1

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Eastern Region

Hiawatha National Forest

Wildlife Biological Assessment For

Bass Boot Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment

Manistique and Munising Ranger Districts

2016

Prepared by:__________________________________ Janet Kudell-Ekstrum, Wildlife Biologist Date:_3/23/2016____________

2

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."

4

INTRODUCTION This Biological Assessment (BA) documents the potential effects on federally proposed, candidate, threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat that could result from proposed vegetation management project and associated activities as documented in the Bass Boot Environmental Assessment. This BA was prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (FSM) Directives sections 2670.31, 2670.5(3), and 2672.4, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. A letter from United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Field Supervisor to Forest Supervisor Reyer (Hicks, October 21, 2014) confirms the species and critical habitat that should be considered for projects conducted on the Hiawatha National Forest. Two additional changes to this list were made after October 2014; the Rufus red knot was given federal protection (December 5, 2014 Federal Register). In addition, the December 28, 2011 final rule for gray wolf was vacated, hence returned, to a federally endangered status as of December 19, 2014 (Hicks, January 13, 2015). Fauna: Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis (threatened) Canada lynx - Lynx canadensis (threatened) Kirtland’s warbler – Setophaga kirtlandii, previosuly Dendroica kirtlandii (endangered) Piping plover – Charadrius melodus (endangered) Hine’s emerald dragonfly – Somatochlora hineana (endangered) Gray wolf – Canis lupus (endangered) Rufa red knot – Calidris canutus rufa) (threatened) A. CONSULTATION WITH USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The Forest Service is seeking concurrence with the determinations(s) of effects in this BA from the Fish and Wildlife Service. We concluded the proposed action May Affect with a beneficial effect Kirtland’s warbler; May Affect, but not likely to adversely affect gray wolf and Canada lynx, and May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect Northern long-eared bat. The proposed activities would have “No Effect” on piping plover, Hine’s emerald dragonfly, or Rufus red knot because no habitat is present within the Analysis Area. Further, none of these species have critical habitat in the Analysis Area, therefore they will not be analyzed further in this BA. In addition to concurrence for Northern long-eared bat requested for this project, programmatic consultation was undertaken twice, once for Forest Plan revision. The history of Forest Plan consultation is documented in the Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) for the revision of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005) and associated Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). The relevance of program-level consultation to this project includes those agreements between the Forest Service and the USFWS 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. This 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

5

consultation are discussed in detail in this BA. It is critical to note that this project-level BA is closely connected to and can only be viewed in concert with both the programmatic BA and BO. This document also tiers to the Biological Opinion completed by the USFWS on the Activities Affecting the Northern Long-eared bat on Eastern Region National Forests dated November 3, 2015 (USFWS, 2015). Page viii (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015b) contains a summary of the Consultation History associated with the Biological Opinion. An update to the Eastern Region project file for NLEB for acres of land suitable for timber production in MA 8.4x – Congressionally Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers on the Hiawatha National Forest was made through the Eastern Region Regional Office (Sandeno, 2016). On October 29, 2015, the location within Bass Boot Analysis Area where a bat acoustic device was placed during the summer of 2015, was visited by a USFWS biologist and HNF biologists on a review of threatened and endangered species habitats and locations on the west side of the Hiawatha National Forest. Analysis of the project on Federally listed Threatened and Endangered species in Project Biological Assessments can result in the following determinations:

• No Effect- where no effect is expected; there will be no impacts, positive or negative to listed or proposed species. Concurrence from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not needed.

• May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect – where effects are expected to be beneficial, insignificant (undetectable, unmeasurable, or cannot be evaluated), or discountable (extremely unlikely). This determination call requires concurrence from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect – where effects are expected to be adverse or detrimental. This effect call requires the Federal agency to initiate formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the exception of Northern long-eared bat streamlined framework.

There are no species Proposed for Federal listing being analyzed in this document. B. PROPOSED ACTION Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives by Proposed Action Table Comparison of Alternatives by Management Activity. Comparison of Bass Boot Project alternatives by proposed vegetation, water resources, wildlife, botany and transportation management activities. All values for acres or miles are derived in GIS and are approximate.

Activity No Action Proposed Action Timber Management

Thinning 0 ac 2,928 ac Shelterwood (includes shelterwood prep) 0 ac 1,920 ac

Individual Tree Selection 0 ac 1,462 ac Improvement Cut 0 ac 1,474 ac Clearcut 0 ac 255 ac Clearcut for Kirtland’s warbler 0 ac 142 ac

6

habitat Prescribe burning 0 ac 127 ac Coppice cut 0 ac 165 ac Non-commercial 0 ac 110ac Seed tree 0 ac 25 ac TSI 0 ac 7 ac Fuels Broadcast Burn 0 ac 1,590 ac

Cut and Pile/BB 0 ac 180 ac

Cut, Pile, and Pile Burn 0 ac 194 ac

Mechanical Treatment 0 ac 90 ac

Timber Specification 0 ac 32 ac

Watershed Planting and Pruning 0 ac 709 ac Wildlife Non-commercial Aspen regeneration (clearcut)

0 ac 95ac ^

Harvest jack pine for blocks of Kirtland’s warbler habitat (clearcut) 0 ac

142 acres (listed also in the Vegetation Management

section) Wildlife Opening Mtce. 0 ac 12ac Snag creation in red pine thinning 0 ac 2720 ac Drumming log creation in coppice cut stands and non-commercial aspen regeneration) 1 drumming log/ac

0 ac

302 ac

Botany NNIP control measures 0 ac 160 ac Transportation New construction 0 miles 1.0 miles ML 1 and ML 2 Road Reconstruction

0 miles 22.6 miles

Maintenance on ML 1 and ML 2 0 miles* 74.0 miles Temporary road construction 0 miles 1.74 miles Turnaround (300’ in length) placed where ML 2-5 are decommissioned 0 miles 3.3 miles

Decommission roads (includes Decommission and Special Use Permit and Only Decommission combined)

0 miles

60.9 miles

Decommission roads place under special use permit 0 miles 4.8 miles

- Only decommission 0 miles 56.1 miles ^ additional aspen pockets up to 5 acres in size will be regenerated as opportunities arise in the red pine thinnings and/or individual tree selection treatments under Vegetation Management.

7

* See Table 2.6 in the Environmental Assessment, road maintenance is an ongoing activity; some level of road maintenance will take place regardless of this proposed action. Note: The difference in acres for non-commercial aspen regeneration is wildlife non-commercial aspen regeneration acres consist of treatment in C-8/46 (27 ac), C-8/67 (53.83 ac) and C-8/83 (14.35 ac). Vegetation Management has C-8/46 listed as shelterwood harvest but it is a split stand. The 110 acres of non-commercial listed for timber is made of C-8/67 (53.83 ac), C-8/83 (14.35ac) and C-43/24 (41.35 ac). In total there are 137 acres of non-commercial aspen regeneration.

C. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A description of the Analysis Area can be found in the Wildlife Section of the Environmental Assessment under the Affected Environment Section. The Bass Boot Analysis area is within the following Landtype Associations: Boot Lake Plain, Shingleton Fen, Mint Farm, Beaton Lake Outwash, Stueben Segment, Stueben Outwash and Indian River Upland. See the Analysis Methods Section of the Environmental Evaluation and Table 9 (Appendix G) for a description of the analysis method used due to the age of the compartment information. Acres of suitable habitat were not able to be calculated for use as species indicators as discussed in the Biological Assessment and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for the 2006 Forest Plan revision. A method to analyze the effects of the Proposed Action was developed and based on qualitative (core habitat characteristics) rather than quantitative (acres of habitat).

Table 2. Affected Environment for Canada Lynx within the Bass Boot Analysis Area

Habitat Components- Canada Lynx Existing Acres or Miles

(approximate)

Acres of Connective Habitat (Management Areas 6.1, 6.2, 8.3 and 8.4.1)

14,404 acres

Compacted route density (mi per sq.mile). For this analysis, the transportation data for the Bass-Boot Analysis Area is being used rather than the snow compaction layer in GIS. The analysis is based on low snow years when all Maintenance Level 2 roads are assumed to have packed snow conditions due to vehicle use or compaction through freeze and thaw cycles. The Bass-Boot Analysis Area contains portions of eight Landtype Associations (LTAs). Comparing compacted route density by LTA’s in this case would not show meaningful change since a large part of some of the LTA’s are outside of the Bass-Boot Analysis Area.

194 miles (all Maintenance Level 2 roads)

Core habitat characteristics associated with Canada lynx habitat include mixed age classes, early successional habitat for prey species (snowshoe hare, red squirrel, ruffed grouse), mixed conifer/deciduous forests, large woody debris, remote or seclusion habitat, and mature forests. A method to determine qualitative characteristics of habitat effects was developed. See Table 3.25 in the Environmental Assessment

NA

*Data source: GIS analysis of Management Areas within the Bass Boot

8

Analysis Area. Recent research by Linden et al (2011) found that snowshoe hares make up over 50% of Canada lynx diets. The acres of snowshoe hare habitat are more predictive of Canada lynx than acres of squirrel habitat. Red squirrel habitat is not analyzed for effects to Canada lynx. Table 3 Affected Environment Kirtland’s Warbler Bass Boot Analysis Area

Kirtland’s warbler Existing Acres (approximate)

Acres of jack pine of all size classes 5,529 ac Acres of suitable KW breeding habitat 859 ac Data source: 12/18/15 query of GIS layers of forest type 01 in size density 1-9 and combination of GIS query and field knowledge of stands in between the ages of 6 and 16 years of age in patches greater than 40 acres.

The Analysis Area contains historic and currently occupied Kirtland’s warbler habitat. Of the acres currently suitable for Kirtland’s warbler, approximate 100 acres will be going out of suitability in the next two years. The remainder of the suitable habitat was created through 2007 the jack pine budworm sales and are expected to continue to be suitable for another seven years. Table 4 Affected Environment Gray Wolf Bass Boot Analysis Area

Habitat Components- Gray Wolf Existing Acres (approximate)

Acres of young aspen-birch 3,438 ac Acres of Northern white cedar 1,011 ac Miles of groomed designated trails and routes Groomed/Designated

Motorized: 33 miles Non-Motorized: 29.1 miles

Miles of unplowed forest roads open to snowmobiles that are not groomed or part of the designated trail system 194 miles

Data source: Acres of young aspen-birch from 12/18/15 GIS query of forest types 91, 92, 93 with STAND_CO_2 of “in regeneration”, “seedling/sapling” or “adequately stocked seedling/sapling” and for acres of white cedar, a GIS query of EV_NAME white cedar.

D. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE CANADA LYNX Species Ecology. The species ecology, including species description, life history, habitat, distribution, status, and threats are described under the “Status of the Species” section for Canada lynx in the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF) Programmatic BO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). To date, the Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the HNF.

9

Factors Affecting the Species. Pages 170-173 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) address the factors, including lynx habitat (vegetation composition and structure), disturbance from human activities and competition from other carnivores. To date, the BO provides an accurate evaluation of these factors on the HNF. Activities that occur within the action area that affect or influence these factors are described in Table 3.25 in the Environmental Assessment. Species Status within the Action Area. Pages 163-166 and page 170 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) address the status of Canada lynx at various scales, including on the HNF. To date, the status of the species on the HNF has not changed. Winter track surveys were conducted by a Wildlife Biologist and Biological Technician on snowmobile on 3/2/10, 3/3/10, 2/9/11, 2/14/11-2/16/11, 2/28/11, 3/1/11 and 3/11/11. No Canada lynx tracks were found in this Analysis Area nor were any lynx tracks found during any winter track surveys on the forest. There is no known history of Canada lynx in the Analysis Area. KIRTLAND’S WARBLER (KW) Species Ecology. The species ecology, including species description, life history, habitat, distribution, status, and threats are described under the “Status of the Species” section for KW in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). The Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the HNF with the following exceptions. Interagency partners, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service have developed a Kirtland’s Warbler Breeding Range Conservation Plan (MDNR et al, 2015). Since the Programmatic BO was written Kirtland’s warbler now inhabit the Wetmore Outwash on the West Unit. Factors Affecting the Species. Pages 193-194 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) address the three factors applicable to KW in the Analysis Area, including presence of breeding habitat, disturbance from human activities and nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird. To date, the BO provides an accurate evaluation of these factors on the HNF. Species Status within the Action Area. Pages 186-192 in the HNF Programmatic BO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) address the status of KW range-wide and on the HNF, respectively. At the time the Programmatic BO was written the number of singing males ranged from 6 to 19 individuals in the Upper Peninsula which has reached 37 in 2015. GRAY WOLF Species Ecology. The species ecology, including species description, life history, habitat, distribution, status, and threats are described under the “Status of the Species” section for Gray wolf in the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF) Programmatic BO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). To date, the Programmatic BO provides an accurate accounting of the species ecology range-wide and on the HNF. Factors Affecting the Species Pages 144-145 in the Hiawatha NF Programmatic Biological opinion (USFWS 2006) address the factors, including management for preferred prey species (deer and beaver) and disturbance from human activities. These factors have not changed on the Forest. Species Status within the Action Area. Pages 138-140 and page143-145 in the Hiawatha NF Programmatic Biological Opinion (USFWS 2006) address the status of gray wolf range-wide

10

and on the Forest, respectively. To date, the status of the species on the HNF has not changed. Winter track surveys were conducted by a Wildlife Biologist and Biological Technician on snowmobile on 3/2/10, 3/3/10, 2/9/11, 2/14/11-2/16/11, 2/28/11, 3/1/11 and 3/11/11. Information from Michigan DNR track surveys and gray wolf surveys indicate there are two packs adjacent to, and no packs within the Analysis Area. NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT Species Ecology. Species ecology and factors affecting the species can be found in the Programmatic Biological Assessment Northern long-eared bat for Land and Resource Management Plans of the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region (USDA Forest Service 2015a) and the Biological Opinion Activities Affecting the Northern long-eared bat on eastern Region National Forests dated November 3, 2015 (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2015a). Factors Affecting the Species (Population and Habitat Status): Population trends are 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 (USDA Forest Service 2012).

The Hiawatha National Forest has no known winter hibernacula, but most of the forested lands 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 (typically > 3 inches dbh) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014). Suitable summer habitat consists of a wide variety of forested habitats where they roost and forage. This includes forests containing potential roosts as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian edges, and other wooded corridors (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 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 1 to October 31 in Michigan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a). Species Status within the Action Area Surveys to detect foraging bats have been conducted in the Analysis Area since 2009 on a mobile Anabat survey route using Titley Electronics Anabat SD-1 and SD-2 units following the regional protocol developed by Eric Britzke and Carl Herzog. The majority of the 30 mile route is within the Analysis Area. The route was run three times by a Wildlife Biologist between June and July each year. Data is sent to the Forest Service Acoustic Centers of Excellence (ACE) for interpretation however, due to a regional backlog in interpreting the data, the Hiawatha NF has not received analysis of its data since 2012. Since that time the Forest has purchased a Kalidoscope program to assist in frequency identifications. Species detected on the mobile acoustic routes prior to 2012 included Northern long-eared in addition to little brown bat, Eastern red, hoary, big brown, silver-haired bat. Mist netting was conducted through cost-share agreement with Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) at 2 west unit and 3 east unit locations in 2012 from July 28- August 5. The surveyors captured and identified 32 bats from the five study sites, 5 were little browns, 1 was a big brown, 19 were northern long-eared, and 7 were Eastern red bats. The Northern long-eared bats were captured at mature red pine plantation, mesic Northern forest, and dry-mesic Northern forest communities (Langstaff 2015 unpublished report).

In 2015, five stationary acoustic devices were deployed on the west unit under an agreement with MNFI using SM2Bat+ monitors from Wildlife Acoustics and SM-UX microphones with foam

11

windscreens. MNFI analyzed the recorded frequencies. Two of these sites are in the Bass-Boot Analysis Area (HIA 2 and HIA 3). The mist netting site where four Northern long-eared bats were mist-netted in 2012 (Gehring and Klatt 2012) also had a stationary acoustic device placed. The monitors were set for at least 10 consecutive days during the summer occupancy period, May 15-September 1, and were also placed for ten days after the summer residence period (Schools and Klatt, 2015). On the west unit, the monitors were deployed on July 9, 2015 and removed on July 20, 2015 and redeployed August 25 and 26, 2015 and removed on September 7, 2015. The control site (HIA 1) consists of an immature sawtimber red pine plantation, with an average dbh of 13”, basal area of 140 and ecological land type of 30. HIA 2 was deployed in a sugar maple-beech-yellow birch mature saw log- sized stand with an average dbh of 16” on an ecological land type of 40, 50, 90. This stand has been treated with individual tree selection through the Beech Bark Disease EA and contains large diameter beech trees that are beginning to die and have large pieces of bark loose falling off providing a lot of structure for roosting bats. HIA 3 was deployed in an immature plantation red pine stand with an average diameter of 8”, basal area of 106 and ecological land type of 10, 20.

Analysis of the data collected with the stationary devices showed 1) all sites on the west unit had occurrences of Northern long-eared bat, 2) NLEB are present outside of the summer occupancy period; the summer occupancy period is a timeframe when most NLEB are present; 3) NLEB were present at the two sites in Bass-Boot Analysis Area for longer periods (number of nights) than at site HIA-4 (saw-log sized stand of white pine and hemlock with an average dbh of 10”, basal area of 165 and ecological land type of 10, 20), likely due to HIA 2 and HIA 3 being more open stands. The more days a species frequency is recorded at a site, the less likely the recordings are of a result of transitory bats and increases the chance of occupation of the species at the site (Schools and Klatt 2015).

The sex and reproductive status of the bats detected during the deployment is unknown. The first deployment period was during the non-volant period. No follow-up surveys of potential maternal roosts occurred during the 2015 breeding season.

No roost tree studies or telemetry work has been conducted on the Hiawatha National Forest, however, research in Minnesota and in New Brunswick Canada were in study areas containing similar tree species as found on the Hiawatha NF. The Superior National Forest found two roost trees, one in a live aspen and the other an aspen snag. Both trees were larger than 14” dbh with estimated heights of 75.6’ (Grandmaison, Kirschbaum and Catton 2013). Broders and Forbes (2004) had a higher number of roost trees studied and found female Northern long-eared bat roosting in large cracks or cavities of sugar maple, yellow birch and American beech trees.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS This section identifies and analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the action, interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects of other actions in the Analysis Area. This includes documenting project compliance with standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and effects on the species. CANADA LYNX There are no known occurrences of Canada lynx in the Bass-Boot Analysis Area or on the West Unit of the Hiawatha NF (project file, W1, Ekstrum et al 2001, Langstaff et al 2012). Effects to Canada lynx habitat was analyzed in this document. Direct and Indirect Effects – No Action Alternative

12

No additional forest management is proposed than what is currently being treated from other decision documents. Without additional vegetation management, Canada lynx habitat would not change other than succession of stands. Dead and down would increase in local areas due to blow down. Lynx habitat would continue to develop in the long-term from past treatments where tree diameters will increase, creating future large woody debris for denning. Cumulative Effects –Spatial and Temporal Bounds Due to the territory size of Canada lynx, the entire Bass Boot Analysis Area along with all the past, present and future timber sales are being used for the cumulative effects analysis for this species which includes stands with proposed treatments adjacent to timber sales that have not yet been harvested and those that will in the near future be completed (sales from West Red Pine, Beech Bark Disease and Gooseneck Environmental Assessments). The cumulative effects timeframe 15 years in the past and 15 years in the future, which includes timber treatments in these areas that were conducted in the past fifteen years. Residual trees from treatment would have gained diameter growth within a period of fifteen years and the effect of the loss of large diameter trees would have diminished. Stands previously clearcut would no longer be in the temporary opening condition and while would not have large trees developed would be considered a forested stand. Fifteen years in the future will include the post-harvest activities that are planned in the existing sales which are scheduled to be completed through 2027. Actions that were analyzed in the EA and BE analysis (past, present, reasonably foreseeable future) were: timber management (proposed and past EA’s), road construction, road maintenance, closure and decommissioning, OHV use includes legal and illegal use, recreation use on motorized and non-motorized trails, private land timber management and subdivision, and cyclic prey species (ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare), snowmobiling on groomed snowmobile trails, dispersed recreation, and designation of recreation trail segments and designation of road to trail (see the Transportation section of the Environmental Assessment). Cumulative Effects No Action Alternative On 5,000 acres previously treated for Beech Bark Disease within the Analysis Area, woody debris is at higher levels than in stands not affected by the disease mainly due to many of the residual trees have died and are beginning to decline. These trees will create large woody debris in the near future. Dead and down wood on the ground may increase available lynx denning habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects – Proposed Action Canada lynx require remote habitat, where human access is low, in proximity to areas containing large woody debris for denning that are adjacent to regenerating stands used for foraging. Remote or seclusion habitat is provided by Management Areas 6.1, 6.2, 8.3 and 8.4.1. There are approximately 14,404 acres of these Management Areas (MAs) in the Bass Boot Analysis area of which Proposed Actions are proposed on approximately 2,736 acres (Table 2.1) in Management Areas providing seclusion habitat. Road work is not tallied in the acre totals, it is listed in miles (Table 2.6). While Table 3.34 shows a reduction in road density in Management Area 6.1, 8.3 and 8.4.1, a GIS mapping exercise of the road segments in relation to the MA boundaries shows there will be an overall negative effect on species requiring seclusion mainly due to road construction,

13

reconstruction, road maintenance and temporary road construction. In the case of temporary roads, they have a negative effect due to the possibility that closing these roads after use will not be effective. Access to the area would increase due to increased access via new road construction and reconstruction of existing roads available to hunters. Canada lynx would be vulnerable to trapping if present. Snow compacted roads have been used as an indicator for Canada lynx due to snow compacted trails allow access of lynx competitors, mainly coyote, into areas where lynx would typically have a competitive advantage from deep snow conditions. When packed snow conditions are present, from groomed snowmobile trails and plowed roads, competitors can easily access these areas. However, due to the regular freeze and thaw cycles throughout the winter, packed snow conditions can prevail across the Analysis Area. The proposed action designates 1.6 miles of existing roads as snowmobile trail, some currently are snow compacted. Over the Analysis Area this change would be a less than a 1% increase in snow compacted trail. Proposed actions in these Management Areas have both positive and negative effects on Canada lynx habitat. Long-term positive effects would result from riparian planting, timber treatments and road decommissioning. Short-term negative effects would result from timber treatments, temporary road construction and road maintenance. Long-term negative effects would result from road construction and reconstruction activities. Table 5 lists the Proposed Actions with either positive or negative affects to Canada lynx or affects to core habitat characteristics (large woody debris, seclusion or remote habitat, presence of large diameter trees and mature forests). For the following analysis, seclusion habitat is considered the land within Management Areas 6.1, 6.2 8.3 and 8.4.1. The acres of treatment are based on Appendix D. A GIS exercise was conducted comparing the Proposed Actions to the Management Areas. Road mileage was converted to acres of habitat based on an average 20-foot road prism. Table 5 Proposed Actions in Management Areas 6.1, 6.2, 8.3 or 8.4.1, which provide wildlife seclusion or remote habitat and the effects to Remote Habitat Species Proposed Action Effect to Species Requiring Seclusion or Remote Habitat and

Reference from Final Environmental Impact Statement Riparian planting Approximate 444 ac Indian River

Temporary effect- human disturbance during planting. Long-term effect – increase in streamside mesic conifers and future large diameter wood will enhance habitat for species requiring large woody debris on the forest floor Long-term positive effect of 444 acres.

Fire treatments - (approximate 420 ac total) Broadcast burn 251 ac Cut/pile/burn 136 ac Mechanical Treatment16 ac Fuelbreak Mtce. 19 ac

Fuels management treatments will reduce the amount of habitat but will positively contribute to the reduction of ladder fuels that could result in catastrophic wildfire in this area. Short-term negative direct effect to habitat from disturbance. The proposed work will not open up large continuous acres. Broadcast burning (underburning) would cause disturbance but is not expected to reduce habitat suitability.

14

Negative effect of 152 acres Silvicultural treatments (approx. 1,420 ac) of which 166 ac are clearcut or coppice cut the remainder are individual selection, shelterwood, thinning and TSI (timber sale improvement) work are within Management Areas providing seclusion.

Temporary effect- human disturbance during sale lay-out and implementation. Less cover until the clearcut and coppice cut stands grow to the seedling/sapling stage (2-4 years). Long-term effect – increase in diameter size of resulting stand after harvest treatment and increased size of future woody debris on the forest floor. Gap clearing associated with individual tree selection and shelterwood would improve habitat for small mammals and increase their populations locally through increased vegetative layer on the forest floor. Additionally raspberry could grow in the small gaps providing food for prey species. Thinning and selection cutting would increase diameter growth on the remaining trees producing large diameter trees that could be used for future denning along with future large woody debris. Clearcut and coppice treated stands would not be suited to lynx until regeneration has become established. Short-term negative effect on 848 ac from loss of overstory and disturbance. Long-term positive effect from increased tree diameter growth 848 acres.

Road decommissioning Approximately 5.45 miles of road is proposed to be decommissioned within seclusion habitat and 4.7 miles immediately adjacent to seclusion habitat.

Road decommissioning will reduce the amount of human disturbance and reduce the likelihood of roadkill or trapping of wildlife species. Positive effect on 1,744 acres within seclusion and 1,504 acres adjacent to seclusion habitat.

Road construction Approximately 1.02 miles

Temporary and long-term effect: human disturbance. changed climatic conditions to adjacent forested habitats, vector for non-native invasive species and predators and increased human access with potential for impacts to species from poaching, harm and collection Negative effect on approximately 326 acres.

Reconstruction Approximately 0.8 miles within seclusion habitat and 2.2 miles Immediately adjacent to seclusion habitat.

Temporary and long-term effect: human disturbance during reconstruction then increased traffic after reconstruction. Negative effect on approximately 26 ac within seclusion and 704 acres immediately adjacent to seclusion habitat.

Road Maintenance Approximately 10.4 miles within seclusion habitat and 6.0 miles immediately adjacent to seclusion habitat.

Temporary and long-term effect: human disturbance during reconstruction then increased traffic after road maintenance. Negative effect on approximately 3,328 ac within seclusion

15

and 1,920 acres immediately adjacent to seclusion habitat. Temporary road construction Approximately 0.98 miles

Temporary increase in disturbance. Long-term, road segment will be closed to travel. Risk of illegal use keeping the road open. Negative effect to approximately 314 acres of seclusion habitat.

Miles of Roads being converted to trail – need to see the transportation write-up. = 1.6 miles Miles of road being converted to trail immediately adjacent to Seclusion Habitat =1.5 miles

Existing roads may receive a higher amount of traffic once they are converted to designated trails. “Recreation management impacts to habitat from disturbance associated with recreation, encroachment from wildlife viewing, noise from OHV and snowmobiles, and snow compaction from snowmobiles…. ”These activities can cause direct mortality of adults or young and indirectly impede travel, alter use of habitats, increase movement and cause general stress behaviors.”(USDA Forest Service 2006b). Negative effect on approximately 512 acres within seclusion and 512 acres immediately adjacent to seclusion habitat.

Designation of 6 turn arounds

The turn arounds may be rehabilitated, generally they will remain small openings with encroaching trees for a period of 10-15 years until they are used again in the next entry. Negative effect on approximately 0.3 acres within seclusion habitat.

Snag creation Long term benefit. Once snag trees fall they will provide structure to the forest floor which would increase denning habitat for Canada lynx. Snag creation in the plantation red pine stands will move these stands toward the structural requirements in the Forest Plan (page 2-16 and 2-17). Positive effect on 473 acres.

Cumulative Effects - Proposed Action Habitat conditions would vary across the Forest as forest management is implemented. Overall, the forest would stay in a forested condition. No large permanent openings would be created. There will be no loss of forested acres. No stands are proposed for conversion to another forest type. Forested stands will change in percent canopy, overstory composition, amount of dead standing trees (snags). Prey species increase where forest floor diversity and structure increases. Canada lynx habitat would remain on the landscape in the Analysis Area. Remote habitat requiring species as a whole would be impacted by increased human entry into the forest due to improved roads through maintenance and reconstruction and new road construction. Habitat quality would go down in areas with more roaded access. Remote species may need to shift to areas with less disturbance which may or may not have as many resources available to them. Individual fitness could be affected, if Canada lynx were present.

16

Tables 6 and 7 contain information directly from Appendix H Canada Lynx Affects Analysis in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for the 2006 Forest Plan Revision. The Proposed Action is analyzed in relation to compliance with the Forest Plan.

Table 6 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Applicable to Canada Lynx Management. Forest Plan Guideline

or Standard Alt. in

Compliance Management

Activity Notes/Specifics

S-2600: Protect known TE populations NA NA No information showing that lynx

are present.

GL-2600: Structural guidelines implemented for reserve trees/snags

Yes* Vegetation Management

*The marking guides have not been completed for the stands, however, the structural guidelines (page 2-16 of the Forest Plan) would be incorporated into the marking guides for each stand that would reserve live trees and snags (Design criteria Chapter 2 EA).

GL-2600: Survey prior to implementing management

Yes Wildlife TES Monitoring

Project surveys in adjacent project areas, past surveys in the project area and combined HNF/MDNR annual track survey routes on the West Unit of the Hiawatha National Forest would detect lynx if present.

GL-2600: Maintain habitat connectivity to allow for lynx dispersal

Yes Vegetation Management

The Analysis Area is highly roaded (Transportation section of the EA). Despite treatments within the Indian Wild and Scenic River corridor, connectivity of this area to the adjacent Big Island Lake Wilderness will remain a travel corridor. No permanent forest type conversion is planned.

GL-2600: After natural disturbance >20 acres retain minimum of 10% of the area on NFS

NA Vegetation Management No salvage harvest is proposed

GL-2600: If adding designated trails for winter activities in lynx habitat minimize impacts

NA NA No designated trails are part of the Proposed Action.

GL-2600: In lynx habitat reduce compacted route density if >2 miles per square mile (at the LTA scale) w/closures, decommissioning

NA

Recreation Management

Transportation Management

Due to the regular freeze and thaw cycles through the winter packed snow conditions can prevail across a large area; packed snow trails would not give bobcat and coyotes a competitive advantage over Canada lynx to

17

Forest Plan Guideline or Standard

Alt. in Compliance

Management Activity Notes/Specifics

access to foraging areas. While the northern part of the project area is on the Munising District, the project areas does not contain areas where snow depth is so deep that snow Canada lynx have a competitive advantage. The project area contains eight Landtype Associations*. For some of the LTA’s, only a small portion of the LTA is within the Analysis Area which make it difficult to determine meaningful change through the Proposed Actions of this project.

GL-2600: Maintain denning habitat in patches > 5 acres comprising at least 10 percent of lynx habitat on project area

NA Vegetation Management

There are no salvage cuts proposed.

GL-2600: Closure orders may be used to protect known TE breeding areas, nests and denning sites

NA NA There are no known breeding areas.

GL-2600: Give deference to listed species where there are conflicts with unlisted species

NA NA There are no known conflicts.

GL-2200: Grazing should not occur NA NA No grazing is proposed in either of

the alternatives. This table presents those standards and guidelines that are both directly applicable to the species and most appropriately monitored at the project-level. Numerous other standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan are not discussed here because they are either only loosely connected to the species and/or are better tracked during periodic programmatic monitoring at the Forest-wide level. *The eight LTA’s in the Bass-Boot Analysis Area are Boot Lake Plain, Shingleton Fen, Mint Farm, Beaton Lake Outwash, Steuben Segment, Stueben Outwash, Indian River Upland and Camp Eleven Ridge-Swale.

Table 7 Project Effects of Management Activities on Canada Lynx (Proposed Action)

Management Activity Exposure1 Response2 Determination3 Vegetation Management

Even-aged (clearcut, thin, shelterwood) and Uneven-

Direct and indirect

Currently no breeding evidence of lynx has been recorded in the NLAA

18

aged (individual/group selection) includes noise and physical disturbance

Upper Peninsula. Because of this, direct impacts to dens are not likely to occur from the proposed management activities. Structural diversity guidelines in the Forest Plan assure components of denning habitat are retained across the landscape. Harvest may indirectly cause a loss of acres of suitable denning habitat, while additional foraging habitat would become available from regenerating forest.

Road Construction and Reconstruction (upgrade and widening), Skid roads and log landings includes noise and physical disturbance

Direct and indirect

Effects of road work is disclosed in Table 5 above.

NLAA

Transportation Management

Operation OML 1-2 and OML 3-5 Roads

Direct and indirect

Roads increase the amount of human presence in the forest causing disturbance to wildlife species. This can reduce the suitability of available habitat. Road access can also increase the chance of Canada lynx being illegally trapped in an area.

NLAA

Recreation Management

Trails construction and operation

Direct and Indirect

No trail construction is proposed. Approximately 30 miles of motorized trail (snowmobile and OHV trail including the Haywire Grade OHV and snowmobile trail, Boot Lake OHV and snowmobile spur), an OHV/snowmobile scramble area is within the Analysis Area. In addition, approximately 194 miles are open to OHV’s.

NLAA

Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plan Management

Opening improvements and fish habitat improvement (includes prescribed burning of wildlife openings)

Direct and Indirect

Opening maintenance is not expected to benefit prey species for Canada lynx.

NLAA

19

Creation of snags in red pine plantations and in aspen coppice and non-commercial stands.

Direct and Indirect

Dead and down will improve structural diversity and small mammal populations. Because one snag per acre would be created, the benefit would be small.

NLAA

Creation of Kirtland’s warbler habitat

Direct and Indirect

Jack pine regeneration is not expected to benefit prey species for Canada lynx

NLAA

1Exposure - none, direct, indirect 2Response - brief description 3Determination - NE, NLAA, LAA

Determination of Effects – Canada lynx At this time, the best available information indicates lynx are either extremely unlikely to be present or are present in the Analysis Area in so few numbers that they cannot be detected. Based on the current population information within the Analysis Area and west unit of the Hiawatha National Forest measurable impacts to lynx are not expected to occur from the proposed management activities in the Proposed Action. The determination is Not Likely to Adversely Affect where the effects are expected to be discountable. KIRTLAND’S WARBLER The Analysis Area contains the eastern portion of the Indian River Kirtland’s Warbler Management Area. It is a Management Area 4.4. While appearing to be a Pine Barren community type, the Community Abstracts completed by Michigan Natural Features Inventory, show pine barren communities only in the Lower Peninsula (Comer 2006). The community type, as mapped, is Dry Northern Forest (Cohen 2002). The predominant tree in this area is jack pine with pin oak with some planted red pine. The majority of the ecological land type (ELT) is 10/20 with an occasional ELT 70/80 interspersed. All three Kirtland’s warbler Management Areas on the West Unit of the Forest are long linear complexes of very well drained soils; mostly situated north to south; with a mosaic of various age classes of jack pine and openland. The approximate dimensions are 5-6 miles long and between 1 ½ and 2 miles wide. Kirtland’s warbler seem to que in on these landscapes and have been found to occupy stands much smaller than those typically managed for Kirtland’s warbler in the Lower Peninsula. Two locations in the Whitefish Delta Kirtland’s Warbler Management Area (KWMA) had multi-year occupation by more than one singing Kirtland’s warbler male in stands less than 35 acres in size due to the larger landscape of mixed openland, and various sizes of jack pine providing an appropriate landscape for Kirtland’s warbler (personal observation, Little Ridge Project Area). The species composition of the ground layer within ELT 10/20 in the Analysis Area includes lowbush blueberry, hairgrass, Pennsylvania sedge, bracken fern, sweet fern and poverty grass. The botany section of the EA notes the presence of Canada rice grass and the potential for dwarf bilberry. The shrub layer, sand cherry and a small amount of prairie willow with a small amount of scattered red pine.

20

The historical fire data reveals two large wildfire incidents within the Bass Boot cumulative spatial boundary. They were the Indian Lake fire in 1983 which burned 1,130 acres and the Eight Mile fire in 1987 that burned 4,010 acres (Figure 3.9 Environmental Assessment). To assist in learning why some stands with apparent suitable habitat do not become occupied, habitat plot data from the occupied and unoccupied habitat were collected over a two year period in 2009 and 2010 (project file, W12). Ground vegetation associated with both occupied and unoccupied habitat contained the same plant species but, in general, occupied habitat had more species diversity at the site compared to unoccupied habitat, and a higher stem density of jack pine per acre. Landscape Ecology vol. 8 no. 4 pp 257-271 (1993) Kirtland’s warbler have been recorded using suitable stands in the Analysis Area since 1993. This species inhabit areas for a short time as stands of jack pine grow out of a suitable condition within a period of 10-15 years moving to newly regenerated stands as they come into a suitable condition (MDNR et al 2015). Methods successfully used on the Forest to get stands to regenerate to provide KW habitat include clearcut harvest of jack pine with site prep consisting of double roller chopping and chaining immediately after harvest. The roller chopping and chaining expose jack pine cones to direct sunlight so they may open and release seed in freshly exposed mineral soil. Stocking surveys are conducted to determine the density of the resulting stand. KW stands have higher stocking density requirements than non-KW generated jack pines stands. Nesting locations from recent years, 2008-2012, and 2015 were used in determining effects of the Proposed Actions on KW. No nesting occurred in 2013 and 2014 in the Analysis Area. All jack pine stands in this portion of the Indian River KWMA regardless if in an age-class no longer suitable for KW, have the ability to return to a suitable condition for KW through management. Two recreation trails bisect jack pine stands in the Indian River KWMA, the Haywire Grade ORV trail and snowmobile trail (Trail 41) and Snowmobile Trail 413 (Figure 3.11 Environmental Assessment). Neither of these trails have been gated during the breeding season. PB Since the Biological Opinion was completed for Forest Plan Revision, the number of Kirtland’s warbler counted during census in the Upper Peninsula has steadily increased as can be seen in the table below provided by Wildlife Biologist Steve Sjogren.

21

Table from 2014 Upper Peninsula Kirtland’s Warbler Census Results (Sjogren, 2014)

In 2015, of the 37 singing male Kirtland’s warbler recorded during the Upper Peninsula-wide KW census, 27 were on National forest land, east and west unit. Seventy-two percent of the singing males in the U.P. were using habitat created and maintained on the Hiawatha National Forest. Table 8. Summary of Stand Origin Occupied Kirtland’s Warbler Stands on the Hiawatha National Forest (created by S. Sjogren 2014, modified by J. Ekstrum) Treatment 2014 male

KW’s 2009-2014 male KW’s

Percent use by treatment type 2009-2014

Jack pine natural regeneration with or without seeding

3 87 43.9 %

Jack pine natural regeneration then plant

6 33 16.7%

Jack pine plant 16 36 18.2% Red pine plant with volunteer jack pine

3 36 18.2%

Unknown regeneration history 1 4 2.0 % Wildfire 2 2 1.0 % Total 31 198 100% Wildfire created habitat is low from Forest Policy of Fire Suppression. In 2014, stands planted in 2007 were just beginning to become occupied. Of the 31 KW territories recorded during the 2014 census in the Upper Peninsula, approximately 52% were in stands that had been planted with jack pine.

Much of the jack pine in the northern part of the Analysis Area is not on elt 10/20 and is thought to be too wet to be managed and result in suitable KW habitat. The effects analysis includes measures to avoid and minimize effects or activities identified as conservation measures.

22

D. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AVOIDING, MINIMIZING EFFECTS or CONSERVATION MEASURES Mitigation/Design Criteria for Occupied Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat

Seasonal Restriction on timber harvest and reforestation activities adjacent to occupied habitat including associated road construction and re-construction activities, and reforestation activities of site prep and planting are:

Timber harvest activities adjacent to occupied habitat should be avoided during the Kirtland's Warbler breeding season (May 1 to August 15). Where possible, harvest activities should be at least ¼ mile away from occupied habitat. Timber hauling should be routed away from occupied habitat where practical to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to breeding Warblers.

Reforestation activities adjacent to occupiable habitat should be completed prior to May 20. If planting cannot be completed before May 20, reforestation operations should be designed so those portions of the planting area immediately adjacent to occupiable habitat are planted first. Planting should then move away from the occupied habitat (USFS, 2015).

The suggested rate of snags retained for KW are 15-25 trees per acre. “Where possible, all dead trees should be retained in timber sale areas. An objective of 15-25 dead trees per acre is desirable. Where fewer than 10 standing dead trees per acre are present, live trees greater than six inches DBH may be retained as future snags. These trees may be retained as widely scattered individuals, or may be best left in clumps or stringers (long, narrow strips of unburned trees arranged parallel to the direction of fire spread) to avoid creating an overstory that would degrade Kirtland’s Warbler breeding habitat” Page 37 (D.8.4, Providing for Habitat Structure and Diversity) Kirtland’s Warbler Breeding Range Conservation Plan (MDNR et al 2015). The suggested rate of snags retained for KW may not be possible in Wildland Urban Interface and fuelbreak areas.

If full-planting is needed, “Harvested areas are planted or naturally regenerated to a stocking density of 1,452 or more trees per acre (1,089 actual trees per acre) over approximately 75 percent of the treatment block, excluding openings. Generally, the spacing of planted jack pine trees will be 5 feet within rows and 6 feet between rows. Because openings are included, approximately 1,089 trees are needed for each acre reforested.

Small openings (approximately 0.1 to 0.25 acres in size) are incorporated to provide habitat diversity, and are well distributed over approximately 25 percent of the treatment block. About one to five well-dispersed openings per acre are desirable (MDNR et al 2015).

Fuelbreak construction or maintenance activities, mechanical removal, pile burning and prescribed fire within or near occupied breeding habitat will be accomplished outside of the Kirtland's warbler breeding season (May 1 to August 15) (MDNR et al 2015).

Kirtland’s warbler Direct and Indirect Effects – No Action Alternative Of the acres currently suitable for Kirtland’s warbler, approximate 100 acres will be going out of suitability in the next two years. The remainder of the current suitable habitat (approximately

23

860 acres) created through the 2007 Jack Pine Budworm sales are expected to continue to be suitable for another seven years. Without further management, the area would no longer provide habitat for this species. Cumulative Effects – Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Kirtland’s warbler The cumulative effects area consists of a linear corridor containing approximately 3,840 acres of jack pine, permanent openings and temporary openings. It includes the proposed actions within this part of the Analysis Area, and past jack pine budworm sales (Compartment 23, Compartment 18) and the 2007 Large Opening Cat Ex. The timeframe for cumulative effects is six years in the past and five years in the future. Jack pine regeneration in a period of six years will change from a open stand to a forested stand within six years after treatment.Timber management planning for the district is a five-year plan. Actions that were analyzed include past, present, reasonably foreseeable future actions that include timber management, fuels reduction work such as maintenance of fuelbreaks, use of prescribed fire or suppression of wildfires, OHV use both legal (Haywire Grade) and illegal use, private land timber management, road construction, closure and obliteration, opening maintenance, invasive plant species, NNIP control, succession and regeneration of jack pine. Cumulative Effects- No Action Alternative Kirtland’s warbler are habitat specialist, requiring jack pine in early stages of regeneration. Due to this habitat requirement, they move across the landscape inhabiting stands as they come into suitability. The number of KW have been slowly increasing in the Upper Peninsula as the population increases in the Lower Peninsula. Without active management on the Forest, habitat in the Upper Peninsula would be reduced. The Upper Peninsula habitat is important to maintain in case of large scale insect, disease or wildfire activity within KW areas in the Lower Peninsula. Very little jack pine management specifically for Kirtland Warbler occurs on the adjacent State of Michigan Shingleton Forest Management Unit. Indirect/Direct Effects - Proposed Action Proposed actions will increase Kirtland’s warbler habitat in two areas. In one area, 142 acres would be treated to create a block of KW habitat. In another area approximately 172 acres of jack pine clearcut is proposed. Five of these stands totaling 106 acres, are on elt’s 10/20. Only three stands, 76 acres, have the potential to become suited for KW inhabitation due to their proximity (between ¾ and 1 ½ miles) of previously occupied habitat and the combination of soils and forest types surrounding these stands. In total, the jack pine treatments are anticipated to result in approximately 218 acres of suitable habitat for Kirtland’s warbler in two areas; a 142 acre block and 76 acre block. The projected timeframe for implementation would be in 2017-2018. One approximate 38 acre stand, in the 142 ac block, would be harvested five years following (in approximately 2023-2024) (project file, W9).This is to assure the stand reaches rotation age before being harvested, and would extend suitable habitat for a few years past the remainder of the stand. Both habitat blocks are smaller than typically managed for Kirtland’s warbler. Past KW manage-ment on the west unit of the Hiawatha NF consisted of 200-300 acre blocks. A 170-ac block of suitable habitat within the Analysis Area was found to be occupied during surveys in 2015. Smaller stands have been found to provide suitable KW habitat in the Whitefish Delta Kirtland’s Warbler Management Area. These atypically small occupied stands were within a landscape of mixed opening and jack pine of various age classes.

24

Multiple fuels treatments in the Proposed Action are expected to reduce jack pine forest types on approximately 35 acres. None of these areas have been previously occupied habitat but some are within ¼ mile of occupied habitat (2015 surveys). Surveys in suitable habitat within the Analysis Area will continue to be conducted during the annual KW census period. Within ¼ mile of habitat occupied in 2015, the Proposed Action contains approximately 6 ac of opening maintenance, 34 acres of timber management (5 ac are jp cc), 10 acres of cut/pile/burn, 2 acre silvicultural prescription for an underburn, and 24.6 acres mechanical treatments. Design criteria and mitigations listed the Recommendations for Avoiding, Minimizing Effects or Conservation Measures for Kirtland’s warbler will seasonally protect their nesting.

Prescribed burns in jack pine proposed by Fuels Management in five jack pine stands on ridges within wetland areas with ecological land types 70A. Fire is not proposed in the regeneration of KW habitat in the elt 10/20’s. Prescribed burning of the jack pine stands outside of elt 10/20 is not expected to regenerate in a condition that would be suitable for Kirtland’s warbler nesting, due to the wet soils. The Proposed Action does not contain conversion of jack pine to other types but treatment in two stands (approx 7 ac) will result in the loss of jack pine due to shelterwood harvest (Appendix D). Overall the Proposed Action will result in increased habitat for Kirtland’s warbler. Table 9 Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines – Kirtland’s Warbler

Forest Plan Guideline or Standard1

Proposed Action in Compliance Management activity Notes/Specifics

S-2600: Implement federal recovery plan

Yes Jack pine clearcutting Assist in Forest Plan Goals (page 2-19 Forest Plan) for Kirtland’s warbler and assists in recovery plan goals (Page 2-17 Forest Plan)

S-2600: Protect known TE populations

Yes Design criteria/mitigations listed in Chapter 2 for timber management, site preparation, stocking density, fuels management and structural components.

Seasonal protection of occupied habitat. Improvement of structural components of stands (Page 2-16 and 2-17 Forest Plan)

GL-2600: Maximum size of temporary openings for areas managed for KW should not exceed 1,100 acres - temporary opening guideline may be exceeded by harvesting adjacent blocks after the appropriate stocking density (determined with FWS) is achieved

Yes Temporary opening size is not exceeded.

25

and after the third-year stocking review GL-2600: Closure orders may be used to protect known TE nest sites

Yes Design criteria/mitigations listed in Chapter 2 for timber management, site preparation, and fuels management will protect nest sites.

The Hiawatha has no closure order in place for Kirtland’s warbler. A closure order is not something that could be obtained quickly. Rather seasonal protection is afforded through seasonal restrictions. Seasonal restrictions (May 1 to August 15) applied to fuels and timber management and their associated post-treatment activities within ¼ mile of occupied habitat.

GL-2600: In areas managed for KW, strive to regenerate jack pine stands with the appropriate stem density and openings in consultation with FWS

Yes Post-harvest activities include stocking surveys and fill-in planting if needed.

If full-planting is needed: “Harvested areas are planted or naturally regenerated to a stocking density of 1,452 or more trees per acre (1,089 actual trees per acre) over approximately 75 percent of the treatment block, excluding openings. Generally, the spacing of planted jack pine trees will be 5 feet within rows and 6 feet between rows. Because openings are included, approximately 1,089 trees are needed for each acre reforested. Small openings (approximately 0.1 to 0.25 acres in size) are incorporated to provide habitat diversity, and are well distributed over approximately 25 percent of the treatment block. About one to five well-dispersed openings per acre are desirable. Page 39 (D.9.2 Planting) Kirtland’s Warbler Breeding Range Conservation Plan (MDNR et al, 2015).

GL-2600: Pre-commercial thinning or release of jack pine should not occur in areas managed for Kirtland's warbler prior to vegetation before or during suitable period unless activity maintains or enhances KW as determined with FWS

Yes The Proposed Action does not contain pre-commercial thinning.

One proposed jack pine stand is proposed to be treated 5 years after the others to meet the 40 year requirement.

26

GL-2600: Reserves for even-aged managed stands on: ELTs 10/20, method A and/or B, or a combination of both should be used. For all other ELTs, either method A or method B should be used. A. 2-4 live trees with

diameters greater than or equal to the average stand diameter per acre should be reserved. Preference should be given to live den trees

B. Variable size reserve islands or clumps that total up to 1/2-acre for every 10 acres should be reserved

Yes Design criteria includes structural guidelines.

Structural guidelines for Kirtland’s warbler page 2-16 and 2-17 (Forest Plan) includes 2-10 snags where they are beneficial to rare species was increased to a Suggested rate of snags retained for KW are 15-25 trees per acre. “Where possible, all dead trees should be retained in timber sale areas. An objective of 15-25 dead trees per acre is desirable. Where fewer than 10 standing dead trees per acre are present, live trees greater than six inches dbh may be retained as future snags. These trees may be retained as widely scattered individuals, or may be best left in clumps or stringers (long, narrow strips of unburned trees arranged parallel to the direction of fire spread) to avoid creating an overstory that would degrade Kirtland’s Warbler breeding habitat”. Page 37 (D.8.4, Providing for Habitat Structure and Diversity) Kirtland’s Warbler Breeding Range Conservation Plan (MDNR, USFWS and USFS, 2015). It is unlikely the higher number of snags would be incorporated in the fuel break work in the Proposed Action due to these areas are on the edge of private land (Wildlife Urban Interface WUI)

GL-2600: For reserve snag and down logs in managed stands: A. 2-10 snags per

acre should be reserved, except where additional snags would be beneficial to rare species or unless presenting a safety concern or interfere with mechanical site prep. Additional snags should be

Yes Design criteria includes structural guidelines.

Same as above.

27

recruited from live trees where there are fewer than 2 snags/ac

B. Snags felled for safety reasons should be left as coarse woody debris

C. 2 or more down logs per acre = or > to 10 inches in diameter and 8 feet long, should be maintained. In stands where tree diameters are less than 10 inches, down log diameters = or > than the average stand diameter should be provided

GL-2600: Survey prior to implementing management

Yes Annual surveys are conducted during the Kirtland’s warbler census.

Surveys are scheduled in 2016.

GL-2600: Give deference to listed species where there are conflicts with unlisted species

NA There are no conflicts between Kirtland’s warbler and a Regional Forester Sensitive Species.

Other Guidelines or Standards

Alts. in Compliance Management activity Notes/Specifics

Goal -Provide a minimum of 6,700 acres of jack pine in the appropriate size class (k2), as determined in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Spervice (FWS), striving to achieve desired Kirtland’s warbler stocking levels on ELT10/20 in MAs 4.4 or 4.2.

Yes Clearcut of jack pine.

Objective- Regenerate an average of 670 acres of jack pine per

Yes This project works toward the goal for regenerating jack pine to benefit KW.

28

year in MAs 4.4 or 4.3 on ELT 10/20 to provide Kirtland’s warbler habitat.

1GL-guideline; S-standard

Table 10 Project Effects of Management Activities – Kirtland’s Warbler Management Activity Exposure1 Response2 Determ Jack pine clearcut

Young jack pine is needed for breeding habitat for this species.

NLAA Benefi

Fuelbreak and other Fuels Proposed Actions

Loss of approximately 35 acres of jack pine will occur through fuelbreak maintenance in stands that currently do not provide suitable habitat.

NLAA

1Exposure - none, direct, indirect 2Response - brief description 3Determination - NE, NLAA, LAA

Determination

The determination for Kirtland’s warbler is “May affect, but not likely to adversely affect” where the effects are expected to be beneficial. GRAY WOLF The Analysis Area does not have an identified pack but has transient use by gray wolves. Tracks and scat have been observed in the Analysis Area. Two packs are outside of the Analysis Area. On December 19, 2014, the Final Rule, that designated and delisted gray wolf, specifically the Western Great Lakes DPS, was vacated by the District Court for the District of Columbia decision in Humane Society of the United States vs. Jewell, et al. (Civ. No 13-186) returning this species to the Endangered Species List. Gray wolf habitat can be characterized by areas of low human occupancy, low levels of human-wolf interaction, and large areas with an adequate prey base to support a pack. Low road densities, less than one per square mile, are important to the long-term survival of the wolf due to factors such as traffic mortality, accidental and intentional shooting and disturbance (Thiel 1985, Mech et al 1988). More recent studies showed established wolf populations can exist in areas with road densities somewhat higher than 1 mile per square mile but states road density likely remains the best indicator of potential wolf habitat in Michigan (Fuller undated). These studies were conducted on roads that equate to Maintenance level 3-5 roads on the Forest To ensure the continued availability of sufficient habitat, wolf management in Michigan focuses on: 1) maintaining habitat necessary to sustain adequate levels of wolf prey; 2) maintaining wolf habitat linkages; and 3) minimizing disturbance at known active wolf den sites.

29

Wolves dig or otherwise establish sheltered dens yearly where pups are born and reside for their first 9 weeks of life. While there is some evidence they can tolerate disturbance near a den site, the 2008 and 2015 Wolf Management Plan encourages minimizing disturbances near den sites. This is consistent with the Forest Plan standards (USDA Forest Service 2006a, page 2-17):

1) Signed Federal Recovery Plans for threatened and endangered species will be implemented. Deviations specific to the HNF may be allowed after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2) All known populations of threatened and endangered plant species and wildlife nest

and denning sites will be protected (the Biological Assessment for the plan revision discussed both denning and rendezvous areas).

and Forest Plan Guideline (page 2-17):

5) For all threatened and endangered species, special closure orders may be used to protect known breeding areas, nests and denning sites. 6) Deference should be afforded to implementing conservation measures for federal threatened and endangered species when and where they conflict with conservation measures for unlisted species.

Pups are born in early to mid-April. After approximately 9 weeks, the pups are weaned and moved to a rendezvous area where the pups develop until able to travel with the pack. Wolves are habitat generalist with a large home range. During the denning and rendezvous period they have been found to select areas containing a high amount of edge consisting of conifer stands with a lichen understory, deciduous-mixed forests and open areas (Houle et al 2010). Mladenoff et al (1995) found pack territories were present in mixed conifer-hardwood forest and forested wetlands than non-packs. Houle et al (2010) describes rendezvous areas being comprised of a high proportion of hard edges.

Design Criteria/Mitigation: If a wolf den is present in the work area, a seasonal restriction within ¼ mile of the den should be used from the signing of this document (April 30) through July 1st. Direct and Indirect Effects – No Action Alternative

The acres of northern white cedar, an indicator of winter habitat for deer and snowshoe hare would not change. The amount of forage available to deer would not change. Succession would occur and stands would become more mature. Due to the high miles of road in the Analysis Area, there is the possibility some illegal trapping activities could occur with negative effects to gray wolf. Cumulative Effects Spatial and Temporal Bounds The cumulative effects area and timeframes for gray wolf is the same as described for Canada lynx. Due to the high amounts of road in the Analysis Area there is the possibility some illegal trapping activities could occur with negative effects to gray wolf. While managed, the forest

30

provides continuous habitat. The Indian Wild and Scenic River provides a travel corridor. Use of wolves of this area is expected to be high due to the presence of the Big Island Lake Wilderness and MAs 6.1, 6.2, 8.3 and 8.4.1, adjacent to the Indian River. Actions that were analyzed include past, present, reasonably foreseeable future activities, snowmobiling, off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use includes legal and illegal, road construction, reconstruction, closure and obliteration, Soil and Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP’s), dispersed recreation, private land use, invasive weed species, and timber manage-ment. Cumulative Effects – No Action Alternative No timber harvest would occur in this rotation. The no action alternative does not preclude future activities. Road maintenance work would occur but not on a regular schedule (Trans- portation section of the EA). Some roads may become less used due to poor maintenance and the edges beginning to brush in. Less human access into these areas would benefit to gray wolf due to less chance of poaching, trapping and negative interactions with vehicles. There is no change in recreation use from the existing condition.

The acres of northern white cedar, an indicator of winter habitat for deer and snowshoe hare would not change. The amount of forage available to deer would not change. Succession would occur and stands would become more mature.

There are no known den sites within the Analysis Area. Direct and Indirect Effects- Proposed Action As discussed in the Vegetation Management of the EA, not all stands have been field checked to know if the assigned treatment is accurate. There may be up to three possible treatment options. Based on the Proposed Action table in the EA (Tables 2.2-2.7) proposed for Bass Boot, the following treatments occur in suitable habitat for gray wolf: approximately 2,928 acres thinning, 1,920 acres shelterwood, 1,462 acres individual tree selection, 1,474 acres improvement cut, 255 acres of clearcut, 142 acres of jack pine clearcut for Kirtland’s warbler, 127 acres of underburning, 165 acres aspen coppice cut (clearcut resulting in stump sprouting), 137 acres non-commercial aspen, 25 acres seed tree and 7 acres Timber Stand Improvement and approximately 5 acres of cut/pile/burn. Selection treatment would involve the creation of 1-3 gaps on 1,462 acres. The rate is 1-3 gaps 30-50 feet in diameter. For this analysis the amount of temporary opening is based on the higher amount, three 30 foot diameter gaps per acre resulting in up to 285 acres of temporary openings across the 1,462 acres treated. This combined with treatments that would result in overstory removal or near removal, would create approximately 2,934 acres of temporary opening. Human disturbance from management activities would be temporary. Shelterwood treatments will result in two-aged stands, a reduced basal area overstory with regeneration below. Regeneration of understories through shelterwood and aspen clearcuts would benefit gray wolf prey species (deer, snowshoe hare and ruffed grouse). Aspen clearcuts would have regeneration within 3 years and tree heights equaling 20-25 feet within 10-12 years. In the long- term, treatment of the stand would result in increased diameter growth in the residual trees as the canopy would again close. Roads reduce the effectiveness and suitability of remote habitat. Road improvement would

31

allow additional human use in the area, causing disturbance and increasing the chance of poaching or illegal trapping. Wolves are also a species that requires remote habitat. Management Areas 6.1, 6.2, 8.3 and 8.4.1 provide remote habitat. Proposed actions in these Management Areas have both positive and negative effects on gray wolf. Long-term positive effects would result from riparian planting, timber treatments and road decommissioning. Short- term negative effects would result from timber treatments, temporary road construction and road maintenance. Long-term negative effects would result from road construction and reconstruction activities. See the Canada lynx section for a description of transporation proposals that would affect remote habitat. Wolves do not use the same den site on a yearly basis. Dens are dug in March and pups born in the middle April to late April. Negative effects could occur if a timber operation would occur near a den site. Effects from sale activities would be short-term, during the approximate 3 week before the pups emerge from the den to approximately 9 weeks of age when the young are moved to a rendezvous site (MDNR, 2007) but may negatively affect pups. Disturbance may negatively affect hunting success of the adults if near a timber sale unit. If a den site is located it would be protected seasonally (MDNR 2007) but due to a new den made each year, it may not be detected immediately, if present. Cumulative Effects – Proposed Action Roads open to ATV’s , designated trails and recreation sites would continue to be used. Road densities would remain high reducing the quality of habitat and causing a situation where road kill could occur. Road construction will increase access into the area and may increase illegal trapping. Timber management would create patches of regeneration improving habitat for prey species; openings from timber management would be temporary (3-5 years). The Indian Wild and Scenic River provides a travel corridor. Use of wolves of this area is expected to continue in this alternative due to the presence of the adjacent Big Island Lake Wilderness and MAs 6.1, 6.2, 8.3 and 8.4.1, adjacent to the Indian River. This section identifies and analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the action, interrelated and interdependent actions, and the cumulative effects of other actions in the Analysis Area. This includes documenting project compliance with standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and effects on the species. Table 11. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines – Gray Wolf Forest Plan Guideline or Standard1

Alts. in Compliance

Management activity

Notes/Specifics S-2600: Implement federal recovery plan

Yes Wildlife TES No known den site.

S-2600: Protect known TE populations

Yes Wildlife TES If a den site is located it will be protected. The Forest Service will communicate with the MDNR on

32

locations of gray wolves on the Forest.

S-2300: Cross country OHV travel is prohibited except in the designated OHV area

Yes Transportation Management

Cross country travel is not allowed.

S-2300: Roads will be closed to OHVs unless designated/posted open

Yes Transportation Management

Some roads within the analysis area are open to ORV’s.

GL-2600: Survey prior to implementing management

Yes Wildlife TES Winter track surveys have been conducted annually on standard routes to represent species occurrence across the West Unit. In 2009, 2010, 2013, four track surveys specific to the detection of Canada lynx were conducted which would have also identified wolf tracks.

GL-2600: Closure orders may be used to protect known TE breeding areas, nests and denning sites

Yes Wildlife TES See protection or mitigation measures to be used if a wolf den or rendezvous area is located.

GL-2600: Give deference to listed species where there are conflicts with unlisted species

N/A Wildlife TES There is no conflict with any other federally listed species.

1GL-guideline; S-standard.

Table 12. Project Effects of Management Activities (Proposed Action) – Gray Wolf Management Activity Exposure1 Response2 Determination3 Vegetation Management

33

Even-aged (clearcut, thin, shelterwood) and Uneven-aged (individual/group selection) includes noise and physical disturbance

Direct and indirect The large number of acres within

the Analysis Area that are proposed for treatment would result in human disturbance to be increased for a several year period while pre-work marking activities occur and then implementation of the road work and timber harvest. The disturbance would be over localized areas as the harvest areas would be combined in different sales but some may run concurrently. The acres of northern white cedar, an indicator of winter habitat for deer and snowshoe hare would not change with the Proposed Action because no treatments in this type would occur. Stands proposed for timber harvest are not in the winter deeryard and would not result in a change to winter thermal cover. The amount of forage available to deer would increase from clearcutting and would result in an increase in the amount of deer using the area where regeneration is present.

NLAA

Road Construction and Reconstruction (upgrade and widening), Skid roads and log landings includes noise and physical disturbance

Direct and indirect

See Table 5

NLAA

Transportation Management

Operation OML 1-2 and OML 3-5 Roads

Direct and indirect

Disturbance associated with roads include forest management, recreation, encroachment from wildlife viewing, noise from OHV and snowmobiles. These activities can cause direct mortality of adults or young and indirectly impede travel, alter use of habitats, increase movement and cause general stress behaviors.” (USDA Forest Service 2006b).

NLAA

Recreation Management

34

Trails construction and operation

Direct and Indirect

No trail construction is proposed. Approximately 30 miles of motorized trail (snowmobile and OHV trail including the Haywire Grade OHV and snowmobile trail, Boot Lake OHV and snowmobile spur), an OHV/snowmobile scramble area. In addition, approximately 194 miles are open to OHV’s.

NLAA

Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plan Management

Opening improvements and fish habitat improvement (includes prescribed burning of wildlife openings)

Direct and Indirect

Opening maintenance is not expected to benefit prey species for gray wolf.

NLAA

Prescribed burning Direct and indirect

There is no prescribed burning proposed for the wildlife resource, however, the Fuels resource is proposing underburning and brush pile burning in the Analysis Area. It is unlikely Rx burning will negatively affect wolves.

NLAA

Aquatic and riparian management/tree planting

Direct and indirect

Winter harvest of stands near or within the river corridor is not expected to impact the Indian Lake Winter Deer Complex. Depending on the time of year of the harvesting, some deer may linger in the area to browse the remaining tops left on the ground or could concentrate deer for a period of time. Implementation of watershed improvement projects could cause temporary disturbance.

NLAA

Fisheries improvement projects

None There are no fisheries projects planned NE

Determination – Gray Wolf Because of the high road density, potential for road kill and existing human disturbance. The determination for the No Action and Proposed Action is Not Likely to Adversely Affect where the effects are expected to be discountable. Although mitigation can be used to reduce effects at a den site offsetting effects, there is a chance a den could be constructed during the early spring prior to timber sale activity.

35

NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT Northern long-eared bat are present within the Analysis Area (Schools and Klatt 2015).

The effects analysis for NLEB is tiered to the Programmatic Biological Assessment Northern long-eared bat for Land and Resource Management Plans of the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region (USDA Forest Service, 2015a, Sandeno 2016) and to the Biological Opinion Activities Affecting the Northern long-eared bat on Eastern Region National Forests (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015a, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015b, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a). Direct and Indirect Effects – No Action Alternative The Hiawatha National Forest underwent formal conferencing with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for projects affecting NLEB and NLEB habitat in previously-approved projects that have not yet been fully implemented on the Hiawatha National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 2015b and USDA Forest Service, 2016). These activities were found by USFWS to not be prohibitive under the final 4(d) rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016c). Previously-approved projects within the Bass Boot Analysis Area with work to be implemented include timber sale and post-sale activities from the Beech Bark Disease (BBD) EA, West Red Pine EA and Gooseneck EA. Action Alternative Timber treatments in the Proposed Action would have both positive and negative effects on NLEB habitat and individuals, if present in areas with proposed actions. All harvest types have the potential to remove a maternity roost tree which could cause death to pups. Adult bats could safely fly from a tree if disturbed. There is a slight increased chance of a flushed bat being predated (USDA Forest Service, 2015a). A benefit of opening the overstory of forested stands is increased sunlight. Thinning and shelterwood harvests would increase the amount of solar radiation to the residual trees and would increase the fitness and survival of pups depending on the proximity of harvest to roost trees (USDA Forest Service, 2015a). Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan that work to protect NLEB habitat include structural guidelines, intra-stand diversity, spatial diversity of vegetation and age classes guided by the ecological characteristics of the landscape to reduce the risk of insect and disease damage (USDA Forest Service 2015a, pages 157-161). Under the final 4(d) rule for Northern long-eared bat, within the WNS zone incidental take outside of hibernacula that results from tree removal is only prohibited when it (1) Occurs within 0.25 miles (0.4 km) of known northern long-eared bat hibernacula; or (2) cuts or destroys known occupied maternity roost trees, or any other trees within a 150-foot (45-meter) radius from the known occupied maternity trees, during the pup season (June 1 through July 31 (Federal Register January 14, 2016, page 1907). None of the Proposed Actions would occur within 0.25 miles of known long-eared bat hibernacula. No maternal roost trees have been found. The Hiawatha National Forest is following the Optional Framework to Streamline Section 7 Consultation for the Northern long-eared bat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016b, pages 5-7). Cumulative Effects The Cumulative effects area consist of the entire Bass-Boot Analysis Area due to this species being present in all habitats. Foraging occurs in openings, along roadways and near water; roosting in buildings as well as forested stands. The cumulative effects timeframe is 15 years in the past which includes timber treatments that were conducted in the past fifteen years and the

36

associated post-harvest activities. Residual trees from harvest treatment would have gained diameter growth within a period of fifteen years. Stands previously clearcut would no longer be in the temporary opening condition and while would not have large trees developed would be considered a forested stand. The timeframe is 15 years into the future. Timber sale planning is done in a 5-year plan. Post-harvest activities of past sales and the proposed action contain chemical treatment of NNIP and are planned in the Analysis Area to occur through 2027. The past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis is timber management, fuelbreak maintenance, prescribed burning, chemical treatment of non-native plant species. A portion of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Shingleton Forest Management Unit is immediately adjacent to the Bass Boot Analysis Area. Timber management activities have occurred most recently from 2008 and are scheduled through 2017 (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2016). Future treatments for 2017 are planned in two compartments (DNR compartments 26 and 39) and include treatments in the following forest types: jack pine, lowland conifer, lowland spruce/fir, red pine, mixed natural pine, upland conifers, white pine, herbaceous openland and post-harvest activities of site prep, planting, burning, and pesticide treatment.

Additionally two upcoming projects being proposed by the Hiawatha National Forest to the south/southeast of the Bass Boot Analysis Area is an upcoming EA area named Camp Cooks encompassing approximately 85,000 ac and immediately to the west of Bass Boot is an upcoming EA area named Plumb Bruno encompassing approximately 115,000 acres of which 92,000 acres are National Forest.

Timber harvest and associated work such as road construction and post-harvest activities on State land is expected to have the same effect on NLEB as treatments on National Forest lands with the exception of pesticide application which may be aerially applied (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2016). General Project Information- Bass Boot Proposed Action YES NO Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum? ☐ ☒ Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree? ☐ ☒ Does the project include forest conversion1? (if yes, report acreage below) ☐ ☒

Estimated total acres of forest conversion If known, estimated acres2 of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31 If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 313

Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below) ☒ ☐ Estimated total acres of timber harvest 8,615acres If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31 8,353 acres If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31 8,321 acres

Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below) ☒ ☐ Estimated total acres of prescribed fire 1,964 acres If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31 1,964 acres If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31 1,964 acres

1 Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO). 2 If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre. 3 If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

37

Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below) ☐ ☒ Estimated wind capacity (MW)

The estimated total acres of prescribed fire and timber harvest were developed with the following dates: summer occupancy May 15-September 1 and NLEB non-volant period from June 15-August 1. See attached spreadsheet. Note: wildlife proposed actions that require timber contracts defer to the response for timing from timber management. Regional Conservation Measures Developed for the NLEB The Region developed six conservation measures specifically to contribute to our responsibility to protect and manage wildlife species on national forests (36 CFR 241.3(b)) and to use our authorities as directed under 7(a)1 of the Endangered Species Act to carry out actions for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. These 6 conservation measures are designed to proactively conserve, restore, or enhance habitat for the NLEB while also minimizing the potential to harass, injure, and/or kill bats as an incidental result of conducting management activities. These conservation measures were reviewed and approved by Forest Supervisors, the NLEB Steering Committee, and Regional Forester. The following list the six Regional Conservation Measures developed to protect Northern long-eared bat. The bolded items apply to the Bass-Boot Analysis Area:

1. Designate caves and mines that are occupied by bats as smoke-sensitive targets. Avoid smoke entering these caves and mines any time of the year when Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) bats are present. (There are no caves or mines in the Analysis Area).

2. Within 0.25 miles of known, occupied NLEB hibernacula, timber harvest will be designed to maintain, enhance, or restore swarming, staging, roosting, and foraging habitat. The future desired condition is that these areas will feature structurally complex, resilient forest communities with a continuous supply of snags, culls, cavities, and other quality roosts. (There are no known hibernacula on the Forest).

3. Application of herbicides and other pesticides will be planned to avoid or minimize direct and indirect effects to known, occupied TES bat hibernacula and maternity roosts. (At this time there are no known bat hibernacula or maternity roosts on the West Unit of the Hiawatha. A design criteria for pollinators includes conducting applications prior to plant flowering in the spring or at a time of day when pollinators are less active. Additionally herbicide would be applied directly to the plant (spot treatments) rather than broad-scale application).

4. Before old buildings, wells, cisterns, bridges, and other man-made structures are structurally modified or demolished, they will be surveyed for bats. If TES bat roosting is found, demolition or modification of these structures will not occur when bats are present and the need for alternative roosts will be evaluated. (The proposed actions do not propose the modification or demolishment of any man-made structure).

5. Avoid cutting or destroying known, occupied NLEB maternity roost trees unless they are an immediate safety hazard. (At this time, there are no known maternity roost trees).

38

Determination – Northern long-eared bat

The Bass Boot Vegetation Management Project is “likely to adversely affect” the northern long-eared bat; however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic biological opinion on implementing the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016, signed by Lynn Lewis (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016a). Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule (50 CFR §17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the forest plan, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic biological opinion, and activities that do not require special exemption from taking prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat; therefore, the programmatic biological opinion satisfies the Forest Service’s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat for this project.

III. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

Table 17. Summary of TE Determinations for the Bass Boot Project.

Species

Stat

us

Habitat (H) or Species

Present (S) No Action Proposed

Action

Wildlife Species: Canada lynx T H NE NLAA

Kirtland’s warbler E S NE NLAA where affects are expected to be beneficial

Gray wolf E S NE NLAA Northern Long-eared bat T S NE LAA

T- federally threatened, E- federally endangered, P – proposed for federal listing. NE –No Effect, NLAA- Not Likely to Adversely Affect, LAA –Likely to Adversely Affect. References Broders, H.G. and G.J. Forbes. 2014. Interspecific and Intersexual Variation in Roost Site Selection of Northern long-eared bats in the Greater Fundy National Park Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Mgmt 68 (3): 602-610. Cohen, J.G. 2002. Natural community abstract for dry northern forest. Michigan Natural Features Inventory,Lansing, MI. 14 pp. Comer P.J. 1996. Natural community abstract for pine barrens. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp. Ekstrum, J., L. Langstaff, D. LeBlanc, C. Bassett, M. Cole. 12/19/11. 2011 Wildlife, Fish, Plant and NNIS Monitoring Report, West Unit Hiawatha National Forest. Pages 1-6, 7-10, 14.

39

Federal Register. January 14, 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the Northern long-eared bat, Final Rule. Page 1900 through 1922. Available at http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/FRnlebFinal4dRule14Jan2016.pdf. Fuller, T.K. undated. Guidelines for Gray Wolf Management in the Northern Great Lakes Region. Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 19 pp. Gehring, J. L. and B. J. Klatt. 2013. Mist-net Assessment of Bat Diversity in the Hiawatha National Forest: Summer 2012. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University, Report Number 2012-12, Lansing, MI.

Gehring, J.L. and B.J. Klatt. 2012. Mist-net Assessment of Bat Diversity in the Hiawatha National Forest: Summer 2012. MNFI report 2012-12. Grandmaison, D. D., K. Kirschbaum, and T. Catton. 2013. Superior National Forest bat monitoring: summary of 2013 survey effort. Superior National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Hicks, S. 2015. Letter to Forest Supervisor Jo Reyer Re: Gray wolf status as of December 19, 2014. 1 page. Hicks, S. 2014. List of Threatened and Endangered Species on HNF, dated October 21, 2014. 2 pages. Houle, M., D. Fortin, C. Dussautt, R. Courtois, J.P. Ouellet. 2010. Cumulative effects of forestry on habitat use by gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the boreal forest. Landscape Ecology 25: 419-433. Langstaff, L. 2015. Summary of Bat Detection Activities on the Hiawatha National Forest. 2 pages. Langstaff, L., J. Ekstrum, M. Cole, M. Ammerman, D. LeBlanc. 10/30/12. 2012 Wildlife, Fish, Plant, and NNIS Monitoring Report, West Unit Hiawatha National Forest. Pages 1-11, 13. Linden, D.W., H. Campa III, G.J. Roloff, D.E. Beyer, K.F. Millenbah, 2011. Modeling Habitat Potential for Canada lynx in Michigan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35(1): 20-26:2011, DOI:10.1002/wsb.3

Mech, L. D., S. H. Fritts, G. L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87.

Mladenoff, D. J., T.A. Sickley, R.G. Haight and A.P. Wydeven. 1995. Conservation Biology Vol 9 No 2 (Apr 1995) pp 279-294.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2016. Shingleton Management Unit State Forest Compartments by Year of Entry map, available on-line at http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-30301_30505-66193--,00.html. Compartment Review Presentation for Compartments 26 and 39. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service. 2015. Kirtland’s Warbler Breeding Range Conservation Plan dated September 8, 2015. Pages 37, 39, 46-47.

40

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Michigan Gray Wolf Management Plan. Pages 38 and 39. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2016. Rare Species Explorer (Web Application) query for Bass Boot Analysis Area. Available online at http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/explorer [Accessed Feb 22, 2016]. Sandeno, C. 2016. Memo Eastern Region dated 1/21/2016, Re: Acres of Lands Suitable for Timber Production in MA 8.4x- Congressionally Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. 2 pages. Schools, E. H. and B.J. Klatt. 2015. Acoustic Monitoring for Northern Long-eared Bat on the Hiawatha National Forest. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2015-28, Lansing, MI. Copyright 2015. Sjogren, S. 2014 Upper Peninsula Kirtland’s Warbler Census Results, 2 pages. Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113(2):404-407 USDA Forest Service. 2016. Letter from Forest Supervisor Cid Morgan to USFWS Scott Hicks dated February 11, 2016 to request a blanket amendment to the Biological Opinions completed in May and November 2015 acknowledging that the final 4(d) rule substitutes the interim 4(d) rule. 2 pages. USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Programmatic Biological Assessment Northern long-eared bat for Land and Resource Management Plans of the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region. Updated October 31, 2015. Pages 8-9, 24-25, 45, 48, 53-54, 56-57, 71, 133-134 and 157-161. USDA Forest Service. February 26, 2015b. Letter from Forest Supervisor Jo Reyer to USFWS Scott Hicks to request formal conference for projects affecting Northern long-eared bat and Northern long-eared bat habitat on Hiawatha National Forest. 1 page. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Addition of Little brown myotis and Northern myotis to the RFSS list Hiawatha National Forest. January 2012. 6 pages. USDA Forest Service. 2006a Hiawatha National Forest Plan 2006. pages 2-6, 2-17, 2-18 and 2-19, and 2-22. USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Hiawatha National Forest, Final Environmental Impact Statement To accompany the 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan. Page 3-135. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Animals and Plants and Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants, Biological Evaluation for Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Hiawatha National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, undated. Species Data Collection Form Myotis septentrionalis, pages 2-4.

41

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016a. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern long-eared bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions, USFWS Regions 2,3,4,5,and 6. January 5, 2016. 109 pages. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016b. Key to the Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule for Federal Actions that May Affect Northern Long-eared Bats. Dated January 13, 2016. 7 pages. Available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/KeyFinal4dNLEB_FedAgencies17Feb2016.pdf USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016c. Letter from Scott Hicks to Forest Supervisor Cid Morgan dated February 11, 2016, Re: Applicability of the Final 4(d) Rule for the NLEB to Existing Biological Opinions. 2 pages. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. November 12, 2015. Letter to Regional Forester Kathleen Atkinson from Lynn Lewis, Assistant Director Ecological Services, Midwest Region, Biological Opinion for Activities Affecting the Northern long-eared bat on Eastern Region National Forests. 2 pages. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Biological Opinion Activities Affecting the Northern-long-eared bat on Eastern Region National forests. FWS Log # 03E00000-2015-F-0001. 110 pages. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Letter from Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Nebraska Field Office dated May 21, 2014 to Federal Agencies, Re: Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Proposed Listing- Memorandum Changes. 8 pages. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Biological Opinion for the Hiawatha National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pages 163-166, 170-173, 186-194.