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