Deer Creek Project

Wildlife Report

Prepared by:

Brett Lyndaker North Zone Wildlife Biologist

Bonners Ferry Ranger District

Idaho Panhandle National Forests

November 6, 2015

Deer Creek Project

1

Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................3 Regulatory Framework............................................................................................................3

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ....................................................................4 Sensitive Species ................................................................................................................4 Management Indicator Species ............................................................................................4 Other Wildlife Species ........................................................................................................5

Migratory Birds ..............................................................................................................5 Scope of the Analysis..............................................................................................................5

Geographic Scope...............................................................................................................5 Canada Lynx...................................................................................................................7 Grizzly Bear ...................................................................................................................7 Other Species ..................................................................................................................8

Temporal Scope .................................................................................................................9 Analysis Methods ...............................................................................................................9 Species Not Analyzed in Detail ......................................................................................... 11 Species Analyzed in Detail ................................................................................................ 13 Issue Indicators ................................................................................................................ 13

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................ 14 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 14 Characterization of Habitats .............................................................................................. 15 Organization of the Analysis ............................................................................................. 15 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................. 17

Canada Lynx................................................................................................................. 17 Grizzly Bear ................................................................................................................. 31

Sensitive Species .............................................................................................................. 46 Fisher ........................................................................................................................... 46 Flammulated Owl, Pygmy Nuthatch and Fringed Myotis ................................................. 55

Design Features .................................................................................................................... 63 References ........................................................................................................................... 65 Statement of Findings ........................................................................................................... 76 Appendix A - Wildlife Species Not Analyzed in Detail ........................................................... 77 Species Not Analyzed Further ............................................................................................... 77

Sensitive Species .............................................................................................................. 77 Black-Backed Woodpecker ............................................................................................ 77 Bald Eagle .................................................................................................................... 78 Black Swift ................................................................................................................... 79 Common Loon .............................................................................................................. 79 Harlequin Duck............................................................................................................. 80 Gray Wolf .................................................................................................................... 81 North American Wolverine ............................................................................................ 83 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat ............................................................................................. 85 Coeur d'Alene Salamander ............................................................................................. 85 Western Toad................................................................................................................ 86

Management Indicator Species .......................................................................................... 88 Rocky Mountain Elk ..................................................................................................... 88 Landbird Assemblage .................................................................................................... 89

Species Not Relevant to the Project........................................................................................ 91 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................................. 91

Deer Creek Project

2

Woodland Caribou ........................................................................................................ 91 Sensitive Species .............................................................................................................. 91

American Peregrine Falcon ............................................................................................ 91 Northern Bog Lemming ................................................................................................. 92

Appendix B - Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan .................................................. 93 Appendix C - Summary of IGBC (1986) Guidelines relative to the Deer Creek Project ............. 95

List of Tables Table 1. Wildlife Analysis scales used for analyzing direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects ...8 Table 2. Past, Present & Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Cumulatively Affecting Wildlife...... 10 Table 3. Wildlife Species Not Analyzed in Detail .................................................................. 12 Table 4. Wildlife Species Analyzed in Detail ......................................................................... 13 Table 5. Issue Indicators Used to Measure Effects.................................................................. 14

Deer Creek Project

3

Introduction This document details the analysis and discloses the potential effects on focal wildlife species from the Deer Creek Project alternatives on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF). The IPNF proposes to manage forest vegetation over approximately 4,256 acres within the project area using a variety of methods. Some of the methods involve cutting and removing trees that are of a commercial size (up to 3,198 acres, depending on the alternative chosen) while other treatment types would only involve cutting small trees (325 acres) and/or conducting prescribed burning without the removal of any trees (662 acres). Trees that are removed from the forest stands would be transported to a road by ground-based (e.g. tractor) equipment where the terrain is relatively gentle, while in the steeper areas, a cable (e.g. skyline) yarding machine would pull trees up to roads.

To conduct the vegetation treatments and meet the other resource objectives in the project area, up to 33.6 miles of roads would have maintenance activities performed on them. Approximately 15.9 miles of roads would have reconstruction activities and up to1.4 miles of new temporary roads could be constructed. Approximately 4.8 miles of existing roads would be stored and other roads would be decommissioned. To provide gravel surfacing material for some of the roads, three existing gravel pits in the area would be used and some expansion of those pits is needed.

For the improvement of aquatic resources, the proposed action includes the replacement of numerous road culverts that are either in disrepair or are too small to handle large stream flows. In addition, the proposal includes graveling and drainage improvements on roads in the vicinity of stream crossings. Placing large woody material in streams where it is lacking and repairing a road that is slumping into a creek is also proposed. Lastly, activities associated with replacing a culvert under a railroad line could occur to improve the ability of fish and other aquatic species to travel up and down Meadow Creek.

The proposed action includes a number of recreation related activities. Trail maintenance activities are proposed for a hiking trail, improvement and restoration activities are proposed for the Solomon Lake area, a short new trail is proposed for the Meadow Creek campground, and a parking improvement activity is included for snowmobile users on the Deer Creek road.

Lastly, there are some activities proposed in the project area for controlling non-native invasive plants such as noxious weeds. A complete narrative of the project, including specific location and alternative descriptions, can be found in detail in the Deer Creek Project Environmental Assessment (EA).

Regulatory Framework The regulatory framework providing direction for the management of wildlife habitat most pertinent to this analysis comes primarily from the following sources:

• The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended

• National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended

• IPNF Revised Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015)

• Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Handbook (FSH) direction

Following is a summary of regulatory guidance and its relation to the management of wildlife species and habitats on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests.

Deer Creek Project

4

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species The National Forest Management Act provides for balanced consideration of all resources. It requires the Forest Service to “provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives” (NFMA Sec. 6[g][3][B]). Additional guidance is found in Forest Service Manual direction that states: “identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened and proposed species” (FSM 2670.31 [6]). The forest plan for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests provides additional direction to “manage vertebrate wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations” of wildlife and “to contribute to the conservation and recovery of listed species” in accordance with species recovery or management plans (USDA Forest Service 1987).

The Endangered Species Act requires the Forest Service to assist in recovery of threatened, endangered, and proposed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 7 of the Act directs federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The Forest Service is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if a proposed activity may affect individuals or habitat of a listed species. The direction requires the Forest Service to complete biological assessments to document whether projects would likely have adverse effects on identified habitats or individuals of threatened or endangered animals. A biological assessment for the Deer Creek Project will be prepared, and Section 7 consultation completed, prior to a decision being issued for the project.

A list of threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat that may be present in the Deer Creek Project area was obtained from Fish and Wildlife Service on September 2, 2015 (project file). Terrestrial wildlife species on the list include the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). On September 12, 2014 the FWS issued a final rule to revise designation of critical habitat for Canada lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014b).

Sensitive Species The Forest Service Manual also directs the regional forester to identify sensitive species for each national forest where species viability may be a concern. The direction requires the Forest Service to manage the habitat of the species listed in the regional sensitive species list to prevent further declines in populations, which could lead to listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Effective May 27, 2011 the regional forester updated the sensitive species list for the Northern Region of the Forest Service. There were no changes from the previous (2004) list on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Since that time, gray wolf has been removed from the list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species and subsequently placed on the sensitive species list. The status of this species will periodically be reviewed by the Forest Service.

Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species (MIS) were identified in the planning process and were proposed because they represent an issue or concern. The wildlife MIS identified in the 2015 revised IPNF Land Management Plan (LMP) were elk and a landbird assemblage. Elk were selected because of the high social importance and their sensitivity to the availability of secure habitat, and are an indicator for elk security only. The IPNF uses Elk Management Units (EMUs) as the analysis unit for elk security. The delineation of EMUs was limited to the central and southern portions of the IPNF because of their higher

Deer Creek Project

5

priority with regards to existing elk security and in part to acknowledge that the northern part of the IPNF already has considerable security provided for grizzly bears that benefits many other wildlife species, such as elk (USDA Forest Service 2015). Consequently, elk are not considered MIS on the North Zone with the exception of the area to the east of Lake Pend Oreille and south of the Clark Fork River where three EMUs have been delineated.

The landbird assemblage consists of the olive-sided flycatcher, dusky flycatcher, Hammond’s flycatcher, chipping sparrow and hairy woodpecker. The landbird assemblage will be used as an indicator for progress towards the desired vegetation conditions and they do not represent other species (i.e. they are not a proxy for other species). The landbird assemblage will be monitored at the Forest-level scale by the ongoing effort of the Integrated Monitoring using Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR). These wildlife MIS species – elk and the landbird assemblage – were not selected because of a viability concern, and their viability will not be analyzed or monitored at the project level (USDA Forest Service 2015). At the project level, the landbird assemblage would be incorporated into the project analyses to the degree appropriate based on the potential for a measurable effect.

Other Wildlife Species

Migratory Birds The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, made the taking, killing or possessing of migratory birds unlawful. Executive Order 13186 of 2001 clarified the responsibilities of Federal agencies regarding migratory bird conservation and directed Federal agencies to evaluate the effects of Federal actions on migratory birds with an emphasis on species of concern. The Executive Order also directed Federal agencies to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding their role with respect to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

In December 2008, the Forest Service entered into a MOU with the Fish and Wildlife Service that further clarified the responsibility of the Forest Service to protect migratory birds (USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). In the MOU, the Forest Service agreed to consider the most up-to-date Fish and Wildlife Service list of Birds of Conservation Concern (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) when developing or amending land management plans, and to evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds within the NEPA analysis process, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitat and key risk factors. For the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, the bird species of management concern include those species designated as sensitive and management indicator species. Consequently, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests is in compliance with the MOU by analyzing the potential effects to these bird species and their habitat at the project level, such as in this document.

Scope of the Analysis Geographic Scope

The geographic scope of potential effects on wildlife for this analysis was determined based on the spatial extent of proposed Federal actions. The proposed activities are centered on the Lower Moyie River corridor, north of Moyie Springs, Idaho and encompass portions of the Deer Creek, Skin Creek, Curley Creek, Fry Creek, and Meadow Creek drainages (figure 1).

Deer Creek Project

6

Figure 1. Deer Creek Project area, Deer-Skin LAU, and Keno BMU (western portion).

The appropriate scale or geographic bounds for wildlife effects analysis varies on a species by species basis and may include review at multiple scales. Varying scales that were considered include the entire

Deer Creek Project

7

project area (about 31,000 acres; 22,682 acres of which are National Forest System lands), the Deer -Skin Canada Lynx Analysis Unit (about 23,092 acres), the Keno Grizzly Bear Management Unit (about 51,236 acres), the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (2,500,000 acres), and the Northern Region of the Forest Service.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were considered individually for each wildlife species and associated habitat to arrive at a final determination of effects. For those species unaffected by the proposal, additional analysis of cumulative effects was not necessary. The species’ status, habitat conditions and population trends across the appropriate scales were reviewed to consider the potential effects from the project in concert with larger scale trends as well as national forest-level and regional-level goals.

Canada Lynx For Canada lynx, the cumulative effects analysis area is the Deer-Skin Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) (figure 1). Lynx Analysis Units were delineated following standards outlined within the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; Ruediger et al. 2000) because they provide the appropriate scale at which specific lynx habitat parameters can be measured. Lynx analysis units are not intended to represent actual lynx home ranges, but their scale approximates the size of a female lynx home range (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Application of conservation measures at the lynx analysis unit scale allows blocks of quality lynx habitat to be maintained within each unit, which maintains a good distribution at the scale of a lynx home range as well as at a larger scale since the conglomeration of adjacent lynx analysis units would also maintain the appropriate levels of lynx habitat. The size of lynx analysis units would generally be from 16,000 to 25,000 acres in contiguous habitat, and likely be larger in less contiguous, poorer quality, or naturally fragmented habitat. The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD; USDA Forest Service 2007) superseded the LCAS by providing further direction on refining lynx habitat based on more recent research findings, and by defining risk factors for lynx.

The NRLMD also established standards and guidelines on how to address risk factors to reduce or eliminate impacts on lynx and their habitat. The NRLMD maintained the use of lynx analysis units as the appropriate scale at which to apply the standards and guidelines, as well as directing that lynx analysis units are the appropriate entity for which the potential effects to lynx and lynx habitat should be analyzed (USDA Forest Service 2007). Therefore, Standards and Guidelines from the NRLMD that address numeric thresholds (for example Standards VEG S1 and VEG S2) are measured at the lynx analysis unit level. Since the adjacent LAUs contain small amounts of forest in the early stand initiation structural stage (less than 5 percent of Canuck LAU, less than 1 percent of the Thunder LAU on the KNF) – very little of which has been regenerated in the past 10 years (less than 1 percent of both neighboring LAUs) – conducting analysis in an area larger than the affected lynx analysis unit would only serve to dilute project effects.

Although the Deer Creek Project also proposes activities outside the Deer-Skin LAU, these activities are not expected to measurably impact lynx because these areas are assumed not to support reproducing populations of lynx, they do not represent linkage (travel) areas between LAUs, and lynx tolerate some level of human disturbance and do not appear to alter their behavior to avoid humans.

Grizzly Bear The area selected for cumulative effects analysis for grizzly bears is the Keno Grizzly Bear Management Unit (BMU) (figure 1). BMUs were originally created by the USFS in the early 1980s and later adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to roughly represent the size of a female grizzly bear home range

Deer Creek Project

8

(approximately 100 square miles) containing all of the necessary seasonal habitat components. BMUs are the principal unit for evaluating and analyzing potential impacts on grizzly bears. BMUs do not represent actual home ranges, but are areas established for the purpose of grizzly bear analysis. Since the BMU is the standard reporting unit to annually assess motorized access conditions within recovery zones, evaluating road densities or core areas over a larger area would effectively mask the effects of project-level analysis.

Additionally, determination of motorized access conditions includes not only motorized routes within each BMU itself, but also routes on all ownerships for a specified distance around BMUs (500 meters for core analysis, 900 meters for road densities). Analyzing areas of a larger size with regards to core habitat and road densities (measures for Forest Plan Standards for grizzly bears) would add little to the analysis, and would dilute the impacts of project activities confined to a relatively small (less than 10,000 acres) portion of the BMU. Further, the Motorized Access Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2011), which was incorporated into the 2015 revised land management plan, applies access management standards to individual BMUs within the respective recovery zones.

It is possible that transient or dispersing grizzly bears could be affected by activities taking place outside the recovery zone. However, these areas are not known to support resident bears, and likely do not contribute to recovery in any substantial way. Additionally, many of these areas are in close proximity to permanent human developments where grizzly bear presence is undesirable or unsustainable. Also, there are no quantifiable habitat criteria or standards with which to measure effects of activities in these areas. For these reasons, potential effects of project activities outside the BMU (as well as cumulative effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities) are discussed qualitatively.

Other Species For all other species analyzed, National Forest System (NFS) lands within the defined Deer Creek Project area were used as the cumulative effects analysis area. This area is approximately 22,682 acres, and is large enough to accommodate at least single home ranges for highly mobile species or to sustain the complete life cycle of most nonmigratory wildlife as well as breeding and nesting habitat for migrating birds. Since other ownerships are highly susceptible to adverse habitat modifications, the presence of suitable habitat on these lands cannot be relied upon over time. As a result, this analysis assumes lands outside of national forest do not contribute adequate habitat for these species.

As a solitary, low density carnivore, the fisher typically has much larger home ranges than other comparable-sized mammals, reported by Jones (1991) as ranging from approximately 10,000 to 22,000 acres. While the analysis area is slightly larger than this, it is consistent with the Heinemeyer and Jones (1994) recommendation of analyzing fisher habitat at the “subdrainage” level, which they give as 6,178 to 61,780 acres. It is also well within the range of Davis (2009) reports for a range in British Columbia (about 3,200 to 41,000 acres (13.1 to 166 square km)).

Table 1. Wildlife Analysis scales used for analyzing direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects

Species Cumulative Effects Analysis Area

Canada Lynx Round Prairie Lynx Analysis Unit

Grizzly Bear Keno Grizzly Bear Management Unit

All other species NFS lands within the Deer Creek Project area

Deer Creek Project

9

Temporal Scope The temporal scope of the analysis is a function of the nature of the proposal, the geographic scope of the analysis, ongoing management goals and actions, and natural events. The analysis assesses effects based on both existing conditions at the time of the analysis and potential conditions (e.g., capable habitat that may or may not be currently suitable) at some undetermined time in the future. The analysis will provide a representation of effects until, at some point in time, future unforeseeable actions or events result in appreciable change. The temporal scope of the analysis will be influenced by the location and nature of future management actions and natural events. The time period that project-related disturbance may be present is expected to be from 5 to 8 years based on a 5-year timber sale contract and additional post-sale fuel treatments. The effects of vegetation management from this project may be still apparent 50 or more years beyond this, barring other natural or artificial disturbance in the area.

Analysis Methods The appropriate methodology and level of analysis needed to determine potential effects is influenced by a number of factors, including the purpose and need for the proposal, the nature of the proposal, various regulations and policies, the potential for impacts, the risk to resources and species, and the information necessary for an informed decision. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directs the agency to focus on a full and fair discussion of significant issues, and identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant. The methodology for the wildlife analysis was developed and conducted based on consideration of the above factors and others (e.g., available data).

There is some level of uncertainty associated with any analysis methodology: habitat associations are complex, some variables may be unknown or not described, and available data may not be as specific as that used in the scientific literature. However, this analysis is based on the most applicable scientific literature and uses the best available data. This information was validated, updated, and augmented by field reviews, habitat surveys, interpretation of aerial imagery, and reasonable assumptions based on present management conditions, professional judgment, and the combined knowledge of people from various sources (e.g., other Forest Service employees, public input, public and private land management entities). The methodology is commensurate with the existing knowledge, existing data, and the risks associated with the proposal. The analysis allows for a comparison of potential effects by alternative and a decision based on environmental consequences.

The Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1502.2) directs that impacts be discussed in proportion to their significance. Some wildlife species require a detailed analysis and discussion to determine effects. Others may not be impacted, impacted at a level that is inconsequential, or impacts are adequately avoided or mitigated through the design of the project. Generally, these elements do not require a detailed discussion and analysis.

Past actions and events including timber harvest, wildfire, road and trail construction, fire suppression, and insect and disease outbreaks on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District have influenced the existing availability and distribution of wildlife habitat. All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in table 2 were reviewed for their relevancy to the wildlife analysis and their potential effects on wildlife. Those actions vary in their potential for impacts on wildlife, the consequences of potential impacts, the measurability of effects, and how they are measured. Some actions may have impacts, but any measurable effects on wildlife are already factored into the analysis (for example, road maintenance is a present and reasonably foreseeable action that may contribute to disturbance levels, but is a part of the impacts measured by miles and density of motorized routes). Also, some actions occur at a level that does not have a measurable effect (such as cutting Christmas trees for personal use) or can’t be quantified for measurement because of their random, unpredictable nature and the inability to predict their extent (e.g.,

Deer Creek Project

10

access for fire suppression). Finally, activities such as past timber harvest, wildfire and fire suppression, and insect and disease infestations may have substantially affected wildlife habitat, but these effects have resulted in the current stand structure and composition and are incorporated into the discussion of current conditions (see “Affected Environment” on page 14). Since these effects have already been factored in, they would not incrementally add to the effects of the proposed actions in a measurable way. As a result, these past actions and events do not receive detailed discussion in the analysis of cumulative effects.

More specific discussions regarding the analysis methodology can be found in the sections on individual species.

Table 2. Past, Present & Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Cumulatively Affecting Wildlife

Action Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable

Discussed under

cumulative effects*

Explanation

Historic timber harvest X No

Effects on habitat (e.g. forest structure and composition) of past timber harvest are measured in existing condition. Ongoing timber harvest within cumulative effects analysis area for grizzly bear or Canada lynx are discussed under “Kreist Creek Project.”

Prescribed burning for site prep and fuels treatment X No

Effects of past prescribed burning are factored into the existing condition. Scheduled prescribed burning within cumulative effects analysis area for grizzly bear discussed under “Idaho Buckhorn Project” and “Kootenai Buckhorn Project.”

Tree planting X No Effects on habitat (e.g. forest structure and composition) are measured in existing condition.

Activities on private lands X X X Yes

(grizzly bear only)

Potential disturbance effects of private land activities are discussed for grizzly bear. For other species, the analysis assumes no habitat contributions from private lands.

Public activities: firewood gathering, driving, dispersed camping, snowmobiling, hunting, hiking, berry picking

X X X Yes Addressed in cumulative effects.

Road construction X No

Effects on open roads and total road miles from past road construction are factored into existing condition.

Road decommissioning/storage X X No

Effects on open road miles from past road decommissioning are factored into existing condition.

Road maintenance X X X No Potential effects are measured by open road miles.

Wildfires X Unknown No Effects of past wildfires on habitat have been factored into the existing condition.

Deer Creek Project

11

Action Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable

Discussed under

cumulative effects*

Explanation

Fire suppression X X X Yes

Effects on habitat (e.g. forest structure, composition and snag numbers) are factored into existing condition. Potential future fire suppression addressed in cumulative effects.

Spraying herbicides to control and prevent noxious weeds under the Bonners Ferry Noxious Weed Control Project EIS

X X X No

This activity would not make appreciable habitat modifications. Potential disturbance effects would emanate from open roads, and would be localized and inconsequential.

Trail maintenance X X X No

Habitat modifications and potential disturbance as a result of trail maintenance would be inconsequential.

Pipeline right-of-way maintenance X X X No

Habitat modifications and potential disturbance as a result of pipeline maintenance would be inconsequential.

Railroad activities X X X No

Habitat modifications from past railroad construction and disturbance from use are factored into existing condition.

Mining activity – placer mining in Placer Creek X No

Effects of past mining activities have been factored into the existing condition.

North Zone Roadside Salvage EA X Yes Addressed in cumulative effects.

Idaho Buckhorn Prescribed Burn X

Yes (grizzly

bear and Canada

lynx)

Potential effects are discussed for grizzly bear and Canada lynx. Idaho Buckhorn Project is outside cumulative effects areas for other species.

Kreist Creek Project X

Yes (grizzly

bear and Canada

lynx)

Potential effects are discussed for grizzly bear and Canada lynx. Kreist Creek Project is outside cumulative effects areas for other species.

Kootenai Buckhorn Project X

Yes (grizzly

bear only)

Potential effects are discussed for grizzly bear. Kootenai Buckhorn Project is outside cumulative effects areas for other species.

* The effects of some actions are not measurable, are inconsequential at the scale of this analysis, and/or are captured by the existing condition as measured for other actions.

Species Not Analyzed in Detail A preliminary analysis was conducted for each potentially affected wildlife species and their habitat to determine the scope of project analysis. The species listed in the following table: 1) do not have suitable habitat or are not regularly present or expected to be in or near the proposed activity area; or 2) are affected at a level that does not increase risk to the species, or effects have been adequately mitigated by altering the design of the project. For these reasons, these species were not analyzed in detail. Preliminary analysis information and effects determinations for these species are located in Appendix A of this document.

Deer Creek Project

12

Table 3. Wildlife Species Not Analyzed in Detail

Species Preferred Habitat Rationale for Elimination from Detailed Analysis

Threatened and Endangered Species

Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)

Above 4,000 ft. in Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and western red cedar/western hemlock forests

The project area is outside of the Woodland Caribou Recovery Zone, contains no suitable caribou habitat and is not within proposed critical habitat for caribou.

Sensitive Species

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

Open habitats near cliffs and mountains. Nesting cliffs near an adequate prey base

No suitable habitat exists in the project area for this species.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Normally nest and forage near large bodies of water; winter visitors and yearlong residents of northern Idaho

No project activities within the distances recommended by the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for protection of bald eagle nests, winter roosting or foraging habitat.

Black Swift (Cypseloides niger)

Builds nest behind or next to waterfalls and wet cliffs

No impacts to suitable nesting habitat or vegetative diversity.

Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

The presence of bark-beetle outbreaks and post-fire areas in forested habitats

No immediate post-fire habitat or areas of extensive insect infestation proposed for treatment.

Common Loon (Gavia immer)

Large, clear lakes below 5,000 ft. in elevation with at least a partially forested shoreline

Project activities would not result in increase of any risk factors for this species.

Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

Shallow, swift streams in forested areas

Minor impacts to streams with potential breeding habitat.

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

Wide variety of habitats that are generally remote and isolated from human development; adequate populations of prey species, often wintering concentrations of deer or elk

No reduction in prey densities, increase in public motorized access, or disturbance to dens and rendezvous sites.

North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

Far-ranging omnivorous habitat generalist

No suitable maternal denning habitat near activity areas. No decrease in prey densities or increased access to remote areas.

Northern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys borealis)

Bogs, fens and, wet alpine and sub-alpine meadows

No suitable habitat exists in the project area for this species.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Caves, mines, and abandoned buildings

There is no suitable roosting habitat within or near proposed treatment areas.

Coeur d’Alene Salamander (Plethodon vandykei idahoensis)

Springs, seeps, spray zones Suitable habitat may exist in the project area, but would not be affected.

Western Toad (Bufo boreas)

Adults occur in a variety of uplands. Breed in shallow ponds, lakes, or slow moving streams

Breeding habitat is present within the area of interest, but would not be impacted.

Management Indicator Species

Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni)

Habitat generalist; suitable arrangement of cover and forage interspersed with secure areas

Not managed as MIS on this portion of the IPNF. May be temporarily displaced by project activities, but improved forage quality and quantity resulting from timber harvest.

Landbird Assemblage

Deer Creek Project

13

Species Preferred Habitat Rationale for Elimination from Detailed Analysis

Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine)

Open, coniferous woodlands, edges near openings, and early-successional forests with shrubs All action alternatives are designed to move the

project area toward the Desired Conditions for vegetation and fire by providing a similar diversity of habitats and pattern as would have been found historically under natural disturbance processes. While landbirds may be temporarily displaced during implementation, habitat would remain abundant (and would slowly increase) following project activities.

Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus)

Mature forests, edges and burned areas; snags for nesting

Hammond’s Flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii)

Mature coniferous forests that contain canopy openings

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus [borealis] cooperi)

Open coniferous forests, edges near openings, or early-successional forests that contain residual conifers or snags

Dusky Flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri)

Open coniferous forests, open areas with scattered trees, and brushy areas

Species Analyzed in Detail The following table summarizes the wildlife species and wildlife habitat components analyzed in more detail, the rationale for analysis (and conditions that influence the scope of analysis), and a brief description of their habitats.

Table 4. Wildlife Species Analyzed in Detail

Species Preferred Habitat Rationale for Detailed Analysis

Threatened and Endangered Species

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Higher elevation spruce/ fir forests with adequate prey base of snowshoe hares, its primary food

The project is within designated lynx analysis unit (LAU) and potentially affects lynx habitat.

Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)

Habitat generalist; denning areas isolated and remote from human development

A portion of the project is within the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Area and may result in effects to core habitat or changes to road densities.

Sensitive Species

Fisher (Pekania [Martes] pennanti)

Mesic mature forest habitats Potentially suitable denning and foraging habitat is present and may be impacted within the analysis area.

Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus)

Mature or old growth ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest

Potentially suitable nesting/roosting habitat may be affected. Proposed activities expected to trend other capable habitat toward suitability.

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea)

Ponderosa pine habitat, especially mature and old growth stands

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

Caves, mines, and abandoned buildings; large snag habitat in dry-site forest

Issue Indicators Potential effects, by relevant species, were identified and categorized as discussed in the “Analysis Methods” section based on habitat relationships, scientific literature on effects associated with vegetation management, and the proposed alternatives. Measurement criteria are based on the types of potential effects, scientific literature, the nature of the proposal, and applicable data. The table below displays the

Deer Creek Project

14

indicators that will be used to measure effects on wildlife species. Indicators for each species vary and are based on those factors that could result in measurable effects (positive or negative) to the species. For most species being analyzed, appropriate habitat parameters were measured to distinguish potentially suitable habitat (specific parameters for individual species are discussed in the “Methodology” subsection for each species analyzed). A discussion of the changes in potentially suitable habitat for each relevant species and the effects on species are disclosed in the “Environmental Consequences” subsections.

Table 5. Issue Indicators Used to Measure Effects

Species Indicator

Canada lynx

Amount of lynx habitat in a LAU currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, amount of lynx habitat regenerated in the previous 10-year period, impacts to multi-storied mature or late-successional forests, and amount of lynx habitat in a stand initiation structural stage currently providing winter snowshoe hare habitat affected by thinning1

Grizzly bear Changes to core, open and total motorized route densities2

Fisher Changes to potentially suitable denning habitat, changes to mature forest habitat, effects on large snag habitat, changes in linear road miles

Flammulated owl / Pygmy nuthatch / Fringed myotis

Changes to dry forest habitat (including large snags) and trend toward suitable habitat conditions

1Indicators address applicable vegetation management standards from Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007)

2Indicators address applicable design element from Forest Plan Appendix JJ - Motorized Access Management Direction Idaho

Panhandle National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2011)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction The distribution and abundance of wildlife is primarily a function of habitat conditions (i.e., vegetation type and successional stage). These conditions reflect inherent fixed attributes (as depicted in the description of capable habitat below) as well as disturbance (fire, windthrow, landslide, and insect outbreaks) types and frequencies. Wildlife species will occupy their preferred niche on the landscape, and move from place to place as forest structures change and different habitat conditions develop (Clark and Sampson 1995). Consequently, wildlife species will not necessarily persist indefinitely in areas where they are found today because of the dynamic and shifting environments in which they live. Given the often-conflicting habitat requirements of many species, a sound strategy for management is to maintain a complex pattern of forest types and age classes across the landscape that encourages biodiversity and emulates the historic patterns.

Ecological disturbances lay the foundation for landscape patterns and strongly influence wildlife populations. Disturbances that arise from natural processes or human actions can alter these landscape patterns and wildlife habitat, influencing wildlife abundance and composition. In addition to altering habitat due to direct impacts (timber harvest), humans can alter habitat indirectly by influencing natural disturbance patterns. For example, fire suppression results in changes in vegetation composition and structure and subsequent susceptibility to various natural disturbances.

Deer Creek Project

15

In the absence of disturbance, vegetation follows a gradual and more predictable sequence of change called succession. As vegetation moves through each stage of succession, the composition of wildlife species shifts accordingly. Wildlife species have distinctive successional strategies. Some species are more suited to the early stages of forest succession where grasses, forbs and shrubs dominate the site, while others are better suited for the later stages of forest development (e.g., old growth). Other species are habitat generalists and have adapted to a wide array of successional stages.

Characterization of Habitats The Deer Creek Project area is located in the southwestern portion of the Purcell Mountain range, and totals about 31,000 acres. Much of the western approximately two-thirds of the project area is comprised by mixed (“checkerboard”) ownership, with NFS lands interspersed mainly with private industrial timberlands, as well as numerous smaller private parcels (and associated residences) along or near the various watercourses throughout the area. The Deer Creek drainage itself is a relatively small portion of the project area, but is composed almost entirely of NFS lands. Across the entire Deer Creek Project area, about 22,682 acres are National Forest System lands. Private lands in the project area are typically managed for timber production and harvest, or contain residences and other developments. As a result, they are highly susceptible to adverse habitat modifications, and suitable habitat for wildlife species that require large contiguous areas of mature forest cannot be relied upon over time.

The western portion of the project area is characterized by moderate topographic relief, with Dawson Ridge as the dominant feature. Elevations here range from about 4,200 feet on Dawson Ridge down to about 2,200 feet in the Moyie River canyon. Topographic relief is more prominent in the eastern portion of the project area, ranging from the Moyie River to more than 6,600 feet elevation on the Goat Mountain/Line Point ridgeline. With the exception of burn-only units, all proposed project activities take place below about 4,400 feet elevation.

Vegetation ranges from mixed-conifer dry-site stands dominated by Douglas-fir/grand fir and moist stands of western redcedar and western hemlock at low and middle elevations, to predominately cool and moist forests dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir at higher elevations. The close proximity to the community of Bonners Ferry and relatively gentle topography has resulted in roading and extensive timber harvest on both NFS and other properties throughout much of the project area. The exception to this is the Deer Creek drainage, although much of the forest in the upper portion of this drainage was regenerated by wildfire in 1931. As a result, large (several hundred acres) patches of old-growth in the project area are limited to the upper Skin and Keno Creek drainages, the steep southwest face of Goat Mountain, and an isolated area on the northeast portion of Dawson Ridge.

The project area contains a number of small lakes (Dawson, Perkins and Solomon are all at least partially on NFS lands) and streams of varying sizes (the Moyie River and Deer Creek, as well as numerous smaller streams), a range of elevations and forest types, and some relatively remote areas at the eastern periphery. As a result, the Deer Creek Project area potentially contains individuals or habitat for nearly every federally listed, sensitive, or MIS wildlife species found on the IPNF (only woodland caribou, northern bog lemming and peregrine falcon are not suspected to occur in any portion of the project area). However, the nature of the proposed activities and features incorporated into project design eliminate potential effects for some species and reduce effects to where they do not increase risk to others (see Appendix A).

Organization of the Analysis The analysis and discussion of existing condition and project effects on various wildlife species is organized as follows:

Deer Creek Project

16

Species Habitat Relationships: This section describes the natural history, status and distribution of wildlife species analyzed that have been identified as species of concern within the area and could potentially be affected by proposed activities. It also describes the current conditions and relevant habitat components that may or may not be affected by the alternatives. Information presented in this section is based on scientific literature, wildlife databases, professional judgment, recent field surveys, and habitat evaluations.

Affected Environment: The resource information provided, especially as it relates to habitat analysis, includes past actions and events that have influenced vegetative changes to what is now part of the existing condition. An important concept in the existing condition descriptions and analysis is the difference between capable habitat and suitable habitat.

Capable habitat refers to the inherent potential of a site to produce essential habitat requirements of a species. The vegetative structure and composition on the site (such as stand age, cover type or stand density) may not currently provide the necessary attributes to support a species, but it has the fixed attributes that would enable it to provide those variables under appropriate conditions. Some examples of fixed attributes are slope, aspect, soil or elevation.

Suitable habitat refers to wildlife habitat that currently has both the fixed and variable stand attributes meeting a given species' habitat requirements. Variable attributes change over time and may include stand age, cover type, stand density, tree size, or canopy cover. Suitable habitat may be identified based on its ability to currently provide for a limiting factor such as nesting habitat. Because it can be difficult to determine if currently unoccupied habitat contains all attributes necessary to meet a species’ requirements (some of which may be difficult to measure, are not easily discernable, or are previously undocumented by research), stands that appear to contain the necessary habitat components based on habitat validation surveys are labeled as potentially suitable.

Methodology: The appropriate methodology and level of analysis needed to determine potential effects are influenced by a number of variables including presence of species or habitat, the scope and nature of the activities associated with the proposed action and alternatives, and risk factors that could ultimately result in a meaningful adverse or favorable effect. The screening process references the following documents and uses a variety of information including scientific literature, resource inventories, and sighting records:

• Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin (Wisdom et al. 2000)

• Idaho Panhandle National Forests Revised Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015) • Available Conservation Assessments and Strategies for wildlife species

The “Methodology” subsection for each species fully analyzed describes the process used in isolating individual habitat components that may be limiting on the landscape or at risk from management activities, and how these elements were determined based on literature review. The project biologist and staff conducted site visits of a substantial portion of representative habitat for potentially affected species in the analysis area, with emphasis placed on proposed treatment areas. In some cases, habitat information collected in the field was supplemented by queries of the stand components (FSVEG) and activities (FACTS) databases, or with aerial photograph interpretation. This section also outlines the methodology for assessing the effects of the alternatives on individuals or habitat of the species.

Direct and Indirect Effects: This section displays and discusses the effects on those wildlife species identified in the preceding section that may be measurably affected by the various alternatives. Effects discussions include direct effects (effects caused by the action occurring at the same time and place) and

Deer Creek Project

17

indirect effects (effects caused by the action that are later in time or removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable), any of which may have positive or negative consequences. Information presented in this section is based on scientific literature, wildlife databases, professional judgment, field surveys, habitat evaluations, and model projections.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects discussions include other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of the source, that overlap the proposed actions in time and space and may incrementally add to the effects. As discussed above, the effects of past activities and disturbances have been incorporated into the existing condition, and are discussed in the “Affected Environment” subsection. Those ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities that may be measurable or consequential at the project scale are discussed in this section. It is important to note that the spatial and temporal extent at which cumulative effects can be felt may vary between species or groups of species based on relative home range size or life expectancy (see tables 1 and 2).

Consistency with the Forest Plan: For each species fully analyzed, consistency with standards and guidelines of the 2015 Revised Forest Plan for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests are addressed in detail in this section.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Canada Lynx The Deer Creek Project could affect up to 176 acres of lynx habitat in the Round Prairie Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) through prescribed burning. Areas to be burned are open brushfields or immature (pole-sized) timber that lack a dense understory of vegetation that would provide yearlong forage for snowshoe hare. If prescribed fire were to convert all these acres to the stand initiation structural stage, it would result in approximately 1,662 acres (11.9 percent of lynx habitat) in the LAU counting toward Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) standard VEG S1. Since these acres would not be regenerated by timber management (i.e. harvest), they would not count toward standard VEG S2. As a result, the Deer-Skin LAU would meet the standards of no more than 30 percent of lynx habitat in an LAU in the stand initiation structural stage (VEG S1) and no more than 15 percent of the LAU converted to this stage within the last 10 years (VEG S2). There would be no project activities in mature, multi-story lynx habitat or areas capable of achieving this stage within the next 10 to 20 years; and no precommercial thinning would occur in lynx habitat in this proposal (NRLMD standards VEG S5 and VEG S6 would not be affected).

An additional approximately 218 acres of prescribed burning, 12 acres of precommercial thinning, and up to 174 acres of regeneration timber harvest (under alternatives 2 and 4) would affect non-lynx habitat in the LAU. These activities take place in mesic (not boreal) forest more than one-half mile from any spruce/fir-dominated stands. The 174 acres of timber harvest is proposed for stands that generally have a substantial lodgepole pine component, much of which is in the stem-exclusion phase.

Under alternatives 2 and 4, the approximately 174 acres of proposed timber harvest, along with about 336 acres of prescribed burning, would take place in Canada lynx critical habitat. None of these areas currently meet the primary constituent element (PCE) of dense understories of young trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude above the snow, and all but the 176 acres of burning discussed above would be considered matrix habitat of limited value (they are at the periphery of the LAU and are not located between stands of lynx habitat). The effect of proposed activities to snow conditions would be minimal, and potential lynx denning in the form of mature forest lynx habitat is abundant and well-distributed throughout the Deer-Skin LAU. As a result, effects to critical habitat would be minor in nature.

Deer Creek Project

18

The proposed snowmobile parking area on the Deer Creek road (FSR 435) is not expected to greatly increase the amount of snow compaction in the area (which itself has not been unequivocally identified as a risk factor for lynx), and would not increase designated oversnow routes or play areas. Therefore, the effects to lynx from snowmobile parking area development would be minor.

Timber harvest and precommercial thinning in areas outside LAUs would have little (if any) effect on lynx since these are low-elevation sites that are assumed not to support reproducing populations of lynx (due to lack of boreal forest habitat) and do not represent linkage (travel) areas between LAUs. Other proposed activities would not be expected to impact Canada lynx as they would occur outside of the Deer-Skin LAU and would not affect Canada lynx, their habitat or their prey species.

Habitat Relationships Canada lynx is one of the three species of wild cats that occur in the temperate forests of North America. They occur in boreal, sub-boreal and western montane forests and are uncommon or absent from the wet coastal forests of North America. Distribution of lynx is nearly coincident with that of the snowshoe hare, its primary prey. Both snow conditions and vegetation types are important factors to consider in defining lynx habitat. Lynx habitat quality is believed to be lower in the southern periphery of its range because landscapes are more heterogeneous in terms of topography, climate, and vegetation (Ruediger et al. 2000).

Lynx habitat consists of a variety of forest ages and structural stages, including young regenerating forests and mature multi-storied forests that provide snowshoe hare habitat. Lynx require early successional forests that contain high numbers of prey (mainly snowshoe hare) for foraging and late-successional forests that contain cover (especially deadfalls) for kittens and for denning (Koehler and Aubrey 1994). The highest use occurs when these are in close proximity to one another. Like most wild cats, lynx require cover for security and stalking prey and avoid large open areas. Although lynx may cross openings less than 100 meters in width, they generally do not hunt in these areas (Koehler and Aubrey 1994). In northern Idaho and northwestern Montana, lynx generally occur in moist, cold habitat types above 4,000 feet elevation.

The Canada lynx was listed as threatened on March 21, 2000. Lynx populations in Alaska and most of Canada are generally considered stable to slightly dropping. The conservation of lynx populations is the greatest concern in the western mountains of the United States because of the peninsular and disjunct distribution of suitable habitat at the southern periphery of the species' range. Both historic and recent lynx records are scarce, which makes identifying range reductions and determining the historical distribution of stable populations difficult (Koehler and Aubrey 1994).

Identified risk factors that can impact lynx populations mainly address alteration of forest habitats. Upon listing, lynx habitat management on Federal lands was guided by the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000). The LCAS directed agencies to delineate lynx analysis units to evaluate and analyze effects of planned and on-going projects on lynx and their habitat, and provided recommendations for management within these habitats. In 2007, based on the recommendations of the LCAS and more recent research findings, the Forest Service adopted the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (USDA Forest Service 2007), which provides lynx management standards and guidelines that were incorporated into existing forest plans. This direction was subsequently retained in the Revised Land Management Plan for the IPNF (USDA Forest Service 2015) and associated Biological Opinion (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013).

Affected Environment At the time of Federal listing, Canada lynx primary habitat in North Idaho was broadly characterized to include areas with site potential to produce subalpine fir, mountain hemlock, Western hemlock, cedar, and

Deer Creek Project

19

moist grand fir climax habitats (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Dry forest communities (ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir habitat types) and upper subalpine habitat types (alpine larch and whitebark pine cover types) were not considered lynx habitat. As the available knowledge of lynx habitat requirements has increased, lynx habitat on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests has been more narrowly defined to include only subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce habitats (primary habitat except on the Priest Lake Ranger District, where moist cedar-hemlock is also considered primary vegetation) and cool/moist habitat types occurring adjacent to primary habitat to create a transition between lynx habitat and areas that are not lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000, Ruggiero et al. 2000, USDA Forest Service 2007). Based on research findings, the distance recommended by the Canada Lynx Biology Team and agreed upon by IPNF biologists during remapping discussions was that this transition zone is generally limited to secondary habitat within 200 meters of primary habitat (USDA Forest Service 2013).

To more accurately determine lynx habitat, the IPNF adopted a combination of habitat type data from stand examinations and a vegetation response unit model, which incorporates other factors such as soils, hydrologic function, and landform and is a more complete and consistent method of classifying the potential natural vegetation. Forest Service staff subsequently remapped lynx analysis unit boundaries based on Lynx Biology Team recommendations to have lynx analysis units of 16,000 to 25,000 acres in size with at least 6,400 acres of primary habitat. As a result, several North Zone lynx analysis units were re-delineated, combined, or eliminated entirely in cases where they did not contain sufficient amounts of what the best available science has indicated constitutes lynx habitat (project file).

The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction contains four vegetation management standards, with two of them remaining essentially the same as the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy:

(1) if more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in a lynx analysis unit 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 (Standard VEG S1), and

(2) timber management projects shall not regenerate more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on National Forest System lands within a lynx analysis unit in a 10 year period (Standard VEG S2).

Recent (since listing) research has stressed the importance of multi-storied mature or late-successional forests to snowshoe hare populations, and subsequently to lynx (USDA Forest Service 2007, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a, Squires et al. 2010). As a result, vegetation management that reduces snowshoe hare habitat in these stands is prohibited (Standard VEG S6) with some exemptions (including fuels treatment projects within the wildland-urban interface). Similarly, the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction does not allow precommercial thinning in lynx habitat (Standard VEG S5), although it also makes an exemption for precommercial thinning within the wildland-urban interface. However, the combined acres exempted from Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 may not exceed 6 percent of lynx habitat on each National Forest.

Snowshoe hares may reach highest densities in young coniferous forests or “mature forests with a dense understory of shrubs, aspen and/or conifers” (Ruediger et al. 2000). Mature and late successional forests may provide more stable habitat for a longer time period compared to early successional forests; and also provide habitat for red squirrels, an important secondary prey species (Buskirk et al. 2000). In response to subsequent research that associated the presence of mature or late-successional multi-storied forests with persistence of lynx populations, the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction identified the importance of these stands for providing winter snowshoe hare habitat. Winter habitat may be the most limiting for lynx, since starvation mortality is more common during this season and lynx use a narrower range of available habitat than in summer (Squires et al. 2010).

Deer Creek Project

20

The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction labels two older multi-storied stages – the understory reinitiation and old forest multi-storied – as providing winter hare habitat. Squires et al. (2010) perhaps offer the best description of these stands as forests composed of mixed conifers, but predominately consisting of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir “in the overstory and midstory” with branching that descended to the snow surface to provide dense horizontal cover for hares. None of the stands proposed for treatment in the Deer Creek Project area met this description.

Precommercial thinning has been identified as a risk factor for lynx because it has the potential to reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat in young, regenerating forests. While recent research indicates that lynx spend relatively little time hunting in these juvenile stands during winter in the Northern Rockies (Squires et al. 2010, Squires et al. 2006), they likely serve as source habitats for snowshoe hare populations. Precommercial thinning in these stands may reduce the inherent capacity of the habitat to produce snowshoe hares.

Direction for denning habitat protection in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction is addressed by Guideline VEG G11. This guideline is based on the general consensus of lynx researchers that denning habitat, in most cases, is not limiting in lynx habitat. At the time of listing, lynx denning habitat had been described as “dense, mature forest habitats that contain large woody debris, such as fallen trees or upturned stumps, to provide security and thermal cover for kittens” (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Subsequent research in northwest Montana has found that lynx use a variety of conditions for den sites, and used young regenerating forests as well as mature forests (USDA Forest Service 2007). The key component for lynx den sites appears to be the presence of down woody debris, rather than stand age.

Since most of the national forests affected by the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (including the Idaho Panhandle) have existing direction to provide old growth and retain dead and down material, denning habitat was not considered a limiting factor. Potential lynx denning in the form of mature forest lynx habitat is abundant and well-distributed throughout the Deer-Skin LAU. Most lynx habitat on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District is confined to higher elevation timber stands that were not highly valued for timber harvest. As a result, the amount of lynx habitat affected by logging since 1940 is proportionately less than on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests as a whole – likely leading to an abundance of lynx denning habitat.

Road density does not appear to affect lynx habitat selection (Ruediger et al. 2000). Lynx may tolerate some level of human disturbance (including roads), and most research indicates that lynx do not alter their behavior to avoid humans (Aubry et al. 2000, McKelvey et al. 2000, Mowat et al. 2000). Lynx may use little-traveled roadways for travel and foraging in good snowshoe hare habitat, but they prefer to move through continuous forests frequently using ridges, saddles and riparian areas (Ruediger et al. 2000). It is possible that the road construction associated with historic timber sales may have resulted in long-term negative impacts to lynx through increased access for trappers. Trapping can be a substantial source of mortality in areas where lynx are legally trapped (Canada and Alaska) (Koehler and Aubry 1994), and some level of incidental take from traps meant for other species occurs even though intentional lynx harvest has been illegal in Idaho since 1996.

Critical habitat was initially designated for Canada lynx on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to include virtually all of the American-Canuck and Deer-Skin Lynx Analysis Units (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). In September 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule to revise designation of critical habitat for Canada lynx that, among other things, removed areas not identified as lynx habitat and outside of currently delineated lynx analysis units from critical habitat designation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014b). Critical habitat is present in the portion of the Deer Creek Project area that is within the Deer-Skin LAU.

Deer Creek Project

21

Indicators and measures used to assess impacts to Canada lynx critical habitat are based on effects to the specific biological and physical features of habitat, otherwise known as the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs). The PCEs identified for Canada lynx critical habitat are boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages and containing: 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; b) winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time; c) sites for denning having abundant coarse woody debris, such as downed trees and root wads; and d) matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest, non-forest, or other 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. The important aspect of matrix habitat for lynx is that these habitats retain the ability to allow unimpeded movement of lynx through them as lynx travel between patches of boreal forest.

Areas of critical habitat within an LAU that do not represent lynx habitat (i.e. boreal forest and adjacent areas) are generally considered to be matrix habitat. Potential effects to critical habitat are addressed under each alternative. The evaluation of impacts to the PCEs is used to determine whether critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species with project implementation.

A relatively small portion of the Deer Creek Project would take place in the Deer-Skin LAU, which is approximately 23,092 acres in size and contains approximately 13,977 acres of lynx habitat. Currently, the LAU has approximately 1,486 acres, or 10.6 percent of lynx habitat, in an early successional stage not yet providing lynx habitat (Standard VEG S1). This includes the existing condition (28 acres) plus acreage affected by ongoing activities associated with the Idaho Buckhorn Project burning (up to 1,433 acres) and Kreist Creek Project timber harvest (25 acres). Only the 25 acres (0.2 percent of lynx habitat) associated with the Kreist Creek Project will have been regenerated on National Forest System lands in the previous 10 years (Standard VEG S2). As a result, the Deer-Skin LAU would continue to meet the standards of no more than 30 percent of lynx habitat in an LAU in stand initiation structural stage (VEG S1) and no more than 15 percent of the LAU converted to stand initiation structural stage within the last 10 years (VEG S2).

Lynx presence has been historically reported throughout the Idaho Panhandle, including both verified and unverified sightings from several locations on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Confirmed lynx sightings have been infrequent on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, but include documented lynx presence in the American-Canuck LAU in the early 2000s and more recently in 2011. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to be “occupied” by lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a), although designated lynx analysis units and lynx habitat do not encompass the entire forest. Additionally, in 2010 lynx presence was documented on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District portion of the Selkirk Mountains using remote cameras, in 2012 there was a documented lynx mortality associated with trapping in the western portion of the Purcell Mountains, and in 2014 a lynx was captured and released by a trapper in the Cabinet Mountain range to the south. Despite the limited number of verifiable sightings in the area, lynx analysis units have been designated to serve as the fundamental units for measuring Canada lynx recovery. Therefore, within lynx analysis units, lynx presence is assumed and the appropriate management emphasized.

Deer Creek Project

22

Environmental Consequences – Canada Lynx

Methodology After initial identification by the vegetation response unit model, lynx habitat was further evaluated using data from timber stand examinations. Stand exams were used to identify stands in the stand initiation structural stage that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat – the only vegetation stage for which the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction contains numeric standards (VEG S1 and VEG S2). On the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, this stage is identified as from stand initiation up to approximately 16 years old, depending on forest type (project file). Since current law mandates certification of regeneration following timber harvest, the status of regeneration of harvested units is closely monitored by Forest Service personnel, thus the timber stand database accurately reflects the amount of habitat in this stage.

Between 2012 and 2014, Forest Service wildlife personnel conducted habitat evaluation surveys on approximately 1,090 acres of potential lynx habitat in the Deer-Skin LAU in 38 distinct stands. All stands encompassing proposed units were field evaluated.

To fully analyze and disclose the potential effects to Canada lynx, this analysis first focuses on the specifics of each of the proposed alternatives and their effects to lynx and their habitat. With those discussions as background, the analysis then addresses the proposed alternatives in relation to compliance with the Forest Plan, as amended by the standards and guidelines of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction.

Alternative 1 - Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects In the absence of mechanical treatments, habitat conditions would continue to change in the lynx analysis unit. Lodgepole pine is eventually expected to die off and be replaced by subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce in most lynx habitat stands. This may be a slow process; and in the meantime insects, disease and competition for sunlight and nutrients would continue tree mortality and trigger increases in down woody material. More lynx denning habitat would likely be produced, and existing denning habitat would be enhanced. The occasional mature, multi-storied stand would likely improve, while some winter snowshoe hare habitat would move out of the stand initiation stage and lose its value as preferred hare habitat.

The scenario described above assumes that there would be no stand-replacing fire in this area. Given the history of active fire suppression and existing high fuel loads in many stands, it is reasonable to assume that the area would be affected by wildfire at some point in the future. While the action alternatives would not remove the risk of wildfire, they would reduce fire severity in and around treated stands (see Fire Report). The magnitude of any potential fire would depend upon area accessibility, available suppression resources, weather and other environmental factors. A mixed-severity fire would not likely alter large portions of available habitat, but a large stand-replacing fire would convert mature stands to a stand initiation phase, which may take 20 or more years to mature to the point where they could support high densities of snowshoe hares.

Alternative 1 would not have any direct effects on lynx or lynx habitat in the Deer-Skin LAU. Indirect effects would be as described above. Since there would be no measurable effects from this alternative, there would be no cumulative effects.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Prescribed burning in burn-only units could potentially affect about 394 acres of the Deer-Skin LAU, approximately 176 acres of which are considered lynx habitat. Areas of lynx habitat to be burned include much of burn unit 4 and higher-elevation portions of burn units 2 and 3. These areas generally consist of

Deer Creek Project

23

open brushfields or immature (pole-sized) timber, and would not represent high quality yearlong foraging (snowshoe hare) habitat since they lack a dense understory of vegetation that would provide forage for snowshoe hare, particularly in winter. The remaining areas to be burned – both within and outside of the LAU – consist of dry or moist forest more than 200 meters removed from boreal forest types, and do not represent lynx habitat.

If the areas of lynx habitat proposed for burning were all affected by stand-replacing fire through this project (an unlikely scenario), as many as 176 acres would revert to the stand initiation structural stage. This would increase the amount of this component to 1,662 acres (11.9 percent of lynx habitat) that would count toward standard VEG S1. Since these acres would not be regenerated by timber management (i.e. harvest), they would not count toward standard VEG S2. As a result, the Deer-Skin LAU would meet the standards of no more than 30 percent of lynx habitat in an LAU in the stand initiation structural stage (VEG S1) and no more than 15 percent of the LAU converted to this stage within the last 10 years (VEG S2).

Approximately 336 acres of the proposed burning are within designated Canada lynx critical habitat. About 176 of these acres are capable of supporting (or are in proximity to) boreal forest, with the remaining 160 acres considered matrix habitat. As discussed above, the 176 acres of lynx habitat do not meet the first primary constituent element (dense understories of young trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude above the snow) at this time. The proposed burning is not expected to result in substantial structural changes to the affected stands. However, in the unlikely event the burn becomes stand-replacing, this would result in high quality snowshoe hare habitat within 16 to 20 years post treatment.

For the PCE regarding snow conditions, stand-replacing fire in these 176 acres may alter the snow conditions to some degree with less intercept of snow from trees limbs and additional sun exposure to snow on the ground. However, these changes would occur at relatively high elevation (with abundant snowfall) and would affect, at most, 1.3 percent of lynx habitat within the Deer-Skin LAU so the effect to lynx habitat would be of minor consequence.

Regarding the denning PCE, any existing denning habitat (down trees and root wads) would not be consumed by fire of the expected intensity, and a hotter (even stand-replacing) fire would produce many more dead trees that would subsequently become down (denning) material. Additionally, potential lynx denning in the form of mature forest lynx habitat is abundant and well-distributed throughout the Deer-Skin LAU so the proposed burning would not measurably impact lynx denning habitat.

The 160 acres of presumed matrix habitat are non-lynx habitat, on the periphery of the LAU and are not located between stands of lynx habitat, so their value as matrix habitat is limited. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, in defining matrix habitat, has stated that “…the vegetative condition and structure of matrix habitat is not relevant to its value,” and that changes to “vegetation structure or condition would not be considered an adverse effect to lynx critical habitat unless those activities would create a barrier or impede lynx movement between patches of foraging habitat and between foraging and denning habitat within a potential home range, or if they would adversely affect adjacent foraging habitat or denning habitat “ (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014b). Since the habitat in question does not meet these conditions (it does not occur between patches of foraging habitat or between foraging and denning habitat), effects of burning would not be expected to measurably impact critical habitat because lynx movement would not be impeded.

There would be no project activities in mature, multi-story lynx habitat or areas capable of achieving this stage within the next 10 to 20 years. No precommercial thinning would occur in lynx habitat in this proposal. Approximately 12 acres of precommercial thinning (unit PCT6) are proposed within the Deer-Skin LAU. Although within the LAU boundary, these acres are not considered lynx habitat based on the

Deer Creek Project

24

site potential and characteristics of the stand (not subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce or cool/moist habitats adjacent to it). Therefore, the precommercial thinning of these acres would not negatively impact lynx or their habitat. As a result, all alternatives would be consistent with NRLMD Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6.

Timber harvest and precommercial thinning in areas outside LAUs would have little (if any) effect on lynx. These are low-elevation sites that are assumed not to support reproducing populations of lynx (due to lack of boreal forest habitat) and do not represent linkage (travel) areas between LAUs (these areas are across the broad Kootenai River valley, and the river itself, from other lynx habitat). As discussed above, lynx tolerate some level of human disturbance and do not appear to alter their behavior to avoid humans. Consequently, since the acres being affected are not lynx habitat, would not be expected to receive use by lynx as travel habitat and the disturbance created by the proposed harvest and thinning would not be expected to substantially affect lynx behavior or movement, these activities would be expected to have little to no impact on Canada lynx.

The Deer-Skin LAU contains abundant amounts (approximately 4,427 acres or 32 percent of lynx habitat) of mature (but not necessarily mature multi-storied) forest in lynx habitat that is well-distributed throughout. Because of this abundance and with a minimal amount of denning habitat being potentially affected, it can reasonably be expected that the LAU would continue to contain sufficient amounts of denning structures after project implementation under the action alternatives.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 also propose to develop a snowmobile parking area at the end of the Boundary County-maintained portion of the Deer Creek road (FSR 435). Although there is a lack of evidence that packed snow trails facilitate competition with other predators, there is evidence that competing predators use packed trails, suggesting a potential effect on individual lynx (USDA Forest Service 2007). As a result, the NRLMD specifies that there should be no increase in designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas (Guideline HU G11).

The Deer Creek road is currently approved for grooming (designated route), and receives some level of oversnow use. It is not the intent of this proposal to increase snowmobile use of this area, or to expand the current footprint of use. Rather, construction of a parking area would consolidate into a single area vehicles and trailers that are currently parking in an unsafe and haphazard manner alongside the road itself. While use of the road by oversnow vehicles may increase over time due to social factors (increase in snowmobile use nationwide), it is not expected to greatly increase the amount of snow compaction in the area (which itself has not been unequivocally identified as a risk factor for lynx). There would be no change to designated oversnow routes or play areas as a result of this proposal. Therefore, the effects to lynx from snowmobile parking area development would be minor.

Other identified activities (aquatic organism passage, large wood placement in streams, trail construction at Meadow Creek campground, dispersed site improvement at Solomon Lake, gravel pit development, and maintenance of a helispot below Goat Mountain) would not be expected to impact Canada lynx as they would occur outside of the Deer-Skin LAU and would not affect Canada lynx, their habitat or their prey species.

Decommissioning (or failing to) approximately 0.8 mile of FSR 2540 along Placer Creek is not expected to affect lynx in any substantial way: it is more than 2 miles from any LAU, is not along any known travel corridors, and is in an area that is accessible to motorized use whether or not this road segment remains intact (i.e. risk of trapping mortality would not substantially change).

Deer Creek Project

25

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 4 Alternatives 2 and 4 would regeneration harvest approximately 174 acres of non-lynx habitat in the Deer-Skin LAU (units 13, 19, 19A, and portions of 8, 12, 14, and 18A). These units are in mesic (not boreal) forest more than one-half mile from any spruce/fir-dominated stands, and generally have a substantial lodgepole pine component, much of which is in the stem-exclusion phase. These stands would be high priority for treatment if they were of a subalpine fir habitat type (potential vegetation), but have limited value to lynx being of a mesic forest habitat type at the periphery of the LAU.

As discussed in the Affected Environment section, lynx tolerate some level of human disturbance and do not appear to alter their behavior to avoid humans. Consequently, since the acres being affected are not lynx habitat, would not be expected to receive use by lynx as travel habitat and the disturbance created by the proposed harvest would not be expected to substantially affect lynx behavior or movement, these activities would be expected to have little to no impact on Canada lynx.

These174 acres are also within designated critical habitat, and would be considered matrix habitat. Regeneration harvest would result in openings along the western boundary of the LAU in non-lynx habitat for approximately 10-15 years following harvest until vegetation grows back to the point of providing cover. However, the creation of these openings are not expected to impede lynx movement in this area as a whole because there are multiple forested stands remaining untreated throughout the area of the treatment units that will maintain a contiguous forested corridor and continue to provide ample opportunity for lynx movement through this area, if a lynx chose to move through this area of non-lynx habitat. Consequently, the regeneration harvest of these acres would not be expected to measurably impact critical habitat because lynx movement would not be impeded.

These alternatives would also harvest an additional approximately 836 acres outside the Deer-Skin LAU that have been dropped from timber harvest in alternative 3. As discussed above (“Effects Common to All Action Alternatives”), timber harvest and precommercial thinning in areas outside LAUs would have little (if any) effect on lynx since they are low-elevation sites that are assumed not to support reproducing populations of lynx and do not represent linkage (travel) areas between LAUs.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 The following past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered relevant in a cumulative effects discussion for Canada lynx:

Public Activities - Personal use firewood gathering, dispersed camping, wheeled vehicle use, and most forms of non-motorized recreation would have minor impacts on Canada lynx, as these activities would result in inconsequential changes to forest structure, and lynx are not particularly vulnerable to human disturbance (Aubry et al. 2000, McKelvey et al. 2000, Mowat et al. 2000). The effect of oversnow vehicular use on Canada lynx is currently unknown. As discussed above, the possibility of packed trails facilitating competition from other predators has not been empirically demonstrated, but is recognized as a potential effect. It is possible that recreationists may take advantage of up to 568 acres of new openings (regeneration harvest plus burn-only units) in the Deer-Skin LAU over the next up to 20 years. However, this equates to less than 2.5 percent of the LAU, in areas that are generally accessible to oversnow users already. Construction of a snowmobile parking area would not encourage increases in over-snow motorized vehicle use above current levels, although this may happen over time regardless of whether the area is constructed or not. Nonetheless, the risk of trapping mortality would not increase as a result of this proposal since there would be no increase in designated (groomed) routes or play areas, and the affected areas are already open to oversnow use. As a result additional cumulative impacts from incidental trapping are not expected, and the additional effects to lynx from various public activities would be minor.

Deer Creek Project

26

Fire Suppression – Fore suppression likely has mixed effects on lynx habitat. Since fewer acres would be allowed to burn, fire suppression has the potential to prevent habitat from reaching an early successional structural stage that would support high densities of snowshoe hares in subsequent years, but can also preserve potential mature multi-storied stands that similarly support high hare densities. Continued fire suppression in lynx habitat would also help keep potential denning habitat intact, although this habitat component is not thought to be limiting throughout most of lynx range. The amount of future fire and level of successful suppression is impossible to predict, but would generally result in these effects.

North Zone Roadside Salvage – This project proposes salvage logging of standing dead, down and live hazard trees within 200 feet of the shoulder and road maintenance working that includes cutting and removal of utilizable brush and trees within the maintenance clearing limits (10-20 feet off road shoulders), ditch work, relief pipe and culvert cleaning or replacements, spot graveling and blading. The proposed activities would take place along roads currently open to public use. The activities proposed under the North Zone Roadside Salvage EA include approximately 316 acres of salvage logging and 68 acres of roadside maintenance within the Deer-Skin LAU. Roadside salvage and maintenance would have minor impacts on lynx habitat and snowshoe hare habitat and would not alter snow conditions on a landscape scale. Although denning habitat could be reduced in salvaged areas, it is proposed on a relatively small amount of lynx habitat within the LAU (two percent). Additionally, denning habitat is abundant and well-distributed throughout the LAU and would continue to be following implementation. Consequently, this project would have minimal impact on Canada lynx.

Idaho Buckhorn Project – The Idaho Buckhorn project could result in up to approximately 1,433 acres of lynx habitat within the Deer-Skin LAU being converted to the stand initiation structural stage through prescribed fire over the next five to ten years. The total number of acres that would ultimately be in this stage within the Deer-Skin LAU as a result of the existing condition (28 acres), the Idaho Buckhorn project (1,433 acres), ongoing timber sales (Kreist Creek project – 25 acres) and the proposed Deer Creek project (176 acres) would be approximately 1,662 acres or 11.9 percent of lynx habitat in the stand initiation structural stage, which is in compliance with the NRLMD Standard VEG S1 of having less than 30 percent of lynx habitat in this condition. Additionally, the Idaho Buckhorn project is expected to produce long-term (20-40 years) improvements to lynx habitat by enhancing foraging habitat for snowshoe hare. During burning and for a few years after, snowshoe hare habitat may be reduced in affected areas – potentially displacing individual lynx or altering their foraging patterns. However, shrubs in burned areas would be rejuvenated and snowshoe hare habitat improved after 1-2 years and openings created in currently closed-canopy stem exclusion stands of lodgepole pine would create high quality year-round hare habitat (lynx foraging) within 20 years.

Kreist Creek Project – Timber sales authorized under the Kreist Creek EA are currently ongoing in the Deer-Skin LAU. This project would regeneration harvest approximately 25 acres of lynx habitat in the LAU. Consequently, the total amount of lynx habitat in an early successional stage not yet providing winter snowshoe hare habitat in the Deer-Skin LAU would be 1,662 acres, or 11.9 percent of lynx habitat (see above). Only these 25 acres (0.2 percent) of lynx habitat in the LAU will have been converted to early successional structural stage through timber management projects. As a result, the Deer-Skin LAU would remain compliant with NRLMD Standards VEG S1 (no more than 30 percent of lynx habitat in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat) and VEG S2 ( no more than 15 percent of lynx habitat regenerated by timber management in a 10-year period).

Conclusion All alternatives would be consistent with all standards and guidelines in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (see below). None of the action alternatives would result in greater than 30

Deer Creek Project

27

percent of lynx habitat in the Deer-Skin LAU being in the stand initiation structural stage not yet providing winter snowshoe hare habitat, and not more than 15 percent of lynx habitat in the LAU would have been regenerated by timber management within a 10-year period. Alternatives 2 and 4 may impact (and possibly regenerate) up to 176 acres of lynx habitat through prescribed burning, but this represents and inconsequential (1.3 percent) amount of habitat in the LAU, and these stands are expected to provide high-quality year-round snowshoe hare habitat within 20 years of burning.

There would be no project activities in mature, multi-story lynx habitat or precommercial thinning in lynx habitat under any of the proposed alternatives.

All action alternatives propose burning, and alternatives 2 and 4 propose timber harvest, within designated Canada lynx critical habitat. However, all but the 176 acres of burning referenced above take place within matrix habitat that are on the periphery of the LAU and are not located between stands of lynx habitat. As a result, these stands have limited value to lynx, and the ability of the area to provide movement would not be impeded. The 176 acres of lynx habitat proposed for burning currently do not contain high-quality year-round hare habitat (dense understories of young trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude above the snow), and burning is not expected to alter snow conditions at this elevation or reduce denning habitat. As a result, effects to critical habitat would be minor in nature.

The Deer-Skin LAU contains several thousand acres of mature (more than 100 years old) forest lynx habitat and thousands of additional acres of immature sawtimber (greater than 10 inches diameter). The proposed activities would not measurably reduce denning opportunities or have effects to alternate lynx prey species (such as red squirrels) that require forest cover.

A complete list of Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Standards and Guidelines and demonstrated project compliance can be found below. Effects determinations and rationale for the final project decision can be found in the Wildlife Biological Assessment included in the project file.

Consistency with the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007) were retained in the 2015 revised Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015). All alternatives are consistent with this document.

Relevant Standards and Guidelines from the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction are addressed as follows:

Standard ALL S1: New or expanded permanent development and vegetation management projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area.

Proposed timber harvest and burning are not expected to noticeably disrupt animal movement through the Deer-Skin LAU or linkage areas. There would be multiple forested stands remaining untreated throughout the vicinity of the treatment units that would maintain a contiguous forested corridor and continue to provide ample opportunity for lynx movement through this area. Development of a snowmobile parking area on the Deer Creek road would not increase designated oversnow routes or play areas, so is not expected to reduce habitat connectivity. All alternatives would comply with Standard ALL S1.

Standard LAU S1: Changes in LAU boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat information and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office.

LAU boundaries on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) were refined based on the best available science of what constitutes lynx habitat, more accurate habitat mapping, and multiple

Deer Creek Project

28

discussions with members of the interagency Canada Lynx Biology Team and a review by the Forest Service Regional Office. See the project file for detailed information regarding the process of remapping LAU boundaries on the IPNF. Consequently, previous remapping of LAU boundaries on the IPNF complies with Standard LAU S1.

Standard VEG S1: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages 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.

Currently, there are approximately 28 acres or 0.2 percent of lynx habitat within the Deer-Skin LAU in the stand initiation structural stage not yet providing winter snowshoe hare habitat. The proposed alternatives, in conjunction with ongoing projects (Idaho Buckhorn burn and Kreist Creek timber sales) could result in up to 1,662 acres (11.9 percent) of lynx habitat in the LAU in a stand initiation stage not yet providing winter snowshoe hare habitat. Consequently, all alternatives would comply with Standard VEG S1.

Standard VEG S2: Timber management projects shall not regenerate more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands within an LAU in a ten-year period.

There are currently no acres of lynx habitat within the Deer-Skin LAU that have been regenerated by timber management activities within the past 10 years, although 25 acres (0.2 percent) of lynx habitat will be regenerated in the LAU in the Kreist Creek Project. No lynx habitat would be regenerated by timber management under any of the proposed alternatives. Consequently, all alternatives would comply with Standard VEG S2.

Standard VEG S5: Precommercial thinning projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat may occur from the stand initiation structural stage until the stands no longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat only: 1) within 200’ of administrative sites, 2) for research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock, 3) based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional level of the Forest Service, and state level of FWS, where a written determination states that a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx or 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 or its habitat, 4) for conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning around individual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline, 5) for daylight thinning of planted rust-resistant white pine where 80% of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is retained, or 6) to restore whitebark pine.

No precommercial thinning is proposed in lynx habitat under any of the alternatives in the Deer-Skin LAU. Therefore, all alternatives are in compliance with Standard VEG S5.

Standard VEG S6: Vegetation management projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional forests may occur only: 1) within 200’ of administrative sites, 2) for research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock, 3) for incidental removal during salvage harvest (e.g. removal due to location of skid trails).

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest).

No project activities would occur in multi-story mature or late-successional forests under any of the proposed alternatives. Therefore, all alternatives would comply with Standard VEG S6.

Deer Creek Project

29

Standard LINK S1: When highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction is proposed in linkage areas, identify potential highway crossings.

There is no highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction proposed under any of the alternatives. Consequently, all alternatives would comply with Standard LINK S1.

Guideline ALL G1: Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or reconstructing highways or forest highways across Federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses, or overpasses.

There is no highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction proposed under any of the alternatives. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with Guideline ALL G1.

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

Part of the purpose and need for the Deer Creek Project is to reduce the acreage of lodgepole pine stands at risk from bark beetle attacks (generally stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage stands). Regeneration harvest proposed under alternatives 2 and 4 includes approximately 758 acres (about 214 acres of which are within the Deer-Skin LAU) of stands above Solomon Lake generally dominated by lodgepole pine that are expected to recruit a high density of conifer, hardwoods and shrubs. Under alternatives 1 and 3, these acres would not be harvested. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with Guideline VEG G1, but alternatives 2 and 4 would better meet this guideline than alternatives 1 and 3.

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

Portions of regenerated units may be bordered with fireline dug by hand crews (approximately 18 inches wide), but firelines are expected to support vegetation within five years of burning. There would be no permanent firebreaks constructed for this project and no permanent travel routes would be established. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with Guideline VEG G4.

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

The Deer-Skin LAU contains more than 8,400 acres of well-distributed mature or nearly mature (greater than 10 inches dbh) forest within lynx habitat, providing substantial habitat for alternate prey species such as red squirrels. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with Guideline VEG G5.

Guideline VEG G10: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI as defined by HFRA should be designed considering Standards VEG S1, S2, S5 and S6 to promote lynx conservation.

The project is consistent with VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 under all alternatives. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with Guideline VEG G10.

Guideline VEG G11: Denning habitat 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

Deer Creek Project

30

designed to retain some coarse woody debris, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future.

Potential denning habitat in the form of mature forest is currently abundant (approximately 32 percent of the Deer-Skin LAU) and well distributed throughout the affected LAU. Since denning habitat can be found in a variety of forest structures and in small areas and is not a limiting factor for lynx, and no timber harvest of lynx habitat is proposed, effects to denning habitat from the Deer Creek Project are expected to be extremely minor or nonexistent. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with Guideline VEG G11.

Guideline LINK G1: NFS lands should be retained in public ownership.

The project does not involve transfer of ownership of NFS lands and therefore would be consistent with Guideline LINK G1.

Guideline HU G3: Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that both provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat.

Although the proposed snowmobile parking area is technically a new recreation development, the purpose is to consolidate existing use (parking along the Deer Creek road) and provide for public safety. Construction of the parking area is not, by itself, expected to increase or expand current oversnow use of the Deer Creek area. Therefore, lynx movement and effectiveness of lynx habitat would not be considerably affected. All alternatives would be consistent with Guideline HU G3.

Guideline HU G7: New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forest stringers.

No new permanent roads or trails are proposed under any of the alternatives. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with Guideline HU G7.

Guideline HU G8: Cutting brush along low-speed, low-traffic-volume roads should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety.

Cutting brush along designated haul routes would be done to the Forest Service standard, then allowed to revegetate naturally on roads to be placed into long-term storage. All alternatives would be consistent with Guideline HU G8.

Guideline HU G11: Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs.

Construction of the snowmobile parking area on the Deer Creek road would not change currently designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with Guideline HU G11.

Since the project does not involve livestock management, guidelines pertaining to this issue (Guidelines GRAZ G1-G4, LINK G2) do not apply to this project. In addition, this project does not involve ski areas, recreation areas, mineral and energy development, or upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, so Guidelines HU G1-G2, G4-G6 G9-G10, and G12 do not apply. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with these Guidelines.

Deer Creek Project

31

Grizzly Bear A portion of the Deer Creek Project would take place in the Keno grizzly bear management unit (BMU) of the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone. The Keno BMU is shared with the adjacent Kootenai National Forest, and currently meets Motorized Access Management Direction standards incorporated in the 2015 revised IPNF Forest Plan.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all propose approximately 662 acres of prescribed burning within the BMU. Burns are designed to improve habitat by revitalizing existing brush fields, reduce conifer encroachment on older brush fields, potentially create new brush fields while reducing fuels across the resource area, and maximize improvements to whitebark pine by reducing competition. In addition to providing greater variety of forage items, fire is expected to increase huckleberry production in areas where they currently exist, but are inhibited by overstory canopy. Because of the locations of the prescribed burn units, most or all of these acres would be ignited using a helicopter. While this would cause disturbance to grizzly bears during implementation, it would be brief in nature (limited to five or fewer days total with only one or two per year), and ample displacement habitat would be available. Burning activities would take place in fall (rather than spring) if acceptable burning conditions are available, particularly at higher elevations where bears are more likely to be present (see “Design Features”).

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose approximately 1,044 acres of timber harvest in or immediately adjacent to the Keno BMU. This requires use of approximately 2.6 miles of a currently restricted road, reconstruction and eventual storage of approximately 3.1 miles of currently unclassified roads, and construction and ultimate obliteration of about 0.7 miles of temporary road. These alternatives would temporarily elevate OMRD and TMRD above the Motorized Access Management Direction standards for the BMU for up to 4 years during project implementation. Core habitat would also be impacted, but a greater amount of replacement core would be created prior to any other road work in the BMU through storage of portions of existing open and currently restricted roads. Under these alternatives, core habitat would increase by 0.7 percent in the Keno BMU. None of these activities would take place under alternative 3.

Precommercial thinning of approximately 59 acres, maintenance of the existing helispot on restricted FSR 2225, and improvement of the dispersed camping site at Solomon Lake in the Keno BMU would have minor effects to grizzly bears since they would not affect motorized route densities and would make inconsequential habitat modifications. Similarly, post-harvest fuels treatments (grapple piling and underburning) under alternatives 2 and 4 would not affect road densities and would take place in recently disturbed areas where bear presence is not expected.

Timber harvest, road reconstruction, road maintenance, road storage/decommissioning, fuels treatments, precommercial thinning, large woody debris placement in streams, aquatic organism passage (culvert) replacement, gravel pit development, and construction of a snowmobile parking area taking place outside the Keno BMU have the potential to displace grizzly bears. However, these areas are heavily roaded and support high levels of human use, and any grizzly bear presence in these areas is likely ephemeral and transitory, and bears displaced by project activities would likely move into areas with lower levels of human disturbance.

Regeneration timber harvest (under alternatives 2 and 4) and burning in the Keno BMU is expected to result in post-implementation increases in grizzly bear forage items compared to the no action alternative. Alternative 3 would not include forage improvement from approximately 1,044 acres of timber harvest, but there would not be disturbance and potential displacement from several years of project activities under this alternative. With the exception of prescribed burning, project activities in the Keno BMU would not take place during the grizzly bear spring season (April 1-June 15) under any alternative. However, alternatives 2 and 4 could adversely affect grizzly bears due to the potential displacement from

Deer Creek Project

32

project activities and temporary increases in OMRD and TMRD above Motorized Access Management Direction standards. Alternative 3 may have minor effects on individual bears, but actual take is not expected.

Habitat Relationships Populations of grizzly bears persist in those areas where large expanses of relatively secure habitat exist and where human-caused mortality is low. Grizzly bears are considered habitat generalists, using a broad spectrum of habitats. Use patterns are usually dictated by food distribution and availability combined with a secure environment. Grizzlies commonly choose riparian areas and wet meadows during the spring and generally are found at higher elevation meadows, ridges, and open brush fields during the summer (Volsen 1994).

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 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 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).

Grizzly bear habitat across the region is best described in terms of the availability of large tracts of relatively undisturbed land that provide some level of security from human depredation and competitive use of habitat by humans (including roading, logging, grazing and recreation) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) indicates that the most important element in grizzly bear recovery is securing adequate effective habitat. This is a reflection of an area’s ability to support grizzly bears based on the quality of the habitat and the type and amount of human disturbance imposed on the area. Controlling and directing motorized access is one of the most important tools in achieving habitat effectiveness and managing grizzly bear recovery (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).

Affected Environment The historic range of the grizzly bear once included most of the continental United States west from the Great Plains, but widespread reductions in range and population numbers led to the grizzly bear being listed as threatened under the ESA in 1975. Today, it is confined to less than two percent of its former range and is represented in five or six population centers south of Canada, including the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems that are located in northeastern Washington, northern Idaho and northwestern Montana. Habitat loss and direct and indirect human-caused mortality are related to its decline (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).

A portion of the Deer Creek Project area is located in the southwestern corner of the Keno BMU (also known as BMU 13 on the Kootenai National Forest (KNF)) in the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone (CYRZ). Sightings of grizzly bears have been infrequent, but persistent, in the western portion of the BMU since the late-1970s. In September 2010, a grizzly sow and two yearling cubs were observed a short distance east of “The Scout” (a promontory on Buckhorn Ridge). In 2011, a male grizzly was mistakenly shot on the IPNF (west) side of Buckhorn Ridge and later died on the KNF (east) side. A collared male grizzly bear was documented spending a portion 2015 in upper Skin Creek within the Deer Creek Project area.

The CYRZ was most recently estimated to contain at least 42 grizzly bears (Kasworm et al. 2010). The Yaak River portion of the CYRZ, where this part of the project is located, contains a higher density of

Deer Creek Project

33

bears than the Cabinet Mountains portion to the south, with an estimated twice as many bears contained in approximately one-third of the recovery zone. The reasons for this difference may have more to do with proximity of the Yaak River bears to grizzly populations in the Canadian Purcells than with habitat quality or mortality patterns (Proctor et al. 2012).

Beginning in 1994, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) issued direction calling for establishing BMU-specific levels for secure “core” habitat (more than 500 meters from a drivable road or motorized trail), Open Motorized Route Density (OMRD - includes open roads as well as motorized trails and railroads) greater than one mile per square mile, and Total Motorized Route Density (TMRD - includes open and restricted roads as well as motorized trails and railroads) greater than two miles per square mile (IGBC 1998). Research levels of these three parameters reported by Wakkinen and Kasworm (1997) for the CYRZ and Selkirk Recovery Zone (SRZ) became the basis for management standards defined by the Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones (“Access Amendment”) (USDA Forest Service 2011) and associated Biological Opinion (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b).

The Access Amendment also set “administrative use” (passenger vehicle access on restricted roads by personnel of resource management agencies, contractors and permittees to conduct non-mechanized activities or otherwise as previously consulted on) levels, and timelines for full implementation of the management standards. Administrative use in the CYRZ is limited to a total of 60 motorized round trips during the active grizzly bear season (April 1 – November 30) apportioned as follows: 18 trips in “spring” (April 1 – June 14), 23 in “summer” (June 15 – September 14) and 19 in “fall” (September 15 – November 30). Exceeding trip limits during any season requires modeling affected road segments as “open” for OMRD calculation purposes. The Deer Creek Project area contains two restricted road systems within the Keno BMU: FSR 2225 & 2225A on the lower southwest face of Goat Mountain, and FSR 2236 above (east of) Solomon Lake. While FSR 2225 has been used intermittently in recent years to facilitate burning in the Idaho Buckhorn Project, FSR 2236 has not received any wheeled motorized use for a number of years.

Forest Plan Standards for access management in the Keno BMU are: 1) less than or equal to 33 percent of the BMU having OMRD greater than one mile per square mile, 2) less than or equal to 25 percent of the BMU having a TMRD greater than two miles per square mile, and 3) greater than or equal to 59 percent of the BMU in core habitat. Standards for TMRD and core habitat were set at higher levels for this BMU than the “33/26/55” (OMRD/TMRD/core) Wakkinen and Kasworm (1997) research results in acknowledgement of the generally unroaded nature of the BMU, and to partially compensate for lower levels of core (and higher TMRD) in neighboring BMUs (BMUs 12 {Newton} and 10 {Pulpit}). Currently, the Keno BMU meets all three management standards for motorized access (OMRD = 32 percent, TMRD = 24 percent, and core = 60 percent in 2014) (USDA Forest Service 2015b).

The Keno BMU is shared with the adjacent Kootenai National Forest (KNF). Approximately 22,050 acres (43 percent) of the 51,236-acre BMU is within the IPNF administrative boundary. As a result, any activities that would affect core or road densities (particularly those which may worsen these conditions) are coordinated between the two forests so that individual units, acting in an information vacuum, do not contribute to degradation of the BMU to where it would violate Forest Plan Standards (grizzly bear standards in the respective forest plans are identical for the two forests).

Currently, the KNF is in the early stages of implementation of the Buckhorn Project (not to be confused with the Idaho Buckhorn Project on the IPNF). This project involves timber harvest, prescribed burning, and watershed improvement activities (road decommissioning and storage) in both the Keno BMU and the Northwest Peaks BMU (BMU 14) to the north. The project will result in no net changes to habitat parameters in the Keno BMU (the post-project condition will be identical to the existing condition). However, implementation of watershed improvement activities (road storage) would temporarily reduce

Deer Creek Project

34

core and increase road densities during two separate phases of the project. Therefore, the IPNF is planning potential Deer Creek Project activities in the Keno BMU so they would not temporarily diminish these habitat parameters during the same years reductions are in place from the Buckhorn Project on the KNF.

As discussed in the “Characterization of Habitats” section, this portion of the Keno BMU is defined by high relief (more than 3,000 feet elevation change from Deer Creek to Buckhorn Ridge) and a mixture of vegetation types that effectively provide grizzly bear forage throughout the non-denning period. Much of the upper-elevation open conifer stands and shrubfields contain various amounts of huckleberries (key grizzly bear forage in the CYRZ), although huckleberries and other forage species can also be found at lower elevations in the area (particularly along Keno Creek). Huckleberries and other forage plants are also present in many of the closed-canopy conifer stands in the project area, although much of the immature lodgepole pine within the 1931 burn area contains somewhat depauperate understories. Lower elevations in the project area are also utilized as winter or spring range for a variety of ungulate species – particularly moose and elk – and can subsequently provide carrion for bears in the spring as a result of winter-killed animals.

Grizzly bears were absent from or at very low densities in the U.S. portion of the Purcell Mountains at the time of Federal listing in 1975 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) and remain low. Thus, it is unknown to what extent past timber harvest impacted grizzly bears in the short term (during implementation) since it is likely that persistent grizzly bear use of the area is a relatively recent (20 to 25 years) occurrence. The longer term (post implementation) effect of regeneration harvests is a temporary reduction of forest cover and increase of foraging habitat. Road construction associated with past harvests that provides public forest access has reduced habitat security and increased the potential for grizzly bear-human interactions.

More recently, road densities have generally decreased on this part of the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone. In the late 1980s/early 1990s, mileage of two extensive road systems on the IPNF portion of the Keno BMU (in the upper portions of Skin Creek and Keno Creek) was substantially reduced through decommissioning activities. Since 2009 (the baseline condition for the Motorized Access Management Direction analysis), OMRD has decreased by two percent (from 34%), TMRD by one percent (from 25%), and core has increased by one percent (from 59%) in this BMU due to management actions by both the IPNF and the KNF.

Environmental Consequences – Grizzly Bear

Methodology The analysis of effects on grizzly bears focuses on changes to core habitat and motorized route densities in the Keno BMU during the active grizzly bear season (April 1 – November 30). Motorized route density analysis used ARC/Info software to process a GIS layer depicting transportation features (roads) updated to reflect current conditions. Road densities were determined from a “moving window” protocol, where motorized routes were buffered to create density contour maps based on a defined pixel (cell) size. Miles of road were then calculated within a set window distance (one square mile) around each pixel as the percent of pixels within the BMU where road density exceeds a certain threshold (described in Wakkinen and Kasworm 1997). Core habitat is calculated by buffering all motorized routes by 500 meters within the GIS layer, then subtracting buffers from the BMU total area.

Since the IPNF has not adopted a vegetation-based grizzly bear habitat model, possible changes to vegetation with the potential to influence grizzly bear habitat are addressed qualitatively. Potential disturbance/displacement of grizzly bears due to human activities is another effect that is difficult to

Deer Creek Project

35

quantify, so is accounted for by assessing impacts to core and motorized route densities, or is addressed in general terms where appropriate.

Alternative 1 - Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 would not have any direct or indirect effects and so would not contribute to any cumulative effects.

With no action, motorized access and vegetative habitat conditions would remain unchanged and there would be no additional disturbance to grizzly bears above what currently exists. Although there would be no temporary displacement of grizzly bears from project activities, some timber stands in the BMU (particularly the large expanse of lodgepole pine-dominated stands above Solomon Lake) would continue to deteriorate as mortality from insects and disease increases. Hiding cover would remain in greater quantities than under the action alternatives, but cover is generally not limiting in this part of the CYRZ. Although forage (huckleberries) is currently available in some of these stands, this production may be more sustainable over time if lodgepole pine were replaced by longer-lived seral species. Other forage species (grasses and forbs) would also become more abundant after the regeneration harvest or burning described in the action alternatives.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all propose approximately 662 acres of prescribed burning within the Keno BMU. Much of the area was regenerated by stand-replacing fire in 1931, with the exception of a portion burn 4. Burn units consist of a combination of open brushfields and the 80-year-old (often lodgepole pine) conifer stands surrounding them, open high-elevation conifer stands; and in burn 4, higher-elevation whitebark pine habitats with relatively sparse tree cover. The burn units are designed to improve wildlife habitat by revitalizing existing brush fields, reducing conifer encroachment on older brush fields, potentially creating new brush fields while reducing fuels across the resource area, and maximizing improvements to whitebark pine by reducing competition.

Use of fire as a restorative tool (either wildfire or prescribed burning) is generally considered to be beneficial for grizzly bears. Fire increases ecosystem diversity and creates a greater variety of forage items over time. Grizzly bears feed on the lush revegetation of grasses and forbs that occurs relatively quickly after fire, and also on ants and other invertebrates that inhabit the dead trees that have fallen to the ground. Since bears are highly mobile and opportunistic, they are able to avoid the harmful aspects of fire (such as injury from flames or falling trees during actual burning) yet make full use of the resulting diversity of burned and unburned habitats for foraging and cover (USDI undated fact sheet).

One of the more important effects to bear habitat as a result of the proposed burning would be the potential rejuvenation of huckleberry shrubs in burned areas. Huckleberries are an important food item for grizzly bears in this portion of their range (Holden et al. 2012, Zager et al. 1983). Besides the sheer volume of fruits produced by various huckleberry species, these fruits ripen during late summer and fall when bears are undergoing hyperphagia (a condition of compulsive eating) in preparation for winter dormancy. Although they may be active from April through November, most grizzly bear weight gain occurs during the late-summer/fall while they feed almost exclusively on berries (Zager et al. 1983). In areas or in years of poor huckleberry productivity, body condition of affected bears can suffer, negatively affecting survival and reproduction.

While annual berry production can be highly variable depending on climate (particularly temperature), different vegetative types and structural stages also affect huckleberry production (Martin 1983, Holden et al. 2012). Martin (1983) reports that the most productive huckleberry plots were on mesic aspects with light tree canopies, and that production on mesic aspects (northwest through east) in general was

Deer Creek Project

36

significantly higher than that of xeric aspects (southeast through west). Martin (1983) also found that sites burned by wildfires 60-100 years ago did not produce much fruit, even though mean huckleberry shrub cover was moderately high (31%). In contrast, the mean production for plots on sites burned 25-60 years ago was significantly higher. Martin (1983) concluded that conditions that retard or inhibit the development of a tree canopy should prolong the productive life of huckleberries on burned sites.

Both Martin (1983) and Zager et al. (1983) agree that mature forests, particularly old growth, produce relatively low amounts of huckleberries regardless of overstory canopy cover. Zager et al. (1983) report that although grizzly bears use mature forests for escape cover, production and canopy cover of important food plants (especially fruiting shrubs) is relatively low on these sites. Instead, shrub communities, principally those at middle elevations, were identified as important producers of grizzly bear foods in northwestern Montana (Zager et al. 1983).

It is anticipated that prescribed burning would kill decadent overstory shrubs and occasional conifers to provide increased sunlight and growing space for establishment, regeneration and growth of various forage plants, including berries. The time period needed for huckleberry production to fully recover from burning could be anywhere from five to 25 years, depending upon fire intensity, fuel condition, soil moisture, burning season, and species. Where fire intensity is low (particularly spring burns), faster recovery is expected (since rhizomes would sustain less damage) but productivity may ultimately be shorter-lived. In areas where fire intensity is very high, huckleberry regeneration may take considerably longer, but productivity would also continue for a longer time period (for example, the Trapper Peak and Sundance burns in the Selkirk Mountains – where sites burned in high-severity fires in 1967 still produce abundant huckleberries).

Grizzly bear foraging habitat would also be improved to some extent by the whitebark pine restoration activities included in the proposed action. Whitebark pine nuts were probably not as important a food item in the CYRZ as in other portions of grizzly bear range such as the Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Recovery Zones (Keane et al. 2012). Nonetheless, any increase in whitebark pine nut production would provide a highly nutritional, energetically valuable food source for the individual bears that have access to it during the late-summer or fall when nutritional demands are high.

Because of the steepness of the terrain and relative inaccessibility of the prescribed burn units, it is likely that most or all of these acres would be ignited using a helicopter. However, disturbance during implementation would be brief in nature (limited to five or fewer days total with only one or two per year), and ample displacement habitat would be available. Burning activities would take place in fall (rather than spring) if acceptable burning conditions are available, particularly at higher elevations where bears are more likely to be present (see “Design Features”). The Montana/Northern Idaho Level 1 Terrestrial Biologists Team provided biologists with a Guide (USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) for analyzing potential effects of aircraft use on grizzly bears. The Guide advises that low altitude (less than 500 meters above ground level) helicopter operations, with or without landings, that are of short duration and low frequency would generally have insignificant consequences for grizzly bears. The Guide refers to “limited prescribed burning,” such as described here, as an example of the type of activity expected to have insignificant effects since the duration of helicopter use would be short and effects relaxed almost immediately. Road densities would remain unchanged and there would be no additional disturbance to grizzly bears associated with roads.

Precommercial thinning is proposed on approximately 59 acres within the Keno BMU. Approximately 35 acres are accessed by open FSR 2224, with the remaining 24 acres (unit PCT6) along restricted road 2225. Thinning would occur in this unit over 1-2 days and would be accomplished within administrative use limits, so would not increase OMRD. Treated areas would be subject to disturbance of relatively short duration, and would generally have ample displacement habitat available for bears to utilize. No

Deer Creek Project

37

thinning activities would take place during the spring season. Vegetative changes to grizzly bear habitat from this activity would be minor. These stands currently contain high densities of young conifers, so they do not likely provide preferred forage plants since there would be little growing space or sunlight available near the ground. Although cover would be considerably reduced by this activity, precommercially thinned stands would still contain several hundred 20-foot or taller trees per acre, and loss of cover would not be sufficient to increase sight distance (a distance at which 90 percent of a bear is hidden from view) to 100 feet or more in affected units. As a result, the effects of precommercial thinning activities in the Keno BMU would be minor.

Maintenance of the existing helispot on restricted FSR 2225 would also have very minor effects on grizzly bear. This helispot has been used in recent years to facilitate burning in the Idaho Buckhorn Project, and requires little, if any, maintenance in the immediate future. Over time, this helispot will require occasional clearing (regenerating conifers would be kept in check) that would be accomplished within administrative use limits.

Effects associated with improvement of the dispersed camping site at Solomon Lake would be inconsequential. The site is on an open road, and proposed improvements would not result in increases to the area or amount of use. Any equipment needed for implementation would be on site for 1-2 days. Since project-related activities would be of a brief nature at an already disturbed site, this aspect of the proposal is not likely to detectably affect grizzly bears.

Proposed project activities taking place outside the Keno BMU include timber harvest, road reconstruction, road maintenance, road storage/decommissioning, fuels treatments, precommercial thinning, large woody debris placement in streams, aquatic organism passage (culvert) replacement, gravel pit development, and construction of a snowmobile parking area. All of these have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally utilize the project area, if they were present in the vicinity of project activities during implementation. The fact that project activities will likely take place over five to 10 years (timber harvest contract plus post-harvest fuels treatments and planting) may increase the probability that project activities and grizzly bears could occur in the same place at the same time. However, it remains unlikely that actual disturbance or displacement would result in adverse effects to grizzly bears, since they would likely be displaced to areas of less human activity. It is also worth noting that project activities would not be implemented simultaneously across all acres being treated and much of the project area would have no project activities associated with it. Consequently, even more of an opportunity exists for species such as grizzly bear to move into secure habitat free from disturbance.

The areas discussed above were excluded from grizzly bear recovery zones for several reasons, most notably that they do not contain the full spectrum of seasonal habitats (they lack high-elevation areas that could be utilized in summer or for densites), are heavily roaded and developed with homesites, and they contain a variety of ownership patterns supporting various uses that often conflict with grizzly bear presence. In fact, in recovery zones these areas would likely be designated as Management Situation 3 habitat, where grizzly bear use is actively discouraged. While some of the Deer Creek Project area could be used by grizzly bears, this use is expected to be transient and fleeting due to the relatively poor habitat conditions and high level of human disturbance found in these areas. There is no evidence to suggest that displacement from these areas would substantially impair behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering.

All action alternatives propose approximately 2,257 acres of timber harvest outside the Keno BMU, along with post-harvest grapple piling (about 1,556 acres) or broadcast burning (about 1,500 acres) on most of these, and about 259 acres of precommercial thinning. Timber harvest, fuels treatment and thinning on this scale certainly have the potential to displace bears, but are not expected to since grizzly bear use of this area is infrequent where it occurs at all. All timber harvest/fuels treatments, precommercial thinning

Deer Creek Project

38

and road work (reconstruction, maintenance and storage or decommissioning) takes place on or along well-traveled roads in a highly developed and roaded portion of the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Since the footprint of these activities would be confined to previously disturbed areas that are unlikely to be extensively used by grizzly bears, the potential for harmful effects is very small.

Spraying herbicides to control and prevent noxious weeds would take place along roads and turnouts before and after harvest activities under all action alternatives. Road segments identified for weed treatment and proposed for decommissioning or storage would be treated prior to closure (including temporary roads). Treatment along open roads is unlikely to displace grizzly bears since an existing source of disturbance is already present. Noxious weed treatments on restricted roads will be accomplished in one administrative round-trip per year per road, and would also be a minor source of disturbance. Although small amounts of palatable plant species (such as huckleberry bushes) may inadvertently be affected by noxious weed treatments, this activity is not expected to considerably reduce availability of bear forage.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 4 Alternatives 2 and 4 propose timber harvest on approximately 1,044 acres in or immediately adjacent to the Keno BMU that would not be included in alternative 3. This includes about 803 acres of seedtree harvest, 175 acres of shelterwood harvest, 51 acres of seedtree or shelterwood harvest with precommercial thinning of the understory (unit 22), and 15 acres of smallwood thinning (unit 71). About 242 of these harvested acres would be grapple piled, with the remaing 802 acres underburned. Yarding would be accomplished by tractor skidding on about 425 of these acres, and by skyline cabling on about 619 acres.

To access this timber, it would be necessary to use approximately 2.6 miles of currently restricted road 2536 as a haul route, reconstruct and add to the permanent transportation system approximately 3.1 miles of currently unclassified roads east of Solomon Lake (emanating from FSR 2536), and build 0.7 miles of temporary roads on the northwest face of Solomon Mountain (from FSR 2549). Temporary road construction would impact a 27-acre core block at the periphery of the Keno BMU, and approximately 285 acres of a large (more than 27,000 acres)1 core block would be affected by use of the previously unclassified road segments. Loss of this core habitat would be temporary: once all post-harvest fuels treatments (burning and piling) are complete, the temporary roads would be permanently closed and the previously unclassified road segments along FSR 2536 would be placed into long-term storage.

The temporary core loss described above would be compensated for prior to any road construction or reconstruction activities in the BMU by placing approximately 0.5 miles of open road 2224, 2.0 miles of restricted road 2225, and restricted road 2225A (0.3 miles) into long-term storage. This would create approximately 336 acres of core habitat as an in-kind replacement for that lost by road construction and reconstruction. This core habitat would remain in place post-project and, together with the approximately 312 acres of core temporarily lost through project activities, would result in a net post-project core increase in the BMU of 0.7 percent. This newly created core habitat would be added on to the large core block discussed previously

Roads that are placed into long-term (e.g., a minimum of 10 years) storage are no longer counted toward linear road miles for purposes of grizzly bear habitat assessment per direction from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC 1986, 1998) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). Storage is designed to render these road segments undrivable, but also hydrologically 1 27,000 acres only includes habitat within the Keno BMU. This block is contiguous with large core blocks in the adjacent Northwest Peaks (7,755 acres) and Newton (24,756 acres) BMUs – comprising an interconnected core block of approximately 59,548 acres.

Deer Creek Project

39

inert, by installing waterbars along the full length of affected roads, removing drainage structures (culverts), and fully recontouring specific sections. While these roads would not be accessible during the “stored” period, they would remain on the system if needed for emergency2 purposes.

Use of FSR 2236, reconstruction of previously unclassified spurs off this route, and temporary road construction all would contribute to increased open motorized route density (OMRD) in the Keno BMU during implementation. Although this increase would be partially offset by storage of 0.5 miles of open FSR 2224 prior to road construction and reconstruction, OMRD would increase by approximately 1.8 percent to 34 percent of the BMU. Once all post-harvest fuels treatments are complete, OMRD would be returned to 32 percent of the BMU through obliteration of the temporary roads, storage of previously unclassified roads reconstructed for project activities, and reapplication of motorized use restrictions on all but approximately 0.7 miles of FSR 2236.

Timber harvest and associated road work on Solomon Mountain and east of Solomon Lake would temporarily increase OMRD above the IPNF Forest Plan standard for the duration of these activities. While this is not expressly prohibited by Design Elements of the Motorized Access Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2011), the Biological Opinion on this direction makes clear that some level of incidental take of female grizzly bears will occur within individual BMUs as long as OMRD exceeds one mile per square mile in more than 33 percent of a BMU (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). However, FSR 2536, the reconstructed road segments, and the temporary roads would only be “open” in the sense that administrative use limits are exceeded (and not open for public use). Consequently, any expected take from the project would be in the form of displacement, rather than direct mortality that can potentially be associated with roads that are open to the public. Additionally, there is ample adjacent displacement habitat available in the form of the large unroaded (core) area to the east discussed earlier.

To limit the disturbance resulting from activities on FSR 2536, road reconstruction and timber harvest emanating from this road would be limited to three consecutive years, plus another subsequent year for post harvest fuels treatments and road storage activities. All timber harvest, road reconstruction, road storage, grapple piling and slashing activities proposed in the BMU would take place outside of the grizzly bear spring season (April 1 – June 15), which is considered to be the most sensitive time period for grizzly bears (particularly sows with cubs of the year; see “Design Features” section). Road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest in the Keno BMU would not begin until after watershed improvement activities elsewhere in the BMU described in the KNF Buckhorn Project EIS have been completed3. While it would be possible to require activities emanating from FSR 2536 to be conducted during a different time period than those requiring the temporary road construction on Solomon Mountain, little would be gained from this requirement since the temporary roads have a relatively minor impact on core or OMRD due to their location at the periphery of the BMU close to other open roads (FSR 435 and 2549).

Although some level of incidental take (as discussed above) may be acceptable during project implementation , this potential take cannot be allowed to persist indefinitely. The Motorized Access Management Direction was designed to provide some management flexibility in those BMUs meeting standards. However, while the OMRD standard for the Keno BMU is 33 percent (compared to the baseline condition of 32 percent), it is clearly the intent of the direction that there would be no net increase in road densities or net core loss until all BMUs in their respective recovery zones (in this case,

2 “Emergencies” as defined by Endangered Species Act regulations [50 CFR 402.05] and associated policy and handbook direction. 3 Road decommissioning in the South Spread Creek area and in the South Fork Meadow Creek area.

Deer Creek Project

40

the CYRZ) are up to standard4. For this reason, the temporary roads, reconstructed roads, and the bulk of FSR 2536 would not be made available for public use during or following project activities.

With the exception of approximately 15 acres of smallwood thinning, all timber harvest in the Keno BMU would be by regeneration harvest prescription. This is expected to result in increased grizzly bear forage from both plant (increased abundance of palatable plants from more sunlight reaching the forest floor) and animal (higher numbers of animals that can be preyed upon or scavenged due to improvements in ungulate forage quantity and quality) sources. Although cover would be reduced from treatment, hiding cover (sapling-sized or larger timber) would remain on more than 65 percent of the IPNF portion of the BMU immediately following project activities, and would subsequently increase over time.

Within about 10 years post-treatment, hiding cover in regeneration units is expected to increase through growth of shrubs and regenerating conifers. High-quality forage plants (mainly huckleberries) are present in various quantities in some of the stands proposed for treatment, although at low densities or almost completely lacking in some of the lodgepole pine stands with sparse understories. Timber harvest and subsequent fuels treatments may temporarily inhibit berry production in treated stands where they currently exist, but would likely result in increased berry production within 10 to 15 years after treatment.

Post-harvest fuels treatments exclusive to alternatives 2 and 4 include approximately 242 acres of grapple piling. About 80 of these acres are along open roads, with the remaining 162 acres accessed by restricted FSR 2536. Piling would be planned so that administrative use limits (driving in/out to access units) would not be exceeded on this road, so would not increase OMRD during this activity. The equipment used for actual piling (usually a small excavator) represents a source of mechanized disturbance off of, but in close proximity to, roads. Grapple piling could potentially be a source of disturbance to bears, if they were present when these activities take place. However, piling usually takes place during the first summer/fall following harvest (so high fuel loads are not present for extended periods) – so grizzly bears are not expected to make extensive use of these areas during this activity because the area recently (during the previous 1-2 active bear seasons) had been subject to a high level of human activity associated with logging, and because recent ground disturbance from timber harvest, and logging slash on the ground, limit the amount of forage plants available to bears this first year.

Similarly, post-harvest burning of approximately 596 acres accessed by this road system would be planned so administrative use limits are not exceeded during this phase. Underburning is the only project-related activity that would be allowed during the spring season (although fall burning would be used to the extent practicable), and would not involve mechanized use except for passenger vehicles driving restricted roads to provide access for burning crews. Underburning would take place over a number of days and could span several years (depending upon harvest schedules). Although underburning could take place over a more prolonged time frame than grapple piling, actual burning would be a relatively ephemeral event (1-2 days at a time when conditions warrant) compared to more continuous disturbance piling would create.

Alternative 3 The direct and indirect effects of alternative 3 would be as described under “Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,” above. This alternative was formulated largely as a result of two main issues that were brought forward in the interdisciplinary team and collaborative meetings: 1) several comments expressed opposition to changes in motorized access and further road restrictions in general, and to road 4 Page 10 of the Motorized Access Management Direction Biological Opinion states “The proposed action also allows for increases in OMRD, TRMD and decreases in percent core area within individual BMUs that exceed (are better than) these standards, but only after all BMUs within the respective recovery zones have met their individual access standards.”

Deer Creek Project

41

storage in particular; and 2) concerns were raised internally that timber harvest & other associated activities would cause further disturbance in a BMU that already has one ongoing action on the IPNF (Idaho Buckhorn), as well as a large restoration project on the KNF (Buckhorn) that is likely to adversely affect grizzly bears.

Although the Keno BMU currently meets all standards outlined in the IPNF Revised Land Management Plan (USDA2015), design elements of the programmatic document that developed these standards (USDA 2011) do not allow permanent reduction of core or increase in road densities (even if standards are still met) until the all BMUs in the CYRZ meet standards. As a result, it would not be possible to conduct most of the proposed timber harvest in the Keno BMU under alternatives 2 and 4 without noticeably impacting public access. Timber harvest in this area would necessitate changes in the road system in order to offset the use of restricted road 2536, construction/reconstruction of non-system spurs off this road, and proposed temporary road construction on Solomon Mountain. Therefore, all proposed timber harvest in, and immediately adjacent to, the Keno BMU was omitted from alternative 3.

Since prescribed burning would not require use of roads beyond administrative use limits, and represents relatively ephemeral disturbance events that would not result in prolonged effects on bears, this portion of the proposed action was retained in alternative 3. Similarly, precommercial thinning in the BMU would take place off existing roads under administrative use limits and represents a minor potential disturbance to grizzly bears, so was also included in this alternative. The principal project elements present in alternatives 2 and 4 but missing from alternative 3 are approximately 1,044 acres of timber harvest, and associated road construction, road reconstruction, and road storage that would be necessary to complete this timber harvest under forest plan standards. Rather than discuss the effects of alternative 3 (which have already been detailed under “Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,” above), the following paragraphs focus on actions that would not occur under alternative 3 (but would under alternatives 2 and 4), in order to more clearly illustrate potential tradeoffs of the various alternatives.

Alternative 3 would result in no changes to public access in the Keno BMU. Roads 2224 and 2225 would remain open and restricted, respectively, for their entire length. Use of FSR 2536 would not be required. There would be no net core gain in the BMU, no temporary core decrease, and no temporary increases in OMRD and TMRD.

This alternative would not regenerate the large stand of predominantly 80-year old lodgepole pine accessed by FSR 2536. As discussed in the “Affected Environment” section, there are portions of these stands that contain some huckleberries and other forage species, and likely receive some grizzly bear use in their current state. However, these lodgepole pine stands are unlikely to be sustained in this condition over time (these stands are highly susceptible to insects and disease), and it is questionable if these huckleberries would remain in substantial densities. Martin’s (1983) research sheds some light on this issue: while 60-100 year old stands had fairly high huckleberry shrub cover, fruit production was significantly less than in 25-60 year old stands. Although timber harvest would likely reduce huckleberry availability in these stands initially, berry production is expected to exceed the pre-harvest condition within 5-10 years post-harvest, and would likely be sustained further into the future. Additionally, creating large openings in this area would result in increases in populations of big game and other, smaller mammal species that could be preyed upon or scavenged by grizzly bears.

For grizzly bears using this portion of the BMU, the clear trade-off in foregoing rejuvenation of huckleberries in the 1931 burn area is that there would be no disturbance associated with timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, use of restricted roads, and post-harvest fuels treatments. While this would obviously be more beneficial to grizzly bears in the 5-10 year period when project activities would otherwise be taking place, over time the condition of forage in this part of the Keno BMU would continue to decline to the detriment of grizzly bears. Although this alternative would not produce potentially

Deer Creek Project

42

adverse effects on grizzly bears like alternatives 2 and 4, it would still have some (less profound) effects as a result of prescribed burning of approximately 662 acres and precommercial thinning of 59 acres in the BMU.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 The following past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions were considered in a cumulative effects discussion for grizzly bear:

Activities on Private Lands – The Keno BMU contains less than 200 acres of private, residential lands along the Yaak River at the far eastern periphery of the BMU, almost 10 miles from any proposed Deer Creek Project activities. With these residences, the potential exists for conflicts with bears (black and grizzly) resulting from food conditioning and human habituation that often leads to the removal of these bears from the population. Over time, the various habitat improvement projects (Buckhorn Project, Idaho Buckhorn Project, and this proposal) are expected to improve forage availability on more remote NFS lands to at least partially reduce the attraction of residential properties to grizzly bears.

Outside of the Keno BMU, a number of landowners ranging from small residential lots to industrial forest sections employ a variety of management strategies. The large number of residences raises the potential for conflicts with bears. This underscores the fact that this area is far less than an ideal area to promote grizzly bear presence. However, for reasons discussed above, grizzly bear use of this area is expected to be infrequent; and unlikely to include family groups or mature bears with established home ranges.

Public Activities - Personal use firewood gathering, non-motorized recreation, winter motorized recreation, dispersed camping and motor vehicle use of roads would not appreciably impact grizzly bears since none of these activities would elevate road densities or cause substantial habitat modifications. The project would not exacerbate these uses or trend toward any threshold that negatively affects grizzly bears because public motorized access in the Keno BMU during the active bear year would not increase. Black bear hunting in the project area has the potential to displace or cause actual mortality (through mistaken identity, self-defense, or poaching) of grizzly bears, both within and potentially outside the Keno BMU. However, since there would be no increase in public motorized access in the BMU under any alternative (and small decreases under alternatives 2 and 4), risk of displacement and/or mortality would not increase as a result of this proposal. As discussed previously, grizzly bear use elsewhere in the project area (outside the BMU) is likely transitory and brief in nature (reducing the likelihood of grizzly/human interactions), and any grizzly bears displaced by hunters would likely relocate to more remote areas with less human disturbance. The net increase in motorized access in these areas from the Deer Creek Project would be minor (4.0 miles on about 35 square miles on NFS lands – all but about 2.3 miles of which are currently being used by motorized traffic), and so hunting in these areas is not expected to considerably add to direct and indirect project effects on grizzly bears.

Fire Suppression – Continued fire suppression would help retain forest cover, further contributing to reduction of foraging habitat. Fire suppression also has the possibility of causing disturbance to grizzly bears from increased foot, vehicle, and sometimes aircraft use during suppression activities. The amount of future fire and level of successful suppression is impossible to predict, but would generally result in the effects described.

North Zone Roadside Salvage – This project proposes salvage of standing dead, down and live hazard trees on several thousand acres in the Deer Creek Project area. The proposed activities would take place along currently drivable roads, and so would not increase motorized access. While activities associated with the project may provide an additional source of disturbance to bears that may be present during implementation, these activities would be spread out over a number of years and widely distributed across

Deer Creek Project

43

the project area. As a result, this increase is unlikely to be discernible to bears (and would not be measurable) from the ambient levels of disturbance already present along selected roads. Changes to vegetative components of habitat (forage and hiding cover) would be inconsequential. Therefore, salvage would have minor effects to grizzly bears in the Deer Creek Project area.

Kreist Creek Project – The Kreist Creek project proposes vegetation treatments on up to approximately 2,130 acres outside of the Keno BMU, including timber harvest, precommercial thinning, burning, and post-harvest fuels treatments. The proposal also includes approximately 1.8 miles of temporary road construction for timber harvest activities that would be obliterated after project activities are complete, decommissioning of approximately one mile of existing open road and storage of approximately 0.45 mile of open road. As with the proposed Deer Creek Project activities outside of the recovery zone, these activities have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears during project implementation. However, grizzly bear use of these areas is generally not expected due to the high levels of human use and disturbance already present. The Kreist Creek Project does not propose any activities in the Keno BMU. As a result, it is not expected to substantially add to the effects of the Deer Creek Project proposal.

Idaho Buckhorn Project – The Idaho Buckhorn Project proposes to burn nearly 4,000 acres in ten individual units ranging in size from approximately 100 acres to just under 800 acres within the Keno BMU. Application of prescribed fire will primarily be accomplished through aerial ignition with a helicopter, with some hand ignition in more accessible units. There will be no changes in motorized access (core habitat or road densities) from this project. There may be short-term (during implementation) negative effects to grizzly bears, as helicopter ignition and actual fire associated with the project have the potential to temporarily displace individual bears that may be present in or near proposed units during burning activities. Burning would take place during the fall to the maximum extent practicable. The proposal is expected to provide long-term (post-implementation) benefits for this species by increasing production of palatable plant species (particularly huckleberries) and increasing populations of ungulate species that can potentially be preyed upon or scavenged. The potential short-term negative effects of project activities would be offset by long-term benefits resulting from habitat improvements that fire would create.

Kootenai Buckhorn Project – The Kootenai National Forest is implementing the “Buckhorn Project” in the Keno BMU and neighboring Northwest Peaks BMU. This proposal includes approximately 1,317 acres of regeneration harvest, about 94 acres of intermediate harvest, and 12,127 acres of prescribed burning with up to 17,793 acres considered part of the maximum allowable burn area. Of this, approximately 201 acres of regeneration harvest, 94 acres of intermediate harvest, and 5,498 acres of burning would take place in the Keno BMU. None of the proposed 0.7 miles of temporary road construction, and about half of the 28 miles of road stabilization (intermittent storage or decommissioning), would take place in this BMU.

Since only temporary roads would be constructed, and all road decommissioning and intermittent storage is proposed on roads currently closed to motor vehicle access, there would be no permanent changes to core, TMRD or OMRD in the Keno BMU. With the exception of 84 acres of intermediate harvest, all proposed timber harvest units are located on low-elevation lands near the Yaak River (eastern portion of the BMU), well removed from the Deer Creek Project area. Similarly, the 84 acres of intermediate harvest is near a stream bottom several miles from the ridgetop separating the two forests.

Watershed improvement activities included in the Buckhorn Project will temporarily reduce core and increase OMRD in the Keno BMU at two different stages of project implementation. Storage of existing (but not drivable) roads in the South Spread Creek area would be accomplished in a single year, separate from similar activities in the South Fork Meadow Creek area. Deer Creek Project activities that decrease

Deer Creek Project

44

core or increase OMRD cannot take place during the years Buckhorn Project watershed improvement activities affect these habitat parameters.

Conclusion The Deer Creek Project alternatives would authorize approximately 662 acres of prescribed burning using aerial (helicopter) ignition and about 59 acres of precommercial thinning within the Keno BMU. Alternatives 2 and 4 would also include approximately 1,044 acres of mostly regeneration timber harvest in or immediately adjacent to the Keno BMU. This timber harvest would require use of approximately 2.6 miles of a currently restricted road, reconstruction and eventual storage of approximately 3.1 miles of currently unclassified roads, and construction and ultimate obliteration of about 0.7 miles of temporary road. This road work could temporarily elevate OMRD and TMRD above the Motorized Access Management Direction standards for the BMU for up to 4 years during project implementation. Core habitat would also be impacted by these temporary changes, but a greater amount of replacement core would be created prior to any other road work in the BMU through storage of portions of an existing open, and currently restricted roads. Under these alternatives, core habitat would increase by 0.7 percent in the Keno BMU. There would be no timber harvest or road work in the BMU under alternative 3.

Timber harvest, road reconstruction, road maintenance, road storage/decommissioning, fuels treatments, precommercial thinning, large woody debris placement in streams, aquatic organism passage (culvert) replacement, gravel pit development, and construction of a snowmobile parking area would take place outside the Keno BMU under all action alternatives. While these activities have the potential to displace grizzly bears, they are not expected to because these areas are heavily roaded and support high levels of human use. Any grizzly bear use of these areas is likely of an ephemeral and transitory nature, and bears displaced by project activities would likely move into areas with lower levels of human disturbance.

Regeneration timber harvest, and to a lesser extent burning, in the Keno BMU (under alternatives 2 and 4) is expected to result in post-implementation increases in grizzly bear forage items, which would likely be sustained for longer than if no activities took place. While the forage improvement from approximately 1,044 acres of timber harvest would not be realized under alternative 3, the immediate disturbance and potential displacement from several years of project activities would also not occur under this alternative. With the exception of prescribed burning, project activities in the Keno BMU would not take place during the grizzly bear spring season (April 1-June 15) under alternatives 2 and 4. However, because of the potential displacement from project activities and temporary increase in OMRD and TMRD above Motorized Access Management Direction standards, alternatives 2 and 4 likely would result in adverse effects to grizzly bears. Alternative 3 would still impact grizzlies, but not to the extent that it would adversely affect individual bears.

The determination of effects for grizzly bear as it relates to the Endangered Species Act can be found in the Wildlife Biological Assessment at the time of the final decision for this project.

Consistency with the Forest Plan All alternatives comply with the following IPNF 2015 Revised Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015) standards for wildlife and habitat management regarding grizzly bears:

Standard FW-STD-WL-02. – The Motorized Access Management within Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone Management Direction and ROD is included in [Revised LMP] appendix B, and shall be applied.

• See “Forest Plan Appendix JJ (Motorized Access Amendment Direction),” below

Deer Creek Project

45

Standard FW-STD-WL-04. – No grooming of snowmobile routes in grizzly bear core habitat after April 1 of each year.

• There is no grooming of routes in core habitat in the Deer Creek Project area

Guideline FW-GDL-WL-01. Grizzly Bear – Management activities should avoid or minimize disturbance in areas of predicted denning habitat during spring emergence (April 1 through May 1).

• Within the Deer Creek Project area, there is potential grizzly bear denning habitat at the higher elevations along Buckhorn Ridge and the Goat Mountain/Line Point area. The only project activity in this vicinity is proposed burn unit 4. Although this unit may be burned in spring, it is unlikely to happen prior to the middle of May since it would not be snow-free prior to that date in a typical year (nearly the entire unit is above 6,000’ elevation).

Guideline FW-GDL-WL-18. Grizzly Bear – Elements contained in the most recent “Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines,” or a conservation assessment once a grizzly bear population is delisted, would be applied to management activities.

• The Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (IGBC 1986) document directs the Forest Service to manage for “multiple land use benefits” to the extent that these uses are compatible with grizzly recovery. Management Situation (MS) 1 habitat is to be managed for grizzly bear maintenance and improvement and the minimization of grizzly-human conflict, and decisions would favor grizzly needs when habitat and other land uses “compete.” Land uses that may affect grizzlies or habitat are to be made compatible with grizzly needs or eliminated. Alternatives 2 and 4 would be consistent with this direction by achieving a core habitat increase and TMRD decrease (“improvement”) in the affected BMU. Although there may be a short-term (during implementation) adverse effect from potential disturbance as a result of project activities under alternative 2 and 4, grizzly bear habitat would ultimately be improved under these alternatives. Alternative 3 would have no effects on motorized access in the Keno BMU.

• Although timber harvest has the potential to negatively affect grizzly bears, this risk stems from: 1) removal of thermal, resting and security cover; 2) displacement from habitat during the logging period, and 3) increases in human/grizzly bear confrontation potential or disturbance factors as a result of road building and management (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). However, thermal and hiding cover are abundant and readily available throughout this portion of the IPNF. While alternatives 2 and 4 propose temporary increases in OMRD and TMRD as a result of road construction/reconstruction and use of currently restricted roads as haul routes, these roads would be unavailable for public use (so are not expected to increase the risk of direct mortality) and would not be used during the time period (spring) when grizzly bears are most vulnerable. Reconstructed non-system roads would be placed in storage, and temporary roads obliterated, following project activities under both action alternatives that propose timber harvest in the Keno BMU. Timber harvest can also have long-term (post-implementation) beneficial effects for bears by increasing growth of palatable forbs, berries, and grasses (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993), or by increasing resident ungulate populations that can provide carrion for scavengers. IGBC (1986) states that “grizzly habitat quality can probably be increased or enhanced by creating openings producing high quality grizzly food facilitating greater grizzly use in forest habitat where normal grizzly use appears light.” As a result, alternatives 2 and 4 are compatible with grizzly habitat needs, and are compliant with this guideline. Compliance with specific guidelines from IGBC (1986) is documented in Appendix C of this report.

Deer Creek Project

46

Forest Plan Appendix JJ (Motorized Access Amendment Direction)

Design Element I – Design Element I sets motorized access standards (percent core, total motorized route density and open motorized route density) for individual bear management units in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones. Compliance with these standards is discussed in detail under effects of the action alternatives, above. In summary:

A. Access management standards for the Keno BMU are set at 33/26/59 (OMRD/TMRD/core) percent of the BMU. The current condition for the BMU is 32/24/60 percent.

B. Core areas in the Keno BMU contain no motorized travel routes, high use trails, or drivable restricted (gated) roads. The BMU has 5 core areas of less than 8 square miles totaling about 204 acres. This accounts for less than 0.4 percent of the BMU (the Keno BMU would meet the core standard regardless of whether or not these acres were included). All core areas have been in place for at least 10 years.

C. The Keno BMU currently meets the access management standards (see “A”).

D. Alternatives 2 and 4 would create approximately 336 acres of core habitat prior to reduction of about 312 acres of existing core due to road reconstruction. Upon completion of all project activities, core would be increased by 0.7 percent (648 acres) in the BMU under these alternatives. There would be no permanent increase in OMRD or TMRD from this proposal. Motorized access parameters in the Keno BMU would be unaffected under alternative 3.

E. Exceeding trip limits for project activities on FSR 2536 is expected to occur over 4 bear years during implementation of alternatives 2 or 4. This road would be modeled as “open” during these years.

Design Element II. – Access management design elements listed under heading II apply only to recurring use areas (i.e., BORZ areas) located outside the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk recovery zones on the IPNF.

• No BORZ areas would be affected by this proposal.

Design Element III. – To ensure the effective implementation of the open road density parameter, at least 30 percent of closure devices (gates and barriers) will be monitored annually within the respective ecosystems. Monitoring techniques may include visual checks as well as road counters.

• Closure monitoring is summarized and reported annually to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see project file for most recent report) In the 2014 Bear Year, 48 percent of closures in the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone, and 67 percent of closures in the Selkirk Recovery Zone were monitored. Many of these closures were inspected multiple times throughout the snow-free season. Monitored closures are assumed to be effective unless inspections reveal evidence of breaching. In these situations, repairs are made in a timely basis, and core or OMRD deductions taken where appropriate. Monitoring and inspection data are available at District offices.

Sensitive Species

Fisher The Deer Creek Project proposes timber harvest on up to 2,529 acres of capable fisher habitat, including regeneration harvest on up to 395 acres of stands that provide potentially suitable denning habitat. While many of these acres met minimum criteria for habitat suitability upon field inspection, potentially suitable habitat was limited to small portions of the stands, or the stands overall contained few large snags, small amounts of down woody debris, or marginal mean stem diameters in the overstory. It is likely that some

Deer Creek Project

47

of these stands would not progress to an older, more decadent stage absent a stand-replacing event. Based on current conditions, perhaps 170 acres of the potentially suitable acres in proposed units were more extensive (greater than 1 acre) and could reasonably be expected to maintain suitability over time if left untreated.

Following harvest, regenerated stands would require up to 100 years to reach suitable condition. Some stands may reach suitable condition more rapidly if left untreated, but treated stands would have considerably higher proportions of long-lived seral species, and subsequently would remain in suitable condition (once attained) for a longer period of time as they would be more resistant to insects and disease, weather events, and fire.

Large openings could potentially fragment fisher habitat and reduce habitat connectivity on NFS lands in the project area. However, much of this area is already highly fragmented (and is expected to remain so) due to the presence of other ownerships with extraction-based management strategies. On NFS lands, unharvested areas and retained riparian areas are expected to maintain the ability of the analysis area to provide for fisher movement at small scales, but not necessarily at the home range scale.

Proposed timber harvest would reduce the amount of mature forest stands (more than 100 years old) to as little as 26 percent of the analysis area. However, the project area likely does not provide high quality fisher habitat in its current state (about 30 percent is mature forest). Given the relatively high degree of residential development of small parcels and the expected future management of industrial forest lands in larger blocks, fisher occupancy is doubtful in the western portion of the project area regardless of the condition of NFS lands.

Pre-commercial thinning and post-harvest fuels treatments (burning and piling) would have relatively minor effects on fishers, since they are not particularly sensitive to disturbance, and the areas in question are unlikely to be used by this species when these activities take place

Storage of portions of FSR 2224 and 2225 would reduce trapper access during the winter, and subsequently decrease mortality risk. Otherwise, changes to public access would generally be of an inconsequential nature since most currently drivable roads would remain so, and roads reconstructed for project purposes would not be made available for public use if they were previously undrivable. Decommissioning of a portion of FSR 2540 (under alternative 4) could reduce mortality risk adjacent to a riparian area (Placer Creek). However, this activity would probably be of limited value to fisher since this portion of the Placer Creek drainage does not provide exceptional fisher habitat.

Other proposed activities would have little or no effect on fishers as they would not result in appreciable habitat modifications or increased disturbance.

Habitat Relationships Fishers are low density forest carnivores, occurring most commonly in landscapes dominated by late-successional forests with high cover, especially in riparian areas (Powell and Zielinski 1994). Fisher distribution in the western United States is consistently associated with low to mid elevation forests (Zielinski et al. 2010, Spencer et al. 2011). Fisher habitat in the Rocky Mountains generally consists of mature and old-growth conifer forests in summer and young, mature and old-growth forests in winter (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994).

Contrary to what was once thought, evidence from more recent research (within the past 10 to 15 years) in western North America indicates that fisher are not old-growth conifer dependent and their home ranges are characterized by a mosaic of forest types and seral stages, including high proportions of mid to late seral stands (42 percent to 72 percent of a home range) as well as lower proportions of open or non-

Deer Creek Project

48

forested stands (Raley et al. 2012). Based on a synthesis of recent research on fisher in western North America, Raley et al. (2012) contend that when establishing their home ranges, it benefits fisher to include a diversity of forest conditions. This increases their access to a diversity and abundance of prey species that use different forest conditions, while at the same time providing the habitat features the fisher themselves need for reproduction and thermoregulation.

Large-diameter snags and logs are used for denning, resting and foraging, and the structure of habitat (i.e., complex vertical and horizontal structure with larger live trees, snags and logs) is more important to fisher than any particular forest types (Raley et al. 2012). Fisher prefer forests with high canopy closure (greater than 80 percent) and generally avoid areas with less canopy closure (less than 50 percent) (Powell 1982). Forests within or adjacent to riparian areas are particularly important to fishers (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). In his study in north-central Idaho, Jones (1991) found that during the summer fishers generally preferred grand fir and spruce forests, and avoided dry ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir habitats. However, in winter, fishers also selected stands with relatively high basal areas of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine.

Affected Environment Fishers historically occupied much of the forested habitats in the northern United States (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). Populations declined in the early 20th century, due mainly to over-trapping and poisoning. Habitat loss as a result of human settlement in low-lying areas likely contributed to population declines as well (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011c). In the western United States, fishers have remained at low numbers or absent from portions of their former range (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). Population trend information for fishers in northern Idaho is unavailable, but based on sighting information fishers are currently uncommon. However, the status and distribution of the historic (pre-settlement) fisher population is equally unknown, and populations were likely never as abundant as in the east. The absence of historic population estimates, along with a lack of current numbers or trends, do not allow for a comparison of the impacts of landscape-scale changes on fisher populations (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011c).

Changes to forest structure due to natural and human-caused disturbances (such as fire or timber harvesting) can negatively impact habitat for fisher, particularly when it affects late seral mesic forest types and forested riparian areas. Past logging activities throughout the Kootenai River basin, including salvaging of occasional large stems, likely deteriorated fisher habitat by removing forest canopy, snags, and current and future dead and down material. Although fisher may use previously harvested stands for foraging and denning/resting sites, unharvested stands are preferred for denning.

Even so, while most fisher habitat (both current and historic) in the western United States is under Forest Service management, timber harvest on National Forest System lands in the Northern Rockies is unlikely to have contributed to fisher population declines in any considerable way. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has noted that fisher populations declined precipitously in the 1920s, but the balance of forested habitat (outside of dry-forest types) in Idaho and Montana showed little or no logging activity before 1940 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011c). This document goes on to state that “Fishers were so rare as to be considered extirpated before large-scale [timber] harvesting occurred” in the region.

Most studies have found fishers tolerant of moderate degrees of human activity including roads, although Heinemeyer and Jones (1994) hypothesized that roads may indirectly lead to increased trapper access. Fisher cannot be legally trapped in Idaho, but are occasionally caught in sets intended for other species (such as marten and bobcat).

Deer Creek Project

49

Recent (since 2003) fisher presence has been documented from hair-snare surveys at a number of locations on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District (project file), including a single fisher detection from the upper Deer Creek drainage a few miles north of proposed project activities.

Approximately 15,326 acres of the nearly 23,000-acre analysis area is considered capable fisher habitat (see “Methodology” subsection, below). This includes about 760 acres of potentially suitable denning/resting habitat as determined from field surveys, as well as about 2,400 acres of potentially suitable denning/resting habitat based on stand data records (mature, unharvested stands with the presence of trees 15 inches or greater diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.)). There are only a few large, interconnected areas of mature or late successional forest in the Deer Creek Project area. The western approximately two-thirds of the project area contains areas of limited topographic relief, mixed (checkerboard) ownership, and is extensively roaded. As a result, many of these areas have been logged in the past (particularly private land, much of which is industrial forest land). Nearly the entire northeastern portion of the project area (the Deer Creek drainage) was affected by stand-replacing wildfire in 1931. Consequently, at this point in time only the upper reaches of Skin Creek and the area below (southwest of) Goat Mountain and Line Point contain extensive old forest structure in the project area.

Raley et al. (2012) report fisher home ranges containing relatively high proportions of mid- and late-seral forest, citing a range of 42 to 72 percent in this stage. Currently, about 30 percent of capable habitat in the analysis area is comprised of forest stands more than 100 years old (Raley et al. 2012 define “mid-seral” according to Zielinski et al. 2004 as “early mature, early mature-with predominants, early mature-harvest with predominants, and early mature-harvest types”). Based on this assessment, it is questionable if the majority of the project area supports resident (reproducing) fishers at this point in time.

Environmental Consequences - Fisher

Methodology Fisher habitat was evaluated based on habitat requirements documented in published literature, with emphasis placed on those habitat components thought to be most limiting to this species. Since summer habitat use encompasses a smaller subset of available habitats than winter (Jones 1991) and resting/denning habitat includes a smaller range of attributes than foraging habitat (Jones 1991, Powell and Zielinski 1994), the analysis focused on availability of summer resting/denning habitat. Other habitats are less limiting on the landscape (foraging) and are available for a larger portion of the year (summer and winter).

Capable habitat was identified through timber stand exams, based on potential vegetation (habitat type) of the plurality of sample points in the stand. Capable habitat includes stands in habitat type groups 3 through 10 (moderately dry Douglas-fir or grand fir, moist grand fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, and Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir). Potential denning/resting habitat was identified as capable forested stands with canopy closure greater than 40 percent, all forest types except ponderosa pine, and average stem diameter in the primary overstory layer greater than 15 inches d.b.h. (10 inches d.b.h. in lodgepole pine, aspen or birch stands). In addition, stands were only considered potential denning/resting habitat if they contained either large (greater than 15 inches d.b.h.) snags or large-diameter down woody debris (preferably both).

Canopy closure of greater than 40 percent is based on Jones’ (1991) finding that fishers in his study area preferred stands with canopy cover greater than 60 percent, avoided stands with canopy cover less than or equal to 40 percent, and used stands with 41 to 60 percent canopy cover in proportion to availability when selecting resting sites. The use of 15 inches or greater average diameter in the primary overstory layer is

Deer Creek Project

50

a proxy for what Jones (1991) described as “mature forest” and “old-growth” stands in his study area (size classes that were not avoided by his study animals selecting resting sites). This diameter limit was lowered for lodgepole pine, aspen and birch to acknowledge that older stands of these species generally reach smaller diameters; but the required presence of large snags or down wood eliminates younger, less structurally complex stands as suitable habitat. Jones (1991) found most resting sites to be in the canopies of live trees, but large snags and down logs were preferred as maternal dens.

Habitat evaluation surveys conducted by Forest Service wildlife personnel during 2012 and 2013 examined approximately 5,097 acres from 137 distinct stands in the analysis area, including all stands in proposed timber harvest units. Using the information from these surveys, along with information contained in the timber stand database, stands were analyzed individually to determine if they contained the habitat parameters necessary to be considered potentially suitable fisher habitat. The potential effects on fisher habitat were determined by predicting the change in habitat suitability that would result from each alternative.

Alternative 1 - Direct and Indirect Effects The no action alternative would provisionally preserve currently suitable denning habitat for fisher, and may bring some stands into suitable denning condition more rapidly than treatment would in the absence of large disturbances. However, these stands would be more vulnerable to insect infestations and disease; and would also be at slightly increased risk of stand-replacing wildfire, which would effectively remove most burned-over areas from suitable fisher denning habitat for up to 100 years. While the no action alternative would provide better habitat than the action alternatives in the near future, this habitat is not expected to persist over time. Habitat modeling conducted for the 2015 revised Forest Plan determined that habitat would slowly decrease over the next five decades in the absence of activity, largely as a result of wildfire and root disease (USDA Forest Service 2013).

Most of the unsuitable acres field reviewed to the east of Solomon Lake currently contain high amounts of lodgepole pine and are lacking in large snags and down woody debris. Given that lodgepole pine rarely grows large enough in this area to provide large snag habitat and woody debris (e.g., greater than 15 inches d.b.h.), and that these areas generally lack remnant large snags and woody debris from previous stands, it is questionable if they would become suitable denning habitat absent a stand replacing event. Some of these same stands may become suitable in a shorter time period than if they were treated, assuming they have adequate numbers of green trees of other species and the lodgepole pine component of the stand does not suffer from high mortality that reduces canopy below 40 percent in the time needed for stems of other species to reach the large size class (although this is a common fate of lodgepole pine-dominated stands on the North Zone). However, most would likely slowly transition from lodgepole pine to other shade-tolerant species that, depending upon disturbance events, may require more than the expected time frame for regenerated stands (100 years) to reach suitable condition, if achieved at all.

Other currently unsuitable areas consist of mixed conifer stands slowly being taken over by late-seral, shade tolerant, short-lived tree species. In the absence of disturbance, this trend away from early seral, shade intolerant, longer-lived species will continue. While some of these stands may reach a suitable denning habitat condition over time, they would not be expected to maintain this condition for as long as stands containing more shade-intolerant, longer lived species which are less susceptible to insects, disease and lethal fire.

Since this alternative would not authorize any activities in fisher habitat, it would have no direct effects on this species, although it would have the indirect effects discussed above.

Deer Creek Project

51

Alternatives 2 and 4 - Direct and Indirect Effects These alternatives propose timber harvest on approximately 2,529 acres of capable fisher habitat in the Deer Creek Project area. This includes about 1,196 acres of seedtree harvest, 340 acres of shelterwood harvest, 578 acres of smallwood thinning, 388 acres of seedtree/shelterwood with precommercial thinning, and about 28 acres of dry site restoration. Proposed regeneration harvest includes up to 395 acres in stands that provide potentially suitable fisher denning habitat (about 325 acres seedtree harvest, and 70 acres shelterwood harvest). Regeneration harvest would revert habitat to an earlier successional stage where it would no longer be considered potentially suitable.

Many of the potentially suitable acres proposed for regeneration were limited to small portions of the stands, or the stands overall were structurally marginal in that there were few large snags, small amounts of down woody debris, and the mean stem diameter in the overstory barely reached 15 inches d.b.h. (or 10 inches in predominantly lodgepole pine stands). Given the observed or (in the case of lodgepole pine) expected overstory mortality in these stands, they would not be expected to retain suitability for more than about ten years – and likely would not progress to an older, more decadent stage absent a stand-replacing event. Realistically, about 170 acres of the 415 potentially suitable acres in proposed units could reasonably be expected to maintain suitability over time if left untreated. These stands comprise all or portions of units 20, 26/26A, 28, and 29.

Regeneration harvest of stands that are not currently suitable denning/resting habitat would similarly set them back to an earlier successional stage. Regenerated stands would probably require between 50 and 100 years (depending upon how many residual green trees remain after harvest) to reach suitable condition. Infrequently, stands may reach suitable condition more rapidly if left untreated (see “Alternative 1” discussion, above). However, treated stands would have considerably higher proportions of long-lived seral species, and subsequently would remain in suitable condition (once attained) for a longer period of time as they would be more resistant to insects and disease, weather events, and fire.

Smallwood thinning prescriptions are designed to reduce stand density and favor long-lived, seral species. While this could potentially reduce prey densities over the next ten years or so, these stands would likely reach suitable structure more quickly (and remain so for a longer time period) than if left untreated.

Shelterwood and seedtree removal with precommercial thinning prescriptions involve stands with medium-diameter (8-12 inches d.b.h.) larch overstory that shows considerable mistletoe infection. While this infection may not greatly affect the overstory trees, these alone will not be sufficient to bring these stands into a condition suitable for fisher denning (canopy cover would likely never reach 40 percent). In these stands, the regenerating conifers (which are at much greater risk of mortality or retarded growth from becoming infected) would need to reach a mature structural stage before suitability is reached.

These alternatives also propose about 28 acres of dry site improvement in capable fisher habitat (a portion of unit 46). Although this is considered capable habitat and, over time, could potentially reach suitable denning condition for fisher, the potential vegetation of this stand (a dry grand fir type) also makes it a candidate for future dry forest-dependent species such as flammulated owls. Given that dry-site habitat is in relatively shorter supply on this portion of the IPNF due to forest succession (and much low-elevation dry-site forest habitat on private lands has been permanently lost), there is a greater ecological need to retain these areas as more open structure typical of dry-site forests (see “Flammulated Owl, Pygmy Nuthatch and Fringed Myotis” section, below).

Large openings within a matrix of forest cover have the potential to fragment habitat for species, such as fisher, that prefer continuous overstory canopy. While open forest conditions created by the regeneration harvest proposed in this alternative (greater than 40 acres in some instances) in concert with existing openings could reduce habitat connectivity on NFS lands in the analysis area, this area is already highly

Deer Creek Project

52

fragmented (and is expected to remain so) due to the presence of other ownerships with extraction-based management strategies. Within NFS lands, the spatial arrangement of unharvested areas, along with retained riparian areas, would be expected to maintain the ability of the analysis area to provide for fisher movement at the fine scale (but not at the scale of a home range).

Timber harvest under these alternatives would further reduce the amount of forest stands that are more than 100 years old to about 26 percent of the analysis area. However, even if no timber harvest were proposed on NFS lands, the condition of the majority of the Deer Creek Project area (30 percent mature forest) makes fisher presence unlikely. With the relatively large amount of industrial forest and residential development on smaller parcels, fisher presence in this area in the future is also questionable. The eastern portion of the project area – particularly the Deer Creek drainage – has greater potential for future occupancy. Since much of the drainage was regenerated by wildfire in 1931, the Deer Creek subwatershed currently contains about 22 percent mature forest (mostly in the upper portion that escaped the fire). However, as much as 55 percent of the stands in the drainage will reach the mature stage within 20 years – adding to the suitable habitat in the upper drainage where fisher presence has been detected. Over time, the Deer Creek drainage will likely provide adequate habitat to support fishers.

This alternative also proposes approximately 256 acres of pre-commercial thinning of capable habitat within the analysis area. Thinning young, small diameter trees would be designed to increase the overall health and vigor of the stands. This has the potential to temporarily reduce densities of prey species such as snowshoe hares, but is designed to produce lower densities of large diameter trees that would potentially create improved fisher denning habitat when these stands fully mature.

Post-harvest fuels treatments (burning and piling) would have relatively minor effects on fishers. The species is not particularly sensitive to disturbance, and regenerated units are unlikely to be used by this species following harvest. Both burning and grapple piling would reduce availability of coarse woody debris, but these stands are not expected to be used for denning for a number of years after harvest due to inadequate canopy cover. Additionally, approximately one slash pile per 5 acres would be left in most piled units to provide habitat for snowshoe hares and other small mammals fishers prey upon (see “Design Features” section). Sullivan et al. (2012) report significant increases in diversity and abundance of small mammals associated with woody debris arranged in large piles on harvested sites.

Storage of portions of FSR 2224 and 2225 would make small improvements to fisher habitat by reducing the miles of roads potentially available to trappers during the winter, and subsequently slightly reducing the risk of trapping mortality. Elsewhere in the project area, changes to public access would generally be of an inconsequential nature since most currently drivable roads would remain so, and roads reconstructed for project purposes would not be made available for public use if they were previously undrivable. Decommissioning of a portion of FSR 2540 (under alternative 4) could be beneficial to fisher since it would reduce mortality risk adjacent to a riparian area (Placer Creek). However, since this area does not provide exceptional fisher habitat, this potential benefit would be of limited value.

Spraying herbicides to control and prevent noxious weeds could take place along roadsides, on trails, and at other locations in the analysis area. It is unlikely that noxious weed treatments would have any impacts on fisher because they would not cause changes in important fisher habitat components, and the species is not particularly vulnerable to disturbance. Other proposed activities (aquatic organism passage, large wood placement in streams, trail construction at Meadow Creek campground, dispersed site improvement at Solomon Lake, gravel pit development, construction of a snowmobile parking area, and maintenance of a helispot below Goat Mountain) would have little or no effect on fishers as they would not result in appreciable habitat modifications or increased disturbance.

Deer Creek Project

53

Alternative 3 - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would harvest approximately 1,595 acres of capable fisher habitat, including 434 acres of seedtree harvest, 231 acres of shelterwood harvest, 563 acres of smallwood thinning, 338 acres of seedtree/shelterwood with precommercial thinning, and about 28 acres of dry site restoration.

Under alternative 3, fewer acres of potentially suitable denning habitat would be harvested, including that in unit 20. Overall, the effects on fisher habitat would be similar to alternatives 2 and 4, except fewer acres would be affected. The Deer Creek Project area would retain a slightly higher proportion of mature (more than 100 years old) stands under Alternative 3, but would still be well below the 42-72 percent recommendation.

This alternative would not create the large openings in the vicinity of Solomon Mountain that alternatives 2 and 4 would, but travel corridors through this area (along Deer, Skin, and Solomon creeks and an unnamed tributary to the north) would be preserved under all alternatives. While alternative 3 would have fewer short-term impacts than alternatives 2 and 4, it would provide fewer acres of habitat composed of higher proportions of early seral species that would be more resilient to insects, disease and wildfire.

All other effects of alternative 3 would be as described above.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives The following past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions were considered in a cumulative effects discussion for fisher:

Public Activities – Personal-use firewood gathering is anticipated to continue along seasonally and yearlong open roads, potentially reducing snags within 200 feet of such roads. Although it is unlikely to disrupt normal fisher use patterns, firewood cutting can deteriorate habitat in these roadside areas by removing large snags that represent future dead and down wood denning opportunities. Various recreation activities are unlikely to impact fishers, with the exception of oversnow motorized vehicle travel that can provide access for trappers. The effects of oversnow motorized vehicle use, as well as trapping itself, are characterized by the analysis of changes in motorized route miles. As discussed above, there would be little net change in public access with the exception of storage of portions of FSR 2224 and 2225 under alternatives 2 and 4, so trapper access would not markedly change. Other public recreation activities are unlikely to impact fishers.

Fire Suppression – Fire suppression activities are generally good for fisher habitat in the short term (5-10 years), as they protect denning habitat from stand-replacing fire and contribute to understory congestion in dry-site stands that provide cover for small mammals that fishers prey upon. However, this activity can also slow the development of quality late-successional habitat where it does not currently exist by encouraging growth of higher densities of smaller-diameter shade-tolerant species and contributing to higher incidences of insects and disease, and subsequently resulting in fuel loading that may cause larger, hotter future wildfires. As a result, fire suppression benefits this species in the short term by helping preserve mature forest cover, although the longer-term effect may ultimately be a deterioration of habitat quality and quantity.

North Zone Roadside Salvage – This proposal could salvage small pockets of dead and dying or down trees in the project area. However, roadside salvage would not affect allocated old growth, and would generally only remove pockets of down trees adjacent to open roads. As a result, the habitat potentially affected by this activity would not be of great value to fisher. Cumulative effects from this activity overlap those discussed in for firewood gathering, are minimal, and thus would not result in consequential additional effects.

Deer Creek Project

54

Conclusion The Deer Creek Project proposes regeneration of capable habitat on between 1,595 and 2,529 acres in the project area, including up to 395 acres of potentially suitable denning/resting habitat. A relatively small proportion (about 30 percent) of capable habitat in the project area is in a mature forest (greater than 100 years old) size class. Because of the lack of overmature (late successional, old and decadent) forest, the Deer Creek Project area generally does not contain large amounts of fisher suitable denning structure (large-diameter trees with defect, witches brooms, and large-diameter hollow logs). Additionally, due to the large amount of intermingled private industrial forest throughout the western approximately two-thirds of the project area, it is unlikely that this portion of the District would ever provide high quality habitat at the scale of a fisher home range. While the proposed timber harvest activities may result in long-term (100 years) habitat improvements at a localized scale, it likely would not be adequate to support future fisher populations in this portion of the project area.

Despite a general direction on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to restore long-lived early seral species, there has also been an effort to preserve old-growth stands, allow natural succession in riparian areas, and preserve and recruit large woody debris forest wide. While this management strategy may temporarily reduce fisher habitat at the local scale, habitat would be expected to improve for this species with time and would be maintained on a landscape scale.

In September, 2013, the Northern Rocky Mountain Range DPS of fisher was petitioned for listing under the ESA (Center for Biological Diversity et al. 2013). The petition cited timber harvest and forest management as a current threat to fisher survival, pointing out that a total of more than 626 million board feet of timber were removed from seven National forests between 2009 and 2012. While this figure seems high to the otherwise uninformed, when placed in context logging actually affects relatively small portions of the affected forests. Across the entire Northern Region, 12,662 acres of about 223,512,200 acres (0.056 percent of the forested landscape) were affected by timber harvest in 2012. On the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, timber harvest affected about 1,645 of 2,470,384 forested acres (0.67 percent). For the 10 year period from 2003-2012, total timber harvest was 165,006 acres in R1 (0.74 percent), and 23,329 acres on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (0.94 percent).5

Additionally, the average annual timber harvest on the IPNF from 2009-2012 (about 23 million board feet) equates to less than 6 percent of the approximately 405 million board feet the forest grows each year. At the current rate of timber harvest, it would take the IPNF nearly 17 years to harvest a single year’s growth. It is likely that fisher habitat is being created on the forest at a much greater rate than it is being lost. The IPNF has not conducted timber harvest or other management that removed allocated old growth stands for more than 20 years (and the amount of old growth lost through wildfire or other natural disturbances has been minimal) (USDA Forest Service 2010). Also, recent timber harvest on the forest has placed an increased emphasis on harvest of small-diameter and late-seral tree species, and has essentially eliminated clearcutting as a harvest method. It is reasonable to assume that, across the larger landscape, fisher is not threatened by habitat modification resulting from timber harvest on National Forest System lands.

Analysis of forest inventory and analysis data reveals an average of 1.4 snags per acre greater than 20 inches d.b.h. across the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, increasing to 1.9 snags per acre of 20 inches or larger on the North Zone (1.3-2.2 snags per acre at 90% confidence intervals; USDA Forest Service 2010). Although this estimate is somewhat smaller (1.6 snags/acre, confidence interval 0.8-2.3) for the Bonners Ferry/Kootenai Geographic Area, the Purcell/Boulder Landscape Area (where the Deer Creek project is located) contains 2.0 snags per acre (confidence interval 0.9-3.4). Additionally, there is

5http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5403648.pdf

Deer Creek Project

55

currently an estimated 11.8 percent of forested lands allocated as old growth on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, with the Bonners Ferry Ranger District contributing 15.9 percent (USDA Forest Service 2010). Based on these estimates, old growth and large snag presence is being maintained on the Forests.

Riparian areas (potentially suitable habitat and important travel corridors) would remain intact through implementation of the Inland Native Fish Strategy and exclusion of activities within riparian habitat conservation areas (see Hydrology Report), and no reductions in allocated old growth would result from this action. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011c) determined that “the best commercial and scientific information available does not indicate that current or future forest management practices and timber harvest threaten the fisher now, or in the foreseeable future.”

Bush and Lundberg (2008) estimated that the Idaho Panhandle National Forests contains approximately 520,400 acres (2,106 km2) of fisher summer habitat and approximately 1,193,760 acres (4,831 km2) of fisher winter habitat. Samson (2006b), citing Smallwood (1999), asserts that the threshold habitat level to maintain a viable fisher population is about 100,077 acres (405 km2), or about one-fifth of the available habitat on the Forests. Given this information, the small change to fisher habitat under alternatives 2, 3 and 4 is unlikely to result in a loss of viability of this species. As a result, adequate habitat to maintain viable fisher populations would remain on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests after project implementation.

Consequently, alternatives 2, 3 and 4, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions may impact fisher or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Consistency with the Forest Plan There are no Revised Forest Plan standards or guidelines specific to fisher. Instead, it is indirectly addressed in the Revised Plan through desired condition FW-DC-VEG-01, FW-DC-VEG-02, FW-DC-VEG-03 and FW-DC-VEG-11 (improve habitat by restoring species structure and composition to more closely reflect HRV); desired condition FW-DC-VEG-07 and guideline FW-GDL-VEG-04 (snag presence); and desired condition FW-DC-WL-12 through 14 (maintenance of old growth, snags and down wood). Additionally, fisher would likely benefit from the Motorized Access Management Direction, which limits motorized access in the Keno BMU portion of the project area, and subsequently reduces the risk of trapping mortality for this species. All action alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction, although alternative 1 does little to restore habitat or encourage development of large-diameter snags.

Flammulated Owl, Pygmy Nuthatch and Fringed Myotis The proposed treatments would reverse the trend of affected stands toward less desirable habitat conditions, and would trend capable habitat towards a suitable habitat condition by reducing stand density while favoring retention of larger trees and snags. Although as many as 200 acres of potentially suitable habitat could be impacted by timber harvest, all but about 23 of these acres are expected to regain suitable condition within 10-15 years post-harvest, and maintain suitability for a much longer time period than if left untreated. None of these 200 acres of habitat proposed for treatment are expected to maintain suitability beyond another perhaps ten years if no action were taken.

Treatment would create “openings” (in this case, open conifer stands created through shelterwood harvest) larger than 40 acres on dry forest habitat in some units. This is expected to benefit flammulated owls, since research has demonstrated that suitable microhabitats may not be occupied by this species unless these conditions occurred across larger suitable landscapes. However, treatment of smaller areas may provide habitat for other members of this habitat group (pygmy nuthatch and fringed myotis) even if it remains unused by flammulated owls.

Deer Creek Project

56

Road treatments are not expected to substantially impact these species, since the road segments to be reconstructed are currently drivable and available to woodcutters, or would be managed under the same restrictions as are currently in place. The portion of FSR 2540 proposed for decommissioning under alternative 4 does not traverse capable habitat, so the fate of this road would have no impact on these species. None of the other proposed activities would affect dry-site forest, so would not result in appreciable habitat modifications or disturbance.

Most of the opportunities for dry-site restoration are found outside the Keno BMU and would be included in all action alternatives. Therefore, alternatives 2 and 4 would not differ greatly from alternative 3 in their effects on dry-site species.

These three species all require large-diameter (mature and old growth) open-grown dry-site forests dominated by ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, and the presence of large snags for nesting and roosting. Because of habitat similarities between these species, they are analyzed as a group.

Habitat Relationships

Flammulated Owl Flammulated owls are seasonal migrants to northern latitudes during the spring and summer. Primary nesting habitat is comprised of the older forests dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir with 35-65 percent overstory canopy closure (Goggans 1986, Howie and Ritcey 1987, Reynolds and Linkhart 1992). Reynolds and Linkhart (1992) reported that all published North American records of nesting except one came from forests in which ponderosa pine trees were at least present, if not dominant, in the stand. Flammulated owls depend on pileated woodpeckers and flickers to excavate the cavities in which they nest. Their nest trees are at least 14 inches in diameter (McCallum 1994). Although nesting habitat is thought to be more limiting on the landscape, the flammulated owl's preference for the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir cover type can also be linked to food availability. Reynolds and Linkhart (1992) noted a stronger correlation between prey availability and this cover type than with other common western conifer cover types.

Flammulated owls appear tolerant of some human disturbances, as this species has been known to nest in campgrounds and other areas of human activity with no apparent adverse effects (Hayward and Verner 1994). Because the flammulated owl requires tree cavities for nesting, loss of snags from timber harvest or firewood gathering can impact nesting habitat for this species.

Pygmy Nuthatch Pygmy nuthatches are sedentary, year round residents of ponderosa pine forests (Ghalambor 2003). They rely heavily on the foliage of live, larger ponderosa pines as foraging habitat and on larger ponderosa pine snags for nesting and roosting cavities (McEllin 1979). Their almost exclusive association with ponderosa pine, particularly mature stands containing less than 70 percent canopy closure, leads to a patchy distribution of the pygmy nuthatch as they mirror ponderosa pine’s distribution (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001, Engle and Harris 2001). Pygmy nuthatch abundance is directly correlated with snag density and foliage volume (Ghalambor 2003). They generally excavate their own nest cavity, but at times are a secondary cavity nester and locate their nest cavities in dead trees or in dead sections of live trees (Ghalambor 2003). Their diet consists mainly of insects during the breeding season, and in some areas they forage almost exclusively on pine seeds in the non-breeding season (Ghalambor 2003).

The main threats to the species are the loss of ponderosa pine dominated forests and low snag densities (Ghalambor 2003). There has been a substantial decline of mature ponderosa pine forests in recent years (Wisdom et al. 2000). This decline is largely due to fire suppression, which has replaced natural regimens

Deer Creek Project

57

of frequent, low intensity fires that maintained relatively open ponderosa stands and has allowed for a marked increase in the density of shade-tolerant tree species (i.e., Douglas-fir), thereby reducing the availability of habitat for the pygmy nuthatch. The encroaching shade tolerant species are also shorter-lived and more susceptible to insects and disease, increasing the amount of ladder fuels and the probability of a stand-replacing fire, which again could lead to the loss of mature ponderosa pine habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000). In addition, studies have shown that reduction of the number of snags greatly diminishes pygmy nuthatch densities by decreasing the availability of suitable nest and roost cavities (Scott 1979).

Fringed Myotis Fringed myotis are members of the group of bats referred to as the “long-eared” bats. Fringed myotis use a fairly broad range of habitats represented by open areas (e.g., grasslands) interspersed with mature forests (usually ponderosa pine, pinion-juniper or oak) at middle elevations that contain suitable roosts sites and are near water sources (Keinath 2004). They are relatively slow but highly maneuverable flyers, and are most active the first two hours following sunset (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). Fringed myotis feed on insects during flight and glean insects off of vegetation, usually near the top of the forest canopy, with beetles and moths making up the majority of their diet (Keller 2000, O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Wisdom et al. 2000).

Where available, fringed myotis use caves, mines, buildings and rock crevices as day, night, maternity or hibernation roost sites (Ellison et al. 2004). They also roost underneath the bark and inside hollows of snags, particularly larger ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir snags in medium stages of decay (O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Rabe et al. 1998, Weller and Zabel 2001, Rasheed et al. 1995). Generally, snags used as roost sites are in somewhat open microsites within otherwise contiguous forest (Weller and Zabel 2001). Because of the short lifespan of snags, bats using snags to roost require a high density of snags and often move between snags while roosting (Weller and Zabel 2001, Rabe et al. 1998).

The main risks to fringed myotis are the loss of suitable habitat for foraging or roosting and human disturbance of roost sites. Fringed myotis, like many bat species, are very sensitive to disturbance or habitat modification and any change in conditions altering the microclimate (e.g., airflow, thermal regime) close to roosts can have a substantial impact (Keinath 2004). Fringed myotis are perhaps more vulnerable to alterations of mature or old growth forest conditions than most bat species because of their close association with those forests that contain abundant, large snags for roosting (Keinath 2004).

According to Rabe et al. (1998), the use of multiple snags by roosting bats and the short-term nature of snags in the early decompositional stages of decay suggest that bats require higher densities of snags than birds. In addition, indirect mortality is possible from disturbance at maternity colonies before young can fly on their own, or disturbance at hibernacula leading to burning of fat reserves needed for overwinter survival (Rasheed et al. 1995). Finally, riparian areas should be managed to retain natural stream hydrology and healthy riparian vegetation to allow for sufficient water sources and to promote use by emergent insects. Therefore, management activities should: (1) manage for the retention and recruitment of large diameter snags at relatively high densities, particularly in late-successional forests; (2) protect known roost sites to prevent human disturbance or habitat alteration of microsite conditions, and; (3) maintain and improve riparian areas (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Affected Environment Based on vegetation estimates, ponderosa pine historically comprised as much as 65 percent of dry forest NFS lands on the IPNF. Today, less than 10 percent of this biophysical setting consists of sites that are predominately ponderosa pine (USDA Forest Service 2013). Primary factors that have contributed to the loss of older ponderosa pine forests include fire suppression and past forest management. Fire

Deer Creek Project

58

suppression has led to the advancing succession of shade-tolerant species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir that crowd out ponderosa pine. In addition, dry, open-grown forests of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir were common at lower elevations in areas suitable for human settlement. These areas experienced intensive timber harvest, and the resulting access increased harvest of large snags by firewood cutters. In the Kootenai Subbasin, past regeneration timber harvest, as well as historic overstory removal (“high-grading”) generally reduced suitable dry-site habitat. These past timber harvest activities, in combination with active fire suppression in unlogged stands, have contributed to the lack of habitat for these species currently throughout portions of its range.

Mature, open-grown, dry-site forests are considered the most critical and limiting habitat feature for flammulated owls. Pygmy nuthatches also prefer mature, open-grown, dry-site forests with ponderosa pine as an essential component. In addition to large snags in mature open-grown dry-site stands, fringed myotis also require old mines as roost sites (maternity and hibernacula). Stands in the drier habitat types (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and dry grand fir) are considered capable habitat for this species. Approximately 4,620 acres (20 percent) of NFS lands in the Deer Creek Project area are dry site forest (capable habitat). These stands can be found throughout the southern portion of the project area, and occur across low- and mid-elevation sites and all but north aspects.

Flammulated owls have historically been detected at only a few locations on the District, including on Dawson Ridge in the Deer Creek Project area. Flammulated owls have been detected in this area a number of times since the early 2000s – but not consistently year-to-year, and never more than a single individual. It is unknown at this time if successful nesting attempts are taking place, or if surveys are merely detecting the occasional transient male. Surveys were conducted for flammulated owl presence at various locations in the project area during 2013 and 2014, including Dawson Ridge (project file). Once again, a single owl was detected on Dawson Ridge in 2013 and again in 2015, but no flammulated owl responses were detected elsewhere in the project area.

Pygmy nuthatches have only been documented at a few locations in Boundary County, but no surveys have been conducted specific to this species. Presence has been documented on Dawson Ridge, as well at several low elevation locations (both private and NFS lands) between the project area and the Kootenai River to the south.

While fringed myotis use mature dry forest, they also make extensive use of caves and mines for roost sites – particularly during hibernation. There is no natural cave habitat on this part of the IPNF, and no extensive mining activity has occurred within the Deer Creek Project area. There are no open adits or shafts on USFS lands near the project treatments. The nearest documented occurrence of fringed myotis to the project area is at the Montgomery Mine, nearly 15 miles northwest.

Habitat evaluation surveys found as much as 951 acres of the capable dry forest is potentially suitable nesting/roosting habitat for these species (see “Methodology” subsection, below). In addition, there may be as many as 872 acres of dry forest that were not evaluated, but could be potentially suitable based on forest type and size class. Most of the unsuitable stands are immature or have high proportions of more shade-tolerant species than historically would have been present. Because of the close proximity to Bonners Ferry and high degree of accessibility, many of the low-elevation dry forests on both NFS and surrounding private ownerships have undergone timber harvest in the past. This harvest often involved either clear-cutting or high-grading (taking the largest-diameter trees from a stand) of ponderosa pine – unlike what is being proposed here. Both of these historic logging techniques would have reduced ponderosa pine presence, and ultimately reduced average stem diameter and increased stem density. The majority of potentially suitable stands are on steep, inaccessible slopes around Goat Mountain and other places not easily reached with mechanical equipment.

Deer Creek Project

59

Environmental Consequences

Methodology As discussed above, mature, open-grown, dry-site forests are considered the most critical and limiting habitat feature for these species. Capable habitat was identified through timber stand exams, based on potential vegetation (habitat type) of the stand. The model counts as capable habitat stands in habitat type groups 1 through 3 (dry grand fir, all ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir); and habitat group 4 (moist grand fir) on south, southwest or west aspects. Suitable habitat includes those capable stands with a forest (cover) type of ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, canopy closure between 35 and 65 percent, average d.b.h. greater than 15 inches in the primary canopy layer, and the presence of large (greater than 15 inches) snags.

Habitat evaluation surveys conducted by Forest Service wildlife personnel during 2013 and 2014 examined approximately 2,311 acres from 62 dry forest stands in the analysis area. Using the information from these surveys, along with information contained from timber stand exams, stands were analyzed individually to determine if they contained the habitat parameters necessary to be considered potentially suitable for flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch or fringed myotis. The potential effects on these species and their habitat were determined by predicting the change in trends toward habitat suitability that would result from each alternative.

In addition to large snags in mature open-grown dry-site stands, the affinity for old mines as roost sites (maternity and hibernacula) by fringed myotis also requires consideration. However, as discussed above there are no open adits, shafts, or buildings associated with current or historic mining in the Deer Creek Project area.

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects While Alternative 1 would not alter existing vegetation patterns through mechanical means, tree mortality caused by agents such as root disease would continue to exert change on habitat conditions. There would be a continued shift toward denser canopies of shade-tolerant species in capable stands. Douglas-fir trees would continue to be recycled through disease-prone stands, creating a scenario that would discourage the development of more open, older forests of ponderosa pine with a lesser component of Douglas-fir. Old-growth dry-site forest stands would become increasingly crowded in the understory by shade-tolerant species, causing these stands to move further from suitable habitat conditions. Consequently, the amount of suitable habitat for these species would continue to decrease in the absence of a stand-replacing event.

As discussed above, some of the dry-site habitat in the project area is increasingly becoming more congested in structure due to the presence of shade-tolerant species. Without management intervention, it is likely that these habitats would not trend toward an increase in habitat quality and would face an increasing likelihood of a stand-replacing future event. If a stand-replacing fire were to occur, it would take at least 100 years for successional processes to restore habitat that would begin to provide suitable habitat conditions.

Since Alternative 1 would not authorize any activities, it would have no direct effects on these species, although it would have the indirect effects discussed above.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 4 These alternatives propose timber harvest on approximately 637 acres of capable habitat for these species (dry forest). This includes approximately 289 acres of shelterwood harvest, 51 acres of seedtree harvest, 63 acres of seedtree/shelterwood with precommercial thinning, 76 acres of smallwood thinning, and 158 acres of dry site improvement.

Deer Creek Project

60

Each of the different timber harvest prescriptions is designed to trend currently unsuitable dry-site stands toward conditions similar to what would have been created through natural disturbances and, therefore, closer to suitable nesting or roosting habitat conditions. Dry site improvement harvest is designed to favor ponderosa pine in stands that currently contain a high (for dry sites) stand density. Similarly, seedtree harvest prescriptions on dry-site stands would be used where ponderosa pine is sparse or absent from the stand, and existing shade-tolerant species have grown dense and are at greater risk of insect and disease infestations. Shelterwood harvest is the preferred treatment on many dry-site stands where there may be an existing cohort of large-diameter dry forest species present in the overstory, but are being effectively crowded out by shade-tolerant species in the understory layers. Smallwood thinning would take place in stands of immature timber (and therefore would not be currently suitable), and is designed to reduce stand density and favor long-lived, seral species (generally ponderosa pine on drier sites).

Approximately 200 acres of potentially suitable nesting habitat would be affected by proposed timber harvest. The greater part of this (155 acres) is proposed shelterwood harvest, including all or portions of units 39, 39A, 41, 41A, and 32. Although they have been identified as potentially suitable, these stands are approaching the upper limit of overstory canopy cover (65%) preferred by these species and trending away from suitable habitat. Shelterwood harvest would remove the understory congestion, but would also reduce the overstory canopy cover below the 35-65% range favored by this species. However, once competition for light and nutrients is reduced and additional growing space provided, the residual trees are expected to increase canopy to the lower end of this range within 10-15 years after treatment. Once there, these stands would maintain this condition well into the future (provided the understory is not allowed to develop dense regeneration). If left untreated, it is doubtful that these stands would maintain suitable condition beyond the next 10-15 years since the overstory canopy cover is already at the high end of the suitable range.

Seedtree harvest and dry site improvement would each affect smaller amounts of currently suitable habitat (approximately 23 acres each). A portion of seedtree unit 34 is structurally marginal with respect to suitable habitat for these species, but lacks a substantial ponderosa pine component and the Douglas-fir component (which is providing the potentially suitable structure) is beginning to suffer from insect and disease mortality. As a result, this stand is not expected to retain suitability over time. Dry site improvement unit 46 also is structurally marginal, with overstory near the high end of the range as a result of the developing secondary canopy layer. This stand is also expected to move into suitability within about 15 years of harvest.

Both the Idaho Partners in Flight (2000) and Montana Partners in Flight (2000) conservation plans recommend dry-site restoration treatments that include removal of small diameter trees and subsequent burning (as is proposed here) to enhance and/or restore habitat for these species. In addition, van Woudenberg (1999) recommends using “partial cutting and selection silvicultural systems” for long-term regeneration of dry-site landscapes. Most of the currently suitable dry site stands in the Deer Creek Project area would trend away from suitable conditions over the next 20 to 50 years if no action were taken, as shade-tolerant Douglas-fir continues to increase canopy cover and compete with large ponderosa pines for nutrients. By contrast, shelterwood harvest and dry site improvement would result in creation or long term (up to100 years) maintenance of existing suitable habitat.

Proposed burn only units contain about 200 acres of dry-site (capable) habitat, including about 14 acres of potentially suitable nesting habitat. About 34 acres of capable habitat is in burn unit 2, with the greater part (approximately 166 acres, including the potentially suitable habitat) in burn unit 3. These burns are intended to mimic mixed-severity fires such as would have occurred naturally, and therefore are expected to benefit these species by maintaining currently suitable habitat and thinning dense forest by underburning and occasional crown fire in immature stands.

Deer Creek Project

61

About 70 acres of precommercial thinning in capable (currently unsuitable) habitat would take place under all action alternatives. These treatments are expected to improve species composition and structure, resulting in stands that are more ecologically stable in the face of potential disturbances. None of the other precommercial thinning proposed under the action alternatives would affect these species because it is in moist-site habitats.

Project activities could result in temporary disturbance to individuals of this habitat group. Disturbance would include the potential removal of some cavities available for nesting, and possible displacement associated with mechanical treatment and prescribed fire. These disturbances are of minor consequence given the mobility of these species, the silvicultural prescription to retain large trees and snags, and the post-treatment benefit of maintaining dry-site forest conditions beneficial to this group.

Treatment of would create openings (open conifer stands) larger than 40 acres on dry forest habitat in units 46, 76, 42, 39/39A, 37/38, and 30/30A. This would be beneficial for flammulated owls, as Wright (1996) found that suitable microhabitats may not be occupied by flammulated owls unless these conditions occurred across larger suitable landscapes. Nonetheless, treatment of smaller areas may provide habitat for other members of this habitat group (pygmy nuthatch and fringed myotis) even if it remains unused by flammulated owls.

Road treatments are not expected to substantially impact these species. The road segments to be reconstructed are currently drivable and available to woodcutters, with the exception of FSR 2536 and 2225 in the Keno BMU. These roads would continue to be managed under the same restrictions, so access into areas along FSR 2225 would not change, and there is little dry-site habitat along FSR 2536. Reconstruction of currently washed-out FSR 2533 would reopen access to one large dry forest stand. However, this stand is generally small-diameter and makes up harvest unit 70 (small wood thinning), and does not likely provide suitable habitat (or any large snags) at this time. The portion of FSR 2540 proposed for decommissioning under alternative 4 does not traverse capable habitat, so the fate of this road would have no impact on these species.

All of the other proposed activities (aquatic organism passage, large wood placement in streams, trail construction at Meadow Creek campground, dispersed site improvement at Solomon Lake, gravel pit development, construction of a snowmobile parking area, and maintenance of a helispot below Goat Mountain) are expected to have little or no effect on these species. None of these would affect dry-site forest, so would not result in appreciable habitat modifications or disturbance.

Alternative 3 - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 3 would have similar effects as alternatives 2 and 4, except 61 fewer acres would be harvested. The approximately 576 acres of timber harvest include 247 acres of shelterwood harvest, 36 acres of seedtree harvest, 59 acres of seedtree/shelterwood with precommercial thinning, 76 acres of smallwood thinning, and 158 acres of dry site improvement. None of the 61 acres of timber harvest dropped from this alternative are potentially suitable, so effects to suitable habitat would be the same.

Most of the opportunities for dry-site restoration are found outside the Keno BMU and would be included in all action alternatives. Two units (unit 23 and 25) that would not be included in this alternative could benefit from treatment, but these comprise relatively small areas (about 30 and 15 acres, respectively) of larger dry-site habitat patches on the southwest faces of Solomon Mountain and Goat Mountain. Exclusion of these units, and the acres they represent, would have minor impacts across the greater landscape for dry forest dependent species.

All other effects of alternative 3 would be as described above.

Deer Creek Project

62

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives The following past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions were considered in a cumulative effects discussion for flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch and fringed myotis:

Public Activities – Firewood cutting will likely continue along open and seasonally open roads in the analysis area, potentially reducing large snags within 200 feet of the roadside. Snag removal can occur along any of the open and seasonally restricted roads in the analysis area. However, since firewood removal affects a relatively small portion of capable habitat and usually only results in removal of “hard” snags that are less likely to be used by secondary cavity nesters, this activity would have minor effects on suitable habitat. Other recreational activities are unlikely to have any impacts on flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch or fringed myotis since they would not result in habitat modifications and these species are not readily disturbed by sporadic human activity. Thus, overall incremental cumulative effects of these activities are minimal.

Fire Suppression – Interrupting the periodic disturbances created by lethal wildfires through continued fire suppression probably has mixed impacts on members of this habitat group. High-intensity wildfire often reverts stands to an earlier successional stage. In some cases this would interrupt immature stands from reaching habitat suitability, and in other cases would regenerate stands with high densities of small stems that may never reach suitability lacking disturbance. Regardless, fire suppression through the years has heavily contributed to reduction of open grown ponderosa pine stands by preventing periodic underburns in these stands. Since fire suppression is expected to continue, the results would be partially compensated for by activities described in this proposal.

North Zone Roadside Salvage – This activity would occur within 200 feet of several roads in the Deer Creek Project area that are also currently open to firewood cutters. However, roadside salvage by design would not affect allocated old growth, and would generally only remove pockets of down trees that do not provide important habitat attributes for these species. Cumulative effects from this activity overlap those discussed in for firewood gathering, are minimal, and thus would not result in consequential additional effects to flammulated owls, pygmy nuthatch or fringed myotis.

Conclusion The proposed treatments would reverse the trend of affected stands toward less desirable habitat conditions, and would trend capable habitat towards a suitable habitat condition by reducing stand density while favoring retention of larger trees and snags. Although as many as 200 acres of potentially suitable habitat could be impacted by timber harvest, all but about 23 of these acres are expected to regain suitable condition within 10-15 years post-harvest, and maintain suitability for a much longer time period than if left untreated. None of these 200 acres of habitat proposed for treatment are expected to maintain suitability beyond another perhaps ten years if no action were taken. While there may be some risk to capable habitat (snag loss and reduction of roosting habitat) associated with timber harvest, several studies have documented flammulated owl use of selectively logged sites (Howie and Ritcey 1987, van Woudenberg 1999, Wright 1996, Wright et al. 1997). Additionally, there would seem to be little risk in treating stands that are currently unsuitable due to excessive overstory and understory density.

Samson (2006a) estimated that the critical habitat threshold for a minimum viable population of flammulated owls is 4,700 acres, while the IPNF alone is estimated to contain approximately 185, 00 acres of habitat (Bush and Lundberg 2008). Under the 2015 revised Forest Plan, habitat for this species is expected to increase over the next 5 decades from increases in large snag densities and increases in actual and potential habitat over this time as a result of a warmer, drier climate and increase in low- and moderate-severity wildfires (USDA Forest Service 2013).

Deer Creek Project

63

By inference, it is reasonable to assume that adequate habitat exists to support viable populations of species with similar habitat requirements (pygmy nuthatch and fringed myotis) as well. Based on this analysis, the action alternatives may impact individual flammulated owls, pygmy nuthatches and fringed myotis or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Consistency with Forest Plan There are no Revised Forest Plan standards or guidelines specific to these species. Dry forest species are indirectly addressed in the Revised Plan through objective FW-OBJ-WL-01, desired condition FW-DC-VEG-01, FW-DC-VEG-02, FW-DC-VEG-03 and FW-DC-VEG-11 (improve habitat by restoring species structure and composition to more closely reflect HRV); and desired condition FW-DC-VEG-07 and guideline FW-GDL-VEG-04 (snag presence). All action alternatives are consistent with this direction, although alternative 1 does little to restore habitat or encourage large-diameter snag development.

Design Features Grizzly Bear – Use of Road 2536 that exceeds administrative use levels, and reconstruction/use of non-system roads connecting to this road system, would be scheduled so that the Keno BMU remains compliant with standards of the Motorized Access Management Direction for the IPNF. This may include creation of core habitat elsewhere in the BMU, and placing timing constraints on project activities to accommodate ongoing activities (both on the IPNF and on the Kootenai National Forest) elsewhere in the BMU without exceeding maximum open motorized route density (OMRD) standards.

Estimated Effectiveness - High. This provision will be built into timber harvest contracts and implemented by the sale administrator.

Grizzly Bear – No timber harvest, hauling on restricted roads, road reconstruction, road decommissioning and storage, grapple piling and slashing activities would take place between April 1 and June 15 within the Keno BMU.

Estimated Effectiveness - High. Since spring is the most sensitive time period for grizzly bears, limiting operations during this season would greatly reduce potential effects. This provision will be built into timber harvest contracts and implemented by the sale administrator.

Grizzly Bear – Burning of burn-only units within the Keno BMU (“Burn 1-4”) would be accomplished in fall (rather than spring) to the maximum extent practicable.

Estimated Effectiveness - Moderate; Spring is the most sensitive time period for grizzly bears when their fat reserves have been severely depleted and foraging to rebuild energy reserves is their primary focus (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). Limiting project activities during this season greatly reduces the potential for effects to grizzly bear from disturbance or displacement from foraging habitat. It is the intent of the District to burn the proposed units in as few entries as practicable. Nevertheless, unforeseen circumstances (weather, etc.) may hinder this process to the extent that helicopter use over a number of days and years would be required. The preferred method is to burn the units during the fall months if acceptable burning windows are available. However, given the limitations on fall burning in North Idaho (typically driven by air quality constraints), it may be necessary to burn whole units or portions of units during the spring (when air quality poses less of an issue).

Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan/Food Storage Order – Forest Service personnel, contractors and subcontractors would be given a copy of the Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan and the IPNF Food Storage Order. The NFS lands within the proposed action areas are covered by

Deer Creek Project

64

the IPNF Food Storage Order. The order would be included in all contracts. Compliance with the provisions of the IPNF Food Storage Order is mandatory.

Estimated Effectiveness – High; Improperly stored food and garbage is identified as a principle cause of grizzly bear mortality and following established food and garbage storage guidelines has been shown to substantially reduce or eliminate conflicts between humans and wildlife, particularly bears (Wakkinen and Kasworm 2004, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, Harms 1977).

Big Game – No project activities would take place on roads restricted for big game security on Dawson Ridge during the time period these roads are closed to public motorized traffic (October 7 – October 31). This affects smallwood thinning units 74, 75 and 77.

Estimated Effectiveness - High. This restriction would preserve big game security and maintain a quality hunting area during the modern firearm elk season on Dawson Ridge. This provision will be built into timber harvest contracts and implemented by the sale administrator.

Other Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Wildlife Species Management – If any TES species is located during project layout or implementation, alter timber harvest and associated activities, as necessary, so that proper protection measures are taken. Timber sale contract clause B(T)6.25, Protection of Threatened, Endangered And Sensitive Species, would be included in any timber sale contract.

Estimated Effectiveness – High. Contract provisions for protection of TES habitats and locations are utilized in all contracts and have been effective in protecting these resources (see Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation reports).

Gray Wolf – Any gray wolf den or rendezvous sites identified in or adjacent to proposed activity areas will be spatially and/or temporally buffered as appropriate. No project activities (excluding maintenance and hauling on year-round open road systems) would be allowed within one (1) mile of occupied sites, from April 1-July 1 for den sites and from July 1-August 15 for rendezvous sites. Upon review by the District Wildlife Biologist, these distances could decrease based on topographical characteristics at each site.

Estimated Effectiveness – High. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that “there is little, if any, need for land-use restrictions to protect wolves in most situations, with the possible exception of temporary restrictions around active den sites on federally managed lands,” and that restricting activity around sensitive sites during the denning period effectively limits potential disturbance to wolf pups (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003).

Fuels Treatment – In areas where grapple piling is prescribed for fuel reduction, leave approximately one slash pile per five acres unburned where consistent with fuels reduction objectives to provide habitat for small forest animals (e.g., snowshoe hares).

Estimated Effectiveness – High. Research has shown an increase in species diversity and richness when some slash piles are left unburned during regeneration harvest operations (Sullivan et al. 2012). Timber sale and brush disposal contracts allow for effective control of operations and have the flexibility to meet this criterion.

Wildlife Tree Retention – All snags greater than 14 inches in diameter would be retained to the maximum extent possible. Retain smaller snags if they do not contribute to excessive understory congestion, and retention is consistent with unit management objectives. Large snags that are felled for safety reasons should remain on site to provide for wildlife habitat and long-term site productivity.

Deer Creek Project

65

Estimated Effectiveness – Moderate. This measure would be implemented using project layout, contract provisions, compliance monitoring and fuels treatment, and would have a moderate chance of avoiding and/or reducing adverse effects on snag dependent wildlife. It would not be the intent of this project to willfully remove the high hazard snags, and snags in the advanced stages of decay (“soft” snags). Some of these “soft” snags would survive and remain standing during the life of the project. Due to Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) guidelines, most contractors will remove snags deemed to pose a safety risk to ground crews. Consequently, group selection portions of the prescription will generally result in higher levels of snag retention since portions of units will be left untreated and contractor exposure to hazardous snags subsequently reduced. In addition, the “hard” snags preferred by the District for their ability to remain longer on the landscape are less likely to be felled as hazards than softer snags.

Personal experience has demonstrated that tree harvesting and subsequent burning removes a portion of existing snags, especially the “soft snags.” However, through the strategic placement of leave patches or clumps, snags within these areas will be protected. In addition, prescribed underburning will recruit some “new” snags where residual green trees are inadvertently fire-killed.

Goshawk Nest Site Protection –A no activity area of 40-acres would be placed around any known or newly discovered goshawk nest, or any other nest that has been active in the past five years (Brewer et al. 2009). If the nest tree is not roughly centered within the 40-acre no activity area, an additional no activity distance of up to 745 feet (the radius of a 40-acre circle) may be implemented between the nest tree and harvest units to reduce impacts to habitat around the nest site from project activities. The District Wildlife Biologist would determine if this additional no activity distance would be implemented based on factors such as topography, the location of the nest tree within the 40-acre nest area and the distance of the nest tree from existing disturbances (e.g. roads).

No mechanized project activities (with the exception of hauling on open road systems) would be allowed within up to ½ mile of active nest areas from April 15 to August 15 to promote nesting success and provide forage opportunities for adults and fledgling goshawks during the fledgling dependency period. Activity restrictions may be removed after June 30 if the District Wildlife Biologist determines the nest site is inactive or unsuccessful (Maj 1996).

Estimated Effectiveness – Moderate to High. Protection measures would allow continued nesting and successful rearing during and after project implementation (Reynolds et al. 1992). The 40-acre no-activity area has been shown to provide an adequate post-harvest nest stand for goshawks. Seasonal restrictions are likely to minimize disturbance to active nests, particularly if ground-based systems are not being used within ½ mile.

Protection of Wetlands, Seeps, Bogs, Wallows and Springs – All known or discovered wetlands, seeps, bogs, elk wallows and springs less than one acre in size would buffered according to Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFS) guidelines.

Estimated Effectiveness – High. This practice would be incorporated into project design and unit layout, and implemented by the sale administrator.

References Aubry K.B., L.F. Ruggiero, J.R. Squires, K.S. McKelvey, G.M. Koehler, S.W. Buskirk, and C.J. Krebs. 2000. Conservation of lynx in the United States: a systematic approach to closing critical knowledge gaps. Ch. 17 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey,

Deer Creek Project

66

J.R. Squires. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 474 pp.

Aubry, K.B., K.S. McKelvey and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2147-2158.

Bonn, J., B. Dixon, E. Kennedy, and D. Pengeroth. 2007. Black-backed Woodpecker Northern Region Overview, Key Findings and Project Considerations. USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 41 pp.

Brewer, L.T., R. Bush, J.E. Canfield, and A.R. Dohmen. 2009. Northern Goshawk Northern Region Overview, Key Findings and Project Considerations. USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 57 pp.

Bush, R. and R. Lundburg. 2008. Wildlife habitat estimates for the Region 1 conservation assessment. Region 1 Vegetation Classification, Inventory, and Analysis Report. 22 pp.

Buskirk, S. W., L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, D. E. Pearson, J. R. Squires, and K. S. McKelvey. 2000. Comparative ecology of lynx in North America. Chapter 14 in Ruggiero, L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. (tech. eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 474 pp.

Carlisle, J. and J. Pollock. 2012. Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR) in Idaho: 2012 Field Season Summary for transects funded by the USFS Region 1 – Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Idaho. Idaho Bird Observatory at Boise State University. 11 pp.

Cassirer, E.F. and C.R. Groves. 1991. Harlequin duck ecology in Idaho: 1987-1990. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 94 pp.

Cassirer, E.F., J.D. Reichel, R.L. Wallen and E.C. Atkinson. 1996. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) United States Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management Habitat Conservation Assessment and Conservation Strategy for the U.S. Rocky Mountains (draft). Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Lewiston, ID. 54 pp.

Center for Biological Diversity and others. 2013. Petition to list the Northern Rockies Distinct Population Segment of Fisher (Pekania pennanti) as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Submitted to USDA Fish and Wildlife Service on September 23, 2013.

Clark, L.R. and R.N. Sampson. 1995. Forest ecosystem health in the inland west: A Science and Policy Reader. Forest Policy Center, Washington D.C. 37 pp.

Colorado Partners in Flight. 2000. Colorado Land Bird Conservation Plan: black swift. Available online: http://www.rmbo.org/pif/bcp/phy62/cliff/blsw.htm

Copeland, J.P., K.S. McKelvey, K.B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R.M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. Golden, J.R. Squires, A. Magoun, M.K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C.L. Copeland, R.E. Yates, I. Kojola, and R. May. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology 88:233-246.

Davis, L.R. 2009. Denning ecology and habitat use by fisher (Martes pennanti) in pine dominated ecosystems of the Chilcotin Plateau. M.S. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Deer Creek Project

67

Ellison, L.E., M.B. Wunder, C.A. Jones, C. Mosch, K.W. Navo, K. Peckham, J.E. Burghardt, J. Annear, R. West, J. Siemers, R.A. Adams and E. Brekke. 2004. Colorado Bat Conservation Plan. Colorado Committee of the Western Bat Working Group. 107 pp.

Engle, J.C. and C.E. Harris. 2001. Idaho species of special concern element state rankings reviews. Non-game and endangered wildlife program, Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 104 pp.

Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12, American Society of Mammalogists. Cited from Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks webpage: http://fwp.state.mt.us/fieldguide/detail_AMAFF17020.aspx

Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation Assessment of the Pygmy Nuthatch in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 55 pp.

Goggans, R. 1986. Habitat use by flammulated owls in Northern Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 54 pp.

Groves, C.R. 1988. Status and distribution of the Coeur d’Alene salamander (Plethodon vandykei idahoensis) in Idaho. Nongame Report, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game. 38 pp. + appendix.

Groves, C.R., E.F. Cassirer, D.L. Genter, and J.D. Reichel. 1996. Coeur d’Alene salamander. Natural Areas Journal 16:238-247.

Hansen, J. 1986. Wolves of Northern Idaho and Northeastern Washington. MT Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 88 pp.

Harms, D.R. 1977. Black bear management in Yosemite National Park. In Bears – Their Biology and Management. A selection of papers from the Fourth International Conference on Bear Research and Management. Volume 4, 1980. Kalispell, MT.

Hayward, G.D., and J. Verner (tech. eds.). 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 214 pp.

Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management: a literature review and adaptive management strategy. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 108 pp.

Hillis, J. M., M. J. Thompson, J. E. Canfield, L. J. Lyon, C. L. Marcum, P. M. Dolan, and D. W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining elk security: the Hillis Paradigm. p. 38-43 in Proceedings of a Symposium on Elk Vulnerability, compiled by A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon, and T. N. Lonner. Hosted by the Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, April 10-12, 1991.

Hillis, M., A. Jacobs and V. Wright. 2002. US. Forest Service Region One Draft Black-backed Woodpecker Assessment. 16 pp.

Holden, Z.A, W.F. Kasworm, C. Servheen, B. Hahn and S. Dombrowski. 2012. Sensitivity of berry productivity to climatic variation in the Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, northwest United States, 1989-2010. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:226-231.

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the Wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59: 1286-1301.

Deer Creek Project

68

Howie, R.R. and R. Ritcey. 1987. Distribution, habitat selection, and densities of flammulated owls in British Columbia. Pp. 249-254 in Biology and Conservation of Northern Forest Owls. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-142. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Hutto, R.L. 1995. USDA Forest Service Northern Region Songbird Monitoring Program Distribution and Habitat Relationships. USDA Forest Service contract #R1-95-05. Second Report. Division of Biological Sciences. University of Montana. 21 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 20011. Progress Report – Elk. Project W-170-R-34. Boise, ID. 157 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Nez Perce Tribe. 2012. 2011 Idaho wolf monitoring progress report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 600 South Walnut, Boise, Idaho; Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recovery Project, P.O. Box 365, Lapwai, Idaho. 94 pp.

Idaho Partners in Flight. 2000. Idaho bird conservation plan. Version 1.0

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

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1998. Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Taskforce Report. 7 pp.

Jones, J.L. 1991. Habitat Use of Fisher in North Central Idaho. M.S.Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 147 pp.

Kasworm, W.F., H. Carriles, T.G. Radandt, M. Proctor and C. Servheen. 2010. Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery area 2009 research and monitoring progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 78 pp.

Keane, R.E., D.F. Tomback, C.A. Aubry, A.D. Bower, E.M. Campbell, C.L. Cripps, M.B. Jenkins, M.F. Mahalovich, M. Manning, S.T. McKinney, M.P. Murray, D.L. Perkins, D.P. Reinhart, C. Ryan, A.W. Schoettle and C.M. Smith. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p.

Keinath, D. A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 63 pp.

Keller, B. 2000. Myotis thysanodes (Fringed Myotis). Digital atlas of Idaho Online. Available: http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/mammal/mamfram.htm

Kingery, H. and Ghalambor, C.K. 2001. Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta Pygmaea) in The Birds of North America No. 567. A. Poole and F. Gills (eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Cited in Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation Assessment of the Pygmy Nuthatch in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest.

Knorr, O.A. 1961. The Geographical and Ecological Distribution of the Black Swift in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 73:155-170.

Deer Creek Project

69

Knorr, O.A. 1993. Black Swift (Cypseloides niger) Nesting Site Characteristics: Some New Insights. Avocetta 17:139-140. Cited in Wiggins, D. A. 2004. Black Swift (Cypseloides niger): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Chapter 4 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (tech. eds.). The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores in the Western United States: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine. Gen. Tech. Report RM-GTR-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 184 pp.

Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. p. 1-6 in Mammalian Species No. 175. The American Society of Mammalogists.

Loeffler, C. (ed.). 1998. Conservation Plan and Agreement for the Management and Recovery of the Southern Rocky Mountain Population of the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas). Boreal Toad Recovery Team and Technical Advisory Group. 80 pp.

Lofroth, E.C and P.K. Ott. 2007. Assessment of sustainability of wolverine harvest in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2193-2200.

Maj, M. 1996. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): Assessment of monitoring and management in the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 32 pp.

Marin, M. 1997. Some Aspects of the Breeding Biology of the Black Swift. Wilson Bulletin 109:290-306.

Martin, P. 1983. Factors influencing globe huckleberry fruit production in northwestern Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:159-165.

Maxell, B.E. 2000. Management of Montana’s amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to USFS Region 1, Order Number 43-0343-0-0224. University of Montana, Wildlife Biology Program. Missoula, Montana. 161 pp.

McCallum, D.A. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) in The Birds of North America, No. 93. A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

McEllin, S.M. 1979. Nest Sites and Population Demographies of White-breasted and Pigmy (sic) Nuthatches in Colorado. Condor 90:348-352.

McIntyre, J.W. and J.F. Barr. 1997. Common loon (Gavia immer) in The Birds of North America, No. 313. A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

McKelvey, K.S., Y.K. Ortega, G.M. Koehler, K.B. Aubry and J.D. Brittell. 2000. Canada lynx habitat and topographic use patterns in North Central Washington: A reanalysis. Ch. 10 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, J.R. Squires. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 474 pp.

Miller, R.A, K.E. deKramer and J.D. Carlisle. 2013. Black Swift Surveys Within and Around the Idaho Panhandle National Forest 2013 - Final Report. Idaho Bird Observatory, Boise, ID. 21 pp.

Deer Creek Project

70

Montana Bald Eagle Working Group. 1991. Habitat management guide for bald eagles in northwestern Montana. 29 pp.

Montana Partners in Flight. 2000. Montana bird conservation plan Version 1.1. American Bird Conservancy, Kalispell, MT. 281 pp.

Mowat, G., K.G. Poole and M. O’Donoghue. 2000. Ecology of lynx in northern Canada and Alaska. Ch. 9 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, J.R. Squires. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 474 pp.

O’Farrell, M.J. and E. H. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. Mammalian Species 137:1-5.

Paugh, J.I. 2006. Common loon nesting ecology in northwestern Montana. Master’s thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 90 pp.

Pierson, E.D., M.C. Wackenhut, J.S. Altenback, P. Bradley, P. Call, D.L. Genter, C.E. Harris, B.L. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K.W. Navo, J.M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and conservation strategy for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 73 pp.

Pilliod, D.S., E.L. Bull, J.L. Hayes, and B.C. Wales. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the Western United States: a synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-173. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 34 pp.

Powell, R.A. 1982. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota. 217 pp.

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Chapter 3 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski (tech. eds.). 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 184 pp.

Proctor, M.F., D. Paetkau, B.N. McLellan, G.B. Stenhouse, K.C. Kendall, R.D. Mace, W.F. Kasworm, C. Servheen, C.L. Lausen, M.L. Gibeau, W.L. Wakkinen, M.A. Haroldson, G. Mowat, C.D. Apps, L.M. Ciarniello, R.M.R. Barclay, M.S. Boyce, C.C. Schwartz and C. Strobeck. 2012. Population fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in western Canada and the northern United States. Wildlife Monographs 180:1-46.

Rabe, M.J., T.E. Morrell, H. Green, J.C. deVos, Jr. and C.R. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 62:612-621.

Raley, C.M., E.C. Lofroth, R.L. Truex, J.S. Yaeger and J.M. Higley. 2012. Habitat Ecology of Fishers in Western North America – a New Synthesis. Chapter 10 in Aubry, K.B., W.J. Zielinski, M.G. Raphael, G. Proulx and S.W. Buskirk (eds.). Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and Fishers – a New Synthesis. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Pp. 231-254.

Rasheed, S.A., P.F.J. Garcia and S.L. Holroyd. 1995. Status of the Fringed Myotis in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report. WR-73, pp. 1-17.

Deer Creek Project

71

Reynolds, R.T., and B.D. Linkhart. 1992. Flammulated owls in ponderosa pine: pp. 166-169 in Old-growth forests in the southwest and Rocky Mountain regions; proceedings of a workshop. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report RM-GTR-213.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 184 pp.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr030.html

Samson, F.B. 2006a. A Conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report on file, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 160 pp.

Samson, F.B. 2006b. Habitat Estimates For Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and Fisher. Unpublished report on file, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 24 pp.

Savoy, L. 2004. Assessment of Lake Habitat and Management Strategies of Breeding Common Loons in the Idaho Panhandle. Report BRI 2004-14 BioDiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine. 31 pp.

Scott, V.E. 1979. Bird Responses to Snag Removal in Ponderosa Pine. Journal of Forestry 77:26-28. Cited in Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation Assessment of the Pygmy Nuthatch in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest.

Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance amongst species of mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Management 26: 102-111.

Spencer, W.D., H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, R.M. Scheller, W. Zielinski and R. Truex. 2011. Using occupancy and population models to assess habitat conservation opportunities for an isolated carnivore population. Biol. Conserv. 144:78-803.

Sporting Conservation Council. 2008. Strengthening America’s hunting heritage and wildlife conservation in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. J. Nobile and M.D. Duda, White House Conference on North American Wildlife Policy. Oct 1–3, 2008, Washington, D.C. 128 pp.

Squires, J.R., L.F. Ruggiero, J.A. Kolbe and N.J. Decesare. 2006. Lynx Ecology of the Intermountain West. Research Program Summary. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 51 pp.

Squires, J.R., N.J. Decesare, J.A. Kolbe and L.F. Ruggiero. 2010. Seasonal resource selection of Canada lynx in managed forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. J. Wildl. Manage. 74:1648-1660.

Deer Creek Project

72

Streubel, D. 2000. Synaptomys borealis (Northern Bog Lemming). Idaho Museum of Natural History. Idaho State Univ., Pocoatello, ID. Website accessed at: http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/mammal/Rod/Mice/nble/nble.htm

Sullivan, T.P., D.S. Sullivan, P.M.F. Lindgren and D.B. Ransome. 2012. If we build habitat, will they come? Woody debris structures and conservation of forest mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 93(6):1456-1468.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Caring for our natural community. Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. North Zone Geographic Assessment (Draft): Synthesis and Interpretation of Terrestrial Information. U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region, Idaho Panhandle National Forests. August 2000.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Bark beetle conditions: Northern Region. Region 1 Forest Health Protection, Missoula Field Office, Missoula MT. 46 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. Missoula, MT. 71 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Bark beetle conditions: Northern Region 2007. Region 1 Forest Health Protection, Missoula Field Office, Missoula MT. 55 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan Monitoring Reports 2007, 2008 and 2009. Supervisor’s Office. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 150 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest plan amendments for motorized access management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery Zones. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai, Lolo and Idaho Panhandle National Forests.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan. Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 715 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Land Management Plan – 2015 Revision. Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 187 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Cabinet-Yaak/Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones 2014 Annual Monitoring Summary Report – Kootenai, Lolo and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Unpublished Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 pp.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. FS Agreement # 08-MU-1113-2400-264. 13 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 119 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT. 181 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Selkirk Mountain Caribou Recovery Plan. Portland, OR. 63 p.

Deer Creek Project

73

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status fo the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule. Federal Register 65, No. 58: p. 16052-16086.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final Rule to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Establishment of Two Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves; Final and Proposed Rules. Federal Register 68:15804-15875.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Biological Opinion on the effects of the Northern Rocky Mountains Lynx Amendment on the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) (lynx) in the contiguous United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Field Office, Helena, Montana. 85 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 25 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 87 pp. [Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>]

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reissuance of Final Rule to identify the Northern Rockies Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. May 5, 2011. Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 87: p. 25590-25592.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Biological Opinion on the Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones on the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, and Lolo National Forests. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Field Office Kalispell, Montana and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Idaho Field Office Spokane, Washington. 227 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat. June 30, 2011. Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 126: p. 38504-38532.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou; Final Rule. November 28, 2012. Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 229: p. 71042-71082.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rules. February 4, 2013. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 23: p. 7864-7890.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Delist the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland Caribou and Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing; Proposed Rule. May 8, 2014. Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 89: p. 26504-26535.

Deer Creek Project

74

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary; Final Rule. September 12, 2014. Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 177: p. 54782-54845.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico, Proposed Rule. August 13, 2014. Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 156: p. 47522-47545.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (undated). Wildfires and grizzly bears. Fact sheet # 13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain Prairie Region, Lakewood, CO.

van Woudenberg, A.M. 1999. Status of the Flammulated Owl in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-95. Victoria, BC. 41 pp.

Volsen, D.P. 1994. Habitat use of a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Selkirk Mountains of Northern Idaho and Southern British Columbia. M.S.Thesis, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 106 pp.

Wakkinen, W. L. and W. F. Kasworm. 1997. Grizzly Bear and Road Density Relationships in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones. Idaho Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 28 pp.

Wakkinen, W. L. and W. F. Kasworm. 2004. Demographics and population trends of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana and Washington. Ursus Workshop Supplement. 15(1):65-75.

Weller, T.J. and C.J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of Fringed Myotis day roosts in northern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:489-497.

Wiggins, D.A. 2004. Black Swift (Cypseloides niger): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale Trends and Management Implications. Vols. 1-3. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon.

Wright, V. 1996. Multi-scale analysis of Flammulated Owl habitat: owl distribution, habitat management, and conservation. M.S. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 91 pp.

Wright, V., S.J. Hejl and R.L. Hutto. 1997. Conservation implications of a multi-scale study of Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) habitat use in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Pp. 506-516 in Duncan, J.R., D.H. Johnson and T.H. Nichols (eds.) Biology and Conservation of Owls in the Northern Hemisphere: 2nd International Symposium, Winnipeg, Manitoba. General Technical Report NC-GTR-190. USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. 635 pp.

Zager, P., C. Jonkel and J. Habeck. 1983. Logging and wildfire influence on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:124-132.

Deer Creek Project

75

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Home range characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy 85:649-657.

Zielinski, W.J., J.R. Dunk, J.S. Yaeger and D.W. LaPlante. 2010. Developing and testing a landscape-scale habitat suitability model for fisher (Martes pennanti) in forests of interior northern California. Forest Ecology and Management 260:1579-1591.

Personal Communications

Merz, N. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Wildlife Biologist. Pers. comm. with B. Lyndaker, 2014.

Chaney, M. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Wildlife Habitat Biologist. Pers. comm. with B. Lyndaker, 2015.

Deer Creek Project

76

Statement of Findings Based on the analysis in this document, I conclude that the Deer Creek Project may impact individuals or habitat for black-backed woodpecker, bald eagle, common loon, flammulated owl, harlequin duck, pygmy nuthatch, fisher, fringed myotis, gray wolf, North American wolverine and western toad, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Additionally, the project may impact individuals or habitat, but would not cause a local or regional change in habitat quality or population status for Rocky Mountain elk and members of the landbird assemblage identified as Management Indicator Species in the 2015 revised Forest Plan (olive-sided flycatcher, dusky flycatcher, Hammond’s flycatcher, chipping sparrow and hairy woodpecker); and viability of these species would be maintained. Determinations for Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species will be made under separate Biological Assessment once a finalized action is decided upon. Preliminary analysis completed in this wildlife report indicates the project would affect Canada lynx, grizzly bear and Canada lynx critical habitat, but would have no effect to other federally listed terrestrial wildlife species or critical habitat.

Prepared by: Date Brett R. Lyndaker IPNF North Zone Wildlife Biologist

Deer Creek Project

77

Appendix A - Wildlife Species Not Analyzed in Detail

Species Not Analyzed Further The following species or their habitat may exist in the Deer Creek area, but are affected at a level that does not increase risk to the species, or effects have been adequately mitigated through project design (see “Design Features” above).

Sensitive Species

Black-Backed Woodpecker

Habitat Relationships The black-backed woodpecker occurs in montane and pine forests, where it is confined mostly to burned areas (Montana Partners in Flight 2000). In the absence of burns, this woodpecker will forage in areas with diseased trees (Hillis et al. 2002), or small patches of dead trees resulting from disturbances such as wind throw and ice damage (Bonn et al. 2007). Black-backed woodpeckers tend to flourish in early post-fire (3-5 years) habitat (Hutto 1995). They are uncommon residents of coniferous forests year-round, naturally occurring at low population levels. Following fire or insect and disease outbreaks that increase populations of wood-boring insects, they experience local population increases and temporary range extensions. Fire suppression and post-fire logging reduce habitat for black-backed woodpeckers by reducing the availability of burned areas and snags (Hutto 1995). In addition to the presence of recently burned areas, key habitat factors for black-backed woodpeckers include the presence of snags and diseased trees for foraging.

Affected Environment Historically, densities of black-backed woodpeckers experienced temporary increases in response to enhanced foraging and nesting opportunities in areas with abundant snags. In western Montana, black-backed woodpeckers were found to be most abundant in recent stand-replacing burns (Hillis et al. 2002). However, in far northern Idaho large burns have been mostly absent for the last 40 years. Years of active fire suppression have also resulted in considerable reduction of black-backed woodpecker habitat by effectively eliminating large, stand-replacing wildfires, causing populations of this species to remain at relatively low levels.

Black-backed woodpeckers are still found amid bark beetle outbreaks, although at lower densities (Hillis et al. 2002). Suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat now exists within the Deer Creek area as a result a small-scale insect infestations and other tree mortality, as there are no recently burned areas of more than a few acres. Pockets of insect infestations (particularly mountain bark beetle) can be found throughout the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Aerial surveys in 2005 (the last year for which complete aerial detection data are available for the District) mapped more than 36,500 acres of mountain pine beetle infested stands on the District, and an additional 20,200 acres of stands infested by Western balsam bark beetle (USDA Forest Service 2005). 2007 surveys found mountain pine beetle activity had “declined markedly” from earlier surveys, but had still affected more than 10,000 additional acres in the small portion of the Selkirk Mountains that was flown (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current FIA snag estimates on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests indicate that Forest-wide there are between 10.4 and 13.6 (90 percent confidence interval) snags per acre greater than 10 inches dbh (USDA Forest Service 2010), potentially providing habitat for this species.

Deer Creek Project

78

Rationale for No Further Analysis As discussed above, recent high-severity fire undoubtedly provides the best habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. While we agree with research which supports allowing fires to play a natural role, the role of mixed- and high-severity fire is generally undesirable where WUI values would be at risk as outlined in the project background and purpose and need. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a strategy of fire suppression will continue in this area into the future. The Revised Forest Plan is the guiding document for fire management activities on the IPNF, and the objective for fire management is to implement efficient fire protection and use programs based on management objectives, site-specific conditions, and expected fire occurrence and behavior. Forest-wide standards require that fire management be guided by management area standards and goals which provide direction for appropriate use of prescribed fire and initial attack strategies (Fire and Fuels Report).

None of the action alternatives would affect any recent post-fire habitat or areas of extensive bark beetle infestation. Tree mortality is expected to persist in untreated portions of the analysis area, allowing black-backed woodpeckers to maintain populations at low endemic levels. As a result, black-backed woodpecker populations would remain at reduced densities and their current distribution would be sustained. Cumulative effects from other activities in the Deer Creek Project area, in conjunction with the potential impacts from this project, may impact black-backed woodpecker to a minor degree. However, the combined effects would be of an inconsequential nature, and would not increase the risk to the species. Consequently, although alternatives 2, 3 and 4, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may impact black-backed woodpeckers or their habitat, they will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Bald Eagle

Habitat Relationships Bald eagles are winter visitors and yearlong residents of northern Idaho. They are attracted to the area's larger lakes and rivers, which provide most of their foraging opportunities (e.g., fish and waterfowl). Accordingly, bald eagles select isolated shoreline areas with larger trees to pursue such activities as nesting, feeding, and loafing. Nesting habitat usually includes dominant trees that are in close proximity to a sufficient food supply and within line-of-sight of a large body of water (usually within one-quarter mile). Nest trees typically are large ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, western larch or cottonwood trees with open crowns in areas that are relatively free from human disturbance (Montana Bald Eagle Working Group 1991). During migration and at wintering sites, eagles tend to concentrate on locally abundant food and tend to roost communally. Roost sites are usually located in stands of mature or old growth conifers that provide protection from inclement weather.

Affected Environment The majority of active or historic bald eagle nests in Boundary County are along the Kootenai River, several miles south of the Deer Creek Project area. As late as 2006, there was an occupied bald eagle nest near the southwestern edge of Perkins Lake, but no recent activity has been documented at this site. In 2014, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho biologists documented an active nest east of the lake (possibly on adjacent private land). This nest was occupied again in 2015 and has produced at least one chick (M. Chaney, pers. comm.).

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b) recommend avoiding removal of overstory trees within 100 meters (330 feet) of nest trees at any time, and avoiding timber harvest operations within 200 meters (660 feet) of nests during the breeding season (approximately

Deer Creek Project

79

mid-January through early August). The new nest location is, by conservative estimate, more than 400 meters from any proposed harvest units. There are no other known bald eagle nests in the vicinity of proposed activities in the Deer Creek Project area.

Rationale for No Further Analysis There would be no project activities within the distances recommended by the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for protection of bald eagle nests at Perkins Lake or elsewhere in the Deer Creek Project area. Additionally, there would be no impacts to suitable foraging areas, since management of water bodies in the project area (Perkins, Dawson, and Smith lakes, the Moyie River and Deer Creek) would not change. Therefore, potential effects from proposed activities would be inconsiderable. The Deer Creek Project may impact bald eagles or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Black Swift

Habitat Relationships Black swifts are a migratory bird that arrive in late May or early June and depart in September. They typically nest in small colonies, but have also been known to nest as a solitary pair. They have a strong fidelity to past nest sites (Marin 1997) and in Idaho have shown a preference for higher elevation mountains (Montana Partners in Flight 2000). Nest sites are strongly associated with falling or dripping water, high relief, inaccessibility to ground predators, unobstructed flyways in the immediate vicinity of the nest, suitable nest niches (moss covered ledges) and sites which are in the shade for most of the day (Knorr 1961, 1993).

Affected Environment Black swift nesting has been documented at only one location on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District (Copper Falls), more than 10 miles from any proposed Deer Creek Project activities. In 2013, the Idaho Bird Observatory conducted a survey of potential breeding areas on the IPNF (Miller et al. 2013). Within the Deer Creek Project area, Skin Creek Falls was identified as a potential breeding area, but no swifts were detected during surveys. The only proposed activity within one-half mile of this site is precommercial thinning – which would take place across the Moyie River and on a bench above the falls. Additionally, riparian buffers would eliminate any potential streamflow alteration to Skin Creek itself.

Rationale for No Further Analysis The main risks to this species appear to be the lack of water flow in late summer and decreases in prey densities (Wiggins 2004), with lesser risks including nest site disturbance and the use of pesticides near nest sites (Wiggins 2004, Montana Partners in Flight 2000, Colorado Partners in Flight 2000). Since the proposed alternatives are not expected to alter streamflows or reduce vegetative species diversity, and no proposed activities would be visible or audible from potential nesting sites, the Deer Creek Project would have no impact on black swift. No further analysis and discussion is necessary.

Common Loon

Habitat Relationships Common loons generally nest in clear, fish-bearing lakes surrounded by forest, with rocky shorelines, bays, islands, and floating bogs (McIntyre and Barr 1997). The species constructs ground nests on islands, floating bog islets, or other protected areas. Because of their need for large expanses of water for

Deer Creek Project

80

takeoff and landing, loons generally occur in lakes larger than 10 acres in size (USDA Forest Service 1989). The primary threats to loons are shoreline developments and recreational activities (i.e., boating, jet skiing) that interrupt nesting.

Affected Environment A habitat assessment during the summer of 2004 (Savoy 2004) identified six lakes within Boundary County that may provide common loon breeding sites (Perkins, Bonner, Brush, Smith, Dawson, and Robinson lakes). While single loons and occasionally pairs have been sighted on all of these lakes, nesting has only been documented on Bonner and Herman lakes, outside of National Forest System lands (N. Merz, pers. comm. 2015).

Within the Deer Creek Project area, loon presence has been documented each summer from 2010-2014 on both Perkins and Dawson lakes, but no successful nesting has been observed (Merz, pers. comm. 2015). Nearly the entire Perkins Lake shoreline is on NFS lands, while only a small portion of Dawson Lake is. Both lakes are shallow and contain abundant nesting habitat (Savoy 2004), with Perkins Lake likely having a higher potential for nesting due to its larger size (120 acres compared to about 35 acres) and closer proximity to breeding pairs in northwestern Montana. Although neither lake contains human developments in the form of permanent residences or campsites, both have public boat access and docks, and allow electric motors that facilitate moderate fishing activity.

Risk factors for common loon generally focus on activities in, or along the shorelines of, breeding lakes (USDA Forest Service 1989, McIntyre and Barr1997, Paugh 2006). The Deer Creek Project would not increase human use of Perkins Lake, or allow further development of the shoreline. While loons may be aware of timber harvest activities several hundred meters above the lake, it is unlikely that this type of disturbance would disrupt nesting or brood rearing activities.

Rationale for No Further Analysis The Deer Creek Project does not propose any activities that have been identified as risk factors for common loons. The effects of timber harvest several hundred meters from the shoreline of Perkins Lake on this species would be inconsequential. Therefore, this proposal may impact common loons or their habitat, they will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Harlequin Duck

Habitat Relationships Harlequin ducks are seasonal residents of whitewater streams in the northern Rockies. They are small sea ducks that winter in coastal areas and migrate hundreds of miles inland to northern Idaho, western Wyoming and western Montana to breed and rear young. Harlequins nest along clear, clean, swiftly flowing remote mountain streams located away from concentrated human activities. They arrive in northern Idaho between March and May. Nesting begins in mid-May and continues through July, with the females rearing the young through late August or September, after which they return to the coast for the winter (Cassirer and Groves 1991). Management activities that impact stream quality, including those that could increase water yield beyond the stream's capability, have the potential to impact this species. Harlequin ducks can also be affected by disturbance within approximately 200 feet (depending on density of streamside vegetation) of a nesting stream (Cassirer et al. 1996).

Deer Creek Project

81

Affected Environment In northern Idaho, breeding streams are usually associated with mature to old growth western red cedar/western hemlock or spruce/fir forest stands (Cassirer and Groves 1991). Nesting habitat includes very low gradient stream sections with braided channels, intact riparian areas with dense streamside shrub growth, and rich aquatic insect populations (Cassirer and Groves 1991). Turbulent stream sections are used for security and feeding.

Historically, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) conducted annual harlequin duck surveys on the portion of the Moyie River that traverses the Deer Creek Project area. In recent years, these surveys have been precluded by other, higher priority items. As recently as 2007, IDFG documented presence of multiple ducks on the Moyie River. Deer Creek itself also contains apparently suitable habitat, but surveys of portions of the stream from Keno Creek down to the Moyie River in 2003, 2004, 2013 and 2014 did not document any harlequin use (project file). Habitat along Deer Creek from the Road 2541 bridge downstream appears to be of better quality (more dense, streamside vegetation) than that of the upper section. Other streams in the project area (Meadow Creek and Skin Creek) are likely too small to support nesting for this species.

As discussed above, risk factors for this species include activities that affect riparian habitats, water yield, and water quality, or increase disturbance during the breeding season (Cassirer et al. 1996). All proposed Deer Creek Project activities would take place at least several hundred meters horizontal distance, and on the bench above, these stream segments. Additionally, screening cover (in the form of riparian vegetation) would be maintained, so disturbance to ducks during the breeding season would be unlikely and of minor consequence. Finally, best management practices would limit project effects to water yield and quality. Therefore, while ducks may be present during project activities, potential effects would be inconsiderable.

Rationale for No Further Analysis Harlequin ducks may be present in the Moyie River or Deer Creek during project implementation. However, all proposed activities would be some distance (both horizontally and vertically) removed from these streams. There would be no modifications to riparian habitat or disturbance to breeding or nesting ducks, and project activities would not affect water quality in potential breeding streams. As a result, the Deer Creek Project may impact individual harlequin ducks or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. No further analysis and discussion is necessary.

Gray Wolf

Habitat Relationships Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the dog family (Canidae), and typically prey on medium and large mammals. Prey species in the Northern Rockies include white-tailed and mule deer, moose, elk, woodland caribou, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, beaver, and snowshoe hare, with small mammals, birds, and large invertebrates sometimes being taken (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Opportunistic feeders, they will also prey on carrion when it is available. Habitat can include forests of all types, rangelands, brush land, steppes, agricultural lands, wetlands, deserts, tundra, and barren ground areas.

Wolves are highly social animals requiring large areas to roam and feed. They exhibit no particular habitat preference relative to vegetative structure and composition. Rather, high prey densities (particularly big game) and isolation from human disturbance characterize quality wolf habitat. Other important habitat features for wolves include den and rendezvous sites (Hansen 1986).

Deer Creek Project

82

Affected Environment The northern Rocky Mountain wolf (a subspecies of the gray wolf) was listed as endangered in 1973. However, based on enforcement problems and a trend to recognize fewer subspecies of wolves, the full species was listed as endangered throughout the entire lower 48 states, except Minnesota, in 1978 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). In the past, substantial declines in numbers of wolves resulted from control efforts to reduce livestock and big game depredations, and the Rocky Mountain wolf was essentially eradicated from its range by the 1940's. However, wolf reintroductions in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the 1990s, along with protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act, produced a rapid increase in gray wolf population numbers in the Northern Rockies. By 2002, gray wolves had exceeded recovery goals in the Northern Rockies, and have been delisted since May 5, 2011 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a).

Historically wolves were distributed throughout most of Idaho in unknown populations. Wolf packs of four to ten animals appear to have ranged widely in the mountains of northern and central Idaho. A decline of native ungulates, control programs designed to eradicate wolves and conflicts with livestock and humans caused the decline of wolf populations and led to the absence of a breeding population in Idaho (Hansen 1986).

The Deer Creek Project area supports populations of moose, elk, white-tailed and mule deer. While no specific population numbers are available for prey species in this part of Idaho, these species are common and provide ample prey base for wolves. In 2007, a female wolf collared the previous summer denned on the slopes above (east of) Solomon Lake. The pack was ultimately named “Solomon” and counted toward Idaho recovery objectives, although it subsequently spent most of its time further east in Meadow Creek, Montana (project file). Although the pack has not denned in the project since, evidence of wolf use (and active trapping) is apparent around Solomon Mountain – and it is reasonable to assume that wolves are occasionally present in the area.

Additionally, wolves have been observed on and around Dawson Ridge in recent years, and denning has been documented on Wall Mountain a few miles north of the Deer Creek Project area. It is unknown if this activity is from the Boundary Pack, the Copper Falls Pack, or another previously undocumented pack (Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Nez Perce Tribe 2012).

Rationale for No Further Analysis Although they apparently denned above Solomon Lake in 2007, the Solomon pack has since confined pup-rearing activities to the Meadow Creek drainage several miles further east. No other packs are known to den in the Deer Creek Project area. In the event that any den or rendezvous sites were discovered that could be affected by proposed timber harvest, temporal and/or spatial buffers would be implemented as needed (see “Design Features” section). Under alternatives 2 and 4, these restrictions could potentially affect a number of units east of Solomon Lake, including all or portions of units 13, 18, 18A, 19, 19A and 20. These units would be eliminated from alternative 3.

There would be no reductions in prey densities as a result of the proposal, and the action alternatives are likely to result in benefits to both wolves and the ungulates that they feed on through increased forage production following implementation. Due to the ability of gray wolves to thrive under a variety of land uses, successful wolf recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains does not depend on land-use restrictions, with the possible exception of temporary restrictions around active den sites on federally managed lands (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities would not increase motorized access or negatively affect prey species. As a result, the Deer Creek Project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may impact gray wolf or their habitat,

Deer Creek Project

83

but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

North American Wolverine

Habitat Relationships Wolverines are a low density, wide-ranging species occurring over a wide variety of alpine, boreal and arctic habitats. They are primarily scavengers but will also hunt small animals and birds, and eat fruits, berries and insects (Hornocker and Hash 1981). The southern portion of the species’ range extends into high-elevation portions of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California and Colorado. While Hornocker and Hash (1981) reported that wolverines tended to use lower elevations in the winter and higher elevations in summer, more recent research (Copeland et al. 2010) states that in montane habitats at southerly latitudes, wolverines remain at high elevations throughout the year. Instead, the presence of persistent spring snow cover (i.e., snow cover from April 24 through May 15) has been determined to define wolverine habitat year-round (Aubry et al. 2007). A review of wolverine research in nine radiotelemetry study areas revealed that approximately 95 percent of summer locations and 86 percent of winter locations fell within areas that had persistent spring snow cover at least one of seven years (Copeland et al. 2010).

Female wolverines give birth and rear young from mid-February to approximately the end of March in dens excavated in (often deep) snow. While dens in Idaho have been reported as occurring on “rocky sites, such as north-facing boulder talus or subalpine cirques” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013), Copeland et al. (2010) found that female wolverines also showed a preference for denning in habitats that had persistent spring snow cover at least five of seven years.

Because wolverine habitat is generally associated with areas of limited human presence, it has been suggested that the species actively avoids human activities (see, for example, Hornocker and Hash 1981). However, Copeland et al. (2010) stress that no causal relationship has ever been established for the spatial separation between wolverine use and human settlement, and suggest that areas associated with persistent snow (that include wolverine use and den sites) are generally removed from areas with human habitation or high levels of human use. Nonetheless, human-caused mortality (mostly from trapping and poisoning) in areas of historical (before 1961) overlap has been identified as a likely cause of reduced populations (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013) and range loss (Aubry et al. 2007); and trapping of only a few individuals can negatively affect some populations (Lofroth and Ott 2007). Improved motorized access increases the potential for human/wolverine interactions, which can lead to shooting loss or incidental take by trapping (wolverines are occasionally taken by trappers focusing on other furbearers such as bobcat and American marten).

Affected Environment Current wolverine populations and trends in the contiguous U.S. are unknown. The scarcity of information is largely due to the difficulty and expense in studying an animal that is solitary and secretive, and found mostly in remote areas at low densities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that approximately 250-300 individuals occupy this area, with the bulk occurring in the Northern Rockies (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013).

In 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the Northern Rockies distinct population segment of North American wolverine under the Endangered Species Act (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). However, based on their review of the best available scientific and commercial information, they determined that wolverine appear to be little affected by habitat modifications and

Deer Creek Project

84

changes to the vegetative characteristics derived from land management activities such as timber harvest and prescribed fire. Furthermore, the proposed rule determined that the types of forest roads associated with wolverine habitat are unlikely to affect wolverine movement. Consequently it was determined that these types of land management activities would not significantly affect the conservation of the U.S. population of wolverine (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). On August 13, 2014, the USFWS withdrew its proposal to list the wolverine, finding that current and future factors affecting wolverine were “not of sufficient imminence, intensity or magnitude to indicate that the wolverine is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened)” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014c).

Several thousand acres of the Deer Creek Project area are modeled to have persistent spring snow cover (at least one of seven years), about 300 acres of which had persistent spring snow cover for at least five of seven years (potential denning habitat). This potential denning habitat is in a single block high on Goat Mountain at the southeastern corner of the project area. The only project activities that overlap with areas of persistent spring snow cover are burn unit 4 (144 acres) and a small portion (less than 5 acres) of burn unit 3. A portion of burn unit 4 coincides with modeled denning habitat, but burning would not take place at this elevation during the denning season: the burn unit is generally above 6,000 feet elevation, so would likely be burned in the fall or, if in spring, sometime after the middle of May. Habitat alteration as a result of burning would have minor impacts to this species, as it uses a variety of habitats for foraging. While prey densities (ungulates and small mammals) may initially be reduced immediately following burning, they are expected to recover and likely increase within a year of burning activities.

All other proposed activities (timber harvest, road work, etc.) are at least one-third mile from any areas of persistent spring snow cover. While wolverines require large, remote areas to roam and feed, these activities are located in low-elevation, developed (roaded) portions of the District where wolverine presence is unlikely and fleeting at best. There are no confirmed observations of wolverines near proposed activity areas. Given their wide-ranging nature, it is not unreasonable to assume wolverines may be present, although their presence is likely to be transitory. However, any disturbance to wolverine as a result of project activities would be temporary, and ample displacement habitat is available in adjacent areas.

Rationale for No Further Analysis Proposed Deer Creek Project activities are generally located on a portion of National Forest System lands characterized by open roads and past timber harvest. While these areas provide foraging opportunities for wolverine, they do not represent the secure habitat that wolverine seem to prefer. The closest potential maternal denning habitat is more than one mile from any proposed timber harvest or road work activities. There would be no increase in motorized access in the vicinity of persistent spring snow cover areas (and a slight decrease under alternatives 2 and 4). As a result, the chance of human/wolverine interactions and subsequent mortality risk would not increase. Ungulate populations are at or near all-time highs in the Northern Idaho Panhandle (IDFG 2004) and are expected to benefit from the proposed timber harvest and burning (see “Rocky Mountain Elk” section, below). Foraging habitat does not appear to be limiting to wolverines in this area currently or in the foreseeable future.

The Deer Creek Project would affect less than 150 acres (burn unit 4 and a portion of burn unit 3) of year-round wolverine habitat (persistent spring snow cover areas). The habitat changes as a result of these burns would have minor effects on this species, and impacts to prey densities would be temporary. The effects to habitat would be minute relative to the scale of a wolverine home range (approximately 34,840-122,56 acres (141-496 km2) in Glacier National Park, MT (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a)). While about 60 acres of potential maternal denning habitat could be affected by burning, this burning would not take place during the denning period. As a result, potential impacts to wolverine or their habitat would be discountable (small in scale) and insignificant (proposed activities are not considered to

Deer Creek Project

85

be a threat to the species). Consequently, the action alternatives, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may impact North American wolverine or their habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Habitat Relationships Although Townsend’s big-eared bats occur in a wide variety of habitats, distribution tends to be correlated with the availability of caves, especially old mine workings (Pierson et al. 1999). Large trees appear to be a relatively minor component of Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat. Pierson et al. (1999) characterize this bat as “primarily a cave dwelling species that also roosts in man-made cave analogues” and cites only one observation of the species roosting in coast redwood and California bay laurel cavities. Their behavior appears, in most cases, to be temperature driven with bats using cooler sites before the young are born and moving to warmer sites after the young are born. In spring and summer, females form maternity colonies in warm parts of caves, mines and buildings. In winter, they prefer relatively cool places for hibernation, often near entrances and in well-ventilated parts of caves and mines (Kunz and Martin 1982).

Affected Environment Townsend’s big-eared bats occur throughout much of the western North America, from British Columbia to Mexico, and eastward to Texas (Pierson et al. 1999). Throughout much of their range they are recognized as species at risk. They are currently listed as a Northern Region sensitive species and considered species of special concern by most western states’ wildlife management agencies. Records of Townsend’s are found throughout the state of Idaho.

The most serious factor leading to population declines is loss and/or disturbance of suitable roosting habitat. Most notable threats include abandoned mine closures, recreational caving, and renewed mining at historical sites (Pierson et al. 1999). As the Forest Service closes more mines with bat-accessible gates, human disturbance would decrease and habitat would be improved for this species and other bats which roost in abandoned mines.

Townsend’s big-eared bats have been documented at a few sites on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District, including the American Girl and Bethlehem mines several miles northwest of the project area. Natural cave habitat is limited or nonexistent on the ranger district, and we are currently unaware of any abandoned buildings on NFS lands in the project area (potential roosting habitat) that would be affected by proposed activities.

Rationale for No Further Analysis Townsend’s big-eared bats have not been documented in the Deer Creek area. There would be no project activities within one-quarter mile (radius of buffer zone recommended by Pierson et al. 1999) of potential roosting habitat. As a result, the project would have no impact on the Townsend's big-eared bat. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Coeur d'Alene Salamander

Habitat Relationships Coeur d'Alene salamanders are small salamanders that choose seeps and wet sites, usually with rock that contains deep fissures that enable them to moderate their temperature by avoiding outside air. Known populations occur in association with fractured rock formations often found in the Belt rock formations.

Deer Creek Project

86

They have been found in three types of select habitats: seeps and springs, waterfall spray zones, and stream edges (Groves et al. 1996). Coeur d'Alene salamanders are usually found above ground at night during moist weather in the spring and fall and retreat into the narrow spaces between fractured rocks to avoid drying out in the summer and freezing in the winter.

Affected Environment Although they likely were once widely distributed in the northern Rocky Mountains, Coeur d’Alene salamanders currently maintain a disjunct distribution limited to isolated populations in northern Idaho, northwestern Montana, and southeastern British Columbia. Where they have been investigated, Coeur d'Alene salamanders have been found to be locally abundant but limited to appropriate microhabitats within their range (Groves 1988). Because of its limited range and specific habitat association, this species has been listed as a sensitive species by the Northern Region of the Forest Service, and is also a state species of special concern in Idaho and Montana.

Information on Coeur d’Alene salamander population trends in northern Idaho is not available. On the Bonners Ferry Ranger District, the species is known to occur in the Purcell Mountains but has not been recorded west of the Kootenai River, presumably due to inappropriate geology. The Deer Creek Project area is located in the Purcell Mountains, where there are rocky seeps and small, relatively high-gradient streams that may provide habitat for Coeur d’Alene salamanders.

In 2013, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) identified 6 potential Coeur d’Alene salamander sites within the project area. Five of the potential sites were remotely sensed (identified through map and other data) and one was based on a historical observation. The site of this observation, along with one of the remotely sensed sites, were investigated. No suitable habitat was found at either location: the remotely sensed site did not contain a wet site or fractured rock features, and the other site was along a streamside zone but did not provide fractured rock or wet, seepy rock at the location of the reported observation.

It is possible that Coeur d’Alene salamanders may be present in the project area during implementation. However, best management practices would limit effects to any seasonally or perennially wet sites that are identified during unit layout – and any such sites would be buffered appropriately. As a result, impacts to this species or its habitat from project activities are not expected.

Rationale for No Further Analysis Although suitable salamander habitat may be present (live stream edges and seeps/springs) within the planning area, impacts to these areas would be avoided through treatment area design and application of INFS standards. Since design criteria would ensure that suitable habitat is excluded from proposed treatment areas, this project would have no impact on the Coeur d'Alene salamander. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Western Toad

Habitat Relationships Western (boreal) toads are found in a wide variety of habitats in the mountains and mountain valleys. Breeding takes place from May to July in shallow areas of large and small lakes, beaver ponds, temporary ponds, slow moving streams, and backwater channels of rivers (Maxell 2000). After a brief spring breeding season, adult toads leave aquatic habitats and travel up to several miles to a variety of upland habitats that include marshes, wet meadows, or forested areas. Adults can remain away from surface water for relatively long periods of time. Young toads are restricted in distribution and movement by

Deer Creek Project

87

available moist habitat, but also may disperse more than 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) from their natal sites (Maxell 2000). Both adults and juveniles overwinter and shelter in underground caverns, rodent burrows, beaver dams, and slash piles that maintain high humidity and above-freezing temperatures (Loeffler 1998).

Affected Environment Survey results combined with incidental observations indicate that this species is found throughout much of northern Idaho. While toads may be widespread across the landscape, it is unknown in what proportion of suitable habitat they occur. Surveys conducted in the northern Rocky Mountains in the 1990s revealed that toads were absent from a large portion of their historic range and occupied a small proportion of suitable habitat (Maxell 2000). As a result of these findings, the Regional Forester listed the boreal toad as a sensitive species in the Northern Region.

Reasons for the decline of the western toad have not been defined with any degree of certainty. However, habitat alterations from timber harvest, grazing, recreation, and water development would likely “not be beneficial to long-term enhancement of western toad habitats” (Loeffler 1998). One hypothesis explaining the western toad decline concerns mortality caused by disease or some other widespread agent, such as the Chytrid fungus (Maxell 2000).

The primary risk factor for western toad populations is loss of breeding habitat. Indirect effects to breeding habitat have the potential to occur if there is increased sediment delivery to wetlands and waterways as a result of increased roads and tree removal. In the Deer Creek Project area, potential breeding habitat is most likely found in or adjacent to the numerous shallow lakes present, including Perkins, Solomon and Dawson. Additionally, breeding habitat may also be provided by backwater areas along the Moyie River, Deer or Meadow creeks; and by small areas of standing water adjacent to springs, seeps and minor streams. Steep road cuts can be a barrier to toads moving between seasonal habitats and also a direct source of mortality from vehicles. Juvenile toads are also vulnerable to being killed by motorized vehicles when they are dispersing from their natal ponds.

Since toads utilize a variety of forested habitats, historical timber harvest and associated road building is thought to have had some impacts on toads in the form of occasional direct mortality from vehicles. Similar to this project, the effects of many of these events were likely short-term during the logging and fuels treatment phases, and surviving toads would have resumed normal activities afterward. Logging activity that resulted in large openings would likely have temporarily displaced use in those areas since toads have an affinity for forested cover in upland areas. However, these areas would have regenerated to the point where adequate cover and shade were provided within 5 to 10 years. Physical alteration of habitats (trampling) from off-road vehicle use likely has minor effects to this species since it uses a variety of upland habitats, but direct mortality from tires may take place here as well. Post-harvest fuels treatments, particularly broadcast burning during spring, may also present a risk of direct toad mortality. However, research has indicated that western toads may benefit from fuels reduction treatments and appear to be attracted to recently disturbed areas (Pilliod et al. 2006).

Western toad presence has been observed throughout much of the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. They are known to breed from the Kootenai River Valley to all but the highest elevations. There is no evidence of decline on the District; however, it is assumed that numbers were greater in the past than now primarily due to the loss of wetland habitat across various ownerships. An increase in roading, particularly in developed, low elevation areas, may also be a mortality factor. Western toads have been documented in recent years at several locations in the Deer and Meadow creek drainages (project file).

Deer Creek Project

88

Rationale for No Further Analysis Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 may impact individual toads during project implementation. However, this risk is considerably reduced by project design features including timing restrictions, Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFS) buffers and best management practices. All streams and wetlands larger than one acre in size are buffered from activity by at least 150 feet. Smaller springs, seeps, and wetlands would be buffered by at least 75 feet if any are identified near harvest units. No timber harvest activities would occur between April 1 and June 15 in the Keno BMU, protecting habitat around Solomon Lake during the time period when the majority of breeding by this species would take place. As a result, the potential for disturbance to breeding habitat and reproduction is discountable.

Other present and reasonable foreseeable activities within the analysis area would not affect breeding habitat, and potential mortality to individual toads from traffic related to these activities would be minor and is accounted for by assessing motorized access. While the action alternatives may affect individual toads to differing extents based on acres affected, they are not expected to be measurably different at the population level. Consequently, the Deer Creek Project in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions may impact western toads or their habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Management Indicator Species

Rocky Mountain Elk

Habitat Relationships Rocky Mountain elk are widely distributed throughout Idaho, using a variety of vegetation types ranging from sagebrush deserts in the southern portion of the state to dense cedar-hemlock forests in the north. They are considered habitat generalists, and their basic requirements include forage, water, and, where they are hunted, hiding cover and “secure” areas. Lower elevation winter range with good cover and forage or browse is also important to elk.

Because of their popularity as a hunted species, elk are particularly vulnerable to disturbance emanating from increased human access into elk habitat. As a result, motorized access management is viewed as an important tool for managing elk populations in Idaho. The IPNF Revised Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2013, 2015) addresses this issue through the concept of “elk security” - roughly based on recommendations from Hillis et al. (1991).

Affected Environment The Rocky Mountain elk is classified as G5 (secure; common, widespread, and abundant) globally and N5 (secure; common, widespread, and abundant) nationally in the U.S. In Idaho it is ranked as S5 (secure; common, widespread, and abundant). Statewide elk populations have increased over the last 50 years and remain strong in much of the state, although some historically popular herds have recently been in decline (IDFG 2011).

The Deer Creek area is in Game Management Unit (GMU) 1 in the “Panhandle” Elk Zone. According to Idaho Department of Fish and Game, elk habitat has declined in quality in the zone since the 1950s and 1960s, and continues to do so due to the absence of large-scale stand-replacing fire (IDFG 2011). Exact population numbers and trends are not known for GMU 1, since aerial census surveys in the Panhandle Zone mostly take place in Coeur d’Alene River and St. Joe Game Management Units.

Deer Creek Project

89

Elk were designated as MIS in the revised Forest Plan due to concerns over elk security. The security area calculations associated with Hillis et al. (1991) are based on open motorized routes. Since much of the North (Kaniksu) Zone of the IPNF already has considerable security as a result of grizzly bear management, revised Forest Plan direction for elk security only applies the two southern zones (Coeur d’Alene River and St. Joe) and a small portion of the North Zone east of Lake Pend Oreille.

Rationale for No Further Analysis Since elk are not managed as MIS on this portion of the IPNF, elk habitat units (EHUs; land areas used for tracking elk habitat potential) have never been delineated for the Deer Creek Project area. There are no revised Forest Plan standards or guidelines that apply to this species in the project area.

In the absence of disturbance, Rocky Mountain elk forage in the Deer Creek area would continue to decline as more of the area becomes closed-canopy conifer stands. The productivity of most big game populations is dependent on habitat and forage conditions on their summer ranges, and most of these ranges are successional in that the adequacy of the forage base is dependent to a large extent on periodic disturbance. Therefore, restoration and maintenance of big game populations and their productivity requires sufficiently recurrent and widespread disturbance to replenish nutritionally adequate forage that, in the absence of periodic disturbance, would otherwise be lost as the vegetation on the landscape matures through succession (Sporting Conservation Council 2009).

Rocky Mountain elk are expected to benefit from improved forage quality and quantity as a result of the proposed regeneration timber harvest and burning, while the no-action alternative may not provide the disturbance necessary to replenish forage lost to succession. The project would not increase mortality risk for hunted big game species in the analysis area. Even though these species may be temporarily displaced during project activities, they are expected to reoccupy affected areas relatively quickly once activities cease and forage plants become reestablished. While individuals may be affected, the project would not alter the general distribution or permanently decrease population numbers of affected ungulates. As a result, the Deer Creek Project in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions may impact Rocky Mountain elk at a local level, but would not likely cause a local or regional change in habitat quality or population status.

Landbird Assemblage

Habitat Relationships The landbird assemblage consists of five species of insectivores that are considered MIS for vegetation change associated with timber harvest and fuels reduction. This MIS landbird assemblage is to be used to analyze progress towards the desired conditions for vegetation. The landbird assemblage consists of the chipping sparrow, hairy woodpecker, Hammond’s flycatcher, olive-sided flycatcher and dusky flycatcher.

The chipping sparrow prefers open, coniferous woodlands, edges near openings, and early-successional forests with shrubs. They feed in low vegetation or on the ground for insects and the seeds of grasses and annuals.

The hairy woodpecker uses coniferous forests, including mature forests, along with edges and burned areas. They utilize cavities in snags for nesting. They primarily feed on insects found on the surface or subsurface of trees.

The Hammond's flycatcher uses mature coniferous forests that contain canopy openings. They primarily capture aerial insects by flycatching.

Deer Creek Project

90

The olive-sided flycatcher uses open coniferous forests, edges near openings, or early-successional forests if they contain residual conifers or snags to provide singing and foraging perches. They primarily capture aerial insects by flycatching.

The dusky flycatcher uses open coniferous forests, open areas with scattered trees, and brushy areas. They primarily capture aerial insects by flycatching.

Affected Environment The population status for chipping sparrow, hairy woodpecker, Hammond’s flycatcher and dusky flycatcher is considered to be secure, common, widespread and abundant throughout their range in Idaho. The olive-sided flycatcher is considered to be apparently secure, uncommon but not rare with some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

Suitable habitat for each these species can be found within the Deer Creek Project area. Surveys conducted by the Idaho Bird Observatory as part of the IMBCR monitoring detected each of these species in multiple locations on the IPNF in 2012 (Carlisle and Pollock 2012).

General stressors on the landbird assemblage stem from the potential for habitat loss, displacement or mortality throughout their range (on and off NFS lands) caused by a decline in large snag availability, fire suppression (resulting in dense young stands, encroachment of conifers into openings and the loss of open forest structure), selective timber harvest with subsequent replanting of closely spaced seedlings, intensive grazing, alteration/loss of wintering habitat and wind turbines.

Management activities on NFS lands that have the potential to impact the landbird assemblage include timber harvest resulting in the loss of snags/large trees, fire (both planned and natural ignitions) causing removal of standing snags or direct mortality, fire suppression resulting in the loss of openings and open forest structure, road maintenance and construction due to habitat loss and access for firewood harvest, and recreational use resulting in habitat loss or disturbance.

Rationale for No Further Analysis All action alternatives are designed to move the project area toward the Desired Conditions for vegetation and fire by providing a similar diversity of habitats and pattern as would have been found historically under natural disturbance processes. These alternatives would contribute toward more resilient vegetative stands on the landscape, focusing on important habitat components such as snags, mature forest, openings/edge habitat and open forest. In doing so, they would maintain or improve habitat conditions for insectivorous landbirds (and their prey) in the long term (15 years or more). While landbirds may be temporarily displaced during implementation, habitat would remain abundant (and would slowly increase) following project activities.

There would be no impacts to old growth as a result of this proposal. While these insectivores are not dependent on old growth, old growth can contribute to available habitat for those species that use mature forests. Additionally, design features would protect large trees and snags, which will provide nesting habitat. The Deer Creek Project would also contribute toward providing habitat for the landbird assemblage from planned ignitions through the burn only prescription on nearly 700 acres associated with the action alternatives.

A limited amount of habitat alteration and the potential for disturbance to individuals in the landbird assemblage could occur during project activities as a result of the proposed action. However, these potential impacts are expected to be minimal and would do little to hinder the attainment or maintenance of the desired conditions for these species. For the landbird assemblage, as with wildlife on the IPNF in general, it is wildfire, insects and disease, in-growth, and stand succession that largely determines the

Deer Creek Project

91

amount and pattern of habitat for these species rather than management activities. Consequently, the Deer Creek Project in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions may impact individuals or habitat, but would not indicate a local or regional change in habitat quality or population status. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Species Not Relevant to the Project The following species were not considered relevant to the Deer Creek Project because they are presumed not to be present within the action area (area where effects of the project may be felt) based on the distribution of the species, the habitat requirements of the species, and the current habitat conditions in the action area.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Woodland Caribou The Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou population was emergency-listed as endangered in 1983, and a final ruling of its status occurred in 1994 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). On November 28, 2012, FWS designated critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). On May 8, 2014 FWS proposed a revision of the current woodland caribou listing based on defining the Southern Mountain Caribou DPS and designating it as threatened under the ESA (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014a).

This caribou population is generally found above 4,000 feet elevation in the Selkirk Mountains in Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and western red cedar/western hemlock forest types. They are highly adapted to upper elevation boreal forests and do not occur in drier low elevation habitats except as rare transients. The recovery area for the population is in the Selkirk Mountains of northern Idaho, northeastern Washington and southern British Columbia, Canada. Since the Deer Creek area provides no suitable habitat for woodland caribou and is outside areas designated for its recovery, it was not included on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list for this project. Consequently, this project would not affect woodland caribou. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Sensitive Species

American Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons are seasonal migrants, nesting in the northern temperate regions while wintering in the tropics and subtropics. They nest on sheer cliffs with overhanging ledges or potholes and a vertical surface that are typically higher than 100 feet and provide protection from predation. Foraging areas associated with nest sites can include wooded areas, riparian habitats, marshes and open water. In June, 2006, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Fish & Wildlife Department located a peregrine falcon eyrie on the cliffs along the Kootenai River east of Bonners Ferry, Idaho – about 14 miles south of the project area. The eyrie is on private land directly across the Kootenai River from an isolated parcel of National Forest System lands. There are no suitable cliffs, known historic or current eyries near the Deer Creek area. Because of the lack of suitable nesting habitat, the Deer Creek Project would have no impact on peregrine falcons or their habitat. No further analysis and discussion is necessary.

Deer Creek Project

92

Northern Bog Lemming Northern bog lemmings are found in sphagnum bogs, wet meadows, moist mixed and coniferous forests, alpine sedge meadows, krummholz spruce-fir forests with dense herbaceous and mossy understory, and mossy streamsides (Streubel 2000). They feed on grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous vegetation, but also snails, slugs, and other invertebrates (Foresman 2001). There is no alpine wet meadow or fen/bog habitat in the project area or documented bog lemming sightings on this part of the District. Therefore, the Deer Creek Project would have no impact on the northern bog lemming. No further analysis and discussion is necessary.

Deer Creek Project

93

Appendix B - Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan Idaho Panhandle National Forests employees, volunteers, contractors, subcontractors, and other Federal/State agencies will comply with the following requirements in the conduct of any activities conducted in or adjacent to BMUs on National Forest System lands. This protection plan will be made available to all personnel conducting activity within or adjacent to BMUs and will be displayed in a conspicuous location at any contractor/subcontractors place of business and in each camp. This plan will be reviewed during a pre-work meeting with contractors; and with Forest Service employees/volunteers in conjunction with Job Hazard Analysis reviews.

1. All personnel involved in activities within grizzly bear habitat on National Forest land will be given information relating to identification of bear species and human conduct prior to the start of activities. Brochures concerning human use in grizzly country and bear identification are available at Forest Service offices. The contractor is responsible for making employees aware of the following information:

a. The grizzly bear is classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

b. The Forest Service is mandated to conduct management activities in a manner that promotes recovery of all threatened and endangered species.

c. The areas they are working in are within grizzly bear habitat and are essential to the recovery of the bear.

d. Grizzly bear/human encounters are possible.

e. In compliance with the IPNF Food Storage Order, the proper techniques of food handling and storage, travel, camping, and other such activities are required to reduce opportunities for conflict.

f. Penalties for illegal killing of grizzly bears include up to $100,000 fine and one year in jail.

2. All personnel will be given a copy of the IPNF Food Storage Order and will adhere to the requirements contained within it.

3. The contractor will adhere to all restrictions as outlined in current Idaho Panhandle National Forests Motor Vehicle Use Map, unless authorized otherwise.

4. The responsible party shall report the death and location of livestock to a Forest Service official within 24 hours of discovery.

5. The responsible party shall report any human/bear conflicts or grizzly bear observations to the Forest Service.

Additional Camping Provisions

1. Dispose of human waste and gray water in a pit or hole, well away from campsites. Cover with sod or topsoil.

2. Follow “Leave no Trace” techniques.

Deer Creek Project

94

Human Safety Provisions

1. If you observe a grizzly bear - detour or leave the area. A sow with cubs is particularly dangerous, as is a bear that has been surprised.

2. Use caution in approaching carcasses or gut pile.

Deer Creek Project

95

Appendix C - Summary of IGBC (1986) Guidelines relative to the Deer Creek Project Elements from Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines for Timber and Fire Management

How the Proposed Project Minimizes Conflicts

1) All proposed logging and burning activities will be evaluated for their effects upon grizzly bears and/or their habitat.

The potential effects of each alternative are analyzed in the Biological Evaluation (Wildlife Report). A Biological Assessment will be produced and submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Consultation on the project will be completed prior to a decision being issued.

2) Timber sale and fire management EA‘s will specify agency grizzly management goals and measures to meet them. Contracts will include specific measures to protect, maintain and/or improve grizzly habitat and meet grizzly management goals and objectives. Timber sale contracts will include a clause providing for cancellation or temporary cessation of activities if such are needed to resolve a grizzly-human conflict situation. Contractors‘ full cooperation in meeting grizzly management goals and objectives will be a condition of their receiving and holding contracts (NP burning).

The Deer Creek Wildlife Report (p. 32-35) identifies the management goals for the Keno BMU (Forest Plan Appendix JJ regarding core, OMRD and TMRD). Pages 33-40 of the Wildlife Report detail how the various alternatives would maintain these goals. There are currently no IPNF goals or objectives regarding vegetative habitat components with respect to grizzly bear habitat. Timber sale contract clause B(T)6.25, Protection of Threatened, Endangered And Sensitive Species, is included in all timber sale contracts. This clause allows for alteration of contracts to adequately protect any TES species identified during implementation. Additionally, timber sale contractors would be given a copy of the Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan (Appendix B), and plan elements would be discussed in the purchaser pre-op meeting.

3) Logging and/or fire management activities which will adversely affect grizzly bear populations or their habitat will not be permitted1. Adverse population effects are population reductions and/or grizzly positive conditioning. Adverse habitat effects are reductions in habitat quantity and/or quality (NP burning).

Although the project has the potential to temporarily displace grizzly bears if they were present during implementation, ample displacement habitat is available adjacent to the project area and there would be a decrease in the risk of mortality as a result of the project. A Biological Assessment will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to assure that tree harvest, subsequent burning, and road management activities would not adversely affect (“jeopardize”) grizzly bear populations. The Deer Creek Project would not permanently reduce habitat quality or quantity, and the project design would result in habitat improvements after implementation is complete.

4) Grizzly habitat will be improved through vegetation manipulation. Silvicultural treatment, sale area improvement and managed burning are the methods to accomplish manipulation (NF, BLM). Logging and burning activities will occur at a time or season when the area is of little or no biological importance to grizzlies. Where winter logging is infeasible, summer logging operations will be restricted in time and space to prevent significant disruptions of normal or expected grizzly activities.

The proposed activities are expected to improve vegetative habitat components by resulting in openings that would increase production of succulent forbs, berries, ungulates, and small mammals that are important food items for grizzly bears. All proposed units would be underburned where feasible, as recommended in the IGBC Guidelines document. Fall is the preferred time period for underburning proposed units, but fire management constraints may require spring burning. Additionally, the IGBC Guidelines recommend spring burning as a method of slash disposal (IGBC 1986 p. 10). No other project activities would be allowed within the Keno BMU during the grizzly bear

Deer Creek Project

96

Elements from Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines for Timber and Fire Management

How the Proposed Project Minimizes Conflicts

spring season (4/1-6/15). 5) Grizzly habitat enhancement through silvicultural treatment, sale area improvement, or managed burning will not be done in close proximity to private property, resorts, campgrounds, summer homes, other recreation sites or areas which could bring grizzlies in contact with humans.

None of the proposed treatments are in close proximity to private property. Under alternative 3, there would be no enhancement of grizzly bear habitat in areas where bears are expected to be in contact with humans. Regeneration harvest is proposed under alternatives 2 and 4 approximately 0.3 miles from the Solomon Lake dispersed recreation site. However, required sanitation measures (compliance with the IPNF Food Storage Order) should help minimize conflicts between grizzly bears and recreationists.

6) All roads used for timber sale purposes will be single purpose roads only, and will be closed to public use not associated with timber sale operation and administration. Exceptions could be: (a) Seasonal closures if data show grizzlies use of the area to be seasonal and the road facilitates other important resource use that would not be possible without the road (b) Roads could be open for short periods, such as for hunting seasons and wood gathering, if human use is of short duration.

Currently restricted roads, reconstructed non-system roads, and temporary roads used for timber sale activities would not be available for public use during sale activities. These roads are seasonally open for public use during the grizzly bear denning period (12/1-3/31). Reconstructed non-system roads would be placed in storage, and temporary roads obliterated, following project activities under both action alternatives that propose timber harvest in the Keno BMU.

7) Timber sale operators and their employees will be informed of possible risks any time they are operating in grizzly country.

Timber sale contractors would be given a copy of the Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan (Appendix B). Plan elements would be discussed in the purchaser pre-op meeting.

8) Temporary living facilities for timber sale operators will be closely regulated. Edibles and/or garbage will not be allowed to accumulate or be available for grizzlies. Bear proof (resistant) refuse containers and refuse collection to prevent overflow will be required. Requirements will be included in sale contracts.

There is no anticipated need for temporary living facilities for timber sale operators for the Deer Creek Project.

9) In fire camps, measures will be taken to avoid attracting grizzlies. Proper food storage and refuse disposal will be required. No edibles or garbage will be left after suppression or management efforts have ended.

There is no anticipated need for fire camps for the Deer Creek Project. Post-harvest fuels reduction (underburning) activities may be conducted over multiple days, but no personnel would remain on site overnight.

1Guideline #3 does not permit activities that will adversely affect populations (rather than individuals) – which would lead to a jeopardy determination from FWS. From this context, it can reasonably be assumed that “adverse habitat effects” is also determined at the population (rather than individual) level, and is comparable to adverse modification of critical habitat. While this proposal may negatively affect habitat during implementation, these effects would not represent “a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery” of grizzly bears as defined under ESA.