la garita spruce beetle responsea123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2013. 12....
TRANSCRIPT
-
La Garita Spruce Beetle Response
Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment1
Gunnison Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National
Forests
Gunnison Field Office, Bureau of Land Management
1 Meets the standards for both a Biological Evaluation (FSM 2672.42) and Biological Assessment (50 CFR
402.12(f)).
Prepared by:
Matt Vasquez 06/13/2013
District Wildlife Biologist
Gunnison Ranger District
Reviewed by:
Russ Japuntich 06/13/2013
Wildlife Biologist
Gunnison Field Office
Bureau of Land Management
Clay Speas 06/12/2013
Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants Lead
GMUG National Forests
Submitted to:
John Murphy
District Ranger
Gunnison Ranger District
Brian St. George
Gunnison Field Office Manager
Bureau of Land Management
-
2
-
3
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4
II. LOCATION, BACKGROUND, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................4 Location Description ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose of and Need for Action.................................................................................................................... 8 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ................................................................................................................... 9 Wildlife-Related Project Design Criteria ..................................................................................................... 13 Compliance with the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment ......................................................................... 15 Action Area, Including Summary of Current Conditions, Developments, and Human Uses ....................... 17
III. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED ................................................................................... 19
IV. CONSULTATION TO DATE ............................................................................................... 22
V. SPECIES EVALUATED IN DETAIL ....................................................................................... 23 North American Wolverine ......................................................................................................................... 23 Canada Lynx ................................................................................................................................................ 23 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................................................ 25
VI. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 26 Snowshoe Hare Habitat Assessment .......................................................................................................... 29 Environmental Baseline Status of Lynx Habitat .......................................................................................... 30 Lynx Linkage Area ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Roads .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Snow Compaction ....................................................................................................................................... 33
VII. DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................ 34 No Action (Existing Condition) .................................................................................................................... 34 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 36 Direct/Indirect Effects of Habitat Change and use of SRLA Exemptions and Exceptions ........................... 40 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................................... 45 Consistency with the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (USFS) and Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (BLM) ............................................................................................................................................ 48
VIII. DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT AND RATIONALE ........................................................... 49
IX. RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, OR MITIGATE ADVERSE EFFECTS .................................................................................................................. 51
X. MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 51
XI. RESPONSIBILITY FOR A REVISED BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ............................................. 52
XII. CONTACTS ................................................................................................................. 52
XIII. LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 53
XIV. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 55
-
4
I. INTRODUCTION
The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (referred to throughout this
document as “the Forest” or “GMUG”) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are
evaluating the effects of a proposed vegetation management project on the Gunnison Ranger
District and the BLM Gunnison Field Office through an Environmental Assessment. This
project involves salvage harvest and hazard tree removal of dead Engelmann spruce trees due
to spruce bark beetle, and aspen coppice treatments. The purpose of this document is to
present the analysis and determination of effects of the alternatives on federally listed species
(endangered, threatened, and proposed).
This biological evaluation report (BE) conforms to legal requirements set forth under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14).
Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the
conservation of listed species. Section 7(a) (2) requires that federal agencies ensure any
action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
federally-listed species, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
Forest Service policy requires that a review of programs and activities, through an effects
analysis document (referred to in current Forest Service policy as a biological evaluation or
BE), be conducted to determine their potential effect on threatened and endangered species,
species proposed for listing, and Regional Forester-designated sensitive species (TEPS; FSM
2670.3). Under the ESA, the effects analysis report is called a biological assessment (BA)
and must be prepared for federal actions that are “major construction activities” to evaluate
the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species and critical habitats. The
contents of the BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the nature
of the federal action (50 CFR 402.12(f)). A BE may be used to satisfy the ESA requirement
to prepare a Biological Assessment. Preparation of a Biological Evaluation as part of the
NEPA process ensures that TEPS species receive full consideration in the decision-making
process. A separate biological evaluation was prepared that addresses Forest Service
sensitive species, which is available in the project record.
This document also includes types of information specific to analyzing projects under the
Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (SRLA). This helps ensure that the
appropriate information is used in the effects analysis and provided to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service that leads to streamlined consultations on SRLA projects.
II. LOCATION, BACKGROUND, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location Description
The project planning area comprises 220,540 acres and includes Gunnison National Forest
and BLM Gunnison Field Office managed lands in Saguache and Hinsdale Counties east of
Lake City, CO (Figure 1). The planning area is adjacent to Colorado State Highway 149 and
extends east past Los Pinos Pass to the ridge between Cochetopa Creek and Van Tassel
Gulch. The southern boundary is defined by the Gunnison National Forest boundary along
the Continental Divide. The northern boundary generally follows the National Forest
-
5
boundary with some BLM managed areas included where the spruce-fir forest type is
present.
Figure 1. La Garita Spruce Beetle Response Vicinity Map.
-
6
Background
Natural disturbances are ecological processes that affect the structure, function, and
composition of ecosystems. Ecosystems experience multiple disturbances, including wind
events, bark beetles, and fire. Disturbances often leave behind a mosaic of vegetation
conditions.
Disturbances such as spruce beetle infestations are natural ecosystem processes. The spruce
beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) is the most significant cause of mortality in mature
Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) stands. Based on the results of the U.S. Forest
Service and Colorado State Forest Service annual forest health survey in Colorado, the
spruce beetle outbreak is expanding with 183,000 new acres detected in 2012, bringing the
total acreage affected since 1996 to 924,000 acres (Figure 2;
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmug/home/?cid=STELPRDB5409160). The annual study
found spruce beetles active on 311,000 acres in 2012.
Figure 2. Documented bark beetle activity in Colorado for the time period 2000 to 2012.
Currently the hardest hit areas with spruce beetle outbreaks are on the Rio Grande, San Juan,
Gunnison, and Grand Mesa National Forests. On the Gunnison National Forest, within the
La Garita Spruce Beetle Response planning area, 46,735 acres of spruce beetle activity has
La Garita Spruce Beetle
Response planning area
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmug/home/?cid=STELPRDB5409160
-
7
been documented since 2008 (Figure 3). Endemic spruce beetle populations usually live in
wind thrown trees but as populations increase, they may enter susceptible, large diameter
standing trees. Based on observed bark beetle activity on the Gunnison National Forest and
the adjacent Rio Grande National Forest since 2010, we anticipate that complete mortality
will occur in all Engelmann spruce trees greater than five inches in diameter at breast height
(DBH). Due to the extreme spruce bark beetle population numbers and rate of spread, we do
not expect that any mature spruce stands will remain alive within the planning area,
especially old growth stands since spruce trees with an average DBH greater than 16 inches
are highly susceptible to spruce beetles (Holsten et al. 1999).
Figure 3. Documented spruce beetle activity from 2008 to 2012 within and surrounding the
La Garita Spruce Beetle Response planning area.
In addition to salvage harvest of spruce beetle mortality Engelmann spruce trees, the initial
review of the project area also revealed opportunities to promote aspen regeneration to
encourage the growth of healthy stands of young aspen. Although aspen is prevalent across
the GMUG National Forest, of the 743,031 acres of aspen on the Forest, less than 1% is
considered young and in the stand initiation stage. Several areas exist within the Analysis
Area where aspen is in decline and opportunities for aspen regeneration exist.
The La Garita Spruce Beetle Response project is not intended to stop or control the spruce
beetle infestation nor is it intended to treat every acre. Rather this project is being initiated to
-
8
manage the health, diversity, and productivity of the forested landscape where there is an
existing road system and previously vested interests in sustainable forest management. The
La Garita Spruce Beetle Response project takes an ecosystem management approach where
the Forest Service seeks to maintain a variety of ecosystem goods and services.
Purpose of and Need for Action
The purpose of this action is to mitigate the detrimental impacts to the forest resources and
forest users (within the context of the Forest Plan and the Gunnison RMP) resulting from the
large scale spruce beetle epidemic that is infesting the spruce-fir forest type within the
planning area. The main components of this mitigation address concerns about public safety,
and the loss in economic value and opportunity related to the harvest of wood products
within the timber management (7A) portions of the planning area. To a lesser extent, fuel
reduction can be accomplished through the removal of woody material from local sites.
Wood products within the planning area include sawtimber, post and poles, woody biomass,
mine props, house logs and firewood. Sawtimber, post and pole, and mine prop products will
lose value within 3 to 10 years after tree mortality, while products such as firewood, biomass
and house logs can hold value longer if the trees remain standing
Due to the spruce bark beetle epidemic, existing conditions within the planning area have
departed from the Desired Conditions defined in the Forest Plan and RMP. This disparity has
created a situation where the intended objective of timber management is inhibited
substantially. To mitigate this impact, dead trees can be salvaged before they lose economic
value, and stand restocking can be accelerated. By taking this action, wood products will be
provided to benefit the local and regional economy, reforestation will occur in areas severely
impacted by spruce beetle, long-term fuel buildup can be reduced in areas severely impacted
by spruce beetle, and improved forest stand condition can be created with accelerated
recovery rates. Additionally, hazard trees can be removed from high use sites using funds
generated from the value of salvaged wood products to offset the cost of these hazard
reduction treatments. In some cases hazard reduction treatment efficiency can be greatly
increased through integration of these treatments with commercial salvage operations.
The LaGarita Beetle Response Project is designed to achieve agency objectives as identified
in Chapter II of the Forest Plan and Chapter 2 Management Unit 1 pages 20 – 22 and
Management Unit 13 pages 34 – 36 of the BLM Gunnison RMP. This project is also
designed to implement the Standards, Guidelines and Objectives from the Southern Rockies
Lynx Amendment (SRLA).
Alternatives
Three alternatives were developed and analyzed in detail in a Draft Environmental
Assessment:
Alternative 1 – Proposed Action
Alternative 2 – Timber Value Emphasis
-
9
Alternative 3 – No Action
As a result of review by the Interdisciplinary Team and public comments provided during the
public scoping period, key issues were identified that drove the development of the
alternatives. Based on the key issues described in the Draft Environmental Assessment, our
preferred alternative is Alternative 1, which is carried forward for analysis in this document.
Alternative 1 – Proposed Action
We propose to implement a moderate series of salvage harvests throughout the planning area,
designate and remove hazard trees from critical, high public use sites and plant trees where
stocking objectives are not met.
Under this proposal, salvage harvest would be implemented to recover wood product value
from dead and dying spruce, aspen (coppice) and incidental amounts of other tree species.
Salvage logging units were specifically selected to provide for preservation of important
Canada lynx habitat, to protect high quality forest regeneration, and to minimize potential
reforestation cost by avoiding south and west aspects and poor sites (rocky or shallow soils).
This plan does not propose to harvest all areas that are currently roaded and are suitable for
commercial timber management in the planning area due to the resource concerns listed
above.
Salvage harvest under this alternative is estimated to yield 125,851 CCF (63 MMBF) of
wood volume and would occur on 6,624 acres of which 353 acres would contain a substantial
component of aspen coppice regeneration. Hazard tree reduction treatment would occur on
1,048 acres and would yield 19,920 CCF (10 MMBF).
The Salvage harvest treatment will consist of cutting all merchantable (>8 inch DBH)
Engelmann, blue spruce and aspen (if present) trees within the cutting unit that are not
designated as “leave” trees.
The Proposed Action is designed to meet the purpose and need for the project as stated in
Chapter 1 of the Environmental Assessment with an emphasis on reducing negative impacts
to Canada lynx habitat and protecting high quality advanced tree regeneration. This
alternative was developed based on the available scientific knowledge, agency expertise, site
visits, field surveys and consultation with the public and other agencies. The proposal is
based on a landscape level planning strategy to more effectively address the large scale bark
beetle epidemic in a comprehensive and timely manner within the planning area.
Harvest Activities
The proposed treatment areas and road system needed under this alternative are shown in
Maps 1 and 3 of Appendix A. Under this alternative, salvage harvest would be
implemented to recover wood product value from dead and dying spruce, aspen (coppice)
and incidental amounts of other tree species. Salvage logging units proposed under this
alternative were specifically selected to provide for preservation of important Canada lynx
habitat, to protect high quality forest regeneration, and to minimize potential reforestation
cost by avoiding south and west aspects and poor sites (rocky or shallow soils). This
alternative does not propose to harvest all possible areas that are currently roaded and are
suitable for commercial timber management due to the resource concerns listed above.
-
10
Based on observed stand conditions, collected stand data (where available) and expected
logging damage and beetle mortality in advanced regeneration, it is assumed that between
40% and 65% of the harvested areas will require some level of tree planting under alternative
1. Based on the above assumptions it is estimated that alternative 1 will require between
3,000 to 5,000 acres of tree planting.
Road and Transportation Activities
This alternative would require the following road system activities:
98.1 miles of haul road (includes existing county, major forest roads, and system roads described below in bullets 2 - 5)
Use of 65.2 miles of county and major forest roads (within the planning area);
Standard Pre-haul Maintenance and use of about 22.4 miles of existing system roads;
Maintenance and minor reconstruction of about 8.5 miles of system roads;
Maintenance and major reconstruction of about 1.9 miles of system roads;
Approximately 23 miles of temporary haul roads.
Map 3 in Appendix A displays the proposed transportation system for alternative 1.
Of the 98.1 miles of haul road proposed under alternative 1, there are 18.9 miles of
administratively closed (Level 1) roads. All Level 1 roads used for timber hauling will be
closed to public use during operations. Once operations have been concluded, all
administratively closed roads will be re-closed using various methods (Table 1).
Table 1. Administratively Closed (Level 1) Roads Proposed for Timber Hauling Listed by
Current and Planned Future Closure Method – Alternative 1.
Current Status final closure method (post-operations) miles
closed - gate closed - gate 0.8
closed - physical closed - gate 2.7
closed - physical closed - physical 5.0
no barriers closed - gate 6.5
no barriers closed - physical 3.9
Roads and Travel Management
All salvage harvest units are located in areas having an existing transportation system and
therefore outside of designated Wilderness and Colorado Roadless Areas (CRA). No new
roads will be added to the public land road system and all administratively closed roads will
be closed after harvesting operations are complete. Temporary roads used during logging
operations will be obliterated upon completion of the treatment. Obliteration is defined as:
-
11
blocking the entrance(s) to the road; removing any culverts; ripping cuts and fills, provided
that the impacts from such work would not cause adverse impacts to natural resources;
ripping the surface to de-compact soil; and establishing new vegetation on the old road
surface.
All proposed treatments are consistent with the Gunnison Travel Management Decision with
the exception of a mapping error correction of NFSR 697.1A, and the decommissioning of
the lower loop of the Slumgullion campground. Under each action alternative road re-
construction and maintenance will occur on portions of the existing road system to facilitate
the removal of wood products and protect resource values. Consultation on the potential
effects of the Gunnison Travel Plan on Canada lynx and Greenback Cutthroat Trout was
completed in May 2010 with issuance of a concurrence letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (reference #65413-2010-I-0050).
Gravel Pit Development
Two gravel pits are proposed under both alternatives (see Map 3 & 4 in Appendix A). One
pit is located in the northeast corner of Sage Park. The site was used as a gravel source for
the West Pinos and Killdeer timber sales in 2002, and the pit “foot print” and access road is
established. The other pit was used in the 1960s and is located about one mile from NFSR
788.0 (Los Pinos/Cebolla road) and is accessed by NFSR 788.1K (the Gardner Ridge road).
The Gardner Ridge road is a Level 1 road that is closed to the public.
These pits would utilize a mobile crusher to create and stockpile gravel aggregate material
for use in road surfacing in support of wood product hauling operations, and other road
maintenance needs. For economic feasibility, multiple funding sources would be sought
(County, agency trust funds, and purchaser deposits) to mobilize and crush a large amount of
gravel thereby keeping fixed costs per cubic yard low.
Both pits would be closed and rehabilitated after use by spreading reserved topsoil (form the
pit development) and organic material over the disturbed area, re-seeding with a weed free,
native seed mix, and grading all pit wall slopes to a 1:1 ratio. The crushing operation is
expected to last up to 60 days, and stock piled gravel may remain on site for multiple years
depending on needs and rate of use. The total disturbance “foot print” of the pits will not
exceed five acres at each location. No new disturbance of “virgin” ground will occur.
Salvage Harvest and Hazard Tree Reduction Activities
Salvage treatment units will average 60 to 90 acres, but may be as large as 300 acres. Very
large units will be broken up with reserve (un-harvested) areas to provide soil protection,
minimize visual impacts and create habitat diversity. Most stands selected for salvage
harvesting do not have an aspen component. Where a substantial aspen component exists in
the spruce-fir stand (>25 %), coppice cuts will be used to promote aspen regeneration, and to
promote increased landscape diversity of forest cover types. To trigger a robust coppice
response, aspen trees within these stands will be cut in addition to the spruce salvage harvest.
Harvest will only occur on slopes less than 40 percent. Areas supporting advanced
regeneration of live trees will be avoided.
In salvage and hazard tree reduction treatments, prescriptions will be designed to remove all
commercially valuable spruce (Engelmann & blue) trees, and aspen trees within coppice cuts.
Pockets of tree retention will be included in all salvage units with a target of retaining
-
12
3% to 10% of mature trees within the stand. These retention pockets will be centered
on concentrations of high quality tree regeneration and/or desirable wildlife habitat
features, such as lynx denning habitat, to minimize logging damage to seedlings and
saplings and help maintain dense horizontal cover for the benefit of Canada Lynx. Incidental amount of other trees species may be removed to accommodate logging
operations. Snag and coarse woody debris retention will be maintained at or above agency
standards.
Following harvest activities, treated areas would be surveyed to evaluate the health, species
composition, and distribution of residual trees. Areas not meeting desired forest stocking,
composition, or distribution requirements would be hand planted with seedling of Engelmann
spruce or other native species within 5 years following harvest.
Activity Fuels, Course Woody Debris (CWD) and slash
On sites where woody debris and slash accumulations are very high, or where visual
concerns or site preparation concerns are present, slash piling and burning, chipping or
removal from the site will be used. Post treatment piling and other site preparation activities
would be accomplished using heavy equipment in most cases. Hand piling will occur where
slopes or access are prohibitive.
The method of slash treatment will depend on the amount and distribution of slash present on
site. At a minimum, to provide for soil protection and wildlife benefit, treatments will be
designed to maintain at least 10-20 tons per acre of coarse woody debris. This will help
retain soil moisture at ground level for mosses, fungi, and lichens and to encourage
faster re-colonization of harvest units by small mammals and other prey species. In
most cases, higher retention levels (20 to 50 tons per acre) will be maintained.
Recreation Sites and Public Safety
Hazard tree reduction treatments are located along State Highway 149, the Sawmill Park road
(BLM Road 3322), a portion of the old Highway 149 route on BLM lands, the Los
Pinos/Cebolla road (NFSR 788.0), the Cochetopa Creek road (NFSR 794.0), the Big
Meadows road (NFSR 790.0), and the Waterdog Trail (see maps 1 & 2 in Appendix A).
Additionally hazard reduction treatments are planned for the following developed recreation
sites and areas of high use: Cebolla Camp Ground (CG), Deer Lakes CG, Hidden Valley CG,
Slumgullion CG, Spruce CG, Brush Creek Trail Head (TH), Cebolla TH, Eddiesville TH,
Mineral Creek TH, Rough Creek TH, Steward Creek TH, Windy Point overlook, Spring
Creek picnic ground, Corral, and McDonough Reservoir.
Hazard tree treatments will consist of felling all dead trees within a distance of 1.5 to 2 tree
heights from potential targets that could be hit with a falling tree. Wood product removal will
occur where it is feasible and desirable, however, there are units scheduled for hazard tree
reduction that will not allow tree removal due to steep slopes and/or accessibility constraints.
In these areas hand falling may be required to accomplish treatment objectives. Slash
treatment will follow the guidelines listed above.
The Slumgullion campground will be converted to a day use area. All camping related
improvements will be removed from the loop east of NFSR 788 and the loop will be
obliterated. West of NFSR 788 a toilet and picnic tables will remain to accommodate day
use. Camping will not be allowed in the vicinity of this site.
-
13
Harvest Systems
The specific harvest system to be employed for any given area to be treated would be
determined at the time of layout. The harvest system selected will be based on topographical
considerations, acceptable levels of residual fuels within stands, and soil nutrient
requirements. Past experience indicates that whole tree yarding is likely to be used for the
larger sized timber sales (> 4,000 CCF).
Post-sale Activities
The Knutson-Vandenburg (KV) Act authorizes the Forest Service to collect money from
timber sales for resource enhancement, protection, and improvement work in the timber sale
area. Additionally, the Stewardship contracting authority, or directly appropriated agency
funding may be used to complete post sale activities. Post sale activities are identified in
silvicultural prescription and may include the following activities:
• Regeneration surveys 3rd and 5th year post-harvest: Monitoring will determine if Forest
Plan stocking standards are met for regeneration treatments.
• Aspen sprout protection fencing: Construct fencing to protect aspen sprouts from livestock
and wildlife browsing. This activity may be needed for certain aspen coppice treatments
where excessive browsing damage is occurring. Treatment units will be monitored to
determine the need for fencing. All fence material will be removed from the site once
successful stocking levels are reached.
• Site preparation: Mechanical scarification to expose mineral soil for conifer establishment.
Mechanical soil scarification would expose a mineral soil seed bed on up to 40% of the
treatment area using heavy equipment. Sites would be identified for this treatment where
conifer regeneration is an objective for the prescription, and an adequate mineral soil seed
bed is not present.
• Noxious weed treatment and monitoring: Monitor and treat (as needed) noxious weed
populations following all ground disturbing activities.
Wildlife-Related Project Design Criteria
1. Maintain 90 to 225 snags per 100 acres, 10 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater (where biologically feasible). Snags would be maintained away from structures,
roads and trails so that they do not create safety hazards to the public. Where possible,
groups of snags in close proximity to each other or associated with green trees will be
retained. Retention of snag groups will reduce wind-throw.
2. Maintain 10-20 tons per acre of coarse woody debris within harvest units. Where possible in regeneration units, create piles of logs, stumps, or other woody debris to minimize the
effects of larger openings. Maintain large diameter downed logs in various stages of
decomposition within harvest units (50 linear feet/acre of 10 inches diameter or larger at
the large end of lodgepole pine and aspen logs and/or 12 inches diameter or larger for
Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir and Douglas fir logs).
-
14
3. Maintain screening cover consisting of live trees, snags, and course woody debris (including jack-strawed piles) for lynx and other wildlife on strategically located portions
of the landscape (where feasible) between cutting units, roads, and meadows. This
screening cover should be comprised of tree retention strips a minimum of 200 feet wide
unless topographic breaks occur between cutting units, roads or meadow openings. This
will be especially important along the Highway 149 corridor within the lynx linkage
zone.
4. In the units on Slumgullion Pass and around Mill Creek, as identified on the Proposed Alternative map, adjust salvage prescription in a way that creates irregular-shaped tree
retention strips within units and across Highway 149, to provide for American marten
habitat needs, maintain stand structural diversity (where feasible), and promote conifer
regeneration that will enhance snowshoe hare habitat, and thus lynx habitat, over the
long-term. This type of management in these units will help maintain habitat connectivity
within the lynx linkage zone along the Highway 149/Slumgullion Pass corridor.
5. Northern goshawk - no activities will be allowed within 0.5 miles of active nests from March 1 to July 31 or until fledging has occurred. The timing restriction buffer could be
reduced to ¼ mile if topographic features and/or adequate screening cover are present
that would protect the nest site from disturbance. No harvest activities will be allowed
within a 30-acre buffer of nest sites. Outside of a 30-acre area around goshawk nest sites,
timing restrictions are not needed for project layout, marking, and any other activities that
are non-disturbing (i.e., activities not involving the use of heavy equipment or
chainsaws). Timing restrictions will only apply to active nests, as confirmed by a USFS
or BLM wildlife biologist.
6. On-going surveys for raptors would be conducted to determine locations of individuals or populations of these species and allow for the implementation of protection measures as
appropriate.
7. Retain all live trees in salvage units, except for trees that need to be removed for operational/safety or silvicultural purposes. Operational/safety or silvicultural purposes
include the need to remove live trees if necessary to access dead trees for salvage or to
address safety concerns.
8. Areas supporting live advanced regeneration will be avoided during unit layout.
9. Skid trails and landings will be located to minimize impacts to advanced regeneration. Both landings and skid trails will be designated as part of sale design. Skid trails will be
placed at least 100 feet apart, except where they need to tie in together at landings.
10. The BLM Waterdog trail as it currently exists is an old 2-track road bed. Current travel management designation has it listed as a single track mechanized trail. To prevent access
for full sized vehicles and ATVs, a "jack straw" treatment will be utilized at certain pinch
points to create a single track corridor (effectively attenuate the 2-track prism to an 18-
24" prism).
-
15
11. Landings, temporary roads and main skid trails will be evaluated after the completion of operations to determine if detrimental soil compaction has occurred. Based on review by
a specialist, when detrimental compaction is found, subsoil ripping will be applied to
reduce soil impacts. This would provide for a more suitable seedbed for future
regeneration, thus preventing permanent impacts of skid trails that when left in a
compacted state, often do not regenerate as well as adjacent un-compacted areas.
12. Surveys for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species have already occurred in the project area. However, since it will take several years to fully implement the project,
some level of TES re-survey will occur on an annual basis. If TES species are confirmed
present the appropriate standards for the Forest Plan and Gunnison Field Office RMP will
be applied (timing restrictions, distance from nest sites, etc.).
Compliance with the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment
Lynx Management Direction
The Canada lynx was listed as threatened on March 24, 2000
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-7145-
filed.pdf). In August 2004, the Second Edition of the Canada Lynx Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) was released, to provide a consistent and effective
approach to conserve Canada lynx on federal lands. The Science Report (Ruggiero et al.
2000) and the LCAS (Ruediger et al. 2000) provide best available science on habitat
requirements and conservation measures. Currently, the BLM implements projects to
maintain consistency with the LCAS. In 2008, the Southern Rockies Lynx Management
Direction Record of Decision on the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment (SRLA) was
published, which supersedes the LCAS and amended the Forest Plan. The purpose and need
for the amendment was to establish management direction that conserves and promotes the
recovery of lynx, and reduces or eliminates potential adverse effects from land management
activities and practices on National Forests in the southern Rocky Mountains, while
preserving the overall multiple-use direction in existing Forest Plans.
Objectives, Standards and Guidelines Applicable to the La Garita Spruce Beetle Response
Project
The following objectives, standards and guidelines from the SRLA
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml) are applicable to the proposed
project:
Objective ALL O1: Maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), and in linkage areas.
Objective VEG O1: Manage vegetation to mimic or approximate natural succession and disturbance processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the
conservation of lynx.
Objective VEG O2: Provide a mosaic of habitat conditions through time that support dense horizontal cover, and high densities of snowshoe hare. Provide winter
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-7145-filed.pdfhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-7145-filed.pdfhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml
-
16
snowshoe hare habitat in both the stand initiation structural stage and in mature,
multi-story conifer vegetation.
Objective VEG O4: Focus vegetation management in areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed
understories that lack dense horizontal cover.
Standard VEG S1: If more than 30% of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare
habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects.
Standard VEG S2: Timber management projects shall not regenerate more than 15% of lynx habitat on NFS lands within an LAU in a ten-year period. Salvage harvest
within stands killed by insect epidemics does not add to the 15%, unless the harvest
treatment changes the habitat to unsuitable.
Standard VEG S6: Vegetation management projects that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitats in multi-story mature or late successional conifer forests may occur
only/Exception 3 applies – For incidental removal during salvage harvest (e.g.
removal due to location of skid trails) or Exception 4 – Where single tree and small
group selection practices are employed to maintain and encourage multi-story
attributes as part of gap dynamics.
Guideline VEG G1: Vegetation management projects should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce or not
available. Priority for treatment should be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy
structural stage stands to enhance habitat conditions for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic,
monotypic lodgepole stands). Winter snowshoe hare habitat should be near denning
habitat.
Guideline VEG G5: Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel, should be provided in each LAU.
Guideline VEG G11: Denning habitat should be distributed in each LAU in the form of pockets of large amounts of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or
large piles of small wind thrown trees (“jack-strawed” piles). If denning habitat
appears to be lacking in the LAU, then projects should be designed to retain some
course woody debris, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future.
Exemptions/Exceptions Used & Acres Counted Toward Forest Caps on Habitat Change
The proposed project will result in incidental removal of winter snowshoe hare habitat (dense
horizontal cover ≥ 35%) that requires the use of exception 3 under VEG S6. We estimate
that 997 acres will be impacted, reducing the Forest-wide cap to 4,955 acres.
Project Consistency with the SRLA
The proposed project is consistent with all applicable SRLA objectives, standards and
guidelines. Table 2 provides the rationale for compliance with the SRLA direction.
-
17
Table 2. Project consistency with the SRLA objectives, standards and guidelines.
SRLA Direction Compliance
Objective ALL O1 See Design Criteria 3 and 4 above.
Objective VEG O1 See Design Criteria 1 – 4, 7 – 9, and 11 above.
Objective VEG O2 See Design Criteria 1 – 4, 7 – 9, and 11 above.
Objective VEG O4
See Design Criteria 7 – 9 above. Vegetation management will be
focused on areas with no or only poorly developed understories,
where treatments have the potential to improve snowshoe hare
habitat. Areas with developed understories providing high quality
DHC will be avoided. Even in stands that do not meet the Standard
for DHC, areas of regeneration will be avoided.
Standard VEG S1
All of the affected Lynx Analysis Units are currently well below
the 30% SISS/unsuitable threshold. The proposed action would
increase the amount of SISS/unsuitable habitat per LAU by the
following amounts:
Cebolla: 0.48% (current condition) to 1.7% (post-harvest)
Cathedral: 0.08 to 0.3%
Stewart Creek: 2.5% to 3.6% Los Pinos: 2.6% to 4.2%
Cebolla Creek: 0% to 0.87%
Lake Fork Gunnison: 0% to 0.21%
Whitecross Mountain: 0% to 0.61%
Standard VEG S2
The duration of the proposed action is anticipated to last 10 years.
During this time period, we estimate that the amount regenerated
per LAU will be:
Cebolla: 1.7%; Cathedral: 0.3%; Los Pinos: 4.2%; Stewart Creek:
3.6%; Cebolla Creek: 0.87%; Lake Fork Gunnison: 0.21%;
Whitecross Mountain: 0.61%
Standard VEG S6
Exception 3 applies. Salvage harvest will incidentally reduce
winter snowshoe hare habitat but will remain within the Forest-
wide cap. We estimate that the proposed action will reduce
winter snowshoe hare habitat by 997 acres, reducing the
Forest-wide cap for this exception from 5,952 acres to 4,955
acres.
Guideline VEG G1 See Design Criteria 3, 4, and 7 – 9 above.
Guideline VEG G5 See Design Criteria 1, 3, 4, and 7 – 9 above.
Guideline VEG G11 See Design Criteria 1 – 4 above.
Action Area, Including Summary of Current Conditions, Developments, and Human
Uses
The action area is not limited to the project footprint, but rather encompasses the full
geographic area potentially affected by the proposed project, including the extent of all direct
and indirect effects, as well as interdependent or interrelated activities. The action area
-
18
includes all areas potentially affected by visual and audible disturbance created by the project
activities, as well as potential terrestrial and aquatic habitat impacts. The action area serves
to establish baseline conditions from which to evaluate potential effects from the project.
The extent of the action area may also be species-specific (i.e. lynx).
The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger 2000) indicates that project
planning should evaluate the effects to lynx habitat within designated Lynx Analysis Units
(LAUs) that are generally ≥ 25,000 acres in the southern Rocky Mountain Geographic Area.
LAUs are intended to provide the smallest scale at which the effects of management actions
on lynx habitat are quantitatively evaluated. LAUs do not represent actual lynx home ranges,
but their scale should approximate the size of an area used by an individual female lynx.
For the proposed project, the Cebolla, Cathedral, Los Pinos, and Stewart Creek LAUs on the
GMUG and the Cebolla Creek, Lake Fork Gunnison, and Whitecross Mountain LAUs on the
Gunnison Field Office BLM, all within Hinsdale and Saguache Counties, will be considered
the action area for the analysis of effects on lynx (see Map 5 in Appendix A and Figure 4
below). All direct and indirect effects of the proposed action are expected to be contained
within this 565,917-acre action area. All other terrestrial species were analyzed at the scale
of the La Garita project planning area (220,540 acres) as described in chapter 1 of the
Environmental Assessment, or at the GMUG Forest-level.
The action area for lynx has approximately 273,801 acres of lynx habitat currently mapped as
suitable. As of 2012, spruce bark beetles were active on 1,888 acres of currently suitable
lynx habitat in the BLM LAUs, and on 31,238 acres of currently suitable lynx habitat in the
Forest LAUs (Figure 4). As shown in Map 5 in appendix A and in figure 4, a portion of
the Slumgullion/Spring Creek Pass lynx linkage area overlaps the action area along the
Highway 149 corridor in the Cebolla LAU. This linkage area also connects the GMUG
and Rio Grande National Forests at Spring Creek Pass along the Continental Divide.
Linkage areas may consist of forest stringers that connect large forested areas, or mountain
passes that connect subalpine forests on opposite sides of a mountain range (Ruediger et al.
2000). Lynx linkage areas are key movement corridors where human activities may also
impact lynx dispersal (including highway use, larger areas of vegetation treatments, etc.).
-
19
Figure 4. Action area map showing documented spruce beetle activity for the time period
2008 – 2012.
Human uses within the action area include hunting, fishing, dispersed camping, OHV riding,
driving for pleasure/sight-seeing, wildlife viewing, hiking, horseback riding, picnicking,
firewood gathering, snow shoeing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, use of all-terrain
vehicles on roads, public and private land livestock grazing, and vegetation management.
Existing developments include developed campgrounds, picnic or day use areas, restrooms,
trailheads, historic buildings, signs, roads, utility lines and modern houses (developed on
private land).
III. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROPOSED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED
On March 18 and April 2, 2013, a unit species list for the Rocky Mountain Region of the
U.S. Forest Service and a unit species list for the GMUG National Forests were reviewed.
On April 11, 2013, a list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species that may be present
-
20
in the action area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Environmental
Conservation Online System (IPaC - http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/).
The following list includes threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and/or designated
critical habitat that are located within Hinsdale and Saguache Counties, or that are located
within the project action area or adjacent to or downstream of the project and could
potentially be affected. A pre-field review was conducted of available information to
assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and
determine whether field reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of
information included Forest Service records and files, the State Natural Heritage Program
database, state wildlife agency information (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), and published
research (please see literature cited section).
No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the
project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. Table 3 documents the rationale for
excluding a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then additional survey is
needed, or presence can be assumed and potential effects evaluated. For the analysis of
effects for threatened, endangered and sensitive fish, please see the fisheries biological
assessment/evaluation available in the project record.
Table 3. Federally listed or proposed species in Hinsdale and Saguache Counties.
Common
Name
Scientific
Name Status
Known/suspected
to be present?
Suitable
habitat
present?
Designated
Critical
Habitat
present or
could be
affected?
Rationale if not
carried
forward for
analysis
Canada lynx Lynx
canadensis Threatened Yes Yes No
Uncompahgre
fritillary
butterfly
Boloria
acrocnema Endangered No No No
Suitable habitat
and occupied sites,
although present
in the La Garita
planning area, all
occur in the alpine
environment
within the
Wilderness
boundary where
no project
activities will
occur.
North
American
wolverine
Gulo gulo
luscus Proposed No Yes No
Gunnison
Sage-Grouse
Centrocercus
minimus Proposed No No No
Species and
suitable habitat do
not occur within
the La Garita
planning area.
None of the
proposed critical
habitat primary
constituent
elements are
found within the
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
-
21
Common
Name
Scientific
Name Status
Known/suspected
to be present?
Suitable
habitat
present?
Designated
Critical
Habitat
present or
could be
affected?
Rationale if not
carried
forward for
analysis
planning area.
Mexican
spotted owl
Strix
occidentalis
lucida
Threatened No No No
Pre-field review
and field surveys
verified that no
habitat is present
within the action
area. The nearest
suitable habitat
occurs in the
Black Canyon of
the Gunnison
National Park.
Owl surveys
conducted by NPS
employees in
recent years have
not yielded
detections.
Southwestern
willow
flycatcher
Empidonax
traillii extimus Endangered No No No
Pre-field review
and field surveys
verified that no
habitat is present
within the La
Garita project
planning area.
This species is
known not to
occur in the action
area.
Yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus
americanus Candidate No No No
Pre-field review
and field surveys
verified that no
habitat is present
within the La
Garita project
planning area.
Black-footed
ferret
Mustela
nigripes
Experimental
Population,
Non-
Essential
No No No
Pre-field review
and field surveys
verified that no
habitat is present
within the La
Garita project
planning area.
This species is
known not to
occur in the action
area.
Gunnison’s
prairie dog
Cynomys
gunnisoni Candidate No No No
Suitable habitat
and occupied sites,
although present
at the lower
elevations in the
action area and
project planning
area, occur in
-
22
Common
Name
Scientific
Name Status
Known/suspected
to be present?
Suitable
habitat
present?
Designated
Critical
Habitat
present or
could be
affected?
Rationale if not
carried
forward for
analysis
grassland and
shrubland habitat
types where no
project activities
will occur.
Bonytail chub Gila elegans Endangered No No No These species
reside in rivers
downstream from
the La Garita
Project planning
area, but the
project will not
cause water
depletion that
could impact
downstream
habitats.
Colorado
pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus
lucius Endangered No No No
Humpback
chub Gila cypha Endangered No No No
Razorback
sucker
Xyrauchen
texanus Endangered No No No
Rio Grande
cutthroat trout
Oncorhynchus
clarki
virginalis
Candidate No No No
Greenback
cutthroat trout
Oncorhynchus
clarki ssp.
stomias
Threatened No Yes No
Although suitable
habitat is present,
all perennial
streams in the
project area are
occupied by non-
native salmonid
species.
Greenback
cutthroat trout are
known not to
occur in the
project area.
IV. CONSULTATION TO DATE
No previous consultation has been conducted for this project. A field visit was conducted
with Kurt Broderdorp from the USFWS Grand Junction Ecological Services office on
October 11, 2012. This project represents a tiered consultation from that conducted under the
SRLA decision and tiers to the SRLA biological opinion
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml), because the anticipated
effects from the proposed action are consistent with those anticipated and analyzed in the
programmatic biological opinion. The biological opinion discusses effects in a general way
at a broad-scale, programmatic level. As such, site specific effects of the proposed action are
discussed and analyzed in the Effects section below.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml
-
23
V. SPECIES EVALUATED IN DETAIL
North American Wolverine
The wolverine is included in this analysis because proposed management activities involve
suitable, but currently unoccupied habitat. Although occasional sightings of wolverine occur
and are reported on the Forest, there had been no confirmed occurrences locally or in
Colorado since 1919 until the recent arrival of M56, an individual male who arrived in 2009
from Wyoming and apparently remains in the north-central portion of the state (Colorado
Division of Wildlife Website, Species of Concern, Wolverine, 2013). Additionally, a
wolverine was documented as a traffic-related mortality on Interstate 70 in 2012 within
Region 3 of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT 2012b).
The wolverine is included in this analysis of federally-listed species because of a recent
status change. On February 4, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a
proposed rule to list the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the wolverine that occurs in
the contiguous U.S. as a threatened species under the ESA (78 FR 7864). Also on February
4, 2013 the FWS published a proposed special rule under Section 4(d) of the ESA outlining
the prohibitions necessary and advisable for the conservation of the wolverine (78 FR
7864). This proposed Section 4(d) rule would prohibit take of wolverine from trapping,
hunting, shooting, etc., while allowing incidental take associated with management activities
such as dispersed recreation, timber harvest, mining etc., if those activities are conducted in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations (78 FR 7890). In the same federal register
document the FWS also proposed to establish a nonessential experimental population (NEP)
area for the wolverine in the southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado, northern New Mexico,
and southern Wyoming. The FWS is not proposing critical habitat at this time.
Given that all potential habitat associated with the proposed action is currently unoccupied
there of course will be no effect on the species. However, even if the species is eventually
reintroduced to or recolonizes Colorado, activities such as salvage harvest are not expected to
have measureable influences on wolverines because they are not identified as a potential
threat to the species and are included in the proposed Section 4(d) incidental take
allowances.
Based on this analysis, I determine that the proposed management activities associated with
this analysis “will not jeopardize” the wolverine or influence any future options for
achieving a self-sustaining population in the Southern Rocky Mountains.
Canada Lynx
Through radio-telemetry Colorado Parks and Wildlife researchers have confirmed lynx
presence, dispersal and reproduction on the GMUG National Forests and on BLM lands
managed by the Gunnison Field Office. From February 4, 1999 through February 1, 2005,
121 individual lynx were located within the GMUG National Forests (Shenk 2005).
Colorado Parks and Wildlife monitoring of radio-collared lynx from April 2000 to April
2009 (Shenk 2009) and an assessment of “population-level” habitat use from 1999 – 2010
(Theobald and Shenk 2011) indicates that the proposed project is located just outside of lynx
low, moderate, and high-use areas. These documented use areas occur south and west of
Highway 149. Although population-level lynx use areas based on radio-collared animals
-
24
were not identified in the La Garita Beetle Response planning area, there were few radio-
telemetry locations within the west portion of the planning area during most years from 1999
to 2010. More information on the Colorado lynx reintroduction program is available on the
Colorado Parks and Wildlife website at:
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Research/Mammal/Lynx/Pages/Lynx.aspx.
The 2006 Amended Lynx Conservation Agreement considers all lynx habitat on a National
Forest as occupied when there are at least two verified lynx observations or records since
1999 unless they are verified to be transient individuals, or there is evidence of lynx
reproduction on the Forest (USFS and USFWS 2006). The SRLA identifies all lynx habitat
for the National Forests in the Southern Rocky Mountains as occupied. Field surveys during
the summer and fall of 2012, which included assessments of snowshoe hare habitat by
measuring dense horizontal cover, verified the presence of suitable lynx habitat in the LAUs
affected by the proposed project (described below under Existing Conditions). For detailed
information on habitat requirements, life history, biology and ecology, and risk factors for the
Canada lynx, please see the biological assessment and biological opinion for the SRLA, and
the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) available online at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml.
Risk Factors Related to the Proposed Action
The Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; Ruediger et al. 2000) describes
risk factors in detail. This section summarizes the risk factors that relate to the impact of the
proposed action and cumulative effects. As discussed in the LCAS, the principal factor
affecting lynx habitat in Colorado may be increased human presence and habitat alteration or
reduction of remote habitat areas. Human population growth and expansion of recreational
activities into remote mountainous areas has caused barriers to movement and dispersal,
habitat fragmentation, and reduction in areas of solitude and refugia (Ruediger et al. 2000).
The effects of increased human presence and roads also reduce habitat effectiveness. Roads,
particularly those with high traffic volumes, fragment habitat and increase the probability of
mortalities from vehicle collisions (Ruediger et al. 2000). Human presence and habitat
alteration may affect potential dispersal corridors thereby isolating populations and
increasing lynx susceptibility to extinction (Ruediger et al. 2000).
Other risk factors include timber management, fire management, recreation, livestock
grazing, utility corridors, and residential (housing), commercial (ski areas or resorts) and
agricultural developments.
Activities that increase snow compaction in lynx habitat are also a concern. Snow
compaction routes within lynx habitat could facilitate access by other predators, including
mountain lion, bobcat, coyote or red fox, that otherwise would not occur due to the limited
ability of these predators to move through un-compacted, deep snow areas. This could result
in increased competition with lynx for limited prey. Several studies have analyzed the
impacts of snowmobile trails and coyotes on lynx, and found contrasting results. A study by
Bunnell et al. (2006) found that snowmobile trail presence is a good predictor of coyote
activity in deep snow areas. In contrast, a study by Kolbe et al. (2007) found that although
coyotes within their study area remained in lynx habitat throughout the year, compacted
snowmobile trails did not appear to facilitate coyote movements and snowshoe hares did not
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Research/Mammal/Lynx/Pages/Lynx.aspxhttp://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml
-
25
provide a large proportion of the coyote’s winter diet. The proposed project may include
winter logging which would temporarily increase snow compaction in the project area.
Another risk factor exacerbated by snow compaction is the potential of increased predation
of lynx by mountain lions or coyotes. Lynx may expend more energy to avoid predators,
thus avoiding death, by changing movement patterns. Lynx may also expend energy due to
displacement/disturbance from increased human presence and activity in the area, and avoid
using what is otherwise suitable habitat. This could result in lynx spending less time
foraging, bedding, resting, and devoting time to care of offspring. The proposed project has
the potential to have these kinds of influences on lynx.
Project activities include salvage harvest of spruce-fir, aspen coppice treatments, roadside
hazard tree removal, minor and major reconstruction of existing system roads, development
of temporary roads creating a temporary increase in road density, and human activity
associated with logging equipment operation and increased truck traffic. The proposed
action will impact up to 6,466 acres of suitable lynx habitat on the Forest (6,414 acres
affected from salvage, aspen coppice, and hazard tree removal; and 52 acres impacted from
temporary roads), and 916 acres of suitable lynx habitat on BLM (912 acres impacted from
salvage and road side clearing; 4 acres impacted from temporary roads). Of those acres,
harvest activities will convert approximately 20%, or a total of 1,516 acres (182 acres on
BLM; 1,334 acres on the Forest) to a Stand Initiation Structural Stage. The project will
incidentally reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat by 997 acres on the Forest, and 182 acres
on BLM. As shown in Map 5 in appendix A and in figure 4, a portion of the
Slumgullion/Spring Creek Pass lynx linkage overlaps the action area along the State
Highway 149 corridor in the Cebolla LAU. Within the linkage, the proposed action would
salvage harvest 1,167 acres and conduct 125 acres of hazard tree removal along the Highway
149 corridor. These activities would impact 16% of the linkage, but project design criteria
are included to maintain habitat connectivity and to meet the intent of the SRLA (Objective
ALL O1).
Canada lynx are considered forest carnivores due to their strong association with dense
boreal forest habitats. Prey availability, especially snowshoe hares (main prey species of
lynx), appears to be a primary limiting factor for lynx in the Rocky Mountains. In Colorado,
snow tracking has indicated that snowshoe hares comprise the majority of the winter diet of
lynx; thus the long-term success of lynx in Colorado hinges, at least partly, on maintaining
adequate and widespread populations of snowshoe hares in the state (Shenk 2010). As such,
lynx habitat conservation measures prioritize maintaining adequate quantities of winter
snowshoe hare habitat.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat has not been designated for Canada lynx in the southern Rocky Mountains.
Designated critical habitat does not occur within or near the action area for any other species.
Proposed critical habitat for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse does occur within the action area, but
will not be impacted by the proposed project. The La Garita Beetle Response planning area
does not contain any of the proposed critical habitat primary constituent elements for
Gunnison Sage-Grouse.
-
26
VI. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing condition in the action area has been affected by past and ongoing activities and
natural processes, including wildlife use, timber harvesting, grazing, and various recreational
activities. Within the last several years, a severe spruce beetle epidemic has impacted spruce-
fir stands, as previously described in the Action Area and Background sections of this
document.
Based on the Field Guide to Ecological Types of the Upper Gunnison Basin (Johnston 2001),
there were five observed Engelmann spruce-dominated ecological types associated with the
proposed project. By order of dominance, these include 1) Subalpine fir-Engelmann
spruce/moss (Abies bifolia-Picea engelmanni/moss), occurring at higher elevations on gentle
to steep northerly slopes around 9,700 – 11,100 feet in elevation; 2) Subalpine fir-Engelmann
spruce/elk sedge (Abies bifolia-Picea engelmanni/Carex geyeri), occurring at high elevations
on gentle slopes ranging from 10,000 – 10,700 feet on clay soil type surfaces; 3) subalpine
fir-Engelmann spruce/buffalo berry (Abies bifolia-Picea engelmanni/Shepherdia canadensis)
found around 10,000 feet on sandy clay-loam surfaces; 4) Engelmann spruce-Subalpine
fir/twinflower (Picea engelmanni- Abies bifolia /Linneae borealis) found on steep northerly
slopes at 9,100-10,100 feet; and 5) Blue spruce-Engelmann spruce/kinnikinnik (Picea
pungens-Picea engelmanni/Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) on gentle northerly slopes with loamy
surfaces at 9,400-10,480 feet . In addition to the predominant spruce types, other forest types
include dry mixed conifer, aspen/spruce-fir mixed forest, and stands where aspen is a major
component.
The forested vegetation types comprise habitat associations with documented use by a variety
of wildlife species:
Spruce-fir - Spruce-fir and Dense Horizontal Cover (snowshoe hare habitat) is more
prevalent in the west end of the La Garita planning area mainly in the Slumgullion Pass
vicinity within the Cebolla Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU), and within the central-east portion of
the planning area in the Los Pinos LAU around Los Pinos Creek. A diversity of both
managed (particularly in the Cebolla, Los Pinos and Stewart Creek LAUs) and unmanaged
(primarily in the Cathedral LAU where 2/3rds of the LAU overlaps the LaGarita Wilderness)
forest stands has resulted in a mosaic of habitat types being available for wildlife species.
Previous harvesting, particularly in the Cebolla LAU in the area between Slumgullion Pass
and Deer Lakes, has created small openings with lush grasses and sedges and a multi-layered
forest with advanced spruce-fir regeneration providing high quality snowshoe hare habitat
(Figure 5). However, approximately 50% of spruce-fir stands in the action area have lesser
amounts of advanced regeneration, with portions of stands completely lacking developed
understories while other portions contain pockets of advanced regeneration (Figure 6). All
acres of planned spruce salvage consist of this habitat type. Areas of advanced regeneration
will be avoided during harvest operations.
-
27
Figure 6. La Garita Unit 4, plot 11, containing an overstory
of 100% spruce-fir, with no advanced regeneration. DHC at this plot is 6%. However, other portions of Unit 4 contain
pockets of advanced regeneration resulting in an average of
37% for the entire unit (a total of 9 DHC plots were implemented in this 80-acre unit, or one plot per 8.8 acres.
This unit is in the east end of the Cathedral LAU.
Wildlife surveys have shown that this habitat
type contains a rich diversity of bird species
with habitat generalists being common, and
specialists more adapted to mature spruce-fir
forests, including brown creeper, ruby
crowned kinglet, white-crowned sparrow,
and American three-toed woodpecker also common. Dusky grouse were documented in the
Slumgullion Pass vicinity. Surveys documented use and/or suitable habitat present for the
following mammals: snowshoe hare, red squirrel, boreal owl, American (pine) marten, red-
backed vole, black bear, bobcat, red fox, mountain lion, mule deer, elk, and moose.
Aspen/Spruce-fir; Aspen; Dry mixed conifer (includes blue spruce, Douglas fir, lodgepole
pine, ponderosa pine, bristlecone pine and aspen mixed with these coniferous species) -
These vegetation types are more prevalent in the east end of the analysis area, mainly in the
Los Pinos LAU and parts of the Stewart Creek LAU.
Wildlife surveys have shown that these habitat types contain a high diversity of bird species
including aspen dependent species such as warbling vireo, yellow-rumped warbler, and
house wren, primary cavity nesters including hairy woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker,
northern flicker, downy woodpecker and red-naped sapsucker, and generalist species such as
the American robin and dark-eyed junco. Less common bird species documented during
surveys include dusky grouse, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk and northern goshawk.
Surveys did indicate habitat suitability for snowshoe hares in aspen/spruce-fir stands
containing individual or groups of mature Engelmann spruce or subalpine fir trees, and
pockets of well-developed younger-aged spruce-fir (Figure 7). All acres of planned coppice
treatments consist of this habitat type.
Figure 5. La Garita Unit northeast of Slumgullion Pass
containing an overstory of 95% spruce-fir, 5% aspen, multi-
storied stand with small openings ranging in size from 1/8 acre to 1/4 acre. DHC is greater than 35%, and advanced
regeneration occurs uniformly throughout the entire stand.
Large course woody debris and root wads are abundant in the unit, as evident in the photo. This unit is in the Cebolla LAU.
-
28
Figure 7. Mixed aspen/spruce-fir and willow vegetation within the Blue Creek drainage in the Los Pinos LAU.
Areas of aspen-dominant stands contain few individuals or small groups of spruce-fir, are not
multi-storied, and lack cover for snowshoe hares (Figure 8). The dry mixed conifer types
(Figure 9) are not considered lynx habitat, although lynx may travel through this habitat type
and perhaps hunt opportunistically on alternate prey species such as red squirrels and
mountain cottontails.
Figure 8 – left: Stand in which aspen is a major component and DHC is less than 35%. Figure 9 – right: dry
mixed conifer stand in which lodgepole is a major component. This stand is not considered lynx habitat.
-
29
Snowshoe Hare Habitat Assessment
Snowshoe hare habitat (dense horizontal cover) was assessed throughout a proportion of the
project area. Wildlife field surveys, regeneration plots, and cover board plots (see DHC
protocol under Tab 7 in the SRLA Implementation Guide, available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml), were utilized to estimate the
relative amount of dense horizontal cover (DHC). Under the proposed action, harvest units
will occur within 6,452 acres of lynx habitat. Of those acres, 3,449 acres (53.5%) were
assessed for DHC. Approximately 1,742 acres contain DHC values of at least 35% (Figure
10), and 1,707 acres contain values less than 35% (Figure 11).
Figure 10 – Left: La Garita Unit 5, plot 14, containing an overstory of 100% spruce-fir, uneven age-class
stand with advanced regeneration found throughout the entire stand. DHC at this plot averaged 33%; with a
mean of 39% for the entire unit (a total of 26 DHC plots were implemented in this 271-acre unit, consisting
of one plot per 10 acres). Individual DHC plot values ranged from 1 – 76%, with a median of 37.5 and a
standard deviation of 22.6. This data demonstrates that although a majority of the plots are slightly less than
the mean, the majority of plots exceed the SRLA VEG S6 standard for DHC. This unit is in the Los Pinos and
Cathedral LAUs immediately east of Los Pinos Creek. Figure 11 – Right: La Garita Unit 89, plot 236,
containing an overstory of 100% spruce-fir. DHC at this cover board reading is 0% however, this plot
averaged 52.2% due to high amounts of DHC in the other 3 cardinal directions. Other portions of Unit 89
lack advanced regeneration resulting in a mean of 32.5% for the entire unit. A total of 18 DHC plots were
implemented in this 185-acre unit, or one plot per 10 acres. Individual DHC plot values ranged from 3.75 –
68.25, with a median of 26.4 and a standard deviation of 19.16. This data demonstrates that a majority of
the plots are less than the mean and below the SRLA VEG S6 standard for DHC. This unit is in the Stewart
Creek LAU.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/lynx/documents/index.shtml
-
30
For the remaining 3,003 acres that were not assessed for
DHC, we make the assumption that those acres meet the
SRLA VEG S6 standard for high quality winter
snowshoe hare habitat (DHC) of at least 35%. Salvage
units and hazard tree removal are proposed within the
spruce-fir habitat type. Aspen coppice treatments are
proposed in aspen/spruce-fir habitat types. As described
above, areas of advanced regeneration were documented
within these two habitat types. While this biological
assessment focuses on quantifying DHC that meets the
SRLA VEG S6 standard for high quality snowshoe
hare winter habitat, it is important to acknowledge that
areas with DHC values of less than 35% still support snowshoe hares. This has been
documented during snow tracking surveys on the Gunnison Ranger District (Figure 12). As
such, even in forest stands that do not average at least 35% DHC, areas of advanced
regeneration within the stands will be avoided during layout of harvest units.
Environmental Baseline Status of Lynx Habitat
The environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all federal, state, and private
actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated effects of proposed
federal projects in the action area that have already undergone Section 7 consultation, and the
impact of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with this consultation (50 CFR
402.02).
The 565,917-acre action area comprises seven LAUs, which include the Cebolla, Cathedral,
Los Pinos, and Stewart Creek LAUs on National Forest; and the Cebolla Creek, Lake Fork
Gunnison, and Whitecross Mountain LAUs on BLM. The action area has approximately
273,801 acres of lynx habitat currently mapped as suitable, and 1,674 acres currently mapped
as unsuitable. Currently unsuitable habitat occurs entirely in the USFS LAUs. No unsuitable
habitat is mapped in the BLM LAUs. Unsuitable habitat in the USFS LAUs is due to past
vegetation management activities including prescribed burning, fuels reduction, timber
harvest, and natural disturbances (i.e., spruce bark beetles). In the last 13 years, the Still Elk
Timber Sale and the killdeer Timber Sale were implemented within the Los Pinos LAU, and
the West Pinos Timber Sale occurred in the Cathedral and Los Pinos LAUs. After lynx were
listed as a threatened species in 2000, the Forest Service conducted a batch consultation with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on all ongoing activities, which included these three timber
sale projects. The effect determination on lynx was May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect.
Other past and ongoing federal actions on Forest and BLM lands influencing lynx habitat
primarily involve cattle allotment permit administration and renewals, existing road, trail,
and developed recreation site management (includes Forest and BLM roads, trails, developed
campgrounds, day-use sites, scenic viewpoints, trailheads, and parking lots), and outfitter-
guide permit re-issuances. Non-federal actions include ranch lands with livestock grazing
and hay meadows, management of state wildlife areas by Colorado Parks and Wildlife,
private home residences primarily in the Lake City vicinity and along the Lake Fork of the
Figure 12. Snowshoe hare observed in a
coniferous/aspen stand averaging 15% DHC.
-
31
Gunnison River, and general public use of National Forest and BLM lands primarily
associated with recreation activities. The cumulative effects analysis describes in more detail
the non-federal actions within the LAUs.
Lynx habitat is distributed across federal and non-federal land ownerships in each of the
LAUs. Changes to lynx habitat from federal and non-federal activities described above are
reflected in the LAU Environmental Baseline statistics shown in table 4. Table 5 documents
the environmental baseline for pre-commercial thinning in the USFS LAUs since
10/28/2008, which is the effective date of the SRLA.
Table 4. Environmental Baseline Statistics of Lynx Habitat in the Action Area LAUs.
Suitable (All
Federal and Non-
Federal Lands)
Unsuitable (All
Federal and Non-
Federal Lands)
Suitable Habitat
(Non-Federal Lands)
Total Lynx
Habitat
Non-
Habitat
Acres (% of Suitable)
Cebolla (USFS) 42,099 (99.5%) 204 (0.5%) 115 (0.3%)
42,303
(62.5%)
25,391
(37.5%) 67,694
Cathedral
(USFS) 21,414 (99.9%) 17.9 (0.1%) 229 (1.1%)
21,432
(55.2%)
17,397
(44.8%) 38,829
Los Pinos
(USFS) 24,265 (97.4%) 642 (2.6%) 72 (0.3%)
24,907
(69.9%)
10,710
(30.1%) 35,617
Stewart Creek
(USFS) 32,170 (97.5%) 810 (2.5%) 52 (0.2%)
32,980
(57.9%)
24,022
(42.1%) 57,002
Cebolla Creek
(BLM) 64,853 (100%) 0 4,412 (6.8%)
64,853
(41.8%)
90,212
(58.2%) 155,065
Lake Fork
Gunnison
(BLM) 48,657 (100%) 0 10,871 (22.3%)
48,657
(40.5%)
71,560
(59.5%) 120,216
Whitecross
Mountain
(BLM) 40,343 (100%) 0 2,946 (7.3%)
40,343
(44.1%)
51,065
(55.9%) 91,499
Acres (% of Total Lynx Habitat) Acres (% of Total LAU)LAU
Total LAU
Acres
Table 5. Environmental Baseline Pre-Commercial Thinning (PCT) Treatments (acres) since 10/28/08.
Treatment under Exception 5 of VEG S5 (1% of
lynx habitat/Forest)1
Treatment under Exception 5 of VEG S5 (1% of
lynx habitat/LAU)2
0 0 (PCT has not been conducted since 2008 in any of
the LAUs affected by this project; the proposed
project does not include PCT)
Lynx Linkage Area
The Cebolla LAU (USFS) contains a portion of the Slumgullion/Spring Creek Pass Lynx
Linkage Area (LLA; Figure 4 above in the Action Area section, and Map 5 in Appendix A).
This 7,965-acre LLA occurs along the State Highway 149 corridor and crosses the
Continental Divide on the GMUG and Rio Grande National Forests. Approximately 5,994
acres of the LLA occur on the GMUG National Forest (75% of the LLA; the remaining 1,971
acres {25%} occurs on the Rio Grande National Forest).
-
32
For the GMUG portion of the LLA, 65 acres are on private land between State Highway 149
and NFS Road 729 at the confluence of Cebolla Creek and the West Fork; nine acres are on
BLM managed lands that are part of the Slumgullion Earthflow National Natural Landmark;
and 5,929 acres are on National Forest System lands. Suitable lynx habitat totals 4,625 acres,
or 77% of the LLA; unsuitable habitat totals 86 acres; and the remaining 1,283 acres is non-
habitat (Table 6). Approximately 10.3 miles of State Highway 149 are in the LLA on the
GMUG National Forest.
Table 6. Environmental baseline of lynx habitat acres for the Slumgullion/Spring Creek Pass LLA.
Land Ownership Suitable Unsuitable Non-habitat Total
GMUG National
Forest
4,602 86 1,241 5,929
Private 23 0 42 65
Total 4,625 86 1,283 5,994
Roads
Main roads providing access to and within the project planning area include State Highway
149, and National Forest System Roads (NFS) 788 (Los Pinos-Cebolla Road), 790 (Big
Meadows Road), and 794 (Cochetopa Creek Road). NFS Road 788 traverses the entire
planning area following Mill Creek beginning at the Slumgullion Campground in the west
end of the planning area, then follows Cebolla Creek and Spring Creek, crosses Los Pinos
Pass and then ends along Los Pinos Creek by McDonough Reservoir No. 2 on the east end of
the planning area. NFS Road 790 is accessible from NFS Road 788 at Blue Creek in the east
end of the planning area, and from NFS Road 788 near Los Pinos Pass. NFS Road 790
crosses Pauline Creek, Perfecto Creek, and the East Fork of Los Pinos Creek. Other NFS
high clearance, unimproved native surface roads requiring low speeds of travel are accessible
from these main roads. In total, there are 259 miles of roads within the USFS LAUs, and 560
miles of roads in the BLM LAUs. Table 7 depicts miles of roads and road density within
each of the Action Area LAUs and within the LLA.
Table 7. Environmental Baseline of road miles and road densities in the Action Area LAUs and LLA
LAU/LLA Road Length (miles) Road Density (mi/mi²)
Cathedral (61 mi²) 16.5 0.27
Cebolla (106 mi²) 59.9 0.57
Los Pinos (56 mi²) 84 1.5
Stewart Creek (89 mi²) 109 1.2
Cebolla Creek (242 mi²) 229 0.9
Lake Fork Gunnison (188 mi²) 188 0.7
Whitecross Mountain (143 mi²) 143 0.5
Action Area Total (885 mi²) 819.1 0.93
Slumgullion/Spring Creek Pass
LLA (9.4 mi²; contained w/in
Cebolla LAU)
19.6 2
Seasonal traffic counter data, collected in most years from the 1980s to 2011, is available for
NFS Roads 788, 790, and 794. During this time period, NFS Road 788 received an average
-
33
Seasonal Average Daily Traffic (SADT; traffic counter data recorded from May to October)
of 58 vehicles (range of 34 - 100); NFS Road 790 received an average SADT of 47 vehicles
(range of 25 - 165); and NFS Road 794 received an average SADT of 21 vehicles (range of
14 - 27). The majority of use occurs during the months of July and August. Traffic counter
data is not recorded during the winter months, when NFS roads are snow covered.
Depending on the time of year, State highway 149 receives low to moderate traffic volumes.
According to Colorado Department of Transportation data obtained for 2011, traffic volume
for the segment of State Highway 149 associated with the proposed action and occurring
within the LLA (MP55 to MP69) consists of an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of
570 vehicles (CDOT 2012; and OTIS Traffic Data Explorer:
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/Otis/TrafficData). Approximately 23.7% of the AADT
consists of heavy truck traffic (11.6% trucks larger than pickup trucks built on a single
chassis, and 12.1% trucks with three or more axles – single trailer or multiple trailers).
Motorized recreational use of NFS Roads consists of full-sized vehicles including 4-wheel
driving during summer and fall months, dirt bikes, and ATVs. Motorized over-the-snow
travel consists of snowmobiling, primarily on NFS Road 788. During the winter the
Slumgullion Campground is oft