tower fire salvage and reforestation...

Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project

Wildlife Report

Prepared by: Kris Hennings

North Zone Wildlife Biologist

for: Priest Lake Ranger District

Idaho Panhandle National Forests

June 20, 2016

1

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

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

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project, Wildlife Report

i

Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy ......................................................................................... 1

Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................... 1 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ..................................................................... 1 Sensitive Species ..................................................................................................................... 2 Management Indicator Species ................................................................................................ 2 Migratory Birds ....................................................................................................................... 3

Scope of the Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 3 Geographic Scope ....................................................................................................................... 3

Canada Lynx ............................................................................................................................ 4 Grizzly Bear ............................................................................................................................ 5 Black-backed Woodpecker ...................................................................................................... 5 Other Species ........................................................................................................................... 5

Temporal Scope .......................................................................................................................... 6 Analysis Methods ........................................................................................................................ 6 Species Not Analyzed in Detail .................................................................................................. 9 Species Analyzed in Detail ....................................................................................................... 11 Issue Indicators ......................................................................................................................... 11

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................................................ 12 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 12 Characterization of Habitats ...................................................................................................... 12 Organization of the Analysis ..................................................................................................... 13 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................... 15

Canada Lynx .......................................................................................................................... 15 Grizzly Bear .......................................................................................................................... 27

Sensitive Species ....................................................................................................................... 37 Black-backed Woodpecker .................................................................................................... 37

Design Features ............................................................................................................................. 44 Statement of Findings .................................................................................................................... 48 References ..................................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix A - Wildlife Species Not Analyzed in Detail ............................................................... 58

Proposed Species ....................................................................................................................... 58 North American Wolverine ................................................................................................... 58

Sensitive Species ....................................................................................................................... 60 Flammulated Owl .................................................................................................................. 60 Fisher ..................................................................................................................................... 61 Fringed Myotis ...................................................................................................................... 62 Gray Wolf .............................................................................................................................. 63 Harlequin Duck ..................................................................................................................... 64 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat .................................................................................................... 65 Western Toad ........................................................................................................................ 66

Species Not Relevant to the Project .............................................................................................. 67 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................... 67

Woodland Caribou................................................................................................................. 67 Sensitive Species ....................................................................................................................... 68

American Peregrine Falcon ................................................................................................... 68 Bald Eagle ............................................................................................................................. 68 Black Swift ............................................................................................................................ 68


ii

Common Loon ....................................................................................................................... 68 Coeur d'Alene Salamander .................................................................................................... 69 Northern Bog Lemming ........................................................................................................ 69 Pygmy Nuthatch .................................................................................................................... 69

Appendix B - Maps ....................................................................................................................... 70 Map 1 – Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project – Vicinity .......................................... 70 Map 2 –Lynx Habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit ............................................ 71 Map 3 – Priest “Bears Outside Recovery Zones” (BORZ) Occupancy Areas .......................... 72 Map 4 – Tower Fire – High Quality Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat ................................. 73

Appendix C - Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan ...................................................... 74

Tables

Table 1. Wildlife analysis scales used for analyzing direct, indirect, and/or cumulative effects ... 6 Table 2. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions cumulatively affecting wildlife .......... 7 Table 3. Threatened, endangered, and proposed wildlife species not analyzed in detail ................ 9 Table 4. Sensitive wildlife species not analyzed in detail ............................................................. 10 Table 5. Wildlife species analyzed in detail ................................................................................. 11 Table 6. Issue indicators used to measure effects ......................................................................... 11 Table 7. Tower fire burn severity to lynx habitat in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit ............ 17 Table 8. Comparison of actions occurring in lynx habitat in alternatives 2 and 3 ....................... 21 Table 9. Existing (baseline) conditions of features affecting grizzly bear habitat for the Priest

BORZ area ............................................................................................................................. 29 Table 10. Habitat conditions for the Priest BORZ during harvest activities, alternative 2 .......... 30 Table 11. Habitat conditions for the Priest BORZ during harvest activities, alternative 3 .......... 32 Table 12. Comparison of actions proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 that could affect grizzly bears

............................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 13. Existing Habitat Conditions for black-backed woodpeckers ....................................... 38 Table 14. Comparison of actions proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 that could affect black-backed

woodpeckers .......................................................................................................................... 42 Table 15. Level of logs and other coarse woody debris to retain after vegetation management

activities for each biophysical setting [Table 3 of the forest plan (FW-GDL-VEG-03); USDA Forest Service 2015a] ................................................................................................ 47

Table 16. Recommended snag and snag recruitment levels to retain (where they exist) after vegetation management activities (including post-harvest activities), by harvest type [Table 4 of the forest plan (FW-GDL-VEG-04; USDA Forest Service 2015a)] .............................. 47


1

Introduction This document details the analysis and discloses the potential effects on focal wildlife species from the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project alternatives on the Priest Lake Ranger District of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF). Within the perimeter of the Tower Fire on the Priest Lake Ranger District, the Forest Service proposes to cut dangerous or hazardous trees along the roads and trails, harvest some of the dead and dying timber, and plant tree seedlings. The proposed activities would begin in the late spring or summer of 2016, and continue for approximately 5 years. The harvest activities are anticipated to be completed the first year with tree planting continuing into the future.

There are three alternatives analyzed in this report. Alternative 1 is no action. Alternative 2 is the proposed action. Alternative 3 is a variation of the proposed action. The proposed action, alternative 2, would salvage dead and dying trees from up to 5,480 acres, which includes approximately 4,271 acres of salvage logging and approximately 1,209 acres of roadside danger tree felling and salvage under the proposed action. This represents approximately 45 percent of the total fire area that occurs on the Priest Lake Ranger District and 31 percent of the fire area that occurs on National Forest System lands on both the Idaho Panhandle and Colville National Forests. Some of the proposed salvage operations could occur in stands that no longer meet old growth criteria. Under alternative 3, the acres of salvage logging would be less, while the amount of roadside danger tree felling would be greater. Alternative 3 would remove dead and dying trees from approximately 4,373 acres, which includes approximately 2,939 acres of salvage logging and approximately 1,434 acres of roadside danger tree removal. This represents approximately 36 percent of the total fire area that occurs on the Priest Lake Ranger District. The salvage units represent 24 percent of the total fire area that occurred on the Priest Lake Ranger District.

A complete narrative of the project, including specific location and alternative descriptions, can be found in detail in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project Environmental Assessment (EA).

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

• National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

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

• 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.

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


2

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 “wildlife habitat through a variety of methods (such as vegetation alteration, prescribed burning, invasive species treatments, and other methods) to promote the diversity of species and communities and to contribute toward the recovery of threatened and endangered terrestrial wildlife species” (USDA Forest Service 2015).

The Endangered Species Act requires the Forest Service to assist in the 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 Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project was be prepared, and section 7 consultation was completed.

A list of threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat that may be present in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area was obtained from Fish and Wildlife Service on February 29, 2016 and is available in the project record. Terrestrial wildlife species on the list include the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). On September 12, 2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final rule to revise designation of critical habitat for Canada lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014c). Per a June 15, 2016 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2016), the status of the wolverine is proposed; and their concurrence with the programmatic biological assessment is still applicable.

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 (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 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 were identified in the planning process and were proposed because they represent an issue or concern. The wildlife management indicator species identified in the 2015 Revised Idaho Panhandle National Forests Land Management Plan (forest plan) 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 Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) uses elk management units as the analysis unit for elk security. The delineation of elk management units was limited to the central and southern portions of the IPNF because of their higher priority with regards to existing elk security and in part to acknowledge that the northern part of the IPNF


3

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 a management indicator species on the North Zone (the three northern ranger districts), except in the area to the east of Lake Pend Oreille and south of the Clark Fork River where three elk management units have been delineated; these elk management units are not located in this project area.

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 2013). Therefore, MIS species were not analyzed for the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project.

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 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 memorandum of understanding 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 memorandum, 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 environmental 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 species. Consequently, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests is in compliance with the memorandum by analyzing the potential effects to sensitive bird species and their habitat at the project level, such as in this document. In addition, migratory birds will be monitored at the Forest-level scale through an ongoing effort of the IMBCR.

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 project area is located about 6 miles northeast of Usk, Washington and 6 miles west of Priest Lake, Idaho. The project area is within the Tower Fire perimeter and consists of all burned areas in Township 35 North, Range 45 East; Township 35 North, Range 44 East; Township 34 North, Range 45E; and Township 34 North, Range 44E in Pend Oreille County, Washington. The proposed activities occur on and near Grouse Knob, Mill Creek Point, and South Baldy and portions of the Klahowya, Galena, Solo, and Goose drainages (appendix B, map 1).


4

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 project area (about 12,780 acres), the Tower Fire Perimeter (approximately 24,702 acres), the Tola-Pelke Canada Lynx Analysis Unit (about 16,460 acres), the Priest Bear Outside Recovery Zone (BORZ) Occupancy Areas (approximately 80,730 acres), the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (2,500,000 acres), and the Northern Region of the Forest Service (25 million acres).

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 direct, indirect or 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 effects analysis area is the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) (Appendix B - Map 2). 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 design features 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 (hereafter referred to as the Lynx Management Direction; USDA Forest Service 2007) superseded the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy by providing further direction on refining lynx habitat based on more recent research findings, and by defining risk factors for lynx. This direction was subsequently retained in the forest plan (USDA Forest Service 2015) and associated biological opinion (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b).

The Lynx Management Direction also established standards and guidelines on how to address risk factors to reduce or eliminate impacts on lynx and their habitat. The Lynx Management Direction 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 Lynx Management Direction that address numeric thresholds (for example, standards VEG S1 and VEG S2) are measured at the lynx analysis unit level. There is one adjacent lynx analysis unit on the IPNF (Kalispell Lynx Analysis Unit) and it contains a very small amount of forest in the early stand initiation structural stage (less than 1 percent of the lynx analysis unit). None of the lynx analysis unit has been regenerated in the past 10 years, so conducting analysis in an area larger than the affected lynx analysis unit would only serve to dilute project effects.

Although the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project also proposes activities outside the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit, these activities are not expected to measurably impact lynx because the areas are assumed not to support reproducing populations of lynx; they do not represent linkage (travel) areas between lynx analysis units, and lynx tolerate some level of human disturbance and do not appear to alter their behavior to avoid people.


5

Grizzly Bear The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) recognized that grizzly bears would occur outside recovery zones, and that the mere presence of these bears is not sufficient reason to change the recovery zone boundaries. In recent years, credible observations of grizzly bears and radio-telemetry research data on collared grizzly bears have documented use in areas outside of existing recovery zone boundaries. These areas were subsequently termed Bears Outside Recovery Zones (BORZ) Occupancy Areas for the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear ecosystems, and were incorporated into the amendments to the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, and Lolo National Forest Plans in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2015).

The effects analysis area for grizzly bears is the Priest BORZ area (Appendix B - Map 3). The appropriate size of the effects analysis area for grizzly bears is generally considered to be an approximately 100-square-mile (64,000-acre) area, which roughly represents the size of a female grizzly bear home range. The Priest BORZ area does not represent an actual grizzly bear home range, but it is an area with documented recurring grizzly bear use and contains approximately 118 square miles (75,793 acres) of National Forest System lands. This BORZ area also includes a range of grizzly bear seasonal habitat components. The BORZ area is the standard reporting unit to annually assess motorized access conditions within the recurring use areas (USDA Forest Service 2011b). Analyzing an area of larger size with regards to changes in linear open and total road miles (the issue indicators for grizzly bears) would add little to the analysis, and would obscure the potential impacts of project activities.

Black-backed Woodpecker The effects analysis area for black-backed woodpeckers is the Tower Fire Perimeter (approximately 24,702 acres), which includes lands administered by the Colville National Forest as well as the Idaho Panhandle National Forest (appendix B, map 4). Studies have shown that black-backed woodpeckers use habitats having a variety of burn severities within wildfires. Murphy and Lehnhausen (1998) found black-backed woodpeckers primarily foraging on moderately to heavily burned trees with a range of fire severities that included trees burned only at the base to totally burned trees. Saab and Dudley (1998) found black-backed woodpeckers associated with high-intensity stand-replacement fires. Using an average home range size of 500 acres (Bonn et al. 2007), this effects analysis area is large enough to provide multiple home ranges.

Analysis of black-backed woodpecker habitat follows black-backed woodpecker direction within the Northern Region Overview (Bonn et al. 2007). The starting point is that there is enough black-backed woodpecker habitat available regionally and provincially to support black-backed woodpecker populations. For the Northern Region, this is estimated to be 30,000 acres (Samson 2006b). The threshold was exceeded on the IPNF with 58,769 acres burned in 2015. The burned area perimeter (approximately 24,702 acres) of the Tower Fire was used as the effects analysis area for black-backed woodpeckers. Analyzing an area of larger size would add little to the analysis, and would only serve to dilute the projects impacts.

Other Species For all other species analyzed, National Forest System lands within the defined Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area were used as the effects analysis area. This area is approximately 12,128 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.


6

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

Species Effects Analysis Area Canada Lynx Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit Grizzly Bear Priest BORZ Black-backed Woodpecker Tower Fire Perimeter All other species National Forest System lands within the Tower Fire Salvage

and Reforestation Project area

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 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 approximately 5 years. The harvest activities are anticipated to be completed the first year with tree planting continuing into the future. The effects of activities associated 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 (such as 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, interpretation of aerial imagery, and reasonable assumptions based on present management conditions, professional judgment, and the combined knowledge of people from various sources (for example, 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 Priest Lake Ranger District have influenced the existing


7

availability and distribution of wildlife habitat. All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Table 2 were reviewed for their relevance 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 cannot be quantified for measurement because of their random, unpredictable nature and the inability to predict their extent (such as 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 12). 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, and reasonably foreseeable actions cumulatively affecting wildlife

Action Past

Present and Ongoing Actions

Future Actions

Discussed Under Cumulative Effects Explanation

BAER (burned area emergency response work)

X No Effects on habitat are factored into existing condition.

Colville National Forest roadside salvage

X Yes (black-backed woodpecker only

Potential effects are discussed for black-backed woodpecker. Colville National Forest roadside salvage project is outside cumulative effects areas for other species addressed in detail.

Colville National Forest salvage project (150 acres)

X Yes (black-backed woodpecker only)

Potential effects are discussed for black-backed woodpecker. Colville salvage project is outside cumulative effects areas for other species addressed in detail.

Communication and fire tower maintenance

X X X No Habitat modifications and potential disturbance as a result of communication and fire tower maintenance would be inconsequential.

Crystal Springs dig area operations

X X X Yes Addressed in cumulative effects.


8

Action Past


Future Actions


Fire suppression/Fire use activities

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.

Grizzly Salvage and Restoration Project (IPNF)

X No Grizzly Salvage and Restoration Project is out cumulative effects areas for all species.

Marble Salvage Project (IPNF)

X No Marble Salvage Project is out cumulative effects areas for all species.

North Zone Roadside Salvage Project


Noxious weed treatments 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.

Other timber salvage projects on state and private lands

X Yes Addressed in cumulative effects.

Past road decommissioning and road storage closures

X No Effects on open road miles from past road decommissioning are factored into existing condition.

Past Timber Harvest on all land ownerships

X Yes (Canada lynx and grizzly bear only)

Past harvest activities effects of Forest Service timber harvest are factored into the existing condition. Potential disturbance effects of private land activities are discussed in the Canada lynx and grizzly bear sections. For other species, the analysis assumes no habitat contributions from private lands.

Precommerical thinning X X X Yes Effects of past precommercial thinning are factored into the existing condition. Present and future precommercial thinning is addressed in cumulative effects.

Proposed development on private lands in the Upper and Lower West Branch and Goose Creek drainages

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.


9

Action Past


Future Actions


Reforestation X X X Yes Effects of past reforestation is factored into the existing condition. Present and future reforestation is addressed in cumulative effects.

Reforestation in burned areas

X Yes Addressed in cumulative effects.

Road decommissioning on Forest Service Road 659A

X Yes Addressed in the cumulative effects section.

Road maintenance and reconstruction

X No Potential effects are measured by open road miles.

Special forest products personal use (e.g., firewood gathering, berry and mushroom picking)


Trail maintenance X X X No Habitat modifications and potential disturbance as a result of trail maintenance would be inconsequential.

Wetland restoration in Goose Creek Meadows

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

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.

Table 3. Threatened, endangered, and proposed wildlife species not analyzed in detail

Species Preferred Habitat Rationale for Elimination from Detailed Analysis

Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)

Above 4,000 feet 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.

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.


10

Table 4. Sensitive wildlife species not analyzed in detail

Species Preferred Habitat Rationale for Elimination from Detailed Analysis

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

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

No suitable nesting 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 suitable nesting habitat or winter roost habitat exists in the project area.

Black Swift (Cypseloides niger)

Builds nest behind or next to waterfalls and wet cliffs

Black swifts are not known or suspected to occur in the project area.

Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus)

Mature or old growth ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest

Proposed activities are occurring in post-fire habitats that are not considered suitable to flammulated owls.

Common Loon (Gavia immer)

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

There are no lakes within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area that are considered potential habitat.

Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

Shallow, swift streams in forested areas Very limited amount of suitable habitat would be impacted by project activities.

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea)

Ponderosa pine habitat, especially mature and old growth stands

The species is not known or expected to occur within the project area.

Fisher (Pekania [Martes] pennanti)

Mesic mature forest habitats Proposed activities are occurring in post-fire habitats that are not considered suitable to fishers.

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

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

Proposed activities are occurring in post-fire habitats that are not considered suitable to fringed myotis.

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.

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 No documented sightings or suspected habitat occurs within the project area.

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.


11

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, along with a brief description of their habitats.

Table 5. Wildlife species analyzed in detail

Species Preferred Habitat Rationale For Detailed Analysis Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) threatened species

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) threatened species

Habitat generalist; denning areas isolated and remote from human development

The project occurs within the Priest Bears Outside Recovery Zone (BORZ) Occupancy Area and may result in changes in linear miles of roads.

Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) sensitive species

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

Danger tree removal and salvage harvest would reduce potential foraging and nesting habitat.

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, nature of the proposal, and applicable data. The table below displays the 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 6. Issue indicators used to measure effects

Species Indicator Canada lynx Changes to lynx habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU)1

Grizzly bear Changes in total linear miles of open road and total linear miles of temporary and permanent roads within the Priest Bears Outside Recovery Zone (BORZ) Occupancy Areas2

Black-backed woodpecker

Changes in high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area

1. Indicators address applicable standards from Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007) 2. Indicators address applicable design element from forest plan Appendix JJ - Motorized Access Management Direction Idaho

Panhandle National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2011b)


12

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction The distribution and abundance of wildlife is primarily a function of habitat conditions (that is, 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 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 changing habitat due to direct impacts (salvage harvest), people can change habitat indirectly by influencing natural disturbance patterns. For example, fire suppression results in changes to vegetation composition and structure, and subsequent susceptibility to various natural disturbances.

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 (such as old growth). Other species are habitat generalists and have adapted to a wide array of successional stages.

Characterization of Habitats On the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, the Tower Fire burned approximately 12,128 acres. The fire occurred in a portion of northeastern Washington that has some of the most diverse and productive forests in the Inland Northwest. This is largely due to a relatively moist and warm climate as well as the presence of forest soils that are “capped” with a layer of volcanic ash. The ash has a high water and nutrient holding capacity, both of which combine to create very productive soils. The Tower Fire occurred in a relatively small portion of a much larger area in northern Idaho, extreme western Montana as well as northeastern Washington that is known as the cedar-hemlock zone where the forest type has been referred to as the interior cedar-hemlock-white pine type (Shiplett and Neuenschwander 1994).

Approximately 98 percent of the Tower Fire project area supports mixed conifer forests. The small percent that is not forested with conifers generally occurs along streams where hardwood species dominate, small meadows dominated by grass species, or are areas along ridges or south-facing slopes that are dominated by shrubs. There are also small areas on South and North Baldy peaks that are dominated by grass.

The upper portion of the project area occurs along the Pend Oreille Divide at approximately 5,000 to 6000 feet above sea level, while the lower part extends down to the valley bottom at approximately 2,500 feet.


13

Although the slopes and aspects vary substantially in the project area, the dominate aspect is easterly and the slopes are typically 30 to 50 percent and are dissected with perennial and intermittent streams.

Based on a forest site classification system called Forest Habitat Type Classification (Cooper et al. 1991), the vast majority of the sites in the project area can be characterized as being relatively warm and moist. These warm and moist sites have the potential to support western hemlock or western red-cedar as their major climax tree species. However, because disturbances (such as, wildfire, blowdown, insects and diseases) were historically fairly common on these sites, it was somewhat rare for true climax conditions to occur (Cooper et al. 1991). Typically, these sites were historically occupied by tree species associated with early to mid-seral stages of plant succession. Approximately 92 percent of the project area occurs on these sites, which are the most productive habitats with the ability to support very diverse plant communities.

Towards the highest elevations of the project area are some forested sites that are cool and moist. These sites have the potential to support subalpine fir as their major climax tree species. Approximately 4 percent of the project area occurs on these cool and moist sites and these are not as productive sites as those at lower elevations in the western hemlock or western red-cedar habitat series.

On the relatively dry and hot forested sites in the project area, Douglas-fir or grand fir trees are the tree species that have the potential to be the climax tree species. Approximately 4 percent of the project area occurs on these relatively hot and dry sites. Within the project area, these sites tend to occupy fairly small areas that are located on somewhat steep slopes with south or westerly aspects and these sites generally have soils that contain coarse textures comprised of heavily decomposed granitic rock. Due to the aspects and soils, these sites tend to be droughty by nature and the trees that grow on them are often under moisture stress during the summer.

The project area contains a number of streams of varying sizes (Upper West Branch Priest River as well as Paqua, Klahowya, Galena, Solo, and Goose Creeks, as well as numerous smaller streams), and a range of elevations and forest types. As a result, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area potentially contains individuals or habitat for most federally listed, sensitive, or management indicator wildlife species found on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (woodland caribou, American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, black swift, common loon, Coeur d’Alene salamander, northern bog lemming, and pygmy nuthatch, 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.

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, and professional judgment.

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.


14

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); and,

• 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. 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 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 reviews, and model projections.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects discussions include other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of land ownership, 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 Table 1 and Table 2).


15

Consistency with the Forest Plan: For each species fully analyzed, consistency with standards and guidelines of the forest plan are addressed in detail in this section.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Canada Lynx Habitat Relationships Canada lynx occur in boreal, sub-boreal and western montane forests, and their distribution is nearly coincident with that of the snowshoe hare, their primary prey (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. Both snow conditions and vegetation types are important factors to consider in defining lynx habitat. Idaho Panhandle National Forests primary lynx habitat is mostly associated with subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce (Abies lasiocarpa/Picea engelmannii) potential vegetation types, except in the extreme northern portion of Idaho and northeastern Washington (i.e. Priest Lake Ranger District – Priest River watershed) where the colder portions of the moist western redcedar-western hemlock (Thuja plicata-Tsuga heterophylla) potential vegetation types are considered primary habitat. These areas have long, cold winters with longer and more persistent snow accumulations than elsewhere on similar potential vegetation types. Secondary habitat, defined as the transition between vegetation communities, also contributes to lynx habitat. On the Idaho Panhandle National Forests secondary habitat includes moist grand fir (Abies grandis) and cedar-hemlock potential vegetation types where they are not part of primary habitat (USDA Forest Service 2013).

The Canada lynx was listed as threatened on March 21, 2000. 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. Identified risk factors that can impact lynx populations mainly address alteration of forest habitats.

The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction contains four vegetation management standards (standard VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6), with two of them remaining essentially the same as the 2000 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).

Snowshoe hares may reach highest densities in young coniferous forests or in “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 (for example, Squires et al. 2006) 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). 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


16

and Wildlife Service 2007, Squires et al. 2010). The 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. As a result, vegetation management that reduces snowshoe hare habitat in these stands is prohibited (standard VEG S6) with some exemptions.

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.

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 could occur even though intentional lynx harvest is illegal in Idaho and Washington.

Critical habitat that has been designated for Canada lynx on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests includes virtually all identified lynx habitat in the American-Canuck and Deer-Skin Lynx Analysis Units in the extreme northeastern portion of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2014c). As such, there is no critical habitat within the project area.

Affected Environment Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project activities would take place in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit, which does not include designated critical habitat. This lynx analysis unit is approximately 16,463 acres, of which 13,802 acres (84 percent) are considered lynx habitat (appendix B, map 2). Approximately 532 acres of the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit are non-Federal ownership and were not included in the lynx habitat assessment; these acres may be providing lynx habitat. Because of the preponderance of lynx forest types on lands managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service, Federal land management assumes the largest single role in the conservation of lynx in western portions of its range. Additionally, habitat on private ownerships is highly susceptible to adverse habitat modifications, and the presence of suitable habitat on these lands cannot be relied upon over time. For these reasons, a conservative approach to calculations in this analysis will consider the 532 acres of other ownership to be perpetually in an early successional stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat (early successional habitat), and will be counted


17

towards standard VEG S1. Prior to the Tower Fire, approximately 44 acres of lynx habitat on Federal land within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit was considered early successional habitat.

The Tower Fire has also created additional acres within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit that are now considered in the early successional habitat stage. The amount of current early successional habitat in the lynx analysis unit was calculated by using a combination of the Tower reclassified BARC layer and some post-fire field information that was collected in burned forest stands. BARC is a Burned Area Reflectance Classification system that uses satellite-derived data to categorize burned areas into severity classes (see the environmental assessment for more information). It is assumed that all burned acres of very high severity and high severity have been converted to early successional habitat. It is predicted in these areas that at least 60 percent and up to 100 percent of the trees in these stands are dead or dying. This would result in large areas of open canopy so the stands have been converted to the stand initiation structure stage. The stand initiation stage generally develops after a stand-replacing disturbance by fire (USDA Forest Service 2007). It is assumed that all areas burned at moderate severity and low severity remained in the current condition and did not convert into early successional habitat. The moderate severity areas have more trees that are expected to survive and would not be considered a stand-replacement disturbance (40 to 55 percent of the trees in the stand are expected to survive). In the low severity burn areas, 55 to 100 percent of the trees in the stand are expected to survive. With this many live trees left on the landscape, these stands did not experience a stand-replacement event and should not be converted to early successional habitat. The Tower Fire created approximately 5,168 acres of early successional habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit (Table 7).

Table 7. Tower fire burn severity to lynx habitat in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit

Burn Severity Acres Acres of early successional stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat

Low Severity 44 0 Moderate Severity 511 0 High Severity 4,124 4,124 Very High Severity 1,044 1,044

Total 5,723 5,168

The updated baseline for the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit with the addition of the Tower Fire has as many as 5,744 acres (5,212 acres Federal lands plus up to 532 acres private), or 40 percent of lynx habitat in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit (Appendix B, Map 1), in an early successional stage not yet providing lynx habitat (standard VEG S1). Again, this estimate reflects the highest amount of acres possible in this stage, and the actual amount is likely slightly lower.

There are no acres that have been regenerated on National Forest System lands by timber management projects in the previous 10 years (standard VEG S2). Within the Tower Fire Salvage project area there are no stands within lynx habitat that meet the definition of multi-story or late successional forest (standard VEG S6).

Lynx presence has been historically reported throughout the Idaho Panhandle, including both verified and unverified sightings from several locations on the Priest Lake Ranger District. Confirmed lynx sightings have been infrequent on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Two potential sighting have occurred since 2000. One occurred in 2001 just outside the Kalispell Lynx Analysis Unit that is adjacent to the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. That sighting is approximately 7 miles northeast of the Tower Fire Salvage Project area. The other sighting occurred in 2000 in the Upper Priest Lynx Analysis Unit about


18

29 miles north of the Tower Project area. There are no confirmed sightings of lynx within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit.

Environmental Consequences – Canada Lynx Methodology After initial identification by the vegetation response unit model, lynx habitat was further evaluated using data from the FACTS database and the reclassified BARC layer from the Tower Fire. FACTS data was used to identify stands in the stand initiation structural stage prior to the Tower Fire that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat (early successional 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 (USDA Forest Service 2013 and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b). 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. The amount of current early successional habitat in the lynx analysis unit affected by the Tower Fire was calculated by using a combination of the Tower reclassified BARC layer and some post-fire field information that was collected in burned forest stands. BARC uses satellite-derived data to categorize burned areas into severity classes. It is assumed that all acres of very high severity and high severity have been converted to early successional habitat. All moderate severity and low severity acres are assumed to remain in the current condition and the burn didn’t convert these stands into early successional habitat.

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 and Indirect Effects The no-action alternative would not preclude activities already approved in this area or activities planned as separate projects. This alternative provides a baseline of current, post-fire conditions against which to compare the effects of the two other alternatives. Under the no-action alternative, none of the proposed salvage operations, reforestation or other project activities associated with alternatives 2 and 3 would take place. Danger trees that pose an imminent threat to human safety or infrastructure would be felled using existing management direction. As time passes, the number of danger trees is anticipated to increase as likely hazard trees become imminent hazard trees. Treating the danger trees would only proceed to the extent that funds became available. Alternative 1 would not have any direct or indirect effects for lynx. Future denning habitat would be abundant and occur throughout the Tower project area, as most danger trees would be felled and left. However, denning habitat is not considered a limiting factor to lynx on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests.

Alternative 2 – Direct and Indirect Effects Salvage operation activities have the potential to disturb or displace lynx that may use the project area. Approximately 2,174 acres of lynx habitat would be salvage harvested in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. Of those 2,174 acres, about 1,927 acres (89 percent) are considered stand initiation structural stage that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat (early successional habitat). Salvage within early successional habitat is expected to have very limited effects to lynx habitat, as the fire impacts have already reinitiated the stands. Any trees expected to live would remain within the areas. The only effect other than potential disturbance to lynx would be the removal of snags that could reduce denning habitat


19

in the future. A minimum of 5 to 7 snags per acre and 1 to 6 live trees per acre (when available) for snag recruitment would be left within the units. The retention snags and trees would provide future potential denning habitat. Down wood requirements would also be met, so 20 to 30 additional logs would be left per acre to supply future denning habitat.

Within the 247 acres of salvage harvest that is occurring in lynx habitat but outside early successional habitat; effects would be similar to effects described above for the early successional habitat. Salvage harvest in lynx habitat outside of early successional habitat is not expected to convert stands into an early seral stage, although there could be a minor effect on lynx habitat by reducing understory growth that may be providing snowshoe hare habitat. This would occur most likely in the 56 acres within low severity burn salvage units or logging access within unburned areas.

Approximately 645 acres of the proposed salvage would occur in lynx habitat that was old growth prior to the Tower Fire. Proposed salvage would only occur in the pre-fire old growth areas that no longer meet old growth criteria, and would focus on only removing trees less than 28 inches at stump height. Effects to pre-fire old growth are discussed in the paragraph above that details effects on lynx from salvage operations.

Roadside danger tree removal has the potential to disturb or displace lynx that may use the project area. There are approximately 397 acres of lynx habitat within the roadside danger removal aresa. Of those 397 acres, about 338 acres (85 percent) are considered as stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat (early successional habitat). The other 59 acres of roadside danger tree removal is occurring in lynx habitat that burned, but has not been reclassified as early successional habitat. Roadside danger tree removal would have similar effects to lynx habitat whether in the early successional habitat stage or other stages. Any trees expected to live would remain within the areas, only danger trees classified as having an imminent or likely failure potential with a likelihood of striking the roads would be felled and salvaged. Snag retention guidelines would not apply to the danger tree areas, as there are exceptions to this guideline for human safety (however, if a snag does not have the likelihood of striking the road it would remain). This would reduce available denning structure in the future. Down wood requirements would be met, so 20 to 30 additional logs would be left per acre to supply future denning habitat. The down wood would be available for future denning habitat unless the public uses it for firewood. In areas outside of early successional habitat there could also be a minor effect on lynx habitat by reducing understory growth that may be providing snowshoe hare habitat, this would occur most likely in the 7 acres within roadside danger tree areas that either did not burn or received a low severity burn. Roadside danger tree activities are not expected to convert any lynx habitat into early successional habitat.

Danger tree felling activities along trails and within riparian habitat conservation areas also have the potential to disturb or displace lynx that may use the project area. Approximately 127 acres of danger tree felling is occurring in early successional habitat as well as 25 acres occurring in lynx habitat that is not considered early successional habitat. There are limited effects to lynx as danger trees would be felled and left in place. The felled trees would supply potential denning habitat in the future.

Reforestation would occur in approximately 2,720 acres of lynx habitat. About 80 percent of the reforestation would occur within areas identified as early successional habitat. Overall, reforestation would hasten and enhance overall recovery and trend the vegetation toward the desired condition. The reforestation would have a minor disturbance effect on lynx.

Road maintenance, road reconstruction, and temporary roads would have relatively minor effects on lynx. Road density does not appear to affect lynx habitat selection and lynx are tolerant of some level of human disturbance. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would temporarily increase linear miles


20

of roads in the project area up to 8.9 miles; these are temporary roads and maintenance level 1 that would be used during harvest operations. However, public motorized use would be restricted (see design features).

Trail reconstruction and maintenance would occur on about 1 mile of Trail 199 and 1.6 miles of Trail 198 (as required by the design features, see environmental assessment) within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. Trail improvement activities would make inconsequential changes to habitat and have minor disturbance effects on lynx. There is a possibility that trail maintenance activities and lynx may occur in the same general vicinity at the same time. Based on the nature of the activities and the above factors the potential for disturbance of lynx is low, and effects would likely be inconsequential.

Culvert replacement on Road 1089 at the Solo Creek crossing is occurring outside of lynx habitat and the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit, so there would be no effects to lynx or their habitat from this activity.

Approximately 7,945 acres of lynx habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit was not altered by the Tower Fire and would not be impacted by the Tower Project. In addition, about 3,098 acres of lynx habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit was altered by the Tower Fire but would not be impacted by the Tower Project. Untreated areas within the Tower Fire are expected to provide the best future denning habitat with large amounts of large woody debris and “jack-strawed” piles as all snags created by the Tower Fire would remain on the landscape in these areas.

Alternative 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects Salvage operation activities have the potential to disturb or displace lynx that may use the project area. There are approximately 1,297 acres of lynx habitat that would be salvage harvested in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. Of those 1,297 acres, about 1,066 acres (82 percent) are considered stand initiation structural stage that do not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat (early successional habitat). Similar to alternative 2, there could be a minor effect on lynx habitat by reducing understory growth that may be providing snowshoe hare habitat. This would occur most likely in the 49 acres within low severity burn salvage units or logging access within unburned areas. All other impacts associated with the salvage operations are the same as those described under alternative 2.

Roadside danger tree removal has the potential to disturb or displace lynx that may use the project area. There are approximately 541 acres of lynx habitat that would have roadside danger tree removal activities in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. Of those 541 acres, about 475 acres (88 percent) are considered stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat (early successional habitat). The other 68 acres of roadside danger tree removal is occurring in lynx habitat that burned, but has not been reclassified as early successional habitat. Roadside danger tree removal would have similar effects under this alternative as described in alternative 2.

Reforestation would occur in approximately 1,930 acres of lynx habitat. About 80 percent of the reforestation would occur within areas identified as early successional habitat. Overall, reforestation would hasten and enhance overall recovery and trend the vegetation toward the desired condition. The reforestation would have a minor disturbance effect on lynx.

Road maintenance, road reconstruction, and temporary roads would have relatively minor effects on lynx. Road density does not appear to affect lynx habitat selection and lynx are tolerant of some level of human disturbance. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would temporarily increase linear miles of roads in the project area up to 5.5 miles; these are temporary roads and maintenance level 1 that would be used during harvest operations. However, public motorized use would be restricted (see design features).


21

The impacts associated with danger tree felling along trails and within riparian habitat conservation areas, trail reconstruction and maintenance, and culvert replacement are the same as those described under alternative 2.

Approximately 7,945 acres of lynx habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit was not altered by the Tower Fire and would not be impacted by the Tower Project. In addition, about 3,818 acres of lynx habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit was altered by the Tower Fire but would not be impacted by the Tower Project. Like alternative 2, untreated areas within the Tower Fire are expected to provide the best future denning habitat.

Comparison of Alternatives 2 and 3 Table 8 shows a comparison of alternatives 2 and 3 and the amount of actions occurring in areas that could affect lynx habitat in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project. Reforestation would occur on 2,720 acres of lynx habitat in alternative 2 and 1,930 acres in alternative 3.

Table 8. Comparison of actions occurring in lynx habitat in alternatives 2 and 3

Action

Alternative 2 acres early successional stage habitat

Alternative 2 acres of other lynx habitat

Alternative 3 acres early successional stage habitat

Alternative 3 acres of other lynx habitat

Salvage Operations 1,927 247 1,066 231 Danger Tree Treatments 397 59 541 68 Trail and RHCA Danger Tree Felling 127 25 127 25

RHCA = riparian habitat conservation area

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

Colville National Forest Roadside Salvage and Colville Salvage Project – The two projects from the Colville occur outside of the effects analysis area for the Canada lynx; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to Canada lynx from the Colville Roadside Salvage and Salvage Projects.

Crystal Springs Dig Area Operations – This action occurs outside of the effects analysis area for the Canada lynx. For the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project the Canada lynx analysis area is the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. There would be no cumulative effects to Canada lynx from the Crystal Spring Dig Operation.

Fire Suppression - Fire suppression would have mixed effects on lynx habitat. In the short term (next 20 years), fire suppression could benefit lynx as it would reduce the risk of additional acres of the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit being converted into the stand initiation phase, which does not provide snowshoe hare habitat. Continued fire suppression in lynx habitat could also help keep potential denning habitat intact, although this habitat component is not thought to be limiting throughout most of lynx range. In the long term (several decades) fire suppression could reduce the amount of acres of early successional habitat providing winter snowshoe hare habitat, by not allowing acres to be moved into the stand initiation structural stage. The amount of future fire and level of successful suppression is impossible to predict, but would generally result in these effects.

Fire Use Activities - Fire use activities would also have mixed effects on lynx habitat. In the short term any fire use activities could increase the amount of early successional stands not providing winter


22

snowshoe hare habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. However, in the long term, fire use activities could add acres of early successional habitat into the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. The amount of future fire and level of fire use activities is impossible to predict, but would generally result in these effects.

North Zone Roadside Salvage – The Roadside Salvage occurs outside of the effects analysis area for Canada lynx. All North Zone Roadside Salvage units within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit have been identified as danger tree treatment areas for alternatives 2 and 3. There would be no cumulative effects to Canada lynx from the North Zone Roadside Salvage.

Private Lands - Approximately 532 acres of the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit is in non-federal ownership. Within the 532 acres, 406 acres within two parcels under other ownerships (near Ojibway Knoll) are heavily roaded, so additional activities may occur in the future. The other 126 acres are currently not roaded and activities are not anticipated. All non-Federal ownership would be considered lynx habitat. Therefore, there are 14,334 acres of lynx habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit (13,802 acres National Forest System lands plus 532 acres of other ownership). Using a conservative habitat approach, it is assumed that all 532 acres of other ownership lynx habitat would be in a perpetual stand initiation stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. Therefore non-Federal ownership would contribute 4 percent stand initiation not yet providing snowshoe hare habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit. This 4 percent was included in the existing condition of lynx habitat.

Precommercial Thinning- This action would not occur within lynx habitat. The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction standard VEG S5 limits the amount of precommercial thinning that could occur within lynx habitat. Precommercial thinning could only occur within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings while the lynx analysis unit is above the 30 percent standard of VEG S1. The only lynx habitat that could be precommercial thinned within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit would be around the Pelke Warming Hut. Thinning around the warming hut would have a minor impact on Canada lynx within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit.

Public Activities - Personal use firewood gathering, berry picking, mushroom picking, 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 over-snow 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 the new openings in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit over the next up to 20 years. However, these areas are generally accessible to over-snow users already. Risk of trapping mortality would not increase as a result of this proposal since there would be no increase in designated (groomed) routes or designated play areas and the affected areas are already open to over-snow use. As a result, additional cumulative impacts from incidental trapping are not expected and additional effects to lynx from various public activities would be minor.

Road Decommissioning on Forest Service Road 659A - This action occurs outside of the effects analysis area for the Canada lynx; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to Canada lynx from the Road Decommissioning of 659A road.

Wetland Restoration in Goose Creek Meadow - This action occurs outside of the effects analysis area for the Canada lynx; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to Canada lynx from Goose Creek meadow wetland restoration.


23

Conclusion The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would be consistent with standards and guidelines in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (see below). Actions from any alternative of the Tower Project would not add acres or increase the percentage of lynx habitat in the stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. While there is 40 percent of the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit in this stage (above the 30 percent threshold standard for VEG S1), this is due to effects of the Tower Fire itself. Harvest activities related to the Tower Salvage would also not add to the regenerated stands within a 10-year period. Currently no acres of lynx habitat on National Forest System lands within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit have been regenerated within the last 10-year period. No mature multi-story or late successional stands would be affected. The project would not affect designated Canada lynx critical habitat.

Salvage operations, roadside danger tree treatments, trail and riparian habitat conservation area danger tree removal, reforestation, trail reconstruction, trail maintenance, temporary roads, road maintenance, and road reconstruction would make minor modifications to habitat and would not disturb or displace resident lynx at a level that would result in mortality or significantly disrupt behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Consequently, alternatives 2 and 3, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx. All alternatives would be consistent with all standards and guidelines in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (see below).

The effects to Canada lynx for this project were consulted on with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through informal consultation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2016) and they concurred with this effects determination. They concluded: “Because of the low likelihood that lynx will be in the projects area due to the recent fire, low magnitude of disturbance by project activities to lynx or their suitable habitat, and due to the use of the minimization measures described in the BA (biological assessment), the potential impacts to lynx are expected to be insignificant or discountable. In addition, reforestation of burn areas will hasten and enhance the overall recovery of resource that will provide future habitat for lynx” (page 3).

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 forest plan (USDA Forest Service 2015). All alternatives are consistent with the plan.

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.

The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project would not change connectivity. The Tower Fire reduced connectivity within the fire area for lynx. All treatment areas do not currently provide connectivity, but over time they are expected to return to conditions that existed pre-fire. 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.

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


24

multiple discussions with members of the interagency Canada Lynx Biology Team and a review by the Forest Service Regional Office. Previous remapping of LAU boundaries on the IPNF complies with standard LAU S1. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project is not proposing any changes in LAU boundaries.

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.

The updated baseline for the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit with the addition of the Tower Fire has as many as 5,744 acres (5,212 acres Federal lands plus up to 532 acres private), or 40 percent of lynx habitat in the lynx analysis unit, in an early successional stage not yet providing snowshoe hare habitat. There are no activities in any alternative associated with the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project that would increase the percentage of the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit in the early successional stage not yet providing snowshoe hare habitat.

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.

The Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit does not have any acres of National Forest System lands that have been regenerated by timber management activities within the last 10 years. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project is a salvage project and would not increase the acres of regeneration in the LAU. None of the alternatives would add to acres of regeneration within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit, so 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 percent of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is retained, or 6) to restore whitebark pine.

Precommercial thinning is not part of the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project.

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 timber harvest in multi-story mature or late-successional forests would occur in any of the alternatives. Therefore, this proposal would comply with standard VEG S6.

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


25

There is no highway or forest highway construction or reconstruction proposed. Forest road reconstruction would take place on currently drivable roads, or roads that would be placed in long-term storage following implementation, so no crossings would be needed. 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. Forest road reconstruction would take place on currently drivable roads, or roads that would be placed in long-term storage following implementation, so no crossings would be needed. 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.

The majority of acres identified as treatment areas have been burned in the Tower Fire and have been reinitiated into the stand initiation phase. Over time the areas will become winter snowshoe hare habitat once trees regenerate and grow to the required height. Within units snag and down wood retention would leave structure for future denning habitat structure. In addition all snags and down wood would be left outside of units to provide future denning habitat structure. All alternatives would be consistent with guideline VEG G1.

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.

No permanent travel routes or firebreaks would be created from prescribed fire activities associated with this project. This project would be consistent with guideline VEG G4.

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

There are about 7,945 acres of forested lynx habitat to the north and south of the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project areas in the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit, providing habitat for alternate prey species such as red squirrels. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would not treat any red squirrel habitat. The Tower Fire removed the majority of red squirrel habitat in the project area. 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 Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project is a fuel treatment project. This project 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 designed to retain some coarse woody debris, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future.


26

Approximately 54 percent of the lynx habitat within the Tower Fire would not be treated with the Tower Salvage project. All snags and down wood on those acres would remain to provide future denning habitat in the form of pockets of down woody debris. In the approximate 38 percent of the lynx habitat that is proposed for salvage harvest, snag retention and down wood retention guidelines would retain structures that could provide future denning habitat. In the danger tree removal areas, down wood retention guidelines would ensure large woody debris would remain that could provide denning habitat. Also, any snag that would not have the likelihood of striking the road would remain to provide future denning habitat. 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 National Forest System 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.

Unpaved roads would be improved only to the extent necessary to make them safe for timber haul. Roads would not be upgraded to maintenance levels 4 or 5, and proposed improvements are not expected to considerably increase traffic speeds or volumes, or human activity. Consequently, all alternatives would be consistent with guideline HU G6.

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

Any roads that would be used for the Tower Salvage project that are not currently designated as open on the MVUM would be restricted to public motorized access. In addition, all roads not designate as open on the MVUM would be closed immediately upon completion of activities requiring use of the road. All action alternatives would be consistent with guideline HU G9.

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.

Snowmobile routes within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area would be reduced to a single route that would connect the Kings Lake Parking area to the system of groomed trails on the Priest Lake Ranger District. The single route would be on an already designated snowmobile route


27

and over-snow routes and designated play areas would not increase. Once harvest operations are complete snow mobile designated routes would return to levels that existed before the fire.

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 authorization of over-the-snow travel, so guidelines HU G1-G5, G10, and -G12 do not apply. Consequently, this proposal would be consistent with these guidelines.

Grizzly Bear Habitat Relationships Populations of grizzly bears persist in 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 Endangered Species Act 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 along with direct and indirect human-caused mortality are related to its decline (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).

As discussed in the “Scope of the Analysis” section, it was recognized at the time of the 1993 Recovery Plan update that grizzly bear presence would occur outside the recovery zones (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). More recently, credible observations of grizzly bears and radio-telemetry research data on


28

collared grizzly bears have documented use in specific areas outside of existing recovery zone boundaries. While observation data is limited and these habitats have not been evaluated to determine if they are of significant biological value, ongoing and future land management activities in these areas have the potential to affect grizzly bears. These areas—subsequently termed Bears Outside Recovery Zones (BORZ) Occupancy Areas—were incorporated into the forest plans, as amendments (referred to as the “Access Amendment”) to the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, and Lolo National Forest Plans in 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011b). The 2015 Idaho Panhandle National Forests Land Management Plan standard FW-STD-WL-02 states the 2011 Access Amendment will still be used to manage motorized access within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Bear Recovery Zones (USDA Forest Service 2015). The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area lies within the Priest BORZ area adjacent to the Selkirk Recovery Zone (appendix B, map 3). The process for selecting and delineating the boundaries of this BORZ area is described in Allen (2011).

Between 1994 and 2009, 17 credible sightings of grizzly bears were documented in the Priest BORZ area; no females with cubs were sighted during that time frame (Allen 2011). Allen (2011) reports only one grizzly bear death occurring on National Forest System lands in the Priest BORZ area during this time period. The majority of the Priest BORZ area is easily accessed by motor vehicle, and portions are heavily used during the snow-free season by local residents for hunting, firewood gathering, dispersed camping, hiking, and other activities.

Within recovery zone boundaries, access management standards for grizzly bear habitat contained within in the Access Amendment include thresholds for open and total motorized route densities, and core area. Research indicates that increasing densities of both open and restricted (gated) roads have negative effects upon grizzly bear behavior and habitat use (Mace et al. 1996, Wakkinen and Kasworm 1997). However, these standards are not appropriate for describing the existing conditions in the BORZ area or the effects of motorized access on grizzly bears in these areas for a number of reasons (discussed below).

The value of these areas to grizzly bears is currently unknown, since no assessment of seasonal habitat availability has yet been completed. Bears using these areas apparently tolerate substantially greater levels of human disturbance (highways, residences, heavy industrial use and highly roaded areas) than those in bear management units (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). While sizes of bear management units are generally similar to facilitate comparison between units, the BORZ areas are highly variable in size. Additionally, the boundaries of these areas are not static, but may be adjusted as grizzly bear use patterns are reevaluated in future years. There is limited basis of comparison between units of substantially different acreages, or within individual units that may vary in size and shape over time.

The Access Amendment quantified the nature and amount of motorized access in these areas in order to discuss the potential impacts to grizzly bears. Through the Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation process, affected national forests and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to define motorized use in BORZ areas using linear miles of open and total roads, as they are more easily communicated and monitored than road densities (and small changes in linear road miles could easily be obscured when measuring road densities over large areas). Additionally, while external boundaries were drawn to intentionally exclude non-Federal ownerships whenever possible, some BORZ areas (as delineated) contain substantial private or other inholdings. Because the Forest Service has no control over development of adjacent private lands (and grizzly bear presence on many of these lands would not be encouraged due to the potential for grizzly bear-human conflicts and subsequent bear mortality), measuring road miles across an entire BORZ area would not necessarily be an accurate reflection of the effects of National Forest management on grizzly bears. Consequently, the Access Amendment direction for the affected national forests is for no increases in permanent linear miles of open road and no net


29

permanent increases in linear miles of total roads on National Forest System lands within individual BORZ areas above the baseline conditions identified at that time (USDA Forest Service 2011b).

Table 9 shows the existing condition for the Priest BORZ. The 2010 baseline is reported in the forest plan (USDA Forest Service 2015, Table 26, page 155). In 2012 the baseline was updated due to mapping errors that included the following: 1) An existing roads that had been on the landscape for at least 10 years was not included in the 2010 baseline. The road is access to private property. 2) During a review of the motor vehicle use maps it was discovered that two open roads were not included in the BORZ road coverage as open or gated.

During the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project analysis process it became apparent that an additional open road exists on the landscape was not included in the Priest BORZ baseline mapping. The 460C road (approximately 0.2 miles) is mapped as open on the MVUM so it needs to be counted as open on the BORZ layer, as part of the baseline.

Table 9. Existing (baseline) conditions of features affecting grizzly bear habitat for the Priest BORZ area

Year Total BORZ Acres Total NFS Land

Acres Total NFS Road

Miles Open NFS Road

Miles

2010 80,733 75,793 316.4 314.4 2012 80,733 75,793 319.0 317.0 2015 80,733 75,793 319.2 317.2

BORZ = bears outside recovery zone NFS = National Forest System

Habitat conditions within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project were altered with the Tower Fire of 2015. A majority of the hiding cover that existed within the project area was removed as a result of the fire. However, grizzly bears return to burned areas in search of carrion, and they will forage on revegetation of grasses and forbs (USDA Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). The snags will eventually provide down wood habitats for ants and other insects, a component of the bears’ diet (USDA Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). The Tower Fire also reduced the amount of huckleberries available in the project area. Approximately 2 percent of the Tower Fire incurred light soil damage and may return to huckleberry production within 5 to 8 years. About 18 percent of the Tower Fire incurred moderate soil severity and it is expected to take 8 to 15 years to return to pre-fire huckleberry productivity. Approximately 80 percent of the burned area incurred high or very high burn severity resulting in complete destruction of any present shallow huckleberry rhizomes. Therefore, approximately 80 percent of the burned area may take 15 to 30 years to return to pre-fire huckleberry productivity. However, likely all of the burned area will return to better huckleberry productivity than pre-fire conditions, beginning for some areas within 5 to 8 years, reaching full huckleberry productivity in years 15 to 60 after the fire for most areas, and likely declining after that without further ecological disturbances (project file). Other forage species (grasses and forbs) should increase within the Tower Fire area for 10 to 15 years or until the tree and shrub canopy begins to reduce available light to the forest floor.

Environmental Consequences – Grizzly Bear Methodology The analysis of effects on grizzly bears focuses on changes to linear miles of roads open to public use and total roads (open plus restricted roads). Roads closed by earthen barriers or roads that are physically impassable to motorized vehicles (brushed in or washed out) do not figure into road mile calculations. Since a vegetation-based grizzly bear habitat model is not currently available for the Selkirk ecosystem, possible changes to vegetation can be estimated quantitatively; however, the potential influences of these


30

changes to grizzly bear habitat are addressed qualitatively. Potential disturbance or displacement of grizzly bears due to human activities is another effect that is difficult to quantify, so it is addressed in general terms or accounted for by assessing changes to linear road miles where appropriate.

Alternative 1 - Direct and Indirect Effects The no-action alternative would not preclude activities already approved in this area or activities planned as separate projects. This alternative provides a baseline of current, post-fire conditions against which to compare the effects of the alternatives 2 and 3. Under the no-action alternative, none of the salvage operations, reforestation or other project activities associated with alternatives 2 and 3 would take place. Danger trees that pose an imminent threat to human safety or infrastructure would be felled using existing management direction. As time passes, the number of danger trees is anticipated to increase as likely hazard trees become imminent hazard trees. Treating the danger trees would only proceed to the extent that funds became available. Alternative 1 would not have any direct or indirect effects for grizzly bears. Open road miles would remain unchanged. There would be no additional disturbance to grizzly bears from this alternative. Hiding cover would begin throughout the area in 10 to 15 years when the shrub and tree layers begin to reestablish as the dominant vegetation layers. Full huckleberry production is expected to return to the low-intensity fire areas in 8 to 15 years, while it would take 15 to 30 plus years in areas that experienced moderate to high severity fire effects. Other forage species (grasses and forbs) would be available throughout the fire area.

Alternative 2 - Direct and Indirect Effects The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would temporarily increase linear miles of roads in the Priest BORZ up to 8.9 miles; these are temporary roads and maintenance level 1 roads that would be used during harvest operations. However public open road miles would not increase as design features are in place to restrict the public’s access to roads needed for the salvage activities. The temporary linear increase in road miles is expected to be short in duration as harvest activities are anticipated to be completed in 1 year. The Tower Project would also place approximately 4.7 miles of roads classified as open in the BORZ roads layer into storage once harvest activities have been completed (Roads 312C, 1075M, 1089A, and 4306D). The 4.7 miles classified as open in the BORZ roads layer are already closed on the motor vehicle use map, so public motorized access would not change. Roads that are placed into storage are unavailable for vehicular use (including maintenance) for a minimum of 10 years, and 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 Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).

Table 10. Habitat conditions for the Priest BORZ during harvest activities, alternative 2

Time Period Total BORZ Acres Total NFS Land


Miles Open NFS Road

Miles Existing Condition 80,733 75,793 319.2 317.2 During salvage activities

80,733 75,793 328.1 317.2

After salvage activities

80,733 75,793 314.5 312.5


Temporary road construction associated with salvage activities has the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. There are approximately 4.6 miles of temporary roads proposed to facilitate harvest activities. The temporary roads would temporarily increase total


31

linear miles of roads within the Priest BORZ. After use for the project, the temporary roads would be recontoured to the approximate shape of the surrounding terrain after salvage. The temporary roads would be managed in a way to make sure the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project is consistent with the Access Amendment within a BORZ (see “Design Features”).

Road maintenance and reconstruction associated with salvage activities have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. There are approximately 44.1 miles of road maintenance and 38.5 miles of road reconstructions proposed to facilitate harvest activities. Of the 38.5 miles of road reconstruction only 1.9 miles would temporarily increase the total linear miles of roads within the Priest BORZ (Roads 1075G and 1089D). The reconstruction of the other 34.2 miles are occurring on roads already considered open in the Priest BORZ. After harvest the 1.9 miles of reconstructed roads would be stored. The road maintenance and reconstruction would be managed in a way to make sure the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project is consistent with the Access Amendment within a BORZ (see “Design Features”).

Salvage operations and roadside danger tree removal have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. Proposed salvage harvest includes 1,735 acres of ground-based logging and 2,526 acres of cable yarding totaling 4,271 acres total. Roadside danger tree removal would occur on 1,209 acres. No timber harvest, hauling, road reconstruction, road storage, grapple piling or slashing activities would take place between April 1 and June 15, which is considered to be the most sensitive time period for grizzly bears (see “Design Features”).

Trail danger tree removal outside of salvage units and roadside riparian habitat conservation area danger tree removal also would have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. There could be up to 245 acres of trail danger tree removal occurring outside of salvage units and about 200 acres of danger tree felling in riparian habitat conservation areas along open roads. Only danger trees classified as having an imminent or likely failure potential with a likelihood of striking the trail or road would be felled. The activities associated with these treatments would not take place between April 1 and June 15 (see “Design Features”).

There is about 2.7 miles of trail reconstruction and 1.5 miles of trail maintenance proposed outside of salvage and roadside danger tree areas, as required by the design features. Trail improvement activities would make inconsequential changes to habitat, but have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. The activities associated with these treatments would not take place between April 1 and June 15 (see “Design Features”).

Reforestation would have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. Approximately 5,754 acres would be replanted in the salvage units and in the roadside danger tree removal areas following the completion of harvest activities. Tree seedlings would also be planted in areas where treatments are not being conducted but the fire burned with enough severity that adequate openings in the forest canopy were created to allow the successful growth of the planted trees (for example, in riparian habitat conservation areas). The activities associated with reforestation are the only project activities that would be allowed to occur from April 1 to June 15, which is considered to be the most sensitive time period for grizzly bears. Most of the planting would likely occur in May, with some lower elevation planting occurring in April and some high elevation planting not occurring until June. Some snow plowing may be required to gain access to planting sites at the right time. All snow plowing would occur on roads designated as open to the public on the motor vehicle use map. Snow plowing is unlikely to displace grizzly bears since the existing source of disturbance is already present: while plowing would allow a different type of motorized vehicle on the roads, motorized vehicle use in the form of over snow or all-terrain vehicle/utility task vehicle use would most likely be occurring already.


32

The culvert replacement on Road 1089 at the Solo Creek crossing has the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. The culvert would be replaced between July 15 and March 1. The activities associated with the culvert replacement would not take place between April 1 and June 15 (see “Design Features”). The road is currently designated as an open road on the motor vehicle use map. The culvert replacement is unlikely to displace grizzly bears since an existing source of disturbance is already present.

Alternative 3 - Direct and Indirect Effects In this alternative, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would temporarily increase linear miles of roads in the Priest BORZ up to 5.5 miles; these are temporary roads and maintenance level 1 that would be used during harvest operations. However public open road miles would not increase as design features are in place to restrict the public’s access to roads needed for the salvage activities. The temporary linear increase in road miles is expected to be short in duration as harvest activities are anticipated to be completed in 1 year. The Tower Project would also place approximately 4.7 miles of roads classified as open in the BORZ roads layer into storage once harvest activities have been completed (Roads 312C, 1075M, 1089A, and 4306D). The 4.7 miles classified as open in the BORZ roads layer are already closed on the motor vehicle use map, so public motorized access would not change. Roads that are placed into storage are unavailable for vehicular use (including maintenance) for a minimum of 10 years, and 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 Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b).

Table 11. Habitat conditions for the Priest BORZ during harvest activities, alternative 3

Time Period Total BORZ Acres Total NFS Land


Miles Open NFS Road

Miles Existing Condition 80,733 75,793 319.2 317.2 During salvage activities

80,733 75,793 324.7 317.2

After salvage activities

80,733 75,793 314.5 312.5


Temporary road construction associated with salvage activities has the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. There are approximately 1.2 miles of temporary roads proposed to facilitate harvest activities. The temporary roads would temporarily increase total linear miles of roads within the Priest BORZ. The temporary roads would be recontoured to the approximate shape of the surrounding terrain after salvage. The temporary roads would be managed in a way to make sure the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project is consistent with the Access Amendment within a BORZ (see “Design Features”).

Salvage operations and roadside danger tree removal have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. Proposed salvage harvest includes 1,195 acres of ground based logging and 1,744 acres of cable yarding totaling 2,939 acres total. Roadside danger tree removal would occur on 1,434 acres. No timber harvest, hauling, road reconstruction, road storage, grapple piling or slashing activities would take place between April 1 and June 15 (see “Design features”).

There are about 4.6 miles of trail reconstruction and trail maintenance proposed outside of salvage and roadside danger tree areas, as required by the design features. Trail improvement activities would make inconsequential changes to habitat, but have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may


33

occasionally use the project area. The impacts associated with reforestation are the same as those described in alternative 2.

Reforestation would have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. Approximately 4,592 acres would be replanted in the salvage units and in the roadside danger tree removal areas following the completion of harvest activities. The impacts associated with reforestation are the same as those described in alternative 2.

The impacts associated with road maintenance and reconstruction, danger tree removal along trails, and culvert replacement are the same as alternative 2.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 12 shows a comparison of alternatives 2 and 3 actions that could affect grizzly bears or their habitat in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project. Table 12. Comparison of actions proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 that could affect grizzly bears

Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Temporary increase in linear road miles within the Priest BORZ 8.9 5.5 Temporary increase in open road miles to the public within the Priest BORZ

0.0 0.0

Total road miles in the Priest BORZ after project 314.5 314.5 Open road miles in the Priest BORZ after project 312.5 312.5 Trail maintenance and reconstruction miles outside of salvage and roadside danger tree areas

4.2 4.6

Salvage operations (acres) 4,271 2,939 Danger tree treatments (acres) 1,209 1,434 Trail and RHCA danger tree felling (acres) 445 445 Reforestation (acres) 5,754 4,592

BORZ = bears outside recovery zone RHCA = riparian habitat conservation area

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

Colville National Forest Roadside Salvage and Colville Salvage Project- The two projects from the Colville occur outside of the effects analysis area for the grizzly bear. For the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project, the grizzly bear analysis area is the Priest BORZ. As such, there would be no cumulative effects to grizzly bears from the Colville Roadside Salvage and Salvage Projects.

Crystal Springs Dig Area Operations – This activity has the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. The activity takes place next to a road that is currently designated as open on the motor vehicle use map. The dig area operations are unlikely to displace grizzly bears since an existing source of disturbance (the open road) is already present. As such, this action would not result in any cumulative effects for grizzly bears.

Fire Suppression/Fire Use Activities –Fire suppression and fire use activities have the possibility of causing disturbance to grizzly bears from increased foot, vehicle, and sometimes aircraft use during activities. The amount of future fire and level of successful suppression and fire use is impossible to


34

predict, but would generally result in the effects described. If a fire was to start in 15 to 20 years there would be minor cumulative effects when combined with this project.

North Zone Roadside Salvage – This project proposes salvage of standing dead, down and live hazard trees on about 1,520 acres outside of the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area but within the Priest Lake BORZ. The proposed activities would take place along currently drivable roads, and so would not increase linear road miles. While activities associated with the project may present 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 the 80,733-acre 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 BORZ area and there would be no cumulative effects associated with this action.

Private Lands – About 0.7 square miles of property in the Priest BORZ are private industrial timberlands. These lands are already roaded, so any future activities would probably emanate from existing roads. As a result, potential additional road building on these properties is unlikely to significantly increase linear road miles in this area; and any future timber harvest activities would originate from the existing road system. There is also 7.0 square miles of private lands that are mostly tracts of lands with numerous private residences. Existing residences as well as any new residences in the area could create potential conflicts between humans and bears (black and grizzly) resulting from food conditioning and habituation that often leads to the removal of these bears from the population. The potential effects of this are difficult to quantify and predict. However, sufficient hiding cover would remain on National Forest System lands in the Priest BORZ area to allow grizzly bear movement, and the Access Amendment direction for BORZ areas is for no net permanent increase of linear road miles on National Forest System lands (USDA Forest Service 2011b). As such, these actions would result in cumulative effects for grizzly bears.

Precommercial Thinning – Thinning young, small diameter trees would be designed to increase the overall health and vigor of the stands. This activity would originate from open roads, or would not open currently closed roads for general public use. Thinning activities would make insignificant habitat modifications, and disturbance is not expected to rise to a level where important behavioral patterns (breeding, feeding, or sheltering) would be significantly disrupted. Since the expected effects are insignificant and discountable, it would not cumulatively result in considerable effects.

Public Activities – Personal use firewood gathering, berry picking, mushroom picking, non-motorized recreation, winter motorized recreation, dispersed camping and motor vehicle use of roads and motorized trails would not appreciably impact grizzly bears since none of these activities would increase road miles 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 during the active bear year would not increase during implementation, and would ultimately be reduced. 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 within the Priest Lake BORZ. However, since there would be no increase in public motorized access in the BORZ under any alternative, risk of displacement and/or mortality would not increase as a result of this proposal. As such, this action would not result in any cumulative effects for grizzly bears.

Reforestation – Additional reforestation within the Priest Lake BORZ would have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally use the project area. Most of the planting would likely occur in May, with some lower elevation planting occurring in April and some high elevation planting not occurring until June. Some snow plowing may be required to gain access to planting sites at the right


35

time. Any snow plowing would occur on roads designated as open to the public on the motor vehicle use map. The snow plowing is unlikely to displace grizzly bears since the existing source of disturbance is already present: while plowing would allow a different type of motorized vehicle on the roads, motorized vehicle use in the form of over snow or all-terrain vehicle/utility task vehicle use would most likely be occurring already. As such, future reforestation would not result in any cumulative effects when combined with the reforestation from this project.

Road Decommissioning on Forest Service Road 659A – Road 659A is designated on the motor vehicle use map as closed. In addition, Road 659A is also identified as closed on the Priest BORZ roads layer. The decommissioning of the road would not reduce the open and total linear miles of roads in the Priest BORZ. The project has the potential to temporarily disturb any bears that may use the BORZ, however it would be a short-term effect. This project when combined with the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project would have a cumulative effect.

Wetland Restoration in Goose Creek Meadow – Wetland restoration on the Goose Creek meadow could cause increased disturbance to bears using the area. However, this would be a short-term effect and the restoration of the meadow back to a more natural functioning meadow could benefit bears in the long term. However, the meadow is near an open road so disturbance from the road may limit the benefits of an improved meadow complex. Given the small scale of this project and its location to an open road, it is anticipated to have minor cumulative effects with this project.

Conclusion The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would authorize salvage harvest on up to 4,271 acres, along with roadside danger tree treatments including treatments in riparian habitat conservation areas (1,209 acres), danger tree treatments along trails, trail reconstruction and maintenance, temporary road construction, road reconstruction and maintenance, reforestation, and a culvert replacement on Road 1089 at the Solo Creek crossing outside of the Selkirk Recovery Zone. The project would reduce linear road miles in the Priest BORZ area, consistent with the Access Amendment. While it would result in a temporary increase in linear road miles during project implementation, this situation would not increase the risk of mortality to grizzly bears since restricted and reopened roads used as haul routes would remain closed to the public and be used exclusively for the completion of project activities. With the exception of the reforestation activities, project activities would not take place during the grizzly bear spring season (April 1-June 15), a sensitive time period for grizzly bears.

The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project is expected to result in long-term (post-implementation) improvements to grizzly bear habitat by reducing road miles within the Priest BORZ. The project will not retard huckleberry production in the salvage and danger tree removal areas. While project activities may temporarily disturb or displace grizzly bears that are present during implementation, activities would be of relatively short duration, and ample displacement habitat would be available for bears to use. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would make minor modifications to habitat and would not disturb or displace grizzly bears at a level that would result in mortality or significantly disrupt behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering. Consequently, alternatives 2 and 3, in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect grizzly bears or their habitat.

The effects to grizzly bears for this project were consulted on with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through informal consultation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2016), and they concurred with this effects determination. They concluded: “Because project activities will be restricted during the sensitive spring season, there will be no net increase in linear miles of total or open roads, and because ample adjacent displacement habitat will be available during project implementation, the effects to grizzly bears


36

will be insignificant. In addition, reforestation activities will hasten the return of hiding cover to severely burned areas” (page 3).

Consistency with the Forest Plan All alternatives comply with the following 2015 forest 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 B (Motorized Access Amendment Direction),” below.

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

Not Applicable. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project does not occur within a bear management unit, so there is no bear core habitat in the 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).

Project design features are in place to minimize disturbance to grizzly bears during the spring season. There is a seasonal restriction in place from April 1 through June 15 for all activities except reforestation to ensure the project does not affect bears during the season. See grizzly bear design features for more details on page 44.

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.

Not applicable, the project is outside identified recovery zones. Specific management direction in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines applies to “grizzly bear ecosystems,” which are those areas identified in the original 1982 Recovery Plan and 1993 Final Plan as the Recovery Zones. Further, the Forest Service Grizzly Bear Management Policy directs the agency to “emphasize actions which will contribute toward conservation and recovery of the bear within areas identified in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.” The Tower project area is not in any identified recovery zone, but instead is within an identified BORZ area. Management for grizzly bear and their habitat within BORZ areas is directed by the Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. See “Forest Plan Appendix B (Motorized Access Amendment Direction)” below.

Forest Plan Appendix B (Motorized Access Amendment Direction) Design Element I – Motorized access standards (percent core, total motorized road density and open motorized road density) under this subheading apply only to individual bear management units in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area is not within a bear management unit.

Design Element II.A. – The Forests shall ensure no increases in permanent linear miles of open road on National Forest System lands in any individual BORZ, above the baseline conditions.

There would be no permanent increases in road miles as a result of this proposal. Restricted roads used as haul routes would not be made available for public use during project activities. Consequently, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would be consistent with this design element.


37

Design Element II.B. – The Forest shall ensure no net permanent increases in linear miles of total roads in any individual BORZ area above the baseline conditions identified in table 26, except in cases where the Forest Service lacks discretion to prevent road building across National Forest System lands due to legal or other obligations (examples include, but are not limited to, ANILCA claims, identification of RS2477 thoroughfares, etc.).

The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would result in a net decrease (4.7 miles) of linear miles of total road in the Priest BORZ area since the roads would not be used for at least 10 years. There would be no permanent increase in linear miles of total road on National Forest System lands from this proposal. Consequently, the Tower Project would comply with Design Element II.B.

1. Temporary increases in linear miles of total roads are acceptable under the following conditions:

a. Newly constructed roads would be effectively gated and would be restricted with a CFR closure clarifying they are not open for public use.

b. These roads shall be closed immediately upon completion of activities requiring use of the road, except as described in Part II. A.1., above. Roads must be closed with a berm, guardrail or other measure that effectively prevents motorized access, and put in a condition such that a need for motorized access for maintenance is not anticipated for at least 10 years.

c. Upon completion of a land management project, linear miles of total roads would be returned to or below the baseline levels contained in Table 26.

All roads not designated as open on the motor vehicle use map would be effectively gated and would require a code of Federal regulation closure clarifying they are not open for public use. These roads would also be closed immediately upon completion of activities requiring use of the road. Roads must be closed with a berm, guardrail or other measure that effectively prevents motorized access (front end obliteration is the preferred method), and put in a condition such that a need for motorized access for maintenance is not anticipated for at least 10 years. Upon completion of the project the linear miles of roads would be reduced by 4.7 miles. Consequently, the Tower Project would comply with Design Element II.B.1.

Design Element II.C. – Timber harvest activities that would occur within multiple watersheds shall be scheduled such that disturbance of grizzly bears resulting from road use is minimized. The appropriate scale for scheduling harvest activities would be determined pursuant to project level consultation.

The Tower Fire and Salvage and Reforestation Project is the only project that proposes harvest activities within the Priest BORZ during the anticipated time frame of 2016 and 2017. The majority of the Priest BORZ would not have disturbance from road use associated with harvest activities. Consequently, the Tower Project would comply with Design Element II.C.

Sensitive Species

Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat Relationships Black-backed woodpeckers are primary cavity nesters that excavate their own cavities, most often in dead or dying trees. Black-backed woodpeckers are specialists in forests that have insect outbreaks from either wildfire, disease or other reasons. Black-backed woodpeckers are known to use three types of forested


38

habitat: (1) post-fire areas that have burned within 1 to 6 years; (2) areas with extensive bark beetle outbreaks causing widespread tree mortality; and, (3) a natural range of smaller disturbances scattered throughout the forest such as wind throw, ice damage or other occurrences that produce small patches of dead trees. These habitat conditions all provide habitat for the black-backed woodpecker’s primary food source, woodborer beetles and larvae (Bonn et al. 2007). They nest primarily in dead trees, with an average 16-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) (Saab et al. 2002), though nests are also found in live trees within burned and beetle infested stands (Dixon and Saab 2000). Historically on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, mixed severity and stand-replacing fires produced new habitat annually in greater amounts than is presently produced under a fire suppression strategy (Zack and Morgan 1994).

Black-backed woodpeckers occur mainly in coniferous forests, and they are drawn to burned areas where their primary food source is most abundant (Bonn et al. 2007). 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). They are uncommon residents of coniferous forests year-round, naturally occurring at low population levels. Black-backed woodpeckers tend to flourish in early post-fire (3-5 years) habitat (Hutto 1995). Following fire or insect and disease outbreaks that increase populations of wood-boring insects, they experience local population increases and temporary range extensions. Several studies found that black-backed woodpeckers are found primarily in unlogged sites or clumps of high density trees and snags for both nesting and foraging (Saab and Dudley 1998, Haggard and Gaines 2001, Saab et al. 2002, and Saab et al. 2009). These stands may provide greater foraging opportunities since this species feeds primarily on bark and wood boring beetles (Saab et al. 2002, and Saab et al. 2004). Fire suppression and post-fire logging reduce habitat for black-backed woodpeckers by reducing the availability of burned areas and snags (Hutto 1995).

Affected Environment A total of approximately 24,702 acres was burned in the summer of 2015 within the Tower Fire. Of the 24,702 acres about 12,128 acres occur on land administered by the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Existing vegetation and the burn severity of the Tower Fire has created an abundance of potential black-backed woodpecker habitat. The burned areas are considered quality habitat, and woodpecker use of this habitat is expected over the next several years. Based on pre-fire stand conditions using Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) modeling overlaid with the BARC reclassified layer, the estimated existing amount of high quality black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area is approximately 7,250 acres. This is enough habitat to provide for up to 14 home ranges within the project area. Table 13 shows the existing habitat conditions for black-backed woodpeckers.

Table 13. Existing Habitat Conditions for black-backed woodpeckers

Area

High Quality Black-backed Woodpecker

Nesting/Foraging Habitat (Acres)

Potential Home Ranges

Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project Area 7,250 14 Tower Fire 13,130 26

There are no known black-backed woodpecker sightings within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area. There were two sightings of black-backed woodpeckers just east of the project area. One occurred in 2003 and the other occurred in 2010. Both were about 6 miles to the east of the project area. However, the Tower Fire has created more suitable conditions for black-backed woodpeckers, so they are expected to utilize the fire area for the next 6 years.


39

Environmental Consequences – Black-backed Woodpecker Methodology Impacts to black-backed woodpeckers was determined by changes in high quality nesting and foraging habitat. High quality habitat is defined as timbered stands with greater than 40 percent canopy cover (pre-fire) that have burned with moderate to high burn severities in large (approximately 200 acres) patch sizes (Russell et al. 2007). Nesting habitat is considered to be stands where nest trees are generally at least 10 inches in diameter (Bonn et al. 2007).

To get an existing vegetation data set that covered the entire Tower Fire, the GNN Modeling data was used as its coverage is for the whole state of Washington. GNN data consist of 30 meter pixel (grid) maps with associated data (tree size, density, snag density, canopy cover, and percent down wood cover). The data used for this analysis were developed by the Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping, and Analysis (LEMMA) team as part of the GNNPAC Pacific States Forest Vegetation Mapping project. This project involves developing detailed maps of existing forest vegetation across all land ownerships in the Pacific Coast States (Oregon, Washington, and parts of California). It is being conducted by the LEMMA team (Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) and Oregon State University) at the Corvallis Lab, in close collaboration with the Western Wildlands Environmental Threats Assessment Center, Interagency Mapping and Assessment Project (IMAP), Northwest Forest Plan Effectiveness Monitoring, Remote Sensing Applications Center, and Forest Inventory and Analysis at the Pacific Northwest Research Station.

GNN uses many variables on a gradient along with satellite imagery to assign data from known field plots to pixels with no data that have the same satellite imagery signature (that is, it “looks” the same to the computer). The species-size and canopy cover GNN models were used in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation analysis. Accuracy of the modeling depends on how “like” pixels match up based on numerous variables. Information on GNN accuracy, LEMMA group, IMAP and the GNNPac project is available at the project website: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/gnnpac.

The amount of high quality black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat available and affected by the Tower Fire was calculated by using a combination of the GNN data set and the Tower reclassified BARC layer. BARC uses satellite-derived data to categorize burned areas into severity classes (see the Forest Vegetation Specialist Report for additional details). All acres that have a size class greater than 10 inches d.b.h. with a canopy cover of at least 40 percent from the GNN data that overlaid with the moderate, high, or very high burn severity from the reclassified BARC layer are assumed to be high quality nesting and foraging habitat areas for black-backed woodpecker.

Alternative 1 – Direct and Indirect Effects The no-action alternative would not preclude activities already approved in this area or activities planned as separate projects. This alternative provides a baseline of current, post-fire conditions against which to compare the effects of the alternatives 2 and 3. Under the no-action alternative, none of the proposed salvage operations, reforestation or other project activities would take place. Danger trees that pose an imminent threat to human safety or infrastructure would be felled using existing management direction. As time passes, the number of danger trees is anticipated to increase as likely hazard trees become imminent hazard trees. Treating the danger trees would only proceed to the extent that funds became available. Danger tree felling along open roads (approximately 2,370 acres) and any infrastructure would reduce snags available for nesting and foraging.

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/gnnpac


40

Alternative 2 - Direct and Indirect Effects In alternative 2, salvage operation activities have the potential to disturb or displace black-backed woodpecker that may use the project area. Of the 4,271 acres of salvage proposed for alternative 2, approximately 2,894 acres are considered high-quality black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat. All acres of high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat would be converted to lower quality habitats as a result of activities. Any trees expected to live would remain within the areas. A minimum of 5 to 7 snags per acre and 1 to 6 live trees per acre (when available) for snag recruitment would also be left within the units. The retention snags and trees within salvage units would provide lower quality habitat to black-backed woodpeckers.

Approximately 797 acres of the proposed salvage would occur in high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat that was pre-fire old growth. The 797 acres of pre-fire old growth is a portion of the 2,894 acres of the paragraph above. The proposed salvage would only occur in the pre-fire old growth areas that no longer meet old growth criteria, and would focus on only removing trees less than 28-inches at stump height. Effects to pre-fire old growth are discussed in the paragraph above that details effects on black-backed woodpeckers from salvage operations.

Roadside danger tree removal has the potential to disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers that may use the project area. Of the 1,209 acres of roadside danger tree removal proposed for alternative 2, approximately 568 acres are considered high quality black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat. In addition, about 236 acres of danger tree felling within riparian habitat conservation areas and along trails is occurring in high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. Acres of high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat would be converted to lower quality habitats as a result of activities. Any trees expected to live would remain within the areas, only danger trees classified as having an imminent or likely failure potential with a likelihood of striking the roads or trails would be felled and salvaged outside riparian habitat conservation areas. Snag retention guidelines would not apply to the danger tree areas, as there are exceptions to this guideline for human safety. However if a snag does not have the likelihood of striking the road it would remain. The remaining snags would provide lower quality habitat to black-backed woodpeckers.

Approximately 91 acres of the proposed roadside danger tree removal and 41 acres of the danger tree felling within riparian habitat conservation areas and along trails would occur in high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat that is old growth or was pre-fire old growth. The 132 acres of old growth is a portion of the acres described in the paragraph above. Effects to old growth are discussed in the paragraph above that details effects on black-backed woodpecker from danger tree removal and danger tree felling.

Reforestation could disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers; however, there is not significant snag loss associated with this project (although, snags could be felled for safety purposes).

Road maintenance, road reconstruction, replacement of the Road 1089 culvert at Solo Creek, trail reconstruction, and trial maintenance would disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers temporarily, but would have no other impacts to black-backed woodpecker. These activities would not reduce snags.

Approximately 49 percent (3,552 acres) of the high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area would not be impacted by the Tower Project. In addition to the untreated high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat, another 2,327 acres of black-backed woodpecker habitat within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area would not be impacted by the Tower Project activities. Unlogged areas are expected to provide the best black-backed woodpecker habitat as all snags created by the Tower Fire would remain on the landscape.


41

Alternative 3 – Direct and Indirect Effects Salvage operation activities have the potential to disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers that may use the project area. Of the 2,939 acres of salvage proposed for alternative 3, approximately 1,965 acres are considered high quality black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat. No acres of pre-fire old growth would be impacted in this alternative. The impacts on these acres would be the same as those described under Alternative 2.

Roadside danger tree removal has the potential to disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers that may use the project area. Of the 1,434 acres of roadside danger tree removal proposed for alternative 3, approximately 723 acres are considered high quality black-backed woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat. In addition, about 242 acres of danger tree felling within riparian habitat conservation areas and along trails is occurring in high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. The impacts on these acres are the same as those described under alternative 2.

Approximately 226 acres of the proposed roadside danger tree removal and 46 acres of the danger tree felling within riparian habitat conservation areas and along trails would occur in high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat that is old growth or pre-fire old growth. The 272 acres of old growth is a portion of the acres described in the paragraph above. Effects to old growth are discussed in the paragraph above that details effects on black-backed woodpecker from danger tree removal and danger tree felling.

Reforestation could disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers, however there is not significant snag loss associated with this project (although snags could be felled for safety purposes).

Road maintenance, road reconstruction, replacement of the Road 1089 culvert at Solo Creek, trail reconstruction, and trial maintenance would disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers temporarily, but would have no other impacts to black-backed woodpeckers. These activities would not reduce snags.

Approximately 60 percent (4,320 acres) of the high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area would not be impacted by the Tower Project. In addition to the untreated high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat, another 2,626 acres of black-backed woodpecker habitat within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area would not be impacted by the Tower Project activities. Unlogged areas are expected to provide the best black-backed woodpecker habitat as all snags created by the Tower Fire would remain on the landscape.


42

Comparison of Alternatives Table 14 shows a comparison of alternatives 2 and 3 actions that could affect black-backed woodpeckers during the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project.

Table 14. Comparison of actions proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 that could affect black-backed woodpeckers

Description Alternative 2 Alternative 3 High quality black-backed woodpecker habitat acres impacted by salvage

2,894 1,965

High quality black-backed woodpecker habitat acres impacted by danger tree felling and removal

568 723

High quality black-backed woodpecker habitat acres impacted by danger tree felling within riparian habitat conservation areas and along trails

236 242

Remaining acres high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat in Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area

3,552 4,320

Percentage of high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area not affected by Tower activities

49 percent 60 percent

Percentage of high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area not affected by Tower activities

72 percent 78 percent

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 The following past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions were considered in a cumulative effects discussion for black-backed woodpecker:

Colville National Forest Roadside Salvage – This project could remove up to 140 acres of black-backed woodpecker habitat. Of that 140 acres, 61 acres were modeled as high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. The project would have similar impacts to black-backed woodpecker as discussed above in the roadside danger felling and removal section. Cumulatively this project would reduce less than 1 percent of the overall high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat that was created by the Tower Fire.

Colville National Forest Salvage Project – This project would remove up to 150 acres of black-backed woodpecker habitat. Of that 150 acres, 73 acres were modeled as high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. The project would have similar impacts to black-backed woodpecker as discussed above in the salvage section. Cumulatively this salvage project would reduce less than 1 percent of the overall high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat that was created by the Tower Fire.

Crystal Springs Dig Area Operations – While the dig area operations could disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers there is no anticipated snag loss associated with this project. Since there is no habitat loss associated with the Crystal Springs project, activities from this action would not result in any cumulative impacts.

Fire Suppression – Fire suppression activities are generally not conducive for black-backed woodpecker habitat as they prevent or limit the production of suitable burned habitat. However as the analysis area is already suitable burned habitat, fire suppression over the next decade would preserve high quality habitat in the area. Over the longer term, fire suppression would allow the reestablishment of a timbered condition needed for future black-backed woodpecker habitat. After several decades, fire suppression would again become detrimental, as it restricts the creation of suitably burned large timber habitat. As a


43

result, fire suppression benefits this species in the short term by helping preserve the existing suitable burned forest habitat, although the longer-term effect may ultimately be a reduction of habitat quality and quantity.

Fire Use Activities – Fire use activities would be beneficial to black-backed woodpeckers as they prefer moderate to high severity burn areas as habitat. Within the Tower Fire area, habitat was already created by the Tower Fire so fire use activities would not benefit or impact black-backed woodpeckers until such a time that green trees averaging at least 10 inches d.b.h. would be allowed to burn again. That is not expected for several decades.

North Zone Roadside Salvage Project – There are no additional acres of this road side project that are occurring within the Tower Fire area. Since the project is not occurring within the effects analysis area for the black-backed woodpecker, there would be no cumulative impacts associated with the roadside salvage project.

Other Timber Salvage Projects on State and Private Lands- These actions could remove up to 7,040 acres of black-backed woodpecker habitat. Of that 7,040 acres, 3,030 acres were modeled as high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. Cumulatively these actions would impact up to 23 percent of the overall high quality black-backed woodpecker that was created by the Tower Fire.

Precommercial Thinning - Since there is no habitat loss associated with precommercial thinning, activities from this action would not result in any cumulative impacts.

Public Activities – Personal-use firewood gathering is anticipated to continue along open roads, potentially reducing snags within 200 feet of such roads. Although it is unlikely to disrupt black-backed woodpecker use patterns, firewood cutting can deteriorate habitat in these roadside areas by removing snags. All open roads within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project are already within either salvage units or danger tree treatment areas. Cumulatively personal fire use could remove additional snags within these areas; however, firewood gathering would not reduce additional high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. All other recreation activities are unlikely to impact black-backed woodpeckers, so they would not result in any cumulative impacts.

Reforestation - While reforestation could disturb or displace black-backed woodpeckers, there is no significant snag loss associated with this project. However, snags could be felled for safety purposes. Since there is no significant loss of snag habitat associated with reforestation, activities from this action would not result in any cumulative effects.

Conclusion Alternative 2 would impact 3,698 acres of high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. Alternative 3 would impact 2,930 acres of high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. There would be enough high quality habitat within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area to provide multiple home ranges (alternative 2 = 7 home ranges; alternative 3 = 8 home ranges). Actions from activities occurring on the Colville National Forest administered lands as well as state and private lands would also reduce available high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat. However, when looking at all potential salvage and roadside danger tree removals occurring on all lands within the Tower Fire; at least 48 percent and up to 54 percent of high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat would remain untreated. These untreated areas would provide the best areas for black-backed woodpecker to utilize post-fire habitat. Some individuals may be displaced by disturbance during project activities, however about half of the high quality habitat within the fires would remain untreated and available for birds to disperse.


44

Consequently, all action alternatives in conjunction with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions may impact black-backed woodpeckers 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 All alternatives comply with the following IPNF 2015 Revised Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015) standards for wildlife and habitat management regarding black-backed woodpeckers:

Standard FW-GDL-WL-08. – Wildfire Areas: Maintain unlogged conditions in some portions of areas burned by wildfires for 5 years post-fire. A well distributed diversity of patch sizes and burned conditions, based on fire characteristics and pre-fire conditions, should be left to provide habitat for species whose habitat requirements include recently burned forests (black-backed woodpecker, etc.).

Alternative 2 would leave 58 percent of the Tower Fire that occurred on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests unlogged. Alternative 3 would leave 64 percent of the Tower Fire on Idaho Panhandle National Forests lands unlogged. The unlogged areas are well distributed and would provide habitat for species that utilize burned forests.

Design Features The following section discusses the wildlife design features for this project and their effectiveness. The design features minimize, avoid or mitigate adverse effects that could occur as a result of implementing proposed activities in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project area. The design features below are required under alternatives 2 and 3 in order for the Tower Project to be consistent with the forest plan. Effects and impacts determinations on all wildlife species are dependent on the design features below being used during project activities.

Canada Lynx – Within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit, roads that are not designated as open on the motor vehicle use map would be restricted to public motorized access. See the grizzly bear design features on road management for details on how restricting public motorized access would be accomplished.

Estimated Effectiveness – High. This design feature would allow the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project to comply with Guideline HU9 of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007). This guideline was also a recommendation from the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000). The intent of the guideline was to reduce the likelihood people would interact with lynx near roads. This provision would be built into timber harvest contracts and implemented by the sale administrator.

Grizzly Bear – No timber harvest, hauling, road reconstruction, road storage, grapple piling or slashing activities would take place between April 1 and June 15. Additionally, no trail improvement activities (including danger tree removal) would take place during these dates.

Estimated Effectiveness – High. 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. Research also shows that grizzly bears benefits from closures aimed at minimizing traffic within important seasonal habitats, particularly during the spring (Mace et al. 1999). This provision will be built into timber harvest contracts and implemented by the sale administrator.


45

Grizzly Bear – No increase in linear miles of open road with the implementation of Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would occur. Increases in linear miles of open roads must be compensated for with in-kind reductions in linear miles of open road concurrently with, or prior to, project implementation within the same Bears Outside Recovery Zone (BORZ) Occupancy Area

Estimated Effectiveness – High. This is a standard from the Motorized Access Amendment Direction (USDA Forest Service 2011b). The standards were put in place to conserve grizzly bear habitat within the BORZ areas (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). This provision would be built into timber harvest contracts and implemented by the sale administrator.

Grizzly Bear – No net increase in the linear miles of total roads with implementation of the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would occur. Increases in linear miles of total roads must be compensated for with in-kind reductions in linear total road miles concurrently with, or prior to, new road construction or reconstruction of currently bermed or barriered roads.

Estimated Effectiveness – High. This is a standard from the Motorized Access Amendment Direction (USDA Forest Service 2011b). The standards were put in place to conserve grizzly bear habitat within the BORZ areas (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). This provision would be built into timber harvest contracts and implemented by the sale administrator.

Grizzly Bear – Temporary increases in linear miles associated with this project would be acceptable under the following conditions:

• All roads not designated as open on the motor vehicle use map would be effectively gated and would require a code of Federal regulation closure clarifying they are not open for public use. Roads that would need gates include: 312C, 1075G, 1075M, 1089A, 1089D, 4306D, and all temporary roads.

• All roads not designated as open on the motor vehicle use map would be closed immediately upon completion of activities requiring use of the road. Roads must be closed with a berm, guardrail or other measure that effectively prevents motorized access (front end obliteration is the preferred method), and put in a condition such that a need for motorized access for maintenance is not anticipated for at least 10 years. Roads that would need to be closed include: 312C, 1075G, 1075M, 1089A, 1089D, 4306D, and all temporary roads.

• Upon completion of the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project, linear miles of total roads would be returned to or below the baseline levels.

Estimated Effectiveness – High. These are standards from the Motorized Access Amendment Direction (USDA Forest Service 2011b). The standards were put in place to conserve grizzly bear habitat within the BORZ areas (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). This provision would be built into timber harvest contracts and implemented by the sale administrator.

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 Idaho Panhandle National Forests Food Storage Order. The National Forest System lands within the proposed action areas are covered by the Food Storage Order. The order would be included in all contracts. Compliance with the provisions of the 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).


46

Grizzly Bear Protection – Contractors and subcontractors would not be permitted to hunt, transport hunters, discharge firearms, or transport big game animals with vehicles is any areas that are otherwise closed to motorized vehicles. Timber sale contract provision C5.41 -Closure to use by others, would be included in any timber sale contract and implemented.

Estimated Effectiveness – High. This design feature would reduce the potential of a grizzly bear mortality to occur.

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 a qualified Forest Service 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).

Raptors – If a raptor nest is discovered before or during project implementation, timing restrictions and distance buffers, based on the best available information, as well as site-specific factors (e.g., topography, available habitat), would be implemented to reduce disturbance.

Estimated Effectiveness – Moderate to High. Protection measures would allow continued nesting and successful rearing during and after project implementation. Seasonal restrictions are likely to minimize disturbance to active nests. Protection of raptor nests and seasonal restrictions have been effective in the past.

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 5 years. 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. A qualified Forest Service 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 (such as roads).

No mechanized project activities (with the exception of hauling on open road systems) would be allowed within up to a half 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 a qualified Forest Service 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.

Other Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife Species Management – If any threatened, endangered or sensitive species is located during project layout or implementation, alter timber harvest


47

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 threatened, endangered and sensitive species habitats and locations are utilized in all contracts and have been effective in protecting these resources (see forest plan monitoring and evaluation reports).

Down Wood – Down wood, especially down logs, for terrestrial mollusks, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and other species whose habitat requirements includes this component is required. Vegetation management activities should retain the amounts of coarse woody debris (including logs) that are displayed in Table 15. See the forest vegetation design features section for more detail on how this design feature would be met.

Table 15. Level of logs and other coarse woody debris to retain after vegetation management activities for each biophysical setting [Table 3 of the forest plan (FW-GDL-VEG-03); USDA Forest Service 2015a]

Biophysical Setting Total Coarse woody

Debris to Retain (tons/acre)

Number and Size of Logs to Retain

Number of Logs/Acre Desired Size

Warm/Dry Drier Sites: 5-12

6-14 Diameter: >10” with at least 2 pieces >20”

Moister Sites: 10-20 Length: >12’

Warm/Moist 12-33 20-30 Diameter: >12” with at least 10 pieces >20” Length: >12’

Subalpine Moister Sites: 12-25 Moister Sites: 20-30 Diameter: >10” (8” for

lodgepole pine) Drier Sites: 7-15 Drier Sites: 15-20 Length: >12’

Estimated Effectiveness – Moderate. This measure would be implemented using project layout and contract provisions, they would have a moderate chance of avoiding and/or reducing adverse effects on down wood dependent wildlife.

Wildlife Tree Retention – Trees and snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. would be available for wildlife species that utilize these habitats for nesting, roosting, and denning. Vegetation management activities should generally retain snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. and at least the minimum number of snags and live trees (for future snags) that are displayed in Table 16.

Table 16. Recommended snag and snag recruitment levels to retain (where they exist) after vegetation management activities (including post-harvest activities), by harvest type [Table 4 of the forest plan (FW-GDL-VEG-04; USDA Forest Service 2015a)]

Dominance Group Biophysical Setting Snags > 15”+ DBH Live Trees > 15.0” DBH

Ranges per Acre where Treatments Result in a Seed/Sap Size Class (Regeneration Harvest) All except lodgepole pine

Warm/Dry 2.0 – 4.0 0.5 – 3.0 Warm/ Moist 4.5 – 6.5 1.0 – 5.5

Subalpine 3.0 – 5.0 1.0 – 3.5 Lodgepole pine All 1.0 – 2.5 0.5 – 3.0


48

Where vegetation management activities occur and snags (or live trees for future snags) are retained, the following direction should be followed (FW-GDL-VEG-05):

• Group snags where possible; Retain snags far enough away from roads or other areas open to public access to reduce the potential for removal (generally more than 150 feet);

• Emphasize retention of the largest snags and live trees as well as those species that tend to be the most persistent, such as ponderosa pine, larch, and cedar; and,

• Favor snags or live trees with existing cavities or evidence of use by woodpeckers or other wildlife.

Estimated Effectiveness – Moderate. This measure would be implemented using project layout, contract provisions and would have a moderate chance of reducing effects on snag dependent wildlife. The project is a salvage removal of dead and dying trees but this design features is in place to ensure snags are available in treatment areas post-treatment. Due to Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) guidelines, contractors would remove snags deemed to pose a safety risk to ground crews.

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.

Statement of Findings Based on the analysis in this document, I conclude that Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project may impact individuals or habitat for black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, fisher, fringed myotis, gray wolf, harlequin duck, 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 Based on analysis in this document the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North American wolverine, which is a Proposed Species. A separate biological assessment was completed for Federally listed threatened and endangered species. Analysis completed in the biological assessment as well as this wildlife report indicates the project may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx or grizzly bear. There would no effect to other federally listed terrestrial wildlife species or critical habitat.

Prepared by: Date June 20, 2016 Kris R. Hennings IPNF North Zone Wildlife Biologist


49

References 16 U.S.C. 1531 – 1544. 2002. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America Congress assembled. Washington D.C. [Available online] http://www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf [25May2016].

40 CFR 1502.2. Protection of Environment. Environmental Impact Statement. Implementation. [Available online http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=2af18c3dbf4036d605552fa9e168d54a&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&n=pt7.6.520&r=PART [25May2016]

Allen, L.R. 2011. A review of Grizzly Bear Recurring Use Areas Associated with the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystems. Unpublished report. Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 20 pp.

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, 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.

Becker, S.A., T. Roussin, E. Krausz, D. Martorello, S. Simek, and B. Kieffer. 2015. Washington Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2014 Annual Report. Pages WA-1 to WA-24 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Wolf Program 2014 Annual Report. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=2af18c3dbf4036d605552fa9e168d54a&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&n=pt7.6.520&r=PART




50

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.

Cooper, S V., Neiman, K. E., and Roberts, D.W. (1991). Forest Habitat Types of Northern Idaho: A Second Approximation. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-236

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.

Dixon, R.D. and Saab, V.A., 2000. Black-backed Woodpecker(Picoides arcticus). The birds of North America, (509), p.20.

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.

Executive Order 13186. 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. William J. Clinton. The White House. January 10, 2001 [Available online] https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/executiveordertoprotectmigratorybirds.pdf [25May2016].

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

FSM 2670. Forest Service Manual 2670-2671, WO Amendment 2600-2005-1, September 23, 2005. (Policy).

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.

Haggard, M., and W. L. Gaines. 2001. Effects of stand-replacement fire and salvage logging on a cavity-nesting bird community in eastern Cascades, Washington. Northwest Science 75(4):387-396.

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.

https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/executiveordertoprotectmigratorybirds.pdf

http://fwp.state.mt.us/fieldguide/detail_AMAFF17020.aspx


51

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.


52

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.

Mace, R.D., J.S. Waller, T.L. Manley, K. Ake, and W.T. Wittinger. 1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in western Montana. Conservation Biology 13:367-377.

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

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.

MBEWG. 1991. Montana Bald Eagle Working Group. Habitat Management Guide for Bald Eagles in Northwestern Montana. USDA. Forest Service. Northern Region. 29 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.

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.

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.

Murphy, E.C. and Lehnhausen, W.A., 1998. Density and foraging ecology of woodpeckers following a stand-replacement fire. The Journal of wildlife management, pp.1359-1372.

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia [Available online]: http://www.natureserve.org [25May2016].

NFMA Sec. 6[g][3][B]. National Forest Management Act of 1976. [Available online] http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf [25May2016].

http://www.natureserve.org/

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf


53

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

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.

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.

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.

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., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Lyon, L.J. and Zielinski, W.J., 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States.

Russell, R.E., V.A. Saab, J.G. Dudley. 2007. Habitat-suitability models for cavity-nesting birds in a postfire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2600-2611.

Saab, V.A. and Dudley, J.G., 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service.. Research Paper RMRS-RP-11.

Saab, V.A., Brannon, R., Dudley, J., Donohoo, L., Vanderzanden, D., Johnson, V. and Lachowski, H., 2002. Selection of fire-created snags at two spatial scales by cavity-nesting birds. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181.


54

Saab, V.A., Dudley, J. and Thompson, W.L., 2004. Factors influencing occupancy of nest cavities in recently burned forests. The Condor, 106(1), pp.20-36.

Saab, V.A., Russell, R.E. and Dudley, J.G., 2009. Nest-site selection by cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(1), pp.151-159.

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.

Sauder, J.D. and Rachlow, J.L., 2014. Both forest composition and configuration influence landscape-scale habitat selection by fishers (Pekania pennanti) in mixed coniferous forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management, 314, pp.75-84.

Shiplett, B., and L. F. Neuenschwander. 1994. Fire ecology of the cedar-hemlock zone in Idaho. Pg. 41-52 in Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: Ecology and management Symposium proceedings, Mar. 2-4, 1993, Spokane, Washington, ed. D. B. Baumgartner, J.E. Lotan, and J.R. Tonn. Pullman: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service.

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. 2009. 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.

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

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

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

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Regional Foresters Sensitive Species list. USFS Region 1. Missoula, Montana.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. 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.

http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/mammal/Rod/Mice/nble/nble.htm


55

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. 2014. Programmatic Biological Assessment for North American Wolverine. Northern Region. Missoula, MT. 14 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. 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. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 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.

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. 2007. 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. 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. 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.


56

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. 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. 2013b. Biological Opinion for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, FWS Reference: 01EIFW00-2013-F-0331. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Idaho Field Office Spokane, Washington.

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.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Wolverine Programmatic Biological Assessment Concurrence. File: M19 Forest Service Region 1 (06E11000-2014-I-0291 wolverine programmatic – NLJ; 01EIFW00-2014-I-0512 (IFWO-NIFO) – NLJ). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana and Northern Idaho Field Offices. May 23, 2014.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014c. 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. 2016. Informal Section 7 Consultation Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project (FWS Reference: 01EIFW00-2016-I0565; CONS-100(a)). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Idaho Field Office Spokane, Washington.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016b. Wolverine Programmatic Biological Assessment Concurrence Validity. File: M19 Forest Service Region 1 (06E11000-2014-I-0291 wolverine programmatic – NLJ). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Field Office. June 15, 2016.

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.


57

WDFW 1997. Washington GAP Analysis Program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. [Available online] http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gap/ [Accessed online 25May2016].

WDFW 2014. Selkirk Elk Herd Management Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Pp 59. [Available online] http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01350/ [Accessed online 22Feb2016]

WDFW 2015. Gray Wolf Conservation and Management. Wolf Packs in Washington-Diamond Pack. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. [Available online] http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/2/ [Accessed online 22Feb2016]

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.

Zack, A.C. and P. Morgan. 1994. Fire history on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Coeur d’Alene, ID.

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.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gap/

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01350/

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/2/


58

Appendix A - Wildlife Species Not Analyzed in Detail The following species or their habitat may exist in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project 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).

Proposed 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 2013a), 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 2013a) 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 United States 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 to 300 individuals occupy this area, with the bulk occurring in the Northern Rockies (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a).


59

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 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 United States population of wolverine (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). 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 2014b).

Approximately 620 acres of the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area are modeled to have persistent spring snow cover (at least one of seven years), there are no potential denning habitat (persistent snow cover for at least five of seven years) within the project area. The closest potential denning habitat on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest is on the north side of Grassy Top Mountain (approximately 15 miles north). 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.

Rationale for No Further Analysis Proposed Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation activities are 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 15 miles from the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area. Foraging habitat does not appear to be limiting to wolverines on the Priest Lake Ranger District currently or in the foreseeable future.

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. The habitat changes as a result of the Tower Project would have minor effects on this species. 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 2013b)). As a result, potential impacts to wolverine or their habitat would be discountable (small in scale) and insignificant (proposed activities are not considered to be a threat to the species).

Project activities that are proposed within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation include harvest, road maintenance and reconstruction, and planting activities. These activities were covered in the Wolverine Programmatic Biological Assessment and are projects that are routinely conducted on National Forest System Lands and were found not to be a threat to wolverine (USDA Forest Service 2014). The US Fish and Wildlife Service subsequently concurred with the Forest Service’s determinations within the Wolverine Programmatic Biological Assessment and found that conferencing is not required (USDI Fish and Wildlife 2014b). The US Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued a letter confirming the 2014 concurrence letter on the Wolverine Programmatic Biological Assessment remains valid (USDI Fish and Wildlife 2016b).


60

Given the findings from the US Fish and Wildlife Service along with the above information describing the remote likelihood of effects to wolverines; the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation project in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North American wolverine.

Sensitive Species

Flammulated Owl Habitat Relationships 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 to 65 percent overstory canopy closure (Howie and Ritcey 1987 and 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.

Affected Environment Mature, open-grown, dry-site forests are considered the most critical and limiting habitat feature for flammulated owls. Suitable flammulated owl habitat is calculated using the Northern Region of the Forest Service (R1) habitat model as modified for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) in Samson (2006a). Suitable habitat was further refined by the IPNF wildlife biologist’s in 2012 based on local knowledge of habitat conditions. Suitable habitat criteria are: Ponderosa pine (PP) and Douglas fir (DF) cover types; sawtimber 15 to 20-inch d.b.h., (SAWT) and large sawtimber greater than 20-inch d.b.h. (LSAW); 35 to 65 percent canopy cover, in habitat type groups 1, 2 and 3 (mainly the warm and dry and moderately warm and dry ponderosa pine and Douglas fir types); with at least one snag per acre greater than 15-inche d.b.h. and greater than 20-foot tall. Suitable habitat stands must also be large enough to support the 27 to 45 acre territory size that was used in (Samson, 2006b) to calculate suitable habitat acreage in Region 1 and on the IPNF. Stands where ponderosa pine is present are higher quality and more likely to be occupied.

Stands in the drier habitat types (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and dry grand fir) are considered capable habitat for this species. Approximately 55 acres (less than 1 percent) of National Forest Sytem lands in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area are dry site forest (habitat type group 3). However due to size and juxtaposition only one stand is large enough to be considered capable habitat. The other two stands are isolated and less than 27 acres (one stand is 19 acres while the other is 5 acres) so they are not large enough to support a territory. The one stand of capable habitat occurs north of Klahowya Creek. The Tower Fire burned through the capable habitat with a moderate burn severity and that area is not


61

considered current suitable habitat. There are also no documented occurrences of flammulated owls within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area.

Rationale for No Further Analysis Flammulated owls have not been documented in or near the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area. However, snag felling on 16 acres of capable habitat could reduce potential nest trees in the stand if/when the stand becomes suitable again. However, by the time the area could be suitable again most snags from the Tower Fire would most likely have fell. Snag retention guidelines are in place to ensure snags would be available post-harvest. As a result, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may impact flammulated owls 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. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Fisher Habitat Relationships Fishers are forest carnivores that occur at low population densities, occurring most commonly in landscapes associated with late-successional forests; especially in riparian areas (Powell and Zielinski 1994). They avoid open areas and select for areas with dense canopy cover (Raley et al. 2012), and mature forest arranged in contiguous, complex shapes (Sauder and Rachlow 2014). 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 to 72 percent of a home range) as well as lower proportions of open or non-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). Fishers are more selective of habitat for resting sites than of habitat for foraging, demonstrating that resting sites are of particular importance (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Sauder and Rachlow (2014) report that the amount and configuration of contiguous mature forest strongly influenced habitat use by fishers. In Idaho, Jones (1991) found fishers avoided openings and forested areas with 40 percent or less canopy closure. 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 Suitable habitat for fisher was determined following the Northern Region of the Forest Service (R1) model developed in Samson (2006a) and updated in Bush and Lundberg (2008). Potentially suitable


62

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).

The majority of the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area (97 percent of the project area) is considered capable habitat. Small pockets of the fire area that query out as potentially suitable habitat occur in the project area. Sauder and Rachlow (2014) found that fishers in north central Idaho “preferentially used areas of moderate abundance of high canopy cover”. Due to large tracts of the fire area being open with little to no live forest canopy, fisher use in not expected. There are no known fisher observations within the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area.

Rationale for No Further Analysis Fishers have not been documented in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area. Due to the Tower Fire creating extensive opening with very little or no live forest the project area is not likely to be used by fishers until a large portion of the stands return to a mid to late seral age with a dense canopy cover. Snag felling as well as salvage harvest would reduce potential snag and down wood levels in treated stands when the stand becomes suitable again. However, snag and down wood retention guidelines are in place to ensure snags and down wood would be available post-harvest in salvage units. In addition, all snags and down wood outside of danger tree and salvage areas would be retained providing more complex vertical and horizontal structure in the future. As a result, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may impact fisher 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. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Fringed Myotis Habitat Relationships 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).


63

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). 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 No hibernacula or roost sites are known in the project area or on the Priest Lake Ranger District. The fringed myotis has a global rank of G4 (apparently secure) and a Washington State rank of S3 (vulnerable) [NatureServe 2015]. The state of Washington has also prepared vertebrate distribution models as part of the Washington GAP Analysis program and the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project does not occur within the fringed myotis predicted distribution for Washington (WDFW 1997). Washington GAP analysis also has no records of fringed myotis within the Tower Salvage and Reforestation project area (WDFW 1997).

Rationale for No Further Analysis Fringed myotis have not been documented in or near the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area. In addition, predicted distribution is outside of the Tower Project area. However, snag felling would reduce the number of potential roost trees within the project area. Snag retention guidelines are in place to ensure snags would be available post-harvest. As a result, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may impact fringed myotis 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. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

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).

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


64

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 Washington, however numbers began to decline in the late 1800s as human populations increased. Wolves dispersing from Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia Canada during the 1990s to early 2000s are suspected to be responsible for documented wolves in northern Washington. In 2008 the first resident wolf pack was documented in Washington and since that time wolves continue to disperse and recolonize Washington (Becker et al. 2015).

The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project occurs within the Diamond wolf pack territory that was first confirmed in 2009. An annual survey in December of 2014 reconfirmed the pack had a minimum of 2 wolves, but did not have a successful breeding pair (WDFW 2015). The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation 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 Washington, these species are common and provide ample prey base for wolves.

Rationale for No Further Analysis There would be no reductions in prey densities as a result of project activities. The Tower Fire resulted in an increase in ungulate forage. The increase ungulate forage should increase the availability of prey species for the wolves in the project area. 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). Project design features are in place to protect any newly discovered den or rendezvous site if found during layout or implementation of the Tower Project. Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities would not increase motorized access or negatively affect prey species. As a result, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may impact gray wolf 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.

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).


65

Affected Environment On the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, 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.

There are no records of harlequin ducks occurring in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area. Solo Creek and a portion of Upper West Branch of Priest River have been identified as potential harlequin duck habitat. A section of Solo Creek within the project area was surveyed for harlequin ducks in 2003, no ducks were observed. A section of Upper West Branch of Priest River just north (approximately 0.1 mile) of the project area was also surveyed for harlequin ducks in 2003 with no harlequin ducks located. The State of Washington has also prepared vertebrate distribution models as part of the Washington GAP Analysis program and the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project does not occur within harlequin duck predicted distribution for Washington (WDFW 1997).

Rationale for No Further Analysis Harlequin ducks have not been documented in or near the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area. Solo Creek after the Tower Fire lacks the intact riparian areas with dense streamside vegetation that harlequin ducks require for nesting. Upper West Branch of Priest River still contains potentially suitable habitat as the fire only burned to the edge of river for about 500 feet. Within the small area that burned during the Tower Fire only danger tree felling along the Forest Service Road 1107 would occur within 300 feet of Upper West Branch of Priest River. Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities would not increase disturbance to potentially suitable harlequin duck habitat. As a result, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, may impact harlequin ducks 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. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

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.


66

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 not been documented on the Priest Lake Ranger District. 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 Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project 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.

Western Toad Habitat Relationships Western or boreal toad breeding habitat includes shallow, quiet water in lakes, marshes, bogs, ponds, wet meadows, slow-moving streams, backwater channels of rivers and other persistent water sources (Maxell 2000). Young toads are restricted in distribution and movement by available moist habitat, while adults can move several miles and reside in marshes, wet meadows, or forested areas. Toads hibernate in the winter in habitats that maintain a high humidity and above-freezing temperatures. Areas that provide shelter for hibernating toads include rodent burrows, beaver lodges, and beaver dams (Loeffler 1998). Since this species depends on wetlands to breed, the reduction of wetlands or adverse impacts on wetlands could potentially have detrimental effects on western toads. Males appear to have a home range within 984 feet (300 meters) of breeding sites and show high site fidelity (Loeffler 1988). Therefore breeding habitat is likely the most important factor in maintaining toad presence in an area. It is important that toads be able to move among their seasonal habitats of breeding ponds, summer range and overwinter refugia (Loeffler 1998). The biggest potential barrier to their movement is roads. Vehicle traffic has been identified as a risk factor for the western toad (Maxell 2000). Juvenile toads are vulnerable to being killed by motorized vehicles when they are dispersing from their natal ponds.

Affected Environment Based on habitat needs as described in the literature, the mesic nature of much of the forests of the IPNF indicate that toads have opportunities to find persistent small water sources for breeding, and could successfully disperse through moist forest to breeding and overwintering habitat.

There are no known observations of western toads within the action area. The recently burned areas including those being salvaged are not considered desirable habitat due to the reduction in shady, moist habitat resulting from the burning of overhead canopy cover. Potential breeding habitat would be limited mainly to riparian areas along creeks, as there are no lakes, ponds, or marshes present. Within the project area breeding habitat is probably confined mainly to the shrub/meadow/stream complexes along the Upper West Branch of Priest River; and within shallow edges of any slow-flowing, low-gradient creeks or persistent roadside-ditch pools that exist in the area. Temporary pools from snowmelt and rainwater may also be used for egg-laying, but these would have to be warm enough and persist long enough for tadpoles to metamorphose. It is possible western toads are present in the action area.


67

Rationale for No Further Analysis The action alternatives may impact individual toads during project implementation. However, this risk is considerably reduced by project design features including: Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFS) buffers and Best Management Practices (BMPs). All fish-bearing streams would be buffered by 300 feet on a side. Perennial 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 100 feet if any are identified near or within proposed harvest units. As a result, the potential for disturbance to breeding habitat and reproduction is discountable. Post project, the open road system in the area would be restored to its pre-project level; so there would be no change to the risk of potential direct mortality from vehicles. It is unlikely toads would be utilizing burned stands where the majority of proposed activities are occurring. While the action alterantives 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 Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation 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.

Species Not Relevant to the Project The following species were not considered relevant to the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation 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, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). On May 8, 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a revision of the current woodland caribou listing based on defining the Southern Mountain Caribou Distinct Population Segment (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 Tower Salvage and Reforestation Project 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 have no effect to woodland caribou. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.


68

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. There are no suitable cliffs, known historic or current eyries near the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation area. Because of the lack of suitable nesting habitat, the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would have no impact on peregrine falcons or their habitat. No further analysis and discussion is necessary.

Bald Eagle Bald eagles occupy riparian or lakeshore habitat almost exclusively during the breeding season (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). They select isolated shoreline areas with larger trees to pursue such activities as nesting, feeding, loafing, etc. Components of nesting habitat include proximity to sufficient food supply, the presence of dominant trees, and line-of-sight to a large body of water (often within 0.25 mile of water) (MBEWG 1991). Nest sites are commonly distributed around bodies of water greater than 80 acres or along major rivers. Bald eagles often forage year round near riffles, runs, and pools of rivers. Bald eagle winter habitat is mostly associated with areas of ice-free water where fish or waterfowl are available as prey. There are no large bodies of water in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area. There are also no known bald eagle nests or winter roosts in the vicinity of the project area. Bald eagles are unlikely to make more than incidental use of any creeks in the project area. Given the lack of nesting habitat or winter roost habitat in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area, project activities would have no impact on bald eagles or potential habitat under any alternative. No further analysis or discussion is warranted.

Black Swift In the western United States black swifts nest on small ledges of cliffs, caves, or other vertical surfaces near or behind dripping water sources, waterfalls, or turbulent spray zones (Wiggins 2004). There are six features strongly associated with black swift nest sites: 1) falling or dripping water, 2) high relief, 3) inaccessibility to ground predators, 4) unobstructed flyways in the immediate nest vicinity, 5) shade during a major portion of the day, and 6) the presence of suitable nest niches (Knorr 1993, in Wiggins 2004). Black swifts feed on insects and forage over forests and in open areas. Risks to the species include: 1) decreases in water flow, 2) recreational use of nest sites (e.g. rock climbers and hikers), and 3) use of pesticides near nesting areas. There are no waterfalls in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area that may serve as suitable habitat. The species is not known or suspected in the project area. Therefore project activities would have no impact on black swifts or potential nesting habitat under any alternative. No further analysis or discussion is warranted.

Common Loon Common loons generally nest in clear, fish-bearing lakes surrounded by forest, with rocky shorelines, bays, islands, and floating bogs (McIntyre and Barr 1997). Loons are totally dependent on water because their legs are far towards the rear of their bodies, making it difficult for them to walk on land. For nesting they need lakes with emergent shoreline vegetation and secluded areas for nesting and brood rearing. They construct ground nests on islands, floating bog islets, or other protected areas. Because of their need for large expanses of water for takeoff and landing, loons generally occur in lakes of at least 10 acres in size. They appear to avoid lakes over 5,000 feet in elevation, as these lakes are generally ice covered until late in the breeding season (USDA Forest Service 1989). There are no lakes in the Tower Fire


69

Salvage and Reforestation Project area that may serve as potential habitat. The species is not known or suspected in the project area. Based on the lack of suitable habitat and occurrence there would be no impact on habitat or the species. No further analysis and discussion is warranted.

Coeur d'Alene Salamander 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. They have been found in three types of select habitats: seeps and springs, waterfall spray zones, and stream edges (Groves et al. 1996). The Selkirks lack the fractured rock that Coeur d’Alene salamanders need to avoid freezing in the winter (Groves 1988). There are no documented sightings or suspected habitats on the Priest Lake Ranger District. The Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would have no impact on the Coeur d’Alene Salamander. No further analysis and discussion is necessary.

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 Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project would have no impact on the northern bog lemming. No further analysis and discussion is necessary.

Pygmy Nuthatch Pygmy nuthatches are closely associated with ponderosa pine forests, especially mature to late-seral stands. Breeding density and populations are limited by the availability of snags (i.e. cavity availability). They prefer to forage in the dense foliage of pines and subsist on arthropods and pine seeds (Ghalambor, 2003). Risk factors for the species include: 1) a reduction in snag availability, most often affected by timber harvest, 2) decreases in foraging habitat, in terms of reduced canopy density and increased canopy patchiness, and 3) loss of continuous habitat, as pygmy nuthatch populations are very sedentary. There are no suitable mature, well-canopied ponderosa pine forest cover stands in the Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project area. There are some stands within the project area that have some larger ponderosa pine, however the stands area predominantly mixed conifer. The species is not known or suspected to occur in the area. Existing habitat capability and suitability preclude potential effects on habitat or the species. This project would have no impact on this species. No further analysis or discussion is warranted.


70

Appendix B - Maps Map 1 – Tower Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project – Vicinity


71

Map 2 –Lynx Habitat within the Tola-Pelke Lynx Analysis Unit


72

Map 3 – Priest “Bears Outside Recovery Zones” (BORZ) Occupancy Areas


73

Map 4 – Tower Fire – High Quality Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat


74

Appendix C - 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 bear management units on National Forest System lands. This protection plan will be made available to all personnel conducting activity within or adjacent to bear management units 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.

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.

tower fire salvage and reforestation...

Documents