USDA 

Forest 

Service 

National Forests in 

Montana, and parts of 

Idaho, Wyoming, and 

Utah 

March 2007 

Northern Rockies 

Lynx Management 

Direction 

Record of Decision 
The United States 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, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider 

and employer. 
Record of Decision 

Table of contents 

Summary of the decision................................................................................................. 1

Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

 Purpose and need.......................................................................................................... 2

 Risks to lynx and lynx habitat ..................................................................................... 2

Public involvement........................................................................................................... 4

 Issues ............................................................................................................................... 5

 Alternatives considered in detail ................................................................................ 5

 Other management direction considered .................................................................. 7

The decision....................................................................................................................... 7

 Management direction related to vegetation ............................................................ 8

 Objectives for vegetation management............................................................................... 8

 Standards and guidelines relating to quantitiy of winter snowshoe hare habitat........ 8

 Standards and guidelines relating to qualtiy of winter snowshoe hare habitat ........... 11

 Standards and guidelines relating to denning habitat ..................................................... 14

 Consideration of fuel treatment projects ............................................................................ 18

 FWS findings related to the vegetation management direction...................................... 21

 Management direction related to grazing.................................................................. 21

 Management direction related to human uses.......................................................... 22

 Over-the-snow recreation ..................................................................................................... 22

 Developed recreation............................................................................................................. 25

 Minerals and energy.............................................................................................................. 26

 Forest roads............................................................................................................................. 26

 Management direction related to linkage areas........................................................ 27

 Use of standards and guidelines ................................................................................. 28

 Where to apply the decision ........................................................................................ 29

 Incorporation of terms and conditions....................................................................... 29

 Consideration of conservation recommendations.................................................... 30

 Canada lynx recovery outline...................................................................................... 31

i 
Record of Decision - Table of contents 

Findings required by laws, regulations and policy..................................................... 35

 National Environmental Policy Act............................................................................ 35

 National Forest Management Act............................................................................... 37

 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................... 42

 National Historic Preservation Act............................................................................. 43

 Clean Air Act.................................................................................................................. 43

 Clean Water Act............................................................................................................. 43

 Invasive Species ............................................................................................................. 43

 Environmental justice ................................................................................................... 43

 Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land .......................................................... 44

 Equal Employmnet Opportunities, Effects on Minorities and Women ................ 44

 Wetlands and Floodplains ........................................................................................... 44

 Other policies ................................................................................................................ 44

Implementation and appeal provisions ........................................................................ 44

Further information and contact person....................................................................... 45

References .......................................................................................................................... 49

Attachment 1 – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

ii 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

1

Summary of the decision 

We have selected Alternative F, Scenario 2 as described in the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (pp. 35 to 40), 

with modifications. We modified Alternative F, Scenario 2 and incorporated the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Terms and Conditions (USDI FWS 2007), where 

applicable, into the management direction – see Attachment 1- hereafter called the 

selected alternative. We determined the selected alternative provides direction that 

contributes to conservation and recovery of Canada lynx in the Northern Rockies 

ecosystem, meets the Purpose and Need, responds to public concerns, and is consistent 

with applicable laws and policies. In the FEIS we analyzed six alternatives in detail and 

two scenarios for Alternative F. Of those, we determined Alternative F Scenario 2 is the 

best choice. With this decision, we are incorporating the goal, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines of the selected alternative into the existing plans of all National Forests in the 

Northern Rockies Lynx Planning Area – see Figure 1-1, FEIS, Vol. 1 Tables 1-1 and 1-2. 

The direction applies to mapped lynx habitat on National Forest System land presently 

occupied by Canada lynx, as defined by the Amended Lynx Conservation Agreement 

between the Forest Service and the FWS (USDA FS and USDI FWS 2006). When National 

Forests are designing management actions in unoccupied mapped lynx habitat they 

should consider the lynx direction, especially the direction regarding linkage habitat. If 

and when those National Forest System lands become occupied, based upon criteria 

and evidence described in the Conservation Agreement, the direction shall then be 

applied to those forests. If a conflict exists between this management direction and an 

existing plan, the more restrictive direction will apply. 

The detailed rationale for our decision, found further in this document, explains how 

the selected alternative best meets our decision criteria. Those decision criteria are: 1) 

meeting the Purpose and Need to provide management direction that conserves and 

promotes the recovery of Canada lynx while preserving the overall multiple use 

direction in existing plans; 2) responding to the issues; and 3) responding to public 

concerns. 

Background 

The FWS listed Canada lynx as a threatened species in March 2000, saying the main 

threat was “the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in 

National Forest Land and Resource Plans and BLM Land Use Plans” (USDI FWS 2000a). 

Following the listing, the Forest Service (FS) signed a Lynx Conservation Agreement 

with the FWS in 2001 to consider the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

(LCAS) during project analysis, and the FS agreed to not proceed with projects that 

would be “likely to adversely affect” lynx until the plans were amended. The 

Conservation Agreement (CA) was renewed in 2005 and added the concept of occupied 

mapped lynx habitat. In 2006 the CA was amended to define occupied habitat and to 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

2

list those National Forests that were occupied. In 2006 it was also extended for 5 years 

(until 2011), or until all relevant forest plans were revised to provide guidance 

necessary to conserve lynx (USDA FS and USDI FWS 2000, 2005, 2006a, 2006b). The 

plan direction in this decision fulfills our agreement to amend the plans. The 

management direction provided in this decision is based upon the science and 

recommendations in: 

• Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggiero et al 2000), which 

summarizes lynx ecology; 

• Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al 2000), which 

recommends conservation measures for activities that could place lynx at risk by 

altering their habitat or reducing their prey; and 

• Numerous publications cited in the FEIS and found listed in the References section of 

this ROD and in the FEIS, pp. 381 to 396. 

Purpose of and Need for action 

The Purpose and Need is to incorporate management direction in land management 

plans that conserves and promotes recovery of Canada lynx, by reducing or eliminating 

adverse effects from land management activities on National Forest System lands, while 

preserving the overall multiple-use direction in existing plans (FEIS, Vol. p. 1). 

Risks to lynx and lynx habitat 

The overall goals of the LCAS were to recommend lynx conservation measures, provide 

a basis for reviewing the adequacy of Forest Service land and resource management 

plans with regard to lynx conservation, and to facilitate section 7 conferencing and 

consultation under ESA. The LCAS identified a variety of possible risks to lynx and 

lynx habitat. 

The LCAS identified risk factors affecting lynx productivity (pp. 2-2 to 2-15) as:

 Timber management 

 Wildland fire management 

 Livestock grazing 

 Recreational uses 

 Forest backcountry roads and trails 

 Other human developments 

These are the typical types of activities conducted on federal land administered by the 

FS, and the FS has the authority to manage and regulate them. As such, the 

management direction analyzed in the Lynx FEIS and incorporated into the forest plans 

with this Record of Decision (ROD) focus on these types of activities. 

The LCAS identified risk factors affecting mortality (pp. 2-15 to 2-17) as:

 Trapping 

 Shooting 

 Predator control 

 Highways 

 Predation by other species 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

3

These factors can directly cause lynx deaths. Trapping of lynx is no longer permitted in 

the planning area, although incidental trapping of lynx could still occur. Incidental or 

illegal shooting can also occur, but trapping and hunting is regulated by state agencies. 

Predator control activities are conducted by USDA Wildlife Services. Since the factors 

of trapping shooting and predator control are outside the authority of the FS to manage 

or regulate, this ROD does not include management direction related to them. 

Highways (generally high-speed, two lane) are a known source of direct mortality 

(LCAS, pp. 2-16 to 2-17). Depending on the situation, this risk factor may fall under the 

authority of the FS. Therefore, it is addressed in the FEIS, and management direction 

concerning highways is incorporated into the Forest Plans through this ROD. 

Other predators may affect lynx. Lynx have a competitive advantage in places where 

deep, soft snow tends to exclude predators in mid-winter, the time when prey is most 

limiting. Certain activities, such as certain types of winter recreation, may provide 

access to other predators (LCAS, pp. 2-6 to 2-15). The FEIS and ROD addresses this 

concern. 

The LCAS identified risk factors affecting movement (pp. 2-17 to 2-19) as:

 Highways and associated development 

 Private land development 

Lynx are known to disperse over wide areas. Highways and the developments 

associated with them may affect lynx movement (LCAS, p. 2-17). The FS has only 

limited authority to address highways, and has no authority to manage activities on 

private land. Based on the limited authority the FS has in this area, only a few 

guidelines address these risk factors. 

After the LCAS was issued the FWS published a Clarification of Findings in the Federal 

Register (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P), commonly referred to as the Remand Notice. In the 

Remand Notice the FWS states, “We found no evidence that some activities, such as 

forest roads, pose a threat to lynx. Some of the activities suggested, such as mining and 

grazing, were not specifically addressed [in the Remand Notice] because we have no 

information to indicate they pose threats to lynx” (p. 40083). Further on in the Remand 

Notice they state, “Because no evidence has been provided that packed snowtrails 

facilitate competition to a level that negatively affects lynx, we do not consider packed 

snowtrails to be a threat to lynx at this time” (p. 40098). In regards to timber harvest the 

FWS states, “Timber harvesting can be beneficial, benign, or detrimental to lynx 

depending on harvest methods, spatial and temporal specifications, and the inherent 

vegetation potential of the site. Forest practices in lynx habitat that result in or retain a 

dense understory provide good snowshoe hare habitat that in turn provides good 

foraging habitat for lynx” (p. 40083). These findings by FWS narrow the focus from the 

concerns first published in the LCAS (discussed above) about what management 

direction is needed to maintain or improve Canada lynx habitat. We considered this 

information in the development of the selected alternative, and in our decision. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

4

Public involvement 

We involved the public in the development of the plan direction from the very 

beginning. In order to determine the scope of the public’s interest in developing lynx 

direction the FS and BLM started with a notice published in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, 

No. 176, pp. 47160 to 47163) on September 11, 2001. Originally, the scoping period was 

scheduled to end on October 26, 2001, but we extended it to December 10, 2001. The FS 

and BLM gave people more time to comment, both in response to several requests for 

extensions, and because of the general disruption stemming from the September 11th

terrorist attacks. In December 2006, the BLM elected to not be a cooperating agency in 

this planning effort and to undertake changes to BLM plans through a separate 

planning process. 

We created an official website at www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx.html. The website 

continues to provide information, including the information used to develop the 

Proposed Action, the DEIS, and FEIS. 

During scoping we held numerous open-house meetings to provide a better 

understanding of the lynx proposal and to gain an understanding of public issues and 

concerns (FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 18). We mailed out more than 6,000 letters about the proposal 

and upcoming meetings to a mailing list of people interested in land management 

issues. By December 17, 2001 we had received 1,890 public responses to the scoping 

notice. We then evaluated and summarized those responses in a report entitled 

Summary of Public Comments (see the Scoping section of the Project Record). Responses 

received after December 17, 2001, but before the release of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) in January 2004 were also considered. A summary of these 

comments can also be found in the Scoping section of the Project Record. In mid-May 

2002 we mailed an eight-page update to the more than 2,000 addresses of those who 

responded to the scoping notice. 

We decided to prepare an EIS because of the level of interest expressed during scoping. 

On August 15, 2002, we published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement in the Federal Register (Vol. 67, No. 158, pp. 53334 to 53335). There 

were five responses to the Notice of Intent, which we also considered. 

On January 16, 2004, a Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal 

Register (Vol. 69, No. 11, p. 2619). This notice began a 90-day public comment period. 

At that time, we sent copies of the DEIS (either paper or CD versions), or the summary 

of the DEIS to a variety of interested parties (FEIS, Vol. 1 p 19). The documents are also 

available on the web site: www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx.html. 

We hosted open-house meetings in February and March of 2004 to provide the public 

with a better understanding of the DEIS and its alternatives. Over 380 people attended 

the open houses which were held in four states and 25 communities. We accepted 

public comments on the DEIS either sent through the mail or via E-mail. The public 

comment period ended on April 15, 2004, with the agency receiving well over 5,000 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

5

comments. We used those comments, as well as late comments, to help formulate 

Alternative F, to help clarify and add to the analysis, to correct errors in the DEIS, and 

to update the FEIS. We responded to all of the comments on the DEIS in the Response 

to Comments (FEIS, Vol. 2). 

Issues 

As a result of the public participation process; review by other federal, state, tribal, and 

local government agencies; and internal reviews, we identified five primary issues, 

which are described in detail in the FEIS, Vol. 1, Chapter 2. The issues were used as a 

basis for developing the management direction in the alternatives, and were used to 

analyze effects. The issues are: 

1. Over-the-snow recreation. The effects of limiting the growth of designated over-thesnow routes on opportunities for over-the-snow recreation. 

2. Wildland fire risk. The effects of the management direction on the risks to 

communities from wildland fire. 

3. Winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests. The effect on lynx of allowing 

projects in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests. 

4. Precommercial thinning. The effects of limiting precommercial thinning on restoring 

tree species and forest structures that are declining. 

5. FWS Remand decision. The appropriate level of management direction applied to 

activities that the FWS remand notice found were not a threat to lynx populations. 

Alternatives considered in detail 

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative. Analyzing a no-action alternative is a 

requirement of NEPA at 40 CFR 1508.14(d), and of FS planning procedures. The 

analysis of the effects of Alternative A in the FEIS considers the effects of the forest 

plans as they currently exist, including any previous amendments. In this case, “no 

action” means no amendment to the already existing plans, and no additional specific 

direction to conserve Canada lynx. While the FS has been following the Conservation 

Agreements signed with the FWS and has considered the LCAS when evaluating 

projects, the LCAS measures have not been incorporated as plan direction. A decision 

to adopt Alternative A would not adopt the measures of the LCAS into the plans, but 

also would not void the existing Conservation Agreements or the consultation 

requirements of ESA. A decision to not adopt some of the lynx management direction 

in any of the action alternatives would have been a decision to select a part of 

Alternative A. 

Alternative B, the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action was developed from 

conservation measures recommended in the LCAS. (See Appendix A in the FEIS, pp. 

401 to 438 for a crosswalk from the LCAS, to the proposal as written in the scoping 

letter; the Proposed Action, Alternative B, found in the Draft and Final EISs; and 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

6

Alternative F in the FEIS.) Alternative B addresses activities on National Forest System 

lands that can affect lynx and their habitat. The exact language of the goal, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines for Alternative B and all the other action alternatives can be 

found in the FEIS (Table 2-1, pp. 41 to 69). 

Alternative C. Alternative C was designed to respond to issues of over-the-snow 

recreation management and foraging habitat in multistoried forests, while providing a 

level of protection to lynx comparable to Alternative B, the Proposed Action. 

Alternative C would add direction to the plans similar to the LCAS, but would have 

fewer restrictions on new over-the-snow trails and more restrictions on management 

actions in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests. The exact language of 

the goal, objectives, standards, and guidelines for Alternative C and all the other action 

alternatives can be found in the FEIS (Table 2-1, pp. 41 to 69). 

Alternative D. Alternative D was designed to address the issues of managing over-thesnow recreation and multistoried forests, similar to Alternative C. Alternative D also 

allows some precommercial thinning in winter snowshoe hare habitat, while still 

contributing to lynx conservation. Alternative D would add direction to the plans 

similar to the LCAS, but having fewer restrictions on new over-the-snow trails and 

precommercial thinning, and more restrictions than the LCAS (Alternative B) on 

management actions in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests, but less 

than Alternative C. The exact language of the goal, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines for Alternative D and all the other action alternatives can be found in the 

FEIS (Table 2-1, pp. 41 to 69). 

Alternative E, the DEIS preferred alternative. Alternative E addresses the issue of 

wildland fire risk while contributing to lynx conservation. It also responds to 

statements made in the Remand Notice (USDI FWS, 2003) that FWS has no information 

to indicate grazing or snow compaction are threats to lynx at this time. This was done 

by changing the grazing and human uses standards to guidelines. Alternative E would 

add direction to the plans similar to the LCAS, but has fewer restrictions on new overthe-snow trails and on fuel reduction projects proposed in a collaborative manner, and 

more restrictions on management actions in winter snowshoe hare habitat in 

multistoried forests. The exact language of the goal, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines for Alternative E and all the other action alternatives can be found in FEIS 

(Table 2-1, pp. 41 to 69). 

Alternative F, the FEIS preferred alternative. Alternative F was developed from 

public comments on the DEIS and by pulling together parts of the other alternatives. 

Since it was developed from the other alternatives, the effects of Alternative F is within 

the scope of the effects of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS. 

Alternative F addresses many comments about problems and concerns with 

Alternatives E, the DEIS preferred alternative. In particular many people and FWS felt 

Alternative E would not meet the purpose and need because it did not provide the 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

7

regulatory mechanisms to adequately address lynx needs. Alternative F was designed 

to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms for those risk factors found to be a threat to 

lynx populations – specifically those factors related to the quantity and quality of lynx 

habitat as discussed in the FEIS, Vol. 1, section Management direction considered. 

Alternative F addresses comments about where to apply the management direction. 

Many comments suggested the management direction should only be applied to 

occupied habitat. Therefore, Alternative F is evaluated under two scenarios: (1) 

management direction would be incorporated into all forest plans and would apply to all 

mapped lynx habitat, whether or not occupied; and (2) management direction would be 

incorporated into all forest plans but would only apply to occupied habitat. Under 

Scenario 2, the direction should be “considered” for unoccupied units, but would not 

have to be followed until such time as lynx occupy the unit. The Nez Perce, SalmonChallis, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Ashley, and Bighorn NFs, and the disjunct 

mountain ranges on the Custer, Gallatin, Helena, and Lewis and Clark NFs are 

unoccupied based on the best scientific information available at this time (USDA FS, 

USDI FWS 2006a). 

Other management direction considered 

Comments on the DEIS identified a variety of suggestions for management direction. 

Some of the suggestions were incorporated into the selected alternative, others were 

not. The FEIS, Vol. 1 pp. 71-102 provides a thorough discussion of these comments and 

our considerations. The following section includes discussion of some these comments 

and how they were considered, but not all of the suggestions considered. 

The decision 

The management direction in Alternative F, Scenario 2 modified (referred from now on 

as the selected alternative, see - Attachment 1) is amended into all Forest Plans in the 

planning area. The management direction incorporates the terms and conditions FWS 

issued in their biological opinion (USDI FWS 2007). This management direction 

includes a goal, objectives, standards, and guidelines related to all activities (ALL), 

vegetation management (VEG), grazing management (GRAZ), human uses (HU), and 

linkage (LINK). Goals are general descriptions of desired results; objectives are 

descriptions of desired resource conditions; standards are management requirements 

designed to meet the objectives; and guidelines are management actions normally taken 

to meet objectives. Guidelines provide information and guidance for project and 

activity decision-making (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 8). The Forest Service and FWS developed the 

selected alternative in a collaborative manner (Project File/Coordination/with FWS, 

and Project File/Alternatives/FEIS alternatives). 

The selected alternative provides a balance of meeting the purpose and need, and 

addressing the five primary issues, including other public comments. Alternative B 

does not provide the management direction necessary for winter snowshoe hare habitat 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

8

in multistoried forests. Alternative C, may be best for lynx, but does not address any 

other issues. Alternative D addresses the need to restore tree species in decline, but we 

have determined it may allow too much activity in winter snowshoe hare habitat and 

result in more extensive adverse effects. Alternative E address wildfire risk to 

communities, but based on our analysis and comments from FWS and the public, may 

not provide the necessary direction to contribute to conservation and recovery of lynx. 

We determined, through our analysis and with concurrence from FWS, the selected 

alternative contributes to conservation and recovery of lynx, while allowing some 

activities to occur in lynx habitat that may have some adverse effects on lynx. We 

determined it was important and acceptable to restore tree species in decline and 

address wildland fire risks to communities. This decision allows some possible adverse 

effects on 6.5 percent of lynx habitat (through a combination of fuels treatment in the 

wildland urban interface (WUI) and precommercial thinning). However, all vegetative 

standards remain applicable to 93.5 percent of lynx habitat. 

The following describes the risk factors, what the LCAS proposed (Alternative B), issues 

related to the proposed action, what Alternative E (the DEIS preferred alternative) 

included, comments we received on the DEIS, consideration of new information, and 

finally what was incorporated into the selected alternative and why. 

Management direction related to vegetation 

Lynx require certain habitat elements to persist in a given area. Lynx productivity is 

highly dependent on the quantity and quality of winter snowshoe hare habitat. Winter 

snowshoe hare habitat may be found in dense young regenerating forests – where the 

trees protrude above the snowline and in multistoried forests where limbs of the 

overstory touch the snowline, in addition to shorter understory trees that provide 

horizontal cover. Certain activities, such as timber harvest, prescribed burning and 

wildfires, can affect the amount and distribution of these habitat elements, which can in 

turn affect lynx productivity. Timber harvest can be beneficial, benign, or detrimental 

depending on the harvest method, the spatial and temporal occurrence on the 

landscape and the inherent vegetation potential of the site (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P). 

Objectives for vegetation management 

Objectives define desired conditions for lynx habitat. The LCAS identified four primary 

objectives which are reflected in Alternative B as Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2, VEG O3, 

and VEG O4. These objectives essentially remain the same among all alternatives. 

Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2 and VEG O4 were clarified in the selected alternative 

based on comments on the DEIS, but their intent is the same as the in LCAS. 

Standards and guidelines relating to quantity of winter snowshoe hare habitat 

Standard VEG S1. In order to provide a distribution of age classes, the LCAS 

recommended that an lynx analysis unit (LAU) (an area the size of a female lynx home 

range) not have more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition, and 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

9

if an LAU was at 30 percent then vegetation management projects should not create 

more. Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition includes those forests in a stand 

initiation structural stage that are too short to provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. 

These conditions are created by stand-replacing wildfires, prescribed burns that remove 

all of the vegetation, or regeneration timber harvest. This recommendation is reflected 

in Alternative B Standard VEG S1. 

Some people felt the 30 percent criterion was too high and others said it was too low 

based on how fires burn in lynx habitat. In addition, some people felt that constraining 

the 30 percent criterion to a single LAU was too restrictive, as fires burn across vast 

areas. Fire is the most common disturbance in lynx habitat. Generally, large stand 

replacing fires burn every 40 to 200 years and smaller low intensity fires burn in the 

intervals between stand replacing fires (FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 72 and 213-214). The 30 percent 

criterion was based on a way to maintain lynx habitat over time (Brittel et al. 1989). 

None of the alternatives change the 30 percent criterion. However, Alternatives C, D, 

and E change the area the standard would be considered from an LAU to a larger 

landscape. Alternatives C and E apply the standard to an LAU or in a combination of 

immediately adjacent LAUs; Alternative D applies the standard to a subbasin or 

isolated mountain range. Some people liked the idea of applying the standard to a 

larger area, others did not. In their comments on the DEIS FWS recommended the 

standard be applied to a single LAU in order to maintain a good distribution of lynx 

habitat at the scale of a lynx home range. 

The selected alternative applies the management direction to a single LAU to ensure a 

variety of structural stages are provided within the home range. In addition, the 

selected alternative was reworded to clarify what “unsuitable habitat” entails and what 

types of vegetation projects create this condition. 

Standard VEG S2. The LCAS also recommended that timber harvest not change more 

than 15 percent of lynx habitat to an unsuitable condition (stand initiation structural 

stage that is too short to provide for winter snowshoe hare habitat) over a decade. The 

purpose of this standard was to limit the rate of management induced change in lynx 

habitat (FEIS p. 74). This recommendation is reflected in Alternative B Standard VEG S2. 

In 2003, the effect timber harvest historically had on creating “unsuitable habitat” on 

Forest Service lands in Region 1 (Hillis et al. 2003) was analyzed. The analysis was 

based on hydrologic unit codes (HUC) (similar to the size of a lynx home range). This 

analysis found only 2.5 percent of the HUCs exceeds the 15 percent criterion. Since this 

criterion was rarely exceeded in the past, and the amount of regeneration harvest the 

agency does now has been dramatically reduced over the past decade (Project 

File/Analysis/Vegetation/FEIS/Data), Standard VEG S2 was changed to Guideline 

VEG G6 in Alternative C, and dropped as a standard or guideline in Alternatives D and 

E. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

10

FWS comments on the DEIS said that dropping Standard VEG S2 could allow 

potentially negative effects to lynx to accumulate. Removal of the standard could result 

in reducing the amount of lynx habitat over a short period of time. Based on these 

comments, Standard VEG S2 was included in the selected alternative. In addition, the 

standard was reworded to clarify that it only applies to timber management practices 

that regenerate a forest (clearcut, seed tree, shelterwood, group selection). 

Guideline VEG G1. The LCAS also recommended creating forage (winter snowshoe 

hare habitat) where it was lacking. This is reflected as Guideline VEG G1 in Alternative B. 

This guideline is retained in the selected alternative. The wording clarifies that the 

priority areas for creating forage should be in those forests that are in the stemexclusion, closed canopy structural stage to enhance habitat conditions for lynx and 

their prey. Basically it says we should focus regeneration efforts in pure lodgepole 

stands, with little understory, especially where forage is lacking. 

Other related comments. Other comments we received on the DEIS relating to the 

amount or spatial distribution of winter snowshoe hare habitat were in regards to 

including a standard to limit type conversion, and limiting the size of clearcuts and 

other regeneration harvest units (FEIS Vol. 1 p. 75-76 and FEIS Vol. 2 27-27, 56-57, 59-

60). Neither of these standards were recommended in the LCAS. 

Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2, VEG O3 and VEG O4 describe the desired conditions of 

lynx habitat and all are consistent with the intent to minimize habitat conversions. 

Projects and activities should be designed to meet or move towards objectives; therefore 

a standard for type conversion was not necessary. 

Openings created by even-aged harvest are normally 40 acres or less. Creating larger 

openings requires 60-day public review and Regional Forester approval, with some 

exceptions (R1 Supplement Forest Service Handbook 2400-2001-2; R2 Supplement 2400-

99-2). Koehler (1990) speculated that openings created by regeneration harvest, where 

the distance-to-cover was greater than 325 feet, might restrict lynx movement and use 

patterns until the forest re-grows. While it is assumed lynx would prefer to travel 

where there is forested cover, the literature contains many examples of lynx crossing 

unforested openings (Roe et al. 2000). 

Larger openings can often more closely resemble vegetative patterns similar to natural 

disturbance events (e.g. fire, windthrow, and insect outbreaks) (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix 

P). A disturbance pattern characterized by a few large blocks may be desirable if large 

areas of forested habitat are a management goal, or if the predation and competition 

that occur at the edges between vegetation types is a problem (Ruggiero et al. 2000, p. 

431). While it is true lynx may not use large openings initially, once they have re-grown 

and can provide cover, generally after ten to 30 years, such areas may be important to 

lynx (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P, p. 40092). 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

11

The selected alternative already contains direction to consider natural disturbances and 

maintain habitat connectivity. Based on this management direction and evaluating the 

information in the Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggiero et al. 

2000) and the LCAS, we decided that a standard limiting the size of openings was 

unnecessary to improve lynx conservation. 

Standards and guidelines relating to quality of winter snowshoe hare habitat 

Snowshoe hare are the primary prey for lynx. Winter snowshoe hare habitat is a 

limiting factor for lynx persistence. Snowshoe hare habitat consists of forests where 

young trees or shrubs grow densely. In addition to dense young regenerating forests, 

multistory forests that have trees whose limbs come down to snow level and have an 

abundance of trees in the understory, also provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. 

During winter, hare forage is limited to twigs and stems that protrude above the snow 

and the hares can reach. The LCAS recommended management direction to address 

winter snowshoe hare habitat in relation to precommercial thinning. Alternative B, the 

proposed action, splits the management direction to address actions occurring in winter 

snowshoe hare habitat in young regenerating forests (Standard VEG S5) and actions 

occurring in winter snowshoe hare habitat found in multistory forests (Standard VEG 

S6). 

Standard VEG S5. The LCAS recommended no precommercial thinning that reduces 

winter snowshoe hare habitat in the stand initiation structural stage. This is reflected in 

Alternative B Standard VEG S5. Precommercial thinning within 200 feet of 

administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings has been allowed under current 

practices because it was found to have no effect to lynx due to location near structures. 

Some people said this standard should apply to all vegetation management projects, not 

just precommercial thinning. Precommercial thinning is the primary activity that 

occurs in young regenerating forests. On occasion, other activities such as fuel 

treatments or prescribe burning, could occur. Alternatives C and D were expanded to 

apply to all vegetation management projects. Alternative E, the DEIS preferred 

alternative, only applied it to precommercial thinning projects. 

Only a few comments were received on the DEIS saying the standard should apply to 

all type of projects. FWS did not comment on the more narrow application of the 

standard. 

Standard VEG S5 in the selected alternative only applies to precommercial thinning 

because it is the predominate activity in young regenerating forests and it is has been 

identified as the risk factor for reducing winter snowshoe hare habitat (LCAS, Ruggiero 

et al. 2000, USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000, USDI FWS 2000a, 2000b, USDI FWS 2003). 

As noted earlier in the issues section, some people said precommercial thinning should 

be allowed to restore tree species in decline or to encourage future large trees. 

Alternative D addresses this issue by allowing precommercial thinning of planted 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

12

western white pine, whitebark pine, aspen, and larch, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole 

pine in certain situations. Alternative E, the DEIS preferred alternative, only allowed 

precommercial thinning adjacent to structures, for research or genetic tests, or for fuel 

treatment projects identified in a collaborative manner. 

Several comments on the DEIS said the allowances for precommercial thinning in 

Alternative D should be incorporated into the final alternative. Several comments said 

that some allowance for adaptive management should be incorporated and that 

thinning should be allowed where it could be done to promote or prolong winter 

snowshoe hare habitat. 

FWS comments on the DEIS said thinning adjacent to administrative sites, dwellings, or 

outbuildings and for research and genetic tests would have little effect on lynx or their 

habitat. In addition, they said the following thinning activities would have 

cumulatively little effect upon lynx habitat and, in some cases, advance natural 

ecological conditions. These include: (1) daylight thinning of planted rust-resistant 

western white pine where 80 percent of winter snowshoe hare habitat is maintained; (2) 

thinning within whitebark pine stands; (3) western white pine pruning; and (4) thinning 

for Christmas trees. 

We evaluated the comments and incorporated the following elements into the selected 

alternative: 

• Since Standard VEG S5 is concerned with reduction of winter snowshoe hare 

habitat, western white pine pruning and thinning for Christmas trees can occur if 

winter snowshoe hare habitat is not reduced. Generally these activities are done on 

an individual tree basis and do not change the characteristics of the habitat. 

• Precommercial thinning can be done adjacent to administrative sites, dwellings, or 

outbuildings and for research and genetic tests since these would have benign 

effects on lynx. 

• Precommercial thinning can be done for planted rust-resistant western white pine, 

whitebark pine, and aspen. Thinning to enhance whitebark pine and aspen would 

benefit other wildlife species and effects only limited acres in lynx habitat (FEIS, Vol. 

1 Lynx section). Daylight thinning will be allowed around individual planted rustresistant western white pine where 80 percent of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is 

retained. This may reduce some habitat effectiveness, but since this tree species has 

declined 95 percent across its range, we determined it was important to allow a 

limited amount of thinning to retain the species on the landscape. 

Under these exceptions, about 64,000 acres could be precommercial thinned in occupied 

lynx habitat over the next decade – assuming full funding. This is likely to affect less 

than 2 percent of winter snowshoe hare habitat (FEIS Vol. 1 p. 188, USDI FWS 2007). 

We also considered allowing precommercial thinning in vast areas of young 

regenerating forests where precommercial thinning could be done to prolong winter 

snowshoe hare habitat. We also considered precommercial thinning in young 

regenerating forests composed primarily of western larch with more than 10,000 trees 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

13

per acre – where larch would be removed to favor other species that provide better 

winter snowshoe hare habitat. In both these situations the general belief is that these 

activities may be beneficial to lynx in the long term, but information is not available at 

this time to support that hypothesis. So, the standard was modified to provide an 

avenue to consider new information that may in the future prove or disprove these 

hypotheses. The criterion provided in the selected alternative states: 

Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional level of 

the Forest Service and the state level of FWS, where a written determination states: 

a. that a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or 

b. that a project is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynx or its habitat, but 

would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat. 

This criterion allows incorporation of new peer reviewed information, but requires 

agreement by FWS before it may be utilized. 

Standard VEG S6. The LCAS recommended no precommercial thinning that reduces 

winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forests. This is reflected in Alternative B

Standard VEG S6. Precommercial thinning within 200 feet of administrative sites, 

dwellings or outbuildings has been allowed under current practices because it was 

found to have no effect to lynx due to location near structures. The LCAS did not 

contain a recommendation related to other management actions.

As noted in Issue #3 some people said the management direction should preclude all 

activities that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forest. Alternatives C, 

D, and F would apply the management direction to all vegetation management 

activities in multistory forests that provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. Each 

alternative has different allowances for vegetation management. Alternative E, the 

DEIS preferred alternative, changed the management direction from a standard to 

Guideline VEG G8. The intent of the guideline was to direct vegetation projects to 

provide winter snowshoe hare habitat through time. 

Multistory forest structures can develop from natural processes, such as insects and 

diseases and fire, or management actions like timber harvest that create small openings 

where trees and shrubs can grow. 

Comments on the DEIS suggested that management direction for multistory forests 

should be in the form of a standard. FWS suggested the agencies review the latest 

information or research on lynx use of forests in multistoried structural stages prior to 

developing a final preferred alternative. 

Recent research in northwest Montana demonstrates that mature multistoried forests 

provide important winter snowshoe hare habitat and are more important than younger 

stands (FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 22). In fact, the researchers questioned whether or not the LCAS 

would provide for lynx viability and recovery if only precommercial thinning were 

precluded. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

14

Based on this new information we retained Standard VEG S6 in the selected alternative, 

but we preclude all vegetation management activities that reduce winter snowshoe hare 

habitat in multistory forests, not just precommercial thinning as recommended in the 

LCAS. We would allow minor reductions in winter snowshoe hare habitat for 

activities within 200 feet of structures, research or genetic tests, and for incidental 

removal during salvage harvest (associated with skid trails). Fuel treatment projects 

within the WUI are also exempt from this standard (see fuel treatment discussion 

further in this decision). We also allow timber harvest in areas that have the potential to 

improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed 

understories. 

We believe and FWS concurred that protecting winter snowshoe hare habitat in 

multistoried forests will further retain and promote important lynx habitat components. 

Standards and guidelines relating to denning habitat 

Woody debris – piles of wind-thrown trees, root wads, or large down trees – provides 

lynx denning sites. Large woody debris gives kittens an escape route from predators, as 

well as cover from the elements. During the first few months of life, when kittens are 

left alone while the mother hunts, denning habitat must be available throughout the 

home range (Bailey 1974). The LCAS recommended two standards and two guidelines 

related to denning habitat. These are reflected in Alternative B as Standards VEG S3 and 

VEG S4 and Guidelines VEG G2 and VEG G3. 

In Alternative B Standard VEG S3 defers vegetation management projects in places with 

the potential to develop into denning habitat if an LAU contains less than ten percent 

denning habitat. Standard VEG S4 limits salvage harvest in some situations. Guideline 

VEG G2 says when more denning habitat is desired to leave standing trees and coarse 

woody debris. Guideline VEG G3 says to locate denning habitat where there is a low 

probability of stand-replacing fire. 

Development of alternatives for the DEIS

Some people said that den sites can be found in old regenerating forests and the agency 

should be allowed the flexibility to create denning habitat in regeneration units, 

especially since denning habitat should be located in or adjacent to forage. In Maine, 17 

den sites were located in a variety of stand types, including 10-20 year old clearcuts 

adjacent to residual stands (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P). 

After reviewing the literature, we determined it was reasonable to have an alternative 

that allows for flexibility to mitigate or create denning habitat, especially when there is 

less than 10 percent denning habitat. Alternatives D and E modify Standard VEG S3 to 

say where there is less than 10 percent denning habitat either: 1) defer management, or 

2) move towards 10 percent by leaving standing dead trees or piles of coarse woody 

debris. This combined the guidance in Alternative B, Guideline VEG G2 with the 

Standard VEG S3. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

15

Some people said salvage harvest should not be singled out because it is not the only 

management action that removes denning habitat. Standard VEG S4 limits salvage 

harvest after a disturbance kills trees in areas five acres or smaller – if there is less than 

10 percent denning habitat. 

We evaluated whether other management actions, such as prescribed burning, 

chipping, piling and burning, etc. should be precluded. Salvage harvest is the primary 

management action that removes denning habitat because it removes dead and down 

timber; therefore we determined other actions did not need to be constrained. 

However, we determined that Standard VEG S4 should be a guideline in Alternatives D 

and E because it provides guidance on how to design projects. The guideline says when 

there is less than 10 percent denning habitat, then units should consider retaining small 

areas of dead trees. As noted in Alternatives D and E, Standard VEG S3, units can 

mitigate when there is less than 10 percent denning habitat. It is possible to create 

denning habitat or retain pockets, but units should be allowed to evaluate denning 

needs on a site specific basis. 

The intent of Alternatives D and E, is where denning habitat is lacking, units should 

recognize it, retain large and small patches and/or mitigate, especially if it denning 

habitat can be created in or near new forage areas. In most areas denning habitat is 

likely not limiting because it is found in such a variety of stand conditions and ages. 

Considerations for alternatives in the FEIS

In comments on the DEIS some people said there was no basis for retaining ten percent 

denning habitat – they wanted the standard dropped altogether. Others wanted more 

denning habitat required. Some people asked for an alternative to prohibit harvest in 

old growth or mature timber to protect denning habitat. Others said that all old growth 

should be protected by management direction because some administrative units do 

not meet old growth standards. 

Some people said allowing salvage logging in disturbed areas smaller than five acres 

lacked a scientific basis and that all salvage harvest should be deferred. Most comments 

on the DEIS said that management direction for denning habitat should be in the form 

of standards. 

In their comments on the DEIS FWS supported Standard VEG S3, including conditions 

1 and 2 in Alternative E, but was concerned about changing Standard VEG S4 into 

Guideline VEG G7. FWS recommended development of a standard that: 1) maintains 

ten percent denning habitat within an individual LAU; 2) is randomly/evenly 

distributed across the LAU; and 3) ensures recruitment of future denning habitat. 

Based on these comments, we reconsidered the management direction for denning 

habitat. We held discussions with the researchers, lynx biology team and FWS to further 

explore denning habitat – where it is found, how to measure it, and how to ensure plans 

provide the appropriate level of management direction. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

16

Where denning habitat is found: Since 1989 researchers have discovered that lynx 

denning habitat is found in a variety of structural stages from young regenerating 

forests to old forests. The integral component of lynx den sites appears to be the 

amount of downed, woody debris, not the age of the forest stand (Mowat, et al. 2000). 

Research by Squires (pers. com. Oct. 30, 2006) has found that of 40 den sites in 

northwest Montana most were located under large logs, but “jack-strawed” small 

diameter wind thrown trees, root wads, slash piles, and rock piles were also used (FEIS, 

Vol. 1 p. 172-173). These structural components of lynx den sites can often be found in 

managed (logged) and unmanaged (e.g. insect damaged, wind-throw) stands. 

How to measure denning habitat: Retaining ten percent denning habitat is based on 

maintaining lynx habitat over time (Brittel et al. 1989). Brittel recommended a balance 

of conditions – 30 percent forage, 30 percent unsuitable that would grow into forage, 30 

percent travel, and ten percent denning. 

We evaluated how to measure 10 percent denning based on where the habitat can be 

found. We evaluated using mature and over-mature forests as a first approximation of 

denning habitat. Generally mature and over-mature forests contain a component of 

dead and down trees which lynx use. If these two components were used then all units 

would show much more than ten percent denning habitat as all forests have at least 

twenty percent of their forest in mature stand structures (Project 

file/Analysis/Forests/FEIS/Data). In addition, these stand structures do not account 

for all the stand conditions where denning habitat can be found because denning 

habitat can be found in young forests with slash piles, lodgepole forests with insect and 

disease outbreaks, areas recently burned in wildfires, as well as variety of other forest 

conditions. Based on these discussions, we decided, with agreement from FWS, that 

using stand structures as a proxy would show an abundance of denning habitat; 

therefore the requirement to retain ten percent was found not to be a useful measure. 

How to provide for denning habitat: 

We considered restricting harvest in mature forests and old growth. The important 

component for all lynx den sites appears to be the amount of down woody debris 

present, not the age of the forest (Mowat et al. 2000, Appendix P). Old growth and 

mature forests can provide denning habitat, but based on review of research a variety of 

forest structures also provide denning habitat. We considered prohibiting timber 

harvest in old growth but dismissed this from detailed consideration because denning 

habitat is found in a variety of forest structures (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 81). 

We considered restricting salvage harvest. Standard VEG S4 in Alternatives B and C limits 

salvage harvest after a disturbance kills trees in areas five acres or smaller – if there is 

less than 10 percent denning habitat. The standard was changed to a guideline in 

Alternatives D and F. The guideline says that when there is less than 10 percent 

denning habitat, then units should consider retaining small areas of dead trees. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

17

Salvage harvest can remove denning habitat. However, den sites are found in areas 

with large logs, “jack-strawed” small diameter wind thrown trees, root wads, slash 

piles, and rock piles. These areas need not be extensive – they are generally small areas 

that provide sufficient cover for lynx den sites. 

We reevaluated whether or not denning habitat is a limiting factor for lynx. Based on 

discussions with research, we reaffirmed that denning habitat is found in a variety of 

forest conditions, they are found in small pockets scattered across an area and are 

generally found across the landscape, and lynx denning sites are not believed to be a 

limiting factor (J. Squires, pers. com. Oct. 30, 2006). In addition, management actions 

can create denning habitat by strategically leaving piles of woody debris, or leaving 

residual trees where denning habitat is lacking. 

Therefore, we determined that restricting salvage harvest was not necessary, but that 

projects should consider the abundance and distribution of denning habitat in their 

project design and leave den site components (piles of down wood, or standing dead 

trees) where it is lacking. 

We considered management direction in the form of standards vs. guidelines. We determined 

management direction for denning habitat should be incorporated into one set of 

management direction. Incorporating all the direction into one standard or guideline 

reduces the potential for conflicts between directions, focusing on the important 

components of denning habitat. 

We determined a guideline would be best suited for this management direction because 

denning habitat can be found in a variety of forest structures and in small areas, is not a 

limiting factor for lynx, and the management direction would provide design features 

for projects. Therefore we developed Guideline VEG G11 in the selected alternative. 

The guidance is to: 1) have denning habitat distributed across an LAU (in the form of 

pockets of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles of jackstrawed trees); and 2) if denning habitat is lacking, projects should be designed to retain 

coarse woody debris – by leaving piles or retaining residual trees that can become 

denning habitat later. 

Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2, VEG O3, and VEG O4 and Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, 

and VEG S6 also indirectly promote the development and retention of the structure 

needed for denning habitat through vegetation management that promotes a mosaic of 

forest conditions across the landscape (USDI FWS 2007). Based on the above, FWS 

determined that projects were unlikely to reduce denning structure to levels that result 

in adverse effects to lynx (USDI FWS 2007). 

In addition, the Lynx Biology Team (the team responsible for the LCAS) is in the 

process of updating the LCAS denning habitat recommendations based on this new 

information about where denning habitat is found and its distribution. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

18

Consideration of fuel treatment projects 

Most lynx habitat consists of high-elevation spruce/fir and lodgepole pine forests, but 

some lynx habitat may be found in mixed conifer forests. Generally, forests in lynx 

habitat are close to historic conditions, meaning the long fire return interval has not 

been affected to any large degree by more recent fire suppression as is the case in dryer 

forests with short fire return intervals. However, some stand conditions are conducive 

to extreme fire behavior because of insect and disease mortality or the amount of tree 

limbs that provide ladder fuels. Fuel treatments designed to reduce ladder fuels 

and/or reduce the potential size (Finney 2001) and severity of wildland fires may be 

proposed in lynx habitat. 

After the 2000 wildfire season, which burned a substantial amount of acreage, the Forest 

Service began to set goals for wildfire management. Several documents serve to 

provide a national prioritization system for the selection of hazardous fuel treatments 

on Federal lands with close coordination among the Federal, State, and other agencies, 

as well as Tribes and communities. The criteria for prioritizing lands for hazardous 

fuels treatment generally correspond to: (1) closest proximity to communities at risk in 

the WUI; (2) strategic areas outside the WUI that prevent wildland fire spread into 

communities or critical infrastructure; (3) areas outside of WUI that are in Condition 

Classes 2 or 3; and (4) other considerations (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 215). 

The LCAS did not specifically address fuel treatments. During scoping we identified 

wildland fire risk as an issue, issue # 2 (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 21-22). We developed a range of 

alternatives to address this issue. 

In Alternative A, there would be no change in existing plan direction on the treatment 

of fuels. 

Alternative B would allow fuel treatments to go forward if they: 

• Meet the 10 percent denning standard (Standard VEG S3 and S4) 

• Meet 30 percent unsuitable habitat standard (Standard VEG S1) or 15 percent 

unsuitable habitat created by timber harvest standard (Standard VEG S2) 

• Use methods other than precommercial thinning in winter snowshoe hare habitat 

(Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6) 

Alternatives C and D would not allow any type of fuel reduction project that reduced 

winter snowshoe hare habitat – except within 200 feet of structures. 

Alternative E, the DEIS preferred alternative would not apply the vegetation standards 

(Standards VEG S1, S3, and S5) to fuel treatments developed in a collaborative manner, 

as described in the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDA FS 2001). 

This exception was used because a multi-party Memorandum of Understanding was 

signed in 2003 by the FS, BLM, and FWS (USDA FS et al. 2003) concerning fuel 

treatments and collaboration. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

19

Many comments were received on the DEIS regarding fuel treatments. Some people 

suggested there be no exemptions for fuel treatments. Several groups suggested that 

only fuel treatments within 500 yards of human residences and other structures be 

allowed because these areas are generally not appropriate to restore lynx anyway. 

Others felt the exemptions should only apply to the WUI and that the agencies should 

define the WUI. Others liked the exemptions as they were written in Alternative E. 

FWS cautioned against exempting a broad range and unknown number of actions from 

plan direction. They felt, as currently worded in Alternative E, the exemption was 

sufficiently vague that it did not allow an adequate analysis of potential effects upon 

lynx or lynx habitat and it could result in extensive adverse effects to lynx. 

FWS suggested Standard VEG S5 be modified to restrict precommercial thinning to 

within one mile of structures. They did not believe any exemptions were needed for 

Standards VEG S1 or S2 since so very few LAUs were near the thresholds identified in 

these standards. They felt very few proposals would be constrained by the standards. 

They also questioned why Condition Class 1 forests were not specifically excluded from 

the exemptions. Condition Class 1 forests include areas where fires have burned as 

often as they did historically; the risk of loosing key ecosystem components is low; and 

vegetation composition and structure is intact and functioning. The FWS went on to say 

they recommended that processes, actions, or types that would be exempt be clearly 

identified. 

We reviewed and discussed the comments with FWS and decided to modify the fuel 

treatment exemption for the selected alternative. We thoroughly discussed the issue of 

how to allow for fuel treatments to reduce the hazard to communities – while providing 

for the conservation and recovery of lynx (Project File/Alternatives/FEIS alternatives). 

Based on our discussions we decided none of the vegetation standards will apply to 

fuel treatment projects within the WUI as defined by the Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act (HFRA), within a certain limit. We constrained the number of acres that do not 

meet the standards to 6 percent of lynx habitat within a National Forest, and we added 

the FWS term and condition that fuel treatment projects can cause no more than 3 

adjacent LAUs to not meet standard VEG S1. 

In addition we added Guideline VEG G10 which says fuel treatment projects within the 

WUI should be designed considering Standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6. The intent in 

adding this guideline is that although these vegetation standards do not apply to fuel 

treatment projects within the WUI as defined by HFRA, these projects should still 

consider the standards in the development of the proposal. In many cases projects can 

be designed to reduce hazardous fuels while providing for lynx needs. This guideline 

ensures lynx are considered in the project design – but allows for the flexibility of not 

meeting the standards in situations where meeting the standards would prevent the 

project from reducing the hazardous fuels in the WUI. 

The following describes some of the considerations in the development of this direction. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

20

Application to Standards VEG S1 and S2: Under Standards VEG S1 and S2 it is likely very 

few projects would exceed the 30 percent and 15 percent criteria because many fuel 

treatment projects are not regeneration harvest. If regeneration harvest is applied it is 

likely to be done to create a fuel break adjacent to communities or to break up the 

continuity of fuels (Finney 2001). Since part of our direction under the Healthy Forests 

Initiative is to look for ways to expedite fuel reduction projects we determined that we 

did not want to have to amend forest plans for the few cases where not meeting the 

standards may be necessary. 

Application to Condition Class 1: Many forests in lynx habitat are in Condition Class 1, 

meaning these forests have not missed a fire cycle because large, stand-replacing fire 

only occurs every 100 to 200 years. However, some of these Condition Class 1 forests 

can still be a threat to communities. An example is lodgepole pine forests which are at 

the age of being susceptible to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Regenerating lodgepole 

pine, adjacent to a community, may be needed to reduce the severity and size of a 

wildland fire. Fire is a natural process in these ecosystems; but there is a need to 

balance the natural process with the risk of fire destroying homes; therefore we did not 

limit the standard to particular condition classes. 

What locations should be exempted: We evaluated various options regarding where the 

standards should be applied and we used a variety of criteria to evaluate which option 

to carry forward for detailed consideration. The criteria included: 1) is there a defined 

area; 2) can effects be meaningfully evaluated; 3) would it provide for community 

protection; and 4) does it meet the purpose and need. (For further detail see FEIS, Vol. 1 

pp. 85-86 which summarizes the options and considerations and the Project 

File/Alternatives/FEIS Alternatives/documents July 29, 2004 through February 24, 

2005). 

Based on comments, national direction regarding fuel treatments, and the effects on 

lynx, we decided exempting fuel treatment projects within the WUI, within limits 

would be a reasonable balance. We decided to use the definition established by 

Congress in the HFRA as it established a national procedure for determining the extent 

of the WUI (USDI, USDA FS 2006). 

What limit(s) should be applied: We elected to put a limit on the amount of fuel treatment 

projects that could exceed the vegetation standards, since WUI has not been mapped on 

all units. We evaluated the WUI based on a mile of where people live (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 

217). A one mile buffer from communities was used because HFRA describes WUI as 1⁄2 

mile or 1 1⁄2 miles depending on certain features. One mile splits this difference and is 

easy to approximate. Based on this analysis, we found that about 6 percent of lynx 

habitat is within 1 mile of communities; therefore we limited the amount of acres that 

can exceed the standards to 6 percent of each National Forest. 

In addition, FWS identified two terms and conditions (TC) to minimize impacts of 

incidental take of lynx due to fuel treatment projects. TC 1 (6 percent limit) was already 

incorporated as described above; TC 2 says fuel treatment projects shall not result in 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

21

more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. This TC has been incorporated 

into the management direction – see Attachment 1. 

Summary: Exempting fuel treatment projects within the WUI provided a defined area, 

as requested by FWS; we could evaluate the effects (FEIS, Vol. 1 Lynx section); it 

provides for community protection by reducing delay; and meets the purpose and need 

by constraining the area where adverse effects could occur. In addition we compiled 

information from each forest’s 5 year fuel treatment program to evaluate effects – FEIS, 

Vol. 1, Lynx section and Appendix M, and USDI FWS 2007. This information was not 

available for the DEIS. We found that although we would limit adverse effects to 6 

percent of lynx habitat, it is more likely only 1.4 percent or less of lynx habitat would 

have adverse effects. This is because the fuel treatment program of work within the 

WUI only amounts to 1.4 percent of lynx habitat and many projects can be designed to 

meet the vegetation standards. Regardless, the vegetation standards would apply to 

fuel treatments on 94 percent of lynx habitat. 

In addition, by addressing the exemption and putting a limit on where adverse effects 

could occur this allowed us to take a cumulative look at the effects planning area wide 

vs. amending standards project-by-project. 

FWS findings related to the vegetation management direction 

The vegetation management direction set forth in the selected alternative conserves the 

most important components of lynx habitat: a mosaic of early, mature, and late 

successional staged forests, with high levels of horizontal cover and structure. These 

components ensure the habitat maintains its inherent capability to support both 

snowshoe hare prey base and adequate lynx foraging habitat (and denning habitat) 

during all seasons. These standards are required for all vegetation management actions 

on at least 93.5 percent of lynx habitat in the planning area. Areas within the WUIs 

(totaling six percent of lynx habitat) are exempt from these standards; however VEG 

G10 would apply and at least requires some consideration of the standards in designing 

fuel reduction treatments. Precommercial thinning, allowed under the exceptions, may 

affect an additional 0.5 percent of lynx habitat. Where these standards are applied to 

vegetation management projects, we anticipate few, if any, would have adverse effects 

on lynx. Collectively, application of these standards for vegetation management is 

expected to avoid adverse effects on lynx and promote the survival and recovery of 

lynx populations (USDI FWS 2007). 

Management direction related to grazing 

Livestock grazing may reduce or eliminate foraging habitat in areas that grow quaking 

aspen and willow in riparian areas (LCAS). These localized changes in habitat may 

affect individual lynx; however, no information indicates that grazing poses a threat to 

overall lynx populations (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P, p. 40083). Appropriate grazing 

management can rejuvenate and increase forage and browse in key habitats such as 

riparian areas. Grazing was not mentioned in the original listing decision as a threat to 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

22

lynx, nor is it discussed in the Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States 

(Ruggiero et al. 2000). In addition, FWS noted that they have found no research that 

provides evidence of lynx being adversely affected by grazing within the planning area 

or elsewhere, or of lynx movements within home ranges being impeded by grazing 

practices (USDI FWS 2007). 

The LCAS recommended four standards for grazing management. These are reflected 

in Alternative B. Standards GRAZ S1, GRAZ S2, GRAZ S3, and GRAZ S4 provide 

management direction for grazing in fire and harvest created openings, aspen stands, 

riparian areas and willow carrs, and shrub-steppe habitat. Alternatives C and D retain 

the management direction as standards. Alternative E changes the management 

direction to Guidelines GRAZ G1, GRAZ G2, GRAZ G3, and GRAZ G4 because neither 

the Remand Notice nor the Ecology of Conservation of Lynx in the United States recognized 

grazing as a threat to lynx. 

Many people commented on Alternative E, the preferred alternative in the DEIS, and 

said the guidelines should be standards in the final alternative. Others said grazing 

should not be allowed at all, while two said the grazing guidelines should be retained. 

The FWS did not comment on the level of grazing management direction in Alternative 

E. We considered these comments in the FEIS Vol. 1 pp. 86-87, as well as Vol. 2, 75-76. 

We decided the management direction for grazing in the selected alternative should be 

in form of guidelines, Guidelines GRAZ G1 through GRAZ G4 because there is no 

evidence grazing adversely affects lynx. These guidelines provide project design 

criteria for managing grazing in fire and harvest created openings, aspen, willow, 

riparian areas, and shrub-steppe habitats. The guidelines are designed to minimize 

potential adverse effects and improve habitat conditions. FWS found that with the 

application of these measures in most cases, there would be no effects or discountable 

effects to lynx (USDI FWS 2007). In addition, the Lynx Biology Team is in the process of 

updating the LCAS grazing recommendations. 

Management direction related to human uses 

Over-the-snow winter recreation 

Lynx have very large feet in relation to their body mass, providing them a competitive 

advantage over other carnivores in deep snow. Various reports and observations have 

documented coyotes using high elevation, deep snow areas (Buskirk et al. 2000). 

Coyotes use open areas because the snow is more compacted there, according to 

research conducted in central Alberta (Todd et al. 1981). In another study in Alberta, 

coyotes selected hard or shallow snow more often than lynx did (Murray et al. 1994). 

The LCAS recommended two objectives and two standards relating to winter dispersed 

recreation. These are reflected in Alternative B, Objectives HU O1 and HU O3, and 

Standards HU S1 and HU S3. In Alternative B, Standard HU S1 would maintain the 

existing level of groomed and designated routes. All action alternatives contain 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

23

Objectives HU O1 and HU O3 that discourage expanding snow-compacting human 

activities. Alternatives B, C, and D contain Standard HU S1 that would allow existing 

over-the-snow areas to continue but not expand into new, un-compacted areas. 

Alternative E, the DEIS preferred alternative, contains Guideline HU G11 that 

discourages the expansion of designated over-the-snow routes and play areas into 

uncompacted areas. All alternatives would allow existing special use permits and 

agreements to continue. 

In comments on the DEIS some people asked that no dispersed over-the-snow use be 

allowed off groomed or designated trails and areas, saying the no net increase in 

groomed or designated routes did not go far enough. Others said the management 

direction should be in the form of a standard, not a guideline. 

Some people said standards related to over-the-snow use should be removed. They 

said there is no evidence to show that coyotes and other predators use packed snow 

trails to compete with lynx for prey, and the amount of compaction created by 

snowmobiles is insignificant compared to the compaction created naturally by the 

weather. They were particularly concerned that if such language was introduced into 

plans, it could be difficult to change, incrementally restricting the places where 

snowmobiling is allowed. Others wanted an allowance made to increase use. These 

comments were considered for management direction – see FEIS Vol. 1 pp. 90-93. 

In their comments on the DEIS the FWS agreed it is prudent to maintain the status quo 

and restrict expansion of over-the-snow routes until more information is available 

because of the possibility that, over time, unregulated expansion could impair further 

conservation efforts. They also said current, ongoing research in Montana may shed 

some information on the effects of snow compaction on lynx. They suggested careful 

consideration of the most recent information and the reality of possible impairment of 

options for the future. They suggested considering language that could provide more 

guidance on conditions where the expansion of over-the-snow routes would be 

warranted and acceptable. 

We reviewed the results of research conducted since the DEIS was released. In 

northwestern Montana (within the northern lynx core area) Kolbe et al. (in press) 

concluded there was “little evidence that compacted snowmobile trails increased 

exploitation competition between coyotes and lynx during winter on our study area.” 

Kolbe et al. (in press) suggested that compacted snow routes did not appear to enhance 

coyotes’ access to lynx and hare habitat, and so would not significantly affect 

competition for snowshoe hare. They found that coyotes used compacted snow routes 

for less than 8 percent of travel, suggesting normal winter snow conditions allowed 

access by coyotes, regardless of the presence or absence of compacted snow routes. 

Kolbe was able to directly measure relationships between coyotes, compacted snow 

routes and snowshoe hare in an area that also supports a lynx population (USDI FWS 

2007). In this study coyotes primarily scavenged ungulate carrion that were readily 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

24

available while snowshoe hare kills comprised only three percent of coyote feeding sites 

(Kolbe et al. in press). 

In the Uinta Mountains of northeastern Utah and three comparative study areas (Bear 

River range in Utah and Idaho, Targhee NF in Idaho, Bighorn NF in Wyoming) Bunnell 

(2006) found that the presence of snowmobile trails was a highly significant predictor of 

coyote activity in deep snow areas. 

From track surveys it was determined the vast majority of coyotes (90 percent) stayed 

within 350 meters of a compacted trail and snow depth and prey density estimates 

(snowshoe hares and red squirrels) were the most significant variable in determining 

whether a coyote returned to a snowmobile trail (Bunnell 2006). Of the four study areas 

recent lynx presence has only been documented on the Targhee NF. Bunnell indicated 

that “circumstantial evidence” suggested the existence of competition. 

To date, research has confirmed lynx and coyote populations coexist, despite dietary 

overlap and competition for snowshoe hare, the primary prey of lynx, and alternate 

prey species. In some regions and studies, coyotes were found to use supportive snow 

conditions more than expected, but none confirm a resulting adverse impact on lynx 

populations in the area. The best scientific information (Kolbe’s study) is from an 

occupied core area within our planning area. Radio-collared lynx and coyotes were 

monitored in this study, unlike the Bunnell study. This area is occupied by both lynx 

and coyotes and the study concludes coyotes did not require compacted snow routes to 

access winter snowshoe hare habitat. 

Based on this information, we reevaluated management direction related to over-thesnow activities. An alternative to prohibit all snow-compacting activities or to limit 

dispersed use was evaluated, but not considered in detail because current research 

indicates this level of management direction is unwarranted (USDI FWS 2000a; FEIS, 

Vol. 1, Appendices O and P). 

An alternative to drop all direction limiting snow compaction was not developed in 

detail because there is evidence competing predators use packed trails, suggesting a 

potential effect on individual lynx. We decided it was prudent to maintain the status 

quo and not let over-the-snow routes expand. However, we also decided it was 

reasonable to retain the direction as a guideline in the selected alternative which can be 

used in project design. The intent is to follow the management direction in guidelines. 

However, there may be some cases where expansion of over-the-snow routes would be 

warranted and acceptable, or where research indicates there would be no harm to lynx. 

Guidelines are better suited to adaptive management. 

There is also no basis to establish any particular threshold of allowable increases. 

However, the selected alternative allows expanding winter recreation in some places 

where heavy public use existed in 1998, 1999, or 2000 – see Guideline HU G11. 

The FWS concluded the Objectives HU O1 and O3, and Guideline HU G11 would be 

sufficient to maintain habitat effectiveness for lynx by limiting the expansion of 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

25

compacted snow routes and this conclusion would be tested through monitoring 

required in this decision. The best information available has not indicated compacted 

snow routes increase competition from other species to levels that adversely affect lynx 

populations, and under the selected alternative the amount of areas affected by snow 

compacted routes would not substantially increase (USDI FWS 2007). 

Developed recreation 

The LCAS identified risk factors associated with ski areas, including short-term effects on 

denning, foraging, and diurnal security habitat and long-term effects on movement 

within and between home ranges (LCAS, p. 2-10). Ski areas may eliminate habitat and 

pose a threat to movements; but most were constructed before lynx became a 

conservation issue (Hickenbottom et al. 1999, p. 70). Mitigation measures can be 

developed at the project level to lessen the effects of existing developments. 

The LCAS recommended various objectives, standards, and guidelines in relation to 

developed recreation, specifically ski areas. These are reflected Alternative B, Objectives 

ALL O1, HU O2, HU O3, and HU O4; Standards ALL S1 and HU S2; and Guidelines HU G1, 

HU G2, HU G3, and HU G10. Objectives and standards (LINK O1 and LINK S1)

regarding habitat connectivity also address concerns about developed recreation. These 

objectives, standards, and guidelines provide management direction about ski area 

development, expansion, and operations to provide for lynx movement, security, and 

habitat needs. 

The alternatives retain similar management direction as Alternative B, except 

Alternatives C, D, and E changed Standard HU S2 to Guideline HU G10. Standard HU 

S2 requires diurnal habitat to be maintained, if needed. There is no evidence that 

diurnal security habitat is required by, or where it occurs on ski areas is used by lynx 

(USDI FWS 2007). Since the need to provide diurnal habitat is questionable, we 

determined it was better suited as a guideline. 

In commenting on the DEIS some people said ski areas should be removed or at least 

prevented from expanding. Others recommended the final preferred alternative retain 

Standard HU S2. There are 24 existing down hill and cross country ski areas in 

occupied habitat in the planning area, which affect about 17,500 acres out of the 12.5 

million acres of occupied habitat. Eight down hill ski areas are planned for expansion. 

One new ski area is proposed. Most of the ski areas are located on individual mountain 

ranges, not several together as in other areas in the west (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 285). There is 

no indication these ski areas affect lynx travel because these ski areas are spread across 

the planning area. There is no information that indicates removal of ski areas is 

warranted, nor is limiting their expansion, as long as lynx needs are considered. The 

selected alternative includes standards to provide for lynx habitat connectivity, and 

includes guidelines to be use in the development of ski area expansion. Many adverse 

effects of developed recreation will be minimized under the selected alternative (USDI 

FWS 2007). 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

26

Minerals and energy 

The LCAS said the main risk factors associated with minerals and energy development 

is related to the potential for plowed roads to provide access for lynx competitors. 

These recommendations are reflected in Alternative B, Objectives ALL O1, HU O1, and 

HU O5, Standards ALL S1 and HU S3, and Guidelines HU G4, and HU G5 which provide 

management direction for mineral and energy development. All except standard HU 

S3 remain essentially the same in all alternatives. Standard HU S3 says to keep mineral 

and energy development to designated routes. This standard was changed to Guideline 

HU G12 in Alternative E and in the selected alternative to be consistent with the 

application of management direction regarding over-the-snow routes discussed above. 

In commenting on the DEIS some people said lease stipulations identifying constraints 

on developing oil and gas, coal, or geothermal resources should be one of the decisions 

made as a part of the management direction. This comment is addressed in the FEIS, 

Vol. 1 p. 94-95. FWS did not comment on the management direction related to minerals 

and energy development. 

Forest roads 

Lynx are known to have been killed by vehicle-collisions in Colorado (reintroduced 

population; paved, high-speed highways), in Minnesota (paved, high-speed highways) 

and in Maine (high-speed, relatively straight gravel roads on flatter terrain). The best 

information suggests that the types of roads managed by the Forest Service do not 

adversely affect lynx (USDI FWS 2007). Lynx mortality from vehicle strikes are 

unlikely, and to date none have been documented on National Forest System lands 

within the planning area, given the relatively slow speeds at which vehicles travel on 

these roads (due to topography and road conditions) and generally low traffic volumes. 

Roads may reduce lynx habitat by removing forest cover. Along less-traveled roads 

where the vegetation provides good hare habitat, sometimes lynx use the roadbeds for 

travel and foraging (Koehler and Brittell 1990; LCAS, p. 2-12). A recent analysis on the 

Okanogan NF in Washington showed lynx neither preferred nor avoided forest roads, 

and the existing road density does not appear to affect lynx habitat selection (McKelvey 

et al. 2000; USDI FWS 2000a, p. 39). 

Although many species of wildlife are disturbed when forest roads are used (Ruediger 

1996), preliminary information suggests lynx do not avoid roads (Ruggiero et al. 2000) 

except at high traffic volumes (Apps 2000). In denning habitat, when roads are used 

during summer, lynx may be affected if they move their kittens to avoid the disturbance 

(Ruggiero et al. 2000; LCAS, p. 2-12). 

The LCAS recommended several guidelines to address potential impacts of forest 

roads, including upgrading, cutting and brushing, and public use. These guidelines 

generally discourage improving access for people or reduce the likelihood people 

would see lynx near roads. These guidelines are reflected in Alternative B, Guidelines 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

27

HU G6, HU G7, HU G8, and HU G9. All the alternatives, including the selected 

alternative retain these guidelines. 

In commenting on the DEIS some people said more restrictions on roads were needed 

to conserve lynx. They wanted new road construction halted, road densities identified 

and existing roads closed or eliminated, or they wanted the roads guidelines turned 

into standards. Other people said there should be no road-related standards or 

guidelines, saying no evidence exists that roads harm lynx. Some people said Guideline 

HU G9 should be deleted because there are no compelling reasons to close roads. The 

FEIS, Vol. 1, pp. 95 to 96 describes how these were considered in the development of the 

management direction. FWS had no comments related to these guidelines. 

Based on our review we found no information indicating road building should be 

banned or that further restrictions were needed. The guidelines adequately address the 

known risks associated with roads. We determined guidelines were the appropriate 

level of management direction because guidelines provide information and guidance 

for project design and decision-making. Some guidance on how to design projects is 

warranted because roads may affect individual lynx. 

Management direction related to linkage areas 

Highways and connectivity 

Highways impact lynx by fragmenting habitat and impeding movement. As traffic 

lanes, volumes, speeds, and rights-of-way increase, the effects on lynx are increased. As 

human demographics change, highways tend to increase in size and traffic density. 

The LCAS recommended one objective, two standards, and a guideline directly or 

indirectly related to highways and connectivity. These are reflected in Alternative B, 

Objective ALL O1, Standards ALL S1 and LINK S1, and Guideline ALL G1. Objective ALL 

O1 and Standard ALL S1 are intended to maintain connectivity. Standard LINK S1 is 

intended to provide a process for identifying wildlife crossings across highways. 

Alternatives C, D, E and the selected alternative have the same objective and standards. 

In comments on the DEIS some people said more should be done than just identifying 

highway crossings. FWS did not comment on management direction related to 

highways. 

The LCAS recommended project standards for highways. It says to “Identify, map and 

prioritize site-specific locations, using topographic and vegetation features, to 

determine where highway crossings are needed to reduce highway impacts on lynx and 

other wildlife”. Alternatives B, C, D, E and the selected alternative include Standard 

LINK S1 which reflects the intent of the LCAS recommendations. In addition, 

Guideline ALL G1 says “Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used 

when constructing or reconstructing highways or forest highways across federal land. 

Methods could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses.” 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

28

As noted in Chapter 3, Transportation Section, portions of three highways are likely to 

be reconstructed in linkage areas in the next ten years. State agencies in Wyoming, 

Idaho, and Montana are incorporating wildlife crossings into their highway design 

packages (Wyoming Department of Transportation, 2005; Idaho Transportation 

Department 2004; Montana DOT, FHWA, Confederated Kootenai and Salish Tribes 

2006). Therefore no further management direction regarding wildlife crossings in the 

form of standards was found to be warranted. 

Other considerations in linkage areas 

Coordination among different land management agencies is important to the recovery 

of lynx because lynx have large home ranges and may move long distances. The LCAS 

recommended guidance for working with landowners to pursue solutions to reduce 

potential adverse effects. This recommendation is reflected in Alternative B, Objective 

LINK O1. This objective is the same among all alternatives, including the selected 

alternative. 

In addition, it is important to mention the Forest Service is a lead member in the 

interagency Lynx Steering Committee and the Lynx Biology Team (FEIS, Vol. 1 Chapter 

4), and played a key coordination role for the Lynx Science Team. These efforts 

facilitate relationships with other Federal and non-Federal landowners, including the 

States and provide a source for non-Federal land management guidance, through 

products such as the LCAS and Forest Plans. The Steering Committee would also 

provide a forum to build and sustain cooperative efforts with Canada to maintain lynx 

connectivity across the international border, if and when the need arises (USDI FWS 

2007). The Forest Service also led the interagency effort to identify linkage areas. 

Use of standards and guidelines 

The selected alternative incorporates standards for those risk factors found to threaten 

lynx populations. Standards are management requirements used to meet desired 

conditions. Standards were used in those situations where we wanted to provide 

sideboards for project activities. Guidelines were used for those risk factors that may 

have possible adverse affects on individual lynx. Guidelines are management actions 

normally taken to meet objectives. They provide design criteria to meet lynx objectives. 

We expect guidelines to be followed in most cases, however based on site-specific 

conditions there may be reason not to follow a guideline. 

FWS found guidelines would be implemented in most cases and adverse effects would 

not always occur where guidelines are not implemented. Effects would be based on 

site-specific conditions, with compliance with Section 7 consultation for each project. 

The FWS does not expect adverse effects as a result of changes of LCAS standards to 

guidelines to reach levels that impact lynx populations. Changes from standards to 

guidelines occurred when the best available information indicated the action was not 

likely to adversely affect lynx, or not likely to adversely affect lynx in most cases (i.e. 

where no conclusive or reliable information supported the standard in the LCAS). 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

29

Application of the standards, and for the most part guidelines, in core and occupied 

secondary areas substantively reduce the potential for adverse effects on lynx over the 

existing plans (USDI FWS 2007). 

In addition, we will monitor the application of guidelines to see if our assumption they 

are normally applied is correct. Annually we will review the monitoring results to 

determine if further consideration is warranted. 

Where to apply the decision 

The selected alternative is incorporated into all forest plans in the planning area (FEIS, 

Vol. 1, Table 1-1 p. 5 and Figure 1-1). However, the management direction only applies 

to occupied lynx habitat. Those National Forests (the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, 

Nez Perce in Region 1; the Bighorn in Region 2; and the Ashley, and Salmon-Challis in 

Region 4), or isolated portions of National Forests (the Custer, Gallatin, Helena and 

Lewis and Clark in Region 1), that presently are unoccupied by Canada lynx should 

consider the management direction that is now incorporated into their Forest Plans 

when developing projects, but are not required to follow the management direction 

until such time as they are occupied by Canada lynx. 

According to the Conservation Agreement (USDA FS, USDI FWS 2006a), an area is 

considered occupied when: (1) there are at least 2 verified lynx observations or records 

since 1999 on the national forest, unless they are verified to be transient individuals; or 

(2) there is evidence of reproduction on the national forest. 

This direction is in keeping with the current Conservation Agreement which only 

applies to projects and activities in occupied habitat. The FWS species lists on those 

forests and portions of forests that are unoccupied do not show lynx as a species for 

consideration. However, as noted in the Biological Opinion, the FWS said, and we 

agree that lynx detection is needed to assess whether further management direction is 

warranted (USDI FWS 2007). Therefore, we agree to work with the FWS to develop and 

complete an acceptable protocol to survey currently unoccupied lynx habitat in 

secondary areas as described in the Biological Opinion, Term and Condition #4. 

Incorporation of terms and conditions 

On March 16, the FWS issued its Biological Opinion on the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction (USDI FWS 2007). In the opinion the FWS concluded that the 

management direction would overall be beneficial, but that some adverse effects to lynx 

would still be anticipated. It determined the management direction would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of lynx. The opinion also provides an incidental take 

statement which specifies the impact of any incidental taking of lynx. It also provides 

reasonable and prudent measures that are necessary to minimize the impacts of the take 

and sets forth terms and conditions which must be complied with in order to 

implement the reasonable and prudent measures. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

30

The opinion identified three reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) with four 

associated terms and conditions (TC). We incorporated TC 1 through 3 into the 

management direction. The TCs are shown in italics in Attachment 1. TC #4 is agreed 

to as described below. 

RPM #1: Minimize harm from fuels management by ensuring the acres impacted are 

not concentrated in a geographic area or several adjacent LAUs 

Ensure fuels management projects conducted under the exemptions from Standards 

VEG S1, S2, S5 and S6 in occupied habitat: 

TC 1. do not occur in greater than 6 percent of lynx habitat on any forest; and 

TC 2. do not result in more than 3 adjacent LAUs not meeting the VEG S1 

standard. 

TC 1 was already part of the management direction. TC 2 has been added to Standard 

VEG S1. 

RPM #2: Minimize harm from precommercial thinning and vegetation management by 

ensuring that LAUs either retain sufficient foraging habitat, or do not substantially 

reduce foraging habitat. 

TC 3. In occupied habitat, precommercial thinning and vegetation management 

projects allowed per the exceptions listed under VEG S5 and S6, shall not occur in 

any LAU exceeding VEG S1, except for projection of structures. This requirement 

has been added to Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6. 

RPM #3: On those Forests with currently unoccupied lynx habitat, lynx detection is 

needed to assess whether further management direction is warranted, including 

application of the management direction. 

TC 4. Within 18 months of the date of the Biological Opinion, the Forest Service 

shall work with the Service to develop and complete an acceptable protocol to 

survey currently unoccupied lynx habitat in secondary areas. We agree to work 

with the FWS to develop and complete the protocol in unoccupied secondary areas. 

The FWS also identified several monitoring and reporting requirements related to the 

above terms and conditions. We have incorporated these elements in the selected 

alternative – see Attachment 1, page 9. 

Consideration of conservation recommendations 

The FWS also identified three conservation recommendations which are discretionary 

agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed 

species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery programs, or to develop 

information. 

Recommendation 1. The FS should ensure to the extent possible, that unoccupied 

habitat continues to facilitate and allow dispersal of lynx into the future. Therefore the 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

31

FWS recommends the management direction regarding linkage areas and connectivity 

by applied in the unoccupied areas (ALL O1, ALL S1, ALL G1; LINK O1, LINK S1 and 

LINK G1). The Forest Service already considers and applies this management direction 

in our current program of work; therefore we have decided to not apply the direction in 

unoccupied areas until such time the areas are occupied. 

Habitat connectivity is considered in the design of permanent developments and 

vegetation management. Few, if any, vegetation projects affect habitat connectivity. 

Most, if not all units, have some level of riparian area protection requirements in their 

existing plans. This direction facilitates movement of lynx through riparian areas. 

The greatest risk to impeding connectivity is in relation to roads and highways. The 

Forest Service already works with the State and Federal Highway agencies and is part 

of the steering team that produced the document Eco-logical: An Ecosystem Approach to 

Developing Infrastructure Projects (USDOT, 2006), FEIS Transportation Section. Also 

noted in this section is the highway work planned and projected in all lynx habitat and 

how the states have incorporated wildlife crossings into the design of those future 

projects. The FEIS p. 198 evaluated the effects of not applying the management 

direction to unoccupied areas and discloses that there would be minimal effects, 

especially to linkage areas because similar management direction or the intent of the 

direction already exists. 

Recommendation 2. The Forest Service should coordinate with the Service to develop, 

within 18 months a method to monitor the amount and condition of lynx habitat in 

unoccupied secondary habitat. The Forest Service agrees to this recommendation. 

Recommendation 3. The Forest Service should continue to be a leader in lynx 

conservation and understanding. The Forest Service agrees to this recommendation. 

Canada Lynx Recovery Outline 

On September 12, 2005 the FWS issued a Recovery Outline for Canada lynx (USDI FWS 

2005). The outline is to serve as an interim strategy to guide and encourage recovery 

efforts until a recovery plan is completed. In the Recovery Outline, FWS categorized 

lynx habitat as: 1) core areas; 2) secondary areas; and 3) peripheral areas. The areas with 

the strongest long-term evidence of the persistence of lynx populations within the 

contiguous United States are defined as “core areas.” As we discuss below and 

illustrated on the enclosed map (Figure 1-1), we have two core areas in the analysis 

area. Core areas have both persistent verified records of lynx occurrence over time and 

recent evidence of reproduction. According to FWS, focusing lynx conservation efforts 

on these core areas will ensure the continued persistence of lynx in the contiguous 

United States by addressing fundamental principles of conservation biology (USDI FWS 

2007). The Recovery Outline says “Recovery of lynx will be achieved when conditions 

have been attained that will allow lynx populations to persist long-term within each of 

the identified core areas.” (USDI FWS 2005). 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

32

At this time, the role of areas outside of these core areas in sustaining lynx populations 

is unclear. The fluctuating nature of lynx population dynamics and the ability of lynx to 

disperse long distances have resulted in many individual occurrence records outside of 

core areas, without accompanying evidence of historic or current presence of lynx 

populations. Areas classified as “secondary areas” are those with historical records of 

lynx presence with no record of reproduction; or areas with historical records and no 

recent surveys that document the presence of lynx and/or reproduction. We have one 

area of secondary habitat in the analysis area (Figure 1-1). Much of the secondary 

habitat is unoccupied. FWS hypothesizes that secondary areas may contribute to lynx 

persistence by providing habitat to support lynx during dispersal movements or other 

periods, allowing animals to then return to “core areas.” 

In “peripheral areas” the majority of historical lynx records are sporadic and generally 

corresponds to periods following cyclic lynx population highs in Canada. There is no 

evidence of long-term presence or reproduction that might indicate colonization or 

sustained use of these areas by lynx. However, some of these peripheral areas may 

provide habitat enabling the successful dispersal of lynx between populations or 

subpopulations. We have four areas of peripheral habitat in the analysis area (Figure 1-

1). At this time, FWS does not have enough information to clearly define the relative 

importance of secondary or peripheral areas to the persistence of lynx in the contiguous 

United States (USDI FWS 2005, USDI FWS 2007). 

In the Recovery Outline, FWS presented four preliminary recovery objectives. Below, 

we summarize FWS findings (USDI FWS 2007) of how the selected alternative meets the 

recovery objectives. 

Preliminary recovery objective 1: Retain adequate habitat of sufficient quality to support the 

long-term persistence of lynx populations within each of the identified core areas.

FWS concludes the selected alternative fulfills this objective and adequately manages 

the two core areas within the planning area to support lynx recovery. The selected 

alternative supports the long-term persistence of lynx populations within the 

Northwestern Montana/Northeastern Idaho and Greater Yellowstone core areas, which 

constitutes one third of the core areas nationwide (USDI FWS 2007). 

Preliminary recovery objective 2: Ensure that sufficient habitat is available to accommodate 

the long-term persistence of immigration and emigration between each core area and adjacent 

populations in Canada or secondary areas in the United States. 

FWS concludes the selected alternative contributes to this recovery objective in part. 

Lynx have the ability to move great distances, through varied terrain and habitat. 

Dispersing lynx use a variety of habitats and prey resources compared to lynx 

attempting to establish a home range and territory (USDI FWS 2007). 

Connectivity between the United States and Canada appears intact thus far, as the 

Northwestern Montana/Northeastern Idaho core area is directly adjacent to Canada 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

33

and includes Glacier Park along its northeastern edge. The selected alternative provides 

and conserves core area lynx habitat directly adjacent to and contiguous with lynx 

habitat in Canada. Such habitat should accommodate both immigration of lynx from 

Canada and emigration from core areas to secondary areas or Canada. 

The selected alternative applies to all core areas and occupied secondary areas. The 

direction includes objectives, standards, and guidelines to actively maintain or restore 

lynx habitat connectivity in and between linkage areas and LAUs (lynx home ranges). 

Because these measures apply in both core and occupied secondary areas, the selected 

alternative clearly meets the recovery objective of accommodated long-term 

connectivity across these broad areas. 

The selected alternative is less clear in its effects in unoccupied secondary areas 

between the Northwestern Montana/Northeastern Idaho and Greater Yellowstone core 

areas. The management direction will not be applied to these areas until they become 

occupied. In the meantime existing plan direction will be followed. 

Information indicates the likely impact of projected vegetation management on 

connectivity in this area may not be excessive. Fuel treatment projects in unoccupied 

habitat would likely occur in no more than two to three percent of all lynx habitat on 

any forest in secondary areas (FEIS Vol. 1, p. 195, USDI FWS 2007). In unoccupied areas 

precommercial thinning could occur on about 67,000 acres (about 1 percent) with full 

funding and 23,000 acres (0.4 percent) or less with projected funding. Timber harvest in 

unoccupied areas could result in creating stand initiation openings in more than 30 

percent of an LAU. However, very few LAUs exceed this amount now and those that 

were in excess were in that condition due to past wildfires (FEIS, Vol. p. 155). 

Information regarding projected timber harvest was not available, but based on the past 

harvest history (Project File/Forests/FEIS/Data) it is unlikely regeneration harvest will 

occur to the same levels it did historically (1970s and 1980s). Based on this, FWS found 

vegetation management, under existing plan direction, would not preclude connectivity 

or opportunistic foraging conditions (USDI FWS 2007). 

Development is another factor that may impede lynx movement. Four ski areas, 

affecting about 3,800 acres occur on National Forest System lands, in unoccupied 

secondary habitat; two of the four are planning expansions. None of these ski areas 

impede connectivity of lynx habitat at this time (USDI FWS 2007). 

Connectivity for lynx could be more impacted by development such as highway 

expansions. Under existing plans and national efforts, methods to provide for safe 

wildlife crossings are currently being researched by all state highway departments and 

are being incorporated into highway improvements (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 294-295). 

In secondary unoccupied habitat, units should consider the management direction until 

such time the area becomes occupied. Given the estimates of projected impacts and the 

best information available regarding lynx dispersal movements, FWS concluded that 

under existing plan direction, these unoccupied secondary areas would reasonably be 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

34

expected to provide adequate connectivity and opportunistic foraging habitat for lynx 

to allow dispersal (USDI FWS 2007). 

Preliminary recovery objective 3: Ensure habitat in secondary areas remain available for 

continued occupancy by lynx.

FWS found the selected alternative contributes to this recovery objective in part. 

The recovery outline discusses the relative importance of core and secondary areas to 

lynx recovery. The selected alternative will fully provide management direction in 

occupied lynx habitat – both core and secondary. This measure ensures habitat in 

currently occupied secondary habitat remains available for continued occupancy by 

lynx. 

The forests should consider the management direction in currently unoccupied 

secondary habitat. As noted in Objective 3, management actions could adversely affect 

unoccupied secondary lynx habitat. If and when lynx attempt to establish home ranges 

in secondary areas, individual lynx could be affected. It is also important to note that 

about 70 percent of unoccupied secondary lynx habitat in the planning area is in 

roadless or wilderness status where forest management actions are minimal and natural 

processes predominate. 

Occupancy could occur if lynx populations in core areas were to expand, as periodically 

happens in lynx populations in Canada. However, given the projected impacts 

described in Objective 3, non-developmental areas, and existing habitat conditions, 

FWS believes it is reasonable to expect some lynx would occupy these secondary areas 

despite lack of mandatory direction in plans, but at a lower density than core. Further, 

if detected, once lynx occupy a previously unoccupied area, the management direction 

will apply. In the meantime, our vegetation management actions may degrade lynx 

habitat, but resulting conditions are typically temporary, not permanent. The risks of 

most vegetation management actions, such as timber harvest, precommercial thinning 

and other modifications of habitat, are reversible since typically forests regenerate 

overtime, with or without active restoration. Based on this FWS found lynx habitat on 

National Forests System lands in secondary areas will likely remain available for 

recovery of lynx over time (USDI FWS 2007). 

The Opinion goes on to say the selected alternative does not fulfill Objective 3 entirely, 

as it lacks requirements for further or continued monitoring or surveying of unoccupied 

secondary areas for the amount and condition of lynx habitat and lynx presence, as 

recommended in the recovery outline. 

However, through this decision we agree to work with the FWS to develop and 

complete a protocol to survey and to develop a method to monitor the amount and 

condition of lynx habitat in unoccupied secondary habitat. Our agreement to these 

items will aid in fulfilling Objective 3. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

35

Preliminary recovery objective 4: Ensure threats have been addressed so that lynx 

populations will persist in the contiguous United State for at least the next 100 years. 

FWS found that although plans do not apply for 100 years and thus cannot directly 

fulfill this objective, the selected alternative will allow lynx populations to persist on 

lands within core areas in the planning area within the foreseeable future. The selected 

alternative addresses the threat to the distinct population segment (DPS), inadequate 

regulatory measures, within core areas in the planning area by limiting, reducing or 

avoiding major adverse impacts of federal land management on lynx, as well as several 

other impacts or influences that do not rise to the level of a threat to the DPS. Further, a 

large portion of lynx habitat within the planning area (67 percent) remains in nondevelopmental status, where natural processes predominate. Finally, unoccupied lynx 

habitat within secondary and peripheral lynx areas is likely to retain habitat that 

provides opportunistic foraging habitat and connectivity adequate for dispersal of lynx, 

despite the lack of specific direction for lynx habitat management (USDI FWS 2007). 

Findings Required by Laws, Regulation, and Policies 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires analysis of decisions to ensure 

the anticipated effects on the environment within the analysis area are considered prior 

to implementation (40 CFR 1502.16). The analysis for the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction followed the NEPA guidelines as provided by the Council on 

Environmental Quality. Alternatives were developed based on the Purpose and Need, 

the primary issues, public comments, lynx needs as identified by the LCAS, research, 

and other publications. A total of six alternatives were considered in detail, including 

the No Action Alternative as required by NEPA (FEIS, pp. 26 to 69 and 107 to 134). 

Additional management direction was considered but eliminated from detailed study 

(FEIS, pp. 71 to 106). The range of alternatives is appropriate given the scope of the 

proposal, the public issues expressed, and the Purpose and Need for action (FEIS, 

Chapter 1). 

Unavoidable adverse effects 

The selected alternative does not represent an irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources. Any disturbance to resources cannot occur without further site-specific 

analyses, section 7a consultation required under ESA and decision documents. For a 

detailed discussion of effects of this decision, see Chapter 3 of the FEIS (pp. 135 to 350). 

Environmentally preferable alternative(s) 

Regulations implementing NEPA require agencies to specify “the alternative or 

alternatives which are considered to be environmentally preferable” (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). 

The environmentally preferable alternative causes the least damage to the biological 

and physical environments and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

36

cultural, and natural resources. Based on the description of the alternatives considered 

in detail in the FEIS and in this ROD, we determined the selected alternative best meets 

the goals of Section 101 of the NEPA, and is therefore the environmentally preferable 

alternative for this proposed federal action. 

FWS found timber harvest can be beneficial, benign, or detrimental depending on 

harvest method, and the spatial and temporal occurrence on the landscape (FEIS, Vol. 1, 

Appendix P). The vegetation standards in the selected alternative ensure the timber 

management program is beneficial to lynx. Standard VEG S1 limits the amount of lynx 

habitat that is in the stand initiation stage to 30 percent of each LAU at any time, 

ensuring a continuous rotation of all forest stages through time that supply lynx habitat 

in each LAU (FEIS, Vol. 2, p. 60). Standard VEG S2 allows no more the 15 percent of the 

lynx habitat to change to the stand initiation stage through timber harvest in a 10-year 

period. This limits the rate of change within an LAU to ensure sufficient habitat for 

lynx through time. 

Precommercial thinning can impact lynx habitat. Standard VEG S5 precludes 

precommercial thinning except in certain situations that FWS has determined would 

have little effect upon lynx or their habitat, but would advance natural ecological 

conditions (FWS comment letter on the DEIS, pp. 8 and 9). While these exceptions have 

little effect on lynx (0.5 percent of lynx habitat) they have important positive impacts on 

other resources and situations such as maintaining aspen, western white pine, and 

whitebark pine, and fuel reduction near buildings. 

Since the LCAS was published it has become clear that multistory mature stands with 

dense horizontal cover are important to lynx. In the selected alternative, Standard VEG 

S6 is instrumental in maintaining winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests 

which will aid in lynx persistence. 

The selected alternative allows for management of fuels in the WUI under Guideline 

VEG G10, rather than standards. Under VEG G10 fuel reduction projects in the WUI 

should consider the VEG standards, but may deviate from them, up to a cap of 6 

percent of the lynx habitat on each National Forest. Lynx habitat is still considered; 

however, if the fuel reduction needs are such that any of the four VEG standards cannot 

be met while at the same time meeting fuel treatment objective, the project may proceed 

under Guideline VEG G10. Fuel treatment actions in 94 percent of the lynx habitat must 

follow the VEG standards, while at the same time fuel treatment projects in the WUI 

can protect other valuable resources. 

The selected alternative contains guidelines for the various activities on National Forest 

System land that may have possible adverse affects on individual lynx. Standards were 

changed to guidelines when the best available information indicated the action was not 

likely to adversely affect lynx, or not likely to adversely affect lynx in most cases (i.e. 

where no conclusive or reliable information supported the standard in the LCAS). 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

37

The selected alternative contributes to lynx conservation and recovery on National 

Forest System lands, but allows for management of other resources. Considering all 

this, the selected alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because it 

causes the least damage to the biological and physical environments and best protects, 

preserves, and enhances natural resources. 

National Forest Management Act 

Significance determination: The purpose of this proposal is to incorporate management 

direction into plans for the conservation and recovery of Canada lynx. 

In January 2005, the Forest Service removed the November 9, 2000 National Forest 

System Land and Resource Management Planning Regulations at 36 CFR 219, subpart 

A and replaced them with newly adopted regulations. The new regulations set forth a 

process for land management planning, including the process for developing, 

amending, and revising land management plans (36 CFR 219.1). These regulations also 

incorporate effective dates and transition periods. Section 219.4(e) says “Plan 

development, plan amendments or plan revision initiated before the transition period 

(starting January 5, 2005) may continue to use the provisions of the planning 

regulations in effect before November 9, 2000” – in this case the 1982 regulations. This 

proposal was initiated on September 11, 2001, which is before the transition period; 

therefore it is being completed under the requirements of the 1982 regulations. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) provides that forest plans may be 

amended in any manner, but if the management direction results in a significant change 

in the plan, the same procedure as that required for development and approval of a 

plan shall be followed. The 1982 regulations at 36 CFR 219.10(f) requires the agency to 

determine whether or not a proposed amendment will result in a significant change in 

the plan. If the change resulting from the amendment is determined not to be 

significant for the purposes of the planning process, then the agency may implement 

the amendment following appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of 

NEPA procedures. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1920, section 1926.5 (Jan. 31, 2006) identifies factors to 

consider in determining whether an amendment is significant or non-significant for 

those plans using planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000. 

Changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for longterm land and resource management. 

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions 

resulting from further on-site analysis. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

38

Examples of significant changes include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected. 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or 

affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the 

planning period. 

The selected alternative will change in plans similar to examples of non-significant 

changes #1 and #3. The effects of this decision are not similar to either example of 

significant plan changes. These findings are discussed in further detail below. 

Under the selected alternative the management direction will only apply to occupied 

habitat. At this time the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Nez Perce, Salmon-Challis, 

Ashley and Bighorn NFs are unoccupied; therefore these units should consider the 

management direction but will not have to apply it. Several mountain ranges on the 

Custer, Gallatin, Helena, and Lewis and Clark NFs are also unoccupied and the 

management direction will not have to be applied in these areas until lynx occupy the 

site. However, since the selected alternative could be applied to all units at some point 

in time, the following analyzes the effects on the planning area as a whole. 

Changes in standards and guidelines are minor

The selected alternative adds one goal to forest plans; conserve Canada lynx. This goal 

is consistent with other goals in existing plans and other legal requirements to provide 

for habitat needs for threatened and endangered species. The selected alternative adds 

several objectives to the plans. These objectives require consideration of natural 

ecosystem process and functions, and consideration of lynx habitat needs. The 

additional objectives provide more species-specific guidance but do not alter the overall 

objectives to provide for habitat needs for threatened and endangered species. The 

proposal does not change any Management Area (MA) designation. 

The selected alternative adds seven standards and twenty-four guidelines. The 

addition of these new standards and guidelines are minor as discussed below. 

Changes would not significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use 

goods and services originally projected. 

The management direction would not substantially alter outputs for grazing, minerals, 

energy, transportation systems, developed recreation areas, such as ski areas or winter 

recreation. These activities will not be prohibited by the management direction; 

however, habitat needs for lynx will need to be considered when managing these 

resources. The new direction will also not substantially alter timber outputs, even 

though it may affect growth and yield. 

The selected alternative limits precommercial thinning in winter snowshoe hare habitat 

in young regenerating forests, with some exceptions – see Standard VEG S5. 

Precommercial thinning is allowed to restore aspen, whitebark pine and planted rust-
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

39

resistant western white pine. Precommercial thinning will also be allowed if new 

research indicates it will benefit or only have short-term adverse effects to lynx. 

Precommercial thinning is not allowed in young regenerating lodgepole pine forests, 

unless new research indicates it is beneficial or benign. Limiting precommercial 

thinning in lodgepole pine forests could affect growth and yield, and the potential to 

produce some products in the future, because these forests tend to stop growing if not 

thinned; however overall cubic foot volume would not be affected. 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge and the Bridger-Teton are the only units that have a 

majority of their precommercial thinning identified over the next ten years in lynx 

habitat and in lodgepole pine; therefore they are the only units that could see a 

reduction to growth and yield (FEIS, Vo1. 1, Appendix K-5). Under current programs, 

the units only have accomplished a portion of their thinning program (approximately 

34 percent) due to budgets, so it is difficult to tease out the effects from the management 

direction in this proposal from effects of budgets. In addition, Standard VEG S5 allows 

for consideration of new information. Over the next ten to fifteen years information 

may become available that indicates some precommercial thinning in lodgepole pine 

forests may be beneficial to snowshoe hare (see DEIS comment letter #505). 

Limiting precommercial thinning is unlikely to affect long-term sustained yield (LTSY), 

as defined by NFMA and FSH 1909.12, Chapter 60.5, because the cubic foot volume on 

the site does not substantially change. The volume is spread among more, smaller trees 

without thinning versus fewer, larger diameter trees with thinning. In addition, some 

precommercial thinning may be allowed in the future if new information becomes 

available. Timber outputs have never been at the level of LTSY over the life of these 

plans, so changes in LTSY are unlikely to lead to changes in outputs, especially if 

outputs are measured in cubic feet, which is the appropriate measure of LTSY. 

In addition, the ASQ should not be affected on any units because the management 

direction does not preclude timber harvest. Standards VEG S1 and S2 may defer 

regeneration harvest in some areas, but Guideline VEG G1 encourages projects creating 

winter snowshoe hare habitat where it is lacking. It is likely there would be no change 

in overall timber outputs, but there may be changes in what material is harvested and 

where. 

Changes would not have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect land 

and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period. 

There are approximately 38.5 million acres within the 18 National Forests in the 

planning area. Of this, approximately 18 million acres or 48 percent has been mapped 

as lynx habitat (see table 3.1). Of the 18 million acres of mapped lynx habitat, 

approximately 8 million acres are in land allocations that allow for management actions. 

Therefore the management direction only potentially affects about 20 percent of the 

planning area. The most noticeable effects are likely to be the location and amount of 

precommercial thinning. The potential acreage that could be affected is between 11,000 

to 15,000 acres per year. This is less than one percent of the planning area. It should be 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

40

noted that precommercial thinning is not constrained on an additional 18,000 acres per 

year outside lynx habitat (FEIS, Vol. 1 p 247-248). 

Summary: Considering the three factors, we determined this management direction is 

not a significant change under NFMA to the 18 forest plans because it imposes minor 

changes over a limited area of these national forests. 

While this amendment is not significant, the planning process necessary for significant 

amendments is ongoing or will begin soon on most units affected by this decision. In 

particular interest to the precommercial thinning discussion on the previous page, both 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Bridger-Teton National Forests are being revised. The 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge should complete the revision process in 2007. Their DEIS for the 

Forest Plan recognizes the cumulative contribution the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Amendment may have on reducing growth and yield (DEIS, page 326). The BridgerTeton should complete its revision in 2008. 

Viability determination: This management direction is being adopted in accordance 

with the 1982 NFMA regulations for amending land and resource management plans.

Plan amendments initiated before January 5, 2005 may proceed using the provisions of 

these regulations. The transition period to regulations implementing the 2005 planning 

rule ends on a unit’s establishment of an Environmental Management System, or no 

later than January 7, 2008. 

According to the 1982 NFMA regulations, fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to 

maintain viable populations of Canada lynx in the planning area (36 CFR 219.19, 2000). 

For the purpose of this decision, the planning area is the range of lynx encompassed by 

the national forests subject to this decision. This is based on a biological delineation of 

the Northern Rockies made in the LCAS. 

A viable population is, “one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well-distributed in the 

planning area.” It is not possible to reliably predict future population demographics for 

lynx, and continued existence of lynx may be dependent on threats that exist outside of 

the planning area (health of Canadian populations, or linkage across other ownerships). 

The national forests subject to this new direction will provide habitat to maintain a 

viable population of lynx in the Northern Rockies by maintaining the current 

distribution of occupied lynx habitat, and maintaining or enhancing the quality of that 

habitat. Based on the best scientific information available, and for the specific reasons 

provided below, this management direction will provide habitat to support persistence 

of lynx in the Northern Rockies in the long-term. 

The LCAS was used as the basis for developing the selected alternative. The FWS 

Remand Notice (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P), and other new information and research 

were also evaluated, and became the basis for updating standards and guidelines based 

upon the current state of knowledge regarding threats to lynx since the LCAS was 

compiled. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

41

The greatest threats to lynx persistence and reproduction are from changes in 

vegetation structures that provide snowshoe hare habitat during summer and winter. 

Standards were developed under the selected alternative to provide direction for a 

variety of vegetation management activities that are most likely to affect lynx habitat 

(fuel treatments, precommercial thinning, timber harvest, etc.). These include standards 

for connectivity (ALL S1), habitat mapping (LAU S1), regeneration harvesting (VEG S2), 

precommercial thinning (VEG S5), and management of multistory mature and late 

successional forests (VEG S6). These standards are equal to or more protective than 

similar recommendations provided in the LCAS. In the Seeley Lake area of Montana, 

mature, spruce-fir forests with high horizontal cover are particularly important as 

winter foraging habitat and are more important than younger stands (Squires pers. 

com., Oct. 30, 2006) and the LCAS provides no specific management recommendations 

for these vegetative conditions within lynx habitat. 

All of the core and secondary lynx habitat (100%) as defined in the Recovery Outline 

(USDI FWS 2005) that is occupied by lynx as defined in the Occupied Mapped Lynx 

Habitat Amendment to the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement (USDA FS and USDI FWS 

2006a) will be managed to conserve lynx. 

The value of secondary habitat is unclear. The Recovery Outline (UDSI FWS 2005) states 

“Compared to core areas, secondary areas have fewer and more sporadic current and 

historical records of lynx and, as a result, historical abundance has been relatively low. 

Reproduction has not been documented.” There currently is no evidence that suggest 

that unoccupied secondary habitat is considered necessary for a viable population of 

lynx. Secondary, unoccupied lynx habitat will have management direction 

implemented to conserve lynx if and when those administrative units become occupied. 

These National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Salmon-Challis and Nez 

Perce) which have secondary, unoccupied lynx habitat account for only about 30 

percent of the total acres of core and secondary lynx habitat. 

Even though the 6 percent limit (reflected in the vegetation standards) does not 

currently apply to unoccupied lynx habitat, those unoccupied forests would treat an 

average of 3.2 percent of lynx habitat within the WUI for fuel reduction over the next 

ten years (FEIS, Vol. 1, Lynx Section, and Appendix M). This is well below the 6 percent 

cap provided in the Biological Opinion (USDI FWS 2007). Overall fuel treatments, in 

and outside the WUI, in lynx habitat, average 5 percent within lynx habitat on these 

Forests. 

In addition, The FWS Biological Opinion (2007) concluded that the proposed action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of lynx within the contiguous United 

States DPS. It also found the selected alternative will allow lynx populations to persist 

on lands in occupied core and secondary areas within the foreseeable future, and 

unoccupied secondary and peripheral habitat is likely to retain habitat that provides 

opportunistic foraging habitat and connectivity adequate for dispersal of lynx, despite 

the lack of specific direction for lynx management. The opinion goes on to say the 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

42

incorporation of the management direction over the large geographic area occupied by 

lynx within 12 of the 18 National Forests (12,150,000 acres) contributes to the landscape 

level direction necessary for the survival and recovery of lynx in the northern Rockies 

ecosystem. 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act creates an affirmative obligation “. . . that all federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species” of 

fish, wildlife, and plants. This obligation is further clarified in a National Interagency 

Memorandum of Agreement (August, 2000) which states our shared mission is to “. . . 

enhance conservation of imperiled species while delivering appropriate goods and 

services provided by the lands and resources.” 

We completed biological assessments (BAs) for all listed species; one for wildlife and 

fish, and one for plants. For all listed species, except for Canada lynx, we determined 

the preferred alternative would have “no effect” or would be “not likely to adversely 

affect” them. The determination for Canada lynx was that, while the management 

direction in selected alternative would improve lynx conservation, the plans amended 

by selected alternative would still be “likely to adversely affect” lynx because 

individuals could be adversely affected as a result of the exemptions and exceptions to 

the vegetation standards for fuel treatments projects and precommercial thinning. The 

BAs were submitted to the FWS. The FS consulted with the FWS on the determinations 

and they concurred with the “no effect” and “not likely to adversely affect” 

determinations. The FWS provided written review as required by Section 7 of the ESA 

(USDI FWS 2007). 

FWS issued a Biological Opinion on the “likely to adversely affect” determination on 

lynx (USDI FWS 2007). The opinion acknowledges the beneficial and adverse effects of 

the selected alternative. The opinion states that given the large number of acres covered 

by the proposed action, the existing plan language, and the beneficial effects of the 

management direction in the balance of these acres, the selected alternative is likely to 

have overall beneficial effects to lynx by addressing the primary threat identified at the 

time of listing: the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Even 

acknowledging some adverse effects could still occur, primarily due to the allowance 

for fuel treatment projects and precommercial thinning, the opinion found the selected 

alternative is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Canada lynx. The 

Opinion identifies incidental take and reasonable and prudent measure, with associated 

terms and conditions to reduce take. These measures have either been incorporated 

into the management direction (TC 1, 2, and 3) or agreed to in this decision (TC 4). 

Further section 7a consultation will occur on future site-specific projects and activities if 

they result in adverse affects to lynx. Future consultation will reference back to the BO 

issued on this decision to ensure the effects of the specific projects are commensurate 

with the effects anticipated in the opinion issued on this decision (USDI FWS 2007). 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

43

Critical habitat 

On November 9, 2006, FWS published the final rule for the designation of Canada lynx 

critical habitat (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 217, pp. 66008 to 66061). National Forest 

System lands were not included in the critical habitat designation. There is no adverse 

modification to designated critical habitat from implementation of selected alternative. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

This decision is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Projects undertaken following the management direction will comply fully with the 

laws and regulations that ensure protection of cultural resources. It is our 

determination this plan direction complies with the National Historic Preservation Act 

and other statutes that pertain to the protection of cultural resources. 

Clean Air Act 

This decision is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Projects undertaken following the management direction will comply fully with the 

laws and regulations that ensure protection of air quality. It is our determination this 

plan direction complies with the Clean Air Act and other statutes that pertain to the 

protection of air quality. 

Clean Water Act 

This decision is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Projects undertaken following the management direction will comply fully with the 

laws and regulations that ensure protection of water quality. It is our determination 

this plan direction complies with the Clean Water Act and other statutes that pertain to 

the protection of water quality. 

Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112) 

Executive Order 13112 directs federal agencies not to authorize any activities that 

would increase the spread of invasive species. This decision is a programmatic action 

and does not authorize site-specific activities. We determined this plan direction 

complies with Executive Order 13112. 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) 

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, 

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority populations and low-income populations. We determined from the analyses 

disclosed in the FEIS that this plan direction complies with Executive Order 12898. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

44

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land 

We determined from the analyses disclosed in the FEIS that prime farmland, rangeland, 

and forest land will not be affected by this decision because the selected alternative is a 

programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Equal Employment Opportunity, Effects on Minorities, Women 

The FEIS describes the impacts to social and economic factors in Chapter 3. The 

selected alternative will not have a disproportionate impact on any minority or lowincome communities. We determined the selected alternative will not differentially 

affect the civil rights of any citizens, including women and minorities. 

Wetlands and Floodplains (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990) 

The selected alternative is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific 

activities. We determined the selected alternative will not have adverse impacts on 

wetlands and floodplains and will comply with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. 

Other policies 

The existing body of national direction for managing National Forest System lands 

remains in effect. 

Implementation and appeal provisions 

The management direction will become effective 30 days after publication of the notice 

of availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register. Requests to stay implementation of 

the amended plans shall not be granted pursuant to 36 CFR 217.10. 

This decision is subject to review pursuant to 36 CFR 217.3 (available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx.html). Any appeals must be postmarked or 

received by the Appeal Reviewing Officer within 45 days of the date the legal notices 

are published in the The Missoulian, the newspaper of record. 

Appeals sent through the US Postal Service must be sent to: 

USDA Forest Service 

Attn: EMC Appeals 

Mail Stop 1104 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20250-1104 

Appeals sent through FedEx, UPS, or a courier service must be sent to: 

USDA Forest Service 

Ecosystem Management Coordination 

Attn: Appeals 

Yates Bldg., 3CEN 

201 14th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20250 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

45

Appeals may be hand-delivered to the above address during regular business hours, 

8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; or sent by fax to (202) 

205-1012; or by email to appeals-chief@fs.fed.us. Emailed appeals must be submitted in 

rich text format (.rtf) or Word (.doc) and must include the decision name in the subject 

line. Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 217.9 and include at a 

minimum: 

• A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR 

Part 217; 

• The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; 

• Identify the decision to which the objection is being made; 

• Identify the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, 

date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer; 

• Specifically identify the portion(s) of the decision or decision document to which 

objection is made; 

• The reasons for the appeal, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy 

and, if applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or 

policy; and 

• Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks. 

Further information and contact person 

The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction FEIS, the Summary, this ROD and 

the FWS Biological Opinion, as well as other background documents are available on 

the Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx.html. 

For further information regarding the FEIS, ROD, or the plan direction for Canada lynx 

contact: 

Timothy Bertram, Lynx Coordinator 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, MT 59807 

Telephone: (406) 329-3611 



Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

49

References Cited 

Apps, C.D. 2000. Space-use, diet, demographics and topographic associations of lynx in the 

southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: a study. Pages 351-371. Chapter 12. In Ruggiero, 

L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, 

tech, eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of 

Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 p. Brittel, J.D., R.J. Poelker, S.J., Sweeney, and G.M. Koehler. 

1989. “Native cats of Washington. ” Unpublished report, Washington Department of 

Wildlife. Olympia, WA 169 p. 

Bailey, T.N. 1974. Social organization in a bobcat population. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:435-446 

Buskirk, S.W., L.F. Ruggiero, and C.J. Krebs. 2000. Habitat fragmentation and interspecific 

competition: implications for lynx conservation. Pages 83-100. Chapter 4. In Ruggiero, L. 

F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. 

Squires (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University 

Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 p. 

Bunnell, K. D., J. T. Flinders and M. L. Wolfe. 2006. Potential impacts of coyotes and 

snowmobiles on lynx conservation in the Intermountain West. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

34(3):828-838. 

Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire 

growth and behavior. For. Sci. 47(2):201-228. 

Hickenbottom, J. R., B. Summerfield, J. Aardahl, G. Halekas, M. Hilliard, L. Jackson, D. 

Prevedel, J. Rupe. 1999. Biological assessment of the effects of National Forest land and 

resource management plans and bureau of land management land use plans on Canada 

lynx. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden Utah. 149 p. 

Hillis, M., A. Jacobs and V. Wright. 2003. U. S. Forest Service region one Canada lynx 

assessment. Prepared by the National Fire Plan Cohesive Strategy Team. U.S. Forest 

Service, Northern Region. Missoula, Montana. 29 p. 

Idaho Transportation Department. 2004. Truck drivers, motorists, dignitaries and wildlife 

celebrate completion of U.S. 95 (Copeland) project. The Transporter. Idaho Transportation 

Department. 2 pp. 

Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe 

hares. J.Forestry 88:10-14. 

Kolbe, J. A., J. R. Squires, D. H. Pletscher and L. F. Ruggiero. In press. The effect of 

snowmobile trails on coyote movements within lynx home ranges. J. Wildlife Management. 

McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, and Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the 

contiguous United States. Pages 207-264. Chapter 8. In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. 

Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (Tech Eds). Ecology and 

conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 p. 

Montana Department of Transporation, Federal Highway Administration, and 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 2006. US 93 Ninepipe/Ronan Improvement 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

50

Project DSEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. 574 pp – specifically reference pages 3-8 

to 3-18 which discuss wildlife crossings 

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/docs/eis_ea/eis_ninepipe.pdf 

Mowat G., K.G. Poole, and M. O’Donoghue. 2000. Ecology of lynx in northern Cascades and 

Alaska. Pages 265-306. Chapter 9. In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. 

Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and 

conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 

p. 

Murray, D. L., S. Boutin and M. O’Donoghue. 1994. Winter habitat selection by lynx and 

coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare abundance. Can. J. Zool. 72:1444-1451. 

Roe, N.A., K.G. Poole and D.L. Day. 2000. “A review of lynx behavior and ecology and its 

application to ski area planning and management.” Unpublished report. IRIS Environmental 

Systems. Calgary, Alberta. 62 p. 

Ruediger, B. 1996. The relationship between rare carnivores and highways. Pages 24-38. In G. 

Evink, D.Zielger, P. Garret, and J.Berry (eds). Transportation and wildlife: reducing wildlife 

mortality/improving wildlife passages across transportation corridors. Proc. TransportationRelated Wildlife Mortality Seminar. 30 April- 2 May 1996, Orlando, FL. Florida Dept. 

Trans./Fed. Highway Admin. 

Ruediger, B,J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. 

Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. 

Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy (LCAS). USDA Forest Service, USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park 

Service. Publication Number R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 p. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. 

Squires, tech. eds. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University 

Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp. 

Squires, J. 2006. Wildlife Research biologist, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula MT. 

Todd A. W., L.B. Keith and C.A. Fischer. 1981. Population ecology of coyotes during a 

fluctuation of snowshoe hares. J.Wildl. Manage. 45:629-640. 

USDA Forest Service, 1998. Northern Region overview---summary and detailed report. 

Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 263 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to 

communities and the environment. 10-year comprehensive strategy. August 2001. U.S. 

Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington DC. 21 p. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Park Service, the National Association of State Foresters and the National 

Association of Counties. 2003. Memorandum of Understanding for the development of a 

collaborative fuels treatment program. USFS Agreement #03-MU-11132001-023. 5 p. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Canada lynx conservation 

agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013. Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 12 p. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Canada Lynx conservation 

Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013. Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 9 p. 
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

51

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Occupied mapped Lynx 

habitat Amendment to the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. Unpublished. 5 pp. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Canada Lynx Conservation 

Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013. Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 13 p. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Biological opinion on the effects of National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans 

on Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the contiguous United States. USDI, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado. 70 p. + appendix. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Endangered and threatened animals and plants; 

determination of threatened status for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment of 

the Canada lynx and related rule. Federal Register March 24, 2000. Vol. 65, No. 58, pages 

16051-16086. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; notice 

of remanded determination of status for the contiguous United States distinct population 

segment of the Canada lynx; clarifications of findings; final rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal 

Register Vol. 68, No. 128. pp 40076-40101. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan Outline: Contiguous United States 

distinct population segment of the Canada lynx. Unpublished. Montana Field Office, 

Helena, Montana. 21 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Northern 

Rockies Lynx Amendment on the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Canada lynx (Lynx 

Canadensis) in the contiguous United States. Unpublished. Montana Field Office, Helena, 

Montana. 85 pp. 

USDI, USDA Forest Service. 2006. Protecting People and Natural Resources; A Cohesive Fuels 

Treatment Strategy. 59 pp. 

USDOT Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Eco-logical: An ecosystem approach to 

developing infrastructure projects. 99 p. 

(http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/ecological.pdf) 

Wyoming Department of Transportation. 2005. Statewide Long-range Transportation Plan. 

Wyoming Department of Transportation. 84 pp.
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

52

ATTACHMENT 1
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

1

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

The following management direction applies to all National Forest System lands that 

are known to be occupied by Canada lynx. At the time of this decision the following 

National Forests in the Northern Rockies lynx planning area are known to be occupied: 

Bridger-Teton, Clearwater, Custer, Flathead, Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai, Lolo, 

Shoshone, Targhee. Portions of the Custer, Gallatin, Helena, and Lewis & Clark are also 

occupied. 

The following National Forests in the Northern Rockies lynx planning area are not 

occupied by Canada lynx: Ashley, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bighorn, Bitterroot, Nez 

Perce, Salmon-Challis. In addition, isolated mountain ranges on the Custer, Gallatin, 

Helena and Lewis and Clark are unoccupied – see Figure 1-1. Until such time as these 

National Forest System lands become occupied they should consider the following 

management direction, but are not required to follow it. 

GOAL14 

Conserve the Canada lynx. 

ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL). The following 

objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to all management projects in lynx 

habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat and in linkage areas, 

subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to 

wildland fire use. 

Objective30 ALL O1

Maintain26 or restore40 lynx habitat23 connectivity16 in and between LAUs21, and in 

linkage areas22. 

Standard44 ALL S1

New or expanded permanent development33 and vegetation management49

projects36 must maintain26 habitat connectivity16 in an LAU21 and/or linkage area22. 

Guideline15 ALL G1

Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or 

reconstructing highways18 or forest highways12 across federal land. Methods could 

include fencing, underpasses, or overpasses. 

Standard44 LAU S1

Changes in LAU21 boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat information and 

after review by the Forest Service Regional Office. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

2

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND PRACTICES (VEG). The 

following objectives, standards, and guidelines apply to vegetation management 

projects36 in lynx habitat within lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat. With 

the exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically concerns wildland fire use, the 

objectives, standards, and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression, wildland 

fire use, or removal of vegetation for permanent developments such as mineral 

operations, ski runs, roads, and the like. None of the objectives, standards, or 

guidelines apply to linkage areas. 

Objective30 VEG O1

Manage vegetation49 to mimic or approximate natural succession and disturbance 

processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the conservation of 

lynx. 

Objective VEG O2

Provide a mosaic of habitat conditions through time that support dense horizontal 

cover19, and high densities of snowshoe hare. Provide winter snowshoe hare 

habitat51 in both the stand initiation structural stage and in mature, multi-story 

conifer vegetation. 

Objective VEG O3

Conduct fire use11 activities to restore40 ecological processes and maintain or 

improve lynx habitat. 

Objective VEG O4

Focus vegetation management49 in areas that have potential to improve winter 

snowshoe hare habitat51 but presently have poorly developed understories that lack 

dense horizontal cover. 

Standard44 VEG S1

Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation 

management49 projects36 that regenerate38 forests, except for fuel treatment13

projects36 within the wildland urban interface50 (WUI) as defined by HFRA17, subject 

to the following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG 

S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of 

lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). In addition, fuel 

treatment projects may not result in more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. 

For fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 see guideline VEG G10. 

The standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that 

substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages45 limit 

disturbance in each LAU as follows: 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

3

If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand 

initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, no 

additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects36. 

Standard VEG S2

Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S2 applies to all timber 

management47 projects36 that regenerate38 forests, except for fuel treatment13

projects36 within the wildland urban interface50 (WUI) as defined by HFRA17, subject 

to the following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG 

S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of 

lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). 

For fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 see guideline VEG G10. 

The standard: Timber management47 projects36 shall not regenerate38 more than 15 

percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands within an LAU in a ten-year period. 

Standard VEG S5

Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial 

thinning35 projects36, except for fuel treatment13 projects36 that use precommercial 

thinning as a tool within the wildland urban interface50 (WUI) as defined by 

HFRA17, subject to the following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG 

S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of 

lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). 

For fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 see guideline VEG G10. 

The Standard: Precommercial thinning projects36 that reduce snowshoe hare habitat 

may occur from the stand initiation structural stage45 until the stands no longer 

provide winter snowshoe hare habitat only: 

1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings; or 

2. For research studies39 or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved 

reforestation stock; or 

3. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional 

level of the Forest Service, and state level of FWS, where a written determination 

states: 

a. that a project36 is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or 

b. that a project36 is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynx or its 

habitat, but would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat; or 

4. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning5 around individual aspen 

trees, where aspen is in decline; or 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

4

5. For daylight thinning of planted rust-resistant white pine where 80 % of the 

winter snowshoe hare habitat51 is retained; or 

6. To restore whitebark pine. 

Exceptions 2 through 6 shall only be utilized in LAUs where Standard VEG S1 is met. 

Standard VEG S6 

Where and to what this applies: Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation 

management49 projects36 except for fuel treatment13 projects36 within the wildland 

urban interface50 (WUI) as defined by HFRA17, subject to the following limitation: 

Fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG 

S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of 

lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). 

For fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 see guideline VEG G10. 

The Standard: Vegetation management projects36 that reduce snowshoe hare 

habitat in multi-story mature or late successional forests29 may occur only: 

1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, 

and special use permit improvements, including infrastructure within permitted 

ski area boundaries; or 

2. For research studies39 or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved 

reforestation stock; or 

3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest42 (e.g. removal due to location of 

skid trails). 

Exceptions 2 and 3 shall only be utilized in LAUs where Standard VEG S1 is met. 

(NOTE: Timber harvest is allowed in areas that have potential to improve winter 

snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that lack 

dense horizontal cover [e.g. uneven age management systems could be used to 

create openings where there is little understory so that new forage can grow]). 

Guideline VEG G1

Vegetation management49 projects36 should be planned to recruit a high density of 

conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce or not available. 

Priority for treatment should be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural 

stage46 stands to enhance habitat conditions for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, 

monotypic lodgepole stands). Winter snowshoe hare habitat51 should be near 

denning habitat6. 

Guideline VEG G4

Prescribed fire34 activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate 

snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should 

be avoided. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

5

Guideline VEG G5

Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel37, should be provided in 

each LAU. 

Guideline VEG G10 

Fuel treatment projects36 within the WUI50 as defined by HFRA17 should be designed 

considering Standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation. 

Guideline VEG G11

Denning habitat6 should be distributed in each LAU in the form of pockets of large 

amounts of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles of 

small wind thrown trees (“jack-strawed” piles). If denning habitat appears to be 

lacking in the LAU, then projects36 should be designed to retain some coarse woody 

debris4, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat6 in the future. 

LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT (GRAZ): The following objectives and guidelines 

apply to grazing projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied 

habitat. They do not apply to linkage areas. 

Objective30 GRAZ O1

Manage livestock grazing to be compatible with improving or maintaining26 lynx 

habitat23. 

Guideline15 GRAZ G1

In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so 

impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating. 

Guideline GRAZ G2

In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term 

health and sustainability of aspen. 

Guideline GRAZ G3

In riparian areas41 and willow carrs3, livestock grazing should be managed to 

contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral 

stages28, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance 

regimes. 

Guideline GRAZ G4

In shrub-steppe habitats43, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation 

ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs21, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a 

preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have 

occurred under historic disturbance regimes. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

6

HUMAN USE PROJETS (HU): The following objectives and guidelines apply to 

human use projects, such as special uses (other than grazing), recreation 

management, roads, highways, and mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat 

in lynx analysis units (LAUs) in occupied habitat, subject to valid existing rights. 

They do not apply to vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly. 

They do not apply to linkage areas. 

Objective30 HU O1

Maintain26 the lynx’s natural competitive advantage over other predators in deep 

snow, by discouraging the expansion of snow-compacting activities in lynx habitat23. 

Objective HU O2

Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity16. 

Objective HU O3

Concentrate activities in existing developed areas, rather than developing new areas 

in lynx habitat. 

Objective HU O4

Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity when developing new or expanding 

existing developed recreation9 sites or ski areas. 

Objective HU O5

Manage human activities, such as special uses, mineral and oil and gas exploration 

and development, and placement of utility transmission corridors, to reduce impacts 

on lynx and lynx habitat. 

Objective HU O6

Reduce adverse highway18 effects on lynx by working cooperatively with other 

agencies to provide for lynx movement and habitat connectivity16, and to reduce the 

potential of lynx mortality. 

Guideline15 HU G1

When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made for adequately 

sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris4, so winter snowshoe hare 

habitat51 is maintained. 

Guideline HU G2

When developing or expanding ski areas, lynx foraging habitat should be provided 

consistent with the ski area’s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs 

as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes. 

Guideline HU G3

Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that both 

provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat23. 

Guideline HU G4

For mineral and energy development sites and facilities, remote monitoring should 

be encouraged to reduce snow compaction. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

7

Guideline HU G5

For mineral and energy development sites and facilities that are closed, a 

reclamation plan that restores40 lynx habitat should be developed. 

Guideline HU G6

Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used in lynx habitat23 when 

upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, if the result would be 

increased traffic speeds and volumes, or a foreseeable contribution to increases in 

human activity or development. 

Guideline HU G7

New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas 

identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity16. New permanent roads and 

trails should be situated away from forested stringers. 

Guideline HU G8

Cutting brush along low-speed25, low-traffic-volume roads should be done to the 

minimum level necessary to provide for public safety. 

Guideline HU G9

On new roads built for projects36, public motorized use should be restricted. 

Effective closures should be provided in road designs. When the project36 is over, 

these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other 

management objectives. 

Guideline HU G10

When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, consider locating access roads 

and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security habitat10, if it has been 

identified as a need. 

Guideline HU G11

Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand 

outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction1, unless designation serves to 

consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, 

or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs. 

This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to 

rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings, or to access 

regulated by Guideline HU G12. 

Use the same analysis boundaries for all actions subject to this guideline. 

Guideline HU G12

Winter access for non-recreation special uses and mineral and energy exploration 

and development, should be limited to designated routes8 or designated over-thesnow routes7. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

8

LINKAGE AREAS (LINK): The following objective, standard, and guidelines apply 

to all projects within linkage areas in occupied habitat, subject to valid existing 

rights. 

Objective30 LINK O1

In areas of intermingled land ownership, work with landowners to pursue 

conservation easements, habitat conservation plans, land exchanges, or other 

solutions to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx and lynx habitat. 

Standard44 LINK S1

When highway18 or forest highway12 construction or reconstruction is proposed in 

linkage areas22, identify potential highway crossings. 

Guideline15 LINK G1

NFS lands should be retained in public ownership. 

Guideline LINK G2

Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats43 should be managed to contribute to 

maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages28, similar to 

conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

9

REQUIRED MONITORING 

Map the location and intensity of snow compacting activities and designated and 

groomed routes that occurred inside LAUs during the period of 1998 to 2000. The 

mapping is to be completed within one year of this decision, and changes in activities 

and routes are to be monitored every five years after the decision. 

When project decisions are signed report the following: 

1. Fuel treatments: 

a. Acres of fuel treatment in lynx habitat by forest and LAU, and whether the 

treatment is within or outside the WUI as defined by HFRA. 

b. Whether or not the fuel treatment met the vegetation standards or guidelines. 

If standard(s) are not met, report which standard(s) are not met, why they 

were not met, and how many acres were affected. 

c. Whether or not 2 adjacent LAUs exceed standard VEG S1 (30% in a stand initiation 

structural stage that is too short to provide winter snowshoe hare habitat), and what 

event(s) or action(s) caused the standard to be exceeded. 

2. Application of exception in Standard VEG S5 

a. For areas where any of the exemptions 1 through 6 listed in Standard VEG S5 were 

applied: Report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, 

and LAU) and whether or not Standard VEG S1 was within the allowance. 

3. Application of exceptions in Standard VEG S6 

a. For areas where any of the exemptions 1 through 3 listed in Standard VEG S6 were 

applied: Report the type of activity, the number of acres, and the location (by unit, 

and LAU) and whether or not Standard VEG S1 was within the allowance.

4. Application of guidelines 

a. Document the rationale for deviations to guidelines. Summarize what guideline(s) 

was not followed and why. 

Directions in italics were terms and conditions that were incorporated from the FWS 

Biological Opinion (USDI FWS 2007).
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

10

GLOSSARY 

1 Area of consistent snow compaction – An area of consistent snow compaction is an area of 

land or water that during winter is generally covered with snow and gets enough 

human use that individual tracks are indistinguishable. In such places, compacted 

snow is evident most of the time, except immediately after (within 48 hours) snowfall. 

These can be areas or linear routes, and are generally found in or near snowmobile or 

cross-country ski routes, in adjacent openings, parks and meadows, near ski huts or 

plowed roads, or in winter parking areas. Areas of consistent snow compaction will be 

determined based on the acreage or miles used during the period 1998 to 2000. 

2 Broad scale assessment – A broad scale assessment is a synthesis of current scientific 

knowledge, including a description of uncertainties and assumptions, to provide an 

understanding of past and present conditions and future trends, and a characterization 

of the ecological, social, and economic components of an area. (LCAS) 

3 Carr – Deciduous woodland or shrub land occurring on permanently wet, organic soil. 

(LCAS) 

4 Course woody debris – Any piece(s) of dead woody material, e.g., dead boles, limbs, and 

large root masses on the ground or in streams. (LCAS) 

5 Daylight thinning – Daylight thinning is a form of precommercial thinning that 

removes the trees and brush inside a given radius around a tree. 

6 Denning habitat (lynx) – Denning habitat is the environment lynx use when giving birth 

and rearing kittens until they are mobile. The most common component is large 

amounts of coarse woody debris to provide escape and thermal cover for kittens. 

Denning habitat must be within daily travel distance of winter snowshoe hare habitat – 

the typical maximum daily distance for females is about three to six miles. Denning 

habitat includes mature and old growth forests with plenty of coarse woody debris. It 

can also include young regenerating forests with piles of coarse woody debris, or areas 

where down trees are jack-strawed. 

7 Designated over-the-snow routes – Designated over-the-snow routes are routes managed 

under permit or agreement or by the agency, where use is encouraged, either by on-theground marking or by publication in brochures, recreation opportunity guides or maps 

(other than travel maps), or in electronic media produced or approved by the agency. 

The routes identified in outfitter and guide permits are designated by definition; 

groomed routes also are designated by definition. The determination of baseline snow 

compaction will be based on the miles of designated over-the-snow routes authorized, 

promoted or encouraged during the period 1998 to 2000. 

8 Designated route – A designated route is a road or trail that has been identified as open 

for specified travel use. 

9 Developed recreation – Developed recreation requires facilities that result in 

concentrated use. For example, skiing requires lifts, parking lots, buildings, and roads; 

campgrounds require roads, picnic tables, and toilet facilities. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

11

10 Security habitat (lynx) – Security habitat amounts to places in lynx habitat that provide 

secure winter bedding sites for lynx in highly disturbed landscapes like ski areas. 

Security habitat gives lynx the ability to retreat from human disturbance. Forest 

structures that make human access difficult generally discourage human activity in 

security habitats. Security habitats are most effective if big enough to provide visual 

and acoustic insulation and to let lynx easily move away from any intrusion. They 

must be close to winter snowshoe hare habitat. (LCAS) 

11 Fire use – Fire use is the combination of wildland fire use and using prescribed fire to 

meet resource objectives. (NIFC) Wildland fire use is the management of naturally 

ignited wildland fires to accomplish resource management objectives in areas that have 

a fire management plan. The use of the term wildland fire use replaces the term 

prescribed natural fire. (Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy, August 

1998) 

12 Forest highway – A forest highway is a forest road under the jurisdiction of, and 

maintained by, a public authority and open to public travel (USC: Title 23, Section 

101(a)), designated by an agreement with the FS, state transportation agency, and 

Federal Highway Administration. 

13 Fuel treatment – A fuel treatment is a type of vegetation management action that 

reduces the threat of ignition, fire intensity, or rate of spread, or is used to restore fireadapted ecosystems. 

14 Goal – A goal is a broad description of what an agency is trying to achieve, found in a 

land management plan. (LCAS) 

15 Guideline – A guideline is a particular management action that should be used to meet 

an objective found in a land management plan. The rationale for deviations may be 

documented, but amending the plan is not required. (LCAS modified) 

16 Habitat connectivity (lynx) – Habitat connectivity consists of an adequate amount of 

vegetation cover arranged in a way that allows lynx to move around. Narrow forested 

mountain ridges or shrub-steppe plateaus may serve as a link between more extensive 

areas of lynx habitat; wooded riparian areas may provide travel cover across open 

valley floors. (LCAS) 

17 HFRA (Healthy Forests Restoration Act) - Public Law 108-148, passed in December 2003. 

The HFRA provides statutory processes for hazardous fuel reduction projects on certain 

types of at-risk National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands. It also 

provides other authorities and direction to help reduce hazardous fuel and restore 

healthy forest and rangeland conditions on lands of all ownerships. (Modified from 

Forest Service HFRA web site.) 

18 Highway – The word highway includes all roads that are part of the National 

Highway System. (23 CFR 470.107(b)) 

19 Horizontal cover – Horizontal cover is the visual obscurity or cover provided by habitat 

structures that extend to the ground or snow surface primarily provided by tree stems 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

12

and tree boughs, but also includes herbaceous vegetation, snow, and landscape 

topography. 

20 Isolated mountain range – Isolated mountain ranges are small mountains cut off from 

other mountains and surrounded by flatlands. On the east side of the Rockies, they are 

used for analysis instead of sub-basins. Examples are the Little Belts in Montana and 

the Bighorns in Wyoming. 

21 LAU (Lynx Analysis Unit) – An LAU is an area of at least the size used by an 

individual lynx, from about 25 to 50 square miles (LCAS). An LAU is a unit for which 

the effects of a project would be analyzed; its boundaries should remain constant. 

22 Linkage area – A linkage area provides connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat. 

Linkage areas occur both within and between geographic areas, where basins, valleys, 

or agricultural lands separate blocks of lynx habitat, or where lynx habitat naturally 

narrows between blocks. (LCAS updated definition approved by the Steering 

Committee 10/23/01) 

23 Lynx habitat – Lynx habitat occurs in mesic coniferous forest that experience cold, 

snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare. In the northern Rockies, lynx 

habitat generally occurs between 3,500 and 8,000 feet of elevation, and primarily 

consists of lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce. It may consist of 

cedar-hemlock in extreme northern Idaho, northeastern Washington and northwestern 

Montana, or of Douglas-fir on moist sites at higher elevations in central Idaho. It may 

also consist of cool, moist Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch and aspen when 

interspersed in subalpine forests. Dry forests do not provide lynx habitat. (LCAS) 

24 Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition –Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition consists 

of lynx habitat in the stand initiation structural stage where the trees are generally less 

than ten to 30 years old and have not grown tall enough to protrude above the snow 

during winter. Stand replacing fire or certain vegetation management projects can 

create unsuitable conditions. Vegetation management projects that can result in 

unsuitable habitat include clearcuts and seed tree harvest, and sometimes shelterwood 

cuts and commercial thinning depending on the resulting stand composition and 

structure. (LCAS) 

25 Low-speed, low-traffic-volume road – Low speed is less than 20 miles per hour; low 

volume is a seasonal average daily traffic load of less than 100 vehicles per day. 

26 Maintain – In the context of this decision, maintain means to provide enough lynx 

habitat to conserve lynx. It does not mean to keep the status quo. 

27 Maintenance level – Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by and 

maintenance required for a road. (FSH 7709.58, Sec 12.3) Maintenance level 4 is 

assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at 

moderate travel speeds. Most level 4 roads have double lanes and an aggregate surface. 

Some may be single lane; some may be paved or have dust abated. Maintenance level 5 

is assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

13

Normally, level 5 roads are have double lanes and are paved, but some may be 

aggregate surfaced with the dust abated. 

28 Mid-seral or later – Mid-seral is the successional stage in a plant community that is the 

midpoint as it moves from bare ground to climax. For riparian areas, it means willows 

or other shrubs have become established. For shrub-steppe areas, it means shrubs 

associated with climax are present and increasing in density. 

29 Multi-story mature or late successional forest – This stage is similar to the old multistory 

structural stage (see below). However, trees are generally not as old, and decaying trees 

may be somewhat less abundant. 

30 Objective – An objective is a statement in a land management plan describing desired 

resource conditions and intended to promote achieving programmatic goals. (LCAS) 

31 Old multistory structural stage – Many age classes and vegetation layers mark the old 

forest, multistoried stage. It usually contains large old trees. Decaying fallen trees may 

be present that leave a discontinuous overstory canopy. On cold or moist sites without 

frequent fires or other disturbance, multi-layer stands with large trees in the uppermost 

layer develop. (Oliver and Larson, 1996) 

32 Old growth – Old growth forests generally contain trees that are large for their species 

and the site, and are sometimes decadent with broken tops. Old growth often contains 

a variety of tree sizes, large snags, and logs, and a developed and often patchy 

understory. 

33 Permanent development – A permanent development is any development that results in 

a loss of lynx habitat for at least 15 years. Ski trails, parking lots, new permanent roads, 

structures, campgrounds, and many special use developments would be considered 

permanent developments. 

34 Prescribed fire – A prescribed fire is any fire ignited as a management action to meet 

specific objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA 

requirements met, before ignition. The term prescribed fire replaces the term 

management ignited prescribed fire. (NWCG) 

35 Precommercial thinning – Precommercial thinning is mechanically removing trees to 

reduce stocking and concentrate growth on the remaining trees, and not resulting in 

immediate financial return. (Dictionary of Forestry) 

 36 Project - All, or any part or number of the various activities analyzed in an 

Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental Analysis, or Decision Memo. For 

example, the vegetation management in some units or stands analyzed in an EIS could 

be for fuel reduction, and therefore those units or stands would fall within the term fuel 

treatment project even if the remainder of the activities in the EIS are being conducted for 

other purposes, and the remainder of those units or stands have other activities 

prescribed in them. All units in an analysis do not necessarily need to be for fuel 

reduction purposes for certain units to be considered a fuel reduction project. 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

14

37 Red squirrel habitat – Red squirrel habitat consists of coniferous forests of seed and 

cone-producing age that usually contain snags and downed woody debris, generally 

associated with mature or older forests. 

38 Regeneration harvest – The cutting of trees and creating an entire new age class; an 

even-age harvest. The major methods are clearcutting, seed tree, shelterwood, and 

group selective cuts. (Helms, 1998) 

39 Research – Research consists of studies conducted to increase scientific knowledge or 

technology. For the purposes of Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6, research applies to 

studies financed from the forest research budget (FSM 4040) and administrative studies 

financed from the NF budget. 

40 Restore, restoration – To restore is to return or re-establish ecosystems or habitats to 

their original structure and species composition. (Dictionary of Forestry) 

41 Riparian area – An area with distinctive soil and vegetation between a stream or other 

body of water and the adjacent upland; includes wetlands and those portions of 

floodplains and valley bottoms that support riparian vegetation. (LCAS) 

42 Salvage harvest – Salvage harvest is a commercial timber sale of dead, damaged, or 

dying trees. It recovers economic value that would otherwise be lost. Collecting 

firewood for personal use is not considered salvage harvest. 

43 Shrub steppe habitat – Shrub steppe habitat consists of dry sites with shrubs and 

grasslands intermingled. 

44 Standard – A standard is a required action in a land management plan specifying how 

to achieve an objective or under what circumstances to refrain from taking action. A 

plan must be amended to deviate from a standard. 

45 Stand initiation structural stage – The stand initiation stage generally develops after a 

stand-replacing disturbance by fire or regeneration timber harvest. A new single-story 

layer of shrubs, tree seedlings, and saplings establish and develop, reoccupying the site. 

Trees that need full sun are likely to dominate these even-aged stands. (Oliver and 

Larson, 1996) 

46 Stem exclusion structural stage (Closed canopy structural stage) – In the stem exclusion 

stage, trees initially grow fast and quickly occupy all of the growing space, creating a 

closed canopy. Because the trees are tall, little light reaches the forest floor so 

understory plants (including smaller trees) are shaded and grow more slowly. Species 

that need full sunlight usually die; shrubs and herbs may become dormant. New trees 

are precluded by a lack of sunlight or moisture. (Oliver and Larson, 1996) 

47 Timber management – Timber management consists of growing, tending, commercially 

harvesting, and regenerating crops of trees. 

48 Understory re-initiation structural stage – In the understory re-initiation stage, a new 

age class of trees gets established after overstory trees begin to die, are removed, or no 

longer fully occupy their growing space after tall trees abrade each other in the wind. 

Understory seedlings then re-grow and the trees begin to stratify into vertical layers. A 
Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

15

low to moderately dense uneven-aged overstory develops, with some small shadetolerant trees in the understory. (Oliver and Larson, 1996) 

49 Vegetation management – Vegetation management changes the composition and 

structure of vegetation to meet specific objectives, using such means as prescribed fire 

or timber harvest. For the purposes of this decision, the term does not include 

removing vegetation for permanent developments like mineral operations, ski runs, 

roads and the like, and does not apply to fire suppression or to wildland fire use. 

50 Wildland urban interface (WUI) – Use the definition of WUI found in the Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act. The full text can be found at HFRA § 101. Basically, the 

wildland urban interface is the area adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified 

in the community wildfire protection plan. If there is no community wildfire protection 

plan in place, the WUI is the area 0.5 mile from the boundary of an at-risk community; 

or within 1.5 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community if the terrain is steep, or 

there is a nearby road or ridgetop that could be incorporated into a fuel break, or the 

land is in condition class 3, or the area contains an emergency exit route needed for safe 

evacuations. (Condensed from HFRA. For full text see HFRA § 101.) 

 51 Winter snowshoe hare habitat – Winter snowshoe hare habitat consists of places where 

young trees or shrubs grow densely – thousands of woody stems per acre – and tall 

enough to protrude above the snow during winter, so snowshoe hare can browse on the 

bark and small twigs (LCAS). Winter snowshoe hare habitat develops primarily in the 

stand initiation, understory reinitiation and old forest multistoried structural stages.