Lake Co-Rifle Lake BA Finala123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… ·...

Superior National Forest Lake County - Rifle Lake Land Exchange Biological Assessment

of 25

Biological Assessment for the

Lake County - Rifle Lake Land Exchange Environmental Assessment

November 2009 Executive Summary This Biological Assessment (BA) documents the potential effects on federally proposed, candidate, threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat that could result from the proposed land exchange project and associated activities as documented in the Lake County - Rifle Lake Land Exchange EA. Table 1. Executive Summary of Effects of the Alternatives on Gray Wolf

Management Activity

Determination Summary of Rationale

Land Exchange

Alt 1 and 2:

Wolf: NE Critical Habitat: NE

Both alternatives will provide adequate prey habitat. There are no on-the-ground actions proposed in either alternative. There would be no effects from temporary roads and no potential beneficial effect from roads decommissioning. Effects will not change from existing condition which is not currently an adverse situation. Critical habitat would not change in LAU 8, LAU 22, or outside LAUs. No effect to wolf or critical habitat is expected from the land exchange alone.

Potential Cumulative

Effects of Land Exchange

Alt 1 and 2:

Wolf: NLAA Critical Habitat: NLAA

Both alternatives will provide adequate prey habitat. Both alternatives would provide options to manage parcels for deer habitat in the Garden Lake Deer Yard, either by the Forest Service in Alternative 1 or by Lake County in Alternative 2. Cumulative effects could occur with continued human access into wolf habitat. Consolidation of ownership and the potential to reduce the length of access roads may offset any increase in roads due to home building. Potential cumulative effects of two homes and 0.5 mile of road building on 80 acres along with the potential to reduce access roads on up to 7,000 acres would be insignificant in view of the habitat available for wolves. No take is expected from potential cumulative actions. The actions may affect wolves and their critical habitat but are not likely to adversely affect wolves or modify critical habitat.

NE = No Effect, NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect, LAA = Likely to adversely affect


of 25

Table 2. Executive Summary of Effects of the Alternatives on Canada Lynx Management

Activity Determination Summary of Rationale

Land Exchange

Alt 1 and 2:

Lynx: NE Critical Habitat: NE

Land Exchange will have no direct or indirect effects to lynx or critical habitat as it proposes no specific actions for the parcels exchanged. Ownership of federal parcels by Lake County would continue to provide contiguous tracts of land in public ownership, maintaining lynx habitat connectivity. Critical habitat would not change in LAU 8, LAU 22, or outside LAUs. No effect to lynx or critical habitat is expected from the land exchange alone.

Cumulative Effects of

Land Exchange

Alt 1and 2:

Lynx: NLAA Critical Habitat: NLAA

Potential cumulative effects may occur after federal parcels are exchanged. None of these potential actions would take place in Alternative 1. The likelihood that they would take place in Alternative 2 is unknown but is analyzed to disclose possible effects. All alternatives in the proposed action of land exchange may affect but are not likely to adversely affect/modify the lynx/critical habitat because:

• On 99% of the federal parcels connectivity within LAUs and between LAUs and refugia habitat would be maintained (D-LA-1).

• All alternatives ensure that no more than 9% of habitat would be in unsuitable condition for lynx, well below the 30% unsuitable indicator level (G-WL-3).

• Road and trail density would remain the same on all federal parcels in the near term. Addition of a potential 0.5 mile of road in LAU 8 may increase miles per square mile of road and compacted trail density by 0.01 mi/mi2. This is expected to be insignificant because the retention of wetlands for lynx movement and is expected. The cumulative effects of potentially adding 0.5 mile of road to LAU 8 are insignificant and discountable.

• Land management policy for potential timber harvest on specific parcels would change from federal to county but the foreseeable actions are expected to be similar to the no action alternative

• In general, land consolidation allows efficient access with the fewest miles of roads. Consolidation of potential timber lands may allow Lake County to use a more efficient road system than is now available because it may alleviate the need to access harvest units across other ownerships. Although the road construction and potential road consolidation are not in adjacent LAUs, benefits of land and road consolidation in this project in LAU 22 may balance the effects of a potential road increase in LAU 8.

NE = No Effect, NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect, LAA = Likely to adversely affect


of 25

1.0 Introduction The BA tiers to the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the revision of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2004a, pp. 6-7) and provides more specific information on site-specific effects of the project to threatened and endangered species. Land ownership pattern with regard to analysis of effects to lynx is addressed in the Forest Plan BA (pp. 118-119). This BA also tiers to the BA for the Glacier Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USDA FS 2009) and the BA for the Whyte Environmental Assessment (EA) (USDA FS 2007a) because all federal parcels included in this exchange have recently been analyzed in one of these projects. Glacier Project Record of Decision selected Alternative 4, and the decision for the Whyte Project selected Alternative 1 (proposed action) which are the existing condition alternatives reflected in this document. Federal parcels near Ely, MN in T63N, R11W (569.62 acres) were evaluated in the Glacier EIS. All other federal parcels were evaluated in the Whyte EA. The analyses in those project documents are the basis for landscape analysis in this BA for species effects and critical habitat effects. This BA was prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual Directives sections 2670.31, 2670.5(3), and 2672.4, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Information provided by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS 2009a) confirms the species and critical habitat that should be considered for projects conducted on the Superior National Forest:

Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) (threatened) Canada lynx critical habitat • Gray wolf (Canis lupis) (threatened) Gray wolf critical habitat

2.0 Consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service The Forest Service has initiated consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service seeking concurrence with the determination of effects in this BA, which concludes that the proposed action (Alternative 2) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx, gray wolf nor adversely modify lynx of wolf critical habitat. In addition to consultation for Canada lynx and gray wolf requested for this project, programmatic consultation was undertaken for Forest Plan revision. The history of this consultation is documented in the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the revision of the forest plans (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp. 6-7). The relevance of program-level consultation to this project includes those agreements between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service reached on defining elements of species’ ecology and biology, risk factors and general effects, analysis parameters, monitoring, and management direction in the revised Forest Plan. The BA provides more specific information on how relevant information in the program-level BA is incorporated. Additionally, other factors relevant to this project not discussed in detail in program-level consultation will be discussed in detail in this BA.


of 25

Although the Forest Plan Programmatic BA consultation or conference on Canada lynx critical habitat occurred prior to designation in February 2009 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b), most of the risk factors to lynx that were analyzed also address the primary constituent elements of proposed critical habitat. Therefore the Programmatic BA also has similar relevance to proposed critical habitat as it does to lynx itself. See Section 4.0 below for additional information on critical habitat. Consultation specific to the Lake County-Rifle Lake Land Exchange Project is documented in the project file. It includes emails, and telephone calls between July 29, 2009 and the submission of the BA to the FWS on November 23, 2009. 3.0 The Proposed Action: Proposed action summary

The Forest Service proposes to exchange up to 7696 acres for 2814 acres of Lake County owned land. The land list for the federal lands in the EA, and summarized here in Table 4, is listed in priority order. The final acres to be exchanged would reflect balanced economic values. The possibility that all of the federal land will be necessary or that the federal land list will be inadequate is relatively low. The Lake County - Rifle Lake Land Exchange Environmental Assessment also describes and analyzes a No Action alternative (Alternative 1). Under this alternative no exchange of land would occur.

• Purpose of the action:

The purpose of the Lake County-Rifle Lake Project is to evaluate a proposal to convey approximately 7,700 acres of federal lands for approximately 2,800 acres of Lake County owned lands in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). This exchange would eliminate all Lake County lands in the BWCAW and consolidate both National Forest and Lake County lands for more efficient management. The USDA Forest Service (FS) has an opportunity to complete a land exchange with Lake County. The two purposes for analyzing this land exchange are as follows: 1) The purpose is to acquire and consolidate National Forest System land in the BWCAW According to the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), acquisition of County administered lands within the BWCAW are Priority 1 (Forest Plan, page 2-51, G-LA-2). Priority 1 includes key tracts that are needed to protect and manage administrative or congressionally designated, unique, proposed, or recommended areas. 2) The purpose is to convey land to consolidate Lake County and National Forest lands and have a significant cost savings in landline and special use costs for the FS. Conveyances are allowed in the Forest Plan (page 2-52, G-LA-3 b, c, and d). This guideline states "the following National Forest System land is generally not needed for other resource management objectives and is potentially available for conveyance through exchange or other means and includes (b) parcels that will serve a greater need in State, county, city or other federal agency ownership; (c) inaccessible parcels isolated from other National Forest System land and intermingled with private lands and (d) parcels that will reduce the need for landline maintenance and corner


of 25

documentation, result in more logical and efficient management, and improve landownership pattern.

• Time frame of the action: The exchange of land parcels is expected to take place during 2010.

• Location: Superior National Forest, Laurentian and Kawishiwi Ranger Districts, Lake County, Minnesota.

The EA Vicinity Map (Project File) displays the general location of the Project Area. More detailed maps of the federal and non-federal lands can be viewed on the Forest Service web page at www.fs.fed.us/r9/superior under "Projects and Plans". Federal Parcels: The federal parcels are bordered by Lake County, State of Minnesota or private landowners. The majority of the federal lands are on the south eastern corner of the Laurentian District in T56N, R9W (3978.96 acres) and T57N, R9W (2707.74 acres). The remaining acres are in T58N, R8W (440 acres), also on the Laurentian District, and T63N, R11W (569.62 acres) on the Kawishiwi District. A complete land list is available with the EA at the above website. The list is in priority order; if all lands are not needed to equal the value of the County lands the last parcel(s) will be dropped from the exchange. The southernmost tracts of National Forest land will consolidate ownership for Lake County whereas the northern most parcels are more scattered and less intermingled. There is public road access to roughly 60 percent of the parcels; the remaining areas are more remote with no existing access. The lands are forested upland and lowland. Lake County Parcels: The Lake County parcels are widely scattered, noncontiguous lands distributed throughout the Lake County portion of the BWCAW. Some of these lands are easily accessible by water and portages, other more remote parcels have no water, trail or portage access. There are no structures or developed campsites associated with any of the county lands though some of these lands could be used by the occasional camper. A land list is attached to the EA. The Lake County parcels are generally small with just over 300 acres in one of the larger parcels and many others of 40 acres or slightly less. There are few truly small properties with a small island of about 1.75 acres and another shoreline parcel of about 2 acres. There are four management areas in the BWCAW (see Forest Plan pp. 3-43 to 3-46) and the Lake County parcels are in all four management areas; Pristine, Primitive, Semi-primitive non-motorized and Semi –primitive motorized.

General Analysis Area

To analyze effects I focused on demonstrating the effects relative to the No Action alternative (Alternative 1). For parcels in which Alternative 2 effects were considered to be no different than


of 25

those expected under the No Action alternative there will be no further analysis. Parcels are described below according to whether they are included in the effects analysis. Areas Excluded from Analysis: Lake County Parcels: The Lake County parcels are located in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) with the exception of one 40-acre parcel south of Greenstone Lake, about 12 miles east of Ely, MN. All Lake County parcels in the BWCAW transferred to federal ownership will be managed according to the Forest Plan and the BWCAW plan with no change from current management as a result of this land exchange. There will be no effects to Canada lynx, gray wolf, and their respective critical habitat components because the alternatives would not differ from the existing condition and habitat would be maintained in both alternatives, therefore no further analysis will be conducted on Lake County’s BWCAW parcels. The forty acre Lake County parcel near Greenstone Lake that would become federally owned is not likely to be affected by reasonably foreseeable federal actions because the major vegetation project for the area, Glacier Project, was signed in February 2009 and further actions would not likely be planned for another 7 years. These forty acres will not be analyzed further because there are no plans to change the current management as a result of this project. Areas Analyzed: Federal Parcels: All federal parcels, excluding one 80 acre parcel, currently managed by the Superior National Forest and proposed for exchange with Lake County are analyzed in this document as recommended in the Forest Plan BA (pp 118-119) for land ownership pattern and lynx habitat connectivity by reviewing unsuitable habitat. The lynx analysis units (LAUs) which include the federal lands proposed for exchange are used for both Canada lynx and wolf analysis areas. Critical habitat is considered for the affected LAUs and for affected lands outside LAUs. Lake County has provided the Forest Service with its best estimate at this time of changes in management of current federal parcels that might occur as a result of the exchange (Attachment 1). The federal parcels on the south eastern corner of the Laurentian District in T56N, R9W (3978.96 acres), T57N, R9W (2707.74 acres), and T58N, R8W (440 acres) are expected to be used by Lake County for timber management purposes. There are currently no specific timber harvest plans which to analyze by either owner on any parcels, making any analysis speculative. Both the Forest Service and Lake County apply the Minnesota Forest Resource Council’s Voluntary Site-level Guidelines (MFRC 2005, 2007) in their forest management. Reasonably foreseeable actions on both federal parcels and county parcels managed for timber resources are expected to be similar regardless of ownership.

All but 80 acres of the remaining acres on the Kawishiwi District (T63N, R11W, 569.62 acres) would fall under Lake County policy to retain lands that consolidate county parcels. Only one 80 acre parcel may be considered for future land exchange between Lake County and a private landowner to consolidate County lands elsewhere. Our interdisciplinary team analyzed the potential impacts on this tract, should it become private (DeShaw 2009, pers. comm.), based on


of 25

adjacent private land ownership patterns, results in our opinion that there is potential for 2 private homes and a maximum of 0.5 mile of new road. Ecological Setting:

Table 3: Ecological Setting of Federal Parcels

Landscape Ecosystem Percent of Project Area (NF Lands)

NF Acres

Sugar Maple 36% 2801 Mesic birch-aspen-spruce-fir 21% 1641 Lowland Conifer 10% 758 Dry-mesic red and white pine 6% 452 Mesic red and white pine 1% 100 Other* 25% 1,945

Total 100% 7697 Terrestrial Ecological Units Percent of Project Area

(NF Lands) NF Acres

Border Lakes Subsection 7.4 570 North Shore Highlands Subsection 92.6 7,127

*Other includes Lowland non-forest, Upland Non-forest, Lowland Hardwoods and Cedar. These LEs are lumped because the Forest Plan does not describe quantitative objectives for them. Data source for TE Units: Superior NF Landscape Ecosystem GIS cover 2005 and Ecological Subsection GIS cover 2001, ArcMap used to calculate acres. Table 4. Overview of species’ Affected Environment: Lynx

LAU

General Location Total Acres

NFS Land Acres

% of LAU in Project

Area SNF 22 T56N, R9W

(Whyte Project) 58,154 3,979 6.8

Outside LAU T57N, R9W T58N, R8W

(Whyte Project)

NA 2,707 440

NA

SNF 8 T63N, R11W (Glacier Project)

49,473 570 5.3

Total -- -- 7,696 -- 1. Data source: Acres and percent calculated through ArcMap 7/27/2009, lau_new polygon.shp


of 25

Table 5. Overview of species’ Affected Environment: Gray Wolf Wolf Percent of Project Area

(Critical habitat) Zone 1 7.4 (Critical habitat) Zone 2 92.6

Zone 3 0 Zone 4 0

o Other relevant setting features: None

• Project activities analyzed in program-level BA Although the Forest Plan BA does not specifically analyze land exchange, Section 4.5.6.1.B (pp 118-119) provides information on land ownership patterns and Forest Plan direction relevant to land exchange.

4.0 Status of the Canada Lynx Canada lynx ecology (see section 4.3 of program-level BA) and population status (see section 4.4 of program-level BA) above the Forest level are well documented in the program level BA. New information found since the programmatic BA is well documented in the BAs for the Glacier EIS (USDA FS 2009) and the Whyte EA (USDA FS 2007a) and will not be repeated here. Below is the population status for the Superior National Forest and the project area including data cited in the Whyte and Glacier Project BAs. Population Status (see section 3.4 of program-level BA)

• Superior National Forest: Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) researchers have captured and collared 33 lynx on the Superior NF. Adults and yearlings wore collars for over 15,000 radio-days, while kittens (animals radio-collared at < 1 year old) wore collars for about 3,500 days. Movements and habitat use have been documented including den locations. From 2004-2007 adult radio-collared females had 31 kittens in 10 litters. Status of 8 kittens that were marked at the den site or radio-collared is 5 dead and 3 alive >2 years. Only one animal collared as a kitten still has a transmitting radio collar. Of the 33 lynx radio-collared 17 are dead. Mean duration of monitoring was 1.6 years, with 21 of 33 lynx monitored for 1 to 3 years. Lynx have maintained a continuous presence from 2003 to date. At least 78 unique individual lynx have been identified genetically through 3/4/2008 with additional samples to be submitted this year (Moen et al. 2008).

• Minnesota’s lynx-hare cycles: No new information

Population Status in Area: • Project site-specific surveys: No site-specific surveys were conducted for the Lake County-Rifle

Lake Land Exchange Project Area.


of 25

Snow tracking surveys were conducted between January 27, 2007 and March 7, 2007 in the Glacier Project area (USFS 2009). One set of tracks was detected.

Field work for the Whyte Project included 122 miles of winter snow track surveys. Also, lynx have been tracked, trapped, and located with radio telemetry in the project area through the NRRI forest-wide lynx study (Moen et al. 2008).

• Known occurrences: Lynx occurrences are assumed in the Lake County-Rifle Lake Land Exchange Project Area because of evidence from previous analyses. At least three radio-collared lynx have had home ranges in the Glacier Project area in the last few years (NRRI, 2005 and 2006 In Glacier BA USFS 2009). There are other reported sightings of lynx scattered throughout the Glacier project area (MNDNR 2008 In Glacier BA USFS 2009). Lake County, which contains the project area, has had 104 reported lynx sightings between March 2000 and July 6, 2006 (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/nhnrp/research/lynx_sightings.html). This is the highest number of sightings in any Minnesota county. There have been numerous radio-collared lynx in the Whyte Project area including two known denning females (L7 and L31). The 2005 winter track survey recorded two sets of lynx tracks (probably same lynx) just off the Stony River Forest Road. Scat was collected and L31 was later captured and fitted with a radio-collar from this spot.

• Factors Affecting Lynx Environment (see section 4.5 of program-level BA)

• Roads and trails: No new information • Winter dispersed recreation: No new information • Trapping and shooting: No new information • Vehicle collisions: No new information • Other factors: The most critical period for denning Canada lynx is late April through July (Moen 2005 In Dunka BA 2005).

4.1 Status of the Gray Wolf The ecology and population status above the Forest level for gray wolf are well documented in the Biological Evaluation for the Glacier EIS (USDA FS 2009) and the Whyte EA BA (USDA FS 2007) and will not be repeated here. Population Status (see section 3.4 of program-level BA)

• Superior National Forest: Population estimates indicate a 26% increase since 1997-98 (Erb

2008).

• Summary of wolf mortality in Minnesota: No new information. Population Status in Project Area:

• Project site-specific surveys: No site-specific surveys were conducted for the Lake County-Rifle Lake Land Exchange Project Area.


of 25

• It was not necessary to conduct Glacier Project area specific surveys for wolf because the project

used information gathered through wolf pack monitoring effects done by the US Geological Survey and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (Mech 2007 In Glacier BA USFS 2009).

• In the Whyte Project area 122 miles of winter track surveys were conducted in January to March 2005. Also, the Whyte Project area and the Laurentian Ranger District were surveyed during the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ 2003-2004 wolf survey (Erb and Benson 2004 In Whyte BA USDA FS 2007).

• Known occurrences: Wolves and wolf sign have been observed throughout the project area.

The exact number of individual or packs that use the project area as well as the amount of occupied habitat are unavailable, however, suitable foraging habitat is abundant and well distributed across the project area and is assumed occupied. Wolf occurrences were recorded during Glacier Project surveys for other species such as lynx, boreal owl, great gray owl, and goshawk (see Glacier Project Record). Wolves or wolf sign were seen across the Laurentian District during the 2003-2004 survey. The winter 2005 track survey recorded 18 sets of wolf tracks over the 122 miles (0.15 tracks/mile) scattered throughout the Whyte Project area.

Factors Affecting Wolf Environment

• Prey habitat: No new information

• Human access: The most critical period for denning wolves is late April through May (M. Nelson pers. comm. 7/12/2005, In Dunka EA).

• Other factors: Deer densities for the project area were at or above pre-fawn population goals set

by the MN DNR for 2007 (Lenarz 2008).

5.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for the Canada Lynx

A. Analysis Area: • Direct/Indirect Effects Analysis Area: The only proposed action is an exchange of ownership.

There are no specific on-the-ground actions proposed and therefore no direct or indirect effects.

• Analysis Timeframe: None

• Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (for both NEPA and ESA): Cumulative effects consider all ownerships and roads within LAU 22, as described in the Whyte Forest Management Project (USDA FS 2007b) and LAU 8 in the Glacier Project (USDA FS 2009). This is an appropriate


of 25

analysis area it allows for the analysis of lynx movement and habitat use within LAUs and between LAUs and lynx refuge habitat in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This cumulative effects analysis area was selected because the LAU is the agreed upon unit of measure for lynx analysis between the USFS and USFWS.

• It is also appropriate because potential impacts from cumulative effects are already incorporated

and considered in the Whyte and Glacier Project analyses, thus allowing for an analysis of the potential compounding effects of those activities with other activities planned or already occurring in the area regardless of ownership. This allows use of the Whyte and Glacier project analyses and reduces the need to complete a separate and duplicate analysis.

• Analysis Timeframe: The reasonably foreseeable timeframe for this analysis of this project is seven years. The Forest Service completes landscape scale vegetation analyses and subsequently proposes land management activities on about a seven year rotation for any analysis area. Because federal parcels in this project were analyzed in the Glacier and Whyte projects in 2009 and 2007, respectively, the next analysis and management would not be expected until about 2014. The Superior National Forest Land Management Plan was adopted in 2004 and will be used for 10 to 15 years. The Lake County Forestry Department Working Management Plan (Lake County 2007) was adopted in 2007. Because of the complexities of these plans it is not expected that either would be significantly changed in seven years. Seven years is a reasonable timeframe in which to anticipate future actions.

B. Effects Analysis:

On February 24, 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service revised the Canada lynx critical habitat designation to include all of the Superior National Forest (and other lands in Northeastern Minnesota) as critical habitat (USDI FWS 2009b). Lynx analysis indicators serve as appropriate indicators for analysis of effects to proposed critical habitat and its constituent elements. This is because the indicators address relevant Primary Constituent Elements of lynx habitat - those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Table 6 below crosswalks the lynx indicators to the Primary Constituent elements (PCE):

Critical habitat for lynx is defined as boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing

successional forest stages and containing: a) Presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred habitat conditions, including dense

understories of young trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude above the snow; b) Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time; c) Sites for denning having abundant coarse, woody debris, such as downed trees and root wads;

and d) Matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest, non-forest, or other habitat types that do not

support snowshoe hares) that occurs between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition (at the scale of a lynx home range) such that lynx are likely to travel through such habitat while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range. The important aspect of matrix habitat for lynx is that these habitats retain the ability to allow unimpeded movement of lynx through them as lynx travel between patches of boreal forest.


of 25

Indicators Table 6. Analysis Indicators selection and rationale for exclusion: Canada Lynx Forest Plan BA Indicator PCE Use? Rationale for exclusion 1a. Snowshoe hare habitat acres a N No specific habitat management is

planned in either alternative; therefore habitat changes aside from natural succession are not expected. On a cumulative basis, although it is possible that timber management differences between government agencies could lead to different results and effects, I assume these effects to be insignificant since no specific actions are planned and effects would be speculative when applied to specific parcels.

1b. Percent of unsuitable habitat on NFS land a, b, c, d N

2. Acres of red squirrel habitat d N 3. Denning habitat in patches > 5 acres c N

4. Percent of lynx habitat in LAUs with adequate canopy cover- upland forest > 4 years old and lowland forest > 9 years old

a, c, d N

5. Miles of ATV trails allowed

b N This project proposes no increases in road or trail miles. Existing roads and trails would remain open. There are no known plans to develop trails or roads as a direct result of these alternatives. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are discussed in Indicator 11.

6. Miles of snowmobile trails allowed

b N

7. Miles of temp and OML 1&2 roads b N

8. Policy on cross-country use of ATVs and snowmobiles b N This project proposes no NFS change to

policy on cross-country use of ATVs and snowmobiles. Lands exchanged to Lake County would then fall under potentially different trail policy than that applied on NFS lands. Though it is possible that policy differences between government agencies could lead to different results and effects, I am discounting these effects since they are speculative when applied to specific parcels since there are no known plans to develop trails.

9. Policy on use of ATVs and snowmobiles on OML 1&2 roads N

Other Indicators Rationale for inclusion

10. Acres and % of lynx habitat currently unsuitable on all ownerships

a, c, d Y

Provides information to examine G-WL-3 (minimum of 30% unsuitable on all ownerships) for land ownership patterns.

11. Road and compacted trail density on all ownership. b Y Provides information to examine G-

WL-8 (2 miles /square mile).


of 25

Table 6. Analysis Indicators selection and rationale for exclusion: Canada Lynx Forest Plan BA Indicator PCE Use? Rationale for exclusion

12. Land ownership pattern d Y

Addresses land ownership patterns (D-LA-1, O-LA-1, and G-LA-1) as described in the programmatic BA (pp 118-119).

13.Fragmentation and degradation of refugia a, b, c, d N

Lake Co parcels in the BWCAW area currently treated as a continuum of federal parcels and the management would remain the same after land exchange. Lynx habitat and level of human disturbance would not change in the BWCAW.

Existing Conditions and Effects Cumulative Vegetation Effects Indicators Indicator 10: Currently Unsuitable Lynx Habitat on all ownerships

This indicator (Table 7) provides a measure of G-WL-3 which states “limit disturbance within each LAU on NFS lands as follows: if more than 30% of the total lynx habitat (all ownerships) within an LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable condition should occur as a result of vegetation management activities by National Forest.

Table 7. Indicator 10: Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition on all ownerships

Lynx Analysis

Units

Total Lynx Habitat on all

ownerships (acres)

Currently Unsuitable On all ownerships Alternative 2

Acres % Acres % SNF 8 37,421* 3307* 8.8 3387 9.0

SNF 22 58,139** 2,138 ** 3.7 2,138 3.7 Data Source: *Data from Glacier Project BA, pp G-16; Table 7. **Data from Whyte Timber Management Project BA, pp 27; Indicator 11 and pp 28; Indicator 16.

Lynx Habitat – Human disturbance/Access Indicators Indicator 11, below, is used to measure G-WL-8 which states that within LAUs generally maintain road and snow-compacting trail densities below 2 miles per square mile to maintain the natural competitive advantage of lynx in deep snow. Where total road and regularly-used snow-compacting trail densities are greater than 2 miles per square mile and coincide with lynx habitat, prioritize roads for seasonal restrictions or reclamation in those areas, where practical or feasible. In this guideline “roads” include all


of 25

ownerships of classified and unclassified roads and “regularly-used trails” are those that are used most years for most of the snow season. Alternative 2 assumes a cumulative increase of 0.5 mile of additional roads in LAU 8 from potential cumulative effects if two residences area built after a further land exchange between Lake County and a private party. Road densities would increase from 5.05 miles per square miles to 5.06 miles per square mile in LAU 8. Road densities in ALU would remain at 1.44 miles per square mile.

Table 8. Indicator 11: Road and snow-compacted Trail Density.

Lynx Analysis Units

Land Area (sq. mi.)

Alternative 1* Alternative 2* Mi/mi2 Mi/mi2

SNF 8 77.30 5.05 5.06 SNF 22 90.87 1.44 1.44

* Data shows the effects of roads decommissioned as proposed in the Travel Management Project, Glacier Project (BA pp G-19, Indicator 13) and Whyte Project (BA pp 30, Indicator 14), assuming cumulative effects for Glacier in 2017 and Whyte in 2014.

Indicator 12: Land Ownership Pattern Cumulatively, 7617 acres of the total 7697acres, or 99% of the federal parcels exchanged in this project would remain in public ownership. Lynx connectivity would be maintained because Lake County use of the land is expected to be similar to future use by the Forest Service. The reasonably foreseeable future for the 80 acre parcel with potential to become private is construction of 2 homes with associated driveways. This track is part of an isthmus between Fall Lake to the south and Cedar Lake to the north. The isthmus is currently impacted by roads and is predominantly privately owned. Most private residences are clustered along lake shores and the uplands are generally forested with few residences. Air photo interpretation shows that the parcel is bisected by a large wetland.

C. Consistency with Forest Plan: Canada Lynx Table 9. Compliance of alternatives with Forest Plan direction: Canada Lynx Forest Plan Guidance

Direction

Alts In Compliance

Basis for Compliance

O-WL-4 Maintain or improve habitat

all All alts. meet or exceed Forest Plan direction. All alts maintain no more than 9% of lynx habitat in unsuitable condition. Alternatives 1 and 2 maintain lynx habitat, any improvement would be due to natural succession. Any reduction in habitat in alternative 2 would be less than 1% of existing habitat in LAU 8.

O-WL-5 Seek opportunities to benefit TE spp.

all Alternatives 1 and 2maintains lynx habitat, any improvement would be due to natural succession.


of 25

Table 9. Compliance of alternatives with Forest Plan direction: Canada Lynx Forest Plan Guidance

Direction

Alts In Compliance


O-WL-6 Reduce or eliminate adverse effects to TE

all Adverse effects are not expected with any alternative.

O-WL-7 Minimize building or upgrading roads in TE areas

all No road building is proposed in any alternative. Potential road building in Alternative 2 is expected to be no more than 0.5 miles.

O-WL-8 Promote the conservation and recovery of Canada lynx

all All alternatives would maintain suitable habitat in public ownership.

O-WL-9 Manage for hare and alt prey habitat

Not applicable

Prey habitat would not change.

O-WL-10 Provide foraging habitat in proximity to denning habitat

Not applicable

Foraging and denning habitat would not change.

O-WL-11 Maintain habitat connectivity to reduce road mortality

all Habitat connectivity would be maintained in all alternatives. Wetlands in the 80 acre parcel in Alternative 2 are expected to provide connectivity should several homes be built on that parcel.

O-WL-12 Participate in efforts to identify, map, and maintain linkage areas

all This effort is being conducted on a regional scale and is beyond the scope of this project. However, adequate connectivity is maintained within the project area and neighboring habitat and ownership would remain public on almost all parcels. There are no major barriers to lynx movement in the project area, between LAUs or between the project area and the BWCAW, Voyageurs National Park, or other ownership.

O-WL-13 Maintain competitive advantage of lynx in deep snow

Not applicable

No road or compacted trails are proposed in this project.

O-WL-14 Participate in cooperative efforts to reduce lynx mortality related to highways and other roads

all There are no cooperative efforts to reduce the potential for lynx mortality related to highways and other roads as part of this project. Consolidation of ownership (M. Grover, pers. experience) often results in reduction of low standard road mileage.


of 25


Direction

Alts In Compliance


O-WL-15 In BWCAW, lynx habitat will result from natural processes

all The project area does not propose any management that would result in loss of connective habitat with the BWCAW.

G-WL-1 Moderate timing and intensity of mgt activities to maintain lynx habitat

Not applicable

No management activities are proposed .

G-WL-2 Provide protection of known den sites

all No den sites are known in the project area.

G-WL-3 No more than 30% of an LAU in unsuitable condition

all At most 9.0 percent of any LAU would be in unsuitable condition at one time (Table 7).

S-WL-1 No more than 15% change to unsuitable in 10 years

Not applicable

No activities are proposed that would change suitable habitat.

G-WL-4 Maintain at least 10% denning habitat

Not applicable

No activities are proposed that would change denning habitat.

G-WL-5 Following disturbance, (> 20 acres) retain at least 10%

Not applicable

This project does not propose disturbance.

S-WL-2 No net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow trails

Not applicable

The project does not propose any increase in over-the-snow trails

G-WL-6 New over-the-snow routes should be designed to benefit lynx

Not applicable

The project does not propose any new over-the-snow trails

G-WL-7 Close trails and roads that intersect with new snow-compacting trails.

Not applicable

The project does not propose any new over-the-snow trails


of 25


Direction

Alts In Compliance


G-WL-8 Maintain road density at or below 2mi/mi2. Where greater, prioritize roads for seasonal restriction or reclamation.

1 Lau 22 road density would remain at 1.44 mi/mi2 in both alternatives. Higher than desired road density exists in LAU8 at 5.05 miles per square mile. Alternative 1 would not address the high road densities in these LAUs, this was done in the Glacier Project. Alternative 2 would potentially create cumulative effects that would increase road density to 5.06 miles of roads per square mile. The current density is in LAU 8 is high and the potential cumulative increase in road miles is small with changes in Alternative 2 cumulative effects adding at most only a half mile of road. You would have to calculate to the hundredths decimal place to see the increase in LAU 8 road density. I expect there would be insignificant effects to lynx from this small change in LAU 8. The increase in LAU 8 road density may be compensated by a reduction in road building in LAU 22 and outside the LAUs due to consolidation or ownership. It is my experience over the last 12 years that consolidation of lands also allows for consolidated road use on adjacent state, county and federal lands treated for timber harvest. I have worked on numerous road access request projects where access across federal lands was reduced by the government agencies agreeing to use each other’s existing roads for the benefits of reduced truck hauling mileage and to avoid the expense and the ground and vegetation disturbance of creating new roads.

G-WL-9 Do not upgrade or pave dirt or gravel roads

Not applicable

This project does not propose to upgrade or pave gravel roads.


of 25

D. Determination of Effect for Canada Lynx Table 10. Determination of Effect of the Alternatives on Lynx and Critical Habitat. Management Activity


Land Exchange

Lynx: Alt 1 and 2: NE

Critical Habitat: Alt 1 and 2: NE

Land Exchange will have no direct or indirect effects to lynx or critical habitat as it proposes no specific actions for the parcels exchanged. Ownership of federal parcels by Lake County would continue to provide contiguous tracts of land in public ownership, maintaining lynx habitat connectivity. Critical habitat would not change in LAU 8, LAU 22, or outside LAUs. No effect to lynx or critical habitat is expected from the land exchange alone.

Cumulative effects of

Land Exchange

Lynx: Alt 1and 2:

NLAA

Critical Habitat: Alt 1 and 2:

NLAA

Potential cumulative effects may occur after federal parcels are exchanged. None of these potential actions would take place in Alternative 1. The likelihood that they would take place in Alternative 2 is unknown but is analyzed to disclose possible effects. All alternatives in the proposed action of land exchange may affect but are not likely to adversely affect/modify the lynx/critical habitat because:

• On 99% of the federal parcels connectivity within LAUs and between LAUs and refuge habitat would be maintained (D-LA-1).

• All alternatives ensure that no more than 9% of habitat would be in unsuitable condition for lynx, well below the 30% unsuitable indicator level (G-WL-3).

• Road and trail density would remain the same on all federal parcels in the near term. Addition of a potential 0.5 mile of road in LAU 8 may increase miles per square mile of road and compacted trail density by 0.01 mi/mi2. This is expected to be insignificant because the retention of wetlands for lynx movement and is expected. The cumulative effects of potentially adding 0.5 mile of road to LAU 8 are insignificant and discountable.

• Land management policy for potential timber harvest on specific parcels would change from federal to county but the foreseeable actions are expected to be similar to the no action alternative

• In general, land consolidation allows efficient access with the fewest miles of roads. Consolidation of potential timber lands may allow Lake County to use a more efficient road system than is now available because it may alleviate the need to access harvest units across other ownerships. Although the road construction and potential road consolidation are not in adjacent LAUs, benefits of land and road consolidation in this project in LAU 22 may balance the effects of a potential road increase in LAU 8.

NE = No Effect NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect LAA = Likely to adversely affect


of 25

5.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for the Gray Wolf A. Analysis Area:

• Direct/Indirect Effects Analysis Area: The only proposed action is an exchange of ownership. There are no specific on-the-ground actions proposed and therefore no direct or indirect effects.

• Analysis Timeframe: None

• Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (for both NEPA and ESA): Cumulative effects consider all ownerships and roads within LAU 22, as described in the Whyte Forest Management Project (USDA FS 2007a) and LAU 8 in the Glacier Project (USDA FS 2009). This is an appropriate analysis area it allows for the analysis of wolf movement and habitat use within LAUs and between LAUs and habitat in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. It is also appropriate because potential impacts from cumulative effects are already incorporated and considered in the Whyte and Glacier Project analyses, thus allowing for an analysis of the potential compounding effects of those activities with other activities planned or already occurring in the area regardless of ownership. This allows use of the Whyte and Glacier project analyses and reduces the need to complete a separate and duplicate analysis. Included in LAU 8 is the Garden Lake deer yard management area. The Garden Lake deer yard is a wintering area with a management area defined by the MN DNR and US Forest Service in 1985. This management plan is currently under discussion for revision but no specific plans have been completed. Three stands were proposed for deer habitat improvement by the Glacier Project. The stands are in township T63, R11W.

• Analysis Timeframe: The reasonably foreseeable timeframe for this analysis of this project is seven years. The Forest Service completes landscape scale vegetation analyses and subsequently proposes land management activities on about a seven year rotation for any analysis area. Because federal parcels in this project were analyzed in the Glacier and Whyte projects in 2009 and 2007, respectively, the next analysis and management would not be expected until about 2014. The Superior National Forest Land Management Plan was adopted in 2004 and will be used for 10 to 15 years. The Lake County Forestry Department Working Management Plan (Lake County 2007) was adopted in 2007. Because of the complexities of these plans it is not expected that either would be significantly changed in seven years. Seven years is a reasonable timeframe in which to anticipate future actions.

B. Effects Analysis: Indicators

Table 11. Analysis Indicators selection and rationale for exclusion: gray wolf. Forest Plan BA Indicator Use? Rationale for exclusion 1. Acres and percent of young upland forest <10 years old (MIH 1 young)

Y No actions are proposed that would change habitat, potential cumulative effects are addressed in a qualitative manner.


of 25

Table 11. Analysis Indicators selection and rationale for exclusion: gray wolf. Forest Plan BA Indicator Use? Rationale for exclusion 2. Acres and percent of upland conifer (spruce and pine) > 9 years old on all uplands (MIH 5 pole+)

Y No actions are proposed that would change habitat, potential cumulative effects are addressed in a qualitative manner.

3. Proposed miles of RMV trails

N No actions are proposed that would change habitat.

4. Cross-country use policy for RMVs N This project proposes no change on the RMV cross-country use policy.

5. Miles of temp and OML 1 roads Y No actions are proposed that would change temp or OML 1 roads, potential cumulative effects are addressed in a qualitative manner.

Other Indicators Rationale for inclusion 6. Miles of road open to the public and passable by two wheeled drive vehicle (OML 3-5 roads) in the project area.

N No actions are proposed that would change OML 3-5 roads, potential cumulative effects are addressed in a qualitative manner.

Table 12. Existing Conditions and Effects to Gray Wolf

Indicators Associated Projects

Existing Condition

Alternative 1 No Action

Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Acres % Acres % Acres % 1. Acres and percent of young upland forest <10 years old

Glacier* Whyte**

1,293 1,242

4 2.4

6,951 4,753

19 9.4

7,001 4,753

19 9.4

2. Acres and percent of upland conifer (spruce and pine) > 9 years old on all uplands

Glacier* Whyte**

12,314 16,463

33 32.4

12,163 17,149

33 33.8

12,163 17,149

33 33.8

Miles Miles 5. Miles of temp and OML 1 roads

Glacier* Whyte**

15 47.6

62 121

62.5 121

* Glacier Project Data Source (USDA FS 2009): Existing conditions for vegetation indicators are based on frozen August 2007 CDS data project, and all alternatives are based on projected CDS data in the year 2017. Roads indicator data for Existing Condition and alternatives are based on Aug 2006 road arcs coverage data and Glacier project roads shapefile created by Dan Hernessmaa and edited by David Hernandez. Percentages are the percent of total upland forest on federal lands in the project area (37,185 acres). **Whyte Project Data source (USDA FS 2007a): Existing condition for vegetation indicators are based on 2006 CDS data, and all alternatives are based on projected CDS data in the year 2014. Roads indicator data for Existing Condition and alternatives are based on shapefile routes data queried in ArcView. Percentages are the percent of total upland forest on federal lands in the project area (50,804 acres).


of 25

Cumulative Effects The FEIS for the Forest Plan identifies that additional impact to wolves would occur on lands outside of the National Forest jurisdiction. Specifically, the potential increase in human access into wolf territory could occur as private lands are subdivided and developed, and harvesting on non-federal ownership would require additional road development (USDA FS 2004b, pg 3.3.4-31). Past land management activities on all have shaped the habitat that exists today for wolf in the project area. The Glacier BE provides the following with regard to cumulative habitat effects analysis for gray wolf which includes LAU 8 and is applicable to the land exchange: “Current and planned timber harvesting, restoration and fuel reduction activities are expected to improve foraging conditions for moose and deer. Nonfederal lands (48% of project area) would continue to provide foraging and thermal habitat for deer and moose. Overall, more than adequate deer habitat is available in North-central and Northeastern Minnesota. This condition is not expected to change in the near term (USDA FS 2009).” Foraging habitat would be maintained in the Whyte project (USDA FS 2007a) area and the Land Exchange project area. In all alternatives, deer densities are likely to remain at current levels regardless of vegetation age since severe winters have the greatest effect on population levels (Nelson 2006). Alternative 2 would eliminate proposed vegetation management by the US Forest Service in the Garden Lake deer yard. If the federal parcels are exchanged to Lake County, the stands could still be managed for deer habitat but the parties would include Lake County and the MN DNR instead of the Forest Service and The MN DNR. If potential home development occurs on an 80 acre parcel in the Glacier Project area and is considered in combination with future non-federal timber management, resulting cumulative effects in the project area could occur. Prey habitat may be reduced slightly but is plentiful and not limiting in LAU 8. Cumulative effects could occur as a result of human access/disturbance. Access for several new homes on private ownership could result in a greater number of low standard roads, and a slight increase in human density which could have negative impacts on wolf. However, when these impacts are considered in combination with this project, the cumulative effects are expected to be minor because of the small amount of road that could potentially be added as a result after the land exchange and the limited number of people expected to occupy two homes. Based on increasing wolf populations over the past two decades, cumulative impacts to wolf related to changes in habitat and human disturbance are not expected to have major impacts on wolf populations.

C. Consistency with Forest Plan: Actions in both alternatives comply with direction in the Forest Plan for gray wolf. Habitat is conserved and maintained and prey habitat will not change as a direct result of the exchange. Human disturbance will not increase or decrease as a direct result of the land exchange.


of 25

D. Determination of Effect for Gray Wolf Table 13. Effect of the Alternatives on Gray Wolf Management Activity


Land Exchange

Wolf: Alt 1 and 2: NE

Critical Habitat: Alt 1 and 2: NE

Both alternatives will provide adequate prey habitat. There are no on-the-ground actions proposed in either alternative. There would be no effects from temporary roads and no potential beneficial effect from roads decommissioning. Effects will not change from existing condition which is not currently an adverse situation. Critical habitat would not change in LAU 8, LAU 22, or outside LAUs. No effect to wolf or critical habitat is expected from the land exchange alone.

Potential Cumulative Effects of Land Exchange

Wolf: Alt 1and 2: NLAA

Critical Habitat:

Alt 1 and 2: NLAA

Both alternatives will provide adequate prey habitat. Both alternatives would provide options to manage parcels for deer habitat in the Garden Lake Deer Yard, either by the Forest Service in Alternative 1 or by Lake County in Alternative 2. Cumulative effects could occur with continued human access into wolf habitat. Consolidation of ownership and the potential to reduce the length of access roads may offset any increase in roads due to home building. Potential cumulative effects of two homes and 0.5 mile of road building on 80 acres along with the potential to reduce access roads on up to 7,000 acres would be insignificant in view of the habitat available for wolves. No take is expected from potential cumulative actions . The actions may affect wolves and their critical habitat but are not likely to adversely affect wolves or modify critical habitat.

NE = No Effect NLAA = Not likely to adversely affect LAA = Likely to adversely affect

6.0 Operational Standards and Guidelines There are no mitigations applied in this project.

7.0 Monitoring

The Forest Plan identifies three monitoring elements related to threatened and endangered species (Chapter 4, Table MON-4): • To what extent is Forest management contributing to the conservation of threatened and

endangered species and moving toward short term (10-20 years) and long-term (100 years) objectives for their habitat conditions and population trends?

• To what extent is the Forest maintaining no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-

snow trail routes unless the designation effectively consolidates use and improves lynx habitat through a net reduction of compacted snow areas?


of 25

Additional Monitoring Elements: None

8.0 Signature Conducted by: /s/ Melissa Grover Date: _Nov. 23, 2009_

Melissa Grover, Wildlife Biologist

9.0 References DeShaw, P. 2009. Personal communication with Superior National Forest East Zone Realty Specialist and Project Team Leader. Based on current land ownership patterns in the area, Patti estimates an addition of 2 homes on 80 acres. Lake County. 2007. Lake County Forestry Department Working Management Plan. Available on-line: http://www.co.lake.mn.us/ [Accessed on July 28, 2009] Lenarz, M. S. 2008. Population trends of white-tailed deer in the forest zone – 2008, pp. 78-87 In Status of Wildlife Populations. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul. Accessed Nov. 16, 2009: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/populationstatus2008/4_forest_wildlife.pdf Minnesota Forest Resources Council (MFRC). 2005, 2007. Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources: Voluntary site-level forest management guidelines for landowners, loggers and resource managers. Minnesota Forest Resources Council, St. Paul, Minnesota. Moen, R., G. Niemi, C.L. Burdett and D.L. Mech. 2008. Canada Lynx in the Great Lakes Region 2008: annual report to USDA Forest Service and MN Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2008-14. Duluth, MN. 48. pp. On web at: http://www.nrri.umn.edu/lynx/publications/ Nelson, Mike. 2006. U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) deer specialist, Minnesota Wolf Project. Conversation with Lissa Grover, USFS, on April 18, 2006

All USDA Forest Service, Superior National Forest documents are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/projects/

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Forest Plan Revision Biological Assessment. Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Forest Plan Revision EIS. Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN.

http://www.co.lake.mn.us/�

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/lynx/publications/�

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/projects/�


of 25

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Whyte Forest Management Project Biological Assessment Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Appendix F: Whyte Project List of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. USDA Forest Service. 2009. Glacier Project Biological Assessment. Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a. Letter from Field Supervisor Tony Sullins. On file at Superior National Forest, Duluth, MN. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Federal Register Notice, February 24, 2009 Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Critical Habitat Unit #2 Map. 10.0 Attachment 1 Attachment 1, on the following page, is a letter from Lake County Commissioner Tom Martinson (no date, but filed in June 2009) to Jim Sanders, Superior National Forest Supervisor about Lake County’s plans for exchanged lands.

Superior National Forest Lake County - Rifle Lake Land Exchange Biological Assessment Attachment 1

of 25

Lake Co-Rifle Lake BA Finala123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Lake Co-Rifle Lake BA Finala123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… ·...