revised biological assessment for terrestrial wildlife...

1

REVISED BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES

Benchmark Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National Forest

Prepared By: Wendy C Maples, District Biologist, Rocky Mountain RD _/s/ Wendy Maples_______ _____7/22/2010______ Name Date REVIEWED BY: Laura Conway, Forest Biologist, Lewis and Clark NF _/s/ Laura Conway________ ______7/22/2010________ Name Date

3

SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PROPOSED PROJECT SPECIES ASSESSMENTS Canada Lynx Determination of Effect Grizzly Bear Determination of Effect CONSULTATION LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX A - Maps 1-1. Project Vicinity 2-1. Alternative 2 (Proposed Project) A-9. Lynx Habitat A-10. Grizzly Bear Habitat

…………………..………………………………………5

………………….……………………………………….6

………………….……………………………………….7

………………….……………………………………….8

………………….……………………………………….8 …………………………………………………………27 ………………...……………………………………….27 …………………………………………………………48

………………...……………………………………….48

………………...……………………………………….49

5

SUMMARY The Lewis and Clark National Forest (LCNF) proposes to carry out a Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project on National Forest Lands in the vicinity of the Benchmark Road (FDR #235) on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District (RMRD). This Biological Assessment analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on two species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act: grizzly bear and Canada lynx. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS Implementation of the proposed Federal action MAY AFFECT, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT the Threatened Canada lynx and the Threatened grizzly bear. Implementation of the proposed Federal action MAY AFFECT, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT designated Critical Habitat for Canada lynx. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its implementation regulations, and FSM 2671.4, the Lewis and Clark National Forest is required to request written concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with respect to determinations of potential effects on Threatened Grizzly Bear and Canada Lynx. NEED FOR RE-ASSESSMENT BASED ON CHANGED CONDITIONS The Biological Assessment findings are based on the best current data and scientific information available. A revised Biological Assessment must be prepared if: (1) new information reveals affects, which may impact threatened, endangered, and proposed species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this assessment; (2) the Proposed Plan is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect, which was not considered in this assessment; or (3) a new species is listed or habitat identified, which may be affected by the action.

7

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to review the possible effects of a proposed federal action on threatened, endangered, and proposed species and their habitats. Threatened, endangered, and proposed species are managed under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (PL 93-205, as amended) and the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588). Under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Federal agencies shall use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species, and shall insure any action authorized, funded, or implemented by the agency is not likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species; or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat (16 USC 1536). This Biological Assessment analyzes the potential effects of the proposed federal action on all threatened, endangered, and proposed species known or suspected to occur in the Proposed Plan influence area (Table 1). This species list was confirmed on 06 June 2010 by referencing the FWS website: http://montanafieldoffice.fws.gov/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species/Forests/L&C_sp_list.pdf. The list for the Rocky Mountain Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest was most recently updated on the website on 12 May 2010. Life history information on these species can be found in the reference document “The Distribution, Life History, and Recovery Objectives For Region One Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Terrestrial Wildlife Species” (2001) and is incorporated by reference in this Biological Assessment. Refer to Appendix B for a summary of this information. Table 1. Threatened, Endangered And Proposed Species and Critical Habitat Known Or Suspected To Occur Within The Influence Area Of The Proposed Plan. Species Status Occurrence Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos)

Threatened Known to occur throughout Rocky Mountain RD

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Threatened Known to occur throughout Rocky Mountain RD

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Habitat

Critical Habitat Rocky Mountain RD is within Unit 3 of Revised Designated Critical Habitat

FOREST PLAN GUIDANCE FOR WILDLIFE AND FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan requires, in Forest-Wide Management Standard C-2 (threatened and endangered species, Forest Plan pp. 2-32 through 2-34), that the forest comply with all provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and any other laws, orders or regulations pertaining to threatened or endangered species. The Forest Plan also directs managers to maintain active communication with research and to use current research for implementing projects in Threatened and Endangered species habitat (Standard C-2-4). Standard C-2-11 directs the Forest to establish an active public information and education program addressing Threatened and Endangered species management and emphasizing protective measures.

8

The Forest Plan provides direction to manage motorized use on NFS lands to reduce effects on wildlife during periods of high stress (Standard C-1-6). It requires use of the Rocky Mountain Front Interagency Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program Guidelines (RMF Guidelines) for managing activities in specific wildlife habitats (C-1-11), and directs managers to work with other agencies to develop, schedule, and implement wildlife habitat improvement projects (Standards C-1-12 and C-1-13). Forest Plan guidance specific to individual species is addressed in the appropriate species assessment below. PROPOSED PROJECT PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce hazardous fuels that pose a risk to human life, recreation residences, permitted guest lodges, Forest Service administrative sites, and campgrounds in the vicinity of the Benchmark Road (FDR #235). The project is also intended to reduce the risk that hazardous fuels pose to humans and private residences adjacent to the National Forest’s eastern boundary in the vicinity of T 19N, R9W, Sections 1 and 12. PROPOSED ACTION The Lewis and Clark National Forest proposes to carry out fuel reduction actions with two distinct objectives. First, mechanical removal of fuels and prescribed burning will be used to create a community protection zone by increasing canopy spacing and reducing ground fuels in an “envelope” around recreational residence tracts, campgrounds, administrative sites, and lodges. In general terms, the intent of these treatments will be to reduce the intensity of a fire in the vicinity of improvements and places of human habitation. These treatments will complement the activities of permit-holders who create and maintain defensible space around their dwellings and other structures. Reduction of fuels in the area will also increase opportunities for safe and effective fire management actions directed toward protecting structures and improvements in the vicinity of the Benchmark Road. Second, a combination of group-selection cutting, thinning, and prescribed burning will be used in specific areas to create fuel breaks by disrupting the continuity of fuels. These fuel breaks will be located on ridges in the vicinity of Benchmark and Fairview Creeks, and near the juncture of Ford Creek and the National Forest boundary. These treatments are intended to influence the direction of fire spread (away from recreation residences, lodges, campgrounds, and administrative sites), reduce overall fire intensity, and provide conditions conducive to effective fire management actions. Refer to the Benchmark EA, Chapters 1 and 2 for more detailed descriptions of the Purpose and Need for the action, and the Proposed Action itself. PROJECT AREA The project area is in the vicinity of the Benchmark Road (FDR #235) on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, in Lewis and Clark County, between 15 and 25 miles west and southwest of Augusta, Montana. The project will occur on a total of approximately 767 acres in the Ford Creek and Wood Creek drainages along the Benchmark

9

Road. The project consists of 20 individual treatment units clustered in 10 separate areas, with some units sub-divided based on proposed treatment types (see maps 1-1 and 2-1 from the Benchmark Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment [Benchmark EA], in Appendix A, and refer to the Benchmark Fuels Reduction Project Addendum to the April 2009 Environmental Assessment [Benchmark Addendum]). Treatment unit sizes range from1 to about 240 acres, with some units grouped in close proximity or adjoining one another. Due to the number of treatment units and the fact that they are spread along several miles of road, description in terms of legal location is difficult and not useful. Rather, refer to the attached map. The area is predominantly pole-size to mature Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forest, with varying degrees of canopy closure and understory development (refer to Benchmark EA, Section 3, pp. 11- 13). Most of the areas targeted for treatment under the Proposed Action have experienced significant regeneration, understory development, and/or canopy closure, resulting in relatively high fuel loading (refer to Benchmark EA, Section 1 pp. 2-3). SPECIES ASSESSMENTS CANADA LYNX (LYNX CANADENSIS) Existing Condition Legal and Management Status The Canada lynx is listed as Threatened throughout the contiguous Unites States. Management of lynx on LCNF lands is directed by the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD; USDA Forest Service 2007b. The Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment (NRLA; USDA Forest Service 2007b) amended several forest plans, including the LCNF Forest Plan, to add specific objectives, standards, and guidelines described in the NRLMD for management of lynx habitat on lands within the affected National Forests. The NRLMD replaced the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS: Reudiger et al. 2000) as the official direction for lynx habitat management on the LCNF in March 2007. In February 2009 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a revised Canada Lynx Critical Habitat designation that included the Rocky Mountain Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark National Forest within the Northern Rockies Unit (Unit 3) of Critical Habitat (Fed. Reg. V.74, No.36). The Project Area and surrounding lands have been identified as containing the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) required for lynx conservation: boreal forest types that have multi-storied conifer habitat supporting a viable snowshoe hare population, adequate annual snowfall, sites for denning, and sufficient matrix habitat to connect patches of boreal forest. Potential impacts to lynx Critical Habitat are discussed in a separate section below. Local Population and Habitat Status Lynx generally occur in cool, moist lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce forest types, and they may use moist Douglas-fir, grand fir, and aspen forests as well. Lynx are found in habitat that can support populations of their primary prey, snowshoe hare. Hares require a dense, multi-layered understory that provides browse opportunities and cover at varying snow depths throughout the winter. Landscapes with varying age classes, including disturbed areas as well as old forests with significant understory, may support high snowshoe hare populations and therefore provide good lynx habitat. Sufficient presence of large, woody debris appears to be important for natal den sites.

10

Lynx have been documented throughout the RMRD, including in the Benchmark area (Tweten 1984 and USFS unpublished data). Potential lynx habitat has been mapped for the entire LCNF, including the RMRD. The Jefferson Division, consisting of the isolated Highwood and Little Belt mountain ranges, and portions of the isolated Castle, Crazy, and Big Belt mountain ranges, is considered unoccupied by lynx, whereas the RMRD is considered occupied (USDA Forest Service 2007b).

Potential lynx habitat has been mapped for the RMRD using SILC1 vegetation data derived from satellite imagery, portraying existing vegetation cover types. ‘Foraging’ habitat was mapped to include all forested cover types that fall within the subalpine fir and moist Douglas-fir habitat type descriptions and including small areas of interspersed shrub and riparian types. These types may include areas that are currently in varying seral stages, including various ages of lodgepole pine forest. ‘Denning’ habitat was mapped to include only the medium and large size classes with moderate to high canopy cover of the above cover types, with the intent of capturing older, more structurally complex stands. All other coniferous forest types were classified as ‘travel’ habitat. Generally, foraging habitat as mapped is more than the mature, multi-story habitat that the 2007 NRLMD describes as high-quality snowshoe hare habitat with respect to Standard VEG S6 (USDA Forest Service 2007b); it includes other habitat that supports snowshoe hares and/or alternate prey species. Denning habitat, as mapped, encompasses potential foraging habitat, including some areas of mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat. Neither the existing habitat model nor the vegetation data layers currently available for this area allow us to separately identify patches of high-quality snowshoe hare habitat, or to separately identify foraging habitat that exists within mapped denning habitat. Verification of the mature, multi-story component of foraging habitat must currently be done on a project unit scale using on-the-ground field methods that are not designed for extrapolating to a broader scale. Difficulty of access to the large expanses of remote, off-road and off-trail areas on the RMRD limits the amount of ground verification that can be done. Extrapolation of field sampling to larger areas is not possible given the limitations of the currently available vegetation layers that would have to be used for such an effort. Thus the existing habitat map represents the best available means by which to estimate lynx habitat over a relatively broad scale, such as the scale of a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU; see below), a ranger district, or an entire National Forest. Field data collection, however, is the best way to identify specific stands of mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat at the scale of the project unit and specifically for determining compliance with the NRLMD VEG S6 Standard (see below). Habitat that is not currently suitable, which is habitat of the types discussed above that falls within a LAU but does not currently meet the requirements of foraging, denning, or travel habitat due to past fire or vegetation management activity, has been mapped for the Jefferson Division but not for the RMRD. At the time the habitat map for the RMRD was made, very little vegetation management activity or fire had occurred within lynx habitat. Possible past effects of activities were incorporated into the Existing Condition. Since that time, some vegetation management and several fires have occurred. Within the project area, habitat that is not currently suitable consists entirely of recently burned areas, with no habitat currently mapped as such due to timber harvest or vegetation management projects. Non-habitat is also identified in the map

11

layer, and comprises natural openings, cliffs and rock slides and other areas that do not now contain lynx habitat and are not expected to ever provide lynx habitat. As part of the requirements of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, (LCAS; Reudiger et al. 2000), Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) were mapped for the RMRD. LAUs are a conceptual framework meant to approximate the home range of a female lynx. The RMRD contains 27 LAUs, encompassing all mapped potential lynx habitat as described above. Portions of the RMRD, including the eastern portion of the Benchmark area, were not included within mapped LAUs when the habitat map and LAUs were originally created, because they do not contain sufficient potential lynx habitat to be used consistently by lynx. One LAU (RM23) in the Benchmark area includes proposed treatment units (refer to Benchmark EA Map A-9 in Appendix A). Five treatment units (Aspen 1 and 2, Double Falls 2, and Ford Creek 1 and 2) in the eastern portion of the Benchmark area are not mapped lynx habitat or within established LAUs.

Approximately 32% of LAU RM23 is described as non-habitat, defined by the habitat model as large grasslands, rock, water, alpine, ponderosa pine, limber pine, and other features or vegetation types that will not now or in the future produce lynx habitat (refer to updated materials in Project File, including “Lynx Vegetation Rocky Mountain Division Metadata”). A maximum of less than 2% (no more than 220 acres) of the mapped lynx habitat in the RM23 LAU has been either returned to a stand initiation stage or converted from foraging or denning to travel habitat as a result of the Cigarette Rock (2006) and the Ahorn (2007) fires. This estimate is based on the fire perimeter and does not account for the varying burn severities and unburned areas within those perimeters, so it is a maximum estimate assuming that all area within the perimeter has been affected. Roughly 80 acres (< 1% of all mapped lynx habitat and <1% of mapped lynx foraging habitat in the RM23 LAU) have been treated with regeneration type harvest (clearcutting) in the past 15 years in the RM23 LAU. This acreage has not been adjusted in the lynx habitat map layer but is accounted for in this analysis and in measuring compliance with the NRLMD (Table 3 below).

Table 2 displays acreages of lynx habitat on the entire LCNF as well as on each Division of the Forest and in the Benchmark area LAU. Figures for LAU RM23 have been adjusted for recent fires in the area, but habitat for the entire RMRD or LCNF has not. As discussed above, the lynx habitat map provides an estimate of lynx habitat at the LAU and larger scale. Measurements of lynx habitat have also been made in the field at the scale of the treatment unit, to determine compliance with specific NRLMD standards and to more specifically estimate potential impacts of the proposed treatments (see ‘Analysis Area and Methods’ and ‘Project Effects’ discussions below).

12

Table 2. Total Acreage and Percent of Lynx Habitat on the LCNF and by Division and affected LAU

Habitat LCNF Total

Jefferson Divison RMRD RM23

Total Acreage in Unit 1,861,274 1,083,640 777,634 19,467 Total Lynx Habitat 962,882 619,431 378,471 13,150

% of unit 52% 57% 49% 68% Lynx Travel Habitat 477,541 367,248 110,456 2,824

% of unit 26% 34% 14% 15% % of Total Habitat 50% 59% 29% 23%

Lynx Foraging Habitat 255,652 84,387 171,303 8,000 % of unit 14% 8% 22% 40%

% of Total Habitat 27% 14 % 45% 60% Lynx Denning Habitat 229,689 133,037 96,712 2,326

% of unit 12% 12% 12% 12% % of Total Habitat 24% 21% 26% 17%

Habitat not Currently in Suitable Condition unk 34,759 unk* 300

% of unit unk 3% unk 2% % of Total Habitat unk 5% unk 2.28%

Non-Habitat 436,717 125,766 310,951 6,317 % of unit 23% 12% 40% 32%

* Some habitat rendered not currently suitable due to Ahorn, Fool Ck., and Skyland Fires but effects not estimated at RMRD scale due to complexity and size of fires and complexity of image and data interpretation

Analysis Area and Methods The lynx analysis was carried out at the scale of one LAU (RM23) overlapping the treatment units (refer to Benchmark EA Map A-9 in Appendix A). All Treatment Units fall within the RM23 LAU or to the east, outside of mapped lynx habitat. The Benchmark #5 Treatment Unit (approximately 4 acres) was dropped from the Proposed Project; that unit was located in the extreme edge of the RM22 LAU. Since it has been dropped, the RM22 LAU has also been dropped from this analysis. Nearly the entire RM22 LAU is separated from the project area by a significant hydrologic divide. All treatment units that fall within an LAU were surveyed on the ground for the presence of mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat to evaluate compliance with Standard VEG S6 in the NRLMD. Measurements of mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat for estimation of compliance with NRLMD Standard VEG S6 will necessarily reflect a smaller acreage than the more broadly defined foraging habitat acreage depicted by the habitat map. Surveys were carried out following protocols recommended by the Region 1 office (see project file for details). Post-

13

treatment habitat was then compared to standards and guidelines found in the NRLMD. The proposed Benchmark Fuels Reduction project is in an area considered the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) according to the definition of WUI in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (refer to the Lewis and Clark National Forest Fire Management Plan and other documents in the Benchmark project file). Therefore the analysis of impacts to lynx is based on the application of standards and guidelines in the NRLMD for projects in the WUI.

Project Effects Direct and Indirect Effects General Effects and Analysis Assumptions All treatments proposed for the Benchmark project would thin or remove ladder fuels (primarily young conifers) within the unit through mechanical treatment and/or burning. Therefore treatments within multi-storied habitat of any age class that is currently suitable for snowshoe hares would render that habitat not currently suitable for hares and as lynx foraging habitat. The mature forest overstory, however, would remain largely intact in most units, and some shrub understory would remain or would quickly re-grow. Treatments are proposed in relatively small areas within a larger forested area, which would remain largely unaffected. Thus treated areas may continue to be used by lynx for movement among foraging habitat areas and for limited foraging for alternate prey species. We have therefore assumed that habitat currently identified as ‘foraging’ and ‘denning’ habitat in treatment units will function only as ‘travel’ or connecting habitat post-treatment.

The project is not designed to exclude fire from the Ford Creek or Wood Creek drainages, and it is expected that human and lightning caused ignitions will continue to occur in the vicinity of the project (Benchmark EA, Section 3, p.13). Although aggressive suppression is called for in this area as a result of the high number of structures and other human values at risk, the analysis in the Benchmark EA (Section 3, pp.13-20) reflects the understanding that fire is likely to occur in the analysis area at some time in the future (e.g. reference to “fuel breaks” to “control the spread of fire” rather than efforts to exclude fire from the area). It is likely that fire will continue to play a role in this area as well as on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District as a whole, in maintaining a mosaic of successional stages, and therefore in regenerating lynx prey habitat over time.

Effects at Analysis Area Scale Approximately 347 acres of RM 23 (1.8% of the LAU) would be treated. Of that, approximately 286 acres of mapped lynx habitat (travel, forage, and denning), or about 2.2% of the mapped lynx habitat in the LAU, would be affected by treatment.

More specifically, 105 acres of mapped potential foraging habitat (0.8% of the foraging habitat within the LAU as estimated by the habitat model) would be affected by the proposed treatments. Field surveys carried out in October 2009 indicate that only 43 acres of mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat (i.e. high-quality lynx foraging habitat) would be affected by treatments. We do not know what proportion that is of the total mature, multi-story habitat in the LAU or at the RMRD or Forest scale because we are unable to estimate that specific component of foraging habitat at a larger scale as discussed above. The 43 acres of mature, multi-story habitat, however, is only 0.5% of the total foraging habitat mapped in the RM23 LAU. Those 43 acres fall in the Fairmule #3, Mule Creek #2, and Green Timber #1 units. Of the 43 acres of high-quality snowshoe hare habitat potentially affected, a maximum of 18 acres could be converted to stand-

14

initiation stage, depending on the specific location of the ½ - 2 acre openings prescribed for those units. The remainder would be converted from foraging habitat to travel or ‘matrix’ habitat that may be used by lynx for some travel and foraging but that would not retain dense, multi-storied characteristics favored by snowshoe hares in winter. An estimated 7,890 acres of mapped foraging habitat within the LAU would remain undisturbed.

An estimated 14 acres of mapped denning habitat (about 0.6% of the mapped denning habitat in the LAU) would potentially be affected by treatments. Roughly 2260 acres of potential denning habitat within the LAU would remain undisturbed by treatments. Mapped denning habitat is very likely to also contain foraging habitat, including some quantity of mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat (i.e. high quality lynx foraging habitat).

Although the acreage figures in Table 2 above would be very slightly altered (see project file for data), the amount of RM23 that would remain in each habitat category would change by a fraction of a percent, which would not impact the ability of the LAU to support lynx. The remainder of the acreage in the LAU subject to treatment is currently travel habitat and would remain so after treatment. Less than 18 acres of lynx habitat within the LAU would be converted to stand-initiation stage, and some of that could remain suitable. Because of the small size of some of the planned openings (1/2 acre), lynx may still use those areas for travel among patches of foraging habitat, depending on the size and location of the units relative to other habitat patches.

Although the area east of LAU RM23 is within the broadly drawn boundary of “occupied habitat”, it consists largely of scattered patches of generally dry or open Douglas fir and limber pine, and maintains limited snow cover through the winter. The area does not meet the criteria for lynx habitat (see NRLMD Attachment 1, p. 12) and is therefore unlikely to support snowshoe hares or lynx. That area was not included in the Critical Habitat designation for that reason. Treatments occurring in that area will not impact snowshoe hares or lynx.

Effects at Rocky Mountain Ranger District Scale Less than 0.06% of the mapped potential lynx foraging habitat and approximately 0.01% of the mapped potential denning habitat on the RMRD would be converted to travel habitat as a result of the proposed treatments. Overall, less than 0.08% of the total mapped lynx habitat on the RMRD would be potentially affected by the proposed treatments.

Effects at Lewis and Clark National Forest Scale Less than 0.04% of the mapped potential foraging habitat and less than 0.01% of the mapped potential denning habitat on the LCNF in its entirety would be converted to travel habitat as a result of the proposed treatments. Overall, less than 0.03% of the mapped lynx habitat on the entire LCNF would be potentially affected by the proposed treatments. Compliance with the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment to the Forest Plan The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan was completed in 1986, many years before Canada lynx were listed as a Threatened species. Therefore no specific measures for protection of Canada lynx or their habitat were included in the Plan. The LCNF Forest Plan has been amended by the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment to incorporate the NRLMD into the Forest Plan. The

15

NRLMD spells out several standards regarding vegetation management activities and practices that apply to this project. Under the provisions of the NRLMD, fuel treatment projects occurring within the WUI may be exempted from compliance with Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEGS6 as long as they do not occur on more than 6% (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit. Generally an administrative unit is considered a National Forest and the exception is applied at that level. Although the NRLMD does not require compliance with its standards on unoccupied units or portions of units, such as the Jefferson Division of the LCNF, Regional direction recommends that the standards be applied to all units regardless of whether they are occupied. Therefore we have put potential impacts of the Benchmark project on lynx habitat in the context of both the RMRD and the Forest as a whole, as displayed in Table 2 above.

The Benchmark Project will comply with Standards VEG S1 and VEG S2. Standard VEG S5 does not apply because the project does not involve pre-commercial thinning. The project will apply the exception to Standard VEG S6 for treatments in the WUI. This is allowed under the NRLMD because the project is occurring in the WUI and less than 6% of lynx habitat on the RMRD and the LCNF as a whole will be affected by fuels projects. A total of approximately 114 acres of lynx foraging habitat, of which 43 acres is mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat per Standard VEG S6, would be included under this exemption (see Table 3 below). These acres will be reported as required by the NRLMD, which states that when project decisions are signed, the “acreage of fuel treatment in lynx habitat by forest and LAU” will be reported (NRLMD Attachment 1, p. 9). Per the NRLMD requirement, reporting will indicate “whether the treatment is within or outside the WUI as defined by HFRA”. If, in the future, any of the Benchmark units are re-treated, there will be appropriate review or analysis and any exemptions to the Standards will be reported at that time.

In addition to the standards listed above, the NRLMD contains several objectives and guidelines to be applied to vegetation management projects. The Benchmark Project will support objectives VEG 01, VEG 02, and VEG 03, and guidelines VEG G4, VEG G5, VEG G11, and indirectly, VEG G10. Objective VEG 04 will not be directly supported, and guideline VEG G1 is not directly applicable to the Wood Creek and Ford Creek drainages.

Specific application of the relevant NRLMD objectives, standards, and guidelines to be Benchmark Fuels project is displayed below in Table 3.

17

Table 3. Benchmark Fuels Reduction Project compliance with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction vegetation management objectives, standards, and guidelines.

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met (Yes or No and Met or Not Met)? Where direction is applicable but has not been met, explain the reason(s).

ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL)

Standard43 ALL S1 New or expanded permanent developments33 and vegetation management projects48 must maintain26 habitat connectivity16 in an LAU21 and/or linkage area22.

The small size and widely dispersed nature of the treatment units in the Benchmark project will ensure that habitat connectivity is maintained within and among LAUs.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJETS (VEG)

The following objectives, standards and guidelines apply to vegetation management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU).

Standard VEG S1 – Stand initiation structural stage limits Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management48 projects that regenerate37 timber, except for fuel treatment13 projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) 49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages44 limit disturbance in each LAU as follows: 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 projects.

. Roughly 220 acres, or 1.7% of lynx habitat in the RM23 LAU is likely in a stand initiation stage due to the Fool Creek and Cigarette Rock fires. An additional 80 acres (0.7% of the lynx habitat in the LAU) is likely in transition from stand-initiation to pole size-class as a result of clearcut harvest between 1995 and 1998. Therefore the maximum acreage in the LAU that may be in stand initiation structural stage is 300 acres or 1.9% of the lynx habitat in the RM23 LAU. Up to 18 acres of lynx foraging habitat would be treated by creating ½ - 2 acre openings on half of the treatment unit. The cumulative impact will be a maximum of 318 acres, or about 3% of the lynx habitat in the LAU in a stand-initiation stage. Therefore this standard is met.

18



Standard VEG S2 – Limits on regeneration from timber mgmt. projects Standard VEG S2 applies to all vegetation management48 projects that regenerate37 timber, except for fuel treatment13 projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI)49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Timber management projects shall not regenerate37 more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands in an LAU in a ten-year period.

Up to 18 acres of lynx foraging habitat would be treated by creating ½ - 2 acre openings on half of the treatment unit; these openings could be considered “regeneration” type treatment. Roughly 80 acres (< 1% of all mapped lynx habitat and <1% of mapped lynx foraging habitat in the RM23 LAU) have been treated with regeneration type harvest (clearcutting) in the past 15 years in the RM23 LAU. The total of past and proposed harvest remains at <1% of mapped total and mapped foraging lynx habitat, well below the 15% cap expressed in the standard. Therefore this standard is met.

Guideline VEG G11 – Denning habitat 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 projects should be designed to retain some coarse woody debris4, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat6 in the future.

The Benchmark project treatments will affect only about 14 acres of denning habitat in the RM23 LAU (0.6% of the denning habitat in the LAU). Treatments are in localized areas near recreation residences, where retaining piles of woody debris is not desireable. Denning habitat is well distributed within the affected LAU, with an estimated >2300 acres of potential denning habitat that would be unaffected by the project. Therefore this guideline is met.

Standard VEG S5 – Precommercial thinning limits Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial thinning35 projects, except for fuel treatment13 projects that use precommercial thinning as a tool within the wildland urban interface (WUI)49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent

Thinning on the Benchmark project is to be non-commercial – i.e. intended to reduce understory and ladder fuels, not to concentrate growth in remaining trees or as preparation for future timber harvest. Therefore this standard does not apply.

19



(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Precommercial thinning projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat, may occur from the stand initiation structural stage44 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 studies38 or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted

by the regional levels of the Forest Service and 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; or

4. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning5 around individual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline; or 5. For daylight thinning of planted rust-resistant white pine where 80 % of the winter snowshoe hare habitat50 is retained; or 6. To restore whitebark pine.

20



Standard VEG S6 – Multi-storied stands & snowshoe hare horizontal cover Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management48 projects that regenerate37 timber, except for fuel treatment13 projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI)49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Vegetation management projects 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 studies38 or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest41 (e.g. removal due to location of skid trails). (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]).

Snowshoe hare habitat is expected to be reduced within the proposed treatment units in areas of multi-story mature or late successional forest, where they exist. Although all but 2 of the proposed treatment units are in close proximity to recreation residences or administrative sites, most treatments will occur beyond 200 feet from these facilities. Treatment >200 ft. from sites is necessary to achieve project objectives of creating effective fuel breaks. Recommended width of effective “Community Protection Zones” is approximately 800 ft. (Benchmark EA, Section 3, p. 14). Habitat previously classified as foraging within the units, including mature or late successional multi-story snowshoe hare habitat, is expected to no longer serve that function and would be re-classified as travel habitat. Fieldwork carried out in all proposed treatment units identified a maximum of 43 acres of mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat that would be affected. Therefore we will apply the exception to this standard, as allowed under the NRLMD for fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not affect >6% of the lynx habitat on a unit (see Standard VEG S2 impacts, above). Overall, less than 0.08 % of the total mapped lynx habitat on the RMRD, and less than 0.03% of mapped lynx habitat on the entire LCNF would be affected by the proposed treatments. To date, there have been no acres of lynx habitat treated in WUI where exceptions to NRLMD standards have been applied. Therefore the exception is allowed.

21



Guideline VEG G1 – Lynx habitat improvement Vegetation management48 projects should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce or not available. Priority should be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage44 stands for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole stands). Winter snowshoe hare habitat50 should be near denning habitat6.

The intent of Benchmark project treatments is to remove understory and reduce density of conifers of all ages in order to reduce risk of high-intensity fire near recreation residences, other developed sites, and the NF boundary. Therefore this guideline is not adhered to in the limited, generally developed area affected by the project.

Guideline VEG G4 – Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire34 activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided.

No permanent travel routes will be created.

Guideline VEG G5 – Habitat for alternate prey species Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel36, should be provided in each LAU.

Habitat for alternate prey species occurs in and will be retained in the RM23 LAU.

Guideline VEG G10 – Fuel treatments in the WUI Fuel treatment projects in the WUI 49 as defined by HFRA17, 48 should be designed considering standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation.

The Benchmark project began development well before the standards in the NRLMD were specifically developed. However, guidance in the LCAS was used in project development and analysis. Some standards and guidelines can not be met and still achieve the desired outcome of the project as described specifically under those standards above; those that cannot be met are allowed under the exceptions for projects within the WUI. Standards VEG S1 and S2 are met by the project, and Standard VEG S5 does not apply. The exceptions for fuels projects in the WUI are applied under Standard VEG S6.

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, mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU), subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to

22



vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly.

Guideline HU G9 – Roads, new On new roads built for projects, public motorized use should be restricted. Effective closures should be provided in road designs. When the project is over, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives.

Less than ¼ mile of road will be re-constructed (on the prism of an old, decommissioned road) in order to facilitate treatment in one unit of the Benchmark project. This road will be closed and decommissioned when treatment of that unit is complete.

In addition to the Standards and Guidelines listed above the NRLMD contains several objectives to be applied to vegetation management projects. The degree to which the Benchmark project supports or adheres to those objectives is as follows:

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)? Where direction is applicable but has not been met, explain the reason(s).

OBJECTIVE VEG 01 Manage vegetation to mimic or approximate natural succession and disturbance processes while maintaining habitat components necessary for the conservation of lynx

The Benchmark project will contribute to restoring patterns of natural succession and disturbance by small-scale vegetation management aimed at imitating the effects of low-intensity fire in localized areas. The project is not designed to exclude fire from the Ford Creek or Wood Creek drainages, and it is expected that human and lightning caused ignitions will continue to occur in the vicinity of the project (Benchmark EA, Section 3, p.13). Fires and other natural processes will continue to maintain a mosaic of successional stages, and therefore in regenerate lynx prey habitat over time.

OBJECTIVE VEG 02 Provide a mosaic of habitat conditions through time that support dense horizontal cover, and high densities of snowshoe hare. Provide winter snowshoe hare habitat in both the stand initiation structural stage and in mature, multi-story conifer vegetation.

The project will contribute to maintaining a mosaic of habitats (see Objective Veg 01), but the project is intended to reduce the density of the understory and conifers of all ages in limited areas close to existing developments or the National Forest boundary, in order to reduce the risk of high-intensity fire in the immediate vicinity of those areas. Therefore the project objectives preclude

23

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)? Where direction is applicable but has not been met, explain the reason(s). growth of dense horizontal cover or multi-story conifer vegetation in the relatively dispersed, limited acreage within the WUI where the treatments will take place. At the LAU scale, the project will not preclude development of these conditions outside the identified project units.

OBJECTIVE VEG 03 Conduct fire use activities to restore ecological processes and maintain or improve lynx habitat.

The Benchmark project will use prescribed fire in some units, mimicking and restoring natural processes by allowing a wider range of possibilities for managing fire and other natural disturbances in the Benchmark area and adjoining Wilderness Areas. At the LAU and broader scales, the result will be maintenance or improvement of lynx habitat over time.

OBJECTIVE VEG 04 Focus vegetation management in areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover.

The project is intended to reduce the density of the understory and conifers of all ages in limited areas close to existing developments or the National Forest boundary. Therefore the project objectives preclude achievement of this objective in the widely dispersed, limited acreage within the WUI where the treatments will take place.

25

Effects in the Context of Other Federal Actions Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable federal actions that could potentially affect lynx habitat include recreational activity, implementation of the 2007 Travel Plan, wildfire and prescribed fire, timber harvest, and livestock grazing. Ongoing Recreational Activity Ongoing recreational activity in the area includes the presence of 3 developed campgrounds, several trailheads, commercial packer corrals, and numerous recreation residences. All of these are concentrated within a few hundred yards of the main Benchmark Road and have been in existence for anywhere from 30 to 80 years. At a larger scale, there are 98 permitted recreation residence cabins on the RMRD, clustered mainly in the Sun Canyon and Benchmark areas. There are also 11 developed campgrounds, as well as numerous dispersed campsites, trailhead facilities, and other recreation sites. Although improvements to some developed recreation areas may occur, there are no plans for expansion or addition of any facilities. The impacts that recreation facilities may have had on lynx habitat are long-established, limited to the immediate vicinity of the facility, and are assumed to be a part of the Existing Condition. A large proportion of visitors to the RMRD travel in the backcountry away from these facilities, where they hike, ride horseback, camp, fish, and hunt. There is some evidence that lynx are relatively tolerant of human activity (Reudiger et al. 2000). Existing disturbance that may occur due to recreational activity will not add measurably to the minor disturbance to individuals that may occur during implementation of the Benchmark project.

Implementation of the 2007 Travel Plan In 2007 the RMRD issued a decision for an updated Travel Management Plan for the Birch-South portion of the RMRD (USDA Forest Service 2007a). This plan reduces the overall mileage of motorized routes, as well as reducing the mileage of motorized routes within important seasonal wildlife habitats (USDA Forest Service 2007a) relative to the previous (1988) Travel Management Plan.

There is some evidence that lynx are relatively tolerant of human activity (Reudiger et al. 2000). Over-snow activity such as snowmobiling may be of concern, however, because compacted snow resulting from such activity may allow competing carnivores access to otherwise unavailable areas (Reudiger et al. 2000). Under the 2007 Travel Plan, snowmobile activity in the Benchmark area has been reduced from that allowed in the previous plan to a relatively small area in the vicinity of the Benchmark Road. The FWS concurred with a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination that was made for the 2007 Travel Plan (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The proposed project will not alter travel management in the area and will therefore not add to any existing impacts resulting from travel plan implementation.

Wildfire and Prescribed Fire Four wildfires have burned in the vicinity of the Benchmark area in the past 20 years: Glade Creek (1996; 43 acres), Cigarette Rock (2006; 2271 acres), Ford Creek (2006; 323 acres) and Ahorn (2007; 52,505 ares). In addition to wildfires, there have been 3 prescribed fires in the general area. The largest of these, the South Fork Sun Prescribed Fire (Phase I: 2003, 4300 acres, and Phase II: 2009, 1040 acres) occurred over a mile southwest of the analysis area in the RM22 LAU. Two range improvement fires were ignited within the analysis area in 1988 (800 acres) and 1992 (185 acres), largely within existing open grasslands. Additional prescribed burning is

26

planned in the South Fork Sun area in the future, and it is likely that wildfires will continue to burn periodically in the area. Past fires, and most likely future fires, have varied effects depending on the intensity and severity of burning. In a general sense, fires have contributed and will continue to contribute to maintaining a mosaic of successional stages and forest types in the area.

Of the fires described above, only portions of two fires burned within the analysis area: the 2006 Cigarette Rock Fire, and the 2007 Ahorn Fire. Impacts to habitat from wildfire and prescribed fires vary depending on the location and severity of burning and on other factors. Fires may alter or remove habitat for lynx prey species within portions of those fire perimeters. In some areas regeneration of burned forest may result in improved snowshoe hare habitat within several years of burning. Downfall from past fires may contribute to creation of lynx denning habitat. The 2007 Ahorn Fire, affecting approximately 52,000 acres adjoining the Benchmark area to the west, potentially affected up to 18,000 acres of mapped potential lynx foraging habitat and up to 11,000 acres of mapped potential denning habitat in 6 LAUs. More precise estimates of impact to habitat have yet to be assessed. The potential impacts of the Benchmark project are limited and very small in scale, and are therefore not expected to add to the effects of the Ahorn Fire or other recent fires. Impacts of fires that have occurred within the analysis area (RM23 LAU) have been incorporated into the Direct and Indirect Effects analysis above.

Timber Harvest and Past Vegetation Management Past vegetation treatment and timber harvest in the Benchmark area has been relatively limited. Since 1982, about 730 acres in the RM23 LAU have been treated with thinning, clearcutting or other vegetation management. Treatments that occurred prior to about 1995 are considered likely to have re-established as lynx habitat as currently mapped. Vegetation management activities in RM23 since 1995 total about 170 acres, and have included clearcutting (120 acres), and hand slashing, piling, and burning small fuels (50 acres). Only about 114 of those acres occurred in lynx habitat. Areas that were thinned remain as travel habitat and potentially available as foraging areas for alternate lynx prey species. Areas that were clearcut are considered not currently suitable as lynx habitat. All but one of the previously treated units are within ½ mile of the Benchmark Road, and all are in the Wood Creek portion of the analysis area.

The cumulative effects of this harvest on lynx habitat have been minimal, creating small pockets of thinned forest as well as regenerating some snowshoe hare habitat. Most of the units were treated 20 or more years ago, and all were treated before potential lynx habitat was mapped. The effects of the treatments prior to 1995 are incorporated into the Existing Condition for lynx habitat. Treatments that occurred since 1995 were included in the analysis of Direct and Indirect impacts to lynx habitat above.The potential impacts of the Benchmark project are small and not expected to add to the effects of past timber harvest. Any future harvest would likely be limited in scale due to a variety of constraints and would adhere to the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment in maintaining lynx habitat. The potential impacts of the Benchmark project are not expected to add to any effects of past timber harvest.

Livestock Grazing Portions of two cattle grazing allotments overlap with part of the analysis area. These allotments are grazed on a rest-rotation basis, as they have been for decades. At a larger scale, most of the non-wilderness area of the RMRD is permitted for livestock grazing on defined allotments.

27

Several allotments also exist for limited outfitter/guide horse and mule grazing, most of which are in wilderness.

Grazing by livestock may impact snowshoe hare, and therefore lynx, habitat most in aspen stands and in high elevation riparian willow communities (Reudiger et al. 2000). The cumulative effect of grazing on snowshoe hare and lynx habitat in the analysis area is likely limited to portions of the area where those conditions occur. The majority of the analysis area, however, is generally Douglas-fir or lodgepole pine dominated forest where cattle are unlikely to impact regeneration of conifer species used by hares for food and cover. The potential impacts of the Benchmark project are not expected to add to any effects of livestock grazing.

Determination of Effects I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action MAY AFFECT, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT Canada Lynx. My determination is based on the following rationale:

1. The project will potentially affect a very small acreage (about 286 acres, just over 2%) of lynx habitat within one LAU, leaving nearly 98% of the lynx habitat in the LAU unaffected.

2. Treatment areas within lynx habitat are small and scattered, leaving contiguous patches of foraging, denning and travel habitat intact throughout the LAU and connecting RM23 to other LAUs.

3. All but one of the treatment units that are within lynx habitat are located in the immediate vicinity of existing recreation residences, administrative sites, campgrounds, or other existing developments and most are less than ½ mile from the main access road into the area. Treatments therefore will occur in areas likely already influenced by human presence.

4. The project meets Standards VEG S1 and S2 in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction; VEG S5 does not apply. The exemption to Standard VEG S6 allowed by the NRLMD for fuel treatment projects occurring within the Wildland Urban Interface would be applied to 43 acres of treatment proposed in mature, multi-story snowshoe hare habitat.

5. Impacts of other federal actions on lynx, their habitat, and prey species would be negligible in combination with the Proposed Project.

6. The Proposed Project will not result in an increase in potential for direct mortality of lynx or their prey.

Recommendations For Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects No adverse effects are anticipated.

28

CANADA LYNX CRITICAL HABITAT Existing Condition Legal and Management Status The Benchmark area is along the eastern boundary of Unit 3 (Northern Rockies Unit) of designated Critical Habitat for Canada lynx (Federal Register V.74 No.36). As such, the project area and surrounding lands to the north, west, and south have been identified as containing the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs), which are “the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations and protection” (Federal Register V.74 No.36, p. 8635). The PCEs for lynx include: boreal forest types that have multi-storied conifer habitat supporting a viable snowshoe hare population, adequate annual snowfall, sites for denning, and sufficient matrix habitat to connect patches of boreal forest. Areas designated as critical habitat will “require some level of management to address the current and future threats to the lynx and to maintain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species” (Fed. Reg.V.74 No.36).

Project Effects Direct and Indirect Effects Assumptions and methods used for analysis, as well as discussion of the specific effects to lynx habitat in terms of acreage potentially affected by the Proposed Project are discussed above in the species assessment for Canada lynx and will not be repeated here. Effects to designated lynx critical habitat will be placed in the perspective of the potential impacts to the PCEs, and to the ability of the LAU and the area to continue to function as effective habitat for lynx. The LAU is the standard scale used for project-level analysis because it approximates the size and composition of a female lynx home range, thereby approximating the landscape scale used by lynx (Fed. Reg. V 74, No. 36, p. 8644). Analysis at this scale is consistent with the direction of the NRLMD. The LAU is the scale recommended for analysis of impacts in the LCAS, which was the original science-based guidance for management of and analysis of impacts to lynx habitat on National Forest lands. The LAU is therefore an appropriate scale at which to assess potential project impacts to lynx Critical Habitat. The anticipated effects of the Benchmark project on the PCEs are displayed in Table 4 below.

29

Table 4. Benchmark Fuels Reduction Project potential impact on Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for Canada lynx Critical Habitat.

Critical Habitat Primary Constituent Element (PCE) : Boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional

forest stages and containing:

Is the PCE present and will it be maintained post-treatment?

a) Presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred habitat conditions, including dense understories of young trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude above the snow

Over 8,000 acres of potential lynx foraging habitat (i.e. habitat capable of supporting snowshoe hares) has been mapped in the RM23 LAU, and over 171,000 acres of potential lynx foraging habitat has been mapped on the entire RMRD. Over 2,300 acres of mapped denning habitat in RM23, as well as over 96,000 acres of mapped denning habitat on the RMRD also likely provide snowshoe hare habitat. The proposal will alter up to 105 acres of mapped foraging habitat, or 0.6% of the foraging habitat in the RM23 LAU and under 0.02% of the foraging habitat on the RMRD. Up to 14 acres (0.6% of denning habitat available in LAU) of denning habitat that may also serve as foraging habitat would be affected. Most of RM23 will remain unaffected by the Project. Treatment areas are in close proximity to existing developed areas, leaving large tracts (roughly 10,200 acres within the LAU) of lynx foraging and denning habitat (habitat suitable for snowshoe hares) un-treated. Less than 2% (190 acres) of mapped forage and denning habitat in RM23 LAU burned in 2007 Ahorn Fire and 2006 Cigarette Rock Fire, and less than 1% of mapped forage and denning habitat are assumed to be not currently suitable due to past harvest activity. Burned areas are expected to provide snowshoe hare habitat within 10-25 years; harvested areas sooner based on dates of harvest in mid-late 1990s. The Project meets NRLMD Standards VEG S2 and S2, which are intended to conserve habitat that produces lynx prey (snowshoe hare). PCE will be retained in sufficient quantity and distribution to support snowshoe hares, and therefore lynx.

30




b) Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time

Average annual snowfall data not available, but average snow depths have been measured at Snotel sites in the Wood and Ford Creek drainages at 27-42 inches in March and April for the past several decades (NRCS data in Benchmark Project File). The Benchmark project will not impact snow depth or character. Project activity will occur in close proximity to existing road currently open to snowmobiles, and therefore will not add to mileage of compacted snow. Minimal temporary compaction will occur on a few acres immediately adjacent to an existing route, within the area that is currently open to snowmobiles during winter. The PCE will not be impacted by the Project.

c) Sites for denning having abundant, coarse, woody debris, such as downed trees and root wads

Over 2,300 acres of potential lynx denning habitat has been mapped in the RM 23 LAU, and nearly 97,000 acres has been mapped on the entire RMRD. ‘Denning’ habitat was mapped to include only medium and large size classes with moderate to high canopy cover of specific cover types (see description of habitat mapping in analysis above), with the intent of capturing older, more structurally complex stands that have a high likelihood of containing abundant downed trees. The Benchmark project will affect up to 14 acres of mapped denning habitat, or about 0.6% of the denning habitat in the LAU and about 0.01% of the denning habitat on the RMRD. Denning habitat remains well-distributed throughout the LAU and the RMRD (refer to attached maps). Project will not affect abundance or distribution of denning habitat within the LAU or at a larger scale; therefore it will not impact this PCE.

31




d) Matrix habitat (habitat types that do not support snowshoe hares) that occurs between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition (at the scale of a lynx home range) such that lynx are likely to travel through such habitat while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range

RM23 LAU contains over 13,000 acres of mapped potential lynx habitat. Roughly 2800 acres of ‘travel’ habitat have been mapped within RM23 LAU; this includes matrix habitat (refer to pp. 8-9 above for description of habitat mapping). About 167 acres (1.2%) would be affected by Proposed Project, but would retain overstory characteristics that make it likely for lynx to continue to use it for access to foraging habitat or for occasional foraging for alternate prey species. The Benchmark Project proposed treatments would alter a very small acreage of foraging and denning habitat while maintaining the mature forest overstory in most units. Treatments are proposed in discrete, relatively small areas within a larger forested area that will remain unaffected. Thus treated areas may continue to be used by lynx to move among foraging habitat areas and to forage for alternate prey species. In other words, matrix habitat will be maintained throughout the project area and will continue to exist throughout the LAU. This PCE will be maintained in sufficient quantity and distribution to facilitate lynx movement among foraging and denning patches within the LAU and adjoining LAUs. Therefore the LAU will continue to support lynx, and will facilitate lynx occupancy of adjoining LAUs.

32

As displayed in the table above, slightly more than 1% of the foraging habitat, and less than 1% of the denning habitat, which contains foraging habitat as well, in the RM23 LAU would be affected by the Proposed Project. Only about 18 acres of mapped potential lynx habitat would become not currently suitable as a result of the Project. The remaining habitat would retain its function as travel habitat and as area in which lynx may forage for alternate prey species. Treatments are scattered in small units spread along the main access road and generally in association with existing developed sites. The large majority of mapped potential lynx foraging habitat in the RM23 LAU would be unaffected by the project, and would continue to provide habitat for snowshoe hares. The overall proportion and characteristics of boreal forest and associated snowshoe hare habitat will remain unchanged at the LAU and RMRD scales, as will foraging habitat and matrix habitat within which lynx can move from one foraging area to the next, both within and between LAUs. Effects in the Context of Other Federal Actions Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable federal actions that could potentially affect lynx habitat are discussed above under the species assessment for lynx and will not be repeated here. Determination of Effects I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action MAY AFFECT, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT Canada Lynx Designated Critical Habitat. My determination is based on the following rationale:

1. The project will potentially affect a very small acreage (about 286 acres, just over 2%) of lynx habitat within one LAU, leaving nearly 98% of the lynx habitat in the LAU unaffected. Over 7,800 acres of mapped potential foraging habitat, as well as over 2,300 acres of denning habitat that likely contains foraging habitat, will remain unaffected and capable of supporting snowshoe hares in the RM23 LAU.

2. The project will not impact the winter snow characteristics of the area, and will potentially add only a very small acreage of compaction during winter in localized areas of some treatment units. These areas are immediately adjacent to the main access road, which is open to snowmobiles in winter, and are within the area currently open to snowmobiles.

3. The project will impact less than 1% of the denning habitat in RM23, leaving over 2,300 acres of denning habitat distributed throughout the LAU.

4. Potential matrix habitat, including mapped travel habitat as well as some treated foraging and denning habitat, will remain abundant and well distributed throughout the LAU. Only about 18 acres (in patches of ½ -2 acres) are likely to become not currently suitable, but it is possible that some of these acres may continue to be used by lynx to access patches of foraging or denning habitat, depending on the size and location of units.

5. Treatment areas within lynx habitat are small and scattered, leaving contiguous patches of foraging, denning and travel habitat intact throughout the LAU and connecting RM23 to other LAUs. Location of treatments in small scattered patches near developed areas and the main access road ensures that large, contiguous patches of foraging, denning, and travel habitat will remain intact, allowing the landscape

33

within the LAU to support lynx and their primary prey, snowshoe hares, uninhibited by the project.

6. Impacts of other federal actions on lynx, their habitat, and prey species would be negligible in combination with the Proposed Project.

Recommendations For Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects No adverse effects are anticipated. GRIZZLY BEAR (URSUS ARCTOS) Analysis Area The RMRD has been divided into Bear Management Units (BMUs) and Subunits to facilitate analysis of project effects and to evaluate recovery goals. Each BMU Subunit approximates the size of an adult female grizzly bear’s annual home range, encompassing the type and quantity of habitats required year-round. The BMU Subunit is the unit at which motorized route density and other potential impacts to grizzly bears are measured throughout the NCDE. The BMU Subunit is therefore an appropriate scale at which to analyze potential project effects. The Benchmark project units fall within the South Fork Willow subunit of the South Fork Sun/Beaver Willow BMU. Therefore, the South Fork Willow Subunit serves as the area for which potential effects of the Benchmark project are analyzed. Where necessary and appropriate, cumulative effects may be analyzed and discussed at larger scales. Existing Condition Legal and Management Status The grizzly bear is currently listed as a Threatened species throughout the conterminous United States. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan identifies 5 recovery zones, based on ecosystem characteristics, in which grizzly bear populations could be self-sustaining (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The RMRD is entirely within the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Recovery Zone, which extends approximately 20 miles eastward from the NF boundary to U.S. Highway 89, northward across U.S. Highway 2 into Glacier National Park, west of the RMRD into the Flathead and Lolo National Forests, and south of the RMRD into the Helena National Forest. Recovery of grizzly bears in the NCDE is contingent on (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993):

• presence of 10 females with cubs inside GNP and 12 females with cubs outside GNP over a running six-year average both inside and outside the Recovery Zone (excluding Canada)

• occupation of 21 out of 23 Bear Management Units (BMUs) by females with young from a running 6-year sum of verified sightings and evidence, with no 2 adjacent BMUs unoccupied

• known human-caused mortality not to exceed 4%, during any 2 consecutive years, of the population estimate based on the most recent 3-year sum of females with cubs; no more than 30% of this mortality limit shall be females

• occupation of the Mission Mountains portion of the ecosystem

34

In 2007 the USFWS initiated a 5-year review of the status of the grizzly bear in the NCDE. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee is currently working on development of a Conservation Plan for grizzlies in the NCDE. Local Population and Habitat Status Population Grizzly bears on the RMRD are part of a larger population spread throughout the NCDE, which extends north into Canada. The number of grizzly bears in this ecosystem is estimated at approximately 765 bears, based on DNA sampling conducted in 2003 and 2004 (Kendall et al. 2008). The number of bears inhabiting the RMRD portion of the NCDE is not known. Recent work (Kendall et al. 2008) indicates that the grizzly bear population in the NCDE is genetically intermingled, and is abundant and growing in terms of population size and connectivity. An additional effort is underway to analyze grizzly bear population trend in the NCDE, and will include information about grizzly bears on the RMRD. It is believed that grizzly bear numbers have increased in the NCDE since recovery was initiated (USFWS: http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/mammals/grizzly/continental.htm). Management removals, many of which occur as a result of conflicts on private land, continue to be the highest source of mortality for grizzly bears in the ecosystem (Mace and Chilton 2009). Along the Rocky Mountain Front east of the RMRD boundary, an increasing number of bears appear to be spending most or all of the non-denning season well east of National Forest lands. This may be an effect of a presumably increasing population, combined with the availability of natural foods in riparian corridors and to some extent the presence of attractants on adjacent private lands. Habitat Grizzly bears are opportunistic and adaptable omnivores. Habitat use varies between areas, seasons, local populations, and individuals (Servheen 1983, Craighead and Mitchell 1982). In Montana, important grizzly bear habitats include coniferous forest for thermal and security cover, and meadows, riparian zones, shrubs, parks, avalanche chutes, and alpine areas for foraging. Grizzly bears frequently exhibit wide-ranging seasonal movements in search of widely dispersed and varying food sources. On the RMRD, grizzly bears generally den in the higher elevation areas well within the NF boundary (Aune and Kasworm 1989). Many grizzly bears then move to low-elevation areas and foothill habitat along the eastern NF boundary as well as to adjacent non-NFS lands in spring to forage on greening vegetation and winter-killed carcasses on ungulate winter range. Specific habitats used by bears in spring generally occur at lower elevations and provide early season forage such as grasses, sedges, and forbs, as well as rodents and carrion. Forbs chosen as forage by grizzly bears tend to be those found in moist sites (Aune 1994). Grasses may be found in a variety of sites, while sedges tend to be found in moist habitats.. Spring habitats are generally used between April 1 and June 30 in this area (USDI Bureau of Land Management et al. 1987)

Summer grizzly bear habitat is primarily on the RMRD, although an increasing number of grizzly bears remain on non-NFS lands throughout the non-winter months. Bears generally use higher elevation forests and meadows during the summer, although they may be found throughout the RMRD or on non-NFS lands to the east during this time. Many grizzly bears use

35

lower elevations, including non-NFS lands, in late summer and fall to take advantage of ripening fruits such as chokecherry. During fall, some bears may shift to areas with concentrations of hunters throughout the RMRD and lands to the east to capitalize on gut piles and carcasses left by big-game hunters. Summer habitats are generally used between July 1 and August 31, while fall habitats are used between September 1 and November 30 (USDI Bureau of Land Management et al. 1987). Potential grizzly bear spring and denning habitats have been mapped for the RMRD based on general habitat and landscape characteristics and information derived from studies of radio-collared bears. The habitat map for grizzly bears is intended for use at a relatively broad geographic scale (not greater than 1:63,360 or 1 inch to the mile; refer to metadata on LCNF GIS web page http://fsweb.mtnc.r1.fs.fed.us/gis/metadata/GrizzlyBearHabitat.shtml ). The map includes general areas in which specific seasonal habitats may be found. For example, areas mapped as denning habitat are broadly drawn polygons that include large areas that do not necessarily all contain the specific characteristics (steep slopes, northerly aspect, deep snow deposits) generally thought to be associated with grizzly bear dens. Likewise, spring habitat areas were mapped to broadly encompass lower elevation lands with low slope including and surrounding riparian areas, but habitat mapping did not incorporate information on aspect, soil type, or vegetation type. Thus the map includes areas that do not contain forage species or other specific habitat components used by grizzly bears in spring.

Summer-fall habitat has not been mapped because it is widespread throughout the RMRD and extends to lands east of the NF boundary, but includes the entire analysis area. Summer-fall habitats generally include a wide variety of habitat types providing food as well as thermal and escape cover for grizzly bears.

Nearly all mapped denning habitat in the area occurs on NFS lands, while a large majority of the mapped spring habitat occurs on non-NFS lands east of the boundary. Table 5 displays the total acreage of mapped grizzly bear denning and spring habitats, the amount of each habitat that is mapped on NF lands, and the amount of each habitat that is mapped within the Analysis Area (South Fork Willow Bear Management Unit Subunit).

Table 5. Total Acreage of Mapped Potential Grizzly Bear Denning and Spring Habitats on and off Forest, and Acreage and Percent of each Habitat within Analysis Area (South Fork Willow Subunit)

Habitat

Total Acreage on RM Front

Acreage Within NF Boundary1

% of Total Habitat

Within NF Boundary1

Acreage of Habitat in

Analysis Area2

% of Total NF Habitat in

Analysis Area2

Grizzly Bear Denning 340,840 333,200 98%

48,890 on NF 1,313 off NF

15%

Grizzly Bear Spring 632,870 205,410 32%

21,050 on NF 21,240 off NF

10% 1Figures for acreage and percent within NF boundary includes less than 1% of total habitat that occurs on private inholdings that are inside the NF boundary 2Figures for acreage and percent in the analysis area include approximately 870 acres of mapped potential spring habitat that occurs on private inholdings within the NF boundary

http://fsweb.mtnc.r1.fs.fed.us/gis/metadata/GrizzlyBearHabitat.shtml�

36

The Benchmark area in general is not known to be heavily used by grizzly bears. Although some sightings have occurred in the area, the generally thick, closed forest tends to favor use by black bears more than grizzly bears. The long-term presence of a main road, numerous recreation residences, a large paved airstrip, 3 developed campgrounds, 2 permitted lodges, an administrative facility, and commercial packer corrals all contribute to a significant human presence that may have historically and currently discouraged grizzly bears from using the area.

Motorized Access Management To protect important seasonal grizzly bear habitat from disturbance, the Lewis and Clark National Forest has relied primarily upon the dates recommended in the Rocky Mountain Front Interagency Wildlife Guidelines (Interagency Wildlife Guidelines; USDI Bureau of Land Management et al. 1987) to restrict motorized access in those habitats. Adherence to the Interagency Guidelines is incorporated as a Forest-Wide Wildlife Management Standard (C-1, p.2-31) in the LCNF Forest Plan. Restriction dates recommended by the RMF Guidelines were incorporated into the 2007 Travel Plan. The LCNF has not adopted formal motorized access route density objectives as have some other national forests in the NCDE and other ecosystems where grizzly bears are present. In the analysis for the 2007 Birch-South Travel Plan decision (USDA Forest Service 2007a), access management for all RMRD Subunits was analyzed using methods established by the Flathead NF and based on the 1995 Interim Motorized Access Management Direction for the NCDE (Interim Direction; Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 1995). For details regarding that process, refer to the Biological Assessment included in the Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service, 2007a). Based on the October 2007 Travel Plan decision the South Fork Willow Subunit meets the Interim Direction for access in its entirety by moving TOTMARD, OPMARD, and CORE closer to the numeric objectives than in the previous (1988) Travel Plan. CORE does not meet specific numeric objectives, although it meets the actual Interim Direction, primarily because of the presence of high-use non-motorized trails in both subunits (USDA Forest Service 2007a; Appendix K: BA for Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Plan). Management Situation Following direction in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 1986, referred to hearafter as the IGBC Guidelines), the RMRD has been stratified into Management Situations (MS) to prioritize habitat and multiple-use management in relation to grizzly bear recovery. Nearly all (98%, or over 760,000 acres) of the RMRD is classified as MS-1, which contains grizzly bear population centers and habitat key to species survival and recovery. The remaining 2% of the RMRD is classed as MS-3, which are NFS lands with a high degree of human influence, such as campgrounds, recreation residences, resorts, and major trailhead facilities, that make grizzly presence untenable for humans or grizzlies. Roughly 93% of the National Forest System (NFS) lands within the South Fork Willow BMU Subunit are categorized as MS-1, with the remaining nearly 7% categorized as MS-3. The MS-3 lands are centered around the Benchmark Road (refer to the attached maps) and include 48 recreation residences, 2 resorts, 3 developed campgrounds, a picnic area, several trailheads,

37

corrals, a large paved airstrip, and an administrative site. This MS-3 land is centered around the Benchmark Road, one of only 6 roads on the RMRD that provides access to the above types of facilities, as well as being one of the most popular access points to the Bob Marshall Wilderness. About 19% of the total Subunit acreage occurs off NFS lands, on mostly private land to the east, and slightly less than 1% of the total Subunit acreage consists of private inholdings within the NF boundary. These private and non-NFS lands are not categorized by Management Situation. Analysis Methods Habitat within treatment units was evaluated based on site visits and on draft Region 1 VMap data. Assumptions regarding impacts of proposed treatments were based on the type of treatment with reference to appropriate literature regarding impacts of similar treatments in other areas. In general, we assumed that most treatments in forested units will remove understory conifers as well as thinning the canopy by removal of some larger trees (refer to the Benchmark EA, Section 2, Description of Alternatives, and Section 3, Fire and Vegetation section).. The result will likely be more sunlight reaching understory shrubs, forbs and grasses, and a decrease in competition from conifers. In more open areas slashing and burning will be used to remove encroaching conifers and to reduce fuels. We assume that in these units the effects will be to increase the size of openings, and stimulate growth of grasses and some forage species. Treatments in some units are intended to promote restoration of aspen. Details regarding the anticipated effects of proposed treatments by unit are discussed in the Benchmark EA, Chapter 3, Fire and Vegetation section, and are displayed in Table 6 below. Project Effects Direct and Indirect Effects Habitat RMRD and BMU Scale All but 11 acres of the proposed treatments in the Benchmark project would occur in areas mapped generally as spring grizzly bear habitat. Less than 0.5% of the total mapped spring habitat on NF lands of the RMRD, and approximately 4% of the mapped spring habitat in the South Fork Willow Subunit could be affected by the proposed treatments. Habitat mapping is very general, however, and specific locations within the larger area mapped as spring habitat may vary in actual suitability and forage production. As noted above, grizzly bears likely use specific riparian-influenced or moist open meadows for foraging within the larger area mapped as spring habitat. Therefore only a portion of the treatments occurring in mapped spring habitat have the potential to influence actual grizzly bear spring foraging habitat. Affects of burning are expected to be short-term, with burning in some areas potentially accelerating green-up of some grasses or other bear forage species.

Treatment Unit Scale Proposed treatments on approximately 592 acres, or 76% of the total acreage to be treated and 0.5% of the South Fork Willow Subunit, are expected to have neutral or possibly beneficial effects on grizzly bear habitat. Soil disturbance associated with timber management can have a negative impact on some bear food species, but in all units with proposed mechanical treatments those treatments are to be carried out in winter to minimize disturbance and to meet soils standards and objectives. Opening of the canopy and removal of competing overstory species can often result in increased productivity of grasses and fruiting shrubs (Zager et al. 1983; IGBC Guidelines 1986, p.8).

38

Broadcast burning, proposed for up to about 570 acres (about 74% of the total area to be treated, and less than 0.5% of the South Fork Willow Subunit), does not involve nearly the amount of ground disturbance that mechanical slash piling does and can improve growth and productivity of bear foods (Zager et al. 1983, IGBC Guidelines 1986, p.11). By creating or enhancing openings that provide foraging opportunities or by increasing productivity of forage species such as grasses and fruiting shrubs, treatments in some units have the potential to be beneficial to grizzly bears (IGBC Guidelines 1986, pp. 8-11). Six of the 21 units fall in this category. These are generally the larger units (averaging just under 100 acres), and include most of the units that are not immediately adjacent to recreation residences. Some of these units may already be more effective as bear habitat than the smaller units in closer proximity to areas of more frequent human disturbance, which limits habitat value regardless of actual quantity or quality of forage. The value of any area as habitat, however, also depends on the presence of forage species or other characteristics selected by bears. Therefore the potential benefits derived from removing encroachment and stimulating grass and shrub productivity may be more important in the Benchmark 1, Fairmule 2 and 3, and Ford Creek 1 and 2 units than in other units, which are generally closer to the main road and to recreation residences.

Approximately 180 acres (about 24% of the total acreage to be treated, and about 0.2% of the South Fork Willow Subunit) of treatment is expected to have no measurable effects on grizzly bear habitat. Decreasing canopy cover and understory in these units may stimulate some grass and shrub productivity while at the same time potentially removing some hiding cover. Neither of these potential changes is expected to measurably alter grizzly bear use of those units. The units are generally small, averaging 12 acres, and are in close proximity to recreation residences, the main road, campgrounds, administrative facilities, and other areas of human activity. Therefore they are unlikely to provide much value as bear habitat currently or after treatment. Details regarding the anticipated effects of proposed treatments by unit are displayed in Table 6 below.

39

Table 6. Treatment units, estimated value as grizzly bear habitat currently and estimated value as grizzly bear habitat after treatment. Acreage estimates are based on GPS delineation of ground marking and may vary from final treatment acres by less than approximately ¼ acre per unit.

Unit Name Acreage

Habitat Characteristics

Proposed Treatment

Expected Result Current Value as Grizzly Bear Habitat

Estimated Impact to Grizzly Bear Habitat

Aspen #1 – two Subunits:

• 1a hand thin + burn 15 ac

• 1b burn only 30 ac

Open1 mixed age D. fir, Lodgepole; 4

ac. Aspen; some grass/shrub

Hand thin young trees only, poss.

jackpot, pile, and/or broadcast burning

Timber canopy more open,

preserve larger trees, decrease

understory, poss. burning of grass/shrub

openings; poss. increase in Aspen

Moderate value as potential hiding, thermal

cover; some forage in openings

Neutral to beneficial: may increase Aspen type, may

increase productivity of grasses, fruiting shrubs in openings

Aspen #2– two Subunits:



Closed2 mature3-old4 D. fir, some

Lodgepole, 4.5 ac. Aspen

Commercial thin to break canopy; hand

slash and pile to burn

Timber canopy more open with

several new small openings; reduced

understory

Potential hiding and thermal cover and travel

Neutral: opening canopy may result in minimal forage improvement; reducing understory may result in

minimal reduction of hiding cover

Benchmark #1 – two Subunits:



Closed mature-old D. fir and mixed

conifer; 3 ac. Aspen; limited

grass/shrub openings



Timber canopy more open,

preserve larger trees, reduced

understory; poss. burning of grass/shrub

openings, poss. increase in Aspen


cover; some forage in openings



40

Unit Name Acreage


Proposed Treatment



Benchmark #2 8 acres

Closed pole5-size D. fir and mixed conifer; limited


Remove up to 1/3 of trees to break

canopy; hand slash and pile to burn



understory

Marginal value; unit immediately next to

trailhead, admin. facilty, commercial corrals, main

road


minimal reduction of hiding cover; unit of marginal value

under existing condition


Mixed canopy pole-sized Lodgepole





understory

Marginal value; steep unit immediately adjacent to trailhead, campground,

and paved airstrip





Closed mixed age mixed conifer; <1

ac. Aspen)





understory

Marginal value; unit immediately adjacent to trailhead, campground, parking area, and very

heavily used trail




Double Falls #2 39 acres

Closed mixed age D. Fir; some closed

pole D. Fir and Lodgepole





understory

Marginal value; narrow unit spread immediately

adjacent to several (approx. 27) recreation

residences




41

Unit Name Acreage


Proposed Treatment



Fairmule #2 22 acres

Closed pole size and limited mature-old Lodgepole and

D. Fir; limited Aspen; <1 ac. grass/shrub

Commercial harvest to create ½ - 2 ac. openings;

remove conifers to increase Aspen; retain 50-70% of

unit as is

Increased number/size of

openings; eventually

increased Aspen

Moderate value as potential hiding, thermal cover; limited forage in

openings



Fairmule #3 19 acres

Closed ½ pole and ½ mature

Lodgepole; approx. 2 acres grass

Commercial harvest to create ½ - 2 ac. openings;

retain 50% of unit as is

Increased number/size of

openings

Moderate value as potential hiding, thermal cover; limited forage in

openings

Neutral to beneficial: may increase productivity of grasses,

fruiting shrubs in openings

Fairmule #4 1 acre

Closed mature Lodgepole





understory

Marginal value; unit is immediately adjacent to main road, trail, lodge

facility



Ford Creek #1– two Subunits:

• 1a hand thin+ burn 125 ac


Mixed canopy, ¼ mixed age D. Fir, ¼ Aspen, and ½

grass/shrub



Open timber and remove

encroachment; poss. burning of

grass/shrub openings; poss.

increase in Aspen

Potential good value as forage habitat in openings

and Aspen; hiding and thermal cover in timber;

value moderated by proximity to main road

and NF boundary



Ford Creek #2 78 acres

Mixed canopy, < 2/3 pole D. Fir; 1/3

Aspen; ¼ grass/shrub



Timber canopy more open; removal of


grass/shrub openings; poss.

increase in Aspen

Potential good value as forage habitat in openings

and Aspen; hiding and thermal cover in timber;

value moderated by proximity to NF

boundary



42

Unit Name Acreage


Proposed Treatment



Glade Creek #1 9 acres

Approx. ½ seed-sap6, 1/3 closed pole Lodgepole

Commercial or hand thin to break

canopy; pile to burn



understory

Marginal value as hiding and thermal cover; unit immediately adjacent to recreation residences ; bisected by motorized

trail




Glade Creek #2 7 acres

Closed pole and mature Lodgepole

Commercial or hand thin to break

canopy; pile to burn



understory


cover; value may be further moderated by

proximity to recreation residence



Green Timber #1 9 acres

2/3 closed pole-mature Lodgepole, 1/3 open mature D. Fir and Lodgepole;

limited Aspen

Commercial thin to break canopy; pile

to burn



understory; possible increase

of Aspen


cover



Lick Creek #1 3 acres

Closed pole size Lodgepole


to burn



understory






Lick Creek #2 4 acres

Closed mature Lodgepole, some

mature D. Fir


to burn



understory






43

Unit Name Acreage


Proposed Treatment



Mule Creek #1 13 acres

Closed pole and mature Lodgepole; about ½ ac. old D.

Fir, about ½ ac. shrub



Timber canopy more open; removal of




cover

Neutral: opening timber not likely to measurably increase forage or measurably change effectiveness as hiding cover

Mule Creek #2 17 acres

Closed pole and mature Lodgepole; about ½ ac. old D.

Fir


to burn



understory



proximity to recreation residence and main road

Neutral:opening timber not likely to measurably increase forage or measurably change effectiveness as hiding cover

1 Open = timbered with <26% canopy cover as estimated by VMap data 2 Closed = timbered with >26% canopy cover as estimated by VMap data 3Mature = timber with estimated diameter at breast height (DBH) of 10-14.9” as estimated by VMap data 4Old = timber with estimated diameter at breast height (DBH) of > 15” as estimated by VMap data; does not imply Old Growth habitat type 5Pole = timber with estimated diameter at breast height (DBH) of 5-9.9” as estimated by VMap data 6Seed-Sap = timber with estimated diameter at breast height (DBH) of 0-4.9” as estimated by VMap data

45

Management Situation As described above, just under 7% of the NFS lands in the South Fork Willow Subunit are categorized as MS-3, with roughly 93% categorized as MS-1. About 60% of the total treatment acreage, divided among all the proposed treatment units, is on MS-3 lands. The remaining 40% of the total treatment acreage, in portions of 3 proposed treatment units (portions of Benchmark #1, Ford Creek #1 and Ford Creek #2), is on land categorized as MS-1. These areas correspond closely with portions of treatment units occurring within Inventoried Roadless Areas, where no mechanical or hand slashing is to occur. Treatments on MS-1 lands in these units will consist almost entirely of broadcast burning. Spring burning may be necessary in order to achieve treatment objectives, due to the need for very specific vegetation and weather conditions for burning to be successful. Burning may occur in early spring, after snow has melted and before significant green-up of vegetation has occurred. The IGBC Guidelines indicate that some silvicultural treatments and managed burning may be used to improve grizzly bear forage species in MS-1 habitat (IGBC Guidelines 1986, pp. 8-11). The guidelines recommend that such activities occur “at a time or season when the area is of little biological importance to grizzly bears” (IGBC Guidelines 1986, p.8), although they note that when that is infeasible, operations should be restricted in time and space to avoid disruptions to bears. Prescribed burning that may occur in MS-1 spring habitat can occur only in areas that have not significantly greened up, in order to carry fire as needed to achieve treatment objectives. It is unlikely that bears would be using these areas, as forage species are unlikely to be present yet in any quantity. Moist habitats where important spring forbs and sedges are generally found, such as areas within the riparian influence zone are not likely to be targeted for burning and are unlikely to carry fire. The areas in which spring burning could occur are small relative to the quantity of spring habitat available in MS-1 land in the South Fork Willow Subunit. Less than 2% of the mapped spring habitat in MS-1 areas within the Subunit may be affected by treatments, the majority of which would be prescribed burning with no slashing or mechanical preparation. Burning in these units is likely to increase the size of openings and remove conifer encroachment, as well as remove understory conifers and cause limited mortality of larger overstory trees. Some regeneration of aspen is also expected (refer to Benchmark EA, Chapter 3, p. 21). Ultimately, these treatments are likely to stimulate growth of some grass and forb species that may be important to bears in spring, through removal of competing conifer overstory and accumulated grassland litter. Burning in some areas may actually accelerate green-up of some grasses or other bear spring forage species. In sum, the potential for temporary disruption of spring foraging habitat is small, and may be outweighed by the potential for improvement of spring forage species. Burning that may occur in spring is not expected to affect spring forage to a degree that would displace bears from the area. Therefore the IGBC Guidelines, as incorporated into the Forest Plan, would be met. The potential for disturbance or displacement of bears due to human activity is discussed separately below. Motorized Access Management

46

Approximately 1800 feet of road would be re-constructed on an existing road bed adjacent to the Fairmule 2 and Fairmule 3 units. This route is to be decommissioned under the 2007 Travel Plan. After use for the Benchmark project, decommissioning will take place. This route will provide access to a unit that is to be treated in the winter months, so traffic on the route will take place at a time when bears are denning. Use is anticipated for a single winter before the route is decommissioned. Because the route is extremely short, will be used during a single winter, and will be decommissioned after use per the 2007 Travel Plan decision, it will not change motorized route density or the amount of area available as Core in the South Fork Willow Subunit. The 1995 Interim Direction for Motorized Access in the NCDE (IGBC 1995) will continue to be met. In 2007 the Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the determination that the existing quantity and pattern of motorized routes, including route densities, is “not likely to adversely affect” grizzly bears in any of the Subunits analyzed in the 2007 Birch South Travel Management decision (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Potential for Displacement or Disturbance From Implementing Proposed Treatments All of the proposed treatments will involve personnel on the ground either hand felling and thinning, using mechanical equipment to fell and thin trees, or managing prescribed burning operations. All personnel, including contractors, will be required to adhere to the Food Storage Order at all times while on National Forest System lands. Activity associated with treatments will be in addition to normal levels of activity in the area, but will be of short duration. Activity in all but 3 units (Ford Creek #1, Ford Creek #2, and Benchmark #1) will occur immediately adjacent to existing areas of human use, such as recreation residence tracts, developed campgrounds, and administrative sites. Most of the activity associated with project implementation will also occur in MS-3 habitat, in which grizzly bear presence is not to be encouraged and concerns about displacement of bears are minimal. Treatments in which mechanical harvest is used would occur during winter, to address soil quality and other concerns. These treatments generally will occur when bears are in dens, and would therefore have minimal potential to disturb or displace bears from treatment areas. No treatment units occur within mapped denning habitat. Because all of the treatment units are partly or entirely within the generally mapped spring habitat area, any slashing or thinning using hand or mechanical equipment will occur only after June 30, when it is less likely that bears may be using any riparian areas or other spring forage locations that may be in or close to treatment units. This restriction in timing meets the Forest Plan standard requiring use of the Interagency Wildlife Guidelines in project planning and implementation. As discussed above, broadcast or prescribed burning may occur in spring, when conditions are appropriate for achieving treatment objectives. Burning in portions of 3 treatment units (Benchmark #1, Ford Creek #1, and a very small acreage of Ford Creek #2 that is in MS-1) could occur in MS-1 habitat in spring. As discussed above, although the IGBC Guidelines recommend avoiding timber harvest or managed burning in MS-1 spring habitat during spring, they recognize that at times this may be unavoidable (IGBC Guidelines 1986, p. 8). The Guidelines recommend that any activity occurring in these habitats during spring be “restricted in time and space to prevent significant disruptions of normal or expected grizzly activities.”

47

The analysis above notes that the areas where spring burning could occur may not consist entirely of actual spring foraging habitat. It is possible, of course, that these and adjoining areas may be used by grizzly bears at this or any other time of year. The treatments units are relatively small, however, with two of the units under 200 acres and the third under 90 acres (of which only about 2 acres are in MS-1, sandwiched between the MS-3 area and the NF boundary). The two larger units in MS-1 that are to be burned are separated from each other by over 10 air miles. We expect that only one unit would be burned on a given day. The nature and size of the proposed burns are such that human activity in the units is likely to be limited (refer to Project File I-4 for examples of a similar spring burn plans) to less than 20 people on one day of burning, several of whom are likely to be stationed at an existing developed site such as a trailhead, airstrip, or campground. Burning is generally completed in less than 5 hours on a single day, with only one unit burned on a given day. One to three people are then likely to carry out follow-up activities such as fire mop-up or monitoring on the subsequent 2-3 days. Very occasional visits to the general area by 1-2 people over the next month may occur to monitor the effects of the fire. Therefore the potential impacts of operations would be restricted in time and space, in accordance with the IGBC Guidelines, and potential displacement or disturbance of grizzly bears would be minimized. Because of the small size of units and the separated nature of project activities relative to the available acreage of spring grizzly bear habitat in the South Fork Willow BMU Subunit and on the RMRD in general, project activities are not expected to displace bears in any measurable fashion. At most, an individual bear could be temporarily displaced from an area of project activity, but if such displacement were to occur it would be of short duration and distance due to the availability of both hiding cover and spring foraging habitat in the immediately adjacent areas. Compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Table 6 below displays how the Benchmark project complies with applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

49

Table 6. Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan Standards for Grizzly Bear.

Forest Plan Standards Existing Proposed Project Will Project Comply?

Manage motorized use on NFS lands… to reduce effects on wildlife during periods of high stress (Wildlife & Fish C-1-6)

Interagency Wildlife Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions on motorized use primarily in grizzly bear spring and denning habitats

Restrictions as called for in the Travel Plan will be adhered to in project activities. YES

Use the Interagency Wildlife Guidelines to manage land-use activities occuring within the habitat of these species on the RMF (Wildlife & Fish, C-1-11)

Interagency Wildlife Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions on human activities primarily in grizzly bear spring and denning habitats

All project activities except possibly some prescribed burning to occur between July 1 and March 31 (see EA p.11 and analysis above).

YES

Maintain active communication with research and use current research for planning and implementation of projects in T&E species habitat (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-4)

Ongoing involvement with NCDE subcommittee and other groups at Forest and District level

No change

YES

Use the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines to coordinate multiple-use activities and manage T&E habitat (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-5; C-2-7, C-2-8)

Project area stratified into MS-1 and MS-3 habitat and human activity managed according to IGBC Guidelines for strata.

No change in stratification. Less than 0.5% of MS-1 habitat in Subunit would be treated, using almost entirely broadcast burning. Very small MS-1 acreage to be hand treated but not between 1 April and 1 July. Burning may occur in MS-1 in spring if needed, but over small acreage and restricted in space, time, and duration.

YES

50


Schedule direct habitat improvement projects (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-6)

Periodic habitat improvement projects usually designed to benefit multiple species, including grizzly bears

Benchmark project purpose not specifically to benefit wildlife, but some units may achieve improved spring grizzly bear forage.

YES

Establish an active public information and education program addressing T&E species management; emphasize protective measures (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-11)

Various ongoing public information efforts; major emphasis on enforcement of the NCDE Food Storage Order

No change

YES

Grazing will be made compatible with grizzly bears and/or habitat or discontinued (Range, D-4-6)

Most on-dates after July 1; ongoing monitoring of livestock forage consumption in riparian zones

No change

YES

Coordinate timber harvest activities with seasonal grizzly bear habitat use (Timber E-4-14); maintain or improve bear food production on harvest sites (Timber E-4-15,16,17,18); maintain escape cover and isolation for grizzly bears (Timber E-4-19)

Standard applied to past sales and incorporated into project development for planned fuels reduction projects.

No project activities except possibly burning to occur between April 1 and July 1. Opening of canopy, reduction of competition with conifers, and use of fire in some units may improve grizzly bear spring forage species. Small size and limited harvest in units will maintain escape cover and isolation by retaining forested patches and connectivity with surrounding forest.

YES

51


Limit firewood cutting on timber harvest roads, and permanently close after 2-3 years (Timber, E-2-4)

Minimal mileage of road, all within 1 mile of existing main access road, available for firewood cutting. No new roads for past >10 years.

No change; re-constructed road will be single-purpose and decommissioned after project; will not be available for firewood cutting.

YES

Protect T&E species through no surface occupancy and controlled surface use stipulations, timing limitations, and use of Interagency Guidelines for minerals operations and leases (Oil & Gas Leasing, Exploration Drilling Field Development, and Production, G-2-9, 10)

Stipulations and timing restrictions applied to all leases and to proposals for exploration and production. Majority of leases on RMRD terminated by act of Congress.

No change

YES

Unacceptable damage to.. wildlife… will be mitigated by road restrictions or other road management actions…Coordinate wildlife restrictions with MFWP (Facilities/Travel Planning, L-2-4)

Interagency Wildlife Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions on motorized use primarily in grizzly bear spring and denning habitats; incorporated into Travel Plan

Restrictions as called for in the Travel Plan will be adhered to in project activities.

YES

Use the Interagency Wildlife Guidelines to avoid or mitigate conflicts between road construction and use and T&E species (Facilities/Travel Planning, L-2-33)


Reconstruction of 1800 feet of road immediately adjacent to main road; road will be used only in winter and only for project activities; road will be decommissioned after project completion. Restrictions as called for in the Travel Plan will be adhered to in project activities.

YES

52


Implement seasonal or year-round closures on existing or proposed roads if… they are necessary to allow grizzly use of important habitat, to reduce conflict, or to meet habitat objectives (Facilities/Travel Planning, L-2-34)


Reconstructed road will be used only in winter and only for project activities. Restrictions as called for in the Travel Plan will be adhered to in project activities.

YES

53

Project Mitigations for Grizzly Bear The following mitigations are incorporated into the Benchmark Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment (p.11):

Activities associated with treatments must be carried out between July 1 and March 31 to avoid potential disturbance during the period of potentially highest use of spring habitat. This includes road building, road use, and all hand and mechanical cutting. Jackpot or broadcast burning may occur during the key spring time period (April 1 – June 30) if necessary, but should be accomplished in as short a duration as possible and with minimum necessary personnel during that time.

Any roads constructed in association with the project must follow the above timing restrictions, must be closed to the general public at all times, and must be obliterated when treatment in that unit is completed.

All personnel involved in all aspects of the project, including any contractors, must adhere to the NCDE Special Food Storage Order (current version: Food Storage Special Order LC00-18).

Effects in the Context of Other Federal Actions Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable federal actions that could potentially affect lynx habitat include recreational activity, implementation of the 2007 Travel Plan, wildfire and prescribed fire, timber harvest, livestock grazing, and wildlife management on adjacent lands. Ongoing Recreational Activity Ongoing recreational activity in the area includes the presence of 3 developed campgrounds, several trailheads, commercial packer corrals, and numerous recreation residences. All of these are concentrated within a few hundred yards of the main Benchmark Road and have been in existence for anywhere from 30 to 80 years. At a larger scale, there are 98 permitted recreation residence cabins on the RMRD, clustered mainly in the Sun Canyon and Benchmark areas. There are also 11 developed campgrounds, as well as numerous dispersed campsites, trailhead facilities, and other recreation sites. Although improvements to some developed recreation areas may occur, there are no plans for expansion or addition of any facilities. A large proportion of visitors to the RMRD travel in the backcountry away from these facilities, where they hike, ride horseback, camp, fish, and hunt. The impacts that recreation facilities may have had on grizzly bears and their habitat is long-established, limited to the immediate vicinity of the facility, and are assumed to be a part of the Existing Condition. The degree to which existing recreational facilities have affected grizzly bear habitat was discussed in the BA for the 2007 Travel Plan (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Existing disturbance that may occur due to recreational activity will not add measurably to the minor disturbance to individuals that could occur during implementation of the Benchmark project. This is in part because most treatments will occur in or immediately adjacent to areas where bears have likely come to expect human activity, and in part because many units would be treated in winter when bears are denning and recreational activity is minimal.

54

A potential impact of the recreational activities listed above is access by grizzly bears to human food sources. The RMRD initiated development of the NCDE Food Storage Special Order (current version: Food Storage Special Order LC00-18) in the late 1980s. Since that time, the RMRD has led efforts in the NCDE to revise the Food Storage Special Order (the Order) to make it both more effective and more enforceable. Several recreation guards are employed to patrol front-country recreation sites, posting signs and contacting the public as well as enforcing the Food Storage Order. Several wilderness guards are employed to carry out the same tasks in the backcountry, and all employees are trained annually in the basics of the Order and enforcing it. The RMRD carries out a hunting camp patrol in the fall with an estimated >80% contact rate. Enforcement of the Food Storage Order is a primary purpose of those patrols. All activities permitted on the RMRD (including grazing, recreation residences, outfitting and guiding, etc.) include within their permits consequences of failing to comply with the Order. Through these combined efforts, the potential for grizzly bears to gain access to human foods is minimized. Implementation of the proposed project will not change the potential for grizzly bears to obtain human food.

Implementation of the 2007 Travel Plan The 2007 Travel Plan for the Birch-South portion of the RMRD (USDA Forest Service 2007a) has reduced the overall mileage of motorized routes, as well as reducing the mileage of motorized routes within important seasonal wildlife habitats throughout the RMRD (USDA Forest Service 2007a).

The BA for the 2007 Travel Plan found that the plan reduces open and total motorized route densities, increases core habitat, and maintains or improves the value of grizzly bear habitat throughout the decision area as compared to the 1988 Travel Plan. The BA reached a determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the grizzly bear, a determination with which the USFWS concurred (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The proposed project will not alter travel management in the area and will therefore not add to any existing impacts resulting from travel plan implementation.

Wildfire and Prescribed Fire Four wildfires have burned in the vicinity of the Benchmark area in the past 20 years: Glade Creek (1996; 43 acres), Cigarette Rock (2006; 2271 acres), Ford Creek (2006; 323 acres) and Ahorn (2007; 52,505 ares). All of these fires except the Ahorn Fire burned entirely within the South Fork Willow BMU Subunit. The Ahorn Fire burned only into the very northwest corner of the Subunit. In addition to wildfires, there have been 3 prescribed fires, the largest of which was the South Fork Sun Prescribed Fire (Phase I: 2003, 4300 acres and Phase II: 2009, 1040 acres) which burned entirely within the South Fork Willow BMU Subunit. Additional prescribed burning is planned in the South Fork Sun area in the future, and it is likely that wildfires will continue to burn periodically in the area.

Impacts to grizzly bear habitat have varied and will vary depending on the location and severity of burning and on other factors. Fires regenerate forage or create favorable conditions for growth of grizzly bear forage species. Fires also may alter or remove travel habitat or hiding cover, and large fires such as those in 2007 may temporarily or permanently displace bears from some localized areas. The varied timing and impacts of fire contribute to maintaining a variety of

55

habitats used by grizzly bears (IGBC Guidelines, p. 11). The potential impacts of the Benchmark project are not expected to add to any effects of recent and future area fires.

Timber Harvest and Past Vegetation Management Past vegetation treatment and timber harvest in the Benchmark area has been relatively limited. Since 1982, only about 290 acres have been affected, in units ranging from 1-65 acres. Treatments have included pre-commercial thinning (180 acres total), commercial thinning (60 acres total), selection tree cutting (13 acres total), and clearcutting (33 acres total). All but one of the units are within ½ mile of the Benchmark Road, and all are in the Wood Creek portion of the analysis area.

The cumulative effects of past harvest on grizzly bear habitat have been minimal, creating small pockets of thinned forest that may provide improved conditions for bear forage species such as grasses and berry-producing shrubs. Most of the units were treated 20 or more years ago and the effects of these treatments are incorporated into the Existing Condition for bear habitat. At a larger scale very little timber harvest has occurred anywhere on the RMRD over the past 20 years. Several small projects in the Beaver-Willow Road area included grizzly bear habitat improvement as an objective, by improving growing conditions for buffaloberry. The sum of these past harvests has likely had no impact on grizzly bear numbers or distribution. As noted above, grizzly bears appear to be well distributed and likely increasing in number on the RMRD and throughout the NCDE. The potential impacts of the Benchmark project are not expected to add to any effects of past timber harvest. Any future harvest would likely be limited in scale due to a variety of constraints, and would likely create minimal disturbance to a limited number of grizzly bears while likely enhancing growth of certain forage species. Livestock Grazing Portions of 5 cattle grazing allotments overlap with part of the analysis area. These allotments are grazed on a rest-rotation basis, as they have been for decades. At a larger scale, most of the non-wilderness area of the RMRD is permitted for livestock grazing on defined allotments. Several allotments also exist for limited outfitter/guide horse and mule grazing, most of which are in wilderness.

The LCNF Forest Plan (see Table 3-24 above) requires, through incorporation of the Interagency Wildlife Guidelines and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines, that grizzly bear-livestock conflicts be resolved in favor of grizzly bears. Known conflicts have been minimal and where they have occurred, livestock permittees have been advised to move cattle from the area to reduce likelihood of further conflict. The potential impacts of the Benchmark project are not expected to add to any effects of livestock grazing.

Wildlife Management on Adjoining Lands The area to the west of the project area is the heart of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Wildlife habitats there are subject almost exclusively to natural forces, such as climate and fire, and receive only minimal influence from human activity. Lands east of the NF boundary are largely privately-owned ranch lands, where livestock husbandry is the primary activity. Although there are 3 state-owned Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) that provide key ungulate winter

56

range, large numbers of elk and deer also winter on private lands. Grizzly bears, wolves, and other wildlife species are known to frequent lands east of the National Forest boundary.

Grizzly bears are known to frequent lands east of the NF boundary, particularly in spring and late summer/fall. Nearly all grizzly bear-human conflicts occurring in the area known as the Rocky Mountain Front for the past 10+ years have been on private land. Most if not all of these conflicts have been related to the existence of attractants (livestock carcasses, beehives, animal feed and grain, sheep bedding grounds) or have occurred during hunting season when grizzlies foraging within riparian areas extending east of the NF boundary are encountered by hunters. All but one permanent management-related removal (via relocation or killing) from the area have been from private lands. Although significant efforts have been made by agencies and private groups, private lands east of the NF boundary are likely to continue to be a source of grizzly bear mortality. The potential impacts of the Benchmark project are not expected to add to any effects of wildlife management on non-NFS lands.

Determination of Effects I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action MAY AFFECT, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT grizzly bears. My determination is based on the following rationale:

1. The proposed project would not increase Total or Open Motorized Route Density or decrease Core area. The project will fully comply with the 2007 Travel Management decision, which was determined to be NLAA with respect to grizzly bears. The single road to be re-constructed will be within the influence zone of the existing main access road, and will be single purpose and decommissioned when treatment in that unit is complete.

2. The NCDE Food Storage Order has been enforced effectively in both the front country and the back country on the RMRD since its inception. Extensive public education efforts are in place, and all permitted activities include provisions regarding the Order. All personnel, whether agency or contract, associated with project implementation or monitoring will be required to comply with the Order. Stipulations to this effect will be included in any contracts associated with the project.

3. Timber harvest has been and will continue to be minimal. Treatments will have minimal, and potentially positive impacts on grizzly bear spring forage in localized areas. Fire may impact vegetation but generally in a manner that is positive for grizzly bears. These activities will not result in adverse cumulative impacts to grizzly bears or their habitat. No planting or seeding is to take place as part of the project.

4. The project will comply with the IGBC Guidelines for activities on both MS-3 and MS-1 lands. Most activity associated with project implementation in spring habitats will not occur between 1 April and 1 July. Prescribed burning that may occur during spring on MS-1 land in spring habitat will be limited in time, space and duration. Temporary displacement of individual bears is expected to be minimal to nonexistent.

5. The project is in compliance with all Forest Plan Standards regarding grizzly bears and/or Threatened and Endangered species.

57

Recommendations For Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects Adverse effects are not likely to occur under the Proposed Plan. Contracts associated with the project should include the requirement that all personnel associated with project implementation will adhere to the Food Storage Order. Ongoing activities by other agencies, and where appropriate by the U.S. Forest Service, to address and limit grizzly/human conflicts on non-NFS lands will continue to be an important component of maintaining a healthy grizzly bear population in the area. CONSULTATION The consultation process was initiated by confirming the list of Threatened and Endangered species occurring on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. During the time period in which analysis was taking place, the gray wolf was delisted, re-listed, and subsequently delisted again. Analysis attempted to keep pace with the listing status of the gray wolf, and at the time this Biological Assessment was completed the wolf remained off the Endangered Species list. Per USDA Forest Service policy, the gray wolf is considered a Region 1 Sensitive Species for at least 5 years after delisting and is considered as such in the Benchmark Fuels Reduction Project Environmental The gray wolf is not considered in this Biological Assessment because it is currently delisted.

The Benchmark Fuels Reduction Project supports and complies with National Fire Plan direction (Benchmark EA, Section1, p. 4 and Section 3, pp. 7-8), for which an Alternative Consultation Agreement exists pursuant to the. The regulations and agreement allow the USDA Forest Service to use optional consultation procedures when it determines that a project is “not likely to adversely affect” any listed species or designated critical habitat. In using the optional procedures, the USDA Forest Service is not required to seek written concurrence from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, but must document a reasoned explanation for its conclusions.

A Biological Assessment was prepared as per the Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations issued December 8, 2003 (Federal Register, pp. 68254-68265), and was signed shortly before a Decision Memo was signed for the Benchmark Fuels Project. The Decision was appealed and in April 2010 was remanded back to the RMRD for further analysis. This Biological Assessment was prepared subsequent to that remand, and addresses issues raised by appellants to the decision. The FS has decided to seek concurrence from the UDSI Fish and Wildlife Service for the determinations reached in this updated Assessment.

LITERATURE CITED Aune, K. and W. Kasworm. 1989. Final report: East Front grizzly studies. MT Dept. Fish,

Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, MT. 332 pp. Craighead, J.J. and J. A. Mitchell, 1982. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos). pp. 515-556 in J.A.

Chapman and G.A. Feldhammer, Eds. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, Economics. Hopkins, Baltimore, MD.

58

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1986. Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 100 pp.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1995. Interim Motorized Access Management

Direction for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. 7 pp. Kendall, K.C., J.B. Stetz, J. Boulanger, A.C. Macleod, D. Paetkau, and G.C. White. 2008.

Demography and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 3-17.

Mace, R. and T. Chilton. 2009. Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Monitoring

Team Annual Report – 2008. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 490 N. Meridian Road, Kalispell, MT. 59901. Unpublished data. (http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=38053)

Reudiger 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. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Servheen, C. 1983. Grizzly bear food habits, movements, and habitat selection in the Mission

Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:1026-1035. Tweten. R.G. 1984. Baseline survey of furbearing mammals within the South Fork drainage Sun

River, Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. USDA Forest Service. 1986. Lewis and Clark National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan. Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, MT. USDA Forest Service. 2001. The Distribution, Life History, and Recovery Objectives for Region

One Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Terrestrial Wildlife Species. 24 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan:

Record of Decision for Birch Creek South. Lewis and Clark National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of

Decision. National Forests in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. 51 pp. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and

Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1987. Interagency Rocky Mountain Front Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program and Management Guidelines for Selected Species. BLM-MT-PT-87-003-4111. 71 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Denver, CO. 181 pp.

59

Zager, P., C. Jonkel and J. Habeck. 1983. Logging and wildfire influence on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. pp. 124-132 in Bears: Their Biology and Management, Vol. 5. 1983. A Selection of Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Madison, WI., USA, February 1980.

60

APPENDIX A MAPS

(Selected maps from the Benchmark Fuels Reduction Project EA)

67

APPENDIX B

Portions of The Distribution, Life History, and Recovery Objectives for Region One Terrestrial

Wildlife Species July 2001

69

Grizzly Bear The historic range of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the continental United States extended from the central Great Plains, west to California, and south to Texas and Mexico. Between 1800 and 1975, grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 states declined from over 50,000 to less than 1,000. As European settlement expanded westward, the grizzly was extirpated from most of its historical range. The grizzly bear was listed as threatened under ESA in 1975. (Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 1993). Five areas in the lower 48 states currently support grizzly bear populations; these areas are located in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington and include: the Yellowstone Ecosystem, Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, Selkirk Ecosystem, and Northern Cascades Ecosystem. These areas represent less than two percent of the grizzly’s former range. The Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement to reintroduce an experimental population of grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho and Montana was signed in December 2000. (Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 1993). 2. Life History: Grizzly bears are in the bear family (Ursidea) and are generally larger than black bears and can be distinguished by having longer front foot claws (two to four inches); a distinctive shoulder hump (muscle mass for digging); rounded ears that are proportionately smaller than the head; and a dished-in profile between the eyes and end of the snout. A wide range of coloration from light brown to nearly black is common. Guard hairs are often paled at the tips; hence the name “grizzly.” Spring shedding, new growth, nutrition, and climate all affect coloration. In the continental United States, the average weight of grizzlies is 400 to 600 pounds for males and 250 to 350 pounds for females. Grizzly bears are long-lived and many individuals live over 20 years. Adult bears are individualistic in behavior and normally are solitary wanderers. Females with cubs and bears defending food supplies are common causes of confrontation between humans and bears. (FWS 1993). Home ranges of adult bears may overlap. The home ranges of adult male grizzlies are generally two to four times larger than adult females. The home ranges of females are smaller while they have cubs, but increase when the cubs become yearlings. Home ranges vary in relation to food availability, weather conditions, and interactions with other bears. Home ranges are larger in the Yellowstone Ecosystem compared to the more productive habitats in the northern ecosystems. (FWS 1993). Age of first reproduction and litter size varies and may be related to nutritional state. Age at first reproduction averages five and one-half years of age (three and one-half to eight and one-half years of age). Reproductive intervals for females

70

average three years and litter size average two cubs (one to four cubs per litter). The limited reproductive capacity of grizzly bears precludes rapid increases in population. Grizzly bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates among terrestrial mammals. During a female’s lifetime, if she has litters of two cubs with a 50:50 sex ratio, and a 50 percent survivorship of young to age 5.5 years, at best she can replace herself with one breeding age female in the first decade of her life. (FWS 1993). Coniferous forest cover is very important to grizzly bears. Ninety percent of aerial radio relocations of 46 radio-collared grizzlies were in forest cover too dense to observe the bear. Dense forests are important for thermal cover, hiding cover, and day beds; most beds are located within six feet of a tree. The importance of open grassy parks with coniferous forest cover has also been documented. (FWS 1993). Grizzly bears excavate dens as early as September or prior to entry in November. Dens are usually dug on steep slopes where wind and topography cause an accumulation of deep snow and where snow is unlikely to melt during warm periods. Dens are generally found at high elevations well away from human activity and development. (FWS 1993). Grizzly bears are opportunistic feeders and will prey or scavenge on almost any available food. Plants with high crude protein content and animal matter are most important food items. The search for food has a prime influence on grizzly bear movements. Upon emergence from the den grizzlies move to lower elevations, drainage bottoms, avalanche chutes, and ungulate winter ranges where their food requirements can be met. Throughout spring and early summer grizzlies follow plant phenology back to higher elevations. In late summer and fall, there is a transition to fruit and nut sources, as well as herbaceous materials. This is a general pattern, however, bears will go where they can meet their food requirements. (FWS 1993). 3. Recovery Plan and Forest Plan Objectives: Recovery Plan Objectives – The overall goal of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan is to remove the grizzly bear from threatened status in each of the occupied or reintroduced ecosystems in the 48 conterminous States. The following goals have been prepared for the … Northern Continental Divide… Ecosystems (Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 1993): Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem “Ten females with cubs inside Glacier National Park (GNP) and 12 females with cubs outside GNP over a running six-year average both inside and outside the recovery zone and within a 10 mile area immediately surrounding the recovery zone, excluding Canada; 21 of 23 BMUs occupied by females with young from a running six-year sum of verified sightings and evidence, with no two adjacent BMUs unoccupied; and known human-caused mortality not to exceed four percent

71

of the population estimate based on the most recent three-year sum of females with cubs. Furthermore, no more than 30 percent of this four percent mortality limit shall be females. These mortality limits cannot be exceeded during any two consecutive years for recovery to be achieved. Furthermore, recovery cannot be achieved without occupancy in the Mission Mountains portion of the ecosystem.” Canada Lynx 1. Distribution: The range of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is in the Northern Taiga. In the conterminous United States, lynx range is depicted as marginal or peninsular extensions of the Northern Taiga into the western mountains, Great Lakes, and Northeast. These regions represent southern extensions of boreal forest in the lower 48 states. Available information on lynx in Idaho and Montana dates back to the late 1800s and early 1900s and consists of museum specimens. Data on lynx harvests have been recorded since the 1930s in Idaho and 1950s for Montana, and although not completely reliable due to misidentifications with bobcats, the data appears to indicate a continuous presence of lynx. (Ruggiero et al. 1999). 2. Life History: Canada lynx are in the cat family (Felidea) and are medium-sized cats 30 to 35 inches long and weighing 18 to 23 pounds. Lynx have large feet adapted to walking on snow, long legs, tufts on the ears, and a black-tipped tail. They inhabit mesic coniferous forests with cold, snowy winters, which provide a prey base of snowshoe hare. Snow conditions and vegetation type are important components of lynx habitat. In the western United States, primary vegetation contributing to lynx habitat is lodgepole pine, sub-alpine fir, and Engelmann spruce. (Rudiger et al. 2000). In northern Idaho and northwest Montana, cedar-hemlock habitat types may be considered primary vegetation for lynx. In central Idaho, Douglas-fir on moist sites at higher elevations may also be considered primary vegetation. Secondary vegetation, when interspersed with sub-alpine forests, contributing to lynx habitat includes: cool, moist Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch, and quaking aspen. (Rudiger et al. 2000). Home range size is variable and differs between sexes and with season of year (Rudiger et al. 2000). Male home range is larger than female home range. In north central Washington, Koehler (1990) reported average home range sizes for two females at 15 mi2 and for five males at 27 mi2. Apps (2000) in southern British Columbia found much larger home ranges of 147 mi2 for males and 92 mi2 for females. In Montana, four female home ranges averaged 17 mi2 (Koehler et al. 1979). Natal den sites are commonly in large woody debris, either down logs or root wads. Den sites may be located within older regeneration stands (>20 years since

72

disturbance) or in mature conifer or mixed conifer-deciduous (typically spruce/fir or spruce/birch) forests. Stand structure appears to be more important to den site selection rather than cover type. (Rudiger et al. 2000). In Canada, breeding occurs through March and April and young are born in May to June. Adult males do not help with rearing young. Yearling females may give birth during periods when snowshoe hares are abundant. In Montana, one marked female produced two kittens in 1998; in 1999, two of the three females produced litters of two kittens each. During low snowshoe hare cycles, few if any kittens are born or survive if born. (Rudiger et al. 2000). Snowshoe hares are the primary prey of lynx, comprising 35 percent to 97 percent of their diet throughout lynx range. Red squirrels are an important alternate prey, especially during snowshoe hare population lows. Mice, voles, flying squirrels, fish, grouse, and ungulate carrion also occur in the diet. (Rudiger et al. 2000). Timber harvest, prescribed fire, and natural disturbances (wildfire, insect infestations, catastrophic wind events, and disease outbreaks) can provide foraging opportunities for lynx when understory stem densities and structure meet the forage and cover needs for snowshoe hare. These characteristics include: 1) a dense, multilayered understory maximizing cover and browse at both ground level and at varying snow depths throughout the winter (crown cover within 15 feet of the ground in order to provide cover and food for snowshoe hares). Lynx appear to prefer to move through continuous forest, and frequently use ridges, saddles, and riparian areas. (Rudiger et al. 2000).

revised biological assessment for terrestrial wildlife...

Documents