitability for larger and more persistent population than in snowshoe hares the remainder of the geographic area is • Fire exclusion that changes the possible in the northern Washington Cascades vegetation mosaic maintained by (Figures 4 and 5). .

Figure 9--Land ownership of primary habitat in the Cascades geographic area.

CASCADES

0%1%

99% FS BLM OTHER

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 58 of 149 Likelihood for Supporting Lynx Landscape Connectivity Conservation Direct linkage with broader expanses of The northern Washington Cascades Canadian habitat facilitate dispersal to and (centered around the Pasayten Wilderness) has from Canadian source populations, a key a combination of factors associated with the factor for lynx persistence. Historically, lynx highest likelihood for supporting lynx dispersal may have occurred between the conservation in the Cascades geographic area Washington Cascades and the Oregon (see Methods section and Figure 5). These Cascades, between the northern Washington factors include primary habitat that is Cascades and the Northern Rocky Mountains contiguous, occurring in large patches at least (Okanogan Highlands, Kettle Range), and 1800 km2 (695 mi2) in size, and with between the southern Oregon Cascades and management direction emphasizing natural the Northern Rocky Mountains (through ecological processes (management portions of the Ochoco, Wallowa-Whitman, prescriptions 1 and 2, Appendix F). Umatilla, and Malheur National Forests) (Figure 6). The northern half of the Oregon Cascades provides `moderate to high' levels for Factors Potentially Affecting Lynx supporting lynx conservation, although the Movements narrow shape and smaller size of this area would suggest a smaller population size is Lynx movement between the Washington possible when compared to the spatial pattern Cascades and the Oregon Cascades across the of primary habitat in the northern Washington Columbia River seems unlikely given the Cascades. presence of Interstate Highway 84, a two- lane highway, railroads, residential Most smaller patches of primary habitat development, and hydroelectric with a management direction emphasizing impoundments that have widened the river. natural ecological processes in the Cascades Movement between the northern and southern geographic area are within a distance of 10 km Washington Cascades may now be impeded (6.25 mi) from each other, and in the by high volume traffic along Interstate aggregate provide moderate levels of support Highway 90, ski resorts and residential for lynx conservation throughout much of the development. Plan direction has allowed ski Cascades geographic area (Figure 5). Areas resort development along the Interstate with a lower potential for supporting lynx Highway 90 corridor. Potential lynx conservation under current management movement between the Oregon Cascades and direction constitute a small percentage of this the Northern Rockies may be impeded by the geographic area and generally occur along the cumulative effects of north-south Highway periphery of primary habitat. 97, and residential and agricultural development along the east face of the In summary, Plan direction continues to Cascades. Impediments to lynx movements support lynx conservation in much of the connecting the Oregon Cascades with the Cascades and provides a foundation for a Washington Cascades or the Rocky Mountains connected network of primary habitat along increase the area's vulnerability and suggest the length of the Cascades. However, that the capacity to maintain a persistent compared to historical times, the Plans have metapopulation has been reduced (Figure 7). contributed to a reduction of the total area in which natural ecological processes are In summary, there are more impediments emphasized. in the current environment that may affect

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 59 of 149 lynx movements than historically existed. A construction, recreation developments, and strength for the region is that federal lands are motorized dispersed recreation, are generally continuous along the length of the generally not expected to occur within Cascades in comparison to the fragmented nondevelopmental land allocations, and ownership patterns in other geographic areas. therefore will not adversely affect lynx there. This factor increases the area's capacity to Other activities, such as grazing and mining, support lynx conservation (Figures 5 and 6). may occur but are likely to occur less extensively than in developmental allocations. Effects Within Nondevelopmental Land Winter dispersed recreation activities, such as Allocations snowshoeing and skiing, may result in packed trails that could facilitate movement of Approximately 3,577,440 acres (87 competitors and predators into lynx habitat. percent) of the primary lynx habitat on FS and All of the Plans allow these forms of non- BLM lands in this area is designated as mechanized human travel, although the nondevelopmental land allocations roadless character of these lands constrains (management prescriptions 1, 2 and 3-- winter use to some extent. wilderness, roadless, late successional reserves, etc., see Appendix F) where natural Effects Within Developmental Land disturbance processes may predominate Allocations (Figure 10). Table 3 identifies which of the 15 evaluation criteria are most applicable The Plans provide the opportunity to within the nondevelopmental land allocations. maintain lynx habitat through vegetation manipulation and other land management Eight of ten LRMPs and three of five activities within the developmental land LUPs allow, but do not mandate, the use of allocations (management prescriptions 4-8, wildland fire for resource benefits within these see Appendix F). Conversely, potential allocations. Fire could assume a significant impacts to lynx or their habitats may result role in creating a natural mosaic of vegetation from a number of human activities. The Plans communities and age classes across the were examined to determine how well they landscape under existing Plan direction. Other meet 15 evaluation criteria with respect to natural processes such as insects, disease, and maintaining lynx habitat and mitigating wind storms will contribute to the potential human impacts (refer to Methods maintenance of this mosaic. Lynx foraging section for details). The results of this review habitat is likely to be maintained at a level are displayed for each administrative unit in somewhat less than would be provided under Appendix G. A geographic area summary of natural disturbance regimes. Denning habitat, the findings for each criterion follows below. consisting of old growth forests and Criteria which were found to present a risk of concentrations of downed logs resulting from adverse effects to lynx were carried forward disturbance events, will likely be maintained as part of the rationale for the determination of at or above levels that occurred historically. effect in Chapter V. Criteria which are not The differences from historical conditions are identified as carrying forward were found to due to continued fire suppression, which present a discountable or insignificant risk of results in fire being allowed to play its natural adverse effects (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife role in only a portion of these land allocations. Service 1998b, p. 3-13 for definitions). Some human activities potentially affecting lynx, such as timber harvest, road

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 60 of 149 Figure 10--Proportion of developmental and nondevelopmental allocations in the Cascades geographic area.

CASCADES

13%

87%

Nondev. Dev.

Denning habitat--The Northwest Forest Plan for providing foraging habitat. Lynx are not emphasizes restoring and maintaining late expected to be significantly affected by a successional forests within an interconnected shortage of foraging habitat in the geographic mosaic throughout the area. This old growth area, but some vegetation management network is more than adequate to provide for activities which site-specifically reduce lynx denning needs, and all Plans within this foraging opportunities could affect individual geographic area were judged fully satisfactory lynx (see thinning discussion below). in providing denning habitat. No adverse effects to lynx denning habitat are expected Habitat conversions--One LUP contains from the Plans. direction that substantially prohibits vegetation type conversions that could be Foraging habitat--Vegetation management adverse to lynx. Three LRMPs and three within the 13 percent of the geographic area LUPs contain language that marginally where active management is allowed can precludes vegetation type conversions, while potentially supplement foraging habitat seven LRMPs and one LUP contained no created by natural disturbances on the direction that precludes such activity. While remaining 87 percent of the area. These most Plans did not specifically prohibit type activities also have the potential to eliminate conversions, it is unlikely that conversions foraging habitat. Given the extent of the will commonly occur within this geographic nondevelopmental land allocations where area because vegetation management activities natural processes are in operation, and the are allowed on only 13 percent of the area. probability that some forage will be produced The low percentage of the area allocated to within developmental allocations, all Plans forest management activities suggests that were judged to substantially meet the criterion

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 61 of 149 habitat loss due to type conversions is unlikely Landscape patterns--All LRMPs and LUPs to be significant within the geographic area. within the geographic area were judged to fully meet the criterion of providing landscape Thinning--Seven LRMPs and two LUPs vegetation patterns that maintain lynx habitat. include direction that would marginally This is a result of the amount of the area in integrate lynx habitat needs with timber stand nondevelopment land allocations where thinning projects, while two LRMPs and three natural disturbance processes predominate, as LUPs contain no such direction. Thinning has well as Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH, and the potential to adversely affect lynx in this INFISH direction that establish riparian geographic area, but with only 13 percent of corridors throughout the entire area. No the area available for vegetation management, adverse effects to lynx were identified as a and at any given time a fraction of this in an result of Plan direction pertaining to landscape age class where thinning might be considered, patterns. the overall effects of thinning in the geographic area are minimal. There is likely Forest roads--One LRMP and one LUP adequate foraging habitat available to sustain a provide direction pertaining to roads that helps lynx population regardless of thinning because to fully promote lynx recovery; eight LRMPs natural disturbance processes could potentially and three LUPs contain direction that create some foraging habitat within the portion substantially does so; and one LRMP and one of the area (87 percent) that is in LUP contain direction that marginally does so. nondevelopmental allocations. However, there Strong road management direction in the is a risk that individual lynx could be Plans results primarily from Northwest Forest adversely affected on a site-specific basis by Plan and PACFISH direction. Road reduction of habitat quality within their home management direction within the geographic ranges. These potential effects to individual area appears adequate to avoid adverse effects lynx carry forward as part of the rationale for to lynx. the determination of effects. Developed recreation--Five LRMPs provide Fire management--Two LRMPs contain marginal direction for mitigating the potential wildfire suppression direction that helps to effects of developed recreation on lynx, substantially maintain or improve lynx habitat; while five LRMPs and five LUPs provide no five LRMPs and two LUPs contain direction direction. Major recreation developments that marginally does so; and three LRMPs and such as large ski areas or resorts are three LUPs contain no such direction. moderately common in the geographic area. Wildland fire management direction within The potential effects of these developments on developmental land allocations weakly individual lynx include loss of suitable habitat maintains lynx habitat. This represents only on a site-specific basis as well as impeding 13 percent of the geographic area, and fire lynx movements. The significance of these management direction on the remaining 87 effects to the population is likely to be low to percent (nondevelopmental allocations) allows moderate at the present time due to the for the maintenance of lynx habitat. Overall, moderate level of such developments and the fire suppression strategies within Plans for the relatively large blocks of contiguous habitat geographic area seem adequate to preclude available to lynx within the area. Overall, this adverse effects to lynx. Implementation of criterion was judged to not be affecting lynx strategies allowed by the Plans is unknown within the geographic area under current and beyond the scope of this analysis. Plans.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 62 of 149 Non-winter dispersed recreation--Eight long-standing laws and regulations. Where LRMPs and three LUPs contain direction that they do occur, specific mitigation is normally substantially mitigates the effects of non- developed at the project analysis level rather winter dispersed recreation on lynx. One than at the programmatic level of land LRMP contains direction that marginally management plans. Considering these factors, mitigates these effects, while one LRMP and these activities may be a low risk to lynx two LUPs contain no direction for mitigation. within the geographic area, and Plan direction This mitigation relates to mechanized off- was found to present no adverse effects to road vehicles rather than to foot travel. Due to lynx. topography, vegetation characteristics, and the low susceptibility of lynx to displacement by Habitat connectivity--All ten LRMPs and humans (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999b), this five LUPs within the geographic area were activity presents a low risk of adverse effects judged to contain direction that substantially to lynx with the exception of disturbance near maintains lynx habitat connectivity within the denning sites (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). administrative unit scale. This direction is Denning habitat is abundant and widely contained in Northwest Forest Plan, distributed in the geographic area. Therefore, PACFISH, and INFISH amendments to the no adverse effects from non-winter dispersed Plans. Direction in existing Plans for riparian recreation could be identified. management was not found to present a risk to lynx habitat connectivity. Direction for Winter dispersed recreation--One LRMP avoiding or mitigating movement barriers and two LUPs contain direction that across highways is generally lacking in the substantially mitigates the effects of winter Plans. This responsibility should properly be dispersed recreation on lynx. Eight LRMPs shared between the land management agencies marginally mitigate these effects, while one and highway administration authorities. Most LRMP and three LUPs do not mitigate the highways predate the Plans and are part of the effects. Where mitigation is directed, it baseline condition. Future highway generally applies to mechanized over-snow construction and reconstruction have the vehicles rather than to foot travel. Only one potential to adversely affect lynx if not Plan contains direction to partially restrict mitigated, and mitigation is anticipated at the snowshoeing and skiing in lynx habitat. The project level. Current Plan direction was not effects of these activities potentially includes found to be adversely affecting lynx in the providing packed trails for other carnivores to geographic area. more easily enter lynx habitat and either compete with lynx for food resources or prey Land tenure adjustments--Nine LRMPs and on lynx. Winter dispersed recreation may be three LUPs contain direction that marginally contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx maintains or improves lynx habitat through in this geographic area and is carried forward land tenure adjustments. One LRMP and two as part of the rationale for the determination of LUPs contain no direction. Land tenure effect. adjustments within lynx habitat are infrequent in the geographic area, and their mitigation is Minerals and energy development--Nine generally provided at the project analysis LRMPs contain direction that would level. Current Plan direction for land tenure marginally mitigate the effects of mineral and adjustments does not appear to present a risk energy development on lynx, while one of adverse effects to lynx within the LRMP and five LUPs contain no such geographic area. direction. These activities are not widespread within the geographic area and are subject to

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 63 of 149 Management coordination--All ten LRMPs lynx habitat in the Cascades. Table 4 and four LUPs contain substantial direction summarizes the ratings for the three for coordinating issues that may affect lynx evaluation criteria for which Plan direction with nearby administrative units or other was found to present a risk of adverse affects agencies. One LUP contains marginal to lynx. Those criteria are: thinning, winter direction. This direction is provided through dispersed recreation, and monitoring. These amendments to the Plans resulting from the findings of likely adverse effects are carried Northwest Forest Plan, PACFISH, and forward as part of the rationale contributing to INFISH. No adverse effects were identified as the determination of effect in Chapter V. The a result of Plans providing inadequate ratings for all 15 criteria are presented in direction for coordination. Appendix G.

Monitoring--One LRMP contains full Additional Considerations, Including direction for monitoring of lynx, snowshoe Cumulative Effects hares, or their habitats. Nine LRMPs and two LUPs contain marginal monitoring direction, Overall conditions for lynx with respect to while three LUPs contain no direction. While Plan direction appear to be better in this failure to monitor does not directly cause geographic area than any other in the Nation. adverse effects, it does result in any adverse This is largely due to Plan amendments effects being difficult to identify and assess. directed by the Northwest Forest Plan, This criterion is carried forward as part of the PACFISH, and INFISH. The Cascades are rationale for the determination of effect. not without a potential risk of adverse effects, however. Certain types of winter recreation, and particular types of vegetation management In summary, NF units account for the (i.e., thinning) within the portions of the area majority of primary lynx habitat in the where such activities may still occur, have the Cascade Mountains geographic area; potential to adversely affect lynx by 4,112,000 acres or 99 percent. BLM units introducing competitors, eliminating habitat, account for less than one percent of primary and restricting movements.

Table 4--Summary ratings for the three criteria contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx in the Cascade Mountains geographic area.

FS (99% of Primary Habitat) BLM (<1% of Primary Habitat) Ratings1/ Number Percent Number Percent F 1 3 0 - S 1 3 2 13 M 25 83 4 27 N 2 7 9 60 U 1 3 0 - NA 0 - 0 - Total 30 100 15 100

1/ The methods section of this chapter describes how evaluation criteria were developed and what the individual rating codes represent.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 64 of 149 This geographic area is narrow and linear, District Office, and 20 Field Offices, see making it vulnerable to dissection by the Appendix A). One Resource Area (Idaho several existing east-west crossing highways Falls) contains two planning units, while one and associated development. Highways, Resource Area (Challis) and one Field Office dams, railroads, and other developments (Salt Lake) each contain three planning units, within the Columbia River Gorge have likely resulting in a total of 41 LUPs assessed. The eliminated what may have been historical net area covered by these units is 126,243,610 movements between the Washington and acres, of which 24,727,000 acres (20 percent) Oregon Cascades. The north-south Highway are identified as primary lynx habitat. 97 and residential and agricultural National Forest System lands comprise 67 development along the east face of the percent of the primary habitat in the Cascades impedes the possibility of a geographic area, BLM lands make up 5 connection with the Northern Rocky percent, and the remaining 28 percent is in Mountains through habitats in central Oregon. other ownerships (Figure 11). Timber management on private corporate and tribal lands may also cumulatively affect lynx Several Forest Plans within the geographic in this geographic area. Washington lynx area have been amended by INFISH or habitat is connected with Canadian habitats to PACFISH decisions. This analysis considers the north, and maintenance of this connection these Plans as amended. Much of the BLM may be crucial to lynx persistence in the area. lands, and some of the NF lands, especially in the southern portions of the geographic area, b. Northern Rockies Geographic Area are in shrub-steppe habitats that may be important primarily for connectivity between The Northern Rockies geographic area patches of coniferous habitat or for foraging includes 31 National Forests and 29 BLM on alternate prey during times of snowshoe administrative units (8 Resource Areas, one hare scarcity.

Figure 11--Land ownership of primary habitat in the Northern Rocky Mountains geographic area.

N. ROCKIES

28%

5% 67%

FS BLM OTHER

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 65 of 149 Risk Factors factors providing the highest likelihood for supporting lynx conservation including: The LCAS identifies the following risk Glacier National Park and surrounding NFs, factors to lynx in this geographic area: Yellowstone National Park and surrounding NFs, and the Bitterroot Mountains in Idaho • Timber harvest and precommercial and Montana. The Northern Rockies thinning that reduce denning or geographic area not only has the most areas foraging habitat or converts habitat to with high potential, but also the largest less desirable tree species (Figure 5). • Fire exclusion that changes the vegetation mosaic maintained by Areas in the category of moderate to high natural disturbance processes levels for supporting lynx conservation • Grazing by domestic livestock that (contiguous primary habitat in management reduces forage for lynx prey prescriptions 1, 2, and 3 meeting the 1800 2 2 • Roads and winter recreation trails that km (695 mi ) minimum size) adjoin and facilitate access to historical lynx provide additional acreage to the three large habitat by competitors areas previously described. When smaller patches of primary habitat (with management • Legal (in Montana) and incidental direction emphasizing natural ecological trapping and shooting processes) within 10 km (6.25 mi) are • Predation considered, most of the primary habitat in the • Being hit by vehicles geographic area aggregates into large patches • Obstructions to lynx movements such with moderate potential for supporting lynx as highways and private land conservation (Figure 5). The isolated areas development outside of these large patches would represent areas with the lowest potential for supporting Spatial Patterns in Primary Lynx Habitat lynx conservation, although they may form a metapopulation with nearby primary habitat The Northern Rockies geographic area has patches. Successful dispersal is necessary to the largest amount of primary habitat on maintain resident animals. federal lands of any geographic area (Figure 3). It contains a variety of spatial patterns In summary, the amount and distribution from large connected patches along the of primary habitat in the Northern Rockies continental divide to isolated patches such as geographic area under federal land the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming. Since management suggest that this area may be the most primary habitat occurs on FS and BLM most important stronghold maintaining lands, federal agencies have a key role in persistent lynx populations in the contiguous conservation efforts. The large amount of U.S. Current management direction provides primary habitat on federal lands in this three large areas with high potential to support geographic area also suggests that it may lynx conservation, but this represents a contain the highest number of lynx on federal reduction from historical availability (Figures lands in any geographic area. 4 and 5).

Likelihood for Supporting Lynx Landscape Connectivity Conservation Direct linkage with Canadian habitats The Northern Rockies geographic area has contributes to increased persistence in the three large areas with the combination of northern portion of this geographic area. The

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 66 of 149 Northern Rockies may facilitate movements highways, and development along these linking the Northern Rockies with the highways, cumulatively may impede lynx Cascades and Southern Rockies geographic movements within and between geographic areas. Potential landscape linkages in this areas (Figure 7). geographic area are: corridors linking the Yellowstone Ecosystem with central Idaho Effects Within Nondevelopmental Land and northern Montana, forested corridors that Allocations may facilitate movements from central Idaho to the Blue Mountains and west toward the Approximately 14,094,390 acres (57 Oregon Cascades, forested corridors from percent) of the primary lynx habitat on FS and Idaho and Wyoming to the Wasatch and Uinta BLM lands in this area is designated as Ranges in Utah, and forested habitats that nondevelopmental land allocations may facilitate movements between the (management prescriptions 1, 2 and 3 -- Northern Rockies and the northern Cascades wilderness, etc., see Appendix F) where in Washington. Animals moving across these natural disturbance processes may areas would encounter shrub-steppe predominate (Figure 12). Table 3 identifies environments, and connectivity is assumed to which of the 15 evaluation criteria are most become less assured as lynx depart from applicable within the nondevelopmental land primary habitat or forested conditions (see allocations. Methods Section and Figure 6). Twenty-six of the 31 LRMPs and nine of the 41 LUPs allow, but do not mandate, the Factors Potentially Affecting Lynx use of wildland fire for resource benefits Movements (WFRB) within these allocations. The lower Highways and private land development, proportion of BLM units that allow WFRB is especially along road corridors in mountain not significant to lynx since only a small valleys, may fragment habitat and impede percent of the habitat within the geographic movement by lynx (Ruediger et al. in press area is administered by BLM. These BLM 1999). The LCAS identified that the lands are generally at lower elevations and following roads could impede lynx movement. often consist of shrublands. It appears that Interstate Highways 90 and 15 and Highway fire could assume a significant role in creating 93 could discourage lynx movement in Idaho a natural mosaic of vegetation communities and Montana. Also in Montana, Highways 2 and age classes across the landscape within and 83 could impede movements. In Idaho, the geographic area under existing Plan Highway 12 and State Highways 55 and 75 direction. Other natural processes such as intersect lynx habitat. In Utah, I-80 may insects, disease, and wind storms will impede movement between the Uinta and contribute to the maintenance of this mosaic. Wasatch Ranges. In Oregon and Washington, Lynx foraging habitat is likely to be I-84 may discourage lynx movement in the maintained at a level somewhat less than Blue Mountains. In Wyoming, Highways 14, would be provided under natural disturbance 26, and 189, and high volume traffic in regimes. Denning habitat, consisting of old Yellowstone National Park may impede growth forests and concentrations of downed movements (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). logs resulting from disturbance events, will likely be maintained at or above levels that occurred historically. The differences from In summary, while the Northern Rocky historical conditions are due to continued fire Mountains geographic area has the largest suppression, which results in fire being amount of available primary habitat on federal allowed to play its natural role in only a lands of any geographic area, a number of

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 67 of 149 Figure 12--Proportion of developmental and nondevelopmental allocations in the Northern Rockies geographic area.

N. ROCKIES

43%

57%

Nondev. Dev.

portion of these land allocations. Some manipulation and other land management human activities potentially affecting lynx, activities within the developmental land such as timber harvest, road construction, allocations (management prescriptions 4-8, recreation developments, and motorized see Appendix F). Conversely, potential dispersed recreation, are generally not impacts to lynx or their habitats may result expected to occur within nondevelopmental from a number of human activities. The Plans land allocations, and therefore will not were examined to determine how well they adversely affect lynx there. Other activities, meet 15 evaluation criteria with respect to such as grazing and mining, may occur but are maintaining lynx habitat and mitigating likely to occur less extensively than in potential human impacts (refer to Methods developmental allocations. Winter dispersed section for details). The results of this review recreation activities, such as snowshoeing and are displayed for each administrative unit in skiing, may result in packed trails that could Appendix G. A geographic area summary of facilitate movement of competitors and the findings for each criterion follows below. predators into lynx habitat. All of the Plans Criteria for which Plans were found to allow these forms of non-mechanized human present a risk of adverse effects to lynx were travel, although the roadless character of these carried forward as part of the rationale for the lands constrains winter use to some extent. determination of effect in Chapter V. Criteria which are not identified as carrying forward Effects Within Developmental Land were found to present a discountable or Allocations insignificant risk of adverse effects (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998b, p. 3-13 for The Plans provide the opportunity to definitions). maintain lynx habitat through vegetation

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 68 of 149 Denning habitat--Denning habitat is fully valued species (e.g., western larch) have often maintained in 15 LRMPs, substantially occurred during silvicultural treatments within maintained in 11 LRMPs and three LUPs, this geographic area. This practice has the marginally maintained in two LRMPs and five potential to affect lynx foraging habitat over LUPs, not maintained in three LRMPs and 13 large acreages. Type conversion in the shrub- LUPs, and not applicable in 14 LUPs due to steppe habitat type could reduce potential for insufficient forest coverage. On much of the foraging on alternate prey as well as geographic area, especially the southern and movement by lynx. Given the weak emphasis eastern portions, BLM lands may have low in Plans on avoiding this practice and the fact potential to provide denning habitat due to it could potentially occur on a large inherent climatic and vegetational limitations. percentage of the geographic area (43 percent The NF lands overall are doing a good job of in developmental allocations), there is a risk maintaining denning habitat due to old growth that lynx could be adversely affected. This direction contained in the Plans. Denning criterion is carried forward as part of the habitat is likely not limiting to lynx within the rationale for the determination of effects. geographic area. No adverse effects to lynx denning habitat are expected from the Plans. Thinning--One LUP includes direction that would substantially integrate lynx habitat Foraging habitat--Foraging habitat is needs with timber stand thinning projects, four substantially maintained in 12 LRMPs, LRMPs and two LUPs contain direction that marginally maintained in 18 LRMPs and ten would marginally achieve this objective, 27 LUPs, not maintained in one LRMP and 11 LRMPs and 17 LUPs contain no such LUPs, and not applicable in 14 LUPs due to direction, and the criterion is not applicable insufficient forest coverage. On much of the for 15 LUPs. With 43 percent of the geographic area, especially the southern and geographic area in developmental allocations, eastern portions, BLM lands may have low precommercial thinning is a common practice potential to provide snowshoe hare foraging on commercial forest lands. The Plans are habitat due to inherent climatic and generally weak in providing compatible vegetational limitations, but may provide direction for thinning within lynx habitat, and habitat for foraging on alternate prey species this activity may risk adversely affecting lynx such as jackrabbits. BLM lands also provide within the geographic area. This criterion is the potential for connectivity between patches carried forward as part of the rationale for the of coniferous habitat. Based on questionnaire determination of effects. results, the ability of the Plans to provide foraging habitat may be a limiting factor to Fire management--Within developmental lynx in the geographic area. This criterion is land allocations, 23 LRMPs and 21 LUPs carried forward as part of the rationale for the direct aggressive wildfire suppression that determination of effects. would limit the creation of lynx foraging habitat through natural ecological processes. Habitat conversions--Vegetation type Seven LRMPs and seven LUPs direct a conversions that could reduce habitat limited suppression approach that may help suitability for lynx are fully precluded in one maintain foraging habitat. The fire LRMP and four LUPs, substantially precluded management strategy could not be determined in one LUP, marginally precluded in 12 for one LRMP and four LUPs. The objective LRMPs and six LUPs, not precluded in 18 of aggressive fire suppression where resource LRMPs and 14 LUPs, and are not applicable values are at risk is understandable, but in ten LUPs. Type conversions, as from lower nevertheless may be contributing to a risk of valued species (e.g., lodgepole pine) to higher adverse effects to lynx within the geographic

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 69 of 149 area by reducing the creation of foraging with weak or no road management direction habitat through natural disturbance processes. and could be contributing to a risk of adverse This criterion is carried forward as part of the effects to lynx in these areas. This criterion is rationale for the determination of effects. carried forward as part of the rationale for the determination of effects. Landscape patterns--Two LRMPs contain full direction to provide landscape vegetation Developed recreation--Two LRMPs provide patterns that would maintain lynx foraging and direction that substantially mitigates the denning habitats; three LRMPs provide potential effects of developed recreation on substantial direction; 19 LRMPs and 11 LUPs lynx; three LRMPs and three LUPs provide provide marginal direction; seven LRMPs and marginal direction; 25 LRMPs and 28 LUPs 13 LUPs provide no such direction; and the provide no direction; and the criterion is not criterion is not applicable within 11 LUPs. applicable in four LUPs. Large recreation While this generally weak direction is of developments are present in moderate concern, the Northern Rockies are less numbers on NF lands within this geographic fragmented than some others due to natural area. Where they occur, they may eliminate landscape patterns, inherent productivity of habitat and pose a threat to lynx movements. vegetation in much of the area, and the fact Although mitigation can be developed at the that a relatively small proportion of the area is project level, most developments were in non-federal ownership compared to most constructed before lynx became a other geographic areas. PACFISH and conservation issue. Since most existing Plans INFISH direction on some NFs in the are weak in guidance for new or existing geographic area may help maintain landscape recreation developments, these activities may patterns to a degree. Stronger direction in the contribute to a risk of adverse affects to lynx Plans is desirable, but current direction is in this geographic area. This criterion is likely not limiting to lynx populations or carried forward as part of the rationale for the adversely affecting individual lynx at this determination of effects. time. Non-winter dispersed recreation--One Forest roads--Five LRMPs provide LRMP contains direction that fully mitigates direction pertaining to roads that fully helps the effects of non-winter dispersed recreation promote lynx recovery; nine LRMPs provide on lynx; 13 LRMPs and nine LUPs substantial direction; ten LRMPs and 15 LUPs substantially mitigate these effects; nine provide marginal direction; seven LRMPs and LRMPs and six LUPs marginally mitigate the 15 LUPs provide no direction; and the effects; and seven LRMPs and 18 LUPs criterion is not applicable in four LUPs. Road contain no mitigation. Where it occurs, management direction is strongest in portions mitigation relates to mechanized off-road of the geographic area that emphasize vehicles rather than to foot travel. Non- management for grizzly bears and elk. While winter dispersed recreation at current levels displacement by humans does not appear to be may not have an adverse effect on lynx within a major factor in lynx ecology (Ruggiero et al. the geographic area since lynx do not appear in press 1999b), human access via roads may to be highly susceptible to displacement by increase the mortality risk to lynx from humans (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999b). The incidental trapping or illegal shooting, as well exception may be near denning sites as competition from other carnivores. Road- (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). Plans related risks are primarily a winter season generally provide for adequate and widely issue. The issue is a concern on the portions of distributed denning habitat in the geographic the geographic area (refer to Appendix G) area. Therefore, no adverse effects from non-

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 70 of 149 winter dispersed recreation could be contain direction that marginally addresses identified. these issues, and eight LRMPs and 23 LUPs contain no direction. Connectivity is an Winter dispersed recreation--Three LRMPs important concern in this geographic area, and three LUPs contain direction that especially in the southern and eastern portions substantially mitigates the effects of winter where landscapes are more naturally dispersed recreation on lynx; 15 LRMPs and fragmented. Riparian corridors required by nine LUPs contain direction that marginally INFISH and PACFISH assist with mitigates these effects; and 12 LRMPs and 21 connectivity on those NFs where this direction LUPs contain no direction. Where mitigation applies. Other portions of the geographic area occurs, it relates primarily to mechanized contain weaker riparian direction. The over-snow vehicles. Very few Plans contain weakness of the Plans in addressing any limitation on winter foot travel by connectivity issues in the remaining portions snowshoes or skis. Both mechanized and non- of the geographic area potentially contributes mechanized winter recreation may contribute to a risk of adverse effects on lynx. This to a risk of adverse effects on lynx where they criterion is carried forward as part of the are allowed within the geographic area by rationale for the determination of effects. providing packed trails for other carnivores to more easily enter lynx habitat and either Land tenure adjustments--One LUP compete with lynx for food resources or prey contains direction that would fully maintain or on lynx. This criterion is carried forward as improve lynx habitat through land tenure part of the rationale for the determination of adjustments; one LRMP and one LUP contain effects. substantial direction; 12 LRMPs and 15 LUPs contain marginal direction; and 18 LRMPs Minerals and energy development--Four and 18 LUPs contain no such direction. LRMPs and one LUP contain direction that Although direction contained in the Plans is would substantially mitigate the effects of weak, land adjustments are limited in scope minerals and energy development on lynx; 14 and low in number, and are therefore not LRMPs and four LUPs marginally mitigate likely to present an impact to lynx habitat at a these effects; and 12 LRMPs and 30 LUPs programmatic level within the geographic contain no mitigation. These activities are area. Effects on lynx would normally be relatively common in the Northern Rockies. assessed at the project level and mitigated Specific mitigation for such activities is often appropriately. Some adverse effects may developed at the project level. The overall occur at the project level but these are beyond weakness of the Plans with respect to these the scope of this analysis. No evidence was activities does not necessarily mean that found to indicate that Plan direction may be adverse effects to lynx will occur. Some contributing to adverse effects to lynx. adverse effects may occur at the project level, but these are beyond the scope of this analysis. Management coordination--Four LRMPs No evidence was found to indicate that Plan and one LUP contain substantial direction for direction may be contributing to adverse coordinating issues that may affect lynx with effects to lynx. nearby administrative units or other agencies; 18 LRMPs and 13 LUPs contain marginal Habitat connectivity--Ten LRMPs contain direction; and nine LRMPs and 21 LUPs direction that substantially mitigates the contain no direction. Management effects of movement barriers or maintains coordination is important in this geographic lynx habitat connectivity at the administrative area for maintaining connectivity with Canada unit scale. Thirteen LRMPs and 12 LUPs to the north, the Southern Rockies to the

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 71 of 149 south, and the Cascades to the west. The criteria are: foraging habitat, habitat overall weakness of Plans in directing conversion, thinning, fire management, coordination may contribute to a risk of forest roads, developed recreation, winter adverse effects on lynx. This criterion is dispersed recreation, habitat carried forward as part of the rationale for the connectivity, management coordination, determination of effects. and monitoring.

Monitoring--One LRMP contains full These findings of likely adverse effects are direction for monitoring of lynx, snowshoe carried forward as part of the rationale hares, or their habitats; one LRMP contains contributing to the determination of effect in substantial direction; 12 LRMPs and one LUP Chapter V. The ratings for all 15 criteria are contain marginal direction; and 17 LRMPs presented in Appendix G. and 34 LUPs contain no direction. While failure to monitor does not directly cause Additional Considerations, Including adverse effects, it does result in any adverse Cumulative Effects effects being difficult to identify and assess. This criterion is carried forward as part of the This geographic area likely has the rationale for the determination of effect. strongest current lynx population in the lower 48 states. Relatively high quality habitat, in In summary, NF units account for the large blocks, well connected within the majority of primary lynx habitat in the geographic area and with Canada, are some of Northern Rockies geographic area; 23,168, the probable reasons. Silvicultural and fire 000 acres or 67 percent. BLM units account management practices allowed by the Plans for 1,559,000 acres or 5 percent of primary within the developmental land allocations of lynx habitat in the Northern Rocky Mountains. the area have the potential to adversely affect Table 5 summarizes the ratings for the 10 lynx. Similarly, management practices on evaluation criteria for which Plan direction in state, corporate private, and small private the Northern Rocky Mountains was found to lands may present a risk to lynx persistence present a risk of adverse affects to lynx. Those in the long term. The presence of major

Table 5--Summary ratings for the ten criteria contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx in the Northern Rocky Mountains geographic area.

FS (67% of Primary Habitat) BLM (5% of Primary Habitat) Ratings1/ Number Percent Number Percent F 9 3 4 1 S 51 16 8 2 M 135 44 94 27 N 113 36 192 55 U 2 1 4 1 NA 0 0 48 14 Total 310 100 350 100

1/ The methods section of this chapter describes how evaluation criteria were developed and what the individual rating codes represent.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 72 of 149 highways through the area, several large comprise 76 percent of the primary habitat in reservoirs, and residential/urban development the geographic area, BLM lands make up 5 pose movement obstacles to lynx. On the percent, and the remaining 19 percent is in positive side, management instituted for other other ownerships (Figure 13). Much of the species, such as grizzly bear and inland BLM lands, and some of the NF lands, are in fisheries management programs, affords shrub-steppe habitats that may be important protection for some key elements of lynx primarily for connectivity between patches of habitat, such as human access limitations and coniferous habitat or for foraging on alternate riparian corridors. The two large National prey during times of snowshoe hare scarcity. Parks within the area (Glacier and Yellowstone) provide large secure blocks of Risk Factors habitat. This geographic area is particularly important as a conduit for maintaining The LCAS identifies the following risk connectivity with several other areas of lynx factors to lynx in this geographic area: habitat, namely Canada, the southern • Fire exclusion, which changes the Cascades, and the Southern Rockies. vegetation mosaic maintained by natural disturbance processes c. Southern Rockies Geographic Area • Grazing by domestic livestock, which The Southern Rockies geographic area reduces forage for lynx prey includes eight National Forests and ten BLM • Roads and winter recreation trails that administrative units (seven Resource Areas facilitate access to historical lynx and three Field Offices, see Appendix A). habitat by competitors The net area covered by these units is • Incidental trapping (except in Colorado 35,166,320 acres, of which 5,336,000 acres where trapping is illegal) and shooting (15 percent) are identified as primary • Predation lynx habitat. National Forest System lands • Being hit by vehicles

Figure 13--Land ownership of primary habitat in the Southern Rocky Mountains geographic area.

S. ROCKIES

19%

5%

76%

FS BLM OTHER

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 73 of 149 • Habitat conversion, fragmentation, and source population in the Northern Rockies obstruction to movements resulting geographic area. from large recreation (ski area) developments, urban sprawl, and Hostile desert habitats present imposing highway construction conditions for lynx movements when compared to movement through forest or Spatial Patterns in Primary Lynx Habitat even shrub-steppe environments. Habitats may have been more connected during the Forested primary habitat in the Southern Pleistocene epoch, but now are isolated to Rockies geographic area occurs below the higher mountain elevations by post- extensive high elevation alpine environment, Pleistocene climatic warming (Brown 1971), and above the shrub-steppe lower valleys leading to the possibility that any naturally (Figure 3). When combined with the spatial occurring lynx in the Southern Rockies may arrangement of mountain ranges in the represent a relict population. Southern Rockies, a naturally fragmented distribution pattern of primary habitat is Factors Potentially Affecting Lynx created. Metapopulation dynamics are typical Movements for this type of fragmented spatial distribution. Natural patterns of fragmentation increase the Human development in the Southern value of existing landscape connections and Rockies geographic area may have reduced increase an area's vulnerability to additional the ability of lynx to colonize suitable habitat fragmentation (Hanski and Gilpin 1997). within Colorado, or to reach the state from potential source populations in Wyoming. For Likelihood for Supporting Lynx example, Interstate Highway 70 west of Conservation Denver passes through primary lynx habitat. Adjacent to the highway are numerous ski There are no large primary habitat patches areas, their supporting businesses, and in the Southern Rockies geographic area residential developments. The areas meeting the criteria with high likelihood for surrounding the ski developments often cater supporting lynx conservation, primarily to additional recreational activities such as reflecting the natural fragmentation occurring snowmobiling and cross country skiing. in the area. There are polygons of primary Cumulatively, these actions may contribute to habitat (with management direction increased metapopulation vulnerability emphasizing natural ecological processes) through fragmenting habitat and weakening that are within 10 km (6.25 mi) distance that landscape connections (Figure 8). meet the criteria with moderate potential for supporting lynx conservation (Figures 4 and In summary, the Southern Rockies 5). geographic area has a naturally fragmented spatial pattern of primary habitat. The Landscape Connectivity capability to maintain a metapopulation there depends on successful dispersal between The Southern Rockies geographic area habitat fragments, and potentially between represents the southern-most extension of the geographic areas. Increased fragmentation lynx geographic range. Arid desert and isolation has occurred due to cumulative environments (such as the Red Desert in impacts from highways and residential and southern Wyoming, the Green River and recreational development often tied to ski Colorado River canyons in Utah) separate the areas developed on NF lands. The capacity to Southern Rockies from the nearest potential support lynx conservation in this area has

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 74 of 149 been reduced by these activities (Figures 6 and communities and age classes across the 8). landscape under existing Plan direction. Other natural processes such as insects, disease, and Effects Within Nondevelopmental Land wind storms will contribute to the Allocations maintenance of this mosaic. Lynx foraging habitat is likely to be maintained at a level Approximately 1,357,480 acres (25 somewhat less than would be provided under percent) of the primary lynx habitat on FS and natural disturbance regimes. Denning habitat, BLM lands in this area are designated as consisting of old growth forests and nondevelopmental land allocations concentrations of downed logs resulting from (management prescriptions 1, 2 and 3 -- disturbance events, will likely be maintained wilderness, roadless, etc., see Appendix F) at or above levels that occurred historically. where natural disturbance processes may The differences from historical conditions are predominate (Figure 14). Table 3 identifies due to continued fire suppression, which which of the 15 evaluation criteria are most results in fire being allowed to play its natural applicable within the nondevelopmental land role in only a portion of these land allocations. allocations. Some human activities potentially affecting lynx, such as timber harvest, road All eight of the LRMPs and six of ten construction, recreation developments, and LUPs allow, but do not mandate, the use of motorized dispersed recreation, are generally wildland fire for resource benefits within these not expected to occur within allocations. Fire could assume a significant nondevelopmental land allocations, and role in creating a natural mosaic of vegetation therefore will not adversely affect lynx there.

Figure 14--Proportion of developmental and nondevelopmental allocations in the Southern Rockies geographic area.

S. ROCKIES

25%

75%

Nondev. Dev.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 75 of 149 Other activities, such as grazing and mining, denning habitat due to inherent climatic and may occur but are likely to occur less vegetational limitations. The NF lands overall extensively than in developmental allocations. are doing an acceptable job of maintaining Winter dispersed recreation activities, such as denning habitat due to old growth direction snowshoeing and skiing, may result in packed contained in the Plans. Denning habitat is trails that could facilitate movement of likely not limiting to lynx within the competitors and predators into lynx habitat. geographic area. No adverse effects to lynx All of the Plans allow these forms of non- denning habitat are expected from the Plans. mechanized human travel, although the roadless character of these lands constrains Foraging habitat--Foraging habitat is winter use to some extent substantially maintained in one LRMP; marginally maintained in seven LRMPs and Effects Within Developmental Land four LUPs; and not maintained in six LUPs. Allocations The small percentage of the geographic area in BLM lands may have low potential to provide The Plans provide the opportunity to habitat for foraging on snowshoe hare due to maintain lynx habitat through vegetation inherent climatic and vegetational limitations, manipulation and other land management but may provide habitat for foraging on activities within the developmental land alternate prey species such as jackrabbits. allocations (management prescriptions 4-8, BLM lands also provide the potential for see Appendix F). Conversely, potential connectivity between patches of coniferous impacts to lynx or their habitats may result habitat. Based on the questionnaire results from a number of human activities. The Plans summarized above, the ability of the Plans to were examined to determine how well they provide foraging habitat may be a limiting meet 15 evaluation criteria for maintaining factor to lynx in the geographic area. This lynx habitat and mitigating potential human criterion is carried forward as part of the impacts (refer to Methods section for details). rationale for the determination of effects. The results of this review are displayed for each administrative unit in Appendix G. A Habitat conversions--Vegetation type geographic area summary of the findings for conversions that could reduce habitat each criterion follows below. Criteria which suitability for lynx are fully precluded in four were found to potentially present a risk of LUPs, marginally precluded in three LRMPs adverse effects to lynx were carried forward and three LUPs, and are not precluded in five as part of the rationale for the determination of LRMPs and three LUPs. This practice has the effect in Chapter V. Criteria which are not potential to affect lynx foraging habitat over identified as carrying forward were found to large acreages. Type conversion in the shrub- present a discountable or insignificant risk of steppe habitat could reduce potential for adverse effects (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife foraging on alternate prey as well as Service 1998b, p. 3-13 for definitions). movement by lynx. Given the weak emphasis in Plans on avoiding this practice and the fact Denning habitat--Denning habitat is fully it could potentially occur on a large maintained in two LRMPs; substantially percentage of the geographic area (75 percent maintained in five LRMPs and one LUP; in developmental allocations), there is a risk marginally maintained in one LRMP and four that lynx could be adversely affected. This LUPs; and not maintained in five LUPs. The criterion is carried forward as part of the small percentage of the geographic area in rationale for the determination of effects. BLM lands may have low potential to provide

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 76 of 149 Thinning--Five LRMPs and two LUPs provide substantial direction; four LRMPs and include direction that would marginally four LUPs provide marginal direction; and integrate lynx habitat needs with thinning five LUPs provide no direction. While projects, while three LRMPs contain no displacement by humans does not appear to be direction, and the criterion is not applicable to a major factor in lynx ecology (Ruggiero et al. eight LUPs. With 75 percent of the in press 1999b), human access via roads may geographic area in developmental allocations, increase the mortality risk to lynx from precommercial thinning has the potential to trapping (except in Colorado where trapping is occur over a broad area. The Plans are prohibited) or shooting, as well as competition generally weak in providing compatible from other carnivores. Road-related risks are direction for thinning within lynx habitat, and primarily a winter season issue. The issue is of this activity may risk adversely affecting lynx concern on the portions of the geographic area within the geographic area. This criterion is (refer to Appendix G) with weak or no road carried forward as part of the rationale for the management direction and could be determination of effects. contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx on these units. This criterion is carried Fire management--Six LRMPs and nine forward as part of the rationale for the LUPs direct aggressive wildfire suppression, determination of effect. which would limit the creation of lynx foraging habitat through natural ecological Developed recreation--Three LRMPs provide processes. Two LRMPs and one LUP direct a direction that marginally mitigates the limited suppression approach that may help potential effects of developed recreation on maintain foraging habitat. The objective of lynx, while five LRMPs and ten LUPs provide aggressive fire suppression where resource no such direction. Major recreation values are at risk is understandable, but developments are uncommon on BLM lands nevertheless may be contributing to a risk of but present in significant numbers on NF lands adverse effects to lynx within the geographic within this geographic area. Because of the area by reducing the creation of foraging number and size of recreational developments, habitat through natural disturbance processes. coupled with the often linear nature of the This criterion is carried forward as part of the habitat, these developments pose a threat to rationale for the determination of effects. lynx in the area. Although mitigation can be developed at the project level, the prominence Landscape patterns--One LRMP contains of this type of activity within the Southern substantial direction for providing landscape Rocky Mountains suggests that it would also vegetation patterns that would maintain lynx be advantageous to address it foraging and denning habitats; seven LRMPs programmatically at the Plan level. Since and one LUP provide marginal direction; and most existing Plans are weak with respect to nine LUPs provide no direction. This guidance for developed recreation, these generally weak direction is of concern in a activities may risk adversely affecting lynx in geographic area where habitats tend to be this geographic area. This criterion is carried naturally fragmented, and could be forward as part of the rationale for the contributing to a risk of adverse effects on determination of effect. lynx. This criterion is carried forward as part of the rationale for the determination of effect. Non-winter dispersed recreation--One LRMP contains direction that fully mitigates Forest roads--One LRMP provides direction the effects of non-winter dispersed recreation pertaining to roads that fully helps promote on lynx; two LRMPs and one LUP lynx recovery; three LRMPs and one LUP substantially mitigate these effects; three

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 77 of 149 LRMPs and one LUP marginally mitigate the Habitat connectivity--Two LRMPs contain effects; and two LRMPs and eight LUPs direction that substantially mitigates the contain no mitigation. The mitigation relates effects of movement barriers or maintains to mechanized off-road vehicles rather than to lynx habitat connectivity at the administrative foot travel. Non-winter dispersed recreation unit scale. Two LRMPs contain direction that may not be an adverse effect on lynx within marginally addresses these issues, while four the geographic area because lynx do not LRMPs and ten LUPs contain no such appear to be highly susceptible to direction. Connectivity is a major concern in displacement by humans (Ruggiero et al. in this geographic area due to the naturally press 1999b). Plans generally provide for fragmented landscape and the relatively high adequate and widely distributed denning level of human developments. Highways, ski habitat in the geographic area. Therefore, no areas, and other developments may be locally adverse effects from non-winter dispersed affecting lynx movements (refer to Figure 9 recreation could be identified. for an example.) Weak riparian guidance in some portions of the geographic area may Winter dispersed recreation--Three LRMPs contribute to connectivity concerns. The contains direction that substantially mitigates overall weakness of the Plans in addressing the effects of winter dispersed recreation on connectivity issues potentially contributes to a lynx; two LRMPs contain direction that risk of adverse effects to lynx. This criterion marginally mitigates these effects; and three is carried forward as part of the rationale for LRMPs and ten LUPs contain no such the determination of effect. direction. The mitigation relates to mechanized over-snow vehicles only. No Land tenure adjustments--Five LRMPs and Plans limit winter foot travel by snowshoes or two LUPs contain direction that would skis. These activities may potentially marginally maintain or improve lynx habitat contribute to a risk of adverse effects on lynx through land tenure adjustments, while three within the geographic area. This criterion is LRMPs and eight LUPs contain no direction. carried forward as part of the rationale for the Although direction contained in the Plans is determination of effect. weak, land adjustments are limited in scope and relatively low in number, and are Minerals and energy development--Four therefore not likely to present an impact to LRMPs contain direction that would lynx habitat at a programmatic level within the substantially mitigate the effects of minerals geographic area. Effects on lynx would and energy development on lynx; two LRMPs normally be assessed at the project level and and two LUPs marginally mitigate these mitigated appropriately. Some adverse effects effects; and two LRMPs and eight LUPs may occur at the project level, for example the contain no mitigation. These activities are exchange of federal lands at the base of ski relatively common in the southern Rockies areas for private commercial or residential geographic area. Specific mitigation for such development. These project level effects are activities is often developed at the project beyond the scope of this analysis. No level. The overall weakness of the Plans with evidence was found to indicate that Plan respect to these activities does not necessarily direction may be contributing to adverse mean that adverse effects to lynx will occur. effects to lynx. Some adverse effects may occur at the project level, but these are beyond the scope of this Management coordination--Four LRMPs analysis. No evidence was found to indicate and one LUP contain marginal direction for that Plan direction may be contributing to a coordinating issues that may affect lynx with risk of adverse effects to lynx. nearby administrative units or other agencies,

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 78 of 149 while four LRMPs and eight LUPs contain no adverse affects to lynx. Those criteria are: direction. Management coordination may be foraging habitat, habitat conversions, especially important in this geographic area of thinning, fire management, landscape mixed ownerships and naturally fragmented patterns, forest roads, developed recreation, landscapes. The weakness of Plans in this winter dispersed recreation, habitat regard may contribute to a risk of adverse connectivity, management coordination, and effects on lynx. This criterion carries forward monitoring. These findings of likely adverse as part of the rationale for the determination of effects are carried forward as part of the effects. rationale contributing to the determination of effect in Chapter V. The ratings for all 15 Monitoring--One LRMP contains substantial criteria are presented in Appendix G. direction for monitoring of lynx, snowshoe hares, or their habitats; two LRMPs contain Additional Considerations, Including marginal direction; and five LRMPs and ten Cumulative Effects LUPs contain no direction. While failure to monitor does not directly cause adverse Climatic and geomorphic factors play a effects, it does result in any adverse effects key role in determining lynx habitat in this being difficult to identify and assess. This geographic area. The drier climate makes criterion is carried forward as part of the habitat generally less productive than most rationale for the determination of effect. other geographic areas. The habitat here also consists of a naturally fragmented landscape In summary, NF units account for the composed of timbered mountain ranges majority of primary lynx habitat in the capped by rock and tundra, and separated by Southern Rocky Mountains geographic area; shrub-dominated valleys. FS and BLM lands 4,987,000 acres or 76 percent. BLM units tend to be located within these two types of account for 349,000 acres or 5 percent of habitat, respectively. The Southern Rockies primary lynx habitat in the Southern Rocky may not be connected to lynx habitats farther Mountains. Table 6 summarizes the ratings to the north due to the intervening Red Desert for the 11 evaluation criteria for which Plan in Wyoming and the Green River and direction was found to present a risk of Colorado deserts of Utah and western

Table 6--Summary ratings for the eleven criteria contributing to a risk of risk of adverse effects to lynx in the Southern Rocky Mountains geographic area.

FS (76% of Primary Habitat) BLM (5% of Primary Habitat) Ratings1/ Number Percent Number Percent F 3 3 0 - S 11 11 4 4 M 52 54 18 16 N 31 32 60 53 U 0 - 1 1 NA 0 - 30 26 Total 97 100 113 100

1/ The methods section of this chapter describes how evaluation criteria were developed and what the individual rating codes represent.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 79 of 149 Colorado (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). percent) are identified as primary lynx habitat. Maintenance of regional-scale habitat National Forest System lands comprise 19 connectivity is, therefore, perhaps more percent of the primary habitat in the important to lynx conservation in this geographic area, and the remaining 81 geographic area than any other. Generally, the percent is in other ownerships (Figure 15). Plans are weak in providing for this need. Risk Factors Recreational developments, vegetation management, and grazing practices may The Interim LCAS identifies the following contribute to loss of connectivity on federal risk factors to lynx in this geographic area: lands. Additional cumulative effects include management practices on private lands and • Timber management that converts numerous highways and other human cover type from conifer to hardwoods, developments. High winter dispersed reducing habitat quality for prey recreation use may also present a risk of species, reducing mature forests adverse effects in this geographic area in needed for denning, and making terms of facilitating movement of lynx habitat more favorable for competitors competitors and predators. • Fire exclusion that changes the vegetation mosaic maintained by d. Great Lakes Geographic Area natural disturbance processes • The Great Lakes geographic area includes Roads and winter recreation trails that six National Forests and no BLM facilitate access to historical lynx administrative units (see Appendix A). The habitat by competitors net acreage covered by these units is • Incidental trapping and shooting 6,148,000 acres, of which 4,459,000 acres (72 • Predation

Figure 15--Land ownership of primary habitat in the Great Lakes geographic area.

GREAT LAKES

19%

0%

81%

FS BLM OTHER

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 80 of 149 • Being hit by vehicles Canadian border to facilitate lynx movements. • Obstructions to movements such as Quetico Provincial Park, Ontario, adjoins the highways, agricultural lands, and ice- Boundary Waters area and functionally breaking associated with the St. enlarges the size of this conservation area Mary's River shipping corridor (Figure 6). Smaller primary habitat patches • Habitat conversion through within 10 km (6.25 mi) of each other, with management direction emphasizing natural agricultural and urban development ecological processes, adjoin the Boundary Waters area and provide moderate potential Spatial Patterns in Primary Lynx Habitat for supporting lynx conservation (Figure 6). Primary habitat in the Great Lakes geographic area is displayed as a continuous The western portion of the Ottawa NF expanse of boreal forest (with interspersed contains enough smaller primary habitat hardwoods and bogs) surrounding Lake patches within 10 km (6.25 mi) of each other, that aggregate to meet the 1800 km2 (695 Superior in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, 2 and the upper peninsula of Michigan (Figure mi ) criteria, to warrant consideration as an 4). This is partly the result of primary habitat area with potential to support lynx being broadly mapped as a Bailey's conservation. However, current Plan direction subsection, which contains inclusions of non- within these primary habitat patches is not habitat. In reality, with the exception of the oriented towards lynx conservation. area in and around Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, primary habitat is more Remaining patches of federal land are fragmented than depicted. This is due to these either too small or too isolated to likely non-habitat inclusions and habitat conversion support lynx conservation without resulting from agricultural and residential coordinating efforts with the surrounding development, as well as forest type conversion private and other non-federal landowners. from preferred to less desirable forest cover Maintaining connectivity between areas with types (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). In potentially higher likelihood for supporting addition, scattered primary habitat occurs in lynx conservation on the Ottawa and Superior central Wisconsin and the lower peninsula of NFs may be a key to future conservation Michigan. efforts in this geographic area.

The six NFs in this geographic area are not In summary, Plan direction supports high contiguous. Most primary habitat occurs on potential for lynx conservation in the non-federal lands surrounding the National Boundary Waters area, but also contains Forests, ensuring that state, county and private management direction dissimilar to natural lands will have an important influence on lynx ecological processes in much of the remaining conservation efforts. Great Lakes geographic area. There is sufficient federal land in primary habitat on Likelihood for Supporting Lynx the Ottawa NF with higher potential to Conservation support lynx conservation, but current management direction is not oriented towards Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness lynx habitat management (Figures 5 and 6). on the Superior NF has the combination of factors with the highest potential for Landscape Connectivity supporting lynx conservation in the Great Lakes geographic area (see Methods section). Boreal habitat in the Great Lakes This area is strategically located along the geographic area is connected in northern

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 81 of 149 Minnesota with extensive similar habitats in having the highest capability to support lynx Canada. Frequent lynx movements have been conservation. Federal lands are isolated by documented between northern Minnesota and private, county, and state lands; therefore, Canada (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). The connectivity will be strongly influenced by closest connection between Canadian source actions on non-federal lands. populations and upper Michigan occurs along the St Mary's River linking Lake Effects Within Nondevelopmental Land Superior and Lake Huron. Dispersal is more Allocations likely to occur during winter when lynx could cross the frozen river. Historically, the Approximately 1,828,000 acres (41 expanse of primary habitat within the Great percent) of the primary lynx habitat on FS Lakes geographic area was more continuous lands in this area are designated as than current conditions, and it provided nondevelopmental land allocations stronger landscape connections. (management prescriptions 1, 2 and 3 -- wilderness, roadless, etc., see Appendix F) Factors Potentially Affecting Lynx where natural disturbance processes may Movements predominate (Figure 16). Table 3 identifies which of the 15 evaluation criteria are most Movement capability between Canadian applicable within the nondevelopmental land source populations and the Great Lakes allocations geographic area is likely strongest along the adjoining Boundary Waters/Quetico Only one of six LRMPs allows the use of Provincial Park area. Lynx movements across wildland fire for resource benefits within these the St. Mary's River are currently impeded by allocations, and therefore, fire is unlikely to the extended Great Lakes shipping season fully assume its natural role in creating a which maintains an open river channel during mosaic of vegetation communities and age winter (Ruediger et al. in press 1999) (Figure classes across the landscape. Escaped fires 8). and other natural processes such as insects and Habitat connectivity within the geographic wind storms likely will maintain this mosaic area has been reduced by the following to some degree. Lynx foraging habitat is factors: conversion from forest to agricultural likely to be maintained at a level somewhat lands in northern Wisconsin and central and less than would be provided under natural eastern upper Michigan, and the extensive disturbance regimes. Denning habitat will be network of highways (Ruediger et al. in press maintained at a somewhat higher level than 1999). Maintaining connectivity between the occurred historically due to forest succession larger patches of primary habitat on the toward old growth and concentrations of Ottawa and Superior NFs may be dependent downed logs created by disturbance events. on compatible management on the intervening non-federal lands (Figure 7). The differences from historical conditions are due to strong fire suppression direction in In summary, there are additional the Plans, resulting in fire not being allowed to impediments affecting lynx movements, and play its natural role in the ecosystems. Some potential breaks in landscape connections human activities potentially affecting lynx, within the region, and between upper such as timber harvest, road construction, Michigan and Canada, compared to the recreation developments, and motorized historical condition. A strong link with dispersed recreation, are generally not Canadian source populations remains in expected to occur within nondevelopmental northern Minnesota, coincident with this area land allocations, and therefore will not

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 82 of 149

Figure 16--Proportion of developmental and nondevelopmental allocations in the Great Lakes geographic area.

GREAT LAKES

41%

59%

Nondev. Dev.

adversely affect lynx there. Other activities, they meet the 15 evaluation criteria with such as grazing and mining, may occur but are respect to maintaining lynx habitat and likely to occur less extensively than in mitigating potential human impacts (refer to developmental allocations. Winter dispersed Methods section for details). The results of recreation activities, such as snowshoeing and this review are displayed for each skiing, may result in packed trails that could administrative unit in Appendix G. A facilitate movement of competitors and geographic area summary of the findings for predators into lynx habitat. All of the Plans each criterion follows below. Criteria which allow these forms of non-mechanized human were found to potentially present a risk of travel, although the roadless character of these adverse effect to lynx were carried forward as lands limits winter use to some extent. part of the rationale for the determination of effect in Chapter V. Criteria which are not Effects Within Developmental Land identified as carrying forward were found to Allocations present a discountable or insignificant risk of adverse effects (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife The Plans provide the opportunity to Service 1998b, p. 3-13 for definitions). maintain lynx habitat through vegetation manipulation and other land management Denning habitat--Denning habitat is activities within the developmental land substantially maintained on the one NF with allocations (management prescriptions 4-8, the largest component of wilderness and is see Appendix F). Conversely, potential marginally maintained on the remaining five impacts to lynx or their habitats may result NFs as a result of weak old growth from a number of human activities. The Plans management direction. The lack of additional were examined to determine how well direction to provide denning habitat coupled

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 83 of 149 with the high percentage of the geographic Thinning--Two LRMPs include direction that area in developmental allocations (65 percent) would marginally integrate lynx habitat needs may result in a risk of adverse effects to lynx with timber stand thinning projects; three within this geographic area. This criterion is LRMPs contain no direction; and thinning is carried forward as part of the rationale for the not applicable on one NF. Overall, thinning determination of effect. does not appear to be as large an issue in this geographic area as in most others. This is Foraging habitat--Foraging habitat is mainly due to the preponderance of seral marginally maintained on all six NFs. aspen and birch stands resulting from Historical timber harvest practices converted historical type conversions. Thinning could forests to less suitable types on a broad scale, become an important factor in the future if and practices prescribed in the Plans tend to coniferous forests were restored to their perpetuate this condition over much of the historical levels. At this time, Plan direction geographic area. While sufficient foraging regarding thinning does not appear to present habitat exists to support a snowshoe hare a risk of adverse effects to lynx in the population, it may not be adequate to support geographic area. an expanding lynx population, especially in light of competition from other carnivores. Fire management--Five of the six LRMPs The preponderance of aspen and birch in the direct aggressive wildfire suppression, which geographic area is also not conducive to high would limit the creation of lynx foraging populations of red squirrels as an alternate habitat through natural ecological processes. prey species. Weak Plan direction to provide The remaining LRMP contains flexibility to conditions suitable for lynx foraging may risk base fire management decisions on an area- adversely affecting the species in the specific basis, thus marginally meeting this geographic area. This criterion is carried criterion. Restoration of fire to the forward as part of the rationale for the ecosystems would become a more important determination of effect. factor if historical forest composition and structure were restored. Under current Habitat conversions--Vegetation type conditions, fire management direction in the conversions that could reduce habitat Plans does not appear to be presenting a risk suitability for lynx are not precluded by of adverse effects to lynx. LRMP direction on five NFs and are marginally precluded on the remaining one. Landscape patterns--All six LRMPs provide This activity potentially reduces foraging direction that marginally results in landscape habitat for lynx; however, much of the lynx vegetation patterns that would maintain lynx habitat in the area was historically converted foraging and denning habitats. This weak to less desirable seral types. Direction to direction is typically in the form of guidance restore historical vegetation patterns, either for timber harvest unit sizes, shapes, and actively through management or passively spacing, and old growth distribution through succession, would be beneficial to requirements. Weak direction to maintain lynx if it existed in the Plans. Given the vegetation patterns suitable for lynx habitat current vegetation conditions in the may be contributing to a risk of adverse geographic area, type conversions from more effects to lynx in the area. This criterion is desirable to less desirable habitats is not an carried forward as part of the rationale for the issue in this geographic area. No adverse determination of effect. effects resulting from this practice were identified. Forest roads--Three LRMPs provide direction pertaining to roads that substantially

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 84 of 149 helps promote lynx recovery, while the other but should help to limit the effects of three LRMPs contain marginal direction. competitors travelling on packed trails within Although displacement by humans does not lynx habitat in winter on these units. The appear to be a major factor in lynx ecology remaining four LRMPs contain no measures (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999b), human access to help mitigate these effects. Both via roads may increase the mortality risk to mechanized and non-mechanized winter lynx from incidental trapping or shooting, as recreation may locally risk adversely affecting well as increased competition from other lynx in this geographic area. This criterion is carnivores. Road-related effects are primarily carried forward as part of the rationale for the a winter season concern. This criterion is determination of effect. carried forward as part of the rationale for the determination of effect. Minerals and energy development--One LRMP contains direction that would mitigate Developed recreation--None of the six the effects of minerals and energy LRMPs provides direction that mitigates the development on lynx. The remaining LRMPs potential effects of developed recreation on contain no such direction. These activities are lynx. However, major recreation not common on federal lands in the developments such as large ski areas or resorts geographic area, but where they do occur, are not common in this geographic area. specific mitigation is generally developed at Effects to lynx from existing Plan direction the project level. These activities are judged regarding recreation developments are judged to be a low risk of adversely affecting lynx to be insignificant in the geographic area. within the geographic area.

Non-winter dispersed recreation--One Habitat connectivity--Three LRMPs contain LRMP contains direction that substantially direction that marginally mitigates the effects mitigates the effects of non-winter dispersed of movement barriers or maintains lynx recreation on lynx; two LRMPs marginally habitat connectivity at the administrative unit mitigate; and three LRMPs contain no scale. The remaining three LRMPs contain no mitigation. The mitigation relates to direction. Maintenance of connectivity is mechanized off-road vehicles rather than to especially important in this geographic area foot travel. This activity presents a low risk of due to fragmented habitats and the non- adverse effects to lynx within the geographic contiguous nature of federal lands. Riparian area due to season of use and the tolerance of guidance in the Plans is adequate from a lynx to human disturbance (Ruggiero et al. in connectivity standpoint in this geographic press 1999b). The exception may be near area. Poor habitat connectivity resulting from denning sites (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). fragmented land ownerships, and movement Availability of denning habitat is an issue in barriers such as highways, may risk adversely the geographic area. However, since no affecting lynx in this geographic area. This existing denning sites are presently known in criterion is carried forward as part of the the area, no adverse effects from Plan rationale for the determination of effect. direction regarding non-winter dispersed recreation could be identified. Land tenure adjustments--One LRMP contains substantial direction that would Winter dispersed recreation--Two LRMPs maintain or improve lynx habitat through land contain direction that substantially mitigates tenure adjustments. Three LRMPs contain the effects of winter dispersed recreation on marginal direction, and two LRMPs contain lynx. This mitigation relates to mechanized no direction. Although direction contained in over-snow vehicles rather than to foot travel, the Plans is weak, land adjustments are limited

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 85 of 149 in scope and low in number, and are therefore This criterion is carried forward as part of the not likely to present an impact to lynx habitat rationale for the determination of effect. at a programmatic level within the geographic area. Effects on lynx would normally be In summary, NF units account for all the assessed at the project level and mitigated federally-managed primary lynx habitat in the appropriately. Some adverse effects could Great Lakes geographic area; 4,459,000 acres occur at the project level but these are beyond or 19 percent. BLM units account for none of the scope of this analysis. No evidence was primary lynx habitat in the Great Lakes. Table found to indicate that Plan direction may be 7 summarizes the ratings for the eight contributing to a risk of adverse effects to evaluation criteria for which Plan direction lynx. was found to present a risk of adverse affects to lynx. Those criteria are: denning habitat, Management coordination--Two LRMPs foraging habitat, landscape patterns, forest contain marginal direction for coordinating roads, winter dispersed recreation, habitat issues that may affect lynx with nearby connectivity, management coordination, and administrative units or other agencies. The monitoring. These findings of likely adverse remaining LRMPs contain no direction. effects are carried forward as part of the Coordination with adjacent landowners is rationale contributing to the determination of critical in the fragmented habitats within this effect in Chapter V. The ratings for all 15 geographic area, and inadequate direction for criteria are presented in Appendix G. doing so could risk adversely affecting lynx. This criterion is carried forward as part of the Additional Considerations, Including rationale for the determination of effect. Cumulative Effects

Monitoring--Three LRMPs contain marginal This geographic area consists of six non- direction for monitoring of lynx, snowshoe contiguous NFs surrounded by private lands hares, or their habitats, while the remaining and other non-federal ownerships. NF lands three LRMPs contain no such direction. While are a minor percentage of the total geographic failure to monitor does not directly cause area but may be a significant proportion of the adverse effects, it does result in any adverse lands capable of supporting lynx. It is effects being difficult to identify and assess.

Table 7--Summary ratings for the eight criteria contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx in the Great Lakes geographic area.

FS (19% of Primary Habitat) BLM (0% of Primary Habitat) Ratings1/ Number Percent Number Percent F 0 - 0 - S 6 13 0 - M 28 58 0 - N 14 29 0 - U 0 - 0 - NA 0 - 0 - Total 48 100 0 -

1/ The methods section of this chapter describes how evaluation criteria were developed and what the individual rating codes represent.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 86 of 149 unlikely that a persistent lynx population coniferous foraging and denning habitat could be maintained on the NF lands alone. within an interconnected mosaic across the However, this likelihood could be increased landscape may be a limiting habitat factor. by instituting compatible management on the Recovery of habitats from historical interspersed non-federal lands and by widespread logging and type conversions has maintaining connectivity between the NFs and not occurred. Human influences resulting in with lynx habitat in Canada. mortality risk from incidental trapping or shooting, highway collisions, and facilitation Provisions for habitat connectivity are of movement of competitors on packed winter presently weak in the LRMPs and virtually recreation trails and plowed roads could also non-existent in surrounding non-federal lands. limit lynx recovery in the area. Likewise, connectivity with Canada is tenuous in parts of the geographic area due to barriers e. Northeast Geographic Area such as the St. Mary's River (which no longer freezes at historical intervals due to ice- The Northeast geographic area includes breaking activities), agricultural development, two NFs and no BLM administrative units urban growth, and highways. (see Appendix A). The net area covered by these units is 1,096,454 acres, all of which are Highways may pose an important direct identified as primary lynx habitat. National mortality threat to lynx in this geographic area Forest System lands comprise 7 percent of the as well as impeding movements. Within the primary habitat in the geographic area, and NFs, appropriate direction for vegetation the remaining 93 percent is in other management that would provide the needed ownerships (Figure 17).

Figure 17--Land ownership of primary habitat in the Northeast geographic area.

NEW ENGLAND

7% 0%

93% FS BLM OTHER

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 87 of 149 Risk Factors Likelihood for Supporting Lynx Conservation The LCAS identifies the following risk factors to lynx in this geographic area: There are no federal lands in the Northeast geographic area meeting the criteria • Timber management that converts for providing high likelihood for supporting cover type or reduces foraging habitat lynx conservation. The Green Mountain NF • Roads and winter recreation trails that does not appear to have a sufficient landbase size to meet the 1800 km2 (695 mi2) area facilitate access to historical lynx criteria associated with high support levels. habitat by competitors • The White Mountain NF has sufficient Incidental trapping and shooting primary habitat to potentially meet the • Predation minimum size criteria, but current • Being hit by vehicles management direction is not oriented • Obstructions to movements such as specifically toward lynx. Most polygons of highways, agricultural lands, and the primary habitat are within 10 km (6.25 mi) of St. Lawrence River shipping lane each other (Figure 5). • Habitat conversion through agricultural and urban development In summary, Plan direction calls for a large amount of the landscape to be managed Spatial Patterns in Primary Lynx Habitat in a manner dissimilar to natural ecological processes. Considering the large proportion of Most primary habitat in the Northeast private and state lands in the Northeast, NFs geographic area occurs on state and private contain some of the best opportunities to lands (Figure 3). Primary habitat on the Green provide for lynx conservation, but whether Mountain and White Mountain NFs generally lynx persist on, or recolonize, federal lands occur at the higher elevations of their will likely hinge on landscape connectivity on respective mountain ranges. A population of non-federal lands supporting lynx movements lynx in the Northeast geographic area is (Figures 4 and 5). unlikely to persist on NF lands alone. Landscape Connectivity Primary habitat in the Northeast Historically, primary habitat in the geographic area is displayed as large patches Northeast was connected with more extensive of continuous boreal forest (with primary habitat and lynx source populations in interspersed hardwoods and bogs) (Figure 3). Quebec and New Brunswick (Litvaitis et al. This is partly the result of primary habitat 1991). Linkage with Canadian source being broadly mapped as a Bailey's populations is a key factor supporting lynx subsection, which contains inclusions of non- conservation. Patches of isolated primary habitat. In reality, the spatial pattern of habitat were embedded within a forest matrix primary habitat is more fragmented than supporting lynx movements. depicted. This is due to these non-habitat inclusions and habitat conversion resulting Factors Potentially Affecting Lynx from agricultural and residential development, Movements as well as forest type conversion from preferred to less desirable forest cover types Primary habitat within the Northeast (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). geographic area has been increasingly

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 88 of 149 fragmented and isolated by a combination of conservation, but activities on non-federal factors including: an extensive network of lands will be critical to maintaining a paved roads with high volume traffic, population of lynx in this region (Figure 5). conversion of forest lands to agricultural lands, urban growth, and extensive residential Effects Within Nondevelopmental Land development. For example, a lynx moving 96 Allocations km (60 mi) from the White Mountain NF to the Green Mountain NF would have to cross Approximately 244,000 acres (23 percent) Interstate Highways 89, 91 and 93 (Figures 6 of the primary lynx habitat on FS lands in this and 7). area are designated as nondevelopmental land allocations (management prescriptions 1, 2 Connectivity with Canadian source and 3 --wilderness, roadless, etc., see populations has been adversely affected by Appendix F) where natural disturbance habitat conversion on either side of the St. processes may predominate (Figure 18). Table Lawrence Seaway, combined with the use of 3 identifies which of the 15 evaluation criteria ice-breakers which preclude the formation of are most applicable within the ice bridges across the Seaway (Litvaitis et al. nondevelopmental land allocations. Neither 1991). LRMP allows the use of wildland fire for resource benefits within these allocations, and In summary, the likelihood of supporting therefore, fire is unlikely to fully assume its lynx conservation in the Northeast geographic natural role in creating a mosaic of vegetation area is low. Actions on NF lands are communities and age classes across the potentially important for providing areas with landscape. Escaped fires and other natural a higher potential to support lynx processes such as insects, disease, and wind

Figure 18--Proportion of developmental and nondevelopmental allocations in the Northeast geographic area.

NEW ENGLAND

23%

77%

Nondev. Dev.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 89 of 149 storms likely will maintain this mosaic to geographic area summary of the findings for some degree. Lynx foraging habitat is likely to each criterion follows below. Criteria which be maintained at a level somewhat less than were found to potentially present a risk of would be provided under natural disturbance adverse effects to lynx were carried forward regimes. Denning habitat will be maintained at as part of the rationale for the determination of a somewhat higher level than occurred effect in Chapter V. Criteria which are not historically due to forest succession toward identified as carrying forward were found to old growth and concentrations of downed logs present a discountable or insignificant risk of created by disturbance events. The differences adverse effects (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife from historical conditions are due to strong Service 1998b, p. 3-13 for definitions). fire suppression direction in the Plans, resulting in fire not being allowed to play its Denning habitat--Denning habitat is fully natural role in the ecosystems. Some human maintained on one of the two NFs through a activities potentially affecting lynx, such as comprehensive old growth retention strategy. timber harvest, road construction, recreation Denning habitat is marginally maintained on developments, and motorized dispersed the other NF as a result of less explicit old recreation, are generally not expected to occur growth retention guidelines. Overall, denning within nondevelopmental land allocations, and habitat may be adequately maintained on NF therefore will not adversely affect lynx there. lands within the geographic area considering Other activities, such as grazing and mining, both developmental and nondevelopment may occur but are likely to occur less management allocations. The Plans are extensively than in developmental allocations. judged to not be contributing to adverse Winter dispersed recreation activities, such effects to lynx with respect to denning habitat. as snowshoeing and skiing, may result in packed trails that could facilitate movement of Foraging habitat--Foraging habitat is competitors and predators into lynx habitat. marginally maintained on both NFs through All of the Plans allow these forms of non- vegetation manipulation activities and natural mechanized human travel, although the disturbances. There is a risk that lynx may be roadless character of these lands constrains adversely affected on these Forests by an winter use to some extent. inadequate strategy and direction to provide needed foraging habitat for lynx. This Effects Within Developmental Land criterion is carried forward as part of the Allocations rationale for the determination of effect.

The Plans provide the opportunity to Habitat conversions--Vegetation type maintain lynx habitat through vegetation conversions that could reduce habitat manipulation and other land management suitability for lynx are not precluded by activities within the developmental land LRMP direction on one NF and are marginally allocations (management prescriptions 4-8, precluded on the other NF. This activity may see Appendix F). Conversely, potential potentially reduce foraging habitat for lynx, impacts to lynx or their habitats may result and thus contribute to a risk of adverse effects. from a number of human activities. The Plans This criterion is carried forward as part of the were examined to determine how well they rationale for the determination of effect. meet 15 evaluation criteria for maintaining lynx habitat and mitigating potential human Thinning--Neither LRMP includes direction impacts (refer to Methods section for details). to programmatically integrate lynx habitat The results of this review are displayed for needs with timber stand thinning projects. each administrative unit in Appendix G. A Thus this activity may potentially contribute to

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 90 of 149 a risk of adverse effects to lynx by reducing potential effects of developed recreation on foraging habitat. This criterion is carried lynx, while the other LRMP contains no such forward as part of the rationale for the direction. Large recreation developments are determination of effect. moderately abundant on federal and other land ownerships within the geographic area. Given Fire management--Both LRMPs direct the fragmented nature of habitat in the aggressive wildfire suppression programs that Northeast area, further fragmentation and would limit the creation of lynx foraging habitat loss due to recreation developments habitat through natural ecological processes. could contribute to a risk of adverse effects to This aggressive strategy, while understandable lynx at the individual and subpopulation in a highly developed area, may be levels. Due to the weak guidance in the Plans contributing to a risk of adverse effects on with respect to developed recreation, this lynx habitat. This criterion is carried forward criterion is carried forward as part of the as part of the rationale for the determination of rationale for the determination of effect. effect. Non-winter dispersed recreation--Both Landscape patterns--One LRMP contains LRMPs contain direction that was judged to little or no direction to provide landscape fully mitigate the effects of non-winter vegetation patterns that would maintain lynx dispersed recreation on lynx. This mitigation foraging and denning habitats. The other relates to mechanized off-road vehicles rather LRMP provides substantial direction for than to foot travel. Non-winter dispersed maintaining such patterns. Providing an recreation may not be presenting a risk of appropriate mosaic of habitats across the adverse effects on lynx within the geographic landscape is a critical issue within the area because lynx do not appear to be highly geographic area due to fragmented land susceptible to displacement by humans ownerships and resultant habitat (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999b). The fragmentation. Federal lands may be exception may be near denning sites contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx (Ruediger et al. in press 1999). Plan direction on at least one of the NFs in the geographic appears adequate to address this issue, and no area. This criterion is carried forward as part adverse effects are anticipated. of the rationale for the determination of effect. Winter dispersed recreation--Both LRMPs Forest roads--One LRMP provides direction contain direction that was judged to pertaining to roads that marginally helps substantially mitigate the effects of winter promote lynx recovery, while the other LRMP dispersed recreation on lynx. This mitigation contains no direction. While displacement by relates to mechanized over-snow vehicles humans does not appear to be a major factor in rather than to foot travel, but should help to lynx ecology (Ruggiero et al. in press 1999b), limit the effects of competitors travelling on unlimited human access via roads may packed trails within lynx habitat in winter on increase the mortality risk to lynx from these units. Non-mechanized winter incidental trapping or shooting, as well as recreation may locally risk adversely affecting competition from other carnivores. Road- lynx in this geographic area. This criterion is related effects are primarily a winter season carried forward as part of the rationale for the issue. This criterion is carried forward as part determination of effect. of the rationale for the determination of effect. Minerals and energy development--Neither Developed recreation--One LRMP provides LRMP contains direction that would mitigate direction that marginally mitigates the the effects of minerals and energy

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 91 of 149 development on lynx. These activities are not This criterion is carried forward as part of the common on federal lands, but where they do rationale for the determination of effect. occur, mitigation is generally developed at the project level. These activities present a low Monitoring--Both LRMPs contain substantial risk of adversely affecting lynx within the direction for monitoring of lynx, snowshoe geographic area. hares, or their habitats, and no adverse effects relative to monitoring are anticipated. Habitat connectivity--Neither LRMP contains direction that mitigates the effects of In summary, NF units account for the movement barriers or maintains lynx habitat majority of primary lynx habitat in the connectivity at the administrative unit scale. Northeast geographic area; 1,096,454 acres or Habitat connectivity is a critical issue in this 7 percent. BLM units account for none of geographic area due to fragmented land primary lynx habitat in Northeast. Table 8 ownerships and habitats. Weak riparian summarizes the ratings for the ten evaluation management direction contributes to criteria for which Plan direction was found to connectivity concerns in this geographic area. present a risk of adverse affects to lynx. Fragmented habitats and movement barriers Those criteria are: foraging habitat, habitat such as highways may also risk adversely conversion, thinning, fire management, affecting lynx in the Northeast. This criterion landscape patterns, forest roads, developed is carried forward as part of the rationale for recreation, winter dispersed recreation, the determination of effect. habitat connectivity, and management coordination. These findings of likely Land tenure adjustments--Neither LRMP adverse effects are carried forward as part of contains direction that would maintain or the rationale contributing to the determination improve lynx habitat through land tenure of effect in Chapter V. The ratings for all 15 adjustments. Mitigation for land adjustments criteria are presented in Appendix G. is generally provided at the project analysis level. Although direction contained in the Additional Considerations, Including Plans is weak, land adjustments are limited in Cumulative Effects scope and low in number, and therefore are not likely to present an impact to lynx habitat This geographic area consists of two non- at a programmatic level within the geographic contiguous NFs surrounded by private lands area. Effects on lynx would normally be and other non-federal ownerships. NF lands assessed at the project level and mitigated are a minor percentage of the total geographic appropriately. Some adverse effects may area. These factors likely make it impossible occur at the project level but these are beyond to maintain a persistent lynx population on the the scope of this analysis. No evidence was NF lands alone. Management that is found to indicate that Plan direction may be compatible with lynx habitat needs would be contributing to adverse effects to lynx. necessary on much of the interspersed non- federal lands to achieve lynx recovery, yet Management coordination--Neither LRMP there is presently little, if any, direction for contains specific direction for coordinating such management. Connectivity between issues that may affect lynx with nearby patches of suitable lynx habitat at the administrative units or other agencies. landscape scale would be essential for a Coordination with adjacent landowners is persistent lynx population. Provisions for critical in the fragmented habitats within this habitat connectivity are weak in the two geographic area, and inadequate direction for LRMPs and virtually non-existent in doing so could risk adversely affecting lynx.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 92 of 149 surrounding non-federal lands. Likewise, it (Brocke et al. 1990). Within the National appears connectivity with lynx habitats and Forests in this geographic area, appropriate populations in Canada may be crucial to lynx direction for vegetation management that survival in this geographic area; however, this would provide the needed foraging and connectivity is tenuous due to barriers such as denning habitat within an interconnected the St. Lawrence Seaway, agricultural mosaic across the landscape seems to be a development, urban growth, and highways. limiting habitat factor. High human Highways pose an important direct mortality populations, with the associated mortality risk threat to lynx in this geographic area. from incidental trapping or shooting resulting Eighteen of 37 mortalities of translocated lynx from a largely uncontrolled road system, could were attributed to vehicle collisions in an also limit lynx recovery in the area. unsuccessful New York reintroduction

Table 8--Summary ratings for the ten criteria contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx in the Northeast geographic area.

FS (7% of Primary Habitat) BLM (0% of Primary Habitat) Ratings1/ Number Percent Number Percent F 0 - 0 - S 3 15 0 - M 8 40 0 - N 9 45 0 - U 0 - 0 - NA 0 - 0 - Total 20 100 0 -

1/ The methods section of this chapter describes how evaluation criteria were developed and what the individual rating codes represent.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 93 of 149 3. Effects at the Distinct Population geographic area. Maintaining a persistent Segment Scale population will be challenging in this area and dependent on maintaining landscape linkages Similar to the accumulation of primarily within the geographic area itself. administrative unit scale effects, the effects identified at the geographic area scale The Cascades geographic area has a accumulate upward to the broader scale of the spatial distribution of primary habitat that distinct population segment (16 state historical extends down the length of the Cascades range of lynx). The following section Range. The largest population of lynx would summarizes these effects and presents occur in the North Cascades, coinciding with additional effects that are operational only at the widest distribution of primary habitat and this scale. strongest connection with Canada. As the distribution of habitat narrows in southern Large Scale Landscape Analysis Oregon, population levels can be expected to Maintaining demographic links between be lower. In comparison to historical times, the distinct population segment and Canadian there are additional impediments to lynx source populations is critical to lynx movements. The Oregon Cascades is conservation in the conterminous U.S. vulnerable to breaks in connectivity from potential source populations in the Neither the Great Lakes geographic area Washington Cascades and the Northern nor the Northeast geographic area link with Rockies. As a result, the capability of the any of the other previously described landscape to support lynx conservation has geographic areas in the conterminous U.S. been reduced in the Oregon Cascades. Potential breaks in the linkage between the Northeast geographic area and Canadian The Northern Rockies geographic area source populations, combined with the encompasses the broadest and most abundant patchwork of land ownerships, suggest that distribution of primary habitat under federal the likelihood of supporting lynx conservation land management of any region and contains in the Northeast geographic area is low. The three large areas with contiguous primary Great Lakes geographic area maintains habitat. The Northern Rockies are connected landscape connections with potential Canadian with Canada and provide the closest potential source populations in northern Minnesota. links to the Cascades and Southern Rockies This geographic area also has a patchwork of geographic areas within the distinct population land ownerships and, without compatible segment. All of these factors combine to management for lynx on non-federal lands, the highlight the geographic area's importance as likelihood increases that the geographic range a stronghold for supporting lynx conservation may shrink towards the core Boundary Waters in the western U.S. area. For all geographic areas, forest The Southern Rockies geographic area is management has resulted in a reduction of the the most distant geographic area from area in which natural ecological processes Canadian source populations. Hostile desert were historically allowed to operate, thereby environments separating the geographic area increasing the area potentially affected by from the Northern Rockies combine with known risk factors to lynx (Figures 5 and 6). urban, rural, and recreational development and The Plans have continued this trend. The highway impacts to further isolate and Plans have also continued the process of fragment landscape connections in this fragmenting habitat and reducing its quality and quantity. Consequently, Plans may risk

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 94 of 149 adversely affecting lynx by potentially NF lands account for almost half of the contributing to a reduction in the geographic total primary lynx habitat in the U.S.; range of the species. 37,823,000 acres or 44 percent. BLM lands account for 1,908,000 acres or 2 percent of the Summary Effects from Individual Plans total primary lynx habitat. Table 9 summarizes the ratings associated with all evaluation The effects of the individual Plans with criteria across all geographic areas where Plan respect to the 15 evaluation criteria are shown direction was found to present a risk of in Appendix G and have previously been adverse affects to lynx. Those evaluation summarized by geographic area in Tables 4 criteria are displayed by geographic area in through 8. These results are summarized for Table 9 as contributing to the determination of the entire distinct population segment in Table effect. Individual Plan ratings for all 15 9. criteria are displayed in Appendix G.

Table 9--Summary of ratings for all criteria contributing to a risk of adverse effects to lynx within the distinct population segment.

FS (44% of Primary Habitat) BLM (2% of Primary Habitat) Ratings1/ Number Percent Number Percent F 11 2 4 1 S 71 15 11 2 M 229 49 107 24 N 158 33 255 57 U 3 1 5 1 NA 0 0 63 14 Total 472 100 445 100

1/ Chapter IV. Effects Assessment - A. Methods 2. Examination of Individual Plans describes how evaluation criteria were developed and what the individual rating codes represent.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 95 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 96 of 149 V. Determination of Effect

This determination of effect applies to the geographic areas generally direct an 57 existing National Forest Land and aggressive fire suppression strategy within Resource Management Plans and 56 existing developmental land allocations. While BLM Land Use Plans, collectively, which understandable in terms of protection of were assessed within the distinct population resources and property, this strategy may segment of Canada lynx proposed by the U.S. be contributing to a risk of adversely Fish and Wildlife Service (1998a) for listing affecting lynx by limiting the availability as a threatened species. of foraging habitat within these areas.

It is the conclusion of this BA that these 4. Plans within the Southern Rockies, Great Plans may affect, and are likely to adversely Lakes, and portions of the Northeast affect, the subject population of Canada lynx. geographic areas provide weak direction This conclusion is based upon the following for distributing lynx habitat components rationale: across the landscape. This may be contributing to the risk of adverse effects 1. Within the Great Lakes geographic area, to lynx. weak direction to provide denning habitat, coupled with the high percentage of the 5. Plans within portions of the Northern geographic area in developmental Rockies, Southern Rockies, Great Lakes, allocations (65 percent) may risk adversely and within the Northeast geographic areas affecting lynx. allow levels of human access via forest roads that may present a risk of incidental 2. Plans in the Great Lakes geographic area trapping or shooting of lynx or access by may risk adversely affecting lynx by a lack other competing carnivores. The risk of of direction to provide a mix of forest road-related adverse effects is primarily a species and age classes across the winter season issue. landscape needed for lynx foraging. Plans in the Northern Rockies, Southern 6. Plans within the Northern Rockies, Rockies, and Northeast geographic areas Southern Rockies, and Northeast may risk adversely affecting lynx foraging geographic areas are weak in providing habitat by allowing type conversions and guidance for new or existing recreation because of limited direction pertaining to developments. Therefore, these activities thinning. Limited thinning direction also may contribute to a risk of adverse effects exists in portions of the Cascades to lynx. geographic area. However, in the Cascades, even though thinning may site- 7. Plans within all geographic areas allow specifically reduce foraging habitat and both mechanized and non-mechanized affect individual lynx, foraging habitat is recreation that may contribute to a risk of anticipated to be adequate to sustain lynx adverse effects to lynx. The potential subpopulations. effects occur by allowing compacted snow trails and plowed roads which may 3. Plans within the Northern Rockies, facilitate the movements of lynx Southern Rockies, and Northeast competitors and predators.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 97 of 149 8. Plans within portions of the Northern their habitats. While failure to monitor Rockies and within the Southern Rockies, does not directly result in adverse effects, Great Lakes, and Northeast geographic it makes the detection and assessment of areas provide weak direction for adverse effects from other management maintaining habitat connectivity within activities difficult or impossible to attain. naturally or artificially fragmented landscapes. Plans within all geographic 11. For all geographic areas, forest areas lack direction for coordinating management has resulted in a reduction of construction of highways and other the area in which natural ecological movement barriers with other responsible processes were historically allowed to agencies. These factors may be operate, thereby increasing the area contributing to a risk of adverse effects to affected by known risk factors to lynx. lynx. The Plans have continued this trend. The Plans have also continued the process of 9. Plans within the Northern Rockies, fragmenting habitat and reducing its Southern Rockies, Great Lakes, and quality and quantity. Consequently, Plans Northeast geographic areas are weak in may risk adversely affecting lynx by providing direction for coordinating potentially contributing to a reduction in management activities with adjacent the geographic range of the species. landowners and other agencies to assure consistent management of lynx habitat The evaluation criteria contributing to the across the landscape. This may contribute determination of likely to adversely affect are to a risk of adverse effects to lynx. summarized by geographic area in Table 10. Critical habitat for the Canada lynx has not 10. Plans within all geographic areas except been proposed to date and, therefore, a the Northeast fail to provide direction for determination of effect of the existing Plans monitoring of lynx, snowshoe hares, and on critical habitat is not applicable.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 98 of 149 Table 10--Evaluation criteria contributing to a determination of likely to adversely affect the lynx.

Criterion Cascades N. Rockies S. Rockies Great Lakes Northeast denning habitat X foraging habitat X X X X habitat conversion X X X thinning X X X X fire management X X X landscape patterns X X X forest roads X X X X developed recreation X X X non-winter dispersed rec winter dispersed rec X X X X X minerals and energy habitat connectivity X X X X land tenure adjustments mgmt. coordination X X X X monitoring X X X X

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 99 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 100 of 149 VI. Recommendations

Forest Service Manual 2672.42 requires lynx through land management decisions so that BAs documenting adverse effects include that it recovers to the extent that the protective recommendations for avoiding or minimizing provisions of the ESA are no longer necessary those effects. The draft Canada Lynx to ensure its survival and persistence Conservation Assessment and Strategy throughout its normal range. (Ruediger et al. in press 1999) was developed to provide conservation measures that, if Therefore, the BA team recommends the implemented, would avoid or minimize 57 LRMPs and 56 LUPs listed in Appendix A adverse effects to lynx. be amended or revised to incorporate conservation measures that would reduce or Bureau of Land Management Manual eliminate the identified possible adverse 6840 specifies that any species proposed for effects to lynx. The programmatic listing be conserved in a manner comparable conservation measures listed in the draft to that for a listed species. Thus, this policy Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and requires that the lynx be conserved. In this Strategy (Ruediger et al. in press 1999) should context, conservation means taking be considered in this regard, once finalized. affirmative measures to restore and protect

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 101 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 102 of 149 VII. The Authors

J. Randal Hickenbottom (Initial Team Jeff Aardahl is a Wildlife Biologist in the Leader) was the Endangered Species Program Washington, D.C. office of the Bureau of Manager for the Intermountain Region of the Land Management. His primary Forest Service, Ogden, UT. Midway through responsibilities include special status species this project, he transferred to his current management, conservation planning, and position as District Ranger on the South Platte developing program priorities. He began his Ranger District in Morrison, Colorado. In his career with the Bureau of Land Management 20 years with the Forest Service, he has in the California Desert in 1974 and has worked as a wildlife biologist on three worked as a field biologist, environmental National Forests in Oregon and Arizona and coordinator, and resources staff supervisor. previously served as the Threatened and From 1989 to 1995 he was a resources Endangered Species Program Assistant management division chief with the National Manager for the Pacific Northwest Region. Park Service in Death Valley National Park. He received his B.S. degree in Natural He transferred to the Washington Office in Resources, with an emphasis in wildlife 1997. He holds a B.S. degree in Wildlife ecology, from the University of Arizona. Management from Humboldt State University, Besides this Biological Assessment, Randy California. has also served on the Forest Service EIS team for the Spotted Owl, the interagency EIS team George Halekas is a Wildlife Biologist on for the Northwest Forest Plan, the Terrestrial the Okanogan National Forest in the Pacific Science Team for the Interior Columbia Basin Northwest Region of the USDA Forest Ecosystem Management Project, and the Service, Tonasket, WA. His primary Biological Assessment Team to evaluate responsibilities include providing wildlife effects of Forest Service and BLM plans on analysis for projects at the Tonasket Ranger bull trout. District. He holds a B.A. degree in Philosophy and Comparative Religion from Bob Summerfield (Final Team Leader) is Lafayette College, Pennsylvania, with the Forest Wildlife Biologist on the Kootenai additional wildlife studies at the University of National Forest, Northern Region, USDA Idaho. Throughout his 15 year career with the Forest Service, Libby, MT. His Forest Service, he has been actively involved responsibilities include program management in conservation issues dealing with carnivores, for the wildlife and threatened, endangered, raptors, and neotropical migrant birds. and sensitive species programs. He holds a B.S. degree in Forestry and Wildlife from Mark Hilliard is a Wildlife Specialist on Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State the Bureau of Land Management's Fish, University and an M.S. degree in Wildlife Wildlife and Forests Group in Washington, Management from the University of Alaska. D.C., and is stationed in Boise, ID. His During his 25 year career with the Forest responsibilities include coordination for big Service, he has specialized in habitat game, Watchable Wildlife and wildlife management for threatened and endangered education activities. He holds a B.S. degree in species, including spotted owl, bald eagle, Wildlife Management from Humboldt State peregrine falcon, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and College, and an M.S. degree in Wildlife woodland caribou. Science from Utah State University. He

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 103 of 149 worked for the Utah Division of Wildlife and Remote Sensing staff in the Intermountain Resources from 1969 to 1976 in waterfowl Region of the USDA Forest Service and research, law enforcement and game program coordinator for the Forest Service management. In 1976 he began working for National GIS Center of Excellence. He has a the Bureau of Land Management in resource B.S. degree from Utah State University in inventory, and subsequently served as a Range Science. In 32 years of government supervisory wildlife biologist before taking a service, he has worked as an Army national wildlife program position in 1991. Intelligence Officer, and in two Forest Service Regions and on four Ranger Districts as a Lynn Jackson is a Forest Planner on the Range Conservationist. He served five years Chippewa National Forest, Cass Lake, MN in on the planning staff of the Bridger-Teton the Eastern Region of the USDA Forest National Forest and two years on the Service. Her primary responsibilities include Intermountain Region recreation staff. For the strategic Forest Plan development, site level past 10 years, his speciality has been GIS and implementation and forestwide monitoring on remote sensing. the 666,000 acre Forest. She holds a B.S. degree in Forestry from the University of John Rupe is a Forest Planner on the Minnesota, and an MBA in Finance from the Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD in the University of South Dakota. Since beginning Rocky Mountain Region of the USDA Forest her career with the Forest Service in 1990, she Service. He was the team leader for the has been responsible for completing 18 Plan recently completed Black Hills Forest Plan amendments, co-leading the Forest Plan Revision, the fourth Forest planning effort he Revision process, preparing the Forest Plan has been involved with in his 22 year career annual monitoring and evaluation reports and with the Forest Service. He holds a B.S. providing oversight to the GIS program on the degree in Civil Engineering from the Chippewa. University of Idaho and a M.S. degree in Transportation Planning from the University David Prevedel is the Group Leader for of California, Berkeley. the Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 104 of 149 VIII. Contributors and Contacts

Questionnaire Respondents Sawtooth NF, Tom Bandolin Salmon NF, CR Wenger CASCADE MOUNTAINS Challis NF, Dave Reeder geographic area Targhee NF, Mark Orme Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, Don Gay Caribou NF, Scott Feltis Okanogan NF, Jan Flatten, Bob Naney Wasatch-Cache NF, Tom Scott, and Wenatchee NF, Charles Phillips Richard Williams Gifford Pinchot NF, Ray Scharpf, and Uinta NF, Karen Hartman, Richard Williams, Kathy Armstrong and Reese Pope Mt. Hood NF, Bill Otani, Denise Pengeroth Ashley NF, Kathy Paulin Deschutes NF, Rick Newton Bridger-Teton NF, Bill Noblitt Willamette NF, Ken Byford, Neal Forrester Shoshone NF, Olga Troxel, Dennis Eckardt, Umpqua NF, Cindy Barkhurst Dave Henry, Catherine Pinegar, Jerry Rogue River NF, Jim Goode Simon, Winema NF, Brent Frazier Jennifer Watson, Bob Rossman, Dave Sisk Eugene DO, Eric Greenquist Bighorn NF, Bernie Bornong Medford DO, Matt Broyles Burns DO, Three Rivers RMP, Fred Taylor Roseburg DO, C. Foster, R. Espinosa Baker FO, Vale District, Greg Miller Salem DO, Jim Irving, Wayne Logan Buffalo FO, Larry Gerard Spokane DO, Joyce Whitney, Casper FO, George Soehn Rawlins FO, Larry Apple NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS Butte DO, Headwaters RA, Bill Dean geographic area Dillon FO, Jim Roscoe Ochoco NF, Dave Zalunerdo Great Falls FO, Thomas (Tad) Day Malheur NF, Rick Forsman Cottonwood RA, Chief Joseph MFP, Wallowa-Whitman NF, Tim Schommer Craig Johnson Umatilla NF, Ed Pugh, Lyle Jensen, and Emerald Empire RA, Scott Robinson Charles Gobar Pocatello RA, Geoff Hogander Colville NF, James McGowan Idaho Falls RA Big Lost MacKay PU, Idaho Panhandle NF, Anthony Matthews, and Russ McFarling Bob Ralphs Idaho Falls RA Little Lost and Birch Creek Clearwater NF, Dan Davis PU, Russ McFarling Nez Perce NF, Dick Artley, Steve Blair Idaho Falls RA Medicine Lodge PU, Lolo NF, Mike Hillis, Beverly Yelczyn Jeff Gardetto Kootenai NF, Wayne Johnson Malad RA, James Kumm Flathead NF, Tom Wittinger Shoshone RA-Bennett Timmerman Lewis and Clark NF, Donald Godtel and Sun Valley PUs, Gary Wright Helena NF, Dennis Heffner, Barry Paulson Snake River RA, Upper Snake River RA, Bitterroot NF, Sue Heald Paul Makela Beaverhead NF, Betsy Hamann, Peri Suenram Lemhi RA, Loren D. Anderson Deerlodge NF, Betsy Hamann Challis RA - Challis PU, Jerry Gregson Gallatin NF, Marion Cherry Challis RA - Mackay PU, Jerry Gregson Custer NF, Cheri Bashor Challis RA - Ellis/Pahsimeroi PU, Payette NF, Chris Hescock Jerry Gregson Boise NF, John R. Erickson

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 105 of 149 Lower Snake River DO, Cascades RA, NORTHEAST geographic area Jack LaRocco Green Mtn NF, Clayton Grove Missoula FO, Dave McCleerey White Mountain NF, Marc Whisler Two Rivers,John Day and Brothers/LaPine RA, Jan Hanf, Scott Cooke Units where questionnaires were completed Lander FO, Connie Breckenridge, and returned, but not used in the BA Tom Rinkes, Sue Oberlie Huron-Manistee NF, Kenneth Rex Ennis, Pinedale FO, Frederick Roberts James DiMaio Cody FO, Dennis Saville Finger Lakes NF, Clayton Grove Worland FO,Grass Creek RA, Tim Stephens Allegheny NF, Brad Nelson Kemmerer RA, Vernon Phinney Manti-la-Sal NF, Rod Player Green River RA, Jim Dunder Fremont NF, Steve Egeline Wasatch Front, Kirk Gardner Siskiyou NF, Lee Webb Randolph Grazing MFP, Kirk Gardner Milwaukee FO, Sylvia Jordan Box Elder RMP, Kirk Gardner Jarbridge RMP, Jim Klott Vernal FO, Steve Madsen Idaho Falls FO, Big Desert MFP, Joe Lowe Havre FO, West HiLine RMP, Jody Peters SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS Malta FO, John Grensten geographic area Lakeview DO, Klamath Falls RA, Arapaho-Roosevelt NF, Dennis Lowry Steve Hayner Medicine Bow NF, Tom Cartwright Elko FO, Roy Price Routt NF, Tom Cartwright San Juan NF, Thurman Wilson, Rick Metzger Other Contacts Rio Grande NF, Thurman Wilson, Anne Vandehey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Rick Metzger Service, Helena Field Office White River NF, Julie Grode Bill Ruediger, USFS Northern Region, TES Grand Mesa, Uncompagre and Gunnison NF, Program Manager, Biology Team Leader Tom Holland Jon Haber, Regional Planner, USFS Northern Pike-San Isabel NF, Nancy Ryke, Region Cindy Rivera FS Regional Office TES Program Managers Royal Gorge RA, Erik Brekke BLM State Office Wildlife and TES San Luis Valley RA, Jill Lucero Specialists Kremmling RA, Chuck Cesar Washington D.C. Offices of FS and BLM Little Snake FO, Mike Albee Dr. Kevin McKelvey, USFS Research White River RA, Ed Hollowed Scientist and Science Team member Grand Junction FO, Ron Lambeth Louise Kingsbury, Editor, USDA Forest Glenwood Springs RA, Leonard Coleman Service, Intermountain Research Station Gunnison RA, Joe Capodice Kemper McMaster, U.S. Fish and Wildlife San Juan/San Miguel RA, Hilary Donoghue- Service, Helena Field Office Countess Dr. Len Ruggiero, USFS Research Scientist, Uncompahgre Basin RA, Jim Ferguson Science Team Leader Martin Prather, USFS Northern Region GREAT LAKES geographic area Kathleen McAllister, USFS Northern Region, Chippewa NF, Al Williamson Lynx Steering Committee Leader Superior NF, Ed Lindquist, Duane Lula Larry Larson, USFS Intermountain Region Chequamegon NF, Norm Weiland Bob Davis, USFS Intermountain Region Nicolet NF, Norm Weiland Mike Gippert, Office of General Counsel, Hiawatha NF, Leighlan Prout Washington, D.C. Ottawa NF, Bob Brenner, Bob Evans, Kathryn Toffenetti, OGC, Washington, D.C. Bob Johnson, Jerry Edde Nancy Warren, USFS Flathead National Forest

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 106 of 149 IX. References and Literature Cited

Agee, J. K. In press 1999. Disturbance USDA, Forest Service. Washington D.C. ecology of North American boreal forests and associated northern Bailey, T. N. 1974. Social organization in a mixed/subalpine forests. In: Ruggiero, bobcat population. Journal of Wildlife L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk et al., Management 38:435-446. tech. eds. The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the contiguous United Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk and W. D. Pitts. States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 1980. Terrestrial plant ecology. 30. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Benjamin/Cummins Publishing Co., Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Menlo Park, CA. Mountain Research Station. Brainerd, S. M. 1985. Reproductive ecology Allen, T. F. H. and T. W. Hoekstra. 1992. of bobcats and lynx in western Montana. Toward a unified ecology. Columbia M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, University Press, New York, New York. Missoula. 85 pp.

Apps, C. D. In press 1999. Space-use, diet, Brand, C. J., L. B. Keith, and C. A. Fischer. demographics, and topographic 1976. Lynx responses to changing associations oflLynx in the southern snowshoe hare densities in Alberta. Canadian Rocky Mountains. In: Journal of Wildlife Management Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. 40:416-428. Buskirk et al., tech. eds. The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the Brocke, R. H., K. A. Gustafson and A. R. contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Major. 1990. Restoration of the Canada Rep. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, Utah: lynx in New York: biopolitical lessons. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Transactions North American Wildlife Service, Rocky Mountain Research and Natural Resources Conference 55: Station. 590-598.

Aubry, K. B., G. M. Koehler and J. R. Brown, J. H. 1971. Mammals on Squires. In press 1999. Ecology of mountaintops: non-equilibrium insular Canada lynx in southern boreal forests. biogeography. American Naturalist In: Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. 105: 467-478. Buskirk et al., tech. eds. The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the Colorado Division of Wildlife, U.S. Forest contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Service, National Park Service, U.S. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, Utah: Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Game and Fish Department, Wyoming Service, Rocky Mountain Research Game and Fish Department. 1997. Station. Draft strategy for the conservation and reestablishment of lynx and wolverine in Bailey, R. G. 1998 Ecoregions map of North the southern Rocky Mountains. America: explanatory note. Unpublished report, Colorado Division Miscellaneous Publications No. 1548. of Wildlife.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 107 of 149 Daubenmire R. and Daubenmire J. B. 1968. evaluation. Pp. 73-88 In: Gilpin, M. E. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and I. Hanski (editors). Metapopulation and northern Idaho. Washington Dynamics: Empirical and Theoretical Agricultural Experiment Station, Tech. Investigations. Academic Press, Bull. 60. 104 pp., illus. London.

Demarchi, D. A. 1994. Ecoprovinces of the Hash, H. 1990. Montana lynx populations central North American Cordillera and status and considerations. Unpublished adjacent plains. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. report, Montana Department of Fish, Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: Hodges, K. E. In press 1999. Ecology of American marten, fisher, lynx and snowshoe hares in southern boreal and wolverine. General Technical Report montane forests. In press 1999. In: RM-254. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Buskirk et al., tech. eds. The scientific Station. Fort Collins, CO. 184 pp. basis for lynx conservation in the contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Elton, C. and M. Nicholson. 1942. The ten Rep. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, Utah: year cycle in numbers of lynx in U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Canada. Journal of Animal Ecology 11: Service, Rocky Mountain Research 215-244. Station.

Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1973. Koehler, G. M. 1990. Population and habitat Natural vegetation of Oregon and characteristics of lynx and snowshoe Washington. Pacific Northwest Forest hares in north central Washington. and Range Experiment Station. GTR- Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:845- PNW-8. Portland, OR. 851.

Hann, W. J., J. L. Jones, M. G. Karl, et al. Koehler, G. M. and J. D. Brittell. 1990. 1997. Landscape dynamic of the basin. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and In: Quigley, T. M. and S. J. Arbelbide snowshoe hares. Journal of Forestry (editors). 1997. An assessment of the 88:10-14. ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Koehler, G. M. and K. B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Klamath and Great Basins, Volume II. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. General Technical Report PNW-GTR- Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. 405. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific 1994. The scientific basis for Northwest Research Station, Portland, conserving forest carnivores: American OR. marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine. General Technical Report RM-254. Hanski, I. and M. E. Gilpin (editors). 1997. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Metapopulation biology - ecology, Forest and Range Experiment Station. genetics and evolution. Academic Fort Collins, CO. 184 pp. Press, London. 512 pp. Kootenai National Forest. 1997. Lynx Harrison, S. 1991. Local extinction in a conservation strategy. Unpublished metapopulation context: An empirical

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 108 of 149 report. USDA, Forest Service. Libby, McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry and Y. K. MT. Ortega. In press 1999b. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural United States. In: Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. vegetation of the conterminous United Aubry, S. W. Buskirk et al., tech. eds. States (map and manual). American The scientific basis for lynx Geographical Society Special conservation in the contiguous United Publication 36. 116 pp States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 30. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Kuchler, A. W. 1985. Potential natural Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky vegetation (map). Revised. National Mountain Research Station. Atlas of the United States. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. McKelvey, K. S., S. W. Buskirk and C. J. Krebs. In press 1999c. Theoretical Layne, J. N. 1954 The biology of the red insights into the population viability of squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus lynx. In: Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, loquax (Bangs), in central New York. S. W. Buskirk et al., tech. eds. The Ecol. Monogr. 24:227-267. scientific basis for lynx conservation in the contiguous United States. Gen. Lewis, L. and C. R. Wenger. 1998. Idaho's Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, Canada lynx: pieces of the puzzle. Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Idaho Bureau of Land Management Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Tech. Bull. No. 98-11. 20 pp. Research Station.

Litvaitis, J. A., D. Kingman, Jr., J. Lanier, and Mech, L. D. 1977. Record movement of a E. Orff. 1991. Status of lynx in New Canadian lynx. J. Mammalogy 58:676- Hampshire. Transactions of the 677. Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society 48:70-75. Mech, L. D. 1980. Age, sex, reproduction, and McCord, C. M. and J. E. Cardoza. 1982. spatial organization of lynxes colonizing Bobcat and lynx. pp. 728-766 In: northeastern Minnesota. Journal of Chapman, J. A., and G. A. Feldhamer Mammalogy 61:261-267. (eds), Wild mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press. Meffe, G. K. and R. D. Carroll. 1997. Baltimore, MD. Principles of conservation biology. 2nd edition. Sinauer Associates. 600 pp. McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, J. K. Agee, S. W. Buskirk, L. F. Ruggiero and G. M. Monthey, R. W. 1986. Responses of Koehler. In press 1999a. Lynx snowshoe hares, Lepus americanus, to conservation in an ecosystem timber harvesting in northern Maine. management context. In: Ruggiero, L. Canadian Field Naturalist 100: 568- F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk et al., 570. tech. eds. The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the contiguous United Mowat, G., K. G. Poole and M. O'Donoghue. States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- In press 1999. Ecology of lynx in 30. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of northern Canada and Alaska. In: Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Mountain Research Station. Buskirk et al., tech. eds. The scientific

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 109 of 149 basis for lynx conservation in the Fish and Wildlife Service, National contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Park Service. USDA, Forest Service. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, Utah: Missoula, MT. 114 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, Station. L. J. Lyon and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest Nellis, C. H., S. P. Wetmore, and L. B. Keith. carnivores: American marten, fisher, 1972. Lynx-prey interactions in central lynx and wolverine. General Technical Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Report RM-254. USDA, Forest Service, Management 36(2):320-329. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. Obbard, M. E. 1987. Red squirrel. pp. 264- 184 pp. 281 In: Novak, M., J. L. Baker, M. E. Obbard and B. Mallock (editors). Wild Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk et furbearer management and conservation al., tech. eds. In press 1999a. The in North America. Ontario Trappers scientific basis for lynx conservation in Association. North Bay. the contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, Parker, G. R. 1981. Winter habitat use and Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, hunting activities of lynx (Lynx Forest Service, Rocky Mountain canadensis) on Cape Breton Island, Research Station. Nova Scotia. Pages 221-248 In: Chapman, J. A. and D. Pursley (editors). Ruggiero, L. F., K. Aubry, S. Buskirk, G. 1981. Proceedings of the 1980 Koehler, C. Krebs, K. McKelvey and J. Worldwide Furbearer Conference. Squires. In press 1999b. The scientific Frostburg, MD. basis for lynx conservation: qualified Poole, K. G. 1997. Dispersal patterns of lynx insights. In: Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. in the Northwest Territories. J. Wildlife Aubry, S. W. Buskirk et al., tech. eds. Management 61(2):497-505. The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the contiguous United Quinn, N. W. S., and G. Parker. 1987. Lynx. States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- pp. 683-694 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, 30. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of M. E. Obbard and B. Malloch (eds). Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Wild furbearer management and Mountain Research Station. conservation in North America. Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario. Ruggiero, L.F., M.K. Schwartz, K.B. Aubrey, 1150 pp. C.J. Krebs, A. Stanley, and S. W. Buskirk. In press 1999c. Species Roloff, G. J. 1995. Canadian lynx (Felis conservation and natural variation lynx) in Idaho (draft). Unpublished among populationsn. In: Ruggiero, L. report. Boise Cascade Corp., Boise, ID. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk et al., tech. eds. The scientific basis for lynx Ruediger, B., et al. In press 1999. Draft conservation in the contiguous United Canada lynx conservation assessment States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- and strategy. Interagency Lynx 30. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Biology Team. USDA, Forest Service; Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Mountain Research Station.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 110 of 149 Ruggiero, L. F., and K. S. McKelvey. In press consultation handbook. Washington, 1999. Towards a defensible D.C. conservation strategy: a framework for planning in the face of uncertainty. In: USDA Forest Service. 1998. 2670 Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. memorandum on Section 7 coordination Buskirk et al., tech. eds. The scientific for lynx conferencing. Dale Bosworth, basis for lynx conservation in the USDA Forest Service Northern Region, contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Missoula MT. 8 pp. Rep. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest van Zyll de Jong, C. G. 1966. Food habits of Service, Rocky Mountain Research the lynx in Alberta and the Mackenzie Station. District, Northwest Territories. Can. Field-Nat. 80:18-23. Saunders, J. E. 1963. Food habits of the lynx in Newfoundland. Journal of Wildlife Ward, R. M. P. and C. J. Krebs. 1985. Management 27: 384-390. Behavioral responses of lynx to declining snowshoe hare abundance. Squires, J. R., and T. Laurion. In press 1999. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:2817- Lynx home range and movements in 2824. Montana and Wyoming - Preliminary Results. In: Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk et al., tech. eds. 1996. Lynx habitat management plan The scientific basis for lynx for DNR managed lands. Olympia, conservation in the contiguous United WA. 101 pp. States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 30. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Washington Department of Wildlife. 1993. Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Status of the North American lynx (Lynx Mountain Research Station. canadensis) in Washington. Unpublished Report. Olympia, WA. Stith, B. M., J. W. Fitzpatrick, G. E. 101 pp. Woolfenden and B. Pantry. 1996. Classification and conservation of Weaver, J. L. 1993. Lynx, wolverine, and metapopulations: a case study of the fisher in the western United States Florida scrub jay. Chapter 9 In: research assessment and agenda. McCullough, D. R. (editor). 1996. Unpublished report of the Interagency Metapopulations and wildlife Lynx-Wolverine-Fisher Working Group. conservation. Island Press, Washington, 132 pp. D.C. 429 pp. Weaver, J. L., P. C. Paquet and L. F. Rugierro. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. 1996. Resiliance and conservation of Proposed rule to list the contiguous large carnivores in the Rocky United States distinct population Mountains. Conservation Biology !0(4): segment of the Canada lynx. Federal 964-976. Register 63:36994-37013. Whitwill, D. and G. Roloff. 1996. North American lynx (Lynx canadensis) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. habitat management plan for Boise Endangered Species Act Section 7 Cascade Corporation, Washington Region. Unpublished.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 111 of 149 Wiens, J. L. 1997. The emerging role of Wolfe, M. L., N. V. Debyle, C. S. Winchell, patchiness in conservation biology. and T. R. McCabe. 1982. Snowshoe Chapter 7 In: Pickett, S. T. A. hare cover relationships in northern (ed.). 1997. Ecological basis of Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management conservation: heterogeneity, 46:662-670. ecosystems, and biodiversity. Chapman and Hall. 408 pp.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 112 of 149 X. Appendicies

APPENDIX A - Administrative Units Analyzed APPENDIX B - Process for Determining Which Plans Are Covered by This Biological Assessment APPENDIX C - Lynx Habitat Descriptions for the Five geographic areas APPENDIX D - Blank Questionnaire, including Supplemental Questions for BLM APPENDIX E - Description of Habitat Mapping Products and Their Uses APPENDIX F - Forest Land and Resource Management Plans Management Area Emphasis APPENDIX G- Rating Guidance and Evaluation Matrix

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 113 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 114 of 149 APPENDIX A--Adminstrative Units Analyzed

CASCADE MOUNTAINS GEOGRAPHIC AREA Administrative Unit Management Plan Date of States Plan Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF LRMP Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF 1990 WA Okanogan NF LRMP Okanogan NF 1989 WA Wenatchee NF LRMP Wenatchee NF 1990 WA Gifford Pinchot NF LRMP Gifford Pinchot NF 1990 WA Mt. Hood NF LRMP Mt. Hood NF 1990 OR Deschutes NF LRMP Deschutes NF 1990 OR Willamette NF LRMP Willamette NF 1990 OR Umpqua NF LRMP Umpqua NF 1990 OR Rogue River NF LRMP Rogue River NF 1990 OR,CA Winema NF LRMP Winema NF 1990 OR Eugene BLM District Eugene District RMP 1994 OR Medford BLM District Medford District RMP 1995 OR Roseburg BLM District Roseburg District RMP 1995 OR Salem BLM District Salem District RMP 1995 OR Spokane BLM District Spokane District RMP 1987 WA NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS GEOGRAPHIC AREA Administrative Unit Management Plan Date of States Plan Ochoco NF LRMP Ochoco NF 1989 OR Malheur NF LRMP Malheur NF 1990 OR Wallowa-Whitman NF LRMP Wallowa-Whitman NF 1990 ID,OR, WA Umatilla NF LRMP Umatilla NF 1990 OR,WA Colville NF LRMP Colville NF 1988 WA Idaho Panhandle NF Idaho Panhandle Forest Plan 1987 ID,WA Clearwater NF Clearwater Forest Plan 1987 ID Nez Perce NF Nez Perce Forest Plan 1987 ID

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 115 of 149 Lolo NF Lolo Forest Plan 1986 MT Kootenai NF Kootenai Forest Plan 1987 MT,ID Flathead NF Flathead Forest Plan 1985 MT Lewis and Clark NF Lewis and Clark Forest Plan 1986 MT Helena NF Helena Forest Plan 1986 MT Bitterroot NF Bitterroot Forest Plan 1987 MT,ID Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF Beaverhead Forest Plan 1986 MT Deerlodge Forest Plan 1987 Gallatin NF Gallatin Forest Plan 1987 MT Custer NF Custer Forest Plan 1986 MT,SD Payette NF Payette NF LRMP 1988 ID Boise NF LRMP Boise NF 1990 ID Sawtooth NF LRMP Sawtooth NF 1987 ID,UT Salmon Challis NF LRMP Challis NF 1987 ID LRMP Salmon NF 1986 Targhee NF LMP Targhee NF 1986 ID,WY Caribou NF LRMP Caribou NF 1985 ID,WY Wasatch-Cache NF Wasatch-Cache NF LRMP 1986 ID,UT, WY Uinta NF LRMP Uinta NF 1984 UT Ashley NF Ashley NF Forest Plan 1986 UT,WY Bridger-Teton NF Bridger Teton NF LRMP 1989 WY Shoshone NF LRMP Shoshone NF 1986 WY Bighorn NF LRMP Bighorn NF 1985 WY Burns BLM District Three Rivers RMP 1992 OR Baker BLM Field Area Baker MFP / Malheur MFP 1989/1982 OR Buffalo BLM Field Area Buffalo RMP 1985 WY Casper BLM Field Area Platte River RMP 1985 WY Rawlins BLM District Great Divide MFP 1990 WY Butte BLM District Headwaters Resource Area RMP 1983 MT Dillon BLM Field Area Dillon RA MFP 1979 MT Great Falls BLM Field Office West HiLine RMP 1992 MT

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 116 of 149 Coeur d'alene BLM District Chief Joseph MFP 1981 ID Emerald Empire Res Area MFP 1981 Upper Snake River District Pocatello RMP 1988 ID Idaho Falls Resource Area Big Lost MFP/MacKay MFP 1983/1984 Idaho Falls Resource Area Little Lost Birch Creek MFP 1981 Idaho Falls Resource Area Medicine Lodge RMP 1985 Idaho Falls Resource Area Malad RMP 1981 Upper Snake River District Shoshone RA-Bennett Timmerman Upper Snake River District and Sun Valley RMPs 1981 Snake River Resource Area Cassia RMP 1984 Salmon BLM Field Area Lemhi RMP 1987 ID Challis Resource Area Challis MFP 1979 Mackay MFP 1984 Ellis/Pahsimeroi MFP 1982 Lower Snake River District Cascades RMP 1988 ID Missoula BLM Field Area Garnet RMP 1988 MT Prineville BLM Field Area Two Rivers RMP/John Day & 1986/1985/ OR Brothers RMP/La Pine RMP 1989 Malheur BLM Field Office OR Lander BLM Field Area Lander RMP 1987 WY Pinedale BLM Field Area Pinedale RMP 1987 WY Cody BLM Field Area Cody RMP 1990 WY Worland BLM Field Area Grass Creek RMP 1998 WY Kemmerer BLM Field Area Kemmerer RMP 1986 WY Rock Springs Field Area Green River RMP 1997 WY Salt Lake City BLM Field Wasatch - Pony Express RMP 1990 UT Area Randolph MFP 1980 Box Elder RMP 1985 Vernal BLM Field Area Book Cliffs RMP/ Diamond 1984/ UT Mountain RMP 1994 SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS GEOGRAPHIC AREA Administrative Unit Management Plan Date of States Plan Arapaho-Roosevelt NF Arapaho-Roosevelt Revised Forest 1998 CO Plan Medicine Bow-Routt NF Routt Revised Forest Plan 1998 CO, Medicine Bow Forest Plan 1985 WY

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 117 of 149 San Juan-Rio Grande NF Rio Grande Revised Forest Plan 1997 CO San Juan Forest Plan 1992 White River NF White River Forest Plan as amended 1990 CO Grand Mesa, Uncompagre and GMUG Forest Plan 1991 CO Gunnison NF Pike-San Isabel NF Pike-San Isabel Forest Plan 1985 CO Canyon City BLM District Royal Gorge RMP 1995 CO San Luis Valley RMP Craig BLM District Kremmling RMP 1999 CO Little Snake RMP 1989 White River RMP 1996 Grand Junction BLM District Grand Junction RMP 1987 CO Glenwood Springs RMP 1988 Montrose BLM District Gunnison RMP 1993 CO San Juan/San Miguel RMP 1985 Uncompahgre Basin RMP 1989 GREAT LAKES GEOGRAPHIC AREA Administrative Unit Management Plan Date of States Plan Chippewa NF LRMP Chippewa NF 1986 MN Superior NF LRMP Superior NF 1986 MN Chequamegon-Nicolet NF LRMP Chequamegon NF 1986 WI LRMP Nicolet NF 1986 Hiawatha NF LRMP Hiawatha NF 1986 MI Ottawa NF LRMP Ottawa NF 1986 MI NORTHEAST GEOGRAPHIC AREAS Administrative Unit Management Plan Date of States Plan Green Mtn-Finger Lakes NF LRMP As Amended, Green 1993 VT Mountain NF White Mountain NF LRMP White Mountain NF 1986 ME,NH

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 118 of 149 APPENDIX B--Process for Determining Which Plans Are Covered by this Biological Assessment

Following is an explanation of the process population in Canada include conversion of for determining which Forest Service (FS) habitat travel corridors to urban and Forest Plans and Bureau of Land Management agricultural uses, interstate and 4-lane divide (BLM) Land Use Plans (LUPs) are covered by highways, and open water during winter this Biological Assessment. months on major rivers used for shipping. There are no plans or discussions of using First, all FS and BLM administrative units these Forests for lynx reintroduction. It is were eliminated from consideration if they highly unlikely that a reintroduction would were outside the 16 states listed in the July 8, successfully establish a viable population. 1998. Federal Register notice from the FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a). Manti-La Sal (Utah): The Manti-La Sal National Forest is at the extreme southern Second, all units within the 16 states were range of the area possibly considered in this considered if they were listed in a September BA. Habitat is marginally suitable and 4, 1998, memorandum to Forest Supervisors decreases in quality and availability as one and BLM Districts about the conferencing moves southward. It is very unlikely that process which had begun (USDA Forest viable historic populations have ever been Service 1998). supported by this area. The habitat is highly fragmented, and there is widespread Third, additional units were added within occurrence of competing predators such as the 16 states if they were in suitable habitat as coyotes, bobcats and red foxes. depicted by potential habitat (Figure 3 in the BA) or if there was new information about Siskiyou (Oregon), Fremont (Oregon): These lynx sightings in close proximity to the unit. National Forests are at the extreme southern range of the Cascades. Habitat is marginally Next, the following units were dropped suitable and decreases in quality and after discussions with FWS representatives availability as one moves southward. and Regional biologists. No further conferencing or consultation for the lynx Blm Units Eliminated From Assessment should be required for these units. Eastern States, Milwaukee Field Office: This unit consists of multiple islands less than two Forest Service Units Eliminated From acres each. Use of these islands by lynx is Assessment unlikely. Huron-Manistee (Michigan), Allegheny Lewistown, Miles City, Billings, Havre, and (Pennsylvania) and Finger Lakes (New York): Malta (Montana): These units are sparsely In Pennsylvania, lynx were likely extirpated in covered with suitable habitat and are far from the early 1900s. In addition, there have been other suitable habitats. no recorded occurences of lynx on or near the Huron Manistee, Allegheny and Finger Lakes Jarbridge Resource Area (Idaho): This unit is National Forests in the past four decades. also sparsely covered with suitable habitat and is far from other suitable habitat. There are significant barriers to movement if a metapopulation were to be established on Elko (Nevada): This unit is also sparsely these National Forests. Those barriers covered with suitable habitat and is far from between the Forests and the closest lynx other suitable habitat.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 119 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 120 of 149 APPENDIX C--Lynx Habitat Descriptions for the Five Geographic Areas (early version used to set baseline for questionnaire respondents)

Cascade Mountains Geographic Area elevations of the plateau and on the upper and middle slopes of the mountain ranges, Geographic Extent Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are present. The vegetation and land forms in the Cascade Mountains of Washington and The Columbia Plateau climate is Oregon have been described by Hann et al. moderated by the surrounding mountains. The (1997), Demarchi (1994), Franklin and mountains protect this area from all but the Dyrness (1973) and Daubenmire and severe outbreaks of Arctic air in winter. The Daubenmire (1968) among others. Demarchi vegetation on the higher mountains, above the (1994) used climatic processes to describe Douglas-fir and grand fir montane forests, is ecodivisions, which are then subdivided into dominated by Engelmann spruce, subalpine ecoprovinces. fir, grand fir and lodgepole pine.

The Washington and Oregon lynx range The Northern Rocky Mountain Forest falls into the semi-arid steppe highlands and ecoprovince is characterized by vegetation the humid maritime highlands ecodivisions. from big sagebrush/ grassland communities at The Pacific Northwest Coast and Mountains lower elevations to Engelmann spruce, ecoprovince incorporates the west side of the lodgepole pine and subalpine fir forests at Cascades in Washington and Oregon. The higher elevations (Demarchi 1994). Thompson-Okanogan Highlands, Columbia Plateau and Northern Rocky Mountain Forest Lynx Habitat Components ecoprovinces make up the east side of the Cascades and the portion of the northern Koehler (1990) conducted research on Rocky Mountains of eastern Washington and lynx in northcentral Washington. The study Oregon. area had been modified very little by forest management during the period when the The Pacific Northwest Coast and research took place. Approximately 80 Mountains ecoprovince of the United States percent of the study area was coniferous and Canada is influenced in winter by oceanic forest, ten percent open parks, seven percent low pressure systems which provide mild, bogs, wet meadows and water, and the moist conditions over the area. The majority remainder exposed rock. It was largely of the ecoprovince is temperate rainforest but unroaded and the vegetation had been Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, black spruce, structured by wildfire (Eby 1984). Large and boreal white spruce forests occur along wildfires occurred in 1901, 1930 and 1970 and the eastern valleys and into the interior. several smaller fires burned throughout the area. Most fires were ignited by lightning The climate of the Thompson-Okanogan (Brittell et al. 1989). Highlands is generally drier as air moving across from the ocean loses most of its Kilgore and Heinselman (1990) provided moisture on the west side of the Cascades. In an overview of fire regimes across North winter, cold dense Arctic air may occur since America. On the west slopes of the Cascades, there is no barrier once it reaches the plateaus the pre-settlement fire regime seems to have of interior British Columbia. At the upper been mostly large-scale but very long-interval

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 121 of 149 (150 to 500 years) crown fires or severe (Williams and Lillybridge 1983, Williams et ground fires. East of the crest, the dominant al. 1995, Lillybridge et al. 1995, Johnson and fire regimes were probably frequent light Simon 1987, Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992). surface fires in lower elevation ponderosa pine On the west side of the Cascade Mountains on forests, and long-interval crown fires or severe the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest surface fires at the higher elevations. the mean slope measurement for the subalpine fir associations were greater than 30 percent Primary lynx habitats in Washington and (Henderson et al. 1992). Oregon are dominated by Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and lodgepole pine. Secondary Northern Rocky Mountain Geographic habitats contain western larch, Douglas-fir, Area Pacific silver fir, western redcedar/mountain hemlock and the upper elevations of Geographic Extent ponderosa pine forests (Koehler 1990). The Northern Rocky Mountain The elevations of occupied lynx habitats Geographic Area encompasses northern to vary depending on moisture patterns and central Idaho, western Montana, eastern temperatures. On the east side of the Cascade Washington, northeastern Oregon, Mountains and the portion of the Northern northwestern Utah, and western Wyoming. Rocky Mountains in Washington and Oregon, Landforms, climate, and vegetation across this the average elevations where the subalpine fir large area are complex and highly variable. plant associations occur are generally above 4,000 feet (above 5000 feet in Oregon) Within the current post-glacial period, (Williams and Lillybridge 1983, Williams et climate has been relatively stable for the past al. 1995, Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992, 1700-2000 years in this area (Mack et al. Lillybridge et al. 1995). In some cold air 1983). Across the Northern Rocky Mountain drainages, subalpine fir associations may Geographic Management Area, there are occur below 4,000 feet (Williams and strong north-south and east-west gradients in Lillybridge 1983). These vegetation types climate. The northwestern portions have a generally occur in areas with heavy winter cool temperate, maritime-influenced climate, snow falls. Subalpine fir communities are not while the eastern and southern portions have a as well represented on the west side of the cold continental climate (McNab and Avers Cascades where mountain hemlock replaces 1994). As a result, vegetation varies from subalpine fir at upper elevations. On the moist, dense conifer forests, to less productive Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest forests with greater interspersion of grasslands only approximately one percent of the forest is and shrublands. Koehler and Aubry (1994) occupied by the subalpine fir association suggest that there is a general pattern of (Henderson et al. 1992). decreasing habitat suitability for lynx with decreasing latitude in the Rocky Mountains. In boreal forest habitats, lynx are generally found in areas of low topographic relief The Northern Rocky Mountain (Koehler and Aubry 1994). The subalpine fir Geographic Management Area falls within the plant associations east of the Cascade Shining Mountains, Northern Rocky Mountain Mountains and in the northern Rocky Forest, Utah Rocky Mountain, and Wyoming Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington Basins Ecoprovinces as described by are generally on slopes averaging less than 30 Demarchi (1994). The extent of each of these percent and many of the associations are on Ecoprovinces is as follows: slopes averaging less than 20 percent

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 122 of 149 Shining Mountains Ecoprovince-- 1. long-interval (100 to 300 years) crown This Ecoprovince extends from Southern fires in continuous forests of lodgepole Canada into the northern United States. It pine, spruce, and subalpine fir, often with includes the Columbia Mountains, Selkirk smaller acreages subjected to low-intensity Mountains of northern Idaho and eastern surface fires in the intervals between Washington, Southern Rocky Mountain crown fires; and Trench, Rocky Mountains of Alberta and Montana, the Belt formation in Montana, and 2. short-interval (5 to 60 years) low to the mountains of the Idaho panhandle. moderate-intensity surface fires in lower elevation ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Northern Rocky Mountain Forest aspen, and adjacent parklands and Ecoprovince-- lodgepole pine forests. In the The Blue Mountains of Oregon, Idaho intermountain areas, frequent fires (6 to 15 Batholith of central Idaho, Bitterroot years) restricted the distribution of juniper Mountains of Montana and eastern Idaho, and woodland to shallow, rocky soils and mountains of Wyoming are included in this rough topography in many portions, while Ecoprovince. fire frequency in sagebrush-scrub communities was 30 to 70 years. Utah Rocky Mountain Ecoprovince-- This area consists of two dominant In the higher latitudes of northern mountain ranges, the Uinta and Wasatch Montana and Idaho, lynx habitat generally Mountains, and smaller ranges to the south. occurs above 4,000 feet (Koehler and Brittell 1990). Lynx habitat is found above 5,000 feet Wyoming Basins Ecoprovince-- in elevation in eastern Oregon (Johnson and This Ecoprovince is composed of a series Clausnitzer 1992), and above 6,500 feet in of high-elevation basins and low ridges, and Wyoming. also includes the Bighorn Mountain Range. Shining Mountains Ecoprovince-- Lynx Habitat Components (northwestern Montana, northern Idaho, and northeastern Washington) Historically, fire has been a dominant The landforms of this Ecoprovince have influence in the northern Rocky Mountains been strongly influenced by glaciation, with (Barrett et al. 1997, Gruell 1983). Forest fires several advances of continental glaciers during maintained mosaics that provided ideal the Pleistocene period. The higher mountains snowshoe hare and lynx habitat (Koehler not over-ridden by continental glaciers have 1990). Avalanche, insects, and pathogens been subjected to intense glaciation by alpine have also been important agents of natural glaciers. disturbance, creating finer-grained patterns of vegetation. Grasslands and ponderosa pine occur at the lowest elevations. Dominant vegetation Fire regimes in the Northern Rocky includes interior western redcedar and western Mountains are extremely complex, reflecting hemlock habitat types on lower to middle great variation in climate, topography, slopes in wetter localities and in the northern vegetation, and productivity (Kilgore and portion of the Rocky Mountain Trench; Heinselman 1990). In general, the two interior Douglas-fir on the lower slopes of the dominant regimes in pre-settlement times southern portion of the Rocky Mountain were: Trench; subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and grand fir habitat types on the middle slopes of

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 123 of 149 all mountains; and whitebark pine, alpine redcedar and hemlock communities are highly larch, and dry alpine tundra on mountain productive habitat for both snowshoe hare and summits (Pfister et al. 1977). lynx at either end of the successional spectrum. Habitats in which lynx have been studied in the Northern Rockies are characterized as Northern Rocky Mountain Forest moderate, rolling mountainous terrain. Ecoprovince--(central Idaho, eastern Oregon Typical lynx habitat occurs within the and western Utah) subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, western Landforms are primarily of volcanic and redcedar, western hemlock and grand fir sedimentary origin. Dominant plant habitat types, on which current vegetation is communities are big sagebrush and bluebunch dominated by lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, wheatgrass at lower elevations; Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and/or Engelmann spruce grand fir, and ponderosa pine forests at middle (Brainerd 1985, Koehler et al. 1979). In elevations; Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine addition, the numerous peatlands which are and subalpine fir on upper mountain slopes; located along the valley bottoms yield and alpine communities on the highest additional diversity and are important habitat mountains within the eastern portion of the components for the lynx. Ecoprovince.

On portions of the Idaho Panhandle In central Idaho, lodgepole pine National Forest in northern Idaho and community types and habitat types are not northeastern Washington, the lower limit of widespread but do commonly appear on more lynx habitat types is found near 3,000 feet. gentle terrain, toe-slopes and valley bottoms This is closely correlated with the wherever the species can dominate the site cooler/moist habitat types which are typical (Steele et al. 1981). Such stands usually grade within this landscape. Lynx have been into subalpine fir or Douglas-fir habitat types frequently documented at elevations ranging on adjacent steeper or higher slopes. After from 3,000 feet to near the upper treeline. disturbances such as fire, these lodgepole pine Although lynx sightings or observational communities often provide good quality lynx information show a bias to road and trail foraging habitat for several decades. locations, they strongly suggest that lynx make use of the lower elevation western The subalpine fir series occurs at upper redcedar and hemlock forest within the elevations throughout most of central Idaho landscape. This is perhaps unique to this (Steele et al. 1981). Large stands of fire- region. induced lodgepole pine commonly dominate much of this series and, especially when The subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce interspersed with unburned islands of dominated forest generally occurs above 4,500 subalpine fir, often provide very good quality feet, depending on slope, aspect and other lynx habitat. Undergrowth is variable and associated climatic factors. On northern ranges from tall shrub layers of blue aspects and in cool air drainages, the huckleberry and menziesia to low, subalpine fir and spruce dominated depauperate layers of grouse whortleberry or communities extend to lower elevations. The heartleaf arnica. Thus, the quality of lynx western redcedar and hemlock dominated foraging habitat (i.e., snowshoe hare habitat) communities are found below the transitional often varies greatly by habitat type. zone with subalpine fir and spruce Engelmann spruce stands commonly occur communities, and often extend to and along streams and valley bottoms where cool encompass the valley bottoms. Western air drainage allows them to extend into the

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 124 of 149 adjacent, lower elevation Douglas-fir higher elevations; and alpine tundra communities. Habitat types within the series communities occur on the highest mountain often occur on very wet sites and on steep summits. The Uinta Mountains may be northerly aspects where snow accumulates important in providing connectivity between (Steele et al. 1981). Though a minor series, lynx populations in the Northern and Southern Engelmann spruce habitat types commonly Rocky Mountain Geographic Areas. provide good lynx travel corridors and denning habitat. Wyoming Basins Ecoprovince-- Dominant vegetation includes shrub- Douglas-fir habitat types occur over the steppe in the basins; pinyon pine, juniper, broadest range of environmental conditions of ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir forests on any conifer in central Idaho (Steele et al. mountain slopes; with Engelmann spruce and 1981). Douglas-fir communities often extend lodgepole pine at the higher elevations. from lower to upper timberline, especially in the drier mountain ranges. The types of most Southern Rocky Mountain Geographic importance to lynx include those where Area lodgepole pine is a seral species and those which abut shrub-steppe communities. Within Geographic Extent central Idaho, many habitat types within the The Southern Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir series are too dry and/or Geographic Area (SRMGA) encompasses depauperate to provide good lynx foraging south-central Wyoming, western Colorado, habitat. and north-central New Mexico. Atypical lynx habitats in central and Some evidence exists that over the last southern Idaho, Wyoming, southeast Montana, 15,000 to 20,000 years, valley glaciers from and eastern Oregon occur in the shrub-steppe the Pleistocene period retreated to their communities where populations of alternate cirques, isolating species in the process prey such as whitetail jackrabbits are found. (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). More recently, over These atypical habitats often provide the last 4,000 to 6,500 years, a period of connectivity between adjacent mountains warmer and drier weather allowed for a ranges. Along the Continental Divide, they number of southwestern species to occupy may also provide an important north-south areas previously inhospitable (Armstrong link between large areas of typical habitats. 1972). The southern Rocky Mountains have a strong influence on the continental climate in Portions of the Ochoco and Malheur central Wyoming, western Colorado, and National Forests in Oregon provide north-central New Mexico. Other factors that connectivity/dispersal habitat for movement moderate climate are latitude, elevation, between the Northern Rocky Mountains and exposure, local topography, and location with the Oregon Cascades. respect to storms and prevailing winds (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Utah Rocky Mountains Ecoprovince-- Records of lynx are limited to the Uinta The Southern Rocky Mountain mountain range. Shrub-steppe dominates at Geographic Area encompasses the Northern the lower elevations; quaking aspen Rocky Mountain Forest, Central Rocky dominates over much of the landscape on Mountain Basins, Colorado Rocky Mountain, mountain slopes, with conifer forest (Douglas- and New Mexico Rocky Mountain fir, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, white Ecoprovinces (Demarchi 1994). fir, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine) at the

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 125 of 149 Northern Rocky Mountain Forest rabbitbrush, needlegrass, and wheatgrass Ecoprovince-- dominate the low elevation plant communities. As described previously for the Northern As elevation increases Ponderosa pine, Rocky Mountain Geographic Area, this Douglas-fir, junegrass and Arizona fescue Ecoprovince encompasses the Blue Mountains dominate the landscape. Mid-elevation sites of Oregon, Idaho Batholith of central Idaho, are forested with quaking aspen, lodgepole Bitterroot Mountains of eastern Idaho and pine and Engelmann spruce. The high Montana, and mountains of Wyoming. Only a elevation summits are typically bare rock and small portion in Wyoming falls within the rolling alpine tundra. Grasslands and mountain SRMGA. meadows can be found throughout all the mountain areas (Mitchell 1993). Landforms are primarily of volcanic and sedimentary origin. Plant communities of big New Mexico Rocky Mountains sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass dominate Ecoprovince-- the lower elevations while Douglas-fir, grand High, rolling plateaus with isolated fir, and Ponderosa pine forests occur on mid mountains and steeply scarped mesas elevation areas. Engelmann spruce, lodgepole dominate this Ecoprovince (USDA Soil pine and subalpine fir dominate the upper Conservation Service 1981). Indian ricegrass, mountain slopes with alpine tundra blue grama, dropseed, prickly pear, four- communities occurring on the highest winged saltbrush, winterfat and rabbitbrush mountains within the eastern portion of the dominate the low elevation plant communities, Ecoprovince (McKee 1972). which transition as elevation increases into pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush. Douglas- Central Rocky Mountain Basin fir and ponderosa pine are found on the higher Ecoprovince-- more sheltered areas, with Engelmann spruce Large river basins like the Green, Uinta, and subalpine fir forests occupying the highest and Paradox, and mountain ranges like the summits (Brown 1982, Pase and Brown Roan, Uncompaghre, White River, northern 1982). Colorado plateaus, and Grand Mesa provide the backbone for this Ecoprovince (Mitchell Lynx Habitat Components 1993). Low elevation plant communities are dominated by big sagebrush, needle-and- Fire regimes are extremely complex, thread grass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and reflecting great variation in climate, western wheatgrass. Dense shrub communities topography, vegetation, and productivity. In of big sagebrush, rabbitbrush and winterfat general, two dominant fire regimes exist. One cover the higher elevations, while Rocky regime has a long time interval (100 to 300 Mountain juniper is isolated to shallow soil years) between crown fires in the contiguous upland sites. Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and forests of lodgepole pine, spruce, and quaking aspen forests typically dominate the subalpine fir. Often smaller acreages are low mountain ridges (USDA Soil subjected to low-intensity surface fires during Conservation Service 1981). the intervals between the crown fires. The other fire regime occurs over a shorter time- Colorado Rocky Mountain Ecoprovince-- period with surface fires of low to moderate- Very high mountains divided by wide high intensity returning every 5 to 60 years in the elevation "parks" characterize this low elevation forests of ponderosa pine, Ecoprovince. Most of the mountain summits Douglas-fir, aspen, adjacent parklands and in are the result of mountain glaciers during the some forests of lodgepole pine. In the Pleistocene period. Big sagebrush, intermountain areas, frequent fires intervals (6

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 126 of 149 to 15 years) help maintain the juniper stable" because of frequent fire return woodlands on the shallow, rough topography, intervals, high stand densities tend to promote rock soils, while lowland sagebrush-shrub insect outbreaks, and generally there location communities experience fires every 30 to 70 on the landscape makes them easily accessible years (Kilgore and Heinselman 1990). for man's intervention.

Lynx habitats in south-central Wyoming, Sagebrush, foothill shrublands and pinyon- western Colorado, and north-central New juniper woodlands provide the link between Mexico are typically dominated by mature the Northern Rocky Mountain and the Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir (Weaver Southern Rocky Mountain Geographic 1993) with lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Management Areas. The western slope of bristlecone pine, and Douglas-fir. Colorado Colorado is dominated by Gambel's oak, big blue spruce and willow species, dominate sagebrush (North Park and Gunnison Basin), many of the riparian and meadow complexes mountain sagebrush, pinyon-pine and juniper (Apps 1988 pers. comm., Dolbeer and Clark provide important habitat connective links 1975), with the low foothill shrubland throughout the Southern Rocky Mountain communities linking the more stable spruce-fir Geographic Management Area. These lynx habitats with the dynamic lodgepole pine habitats can generally be found between 4,000 and quaking aspen forests. and 9,500 feet and often occur as vegetation stringers, or parks within the Engelmann Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir spruce-subalpine fir forests. Many of these forests can occupy the subalpine zone as either areas occur as large expanses, such as the Red a single species or can occur in combination, Desert in southeastern Wyoming, Yampa providing some of the most "stable" lynx Plateau of northeastern Utah, and Danforth habitats. Subalpine zone elevations generally Hills and Vermillion Bluffs of northeastern range from 9,000 to 11,500 feet. Colorado. Generally, these vegetation types occur on land managed by the Bureau of Land The upper and lower montane zones are Management or are contained within private comprised of lodgepole pine and aspen with ownership. Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and Douglas- fir (Andrews et al. 1992). In the north-central Great Lakes Geographic Area part of the Geographic Area, lodgepole pine dominates the upper montane zone (Crane Geographic Extent 1982; Thompson pers. comm.). Typically The Great Lakes Geographic Area these forests are dense, uniform and often encompasses northeastern and north-central depauperate of any forest floor shrub Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the upper components (Andrews et al. 1992). They are peninsula and northern portions of Michigan. often found between the Engelmann spruce This area largely falls within the western and subalpine fir forests of the subalpine zone portions of the Laurentian Mixed Forest and the Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine Province (USDA, 1994). Most of this forests (Front Range) of the lower montane province has low relief with rolling hills zone. Elevations typically range from 6,500 occurring in many areas. Glacial features to 11,500 feet, but can commonly occur such as lakes, poorly drained depressions, between 7,500 and 10,500 feet (Andrews et al. morainic hills, drumlins, eskers, and outwash 1992). Aspen and lodgepole pine stands are plains are typical of the area. Elevations range typically found on sites where disturbance from sea level to 2,400 feet. Climate in the events like fire, insects or logging have area produces moderately long and somewhat occurred. These forest stands tend to be "less

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 127 of 149 severe winters where snowfall remains on the Northern Superior Uplands Section (212L)- ground all winter. The forest vegetation of The Northern Superior Uplands this ecoprovince is transitional between the encompass the "arrowhead" region of boreal forests of the north and the broadleaf northeastern Minnesota. Potential natural deciduous forests to the south. Forested vegetation types occurring on this Section stands vary from mixtures of conifers (pine, include Great Lakes pine forest and Great spruce, fir, cedar) and hardwoods (birch, Lakes spruce-fir forest. maple, beech, basswood) to pure stands of conifer or hardwood species (Bailey, 1995). Northern Minnesota and Ontario Section (212M)-- That portion of the Laurentian Mixed This Section occurs along the U.S.-Canada Forest Province that comprises the Great border in north-central Minnesota. Potential Lakes Geographic Area is composed of natural vegetation types occurring here several ecological subdivisions, or Sections, as include conifer bog, Great Lakes spruce-fir described by McNab and Avers (1994). The forest, and Great Lakes pine forest. Sections included are the Northern Great Lakes, Southern Superior Uplands, Western Northern Minnesota Drift and Lake Plains Superior, Northern Superior Uplands, Section (212N)-- Northern Minnesota and Ontario, and This Section extends across much of Northern Minnesota Drift and Lake Plains. north-central Minnesota south of the Northern Minnesota and Ontario Section. Potential Northern Great Lakes Section (212H)-- natural vegetation types occurring here This Section extends across the northern include Great Lakes pine forest, Great Lakes one-third of the "mitten" portion of Michigan, spruce-fir forest, and conifer bog. the eastern half of the Michigan upper peninsula and northeastern Wisconsin. The Lynx Habitat Components potential natural vegetation types, according to Kuchler, occurring on this Section include Lynx habitat within the Great Lakes northern hardwoods forest, northern Geographic Area resides within the ecotone hardwood-fir forest, Great Lakes pine forest, between boreal and mixed deciduous forests conifer bog, and elm-ash forest. and is primarily associated with Great Lakes spruce-fir forest, Great Lakes pine forest, Southern Superior Uplands Section (212J)-- conifer bog, and northern hardwood-fir forest This Section covers most of the northern communities. These forest ecosystems may half of Wisconsin and the western half of the contain large areas of jack, red, or white pine; upper peninsula of Michigan. Potential aspen-birch; red, white, or black spruce; white natural vegetation types occurring on this cedar; tamarack; black ash, northern Section include maple-beech-birch forest, hardwoods, or other forest types. aspen-birch forest, and spruce-fir forest. In addition to climatic and topographic Western Superior Section (212K)-- influences, a variety of disturbance factors This Section includes portions of created and maintained forest composition and northwestern Wisconsin and east-central successional patterns which provided Minnesota. Potential natural vegetation types landscape mosaics of suitable lynx habitat. occurring on this Section include Great Lakes These disturbance factors included fire, pine forest, Great Lakes spruce-fir forest, and insects, and wind. maple-basswood forest.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 128 of 149 Pre-settlement forests in this area had New England Geographic Area three distinct fire regimes: Geographic Extent 1. Jack pine and spruce-fir forest with very The New England Geographic Area large (sometimes >250,000 acres) stand- encompasses western Maine, the western half replacement crown fires or severe surface of New Hampshire, the eastern half of fires, every 50 to 100 years in the west and Vermont, the northeastern portion of New 80 to 250 years in the east; York, small portions in northwestern Massachusetts, and the very northeast corner 2. Red pine and white pine forests with of Pennsylvania. This area largely falls within combinations of moderate intensity the Adirondack-New England Mixed Forest - surface fires at 20 to 40 year intervals, Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Province with more intense crown fires at 150 to (USDA, 1994). This province is composed of 300 year intervals, and subdued glaciated mountains and maturely dissected plateaus of mountainous topography. 3. Mixed aspen-birch-conifer forests with Any glacially broadened valleys have glacial high-intensity surface or crown fires outwash deposits and contain numerous (Kilgore and Heinselman 1990). swamps and lakes. Elevations range from 500 to 4,000 feet with a few isolated peaks higher Larger blowdowns, due to windshear and than 5,000 feet. The climate in the area is tornadoes, occurred infrequently but often characterized by warm summers. Winters can caused extensive, localized disturbance. be severely cold, but less so near the ocean. Insect infestations, such as those caused by Average annual snowfall is more than 100 spruce budworm, contributed to large areas of inches. The forest vegetation of this tree mortality and may have led to fires. ecoprovince is transitional between the boreal forests of the north and the deciduous forests These catastrophic events created diverse, to the south. Growth form and species are early successional forests which provided similar to those found to the north, but red habitats preferred by snowshoe hare and thus spruce tends to replaces white spruce. important foraging areas for lynx. The less Vertical vegetational zonation is present. intense, more frequent ground fires were an Valleys contain a hardwood forest with the important factor in maintaining the conifer principal tree species being sugar maple, component throughout much of this area. yellow birch and beech with a mixture of Smaller, localized wind events and insect hemlock. Low mountain slopes support a infestations likely created concentrations of mixed forest of spruce, fir, maple, beech and downed logs which can provide suitable birch. Above the mixed-forest zone lie pure denning habitat for lynx. stands of balsam fir and red spruce. Alpine meadows exist above timberline. (Bailey, An additional important habitat component 1995). in this geographic area is the presence of conifer bogs or lowland conifer forests. These The Adirondack-New England Mixed forest communities are extremely important Forest - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow snowshoe hare habitats and serve as refugia Province is composed of several ecological for hare during low points in their cycle subdivisions, or Sections, as described by (Jaako Poyry Consulting, 1992). McNab and Avers (1994). These included the White Mountains Section, the New England Piedmont Section, the Green, Taconic, Berkshire Mountains Section, the Adirondack

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 129 of 149 Highlands Section, and the Catskill Mountains Lynx Habitat Components Section. Lynx habitat within the New England White Mountains Section (M212A)-- Geographic Area existed in a mostly This Section extends across the western contiguous block of forest in the ecotone one-half of Maine from north to south and the between the boreal and deciduous forest, and northeastern corners of New Hampshire and is primarily associated with northeastern Vermont. The potential natural vegetation spruce-fir forest and northern hardwood- types, according to Kuchler, occurring on this spruce forest communities. The primary tree Section include northern hardwoods forest, species associated with these habitats include northern hardwood-spruce forest, and red spruce, and balsam fir, interspersed with northeastern spruce-fir forest. northern hardwoods such as sugar maple, yellow birch, and American beech (U.S. Fish New England Piedmont Section(M212B)-- and Wildlife Service, 1998). These forest This Section covers much of the western communities exist on the higher elevations of half of New Hampshire, the northeastern one- the region from the lower mountain slopes to third of Vermont, and small portions of north- the mountain tops or timberline. central Massachusetts. Potential natural vegetation types occurring on this Section Beyond climatic and topographic include northern hardwood forest and northern influences, the primary disturbance factors hardwood-spruce forest. which created and maintained forest composition and successional patterns in this Green, Taconic, Berkshire Mountains Geographic Area were wind, insects, disease, Section (M212C)-- and fire. This Section covers most of the remainder of Vermont with the exception of the Large blowdown disturbances resulting northwestern corner. It also reaches into from hurricane winds and other severe wind western Massachusetts and east-central New events contributed significantly to the early York. Potential natural vegetation types successional forest patterns in this region. occurring on this Section include northern Higher elevation forests are often hardwoods forest, northern hardwood-spruce characterized by an even-aged, wind-throw forest, and northeastern spruce-fir forest. phenomenon known as fir-waves. Insect and disease disturbances resulting from a variety Adirondack Highlands Section (M212D)-- of agents including spruce budworm, spruce This Section covers the Adirondack beetle, beech bark disease, and sugar maple Mountains in northern New York. Potential defoliators were also important factors natural vegetation types occurring on this effecting forest landscape patterns (McNab Section include northern hardwood-spruce and Avers, 1994). forest and northeastern spruce-fir forest. Montane forests in this Geographic Area Catskill Mountains Section (M212E)-- lack significant fire regimes. Fire was a more This Section occurs in southeastern New frequent disturbance in southern New England York and extends to the Pennsylvania border. and becomes increasingly infrequent on more Potential natural vegetation types occurring northern inland sites (McNab and Avers, here include northern hardwood forest and 1994). Kilgore and Heinselman (1990) northern hardwood-spruce forest. provided an overview of fire regimes across North America. The typical fire regime for this part of the country was infrequent surface

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 130 of 149 fires in the dormant season in the hardwood important foraging areas for lynx. Red spruce forests, and slightly more frequent but long- and balsam fir are important components in interval fires in some conifer forests. snowshoe hare habitat. Smaller, localized wind events, disease outbreaks, and insect These catastrophic events created diverse, infestations likely created concentrations of early successional forests which provided downed logs which can provide suitable habitats preferred by snowshoe hare and thus denning habitat for lynx.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 131 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 132 of 149 APPENDIX D--Questionnaire - Canada Lynx Management Direction In Land And Resource Management Plans on USFS And BLM Administrative Units

Instructions and Assumptions

1. The following Questions pertain only to the written management direction contained in approved National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) or Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans (LUP). The purpose is to assess how implementation of LRMPs and LUPs as written affect Canada lynx and lynx habitat. The information will be used in Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If policies or conservation strategies exist, but have not been incorporated into your Plan, they should not be used to answer the questions. The questions do not apply to site-specific project-level or activity plans, which require their own, individual, Section 7 consultation.

2. Please answer ALL questions. If a question does not apply, write 'na'.

3. We are seeking a professional approximation, not a GIS analysis.

4. For each question where you answer that your Plan contains direction, please disclose which page numbers in your Plan you referenced to answer the question.

5. We are looking for specific direction of intent to manage for lynx or the kind of conditions required by lynx. Broad statements of intent such as "At the time a species is listed as threatened or endangered, appropriate action will be taken" are too general to count as meeting the intent of managing or maintaining lynx.

6. Questions apply to areas 'within existing or potential lynx habitat' unless otherwise noted (see # 7 below).

7. Lynx habitat descriptions by geographic area are attached. Please use better local information, if available, but identify how geographic descriptions have been `fine-tuned.'

8. A glossary of terms is attached and should be referenced to answer questions.

9. Your answers will be tallied with answers from approximately 100+ other units to arrive at a determination of effects of existing Plans on lynx and lynx habitat.

GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Administrative Unit covered by your current LRMP or LUP ______2. Name of person(s) completing questionnaire ______3. Telephone number, and email address for #2, above: (____)______, ______. 4. Are there records (kills, visual sightings, tracks, hair, scats, etc.) of Canada lynx on your admin. unit or within 25 miles of your administrative unit over the past 10 years? Y___ N___ 5. If not, are there historic (>10 years ago) records ( as above) of lynx presence on or within 25 miles of your unit? Y___ N___ 6. Based on the best information you have, has there been a decline in lynx numbers on your unit in the last twenty years? Y___ N___

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 133 of 149 QUESTIONAIRRE GLOSSARY Atypical Habitats - Habitat adjacent to or Forage Habitat/Snowshoe Hare Habitat - Lynx between areas of lynx habitat, where forage habitat is where prey (snowshoe lynx are not typically found, except hare) is present and available to lynx. during periods of prey scarcity. In the Snowshoe hare densities and overwinter western U.S., lynx have been survival are the highest where documented in habitats such as shrub- understory stem densities, especially steppe (sagebrush), juniper, and conifers, are >5000 stems/acre and ponderosa pine which are not normally extend above average snow depths. associated with snowshoe hares. These conditions can occur, usually Atypical habitats within approximately within 15 to 20 years, as a result of fire 70 km of areas inhabited by snowshoe or cutting over large expanses. Such hare may be used as part of the home conditions can also occur within other range. Atypical habitats between areas structural conditions as canopy is of lynx habitat is used by lynx for eliminated, such as in mature vegetation. dispersal at the southern edge of its Older forests with a substantial amount range. White-tailed jackrabbit, black- of understory shrubs and young conifers tailed jackrabbit, sage and Columbian can provide snowshoe hare habitat. In sharp-tailed grouse, and beaver could be many areas shushes hares are present in important prey for lynx in atypical various vegetation structures, at varying habitat. densities, as long as cover (both winter and summer) and forage are present. Connectivity - The arrangement of habitats that allow organisms and ecological Lynx Management Unit - An area that processes to move across the landscape. approximates the size of a female lynx In the case of lynx, the habitat linkages home range (the area used by an that allow long distance movements to individual either during the entire find food, cover, and mates. Lynx appear calendar year or seasonally, in its normal to show a reluctance to cross large activities of foraging, mating, and openings, preferring to travel in rearing of young.) The size of LMUs continuous forest, particularly in areas should generally be 15-25 square miles such as ridges, saddles, and riparian in contiguous habitat (such as 5th or 6th areas. code HUCs in parts of west), and likely should be larger in less contiguous or Denning Habitat - Habitat used during poorer quality or naturally fragmented parturition and rearing of young lynx habitat. until they are mobile. Often includes mature Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir forests with lodgepole pine in western ecosystems. Large amounts of coarse woody debris are present for use as escape and thermal cover by kittens.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 134 of 149 STRATEGIES AND MEASURES

Vegetation Management

Lynx habitat components requirements 7. a. Does your LRMP or LUP contain specific direction to provide for lynx denning and foraging habitat? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______b. Is this direction applied to all areas where lynx currently occur and may have historically occurred? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______8. Does your LRMP or LUP contain other direction, not specific to lynx, that would result in maintaining lynx habitat components (denning and foraging habitats) within lands capable of producing lynx habitat? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______9. a. Have areas for lynx management (e.g., lynx management units-LMUs) been delineated on your unit? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______b. Are LMUs delineated in all areas where lynx currently occur and may have historically occurred? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______10. Does your LRMP or LUP allow changes in tree species composition or covertype which could reduce habitat suitability for lynx (e.g.,. emphasizing selection for less desirable western larch in stands with a preferred component of lodgepole, or mixed conifer stands converted to red pine or monotypic hardwoods)? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______11. Within atypical habitat, does your LRMP or LUP allow habitat conversion to a less desirable species or covertype which could reduce habitat suitability for lynx prey species (e.g.,. sagebrush conversion to crested wheatgrass)? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______

Lynx habitat spatial size and distribution requirements 12. Does your LRMP or LUP address the need to provide a distribution of lynx habitat components across the planning unit (LMU, 5th or 6th code HUC, etc) to provide suitable lynx habitat? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______13. a. Does your LRMP or LUP include direction to simulate natural disturbance patterns and sizes when designing vegetation treatments? Completely______Partially______Not at all______LRMP or LUP pp.______b. What direction does your LRMP or LUP contain for: Average stand size? (narrative) LRMP or LUP pp.______

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 135 of 149 Age and size class distribution on subunits of your administrative unit? (narrative) LRMP or LUP pp. ______Shape of timber harvest units? (narrative) LRMP or LUP pp.______Adjacency of temporary openings or even-aged harvest units (eg. minimum separation between stands, minimum height requirement for stands adjacent to proposed harvest)? (narrative) LRMP or LUP pp.______c. As a result of the direction in the plan, what is the desired or probable landscape? (narrative) LRMP or LUP pp.______14. a. Does your LRMP or LUP contain direction for retention of late-successional forest communities? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______b. If yes, over what percent of the forested area in lynx habitat? _____% LRMP or LUP pp.______c. What are the distribution requirements for late-successional forest (by land area or plant association)? LRMP or LUP pp.______

Silvicultural Practices

15. Snowshoe hare foraging habitat is necessary for lynx. It may be necessary to create or provide forage for snowshoe hare. Would there be a conflict with any LRMP or LUP direction if thinning is delayed in commodity emphasis management areas in order to maintain forage or produce it quickly? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______16. a. When you thin, does your LRMP or LUP include direction that provides for snowshoe hare habitat (eg. leave islands, higher stem density, retaining deciduous shrub densities, etc.) Completely______Partially______Not at all______LRMP or LUP pp.______b. Does your LRMP or LUP contain direction that will maintain at least 15% of those stands with >5000 stems per acre in an unthinned condition? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______

Fire

17. Does your LRMP or LUP allow the use of wildland fire for resource benefits (sometimes referred to as "let burn policy ", prescribed natural fire, etc.) in non-developed land management allocations (wilderness, roadless, etc.)? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 136 of 149 18. a. Within lynx habitat, identify which of the following fire management categories are prescribed in your LRMP or LUP and the approximate percentage of habitat to which each applies: Full suppression______Limited suppression______No suppression______LRMP or LUP pp.______b. Within atypical lynx habitat, identify which of the following fire management categories are prescribed in your LRMP or LUP and the approximate percentage of habitat to which each applies: Full suppression______Limited suppression______No suppression______LRMP or LUP pp.______

Grazing

19. a. Does your LRMP or LUP allow livestock grazing in forested lynx habitat (including clearcuts and burns)? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______b. What is the highest range utilization standard that your LRMP or LUP allows in forested lynx habitat? %______LRMP or LUP pp.______20. If you allow grazing in aspen stands, does your LRMP or LUP provide direction or prescription to maintain a diversity of age and height classes, particularly in the 5 - 15 foot height category? Y____ N____ LRMP or LUP pp.______21. Do you have riparian guidelines in your LRMP or LUP that provide for a diverse vegetative community and age class and structure sufficient to provide cover and forage for lynx prey species? Completely______Partially______Not at all______LRMP or LUP pp.______22. Within atypical habitat, are there management standards in your LRMP or LUP that realistically result in at least 60% of the naturally occurring plant communities being maintained in a healthy mid- to late-seral condition? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______

Roads

23. a. If your LRMP or LUP contains open road density standards, what percent of your unit (within lynx habitat) has standards at the following levels? . < 2 miles/sq mi ______% 2 - 3 miles/sq mi ______% No Stds. Exist______b. Over what area is road density calculated? LRMP or LUP pp.______

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 137 of 149 24. Do you have winter road closure restrictions in your LRMP or LUP that may benefit lynx? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp._____

Recreation

25. a. Does your LRMP or LUP include standards that address potential impacts to lynx or lynx habitat from highly developed recreation sites,(such as ski areas and large resorts)? Completely______Partially______Not at all______LRMP or LUP pp._____ b. Does your LRMP or LUP include standards that address potential impacts of large ski areas or resort developments on the habitat of lynx prey species (snowshoe hare)? Completely______Partially______Not at all______LRMP or LUP pp._____ 26. a. Does your LRMP or LUP provide direction for expansion of developed recreation facilities? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp._____ b. If yes, does it contain direction to mitigate potential impacts to lynx or lynx habitat? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp._____ 27. Does your LRMP and LUP include standards that serve to mitigate potential impacts to lynx denning from yearround dispersed recreation? Completely______Partially______Not at all_____ LRMP or LUP pp._____ 28. a. Does your LRMP or LUP allow use of snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles off designated routes or outside designated areas? Y___ N___ Estimate the amount of lynx habitat where such use is allowed. ______% LRMP or LUP pp.______b. Does your LRMP or LUP allow use of snowshoes and cross-country skiing off designated routes or outside designated areas? Y___ N___ Estimate the amount of lynx habitat where such use is allowed. ______% LRMP or LUP pp.______29. Does your LRMP or LUP allow use of all-terrain vehicles off designated routes or outside designated areas? Y___ N___ Estimate the amount of lynx habitat where such use is allowed. ______% LRMP or LUP pp.______30. a. Does your LRMP or LUP promote or allow for a net increase of designated snowmobile routes or play areas from the current situation? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______b. If yes, what percent of lynx habitat could be affected by this increase? _____% LRMP or LUP pp.______

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 138 of 149 Minerals And Energy

31. Does your LRMP or LUP include standards that serve to mitigate potential impacts to lynx or lynx habitat from minerals, oil or gas development and management? Completely______Partially______Not at all______LRMP or LUP pp.______

Connectivity

32. Does your LRMP or LUP provide direction for maintaining connectivity at the watershed or lynx management unit level? Y_____ N_____ LRMP or LUP pp.______33. Does your LRMP or LUP include mitigation measures that facilitates lynx movements across highways ( e.g.,. overpasses, underpasses, reduced speed, etc.)? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______

Land Tenure Adjustments

34. Does your LRMP or LUP identify parcels for land tenure adjustments (e.g.,. acquisitions, land exchanges and conservation easements) which would either directly or indirectly benefit lynx habitat conservation? Y___ N___ LRMP or LUP pp.______35. Does your LRMP or LUP identify parcels for land tenure adjustments which would dispose of lynx habitat? Y_____ N______LRMP or LUP pp.______

Other

36. Does your LRMP or LUP include any additional measures not mentioned in this questionnaire that directly or indirectly assist in lynx conservation? Y____ N_____ If so, what are they? LRMP or LUP pp.______37. Is there any other direction in the plan that prevents or discourages lynx conservation? Y____ N_____ If so, what are they? LRMP or LUP pp.______38. In what ways may implementing your LRMP or LUP be negatively impacting lynx? 39. What factors other than Plan implementation have directly or indirectly contributed to lynx decline on your unit (please provide sources)? 40. Does your LRMP or LUP provide direction for coordinating with nearby units or other land management agencies on shared issues potentially affecting lynx (e.g., ensuring habitat connectivity between units)? Y_____ N____ LRMP or LUP pp.______

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 139 of 149 41. For National Forest and BLM units adjacent to Canada, does your LRMP or LUP provide direction for coordinating with the appropriate Canadian agencies on issues affecting lynx (e.g., ensuring habitat connectivity). Y______N_____ LRMP or LUP pp.______42. Does your LRMP or LUP contain any direction for monitoring: a. lynx/lynx habitat? Y____ N____ LRMP or LUP pp.______b. prey/prey habitat? Y____ N____ LRMP or LUP pp.______

43. Additional Comments?

Thank you for your assistance in answering the questionnaire! Supplemental questions for BLM

1. Do you have Spruce/Alpine Fir or Lodgepole Pine forest on your unit? If so, about how many acres? 2. Do you have Douglas Fir forest on your unit? If so, about how many acres? 3. Are these forest types contiguous with similar forest on other public lands? 4. If you do not have these forest types, do they occur within 25 miles of your units?

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 140 of 149 APPENDIX E --Description of Habitat Mapping Products and Uses

Lynx habitat descriptions and maps used potential vegetation types that were capable of for completing the BA evolved as we supporting lynx and lynx prey, and we limited progressed with the project. We referenced consideration to the 16 states in the Federal three distinct lynx habitats during the course Register proposed listing. This map was used of this assessment: for discussions with the FWS in deciding which of our original pool of administrative 1. Habitat descriptions used to complete units would be carried through the BA the questionnaires. analysis. In the Great Lakes and Northeast regions, local experts remapped Kuchler's 2. Potential habitat map used to potential habitat using Bailey's broadscale determine which FS and BLM units ecological units at the subsection level. The should be analyzed and to conduct subsection level incorporates such factors as portions of the effects analysis. climate, snow depth, vegetation, and landform. After this exercise, all habitat in 3. Primary habitat map, also used to Pennsylvania was deleted even though conduct portions of the effects Pennsylvania was one of the 16 states listed in analysis. the Federal Register notice. It is believed that in Pennsylvania, lynx were extirpated in the Habitat 1 early 1900s. Early on, we cast a wide net for data gathering purposes using ecological The map representing final habitat descriptions covering large, contiguous blocks decisions after discussions between the FWS of land rather than habitat types which and the local administrative units is called delineate smaller units within those potential habitat (Figure 3). The Science contiguous blocks. We used the Lynx Habitat Team maps entitled Western Lynx Points Descriptions for the Five Geographic Areas within Broad Scale Vegetation Classes, Great prepared by the Lynx Biology Team Lakes Lynx Points within Broad Scale (Appendix C) to give BA questionnaire Vegetation Classes and Northeastern Lynx respondents baseline habitat information. Points within Broadscale Vegetation Classes These descriptions were changed in the later (McKelvey et al. in press 1999b) depict drafts of the LCAS, but since we used the similar habitat with the following exceptions: original descriptions to obtain information for (1) habitat outside of the 16 States in the FWS the BA, they were retained for this report. We listing is included in the Science Team map gathered questionnaire data from more and not included in the BA potential habitat administrative units than we actually analyzed map, and (2) In the Great Lakes region, the in this document (Appendix B). Science Team map follows the boundary of the Laurentian Mixed Forest province of Habitat 2 Bailey's ecological hierarchy. The potential Next, we created a potential habitat map habitat map incorporates local knowledge and that was used to determine which units should maps selected subsection boundaries that are be included in the BA. This also served as a nested within the Laurentian Mixed Forest basis for conducting portions of the effects Province. In the Northeast, The Science Team analysis. We began with habitat classified at a map follows the boundaries of the finer scale than the descriptions enclosed in Adirondack-New England Mixed Forest, a the questionnaires. We started with Kuchler mountainous version of the Laurentian Mixed

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 141 of 149 Forest Province. The potential habitat map Field office of the BLM is eliminated from incorporates local knowledge by mapping the potential habitat map. Small isolated selected subsections within that mountainous polygons of habitat in Idaho, Utah, province and adds another subsection in Wyoming, Montana, and New York were Maine that is outside of the Adirondack-New also deleted from the BA potential habitat England Mixed Forest, but still within the map. These changes occurred because the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. administrative units were located in areas where lynx are believed to have been Specific differences between the Science extirpated for many decades, or units that Team maps and the BA potential habitat map are located at the extreme southern range are: of the area being considered by the BA and habitat is marginal at best, or because 1. Habitat is mapped in California, Arizona, the habitat patches are isolated and there New Mexico, South Dakota, Nebraska, are significant barriers to lynx movement Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and West and use of those patches. Virginia on the Science Team maps but not on the potential habitat map. The Habitat 3 Science Team's assignment was to collect Finally, we developed a primary habitat information about lynx occurrence within map (Figure 3: Primary Areas of Lynx the lower 48 states. The BA team's Occurrence), based on polygons from the assignment was to analyze those FS and Primary Types maps created by the Science BLM units that were believed to play a Team. The Science Team maps were created role in lynx conservation. It is assumed using Kuchler (1964) broadscale vegetation that FS and BLM units in those states do classes in the west and Bailey (1998) not. There was no need for the BA team broadscale vegetation classes (province level) to map and consider isolated patches of in the east, selected elevations (except in the lynx habitat in those states. Great Lakes) and recorded lynx observances. The primary habitat map varies from the 2. Habitat in and around the Siskiyou and Science Team Primary Types maps by Fremont NFs in Oregon, Manti-La Sal NF including only that Primary Type habitat in Utah, Huron- Manistee NF in Michigan, located within potential habitat described Allegheny NF in Pennsylvania, Finger earlier. Lakes NF in New York, Elko NV BLM Office and all habitat in Nevada, Jarbridge The following table identifies lynx habitat Resource Area in Idaho, Lewistown, Miles mapping products, sources and brief City, Billings, Havre, and Malta BLM descriptions of data used to create the offices in Montana and those areas products, products available for that habitat covered by the Eastern States Milwaukee and how we used the products.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 142 of 149 Table E-1--Habitat mapping products and uses.

A. Lynx Habitat-Broad Scale Description

Source (Brief Description) Products Uses Geographic Area Descriptions Appendix C: Lynx Habitat To determine which administrative created by the Lynx Biological Team. Descriptions for the Five units should complete the BA Geographic Areas questionnaire and to give Western US: Demarchi questionnaire respondents baseline Eastern US: Bailey Sections habitat information B. Potential Lynx Habitat

Source (Brief Description) Products Uses Kuchler potential vegetation for Figure 3. Potential Lynx Basis for discussions between FWS, western states Habitat USFS and BLM to determine which Western US: Types Table 1. Potential lynx habitat units should be included in the BA 3,4,12,14,15,18,20,21,52 analysis. (Decision also considered 16 states identified in the Federal Baileys Ecological Subsections for Register proposed listing). eastern states within Province 212- Laurentian Mixed Forest To conduct a portion of the effects analysis.

C. Primary Lynx Habitat

Source (Brief Description) Products Uses McKelvey et al. in press 1999b - Figure 3. Primary Areas of To conduct a portion of the effects Lynx Science Team Lynx Occurrence analysis. Table 2 . Primary lynx habitat This is an integration of broadscale (Note: Mapping for the Cascades, ecological units, selected elevations Northern Rockies and Southern and recorded lynx observations. Rockies is at a finer scale than mapping for the Great Lakes and New Western US: primary habitat is England areas. The Great Lakes and derived using Kuchler potential New England area map units contain vegetation types, selected elevations inclusions of non-suitable habitat and recorded lynx observations. within the units.) Eastern US: primary habitat is derived using Bailey's ecological subsections, selected elevations in northeast region only and recorded lynx observations.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 143 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 144 of 149 APPENDIX F--Management Prescriptions

Code Description Interpretation 1 Ecological processes operate relatively free from human Manage designated and proposed influence. Diversity resulting from natural succession and wilderness to achieve natural disturbances predominates, non-native vegetation rare. Few, ecosystems and meet high quality if any facilities, travel non-motorized. wilderness objectives. 2 Conservation of representative or rare ecological settings or Manage administratively or components. Insuring overall sustainability of larger congressionally designated areas landscapes. Influences of humans sometimes evident, according to their designation. (Wild generally nonintensive. Areas often formally designated. and Scenic Rivers, RNA, etc.) Travel generally non-motorized. 3 Ecological values in balance with human use. Predominantly Natural forces and processes play a natural appearing landscape, but management tools can be dominant role in vegetation and used to restore or maintain relatively natural patterns. Some landscape changes. Wildlife, fish, water evidence of human activity. Restrictions on motorized travel. quality are primary, but range, timber, mineral and other activities are typically allowed. 4 Ecological values are managed to provide human recreational Manage for concentrated recreation use use, but are maintained well within levels necessary to and development. Effects are evident maintain overall ecological integrity. Consumptive resource and long term. Areas are typically small uses occur but not emphasized. Motorized transportation in scale. common. 5 Primarily forested ecosystems managed to meet a variety of Intensive management of vegetative ecological and human needs. Often, display high levels of species to meet resource objectives. investment, use, activity, density of facilities and evidence of Maintain ecosystem health and vegetative manipulation activities. Motorized transportation sustainability while providing favorable common. conditions for commodity and non- commodity outputs. 6 Primarily grass and shrub lands managed to meet a variety of Intensive management of range ecological and human needs. Often display high levels of vegetative species to meet resource investment, use, activity, density of facilities and evidence of objectives. Maintain ecosystem health vegetative manipulation activities. Motorized transportation and sustainability while providing common. favorable conditions for commodity and non-commodity outputs. 7 Public lands intermingles with private. Often residential Manage fed lands that are significantly lands. Ecosystem management objectives tempered by other influenced by private lands to protect landowner uses. Human activities have altered natural ecosystems and promote cooperation appearances. Resource use not planned on a sustainable and meet management objectives. basis. Motorized transportation common. 8 Ecological conditions (including processes) generally Manage for concentrated mining, special permanently altered by human activities. Ecological values use, or administrative site use and protected where they affect human occupancy. Areas development. Effects are evident and generally small. Activities generally commercial. Motorized long term. Areas are typically small in transportation common. scale.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 145 of 149 Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 146 of 149 APPENDIX G--Rating Guidance and Evaluation Matrix

Guidelines for Developing Evaluation not applicable to an administrative unit, then Matrix from Lynx Questionnaires the response is NA.

Each applicable administrative unit will be Criterion 1-- rated on each of the 17 effects criteria in the If the answer to questions 7 or to question 8 is matrix. The possible responses are: Y, and question 14 indicates at least 10% old growth is well distributed, then the response is F= fully meets the criterion; near certainty F. If the answer to questions 7 and 8 is N, and that the criterion is met question 14 indicates minimal and poorly S= substantially meets the criterion; highly distributed old growth, then the response is N. probable that the criterion is met Anything in between these responses indicates M= marginally meets the criterion; partially meeting the criterion, and the answer criterion may or may not be met N= does not meet the criterion; criterion is either S or M depending on the amount and not met at all, or unlikely it is met distribution of old growth provided. U= unknown if the criterion is met; Criterion 2-- inadequate information to assess If the answer to questions 7 or to question 8 is NA= the criterion is not applicable on the Y, question 18 indicates <50% full administrative unit suppression, and the unit has a significant The responses are based primarily on the vegetation manipulation program, then the referenced questions in the questionnaire. response is F. If the answer to questions 7 and However, any narrative statements provided 8 is N, question 18 indicates >50% full by the administrative units will also be used. suppression, and the unit has a minimal When the questionnaire does not provide a vegetation manipulation program, then the conclusive answer, the unit's Plan will be response is N. Anything in between these reviewed for further information. If an answer responses indicates partially meeting the still cannot be determined, the contact person criterion, and the answer is either S or M on the unit will be phoned for more depending on the reviewer's judgement of the information. All the above information amount of forage habitat provided. sources will be used to arrive at a final Criterion 3-- response to each criterion through the If the answer to questions 9 and 10 is N, then professional interpretation of members of the BA team. the response is F. If the answer to questions 9 and 10 is Y, then the response is N. If The following is guidance for how an questions 9 and 10 have differing answers, initial response is derived from the then the response is S or M, depending on questionnaire for each criterion. As noted interpretation of the relative amounts of above, other factors are considered in arriving habitat and atypical habitat present on the unit. at the final response. Note: In practice these questions proved difficult for the units to consistently General-- understand and interpret. Therefore, units If an administrative unit does not address a consistently received an M rating (may or may particular criterion (i.e., no response), then the not meet the criterion) if their response was N, response to that criterion is U. If a criterion is unless further corroborating information was available.

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 147 of 149 Criterion 4-- depending on the percent of the unit with the If the answer to question 15 is N and the standard. The percent of the unit with a 2-3 answer to question 16a is either not at all, miles/sq mi standard was used to influence the partially, or completely, then the response is rating in borderline cases. either M, S, or F, respectively. If the answer to question 15 is Y and the answer to question Criterion 8-- 16a is either not at all, partially, or completely, If the answer to questions 25a and 25b is Not then the response is either N, M, or S, At All, then the response is N. If the answer respectively. Question 16b was not used in to questions 25a and 25b is Partially, then the the responses because the referenced response is M. If the answer to questions 25a information was not used in the final version and 25b is Completely and the answer to of the LCAS. question 26 is Y, then the response is S or F, depending on site specific conditions. Criterion 5-- If the answer to question 17 is Y, and the Criterion 9-- answers to questions 18a and b include >50% If the answer to question 27 is Not At All and in the no suppression or limited suppression extensive ORV use off designated trails is categories, then the response is Y. If the indicated in question 29, then the response is answer to question 17 is N, and the answers to N. If the answer to question 27 is Partially, questions 18a and b include <50% in the no the response is either M or S, depending on suppression or limited suppression categories, the amount of ORV use off designated trails then the response is N. Any other indicated in question 29. If there is low ORV combination of answers results in either an M use, then the response is F or S, depending on or S response depending on the reviewer's amount of use. judgement of how well the unit meets the criterion. Criterion 10-- If the answer to question 27 is Not At All and Criterion 6-- extensive snowmobile use off designated trails This criterion requires interpretation of several is indicated in question 28a, then the response questions to derive a response. If the answer is N. If question 28a indicates more than half to questions 12 and 13a is Y, then the the area is open to snowmobile use off response is probably F. If the answer to designated trails, then he response is M. If questions 12 and 13a is N, then the response is question 28a indicates less than half the area is probably N. If questions 12 and 13a have open to snowmobile use off designated trails, differing answers, the response is either M or then he response is S. If question 28 indicates S. However, each of these responses must no snowmobile use off designated trails and consider the answers to questions 13b, 13c, question and question 28b indicates other and 14c in deriving the final response. winter dispersed recreation use is occurring, then the response is S. Criterion 7-- If the answer to question 23 is No Standards Criterion 11-- Exist and the answer to question 24 is N, then If the answer to question 31 is None or no the response is N. If the answer to question 23 plan direction was found for oil and gas is No Standards Exist and the answer to leasing or minerals, the response is N. If the question 24 is Y, then the response is M. If answer to question 31 is partially or generic the answer to question 23 shows that open plan direction for minerals or oil and gas road density standards in the <2 miles/sq mi leasing was found, the response is M. If range exist, then the response is F, S, or M answer to question 31 is partially or specific

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 148 of 149 wildlife guidelines or withdrawals were found direction was found in the plan for in plan direction, the response is S. If the coordination with adjacent units and agencies, answer to question 31 is Completely or oil and then the response is S. If the answer to gas or minerals S&Gs or objectives pertaining question 40 is Y and the answer to question 41 to lynx were found, the response is F. is N (where applicable) or generic direction was found in the plan for coordination with Criterion 12-- adjacent units and agencies, then the response No unit responded Y to question 33, so no unit is M. If (where applicable) the answers are received an F under this criterion. If the both N and no plan direction for coordination answer to question 32 was N or no plan was found, then the response is N. For units direction was found for within or between unit where only question 40 is applicable no units connectivity, the response is N. If the answer identified coordination needs for lynx and no to question 32 was Y or plan direction was response of F is possible. For units where found for portions of the forest or for one only question 40 is applicable, the answer was species with somewhat similar requirements, Y, or specific direction for coordination with then the response is M. If the answer to adjacent units was found in the plan, the question 32 was Y or plan direction was found response is S. For units where only question for connectivity for several species or habitats 40 is applicable, the answer was Y, or generic appropriate for lynx, the response is S. Plan direction for coordination with adjacent units language relative to grazing and riparian was found in the plan, the response is M. For management was reviewed with respect to units where only question 40 is applicable, the connectivity concerns. The above responses answer was N, or no direction for coordination were adjusted up or down based on BA team with adjacent units was found in the plan, the judgement on how well the Plans addressed response is N. these concerns. Criterion 15-- Criterion 13-- If the answer to question 42a. is Y and the If the answer to question 34 is Y and the answer to 42b. is Y, or measurable plan answer to question 35 is N and lynx were direction was found for this monitoring, then mentioned as a rationale for land adjustments, the response is F. If the answer to question then the response is F. If the answer to 42a. is Y and the answer to 42b. is N (or vice question 34 is Y and the answer to question 35 versa), and measurable plan direction was is N and sensitive/special status species were found for either category of monitoring, then mentioned as a rationale for land adjustments, the response is S. If the answer to question then the response is S. If the answer to 42a. is Y and the answer to 42b. is N (or vice question 34 is Y and the answer to question 35 versa), and generic plan direction was found is Y or N and wildlife was mentioned as a for either category of monitoring, then the rationale for land adjustments, then the response is M. If the answer is N, for 42a. and response is M. If the answer to question 34 is 42b., or no plan direction was found, then the N and the answer to question 35 is Y or N, response is N. then the response is N. Answers to questions not specifically Criterion 14-- mentioned above may be used in further No unit (where applicable) identified direction interpretations or in narrative sections of the for coordinating with Canada. These units BA. could not receive a response of F. If the answer to question 40 is Y and the answer to question 41 is N (where applicable) or specific

Lynx Biological Assessment, December 1999 Page 149 of 149