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