u.s. forest service: salmon-challis national...

1

U.S. FOREST SERVICE: Salmon-Challis National Forest, Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District PROJECT NAME: Musgrove Exploration Drilling Project DATE: __7 April 2017___

Wildlife Biological Assessment/Evaluation/Specialist’s Report (Short Form)

Background The Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National Forest received a Plan of Operations for exploration drilling in the head of the Musgrove Creek drainage, a tributary of Panther Creek in the Salmon River drainage, on December 1, 2016, from Bravura Ventures Corporation (Bravura) to explore for mineralization.

The proposed exploration area is located approximately 50 miles southwest of Salmon, Idaho, in the Blackbird Mining District on public lands open to location and operations under the general mining laws of the United States. Specifically, the operations are located in sections 22 and 27, Township 20 North, Range 18 East, Boise Meridian, in Lemhi County, Idaho (Fig. 1). Access to the project area is provided by NFS Roads 60021 (Williams Creek), 60101 (Deep Creek), 60055 (Panther Creek), 60115 (Blackbird Creek) 60116 (Ludwig Gulch) and U201822B.

The project is located in an area of known mineralization, with high potential for precious-metal veins. The area has previously been drilled and sampled for many years. Therefore, the planned additional drilling was determined to constitute a reasonable method of surface disturbance that is appropriate during the exploration stage of operations in the head of the Musgrove Creek drainage.

Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this Federal action is for the Forest Service to identify changes and/or additions to operator’s Plan, as necessary to meet the requirements Forest Service regulations, within the context of Bravura’s statutory rights under the Federal mining laws. The need for action is the agency’s responsibilities under applicable laws and regulations to consider and respond to operator’s Plan (NFMA Analysis, p. 1).

This action meets the expectations for development of known locatable minerals deposits and the goals outlined in the Salmon National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) to encourage the legitimate exploration and extraction of leasable and locatable minerals from National Forest System lands while maintaining or improving other resource values (Forest Plan, page IV-3).

1.0 Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to respond to the Plan of Operations for exploration drilling in accordance with 36 CFR 228.5, by approving the Plan subject to any reasonable changes or additions necessary to meet the requirements of Forest Service mining regulations (36 CFR 228 Subpart A) and other applicable laws and regulations (NFMA, CWA, ESA, NHPA, etc.). Approval of the Plan would require the

2

operator’s formal incorporation of the terms and conditions itemized in this document into the Plan of Operations.

Under the proposed action, Bravura would drill up to 42 holes on 14 drill pads using core or reverse circulation drilling or a combination of both. Operations are anticipated to take three seasons, commencing in summer 2017, with final reclamation anticipated by October 2020. The operation would include the use of an existing, undesignated mine road and segments of new-construction temporary road, the construction of 14 drillpads, and reclamation.

1.1 Project Location The proposed exploration area is located approximately 50 miles southwest of Salmon, Idaho, in the Blackbird Mining District on public lands open to location and operations under the general mining laws of the United States. Specifically, the operations are located in sections 22 and 27, Township 20 North, Range 18 East, Boise Meridian, in Lemhi County, Idaho (Fig. 1). Access to the project area is provided by NFS Roads 60021 (Williams Creek), 60101 (Deep Creek), 60055 (Panther Creek), 60115 (Blackbird Creek) 60116 (Ludwig Gulch) and U201822B.

3

Figure 1. Area Map

4

1.2 Management Direction LAWS- pertinent to his analysis

1. Endangered Species Act 2. National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

REGULATION – POLICY –

1.3 Purpose of this Document This Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, and Wildlife Species Report describes the proposed action and discusses the probable effects/impacts of that action on listed species, designated critical habitat and essential habitat that may be affected. It forms the basis for any necessary consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (the “Service”) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) and its implementing regulations. The regulations for consultation require the action agency to re-initiate consultation if certain triggers are met (50 CFR 402.16). Occasionally during the implementation of a proposed action, changes in circumstances, situations or information can raise the question as to whether those re-initiation thresholds have been reached. Should that situation occur the Salmon-Challis National Forest, will assess the changes and any potential impacts to listed species, review their-initiation triggers, coordinate with the Service for advice (if needed) and arrive at a determination whether re-initiation of consultation is necessary.

This document will make a project affects analysis determination on Endangered Species Act listed terrestrial wildlife species, Designated Critical Habitat, and Essential Habitat. This document will also make a project affects analysis determination on the Region 4 Regional Forester’s designated sensitive wildlife species.

This wildlife analysis is specific to the proposed action and those activities associated with proposed action as written and described. 2.0 Project Description This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Musgrove Exploration Drilling Project. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between the alternatives, providing a basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental effects of implementing each alternative.

5

Only reasonable alternatives need to be considered in detail, as specified in 40 CFR 1502.14(a). Reasonable alternatives must be those that are feasible; feasibility must focus on accomplishing the underlying purpose and need that would be satisfied by the proposed action.

Alternatives

Alternative A – No Action Under the No-Action Alternative the Forest Service would not process the Plan, mineral exploration would not be authorized, and the current management plan (with the exception of minerals standards) would continue to guide management of the project area (NFMA Analysis, pp. 2-3). This action would violate the operator’s statutory right to prospect and mine on lands open to operations under the mining laws of the United States. Accordingly, it is not within the discretion of the authorized officer to take no action on a Plan of Operations for purposes reasonably incident to prospecting, mining, or processing of locatable minerals (69 Stat. 367; 30 U.S.C. 601, 603, 611-615). However, since the Forest Service is obligated to analyze such an alternative by the NEPA, it is provided as a basis for comparison with the action alternatives. The description of the No-Action Alternative is also useful in the consideration of the potential for cumulative effects of the action alternatives. Previous activities that have occurred in or near the project area have primarily been mining-related. The area adjacent to Johny’s Point has been drilled under at least three previous Plans of Operation. There are reclaimed exploration roads in the project area originating from the historic mineral exploration and timber harvest route U201822B. There are no ongoing activities in the Musgrove and Ludwig Gulch areas, due to the year-round closure of U201822B. There is a private residence on patented properties within one mile of the project area, in the bottom of the Musgrove Creek drainage.

Alternative B – Proposed Action The proposed action is defined as approval of the proponent’s Plan of Operations to explore for locatable mineral resources, as modified by Forest Service terms and conditions. The terms and conditions do not prescribe mining methods, do not substantively change the operator’s Plans, and are considered reasonable additions or changes to minimize adverse environmental impacts on NFS surface resources, as required in regulations at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A. The proponent’s Plan of Operations to conduct exploration drilling could be approved provided the operator formally incorporates Forest Service terms and conditions and provides an acceptable financial instrument to insure the cost of reclamation as determined by the Forest Service. Implementation would also include compliance inspections and monitoring of actual project impacts by Forest Service personnel. Figures 2 and 3 show the operating areas for the proposed action in relation to NFS lands and patented private lands.

6

Operator’s Plan The Plan of Operations, as submitted, includes the following:

1. Proposed operations in 2017 include reopening a total of approximately 3655 feet of previously reclaimed drill roads and construction of 400 feet of new temporary roads near "Johny's Point" (Phase 1).

2. Phase 2 would consist of the reopening of 3,340 feet of previously reclaimed road and the construction of a total of 1146 feet of new temporary road as shown on the attached maps (Figures 2 and 3). Phase 1 and Phase 2, cumulatively, would result in the reopening of 6705 of previously reclaimed roads, and construction of 1546 feet of new temporary road, none of which exist in an inventoried roadless area.

3. A total of fourteen drill sites (each approximately 20 feet by 30 feet in area) along the prism of these roads will also be constructed. As many as three drill holes per site may be drilled by Bravura Ventures between 2017 and 2019, for a possible total of 42 holes and 42,000 feet of total drill depth. The access roads total 1.6 acres of disturbance, and as the drill sites will be primarily on the roads, these sites will add minimally to that total. Allowing 0.1 acre for the drill sites (14 x 0.1 = 1.4), a total disturbance of 3.0 acres is anticipated.

4. Roads, nominally 12 feet wide, will be reopened or built with an excavator, and soil and rock will be placed adjacent to the road cut so that it may be pulled back up and recontoured with an excavator upon completion of the project.

5. Sumps for containment of drilling water/fluids will be built at each pad. Clearing of timber will not be necessary on the previously constructed and reclaimed road, but will be necessary along approximately 500 feet of new temporary road (approximately 20 trees would be removed). Cut timber will be set aside per USFS guidance so that it can be used for reclamation.

6. Bravura proposes to construct two short segments of road near Johny's Point, as is shown on the attached map (Figure 3, drillpads A, B, E, and F). Additionally, 1170 feet of new spur-roads will be constructed in a previously disturbed area southeast of Johny’s Point, as shown in red in Figure 3 (drillpads G-N).

7. The estimated starting date for the project is late July, 2017. The project will end for the year in September or October, with interim close-out reclamation/stabilization work (straw and seed as requested by USFS) being completed by the end of October. Final reclamation is anticipated to be completed in October 2020 after completing the proposed drilling program during the final operating season.

8. Drilling will be accomplished using a truck-, track-, or skid-mounted diamond drill or rotary reverse-circulation drill. 9. Water will be hauled from the second switchback on Ludwig Creek or from Blackbird Creek at the Ludwig Gulch bridge, depending on

streamflow conditions. It is anticipated that roughly 5000 gallons per day will be required. Drilling fluids will be recycled to the extent possible. Drill fluids will be contained in portable tanks and recycled as much as possible. Waste fluid and cuttings will be contained within the sumps.

10. Labor required on the project on a daily basis will include a driller, a general laborer, and possibly a sampler employed by the drilling contractor, and one or two representatives of Bravura. Drilling will be conducted using best management practices. These include: 1) using secondary containment for fuel and petroleum products, 2) maintaining the necessary fire prevention tools and spill clean-up kits at the drill site, 3) maintaining sediment-control structures as needed on the main access roads, 4) drill hole abandonment according to IDAPA 20.03.02, and 5) collecting, removing and properly disposing of garbage from the site daily.

11. The operation will be behind locked gates and only vehicles authorized by the decision document will be allowed behind the gate. Access

7

will be from Blackbird Creek via FSR 60116, the Blackbird-Ludwig Gulch Road, which leaves Blackbird Creek at the Blackbird Mine gate and winds its way over the McDonald Creek/Musgrove Creek divides. After going through a locked gate on U201822B, the road enters the Musgrove project claim group and ends at the location referred to as the "Parking Lot." From the "Parking Lot," access to the proposed drill sites is via old reclaimed exploration roads, all of which have been reopened in the past and reclaimed as of October 2009.

12. Operations would occur for up to three operating seasons beginning on or about July 15 and ending on or about November 15 each year.

13. Final reclamation, including reclamation or temporary roads, is anticipated to occur by October 30, 2020.

8

Figure 2. Planned Musgrove Exploration Drilling Project, Vicinity.

9

Figure 3, Proposed Musgrove Exploration Drilling Project, Detail.

10

2.1 Project Design Features

Because the operator’s Plan is relatively narrowly constrained, the Forest Service did not find it necessary to substantively or materially change the operator’s Plan in order to protect the environment. However, the Forest Service developed the following standard and site-specific design criteria to address potential resource concerns. These are deemed reasonable and necessary modifications to the operator’s Plan to minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts of the planned operations, per regulations at 36 CFR 228.8. Further, these are primarily standard USFS requirements for ground-disturbing activities and/or approved mining operations or are industry-standard practices that simply were not deemed necessary to enumerate in the Plan by the operator. Formal incorporation of these additions to the Plan of Operations will be a condition for Forest Service approval.

Approvals and Access 1. The operator would furnish an acceptable financial instrument in the amount calculated to insure the costs of interim and final

reclamation, prior to receiving approval to operate. The reclamation bond amount would be calculated and administered by the Forest Service per guidance issued in 2004.1

2. The operator would furnish proof of compliance (or ability to comply) with any applicable regulations administered by other State, Federal or local jurisdictions, including a temporary water right from the State of Idaho.

3. The District Ranger or authorized representative would be notified at least 5 days in advance prior to commencement of each type of surface-disturbing operation (e.g. route clearing, temporary route/bench construction, bulk sample excavation, recontouring).

4. All surface-disturbing activities and operations would be supervised by the operator or a designated representative in possession of, and familiar with the terms and conditions of, the District Ranger’s approval of the Plan.

5. All operating areas would be maintained in a safe, neat, and workmanlike manner. All solid wastes (trash, garbage, refuse, etc.) would be contained and removed daily for proper off-site disposal. No burning of refuse or waste would be permitted.

6. A portable toilet will be placed at operational drill sites.

7. Firefighting equipment to be available at all operating locations would include at least one handheld implement (shovel, axe) per person and one appropriately-sized and currently-inspected fire extinguisher per vehicle or piece of motorized equipment.

8. All motorized equipment would have working mufflers and spark arrestors. Electrical equipment must be properly insulated. Vehicles with catalytic converters would be parked in clear areas to avoid igniting potential ground fuels.

9. Vehicles and equipment would be restricted to designated motorized routes, the existing undesignated route, and the temporary

1 Training guide for reclamation bond estimation and administration from mineral plans of operation authorized and administered under 36 CFR 228A, April 2004, USDA Forest Service, 136 pp.

11

routes identified in this decision. The gate on U201822B adjacent to the Ludwig Gulch Road (FSR 60116) shall be kept locked and only FS, Bravura, and Bravura contractors will be allowed access. Nothing in this decision shall be construed as authorization to violate the Forest’s Travel Plan.

10. Prior to drilling, the Forest Service would survey the site for evidence of sensitive plant or wildlife species, and for the presence of invasive species. Alternative drilling locations may be proposed to avoid impacts to sensitive plants.

Water Quality and Fisheries 11. Project activities will be conducted when site conditions are conducive to minimizing impacts on soil and water resources.

Activities will not be allowed when roads and exploration area are very wet and excessive road rutting or soil compaction would occur. Dry conditions should generally exist from July 15 until November 15. Operations outside of this period will be agreed to by the Operator and the Forest Service.

12. During water drafting operations in Ludwig Creek or Blackbird Creek, withdrawal rates shall never dewater the stream. The intake hose shall be equipped with a 3/32 inch or smaller mesh size screen (see Appendix C). An alternative drafting site may be recommended if invasive species are found at the proposed drafting site.

13. If water is temporarily impounded to allow for drafting, the impoundment will be configured to allow for upstream and downstream aquatic vertebrate (i.e., fish and amphibians) passage around the structure.

14. In order to prevent petroleum products from entering the stream-channel from pumps that may be placed at the water drafting sites or from transferring fuels to drilling and support equipment, pumps or fuel containers will be placed on an impermeable liner capable of containing their entire volume of fuel, oil, etc. An example would be a plastic children’s wading pool.

15. In order to prevent petroleum products from entering the stream-channel, pumps or fuel containers will be placed on an impermeable liner capable of containing 1.5 times the total volume of fuel, oil, etc. Refueling of equipment will occur outside of the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA). Equipment staging areas and fuel storage shall be located at least 300 feet from any streams and will be placed inside a berm of sufficient capacity to contain any spilled fuel, ensuring that petroleum products will not enter any stream in the event of spills or leaks. The FS shall approve all fuel storage areas and spill plans.

16. The operator will be required to have a spill response cache in the project area and a portable spill response kit in all equipment that will be operating on the project.

17. No hazardous materials would be stored on the Forest. All fuel containers will be properly labeled and stored in containment, per EPA’s Regulation Code 40 CFR 112.7. An approved spill kit would be maintained on-site to manage any accidental spill of petroleum products. In the event of a fuel spill, a Forest Service Official would be notified of the incident and response within twenty-four hours and the contaminated material would be removed and transported to an authorized location.

18. Seasonal stormwater prevention devices (straw wattles or bales, silt fence) would be installed along the outside edge of newly constructed or reopened roads, unless determined to be not necessary by the FS Administrator in consultation with the Forest Hydrologist.

12

Terrestrial Invasive Species Best Management Practices 19. Before ground-disturbing activities begin, inventory and prioritize weed infestations for treatment in project operating areas and

along access routes. Identify what weeds are on site, or within reasonably expected potential invasion vicinity, and do a risk assessment accordingly. Control weeds as necessary. (Planned summer 2017)

20. Stage equipment in weed free areas and minimize travel through weed-infested areas.

21. Water drafting equipment (hoses, pump intakes) would be disinfected per the directions in Appendix B to minimize the potential for spread of aquatic invasive species at the drafting site.

22. Inspect, remove, and properly dispose of weed seed and plant parts found on hand equipment prior to mobilization onto the project site. Proper disposal means bagging the seeds and plant parts and incinerating or putting them in the trash.

23. Coordinate project activities with any nearby herbicide application to maximize cost effectiveness of weed treatments.

24. Evaluate options, including closure, to regulate the flow of traffic on sites where desired vegetation needs to be established. Sites could include road and trail rights-of-way, and other areas of disturbed soils.

25. Retain native vegetation and minimize soil disturbance in and around project activity to the maximum extent possible consistent with project objectives.

26. Contractors, permittees and Forest Service employees are required to clean to remove mud, dirt or debris that may contain weed seeds or reproductive propagules from equipment before mobilizing before onto National Forest system lands. This includes off-road vehicles, heavy machinery, and other equipment that could harbor weed seeds or reproductive propagules. Contractors and permittees must submit equipment to the Forest Service for inspection prior to mobilization pursuant to WO-C/CT 6.36. Equipment will then be inspected by the contract/permit administrator or invasive species management personnel. Equipment will be rejected if dirt, mud or debris remains on the equipment. Re-washing and a new inspection will be required. Everyone is encouraged to use the Lemhi Cooperative Weed Management Area rinse station to clean the undercarriage of vehicles and trailers on a regular basis. The rinse station is located at the Salmon Industrial Park behind the airport on Industrial Way. Rinse station hours are 6:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Monday – Thursday and 8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday.

27. Treat weeds in road decommissioning and reclamation projects before roads are made impassable. Re-inspect and follow-up based on initial inspection and documentation.

28. Inspect and document all limited term ground-disturbing operations in noxious weed infested areas for at least three (3) growing seasons following completion of the project. For on-going projects, continue to monitor until reasonable certainty is obtained that no weeds have occurred. Provide for follow-up treatments based on inspection results.

29. Inspect material sources on site, and ensure that they are weed-free before use and transport. Treat weed-infested sources for eradication, and strip and stockpile contaminated material before any use of pit material.

13

30. Revegetate disturbed soil (except open travelways) in a manner that optimizes plant establishment for that specific site. Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching as necessary. Actions may also include allowing native vegetation to recover on its own under conditions where it is the best option. Use native material where appropriate and feasible.

31. Use local seeding guidelines to determine detailed procedures and appropriate mixes. To avoid weed-contamination, a certified seed laboratory needs to test each lot against the all-State noxious weed list to Association of Seed Technologists and Analysts (AOSTA) standards, and provide documentation of the seed inspection test. There are plant species not on State and Federal noxious weed lists that the Forest Service would consider non-native invasive weeds. Check with the Invasive Species Coordinator to see if any need to be added prior to testing. Seed lots labeled as certified weed free at time of sale may still contain some weed seed contamination. Non-certified seed should first be tested before use.

32. Weed Free Hay Order—Possessing, storing, or transporting, non-pelletized hay, straw or mulch on National Forest System Lands without having each individual bale or container tagged or marked as weed free, or having original and current evidence of weed free certification documentation present. All markings must meet the State and/or County standards for certification as weed free. (Order number: 04-00-097. USDA Forest Service. Ogden, UT. 2p.)

Cultural or Heritage Resources 33. All surface-disturbing operations would immediately cease in the event that archaeological, cultural, or paleontological resources

are unearthed or discovered and the District Ranger or authorized representative notified of the discovery. Operations could resume upon Forest Service and State clearance and approval.

Reclamation 34. Water bars shall be placed along roads that will remain open over the winter, according the R4 Guide (Dave – can’t remember the

full name of this guide??) for conditions at this site. Outsloping of routes may be recommended where locations dictate.

35. If sumps do not evaporate or filter out subsurface at the cessation of operation, sump contents must be pumped out of the sumps and disposed of at an appropriate off-Forest facility.

36. The existing unauthorized route to be used (U201822B) would be minimally cleared (only larger boulders, rocks, and minimal slough material) to allow for 4-wheel drive and support vehicle access. Removal of vegetation and material from the cut slope of U201822B to accommodate passage of equipment would be minimized to the extent possible. No earth material would be sidecast or windrowed on the outside edge of the travel surface, outsloping will be maintained, and rolling dips would be installed at prescribed intervals. U201822B will be decommissioned following final reclamation of the drilling sites at the cessation of operations, including construction or maintenance of appropriate drainage features.

37. The new temporary routes would minimize removal of vegetation and be consistent with SCNF guidelines for brush clearing on NFS roads.

38. Trees and shrubs removed for the new temporary routes and drillpads would be windrowed below the planned toe of fill slopes to

14

filter sediment and prevent material rollout.

39. The new temporary routes and drillpads would be immediately reclaimed following abandonment of drill holes, with the slopes returned to original contour. Stockpiled topsoil and vegetative material (slash windrows) will be distributed over the disturbed areas.

40. The District Ranger or authorized representative would be notified when drilling operations are completed and when seasonal and/or final reclamation work would commence.

41. All newly disturbed areas would be re-contoured as closely as possible to original topography, covered with stockpiled topsoil and organic materials (and weed-free mulch, if required by the authorized officer), and re-vegetated with an approved weed-free, native seed mix.

42. Upon acceptance of cleanup and earthwork reclamation tasks, corresponding portions of the bond may be release back to the operator.

43. Upon notification from the Forest Service that acceptable vegetative cover has been achieved2, the site would be cleaned up by removing any remaining sediment-retention devices. These final reclamation tasks shall be inspected and accepted as complete by the District Ranger prior to final acceptance of reclamation and bond release.

2.2 Monitoring Information gathered before, during and after implementation of activities is used to determine the effectiveness of the project’s design and associated design features. This establishes a feedback mechanism so management can develop and employ an adaptive learning curve. Monitoring is also done at recurring intervals as a basis for Forest Plan implementation. Project effectiveness monitoring is done by routine of sampling specific projects at specified time intervals. Monitoring of Withington Road Reclamation Project activities would consist of project implementation monitoring. Implementation monitoring would measure whether applicable design criteria, best management practices and Forest Plan standard and guidelines are correctly implemented.

The Forest Plan requires monitoring of activities in riparian areas to ensure management objectives are met. All soil-disturbed sites associated with project activities will be monitored for the establishment and/or spread of noxious weeds.

2 Revegetation would be considered complete when weed-free ground cover has been maintained at >70% of an adjacent reference area for ≥2 consecutive years over 90% of the disturbed area.

15

Project Monitoring 1. Inspections of the project area and operations for changed or unanticipated conditions, implementation and effectiveness of BMPs,

compliance with the approved Plan, completion of interim and final reclamation tasks to standard, control of new noxious weed infestations, and successful re-vegetation prior to final bond release would be conducted by the Forest Service minerals administrator as required by Forest Service mining regulations (36 CFR 228.7). Violations of applicable State, Federal or local laws and regulations or the approved Plan may result in the District Ranger:

a. Requesting that the operator furnish a Plan modification when appropriate,

b. Requiring the operator to submit a supplemental plan whenever they intend to create any surface disturbances not covered by the approved plan,

c. Issuing a Notice of Noncompliance under the appropriate authority,

d. Cooperating with other regulatory agencies having statutory authority over compliance issue(s), when appropriate.

2. The Forest Service administrator shall consult the District Ranger and IDT when conditions occur that may not conform to this analysis. This could occur if the operating plan is modified or supplemented, resource conditions change, laws, regulations or standards change, the state of applicable science or technology changes, or if unanticipated impacts occur. The occurrence of such conditions could result in one or more of the following:

a. Preparation of a Supplemental Information Report,

b. An amendment or revision to the EA and decision,

c. Initiation of a separate NEPA analysis and completion of a new decision.

The findings of any of the above analyses may result in the District Ranger requiring the operator to submit a Plan modification, in accordance with 36 CFR 228.4(e).

2.3 Project Schedule and Duration Operations would occur for up to three operating seasons beginning on or about July 15 and ending on or about November 15 each year, starting in July 2017 Final reclamation, including reclamation or temporary roads, is anticipated to occur by October 30, 2020.

16

3.0 ESA Action Area Description An ESA Action Area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR§402.02). This is the area where the action and any interdependent and interrelated actions will result in direct, indirect or cumulative affects to listed species or designated critical habitat. This project’s ESA Action Area is defined in the next section, under “Analysis Area”.

WILDLIFE ANALYSIS

Analysis Area: 1 direct, indirect, and cumulative effects/impacts Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) that surrounds the Project Area was delineated for analysis of effects/impacts of the project on wildlife species. The WAA covers portions of the Blackbird Creek, Ludwig Creek, Ostrander Creek, and Musgrove Creek drainages on the Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District, of the Salmon-Challis National Forest (SCNF). The WAA encompasses @4340 acres of mixed habitat. The WAA is comprised of RIPARIAN willow/grass/sedge habitat; mountain brush/grass (MBRUSH) habitat, low-elevation mixed conifer (LOCON) Douglas Fir/Lodgepole Pine (LPPine) habitat, and cliff/rock outcrop/talus (CLIFFTALUS) habitat. The WAA includes 90 acres of 2 Designated Old-Growth (DOG) timber stands. The elevation of the WAA runs from approximately 5500 ft to 7100 ft. (USFS 2017) (Figure 4). The WAA encompasses the entire Project Area. The access route road prism is located within and crosses willow/grass/sedge RIPARIAN habitat, Douglas-fir/willow RIPARIAN habitat, and Douglas-fir LOCON habitat.

Is there potential for NEPA defined Cumulative Effects (ie. effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions without regard to land ownership boundaries): If yes, short form not appropriate. If no, proceed with short form documentation. __No________

17

Figure 4. Displays the Wildlife Action Area surrounding the Project Area.

18

Figure 5. Displays the Wildlife Action Area surrounding the Project Area with Habitat.

19

Wildlife Biological Assessment The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to identify the likely effects of the proposed action on threatened and endangered wildlife species. This document conforms to the legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536(c), 50 CFR 402.12(f) and 402.14(c)). FSM 2673.43 states “The intensity and detail of the biological assessment may vary and should be commensurate with the risk associated with the action and the vulnerability of the species involved.” ESA Cumulative Effects Does the Council of Environmental Quality interpretive memorandum of June 24, 2005 change in definition of cumulative effects have the potential to alter the determination? If yes, short form may not be appropriate. If no, proceed with completion of Table 2. ___No__________ Is there potential for ESA defined Cumulative Effects (ie future state or private actions reasonably certain to occur): If yes, short form not appropriate. If no, proceed with short form documentation. ___No__________ Is there potential for interrelated or interdependent effects?

If yes, short form not appropriate. If no, proceed with short form documentation. ___No_________

Table 1. Threatened, Endangered or Proposed species and designated critical habitat on the Salmon Challis NF. Species and designated critical habitat for the Project Area were identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2017a).

Species

Status

Designated Critical Habitat Present

Species or Habitat Present in WAA? 1

Species or Habitat Potentially Affected by

Project?

Comments

ESA

Determination of Effect2

Canada Lynx Lynx Canadensis (LYNX)

Threatened Wildlife Species (Not Consulted on by Salmon-Challis NF)

No Secondary Foraging/ Dispersal/ Reproductive habitat is considered as present in WAA. Species not detected within last 10 years within 10 mile Reasonable Travel Distance (RTD) to Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA). Species not detected within last 10 years within WAA.

Habitat potentially Affected Species not potentially affected

The USFWS considers the SCNF to be comprised of Secondary Unoccupied Canada Lynx Habitat. The USFWS considers the SCNF to be unoccupied by Canada lynx. The Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) contains mapped suitable Canada Lynx habitat The Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) is not within a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU). ShortTerm- The project will not adversely affect lynx habitat or lynx

No Effect

20

individuals. LongTerm- The project will not adversely affect lynx habitat or lynx individuals.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus (YBC)

Threatened Wildlife Species

None Designated

No- Habitat No- Species

Habitat not potentially affected Species not potentially affected

Nesting Habitat= Large tracts (50 acres+) of moist riparian zone cottonwood with dense sub-canopy willow, below 6600 ft elevation. Foraging habitat= Cottonwood trees WAA does not contain mapped suitable YBC habitat. The project will not adversely affect YBC habitat or YBC individuals.

No Effect

Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus (GULO)

Proposed Threatened Wildlife Species

None Designated

Suitable Foraging/ Travel/ Dispersal/ Reproduction Habitat is considered as present in WAA. Species detected within last 10 years within 10 mile RTD to WAA. Species detected within last 10 years within WAA.

Habitat potentially affected Species potentially affected

GULO has been documented within RTD of the WAA. GULO has been documented in close proximity to, or within, the WAA. Foraging habitat for GULO is considered to be present within the WAA. Travel/dispersal habitat for GULO is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for GULO is considered to be present within the WAA. ShortTerm- Activities and Actions might adversely impact potential usage of suitable GULO reproductive, foraging, and/or travel/dispersal habitat through human disturbance causing GULO to avoid the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to the Project Area when project is being actively worked on. Activities and Actions will not

No Effect

21

adversely impact GULO reproductive, foraging and/or travel/dispersal habitat by making it less desirable. LongTerm- Although project activities and actions may adversely impact GULO and its usage of habitat in the short term, environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude GULO usage of the WAA in the long term. GULO may temporarily avoid the Project Area during its period of activity, but the Project Area will not be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by GULO in the long term.

1 Species Occurrence and Habitat Databases Idaho Department of Fish and Game Idaho Natural Heritage Program GIS database (IDFG 2016). U.S. Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest GIS database (USFS 2017a) U.S. Forest Service Natural Resource Information System (NRIS)- Wildlife GIS database (USFS 2017b) U.S. Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest, North Zone Wildlife Management Department: Wildlife species occurrences and habitat record folders (USFS 2017c) 2 Abbreviations:

Listed species: NE - No Effect; ME-NLAA - May Effect- Not Likely to Adversely Affect; ME-LAA - May Affect- Likely to Adversely Affect, BE-Beneficial Effect; If ME-LAA is selected, the project is not suitable for the small NEPA process. Proposed Species: NE- No Effect, ME-NLJ- May Effect- Not Likely to Jeopardize, ME-LJ- May Effect- Likely to Jeopardize.

22

Wildlife Biological Evaluation The purpose of the Wildlife Biological Evaluation is to identify the likely effects of the proposed action on Forest Service sensitive wildlife species. This document conforms to the standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42). FSM 2673.43 states “The intensity and detail of the biological evaluation may vary and should be commensurate with the risk associated with the action and the vulnerability of the species involved.” Table 2. Region 4 Wildlife Sensitive Species for the Salmon Challis National Forest (USFS 2016).

Species Status

Species occurs or has habitat within Analysis Area1

Species or

Habitat Potentially Affected by

Project?

Comments

Determination of Impact2

Gray Wolf Canis lupus (WOLF)

R4 Sensitive Wildlife Species

Suitable Foraging/ Travel/ Dispersal Habitat is considered present in WAA Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered present in WAA Species documented multiple times within last 10 years within 10 mile Reasonable Travel Distance (RTD) of Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA). Species documented within last 10 years within WAA.


Foraging and travel/dispersal habitat for WOLF is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for WOLF is considered to be present within the WAA. WOLF has been documented within 10 mile RTD of the WAA. WOLF is considered to occasionally be present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known WOLF reproductive sites (dens). ShortTerm- Activities and Actions might adversely impact potential usage of WOLF suitable reproductive/foraging and travel/dispersal habitat by human disturbance causing WOLF to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. LongTerm- Activities and Actions will not adversely impact WOLF suitable reproductive/foraging/dispersal habitat by making it less desirable. Although project activities and actions may adversely impact WOLF and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude WOLF usage of the WAA in the long term. WOLF may temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity, but no Project Site will be affected to

MIIH

23

such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by WOLF in the long term.

Fisher Martes pennanti


Suitable Habitat is considered present in WAA. Species not detected within last 10 years within 10 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.

Habitat potentially affected Species not potentially affected

Foraging and travel/dispersal habitat for FISHER is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for FISHER is considered to be present within the WAA. FISHER has not been documented within 10 mile RTD of the WAA. FISHER has not been documented within the WAA. FISHER is presumed to not be present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known FISHER reproductive sites (dens). ShortTerm- Activities and Actions is not likely to adversely impact potential usage by FISHER of suitable foraging habitat through human disturbance causing FISHER to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. LongTerm- Activities and Actions will not adversely impact FISHER suitable reproductive/foraging/dispersal habitat by making it less desirable. Project activities and actions are not likely to adversely impact FISHER and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, and environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude FISHER usage of the WAA in the long term. FISHER is not likely to be present to temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity. No Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by FISHER in the long term.

NI

Townsend's western big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii (COTO)


Suitable Reproductive/ Foraging/Dispersal Habitat is considered present in WAA Species not documented within last 10 years


Foraging and travel/dispersal habitat for COTO is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for COTO is considered to be present within the WAA. COTO has not been documented within RTD of the WAA. COTO has not been documented within the WAA. COTO is not presumed to may be present in the WAA.

NI

24

within 5 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within the WAA.

COTO may be present, but undocumented, roosting/reproducing in abandoned mine land (AML) features and foraging in RIPARIAN, LOCON, and LPPINE habitat of WAA. ShortTerm- If COTO were present, project activities and actions would most likely not adversely impact COTO usage of suitable habitat through human disturbance, because COTO is a nocturnal species. Project activities and actions will be of such low intensity, continuity, and duration that they would not preclude COTO usage of the WAA. LongTerm- No potential roosting/reproductive habitat would be altered by the project. No Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as foraging habitat by COTO in the long term.

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum (EUMA)


Suitable Foraging/ Dispersal Habitat is considered to not be present in WAA Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to may be present in WAA Species not documented within last 10 years within 5 mile RTD to WAA Species not documented within last 10 years within the WAA.


Foraging and travel/dispersal habitat for EUMA is considered to not be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for EUMA is considered to may be present within the WAA. EUMA has not been documented within RTD of the WAA. EUMA has not been documented within the WAA. EUMA is presumed to not be present in the WAA. ShortTerm- If EUMA were present, project activities and actions would not adversely impact EUMA usage of suitable habitat through human disturbance, because EUMA is a nocturnal species. Project activities and actions will be of such low intensity, continuity, and duration that they would not preclude EUMA usage of the WAA. LongTerm- No roosting/reproductive habitat would be altered by the project. No Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as foraging habitat by EUMA in the long term.

NI

25

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis (PYRA)


Suitable Foraging/ Travel/ Dispersal/ Reproductive Habitat is not present in WAA Species not detected within last 10 years within 5 mile RTD to WAA. Species not detected within last 10 years within WAA.


Foraging and travel/dispersal habitat for PYRA is considered to not present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for PYRA is considered to not be present within the WAA. PYRA has not been documented within RTD of the WAA. PYRA has not been documented within the WAA. PYRA is presumed to be not present in the WAA. ShortTerm- Project activities and actions will not impact any known PYRA reproductive sites (burrows). The Project will not impact any PYRA habitat or individuals. LongTerm- The Project will not impact any PYRA habitat or individuals.

NI

Bighorn Sheep Ovis Canadensis (BHSHEEP)

R4 Sensitive

Wildlife Species

Suitable Foraging/ Travel/ Dispersal/ Reproductive/Habitat is considered to be present in WAA Species not documented within last 10 years within 5 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.


The Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) does contain mapped suitable BHSHEEP habitat. Travel/dispersal habitat for BHSHEEP to and through portions of the WAA is considered to be present, because cliffs/rock outcrops exist in areas to the northeast and the southwest of the WAA and within the northeast and southwest ends of the WAA to serve BHSHEEP as staging and safety sites from predators to allow for dispersal to/through the WAA of BHSHEEP. Foraging habitat for BHSHEEP is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for BHSHEEP is considered to may be present within the WAA. BHSHEEP has not been documented within RTD of the WAA in last 10 years. BHSHEEP has not been documented in close proximity to, or within, the WAA in last 10 years. BHSHEEP is presumed to not be present in the WAA at this time.

NI

Common Loon Gavia immer


Suitable Foraging/ Travel/ Dispersal/ Reproductive Habitat is not present above, through, or in the

Habitat not potentially affected Species not

NI

26

WAA Species not detected within last 10 years within 5 mile RTD to WAA. Species not detected within last 10 years within WAA.

potentially affected

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus


Suitable Foraging/ Travel/ Dispersal/ Reproductive Habitat is not present above, through, or in WAA Species not detected within last 10 years within 5 mile RTD to WAA. Species not detected within last 10 years within WAA.


NI

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus (HALE)


Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to be present above the WAA and through the WAA Suitable aquatic Foraging Habitat is considered to be present in WAA. Suitable upland Foraging Habitat (terrestrial carrion) is considered to may be present in WAA. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to not be present in WAA Species documented several times within last


The Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) contains marginally suitable HALE habitat Travel/dispersal habitat for HALE is considered to be present above and through the WAA. Aquatic Foraging habitat for HALE is considered to be marginally present within the WAA. Upland Foraging habitat for HALE (presence of terrestrial carrion) is considered to may be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for HALE is considered to be not present within the WAA. HALE has been documented within RTD of the WAA in the proximity of the confluence of Musgrove/Panther Creeks during the fall migration period. HALE has been documented in close proximity to, or within, the WAA.

NI

27

10 years within 5 mile RTD to WAA. Species documented flying above suitable foraging habitat in the proximity of Panther Creek/ Musgrove Creek confluence. Detections are believed to be of multiple individuals. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.

HALE are not likely to be found within or in close proximity to the WAA because HALE reproductive territories are not known to exist in areas in proximity to or surrounding the WAA. HALE is considered to be not present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known HALE reproductive sites (nests).

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum (PERFALC)


Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to be present above the WAA, and through the WAA and in the WAA in the form of cliffs/rock outcrops. Suitable Foraging Habitat is considered to be present in WAA because cliffs/rock outcrops are located at an elevation overlooking creeks, rivers, lakes, or other open water. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to be present in WAA because cliffs/rock outcrops are located at an elevation overlooking creeks, rivers, lakes, or other open water. Species not documented within last 10 years within 5 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years


Travel/dispersal habitat for PERFALC is considered to be present above, through, and in the WAA. Foraging habitat for PERFALC is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for PERFALC is considered to be present within the WAA. PERFALC are not likely to be found within or in close proximity to the WAA because PERFALC reproductive territories are not known to exist in areas in proximity to or surrounding the WAA.

PERFALC is considered to be not present within the WAA.

NI

28

within WAA.

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles (NOGO)

R4 Sensitive

Wildlife Species

Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to be present above the WAA, and in the WAA in the form of mature to over-mature coniferous forest with dense canopy and open understory. Suitable Foraging Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of mature to over-mature coniferous forest with dense canopy and open understory. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of mature to over-mature coniferous forest with dense canopy and open understory. Species documented within last 10 years within 3 mile RTD to WAA. Species documented within last 10 years within WAA.

Habitat not potentially affected Species potentially affected

Travel/dispersal habitat for NOGO is considered to be present above, through, and in the WAA. Foraging habitat for NOGO is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for NOGO is considered to be present within the WAA. NOGO has been documented within RTD of the WAA. NOGO has not been documented in close proximity to, or within, the WAA. NOGO may be present, but undocumented, within RIPARIAN and LOCON habitat of WAA. NOGO is presumed to be present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known NOGO reproductive sites (nests). ShortTerm- Activities and Actions might adversely impact NOGO usage of NOGO suitable habitat through human disturbance causing NOGO to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. LongTerm- Activities and Actions will not adversely impact NOGO suitable habitat by making it less desirable. Project activities and actions may impact NOGO and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, but environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude NOGO usage of the WAA in the long term. NOGO may likely be present and temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity. No Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by NOGO in the long term.

MIIH

Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form

Travel/dispersal habitat for GGOWL is considered to be present above, through, and in the WAA. Foraging habitat for GGOWL is considered to be present

29

Great gray owl Strix nebulosi (GGOWL)


of mixed lodgepole/ Douglas-fir forest bordering small openings or meadows. Suitable Foraging Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of mixed lodgepole/ Douglas-fir forest bordering small openings or meadows. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of dense mature to over-mature coniferous forest for roosting and nesting near semi-open areas. Species documented several times within last 10 years within 3 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.


within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for GGOWL is considered to be present within the WAA. GGOWL has been documented within RTD of the WAA. GGOWL has not been documented within the WAA. GGOWL is considered to may be present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known GGOWL reproductive sites (nests). ShortTerm- Activities and Actions might adversely impact GGOWL usage of suitable foraging/reproduction habitat through human disturbance causing GGOWL to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. If GGOWL is present, project activities and actions will have a lesser chance to adversely impact GGOWL usage of suitable habitat through human disturbance, because GGOWL is primarily a nocturnal species. LongTerm- The Project will not adversely impact GGOWL suitable habitat by making it less desirable. Although the project may adversely impact GGOWL and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude GGOWL usage of the WAA in the long term. GGOWL may temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity, but no Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by GGOWL in the long term.

MIIH

Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of higher-elevation spruce/fir, boreal and sub-alpine forest types. Suitable Foraging Habitat

Travel/dispersal habitat for BOROWL is considered to be present above, through, and in the WAA. Foraging habitat for BOROWL is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for BOROWL is considered to be present within the WAA.

30

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus (BOROWL)


is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of spruce-fir forests with an open understory and multi-layered canopy. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of relatively high density, large diameter (12+” dbh) mixed coniferous, aspen, Douglas-fir, or spruce-fir forest with an open understory and multi-layered canopy. Species not documented within last 10 years within 2 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.


BOROWL has not been documented within RTD of the WAA. BOROWL has not been documented within the WAA. BOROWL may be present, but undocumented, within ASPEN, LOCON, LPPINE, and HICON habitat of WAA. BOROWL is presumed to not be present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known BOROWL reproductive sites (nests). ShortTerm- Activities and Actions might adversely impact BOROWL usage of suitable foraging/reproduction habitat through human disturbance causing BOROWL to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. If BOROWL were present, project activities and actions would have a lesser chance to adversely impact BOROWL usage of suitable habitat through human disturbance, because BOROWL is primarily a nocturnal species. LongTerm- The Project will not adversely impact BOROWL suitable habitat by making it less desirable. Although the project may adversely impact BOROWL and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude BOROWL usage of the WAA in the long term. BOROWL may temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity, but no Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by BOROWL in the long term.

MIIH

Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of mature Ponderosa Pine or Douglas-fir forest with open grass/forb understories, in mixed pine/spruce/fir forests with open grass/forb

Travel/dispersal habitat for FLAM is considered to be present above, through, and in the WAA. Foraging habitat for FLAM is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for FLAM is considered to be present within the WAA. FLAM has been documented within RTD of the WAA.

31

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus (FLAM)


understories at high elevations, and in second growth Ponderosa Pine stands with open grass/forb understories. Suitable Foraging Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of mature Ponderosa Pine or Douglas-fir forest with open grass/forb understories, in mixed pine/spruce/fir forests with open grass/forb understories at high elevations, and in second growth Ponderosa Pine stands with open grass/forb understories. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of cavities in large diameter (20+” dbh) trees and standing snags Species documented within last 10 years within 3 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.


FLAM has not been documented within the WAA. FLAM is presumed to be present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known FLAM reproductive sites (nests). ShortTerm- Activities and Actions might adversely impact FLAM usage of suitable foraging/reproduction habitat through human disturbance causing FLAM to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. If FLAM were present, project activities and actions would have a lesser chance to adversely impact FLAM usage of suitable habitat through human disturbance, because FLAM is primarily a nocturnal species. LongTerm- The Project will not adversely impact FLAM suitable habitat by making it less desirable. Although the project may adversely impact FLAM and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude FLAM usage of the WAA in the long term. FLAM may temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity, but no Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by FLAM in the long term.

MIIH

32

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus (3TOEDWP)


Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of mixed-coniferous forest with dead and decaying trees and snags; containing Ponderosa Pine, Douglas-fir, Lodgepole Pine, spruce, tamarack, subalpine fir, and aspen. Suitable Foraging Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of mixed-coniferous forest with dead and decaying trees and snags; containing Ponderosa Pine, Douglas-fir, Lodgepole Pine, spruce, tamarack, subalpine fir, and aspen. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of cavities in dead and decaying trees and snags; in mixed-coniferous forest containing Ponderosa Pine, Douglas-fir, Lodgepole Pine, spruce, tamarack, subalpine fir, and aspen. Species not documented within last 10 years within 3 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.


Travel/dispersal habitat for 3TOEDWP is considered to be present above, through, and in the WAA. Foraging habitat for 3TOEDWP is considered to be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for 3TOEDWP is considered to be present within the WAA. 3TOEDWP has not been documented within RTD of the WAA. 3TOEDWP has not been documented within the WAA. 3TOEDWP may be present, but undocumented, within ASPEN, LOCON, LPPINE, and HICON habitat of WAA. 3TOEDWP is presumed to may be present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known 3TOEDWP reproductive sites (tree cavities). ShortTerm- Activities and Actions might adversely impact 3TOEDWP usage of suitable foraging/reproduction habitat through human disturbance causing 3TOEDWP to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. LongTerm- The Project will not adversely impact 3TOEDWP suitable habitat by making it less desirable. Although the project may adversely impact 3TOEDWP and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude 3TOEDWP usage of the WAA in the long term. 3TOEDWP may temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity, but no Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by 3TOEDWP in the long term.

MIIH

33

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus (GRSG)

R4 Sensitive Wildlife Species/

Candidate Threatened

Species

Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to not be present in the WAA in the form of mosaics of big and low sagebrush and grasslands, meadows and aspen in valley bottoms, foothills, shrub lands, and mountain slopes. Suitable Foraging Habitat is considered to not be present in the WAA in the form of mosaics of big and low sagebrush and grasslands, meadows and aspen in valley bottoms, foothills, shrub lands, and mountain slopes. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to not be present in the WAA in the form of mosaics of big and low sagebrush and grasslands, meadows and aspen in valley bottoms, foothills, shrub lands, and mountain slopes. Species documented within last 10 years within 30 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.


Travel/dispersal habitat for GRSG is considered to not be present, through, or in the WAA. Foraging habitat for GRSG is considered to not be present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for GRSG is considered to not be present within the WAA. GRSG has been documented within RTD of the WAA in suitable habitat. GRSG has not been documented within the WAA. GRSG is considered not present in the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known GRSG reproductive sites (nests). LongTerm- Project activities and actions will not impact any GRSG suitable habitat.

NI

Suitable Travel/Dispersal /Migration Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of vernal ponds, marshy

Travel/dispersal/migration habitat for RALU is considered to be present within and through the WAA. Foraging habitat for RALU is considered to be present within the WAA.

34

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris (RALU)


areas, springs, wet meadows, permanent ponds, creeks, and riparian habitat areas, into upland grassland, sagebrush-land, mixed conifer and sub-alpine forest if water such as seeps is available. Winter hibernation habitat is considered to not present in the WAA near springs where water does not freeze, and in the muddy substrate of creeks, rivers, ponds and lakes. Suitable Foraging Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of vernal ponds, marshy areas, springs, wet meadows, permanent ponds, lakes, creeks, and riparian habitat areas, and seeps within grassland, sagebrush-land, mixed conifer and sub-alpine forest. Suitable Reproductive Habitat is considered to be present in the WAA in the form of vernal ponds, marshy areas, permanent ponds, lakes, and backwater areas of creeks and rivers. Species documented within last 10 years in creeks and ponds within 2 mile Reasonable Travel Distance (RTD) in same drainages as WAA.


Reproductive habitat for 3TOEDWP is considered to be present within the WAA. RALU has been documented within RTD of the WAA in the same drainage. RALU has been documented in close proximity to, or within the WAA. RALU may be present, but undocumented, within wetland, RIPARIAN, ASPEN, LOCON, LPPINE, and HICON habitat of WAA. RALU is presumed to be present within the WAA. The Project will not impact any known RALU reproductive (eggmass) sites ShortTerm- The Project will not impact potential usage of RALU suitable habitat through human disturbance causing RALU to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. Longterm- The Project could impact RALU suitable habitat in riparian areas by making it less desirable. Project activities and actions are not likely to impact RALU and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, but they could. Environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude RALU usage of the WAA in the long term. RALU is not likely to be present to temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity. No Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by RALU in the long term.

MIIH

35

Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.

1 Species Occurrence and Habitat Databases Idaho Department of Fish and Game Idaho Natural Heritage Program GIS database (IDFG 2016). U.S. Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest GIS database (USFS 2017a) U.S. Forest Service Natural Resource Information System (NRIS)- Wildlife GIS database (USFS 2017b) U.S. Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest, North Zone Wildlife Management Department: Wildlife species occurrences and habitat record folders (USFS 2017c) 2 Abbreviations: Sensitive Species: NI – No Impact, MIIH- May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing Or Loss Of Viability To The Population Or Species

WIFV - Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with A Consequence That the Action May Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing Or Cause A Loss Of Viability To The Population Or Species, BI – Beneficial Impact. If WIFV is selected, the project is not suitable for the small NEPA process.

Wildlife NEPA Specialist Report (short form) The Wildlife Specialist Report fulfills the requirement for analysis of wildlife species not previously addressed in the BE as required in the Salmon Challis Forest Plan as amended. These include Management Indicator Species (MIS), Executive Order 13186 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Species (MBTA), Executive Order 13443 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation Species, and the 2014 Presidential Memorandum on Pollinators.

Table 3: Management Indicator Species (MIS) listed in the Salmon Challis Forest Plan (amendment 2004).

Common Name

Category

Habitat

Bird Conservation Region (USFWS 2008)

Species occur or have habitat within Analysis Area1

Species or Habitat Potentially Affected?

Comments

Determination of Effect2

Travel/dispersal habitat for PIWO is considered to be present above, through, and in the WAA. Foraging habitat for PIWO is considered present within the WAA. Reproductive habitat for PIWO is considered present within the

36

Pileated Woodpecker (PIWO)

MIS Forested Habitat

Mature forests with large diameter snags for nesting.

Species documented within last 10 years within 2 mile RTD to WAA. Species not documented within last 10 years within WAA.

Habitat is present in WAA


WAA. PIWO has been documented within RTD of the WAA. PIWO has been documented in close proximity to, or within, the WAA. PIWO may be present, but undocumented, within ASPEN, LOCON, LPPINE, and HICON habitat of WAA. PIWO is presumed to may be present within the WAA. Project activities and actions will not impact any known PIWO reproductive sites (large diameter trees with cavities). ShortTerm- Activities and Actions might adversely impact PIWO usage of suitable foraging/ reproduction habitat through human disturbance causing PIWO to avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area and/or portions of the WAA adjacent to those Project Sites when the sites are being actively worked on. LongTerm- The Project will not adversely impact PIWO suitable habitat by making it less desirable. Although the project may adversely impact PIWO and its usage of suitable habitat in the short term, environmental results should not be of such intensity, continuity, or duration that they preclude PIWO usage of the WAA in the long term. PIWO may temporarily avoid an active Project Site within the Project Area during its period of activity,

MIIH

37

but no Project Site will be affected to such an extent that it would be unusable as habitat by PIWO in the long term.

Greater Sage-grouse (GRSG)

MIS Sagebrush

Habitat

Sagebrush See Wildlife Biological Evaluation Section, Table 2 for analysis of this project on GRSG.

See Wildlife Biological Evaluation Section, Table 2 for analysis of this project on GRSG.

NI

Columbia Spotted Frog (RALU)

MIS

Riparian Habitat

Riparian, Marshes, lakes, ponds, (MLP) Grassland, Sagebrush, Mtn Brush, Aspen, PP, Locon,, LP, Hicon

See Wildlife Biological Evaluation Section, Table 2 for analysis of this project on RALU.

See Wildlife Biological Evaluation Section, Table 2 for analysis of this project on RALU.

NI

Executive Order #13186- The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds The Executive Order and MOU requires the Forest Service to implement conservation measures and avoid impacts “to the extent practicable”, “within the agencies capabilities”, and “to the extent feasible”. The language contained in the EO and MOU allows for agency actions that can have adverse effects to individual birds and their habitat, when avoiding effects is not feasible or practicable, and with enough latitude to develop and implement conservation measures where appropriate. The EO and the MOU direct that environmental analysis evaluates the effects of agency actions and plans on migratory birds. Species Account @607 species of migratory birds utilize habitat in Idaho. @62 migratory bird species are High Priority Species that utilize habitat in Idaho as Primary Habitat. 18 migratory bird species are of particular conservation concern (Birds of Conservation Concern) that may be potentially affected by activities in the Wildlife Action Area of the Project. As listed by the USFWS IPaC report these 18 species are: Bald Eagle, Black Rosy-Finch, Brewer’s Sparrow, Calliope Hummingbird, Cassin’s Finch, Eared Grebe, Flammulated Owl, Fox Sparrow, Lewis’s Woodpecker, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Peregrine Falcon, Rufous Hummingbird, Sage Thrasher, Short-eared Owl, Swainson’s Hawk, Western Grebe, Williamson’s Sapsucker, and Willow Flycatcher.

38

Determination on MBTA The nesting season for migratory birds on the Salmon-Challis National Forest occurs from approximately early April until approximately mid-July, depending upon the individual species. Some nesting attempts may take place or might commonly occur, depending on the species, prior to early April. Re-nesting attempts, depending on the species, may take place or extend post mid-July. The proposed project would occur for up to three operating seasons beginning on or about July 15 and ending on or about November 15 each year. The proposed project would occur, in the majority, outside of the local nesting season. A small amount of MBTA ground-nesting and conifer tree nesting habitat will be lost as part of project actions. A total disturbance of 3.0 acres is anticipated. Up to 20 conifer trees will be removed. The likelihood of un-intentional take (as defined by the EO), or incidental take (as defined by the MOU) is low. Take would in all likelihood be within the range of 0-2 individual birds, and 0-2 nests with from 0-3 nestlings within each nest. Direct loss of habitat would equal 3 acres for up to 3 years, and disturbance loss of habitat would equal 10 acres for up to 3 years. Habitat would re-vegetate over time. Ground habitat would be re-available in 10 years, conifer tree habitat equal to pre-project tree size would be available in 50 years. It is my determination that the Proposed Action would result in minor and insignificant direct and/or indirect effects on migratory birds. All effects would be limited to local populations of migratory birds and would likely be limited to individuals only. These effects would be limited to the WAA and those populations utilizing the WAA. There are many acres of suitable and un-treated MBTA habitat within, adjacent to, and surrounding the WAA. Proposed Actions and Project Design Features incorporated into the Project lessen potential adverse effects of the project to MBTA individuals, to individual MBTA species, to MBTA habitat, and to MBTA populations. The availability of suitable un-treated habitat within, adjacent to, and/or surrounding the WAA, and the limited scope, scale, and duration of the project, results in my determination that this alternative does not result in any significant effects to migratory bird species. This Proposed Action complies with the direction of Executive Order #13186- the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. Executive Order #13443; Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (HHWC) This executive order directs the Department of Agriculture “to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat”. Specifically this Order directs agencies to:

• Evaluate trends in hunting participation and implement actions that expand and enhance hunting opportunities for the public.

• Establish short and long term goals to conserve wildlife and manage wildlife habitats to ensure healthy and productive populations of game animals in a manner that respects state management authority over wildlife resources and values private property rights.

39

• Seek the advice of State fish and wildlife agencies, and, as appropriate, consult with the Sporting Conservation Council in regards

to Federal activities to recognize and promote the economic and recreational values of hunting and wildlife conservation. Determination on HHWC The Project will have short-term adverse impacts to game species; in the form of a short-term increase in the amount of motorized usage roads in the WAA, and of HHWC species avoiding areas of active disturbance within the Project Area. These impacts would be limited to in time and place to those areas being actively worked on, and to the adjacent areas in proximity within the WAA. Proposed Actions and Project Design Features incorporated into the Project lessens the short term potential adverse impacts of the project to HHWC species, HHWC populations, and to HHWC individuals. In the LongTerm; game species within the Idaho State Game Management Unit (GMU) that encompasses the WAA are strong, viable, and contain sufficient surplus to allow for regulated harvest. The proposed action will not result in any measurable changes to habitat or populations of game species, and it will not result in a loss of viability of the local populations. Populations of HHWC species of wildlife in the GMU are resilient and habitat conditions in the GMU are such that HHWC species are not a species of concern and do not warrant an in depth analysis or warrant specific disclosure in this document. There is also suitable and un-treated HHWC habitat within, adjacent to, and surrounding the WAA. The availability of suitable un-treated habitat within, adjacent to, and/or surrounding the WAA, and the limited scope, scale, and duration of the project results in my determination that this project does not result in any significant impacts to HHWC species. Although the proposed Project will have short-term impacts to game species, it will have no adverse impact on hunter opportunities, wildlife conservation goals, or the promotion of the economic and recreational values of hunting and wildlife conservation. The proposed Project will maintain hunter opportunities and will provide for wildlife conservation. The proposed project will not decrease the recreational and economic values of hunting and wildlife conservation. This Proposed Action complies with the direction of Executive Order #13443; Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (HHWC). 2014 Presidential Memorandum on Pollinators (The White House 2016) This Presidential Memorandum directs that federal agencies: 1. Section 3A: “Shall enhance pollinator habitat on managed lands and facilities through increased native vegetation (IVM, IPM) with

application of Pollinator Friendly Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Pollinator Friendly Seed Mixes.” BMPs to Improve Pollinator Habitat

1) Create Wildlife Openings which release forbs to add structure/age diversity 2) Maintain Tall Forb Meadows 3) Thin Pine Stands

40

4) Reduce Pinyon Juniper in sage brush 5) Maintain Aspen

BMPs to Protect Pollinators when taking Management Actions BMPs to Protect and Sustain Specific Pollinator Species

2. Section 3C: “Shall incorporate pollinator health as a component of all future restoration and reclamation projects as appropriate including all annual restoration plans.”

3. Section 3F: “Shall establish a reserve of native seed mixes, including pollinator friendly plants.” Determination on Pollinators This Project will not result in any measurable changes to populations of pollinator species, and will not result in a loss of viability of the local populations. In the short term this project will have a negative impact on pollinator habitat by the removal of flowering vegetation in road prisms to be improved and then utilized for project access. In the long term this Project will enhance pollinator habitat on managed lands through the re-vegetation of disturbed soil (except open travelways) in a manner that optimizes plant establishment for that specific site. This Proposed Action complies with the direction of the 2014 Presidential Memorandum on Pollinators. Project Determinations This project was reviewed using the Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Assessment and Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Evaluation Worksheet. The analysis resulted in the following determinations. Endangered Species Act Listed Species __X _ Analysis of the proposed project resulted in a “No Effect” determination for terrestrial wildlife species listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act. ___ _ Analysis of the proposed project resulted in a determination of other than “No Effect” for terrestrial wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act. A separate biological assessment documenting those effects will be prepared. Forest Service Sensitive Species _ __ _ Analysis of the proposed project resulted in a “No Impact” determination for terrestrial species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester. __X__ Analysis of the proposed project resulted in a “May Impact; But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Toward Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species” determination for one or more terrestrial species listed as Sensitive by the Regional Forester.

_____ Analysis of the proposed project has the potential to result in a “Will Impact; With a Consequence That the Action Will Contribute to a Trend Toward Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species” determination for one or more terrestrial species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester. A separate Biological Evaluation documenting those effects will be prepared.

u.s. forest service: salmon-challis national...

Documents