C04f Attachment 5 Biological Assessment LandMgtPlan Template 1284LM26Q0117.docx

Forest Service XXX National Forest Month 2026 Biological Assessment for the XXX National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Flathead, Granite, Lewis and Clark, Mineral, Missoula, Powell, Ravalli, and Sanders counties in Montana

ADD PHOTO

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Executive Summary A revised land management plan is being proposed for the XXX National Forest. The XXX National Forest informally consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service on XXXXXX to discuss the federally listed species that should be considered and evaluated in a biological assessment for the revised land management plan, and a list of species was developed and agreed upon (Table 1). This biological assessment considers the potential effects of the proposed land management plan (preferred alternatives) on these XX federally listed and two proposed species for the XXX National Forest.

We determined that the proposed action … Table 1. Determination for federally listed species and designated critical habitats addressed in this biological assessment

Biological Assessment for the Lolo National Forest Land Management Plan Name of Project Biological Assessment for the XXXX National Forest Land Management Plan

Carson National Forest Lolo National Forest ii Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Plan Component Abbreviations Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: NEEDS UPDATING IF KEEPING THIS LIST

Would probably just combine with acronym table.

AIR = air quality ALPINE = non-forest vegetation: alpine AKNRGA = Ashley Karst National Recreation and Geologic Area ASPEN = forest vegetation: aspen ATRISK = at-risk plant species BYWAY = national scenic byways CARTER = Carter Military Road CARBON = carbon storage and sequestration CLIM = adapting to climate change CONIF = forest vegetation: coniferous forests DA = designated area DC = desired condition FAC = facilities FGNRA = Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area FIRE = fire FISH = fisheries and aquatic ecosystems FW = forestwide GD = guideline GEOL = geologic resources and hazards GO = goal GRAZ = livestock grazing HIST = cultural and historic resources HUW = High Uintas Wilderness HVRA = protection of highly valued resources or assets IND = monitoring indicator IRA = inventoried roadless areas LAND = land status and organization LANDSU = lands special uses MA = management area MINL = energy and minerals MON = monitoring question OB = objective PJ = forest vegetation: pinyon-juniper RAREHAB = rare and unique habitats—calcareous fens and peatlands RECDEV = developed recreation sites RECDIS = dispersed recreation RECEV = recreation events RECGP = noncommercial group use RECOG = outfitters and guides RECRES = recreation residences RECSU = recreation special uses RECTEC = emerging recreation technologies RECWIL = preliminary administrative recommendation of wilderness RMABACK = backcountry recreation areas RMADEST = destination recreation areas RMAGENL = general recreation area RMZ = riparian management zones RNA = research natural areas ROAD = transportation infrastructure—roads ROS = recreation opportunity spectrum SAGE = non-forest vegetation: sagebrush SCCGA = Sheep Creek Canyon Geologic Area SCENIC = scenic resources SHRUB = non-forest vegetation: desert shrub SOCEC = social and economic sustainability SOIL = soils STATN = historic ranger stations ST = standard SUIT = suitability SWETT = Swett Ranch TIMB = timber TRAIL = trails TRIBE = areas of tribal importance UML = Ute Mountain Fire Lookout Tower VEGF = forested vegetation VEGNF = non-forest vegetation VEGTER = terrestrial vegetation VISEDU = visitor education and interpretation WATER = watershed- and groundwater-dependent ecosystems WILDL = wildlife WSR = eligible and suitable wild and scenic river Introduction This biological assessment is an analysis of the potential effects to federally listed species from implementing the direction described in the proposed action (preferred alternative). The Lolo proposed land management plan was prepared and revised as required by the National Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, in compliance with the 2012 Planning Rule. Once finalized, the revised land management plan will replace the 1986 Lolo land management plan and its amendments.

The proposed land management plan provides forest-level direction (plan components) to meet the Forest Service’s mission for program management activities. It is largely strategic in nature but does address the types of activities to be conducted on the Lolo National Forest. The proposed land management plan does not specifically authorize individual projects or activities. Site-specific actions will be subject to future and separate Endangered Species Act section 7(a) (2) consultations.

In this biological assessment, the Lolo is consulting on the land management plan’s resource program administration, as well as “plan components” (desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, standards, designated areas, and management areas. Plan components constitute the decisions being made by adopting the land management plan. Desired conditions describe an aspirational vision, objectives are quantifiable intended outcomes, standards and guidelines are constraints on project design. Most of the actions being consulted on are from program management activities and objectives, while standards and guidelines tend to mitigate effects of the actions (hence, they result in reduced effects). Desired conditions can also help to reduce effects or contribute to recovery as projects implemented under the plan must move toward desired conditions.

Land management plans are broad planning documents that guide the long-term management of national forests. Unless it expressly states otherwise, a land management plan does not authorize any on-the-ground or site-specific action. Future site-specific management actions will be subject to individual, project-level National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act requirements. Each site-specific project or activity implemented under the revised land management plan that may affect a listed species will undergo a separate environmental analysis and Endangered Species Act section 7(a)(2) consultation.

While site-specific management actions must be consistent with the governing forest plan pursuant to the National Forest Management Act, many of these actions are already otherwise authorized under existing Federal statutes and regulations. For example, the General Mining Law of 1872 generally makes public lands available for mineral exploration. Likewise, the Organic Act and regulations codified at 36 CFR 222 allow for grazing on national forests. Land management plans provide guidance for and constraints on these actions on individual forests. Since these actions are otherwise allowed, the primary effect of the forest plan on listed species is often to constrain existing statutory and regulatory discretion in favor of recovery and protection of those species and habitat.

The Lolo land management plan meets the definition of a ‘framework programmatic document’ under 50 CFR 402.14. The land management plan provides a strategic framework for future actions on the national forest but does not authorize those actions. Under this programmatic plan, future actions with significant environmental impacts would be analyzed in future National Environmental Policy Act processes prior to authorization of on-the-ground activities. As outlined in this biological assessment, the land management plan does not prescribe the timing or exact location for specific land management activities in the future. Because of the programmatic nature of the land management plan, determination of the likelihood or extent of potential future incidental take would be highly speculative and difficult or impossible to determine for potential future actions. Therefore, we request that the US Fish and Wildlife Service use the revised regulation and consult on the land management plan as a framework programmatic action (50 CFR 402.12).

Because land management plans do not prescribe the timing or exact location of specific land management activities, there is some uncertainty about the potential environmental consequences of implementing land management plan direction. This uncertainty extends to effects on federally listed species if applicable. Some of the objectives, however, prescribe an annual treatment rate that can be used to describe the timing and intensity of a particular activity or type of action. This biological assessment evaluates the potential effects of the land management plan’s programmatic direction that may result in site-specific land management activities. The determination of effects results from evaluating the expected outcome of implementing land management plan direction, amending a land management plan (for example, deleting/adding/changing standards and guidelines and other plan components) either for site-specific projects or programmatically (i.e., a permanent change for all future projects) should and will occur on an as-needed basis to adaptively keep the land management plan up to date. Such amendments would be considered outside of the scope of this consultation and would require their own site-specific Endangered Species Act section 7(a)(2) consultation to address the effects of the proposed actions.

A tiered approach to Endangered Species Act section 7(a)(2) consultation includes consultation at the land management plan programmatic level that may result in a biological opinion with no incidental take statement and reasonable and prudent measures. Additionally, each site-specific project or activity implemented under the revised land management plan that may affect a listed species or critical habitat will undergo a separate Endangered Species Act section 7(a)(2) consultation, which will be tiered to the programmatic-level land management plan biological opinion.

Species Addressed Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal species formally listed by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service under authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. According to US Fish and Wildlife Services (2026, IPaC #MT-2026-0033717), listed species include Canada lynx, grizzly bear, North American wolverine, western yellow-billed cuckoo, bull trout, monarch butterfly, Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee, Spalding’s catchfly, and whitebark pine.

The objectives of this biological assessment are to comply with requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act for the Lolo’s proposed land management plan. This includes reviewing the current land management programs to identify ongoing activities and programmatic direction that may affect federally listed, proposed, and candidate species, as well as designated or proposed critical habitats within the action area.

Only those species that use the national forest, have suitable habitat present, and/or could be impacted by off-forest management effects (for example, upstream/downstream effects) were fully analyzed (Table 2).

Table 2. Status of species and critical habitat for the Lolo National Forest

Critical Habitat for Listed Species

Consultation History Brief overview of consultation timeline and prior efforts related to this revision, including key dates and outcomes.

Informal consultation was initiated… Description of the Action Area Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: Should be able to get majority, if not all, of this narrative from DEIS.

The action area is the specific spatial polygon including all areas where land, water, or air will be detectably changed due to the proposed action.

Relevant Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Riparian Areas

Aquatic Ecosystems

Relevant Terrestrial Habitats

Description of the Proposed Action Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: Get from DEIS

Land Management Plan Direction

Plan Content

Plan Components

Management and designated areas

Desired Conditions

Objectives

Standards

Suitability of Lands

Goals

Other Plan Content

Summary of Key Issues Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: Get from DEIS The purpose for revising the current Ashley National Forest Plan is threefold: (1) the 1986 forest plan is over 30 years old and has been amended 24 times, (2) since the 1986 forest plan was approved in 1986, there have been changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions; new policies and priorities; and new information based on monitoring and scientific research, and (3) the Forest Service needs to address the focus topics identified in the need to change the existing plan (sustainable recreation, economic resiliency, managing traditional resources, tribal and cultural resources, and managing for resilient ecosystems and watersheds).

The need to change the forest plan has been organized into five focus topics to help ensure the purpose of and need to revise the forest plan are met. The focus topics are as follows:

There is a need for sustainable recreation. This includes balancing recreation use with ecological integrity, addressing population increases and aging populations, and addressing shifts in the types of preferred recreation.

There is a need for economic resiliency. This includes balancing local communities and economies with ecosystem services generated on the Ashley National Forest, such as municipal water, recreation, employment, and tourism.

There is a need to manage resource uses. This includes conserving and encouraging resource uses, such as mineral development, livestock grazing, timber and woodland products use, and fuelwood collection. There is a need to balance these uses with other multiple uses while transitioning from commodity-based goods to a focus on restoration, resiliency, and sustainability within emerging economic opportunities.

There is a need to manage cultural resources and improve tribal relationships and partnerships, to provide for subsistence and other cultural activities, including guidance to manage areas of tribal importance.

There is a need to manage for resilient ecosystems and watersheds. This includes protecting and restoring terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and non-forest communities.

Description of the Preferred Alternative – Modified Alternative B Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: Get from DEIS Forestwide Direction

Area Direction

Monitoring

Analysis Process and Assumptions Species and Critical Habitat Effects Analysis This section describes, species by species, the effects of the proposed action on listed and proposed species and the habitats on which they depend. Species analysis should consider:

· Effects happening directly to the species and habitats;

· Effects happening to the environment on which a species depends that could then result in effects to the species;

· Effects that occur throughout the life of the plan’s implementation; and

· Cumulative effects to the species.

Complete Critical Habitat subsections if your action area is within designated or proposed critical habitat for a species. If the physical and biological features (PBF; or primary constituent elements [PCEs]) required for the species’ critical habitat are present within the action area, and your action area is not within an exclusion zone, you will be required to make an effect determination regarding the project’s effects to the habitat.

Plan Components Providing for Species Recovery and Conservation The proposed plan has components for resource areas that provide protection and conservation for listed species over the life of the plan and helps provide the section 7(a)(1) conservation actions for the SPECIES. Desired conditions provide the basis for most section 7(a)(1) actions. Beside the proposed plan components, the Lolo National Forest will continue to implement the current section 7(a)(1) actions described below. The proposed plan components (desired condition, objectives, standards, and guidelines) that provide some type of protection or are likely to have the greatest beneficial effect on the species including those listed species not currently found on the Lolo, are listed in Appendix X.

Plan components that would benefit each species can be primarily found under the vegetation sections each species relies on and the wildlife, fish, and plant section. Additional plan components that balance multiple use with species needs can be found under sustainable rangelands and livestock grazing, infrastructure, special uses, recreation and land adjustments. Plan components in several management and designated areas would also be positive. The potential impacts to each species from management actions are in the individual sections below.

Aquatic Species Considered Common name (Scientific name) General status of the species and critical habitat Describe the general species and critical habitat information: biology and life history, status and trend, etc.

Species Critical Habitat

General Key Ecological Conditions

Key Potential Threats Species Critical Habitat

Environmental Baseline - Status of species and critical habitat on the Lolo National Forest Describe the current baseline conditions of the species and critical habitat within the action area: species presence and use, species conservation needs, general habitat conditions (different from critical habitat), quantity/quality/location of PBFs/PCEs, conservation needs of the PBFs/PCEs, and past/present/ongoing activities or influences that have affected the species and critical habitat.

Species Critical Habitat

Conservation Measures: Conservation Actions 7(a)(1)

Effects of the Proposed Action Discuss the expected effects on the species and critical habitat PBFs/PCEs from the proposed action that are reasonably certain to occur, INCLUDING the effects of activities that WOULD NOT occur if not for the proposed action.

Effects to Species Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: Do we want to lump or split these narratives for Species and Critical Habitat?

Option 1: Keep it more free flowing like the Ashley NF.

Option 2: Create subheadings by resource based on which ones are expected to have an effect on the species and/or CH (so would be dictated by the Threats section and mirror the Plan’s resource sections). This is how the Carson NF did theirs.

Effects to Critical Habitat

Cumulative Effects Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: Thought for now is just write your section as you see fit, and then at the end let’s look for redundancies and any cumulative effects that may be common to all or some species with same/similar habitats.

Basically look for ways to group the cumulative effects or reference up in the document rather than repeat same thing over and over again.

Anticipated future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area, as defined under ESA. For each action that fits the definition of a cumulative effect, provide information about the specific predicted effects from those actions on the individuals or habitat(s) and critical habitat within the action area.

Effects Determinations Include a brief, summarized rationale to support the determination(s) made and refer back to previously stated information as often as possible.

Species Critical Habitat

Terrestrial Species Considered Common name (Scientific name) General status of the species and critical habitat Species Critical Habitat

General Key Ecological Conditions

Key Potential Threats Species Critical Habitat

Environmental Baseline - Status of species and critical habitat on the Lolo National Forest Species Critical Habitat

Conservation Measures: Conservation Actions 7(a)(1)

Effects of the Proposed Action Effects to Species

Effects to Critical Habitat

Cumulative Effects

Effects Determinations Species Critical Habitat

Common name (Scientific name) General status of the species and critical habitat Species

General Key Ecological Conditions

Key Potential Threats Species

Environmental Baseline - Status of species and critical habitat on the Lolo National Forest Species Critical Habitat

Conservation Measures: Conservation Actions 7(a)(1)

Effects of the Proposed Action Effects to Species Critical Habitat

Cumulative Effects

Effects Determinations Species Critical Habitat

Common name (Scientific name) General status of the species and critical habitat Species Critical Habitat

General Key Ecological Conditions

Key Potential Threats Species Critical Habitat

Environmental Baseline - Status of species and critical habitat on the Lolo National Forest Species Critical Habitat

Conservation Measures: Conservation Actions 7(a)(1)

Effects of the Proposed Action Effects to Species Effects to Critical Habitat

Cumulative Effects

Effects Determinations Species Critical Habitat

Common name (Scientific name) General status of the species and critical habitat Species Critical Habitat

General Key Ecological Conditions

Key Potential Threats Species Critical Habitat

Environmental Baseline - Status of species and critical habitat on the Lolo National Forest Species Critical Habitat

Conservation Measures: Conservation Actions 7(a)(1)

Effects of the Proposed Action Effects to Species Effects to Critical Habitat

Cumulative Effects

Effects Determinations Species Critical Habitat

Common name (Scientific name) General status of the species and critical habitat Species Critical Habitat

General Key Ecological Conditions

Key Potential Threats Species Critical Habitat

Environmental Baseline - Status of species and critical habitat on the Lolo National Forest Species Critical Habitat

Conservation Measures: Conservation Actions 7(a)(1)

Effects of the Proposed Action Effects to Species Effects to Critical Habitat

Cumulative Effects

Effects Determinations Species Critical Habitat

Common name (Scientific name) General status of the species and critical habitat The Western Distinct Population Segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo was listed as Threatened on 11/03/2014 (79 FR 67154-67155). Critical habitat was proposed in 2014 (79 FR 71373-71375) and again in 2020 (85 FR 11458-11594).

Species

Critical Habitat

General Key Ecological Conditions

Key Potential Threats Species Critical Habitat

Environmental Baseline - Status of species and critical habitat on the Lolo National Forest Species Critical Habitat

Conservation Measures: Conservation Actions 7(a)(1)

Effects of the Proposed Action Effects to Species Effects to Critical Habitat

Cumulative Effects

Effects Determinations Species Critical Habitat

Plant Species Considered Common name (Scientific name) General status of the species and critical habitat Species Critical Habitat

General Key Ecological Conditions

Key Potential Threats Species Critical Habitat

Environmental Baseline - Status of species and critical habitat on the Lolo National Forest Species Critical Habitat

Conservation Measures: Conservation Actions 7(a)(1)

Effects of the Proposed Action Effects to Species Effects to Critical Habitat

Cumulative Effects

Effects Determinations Species Critical Habitat

Appendix A – Species with “No Effect” Determinations This section summarizes species that are not known to occur within the action area, are not anticipated to be impacted by framework programmatic actions of the land management plan indirectly or cumulatively, or both. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence is not being requested for these species. These species are provided for reference purposes only.

Common name (Scientific name) The Spalding’s catchfly is federally listed as threatened and no critical habitat has been designated for this species. Level 1 conversations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resulted in the determination that this species is not present on the national forest and is not likely to become established.

A no effect finding was made for Spalding’s catchfly. U.S. Fish and Wildlife concurrence is not being requested for this species at this time.

Conservation Measures Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: Does the Forest have CMs? Or we could reference Plan Components that would still provide for this species if it were to become established.

Appendix B – Plan Component Crosswalk Comment by Ramirez, Emily - FS, ID: Show how specific plan components support the recovery of each listed species.

Should be able to pull this from the DEIS plan component crosswalks.

Appendix C – Maps

References image1.png