1

East Fork Meadow Wildlife Supplement (Grizzly Bear & Canada Lynx) August 9, 2011

The first portion of this document replaces the “Grizzly Bear” section of the East Fork Meadow (EFM) Wildlife Report dated December 31, 2009.

Grizzly Bear

Habitat Relationships Populations of grizzly bears persist in those areas where large expanses of relatively secure habitat exist and where human-caused mortality is low. Grizzly bears are considered habitat generalists, using a broad spectrum of habitats. Use patterns are usually dictated by food distribution and availability combined with a secure environment. Grizzlies commonly choose low elevation 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).

Being habitat generalists, the concepts of “capable” and “suitable” habitat have little meaning with respect to grizzly bears. Any habitat area – private residences included – is potentially suitable from a grizzly standpoint if the need for or attractiveness of particular food items temporarily outweighs their fear of humans. However, the attraction of these areas does not necessarily make grizzly occupation desirable from a management standpoint. Within recovery areas, developments “such as campgrounds, resorts or other high human use associated facilities, and human presence result in conditions which make grizzly presence untenable for humans and/or grizzlies” are considered Management Situation (MS) 3 habitat (IGBC 1986). In MS3 habitat, grizzly habitat maintenance and improvement are not management considerations, and grizzly bear presence is actively discouraged.

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/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).

2

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

The EFM project area is located about seven miles east and across the broad Kootenai River Valley from the Selkirk Recovery Zone (SRZ), and some five miles west and across a highly developed portion of the Moyie River Valley from the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone (CYRZ). The Meadow Creek drainage was determined not to warrant delineation as areas of recurring grizzly bear use based on a 2009 review of sightings and a re-evaluation of the delineation of recurring use areas by IPNF, FWS and Idaho Department of Fish and Game biologists. However, the Hellroaring Creek drainage immediately to the northeast of the project area, and an adjacent area along the Moyie River (Feist/Kreist Creek drainages) to the east were added to an area already considered to have recurring grizzly bear use (named “Deer Ridge”) based on observation data. The area was renamed “Mission-Moyie” to more accurately reflect the current geographic extent of recurring use.

With the exception of relatively steep, rocky non-forested habitats along the Queen/Bussard/Tungsten ridge at the northern end of the project area and some drier habitats on the south- and west-facing slopes of Wall Mountain in the southeastern portion, the EFM area is heavily forested. Most of the low- and mid-elevation areas in the northern two-thirds of EFM were affected by a large, stand-replacing fire in 1926 and by intensive logging both before and after the burn. These areas have regenerated into dense stands of immature conifers with high proportions of western larch and lodgepole pine, and limited herbaceous vegetation beneath. Stands at higher elevations generally were bypassed by this fire event and still contain areas of mature and old-growth spruce/fir and cedar/hemlock habitats often with considerable vegetative ground cover. While selective logging occurred in some of these stands at various times (particularly along the FSR 2542/2488 Wall Mountain “loop”), it did not result in the large clearcut areas characteristic of lower elevation private and USFS lands west and south of the project area. Roads are prominent features along the western boundary of EFM (along Meadow Creek) and on Wall Mountain, but absent at higher elevations in the northeastern portion of the area.

The proximity to the City of Bonners Ferry (less than ten miles), easy road access, residential development and relatively gentle terrain along the western boundary of EFM result in heavy use by the local human population (mainly hunting and motorized recreation) in the southern and western portions of the project area. As a result, these portions of the project area are not considered ideal areas to promote grizzly bear presence due to the higher risk of disturbance or mortality associated with high human use areas. Although there are motorized trails traversing the upper Meadow Creek drainage and along the Queen/Bussard/Tungsten ridgeline in the northern portion of EFM, human use of this portion of the area requires considerably more effort, and is probably much less. From a grizzly bear habitat standpoint, use by this species in the southern and western portions of EFM was considered infrequent or non-existent due to lack of forage and/or presence of roads and human use, while higher elevation areas to the north and east (where no project activities are planned) are more attractive because of availability of forage, less human influence, and potential appeal as travel routes. The dense, continuously forested nature of the southern and western portions likely also discourages grizzly use to some extent: while presence of cover has been identified as an important habitat component for grizzly bears, it seems equally important to have an interspersion of open areas as feeding sites associated with cover (USDI Fish and Wildlife

3

Service 1993); and timbered habitats have been shown to be avoided relative to availability in forested environments, compared to openings which were selected for (Volsen 1994) .

Grizzly bear observation data available at the time the EFM EA was written did not include any recent, verifiable accounts of grizzly bear presence near proposed activity areas. Observations that were possibly grizzly bear included both dated and recent sightings of live bears or tracks in the Tungsten mine area (the northern periphery of the project area) and near Camp 9 (west-central portion of the project area), all of questionable veracity. In the fall of 2009 IPNF crews reported possible grizzly bear tracks at two different locations (probably from the same bear) in upper Meadow Creek (project file), but these tracks were inconclusive with regards to species identification (W. Wakkinen, pers. comm.). Since there is no evidence of repetitive use or sightings of multiple bears in the same season or of family groups, the drainage is not considered to be a grizzly bear recurring use area. Given the human use patterns in much of EFM, reports of suspected grizzlies would be expected more frequently if it were repeatedly occupied. Although it is impossible to guarantee that no bears would be present and affected during project implementation, the possibility of bears being disturbed by project activities was considered to be exceedingly remote, and potential effects less than insignificant. As a result, a no effect determination was originally reached.

In October 2007, a GPS radio collar was retrieved east of the Pend Oreille River in the Selkirk Mountains that had been worn by a subadult male grizzly bear originally captured in Canuck Creek, British Columbia, Canada and subsequently recaptured in the Moyie River drainage in Idaho in May 2006. This dispersing subadult male (Bear 103) spent part of 2006 between the Kootenai and Moyie river valleys, then crossed into the Selkirks from the Hall Mountain area and denned near Myrtle Creek. In 2007, he wandered south nearly to Sandpoint, then west and north paralleling the Pend Oreille River to the Sullivan Lake area in Washington before moving back south to where he finally lost his collar (Map 1). This episode was noteworthy in that it was the first documented occurrence of a grizzly bear moving between the CYRZ and the SRZ. During discussions of recurring use areas in 2009, FWS bear biologist Wayne Kasworm shared a map of location data obtained from this collar with IPNF biologists. Due to limitations in scale and resolution of this map, it appeared at the time that this bear had spent much of 2006 adjacent to, but not in, the EFM area. However, subsequent to the completion of the EFM EA, a different, higher resolution map1

Bear 103 crossed the Moyie River from the CYRZ (upper Deer Creek area) in the vicinity of Kreist Creek, then spent a portion of 2006 between the Kootenai and Moyie rivers, mostly to the east, north and west of the project area. At some point, the bear went north across State Highway 95 to the Hall Mountain area, where it spent time prior to rapidly crossing the Kootenai Valley south of Porthill, ID. While this bear did make southward excursions to the east of Wall Mountain and along the northwest portion and to the west of the EFM project area, most of the use was north of proposed activities in far upper Meadow Creek/East Fork Meadow Creek, along Tungsten Ridge, and in the Hellroaring Creek drainage. While it is accurate to say this bear used the area between the Kootenai and Moyie Rivers during its travels, it does not appear accurate to surmise that the EFM project area was a necessary element of this bear’s route from the CYRZ to the SRZ – since this bear traveled from the Moyie River to Hall Mountain via a more northerly course.

was obtained that demonstrated unequivocally that this bear had indeed spent time in the EFM project area – including locations very near or within proposed timber harvest units. Since much of the rationale for a no effect determination was based on a complete absence of substantiated grizzly bear sightings in the project area, the confirmed presence of a grizzly bear (albeit a young, widely-ranging male) prompted the IPNF to revisit this determination.

1 Map 1 and anecdotal information are provided courtesy of W. Kasworm. Grizzly bear 103 location data are not on file with the Forest Service.

4

The EFM project area would make an unappealing – and unlikely – portion of a travel corridor for a species that generally seeks to avoid human contact. As discussed previously, private land immediately west of the southern portion of the project area contains already developed homesites or is platted for future development. Most of the Kootenai River Valley north of Bonners Ferry is about five miles wide with little forest cover (predominantly agricultural lands) and scattered residences on both sides of the highway. However, both the density of homes along the developed highway corridor and the relative amount of traffic are markedly reduced closer to the Canadian border. North of the Deer Park area (due west of the northern portion of EFM), US Highway 95 divides into US 95 (east) and State Highway 1 (west). While this now creates two highway crossings compared to one, traffic is more dispersed and associated residential development considerably less. In fact, the area around Mission Creek (where Bear 103 crossed US 95) contains contiguous IPNF-administered lands connected to industrial timber lands (Forest Capital Partners) on both sides of the highway for approximately one mile where no roadside development occurs. Lewis et al. (2011) found that the two most important habitat variables associated with black bear highway crossings were human development along the highway and amount of forest on the landscape. Both modeling results and actual crossing data identified the Mission Creek area as a preferred route across Highway 95 for black bears (Lewis et al. 2011). From a connectivity standpoint, this route appears to offer considerably less resistance than one further south.

As discussed above, grizzly bear use of the area around proposed harvest units was considered to be infrequent or even nonexistent based on the quality of habitat (both from a forage availability and disturbance standpoint) and relative isolation from other occupied grizzly bear habitat. It comes as somewhat of a surprise that Bear 103 made use of the EFM area to the extent he did. However, it is important to take the age and sex of this bear into consideration. While subadult females generally establish home ranges adjacent to or overlapping that of their mother, young males range widely and typically disperse some distance in search of home ranges. The convoluted wanderings of Bear 103 cover nearly 300 miles map distance (not including numerous side-excursions) in less than two years. His trip underscores the fact that mere presence of a bear in any given area is not proof that the area is providing important habitat or receiving recurring use. The fact that this bear made an excursion both to the east and west of EFM, yet did not remain, indicates that: 1) he was displaced by an adult male (highly unlikely given the lack of sightings in the area), 2) he searched for and failed to find a mate (also highly unlikely given the lack of sightings and because the bear was estimated to be 3.5 years old and grizzly males typically do not reach sexual maturity for 4.5 years - USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993), or 3) he found the habitat conditions to be unacceptable over time. There is no indication that the EFM area is occupied by reproducing grizzly bears, and potential use by this species in the foreseeable future, if any at all, is likely to be additional transient subadult males exploring new areas in search of a home range.

It is unknown to what extent past timber harvest impacted grizzly bears in the short term (during implementation), since it is likely that grizzly bear use of this area is a relatively recent (10-15 years) occurrence (grizzly bears were absent from or at very low densities in the US Selkirk and Purcell ranges at the time of Federal listing in 1975). The longer term effect of regeneration harvests is the temporary reduction of forest cover and increase of foraging habitat. The road construction associated with these harvests may have degraded grizzly habitat effectiveness, although bear use of this area is uncommon judging by the lack of confirmed observations.

Within the project area, there are approximately 17.9 miles of drivable roads, 1.4 miles of which are restricted to public motorized access year-round. Additionally, there are about six miles of motorized trail within project area boundaries. Approximately 2.5 drivable road miles in the project area are completely under private jurisdiction.

5

Nearly half (310 acres) of the private ownership in the EFM project area is managed by Forest Capital Partners, LLC for the primary purpose of timber extraction. It is reasonable to expect that some level of logging with associated road work will continue to occur on this property. Specific information about the nature or extent of future activities is not known. Another 250 acres of private ownership have been heavily logged and are currently subdivided for future development, and the remaining 80 acres have also been developed into homesites. With each new residence in the area, the potential exists for conflicts with bears (black and grizzly) resulting from food conditioning and human habituation that often leads to the removal of these bears from the population, which underscores the fact that this area is far less than an ideal area to promote grizzly bear presence. The continuing development further decreases the area’s already low potential as a travel corridor between the CYRZ and SRZ. However, for reasons discussed above, grizzly bear use of this area is expected to be sporadic; and likely limited to younger, wide ranging (usually male) bears rather than family groups or mature bears with established home ranges.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology The analysis of effects on grizzly bears focuses changes on motorized route miles in the project area. Roads closed by earthen barriers or roads that are physically impassable to motorized vehicles (brushed in or washed out) do not figure into motorized route calculations. “Undrivable” refers to routes such as ATV trails that are not drivable by passenger vehicle, but may be passable by ATV (as opposed to “impassable” roads, which are inaccessible to all motorized vehicles). Since the IPNF does not have a vegetation-based grizzly bear habitat suitability model, possible changes to vegetation are addressed qualitatively.

Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, road densities would remain unchanged, and there would be no additional potential for disturbance of grizzly bears above the baseline condition. Since there would be no direct or indirect effects from this alternative, there would be no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed timber harvest activities have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears that may occasionally utilize the project area, if they are present in the vicinity of project activities during implementation. The fact that project activities may take place for up to seven years (five year timber harvest contract plus two years of post-harvest fuels treatments) increases the probability that project activities and grizzly bears could occur in the same place at the same time. However, it remains highly unlikely that actual disturbance or displacement would result in adverse effects to bears. The areas proposed for treatment are not particularly attractive to bears due to lack of high-quality forage and ambient level of human disturbance. While some of these areas could be used as bedding areas, there is no reason to believe that displacement from these areas would significantly impair behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering; and available displacement habitat to the north and east is almost certain to be of better quality (higher availability of grasses/forbs/berries, and lower levels of human access). It is also possible that timber harvest in areas currently supporting high densities of small diameter trees could improve forage value post-harvest by providing more growing space and sunlight at ground level for grasses, herbs and berries. However, since proposed units in the southwestern portion of EFM are in relatively close proximity to motorized routes and human developments, it is not the intent of this project to encourage grizzly bear use in these areas. Loss of forested cover in harvest units is an inconsiderable effect, since cover is clearly not limiting in the EFM project area.

6

The EFM project area contains approximately 17.9 miles of drivable roads (1.4 miles of which are restricted to public motorized access year-round) and an additional six miles of motorized trail within project area boundaries. Approximately 2.5 of the drivable road miles in the project area are under private jurisdiction. The project proposes approximately 3.1 miles of new road construction, and reconstruction of about three miles of currently undrivable roads (the remaining six of the nine miles of proposed road reconstruction are currently in a drivable condition, and would not add to motorized access). These three miles of reconstructed roads and one-half mile of the new road construction and would be placed into long-term storage following post-harvest activities. The reroute of motorized Trail 32 would involve conversion of 1.0 mile of undrivable road to ATV trail, reconstruction of 1.2 miles of existing ATV trail to accommodate passenger vehicle use, and decommissioning of 1.3 miles of the present ATV trail. The approximately 0.8 miles to be converted to an OHV trail are currently an open road, and would not measurably alter motorized use in the EFM area. During project implementation, open road miles could increase by as many as 7.5 linear miles, although the 1.4-mile segment of restricted road would remain closed to the public. The net result of the project would be an increase of 2.3 miles of drivable motorized routes in the project area: 3.1 miles (new road construction) – 0.5 miles (new road stored) + 1.0 miles (undrivable road to trail) – 1.3 miles (trail decommissioned) = 2.3 miles.

Additionally, of the 19 miles of decommissioning, about four of these miles are not drivable by passenger vehicles but are serving as informal ATV trails. Once these roads are effectively made unavailable to motorized use, the net result of this alternative would be to actually reduce motorized routes on the ground. Furthermore, the new motorized routes would not affect a previously non-motorized part of the project area, but would be within an area of existing open roads and motorized trail in upper Meadow Creek.

While the area between the Moyie and Kootenai Rivers could be considered a linkage area (Servheen et al. 2001) connecting the SRZ and CYRZ, the actual movement corridor is north of the EFM project area, and would not be compromised by the proposed activities. Additionally, it is unlikely that a temporary disturbance or reduced cover in less than 20% of the project area would hinder movement across the greater landscape by large carnivores after project implementation is complete. In discussing linkage zones in the Northern Rockies, Servheen et al. (2001) state that “the primary causes of grizzly bear habitat fragmentation are human activities such as road building, and residential, recreational, and commercial developments.” The authors go on to discuss “habitat fracture zones” that are generally caused by human developments in “linear fashion along valley floors.” Human developments in the Kootenai and Moyie River valleys (Highway 95, railroad, agriculture and home construction) in all likelihood do far more to disrupt linkage than temporary disturbance or openings in otherwise undeveloped USFS lands.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no new road construction under Alternative 3, but the same 3.0 miles of reconstruction of currently undrivable roads that would be stored after project activities are complete would occur as in Alternative 2. There would be no reroute of Trail 32 or associated road or trail construction/conversion. As a result, there would be no net change to motorized route density in the project area on paper, although the same approximately four miles of roads currently serving as ATV trails would be decommissioned.

Under this alternative, less than 700 acres would be harvested in the project area, including 77 acres of regeneration harvest. This alternative also includes approximately 75 acres of helicopter yarding. Alternative 3 would result in a smaller potential increase in forage (berry) production than Alternative 2, but also in an even smaller possibility of disturbance to grizzly bears.

7

Cumulative Effects Common to Action Alternatives The area selected to assess cumulative effects for grizzly bear is IPNF-administered lands between the Kootenai and Moyie Rivers, north of the Meadow Creek Road and south of the portion of US Highway 95 in Round Prairie. This area is approximately 43,000 acres (67 square miles) and is topographically separated by other portions of the District by low elevation stream bottoms containing nearly contiguous private lands with varying amounts of human developments (usually homesites). There are no other reasonably foreseeable projects on IPNF lands in this area that would result in motorized access changes.

The following past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered relevant in a cumulative effects discussion for grizzly bear:

Public Activities - Personal use firewood gathering, non-motorized recreation, winter motorized recreation, dispersed camping and motor vehicle use of roads and motorized trails would not significantly impact grizzly bears since none of these activities would elevate road densities or cause substantial habitat modifications. In 2011, the IPNF Kaniksu (“North”) Zone issued a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) that effectively updated the existing Travel Plan and designated roads and trails for motorized use. The MVUM also prohibits cross-country (off-road and off-trail) motorized use outside BMUs, where it had previously been legal. Although this decision makes motorized use of these informal ATV trails illegal, some continued use can be expected from recreationists who are either uninformed or knowingly circumventing restrictions. In contrast to the MVUM, which only designates roads/trails for motorized use and does not implement any actual changes on the ground, the EFM project would provide the mechanism to physically close the roads in question. Once these roads are effectively made unavailable to motorized use, the net result of the project would a real reduction in usable motorized routes.

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

Pre-commercial timber stand improvement – 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 restricted roads for general public use. While thinning may cause a minor disturbance to grizzly bears during implementation, there would be no long-term effects.

North Zone Roadside Salvage - Future salvage would not trigger incremental impacts as long as established design and mitigation measures are followed because there would be no impacts to forest structure that is relevant to grizzly bears. Since salvage would take place in small pockets of dead/dying or down trees, this activity would not result in measurable changes to forage availability. Salvage would mainly occur in small areas of affected trees, so disturbance related to this activity would originate from drivable roads and be of an ephemeral nature. Road densities would not change as a result of this proposal.

Conclusion The action area is not within a grizzly bear recovery zone, a recurring use area, or an identified linkage zone. While the action alternatives have the potential to displace grizzly bears if one was present during project implementation, displacement habitat is available, abundant, and likely of higher quality than that being displaced from. Alternative 2 would result in a small increase on paper in motorized route miles in an already motorized portion of the project area, and would also result in a de facto decrease in motorized use by physically preventing current illegal use. Alternative 3 would not permanently change motorized

8

access. The long-term effect of the project on vegetative habitat would be to reduce forested cover (which is currently not limiting in the project area) and increase openings providing forage (which likely is). Consequently, the effects of the project are not expected to rise to a level at which take occurs. Very little substantiated grizzly bear use has been documented in the proposed activity area, and affected habitat is considered of poor quality due to lack of forage species and high levels of human activity. As a result, the displacement effects discussed above are extremely unlikely to occur. Effects determinations for the final proposed action can be found in the Wildlife Biological Assessment (project file).

Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Regulations All alternatives comply with the following IPNF Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987) standards for wildlife and habitat management regarding grizzly bears:

Standard 2.a. – The EFM project area is not within recovery zones or areas identified as having recurring grizzly bear use. The project area does not contain areas considered essential to the recovery of the species.

Standard 2.b. – The EFM project would not adversely affect grizzly bears.

Standard 2.c. – The IPNF is currently analyzing proposed Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones which will incorporate the best available science for managing grizzly bear habitat in these ecosystems.

Standard 2.d. – The IPNF and cooperating agencies maintain a regular program of public information and education within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones.

Standards 4.a.-c. – Standards specific to grizzly bear management in the IPNF Forest Plan (p. II-27) only apply to areas identified in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (i.e. recovery zones) (USDI 1993), which do not include the project area.

Standard 7.a. – Those species listed under threatened or endangered are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and by definition have viability concerns. The Idaho Panhandle National Forests are committed to ensuring their protection and recovery through compliance with ESA and the Forest Plan (Forest Plan Appendix U and V).

Management Area (MA) Standards – The Project Area is mainly MA1(lands designated for timber production) with a small amount of MA9 (lands physically unsuited for timber production) at higher elevations. MA1 Wildlife Standards applicable to grizzly bears state: Road use will be based on needs identified in project level planning. Utilize road use restrictions to enhance wildlife habitat except as needed for timber management activities. Transportation analysis of the project area determined that changes to the transportation system proposed under Alternative 2 would result in the minimum road miles necessary to conduct desired fuel reductions. The project would result in a small increase on paper in motorized route miles in an already motorized portion of the project area, and would also result in a de facto decrease in motorized use by physically preventing current illegal use. Alternative 3 would result in no net loss, or gain, of road miles. All alternatives are compliant with MA1 Wildlife Standards. Since no activities are proposed in MA9, all alternatives would be compliant with relevant standards for MA9.

9

Conservation Measures

The following will be added to existing measures to remove or reduce any questionable conflicts. This is non-discretionary and is necessary to achieve the determination of effects.

• The Grizzly Bear Management Protection Plan would be included in the contract and would be adhered to by all IPNF employees, contractors or subcontractors (see Attachment A).

Literature Cited

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

Lewis, J.S., J.L. Rachow, J.S. Horne, E.O. Garton, W.L. Wakkinen, J. Hayden and P. Zager. 2011. Identifying habitat characteristics to predict highway crossing areas for black bears within a human-modified landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 101:99-107.

Servheen C., J.S. Waller and P. Sandstrom. 2001. Identification and management of linkage zones for grizzly bears between the large blocks of public land in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Pp. 161-179 in Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K.P. McDermott (Eds.). Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

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

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Biannual Species List for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, FWS Reference No. 1-9-09-SP-0035 (105.0100). Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office. Spokane, WA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx; Final Rule. February 25, 2009. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 36: p. 8616-8702.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. 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.

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.

Kasworm, W. Research Biologist, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal communication with B. Lyndaker, 2011.

Wakkinen, W. Research Biologist, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication with B. Lyndaker, 2010.

10

Map 1. GPS locations of Bear 103: May 2006 – October 2007.

11

Canada Lynx One of the comments on the East Fork Meadow Creek Decision Notice (Alternative 2 – South) expressed concern that no map of Lynx Analysis Units boundaries, relative to the portion of the East Fork Meadow analysis area included in the decision, was included in the project documentation. Given that the project effects on lynx were of a very limited spatial extent (38 acres of identified lynx habitat would be affected, with less than one acre converted to an early seral condition), a map of lynx habitat was not considered necessary to arrive at an informed decision. However, in response to this particular comment, maps have been produced that display lynx habitat in the Round Prairie LAU (Map 2) and affected lynx habitat within proposed units in the East Fork Meadow Project Area (Map 3).

12

Map 2. Canada lynx habitat in the Round Prairie LAU.

13

Map 3. Canada lynx habitat and proposed units in the East Fork Meadow Project Area.

14

Attachment A: Grizzly Bear Management and Protection Plan

IPNF 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 potential grizzly bear habitat on National Forest System lands. This protection plan will be made available to all personnel conducting activity within or adjacent to potential grizzly bear habitat 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. 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. The contractor will adhere to all restrictions as outlined in current Idaho Panhandle National Forests Travel map, except as exempted by CFR Section 212.51.

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

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

Camping Provisions

1. Human, pet and livestock food (except baled or cube hay without additives), and garbage shall be attended or stored in a bear-resistant manner when not attended.

2. Burnable attractants (such as food leftovers or bacon grease) shall not be buried, discarded, or burned in an open campfire.

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

4. Sleeping areas (tents) will be located at least 100 yards away from cooking facilities. Food will not be stored, cooked, or consumed in tents used for sleeping.

5. Follow “Leave no Trace” techniques. Pack out all leftover food, refuse, and garbage.

15

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 piles. Definitions Food - Any nourishing substance, which includes human food and drinks, livestock feed, and pet food. Bear-resistant manner - Any attractants, including food and garbage, must be stored in any combination of the following ways, if unattended:

1. secured in a hard-sided camper, vehicle, dwelling, or storage building.

2. suspended at least 10 feet (from the bottom of item) and 4 feet out from any upright support (e.g. tree, pole).

3. stored in an approved bear-resistant container.