for the meadow creek projecta123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/3397_fsplt1_008966.pdf ·...

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES

For the Meadow Creek Project

Madison Ranger District Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Prepared By: /s/ Jay A. Frederick __November 22, 2006_____ Jay A. Frederick, Wildlife Biologist Date

Biological Assessment and Evaluation, Meadow Creek Project 2

Section A Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species AI. Introduction The Madison Ranger District, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, proposes to implement a key element of the 2003 Madison County Strategic Wildland Fire Plan by conducting the Meadow Creek Fuels Reduction Project (Meadow Creek Project) using the authority provided by the Washington Office (U.S. Forest Service) Amendment 1909.15-2004-3 to the Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15). This amendment provides that certain decisions to authorize hazardous fuels reduction can be categorically excluded from aspects of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation when certain criteria are met and extraordinary circumstances do not exist. Specifically, Section 31.2, Category 10 allows: Hazardous fuels reduction using prescribed fire, not to exceed 4500 acres, and mechanical methods for crushing, piling, thinning, pruning, cutting, mulching and mowing, not to exceed 1,000 acres. In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), implementation regulations and FSM 2671.4, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (Forest) is required to consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any prospective agency action authorized, funded or carried out by that agency if the agency believes that the action will likely affect any species listed as threatened or endangered. This biological assessment and biological evaluation is based on the best current data and scientific information available. A revised biological assessment must be prepared if: 1) new information reveals affects, which may impact threatened, endangered, and proposed species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this assessment; 2) the proposed action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an affect, which was not considered in this assessment; or 3) a new species is listed or habitat identified, which may be affected by the action. The biological assessment and biological evaluation are combined in three parts. Part A includes this introduction, a description of the proposed action, biological assessment for threatened, endangered and proposed species and the determination for those species. Part B includes the biological evaluation for sensitive species and Part C discusses management indicator species (MIS). Appendix A includes a description of baseline habitat conditions for the portion of the Tobacco Root Mountains landscape managed under the administrative authority of the Madison Ranger District. Appendix B contains an analysis of potential impacts to Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis), a threatened species not known to occur on the Forest. Appendix C clarifies Global (G) and State(S) rankings for native wildlife species discussed in this assessment and Appendix D is an analysis of population viability for several sensitive species. Summary of determinations for federally listed species Implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to result in no effect to the bald eagle or grizzly bear. Implementation of the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf.


AII. Proposed Action The Meadow Creek Project would reduce the severity of catastrophic wildfire1 adjacent to the wildland-urban interface (WUI) on the east slope of the Tobacco Root Mountains. The Meadow Creek Project would treat several grassland/shrub-steppe and forested stands using a combination of prescribed fire and mechanical thinning on a total of 896 acres. Access to and from treatment areas would be primarily via existing Forest Service roads; no temporary roads would be constructed to implement the Meadow Creek Project. Two distinct treatment types are proposed. Slash and burn (550 acres) and thin from below and burn (346 acres). Slash and Burn The slash and burn treatment would reduce Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) encroachment into grassland/shrub-steppe habitat within units 2, 6, 7 and 8. The slash and burn treatment would consist of hand felling and bucking to ground level wildland fuels. These fuels are typically small to medium diameter tree boles or limbs with little or limited commercial value. Downed fuels would then be treated on-site by prescribed fire within 1 to 3 years. In some areas, fuels may be hand-piled prior to burning. As proposed, the accumulation of hazardous fuels would be reduced by 40 percent at the completion of the slash and burn treatment. Preplanning and treatment would emphasize increasing the vigor and acreage of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) within each treatment unit. The proposed treatment would fell and buck conifer trees within aspen substands to reduce shading and resource competition. Conifer trees would also be felled and bucked in an area surrounding the aspen substand to a distance of approximately 50 feet. Prescribed fire would be applied within 1 to 3 years to reduce remaining surface fuels and slash at the site. Thin from below The thin from below treatment would remove live trees of all sizes from the stand, effectively raising the height from the forest floor to the base of the crown of the remaining trees in units 1, 3 and 4. Large stature overstory trees would be retained. As proposed, the post-implementation tree density would be about 50 large trees per acre. Fuels created by the commercial thinning and pre-existing forest fuels would be reduced by prescribed burning within 1 to 3 years following the thinning treatment. In key areas, such as along the forest boundary, slash, surface and ladder fuels may be hand-piled and burned. Harvest activities will be limited to periods when the soils are snow covered, frozen or when soils are dry, typically after July 15th.

Preplanning and treatment would emphasize increasing the vigor and acreage of quaking aspen within each treatment unit in the thin from below and burn treatments as well. Most conifer trees would be removed from an area surrounding the aspen substand to a distance of approximately 50 feet. As proposed, four to six large Douglas fir trees per acre would be retained in association with quaking aspen substands to serve as replacement snag habitat. Existing Forest Service system roads may be improved for logging truck access to, from and within the thin from below

1 The term ‘catastrophic wildfire’ as used in this analysis follows the definition adopted by the Society of American Foresters (1998): Fire that burns more intensely than natural or historical range of variability, thereby fundamentally changing the ecosystem, destroying communities and/or rare or threatened species/habitat, or causing unacceptable erosion.


treatment units. To minimize cumulative soil compaction and surface disturbance, pre-existing non-system road prisms and skid trails may be used where possible for skidder, forwarder or feller-buncher access. Other project elements

• To further minimize potential impacts to soils, wildlife and archeological resources, some or all of the commercial thinning may be conducted on snow covered or frozen soils.

• To reduce the spread of noxious weeds, all heavy equipment will have an undercarriage

wash and will be inspected prior to entering National Forest System lands.

• All existing snags greater than 8 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) will be retained unless they are determined to be an unacceptable safety hazard by the purchaser. Where practical, snags would be located adjacent to natural openings, near water, in valley bottoms or in aspen substands.

• Following site preparation and slash disposal, 10 to15 tons per acre of dead and down

material would be retained on sites that currently have at least 10 tons per acre of dead and down material. Some of this material would be 6 inches in diameter or larger.

• Additional surveys for goshawk and other raptor nests would be conducted prior

treatment activities. If active nests are found, additional seasonal restrictions to prevent disturbance of nesting birds would be applied.

• No treatment activities will occur within 50 feet of streams

• Site specific best management practices, including a prescribed sediment-reduction

package, will be followed.

• Prescribed burning activities will comply with the Montana Airshed Group MOU.

• As applicable, burn plans for the slash and burn treatments will incorporate operating guidelines from the MOU between the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Region 3.

• If cultural resources are discovered during project implementation, operations potentially

impacting the discovery will be curtailed until the site is evaluated by a Forest archaeologist.

Eight treatment units are proposed. See Table 1.


Table 1. Units and treatments Unit number

Acres Proposed treatment Unit Number

Acres Proposed treatment

1 121 Thin from below and burn Unit 5 was dropped from project consideration

2 68 Slash and Burn 6 48 Slash and Burn 3 110 Thin from below and burn 7 101 Slash and Burn 4 115 Thin from below and burn 8 333 Slash and Burn AIII. Analysis of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Prefield and Field Project Review A prefield review of this project was conducted in early March, 2005 and consulted a number of sources, including stand exam data, prior analyses documents and field survey work. Field work was conducted during the summer and fall of 2005 and spring and summer of 2006 and included stand-specific surveys for TES species, sign and habitat. Project, Watershed and Southern Tobacco Root Analysis areas Multiple spatial scales are used in this analysis. The project area is the extent of those stands proposed for treatment using one of the techniques described above under the proposed action, and encompasses 846 acres. The South Meadow Creek watershed contains the project area, is used for some aspects of habitat analysis and consists of 7567 acres. The Southern Tobacco Root analysis area surrounds both the South Meadow Creek Watershed and the project area, and is that area under the administrative authority of the Madison Ranger District on the east, south and west sides of the Tobacco Root Mountains. This analysis area was used for the 1994 Tobacco Root Landscape analysis (Landscape Analysis) and subsequent 2001 Tobacco Root Vegetation Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Vegetation Management Plan), prepared by the Forest. The Southern Tobacco Root analysis area encompasses approximately 115,000 acres, and is the appropriate scale for mid-scale analysis. The habitat baseline for the Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area is attached as Appendix A. Species viability is also analyzed at several scales. The Forest conducted an analysis of habitat availability using the 10 “landscapes” of the Forest in 2003. The 10 landscapes of the Forest are an appropriate scale for a mid-level analysis of habitat availability and connectivity. Data generated at the landscape scale is aggregated such that it is applicable at the scale of the entire Forest, which constitutes the “planning area” as described in CFR 36 219.19. In addition, the Northern Region (Region One of the Forest Service) conducted a Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl and Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service (Samson 2006a) that analyzed the viability of these species at the scale of the Northern Region. Samson (2006b) also developed Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backer woodpecker, Flammulated owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Fisher, which is incorporated into each viability assessment in this biological assessment, as appropriate.


Cumulative Effects and Impacts Cumulative effects as described by the ESA differ from cumulative impacts as described by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The ESA defines cumulative effects as those effects of future state or private activities not involving federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action. Conversely “cumulative impact” is defined in CEQ’s NEPA regulations as the “impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions . . .” 40 CFR 1508.7. CEQ interprets this regulation as referring only to the cumulative impact of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action when added to the aggregate effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effect and impacts are considered at those scales described above, as appropriate and as data area available, in this analysis. Habitat Considerations Specific to the Project Area The project area is on the south east side of the Tobacco Root Mountain Range and ranges in elevation from 6100 to 7200 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Habitat in the project area transitions from grassland associated with the Madison River Valley to forest. Forests transition from dry forest sites to more mesic forest sites progressively up hill. There are a number of forested habitat types2 within the project area, and each forested treatment unit may exhibit more than one habitat type. The slash and burn treatment units (units 2, 6, 7 and 8) are generally grassland/shrub-steppe habitat on south facing slopes. Douglas fir trees have encroached into these habitats, generally resulting in a progressive loss of shrub and grass cover as the trees mature. The three thin from below and burn units (units 1, 3 and 4) are predominately occupied by Douglas fir. Units three and four contain a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) component. AIV. Threatened and Endangered Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Montana Ecological Service Field Office Website (08-01-06), recognizes the threatened or endangered species in Table 2 as being in the south zone, east of Interstate Highway 15, and occurring on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.

Table 2. Threatened and endangered species considered in this biological assessment Common Name

Scientific Name

Status Range – Montana

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Leucocephalus

Threatened, MIS

Forested riverine and riparian areas, statewide

Gray Wolf Canis lupus Experimental

Nonessential, MIS

Resident and transient of forests in western Montana.

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Horribilis

Threatened, MIS

Resident and transient of alpine and subalpine coniferous forest.

2 A habitat type in an assemblage of plant species that would be expected to occur as the end result of plant succession in the absence of disturbance. See Pfister et al. 1977.


Note that the Canada lynx is not listed in Table 2. This species was not detected on the Forest during the National Lynx Survey. The May, 2006 amendment to the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement identified the Forest as Unoccupied Mapped Lynx Habitat and provides for consideration of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy only in connection with habitats currently occupied by lynx. Consultation with the USFWS for Canada lynx is no longer required for land management actions on the Forest. However, an analysis for the Canada lynx was conducted for the Meadow Creek Project; this analysis is attached as Appendix B. AIVa. Bald Eagle Distribution The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) historically ranged throughout North America except extreme northern Alaska and Canada, and central and southern Mexico. In the early 1900s, the eagle population began to decline. The decline is thought to be directly related to the decline in number of prey species, as well as direct killing of bald eagles and loss of habitat. With the passage of the Bald Eagle Protection Act in 1940, it became illegal to kill, harm, harass, or possess bald eagles, alive or dead or parts thereof, including eggs, feathers, and nests. As a result of passing this law, the bald eagle began to partially recover. Following the Second World War, the use of persistent organochloride biocides to control insects became widespread. Organochloride had a dramatic impact on bald eagles and other birds at both the local and population level. As bald eagles foraged on contaminated prey and carrion, eagle populations declined dramatically. It was determined in the late 1960s and early 1970s that DDE, the principle breakdown product of the organochloride pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), bioconcentrated in the fat tissues of adult female bald eagles. The bioconcentration of DDE prevented the calcium release necessary to produce strong eggshells and caused reproductive failure from eggshell thinning. In March 1967, the bald eagle population south of the 40th parallel was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Bald eagle numbers continued to decline until DDT was banned from use in the United States in 1972. In 1978, the bald eagle was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in 43 of the lower 48 states, including Montana, and threatened in five other states. Since the time the bald eagle was listed, the population has substantially increased in number and expanded its range, largely a result of banning persistent organochloride biocides, habitat protection and a growing public awareness of the plight of the bald eagle (Ehrlich et al.1988 pp. 21, 23). Due to the overall population increase, the bald eagle was reclassified from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 states in 1995 (60 CFR pp. 35999 to 36010; USDI 1995) and has subsequently been proposed for delisting. Life History Bald eagles are in the family Accipitiridae. In the adult plumage, the head, neck, tail, and upper and lower tail coverts are white. The remainder of the plumage is dark brown. The bill, cere, iris, and feet are yellow, and the tarsus is featherless. Juveniles and sub-adult plumages are mainly brown, including the head and tail. White or buff mottling is extensive in some individuals, particularly in the under-wing coverts, tail, and abdomen. The bill and cere of the immature are dark brown or gray, the iris is brown, and the feet are yellow. Adults reach sexual maturity at 4 to 6 years of age; full adult plumage appears with sexual maturity. Bald


eagles are monogamous and believed to mate for life. If a mate is lost a new pair bond is formed, often in the same breeding season. Bald eagles nest almost exclusively in live trees usually within 1 mile and in line of sight of a large river or lake. In Montana, courtship begins in January and egg laying is initiated in early February or as late as mid-April. Alternate nest sites are typically present in the breeding area and most frequent clutch size is two (range of one to three eggs). Incubation spans 31 to 35 days and may be influenced by ambient temperatures. Young hatch from mid-March to mid-May and nestling period lasts from 11 to 14 weeks. Once fledged, young are dependent on adults for 6 to 10 weeks (USDI 1994). Although some nesting pairs remain in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota year-round, the winter population is generally composed of migrants from Canada (Magaddino 1989). Winter habitat is generally associated with areas of open water where fish and waterfowl congregate (Stalmaster 1987 in Magaddino 1989). Perching and roosting trees are typically dominant mature conifers or cottonwoods providing a good view of the area (Magaddino 1989). Bald eagles use perches during the day while hunting, feeding, or resting; roosts are used at night or for protection during inclement weather and may be occupied by one to several hundred bad eagles; roost sites, like nest sites, are used year after year (Magaddino 1989). The bald eagle is an opportunistic predator and feeds primarily on fish, but also consumes a variety of birds and mammals (both dead and alive) when fish are scarce or these other species are readily available. Fish may comprise up to 90 percent of the diet, depending on geographic location, season, and relative abundance. Carp, suckers and salmonids are important fish species preyed on by bald eagles. Bird prey species are more important in bald eagle diets during winter when fish are less available due to ice formation on streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Waterfowl are the most common bird species preyed on by eagles. Mammals are taken at a lesser degree than fish and birds. Mammals are taken as live prey or carrion in all seasons, but become increasingly important during winter. Recovery Plan Objectives The recovery goals established in the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle (USDI 1994 p. 12) include: 1) a minimum of 800 pairs nesting in the seven-state recovery area; 2) an annual average of 1.0 fledged young per pair, with an average success rate per occupied site of not less than 65 percent over a 5-year period; 3) to meet recovery goals within at least 80 percent of the management zones with nesting potential; and 4) no evidence of persistent, long-term decline in any sizeable wintering aggregation. Management of bald eagle breeding territories may be accomplished by protecting nesting stands and feeding sites and minimizing human activities. Guidelines have been developed to provide management direction for bald eagles where there is little information on actual use areas. Three zones within bald eagle areas for which these guidelines apply where developed for Montana by the Montana Bald Eagle Working Group (USDI 1994). In Montana, the bald eagle population has grown substantially since listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Since breeding surveys began in 1978, the bald eagle population has grown consistently both in number of pairs and number of young fledged. Between 1978 and 1995, the


number of known breeding pairs increased from 12 to 166, well above the delisting goal of 99 pairs cited in the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle (USDI 1994 p. 12). Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The Meadow Creek Project analysis area is within the Missouri Headwaters Recovery Zone (38) as described by the 1994 Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (Eagle Management Plan, USDI 1994). Goals for recovery for Recovery Zone 38 were met by 1990. Bald eagles currently nest along the Channels portion of the Madison River from Ennis to Ennis Lake approximately 7 miles south and east of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. There is also an inactive bald eagle nest to the north and east of the analysis area approximately 13 miles. These nests are monitored annually for occupancy and productivity. There are no known bald eagle nests within 2.5 miles (Zone 3 as identified in the Eagle Management Plan) of the analysis area. Bald eagles are not known to forage in the analysis area. Determination Implementation of the proposed project would have few, if any direct or indirect effects on breeding, feeding or sheltering aspects of bald eagle life history. Any direct or indirect effects that would occur would be insignificant. Cumulative impacts are not anticipated. Implementation of the Meadow Creek Project is likely to have no effect on the bald eagle. Recommendations for avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to bald eagles As no effect to the bald eagle is anticipated, there are no recommendations to minimize adverse impacts to bald eagles. AIVb. Gray Wolf Distribution The gray wolf (Canis lupus) was once distributed throughout most of North America. Shortly after European colonization, persecution of wolves began. Gradually, wolves were extirpated from the lower 48 states except Minnesota (and possibly, by some accounts, Montana). By 1930, wolf populations had largely disappeared from Idaho, North Dakota, and Montana. Reproduction was not documented in the western United States until 1986, when wolves were found denning in northwest Montana. During the winters of 1995 and 1996, 35 Canadian wolves were released in central Idaho and 31 wolves were released in Yellowstone National Park. Several hundred wolves currently inhabit the northwest Montana natural population, the central Idaho experimental population, and the YNP experimental population areas (USFWS et al. 2006). Life History The gray wolf is the largest extent member of the family Canidae. Adult males are larger than females and weigh an average of 110 pounds; females generally average 81 pounds. The pelage is long and varies in color from pure white through mottled gray and brown to coal black; it is usually a grizzled gray color. Legs are moderately long. Gray wolves generally resemble German shepherds or huskies in head and body configuration. Wolves can live in any kind of natural habitat that is occupied by ungulates and is north of 20 degrees north latitude, as reflected in their original circumpolar distribution. Habitat includes forests of all types, rangelands, brush land, steppe, agricultural lands, wetlands, mountain tops,


deserts, tundra, and barren ground areas. Wolves do not have any particular habitat requirement, though gray wolves typically avoid areas with heavy human use. The gray wolf is territorial in most areas. Territories are defended by howling, scent-marking, and physical defense against wolf interlopers. Wolf packs occupy rather specific, though plastic territories. Territories typically range from 125 km2 to 500 km2 (Mech 1970, 1974). The number of individuals in a pack and the availability of prey determine territory size; packs dependent on migratory prey tend to have the largest territories (ibid). Daily pack movements very and distances traveled are greater in winter than in summer. Lone wolves cover larger areas than packs and their territories may overlap two or three pack territories (Mech 1973). Wolves tend to be most active in the early or late evening and travel within their territories at night. Patterns of activity are influenced by weather and season of year. While wolves are generally not considered migratory, they may wander great distances daily, within their home range, predominantly influenced by searching for prey. When reproduction increases population numbers within an area, young adult wolves may disperse to new areas. Wolves may establish runways by following the same routes within territories. Vegetative cover affects wolf survival by providing shelter for prey species such as deer and elk; in general, healthy wolves need little cover (Mech 1970, 1974). Wolf dens are used for bearing and protecting pups, and are often abandoned when pups reach two months of age. Dens may be used on subsequent years, or different dens may be selected. Pups are sometimes moved from one den to another. Dens may be holes dug in the ground, rock caves and crevices, old beaver lodges, and hollow logs or other ground debris. Den sites are typically located near water, dug in sandy and well-drained soils, and located in a variety of landforms (Mech 1970). One estrous cycle per year is most common for wolves and occurs from January in low latitudes to April in higher latitudes. The gestation period lasts 63 days (9 weeks), with an average of six pups (one to eleven pups) born blind and helpless. Pups stay in the den until a few weeks old, begin to eat solid food at 3 weeks, and meet the rest of the pack in one month. Once pups leave the den, the entire pack provides sustenance and security for them. During spring and summer, a reproductive pack’s movements are centered round den and rendezvous sites. Rendezvous sites are important rearing areas for pups, once they have left the den site. By late summer, pups are mature enough to travel and pack movements increase. Wolves prey primarily on large wild mammals, such as deer, elk, moose, caribou, bison and bighorn sheep. Wolves are, however, opportunistic feeders eating a wide variety of food including domestic cattle, sheep, horses, dogs, and birds, small mammals, fish, plants, and fruits. Prey items often depend on availability and ease of capture. Wolves hunt as individuals and in packs (Mech 1970, 1974; Fritts 1982), and are successful scavengers. Recovery objectives for the Yellowstone Nonessential Experimental Population Recovery Area The Meadow Creek Project area is within the Yellowstone Experimental Population Recovery Area for gray wolves. The nonessential experimental population for the GYA was established in 1995 and 1996 with the reintroduction of 31 wolves into Yellowstone National Park. The


recovery plan population objective is to establish a minimum or 10 breeding pairs, or approximately 100 wolves in the Experimental Recovery Area and maintain this population level for 3 successive years. The nonessential experimental population of the GYA grew and numbered in excess of 320 animals at the end of 2004 (USFWS et al. 2006). Direct and Indirect Effects To ensure conservation of nonessential wolf populations, the Forest Service uses the three limiting factors identified in the Gray Wolf Recovery Plan (USDI-FWS 1987) to evaluate impacts from forest management: 1) potential for wolf/human interaction; 2) effects on the wolf prey base; and 3) impacts to the integrity of key wolf habitat (rendezvous and den sites). Considering the current distribution of wolves in Southwest Montana, there is potential for human/wolf interaction on or adjacent to National Forest System (NFS) lands at any time. At the time of the preparation of this biological assessment, there has been no known documentation of pack activity in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Wolves have been active in the Gravelly and Madison mountain ranges to the south and southeast, and in the Boulder Mountains to the north. Given the current status of wolves in the Tobacco Root Mountains, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed action will increase the likelihood of adverse human/wolf interaction. The population of gray wolves in Montana has steadily increased since the reintroduction in 1995, in spite of aggressive lethal control in southwest Montana and elsewhere (USFWS et al. 2006, fig. 3). In 2005, wolves in Yellowstone National Park, suffered the largest population drop (31 percent) of any year since the reintroduction, likely due to disease resulting in poor pup survival. None the less, 2005 was the sixth consecutive year that recovery criteria, as developed by the USFWS have been met in Northern Rocky Mountain recovery area (USFWS et al. 2006, p. 1). The Madison Valley supports an extensive prey base for wolves, and it is likely that wolves will continue to disperse into and forage within the Madison Valley. The Tobacco Root Mountains elk management unit supported a precalving population estimated over 1400 animals in March 2006, more than double the population in the Tobacco Root Mountains 2 decades earlier. The proposed action is not anticipated to substantially impact elk numbers in the Tobacco Root Mountains. It is likely that wolves will eventually colonize the Tobacco Root Mountains. Wolves in the Experimental Recovery Population are classified as nonessential experimental populations as described in Section 10(j) of the ESA. Section 10(j) establishes that individuals of experimental populations not within lands administered by the National Wildlife Refuge System or National Park Service would be treated as if they were only proposed for listing under the ESA (FR Vol. 59 No. 224, p. 60252). Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to informally conference with the USFWS when federal agency actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed species. The Tobacco Root Mountains are within the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area for wolves, though there are no known wolf packs currently inhabiting the Tobacco Root Mountains (Fontaine 2005). There are no known denning or rendezvous sites in the vicinity of the proposed


Meadow Creek Project, and implementation of the proposed project is unlikely to result in impacts to the forage base for this species. Cumulative Effects The ESA defines cumulative effects as those effects of future state or private activities not involving federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action. The driving factor for the proposed action is to reduce the potential for wildland fire around and adjacent to homes constructed near the national forest boundary. Increases in human population density in the Madison Valley with accompanying pets and domestic livestock increase the potential for adverse human/wolf interaction, which in turn, increases the likely hood that individual wolves would be removed from management actions. It is unlikely that residential development at the wildland urban interface will slow in the near future. Wolves now occur on both sides of the upper Madison Valley and at least three groups exist at the time of this writing. Wolves are operating at close proximity to human development, indicating that the landscape of the Madison Valley remains permeable to wolf movement at its current level of development. While wolves may not actually den in or near residential development, it is unlikely development would impede wolf movements. Determination Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on breeding, feeding or sheltering aspects of gray wolf life history and would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf. No cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed action. AIVc. Grizzly Bear Unless otherwise noted, the following discussion of the distribution and life history attributes of the grizzly bear are taken from the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993). Distribution The historic range of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the continental United States extended from the central Great Plains, west to California, and south to Texas and Mexico. Between 1800 and 1975, grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 states declined from over 50,000 to less than 1,000 animals. As Euroamerican settlement expanded westward, the grizzly bear was extirpated from most of its historical range. The grizzly bear was listed as threatened under ESA in 1975. Five areas in the lower 48 states currently support grizzly bears. These areas are in Washington, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana and include the Northern Cascades Ecosystem, Selkirk Ecosystem, Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). These areas represent less than 2 percent of the grizzly bear’s former range. The Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement to reintroduce an experimental population of grizzly bears into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho and Montana was signed in December 2000. As of September, 2006, grizzly bears have not been reintroduced into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Life History Grizzly bears are in the family Ursidea. Grizzly bears are generally larger than black bears and can be distinguished by having longer front foot claws (2 to 4 inches), a


distinctive shoulder hump (muscle mass for digging), rounded ears that are proportionately smaller than the black bear, and a dished-in profile between the eyes and end of the snout. Pelage coloration is highly variable, ranging from light brown to nearly black. Guard hairs are often paled at the tips, and give the bear a grizzly appearance. Spring shedding, new growth, nutrition, and climate all influence coloration. In the continental United States, the average adult male grizzly bear weighs between 400 to 600 pounds and the average female 250 to 350 pounds. Grizzly bears are long-lived and many individuals live over 20 years. Adult bears are individualistic in behavior and normally are solitary wanderers. Females with cubs and bears defending food supplies are common causes of confrontation between humans and bears. Home ranges of adult bears may overlap. The home ranges of adult male grizzly bears are generally two to four times larger than those of adult females. The home ranges of females are smaller while they have cubs, but increase when the cubs become yearlings. Home ranges vary in relation to food availability, weather conditions, and interactions with other bears. Home ranges are larger in the GYE compared to the more productive habitats in the northern ecosystems. The age of first reproduction and litter size varies and may be related to the nutritional state of the female bear. The age at first reproduction averages 5.5 years, and ranges from about 3.5 to 8.5 years of age. Reproductive intervals for females average 3 years and litter size averages two cubs (one to four cubs per litter). The limited reproductive capacity of grizzly bears precludes rapid increases in population. Grizzly bears have one of the lowest reproductive rates among terrestrial mammals. During a female’s lifetime, if she has litters of two cubs with a 50:50 sex ratio, and a 50 percent survivorship of young to age 5.5 years, at best she can replace herself with one breeding age female in the first decade of her life. Grizzly bears excavate dens as early as September or prior to entry in November. Dens are usually dug on steep slopes where wind and topography cause an accumulation of deep snow and where snow is unlikely to melt during warm periods. Dens are generally found at high elevations well away from human activity and development. Grizzly bears are opportunistic feeders and will prey or scavenge on almost any available food. Plants with high crude protein content and animal matter are most important food items. The search for food has a prime influence on grizzly bear movements. Upon emergence from the den grizzlies move to lower elevations, drainage bottoms, avalanche chutes, and ungulate winter ranges where their food requirements can be met. Throughout spring and early summer grizzly bears 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. In the GYE, grizzly bears use several food sources that are limited in annual availability and distribution but are very important to individuals or the population as a whole. Four of these appear to be extremely important: army cutworm moths (Euxoa auxiliaris), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) seeds and ungulates (IGST 2000 p. 45, 46). Ungulates constitute a comparatively large portion of the annual diet of grizzly bears, both


as prey and carrion (Mattson 1997). Approximately 45 percent of the diet of the average adult female and 79 percent of the diet of the average adult male consists of carrion or ungulate prey (IGST 2000 p. 47). By comparison, approximately 95 percent of the diet of both male and female adult grizzly bears is vegetation in Glacier National Park (IGST 2000, p. 47). Recovery Plan Objectives The overall goal of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan is to remove the grizzly bear from threatened status in each of the occupied or reintroduced ecosystems in the 48 conterminous States. The following goals were developed for the GYE: “Fifteen females with cubs over a running 6-year average both inside the recovery zone and within a 10 mile area immediately surrounding the recovery zone; 16 of 18 BMUs [bear management units] occupied by females with young from a running 6-year sum of verified sightings and evidence … and no two adjacent BMUs shall be unoccupied; and known human-caused mortality not to exceed 4 percent of the population estimate based on the most recent 3-year sum of females with cubs. Furthermore, no more than 30 percent of this 4 percent mortality limit shall be females. These mortality limits cannot be exceeded during any 2 consecutive years for recovery to be achieved.” Recovery plan objectives for grizzly bears in the GYE have been met for a number of years, and the grizzly bear in the GYE has been proposed for delisting. As part of the delisting requirements, the Forest is signatory to a six-forest Conservation Strategy/Forest Plan Amendment, and is currently implementing its responsibilities under this strategy. Direct and Indirect Effects The area of the proposed Meadow Creek Project is not within the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone3, and is not within 10 miles of the Recovery Zone. Though there have been numerous, non verified sightings of grizzly bears in the Tobacco Root Mountains over the last 50 years and as recently as 2006, this mountain range is not known to be currently used by resident or transient grizzly bears (see Lukins et al. 2004). The proposed project would not increase or decrease the open road density on or in the vicinity of the Tobacco Root Mountain Range, and the proposed project would not plant by seed or other means vegetative species likely to attract foraging grizzly bears to the site. As such, the proposed project would not increase the potential for adverse human grizzly bear interactions within the project area. Cumulative Effects The ESA defines cumulative effects as those effects of future state or private activities not involving federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action. Population growth and development of private lands in the Madison Valley and elsewhere in southwestern Montana is bringing grizzly bear attractants closer to public lands, increasing the potential for adverse human/grizzly bear interactions. In addition, development in the Madison valley has the potential to impact the movement of grizzly bears from the primary conservation area (PCA) of the GYE into outlying suitable habitat in mountain ranges to the west. Specifically, development in North and South Meadow Creek and Norris Hill may adversely influence the potential for grizzly bear movement from the northern end of the Madison Range into the Tobacco Root Mountains. 3 The Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone will become the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) following the delisting of the grizzly bear in the GYE.


The South Meadow Creek watershed contains over 900 acres of whitebark pine woodlands. Though sampling specific to the South Meadow Creek watershed has not occurred, it is likely that whitebark pine mortality is similar to elsewhere in the GYE as a result of the introduced white pine blister rust and native mountain pine beetle (see GYWPMWG 2006). The loss of the whitebark pine food source throughout the western United States is likely to result in a long-term, adverse impact to grizzly bears, not only in the GYE but throughout the range of the bear in the lower 48 states. The Meadow Creek Project would not further reduce the viability of the whitebark pine resource in the South Meadow Creek watershed. As elsewhere on the Tobacco Root Mountains, implementers of the Meadow Creek Project would be required to comply with the September 2004 Forest Supervisor’s Order requiring the proper storage and management of food and food refuse. Determination Implementation of the proposed Meadow Creek Project would have no impact on breeding, feeding or sheltering aspects of grizzly bear life history and would result in no effect to the threatened grizzly bear. No cumulative effects to grizzly bears are anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed action. Recommendations for avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to grizzly bears No adverse or cumulative effects to grizzly bears are anticipated. There are no recommendations to minimize adverse effects to grizzly bears. AV. Summary of determinations It is my determination that implementation of the proposed project would result in no effect to the bald eagle or grizzly bear, and would not jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf. Consistency with the Programmatic Biological Assessment for Activities that are Not Likely To Adversely Affect Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species (Programmatic BA) This project is consistent with the January 26, 2006 request for concurrence on the Programmatic BA and corresponding February 22, 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence letter. As no effect to the bald eagle or grizzly bear is expected, no further documentation is required. Section B. Biological evaluation for sensitive species BI. Introduction This biological evaluation reviews and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed federal action (proposed action) on terrestrial wildlife and associated habitat for those species identified as “sensitive” by the Regional Forester.


Summary of potential impacts to sensitive species Implementation of the proposed Meadow Creek Project may impact individual northern goshawks, greater sage grouse, flammulated owls, black-backed woodpeckers and fisher or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or the species. No impacts to other sensitive species are anticipated. BII. Sensitive Species The Regional Forester of the Northern Region has identified those species listed below as Sensitive Species (March 31, 2005) occurring on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Direct impacts to the sensitive species identified below from the Meadow Creek Project would be associated with the mechanical treatments and prescribed fire proposed for 846 acres of wildland urban interface in the South Meadow Creek watershed. The slash and burn treatment would fell, primarily by hand, small diameter Douglas fir and lop felled trees to create a fuel base close to the ground surface. After a period of drying, treatment stands would be ignited in a broadcast type burn treatment. The burn treatment would create a mosaic of burned and unburned grassland/shrub-steppe with scattered Douglas fir on 550 acres of foothill habitat at the grassland/Douglas fir ecotone. The thin from below and burn treatment would harvest understory trees using standard silvicultural techniques and equipment on 346 forested acres. Felling and yarding would primarily involve mechanical equipment such as feller-bunchers, forwarders and yarders; hauling would occur via existing Forest Service roads. Existing Forest Service system roads may be improved to facilitate safe operational conditions. Management-created and natural fuels would be treated with prescribed fire following a period of drying. The desired outcome is to reduce the number of trees per acre, increase the average DBH of the remaining Douglas fir overstory and to favor the remnant aspen clones that occur within treatment units. The Madison Ranger District considers the proposed slash and burn and thin from below and burn treatments restorative4 in nature in stands that are outside the historic range of vegetative composition/condition. As such, impacts to habitat for sensitive species are anticipated to short-term in nature. No cumulative impacts stemming from the alteration of forested habitat are anticipated. Likewise, the District does not anticipate impacts to cliff, lake, bog, fen or riparian habitat to result from implementation of the Meadow Creek Project. No direct, indirect or cumulative impacts are expected to occur to species primarily associated with cliff, lake, bog or riparian habitat. BIIa. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) (G5S35, sensitive, MIS for old growth Douglas fir). The northern goshawk (goshawk) is the largest of the North American accipiters. Goshawks breed in coniferous, deciduous, and mixed pine forests throughout much of North

4 This analysis uses this working definition of restoration: management actions that are aimed at approximating forest and range conditions that were historically shaped by fire. 5 Global (G) and State (S) rankings are discussed in Appendix C.


America (Squires and Reynolds 1997) and are forest habitat generalists, occurring in all major forest types. Goshawks appear to prefer mature forests with large trees on moderate slopes with open under stories (Squires and Reynolds 1997). The northern goshawk occurs on the Forest and is typically associated with varied age stands of Douglas fir and lower elevation lodgepole pine. Suitable nesting habitat is available in the Tobacco Root Mountains, and northern goshawks are known to nest in the Virginia Creek drainage within the South Meadow Creek watershed. Surveys specific to the Meadow Creek Project were conducted during the summer of 2005 and 2006. Home Range Reynolds et al. (1992) identified three main components of the goshawk home range in the southwestern (US) forests: the nest stand or area, the post fledgling family area (PFA) and the foraging area (FA). The combined area of these three components may exceed 6,000 acres in some goshawk territories. The nest stand or area is typically 30 acres or more in size, and may include more than one nest. Home ranges often contain one or more stands of large, old trees with a canopy cover typically in excess of 50 percent that are used as primary or alternate nest sites. Reynolds et al. (1992) described the PFA as approximately 420 acres and surrounding the nest area. Because of its size, the PFA typically not homogenous in forest structure. The PFA represents an area of concentrated use by the family group from the time the young leave the nest until they are no longer dependent on the adults for food, generally up to 2 months. The vegetative structure of the PFA provides protective cover for fledglings, and provides prey on which fledglings develop hunting skills. The PFA typically has patches of dense trees, a developed herbaceous and/or shrubby under story, and habitat attributes such as snags, downed logs and small openings that provide necessary habitat for many goshawk prey species. The foraging area is approximately 5,400 acres in size, surrounds the PFA and often contains a variety of forest successional stages, particularly in managed forests. Nesting Habitat Preferred habitat during the breeding season is older, larger stature forests where goshawks can maneuver in and below the canopy while foraging and where large nest trees are available (Reynolds 1983, Squires and Ruggiero 1996). In the Rocky Mountains, goshawks frequently nest in stands of mature Douglas fir and lodgepole pine or quaking aspen (Squires and Ruggiero 1996, Clough 2000). Both single and multi-storied stands with relatively open under-stories are used (Reynolds et al. 1992, Hayward and Escano 1989, Crocker-Bedford 1990, Hargis et al. 1994). Squires and Ruggiero (1996) studying goshawk nest site preference in south-central Wyoming, found that lodgepole pine nest sites were even-aged, single-storied, mature stands with high canopy closure and clear forest floors. Squires and Ruggiero contend that this is a site description that does not describe classic lodgepole pine old growth. Squires and Ruggiero (1996) suggest that silvicultural treatments could be used to create stands similar to goshawk nest areas. Potential nest stands could be thinned from below leaving large trees with sufficient canopy cover to prevent a flush of regeneration.


In a recent study of nesting goshawks in west-central Montana, Clough (2000) found that goshawks nested selectively in the Douglas-fir cover type, used lodgepole pine in proportion to availability, and avoided all other forest cover types for nesting. The forested lands forming goshawk home ranges had been heavily influenced by past human activities, such as timber harvest and livestock grazing and yet yielded a nest density of 0.46 nests per 2471 acres surveyed. Of 18 nests monitored over 2 years, a total of 46 goshawks fledged from 16 nests, an overall mean of 2.56 (SE 0.27) young fledged per nest. Clough (2000) found goshawk nests distributed 1.24 to 3.1 miles apart around her study area perimeter and within 0.62 to 3.1 miles of the grassland/timber interface. She also found all nests at elevations from 5,000 to 6,600 feet, with 83 percent of the nests on north aspects. Clough (2000) also found that goshawks nested in multi-storied stands (4 to 5 layers) dominated by Douglas fir (58 percent) or lodgepole pine (42 percent) with the overstory comprised of mature trees (medium or larger size classes). Only 16 percent of occupied stands exhibited old growth characteristics, such as multi-storied in structure, open grown, with large-diameter trees dominant in the overstory. For nest trees, goshawks selected Douglas fir (70 percent) but used lodgepole pine (17 percent), aspen (9 percent), and Engelmann spruce (4 percent). Occupied nest trees were taller, their lowest live limb was higher, and the DBH was larger than trees selected at random. Clough (2000) concluded:

Results suggest that goshawks need mature forest for nesting; however, the amount of mature forest needed remains largely unknown and may vary depending on the landscape, disturbance history, and degree of habitat fragmentation.

Most studied goshawk home ranges in forested landscapes have alternate nest areas that may be used in different years. Alternate nests may be in entirely different stands within the home range and may be several hundred meters from the active nest. Younger stands need to be maintained or managed for future nest habitat to provide goshawk nest habitat over the long-term (Reynolds et al. 1992, Squires and Ruggiero 1996). Foraging habitat Goshawks prey on larger forest birds such as woodpeckers, jays, and grouse, as well as red squirrels, ground squirrels, chipmunks and snowshoe hares. The majority of these prey species reside mainly on the ground and in lower portions of the tree canopy. Clough (2000) reported that in the North Flint Creek Range, Montana, 81 percent of goshawk prey biomass consisted of mammals, with snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and Columbian ground squirrels (Spermophilus columbianus) being the most important prey species. Goshawks hunt from tree perches in the lower canopy, scanning the ground for prey. As dense forest environments create visual limitations and as goshawks hunt from tree perches while scanning the forest floor, shrub story and understory for prey, relatively open forest under stories may enhance prey detection and capture (Reynolds et al. 1992). Goshawks seem to prefer a vegetation structure that permits them to approach prey unseen and to use their flight maneuverability to their advantage (Beier and Drennan 1997). Beier and Drennan (1997) found that goshawks selected foraging sites that had higher canopy closure,


greater tree density, and greater density of larger trees than on contrast plots in northern Arizona ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Greenwald et al. (2005) in a review of selected North American radio telemetry studies (12) of goshawk home range habitat relations claimed that the studies consistently demonstrated goshawk selection for late-successional forest structures (e.g. high canopy closure, large trees for forest type, canopy layering, abundant coarse woody debris) when foraging within the studied home ranges. Greenwald et al. (2005) opined that goshawks may be broad habitat generalists in terms of tree species, but are habitat specialists with respect to forest structure. In the 12 radio telemetry studies reviewed, goshawks selected foraging sites within a home range based on prey availability, which was determined by stand structure rather than prey abundance. Widen (1989), Bright-Smith and Mannan (1994), and Hargis et al. (1994), reported similar preferences for large trees or dense forest condition for nesting, but, conversely, recognized an apparent tolerance for a broad range of forest structures for other life history activities. Patla (1997) found for goshawks nesting on the Targhee National Forest, that productivity and occupancy were positively related to the proportion of sagebrush/shrub cover within the foraging area, indicating the importance of sagebrush/shrub as foraging habitat. Clough (2000) found a high degree of variability in home range stand attributes within occupied goshawk territories. It should be noted that Greenwald et al. 2000 have been characterized as exhibiting “a poor understanding of the ecological factors limiting goshawk populations, a failure to understand goshawk forest habitat as dynamic ecosystems, incomplete reviews of the literature and inclusion of studies with limited samples of goshawks” by leading scientists in the field (Reynolds et al. 2005). Migration In high elevations and montane areas, some goshawks move to lower elevation into woodlands, riparian areas, and scrublands during winter. Radio telemetry studies in Wyoming indicated that goshawks on the Medicine Bow National Forest migrate off National Forest summer breeding areas southward into Colorado and westward to lower elevation non-forested areas (Squires and Ruggiero 1995). An ongoing radio telemetry study by UM-Western in southwestern Montana has found similar movement of goshawks from their nesting territories to lower elevation, more open habitats to over winter. In some cases the birds move more than 20 miles between breeding and wintering areas. Also over the 8 to10 years of the study, some birds have shown a strong fidelity to wintering areas, returning there for multiple years. Other goshawks seem to migrate out of the study area and then return sometime in March (Kirkley 1998 through 2004, on hand at the Forest Supervisor’s office in Dillon). The 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan identified the goshawk as a management indicator species for old-growth Douglas fir forests. This analysis assumes that Douglas fir and lodgepole pine forests are preferred nesting and foraging habitats, and the forest-meadow and forest-sagebrush-grassland ecotones are important goshawk foraging habitat in the Tobacco Root Mountains. This analysis also assumes that the home range attributes developed by Reynolds et al. (1992) for the southwestern U.S. forests are applicable to the northern Rocky Mountains (see Andersen et al. 2003).


The project area is within the South Meadow Creek sixth-code hydrologic unit (HUC6). The South Meadow Creek HUC6 (South Meadow Creek watershed) includes goshawk nesting and foraging habitat, and contains one known active goshawk territory, the Virginia Creek Territory. The Virginia Creek territory was identified in 2001 during general goshawk survey work. Annual monitoring of the Virginia Creek territory indicates goshawks have nested in at least four different trees within the same nest stand during the 6 years of known occupancy (2001 through 20066). The four nests are within approximate radius of 1000 feet, and are within 1000 feet of the National Forest boundary. Using the theoretical home range configuration established by Reynolds et al. (1992), this territory is about 45 percent on land other than NFS lands. See Map A, attached. Review of aerial photos indicates that the adjoining private and other federal (BLM) lands within the theoretical Virginia Creek territory are predominately forested on north aspects and interspersed with grassland/shrub-steppe on south aspects. It appears that much of the private land within the theoretical Virginia Creek Territory is currently suitable for goshawk use. Other federal lands (BLM) show extensive timber harvest within the foraging area; this harvest is thought to date from the mid 1990s. The Forest Service has no stand specific data for habitat on private or other federal lands to conduct project-scale analysis. The Meadow Creek Project would occur entirely within the South Meadow Creek watershed. The nest stand of the Virginia Creek Goshawk territory is within the South Meadow Creek watershed, and the South Meadow Creek watershed is slightly larger than a goshawk nesting territory as described by Reynolds et al. (1992). Due to its proximity to and accessibility from the communities of McAllister and Ennis, the South Meadow Creek Watershed has had more vegetative manipulation than most other watersheds in the Tobacco Root Mountains in the last 50 years. For these reasons, the goshawk analysis for the Meadow Creek Project uses habitat on NFS lands within the South Meadow Creek watershed as the basis of project scale analysis. Goshawk surveys were conducted in the eastern portion of the South Meadow Creek watershed in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and specific to the Meadow Creek Project in 2005 and 2006. As described in Table 3, below, the South Meadow Creek watershed exhibits a varied vegetative structure and management history, as analyzed using stand specific data for the Meadow Creek Project. Analysis for the Meadow Creek Project indicates that mature Douglas fir and lodgepole pine is well represented in the South Meadow Creek watershed. This analysis indicates that the South Meadow Creek watershed is approximately 23 percent suitable goshawk nesting habitat as described by Sampson (2006a, p. 29), for the Middle Rocky Mountain Ecological Province. See Map B, attached.

6 Nesting was not confirmed in 2005, though an adult goshawk was observed in the nest stand.


Table 3. Habitat components in the South Meadow Creek Watershed Habitat component Acres % of

total Description

Open water, rock, scree 935 12 Young forest 575 8 Douglas fir and lodgepole regeneration,

closed canopy, small diameter lodgepole ‘pole’ sized trees, small stature whitebark pine stands

Goshawk nesting and foraging habitat

1729 23 Mature and old growth Douglas fir, mature lodgepole pine with canopy closure greater than 40 percent.

Goshawk foraging habitat 1617 21 Mid-aged Douglas fir and lodgepole stands, ‘pole’ sized lodgepole with open canopy, open large Douglas fir stands.

High elevation non-managed forest

285 4 Subalpine fir and spruce stands above 7000 feet with no history of entry.

Whitebark pine forest 877 12 Whitebark pine forest above 7000 feet. Grassland 1305 17 Grassland-shrub/steppe, Douglas fir

savannah, alpine meadow. Private, no data 244 3 7567 100

Goshawk nest site criteria for the Middle Rocky Mountain Ecological Province include:

a) nesting habitat is dominated by Douglas fir or lodgepole, and b) has 25 trees per acre larger than 12.1 inches DBH, and c) exhibits a canopy closure greater than 34 percent.

This analysis compares the existing habitat components in the South Meadow Creek watershed with the desired forest conditions as described by Reynolds et al, (1992 p.7). Note that Goshawk foraging and nesting habitat exceed mid aged and mature forest desirable forest condition as described by Reynolds et al. (1992). Table 4. Habitat component comparison with Reynolds et al. 1992. Habitat attribute Proportion

of area Comparable Desirable forest

condition Proportion

of area Grassland 17 Grass, forb, shrub 10 Young forest 8 Seedling sapling, young forest 30 Goshawk foraging habitat 21 Mid-aged forest 20 Goshawk nesting and foraging habitat

23 Mature forest 20

Old forest (see below) 15, Trace Old forest 20 The inherent capability of the South Meadow Creek Watershed to provide habitat for the northern goshawk is limited by the topography of the Tobacco Root Mountains. Twenty four


percent of the watershed is not capable of providing goshawk habitat due to elevation or surface representation (rock, scree or water). “Old forest,” vegetative structural stage 6 as described by Reynolds et al. (1992), is represented at higher elevations by subalpine fir/spruce and whitebark pine forests that have no history of management entry (15 percent of the watershed). The “old forests” category would have been represented at lower elevations as Douglas fir savannah in the South Meadow Creek watershed. This habitat component was recognized in the 1994 Landscape Analysis as having a substantially greater representation in the historic past and is currently considered to occur in trace amounts in the Tobacco Root landscape, largely a result of the increasing level of forest stand homogeneity as a result of fire suppression (Anderson 2006; see Hessburg and Agee 2003). It should be noted that the stand that supports nesting for the Virginia Creek Territory was not characterized as Goshawk nesting and forage habitat as described in Table 3 above. At the time of site inventory of this stand (1984), there were insufficient large diameter trees for the average stem diameter (by size class) to be 12 inches or greater. The Virginia Creek Territory falls within the Goshawk foraging habitat category in Table 3, indicating that habitat modeling for the Meadow Creek Project may underestimate available suitable goshawk nesting habitat in the South Meadow Creek watershed. Also, goshawks on the western part of the Forest nest at elevations up to 7800 feet, suggesting that the ‘high elevation non-managed’ habitat identified in Table 3 may be used by goshawks as nesting habitat as well. Additional data indicates that there is substantial nesting habitat within and adjacent to the project area. The existing vegetative structure of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area is described in Appendix A, Habitat Baseline for the Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area. Approximately 28 percent of the 115,000 acres within the analysis area exhibits old growth characteristics. This percentage of mature forest corresponds with Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data that estimate 26 (range 13 to 40) percent of the forested public land within the Tobacco Root Mountains is old growth (Bush and Leach 2003), as described by Old-growth Forest Types of the Northern Region (Green et al. 1992). This corresponds with the 2003 Wildlife Habitat Viability Analysis that estimated 23 percent of the Tobacco Root landscape was mature or old growth Douglas fir or lodgepole pine habitat. Direct and Indirect Impacts Nesting and foraging habitat for the goshawk appears to be linked to forest structure; as such, the species may be impacted by forest management practices. Different treatment prescriptions will have varying effects on goshawks. In general, potential impacts would be directly related to implementation actions and timing and indirectly related to post-implementation stand condition/structure. Analysis conducted specifically for the Meadow Creek Project indicates that substantial areas of the South Meadow Creek watershed have been adversely impacted by long term fire suppression. Within the South Meadow Creek watershed, areas of Douglas fir habitat have substantially departed from the historic range of vegetation composition as a result of fire suppression (Anderson 2006). What were once open, park like stands of Douglas fir now have multiple canopy levels and numerous understory trees. Similar conditions were noted by Reynolds et al. (1992), who determined that forest succession modification of fire adapted forested communities affected goshawk habitat use and the availability of prey due to areas of thick tree regeneration


and increased canopy cover limiting access to prey, and reducing forage for and populations of herbivorous prey. Slash and burn The proposed slash and burn treatment would kill small to medium diameter, predominately non-merchantable Douglas fir and lodgepole pine trees that are encroaching into Douglas fir savannah and shrub-steppe habitat. Hand felling of encroaching Douglas fir trees would be followed by prescribed fire after a sufficient period of drying. These actions would reduce conifer encroachment, woody fuels, are likely to stimulate the growth of graminoids and forbs, but are likely to kill sagebrush where prescribed fire is applied. The resulting burn mosaics would be interspersed between potential goshawk foraging stands. It is anticipated that mountain big sagebrush within the blackened area of the mosaics would fully recover with 32 years (Lesica et al. 2005). Re-establishment of Douglas fir into grassland-shrub/steppe habitat is much less predicable (see Sindelar 1971) and may not occur for decades. The slash and burn treatments would not impact or alter suitable goshawk nesting or forested foraging habitat as identified in Table 3, above. However, Patla (1997) found that nesting goshawk productivity and occupancy were positively related to the proportion of sagebrush/shrub cover within the foraging area, indicating the importance of sagebrush/shrub as foraging habitat for goshawks in her study area. If grassland-shrub steppe is important foraging habitat for goshawks in the South Meadow Creek watershed, limited, short-term indirect impacts to goshawks may occur through reductions in prey availability as a result of the slash and burn treatments. It is anticipated that the graminoid component of the slash and burn treatment unit would show full recovery within 1 to 2 years, the burn mosaic would retain a shrub component and seed source, that the slash and burn treatment units would return to pre-treatment shrub densities within 32 years and that the grass and forb component of the slash and burn treatment units would be suitable habitat for ground squirrels, specifically the Unita ground squirrel (Spermophilus armatus),the Richardson ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii) and the Columbian ground squirrel, all of which are native and known to occur in Madison County (Foresman 2001). As such, long term and cumulative adverse impacts to goshawk prey species unlikely. Thin from below and burn The thin from below and burn treatment would treat forested stands that have the potential to be used by goshawks. Mechanical treatments would either occur during the winter season (over frozen ground or with adequate snow cover) or after soils are sufficiently dry, which typically occurs after July 15. Should mechanical treatments occur over frozen ground, direct impacts to northern goshawks from this element of the proposed action are unlikely. Should mechanical treatments occur when soils are sufficiently dry, active goshawk nests identified through project specific surveys would be avoided following the draft guidelines provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife in June 2005. Direct impacts to nesting or foraging goshawks are unlikely. Indirect impacts to goshawks could occur through alteration of habitat. No activities are proposed for the Virginia Creek Territory nest stand or PFA, however, and none of the stands proposed for treatment have been identified as supporting nesting by this species. All of Unit 1 and a portion of Unit 3 fall within the theoretical foraging area of the Virginia Creek territory, and as such may be used for foraging by this or another nesting pair. Unit 4 is approximately ½


mile north of the Virginia Creek foraging area and may be used by goshawks from this or another nesting territory. This, however, has not been documented. See Map A, attached. Unit 1, approximately 121 acres, ranges in elevation from 6300 to 6350 ASL and slopes generally north and east. Unit 1 is predominately a Douglas fir site with a substantial component of quaking aspen and grassland-sage/steppe. Unit 1 exceeds minimum criteria for old growth Douglas fir as described by Green et al. (1992), though a large portion of Unit 1 was mapped for the 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan as non forested or sparsely forested. Unit 1 is best characterized as an open, patchy site with large Douglas fir trees and clumped, pole sized regeneration, a scattered, remnant quaking aspen component and a well developed grass component. Canopy closure in Unit 1 is estimated to average 67 percent. However, the clumpy, open nature of Unit 1 suggests that Unit 1 would not be selected as a nesting stand by goshawks. Following treatment, Unit 1 is expected to be an open stand of large Douglas fir trees, unevenly spaced and averaging 50 of the largest trees per acre, approximating the Douglas fir savanna that occurred on this site prior to effective fire suppression. All pre-existing snags greater than 8 inches DBH would be retained, and though sparse, would be represented in the unit. In addition, 4 to 6 of the large Douglas fir trees per acre, associated with (within 50 feet of) aspen substands would be retained for future snag habitat. Quaking aspen would increase in the stand over time. Unit 3, approximately 110 acres, ranges in elevation from 6500 to 6900 feet ASL, slopes generally north east and exhibits a canopy closure of Douglas fir and lodgepole pine of approximately 46 percent. Unit 3 exceeds minimum criteria for old growth Douglas fir as described by Green et al. (1992), and was modeled as goshawk nesting and foraging habitat using stand specific data for this analysis. Unit 3 was selectively harvested at various times in the past. Unit 3 was surveyed during the post-fledgling period using established goshawk survey methodology in 2005 and during the nesting period in 2006. No adult or juvenile goshawks were detected in either survey period. Unit 4, approximately 115 acres in size, ranges in elevation from 6400 to 7000 feet ASL and slopes generally north and east. Portions of Unit 4 currently meet criteria for old growth as described by Green et al. (1992). This unit does contain sufficient large diameter trees over the majority of the unit and was modeled as goshawk nesting and foraging habitat using stand specific data for this analysis. Unit 4 was selectively logged in the past, and currently contains many closely spaced, stagnant, small diameter (less than 9 inch DBH) lodgepole pine trees in pockets. Canopy closure on the north exposure of Unit 4 is estimated at 55 percent. As proposed, understory trees would be removed from treatment Units 3 and 4 to reduce ladder fuels, effectively raising the height of the forest canopy from the ground surface (see Graham et al. 2004). Large diameter Douglas fir overstory trees would be retained, though some overstory trees would be removed to meet the post-treatment objective of 50 large trees per acre. This would, in effect, reduce the density of understory and overstory trees while retaining much of the old growth character of the site. In treatments units 3 and 4, the essential character of these forested sites as goshawk foraging habitat would be maintained, though ground level vegetation would be lacking immediately following treatment and canopy closure would be reduced.


Understory Douglas fir and lodgepole pine in treatment units 3 and 4 would be commercially thinned, which would likely foster an increase in shrub, sub shrub and ground vegetation over time. Mature, open stands in units 3 and 4 would be less susceptible to stand replacing crown fire following treatment (Graham et al. 2004). The proposed treatment is consistent with Greenwald et al. (2005), who recommend protecting existing mature and old-forest characteristics and ensuring that such forests are allowed to develop in proportions similar to pre-settlement conditions. The suitability of mature Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine as goshawk nesting habitat would be reduced by the thin from below treatment in units 3 and 4. These treatments are anticipated to result in a more open stand structure than currently exists by removing layered fuels between the ground surface and the bottom of the forest canopy. The post treatment canopy closure in Unit 3 is expected to be approximately 34 percent, the minimum canopy closure identified for goshawk nest site criteria for the Middle Rocky Mountains Ecological Province (Samson 2006a). The post treatment canopy closure for Unit 4 is expected to be 28 percent. Open stand conditions may preclude nesting by goshawks in units 3 and 4 and may result in increased competition from red-tailed hawks and potential predation from great-horned owls. Prescribed burning following the thin from below treatment is anticipated to stimulate the regeneration of quaking aspen where viable aspen clones persist, primarily in Unit 1 but also on the south side of Unit 4. Douglas fir trees would be removed to a distance of 50 feet from surviving aspen clones, allowing sunlight to reach aspen growth and reducing micro site water uptake by conifers. Open areas within Units 1 and 4 would be treated in conjunction with the stand, which would foster renewal of shrub and ground vegetation. Prescribed fire is also likely to create additional hard snags of varying diameter in the treated units. Regenerating aspen, increasing shrub, sub shrub and ground vegetation and creating snags would increase habitat diversity at the stand level. Increased habitat diversity is anticipated to foster improved foraging opportunities for the northern goshawk in and adjacent to treated units (Widen 1988, Hargis et al. 1994; see however Bull et al. 2005). Cumulative Impacts and Viability Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were analyzed for cumulative impacts to goshawks. Table A2 of Appendix A characterizes the extent of timber harvest on NFS lands in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area over the past 22 years. Since 1984, approximately 1.3 percent (1550 acres) of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area has been harvested using even-aged methodology, resulting in early seral habitat. Forest management activities have resulted in approximately 8 percent (Table 7) of the South Meadow Creek watershed being converted to early seral habitat between 1984 and 1991. The Virginia Creek timber sale (1989 through 1991) in the South Meadow Creek watershed harvested 209 acres using a shelterwood with reserve trees prescription, similar to a prescription described by Reynolds et al. 1992 to maintain suitable habitat for goshawks in a managed landscape. The cumulative result of past timber harvest and road construction activities has been a reduction of available nesting habitat in regeneration harvest units. Over time, stands harvested between 1984 and 1991 in the South Meadow Creek watershed will become replacement habitat for foraging and eventually nesting goshawks.


Those acres harvested using even aged techniques since 1984 are likely not suitable for goshawk foraging at this time. However, the late seral/early seral edge created through even aged management may have increased the availability of ground squirrels, important prey for goshawks. Overall, past timber activities have had limited impact to goshawk habitat on NFS lands in the South Meadow Creek watershed. As described in Table 4, the South Meadow Creek watershed exceeds the percent of mid-aged and mature forest recommended by Reynolds et al. (1992). Timber management on private and other federal land in the adjacent to the project area has occurred and will continue to occur. As discussed earlier, there has been substantial harvest on other federal land with in the foraging area of the Virginia Creek Territory. The project area supports permitted livestock grazing at the forest/grassland ecotone. Past livestock grazing reduced herbaceous and shrubby vegetation in the sagebrush/grassland and Douglas-fir savannah, thus reducing habitat for goshawk prey species. The frequent low intensity fires that were characteristic of the sagebrush/grassland and Douglas-fir savannah had less fine fuels to carry through these communities. Less frequent fires lead to the development of more structurally complex stands which may be of some benefit for goshawks in some areas, but also promoted the development of dense under stories, thereby reducing prey availability. The effects of past livestock grazing have been considered in the baseline for the effects analysis for this project. Reynolds et al. (1992) made the following management recommendation for grazing guidelines in goshawk foraging areas. Wildlife and livestock utilization of grasses and forbs should average 20 percent by weight and not exceed 40 percent in any area, and shrub utilization should average 40 percent by weight and not exceed 60 percent in any area. This level of utilization should maintain native foods and cover for many of the goshawk prey species. Present livestock grazing is managed by a four pasture rest rotation grazing system in the South Meadow Creek grazing allotment and generally meets forage standards associated with that allotment. Present livestock grazing management is outside the scope of this analysis. Substantial housing development has occurred immediately down slope of the project area, and it is likely development will continue. The proximity of housing development to the forest boundary is driving this fuel and hazard reduction project, and it is likely that concerns over forest fuels will continue. No reasonably foreseeable future actions other than continuing livestock grazing and wildfire suppression are anticipated for NFS lands in the South Meadow Creek watershed. The continuation of existing fire suppression activities may allow the development of more structurally complex stands which may be to some benefit for goshawks in some areas. In addition, over the long-term, existing fire suppression activities will likely increase the probability of larger and more intensive wildfires to the detriment of goshawks. Viability In 1998, the USFWS completed a 12 month finding on a petition to list the northern goshawk in the western United States as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The USFWS determined that the best available information did not indicate that listing the goshawk as threatened or endangered was warranted. The USFWS found that there was no evidence that the goshawk population was declining in the western United States, that the goshawk was well-


distributed throughout its historic range and that habitat for the goshawk was also well distributed across its range. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest conducted a Forest-wide analysis of available habitat for the northern goshawk in April 2003. Viability for the northern goshawk was evaluated by GIS habitat mapping analysis and survey, using information generated by satellite imagery or satellite imagery land cover (SILC). The SILC process predicts potential habitat types using life forms, slope, aspect and elevation7. Goshawk habitat was defined as mature to old growth Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir/lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine as described by Green et al. (1992). This analysis determined that habitat for the northern goshawk was well distributed across the forested landscape of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Habitat data for each Landscape Analysis Area on the Forest is available for review in the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Dillon. Also in 2003, Hillis et al. (2003) conducted a region-wide assessment of goshawk nesting habitat for the USFS Northern Region. Hillis et al. (2003) determined that 68 percent of the 2350 HUC6s (1599 HUC6s) likely contained sufficient nesting habitat for at least one pair of goshawks. Random HUC6s where sufficient habitat was predicted to occur were selected for fine scale validation. Every sampled HUC6s contained more nesting habitat than was predicted. Hillis et al. (2003) determined that suitable nesting habitat for the goshawk is abundant and well distributed across the USFS Northern Region. A further effort to evaluate goshawk habitat availability was conducted in 2003 using Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data to estimate old growth and large snags on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Bush and Leach (2003) estimated the percentage of old growth for all forest types on the Forest at 20.95 percent. Bush and Leach (2003) estimated that 25.71 percent of the forest habitat of the Tobacco Root Landscape was old growth. The Forest-wide old growth estimates for primary goshawk habitat (Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine) are 19.81 percent and 14.19 percent, respectively. The adequacy and reliability of FIA to estimate the amount of old growth is discussed in Czaplewski (2003). Goshawk viability was evaluated at the Regional scale through the Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed woodpecker, Flammulated Owl and Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region (Samson 2006a). Samson (2006a) employed habitat models that incorporated Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), remote sensing and point observation data to estimate the extent of habitat for those species considered in the Conservation Assessment. Samson (2006a) concluded that nesting, PFA and FA habitat for the goshawk in the USFS Northern Region is abundant. Specifically, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge N. F. provides 40,856 acres of nesting habitat, 351,298 acres of PFA habitat and 982,084 acres of foraging habitat. Given these parameters, Samson (2006a) determined that the short-term viability of the northern 7 The satellite imagery land cover classification system (SILC) was started in the early 1990s to create regional land cover type, tree size, and tree canopy GIS databases for Montana and Idaho. The University of Montana developed the system with Region One of the U. S. Forest Service, the USGS Gap Analysis Program (GAP), and the state of Montana (Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. University of Montana) See http://ku.wru.umt.edu/project/silcpage/index.shtml. For the SILC3 2001 second west-central Montana classification see Metadata link: SILC3REGIONZ Region Grid Metadata. This land cover grid is suited for analysis at the regional, sub-regional, and landscape levels. It is not for use at scales finer than 1:100,000.

http://ku.wru.umt.edu/project/silcpage/index.shtml


goshawk was “not an issue” due to a variety of factors, but primarily because a) habitat was abundant for this species and b) there is no evidence that the northern goshawk is declining in the western United States. A Northern Region analysis titled Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of Northern Goshawks, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Fisher (Samson 2006b) is attached as Appendix D and is incorporated into this viability analysis. Samson’s habitat analysis and species viability determination are supported by the 2005 USFS Region 1 goshawk survey that found the proportion of the forested lands in the roaded area of Region 1 occupied by goshawks in 2005 to be about 40 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 30 to 50 percent. Thus, based on current best available habitat information for the USFSA Northern Region and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, suitable habitat is well distributed across the landscape for the northern goshawk. Northern goshawk viability on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest will not be reduced by implementation of the Meadow Creek Project. Determination No vegetation treatments are proposed for the nest stand or PFA of the Virginia Creek Goshawk territory. The proposed slash and burn treatments of Douglas fir encroachment into Douglas fir savannah/grassland-shrub/steppe ecotone may improve foraging habitat by selectively removing conifer colonization, leaving the larger older Douglas-fir trees, and restoring sagebrush-grassland communities over time. Implementation of the thin from below and burn treatment is expected to reduce understory trees and vegetation but retain the large overstory trees within the treated units. Units 3 and 4 are currently suitable nesting habitat for the goshawk. Unit 3 would continue to meet the minimum canopy closure as identified for the Middle Rock Mountain Ecological Province, unit 4 would not. Treatments may also foster the development of late seral conditions in Unit 4 at a more rapid rate than is currently occurring. As implementation of the proposed action may alter 110 acres of potential goshawk nesting habitat in Unit 3 and 115 in Unit 4, the Meadow Creek Project may impact individual goshawks and their habitat but will not likely result in a trend in federal listing or reduced viability for the goshawk population or species. Implementation of the Meadow Creek Project will result in minor vegetative changes to the South Meadow Creek Watershed. The Meadow Creek Project is unlikely to result in cumulative effects with past and reasonably foreseeable activities. Proposed treatments would alter 225 acres (110 in Unit 3, 115 in Unit 4) of potential goshawk nesting habitat while retaining those acres as foraging habitat. Unit 1 is also are expected to retain qualities of foraging habitat. Alteration of potential nesting habitat in unit 3 and 4 would impact about 13 percent of the potential goshawk nesting habitat in the South Meadow Creek watershed. Cumulatively, past timber harvest has resulted in 8 percent of the forested stands in the South Meadow Creek watershed being in an early seral condition. The proposed action would not result in increased acreage in early seral habitat. Northern goshawk viability on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest will not be reduced by this project. BIIb. Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (G4S4, sensitive, MIS). Greater sage grouse (sage grouse) are native to the sagebrush steppe of western North America, and their distribution closely follows that of sagebrush, primarily big sagebrush. The distribution of sage


grouse in Montana includes the eastern one-half and southwest corner of the state, or roughly 27 million acres of sagebrush-grassland in 39 counties. Some sage grouse in southwestern Montana are migratory, moving between separate summer and winter areas. Migratory movements of sage grouse also have been documented between eastern Idaho and southwest Montana. (MSGWG 2005) Statewide, sage grouse numbers increased from the mid-1960s through 1973 and fluctuated about that level until 1984. Sage grouse declined rather sharply statewide from 1991 through 1996 and increased through 2000. Montana currently allows a 4-bird bag limit for sage grouse in an adaptive management approach to harvest regulation. Breeding Habitat Breeding grounds (leks) are key activity areas and most often consist of flat or gently sloping clearings surrounded by sagebrush cover (MSGWG 2005). There are no known leks on NFS lands administered by the Forest. Nesting Habitat Nesting habitat is typically associated with leks; approximately 96 percent of all sage grouse nests are with 11 miles of the lek (Connelly et al. 2000). Sage grouse prefer sagebrush for nesting cover, and the quality of nesting cover can directly influence nest success. Successful nesting requires concealment provided by a combination of shrub and residual grass cover. Sage grouse most frequently select nesting cover with a sagebrush canopy of 15 to31 percent. Research findings in central Montana suggest that about 66 percent of nests occur within 2 miles of a lek. Connelly et al. (2000) recommend protecting breeding/nesting habitat within 11 miles (18km) of leks for migratory populations. Brood-Rearing Habitat Areas providing an abundance and diversity of succulent forbs, an important summer food source for young sage grouse, provide key brood-rearing habitat. Research in central Montana indicates that sage grouse broods prefer relatively open stands of sagebrush during summer, generally with a canopy ranging from 1 to 25 percent. As palatability of forbs declines, sage grouse move to moist areas that still support succulent vegetation, including riparian meadows, alfalfa fields, roadside ditches, and other moist sites. During summers of high precipitation, sage grouse in Montana may remain widely distributed throughout the entire summer due to the wide distribution of succulent forbs. Sage grouse in southwest Montana and eastern Idaho often move to intermountain valleys during late summer where forbs remain succulent through summer and early fall. Reported sagebrush canopy on these sites varied from 8.5 to 14 percent. Winter Habitat. Sage grouse generally select relatively tall and large expanses of dense sagebrush during winter. Wintering areas in central Montana included sagebrush stands on relatively flat sites with 20 percent canopy closure and an average height of 10 inches above the ground surface. The importance of shrub height increases with snow depth; in areas with deep snow, shrub height must substantially exceed snow depth for sage grouse forage and cover. Thus, snow depth can limit the availability of wintering sites to sage grouse. Sage grouse occur seasonally in sagebrush habitat on the Forest, primarily in areas suitable for summer brood rearing. The project area is within the Southwestern Montana Mountain Foothills


Mixed Sagebrush Ecological Unit as described by the Montana Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse-Final (MSGWG 2005). Sagebrush occurs on lower elevation, south-facing aspects in the project area, and is an important component of these stands. Douglas fir encroachment into stands currently exhibiting moderate levels of sagebrush occupancy would be treated in the slash and burn treatment units. Sagebrush in the project area does not occur at a density that would indicate suitable sage grouse nesting habitat exists, and is being impacted by encroaching Douglas fir. Analysis conducted for the 1994 Tobacco Root Landscape analysis (Landscape Analysis; see Appendix A) characterized each of the stands proposed for the slash and burn treatment as to the existing, potential and desired cover type. Many of these stands were identified as exhibiting Douglas fir encroachment in 1995; Douglas fir encroachment has proceeded in the intervening 11 years. Analysis and observation indicates that Douglas fir encroachment into grass/sagebrush hill slopes in the project area is resulting in a loss of sagebrush habitat; implementation of the proposed action is likely to result in the recovery of more than 230 acres of sagebrush habitat over time. The desired future condition for all stands that had an existing sagebrush cover type during the Landscape Analysis is for them to continue to have vigorous sagebrush component. Direct and Indirect Impacts Sage grouse have not been observed or documented to occur in the project area during any season of the year. Observations of sagebrush in the project area indicate that sagebrush does not occur at density that is typical for sage grouse nesting. The nearest known lek is the Quaking Aspen lek, 12 miles to the southwest and over the crest of the Tobacco Root Mountains from the South Meadow Creek watershed. The Quaking Aspen lek is considered inactive, as birds have not been observed on the lek since 1979. It is unlikely that the south-facing grass/sagebrush hill slopes at the forest/grassland ecotone in the project area are used as wintering, nesting or brood rearing areas by sage grouse. Mechanical slashing of Douglas fir encroachment would likely occur during the summer season. Prescribed fire would likely be applied in the spring or late fall; implementation timing would be determined by environmental factors. Treatment by prescribed fire is anticipated to result in a mosaic of burned and unburned areas, and variation in fire severity within the burned units. Treatment of the south facing grass/sagebrush hill slopes by slashing small diameter trees followed by prescribed fire is likely to result in the mortality of a substantial percentage of the sagebrush plants within the fire perimeter. As large diameter fuels are not yet present on these sites, fire intensity in burn units will likely be comparatively low, soils will remain fertile and the soil seed bank would remain viable. The mortality of Douglas fir trees through implementation of the slash and burn treatment is likely to result in an increase of sagebrush habitat over time. Recovery of the mountain big sagebrush component of burn units is anticipated to require about 32 years (Lesica et al. 2005). Implementation of the slash and burn treatments are likely to stimulate graminoid and, to a lesser extent, forb growth within the prescribed fire perimeter. An increase in forb volume may indirectly benefit sage grouse, were sage grouse to occur there during the brood rearing period.


Cumulative Impacts and Viability Throughout the range of the greater sage grouse, there have been substantial impacts to sagebrush habitats. Degradation, loss, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat has occurred as a result of excessive livestock grazing, conversion to agricultural lands or seedings of introduced grasses, spread of invasive exotic plants and native conifers, alterations of fire regimes, oil and gas development, and other human-caused disturbances (Shaw et al. 2005). There is, however, controversy surrounding the pre Euroamerican settlement distribution and density of sagebrush, and hence sage grouse, in the Madison Valley and surrounding mountain foothills. Some believe that mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) had a much broader distribution in the Madison Valley than at present, and that agricultural activities have “destroyed a significant amount of sage grouse habitat” (WCS 2006). There are number of indications that counter this position. Gruell (1983) using the comparison of historic photos (1870 to 1940) to photos at the same location in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Invariably, the photo comparisons demonstrate a dramatic increase in the extent and density of conifers in many areas of southwestern Montana. Gruell found that most early photographs showed evidence of wildfire, and that rangelands had a “smoother” appearance with fewer shrubs and trees that at present. Arno and Gruell (1983) evaluated fire history and return interval at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana at several locations pertinent to the Madison Valley. West of the project area on the foothills of the Tobacco Root Mountains outside of Sheridan, Arno and Gruell (1983) documented a mean fire return interval of 31 years; near Vigilante Station in the Ruby Valley, 27 years; at Papoose Creek on the west slope of the Madison Range, 49 years. Barrett (1995) evaluated fire history and fire return interval at a number of locations on the Beaverhead National Forest. Important to this analysis, Barrett (1995) identified 14 ‘spreading’ fires in the North and South Meadow Creek area on NFS lands between 1711 and 1918, and no fires after 1918. Barrett (1995) calculated an area mean fire interval of 16 years (range 9 to 39 years) for this portion of the Tobacco Root Landscape. These data strongly suggest that wildfire at the forest/grassland ecotone was much more common in southwestern Montana historically than at present and that the density of sagebrush at the forest/grassland ecotone was limited by frequent wildfires. Fire suppression has undoubtedly reduced the frequency of fire at the forest/grassland ecotone. Between July 20 and August 20, 2006, firefighters from the Madison Ranger District extinguished 5 lightening-caused fires in the grassland-shrub/steppe fuel type of the Madison Valley, indicating that fire suppression is the primary factor leading to lengthened fire return intervals on those sites described by Arno, Gruell and Barrett. A number of authors have postulated that mountain big sagebrush requires “decades” to recover fully from wild and prescribed fire (see for example Wambolt et al. 2001). Lesica et al. (2005) tested this argument and determined that, on average, mountain big sagebrush requires 32 years to fully recover following wild or prescribed fire in southwestern Montana. “Fully recover” in this context, would be to return to a density that is also a product of decades of fire suppression. Given these considerations, it is difficult to support the premise that forest/grassland ecotone in the Madison Valley had a greater density of mountain big sagebrush than at present. In fact, it is


likely that mountain big sagebrush has a broader distribution and higher density on NFS lands in the Madison Valley now than at any time in the historic past. While the loss of sagebrush habitat is undoubtedly an important factor in the decline of sage grouse at the scale of the intermountain range of sage grouse, it does not appear to be a major factor in the foothills of the Tobacco Root Mountains. Viability The sage grouse was petitioned for listing under the ESA by several parties during 2002 and 2003. The FWS conducted an extensive review and, in their 12-month finding, determined that the species was not warranted for listing under the ESA, as sage grouse numbers were well represented throughout much of the bird’s historic range (FR Vol. 70, No. 8 / 01-12-05). In addition, the FWS requested that the public continue to submit new information such that the FWS could continue to monitor the status of the species. With the long-term persistence of sage grouse, a species popular as a hunted species, at issue, cooperating states have formed sage grouse local working groups. Local working groups (LWG) are active in Montana, Idaho, and Nevada, and are cooperatively monitoring sage grouse numbers and habitat to ensure the persistence of this species. The Meadow Creek Project will impact sage brush within the project area with the intent of reducing the encroachment of conifers into sagebrush habitat. It is unlikely that the project area is currently used by sage grouse, and that sagebrush will fully recover in approximately 32 years. Implementation of the proposed action would not impact the viability of sage grouse. Determination Sage grouse have not been recorded within the project area, and are not thought to currently occur there during the winter, nesting or brood rearing period. As such, direct impacts to sage grouse are unlikely to occur. Implementation the Meadow Creek Project may have short-term impacts on sagebrush within the project area, but is anticipated to recover approximately 230 acres of sagebrush habitat that are being impacted by conifer encroachment over the next 30 years. Adverse cumulative impacts stemming from implementation of the proposed action are not likely to occur. As implementation of the Meadow Creek Project may impact a minor amount of low to moderate quality sage grouse habitat, implementation of the project may impact individual sage grouse or their habitat but will not likely result in a trend in federal listing or reduced viability for the sage grouse population or species. BIIc. Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) (G4S2, sensitive, MIS). Trumpeter swans are resident and migratory species on the southern end of the Forest, and nesting habitat is associated with lake edge and marshland. Trumpeter swans winter on the Madison River, Ennis Lake and O’Dell Creek, and nesting has been documented on Conklin and Elk Lakes, all of which are substantially removed from the project area. There is no suitable nesting or wintering habitat within the project area. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts No nesting or winter habitat occurs in the project area. No impact to trumpeter swans is anticipated. No marsh land would be impacted by the project. As such, any population change for the trumpeter swan would not be indicative of habitat degradation. .


BIId. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) (G4S2B, sensitive, MIS). The peregrine falcon was removed from the ESA threatened list on August 25, 1999. Peregrine falcons occur on the Forest. There are no known peregrine falcon aeries in the project area. There are no potential nesting cliffs within or within ½ mile of the project area boundary. Peregrine falcon foraging may occur within or above any of the riparian areas within the larger Southern Tobacco Root analysis area, and foraging may occur at any one of the 38 named lakes in this area. The population trend for peregrines within Montana is increasing. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts The proposed action is not likely to impact potential nesting (cliff) habitat, and not likely to impact the forage base for peregrine falcon. No impact to the peregrine falcon is anticipated. No cliff type habitat would be impacted by the project. As such, any population change for the peregrine falcon would not be indicative of habitat degradation. BIIe. Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) (G4S2B, sensitive). Harlequin ducks are summer migrants to south-central Montana. Breeding is suspected, but has not been documented in tributaries to the Madison River. Streams known to support breeding harlequin ducks in Montana are typically greater than 4 meters wide, in excess of 3 percent gradient, with a cobble substrate and with a well developed riparian vegetation community. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts There are no recorded observations of harlequin ducks within the project area. Streams draining the east slope of the Tobacco Root Mountain Range such as North and South Meadow creeks may provide habitat for this species. The treatments proposed are unlikely to impact South Meadow Creek or associated riparian habitat. No impact to the Harlequin duck is anticipated. BIIf. Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) (G4S3B, sensitive). The flammulated owl is an insectivorous, obligate secondary cavity nester that commonly breeds in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and mixed coniferous forest in western North America. Reynolds and Linkhart (1992) report that flammulated owl nest sites are, with very limited exceptions, restricted to stands containing “at least some” yellow pines (such as ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi)). Linkhart and Reynolds (1997) linked territorial occupancy with stand condition in an extended study and Colorado, and found that old (200 to 400 year old) ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forests were consistently occupied by breeding pairs where as younger forests were not. Marti (1997) found flammulated owls to use artificial nest structures in quaking aspen forest types in Northern Utah, however, and Powers (1996, as cited in Marti, 1997) found flammulated owls nesting in fir (Abies sp.) and mixed deciduous forests in northern Idaho. Groves et al. (1997) found flammulated owls to occur in “old or mature” stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir in northern and central Idaho. Based on unpublished data, Wright et al. (1997) report that flammulated owls used more mesic stands dominated by Douglas fir in northern Idaho and western Montana. Flammulated owls are summer migrants to south-central Montana, and are typically associated with xeric, open stands of large diameter ponderosa pine and Douglas fir (Wright et al. 1997). Most authors identify an open-grown, large, old tree condition as being most commonly used forest structure for flammulated owl nesting (McCallum 1994). Several authors have identified


dense thickets of Douglas fir associated with nesting habitat as being important for cover or roosts (as summarized in Wright et al. 1997 and McCallum 1994). Table 5 describes attributes of flammulated owl habitat in western North America. Table 5. Attributes of flammulated owl habitat features in western North America Feature New Mexico1 Oregon2 Oregon3 Idaho4 Tree Size (DBH- inches)

18.7 ± 4.3 21.6 ± 4.8 29 ± 5.8 12.5-15

Tree density (trees/acre)

204 ± 168 238 ± 183 134 ± 59 202

Canopy Closure %

55 ± 20 52 to 64

Shrub density 179 ± 251 16 ± 296 16 - 215 1 McCallum and Gehlbach 1988 as reported in McCallum, 1994a 2 Goggins 1986 as reported in McCallum, 1994a 3 Bull et al. 1990 as reported in McCallum, 1994a 4 Groves et al. 1997 5 Groves et al (1997) used percent cover as a measure of the shrub component of occupied habitat. Flammulated owls are suspected to be seasonal transients along the Madison River corridor, but occupancy or breeding has not been documented in the Madison Valley or surrounding mountains (Lenard et al. 2003). Hayward and Verner (1994) mapped the potential distribution of the flammulated owl based on the distribution of northwestern yellow pine from Kuchlers Ecosystems, and included lower slopes on the Gravelly and Tobacco Root Mountains within this distributional area. Ponderosa pine does not occur in the Gravelly or Tobacco Root Mountains, and surveys have not identified flammulated owls to occur there8. Surveys conducted specific to this species in 2005 may have elicited a response from an individual in the project area, but presence was not conclusively documented (Ballou 20059). Direct and Indirect Impacts Implementation of the proposed action would remove understory trees from up to 346 acres of dry to moist Douglas fir forests along the south eastern foothills of the Tobacco Root Mountains. As proposed, the thin from below and burn treatment would retain the largest Douglas fir trees available within the treatment units. The intended post-treatment stand condition would average 50 large Douglas fir trees per acre, interspersed with small openings, resulting in an open, park like stand. The thin from below and burn treatment is anticipated to result in stand conditions in which the average Douglas fir bole diameter is larger than at present.

8 The project area contains part of two established survey routes for flammulated owls. The Washington Creek route passes units 3 and 4 and has been surveyed each year since 2001. The Granite Creek route passes Unit 1 and was surveyed from 1999 to 2002. In 2005 and 2006, the Washington Creek route was lengthened to include Unit 1. No flammulated owls have been detected on either route in any year. 9 Lia Ballou was the primary Biological Technician who surveyed the Forest for flammulated owls in 2005, and subsequently worked for the Madison Ranger District during summers of 2005 and 2006. Her survey report to the University of Montana Avian Science Center described the possible Tobacco Root Mountain detection: “The call sounded more like the echo from the caller, (I) may have made it up but (I) think it was there. Wind made distinction of direction impossible and (I) think the owl was over the ridge.”


Direct impacts to the flammulated owl are unlikely. The project area does not contain ponderosa pine habitat, and surveys in the project area have not conclusively detected the species. The proposed thin from below and burn treatments are likely to occur following the breeding season, though may commence after July 15, which would likely be prior young flammulated owls being fledged, but possibly not (see McCallum 1994). As proposed, all pre-existing snags 8 inches in diameter and larger would be retained, so it is likely that nesting substrate for flammulated owls that was present prior to project implementation would be retained following implementation. Indirect impacts to flammulated owl habitat may occur. The proposed treatments are anticipated to result in stand conditions that more closely resemble open-grown ponderosa pine habitat than the current existing condition. However, treatment units 1, 3 and 4 would lack patches of dense understory trees used as roosting habitat by flammulated owls following project implementation. Understory shrubs may also be reduced by burn treatments following the thin from below treatment. Treatments in units 1, 3 and 4 could impact roost habitat on up to 346 acres of Douglas fir habitat, habitat that could support up to 8 breeding pairs of flammulated owls. In the absence of periodic prescribed fire, young trees will become re-established in units 1, 3 and 4 over time. The thin from below and burn treatment would enhance aspen habitat in units 1 and 4, which is anticipated to increase vegetative diversity at the stand level. Slash and burn treatments are likely to result in a minor increase in local vegetative diversity in the burn units and adjacent to Douglas fir stands. Increases in vegetative diversity may result in improved forage opportunities for the flammulated owl. Cumulative Impacts and Viability Noss et al. (1995) identified old-growth ponderosa pine forests in the northern Rocky Mountains, Intermountain West and the east side of the Cascade Mountains as an endangered ecosystem, based on a calculated loss or degradation 85 to 95 percent from the presettlement past. One of the principle elements of degradation as described by Noss et al. (1995) was the interruption of natural disturbance processes, specifically wildfire suppression in ponderosa pine forest types, key flammulated owl habitat. Groves et al. (1997) suggested that fire suppression and timber harvest could impact the persistence of the flammulated owl in the long-term. McCallum (1994) determined that though the flammulated owl currently occupies all of its known historic range and was represented in “good” numbers, habitat loss or change over time could imperil the species. Indeed, Douglas fir savannah currently occupies only a trace of the foothills of the southern Tobacco Root Mountains, where it was thought to have comprised about 10 percent of the landscape prior to effective fire suppression about 100 years ago (Appendix A). Douglas fir savannah is the best approximation of open grown ponderosa pine forests the Tobacco Root Mountains can provide. Implementation of the proposed project would create Douglas fir stands that resemble the historic condition of the Douglas fir savannah. Viability Samson (2006a) determined that the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest had fewer acres of suitable habitat than any other forest in the Northern Region, based primarily on dominance type and structural stage of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir forest types. An estimated 4880 acres of flammulated owl habitat occurs on the Forest, sufficient habitat for about 108 flammulated owl pairs. This analysis also estimates that the percentage of the Forest that


supports Douglas fir habitat for this species increased from an estimated 2.1 percent of the Forest in 1942 to 9.5 percent of the Forest in 2005. Samson (2006a) concluded that the viability of the flammulated owl was not an issue in the Northern Region based on several factors. Primarily, there is no scientific evidence that the flammulated owl is decreasing in numbers. McCallum (1994), one of the leading researchers in the field, stated that the flammulated owl may be the “most common raptor of the montane forests” of the western United States. Habitat for the flammulated owl is represented on all forests of the Northern Region and is well distributed across the Region. In addition, the extent and level of connectivity of forested habitat has increased in the western United States over the last 200 years (Hessburg and Agee 2003) and the amount of forest regeneration through timber harvest is a very small percentage (0.0001 percent) of the forested landscape of the Northern Region. A Northern Region analysis titled Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of Northern Goshawks, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Fisher (Samson 2006b) is attached as Appendix D and is incorporated into this viability analysis. Determination Flammulated owls have not been conclusively shown to occur in the project area during any season, and breeding has not been documented in this part of Montana. Implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to retain the large, old tree characteristics of those stands currently identified as old growth in the project area, and would retain snag habitat required for flammulated owl nest cavities. Implementation would, however, reduce roosting habitat for the flammulated owl in treatment units 1, 3 and 4, resulting in alteration of habitat on up to 346 acres. The proposed treatments are not likely to adversely impact forage base for flammulated owl. Cumulative impacts to flammulated owls or flammulated owl habitat stemming from implementation of the proposed project are not expected. Due to potential impacts to flammulated owl roosting habitat in treatment units 1, 3 and 4, implementation of the proposed project may impact individual flammulated owls or their habitat but will not likely result in a trend in federal listing or reduced viability for the flammulated owl population or species. BIIg. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) (G5S2, sensitive). The worldwide distribution of the black-backed woodpecker (known earlier as the black-backed three-toed woodpecker) is restricted to the North American continent. The range of the black-backed woodpecker coincides with the northern limits of the closed boreal and montane coniferous forests of North America. The South Meadow Creek watershed is near the southern periphery of the range of the black-backed woodpecker in the Rocky Mountains (Stokes and Stokes 1996). The closed boreal and montane coniferous forests of North America are a diverse mixture of coniferous tree species, no one of which appears to be essential to the black-backed woodpecker. The black-backed woodpecker is a primary cavity nesting species that may appear in concentrations in forested landscapes that have been recently disturbed by fire or mechanisms resulting in an abundance of wood boring insect prey (specifically the Cerambycidae) or bark beetles (Murphy and Lehnhausen 1998, Dixon and Saab 2000, but see also Smucker et al. 2005). Black-backed woodpeckers also occur in comparatively lower densities in forests with low levels


of mortality, and individual black-backed woodpeckers may be difficult to detect in undisturbed forests (i.e. Bock and Lynch 1970, Harris 1982, Ibarzabal and Desmueles 2006). A review of 10 years of landbird monitoring data collected in unburned forests of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (Hutto and Young 1993 through 2004) identified only 3 observations of black-backed woodpeckers. Hutto (1995) suggested for black-backed woodpeckers that “although it is possible that black-backed woodpecker populations are maintained by source refuges of low numbers in unburned forests, it is equally likely that their populations are maintained by a patchwork or recently burned forests. The relatively low numbers in unburned forests may be sink populations that are maintained by birds that emigrate from burns when conditions become less suitable.” This potential source/sink habitat relationship has led some to propose that large-scale, stand replacement fires are essential to the long-term persistence of the black-backed woodpecker (Hutto 1995, Kreisel and Stein 1999, O’Connor and Hillis 2000, Dixon and Saab 2000), at least in Montana, and prompted Hillis et al. (2002) to develop the U.S. Forest Service Region One Black-Backed Woodpecker Assessment on this untested hypothesis. Hillis et al. (2002) modeled the reduction in burned area since the advent of effective fire suppression (1900) as habitat loss for the black-backed woodpecker. The reduction in burned area was compared to a possible historic range of variability (HRV) of three fire regimes of potential black-backed woodpecker habitat in Region One. Hillis et al. (2002) determined that a mean of 234,831 acres of recently burned habitat would have been available in Region One during any given 6-year period during the “pre suppression era,” and then compared the actual number of acres burned on NFS lands in 6-year increments from 1940 through 2000 to the theoretical mean. During the period of 1940 through 1987, Hillis et al. (2002) estimate an average of about 44,000 acres (18.8 percent of the HRV) of recently burned habitat was available in Region One for black-backed woodpecker habitat. This model completely discounts any potential habitat for the black-backed woodpecker other than recently (within 6 years) burned areas. A Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl and Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region (Conservation Assessment; Samson 2006a) reviewed literature related to black-backed woodpecker ecology and determined that “understanding habitat requirements for the black-backed woodpecker in the northern Rocky Mountains and elsewhere is limited due to study design. Few if any studies have equally sampled all habitats and seral stages in proportion to their availability on the landscape.” Samson (2006a) proposed three possible relationships to explain the distribution and abundance of the black-backed woodpecker in the Northern Rockies. These are: a) the use of post-burn areas; b) the use of areas of insect outbreaks, and c) a pattern expected in a landscape with a natural range in the occurrences of natural processes such as fire and insect use. Premise a is essentially the position Hillis et al. (2002) assumed, that is, recently burned areas are the sole source of black-backed woodpeckers found in this and other habitats in Region One. Premise b assumes the same: a source/sink population model10, (in this case, insect outbreak areas being 10 Source/sink population dynamics are most easily explained by: population source = Ro >1; population sink = Ro <1, where Ro is the instantaneous rate of change at time 0.


the sole population source), is an all or nothing affair. Premise c, however, assumes that habitat within recently burned areas and habitat associated with insect outbreaks may both be suitable foraging habitat provided the abundance and distribution of wood boring, and, to a lesser extent, bark beetles provides a net positive gain for black-backed woodpeckers. Premise c is consistent with current source-sink population dynamic theory as discussed by Roy et al. (2005). Temporal variability in local population growth in habitat that is otherwise a population sink can result in a local increase in abundance of the species. Coupled with a moderate or strong dispersal ability, local increases in abundance may permit indefinite persistence of the larger population. Habitat availability The black-backed wood pecker was observed on the Forest following the fires of 2000 (T. Komberec pers. com), and at least one breeding pair was recently found in the July 2005 Johnny Ridge Fire in the Gravelly Mountains (Frederick pers. obs. 2006). The black-backed woodpecker has not been documented in the analysis area, although the area supports forest and structures similar to those where the species are expected to occur. Currently, snags created by spruce bud worm, Douglas fir beetle and mountain pine beetle related mortality occur throughout the South Meadow Creek Watershed. Snags are abundant and well distributed in the South Meadow Creek Watershed (see Appendix A), are substantially above the 0.6 snags per acre recommended by Thomas et al (1979) to maintain 10 percent of potential for black-backed woodpecker population and well within the range recommended by various researchers (Cunningham et al. 1980, Raphael and White 1984, Schreiber and de Calesta 1992, Bull et al. 1997) to support the potential density of several woodpecker species and other cavity nesting birds at the landscape scale. Snag habitat is currently substantially above the 1.5 snags per acre as required for some areas of the Forest under the 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan. In addition to those data described above, Hillis et al. (2002) also provided the number of acres in the Northern Region burned from 1988 through 2000. Hillis et al. (2002) reported that during the period 1988 through 1993, recently burned habitat was available in Region One at 249 percent of the HRV, from 1994 through 1999 at 109 percent of the HRV and following the year 2000 recently burned habitat in the Northern Region was available at 258 percent of the HRV. Given the parameters presented in Hillis et al. (2002), habitat availability for the black-backed woodpecker has exceeded the HRV for the last two decades. Samson (2006a) reported that black-backed woodpecker habitat (post-fire and insect outbreaks) has increased across Region One in the decade from 1993 through 2003. The number or acres showing evidence of insect related mortality increased approximately 200 percent from 1993 to 2003; the number of acres burned increased from 1993 to 2003 by approximately 1400 percent. Samson (2006a) also found that no gap between current post-burn or insect-infested (with no burn) areas occurs that would limit black-backed woodpeckers from interacting Region wide. Breeding Bird Survey trend data for 1996 through 2003 show greater than 1.5 percent annual increase in black-backed woodpecker observations in northwestern Montana and along the west central Idaho/Montana border (seehttp://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ htm03/trn2003/tr04000.htm (accessed August 22, 2006)). Direct and Indirect Impacts Direct impacts to the black-backed woodpecker from implementation of the proposed action may occur but are unlikely. Black-backed woodpeckers

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/htm03/trn2003/tr04000.htm

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/htm03/trn2003/tr04000.htm


occur naturally at relatively low densities in other than burned forest habitats (McClelland 1987, Bull et al. 1986, Goggins et al. 1987, Ibarzabal and Desmueles 2006 ). Mechanical treatments associated with the slash and burn treatment would fell live Douglas fir and lodgepole pine of varying diameter. Some of these trees, specifically lodgepole pine, may be infested with wood boring, engraver or mountain pine beetles. Implementation of the thin from below and burn treatment would likely occur after mid July. By this time, young of the year black-backed woodpeckers have most likely fledged (Dixon and Saab 2000). Fledgling black-backed woodpeckers are sufficiently mobile to have dispersed from the nest stand soon after leaving the nest so direct impacts to individual black-backed woodpeckers from the thin from below treatment as a result of felling live trees are unlikely, even if black-backed woodpeckers were found on these sites. Young of the year and adult black-backed woodpeckers could avoid disturbance caused by mechanical treatments after the young of the year are fledged. Implementation of the thin from below and burn treatment could indirectly impact black-backed woodpeckers by altering habitat. The intent of the proposed action is to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire at the wildland urban interface. If the proposed treatments are successful, the potential for black-backed woodpecker burned-forest habitat to develop on the wildland urban interface through stand replacement fire would be reduced. Also, the thin from below treatment would reduce density stress on the remaining large diameter trees, reducing their susceptibility to insect and fungal pathogens. Conversely, the thin from below and burn treatment would leave all pre-existing snags over 8 inches DBH (where operational safety allows) and the treatment of activity created fuels through prescribed fire is anticipated to create additional snags. Dixon and Saab (2000) report home range size of back-backed woodpeckers in the western U.S. to range from 178 acres in Idaho to a median home range in Oregon (Goggins et al. 1988) of 306 acres. This analysis assumes that implementation of the proposed action would reduce the suitability of habitat for this species on 346 acres, the equivalent of home range of 1 to 2 breeding pairs. Cumulative Impacts and Viability While black-backed woodpeckers have been documented to occur in other than post-fire habitats, this species is most often observed in forested areas impacted by moderate and high severity fire. As noted by many authors, effective fire suppression likely reduced the number of acres burned each year during the 20th century, which has reduced available foraging and breeding habitat for the black-backed woodpecker (Hutto 1995, Murphy and Lehnhausen 1998, Dixon and Saab 2000, Hutto 2006). Hutto (2006) suggests that post-fire salvage logging may be adversely impacting the black-backed woodpecker through the removal of fire created snags, and argued for rigid snag management guideline of NFS lands. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest conducted an analysis of available burned- forest habitat for the black-backed woodpecker in 2003. This analysis found that no fires larger than 5 acres had occurred in the last 20 years and only 7 fires of less than 5 acres had occurred in the 5 year analysis timeframe in the Tobacco Root landscape analysis. Post-fire habitat is currently limited in the Tobacco Root Mountains.


Analysis specific to the Meadow Creek Project identified 1729 acres of mature and old growth Douglas fir and mature lodgepole pine, and abundant snag habitat in the 7567 acre South Meadow Creek watershed (see Appendix A Section F). Forest Inventory and Analysis data determined that NFS lands in the Tobacco Root landscape contained approximately 25 percent old growth forest and an average of 8.9 snags/acre. Mature forest and snag habitat is currently abundant in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Viability Samson (2006a) points to a substantial and consistent increase in the amount of insect infestations and post-fire habitat on the 12 national forests in the Northern Region and the very low level of salvage logging on these forests as indicators that NFS management is having little impact on the viability of the black-backed woodpecker. As an example, Samson (2006a) argues that salvage timber harvest in 2004 (2990 acres) impacted about 0.0005 percent of the area on the Northern Region affected by fire and insects. In addition, there is no scientific evidence that the black-backed woodpecker is decreasing in abundance across its range. A Northern Region analysis titled Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of Northern Goshawks, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Fisher (Samson 2006b) is attached as Appendix D and is incorporated into this analysis. Considering Samson (2006a) and Samson (2006b), the current physical characteristics of the South Meadow Creek watershed and the Northern Region described in Habitat availability (above), and the current trend toward increased overstory mortality from forest pathogens, implementation of the proposed action would not influence the potential for persistence of the species and would not result in reduced population or species viability. Determination Implementation of the thin from below and burn treatment would reduce the potential for stand replacing fire to occur in those stands treated, or up to 346 acres. The thin from below and burn treatment would also reduce the potential for treated stands to be impacted by various forest pathogens that result in tree mortality, and thus may delay broad-scale tree mortality associated with black-backed woodpecker habitat. As such, implementation of the proposed action may impact individual black-backed woodpecker or their habitat but will not likely result in a trend in federal listing or reduced viability for the black-backed woodpecker population or species. BIIh. Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus) (G5S2S3, sensitive). The Great Basin pocket mouse occurs on the Forest and has been documented in the Dunes section of Red Rock Lakes Nation al Wildlife Refuge approximately 51 miles south of the project area in Beaverhead County. The Great Basin Pocket Mouse is suspected to occur in Madison County by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, though Foresman (2001 P.95) does not recognize the Great Basin pocket mouse as occurring in Madison County. This species inhabits grasslands, sagebrush/steppe, wooded sites and riparian areas, and typically forages for and caches seeds. The great basin pocket mouse nests in burrows and in natural openings in rock and large talus. Were the species to occur in the area, the Tobacco Root Mountains would be on the northeastern periphery of the range; the Great Basin pocket mouse is unlikely to occur in the project area. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts No special management activities are currently recognized as necessary for maintaining viable populations of this species in Montana. Land


management designed to maintain a mosaic of sagebrush cover, size, and age classes will benefit this species, especially if it promotes the growth of grasses and forbs within sagebrush stands. The slash and burn treatment to reduce conifer encroachment into sagebrush-steppe and Douglas fir savanah will likely stimulate grass growth in treated areas, and thus may benefit the Great Basin pocket mouse were it to occur there. The Great Basin pocket mouse is not expected to occur in the project area. No impact to the Great Basin pocket mouse is anticipated. BIIi. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) (G4S2, sensitive). The Townsend’s big-eared bat is found throughout south-central Montana. Key habitat components include large, cavern like structures such as caves and mines during all stages of its life cycle, but specifically for winter hibernacula and maternity colonies. Large tree cavities and hollow trees are known to be used for day roosts. There are no known winter hibernacula or maternity sites with in the project area. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts There would be no impact to the types of habitat that western big-eared bats use, such as caves, mine shafts, tunnels, abandoned buildings from implementation of the proposed action. All pre-existing snags greater than 8 inches DBH will be retained where operational safety permits. The thin from below prescription would favor maturing and existing mature Douglas fir and the habitat this feature provides. No impact to the western big-eared bat is anticipated. BIIj. Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis) (G4S2, sensitive). The northern bog lemming is known to occur on the Forest in the Pioneer Mountains, 1 of only 2 recorded observations of the northern bog lemming in Montana east of the continental divide. The bog lemming has not been recorded in the Madison, Gravelly or Tobacco Root mountains. This species is primarily associated with sphagnum bogs, but has also been found in wet meadows, moist mixed and coniferous forests and mossy stream sides. The Leonard Creek Fen, a sphagnum bog, is approximately ½ mile west of the project area, and seasonally moist meadows and riparian areas border implementation units. The Tobacco Root Mountains are on the southern periphery of this species range. Foresman (2001 p.126) does not recognize the species occurring in Madison County. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Northern bog lemmings have not been recorded on the Madison Ranger District, and limited potential habitat occurs in or near the project area. The proposed action would not physically impact the Leonard Creek Fen and is unlikely to alter the local groundwater hydrograph. The proposed action does not include management in wet meadows or riparian areas. There is limited potential for impacts to individual northern bog lemmings stemming from the proposed action. No impact to the northern bog lemming is anticipated. BIIk. Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) (G4S2, sensitive). The pygmy rabbit is known to occur on the Forest, but has not been documented in the project area. Pygmy rabbits are typically associated with basin terrain and dense stands of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata or wyomingensis). The Meadow Creek Project would occur at the Forest/grassland ecotone. Analysis conducted for the 2001 Vegetation Management Plan (see Appendix A) determined that grassland/shrub-steppe areas within the analysis area were Douglas fir cover


types based on the encroachment of Douglas fir into these areas. Open grassland/shrub-steppe habitat within Douglas fir cover types is maintained by frequent, low intensity fires, expected to occur on an interval of 35 to 40 years (Arno and Gruell 1983). A fire return interval of this frequency would foster a sparse distribution of sagebrush at the forest/grassland ecotone. Dense stands of sagebrush would not be expected to occur on these sites were they within the natural range of variability for vegetation composition. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Pygmy rabbits are not known to occur in the project area. Habitat for pygmy rabbit is not thought to occur in project area. No impact to the pygmy rabbit is anticipated. BIIl. North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) (G4T4S3, sensitive). The wolverine is unquestionably one of the least studied mammals in North America. To date, few long-term studies have been completed, (for example Hornocker and Hash, 1981, Copeland 1996) though several are in progress (Wildlife Conservation Society efforts in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 2001 through 2006). It is generally believed that the range of wolverine decreased dramatically following Euroamerican settlement, and that the wolverine may have been extirpated from much of its original range in the lower 48 states by the 1920s (Hornocker and Hash 1981). In Montana, the wolverine was classified as a predator, and unlimited killing was permitted, until 1975. Since 1975, Montana has allowed limited trapping throughout much of mountainous habitat in the state. In 2006, Montana allows trapping of wolverine in MFWP Regions 1 through 5 with a state-wide quota of 12 animals. Wilderness or remote areas where human activity is limited appears essential to the maintenance of viable wolverine populations (Hornocker and Hash 1981). Preliminary results from the Wildlife Conservation Society program indicate a correlation between natal den site locations and remote, protected areas and Copeland (1996) found a “clear association between wolverine presence and refugia.” A key element of wolverine conservation appears to be maintaining secure habitat for the wolverine well distributed through mountainous portions of southwestern Montana. Several authors have described seasonal habitat use patterns wherein wolverine move between higher and lower elevation habitat. Hornocker and Hash (1981) determined that wolverine moved to higher elevation “essentially wilderness” locations during the summer months, influenced by food availability and cooler temperatures. During the fall and winter, wolverine used lower elevations, again based on food availability. Similarly, the Wildlife Conservation Society found that wolverines in southwestern Montana preferred habitat between 9000 and 10000 feet year round, ranging higher in the winter and somewhat lower during the winter. Preliminary results from radio fitted wolverine demonstrate that wolverine are using a winter elevation range from 4,900 to 10,800 ft. and summer/fall elevation range of 6,800 to11,800 ft. It appears that wolverines use higher elevations (greater than 6,900 ft.), steep slopes greater than 16º and NW/N aspects disproportionately to their availability. Wolverine have been captured in the Gravelly and Madison mountain ranges to the south and south east as part of an ongoing study by the Wildlife Conservation Society and public trapping. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks trapping records indicate that a wolverine was lethally trapped


on the northwest side of the Tobacco Root Mountains in 1994. It is possible that one or more wolverine use the Tobacco Root Mountains as all or part of a home range. Extensive surveys by the Wildlife Conservation Society during the winter of 2005 and 2006 in the Tobacco Root Mountains specific to the species did not detect individuals or sign. Using criteria established in Heinemeyer et al. (2001), the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest mapped wolverine habitat on all 10 landscape areas of the Forest. The 187,519 acre Tobacco Root Landscape was modeled to contain 21,442 acres of wolverine denning habitat associated with the cirque basins of the rugged mountains terrain along the crest of the Tobacco Root Mountains. Approximately 73,000 acres of this landscape (30 percent) are in inventoried roadless areas, providing relative secure habitat for the wolverine. Big game winter range surrounds the mountain range and occurs both on the Forest, BLM and private lands. An estimated 39,000 acres of big game winter range occurs on the Forest in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Direct and Indirect Impacts It is assumed that wolverine using the Tobacco Root Mountains would use habitat in a similar manner to wolverine in the Madison Mountains. Wolverines in the Madison Mountains typically use habitat above 7000 feet during the summer months. If the Meadow Creek Fuels project is implemented following the drying of forest soils in the summer, it is unlikely that wolverine would be in the project area at the onset of implementation. The duration of the Meadow Creek Fuels project may extend into the winter, and one or more of the thin from below and burn units may receive initial treatments when soils are frozen. It is possible that resident or transient wolverine could be in the project area during project implementation. The project area is at the forest/grassland ecotone and contains big game winter range. Although unlikely and remote, there is the potential for direct impacts to individual resident or transient wolverine from the mechanical aspects of project implementation. Implementation of the Meadow Creek Project is unlikely to result in adverse indirect impacts to wolverine. The Meadow Creek Project would not enter or improve access to any inventoried roadless area, and would thus not reduce habitat security for wolverine. The project would not occur in or impact wolverine denning habitat. The Meadow Creek Project would not substantially alter big game winter range; about 550 acres would be treated by slashing encroaching Douglas fir and burning over 3 to 4 years, resulting in improved winter range conditions over time. The project is unlikely to reduce the availability of carrion in the short or long term. Cumulative Impacts and Viability The analysis area is located in MFWP Region 3, where hunting pressure has increased over the last decades. Hunting and trapping is largely controlled by regulation and seasons set by MFWP. Hunting, trapping, mountain lion hunting with hounds and coyote hunting increases the likelihood of wolverine human encounters. Currently, wolverine are considered a furbearer by FWP. Trapping of wolverine in 2006 is permitted in MFWP Region 3, and as with other mustelids, wolverine are very susceptible to trapping mortality. The project will not impact hunting/trapping security in the long-term. Viability The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest provides abundant habitat for wolverine on each of the 10 landscape areas of the Forest. In total, the Forest provides about 150,000 acres of


modeled denning habitat, about 1.6 million acres of unroaded or secure habitat and about 1.2 million acres of mapped big game winter range. These habitat blocks and secure areas are represented on each of the 10 landscape areas, and are well distributed across the Forest. Implementation of the proposed action would not impact denning habitat or habitat security, and would not result in reduced viability for the population or species. Determination There is a limited potential for implementation of the Meadow Creek Project to result in direct impacts to the wolverine. While trapping records indicate that the Tobacco Root Mountains have been used by resident or transient wolverine within the last 15 years, track surveys by the Wildlife Conservation Society during the winter of 2006 did not detect wolverine in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Direct impacts to wolverine from project implementation could occur through the mechanical aspects of implementation, such as being struck by a commercial vehicle during the operation, however, the potential for direct impacts of this nature are negligible. Direct impacts to wolverine are unlikely. Implementation of the project is unlikely to result in any indirect impacts to the wolverine. The Meadow Creek Project would not enter or alter modeled denning habitat, roadless or wilderness areas and would result in beneficial impacts to big game winter range. It is unlikely the project would influence the availability of carrion at any scale. Implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact to the North American wolverine. BIIm. Fisher (Martes pennanti) (G5S311, sensitive). Within the historic past, the range of the fisher included the coniferous forests of Canada and the north and western United States, extended into the hardwood forests of southern Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Virginia and West Virginia. The historic distribution of the fisher in the western United States is not as clearly understood but is thought to include the Cascade/Coast Ranges in Oregon into the southern Sierra Nevada along the Pacific Coast and the northern Rocky Mountains extending southward into central Idaho (Graham and Graham 1994) and possibly into northeastern Wyoming (Gibilisco 1994). Today, the fisher occupies much of its historic habitat in the western United States, but individual populations may be more isolated than prior to Euroamerican settlement. Over exploitation, habitat loss through settlement and logging, predator poisoning and possibly extensive fires of the early 20th century led to severe contractions in the range of the fisher and extirpation of the fisher in some areas (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994, Vinkey 2003). The species was considered extinct in Montana when trapping was closed in 1930 (Hornocker and Hash 1979 as cited in Vinkey 2003). A number of fisher from Canada and the midwestern United States were introduced into Montana from 1959 to 1991. See Table 5.

11 The USFWS recognizes a western distinct population segment (DPS) for fisher. The western DPS consists primarily of two populations, one in the southern Sierra Nevada and one on the eastern side of Washington, Oregon and northern California. In 2004, the USFWS found the western DPS as warranted for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, but precluded by higher listing priorities.


Table 5. Fisher introductions into Montana 1959 to 1991* Date Release Location Source Population Number 03/59 04/59 01/60 02/60

Pink Creek, Purcell Mountains Holland Lake, Swan Mountains Holland Lake, Swan Mountains Moose Lake, Pintlar Mountains

Central British Columbia Central British Columbia Central British Columbia Central British Columbia

9 3 12 12

03/62 12/62 12/62 02/63

Chamberlain Basin Red River Mountain Meadow Savage Pass

Central British Columbia Central British Columbia Central British Columbia Central British Columbia

14 10 7 11

1989 through 1991

Multiple Locations in the Cabinet Mountains

Minnesota and Wisconsin 110

Total fisher introduced 188 *From Vinkey 2003 Recent DNA analyses of fisher in Montana confirmed that both native and introduced fisher currently occupy forests of western Montana (Schwartz 2005). The closest introduction site of fisher to the project area is at Moose Lake in the Pintlar Mountains, approximately 90 linear miles to the northwest or the project area on the west side of the continental divide. There is controversy within the scientific community as to the distributional extent of the fisher in northwest Wyoming and southwest Montana. Graham and Graham (1994) did not recognize northwest Wyoming or southwest Montana as being within the range of fishers. Foresman (2001) does not recognize Madison County as being occupied by fisher, but does recognize Gallatin County as occupied. Strickland et al. (1982) do not recognize southwest Montana or northwest Wyoming as being within the distributional area of the fisher. Likewise Vinkey (2003), following criteria established by McKelvy (2000, as cited in Vinkey 2003) found no verifiable sightings of fisher in northwest Wyoming. Gibilisco (1994), however, includes the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in the mapped distribution of the Fisher. Jones (1989) determined that “fishers may exist in very low numbers within the northern half of the GYE in Wyoming, but they have been extirpated from Montana portions of the GYE and were never known to occur in the Idaho portion of the GYE.” Heinemeyer and Jones (1994), however, describe a “Yellowstone National Park and surrounding area” Rocky Mountain metapopulation. Gehman (in lit.) while snow camping in Yellowstone National Park, observed a fisher entering his human-constructed snow cave in search of food, and later determined that an animal photographed at a remote camera station near Cooke City was the correct size and shape for a fisher. Gehman later assisted the National Park Service and Gallatin National Forest with winter track surveys and observed 12 fisher tracks within the park and 10 on the Gallatin National Forest. Brannon (2006) observed fisher tracks in the Tobacco Root Mountains in 2004, whereas the Wildlife Conservation Society did not detect fisher or wolverine in this mountain range during extensive track surveys in 2006. Distribution maps of fisher indicate that the analysis area is outside of the current distribution of the distribution of fisher (Graham and Graham 1994) or within (Gibilisco 1994).


The analysis area is located in MFWP Region 3 where there is no legal trapping season for fisher. Montana allows trapping in MFWP regions 1 and 2 in Northwestern Montana. Data from MFWP indicate that 65 fisher were taken by legal trapping in northwest Montana in the 10-year period between 1994 and 2004. Habitat Strickland et al. (1982) conducted an extensive review of fisher biology and highlighted many diverse reports of preferred fisher habitat. Examples of “preferred habitat” for fishers are displayed in Table 6. Table 6. Habitat “preferred” by fisher. “preferred habitat” source Swamps, especially among large timber Seton 1953* Spruce Forests Hamilton 1943* Damp areas in heavier coniferous forests Rand 1948* Mixed stands, coniferous stands, cedar swamps De Vos, 1952* Green Timber Cook and Hamilton 1957* Deep, unbroken tracts of virgin forest Mathiessen 1959* Young forest stands that followed cutting, burning etc. Coulter 1960* Mixed stands of coniferous and deciduous trees Cowan and Ginguet 1960* Lowland spruce-fir, spruce aspen and alder that support snowshoe hare

Powell, 1978*

Mature and old growth forests, forested riparian habitats. Specifically Abies grandis HTs and large Engelmann spruce trees

Jones 1991 (ID)

Edge and ecotonal habitats around cliffs, slides, blow downs, basins, swamps and meadows

Hornocker and Hash 1980 (MT)

Low elevation, mesic habitat with flat or shallow slopes Heinemeyer 1993 (MT) Late successional spruce or Douglas fir forests and riparian areas with high structural complexity

Foresman 2001 (MT)

* as cited in Strickland et al. 1982 Table 6 illustrates one of the confounding aspects of fisher biology. The broad habitat conditions/types described in Table 6 indicate fisher habitat may not be best described by plant association, cover type or habitat type. The broad array of “preferred habitat” led Strickland et al. (1982) to suggest that food resources are the principal factor determining habitat use by the fisher. A review of fisher research suggests that the species uses a diversity of tree age and size class distributions at the patch or stand level that exhibit sufficient (generally greater than 40 percent) overhead cover, provided by either coniferous or hardwood trees, shrubs or large woody debris. Fisher use lower elevation forests than do pine marten, and may be restricted to areas of lower snow accumulation. Fisher are apparently better adapted to earlier successional stages of forests than marten (Banci 1989), and may shift habitat use to younger forests during the winter months (Wittmer et al 1998). Documented den sites have occurred in cavities of live or dead trees in forested areas with some structural diversity (forb/shrub cover, downed wood, multiple forest canopy layers) that maintain a prey base of snowshoe hare, porcupine, and a variety of small mammals (Powell and Zelinski 1994). Potential barriers to dispersal include large rivers,


mountain divides above timberline, open-canopied habitats and highways (Powell and Zelinski 1994). There appears to be a relative consensus that fishers tend to avoid open areas, use habitat with a high degree of structural complexity and are often associated with moist, swampy or riparian habitats. Optimum habitat likely includes mature, moist coniferous forest with a woody debris component, particularly in riparian/forest ecotones in low to mid elevation areas that do not accumulate large amounts of snow (Jones 1991, Heinemeyer 1993, Powell and Zielinski 1994). The last four entries in Table 6 are specific to Montana or Idaho. All four suggest mesic, late seral forest conditions with high structural complexity are preferred habitat for fisher in the northern Rocky Mountains. These habitat characteristics suggest that optimal fisher habitat is characterized by forested sites that experience relatively infrequent fire. It is assumed that relatively dry Douglas fir sites that historically experienced short to moderate fire return intervals are not optimal fisher habitat. A short to moderate fire return interval would likely preclude a high degree of structural complexity at the stand level, as frequent fire would likely consume large wood on the forest floor and maintain an open stand condition in Douglas fir at the forest/grassland ecotone. As discussed under section BIIb, above wildfire at the forest/grassland ecotone was much more common in southwestern Montana historically than at present. Specific to the Meadow Creek watersheds and proposed thin from below and burn treatment units of the Meadow Creek Project, Barrett (1995) identified 14 ‘spreading’ fires in the North and South Meadow Creek area on NFS lands between 1711 and 1918, and calculated an area mean fire interval of 16 years (range 9 to 39 years). These data strongly suggest that wildfire at the forest/grassland ecotone would have maintained open stand conditions in Douglas fir stands at the forest/grassland ecotone, and that large wood on the forest floor was likely not abundant prior to Euroamerican settlement. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that potential fisher habitat in the Tobacco Root Mountains includes riparian stringers with spruce and low to mid-elevation, mature lodgepole pine. Due to the steep, rugged nature of the Tobacco Root Mountains and the proximity of subalpine fir/spruce habitat to mid elevation lodgepole pine, subalpine fir/spruce habitat is also considered suitable fisher habitat in this analysis. Direct and Indirect Effects Habitat use by fisher specific to the analysis area has not been observed, as it is unlikely that fisher occupy the area. As described in Table 3, the South Meadow Creek Watershed contains about 472 acres of low elevation spruce habitat, principally riparian stringers immediately adjacent to drier Douglas fir and lodgepole pine stands, and about 285 acres of subalpine fir/spruce habitat in the upper cirque basin of South Meadow Creek. Also available for fisher is approximately 779 acres of mid elevation, mature lodgepole pine habitat. The 115,000 acre Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area provides 5303 acres of subalpine fir/spruce habitat (see Table A1, Appendix A). Note, however, that the majority of this habitat is in the mid and subalpine zones, concentrated in higher elevation drainages indicating that much of this habitat may not be available to fisher. In addition, about 1098 acres of lowland and riparian spruce occur in the 115,000-acre Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area, as does an approximately 17,331 acres of mature lodgepole pine.


The reported home range of female fishers varies in size from 1 to 16 square miles (640 to 10,081 acres); the home range of male fishers is somewhat larger (3,712 to 21,120 acres) (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). Assuming that lower elevation stringer and subalpine spruce-fir habitat is physiologically available to fisher, the 757 acres of subalpine fir/spruce habitat and the 779 acres of mature lodgepole pine habitat in the South Meadow Creek watershed would be marginally sufficient for the home range of a single female fisher. Approximately 6400 acres of riparian stringer and subalpine fir/spruce habitat and about 17,331 acres of low and mid elevation, mature lodgepole pine is available to fisher in the 115,000 acre Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area (see Table A1, Appendix A), sufficient habitat for one or to possibly six male fisher. None of the potential habitat for fisher is within the project area. As noted above, there has been one unsubstantiated report of fisher in the Tobacco Root Mountains12. Review of trapping data indicates that fisher have not been taken incidentally in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Given the lack of verifiable fisher observations in the Tobacco Root Mountains and the lack of habitat in the project area, direct impacts to fisher are unlikely. Powell and Zelinski (1994) postulated that fisher probably can tolerate small patch cuts or other small-scale disturbances, provided these occur in a larger matrix of relatively dense, closed canopy, late successional forest. Powell and Zelinski (1994) also suggested that such openings might increase the value of habitat by providing a diversity of prey, which will support a diverse diet for fishers. The thin from below and burn treatment would reduce Douglas fir and lodgepole understory trees while retaining the largest trees. Approximately 50 large trees per acre and all pre-existing snags larger that 8 inches DBH would be retained. The Beaverhead Forest Plan standard and project objective of retaining 10 to 15 tons of large wood per acre would be accomplished following treatment to the extent possible. It is unlikely, however, that retaining 10 to 15 tons of large wood per acre would leave sufficient habitat complexity for optimal fisher habitat. Wittmer et al. (1998) developed key environmental correlates associated with four issues for fisher conservation and habitat management in the Columbia River Basin. These correlates include:

o conservation of 20 percent late successional forest at low to mid elevations at the planning unit scale;

o preserving linkage between populations by minimizing habitat fragmentation and maintaining riparian corridors for use by individuals and populations, and;

o managing trapping pressure facilitated by road access. The discussion below under Cumulative Impacts describes the nature and extent of old growth forests at varying scales relative to the fisher. The Tobacco Root Mountains are an “island” mountain range, in that there is no coniferous forested linkage to any other forested mountain range in any direction. Any immigration to or emigration from the Tobacco Root Mountains would require fisher to cross at least 7 miles of habitat that is not forested with conifers. Buskirk

12 This observation of tracks in snow by MFWP biologist Brannon occurred in the North Meadow Creek watershed during the 2005-2006 season.


(2002) suggests that American marten (M. americana) may use forested, deciduous riparian stringers in movements to and from islands habitats in the northern Rocky Mountains. Theoretically, fisher may also use riparian stringers for inter-habitat movement, though, to our knowledge, movement of this nature has not been observed in marten or fisher. Coffin (1994) did, however, document marten crossing “large areas” of forest burned 4 years prior to his study. With the exception of the Gravelly Mountains to the south, fisher immigrating to or emigrating from other habitat sources would have to cross either the Madison, Jefferson or Ruby river. Coffin (1994) described marten in the West Yellowstone area crossing the upper Madison River, one when the Upper Madison was likely frozen over, and one while the river was free flowing. The proposed action does not alter connectivity with any other forested mountain range in any way. Implementation of the proposed action would also not increase or improve access to forested habitat in the Tobacco Root Mountains, and would thus not influence access by trappers. The proposed action would not enter stands dominated or containing spruce habitat. No subalpine fir/spruce old growth is proposed for treatment. No harvest will occur in riparian corridors. None of the stands modeled as fisher habitat in the South Meadow Creek watershed would be entered by the proposed action. Indirect impacts to fisher and fisher habitat are unlikely. Cumulative Impacts and Viability Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were analyzed for cumulative impacts to fisher. On private lands in the analysis area, recent past and foreseeable logging include even aged and thinning treatments on BLM and private timber lands, typically down slope from NFS lands in the Tobacco Root Mountains. These treatments have been primarily on dry Douglas fir sites. As home site density increases in and around the foothills of the Tobacco Root Mountains, fuel reduction treatments in dense, pole and larger sized Douglas fir and in grassland/sagebrush steppe habitat will continue. It is unlikely that fuel reduction treatments on private land would impact moist spruce habitat, though some impact may occur. The above treatments are assumed to reduce available snags, downed woody debris and overhead cover for fisher and fisher prey. Livestock grazing has occurred in the analysis area for over 100 years. Livestock grazing is generally within standards stipulated by the Forest. Past livestock grazing reduced herbaceous and shrubby vegetation (fine fuels) in the sagebrush/grassland and Douglas-fir savannah. The frequent low intensity fires that were characteristic of the sagebrush/grassland and Douglas-fir savannah had less fine fuels to carry through these communities. Less frequent fires lead to the development of more structurally complex stands which may be some benefit for fisher. It is unlikely that livestock grazing creates a cumulative adverse impact on forest habitat type or degree of structural complexity. It is also unlikely that livestock graze in the subalpine fir-spruce forests preferred by fisher. Riparian mitigation measures were amended to the Forest Plan in 1996 and are expected to improve aspen/willow communities, and therefore fisher foraging habitat in the long term. Grazing on private lands at lower elevations (non-fisher habitat) is expected to occur into the foreseeable future. The analysis area is located in MFWP Region 3 where an increasing trend in hunting pressure has occurred over the last decade. Hunting pressure is controlled by regulations and seasons set


by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Trapping/snaring, mountain lion hunting with hounds, and coyote hunting increases the likelihood of fisher-human encounters. Currently, the fisher is considered a furbearer by MFWP; trapping of fisher in 2006 is permitted only in MFWP regions 1 and 2 in northwestern Montana. Recreational trapping in the analysis area occurs mainly for wolverine, pine marten, coyotes or red fox (MFWP 1996, 2002, 2004). Trapping records indicate no fisher have been trapped in the analysis area since trapping record-keeping began. No records of intentional or illegal trapping or shooting of fisher exist for the Forest. The project will not impact hunting/trapping security in the long-term. This project will not increase road densities or recreational use of the area. Urban development and associated roads are expected to increase on surrounding private lands. This proposal will have no impact on urban development. Viability In the spring of 2003, the Forest conducted a Forest-wide assessment of fisher habitat. A geographic information system was used to evaluate potential fisher habitat, using information collected from SILC. Fisher habitat was defined as mature to old growth subalpine fir-Engelmann’s spruce and lodgepole pine following Green et al. (1992). Based on current best available habitat information for the Forest, habitat for fisher appears distributed across the landscape. When considering all subalpine fir/spruce habitat as fisher habitat as done for this analysis of the Tobacco Root Mountains, the Forest provides about 1.6 million acres of habitat for fisher. The 2003 assessment did not identify any subalpine fir/spruce habitat in the Tobacco Root Mountains, but did identify 13,600 acres of mature lodgepole pine and about 4100 acres of mature, mixed lodgepole pine on this landscape, equating to about 9 percent of the landscape. Approximately 61 percent of the spruce-fir type will be conserved long into the future in inventoried roadless/wilderness areas (Powell and Zielinski 1994).

A 2006 review of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data for the Forest indicates old growth comprises 22.9 percent of the Forest (Bush et al. 2006). In 2003, FIA data was analyzed by each of the 11 landscapes of the Forest. The Tobacco Root Mountains landscape is estimated to support 25.7 percent old growth forested habitat (90 percent confidence interval (CI) 12.73 to 40 percent) (Bush and Leach 2003). Forest-wide estimates for primary fisher habitats, lodgepole pine, spruce, and subalpine fir are 14.19 percent (90 percent CI 10.94 to 17.64), 34.4 percent (90 percent CI 25.49 to 43.50), and 30.59 percent (90 percent CI 22.86 to 33.60), respectively, indicating suitable habitat for fisher is well represented at the planning unit scale.

A Northern Region analysis titled Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of Northern Goshawks, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Fisher (Samson 2006b) is attached as Appendix D and is incorporated into this viability analysis. Given these considerations and those in Samson (2006b), implementation of the proposed action would not result in reduced viability for the fisher.

Determination Fisher occurrence in the analysis area is rare. Impacts on potential fisher habitat will be negligible. The project is consistent with management recommendations of Wittmer et al. 1998 for fisher. Spruce-fir habitats and riparian corridors will not be impacted, therefore the most suitable habitats will be maintained. Suitable habitat does not exist in or near units proposed for treatment. Trapper access will not change. Existing connectivity will be maintained. Fisher habitat is abundant and well distributed with more than sufficient amounts to sustain a viable fisher population on the Forest. Given the above, Meadow Creek Fuels Project


May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Result in a Trend in Federal Listing or Reduced Viability for the fisher population or species. C. Management Indicator Species Regulatory Context The role of management indicator species (MIS) in National Forest planning is described in the 1982 implementing regulations for the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. These regulations require that certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area be identified as MIS and that they be selected because “their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219.19(a) (1).

• The Forest Service Manual (FSM) defines management indicators as “Plant and animal species, communities or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent.” (FSM 2620.5).

The NFMA regulations identify five categories of species that may be considered, where appropriate, as management indicator species:

o Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal lists for the area.

o Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs.

o Species commonly hunted, fished or trapped o Nongame species of special interest o Plant and animal species selected because their population changes are believed to

indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water quality.

Section 219.19(a) (6) requires that population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined. The 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan identifies MFWP information as the data source for monitoring population trends for MIS species. The species in Table 7 were identified MIS by the 1986 Beaverhead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Two species, the American (pine) marten and elk have not been discussed elsewhere in this document. Table 7. Management indicator species from the 1986 Forest Plan Grizzly bear Threatened species Peregrine falcon Endangered species Bald eagle Endangered species Gray wolf Endangered species Elk Big game species Sage grouse Sagebrush communities Pine marten Old growth spruce-fir


Table 7. Management indicator species from the 1986 Forest Plan Goshawk Old growth Douglas fir Trumpeter swan Marshland communities CI. American Marten (Martes Americana) (G5S4, MIS for old growth spruce-fir forests). The American marten is considered widespread and secure in the Rocky Mountains. NatureServe (accessed 10-20-2006) states that while adequate population data are unavailable for much of the range of the marten, the total population size is at least several hundred thousand individuals and the species can be regarded as secure range wide. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks trapping records show that 9177 marten were trapped in Montana in the 10-year period between 1994 and 2004. These data further suggest that marten are abundant in Montana. The historic range of American marten included the coniferous forests of Canada and the north and western United States, extended into the hardwood forests of southern Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Virginia and West Virginia. The American marten experience a substantial range contraction in the eastern and midwestern states in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a result of harvest for fur and habitat loss to domestic agriculture. American marten on the island of Newfoundland are thought to number between 250 and 1000, and were listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as endangered in 2000. Marten were apparently lost from the coast range of northern California and Oregon during the 1950s, probably a result of habitat loss through timber harvest and trapping (Buskirk 2002). The distribution of marten in the Rocky Mountains is thought to be similar today to that prior to Euroamerican settlement (Gibilisco 1994). The only known changes in distribution of martens in the Rocky Mountain region are their apparent extirpation from the Laramie Mountains (Wyoming) and the Black Hills (South Dakota, Wyoming) (Buskirk 2002) American marten use subalpine fir/spruce and lodgepole pine forests extensively and, to a lesser extent, Douglas fir and whitebark forests in southwestern Montana (Fager 1991, Kujala 1993, Coffin 1994). All marten trapped in the Tobacco Root Mountains in 1997 and reported to MFWP were captured in spruce-dominated forests with high volume of large wood on the forest floor (Hall 2006). Fager (1991) recognized that martens extensively used habitat that was other than 'old growth' in southwestern Montana, but suggested that “old-growth forests probably represent some of the best marten habitat." Foraging and denning sites are generally dominated by moist spruce and subalpine fir with large-diameter deadfall and lush ground cover that supports abundant red squirrels, mice and voles (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Coffin et al. 2002). Buskirk and Ruggiero (1994) described pine marten habitat as mesic late-seral conifer forests with complex physical structure near the ground. In Montana, Coffin (1994) determined a mean winter home range size for females (n=2) of 2.29 miles2 and 3.98 miles2 for males (n=6). The American marten is known to occur in the Tobacco Root Mountain. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks trapping records indicate that few marten have been harvested from this insular mountain range. Records from 1975 to 2005 show that 11 marten have been reported as harvested. Of interest is the timing and location of these harvests. Five marten were reported harvested during the 1997 season, all within the North and South forks of Indian Creek (Hall 2006). During the 2002 season, six marten were harvested about 7 miles to the south east; all harvest was reported to be within an area of 640 acres. There is no reported harvest of marten


prior to 1997 or after 2002, and local history suggests that marten were “trapped out” of the Tobacco Root Mountains prior to the 1980s (Hall 2006)13. Unfortunately, little data are available to evaluate trapping effort (or lack thereof) prior to, during or following reported harvests in 1997 and 2002, although the trapper that captured five marten in 1997 only trapped one stream and for only 1 year (Hall 2006). As a result, there is little opportunity assess population structure or the sustainability of harvest. Marten are one of the most frequently trapped furbearer species in all hunting districts in (MFWP 2002, 2004). Trapping mortality in an area can be as high as 50 percent, however, new marten will recolonize unoccupied territories almost immediately after an area is trapped out (Fager 1991). Thompson (1994) hypothesized that marten may be more susceptible to trapping when regular access to the under the snow environment is impeded by snow crusting, when prey availabilities are low, or when they inhabit intensively logged landscapes. Direct and Indirect Impacts Habitat use by marten specific to the analysis area has not been observed. As described in Table 3, the South Meadow Creek Watershed contains about 285 acres of non-managed subalpine fir/spruce habitat in the upper cirque basin of South Meadow Creek. The South Meadow Creek watershed also supports approximately 779 acres of mid elevation, mature lodgepole pine habitat, much of which would be suitable for marten. The South Meadow Creek watershed would not, independent of other habitat areas, contain sufficient moist coniferous habitat to support a single female martin, based on mean winter home range size by Coffin (1994). Subalpine fir/spruce habitat in the upper cirque basin of South Meadow Creek and mid-elevation lodgepole pine are outside the project area. The 115,000 acre Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area provides 5303 acres of subalpine fir/spruce habitat (see Table A1, Appendix A). This habitat is available to marten and is concentrated in higher elevation headwater areas, outside of the project area. In addition, approximately 17,331 acres of mature lodgepole pine occur in the 115,000-acre Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area. Thus there are approximately 22,636 acres of potential marten habitat in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area, sufficient habitat for about nine male marten and about 15 female marten based on Coffin (1994) and assuming home range overlap between males and females does occur (Buskirk 1994). Any estimate of population density based on habitat availability and home range size is at best a coarse estimate, and may vary substantially from an actual population (Buskirk 2002). It should be noted, however, that the harvest of marten that occurred in 1997 and 2002 took place in valley features, typically above 7800 feet. In both cases, habitat consisted of narrow stringer meadows associated with flowing perennial streams. Review of aerial photography indicates that habitat bordering flowing streams is predominately spruce, and it is likely that subalpine fir habitat is immediately upslope from spruce in the valley bottom. It is possible that including 17,000 acres or mature lodgepole pine as habitat for American marten over estimates usable marten habitat in the Southern Tobacco Root Mountains.

13 Gibilisco (1994) suggested that martin were extirpated from the Tobacco Root Mountains during the 1960s based on a survey of state wildlife management agencies conducted in 1990 and 1991.


The proposed slash and burn treatment would treat sites that have a comparatively low density of Douglas fir trees encroaching into grassland/shrub steppe habitat. Grassland and shrub/steppe habitat is not typically used by pine martens. As such, these treatments are unlikely to result in any direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to pine martens. The thin from below and burn would treat moist to dry Douglas fir sites with understory harvest and prescribed fire. Douglas fir sites of this nature are considered, at best, secondary habitat for this species, and it is unlikely that marten use this habitat. Units 3 and 4 contain a lodgepole component. Should marten be using this habitat, the proposed treatments have the potential have short term impacts to individual pine martens through displacement and temporary loss of subnivian habitat. However, the Meadow Creek Project proposes to retain all pre-existing snags over 8 inches DBH and retain 10 to 15 tons of woody debris per acre. It is likely that the burn treatment will create additional snags, and that these snags will eventually become large wood on the forest floor. Subalpine fir/spruce habitat of any age or size class will not be impacted. Any impacts to pine martens are anticipated to be localized and short term. Management recommendations for supporting viable populations of pine marten and marten prey (Warren 1990) call for leaving 40 percent of marten home ranges in mature and old growth. Review of harvest locations for marten specific to the Tobacco Root Mountains indicates that marten are using moist spruce habitat along perennial streams at and above 7800 feet. The proposed action would not enter this habitat, and would thus not impact any marten home range. Permanent open road density would not be increased by treatment activities, therefore trapper access would not increase. Cumulative Impacts and Viability Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were analyzed for cumulative impacts to marten. As described in section BIIm, above, the Tobacco Root Mountains are an insular mountain range. Any immigration to or emigration from the Tobacco Root Mountains would require fisher to cross at least 7 miles of habitat that is not forested with conifers. Wisz (1999), estimated the distance the Tobacco Root Mountains were separated from a “mainland” marten population was approximately 8 miles14. Wisz recognized the legacy of mining and commercial forest harvest in the Tobacco Root Mountains, and suggested that “industrial practices and development” (timber harvest and mining) resulting in habitat fragmentation could result in local extirpation of marten from the Tobacco Root Mountains. Should local extirpation occur, it is unlikely that recolonization of the mountain range would happen rapidly. Marten are believed to be behaviorally incapable of dispersing across nonforested areas greater than 6 to 12 miles wide (Buskirk 2002). Wisz (1999) further recommended that marten harvest be monitored closely. Table A2 (Appendix A) describes vegetation management in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area from 1984 to the present. Since 1984, approximately 1508 acres (1.3 percent) Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area has been harvested using even aged harvest techniques. With limited exceptions, all harvest units are fully stocked with young trees. In no situation has 14 Wisz considered the Absaroka and Beartooth mountains as a mainland for martens, and included the Gallatin, Madison and Gravelly Mountains in the “Absaroka/Beartooth mainland.”


timber harvest created an opening impassible to marten. Appendix A also notes that vegetation management prior to 1984 has resulted in regenerated forests. Appendix A also describes mining and mineral exploration in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Approximately five mineral exploration plans of operation are active in any given year, all under the Small Miners Exclusion Act. Most of the exploration activity is reworking old claims on previously disturbed sites. These typically result in little impact to wildlife habitat. Livestock grazing has occurred in the analysis area for over 100 years. Livestock grazing is generally within standards stipulated by the Forest. Past livestock grazing reduced herbaceous and shrubby vegetation (fine fuels) in the sagebrush/grassland and Douglas-fir savannah. The frequent low intensity fires that were characteristic of the sagebrush/grassland and Douglas-fir savannah had less fine fuels to carry through these communities. Less frequent fires lead to the development of more structurally complex stands which may benefit marten habitat. It is unlikely that livestock grazing creates a cumulative adverse impact on forest habitat type or degree of structural complexity. It is also unlikely that livestock graze in the subalpine fir-spruce forests preferred by marten. Grazing on private lands at lower elevations (non-marten habitat) is expected to occur into the foreseeable future. The analysis area is located in MFWP’s Region 3 where an increasing trend in hunting pressure has occurred over the last decade. Hunting pressure is controlled by regulations and seasons set by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Trapping/snaring, mountain lion hunting with hounds, and coyote hunting increases the likelihood of marten-human encounters. Currently, marten are considered a furbearer by MFWP and unlimited trapping of marten is allowed in this region (see above). Recreational trapping in the analysis area occurs mainly for wolverine, pine marten, coyotes or red fox (MFWP 1996, 2002, 2004). Trapping records indicate a number of marten are trapped in the analysis area each year (see above). The project will not impact hunting/trapping security in the short or long-term. Urban development and associated roads are expected to increase on private lands below the Forest boundary. It is likely that development will continue into the foreseeable future. This proposal will have no impact on urban development. Viability In 2003 the Forest conducted a Forest wide assessment of pine marten habitat. A geographic information system was used to evaluate potential marten habitat, using SILC data. For this analysis, marten habitat was defined as mature to old growth subalpine fir/spruce, and lodgepole pine using the Region One old growth definitions (Green et. al. 1992).

Table 8. Mature to old growth cover types by landscape* Roadless Roaded Roadless Roaded Landscape

SAF SAF PICO PICO Percent

SAF Percent PICO

Percent of landscape

Rock Creek 14257 849 97430 15106 5 56 61 Jefferson 2085 1649 44684 68884 2 54 56 Big Hole 12635 3283 171734 117953 3 53 56 Boulder 1994 1744 24211 113112 1 54 55 Pioneer 32762 5406 167633 63793 7 40 47


Clark Fork 6343 11349 49145 177150 3 43 46 Madison 11987 1503 12609 3309 11 13 24 Lima Tendoy 68 0 39489 15673 0 15 15 Gravelly 17689 1453 27627 17075 4 9 13 Tobacco Roots 0 0 6382 7244 0 7 7 *from Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Wildlife Habitat Viability Analysis Query 1, 2003. SAF = subalpine fir/spruce cover type; PICO = lodgepole pine cover type.

Table 8 illustrates that suitable habitat for marten is available on all landscapes of the Forest. Table 8 also illustrates that suitable habitat for marten is not equally distributed between all landscape areas of the Forest. For example, the Madison Mountain Range is predominately wilderness, has experienced extremely little timber harvest and yet only 24 percent of the Madison Landscape provides suitable marten habitat. The Gravelly and Tobacco Root landscapes provide substantially less suitable marten habitat due to the inherent capability of the landscapes to grow subalpine fir and lodgepole pine (see Pfister et al. 1977). With fewer acres of suitable marten habitat, it is likely that the Gravelly and Tobacco Root Mountains support fewer marten than other landscapes of the Forest. Analysis was done using FIA data to estimate old growth and large snags on the Tobacco Root Mountains Landscape (Bush and Leach 2003) and Forest wide (Bush et al. 2006). The analysis area estimates for all forest types combined on the Forest are 22.9 percent old growth (Bush et al. 2006). The Forest-wide old growth estimates for the primary marten habitats, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir, are 14.19 percent, 34.4 percent, and 30.59 percent, respectively. Snag estimates exceed Forest Plan Standards (see Appendix A). Determination It is unlikely that marten use Douglas fir sites in the project area at any time during the year. The proposed action would not enter subalpine fir/spruce habitat, and thus any perceived change in marten populations following implementation of the proposed action would not be an indication of habitat change. Though the intent of the proposed action is to reduce standing wildland fire fuels and reduce the potential catastrophic fire, 10 to 15 tons of woody debris per acre would be retained following treatment to the extent possible. All pre-existing snags greater than 8 inches DBH would also be retained. Viable populations of marten on the Forest will be maintained as the project is consistent with all Forest Plan standards for wildlife, the project is consistent with habitat recommendations of Warren 1990 for maintaining marten populations; old growth is abundant and well distributed in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area, Tobacco Root landscape and Forest-wide; trapping mortality would not increase as a result of implementation of the proposed action; and trapping data indicates marten are abundant and well distributed on the Forest. No impact to the American marten is anticipated, and implementation of the proposed action is unlikely to reduce the viability of this species at any scale. CII. Elk (Cervus elaphus) (MIS- big game species). Elk are common and well distributed in the Tobacco Root Mountains and the Forest. The March, 2006 population estimate of 1412 for the Tobacco Root Mountains substantially exceeds the population objective of within 20 percent of 1000 animals as established in the 2005 Montana Final Elk Management Plan (MFWP 2005). Annual monitoring of elk in the Tobacco Root Mountains indicates that elk numbers have generally increased in this area over the last 20 years.


Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Habitat analysis for elk for the Meadow Creek Project incorporates the analysis prepared for the 2001 Tobacco Root Vegetation Management Plan FEIS. This analysis used criteria established in the 1986 Beaverhead National Forest Plan which required the use of a rudimentary habitat suitability model as described in the Montana Cooperative Elk-logging Study, Annual Program Report, August 1982. Habitat Analysis Units (HAU) were established for the Tobacco Root Mountains, and aerial photo interpretation (PI) was used to develop hiding cover estimates for each stand using a predetermined cover value for each habitat type. The habitat suitability model uses a declining scale calculation to estimate habitat effectiveness as a function of open road density. Elk Effective Cover (EEC) is derived by multiplying the elk use potential by habitat effectiveness. Table 9 describes values for the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Note that that HAUs T2, T7, T8 and T9 are areas of comparatively low hiding cover. The comparatively low cover values for the HAUs reflect topoedaphic influences; HAUs T7, T8 and T9 are on the southwestern slope of the Tobacco Root Mountains. These HAUs also contain a substantial amount of open alpine, rock talus and scree habitat. Habitat analysis unit T2- the Potosi Creek watershed- also contains substantial acres of open alpine, rock talus and scree

habitat, and south-facing slopes to the north of Potosi Creek support substantial shrub/steppe habitat.

Table 9. Habitat Analysis Units in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area HAU Size

(acres) Cover (acres)

Cover (percent)

Elk Use Potential (percent)

Road Density

Habitat Effectivene

ss

Elk Effective

Cover T1 9,437 3,259 35 93 0.68 71 66 T2 10,000 2,586 26 60 1.07 58 35 T3 13,004 5,223 40 100 0.86 65 65 T4* 7,786 2,709 35 93 1.02 59 55 T5 10,107 3,709 37 97 1.09 57 55 T6* 9,287 3,324 36 95 1.29 53 50 T7 11,705 3,334 29 75 0.45 79 59 T8 9,675 2,697 28 70 0.40 80 56 T9 8,397 2,060 25 53 0.34 83 44 T10 9,758 2,918 30 80 0.86 65 52 T11 7,784 2,888 37 97 0.49 77 75 T12 8,264 3,091 37 97 0.47 78 76

Total 115,204 37,798 33 88 0.76 68 60 HAU acreage figures were established in the 1986 Forest Plan and are based on data collected in 1975. Cover estimates and calculations prepared for the 2001 Tobacco Root Vegetation Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. *Updated values from field data collected in 2002.


Habitat analysis units T2, T4, T5 and T6 have road densities in excess of 1 mile of road per square mile. Currently, HAU T6 does not meet Wildlife Standard 7 (WL 7) as described in the 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan. This standard requires that an elk effective cover rating of 70 percent be retained. As displayed in Table 9, HAU T6 (as well as T2, T4 and T6) has a low elk effective cover as a result of a comparatively high road density (1.29 miles/mile square in HAU T6). The 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan recognized that certain areas of the forest did not meet WL 7 as a result of high road densities. For timber management projects, HAUs not meeting WL 7 could be entered provided the elk use potential of the HAU was maintained at 95 percent of optimum. The proposed Meadow Creek Project would occur entirely in HAU T6. The Meadow Creek Project would treat 346 acres using the thin from below and burn treatment. This treatment would retain the overstory and structural characteristics of the stand, and would not change the PI type. Since the PI type would not change, the elk use potential would not fall below 95 percent of optimum as required by standard WL 8 as described in the 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Analysis of the Management Situation (2002) identified several problems with the use of elk effective cover as established in the 1986 Forest Plan to conduct meaningful project or landscape scale analysis. Habitat effectiveness was designed as a measure of elk security on summer range. State Elk Management Units (EMUs) are not coincident with HAUs described in the 1986 Forest Plan, and as such, habitat effectiveness as measured at the HAU scale cannot be directly evaluated using elk population data. It is questionable if the analysis described in the Montana Cooperative Elk-logging Study, Annual Program Report, August 1982 represents the best available science for elk habitat analysis. Virtually all State EMUs on the Forest have reached or exceeded State population goals (MFWP 2005). Elk populations have increased nearly three fold since 1978 (MFWP 2005). As a result, of this dramatic increase in elk numbers, MFWP instituted annual either sex elk harvest in 2004 to reduce numbers on almost all elk hunting districts associated with the Forest. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks herd composition, population counts and State Elk Plan (MFWP 2005, figure 9) indicate the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is the most heavily hunted area in the State, and yet herd numbers in the Tobacco Root Mountains and elsewhere continue to increase. The increase in elk numbers has occurred with the existing road densities and road management objectives as outlined in the 1986 Forest Plan. Specifically, post hunting season elk numbers have increased in the Tobacco Root Mountains from 924 in 1998 to 1412 in 2006 in spite of reduced elk effective cover in those HAUs displayed in Table 9, in spite of the liberal either sex harvest and in spite of comparatively high hunter numbers. Clearly, habitat is not limiting elk in the Tobacco Root Mountains. As a consequence, alternatives under consideration for Forest Plan Revision address more effective and meaningful measures for elk security, and focus principally on road density. Analysis conducted for 2001 Tobacco Root Vegetation Management Plan FEIS determined that National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area provide 37,473 acres of elk security cover. For the 2001 analysis, security cover consisted of blocks of timber


cover at least 200 acres in size greater than 0.25 miles from roads or motorized trails open during the hunting season. This analysis identified 31 blocks of security cover on NFS lands in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area, ranging in size from 200 acres to 10,700 acres and averaging about 1,200 acres in size. Approximately 57 percent (21,439 acres) of the security cover is above 8100 feet, and is effective as security cover during the summer and fall, or until such time as the influence of weather (snow and temperature) force elk to lower elevations. Forty-three percent (16,034 acres) of the security cover occurs from the Forest boundary (about 6000 feet) up to 8100 feet. Lower elevation security cover likely has a greater influence on actual elk survival as it provides security for a longer portion of the hunting season during seasons with early, lasting snow. This analysis indicates the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area consists of approximately 33 percent of elk security cover, which appears consistent to the analysis conducted at the HAU scale. The proposed Meadow Creek Project would not impact any security block described above, and would thus not reduce security cover for elk in the analysis area. As such, Beaverhead Forest Plan WL 9 would be met. Analysis of winter range for the 2001 Tobacco Root Vegetation Management Plan FEIS included State of Montana, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private ownership lands. This analysis identified a combined area of the more than 84,000 acres of available winter range in and immediately adjoining the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. National Forest System lands provide approximately 27 percent or 23,000 acres of winter range for elk in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. South and southwest aspects occur on 19 percent (4,500 acres) of the Forest portion of the winter range. There are approximately 5,000 acres of known elk calving areas within the Tobacco Root Mountains on the Madison Ranger District in the following locations: Nugget Creek-Lemon Gulch, Horse-Currant Creeks, Mill Gulch-Granite Creek and Sawlog Creek-Table Mountain. There are approximately 8,500 acres of known calving areas located on adjacent BLM, state and private lands. Calving however, may occur throughout the area between mid-May and mid-June. Table 3 identifies 575 acres of ‘young forest’ habitat in the South Meadow Creek watershed. This habitat was created by even-aged timber harvest between 1984 and 1991. Table A2 (Appendix A) describes vegetation management in the Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area between 1984 and 1991. Approximately 1508 acres in the 115,000 acre analysis area were treated with even-aged management during this time period (there has been no harvest in the Tobacco Root Mountains since 1991). All of the even-aged harvest acres are fully stocked, and trees on these acres are approximately 15 feet tall. Timber harvests that occurred prior to 1984 are in various stages of regrowth. For example, trees in the 1972 Washington Creek Timber Sale are now 25 to 40 feet in height. Even-aged harvest areas are currently excellent hiding cover for elk. The elk population has averaged about 1015 animals since 1988 with a range 653 in 1988 to 1412 in 2006. The trend has been for an increasing population. The average annual harvest from 1999 to 2001 was 425 animals from this population consisting of 183 antlered animals and 243 antlerless animals (MFWP 2005). The statewide population has dramatically increased from an estimated 8000 in 1922 to 130,000 to 160,000 today (MFWP 2005). Clearly, Rocky Mountain elk viability is not an issue.


Migratory Birds In 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the Birds of Conservation Concern incorporating the North American Bird Conservation Institute’s (NABCI) Bird Conservation Regions (BCR). The Northern Rocky Mountains forms BCR 10. Table 10 lists those migratory species identified by the USFWS as being of conservation concern and where federal agencies are encouraged to “…minimize impacts of their activities on identified species” Table 10. Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation Region 10 CR 10 (Northern Rockies–U.S. portion only). Swainson's Hawk

Flammulated Owl

Wilson's Phalarope

Lewis's Woodpecker

Pygmy Nuthatch

Ferruginous Hawk

American Golden-Plover

Marbled Godwit Williamson's Sapsucker

Brewer's Sparrow

Golden Eagle Upland Sandpiper

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Red-naped Sapsucker

McCown's Longspur

Peregrine Falcon

Mountain Plover Black Swift

Prairie Falcon Long-billed Curlew

Loggerhead Shrike

Included in the table above are those birds of conservation concern in BCR 10 with documented breeding in Montana.

Two of the species listed in Table10 have the potential to be impacted by implementation of the proposed action. Potential impacts to the flammulated owl are discussed above. The Brewer’s sparrow ( Spizella breweri) is a summer migrant to Montana and has been documented in the Madison Valley. The Brewer’s sparrow is typically associated with open areas such as mountain meadows and sagebrush flats. Potential impacts to Brewer’s sparrows could result from the slash and burn treatments proposed for Units 2, 6, 7 and 8. Specifically, burning these units during the breeding season could impact breeding success. It is likely that prescribed fire treatments would be implemented in the late fall, after the breeding season. Direct impacts to the Brewer’s sparrow are unlikely. VII. Summary of Determinations It is my determination that implementation of the proposed Meadow Creek Project may impact may impact individual northern goshawks, greater sage grouse, flammulated owls, black-backed woodpeckers and fisher or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or the species. No impacts to other sensitive species are anticipated. Conservation Measures The following conservation measures are mandatory for a determination of No Impact or May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Not Likely to Lead to a Trend Toward Federal Listing or Reduced Viability for the Species for sensitive wildlife species. Conservation measures were developed as part of the proposed action.


Literature Cited Agee, J. K. and C. N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211 (2005) 83–96 Andersen, D.E., S. DeStefano, M.I. Goldstein, K. Titus, C. Crocker-Bedford, J.J. Keane, R. G. Anthony, and R.N. Rosenfield. 2003. The status of northern goshawks in the western United States. Wildlife Society Technical Review 04-1. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. 24 pp. Anderson, B.E. 2006. Fuels Technician, USFS. Meadow Creek Fuels Reduction- Fuels Specialist Report. Project file. 14p. Arno, S.F. and G.E. Gruell. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management 36(3) 332-336. Ballou, L. S. 2005. Biological Technician, USFS. Personal communication with J. Frederick 08-02-05. Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine In L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, tech. eds. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Rep RM-254, pp. 99-127 Barrett, S.W. 1995. Preliminary assessment of fire regimes for the Beaverhead National Forest, Montana. Unpublished report. 33 p. Beier, P. and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7(2), 564-571. Bock, C. E. and J. F. Lynch. 1970. Breeding bird populations of burned and unburned conifer forest in the Sierra Nevada. The Condor, 72:182-189 Brannon, R. 2006. Wildlife Biologist, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Personal communication with J. Frederick 02-06. Bright-Smith, D.J. and R.W. Manahan. 1994. Habitat use by breeding male northern goshawks in northern Arizona in Studies in avian biology 16.58-65. Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J.W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. Res. Note PNW-444. 19 p. Bull, EL., C.G. Parks and T.R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River Basin. Gen.Tech.Ret PNW-GTR-391. Portland OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55p.


Bull, E.L. and A.K. Blumton. 1999. Effect of fuels reduction on American Martens and their prey. USDAFS, Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Note PNW-RN-539. 9p. Bull, E.L. A.A. Clark and J.F. Shepard. 2005. Short-term effects of fuel reduction on pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon-a pilot study. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-564. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 17 p. Bush, R. and A. Leach. 2003. Detailed Estimates of Old Growth And Large Snags on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Unpublished report to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Dillon, MT. 5p. Bush, R., D. Berglund, A. Leach, R. Lundberg and A. Zack. 2006. Draft Estimates of Old Growth for the Northern Region and National Forests. Unpublished report to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Dillon, MT. 7p. Buskirk, S. W. 1994. Physiology and reproduction, pages 389-391 in Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell. 1994. Martins, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 p. Buskirk, S. W. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American marten in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service. Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Missoula, MT. 50 pp. Buskirk, S. W. and L.F. Ruggeriero.1994. American Marten 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 martin, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 254. Ft Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p. Clough, L.T. 2000. Nesting habitat and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central Montana. MS Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 95 p. Coffin, K.W. 1994. Population characteristics and winter habitat selection by pine marten in southwestern Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 94 p. Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4):967-985. Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. MS Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 152 pp. Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1990. Goshawk Reproduction and Forest Management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:262-269, 1990.


Cunningham, J.B., R.P. Balda, and W.S. Gaud. 1980. Selection and use of snags by secondary cavity-nesting birds of the ponderosa pine forest. USDA, Forest Service Res. Paper RM-222. . Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Fort Collins, Co. 15 p Desimone, S.M.1997. Occupancy rates and habitat relationships of northern goshawks in historic nesting areas in Oregon. MS Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 76 p. Dixon, R.D. and V.A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed Woodpecker, No. 509 in the birds of North America. 20 p. Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon & Shuster, Fireside, New York. 785p. Fager, C.W. 1991. Southwest Montana pine marten research project, Progress Report. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 73 pp. Fontaine, J. 2005. Assistant Wolf Recovery Coordinator, USFWS. Personal communication with J. Frederick, USFS B-DNF, 10-17-2005. Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. American Society of Mamologists special publication 12. Gibilisco, C.J. 1994. Distributional dynamics of modern Martes in North America. Pages 59 to 71 in Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell. 1994. Martins, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 p. Goggans, R. R.D. Dixon and L.C. Seminara. 1989. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife Nongame Wildlife Program, USDA Deschutes National Forest Technical Report #87-3-02. Graham, R.W. and M.A. Graham. 1994. Late quaternary distribution of Martes in North America. Pages 28 to 46 in Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell. 1994. Martins, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 p. Graham, R.T., S. McCaffrey, T.B. Jain (tech. eds.) 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p. Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group (GWPMWG). 2006. Monitoring whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: 2005 Annual report. Pages 73-80 in C.C. Schwartz, M.A. Haroldson and K. West, Eds. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations: annual report of the Interagency Study team, 2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT. USA.


Green, P., Joy, J., Sirucek, D., Hann, W., and B. Naumann. 1992. Old growth Forests of the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT 59807. 41p Greenwald, D.N., D.C. Crocker-Bedford, L. Broberg, K.F. Suckling and T. Tibbitts. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33 (T) 120-129. Groves, C., T. Frederick, G. Frederick, E. Atkinson, M. Atkinson, J. Shepherd and G. Serveen. 1997. Density, abundance and habitat of flammulated owls in Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 57 (2) 116-123. Gruell, G.E. 1983. Fire and vegetative trends in the Northern Rockies: Interpretations from 1871-1982 photographs. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. General Technical Report INT-158. 117 p. Hall, A. 2006. Rangeland Management Specialist, USFS. Personal communication with J. Frederick on 11-02-2006. Hargis, C.D., C. McCarthy and R.D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California in Studies in Avian Biology 16:66-74 Hayward, G.D. and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91:476-479 Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, eds. 1994. Flammulated, boreal and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service GTR RM-253 Hessburg, P.F. and J.K. Agee. 2003. An environmental narrative of inland northwest United States forests 1800-2000. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 23-59 Hessburg, P.F., J.K. Agee and J.K Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest USA: Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management 211 (2005) 117–139 Heinemeyer, K. S and J. L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management in the western United States: a literature review and adaptive management strategy. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula MT. 108 pp. Heinemeyer, K.S., B.C. Aber and D.F. Doak. 2001. Aerial Surveys for wolverine presence and potential winter recreation impacts to predicted wolverine denning habitats in the southwestern Yellowstone ecosystem. Unpubl. Report. University of California, Santa Cruz Department of Environmental Studies. 33 pp. Hillis, M., A. Jacobs and V. Wright. 2002. U.S. Forest Service Region One black-backed woodpecker assessment. Internal report, on hand at the Madison Ranger District.


Hillis, M. L. Clough and D. Lockman. 2003. U.S. Forest Service Region 1 Northern Goshawk Assessment. Unpublished report for the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. On file at the Madison Ranger District, Ennis MT. 13 p. Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology V. 59 1286-1301 Hutto, R.L. 2006. Toward meaningful snag-management guidelines for postfire salvage logging in North American conifer forests. Conservation Biology 20 (4) 984-993. Ibarzabel, J and P. Desmeules. 2006. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) detectability in unburned and recently burned mature conifer forest in north-eastern North America. Ann. Zool. Fennici 43: 228-234 Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGST) 2000. Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, MT. USA. Jones, J.L. 1989. Fisher in Clark, T.W., A.H. Harvey, R.D. Dorn, D.L. Genter and C. Groves. eds. Rare, Sensitive and threatened species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, the Nature Conservancy and Mountain West Environmental Services. 153 pp. Jones, J.L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in north central Idaho. MS Thesis, University of Idaho Komberec, T. 2005. Wildlife Biologist B-DNF. Personal communication with Jay Frederick. Kujala, Q. J. 1993. Pine marten populations and habitat relationships in southwest Montana. M.S. Thesis. Montana State Univ., Bozeman 58 p. Lenard, S., J. Carlson, J. Ellis, C. Jones, and C. Tilly. 2003. P.D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution, 6th Edition. Montana Audubon, Helena. 144 p. Lesica, P, S.V. Cooper and G. Kudray. 2005. Big sagebrush shrub-steppe postfire succession in southwest Montana. Unpublished report to Bureau of Land Management, Dillon Field Office. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 29 p. plus appendices. Likkhart, B.D. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Territories of flammulated owls: is occupancy a measure of habitat quality? P. 250-254 In Duncan, J.R., D.H. Johnson and T.H. Nicholls tech. eds. Biology and conservation of owls in the Northern Hemisphere. North Central Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-190. Lukins, W.J., S. Creel, B. Erbes and G. Spong. 2004. An assessment of the Tobacco Root Mountain Range in southwest Montana as a linkage zone for grizzly bears. Northwest Science, v78(2) 168-172. Mattson, D.J. 1996. Use of ungulates by Yellowstone Grizzly Bears. Biological Conservation 78.


Magaddino, R. 1989. Living With Bald Eagles. Montana Outdoors, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, MT. 4 pp. Marti, C.D. 1997. Flammulated owls breeding in deciduous forests. Pages 262 to 266 in Duncan, J.R., D.H. Johnson and T.H. Nicholls tech. eds. Biology and conservation of owls in the Northern Hemisphere. North Central Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-190. McCallum, D.A. 1994. Flammulated Owl. The Birds of North America, No. 93. McClelland, B. R. 1980. Influences of harvesting and residue management on cavity-nesting birds. Pages 469 to 496 in Environmental consequences of timber harvesting in Rocky Mountain coniferous forests. USDA Forest Service GTR INT-90, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. McGrath, M.T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Irwin and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monograph No. 154, The Wildlife Society. Mech, L.D. 1970. The Wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Doubleday, New York, N.Y. 389 pp. Mech, L.D. 1973. Wolf numbers in the Superior National Forest. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper. NC-97:1-10. North Central Forest Experimental Station, St. Paul, Minn. Mech, L.D. 1974. Canis lupus. American society of Mammalogy, Mammalian Species No. 37. Pages 1-6. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) 2005. Montana final elk management plan. MT department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wildlife Division, Helena. 397 pp. Montana Sage Grouse Working Group (MSGWG). 2005. Montana Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse-Final. Murphy, E.C. and W.A. Lehnhausen. 1998. Density and ecology of woodpeckers following a stand-replacement fire. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4) 1359-1371. Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. National Biological Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 58 p. O’Conner, T. and M. Hillis. 2000. Conservation of post-fire habitat, black-backed woodpeckers and other bird species of the Lolo National Forest. Draft report to the Lolo National Forest. 25 p.


Patla, S. 1997. Nesting Ecology and Habitat of the Northern Goshawk in undisturbed and timber harvest areas on the Targee National Forest, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Masters Thesis, Idaho State University. 164 p. Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT34. Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher 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 martin, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 254. Ft Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p. Raphael, M.G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD. 66 pp. Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting accipiter hawks. USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-102. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p. Reynolds, R. T. and B.D. Linkhart. 1992. Flammulated owls in ponderosa pine: evidence of preference for old growth in Kaufmann, W.R., W. H. Moir, and R. L. Bassett eds. Old-growth forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions: proceedings of a workshop. USDA Forest Service GTR RM-213. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser and others, 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217, Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90p. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham and D.A. Boyce. 2005. Habitat Conservation of the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States: response to Greenwald et al. 2005. Roy, M., R.D. Holt and M. Barfield. 2005. Temporal autocorrelation can enhance the persistence and abundance of metapopulations comprised of coupled sinks. Am. Nat. Vol. 166, pp. 246-261 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. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. 1999. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW, Fort Collins, CO. Pages 207-227.


Schwartz. M. 2005. Conference presentation: How wildlife genetics can help with current forest issues. USDA Forest Service Forest Carnivore Management course, June 13-17 2005. 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, USA. Samson, F.B. 2006b. Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of northern goshawks, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten and fisher. Unpublished Report on file, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA Shaw N.L., M. Pellant and S. B. Monsen. 2005. Tech eds. Sage Grouse-Habitat Restoration Symposium Proceedings. June 2001, Boise. Rocky Mountain Research Station Proceedings RMRS-P-38. Sindelar, B. W. 1971. Douglas-fir invasions of Western Montana grasslands. Doctorial dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula. 130 p. Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto and B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological Applications. 15(5). Pp. 1535-1549 Squires, J. R. and L. F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest site preference of northern goshawks in South central Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 60(1):170-177.

Squires, J. R., and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In The Birds of North America, No. 298 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Stokes, D.W. and L.Q. Stokes. 1996. Stokes field guide to birds, western region. Little, Brown and Company, Toronto.

Strickland, M.A., C.W. Douglas, M. Novak and N.P. Hunziger. 1982. Fisher Martes pennanti. Pages 586to 598 in Chapman, J.A and G. A. Feldhamer, tech. eds. 1982. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, economics. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 1146 p.

Thomas, J.W. and 15 others. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests- the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512 p. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.1994. Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, MT. 104 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Fish and Game and USDA Wildlife Services. 2006. Rocky Mountain Wolf


Recovery 2005 Annual Report. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT. 59601 130pp. Vinkey, R.S. 2003. An evaluation of Fisher (Martes pennanti) introductions in Montana. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. Wamboldt, C.L. K.S. Walhof and M.R. Frisina. 2001. Recovery of big sagebrush communities after burning in south-western Montana. Journal of Environmental Management 61, 243-252. Warren, N.L. 1990. Old growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the northern Rocky Mountains. Unpubl. Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 47 pp. Widen, P.1988. The hunting habitats of Goshawks Accipiter gentilis in boreal forests of central Sweden. On file at the Madison Ranger District, Ennis MT. Wisz, M.S. 1999. Islands in the Big Sky: equilibrium biogeography of isolated mountain ranges in Montana. MAII Theses, Dept of Environmental, Population and Organismal Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder. 41 p. Wittmer, G.W., S.K. Martin, and R.D. Sayler. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. Gen. Tech. Rep.PNW-GTR-420. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). Wright, V., S.J. Hejl and R.L. Hutto. 1997. Conservation implications of a multi-scale study of flammulated owl habitat use in the northern Rocky Mountains. Pages 506 to 516 in Duncan, J.R., D.H. Johnson and T.H. Nicholls tech. eds. Biology and conservation of owls in the Northern Hemisphere. North Central Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-190.

Appendix A- Habitat Baseline for the Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area 1

Appendix A Habitat Baseline for the Southern Tobacco Root Analysis Area

The habitat baseline for the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area1 is derived from several sources, including the 1994 Tobacco Root Landscape analysis (Landscape Analysis), the subsequent 2001 Tobacco Root Vegetation Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Vegetation Management Plan) and the 2003 Wildlife Habitat Viability Analysis, all prepared by the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The vegetated landscape of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area evolved with varying levels and types of disturbance. Prior to the arrival of European settlers, lightning fires burned without broad-scale human attempts at control and indigenous peoples used wildland fire for a variety of purposes. With the arrival of Europeans in the mid 1860's, mining, logging and associated roading, and domestic livestock grazing became the dominant disturbance processes in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. By 1865, disturbance associated with fire had been largely eliminated through grazing, timber harvest and fire suppression. Fire suppression has altered physical stand structure and composition of forest and rangeland vegetation by allowing vegetation to move toward a later seral stage over a greater spatial extent than corresponding patterns prior to the broad-scale suppression of fires. Acreage values are summarized in Table A1, below. The lower foothill slopes in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area are typically grassland, with sagebrush, scattered juniper and patches of Douglas-fir. This area is described as the Lowland and Foothills Zone in Table A1, below. The mid-elevation Zone is typically forested, and is dominated by lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and subalpine fir/spruce2. Higher elevation areas consist of whitebark pine, subalpine fir with spruce, alpine grasslands, rocks and scree. December 2001 Tobacco Root Vegetation Management Plan FEIS established a desired condition for upland vegetation in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area: The ecosystem retains all its evolutionary processes (those that formed the present ecosystem) operating on as many acres as possible, within human restraints and needs for output. The risk of unacceptable or unplanned ecosystem changes is minimized while producing sustainable output for humans. Within those constraints, vegetation resembles patterns occurring prior to arrival of European settlers.

1 The spatial extent of the southern Tobacco Root analysis area is coincident with Geographical Display Areas 4A, 4B and 4C as described in the 1986 Beaverhead National Forest Forest Plan. 2 Spruce in this portion of the Tobacco Root Mountains actually consists of a hybrid swarm of Engelmann spruce (Picea Engelmannii) and white spruce (P. glauca), known regionally as “interior spruce”.

Table A1- Vegetation types and zones of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area* Vegetation Types (acres of each)*

Lowlands & Foothills Zone

Mid-elevation Zone

Timberline & Alpine Zone

Riparian Zone

Shrub Steppe Plant Communities

Grass/sage steppe vegetation Douglas-fir colonizing steppe

8076 4863

2290 2675

886 405

429 233


455 trace 5533 1290 22 178

5140 trace 10,301 16,041 1136 2769

3183 trace 374 3978 3129 19,749

238 trace 531 816 1076 356

Forested Plant CommunitiesYoung lodgepole/Douglas-fir Douglas-fir savannah Multistoried Douglas-fir Mature to old growth lodgepole Spruce and subalpine fir Whitebark pine

136 54 200

Other CommunitiesDistinct aspen cover types Alpine grass and tundra Riparian vegetation Rock/scree/talus

58

321 85 412 361

44 5337 1372 9299

39 21 337 22

Private Lands (veg. not typed) 1147 1452 1751 399 Total Acres in Zone 22,012 42,983 49,507 4,497 * Adapted from the 1994 Tobacco Root Landscape analysis

Table A1 indicates that approximately 28 percent of the 115,000 acres within the analysis area exhibits old growth timber characteristics. This percentage of mature forest corresponds with Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data that estimate 26 (range 13 to 40) percent of the forested public land within the Tobacco Root Mountains is old growth (Bush and Leach 2003), as described by Old-growth Forest Types of the Northern Region (Green et al. 1992). This generally corresponds with the 2003 Wildlife Habitat Viability Analysis that estimated 23 percent of the Tobacco Root “landscape”3 was mature or old growth Douglas fir or lodgepole pine. Analysis for the Meadow Creek Fuels Project indicates that the South Meadow Creek Watershed contains approximately 1688 acres of medium and large Douglas fir and lodgepole saw timber and 288 acres of subalpine fir and spruce old growth. Using these metrics to evaluate habitat attributes, the South Meadow Creek Watershed currently supports about 26 percent of the area in old growth habitat. Additional analysis for the Meadow Creek Fuels Project indicates that the timber compartment that occupies much of the South Meadow Creek Watershed (compartment 692) currently contains 1498 acres of mapped old growth Douglas fir and spruce. The 1994 Landscape Analysis suggested that forest management has resulted in a forest age and seral structure that is uncharacteristic of pre-settlement forests of this type. Fire suppression is the primary management action that has caused the largest change in vegetative community diversity across the landscape. The Landscape Analysis found that the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area was likely outside the range of historic variability for younger, lower in physical stature forests, and that a decrease in wildlife habitat diversity has resulted from this uncharacteristic forest age and seral structure. The Landscape Analysis also determined that Douglas fir savannah historically occurred at a greater than trace quantity; Douglas fir savannah is gradually being replaced by encroaching Douglas fir. A. Douglas-fir savannah The Douglas-fir savannah cover type currently occupies only a trace of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. The Landscape Analysis estimated that this habitat component represented approximately 10 percent of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area

3 The Wildlife Habitat Viability Analysis used a landscape approach to address habitat viability. The Tobacco Root Landscape included public and private land.


prior to broad-scale fire suppression. Multistoried Douglas-fir stands currently occupy 16,739 acres. Prior to 1860, Douglas fir communities were maintained by frequent low intensity fire underburning with very infrequent stand replacement events (Arno and Gruell 1983). Dry Douglas fir sites historically experienced low intensity fires at a fire return interval of 5 to 40 years. This frequent fire return interval sustained open forest stands dominated by large-stature Douglas-fir. Since 1860, the frequency and spatial extent of wildfires occurring in this ecosystem have been reduced by fire suppression and, to a lesser extent domestic grazing and land use practices. For example, Forest Service records indicate that since about 1940, there have been at least 51 fire starts in the Tobacco Root landscape. None of these fire starts has exceeded than 5 acres in this period of time. Fire exclusion has allowed a substantial level of sagebrush and multiple-canopied, stagnated Douglas fir stands to develop, creating denser and more continuous forest fuels. Denser stands and more continuous fuels increase the potential for high intensity, stand replacing fires and loss of the large diameter overstory trees. Some researchers have suggested that absence of frequent, low intensity fire allows nutrients to become tied up in standing biomass and not available to new growth. B. Mixed Douglas-fir/Lodgepole Communities The mixed cover Douglas-fir/lodgepole pine type occupies 9,016 acres of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Prior to 1860, Douglas-fir/lodgepole pine communities were maintained by periodic fires of varying intensity. Many fires were low intensity, with occasional torching into tree crowns. Differing mixes of species were a result of different fire intensities, seed source and environmental conditions. Generally, stand replacement fires occurred about every 100 to 300 years. These fires resulted in a greater lodgepole pine composition over the shade tolerant Douglas-fir. Since 1860, the frequency and area of wildfires occurring in this ecosystem have been reduced by timber harvest, land use practices and fire suppression. These communities historically experienced less frequent fires of varying intensities than the drier sites. Fire exclusion has allowed a substantial level of fuel buildup, subalpine fir under stories and denser, more continuous fuels. These conditions increase the potential for high intensity, stand replacing fires and loss of the large diameter overstory trees. C. Sagebrush/Grass Communities The sagebrush/grass cover type occupies 11,681 acres of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Douglas-fir colonizing into sagebrush/grass types occupies another 8176 acres. See table A1. Prior to 1860, sagebrush/grass communities were maintained by frequent low intensity fires. Since 1860, the frequency and area of wildfires occurring in this ecosystem have been reduced by domestic grazing, land use practices and fire suppression. The sagebrush/grass community historically experienced low intensity 5 to 30 year interval fires. This community appeared as grass dominated with a scattered cover of sagebrush. Heavier densities of sagebrush were scattered across the landscape generally associated with rocky outcrops and other topographic features that protected these areas from the frequent wildfires. Those sites where fire intervals approached 30 years would appear as sagebrush dominated with scattered openings of grass.


These sites may also support a low density of Douglas fir around the edge. Fire exclusion has allowed sagebrush density to increase throughout the area along with establishment of Douglas-fir into the community. The prolonged absence of fire in the area has allowed many of these sites to proceed successionally toward a dry Douglas fir community. A loss in acreage of typical sagebrush/grass types has occurred. Herbicide spraying in the 1970s and 1980s reduced sagebrush cover temporarily, but it has reestablished. D. Quaking Aspen communities Table A1 indicates 540 acres of the aspen cover type occur within the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Due to the difficulty in identifying small areas of remnant aspen, this figure includes only those aspen stands/clones that were large enough to be distinguished through aerial photo interpretation. These stands are typically 2 acres in area and larger. A large percentage of the aspen occurs as a secondary component to other cover types as a result of succession and is not reflected in Table A1. Prior to 1860, aspen stands are maintained by frequent, varying intensity fires and occur as a fire disclimax. Aspen stands are strongly influenced by the fire frequency of the adjacent or surrounding vegetation community. Since 1860, however, the frequency and area of wildfires in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area have decreased as a result of domestic grazing, land use practices and fire suppression. Generally, aspen stands are found on open slopes and along the ecotone between forest and sagebrush/grass cover types. In the absence of wildfire disturbance, aspen is generally replaced by coniferous forest. A substantial reduction in the acreage of aspen has occurred in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. E. Riparian areas Riparian areas make up only 2 percent (2,300 acres) of the land area in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area, but are an extremely important component of this landscape. Riparian areas within the analysis area are quite varied and include streams, small ponds, lakes, fens, marshes, springs and seeps. The vegetation found along and within these areas is also quite varied, and is typically associated with the moisture gradient between uplands and the water’s edge. The vigor, diversity and distribution of riparian vegetation is intricately linked to the hydrologic functionality of creeks, springs and marshes within the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. The majority of streams in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area are bordered by forested riparian areas due, in part, to the relatively high gradient of streams. These coniferous plant communities are considered to be in a mid to late seral stage and are moving toward the potential natural community. Fire suppression has allowed most stream- side plant communities to progress to a tree dominated expression. Narrow valley bottoms, also associated with stream gradient, typically limit the lateral extent of riparian areas. Engelmann spruce is the most common coniferous tree species in forested riparian areas in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Subalpine fir, whitebark pine, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine are also found within forested riparian areas but to a lesser extent. At lower elevations within the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area, a limited number of stream side riparian areas are dominated by cottonwood and aspen. Very small portions of stream sections in the area have shrubs or graminoids as the dominant vegetation. These sites are where the stream gradient flattens and valley bottoms widen allowing the formation of a


larger flood plain. These tend to be only small sections of stream and are scattered across the mountain range. Willows are the principle shrub species of the riparian areas. Alder and birch are found less frequently. The most common willow species include Geyer, Booth, Drummond, Bebb and Wolf. Ground cover is quite varied, but usually is dominated by graminoids such as water sedge, beaked sedge, bluejoint reedgrass, Kentucky bluegrass and mountain brome. The last two species have become dominant on a variety of sites due to past disturbances such as mining and livestock grazing. This has caused a reduction in shrub dominated early seral communities. Willows are generally a shade intolerant species. As they are overtopped by conifers they lose vigor and are slowly lost from the community. This is a natural progression for these sites in the absence of disturbance. The diversity these willow and graminoid dominated communities provide is increased in a forest dominated landscape such as the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. There are 38 named lakes in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area occupying over 350 acres. Countless other small ponds, ephemeral potholes, fens and marshes are scattered across the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Most of these riparian sites occur at higher elevations. Vegetation adjacent to lakes and ponds is typically coniferous forest. Many of the ponds are densely covered with pond lilies. Generally, the ephemeral potholes are dry by the end of summer and have a limited amount of vegetation. Marshes in the Tobacco Root analysis area are generally dominated by sedges. Willows and alder may be found growing along the margins. Spruce and lodgepole pine are the dominant tree species in the adjacent forest community. Unique features found in the analysis area are the scattered fens. Fens are a type of peatland that receives water from the uplands and has relatively high pH and nutrient levels. Fens have a well-developed floating mat of sphagnum mosses. In addition to mosses, fens can and do host a number of unique plant and animal species. The water input from the uplands is a critical component to the fens and any management actions that affect the water regime may impact them. One fen, the Leonard Creek Fen, has recently been surveyed and recommended for preserving in its current condition. (Chadde and Shelly 1994, Vanderhorst and Heidel 1995). Livestock grazing likely has the greatest impact on vegetation around the lakes, ponds, potholes and fens at this time. Logging, mining, irresponsible OHV use and heavy recreational activities have potential to impact these sites. Currently, livestock impacts are restricted mainly to the edges of these sites. Smaller seeps tend to be impacted more by livestock. Many have become hummocked due to hoof action. Vegetatively, these sites are similar to what would be expected, but increased hoof action has compacted the soils at many sites, lowering productivity. F. Snag habitat Snags are abundant in the South Meadoe Creek Watershed. Forest Inventory and Analysis data indicate that snag habitat is well represented in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. These data indicate that an average of 11.71 snags per acre (range 3.56 to 22.11) of various sizes throughout the landscape. These findings are supported by snag data collected specifically for the Meadow Creek Project, which indicate that current snag densities range from 13 to 48 snags per acres in and immediately adjacent to the project area.


Current Forest Health Protection survey maps illustrate continued mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) mortality in lodgepole pine throughout the southern Tobacco Root Mountains. Douglas-fir has had Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugaei) mortality the past 5 years, but the rate of mortality appears to declining. There is currently a serious western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) infestation in the southern Tobacco Root Mountains. This infestation has been developing in the area for the past 5 years. The actual mortality associated with this defoliating agent is still unknown and is dependant on weather conditions over the next several years. Significant damage from western spruce budworm is most often found on dry sites. The 2005 Montana Forest Insect and Disease Conditions and Program Highlights summarized changes in snag numbers from 2004 to 2005: Throughout the Tobacco Root Mountains, large numbers of subalpine fir, killed by western balsam bark beetle (Dryocetes confusus), were found. Some groups were quite large-up to 5 trees per acre, covering several hundred acres each. Considerable amounts of mountain pine beetle-killed lodgepole pine were observed in the northwestern part of the Tobacco Roots, from Meadow Creek north to Carmichael Creek. Noticeable increases in western spruce bud worm activity could result in increases of Douglas fir beetle populations. Those populations are now fairly low. Timber stand exams were conducted in the area in the early 1990's. Snag numbers were counted and other stand attributes were recorded during the stand exam processes. This process included the completion of the wildlife survey form that also documented the number of snags in stands. Snag numbers in the project area currently exceed Forest Plan Standards and will continue to exceed standards into the foreseeable future. The mortality in these stands is increasing as a result of those factors described above. Snag management standards The 1986 Forest Plan established snag management standards by timber type as described below:

• Douglas fir- 70 percent of the management level- 1.5 snags/acre greater than 10 inch DBH minimum

• Spruce- 70 percent of the management level- 2.5 snags/acre greater than 10 inch DBH minimum

• Subalpine fir- 60 percent management level – 1.0 snags/acre greater than 10 inch DBH minimum

The snag management standard is a retention standard for treatment areas, and recognizes that areas not designated suitable for timber harvest are an important element of wildlife habitat. For example, the 1986 Forest Plan identified the 58,062 acre Tobacco Root Geographical Display Area 4C. The 1986 Forest Plan identified 42,644 acres (73 percent) of the Tobacco Root Planning Unit 4C as not available for timber harvest. The combined Tobacco Root Geographical Display Areas 4A, B and C total approximately 115,000 acres. Since 1984 (2 years prior to the completion of the Forest Plan), 2600 acres have been harvested using a variety of approaches (Table A2, below). This represents 2.3 percent of the area and less than 17 percent of the area


the 1986 Forest Plan identified as available for harvest. Thus, the snag management standard has been applied to only 2.3 percent of the combined Geographical Display Areas 4A, B and C. The Forest Service can elect to exceed a minimum retention standard at ay time. Past Activities The existing habitat condition of the analysis area has been formed with the influence of numerous anthropogenic actions, including timber harvest, commercial and residential development, livestock grazing, mining, and road and trail construction. From the late 1960's through early 1980's, the Forest Service burned and sprayed sagebrush in the analysis area. In addition to those vegetation altering actions described above, the vegetative component of the area has been impacted by invasive weeds. Manual and chemical control of noxious weeds has been ongoing over the last two decades. Timber harvest Within the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area, there have been a number of timber sales over the past 5 decades. Since 1984, eleven timber sales have been harvested, totalling approximately 2600 acres. See Table A2.

Table A2. Harvest activity in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area 1984 to present Sale Name Harvest Year Acres

total Harvest Type

Bivens Creek 1987 61 LTM Chero Mountain 1984-86 720 Varied; CC 75%, LTM 13%, SD 9%,

OSR 2% Currant 1987 68 CC 31%; LTM 27%; ITM10% Gibbs 1988 227 Varied; CC 26%, SD 23%, LTM 49%

ITM 22% Granite Creek 1985-86 510 Varied; SD 14%, CC 86% Kings Mill 1998 91 UR Mill Gulch 1984 117 CC Ramshorn 1985 248 Varied; CC 55%, LTM 26%, OR 18% Sureshot 1986-87 <10 Post and Pole Virginia Creek 1989-91 178 LTM Washington Creek 1984-86 224 Varied; CC 69%; LTM 70% LTM=leave tree mark; CC= clear cut; ITM individual tree mark; UR=understory removal; OR overstory removal; SD= species designation.

Timber sales since 1984 have applied various stand treatments to lodgepole pine and Douglas fir habitat, but have generally focused on creating early seral habitat in the forested plant communities in the lower and mid elevation zones. See Table A2. Fifty-eight percent of the acres harvested in the timber sales listed in Table A2 incorporated a clear cut harvest prescription, which created early seral habitat on 1.3 percent of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Timber harvests that occurred prior to 1984 are in various stages of regrowth. For example, trees in the 1972 Washington Creek Timber Sale are now 25 to 40 feet in height. Note that Table A1 identifies 3183 acres of young Douglas fir and lodgepole pine in the timberline and alpine zone.


These acres reflect low growth stature and tree form reulting from hars growing conditions, and are primarily a relic of early timber use for the extensive mining activity that occurred in the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century. Livestock Grazing Domestic livestock have grazed on the foothills of the Tobacco Root Mountains and adjacent private lands for the past century, and it is likely that livestock grazing will continue on public and private lands. Livestock grazing has had an impact on the riparian vegetation in lower elevation portions of the analysis area. The majority of stream reaches in the area are not accessible to livestock due to the steep topography. The greatest impact from livestock grazing has occurred on those sites where the valley bottom widens and slope gradients do not restrict movement. Community plant composition on these sites has changed due to the impacts of foraging and browsing by cattle. Soils on these sites tend to be compacted and the variety of plant species is reduced. The dominance of nonnative plants such as Kentucky bluegrass and timothy on these sites reduces the bank holding properties of deep rooted willows and sedges. Forested communities have had much less change than the shrub and graminoid dominated sites. There are currently nine livestock grazing allotments in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Developed and dispersed recreation The Forest Service constructed and maintains guard stations, trailheads and other facilities within the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Recreational use in the project area use varies seasonally. The Forest Service built campgrounds at Branham Lakes, Balanced Rock, Mill Creek, Sureshot Lakes and Potosi. Campgrounds are typically exhibit soil compaction and reduced plant growth/vigor. Roads and trails have also been constructed in the analysis area (see Interagency Visitor Map Southwest Montana). Mining Placer and hard rock mining has occurred in some areas of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. Early placer mining completely modified stream channels and eliminated native plant growth. Most of the placer mining has ended and the stream channels have stabilized in the condition they were in when the mining stopped. Vegetation on these sites is beginning to recolonize, but only a limited amount of vegetation is currently established. With the loss of soil during mining, the potential for the site changed and recovery will likely require decades. Graminoids and forbs are the dominant species established, with many being nonnative. Mining sites are one of the primary sites for noxious weed species infestations to establish and spread in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area. There are currently 49 approved Plans of Operation for mineral exploration in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Approximately 5 are operational in any given year, and all are under the Small Miners Exclusion Act, which limits exploration activities to 5 acres or less. No new development has occurred in the last 20 years. Roads Analysis for revision of the combined Beaverhead-Deerlodge land and resource management plan indicates that NFS lands in the Tobacco Root Mountains have a combined open road/open motorized trail density of 1.4 miles per square mile. For the most part, however, these roads are in the lower one-third of the mountain range. The 1.4 mile per square mile road density results in about 41 percent of the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area providing secure habitat in parcels 10 acres in size and greater. Parcels meeting these criteria are, by definition, further than 0.33 miles from an open road.


The Southern Tobacco Root analysis area is being managed with area restrictions for motorized vehicle travel, as shown on the current Interagency Visitor Map. Off road travel is permitted for camping within 300 feet of an established road. Many specific roads and trails are also restricted to motorized use seasonally or yearlong.

Appendix B Analysis for Canada Lynx

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is no longer considered occupied habitat for the Canada lynx. The following analysis was completed when the Forest was considered occupied, and is retained here for information. Unless otherwise noted, the following discussion of the distribution and life history attributes of the Canada lynx is derived from the Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggiero et al. 1999). Distribution The range of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is the Northern Taiga. In the conterminous United States, the known lynx range is marginal or as peninsular extensions of the Northern Taiga into the western mountains, Great Lakes, and Northeast. These regions represent southern extensions of boreal forest in the lower 48 states. Available information on lynx in Idaho and Montana dates from the late 1800s and consists of museum specimens. Data on lynx harvests have been recorded since the 1930s in Idaho and 1950s for Montana, and although not completely reliable due to misidentifications with bobcats, the data appears to indicate a continuous presence of lynx in portions of these states. Life History Canada lynx are in the family Felidea and are medium-sized, 30 to 35 inches long and weighing 18 to 23 pounds. Lynx have large feet adapted to walking on snow, long legs, tufts on the ears, and a black-tipped tail. Lynx inhabit mesic coniferous forests with cold, snowy winters, which provide a prey base of snowshoe hare. Snow conditions and vegetation type are important components of lynx habitat. On the east side of the continental divide in western Montana, subalpine fir forests are the primary vegetation type forming lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000 pp. 4-9). Moist Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) habitat types with intermingled Engelmann spruce (Picea englemannii) and where lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) is a major seral component are secondary vegetation associations that contribute to lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000 pp. 4-9). Home range size is variable and differs between sexes and with season of year (Ruediger et al. 2000 p.1-5). Male home range is larger than female home range. In north central Washington, Koehler (1990 in Ruggiero et al. 1999 p. 383) reported average home range sizes for two females at 15 mi2 and for five males at 27 mi2. Apps (in Ruggiero et al. 1999 p.360) in southern British Columbia found much larger home ranges of 147 mi2 for males and 92 mi2 for females. In Montana, four female home ranges averaged 17 mi2 (Koehler et al. 1979 in Ruggiero et al. 1999 p. 383). Natal den sites are commonly in large woody debris, either down logs or root wads. Den sites may be within older regeneration stands (more than 20 years since disturbance) or in mature conifer or mixed conifer-deciduous (typically spruce/fir or spruce/birch) forests. Stand structure appears to be more important to den site selection rather than cover type. In Canada, breeding occurs through March and April and young are born in May to June. Yearling females may give birth during periods when snowshoe hares are abundant. In Montana, one marked female produced two kittens in 1998; in 1999, two of the three females produced

1

litters of two kittens each. During low snowshoe hare cycles, few if any kittens are born or survive if born. Snowshoe hares are the primary prey of lynx, comprising 35 percent to 97 percent of their diet throughout lynx range. Red squirrels are an important alternate prey, especially during snowshoe hare population lows. Mice, voles, flying squirrels, fish, grouse, and ungulate carrion also occur in the diet. Timber harvest, prescribed fire, and natural disturbances (wildfire, insect infestations, catastrophic wind events, and disease outbreaks) can provide foraging opportunities for lynx when understory stem densities and structure meet the forage and cover needs for snowshoe hare. These characteristics include a dense, multilayered understory maximizing cover and browse at both ground level and at varying snow depths throughout the winter (crown cover within 15 feet of the ground in order to provide cover and food for snowshoe hares). Lynx appear to prefer to move through continuous forest, and frequently use ridges, saddles, and riparian areas. Recovery Plan Objectives The Canada lynx was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2000. In the final rule, the USFWS concluded the factor threatening the lynx in the continental United States is the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, specifically the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx in National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans. Although a recovery plan has not been prepared, Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) have been identified and mapped on NFS lands of the Forest. The design size of the LAU is thought to represent the approximate home range of a female lynx. The Southern Tobacco Root analysis area is within lynx habitat as defined in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000 pp. 4-9). At the time of the Forest-wide delineation of LAUs in 2000, the 23 6th code watersheds in the southern Tobacco Root Mountains were grouped into the Tobacco Root SW and the Tobacco Root NE combined LAUs. These combined LAUs incorporate a substantial number of non-NFS lands within their delineated boundaries. The combined LAUs consist of approximately 457,000 acres of which approximately 71,000 acres or 15.5 percent has been identified as lynx habitat. Of the 71,900 acres of lynx habitat, about 4700 acres (6.7 percent) provides foraging habitat and about 33,000 acres (46 percent) provides theoretical denning habitat. On a finer scale, the Meadow Creek Project would occur in LAU 295. LAU 295 consists of approximately 7300 acres of NFS lands, of which approximately 3400 (47 percent) was modeled (using stands delineated by photo interpretation) as Englemann spruce/subalpine fir/lodgepole pine habitat. Foraging habitat develops in young lodgepole pine, subalpine-fir and aspen stands and in riparian areas dominated by willow. Denning typically occurs in mature lodgepole pine and subalpine fir areas with a down woody debris component, which generally occurs on north-facing slopes in

2

southwestern Montana. Transition habitat would be areas within a few miles of forage and denning habitat to provide a travel link. Habitat Management Objectives The Canada lynx was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2000. In the final rule, the USFWS concluded the factor threatening the lynx in the continental United States is the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, specifically the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx in National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans. Although a recovery plan has not been prepared, Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) have been identified and mapped on NFS lands of the Forest. The design size of the LAU is thought to represent the approximate home range of a female lynx. The Southern Tobacco Root analysis contains lynx habitat as described in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000 pp. 4-9). The proposed Meadow Creek Project meets the standards from this strategy. See tables 3 through 6. Table 3. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures Applicable to All Programs and Activities (LCAS, 7-2 to 4). Standards Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Compliance Programmatic Planning (7-3) Conservation measures will generally apply only to lynx habitat on Federal lands within Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs)

Conservation measures applied in all applicable LAUs during programmatic and project planning

n/a Yes

Lynx habitat will be mapped using criteria specific to each geographic area to identify appropriate vegetation and environmental conditions; refer to glossary and description for each geographic area in LCAS

Lynx habitat was mapped forest-wide during the listing process in June 2000

n/a Yes

To facilitate project planning, delineate LAUs; LAUs should be at least the size of area used by a resident lynx and contain sufficient year-round habitat

LAUs were mapped forest-wide during the listing process in June 2000

n/a Yes

LAU boundaries will not be adjusted for individual projects, but must remain constant

LAU boundaries have not changed

Yes

Prepare a broad-scale assessment of landscape patterns comparing historical and current ecological processes and vegetation patterns, such as age-class distributions and patch size characteristics; in the absence of guidance developed from such an assessment, limit disturbance within each LAU: if more than 30% of lynx habitat within a LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions shall occur as a result of vegetation management by Federal agencies

A large scale assessment of habitat in the Southern Tobacco Root analysis area was prepared for the Tobacco Root FEIS. All LAUs meet the 30% unsuitable standard.

The proposed action would not result in more than 30% of LAU 295 being unsuitable.

Yes

Project Planning (7-4) Within each LAU, map lynx habitat; identify Lynx habitat was Yes

3

Table 3. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures Applicable to All Programs and Activities (LCAS, 7-2 to 4). Standards Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Compliance potential denning and foraging habitat (hares, squirrels, etc.), and topographic features important for lynx movement (major ridge systems, prominent saddles, and riparian corridors); identify non-forest vegetation (meadows, shrublands, grasslands, etc.) adjacent to and intermixed with forested lynx habitat providing habitat for alternate lynx prey species

mapped for the Meadow Creek Project

Within each LAU, maintain denning habitat in patches generally larger than five acres comprising at least 10% of suitable lynx habitat

Denning habitat occurs on north-facing slopes in South Meadow Creek

No impact to denning habitat from project implementation

Yes

Maintain habitat connectivity within and between LAUs

Project will not impact connectivity

Yes

Table 4. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Address Risk Factors Affecting Lynx Productivity (LCAS, 7-4 to12). Standards Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Compliance Timber Management (7-4) Management actions shall not change more than 15% of lynx habitat within a LAU to an unsuitable condition within a 10-year period

No forest areas of LAU currently unsuitable

Treatment will not render any area unsuitable

Yes

Following a disturbance (wind, fire, insect/disease), which could contribute to lynx denning habitat, do not salvage when the effected area is smaller than 5 acres (for exceptions, see pages 7-5 and 6)

n/a n/a

In lynx habitat, pre-commercial thinning will be allowed only when stands no longer provide snowshoe hare habitat

No pre-commercial thinning is proposed

Yes

In aspen stands within lynx habitat, apply harvest prescriptions favoring aspen regeneration

Commercial thinning prescriptions favor aspen regeneration

yes

Wildland Fire Management (7-6 to 8) In the event of a large wildfire, conduct a post-disturbance assessment prior to salvage harvest, particularly in stands formally in late succession stages, to evaluate potential for lynx denning and foraging habitat

n/a n/a

Design burn prescriptions to regenerate or create snowshoe hare habitat

Burn treatments would occur in dry, Douglas fir habitat

Yes

Recreation Management (7-8 to 9) On Federal lands in lynx habitat, allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes and snowmobile play areas by LAU

No groomed or designated over the snow routes exist in the project area

No new routes are proposed

Yes

Map and monitor the location and intensity of n/a

4

Table 4. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Address Risk Factors Affecting Lynx Productivity (LCAS, 7-4 to12). Standards Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Compliance snow compacting activities in lynx habitat Ensure Federal actions do not degrade or compromise landscape connectivity when planning and operating new or expanded recreation developments in lynx habitat

n/a

Design trails, roads, and lift terminals to direct winter use away from diurnal security areas

n/a

Evaluate and amend as needed, winter recreational special use permits (outside permitted ski areas) promoting snow compaction in lynx habitat

n/a

Forest/Backcountry Roads and Trails (7-9 to 10) On Federal lands in lynx habitat, allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes and snowmobile play areas by LAU (winter logging activities are not restricted)



yes

Livestock Grazing (7-10 to 11) Do not allow livestock use in openings created by fire or timber harvest, which would delay successful regeneration of shrubs and trees

The proposed action does not involve livestock management

n/a

Manage grazing in aspen stands to ensure sprouting and sprout survival sufficient to perpetuate the long-term viability of clones


n/a

Within elevation ranges encompassing forest lynx habitat, shrub-steppe habitats should be considered integral to the lynx habitat matrix and should be managed to maintain or achieve mid-seral or later conditions


n/a

Within lynx habitat, manage livestock grazing in riparian and willow areas to maintain and achieve mid-seral or higher conditions to provide cover and forage for prey species


n/a

Other Human Developments: Oil & Gas Leasing, mines, Reservoirs, Agriculture (7-11 to 12)

On projects where over-snow access is required, restrict use to designated routes

n/a

Table 5. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Address Mortality Risk Factors (LCAS, 7-12 to 13). Standards Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Compliance Predator Control (7-12) Predator control activities, including trapping or poisoning on livestock allotments on Federal lands within lynx habitat, will be conducted by Wildlife Services personnel in accordance with FWS recommendations established through a formal Section 7 consultation process

No predator control proposed

n/a

5

Table 5. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Address Mortality Risk Factors (LCAS, 7-12 to 13). Standards Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Compliance Competition and Predation as Influenced by Human Activities (7-13)

On federal lands in lynx habitat, allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes and snowmobile play areas by LAU (intended for dispersed recreation rather than existing ski areas)



yes

Highways (7-13) Within lynx habitat, identify key linkage areas and potential highway crossing areas

n/a

Table 6. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Address Movement and Dispersal (LCAS, 7-13 to 16). Standards Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Compliance Programmatic Planning (7-14) Identify key linkage areas important in providing landscape connectivity within and between geographic areas, across all ownerships

n/a

Develop and implement a plan to protect key linkage areas on Federal lands from activities creating barriers to movement

n/a

Evaluate the potential importance of shrub-steppe habitats in providing landscape connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat

n/a

Highways (7-14) Federal agencies will work cooperatively with the Federal Highway Administration and State Departments of Transportation to: 1) identify land corridors necessary to maintain connectivity of lynx habitat and 2) map the location of “key linkage areas” where highway crossings may be needed to provide habitat connectivity and reduce mortality of lynx

n/a

Identify, map, and prioritize site-specific locations, using topographic and vegetation features, to determine where highway crossings are needed to reduce highway impacts on lynx

n/a

Within the range of lynx, complete a biological assessment for all proposed highway projects on Federal lands

n/a

Land Ownership (7-15 and 16) Develop and implement specific management prescriptions to protect/enhance key linkage areas

n/a

Evaluate proposed land exchanges, land sales, and special use permits for affects on key linkage areas

n/a

Ski Areas/Large Resorts and Associated Activities (7-16)

Within identified key linkage areas, provide for n/a

6

Table 6. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Address Movement and Dispersal (LCAS, 7-13 to 16). Standards Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Compliance landscape connectivity

Direct and Indirect Effects At the time of the preparation of this biological assessment, Canada lynx have not been conclusively demonstrated to occur in the Tobacco Root Mountains, and are not thought to currently occupy the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. In January 2002, a snow track survey conducted by the Forest Service found possible lynx tracks in the North Meadow Creek watershed approximately 4 miles north of the project area. An animal was not observed at the time, and no observations of lynx in the Tobacco Root Mountains since that time are known to occur. An extensive track survey conducted by the Wildlife Conservation Society along principle access routes of the Tobacco Root Mountains during the winter of 2005-2006 did not detect lynx sign. It is unlikely that Canada lynx occur in the Tobacco Root Mountains. At the time of the Forest-wide delineation of LAUs in 2000, the 23 6th code watersheds in the southern Tobacco Root Mountains were grouped into the Tobacco Root SW and the Tobacco Root NE combined LAUs. These combined LAUs incorporate a substantial number of non-NFS lands within their delineated boundaries. The combined LAUs consist of approximately 457,000 acres of which approximately 71,000 acres or 15.5 percent has been identified as lynx habitat. Of the 71,900 acres of lynx habitat, about 4700 acres (6.7 percent) provides foraging habitat and about 33,000 acres (46 percent) provides theoretical denning habitat. On a finer scale, the Meadow Creek Project would occur in LAU 295 (LAU 295 is coincident with the South Meadow Creek HUC6 100200071402). LAU 295 consists of approximately 7568 acres of NFS lands, of which approximately 3400 (47 percent) was modeled (using stands delineated by photo interpretation) as subalpine fir/lodgepole pine/Engelmann spruce denning and foraging habitat. LAU 295 contains an estimated 810 acres of early seral Douglas fir and lodgepole pine foraging habitat. In addition, LAU 295 has an estimated 1324 acres of rock, scree, open water and alpine meadow, 916 acres of grassland-shrub-steppe, 877 acres of whitebark pine forests and about 470 acres of Douglas fir in various age categories. The Meadow Creek Project would thin from below 346 acres of forested habitat in the South Meadow Creek watershed. Treatment Unit 1(121 acres) was not modeled to consist of subalpine fir/lodgepole pine/Engelmann spruce. Field review specific to the Meadow Creek Project confirms that treatment Unit 1 is a dry forested site of Douglas fir with a substantial remnant of deteriorating quaking aspen. Treatment Unit 1 currently supports very little sapling/pole size regeneration and is not considered lynx habitat. Treatment units 3 and 4 are slightly higher in elevation than the treatment Unit 1. Treatment Unit 3 and the north aspect of Unit 4 were modeled to consist of subalpine fir and lodgepole pine/Engelmann spruce. Prefield review of stand exam data conducted for this project indicates that these acres are in a subalpine fir habitat type, but that they are currently occupied by the Douglas fir and lodgepole pine cover types. Field review conducted during the summer and fall of 2005 and 2006 indicates that these sites are typically mature and over mature Douglas fir and lodgepole pine sites; subalpine fir occurs in pockets of varying size in the understory of Units 3

7

and 4. East of the continental divide, subalpine fir forests are the primary lynx habitat as described by Ruediger et al. (2000 p. 4-9). The areas selected for the thin from below and burn treatment consist of cover types that were identified as secondary vegetation that may contribute to lynx habitat by Ruediger et al. (2000 p. 4-9). In the absence of disturbance such as fire or wind, the mature Douglas fir overstory in Unit 3 and Douglas fir on the north-facing aspect of Unit 4 would, over time, be sucessionally replaced by shade tolerant subalpine fir. The proposed thin from below and burn treatment would impact approximately 170 acres of secondary lynx habitat by killing existing subalpine fir in the understory and retarding the development of a subalpine fir in the understory of units 3 and 4. Site specific research and pertinent literature indicate that the mean fire interval for the habitat types in units 3 and 4 would vary from 35 to about 60 years. Prior to Euroamerican settlement, it is unlikely that subalpine fir would have gained overstory prominence under this fire regime in units 3 and 4. The proposed treatment would retain the old growth Douglas fir character on 110 acres in Unit 3, fostering the continued use of the area by red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), a secondary prey species for the Canada lynx. The thin from below treatment on the north aspect of Unit 4 would retain large diameter Douglas fir trees where they occur, and is anticipated to hasten the development of mature characteristics of this Douglas fir site. This would also foster continued use by red squirrels. Ruediger et al. (2000) recognized that some forest management actions, possibly including commercial thinning, may result in habitat being rendered unsuitable. Cumulative Effects The ESA defines cumulative effects as those effects of future state or private activities not involving federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action. In the South Meadow Creek watershed, state or private actions could impact lynx habitat through timber harvest in Douglas fir habitat around the Forest boundary or in inholdings within the forest. Timber harvest has occurred on private, state and other federal (BLM) outside of and adjacent to the forest boundary, principally to the east and south of NFS lands. There are no known proposals for timber harvest on state or private land in the South Meadow Creek watershed. Reasonably foreseeable state and private activities that could contribute to cumulative effects to lynx individually or at the population level include big game hunting, trapping for fur bearers, mountain lion hunting with hounds and snowmobile use. Cumulative impacts to lynx habitat are not likely to result from implementation of the Meadow Creek Project. The Meadow Creek Project will, however, foster the restoration of aspen along the eastern forest boundary of the Tobacco Root Mountains. Determination Implementation of the Meadow Creek Project is likely to result in few, if any direct effects to breeding, feeding or sheltering aspects of Canada lynx life history. The Meadow Creek Project would retard the successional replacement of Douglas fir with subalpine fir on approximately 170 acres of potential lynx habitat; this habitat may be considered temporarily unsuitable. Implementation of the Meadow Creek Project is anticipated to result a minor vegetative alteration of 5 percent of the modeled lynx habitat within LAU 295.

8

Implementation of the Meadow Creek Project may occur during periods of the year when soils are frozen or snow covered, and suitable lynx habitat does occur near the project area. Any direct or indirect effect that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed action would be insignificant or discountable. Implementation of the Meadow Creek Project would have no effect on the Canada lynx. .

9

Appendix C HERITAGE PROGRAM RANKS

and Notes on global (G) and state (S) ranking

The international network of Natural Heritage Programs employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (range-wide) and state status. Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 to 5, reflecting the relative degree to which they are “at-risk”. Rank definitions are given below. A number of factors are considered in assigning ranks — the number, size and distribution of known “occurrences” or populations, population trends (if known), habitat sensitivity, and threat. Factors in a species’ life history that make it especially vulnerable are also considered (e.g., dependence on a specific pollinator). GLOBAL RANK DEFINITIONS (NatureServe 2003) G1 Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity and/or other factors making it highly

vulnerable to extinction G2 Imperiled because of rarity and/or other factors making it vulnerable to extinction G3 Vulnerable because of rarity or restricted range and/or other factors, even though it

maybe abundant at some of its locations G4 Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the

periphery G5 Demonstrably secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the

periphery T1-5 Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial) The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties)

are Indicated by a “T-rank” following the species’ global rank STATE RANK DEFINITIONS S1 At high risk because of extremely limited and potentially declining numbers, extent

and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to extirpation in the state S2 At risk because of very limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or habitat,

making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state S3 Potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining numbers, extent and/or

habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas S4 Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range), and usually

widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range, but possibly cause for long-term concern

S5 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range

COMBINATION RANKS G#G# or S#S# Range Rank A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) used to indicate uncertainty

about the exact status of a taxon QUALIFIERS NR Not ranked Q Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority—distinctiveness of

this entity as a taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher)

conservation status rank X Presumed Extinct—Species believed to be extinct throughout its range. Not located

despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered

H Possibly Extinct—Species known from only historical occurrences, but may never-the less still be extant; further searching needed

U Unrankable—Species currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends

HYB Hybrid—Entity not ranked because it represents an interspecific hybrid and not a species ? Inexact Numeric Rank—Denotes inexact numeric rank C Captive or Cultivated Only—Species at present is extant only in captivity or

cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet established A Accidental—Species is accidental or casual in Montana, in other words, infrequent and

outside usual range. Includes species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or only a few times at a location. A few of these species may have bred on the one or two occasions they were recorded

Z Zero Occurrences—Species is present but lacking practical conservation concern in Montana because there are no definable occurrences, although the taxon is native and appears regularly in Montana

P Potential—Potential that species occurs in Montana but no extant or historic occurrences are accepted

R Reported—Species reported in Montana but without a basis for either accepting or rejecting the report, or the report not yet reviewed locally. Some of these are very recent discoveries for which the program has not yet received first-hand information; others are old, obscure reports

SYN Synonym—Species reported as occurring in Montana, but the Montana Natural Heritage Program does not recognize the taxon; therefore the species is not assigned a rank* A rank has been assigned and is under review. Contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program for assigned rank

B Breeding—Rank refers to the breeding population of the species in Montana N Nonbreeding—Rank refers to the non-breeding population of the species in Montana

Appendix D Habitat Estimates For Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and Fisher Fred Samson Regional Wildlife Ecologist Northern Region Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations Ecosystem Thresholds Estimating a habitat threshold for maintaining viable populations is difficult and requires separating the effects of habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Fahrig 1997). A review by Fahrig (2003) of recent habitat fragmentation studies (n = 100) suggests habitat loss and not habitat fragmentation has consistently negative effects on species persistence. Over half of studies reviewed by Fahrig suggest a positive response of populations to habitat fragmentation (Fahrig 2003: 505) and independent of whether species are habitat "specialists" or "generalists." Two recent model-based estimates suggest a "threshold" effect on species persistence is reached when approximately 20-30% (Fahrig 1997, Flather and Bever 2003) of the habitat remains on the landscape. Empirical evidence to support any threshold concept is limited (Jansson and Angelstam 1999); few studies control for the separate effects of habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Fahrig 2003). Clearly, "due to the complexities involved, the predictive capacity of ecology is limited and large uncertainties still remain" relative to ecological thresholds (Muradian 2001: 7). Nevertheless, these model-based estimates (20-30%) do exceed an earlier 10% minimum ecosystem threshold recommended by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN 1980) and others to maintain native species. In 1999, a coalition of national conservation organizations lead by T. H. Rickletts, World Wildlife Fund, evaluated and ranked the conservation status of each Ecological Province in North America (Rickletts et al. 1999). In the Northern Region, remnant central tall grass prairie in North Dakota was considered to be Globally Outstanding and Critical—the highest rating. Montane valley grassland, northern mixed prairie and shortgrass prairie were considered to be Nationally Important and Vulnerable—a very significant rating. Northern Rocky Mountain forests were of Bioregional Importance and Vulnerable—a relatively low conservation rating. Today, in the Northern Region, more forest exists than at the time since European settlement. Gallant et al. (2003: 385) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem found “ the primary forest dynamic in the study area is not the fragmentation of conifer forest by logging, but the transition from a fire-driven mosaic of grassland, shrub land, broadleaf forest, and mixed forest communities to a conifer-dominated landscape.” Area of conifer-dominated landscapes increased from 15% of the study area in the mid 1850’s to 50% in the mid 1950’s. In addition,

This May 21 2006 version replaces all earlier versions. 1

“substantial acreage previously occupied by a variety of age classes has given way to extensive tracks of mature forest” in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. On June 5 1805, in west-central Montana, Lewis observed their first sage grouse, suggesting that much of the pre-European landscape in the eastern part of Montana was grassland and not shrubland (Zwickel and Schroeder 2003). In southwest Montana, Lesica and Cooper (1992) suggested a large and irreversible conversion of grassland to shrubland occurred in the 1850s and 1860s as a result of intensive grazing by introduced domestic livestock (sheep and cattle). Both eastern and southwestern Montana appear to have experienced recent and European-induced irreversible ecosystem changes, from grassland to shrub/tree dominated landscapes. In the Interior Columbia Basin, “Grassland conversion to agriculture excluded fires because many historical surface fires in dry forests actually began on grassy benches, ridge tops, or valley bottoms adjacent to dry forests and woodlands, or in nearby shrub steppe communities, and then migrated into dry forests” (Hessburg et al. 2005: 120). Importantly, “The most widely distributed change in forest structure across the Interior Columbia Basin was sharply increased area and connectivity of intermediate (not new or old) forest structures” (Hessburg and Agee 2003: 44). Extension of conifers into grassland and other open habitat throughout the Rocky Mountains due to fire suppression is well documented (e.g., Gruell 1983). For example, in northern Montana, Habeck (1994:69), using General Land Office Records, found with the reduced frequency and influence of fire Douglas-fir “has made major gains in stand dominance over ponderosa pine and western larch, especially on north aspects: on south aspects, former savanna and grassland communities have experienced conifer invasions” (see also Arno and Gruell 1986). Overall, substantial evidence exists for increases in forest area in the Northern Rocky Mountains versus any forested area approaching the minimum 20-30% habitat threshold when effects of habitat fragmentation, specifically patch size and patch isolation, are predicted to have an influence on species population persistence. Species Thresholds An alternate approach to the 20-30% threshold of historic habitat is to estimate the amount of habitat required to maintain a viable population for a species. At the scale of forestry operations, a consistent and quantitative approach to identify species susceptible to change in amount and quality of their habitat is to construct a decision tree. Working in a managed southern Canadian boreal forest, Hannon et al. (2004) have constructed a six-step decision tree to identify species susceptible to changes in their habitat due to forestry operations. Their six-step decision tree approach was to filter species data using five factors: species abundance, distribution, habitat specificity, temporal variability and detectability; in order to identify priority species and conservation needs.


In the following description of Hannon et al.'s (2004) six step decision tree, the decision criteria to move a species from step to step is in parentheses and the deciding criteria to move a species to a subsequent evaluation criteria is in italics. Step 1: Relative abundance (high versus low). Criteria exist to evaluate relative abundance: surveys, trend information, and in particular, body size. Relative abundances are often negatively correlated with body mass (Holling 1992) and territory size (Dobson et al. 1995); and, therefore, relative abundances should be correlated to body size. Step 2: Geographic distribution and remove peripheral species (peripheral/transient versus core). Conservation of species should focus on the core of their respective distributions (Rodriguez 2001). Populations near the periphery of their respective distributions are expected to "wink" in and out in terms of presence and persistence (Brown 1995). Step 3: Remove species that are rare in commercial forests and whose primary habitat is in non-commercial forest habitats (non-commercial versus commercial forest). Species may occur in low densities in marginal habitat in comparison to preferred habitats. Moreover, species found in a variety of habitats are unlikely to be habitat specialists, and, therefore, are not as vulnerable to local extinction (Hannon et al. 2004). Step 4. Identify species that are rare in some years but abundant in others (rare, short- term versus rare, long-term). Many species show temporal variability in abundance, particularly those that specialize on certain resources, such as outbreaks of insects (Helle and Monkkonen 1998) or experience short-term declines due to severe winter (Hannon et al. 2004). Step 5. Identify species that may be difficult to detect with standard sampling procedures (low versus high). As a precaution, species due to distribution or behavior may be poorly known and or difficult to survey and should be considered until adequate information is available. Step 6. Prioritize species based on Steps 1 to 5, with a strong focus on 1) specialists whose habitats are influenced by forest management, 2) those at risk due to one of the other factors, and 3) those with restricted ranges that narrowly overlap the affected habitat type. To date, in the Northern Rocky Mountains, no clear evidence other than Newmark (1995) exists that describe which species are most susceptible to habitat fragmentation nor are estimates of the minimum area available for any species. Hejl (1994: 241) found "no data substantiate human-induced 100-yr, west-wide trends for any bird in western coniferous forests." Species breeding in ecosystems such as the boreal forest where frequent small- and large-scale natural disturbances have occurred historically may be more resistant to habitat changes (Schmiegelow et al. 1997) are, therefore, less affected by habitat fragmentation.


Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds are reported to be less in the western United States in comparison to those reported in seminal and numerous studies in the Midwest and East (Tewksbury et al. 1998). Clearly, "the majority of evidence in support of habitat-loss-induced bird declines comes from studies carried out in fragmented landscapes with a matrix of agriculture, suburban, or urban habitats in eastern North America (Donovan and Flather 2002)" (Leupin et al. 2004: 1919). No data suggest that the northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis), black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), or the American marten (Martes americana) would be susceptible to change in their habitat as affected by forest management following a consistent and quantitative approach such as a decision tree. The fisher (Martes pennati), due to survey methodology (Step 6), may qualify. All six species—the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten and fisher—are secure (G 5 rating) in the northern Rocky Mountains (http://www.natureserve.org; accessed February 5, 2006). Threshold Habitat Amounts A long-held recommendation in the science of viable populations was that a net effective population (a population level of breeding individuals required to maintain 95% of initial heterozygosity after 100 years) equal to 50 breeding individuals was adequate "as a general minimum requirement for short-term conservation" (Allendorf and Ryman 2002: 76). Allendorf and Ryman (2002), however, point out that generation interval is an important consideration to species persistence. Generation length is linked to body size (Holling 1992, Brown 1995)—small-bodied species are less long-lived than large bodied species. The positive and log-linear relationship of body-size to home range size is referred to as an allometric relationship. Allometric relationships are important to explain patterns, from molecular and intracellular levels up to the largest organism (West and Brown 2005) and are central to managing for biodiversity (Risser 1995) and to the understanding of the hierarchical nature of ecosystems (Holling 2001). Silva and Downing (1994) were among the first conservationists to provide specific conservation recommendations using allometric relationships and minimal densities required to conserve species [mammalian carnivores in this case, see also Diniz-Filho et al. (2005). In her review of 800 study sites in 339 published studies of mammalian carnivores, Smallwood (2001:103) applied allometric relationships to "predict the areas of high quality habitat needed to support populations of terrestrial mammalian carnivores." Allen et al. (2001) provide another example where species-specific home range estimates provide a base to estimate amounts and distributions of habitat required to maintain minimum viable population sizes. The Allen et al. (2001) approach to identify a critical habitat threshold for species persistence was to: 1) develop a habitat relationships model using available information and the scientific literature; 2) obtain home range estimates in the scientific literature;


3) use a rule-of-thumb (50 breeding individuals) number necessary for a

minimum viable population; 4) estimate the critical amount of habitat required by multiplying home range size

by 50 and divide by two to account for intersexual overlap in home ranges; and 5) incorporate dispersal, only "habitat within the dispersal distance of a species" (page 137) should be considered to be critical threshold habitat. The species-specific habitat estimates in Allen et al. (2001: 136) that incorporate home range size times 50 divided by 2 and dispersal distance were referred to as the "minimum critical area areas (MCA) to support minimum viable populations (MVP)." Home range estimates A recent summary and analysis of factors that influence the distribution of northern goshawk nests on the on the Kaibab Plateau in Northern Arizona indicates that territoriality and not habitat determines their spacing (Reich et al. 2004). This concussion is supported in a detailed review of northern goshawk conservation and management (Squires and Kennedy in press). Spacing of nests by the northern goshawk is consistent and a value of 1.6 km is provided by Reich et al. (2004). The spacing of nests at 1.6 km suggests use of an area (hexagon) of 2.2 km2. Territory size around a nest cavity for the black-backed woodpecker varies, e.g., 61 ha in Vermont, 72 ha in southwest Idaho (n = 1), to 124 ha in Oregon (as cited in Dixon and Saab 2000). The home range estimate of 72 ha is used in this analysis in that the Northern Region includes portions of Idaho. Linkhart et al. (1998) reported a mean size territory (four males equipped with radio transmitters) of 11.1 ± 1.9 ha in 1982 and 18.3 ± 5.1 ha in 1983. The estimate of 11.1 ha is used in that this analysis is to estimate minimum habitat thresholds. Reported territory size for the pileated woodpecker varies considerably, i.e., means of 87.5 ± 31.6 ha (Renken and Wiggins 1989), 407 ± 110.3 ha (Bull et al. 1992), 478 ± 219 ha (Mellon et al. 1992), 597 ± 338.1 ha (Bull and Holthausen 1993), to 1,360 ± 762.2 ha (Bonar 2001). Habitat in the study area of Bull et al. (1992) is similar to areas in the Northern Region and a value of 407 ha is used in this analysis. Minimum viable population number Calder [1983: 224 (33)] calculated the life expectancy of one-half of the original first year adult birds as a measure of mean generation length by the following.

texp (yr) =0.410 m 0.46 (m = mass in grams)


A female body mass of 987 gr (mid point of Nevada northern goshawk body weights in Squires and Reynolds 1997 Appendix 1) was used to estimate mean generation length of 9.7 years, close to the 11 to 12 year range reported in the literature (Kennedy 2003). for northern goshawk. The mean life expectancy estimated for the black-backed woodpecker based on body size (body mass = 70 grams) is 2.9 years, less than a maximum of 6 to 8 years suggested by Dixon and Saab (2002). For the flammulated owl, a body weight of 63gr (midpoint in body weights following McCallum 1964 Appendix 1, range 51 – 63 grams for females) lead to an estimate of mean generation length of 2.8 years. The pileated woodpecker (body mass = 287 g, midpoint from Bull and Jackson 1995, Appendix 2, D and E) life expectancy is 5.6 years, below the length the life expectancy (7 to 9 years) as measured by a handful of band returns (Bull and Jackson 1995). The species-specific net effective population (ne) estimates are interpretations from Figure 4.1 in Allendorf and Ryman (2002) which depicts generation length and net effective population size: northern goshawk = 110 (substantially greater than 37 reported by de Volo et al. 2005); pileated woodpecker = 180; black-backed woodpecker = 330; and flammulated owl = 340. Critical Habitat Thresholds Critical habitat thresholds for a minimum viable population for four species (northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker) are estimated by multiplying home range size by ne divided by two to account for intersexual overlap in home ranges (Table 1). Smallwood's (2002: 107) threshold value of 14.0 km2 is recommended as a critical habitat threshold for the American marten given the basis in the summary of empirical studies (i.e., 800 study sites in 330 published studies). Smallwood (2002: 109) estimates a critical fisher habitat threshold for population persistence to be 301 km2. Dispersal and Well-distributed Habitat The 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.19) requires that "habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area." Dispersal ability of young is the measure of well-distributed habitat (Thomas et al. 1992, Appendix P). In the President’s Plan to conserve the oldgrowth forests of the Pacific Northwest, Thomas et al. (1992: 367) concluded for the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) that "the distances between Habitat Conservation Areas should be within the known dispersal distances of at least two-thirds (67%) of all juveniles" in order to satisfy the 219.19 requirement for well distributed habitat. Subsequent modifications of the original Habitat Conservation Area network by the spotted owl recovery team also meet this criterion. The 9th Circuit Court has upheld the President’s Plan.


Dispersal of young is an important component of population viability, yet is difficult to measure (Koenig et al. 2000). Researchers rarely look beyond their respective study areas to relocate banded birds or to recover dead birds. No broad-scale surveys exist to relocate banded birds and few telemetry-based studies are adequate in scope to address dispersal distances. In an overall review of dispersal distance in birds, Bowman (2003: 198) found a relationship between median dispersal distance and the square root of territory size for a species that can be described as follows. Median dispersal distance (km) = 12 times the square root of the territory size (ha). The approach to dispersal distance in birds developed by Bowman (2003) was used in Samson (2005) to determine if habitat was well distributed for the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker. In each case, suitable species habitat was within the species-specific dispersal distance, indicating that well-distributed habitat is not an issue in the Northern Region for the four bird species mentioned above. In a review of dispersal distance in mammals, Bowman et al. (2002:) found a relationship between median dispersal distance and home range size for a mammal species that can be described as follows. Median dispersal distance (km) = 7 times the territory size (ha) Habitat Estimates for Minimum Viable Populations By Species Northern Goshawk Kennedy (2003) and Squires and Kennedy (in press) provides comprehensive information on northern goshawk systematics, distribution and abundance, activity patterns, habitat, feeding habits, breeding ecology, threats, and viability. Insufficient information is Table 1. Summary of critical habitat thresholds (km2) to maintain minimum viable populations for six species in Northern Region. Total estimated habitat is included by National Forest for each species (Samson 2005). Northern

goshawk Black-backed woodpecker

Flam-mulated owl

Pileated wood-pecker

American marten

Fisher

Total/Regional Minimum Viable population Habitat Threshold (km2) 122 119 19 386 14 301 Forest total Sum-

mer Winter

Idaho Panhandle

3,812 1,253 133.4 2963 4,927 2,077 4,812

Kootenai 2,656 57 43.0 866 2,642 752 2,448


Flathead 2,323 1,020 23.2 387 2,230 682 2,741 Lolo 2,950 1,259 64.4 637 2,749 644 2,148 Bitterroot 1,530 1,631 64.1 316 1,662 385 1,158 Clearwater 2,445 181 64.4 1,364 3,275 1,448 2,703 Beaverhead-Deerlodge

3,990 704 19.7 187 3,388 780 2,844

Helena 1,276 427 32.4 147 899 147 657 Lewis and Clark

1,964 147 175 1,515 352 1,683

Nez Perce 2,814 1,528 160.1 1,815 3,661 1,658 2,815 Gallatin 1,274 311 55.8 246 1,511 465 1,386 Custer 413 315 339 18 150 available to conduct a quantitative population viability analysis due to lack of long-term demographic information. It is clear that the northern goshawk home range will defend the post fledging area (about 120 ha) from other goshawks and neighboring pairs overlap in use of foraging areas. Multiplying 110 (ne) by 221 ha and dividing by 2 provides a critical habitat estimate of 122 km2 for a minimum viable population for the single population of the northern goshawk in the Northern Region. Table 1 compares the 122 km2 minimum viable population habitat threshold for the regional population to the estimated northern goshawk habitat amounts on each National Forest in the Northern Region. It is important to note that native habitat for the northern goshawk is naturally limited on four forests—Custer, Gallatin, Flathead, and Kootenai, as reflected in the Montana Natural Heritage species' distribution map (http://nhp.nris.state; accessed February 5, 2006) and the northern goshawk is known to breed on the Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, and Nez Perce National Forests (www.idahobirds.net; accessed April 12, 2006). Black-backed woodpecker Territory size around a nest cavity for the black-backed woodpecker varies, e.g., 61 ha in Vermont, 72 ha in southwest Idaho (n = 1), to 124 ha in Oregon (as cited in Dixon and Saab 2000). Multiplying 330 (ne) by 72 ha (selected as a territory size value due to proximity to the Northern Region) divided by 2 provides a habitat threshold estimate of 119 km2 for a minimum viable population across the Northern Region. It is important to note that native habitat for the black-backed woodpecker is naturally limited on most Forests—Kootenai, Flathead, Lolo, Bitterroot, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lewis and Clark, and Helena, and is very uncommon on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Gallatin, and Custer; as reflected in the Montana Natural Heritage species' distribution map (http://nhp.nris.state; accessed February 5, 2006). 2006). It is known to breed on the Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, and Nez Perce National Forests (www.idahobirds.net; accessed April 12, 2006).


http://nhp.nris.state/

http://www.idahobirdnet/distribution



Flammulated owl Multiplying 340 (ne) by 11.1 ha and dividing by 2 provides critical habitat estimates of 19 km2 for a flammulated owl minimum viable population in the Northern Region (Table 1). Table 1 compares the estimated habitat required for a regional flammulated owl minimum viable population to that available on each respective Forest. It is important to note that native habitat for the flammulated owl is naturally limited on six Forests—Kootenai, Flathead, Lolo, Helena, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and Gallatin; non-existent on the Lewis and Clark and Custer as reflected in the species' distribution map (http://nhp.nris.state; accessed February 5, 2006); and is suspected to breed on the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests (www.idahobirds.net; accessed Aril 12, 2006). Pileated woodpecker Multiplying 180 (ne) by 407 ha (well within the few published estimates for territory size) provides a critical habitat estimate for a viable pileated woodpecker population of 366 km2 for a viable population within the Northern Region. Table 1 compares the 366 km2 habitat threshold for a Region-wide minimum viable population to estimated pileated woodpecker habitat amounts on each National Forest in the Northern Region. It is important to note that native habitat for the pileated woodpecker is naturally limited on four forests—Lewis and Clark, Gallatin, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge, non-existent on the Custer, as reflected in the Montana Natural Heritage species' distribution map (http://nhp.nris.state; accessed February 5, 2006).

American marten

Table 2. Summary of key characteristics (mean values) of American marten home ranges, rest sites, and den sites reported in published studies since 2000.

Authors Total

Basal area

(m2/ha)

Snags

Canopy coverage (%)

Down woody material (no./ three 40 m transects)

Tree height (m)

Tree age (years)

Gosse et al. (2005)

Mature conifer >25; coniferous shrub <50; insect

Mature conifer 17.3; coniferous shrub .7; insect 26.3; burned 13.4

Mature conifer >9.6; coniferous shrub <9.6;

Mature conifer >80; coniferous shrub >80; insect <25; burned <25





<25; burned <25

insect >9.6; burned 4.7-10.2

Fuller and Harrison (2005) Leaf on

13

62-71%

>9

Leaf off <13 <30 >9 80-140 Porter et al. (2005)

(no./circular 15 m plot) resting sites 1.58; subnivien foraging 1.4; stumps .75; scent marking sites 13.3

Dens shrub 34.9; shrubby trees 20.4

Payer and Harrison (2000)

18 20.2 (m2/ha)

Snags 5.1 (m2/ha)

>=9

Table 3. Habitat relationship model for the American marten for the USDA Forest Service Northern Region. BA_WTD_DBH1

(cm) Dominance group2 Canopy coverage

(%) > 23 cm ABGR3, ABGR-1MIX, ABLA, ABLA-1MIX,

BEPA, BEPA-1MIX, IMXS, LAOC, LAOC-1MIX, PICO, PICO-1MIX, PIMO3, PIMO3-1MIX, PIEN, PIEN-1MIX, PIPO, PIPO-1MIX, POPUL, POPUL-1MIX, PORT5, PORT5-1MIX, PSME, PSME-1MIX, TABR2, TABR2-1MIX, TASH, TGCH, TSHE, TSHE-1MIX.

>30

1 BA_WTD_DBH is the sum of the diameter of the tree times the number of trees the tree represents times basal area of the tree divided by total basal area.


2 Vegetation council algorithms for stand classification (Berglund et al. 2005). 3 Grand fir (ABGR), subalpine fir (ABLA), birch (BEPA), intolerant mix (IMXS), larch (LAOC), lodgepole pine (PICO), western white pine (PIMO3), Engelmann spruce (PIEN), ponderosa pine (PIPO), cottonwood (POPUL), aspen (PORT5), Douglas-fir (PSME), yew (TABR2), tolerant mix of subalpine fir-spruce-mountain hemlock (TASH), tolerant grand fir-cedar-hemlock (TGCH), western hemlock (TSHE).

The American marten's range extends from Alaska to Newfoundland, south into the Allegany's, Great Lakes region, Rocky Mountains south to New Mexico, Sierra Nevada, and Cascades (Clark et al. 1987).

Throughout most of its distribution, American marten are reported to be closely associated with relatively closed canopy (>30-50%) late succession conifer or mixed-conifer stands with complex structure on or near the ground (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Buskirk and Powell 1994).

An example of American marten home range habitat is in northern Idaho. Tomson (1999) reported the American marten use of oldgrowth (> 22.9 cm dbh) was significantly greater than random in areas selected for home ranges. In that study, roads, slope, and aspect did not significantly influence American marten habitat use. American marten were observed by Tomson (1999) to use a variety of sites for rest sites (live trees, cavities in snags, cavities in down logs, and talus) and riparian areas were used for movement.

Bissonette et al. (1997) suggest that the American marten selects habitat at a 1) landscape (tens to hundreds of km2) scales, 2) home range (one half to several km2) scale, and 3) micro or sub-stand (several m2) scale. As with the fisher, managing the landscape within the natural range of composition, structure and frequency and extent of ecological drivers (fire, insects, and wind) may be most effective for long-term American marten persistence (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994).

In Ontario, Canada, Savage (2004) considered 5 variables at the landscape level—logging and fire disturbance, forest cover type, weather, spatial pattern, and road density—and harvest statistics (1972-1990) to identify variable contribution to long-term patterns in harvest levels of the beaver Castor canadensis, fisher, lynx Lynx canadensis and American marten. Forest cover type, weather, and spatial pattern accounted for most variation in harvest, while disturbance and road densities had little impact. Savage (2004) suggests disturbance from logging and fire is not affecting furbearer harvest of the four species.

At the home range scale, most studies show the American marten to select mid- to late-successional conifer or mixed-conifer with relatively high level canopy closure (>30-50%) and complex structure of woody material on or near the ground (Buskirk and Powell 1994).

In Maine, at the home range scale, Fuller et al. (2005) describe how the American marten in the leaf-on season (1 May to October 31) select partially harvested (<13 m2/ha basal area, > 9m tree height) second-growth and mixed-aged stands and select against clearcuts (Table 2). In that study, use of partially harvested stands in the leaf-off season (1 November to April 30) corresponded with greater canopy closure (>30%) and higher basal area (>18m2/ha).

In eastern Newfoundland, Gosse et al. (2005) developed an index of seasonal requirements and American marten home range size. Gosse et al. (2005) report American marten use of 1) mature


forest was proportionally more than availability (Table 2); 2) two habitats, coniferous shrub and insect-defoliated, were proportional to availability; and 3) open and areas recently burned were avoided.

Poole et al. (2004) describe American marten habitat use in an area of overgrown agricultural lands consisting primarily of 30 to 40 year old trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands. Poole et al. (2004) report average home range size was small suggesting such overgrown agricultural lands to be high quality habitat.

At the micro or sub-stand scale, American marten select habitat features that provide for foraging, resting, and denning opportunities. American marten are considered dietary generalists, taking advantage of seasonally abundant food items—fruits and insects in summer and fall (Koehler and Hornocker 1977). Voles and pine squirrels important American marten prey in winter (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994).

American marten select habitat structure types for resting that provide for both thermal refugia (Taylor 1993) and protection from predation (Slauson 2003). Use of rest sites varies by season with above ground sites (i.e., platforms in live trees or snags, cavities in logs, and so on) preferred more often in summer and subnivien structures (those created by root wads) used more often in winter (Bull and Heater 2000). Recently, Porter et al. (2005) in British Columbia report American marten are more selective in use of habitat for resting than for foraging and no selectivity for habitat for traveling was evident (Table 2). Porter et al. (2005) suggest habitat features selected for, Table 4. Summary of key habitat characteristics fisher habitats in studies published since 2000.

Authors Scale Vegetation Canopy closure (%)

Course woody debris (m3/ha)

Tree density (stems/ha)

Weir and Harestad (2003)

Home range

Spruce, aspen Summer: 21-40; winter 21-60

<200 Autumn (>40 cm) 1-20; winter >51-100

Patch Coniferous 41-60, deciduous 21-40

1-200 1,000-4,000

Zielinnski et al. (2004)

Home range

Sierran mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, montane hardwood

Dense1 66.3%, moderate 22.5%, open 5.9%, sparse 1%

Large/medium2

tree 12.7%, small tree 60.7 %, pole 21.8%, sapling 1.6%

1 Dense (60-100%), moderate (40-59%), open (25-39%), and sparse 10-24%. 2 Large/medium >61 cm, small tree 29-61 cm, pole 15.3-28.9, and sapling 2.56-15.2.


e.g., rootballs and wide-diameter snags, could be retained in managed forests and is the reason "why marten are able to survive in this and other sites that provide seemingly unsuitable habitat" (page 901). Typically, den sites of the American marten include arboreal cavities in live trees and snags (Gilbert et al. 1997, Bull and Heater 2000) or are located in logs, rock crevices, and red squirrel middens (Ruggiero et al. 1998). Woody structures (live trees, snags, and logs) used by American marten for resting and denning tend to be large in size and their use is disproportionate to availability (Gilbert et al. 1997). Fisher and Wilkinson (2005) provide a review of mustelid (including the American marten) response to timber harvest and forest fire.

Other than Fuller et al. (2005), little recent (>2000) information has been published to describe the relationship of American marten to timber harvest or post burn habitat. Payer and Harrison (2000: 1965) report "uneven-aged silvicultural systems, which closely mimic natural disturbance by defoliating insects, may have particular promise for maintaining marten habitat." Payer and Harrison (2000: 1695) further suggest that vertical structure provided by large snags (Table 2) "can offset limited availability of live trees for marten, particularly where coarse woody debris and understory vegetation is plentiful."

5. Habitat relationship model for the fisher for the USDA Forest Service Northern Region. Model BA_WTD_DBH1

(cm) Potential Vegetation Type2 Dominance Group3 Canopy

coverage (%) Summer

1 BA_WTD_DBH is the sum of the diameter of the tree times the number of trees the tree represents times basal area of the tree divided by total basal area. 2 Potential vegetation types [Montana, Pfister et al. (1977); Idaho, Cooper et al. (1991)]. Relationship of potential vegetation groups to Forest Inventory and Analysis is provided by Berglund et al. (2005). 3 Vegetation council algorithms for stand classification (2004). 4 Grand fir (ABGR), subalpine fir (ABLA), birch (BEPA), intolerant mix (IMXS), larch (LAOC), western white pine (PIMO3), Engelmann spruce (PIEN), cottonwood (POPUL), aspen (PORT5), Douglas-fir (PSME), yew (TABR2), tolerant mix of grand fir, cedar, and western hemlock (TASH), tolerant grand

Group 1 >= 35, Group 2 >= 23

Group 1: ABGR4, ABGR-1MIX, ABLA, ABLA-1MIX, IMXS, LOAC, LOAC-1MIX, PIEN, PIEN-1MIX, PSME, PSME-1MIX Group 2: BEPA, BEPA-1MIX, PICO, PICO-1MIX, POPUL, POPUL-1MIX, PORTR5, PORT5-1MIX

TABR24, TASH, TGCH, THPL, THPL-1MIX

>= 40

Winter >= 35 Group 1 and 2 >= 40


fir-cedar-hemlock (TGCH), western hemlock (TSHE).

Smith and Shaffer (2002) summarize American marten home range sizes reported in the scientific literature (2.5 km2 to 27.6 km2 for females and 2.6 km2 to 27.5 km2 for males).

Recently, in a study in the Northwest Territories, Gosse et al. (2005) report large American marten home range sizes (29.54 km2 for males and 15.19 km2 for females) in an area of low prey abundance. In contrast, Poole et al. (2004) report average home range size as low as 3.3 km2 for males and 2.0 km2 for females on agricultural lands consisting primarily of 30 to 40 year old trembling aspen suggesting high quality habitat.

Habitat Model

The habitat model (Table 3) is intended to describe characteristics of the American marten home range. The values (tree size and canopy cover) included in the habitat relationship model reflect the literature (Table 2). It is not possible at this point to model resting site or natal area requirements. Project evaluation for the American marten should consider coarse woody debris important to resting sites and natal areas. Habitat Threshold

A summary of habitat estimates for the American marten by National Forest in the USDA Forest Service Northern Region using the Northern Region American marten habitat relationship model (Table 3) and FIA is provided in Table 1.

Smallwood (2001) estimate of the minimum critical habitat threshold habitat amount required for the American marten persistence is 14.0 km2. Smallwood's value (14.0 km2) is recommended

(Table 1) as a habitat amount required for a Region-wide viable population given the basis in the summary of empirical carnivore studies (800 study sites and 330 studies).

Individual home ranges that collectively represent the critical threshold level of 14.0 km2 should be within the dispersal capability of the American marten. Kelt and Van Vuren (2001: 643), in review of over 700 studies and 1,128 home range estimates for 279 Table mammal species, describe a statistically significant relationship of body size to home range. Following Bowman et al. (2002), and using the body mass/home range relationship described by Kelt and Van Vuren (2002) [i.e., average female body weight of 719 gr (Tomson 1999)], the estimated median dispersal distance for the American marten is 44.1 km.

It is important to note that native habitat for the American marten is naturally limited to east of the Continental divide, rare on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, as reflected in the

Fisher

Montana Natural Heritage species' distribution map (http://nhp.nris.state; accessed February 5, 2006).



Fisher distribution is closely associated with the boreal forest of Canada (from British Columbia to eastern Canada), as well as in the United States, the extensive hardwoods forests of New England and the montane coniferous forests of the West. (Powell 1993).

In general, studies in the Western United States show the fisher to be associated with mature coniferous forests and require specific structural elements—particularly large trees and coarse woody debris (Ruggiero et al. 1994). An example of fisher habitat is in central Idaho. Jones (1991) found that the fisher preferred oldgrowth and mature forests in summer (92% and 74% of nesting- and hunting sites, respectively), young and oldgrowth forest in winter, and had a strong affinity for riparian areas in both seasons.

Four spatial scales at which fisher habitat may be evaluated include: 1) landscape, 2) home range, 3) within a home range, and 4) elements, e.g., denning or resting site (Weir and Harestad 2003). In Ontario, Canada, Savage (2004) considered 5 variables at the landscape level—logging and fire disturbance, forest cover type, weather, spatial pattern, and road density—and harvest statistics (1972-1990) to identify variable contribution to long-term patterns in harvest levels of the beaver, fisher, lynx, and American marten. Forest cover type, weather, and spatial pattern accounted for most variation in harvest, while disturbance (fire and harvest) and road densities had little if any impact on furbearer harvest. In British Columbia, at the home range scale, Weir and Harestad (2003: 76) report fisher selected for "stand classes with moderate values of most structural attributes (and) avoided extreme stand classes (i.e., those stands classified as either being high or low values of particular structural attributes." Canopy closure in that study selected for by the fisher was higher in winter than in summer as were stems/ha (Table 4). In contrast, Zielinski et al. (2004) in California described a pattern in home range habitat selection that included small trees (60.7%) and high levels of canopy closure (from 1% to 66.3%) (Table 4). Fishers appear able to use "many different habitats as long as these areas provide overhead cover at either the stand or patch scales" (Weir and Bio 2003: 9). Sufficient overhead cover in foraging habitat may be provided by either tree or shrub cover. At the patch scale, Weir and Harestad (2003), found fishers selected habitat that included all structural attributes with the exception of mean tree diameter (Table 4). Fishers exhibited further patch-scale selectivity in use of stands with extremes of structural attributes, i.e., a coniferous stand with high canopy cover but low near-ground structural diversity.

Weir and Harestad (2003) describe 32 resting sites and 5 natal or den sites for the fisher in British Columbia. The diameter breast height of trees used for rest sites (from 103.2 cm for Douglas-fir to 46.3 cm for hybrid spruce) was significantly larger than that available based on the general sample. Coarse woody debris (mean diameter = 80.3 cm) near rest sites also was significantly different (bigger) than that available. Habitat thresholds. Based on the allometric relationship of home range size to body size (and 850 study areas in 330 published studies), Smallwood (2002: 109) estimates a critical fisher habitat threshold for population persistence of 301 km2. This value of 301 km2 for a threshold


habitat level to maintain a viable population is within the range (212 km2 to 6,291 km2) estimated through the use of net effective population size (ne = 125) and home range sizes (9.8 km2 and 82.6 km2).

The critical threshold level of 301 km2 should be within the dispersal capability of the fisher. Individual home ranges that collectively represent and total area of the critical habitat threshold level of 301 km2 should be within the dispersal capability of the fisher. Kelt and Van Vuren (2001), in a review of over 700 studies and 1,128 home range estimates for 279 mammal species, describe a statistically significant relationship of body size to home range. Following Bowman et al. (2002), and using the body mass (Powell 1981,)/home range relationship described by Kelt and Van Vuren (2002: 643) [i.e., a female body weight of 2 to 2.5 kg (Powell 1981)], the estimated median dispersal distance for the fisher is 55.6 km.

Table 5 describes the Northern Region habitat relationship model for the fisher. Attributes of the model are drawn from the recent published literature (Table 4), specifically tree size (BA_WTD_DBH) and canopy coverage. It is not possible at this point to model resting site or natal area requirements. Project evaluation for the fisher should consider coarse woody debris important to resting sites and natal areas. The wildlife habitat relationships nest site model (Table 5) for the fisher in the Northern Region in combination with FIA (see Samson 2005) provides an estimate of habitat amount for the fisher by National Forest (Table 1). Given the natural distribution of habitats, it is unreasonable in ecological framework to expect each national forest to maintain a viable population for each species. Each Forest should maintain a viable population where the capability of the natural habitat permits and contribute within the capability of native habitat to the viability of other species. Summary Allometric principles account for most of the observed variation in the life history of birds and mammals and provide the basis for a unifying theory of biological structure and organization from genomes to ecosystems (West and Brown 2005). Major outcomes of this assessment are as follows. ● The six species considered in this assessment are secure in terms of persistence (http://www.natureserve.org/ explorer/serve/NatureServe; accessed March 6, 2006). ● Below (and not above) a threshold of 20-30% of habitat amounts, effects of fragmentation (i.e., patch size and isolation) are suggested to have a negative impact on species persistence. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds are described to be less in the western United States in comparison to those reported in seminal and numerous studies in the Midwest and east. ● No indication exists that forested ecosystems in the Northern Region have reached the 20 to 30% threshold of historic. Forested systems in the Northern Region


are more extensive than in historic (~ 1800) times (Hessburg and Agee 2003, Gallant et al. 2004, Hessburg et al. 2005). ● Comparison of habitat required for a species-specific minimum viable population to that available indicates well-distributed habitat far excess to that needed, given the natural distribution of species and their habitats as mapped by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, Idaho Birdnet, and the scientific literature. ● Region-wide habitat modeling for the American marten and fisher is restricted by the unavailability of sample-based information on large down woody debris and the variability evident in habitat use by both species (Tables 2 and 4). Site- specific models for the American marten and fisher may need to be adjusted to include resting site and nest site information which may or may not influence habitat amount estimates in Table 1. Literature Cited

Allen, C. R., L. G. Pearlstine, and W. M. Kitchens. 2001. Modeling viable populations in gap analysis. Biological Conservation 99: 135-144.

Allendorf, F. W., and N. Ryman. 2002. The role of genetics in population viability analysis. Pages 50-85 in Population viability analysis. S. R. Beissinger, and D. R. McCullough, editors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Arno, S. F., and G. E. Gruell. 1986. Douglas-fir encroachment in to mountain grasslands in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management 39: 272-275. Berglund, D., R. Bush, and R. Lundberg. 2005. USDA Region One Vegetation Council Classification Algorithms. Unpublished mimeo on file, USDA Forest Service, Lincoln, Montana, USA.

Bisonnette, J. A., D. J. Harrison, C. D. Hargis, and T. G. Chaplin. 1997. The influence of spatial scale and scale-sensitive properties on habitat selection by American marten. Pages 368-385 in Wildlife and Landscape Ecology. J. A. Bissonette, editor. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Bonar, R. L. 2001. Pileated woodpecker habitat ecology in the Alberta foothills. Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Bowman, J. 2003. Is dispersal distance of birds proportional to territory size? Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 195-202.

Bowman, J, J. A. G. Jarger, and L. Fahrig. 2002. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range. Ecology 83: 2049-2055.

Brown, J. H. 1995. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.


Bull, E., R. S. Holthausen, and M. G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 786-793. Bull, E. L., and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 335-345. Bull, E. L., and J. A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). No. 148. A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, USA.

Bull, E. L., and T. W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 74: 179-185.

Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens, martens, sables, and fishers. S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, editors. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Buskirk, S. W., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. The American marten. Pages 7-38 in American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubrey, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, editors. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Calder, W. A. III. Ecological scaling: mammals and birds. 1983. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 14: 213-30.

Clark, T. W., E. Anderson, C. Douglas, and M. Strickland. 1987. Martes americana. Mammal Species No. 289. American Society of Mammalogists (http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/; accessed February 13, 2006).

Cooper, S. V., K. E. Meiman, and D. W. Roberts. 1991. Forest habitat types of Northern Idaho: a second approximation. USDA Forest Service Research General Technical Report INT-236, Ogden, Utah, USA.

de Volo, S. B., R. T. Reynolds, J. R. Topinka, B. May, and M. F. Antolin. 2005. Population genetics and genotyping for mark-recapture studies of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) on the Kiabab Plateau, Arizona. Journal of Raptor Research 39: 286-295. Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., P. Carvalho, L. M. Bini, and N. M. Torres. 2005. Macroecology, geographic range size-body size relationship and minimum viable population analysis for New World carnivora. Acta Oecologica 27: 25-30. Dixon, R. D., and V. A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). No. 509. In Birds of North America. A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, USA.


Dobson, F. S., J. Yu, and A. T. Smith. 1995. The importance of evaluating rarity. Conservation Biology 9: 1648-1651. Donovan, T. M., and C. H. Flather. 2002. Relationships among North American songbird trends, habitat fragmentation, and landscape occupancy. Ecological Applications 12: 364-374.

Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on species extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 603-610.

Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34: 487-515.

Fisher, J. T., and L. Wilkenson. 2005. The response of mammals to forest fire and timber harvest in the North American boreal forest. Mammal Review: 35: 51-81.

Flather, C. H., and M. Bever. 2003. Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. American Naturalist 159: 40-56.

Fuller, A. K., and D. J. Harrison. Influence of partial timber harvest on American martens in north central Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 710-722.

Gallant, A., A. J. Hansen, J. S. Councilman, D. K. Monte, and D. W. Betz. 2003. Vegetation dynamics under fire exclusion and logging in a Rocky Mountain watershed. Ecological Applications 13: 385-403.

Gilbert, J. H., J. L. Wright, D. J. Lauten, and J. R. Probst. 1997. Den and rest-site characteristics of American marten and fisher in Wisconsin. Pages 1135-145 in Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Proulx, G., H. N. Bryant, and P. M. Woodward, editors. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Goose, J. WE., R. Cox, and S. W. Avery. 2005. Home-range characteristics and habitat use by American martins in eastern Newfoundland. Journal of Mammalogy 86: 1156-1163.

Gruell, G. E. 1983. Fire and vegetation trends in the Northern Rockies: interpretations from 1871-1892 photographs. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-158, Ogden, Utah, USA. Habeck, J. R. 1994. Using General Office records to assess forest succession in ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir forests in western Montana. Northwest Science 68: 69-78.

Hannon, S. J., S. E. Cotterill, and F. K. A. Schmiegelow. 2004. Identifying rare species of songbirds in managed forests: application of an ecoregional template to a boreal mixedwood system. Forest Ecology and Management 191: 157-170.

Hejl, S. J. 1994. Human-induced changes in bird populations in coniferous forests in western North America during the past 100 years. Studies in Avian Biology 15: 232-246.


Heinemeyer, K. S., and J. L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management in the western United States. Unpublished mimeo, USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA. Koenig, W. D., P. N. Hooge, M. T. Stanback, and J. Haydock. 2000. Natal dispersal in the cooperatively breeding acorn woodpecker. Condor 102: 492-502. Helle, P., and M. Monkkonen. 1998. Annual fluctuations of land bird communities in different successional stages of boreal forest. Annuals Zooligica Fennica 23: 269-280. Hessburg, P. F., and J. K. Agee. 2003. An environmental narrative of inland northwest United States Forest. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 23-59. Hessburg, P. F., J. K. Agee, and J. F. Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildlife fires in the inland Northwest USA: contrasting landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 117-138.

Holling, C. S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62: 447-502.

Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4: 390-405.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). 1980. World conservation strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development. IUCN-UNEP-WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Jansson, G., and P. Angelstam. 1999. Threshold levels of habitat composition for the presence of the long-tailed tit (Aegithalos caudatus) in a boreal landscape. Landscape Ecology 14: 283-290.

Jones, J. L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in northcentral Idaho. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA.

Kelt, D. A., and D. H. Van Vuren. 2001. The ecology and maroecology of mammalian home range area. American Naturalist 157: 637-645.

Kennedy, P. L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Koehler, D. M., and M. G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Journal of Wildlife Management 41: 500-505.

Koenig, W. D., P. N. Hooge, M. T. Stanback, and J. Haydock. 2000. Natal dispersal in the cooperatively breeding acorn woodpecker. Condor 102: 492-502.


Lesica, P., and S. V. Cooper. 1992. Presettlement vegetation of southern Beaverhead County, Montana. Unpublished report, Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana, USA. Linkhart, B. D., R. T. Reynolds, and R. A. Ryder. 1998. Home range and habitat of breeding flammulated owls in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 110: 342-351. Leupin, E. E., T. E. Dickerson, and K. Martin. 2004. Resistance of forest songbirds to habitat perforation in high-elevation conifer forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34: 1919-1928. McCallum, D. A. 1994. Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus). In Birds of North America. No. 93. A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC, USA. Mellon, T. K., C. E. Meslow, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 96-103. Muradian, R. 2001. Ecological thresholds: a survey. Ecological Economics 38: 7-24. Newmark, W. D. 1995. Extinction of mammal populations in western North American National Parks. Conservation Biology 9: 512-526.

Payer, D. C., and D. J. Harrison. 2000. Structural differences between forests regenerating following spruce budworm defoliation and clear-cut harvesting: implications for marten. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1965-1972.

Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. A. Arno, and R. C. Preby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-34, Ogden, Utah, USA.

Poole, K. G., A. D. Porter, A. de Vries, C. Maundrell, S. D. Grindal, and C. C. St. Clair. 2004. Suitability of a young deciduous-dominated forest for American marten and the effects of forest removal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 423-435.

Porter, A. D., C. C. St. Clair, and A. de Vries. 2005. Fine-scale selection by marten during winter in a young deciduous forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 901-909.

Powell, R. A. 1981. Martes pennati. Mammal Species No. 156. Mammal Species No. 289. American Society of Mammalogists (http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/; accessed February 13, 2006).

Renkin, R. B., and E. P. Wiggins. 1989. Forest characteristics related to pileated woodpecker territory size in Missouri. Condor 91: 642-652.


Rickletts, T. H., E. Dinnerstein, D. M. Olsen, C. J. Louks, W. Eichbaum, D. DellaSalla, K. Kavanagh, P. Hedo, P. T. Hurley, K. M. Carney, R. Abell, and S. Waters. 1999. Terrestrial ecoregions of North America. Island Press, Covelo, California, and Washington, DC, USA. Risser, P. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Conservation Biology 9: 742-746.

Rodriguez, J. P. 2002. Range contraction in declining North American bird populations. Ecological Applications 12: 238-248.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubrey, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254, Fort Collins, Colorado, US.

Ruggiero, L. F., D. E. Pearson, et al. 1998. Characteristics of American marten densities in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 663-673.

Samson, F. B. 2005 (as amended, March 5, 2006). Conservation Assessment for the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker. Unpublished mimeo, USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA.

Savage, D. W. 2004. The effects of forest management, weather, and landscape pattern on furbearer harvest. Dissertation, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

Schmiegelow, F. K. A., C. S. Machtans, and S. J. Hannon. 1997. Are boreal birds resilient to fragmentation? An experimental study of short-term community responses. Ecology 76: 1914-1932.

Schoener, T. W. 1968. Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49: 123-141.

Silva, M., and J. Downing. 1994. Allometric scaling of minimal mammal densities. Conservation Biology 8: 732- 743.

Slauson, K. M. 2003. Habitat selection by American martens (Martes americana) in coastal northwestern California. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Scale domains of abundance amongst species of mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Management 26: 102-111.

Smith, A. C., and J. M. Schaefer. 2002. Home-range size and habitat selection by American marten (Martes americana) in Labrador. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 1602-1609.

Squires, J. R., and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk. No. 298. In The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC, USA.


Squires, J. R., and P. L. Kennedy. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowl;edge and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology 31. In press.

Taylor, S. L. 1993. Thermodynamics and energetics of resting site use by the American marten (Martes americana). Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.

Tewksbury, J. T., S. J. Hejl, and T. E. Martin. 1998. Breeding productivity does not decline with increasing fragmentation in a western landscape. Ecology 79: 2890-2903.

Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. Portland, Oregon, USA.

Tomson, S. D. 1999. Ecology and summer/fall habitat selection of American marten in northern Idaho. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.

Vegetation council algorithms for stand classification. 2004. Unpublished mimeo on file, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA.

Weir, R. D., and R. P. Bio. 2003. Status of the fisher in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Conservation Data Centre. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Weir, R. D., and A. S. Harestead. 2003. Scale-dependent habitat selection by fishers in south-central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 73-82.

West, G. B., and J. H. Brown. 2005. The origin of allometric scaling laws in biology from genomes to ecosystems: towards a quantitative unifying theory of biological structure and organization. The Journal of Experimental Biology 208: 1575-1592.

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

Zwickel, F. C., and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Grouse of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Northwest Science 84: 1-19.


for the meadow creek projecta123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/3397_fsplt1_008966.pdf ·...

Documents