SHINGOBEE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Walker Ranger District Chippewa National Forest

April 2015

Prepared By: ______________________ _________________ Cory Mlodik Date District Wildlife Biologist Reviewed By: _____________________ _________________ Sherry Fountain Date District Ranger

Page 1 of 14

Summary of Effects: Table 1 summarizes the effects of the proposed action on Threatened species that are known or suspected to occur within the area of influence of the proposed action. Table 1. Summary of Effects on Threatened Species that are known or suspected to occur within the area

of influence of the Shingobee Vegetation Management Project. Threatened and Endangered Species

Species Determination of Effect Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) No Effect Gray Wolf (Canis Lupis) May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Effect Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Likely to Adversely Affect

Consultation Requirements: In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its implementation regulations, and FSM 2671.4, the Chippewa National Forest is required to request written concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with respect to determinations of potential effects on Canada lynx and gray wolf. Since the determination for Canada lynx is “no effect” concurrence is not required. The Chippewa National Forest is requesting a Biological Opinion for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Need for Re-Assessment Based on Changed Conditions: The Biological Assessment findings are based on the best current data and scientific information available. A revised Biological Assessment must be prepared if: (1) new information reveals effects, which may impact Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this assessment; (2) the proposed action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect, which was not considered in this assessment; or (3) a new species is listed or habitat identified, which may be affected by the action. Introduction This Biological Assessment was prepared to display the possible effects on proposed species known to occur, or that may occur within the area influenced by the Shingobee Vegetation Management Project (SVMP) on the Chippewa National Forest, Walker Ranger District. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species are managed under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (PL 93-205, as amended) and the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs Federal departments and agencies to ensure actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Endangered or Threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats (16 USC 1536). Project Description The USDA Forest Service (USFS), Chippewa National Forest (CNF), Walker Ranger District proposes commercial timber harvest including; coppice, clearcut, shelterwood, commercial thinning, single tree selection, and group selection. Following harvest, site preparation would include mechanical treatments, and piling and burning. Planting or seeding to meet regeneration or species diversity objectives is proposed. Animal control (deer repellent) and release of planted seedlings are planned for some areas.

Page 2 of 14

Temporary roads would be built to access some of the treatment units and then decommissioned. Slash treatments to reduce fire hazards are planned within certain treatment units. Table 2 summarizes timber harvest proposed in Alternative B that may occur within northern long-eared bat (NLEB) summer roosting habitat.

Table 2. Summary of Alternative B timber harvest activities. Management Activity

(harvest treatment method) Alternative B

(acres) Coppice cut 987

Patch clearcut 21 Stand clearcut 635 Shelterwood 21

Group selection 176 Single tree selection 237 Commercial thinning 946

Total (138 stands) 3,022

Threatened Species Northern Long-eared Bat Population and Habitat Status The northern long-eared bats inhabit eastern North America from Manitoba across to southern Canada to Newfoundland, south to northern Florida, and west to Wyoming. It occurs in the eastern third of Minnesota, including the CNF. It can be found in Minnesota in low numbers year round. NLEB are found in most caves and mines surveyed in Minnesota, although typically in low numbers. Population trends are likely declining due to White Nose Syndrome (WNS). This previously unknown fungus causes skin infection in bats at affected sites. The fungus thrives in low temperature (50-55 degrees F) and high levels of humidity (>90%), which are conditions characteristic of caves and mines where many bats hibernate (USFS 2011). The CNF (Map 3) has no known winter hibernacula. The closest hibernaculum is located in NE Minnesota about 70 miles from the Forest boundary. Most of the forested lands on the CNF would be considered potential summer roosting habitat. During the summer, NLEB’s roost singly or in colonies in cavities, underneath bark, crevices, or hollows of both live and dead trees or snags (USFWS 2014). Suitable summer habitat consists of a wide variety of forested habitats where they roost and forage. This includes forests containing potential roosts (snags > 3” DBH with exfoliating bark) as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian edges, and other wooded corridors (USFWS 2014). NLEB have also been observed roosting in human-made structures such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses. Summer habitat is typically occupied from April to October in Minnesota (USFWS 2014). Status of the NLEB in the Area Influenced by the Proposed Project Population trends are undetermined for NLEB on the Chippewa National Forest. The CNF is contributing to joint inventory and monitoring efforts to evaluate summer bat population trends. Analysis of the acoustic data collected since 2011 will be analyzed in 2015. The CNF is planning to increase the number of acoustic surveys across the Forest starting in 2015. The CNF is also working in partnership with the MN DNR and the Superior NF to increase knowledge of NLEB presence within Northern MN. No

Page 3 of 14

surveys have been completed for the SVMP, but presence can be assumed based on presence of potential summer habitat in the project area. Habitat Status in the Project Area The project area contains an abundance of potential summer habitat on USFS land (Map 2) as well as other public ownerships. Given the checker board nature of ownership in the project area, summer habitat on State/County was included. Currently suitable summer habitat was considered as all forested habitat greater than or equal to 10 years old. Currently unsuitable summer habitat was forested habitats less than 10 years old. Table 3 shows the amount of habitat in the project area on USFS land and State/County lands. As Table 3 shows most of the forested land in the project area is currently suitable summer habitat.

Table 3. NLEB summer habitat on public lands within the SVMP area. Landowner Potential

Summer Habitat

Currently Suitable Summer Habitat

Currently Unsuitable Summer Habitat

Percent of habitat in a currently

suitable condition

USFS land 20,621 19,512 1,109 95 State and

County land 4,582 3,987 595 87

Total Acres 25,203 23,499 1,704 93 Effects of the Proposed Action

Indicator 1. Amount of forested summer roost habitat greater than or equal to 10 years old on USFS land.

Direct Effects No known hibernacula or summer roosts occur in the project area. Direct effects to roosting bats could occur if an occupied roost tree were removed or damaged by the proposed project activities. The likelihood of this occurring is fairly low given the amount of timber harvest proposed compared to the available habitat in the project area (Table 3). About 2,632 acres of timber harvest (87% of the timber harvest in the proposed action) is proposed for summer harvest. About 390 acres of timber harvest (13% of the timber harvest in the proposed action) are proposed for winter harvest (Table 4). Timber harvest in these stands would have no direct effects on NLEB. Indirect Effects Proposed project activities within currently suitable summer habitat would reduce the amount of habitat available in the project area. This reduction would be temporary as the forested stands would grow back and eventually provide potential habitat. Timber harvest would have a varying effect on NLEB summer habitat. Even-aged mgmt. (coppice, clearcut, and shelterwood) would have the greatest effect, un-even aged mgmt. (group selection and single tree selection) would have an intermediate effect, while commercial thinning of red pine or white spruce plantations would have the least effect on summer roosting habitat (Map 1). Compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines relating to NLEB summer habitat help to reduce these indirect effects (Table 5). Additional mitigations from the Minnesota Forest Resource Council (MFRC 2013) also help to further reduce effects to NLEB summer roosting habitat (Table 6).

Page 4 of 14

About 1,664 acres would be regeneration type of harvest. Regeneration type of harvest would slightly reduce the amount of available habitat in the project area on USFS land. About 17,848 acres of currently suitable habitat would remain after project completion. This acreage will likely increase during project completion as forested stands that were too young as of 2014 grow into potentially suitable habitat during completion of the project, which is expected to take 5-10 years. At least 87% of the forested USFS land within the project area would still be considered currently suitable after project completion.

Table 4. Timber harvest by harvest type and season of operation Harvest Type1 Acres

Summer Harvest

Acres Winter Harvest

Total Acres Harvested

Coppice cut 937 50 987 Patch clearcut 21 0 21 Stand clearcut 461 174 635 Shelterwood 21 0 21

Group selection

128 48 176

Single tree selection

159 78 237

Commercial thinning

905 40 945

Total Acres 2,632 390 3,022 1 Coppice, patch clearcut, stand clearcut, and shelterwood are considered regeneration type of harvest in this analysis. Within the proposed action, about 8 stands totaling 188 acres would be mechanically site prep-ed for natural regeneration. There is a slight risk that roosting bats may be disturbed (awakened) by these activities, if these activities occur near roost trees during the summer season. Any effects would be temporary in nature. There will be about 13 short temporary road segments totaling about 2.0 miles that would be created and then decommissioned once the project is completed. Depending on the location, some potential summer roost trees may be removed. Once decommissioned, these linear corridors may provide foraging areas for bats. An additional project includes the felling of trees around existing white pine in a 14 acre stand. The trees would be felled outside of the non-volant period. Cumulative Effects The SVMP was considered along with past, present, and expected future management actions on State and County lands. It is unknown where NLEB that may occur in the project area are hibernating. There are no known hibernacula in or near the project area. It is unknown at this time when timber harvest that would affect summer habitat will be accomplished on State and County lands. Currently, there is about 67 acres of active timber sales on County land in the project area. Any harvest on State and County land would further reduce available summer habitat.

Page 5 of 14

Table 5. Consistency with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that would relate to NLEB summer roosting habitat.

Forest Plan Guidance Alternative B Mod. in Compliance?

Basis for Compliance

O-VG-19 Maintain/increase +300 acre patches

Yes Contributes to maintaining 8 patches >300 acres each in the project area

G-VG-1 Maintain 19 patches +1000 acres Forest-wide

Yes Contributes to maintaining 3 patches >1,000 acres each in the project area; 21 patches of >1,000 acres are maintained Forest-wide

S-VG-2 Maintain 85,000 acres of patches +300 acres in size

Yes 106,668 acres of patches >300 acres are maintained Forest-wide

G-TM-5 In stands 20 acres or larger that are regenerated with clearcuts, retain a minimum of 5% of the stand in legacy patches

Yes Legacy patches are incorporated into silvicultural prescriptions

G-TM-6 In northern hardwoods forest types, generally maintain a closed canopy (>70%) of mature forest within 200’ of seasonal ponds

Yes Mitigations for seasonal ponds are incorporated into silvicultural prescriptions

Table 6. MFRC within stand mitigations that would relate to NLEB summer roosting habitat.

MFRC Guidance Alternative B Mod. in Compliance? On clearcut sites, in general leave 6-12 live trees/acre, trees can be retained as individual trees or clumps

Yes, MFRC guidelines are incorporated into silvicultural prescriptions.

Leave all snags possible standing in harvest area

Determination of Effect Alternative B of the SVMP is “likely to adversely affect” individuals in stands that are summer harvested, assuming that the species is present in the affected stands. The standard forest activities associated with this project are exempt from “Incidental Take” under a 4(d) rule (US DOI 2015). Overall, there will be a reduction in summer habitat in the project area (8 %) on USFS land from current levels. At the forest-wide scale (522,087 acres of currently suitable summer roosting habitat) this reduction in summer habitat is more minor. Across the NLEB’s range the effects of the SVMP on NLEB and their summer habitat are even further reduced. No known summer roost sites or winter hibernacula occur in the project area.

Page 6 of 14

Canada Lynx Population and Habitat Status Canada lynx are solitary carnivores, generally occurring at low densities in boreal forest habitats. In most of their range, Canada lynx densities and population dynamics are strongly tied to the distribution and abundance of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), their primary prey. Minnesota lynx populations are at the southern periphery of their range, and may be limited naturally by the availability of snowshoe hare and red squirrel, competition for food, and aggressive interaction or hybridization with bobcats. Canada lynx migrate into northern Minnesota during years of low prey availability in Ontario and Manitoba. Foraging habitat for lynx is typically described in terms of suitability for their primary prey; snowshoe hares. Hares use young conifer stands that are densely stocked with seedlings or saplings, tall enough to provide browse for snowshoe hares above typical winter snow depth (Koehler and Brittel 1990). Buskirk et al. (1999) suggested that snowshoe hare abundance should be high in sapling and old, “gap phase” forests, where tree mortality and snag loss create gaps in the mature forest canopy allowing increased understory production. Denning habitat is defined by the presence of ground-level structures that provide security and cover for kittens. Suitable structures are most often found in old and mature forests with substantial amounts of coarse woody debris. The common components of natal den sites appear to be high horizontal cover in the form of downed logs, root wads, and high sapling density (Koehler 1990).

Status of the Canada lynx in the Area Influenced by the Proposed Project According to the Minnesota DNR website (MDNR 2006), there are no verified sightings of Canada lynx on the Walker R.D. Habitat Status in the Project Area The best opportunities for snowshoe hares and lynx are to be found in dense lowland conifer stands and adjacent upland forests with dense understories that provide dense horizontal cover. The project area lacks these types of habitat in sufficient quantities to support lynx and snowshoe hare. The project area lies outside of defined LAU’s. Areas outside of LAU’s are considered unsuitable for lynx reproduction and survival based on the area’s vegetation and environmental conditions. Therefore, use of the project area by lynx is negligible. Effects of the Proposed Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are anticipated since the project area does not provide sufficient habitat to support lynx reproduction and survival. The project area is outside of defined LAU’s. Determination of Effect Alternative B of the SVMP will have “no effect” on lynx. This is due to the lack of sufficient amounts of habitat to support lynx reproduction and survival in the project area. The project area is outside of defined LAU’s.

Page 7 of 14

Gray Wolf

A. Analysis Area: • Direct/Indirect Effects Analysis Area: Habitat indicators: SVM project area.

Human Disturbance indicators: SVM project area.

• Cumulative Effects Analysis Area: Same as for direct/indirect effects. Rationale: Allows comparison with scope of analysis at Forest Plan EIS level, and allows ready consideration of Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

B. Effects Analysis: • Identify and analyze the direct and indirect effects of the action and the cumulative effects of

other actions in the project area. Indicators

Forest Plan BA Indicator Use? Rationale for exclusion 1. Acres and percent of young upland forest <10 years old

No Replace with indicator 1a

1a. Acres and percent of aspen-birch forest < 25 years old

Yes Provides better measure of deer foraging habitat, per FEIS pp. 3.3.6.27-33

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

No Replace with indicator 2a

2a. Acres and percent of deer thermal cover (upland and lowland conifers of appropriate forest types/ages)

Yes Provides better measure of deer thermal cover on CNF, per FEIS pp. 3.3.6.27-33

3. Miles of RMV trails No No change due to project 4. Cross-country use policy for RMVs No No change due to project 5. Miles of temp roads created by project Yes

Existing Conditions and Effects

Indicators

Existing Condition

2014

Alt. B 2019

Acres % Acres % 1a. Deer foraging habitat: Acres and percent of aspen-birch forest <25 years old*

3,383

17 3,123

16

2a. Deer thermal cover: Acres and percent of deer thermal cover (upland and lowland conifers of appropriate forest types/ages)**

2,949

14 3,074

15

*% of total upland forests on NF lands; **% of total forest on NF lands; ArcMap 2015

Page 8 of 14

As habitat generalists, wolves do not depend on the type, age, or structure of vegetation. Instead, they are indirectly influenced by vegetation conditions through the distribution of their primary prey species (USFWS 2004, p. 12). On the CNF, wolves prey primarily on white-tailed deer. The Forest Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides a forest-wide analysis of prey habitat conditions (USFS 2004, pp. 3.3.4.1-27 through 33). White-tailed deer population levels are at historically high levels, supported by generally favorable combinations of foraging habitat (young aspen-birch forests) and winter thermal cover (dense conifers). Although providing the primary prey source for the gray wolf, deer populations are generally not limited by wolves, but rather by severe winters. Currently, the forests provide ample habitat for prey species; prey availability is not likely to threaten wolves (USFWS 2004, p. 13). About 10 acres of deer thermal cover would be treated under Alternative B using regeneration harvest treatment types. Due to forest aging, Alternative B results in an increase in the acres of deer thermal cover by 2019. About 1,124 acres of aspen-birch forest types will be treated by regeneration harvest. There is a slight decline in deer foraging habitat in Alternative B. Ample deer foraging habitat remains in the project area.

Indicators

Alt. A1 No Action

Alt. B

Miles of temp roads created by SVM project

0 2.0

Miles of OML 3-5/6 high standard roads 327 327

Road density (OML-3-5/6) within SVM Project Area

4.3 4.3

Data Source: Arcmap 2015 1 The road density was calculated taking total road miles/project area

Currently the project area is above the wolf-road density threshold for OML 3-5/6 class roads. The high road density is partly due to the city of Walker, MN being within the project area. There will be no change in OML 3-5/6 class road density as a result of this project. C. Consistency with Forest Plan:

Forest Plan Guidance

Summary of Direction (see Forest Plan) Alt. C in

Compliance

Basis for Compliance

O-WL-4 Maintain or improve habitat

Yes Ample prey habitat; no change in road density

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

Yes Effectively close temporary roads

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

Yes Effectively close temporary roads

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

Yes No new system roads are proposed

O-WL-17 Promote the conservation and

Yes Ample prey habitat

Page 9 of 14

recovery of gray wolf S-WL-3 Management will be

governed by Gray Wolf Recovery Plan

Yes

G-WL-10 Provide for the protection of known active den sites

N/A No known den sites

D. Determination of Effect

Wolf Management Activity Determination Summary of Rationale Alternative B: Proposed Action

Not likely to adversely affect gray wolves or their habitat

Ample prey habitat is maintained

Page 10 of 14

Literature Cited Buskirk, S.W., L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, D.E. Pearson, J.R. Squires, and K.S. McKelvey. 1999.

Comparative ecology of lynx in North America. Chapter 14 in Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central

Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:845-851. Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Britell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares. Journal

of Forestry.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Lynx sightings in Minnesota. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nhnrp/research/lynx_sightings.html

Minnesota Forest Resources Council. Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources: Voluntary Site-Level

Forest Management Guidelines for Landowners, Loggers and Resource Managers. 2013. Minnesota Forest Resources Council, St. Paul, Minnesota. 590 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior. 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Threatened species status for the northern long-eared bat with 4(d) rule; Final rule and interim rule. Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 63, pp. 18023 – 18028.

U.S. Forest Service. 2004. Environmental impact statement: forest plan revision. Chippewa National

Forest/Superior National Forest.

____. 2004. Programmatic biological assessment for the revised forest plans: Chippewa and Superior National Forests. USDA Forest Service- Region 9.

____. 2011. White-nose syndrome regional response plan 2011 – 2012. Eastern Region Forest Service. 33

pp. ____. 2015. Shingobee vegetation management project environmental assessment, in prep. Chippewa

National Forest, Walker Ranger District. USFWS. 2004. Biological opinion. Review of biological assessment for revised Chippewa and Superior

National Forests Forest Plans, and their effects on bald eagle, gray wolf, and Canada lynx. 49 pp. ____. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-month finding on a petition to list the

eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Federal Register, October 2, 2013. Available at http://www.regulations.gov Search ID: FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024-0020.

____. 2014. Northern long-eared bat interim conference and planning guidance. USFWS Regions

2,3,4,5,6. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 67pp.

Page 11 of 14

Map 1. Vegetation treatment units in Alternative B of the SVMP.

Page 12 of 14

Map 2. Summer roosting habitat on USFS land within the SVMP.

Page 13 of 14

Map 3. Summer Roosting Habitat on the Chippewa NF.

Page 14 of 14