United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-MT-B070-2016-0016-EA 9/15/16

LaMarche Forest Health Project

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Butte Field Office 106 North Parkmont Butte, Montana 59701 Phone: 406/533-7600 FAX: 406/533-7660

LaMarche Forest Health Project DOI-BLM-MT-B070-2016-0016-EA

Contents Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1.1 Background ...... 2 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 3 1.3 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan ...... 4 1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans ...... 5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 6 2.1 Introduction ...... 6 2.2 Description of Alternatives ...... 6 2.2.1 Alternative A – No Action ...... 6 2.2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ...... 6 2.3 Description of Relevant Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Not Part of the Proposed Action ...... 9 2.4 Preferred Alternative Identification ...... 9

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 10 3.1 Introduction and General Setting ...... 10 3.2 Relevant Resources ...... 11 3.2.1 Cultural Resources ...... 11 3.2.2 Native American Religious Concerns ...... 12 3.2.3 Fire Management ...... 13 3.2.4 Soils ...... 14 3.2.5 Water Quality ...... 17 3.2.6 Air Quality ...... 19 3.2.7 Upland Vegetation ...... 20 3.2.8 Forest Management ...... 21 3.2.9 Riparian and Wetlands ...... 24 3.2.10 Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 25 3.2.11 Special Status Animals ...... 31

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 41

5.0 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted ...... 45 5.1 Public Involvement ...... 45 5.2 Consultation/Coordination ...... 45 5.3 Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Members ...... 45

6.0 Literature Cited ...... 46

i

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 1 Project Area Map ...... 1 Figure 2 LaMarche Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (CIAA) ...... 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Treatment Description ...... 7 Table 3.1 Critical Elements...... 10 Table 3.2 A Simplified Description of the FRCC Classes...... 13 Table 3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species ...... 32 Table 4.1 LaMarche CIAA Ownership ...... 41 Table 4.2 Vegetation in LaMarche CIAA ...... 41 Table 4.3 Disturbance in Forest Vegetation Types Within the LaMarche CIAA ...... 44

APPENDICES

Appendix A Biological Assessment Appendix B Biological Opinion

ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing the LaMarche Forest Health Project. The Project would include commercial timber harvest (salvage and sanitation cutting), commercial thinning, thinning of conifer encroachment in sagebrush stands, and fence repair/reconstruction on BLM administered land.

The project is located on public lands administered by the BLM within the Big Hole River basin in portions of Sections 20, 22, and 24, T2N, R13W, PMM. See Project Area Map below (Figure 1).

If approved, timber harvest operations would likely begin in the winter of 2016 or summer of 2017, lasting approximately two years. Thinning of conifer encroachment would be conducted when funding and time allows. Harvest and thinning operations would not be conducted from April 1-June 30 to minimize disturbance during elk calving in the area.

Figure 1: Project Area Map

1

1.1.1 Background

Lodgepole Pine Insect and disease activity is occurring in Montana forests at levels unprecedented in recorded history. Periodic insect and disease infestations are natural elements of the landscape, but past management decisions and changing forest conditions have elevated them to epidemic levels (Wulder et al., 2006). The main insect agent found in the project area is the mountain pine beetle (MPB) (Dendroctonus ponderosae). The MPB, as well as being the most prevalent insect pest in the project area, is a significant ecological force at the landscape level. The majority of its life cycle is spent as larvae feeding in the phloem tissue (inner bark) of host pine trees (Logan and Powell, 2001). This feeding activity eventually girdles and kills successfully attacked trees (Amman and Cole, 1983; Furniss, 1997). The MPB epidemic started in the 1990’s and peaked in the project area around 2006-2008. The epidemic has spread across more than 6 million acres, or 23 percent of the state’s 25.6 million acres of forest on private, state, and federal lands (Gannon, 2014). Years of fire suppression, less active forest management, drought, and increasing temperatures have altered the natural historic range of variability for disturbance and made forests susceptible to unprecedented insect and disease outbreaks (USDI BLM, 2012).

Most western pines are suitable hosts for this insect, but ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa ponderosa) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) are currently the most important host species (Logan and Powell, 2001). The mountain pine beetle is a native insect, having co-evolved as an important ecological component of western pine forests. The inter-relationship between beetle-caused mortality and subsequent fire has resulted in a basic ecological cycle for many western forests (Schmidt, 1988). Some pines species, such as lodgepole pine, are maintained by periodic disturbances. The lodgepole pine forest-type typically is an essential monoculture of even-aged trees that were initiated by a catastrophic, stand-replacing fire. Without the influence of fire, lodgepole pine would be lost over much of its native range (Brown, 1975; Lotan et al., 1985). Fire serves to prepare the seedbed, releases seeds from the serotinous cones (triggered to release seeds by heat of a fire), and eliminates more shade-tolerant species such as spruce or fir that would eventually out-compete and replace the early seral lodgepole pine.

The mountain pine beetle plays an important regulatory role in the fire ecology of lodgepole pine, attacking old and weakened trees, and speeding development of a younger forest. In the last few years, unusually hot, dry summers and mild winters throughout the region, along with forests filled with mature lodgepole pine, have led to an unprecedented epidemic. In the first few years after an outbreak, the dead needles provide a highly combustible source of fine fuels. Later, the standing dead trees provide "fire ladders" that serve to conduct ground fires into the canopy, resulting in the stand-replacing crown fires that favor lodgepole pine reproduction. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks are an important component in the disturbance ecology of lodgepole pine forests (Logan and Powell, 2001). Another important component, synchrony, arises from the fact that the mountain pine beetle differs from most phytophagous insects in that it must kill its host to reproduce successfully. Pine tree hosts are far from passive victims; they have evolved significant defensive chemistry that serves to protect them from beetle attack (Shrimpton, 1978; Raffa and Berryman, 1987). The mountain pine beetle, in turn, has evolved a mass-attack strategy that overwhelms tree defenses through sheer number of attacking beetles. Success of this strategy is contingent upon large numbers of beetles being simultaneously available for attack (Raffa and Berryman, 1987).

2

Aspen Conifers have replaced aspen (Populus tremuloides) over much of aspen’s historic range in the western United States. Aspen stands now occupy only about 40 percent of their estimated historic range due to various factors and have now been replaced by coniferous species (Bartos, 2001). A major reduction in fire intervals and increased effectiveness in wildfire management since European settlement are thought to be major contributors to the changes in the forest cover. Aspen are locally infrequent in the project area, and existing groups of aspen are becoming decadent with limited to no regeneration under the current conditions. These shrinking areas of riparian are small but important components of the ecosystem on public land that provide important wildlife habitat. They are highly desirable for visual diversity and enhance the value of the watershed as a whole. Aspen stands, though not common, are found in isolated populations scattered throughout the planning area. The project area occurs within elk calving areas and would not only benefit large ungulates, but also numerous other wildlife dependent on the diversity of riparian areas. Aspen is an important winter food source for many species of wildlife, and also serves as a natural fire break in the event of a wildfire. Because of missed fire return intervals leading to conifer expansion, aspen habitats are declining across the landscape. These habitats are ecologically very important for the wildlife habitat needs and ecological niches that they fulfill. Treatments of these stands would be designed to increase size, growth, and vigor of aspen as well as the overall biodiversity.

Sagebrush Conifer encroachment is also prevalent in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem found in the project area. The area occupied by sagebrush is declining and becoming progressively fragmented due to conifer encroachment. This encroachment is causing landscape scale declines of sagebrush dependent fauna and flora. The sagebrush ecosystem is one of the most imperiled in the United States (Noss et al., 1995). Despite the large geographical distribution of the sagebrush it only occupies about 56 percent of its historic range and is highly fragmented (Schroeder et al., 2004). The increases in conifer cover in sagebrush communities continue to eliminate sagebrush and its herbaceous cover. In addition, this detrimental encroachment in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem increases the continued loss of sagebrush and its sagebrush obligate and facultative species that depend on it.

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of the BLM action is to promote forest health and stand regeneration by salvaging insect and disease damaged timber, recover economic value of dead and dying timber, reduce fuel loading, remove hazard trees along the Sundance Road (aka LaMarche Creek road), reduce the hazard associated with a catastrophic wildfire, remove competition to and promote regeneration of aspen stands, provide for resilient forests and diverse wildlife habitats, remove conifer encroachment in sagebrush parks, and replace/repair fence.

The need for the action is that mature lodgepole pine stands within LaMarche project area are experiencing high levels of mortality from the mountain pine beetle. Due to the high levels of mortality, forest health is declining, economic value of the timber resources is being reduced, the evacuation route along the Sundance Road is compromised, and fuel loadings have increased to the point where the timber stands are at risk of catastrophic wildfire. In addition, throughout the

3

project area, younger age classes of conifers, which are less susceptible to mountain pine beetle, are encroaching upon aspen stands and sagebrush parks. This encroachment is outcompeting and shading out both aspen and sagebrush, causing mortality and a reduction in natural regeneration/reproduction. Therefore, treatments are necessary to remove mature lodgepole pine and improve the health of the aspen stands and sagebrush parks. Fence lines within the project area need to be replaced due to the fact they are deteriorating and not up to standards for wildlife friendly fencing.

1.3 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan

The land use plan for the project area is the Butte Resource Management Plan (RMP), approved April, 2009 (Butte RMP) (USDI BLM, 2009). The proposed action will be in conformance with the Butte RMP.

Section: Record of Decision, Management Decisions, Vegetation Communities, Forest and Woodlands (including Forest Products), Forest and Woodland Products. (Page 19)

Commercial harvest of forest products will normally be associated with vegetative restoration (including forest health) and fuels treatments, and will be designed to meet objectives for forest management, wildlife habitat management, fire hazard reduction, hazard tree removal, special status species management, visuals, recreation, and travel management. (Goals FW1, FW2, FM2, FM5, WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, VR1, RM1, RM2, TM1, SE1, SE2, SE3, SE5)

Section: Record of Decision, Management Decisions, Vegetation Communities, Vegetation Management Approach and Tools, Emphasis and Priorities for Vegetation Treatments. (Page 14) Section: Record of Decision, Management Decisions, Non-Vegetation Resources/ Uses, Wildlife, Fish, Wildlife Habitat, Special Status and Priority Plant and Animal Species. (Page 30)

Reduction of conifers in the sagebrush habitat and associated disturbance will create pathways to introduce new age classes of sagebrush. Varying age classes along with expansion to historic areas would allow for a more robust and healthy sagebrush stand. This area was also mapped as historic sage grouse distribution and thinning would maintain the sagebrush habitat that exists at this site. (Goals GS1, GS2, WF3, WF7)

4

1.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans

Consideration must be given to all applicable laws, regulations and policies in the development of implementation projects like this one. Detailed discussions of requirements and policies are found in the Butte RMP. All documents cited there are considered to be incorporated into this project by this reference. Listed below are the manuals, handbooks, and other national strategic plans. Copies of all documents mentioned here and in the Butte RMP can be found on the BLM government website http//www.blm.gov.

 Sikes Act of 1960, as amended (Habitat improvement on Public Land)  National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended  Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 (Weed Control on Public Lands)  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)  Endangered Species Act of 1973  Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended in 1988, 1994  Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)  Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976  Clean Water Act of 1977  Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978  State of Montana Streamside Management Zone Law of July 1991  National Fire Plan of 2000  Healthy Forests Initiative of 2002  Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003  Butte Resource Management Plan of 2009

5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction

This EA evaluates the Proposed and No Action alternatives. Impacts associated with the proposed action are mitigated through implementation of design features, as part of the proposed action; consequently, there are no issues to resolve through additional mitigation or other action alternatives. Therefore, the Proposed Action is the only action alternative considered. The No Action alternative is considered and analyzed to provide a baseline for comparison of the impacts of the proposed action.

2.2 Description of Alternatives

2.2.1 No Action

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparison to aid in determining the relevance of issues and effects of the proposed action. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed salvage harvest, and associated activities would not occur. In this case, No Action has been defined as a continuation of current management practices. Management activities, such as maintenance of roads and fire suppression would continue, but no action would be taken to meet the purpose of, and need for the project.

2.2.2 Proposed Action

The proposed action was designed, through the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) process, to meet the purpose and need and follow goals and objectives set forth in the Butte RMP.

The proposed action consists of various mechanical and hand treatments throughout the project area on up to 550 acres, with a maximum of 3.5 miles of temporary road built to facilitate treatments. Included within these acres are up to 235 acres of salvage, 65 acres of commercial thinning, and 250 acres of conifer encroachment removal. Treatment descriptions are described in Table 2.1.

6

Table 2.1 Treatment Description Treatment Type Treatment Description Salvage Most lodgepole pine would be cut and removed, 5-10 snags per acre would be left. All other live conifers would be retained when they occur; primarily Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). These units would naturally regenerate with lodgepole pine resulting in even-aged stands. Commercial Thinning Most dead and dying lodgepole pine would be cut and removed, 5- 10 snags per acre would be left. Live lodgepole pine deemed hazardous or highly susceptible to windthrow may also be removed. All other live conifers would be retained when they occur; primarily Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce. These units would naturally regenerate with a mix of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and Engelmann spruce. This would result in multi aged stands that would contribute to landscape diversity in species composition and density. Conifer Encroachment Treatment would focus on areas where conifers have most Removal noticeably expanded into sagebrush/grassland or are encroaching upon aspen stands. Within the sagebrush/grasslands the primary goal would be to kill/remove 60% or more of conifers. Aspen treatments would focus on removing 95% of all conifers within two tree lengths of any live or dead aspen. Treatment methods would be a combination of cutting (lop and scatter), mastication, and/or commercial harvest.

All the treatments could be accomplished through the use of hand or mechanized fallers and cable, aerial, or ground yarding systems to designated landing sites. Conifer encroachment removal may also utilize a combination of hand cutting (lop and scatter) and mastication. Leave trees may be left in patches or spread unevenly across portions of the treatment units in order to provide for a more natural look to the treatment units while meeting the forest health objectives. Some portions of the salvage treatment acres would be clear-cut due to the level of insect and disease that has already occurred, and lack of suitable leave trees. Ground based mechanical equipment would generally be limited to operating on slopes averaging 40 percent or less and are outside any designated restriction areas. Cable or aerial systems could be utilized to avoid resource damage if sensitive areas/resources were identified.

The BLM, prior to any treatments being implemented, would establish all treatment unit boundaries. BLM resource specialists would routinely inspect the treatment area to ensure compliance with all contract stipulations.

As identified above, temporary road construction would be needed to implement the treatments. Existing roads would remain intact while any new road construction, landings, and trails would be reclaimed/ rehabilitated upon completion of contracts.

7

After implementation of commercial timber harvesting, slash piles would be burned within two years, whenever adequate moisture/conditions exist.

Up to three miles of fence would be reconstructed or repaired within the units. Reconstruction may include removal of vegetation no more than five feet either side of the fence line. The current, non-conforming fence would be rebuilt to standard BLM wildlife specifications (USDI- BLM, 1989) BLM Fencing Manual (H-1741-1).

Design Features

 State of Montana Best Management Practices (BMPs), the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) laws, and Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) (Butte RMP, pages 21 and 22) would be followed for all treatments or road activities in or near riparian areas. Guidelines as described in the Montana SMZ law (available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/landuse/forestry/?cid=nrcs1 44p2_057159) would be the minimum standard design features unless alternative practices authorizations are obtained.  Where commercial treatment units are implemented through a timber sale, standard timber sale contract provisions, which provide protection from erosion, sedimentation, and soil compaction would be adhered to. The timber sale contract would be made available to the general public upon advertisement of the sale.  If market conditions permit, biomass material may be removed from within commercial treatment units. Sufficient residual biomass material would be left on site to maintain nutrient recycling and desirable micro-site conditions.  Conifer Treatment units would be monitored for noxious weeds and cheatgrass, and treated with BLM approved herbicides to prevent the expansion of noxious weeds, during and after project implementation.  Overstory removal and timber thinning units in suitable habitat would be surveyed for goshawk and great gray owl nesting prior to implementation. Following the Butte RMP Goal WF5: sensitive and priority species habitats would be conserved or enhanced to prevent the federal listing of these species. If a goshawk or great gray owl nest is found in a treatment unit, timing stipulations would be enforced to avoid disturbing nesting activity.  Surveys would be conducted to identify occurrences of special status animal species. Any identified locations of special status species would be protected. Protection would be accomplished by avoidance during project layout and implementation, and through project implementation monitoring (in coordination with the BFO Wildlife Biologist and Forester), if necessary.  Where feasible, screening cover would be maintained for lynx and other wildlife on strategically located portions of the landscape between potential treatment areas, roads, and meadows. This screening cover would consist of live trees, snags, and course woody debris (including jackstraw piles), and should include tree-retention strips a minimum of 200 feet in width, unless topographic breaks occur between potential treatment areas, roads, or meadow openings.  Damage to understory vegetation and dense horizontal cover would be minimized in order to benefit snowshoe hare and lynx. This would be accomplished by designating

8

skid trail locations away from dense understory areas. Landings would be placed in areas without advanced tree regeneration, if available, to protect the understory.  If any previously unknown special status animal or plant species are found during implementation, project activities would stop and the BFO Wildlife Biologist would evaluate the occurrence and determine the need for additional actions.  Off road vehicles and equipment would be required to be pressure washed to remove weeds and weed seeds prior to starting operations.  Pre-treatment weed inventory/control and post treatment weed control would be completed within each unit.  All projects would have Special Status Plant clearances done prior to implementation. If the clearance shows that Special Status Plants are present within a project area, the project may be redesigned or abandoned to mitigate impacts on the species.

2.3 Description of Relevant Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Not Part of the Proposed Action

Lands surrounding the project area are managed by BLM, United States Forest Service (USFS), private, State of Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MT FWP), and the State of Montana. Historic timber harvest occurred throughout much of the area in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s to supply timber for mining, railroads, and housing. Historic stumps and trails can still be seen today throughout the project area.

More recently, due to the recent outbreak of MPB, varying levels of timber harvest have occurred on all ownerships within the project area. Additional timber harvest projects may occur on USFS (roadside hazard tree removal and the Pintler Face Project) and private lands within the next 5 years. The USFS Pintler Face Project is in the initial stages of planning; restoration actions being proposed throughout their project area include commercial harvest lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir treatments, pre-commercial thinning, watershed and wildlife habitat improvement, riparian and aspen treatments, whitebark pine treatments, sagebrush/grassland treatments, and travel management. (see Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts)

2.4 Preferred Alternative Identification

The Proposed Action is the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. The identification of the preferred alternative is not a decision but is intended to inform the public as to the alternative that BLM believes at this time best fulfills its statutory mission. The Preferred Alternative may change in response to public comment, new information, or based upon revised impact analysis as the environmental review process continues. Upon completion of the environmental analysis the Preferred Alternative will be selected in a decision document.

9

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3.1 Introduction and General Setting

The LaMarche Forest Health project is located in the southwest corner of the Butte Field Office within the Big Hole West River Basin. The project area includes three geographically separate pieces of BLM which in total make up approximately 700 acres, of which up to 550 acres are proposed to be treated (Figure 1).

Within the project area, elevations range from 6000 to 6800 feet. The majority of the project area is characterized by moderate slopes and a mix of dense lodgepole pine forests, aspen stands, and sagebrush parks.

Over the years, within the project area, many factors have contributed to heavily stocked even aged lodgepole pine stands and large areas of sagebrush parks and aspen stands that are being encroached upon by conifers. The most recent mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic peaked in the area around 2008/2009 but populations of beetles are still active within the project area. Due to this MPB epidemic and ongoing beetle activity, the mature lodgepole pine stands within the project area have experienced roughly 50-75% mortality. As the timber has started to fall down and decay, economic value of the timber is decreasing and the fuel loadings are increasing.

CRITICAL ELEMENTS: The critical elements have been considered, and impacts to each element as a result of the proposed project have been analyzed. The following chart lists the critical elements and shows whether or not each element would be affected by the proposed action.

Table 3.1 Critical Elements CRITICAL ELEMENTS

Resource Determination* Rationale for Determination

PI Air Quality The project may affect air quality. Areas of Critical NP Environmental Concern ACEC’s are not present within the project area. (ACEC) A Class III cultural resource inventory was conducted in all four treatment NP Cultural Resources units between 08/04/2016 – 08/19/2016. No cultural resources were recorded. No alternative considered in the course of this analysis resulted in any NI Environmental Justice identifiable effects or issues specific to any minority or low income population or community as defined in Executive Order 12898. NP Farmlands (Prime or Unique) Prime farmlands are not present in the project area. NP Floodplains No flood plains are present in the project area. Invasive, non-native plant species are not present in the project area, and mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the potential spread NP Invasive, Non-native Species and introduction of noxious weeds during pre and post project implementation.

10

Native American Religious No prehistoric sites, isolated finds or scarred trees were recorded during the NI Concerns Class III inventory.

PI Soils The project may affect soils within the project area.

The project may affect special status animals. See attached Biological Threatened, Endangered or Assessment, potential effects to threatened, endangered, or proposed species PI Candidate Plant or Animal (Appendix A), and Biological Opinion, concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Species Wildlife Service, (Appendix B). NP Wastes (hazardous or solid) No hazardous wastes are identified in the project area. Some road corridors are present within or adjacent to Streamside Water Quality PI Management Zones (SMZs). BMP’s and alternative practices would be (drinking/ground) implemented to minimize impacts to activities occurring within SMZs. State of Montana SMZ laws would be adhered to. Riparian Management PI Wetlands/Riparian Zones Zones (RMZ’s) would be established to protect and restore the ecological function of riparian areas and streams.

NP Wild and Scenic Rivers No Wild and Scenic Rivers within project area. Terrestrial Wildlife PI (excluding special status The project may affect terrestrial wildlife. species) NP Wilderness No designated wilderness areas are within the project area. *Possible determinations: NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present and may be impacted to some degree. Will be analyzed in affected environment and environmental impacts. (NOTE: PI does not necessarily mean impacts are likely to be significant).

3.2 Relevant Resources

3.2.1 Cultural Resources Affected Environment Cultural resources in the LaMarche Creek area have not been observed in Class III inventories performed in the general area (Sanders, 1998). However, numerous historic documents have demonstrated the importance of the Big Hole River to native people. The journals of Lewis and Clark are the first written records describing the presence of lodge along the river (http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=1806-07). There are prehistoric sites indicating various types of land use on public lands elsewhere along the river, mostly stone tool manufacturing and camping (both temporary and extended).

Historic land use in the Big Hole area continues to be dominated by ranching, although in the last half of the 19th century, the north side of the Big Hole was logged heavily for timbering the mine shafts and cord wood for steam engines at the mines in Butte. The logging was extensive, and most parcels of public land on the north side of the river show one, if not two, periods of logging activity.

11

Impacts of No Action If catastrophic wildfire occurred, the very high temperatures may damage prehistoric cultural resources at or near the surface. Stone artifacts will spall apart if temperatures reach beyond 800 degrees Fahrenheit (Traylor et al., 1983). However, if the cultural materials are buried more than 6 inches; they are not affected by fire.

Other types of damage to artifacts on the surface include heat alteration, carbon and (obsidian) hydration alteration, destruction of wooden structures and other perishable artifacts.

Impacts of Proposed Action A Class III cultural resources inventory of the project area was conducted between 08/04/2016 – 08/19/2016. No cultural material was observed. Therefore, this project area contained “no properties” and the project may proceed as planned. Overall, treated areas have lower burn temperatures, due to reduced fuel loading, which reduces the impacts to cultural resources under wildfire conditions (Traylor et al., 1983).

3.2.2 Native American Religious Concerns Affected Environment The importance of the Big Hole River valley to Native Americans was first described in 1805 by Lewis and Clark. Class III inventories conducted in the area have not yielded any evidence of prehistoric activity; however, that does not exclude consideration for traditional uses that still occur in the area.

Impacts of No Action A number of traditional activities take place on public lands every year. Some of the most important require a wide diversity of native plants. A severe wildfire incident can alter the availability of native plants for years and compromise the ability of tribal members to continue their traditional practices.

Impacts of Proposed Action Reducing fuel loads would tend to ensure the continuity of those elements which are required for traditional cultural activities. Native plant communities would be more stable and more widely distributed as a result of a healthy and diverse forest environment.

12

3.2.3 Fire Management Affected Environment According to the Butte RMP, all fire management activities will use Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) to determine levels of fuel treatment. FRCC assessments determine how similar a landscape's fire regime is to its natural or historical state (Table 3.2). Fire regime condition classes are broken down into three categories: 1, 2, and 3. Landscapes determined to fall within the category of FRCC 1 contain vegetation, fuels, and disturbances characteristic of the natural regime; FRCC 2 landscapes are those that are moderately departed from the natural regime; and FRCC 3 landscapes reflect vegetation, fuels, and disturbances that are uncharacteristic of the natural regime. A landscape in FRCC 1 has key ecosystem components, such as large old trees and soil characteristics that would naturally be found on that site, intact. A landscape with an FRCC rating of 3 indicates that the land is not very similar to its natural regime in terms of its vegetation or disturbance or both.

Table 3.2. A Simplified Description of the FRCC Classes (Hann and Bunnell, 2001).

FRCC DESCRIPTION Condition Less than 33 percent departure from the central tendency of the historical range of variation. Fire Class 1 regimes are within the natural or historical range, and the risk of losing key ecosystems components is low. Vegetation attributes are well intact and functioning. Condition 33-66 percent departure. Fire regimes have been moderately altered. Risk of losing key ecosystems Class 2 components may have departed by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This departure may result in moderate changes in fire and vegetation attributes. Condition Greater than 66 percent departure. Fire regimes have been substantially altered. Risk of losing key Class 3 economical components is high. Fire frequency may have departed by multiple return intervals. This may result in dramatic changes in fire size, fire intensity and severity and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been substantially altered.

The LaMarche Forest Health project lies within 688 acres of BLM administered lands. The Vegetation Condition Class (VCC) data layer categorizes departure between current vegetation conditions and reference vegetation conditions according to the methods outlined in the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook (Hann et al., 2004). The VCC data layer showed that 74 acres were in Condition Class 1, while 571 acres or 82% were moderately departed in Condition Class 2, and the remaining 43 acres were classified as Condition Class 3.

Impacts of No Action No vegetative treatments would occur in the LaMarche Creek area. The amount of dead and dying trees, small diameter encroachment and ladder fuels would continue to increase. Hazardous fuel loadings caused by the dead and dying timber would increase and not be mitigated in a timely manner, resulting in risks of catastrophic wildfire to public and private land resources and the continuation of hazardous trees along the Sundance Road.

The majority of the BLM lands in this landscape were rated at Condition Class 2 - a condition moderately departed from historic reference values. These conditions would continue to degrade and could potentially reach a Condition Class 3, indicating the land is not very similar to its natural regime in terms of its vegetation or disturbance or both. The purpose and need for action

13

and/or the objectives set for vegetative treatment per decade in the Big Hole watershed, as stated in the Butte RMP, would not be met.

Impacts of Proposed Action The proposed action could treat approximately 250 acres of conifer encroachment, 235 acres of salvage logging in the forested areas, along with 65 acres of commercial thinning. This accounts for 550 acres of treatment or approximately 80 percent of the BLM-administered lands in the LaMarche Creek area.

Treatments on approximately 550 acres would occur in the Forest, Aspen, and Sagebrush areas. These treatments would move areas back toward a Condition Class 1 or 2 depending on its current vegetative condition class status.

The modified fuel abundance and distribution on BLM administered lands would fortify the evacuation routes that would be used in the event of a wildfire. The removal of trees would reduce fuel accumulations along these routes, and would have a direct impact in minimizing the fire behavior along these routes in the event of a wildfire. By removing trees, it would also reduce the hazard of trees falling on roadways and blocking access and egress for the public and emergency resources responding to a wildfire in the LaMarche Creek drainage.

3.2.4 Soils Affected Environment The dominant soil types within the LaMarche project area identified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) include: Libeg, Copenhaver, Mollet, Redcheif, Elve, Worock, Evaro, Loberg, Danaher, Maciver, and Lolon soil series. Characteristics and interpretations for each soil unit are based upon the official soil series description created by the NRCS and on the Deerlodge Area Soil Survey (USDA NRCS, 2015). All soils occur in cold (cryic) environments and are very deep, with the exception of the Copenhaver series which is shallow. All soils are well-drained, somewhat excessively drained or excessively drained. Soils within the LaMarche Creek project area are generally loamy-skeletal, fine, and clayey-skeletal and are generally formed in colluvium.

The Libeg series would generally be encountered in the proposed encroachment units, but to a lesser extent these soils may occur in the proposed salvage units and the proposed temporary roads. These soils are generally well suited for the use of harvest equipment and present only a slight soil rutting hazard. Libeg soils can be utilized for log landings, however as slope increases the suitability of these soils decreases. When disturbances occur on Libeg soils there is a moderate potential for erosion to occur, and as slopes increase these soils become poorly suited for use as roads.

The Copenhaver series would generally be encountered in the proposed encroachment units. These soils are generally well suited for the use of harvest equipment and present only a slight soil rutting hazard. Copenhaver soils can be utilized for log landings, however as slope increases the suitability of these soils decreases. When off-road disturbances occur on Copenhaver soils there is a moderate potential for erosion occur.

14

The Mollet series would generally be encountered in the proposed encroachment and salvage units and to a lesser extent along the proposed temporary roads. Mollet soils are moderately suited for use by harvest equipment and log landings, however suitability decreases with increasing slope. These soils generally have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur due to low strength. When disturbances occur on Mollet soils there is moderate potential for erosion to occur, and these soils are poorly suited for use for roads.

The Redchief series would generally be encountered in the proposed encroachment units and to a lesser extent within the proposed salvage units and the temporary roads. Redcheif soils are well suited for use by harvest equipment and moderately suited for log landings as slopes increase. Redchief soils have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur due to low soil strength. When disturbances occur on Redchief soils there is a slight chance of erosion occurring off roads and trails. On roads, Redchief soils are moderately suited for use as a road and there is a moderate potential for erosion to occur.

The Elve series would generally be encountered in the proposed salvage and overstory units as well as along segments of the proposed temporary roads. Elve soils are generally moderately suited for use by harvest equipment and for log landings. These soils have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur. Additionally, Elve soils are moderately suited for roads and there is a moderate potential for erosion to occur.

The Worock series would generally be encountered in the proposed salvage and overstory units as well as along segments of the proposed temporary roads. Worock soils are generally moderately suited for use by harvest equipment and for log landings. These soils have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur. Additionally, Worock soils are moderately suited for roads and there is a moderate potential for erosion to occur.

The Evaro series will generally be encountered in the proposed salvage and overstory units as well as the temporary roads. Evaro soils may occur less frequently within the proposed encroachment units. Evaro soils are generally moderately suited for use by harvest equipment and for log landings. These soils have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur. Additionally, Evaro soils are moderately suited for roads and there is a moderate potential for erosion to occur.

The Loberg series would generally be encountered in the proposed salvage and overstory units as well as along segments of the proposed temporary roads. Loberg soils are generally moderately suited for use by harvest equipment and for log landings. These soils have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur. Additionally, Loberg soils are moderately suited for roads and there is a moderate potential for erosion to occur.

The Danaher series would generally be encountered in the proposed salvage and overstory units as well as along segments of the proposed temporary roads. Danaher soils are generally moderately suited for use by harvest equipment and for log landings. These soils have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur. Additionally, Danaher soils are moderately suited for roads and there is a moderate potential for erosion to occur.

15

The Maciver series would generally be encountered in the proposed encroachment units and to a lesser extent within the proposed salvage units and the temporary roads. Maciver soils are well suited for use by harvest equipment and moderately suited for log landings as slopes increase. Maciver soils have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur due to low soil strength. When disturbances occur on Maciver soils there is a slight chance of erosion occurring off roads and trails. On roads, Maciver soils are moderately suited for use as a road and there is a moderate potential for erosion to occur.

The Lolon series would generally be encountered in the proposed encroachment and salvage units and to a lesser extent the proposed temporary roads. Lolon soils are moderately suited for use by harvest equipment and log landings, however, suitability decreases with increasing slope. These soils generally have a severe potential for soil rutting to occur due to low strength. When disturbances occur on Lolon soils there is moderate potential for erosion to occur, and these soils are poorly suited for use for roads.

Soils within the project area are well vegetated and support both upland shrub and forested vegetation communities. There is good ground cover, from vegetative cover, litter and rock, to stabilize the soils throughout the project area, even the steeper slopes in the project area.

Impacts of No Action The impacts would be a continuation of current soil processes and conditions. Soils would continue to continue to support a mosaic of upland shrub and forest vegetation communities and would generally remain stable throughout the project area.

Risk of high severity fire would, however, continue to increase throughout the project area. The occurrence of a high severity fire would remove vegetation protecting the soil surface, increasing the potential for erosion to occur during snowmelt or rain events (Ice et al., 2004). Additionally, high severity fires volatilize organics within the duff layer of the forest floor and can result in the creation of a hydrophobic layer directly below the surface soil. The formation of a hydrophobic layer would reduce water infiltration and increase runoff, potentially leading to large scale erosion and loss of soil productivity.

Impacts of Proposed Action Project implementation would result in different impacts depending on the type and timing of disturbance; however, generally there would be the potential for a loss of surface soil, the occurrence of erosion and compaction leading to a loss in soil productivity. To prevent potential loss in long-term soil productivity Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Montana forests would be used, activities would generally be limited to slopes of 40% or less and sites too sensitive to tolerate forest management activities would be flagged and removed from the proposed units prior to project implementation. Montana BMPs recommend seeding, ripping and/or water barring disturbed areas including skid trails and any temporary roads as soon as ground disturbing operations cease and shutting down operations when soils are too wet and damage could occur. Implementation of Montana forest BMP measures, limiting harvesting activities on steep slopes (>40%), and flagging out sensitive areas would reduce the risk of soil compaction, erosion, rutting, and removal of organic material.

16

In areas where mechanized equipment would be used to harvest trees the soil surface would temporarily be disturbed or displaced and compacted and may result in a loss in productivity. The soil surface would be either lost or disturbed within the tracks of equipment and where logs are felled and skidded to log landings. Disturbance/loss and compaction may be minimized if activities occur while there is snow on the ground to protect the soil surface or if slash is placed on the soil surface to protect the duff layer and the bare soil.

In hand cutting treatments there would generally be little to no disturbance to the soils. Generally the only observable impact from his activity would be a slight disturbance in the litter layer where a tree falls.

Where temporary roads are constructed the soils would experience the greatest amount of disturbance. Constructing temporary, natural surface roads would result in approximately 3.5 miles of severe soil disturbance (i.e. topsoil removal, reduction in infiltration, increase in soil bulk density, reduction in water storage, and potentially increased soil erosion). Upon completion of the logging, all of the temporary roads would be decommissioned. Decommissioning would put the roads in an erosion resistant condition, help to restore some of the hydrologic function, and improve soil physical properties. Severe soil disturbance resulting from road construction and renovation would result in some measureable loss in soil productivity.

In areas where slash is piled and burned the soil productivity would be temporarily reduced. Based upon observations of other pile burns, soils would require more than a single growing season to revegetate and regain pre-burning productivity levels. However, long-term reductions of soil productivity would be avoided by carefully timing when burning occurs. Timing of burning would generally be during wet periods in the late fall or early spring or when there is snow on the ground. This would limit excessive heating of the soil and would reduce the risk of the formation of hydrophobic soils and the long-term loss of soil productivity.

3.2.5 Water Quality Affected Environment Within the LaMarche Creek project area there is LaMarche Creek (perennial), Minnie Creek (intermittent), two small elk wallows that were holding water in May 2016 and a small isolated pond. The small pond is a fed by a spring and annual snowmelt. The margins of the pond are vegetated with herbaceous vegetation and were bordered by aspen and conifers. There were observable signs of use of the pond by wildlife. The pond has a small outlet channel that only flows seasonally a short distance down slope. Based upon visual observations, such as visual appearance of the water and vigorous bank vegetation, the water quality of the pond is good.

One small elk wallow is located in the most westerly piece of BLM land (Figure 1) near a hill top and is likely fed by snowmelt and shallow groundwater sources. The elk wallow shows signs of disturbance from human activity; primarily the area appears to have been dug out to increase the size of the watering area. The vegetation surrounding the wallow is vigorous and healthy. Based upon visual observations the water quality of within the small wallow is good.

17

LaMarche Creek is part of the Missouri River headwaters watershed. LaMarche Creek was listed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ) as a 303(d) impaired water bodies. It was determined that aquatic life, cold water fisheries, and contact recreation use were only partially supported. Additionally, drinking water and industrial uses were determined to be “threatened”. The probable cause of the impairment of LaMarche Creek was determined to be habitat alteration, flow alterations, and siltation as a result of agricultural/irrigation activities, grazing, and streambank modifications/destabilization.

In 2006 MTDEQ reassessed LaMarche Creek using additional sufficient credible data, including a proper functioning condition determination in areas administered by the BLM, for determining listing status for beneficial use support/impairment. During this reassessment MTDEQ determined that LaMarche Creek should be within an A-1 use class. An A-1 use class is “suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after simple disinfection; are suitable for swimming, recreation; growth and propagation of fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply” (http://deq.mt.gov/Water/WQPB/cwaic/faqs, accessed 7/19/2016). MTDEQ determined that LaMarche Creek fully supports all beneficial uses under an A-1 use classification. No additional assessments of LaMarche Creek have been made since the determination that all beneficial uses are fully supported.

Minnie Creek is a small ephemeral and intermittent stream that flows primarily following snowmelt and is partially fed by a seasonal spring part way down the reach. The upper portion of the reach is generally ephemeral and will flow following snowmelt and large precipitation events. Further down Minnie Creek a spring appears that seasonally flows a short distance downstream. The bottom portion of Minnie Creek is intermittent and is probably dry most of the year. The stream bed is primarily cobbled throughout the entire reach, however near the spring area there is evidence of trampling, primarily from cattle.

Impacts of No Action The water quality of LaMarche Creek, Minnie Creek, the small elk wallow and the small pond would not be impacted, unless a high severity fire occurred in this area as a result of fuel accumulation. If a high severity fire did occur, there would presumably be an increase in sediment additions to water within the project area.

Impacts of Proposed Action The water quality of LaMarche Creek would be temporarily impacted due primarily to increased use of Sundance Road and logging activities within the SMZ. The increased use of Sundance Road, a natural surfaced road, may temporarily increase sediment loads into LaMarche Creek during periods of increased use or following large rain events or snowmelt. The extent of sediment entering LaMarche Creek as a result of increased use of Sundance Road would be minimized with the implementation of BMPs.

Construction of temporary roads and surface disturbance within proposed units would have minimal impacts on LaMarche Creek; none of the activities are proposed within the SMZ with the exception of the commercial thinning treatment. Though this treatment is proposed within the SMZ buffer area of LaMarche Creek the State of Montana has issued BLM a variance for use

18

of alternative practices within this treatment unit. Commercial thinning operations within the SMZ may result in temporary increases in sediment entering LaMarche Creek during logging activities. The extent of sediment entering LaMarche Creek as a result of logging activities within the SMZ would be minimized with the implementation of BMPs and the use of alternative practices.

Water quality within LaMarche Creek is not expected to be degraded due to a temporary increase in sediment loading as a result of increased use of Sundance Road and commercial thinning within LaMarche Creek SMZ. BMPs would be implemented to minimize impacts to the water quality of LaMarche Creek.

Minnie Creek would only be impacted as a result of construction of a temporary road at the top of the reach. This segment of Minnie Creek is armored with cobble and generally only experiences water flow following spring snowmelt. Water quality within Minnie Creek may be temporarily impacted as a result in increased amounts of sediment being delivered down drainage each spring. The amount of sediment that may be transported is expected to be limited due to the high amount of rock fragments present within the streambed. Any impacts that do occur to Minnie Creek would be minimized by adhering to all stipulations outlined in the SPA 124 Permit that will be issued by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks prior to implementation of the Proposed Action.

Impacts to the water quality of the small isolated pond are unlikely to be observable. There is adequate vegetation buffering the edges of the pond to filter out any sediment that move towards the pond as a result of harvest activities.

Impacts to the water quality to the small elk wallow would not be impacted because this area would be identified as an avoidance area for harvest activities.

3.2.6 Air Quality Affected Environment The project area is located off of Montana Highway 43, approximately 11 miles away from Wise River, Montana. Wise River has a population of 323, based upon 2014 census numbers. There are a few isolated homes and cabins that are occupied both seasonally and year round located closer to the proposed project area. There are no Class I air sheds, wilderness areas, or any non- attainment areas within the immediate area.

Impacts of No Action There would be no additional impacts to the air quality of the immediate area. There may be an increased hazard of high severity fire occurring due to standing dead and live tree densities that would continue to be present. The occurrence of a high severity fire would result in degraded air quality while the fire is actively burning the in the project area.

19

Impacts of Proposed Action There would be minimal air quality impacts as a result of mechanical or hand treatments. Proposed burning of slash piles would temporarily degrade the air quality and may reduce visibility in the immediate vicinity. Air quality would be impacted while piles are being burned, however once burning has ceased the air quality would return to normal. Additionally, pile burning would only be implemented on days when smoke dispersal is predicted to be good, helping to limit the extent of air quality degradation during burning.

3.2.7 Upland Vegetation Affected Environment The majority of the project area falls under the 10” to 15” precipitation zone. This amount of precipitation lends itself to many different vegetation communities depending on elevation, slope, soil, and disturbance regime. The most common non-forested upland vegetation type is the sagebrush/bunchgrass community. In this area the species are Artemesia tridentate ssp. vaseyana/Pseudoroegneria spicata or mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass. The sagebrush communities are experiencing expansion from conifers while the grassland communities are experiencing expansion from sagebrush along with associated decadence.

Impacts of No Action Vegetative conditions would not be directly affected. Existing successional pathways would continue to progress. Short-term impacts associated with vegetative treatments would not occur and therefore direct impacts of the treatments would be non-existent. Expansion of conifers and sagebrush would continue to be prevalent without any form of disturbance whether natural or man-caused.

Impacts of Proposed Action The removal of conifers would reduce competition and release resources for uptake by sagebrush and grasses in the understory. The sagebrush and grass would have access to expand into areas where they may have been out competed by conifers. The initial direct disturbances to the communities would be minimal and localized to direct plant removal/loss most likely associated with travel and movement of biomass. This disturbance may create pathways for new plants, both native and non-native, to establish. Once conifers are removed the lesser stature plants would have more access to available resources and should increase into areas previously occupied by conifers.

20

3.2.8 Forest Management Affected Environment The total project area is approximately 700 acres. Up to 550 acres are proposed for mechanical and/or hand treatments. The project area is mostly forested (approximately 65%), containing primarily an overstory of lodgepole pine with some smaller stands of aspen and individual Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce scattered throughout. Lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and Engelmann spruce are the climax forests for this area. Lodgepole pine is a fire dependent species and requires openings and heat (usually from fire) to successfully regenerate.

Forest Health issues, especially MPB mortality, exist throughout the project area. Besides the insects and disease other unhealthy conditions include, overstocking in overstory, decreased stand diversity, and conifers outcompeting/encroaching upon sagebrush, grasslands, and aspen stands. In addition, almost the entire forested area is experiencing an increase in fuel loadings due to the MPB mortality. The heightened fuel loadings are putting the stands at a greater risk of wildfire.

Specific stand types and their respective proposed actions are further described below:

Lodgepole pine/grouse whortleberry (Pinus contorta/Vaccinium scoparium (PICO/VASC)) ~300 acres

These stands of timber are at the higher elevations of the project area. The stands are heavily stocked with basal areas averaging 160 square feet per acre and as high as 220 square feet per acre. The overstory is predominantly lodgepole pine (80-90 years old) with patches of younger lodgepole pine (60-70 years old). There is very little regeneration in the understory. The regeneration found is a mix of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce. MPB is prevalent throughout the lodgepole pine with varying levels of mortality. The older, more mature lodgepole pine has experienced approximately 70% mortality. The younger lodgepole pine has experienced approximately 40% mortality. MPB is still active in the stand and new hits were observed throughout the timbers stands in 2016.

Stand Treatments: Treatments are primarily focused on salvaging insect and disease infested lodgepole pine, leaving all healthy Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce. In addition leave islands, strips, and buffers of lodgepole pine would be left where MPB mortality is at low levels (<40%). The salvage units (Table. 2.1) would focus on patch clearcuts with the leave areas left intact. All Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, aspen, and 5-10 snags per acre would also be left. The cut portions of these stands would be expected to regenerate to even age lodgepole pine, leave areas would remain even aged lodgepole pine. The commercial thinning units (Table 2.1) would focus on removing the dead and dying lodgepole pine, leaving all live conifers that are not deemed hazardous or highly susceptible to windthrow. These stands would be expected to continue with an overstory of lodgepole pine with mixed regeneration of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce in the understory. Where aspen are found, treatments would focus on removing 95% of all conifers within two tree lengths of any live or dead aspen. Aspen stands should respond favorably with an overall increase in stand health and natural regeneration. The large differences in treatment types would result in multi aged stands that would contribute to landscape diversity in species composition and density.

21

Douglas-fir/pinegrass (Pseudotsuga menziesii/Calamagrostis rubescens (PICO/CARU)) ~155 acres

These stands of timber are at the lower elevations of the project area. The stands are heavily stocked with basal areas averaging 120 square feet per acre and as high as 200 square feet per acre. The overstory is predominantly lodgepole pine (80-90 years old) with patches of younger lodgepole pine (50-70 years old), aspen, and individual legacy Douglas-fir (100-250 years old). Regeneration levels are highly variable throughout the stands. The regeneration found is a mix of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, aspen, and Engelmann spruce. MPB is prevalent throughout the lodgepole pine with varying levels of mortality. The older, more mature lodgepole pine has experienced approximately 70% mortality. The younger lodgepole pine has experienced approximately 40% mortality. MPB is still active in the stand and new hits were observed throughout the timbers stands in 2016.

Stand Treatments: Treatments are primarily focused on salvaging insect and disease infested lodgepole pine, leaving all healthy Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce. In addition, leave islands, strips, and buffers of lodgepole pine will be left where MPB mortality is at low levels (<40%). The salvage units (Table 2.1) would focus on patch clearcuts with the leave areas left intact. All Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, aspen and 5-10 snags per acre would also be left. The cut portions of these stands would be expected to regenerate to even age lodgepole pine stand, leave areas would remain even aged lodgepole pine. The commercial thinning units (Table 2.1) would focus on removing the dead and dying lodgepole pine, leaving all live conifers that are not deemed hazardous or highly susceptible to windthrow. These stands would be expected to continue with an overstory of lodgepole pine with mixed regeneration of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce in the understory. Where aspen are found, treatments would focus on removing 95% of all conifers within two tree lengths of any live or dead aspen. Aspen stands should respond favorably with an overall increase in stand health and natural regeneration. The large differences in treatment types would result in multi aged stands that would contribute to landscape diversity in species composition and density.

Impacts of No Action No salvage harvest, commercial thinning, or conifer encroachment removal would occur. Insect and disease damaged timber would continue to decay until it no longer had commercial value. Stands would continue to grow towards a late successional phase, remaining overstocked and highly susceptible to additional MPB mortality. Stands would also continue to have heavy fuel loadings and fuel loadings are expected to increase as more trees die and fall to the ground, resulting in a greater risk for high severity wildfire (Everett et al., 2000). Elevated fuel loads would persist for more than a century, which could increase the extent and duration of wildfire events through prolonged smoldering and by serving as receptors for firebrands from adjacent stands (Collins et al., 2012). Dead and dying timber would remain along the Sundance Road which would perpetuate a safety hazard until dead and dying timber falls to the forest floor and then the fire hazard would remain. In most areas, conifers would continue to encroach upon the aspen stands, grasslands, and sagebrush, further reducing diversity throughout the project area. Where aspen stands occur next to the mature, dead lodgepole pine, aspen should respond positively with increased growth and reproduction due to a greater availability of resources,

22

though to a lesser extent than if conifers were removed. Also, understory herbaceous vegetation (grasses, shrubs, and forbs) will thrive in stands where mortality rates are high.

Shade tolerant advance regeneration would likely persist and grow to dominate mixed sites where lodgepole has died. In openings and areas without shade tolerant species established, lodgepole natural regeneration may establish as serotinous cones open in the sun. As the fuel load changes from standing dead to a horizontal profile, the natural regeneration would have physical barriers, and coupled with the staggering in time of canopy gaps, create a variable height and age lodgepole pine stand, with scattered older trees of the few lodgepole pine trees not affected by MPB and other species of trees. If a severe wildfire were to occur after germination of the serotinous cone source, before the young forests begin producing serotinous cones again, the seedbank could be lost within some stands and convert the area to grass/shrubland for the foreseeable future.

Impacts of Proposed Action Implementation would result in salvage cutting, commercial thinning, and conifer encroachment removal. Stocking of stands would be reduced, concurrently the risk of additional MPB morality and wildfire would also be reduced. Diversity would increase throughout the project area, making stands more resistant and resilient to future disturbances. Dead and dying timber would be removed along the Sundance Road, essentially eliminating the safety hazards. Aspen stands and herbaceous vegetation are expected to respond positively with increased growth and reproduction due to a greater availability of resources.

Through the removal of both dead/dying and live timber, slash requirements would be followed to help maintain nutrient recycling, desirable micro-site conditions, and to create down woody material appropriate for site conditions. Even though most of the standing large diameter (>8” DBH) fuels would be removed, appropriate levels of already downed timber and tops/limbs would remain on site. In addition, research suggests that the most important component of the slash which should remain onsite from a nutrient budget perspective is the fine material (needles, leaves, and small twigs) (Hacker, 2005), a great deal of which would be left through the process of treating the stands.

Natural regeneration is expected to occur throughout the treated stands, therefore no planting is being proposed. Within the salvage units, regeneration would not be encumbered, and would be allowed to grow and follow successional stages similar to stands that are restarted by a stand replacing event, such as wildfire. Within the commercial thinning units, regeneration of shade intolerant species (lodgepole and aspen) would be at lower levels than the salvage units and would most likely be limited to patches where most overstory trees were removed. But, shade tolerant species, such as Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce, are expected to reproduce and would move stands towards a late successional phase.

The new temporary roads, skid trails, and landings would be susceptible to some erosion until stabilization occurs. Roads and trails and some treatment units would be visible from Highway 43 and the Sundance Road for several years until stands are regenerated.

23

3.2.9 Riparian and Wetlands Affected Environment Two riparian areas occur in the project area, LaMarche Creek BHFT-25 and Minnie Creek BHFT-26. LaMarche Creek is a perennial stream that was rated as PFC in 2009 and monitoring has shown a relative decline in the amount of willow (Salix spp.). This reach is fish bearing and flows water year round. The substrate is mostly cobble with some large boulders and anchored wood that directs flow in a relatively narrow valley bottom bound by a road on the east side. Willows and large conifers line the stream sides for the entire length on BLM. Minnie Creek is an ephemeral reach that was rated as PFC in 2006 and there is no established monitoring. Areas of non-riparian herbaceous communities occur in wetter areas while some portions consist of simply a bare cobble channel. Water flows every year but the amount and duration is strongly dependent on spring run-off and snow pack.

Impacts of No Action There would be no direct impacts to LaMarche or Minnie Creek. Natural processes would continue to occur. Willows may decline with further shading and competition. The conifers impacted by beetles may fall into the riparian area and alter flows or create debris jams. These changes in overstory may create microsites that allow less dominant species to expand and complete their lifecycles.

Impacts of Proposed Action The impacts of the Proposed Action would be similar to impacts of No Action for Minnie Creek. A crossing would be constructed in a portion of the reach that is generally dry and only receive minimal snowmelt runoff. Locating the crossing in this area is not expected to have adverse impacts as the occurrence of water and riparian vegetation is very sporadic. Natural processes would continue to shape or maintain the ephemeral reach that is currently functioning properly.

The proposed action would treat 5 acres within the LaMarche Creek SMZ. These treatments also occur within the 160 foot RMZ. Through alternative practices, approved by the DNRC, and design features these treatments would benefit both the woody (willow, aspen, dogwood, etc.) and herbaceous (sedge, rush, forbs) riparian species by allowing previously inaccessible sunlight and resources. This disturbance could also allow a pathway for non-native species to become established; although, any new populations would be treated in accordance with the BFO Weed Management Plan Revision, 2009. The conifer removal would restore a higher level of woody riparian vegetation that monitoring has shown on the decline since 1988. The increase of woody species along with herbaceous riparian vegetation would provide a greater deep binding root mass to stream edges. This would increase streambank resiliency against high flow events and physical disturbance (e.g. hoof action, human traffic).

24

3.2.10 Terrestrial Wildlife Affected Environment Effects to wildlife species are analyzed by looking at changes in habitats, as well as considering disturbance associated with activities. Vegetation management activities may affect stand age, structure, or species composition, thereby affecting habitat. Actions with potential for direct effects on habitat include overstory removal, and thinning in lodgepole pine habitats, and removal of conifers from aspen/riparian areas and sagebrush meadows. These actions can make wildlife, especially big game species, more susceptible to human disturbance; cause individuals to avoid areas; make wildlife more vulnerable to mortality from hunting or predation; and increase the risk of mortality from harsh winter conditions. Indirect effects after project implementation include changes in vegetation structure over time.

Species may respond to landscape patterns in different ways, depending on their habitat needs. Converting closed forests to open woodlands or sagebrush meadows can affect those species that depend on dense forest structure by reducing overhead cover, hunting habitat, and nesting and denning sites. Natural processes, such as fire, forest insect and disease outbreaks (such as the mountain pine beetle epidemic associated with this project), and wind all contribute to changing landscape patterns and vegetation mosaics. These mosaics create habitat heterogeneity, or discontinuity, across a landscape, which is important for maintaining animal diversity (Smith, 2000). Although some discontinuity is generally positive, at some level (which is different for each species) heterogeneity becomes habitat fragmentation (Smith, 2000). Management actions that manipulate land cover, including timber harvest, may have variable effects on different wildlife species because habitat improvements for some species may lead to a decrease in habitat quality for others (Smith, 2000).

The project area is important habitat for a variety of big game species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis), and Shiras moose (Alces americanus). The LaMarche Forest Health project area is located in Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Region 3, and hunting district 319.

Other game species include mountain lions (Puma concolor) and black bears (Ursus americanus), which have general harvest objectives designed to maintain existing populations. Small mammals include coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), pine marten (Martes americana), bobcat (Lynx rufus), Golden-mantled ground squirrel (Callospermophilus lateralis), and a variety of other small rodents. No raptor nests are known to be within the project area; the project areas would be surveyed for raptors before any project implementation. Several species of nesting owls may occur within the project area.

Wildlife in the LaMarche project area is typical of southwestern Montana assemblages. Basic life history and habitat requirement information on all species mentioned in this document can be found in the Montana Field Guide (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/), and numerous other sources. Species location information is largely obtained from Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks GIS layers and Montana Natural Heritage Program information provided to BLM.

25

Mule Deer Mule deer occupy all ecosystems in Montana, from grasslands to alpine tundra. They reach their greatest densities in shrub lands on rough, broken terrain, which provides abundant browse and cover. In the Rocky Mountains, fall and winter diets of mule deer consist of browse from a variety of trees and shrubs. During midwinter, deer move to lower elevations and forage on more protected south-facing exposures. Mule deer are found in the project area in all habitat types. Highest densities are found in mountain shrub and mixed conifer communities. Mule deer frequently use wet hay meadows on private lands, especially in the spring. The LaMarche Forest Health Project area is hunting district 319 with a population estimate of 505 for the post season of 2014 and 670 for the post season of 2015. Deer densities are slowly increasing after they fell below FWP’s minimum population objective in 2008; the 2015 population estimate of 670 is slightly above the objective of the 22 average +/- 25% (392 -654) (According to Vanna Boccadori, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Wildlife Biologist (personal communication May 20, 2016). The entire project area is mapped as mule deer general habitat.

Elk Elk can be found throughout the project area. They graze and browse for forage, and in the northern and central Rocky Mountains, grasses and shrubs compose most of their winter diet. Elk tend to inhabit higher elevations during spring and summer and migrate to lower elevations for winter range. Spring and calving areas are locations that provide forage and protection from predators and weather. The use of traditional calving areas varies with snow melt and other weather-related variables. The most valuable calving habitats (those which contribute to successful calving) are found in sagebrush/grasslands and aspen ecosystems adjacent to mature conifers. Considering the value of sagebrush meadows for calving habitat, the project area provides approximately 700 acres of spring and calving habitat (depending on snow conditions) due to the fact that the whole project is located in elk calving area.

Where elk are located during the fall is highly dependent on weather conditions. Elk tend to stay at higher elevations when fall weather is warmer and there is less snow. Security habitat, as defined by (Hillis et al., 1991), must be a nonlinear block of hiding cover > 250 acres in size and > ½ mile from any open road. Security habitat on BLM lands, however, is extremely critical when fall conditions force elk to lower elevations. There is no security habitat on BLM lands in the project area.

During winter, elk form large mixed herds and congregate on favored winter range. Although there is no winter range found within the project area elk can be found throughout the project area. The 2015 population estimate of 935 elk put the count right at objective of +/- 15% (812- 1,100) with no more than 800 elk wintering on Fleecer winter range (all land ownerships combined). Last year a total of 1,201 elk were counted in HD 319. Of these, a group of ~100 at Dickie Hills likely crossed over from HD 332 and were counted in with HD 319, artificially inflating the true count for HD 319 (According to Vanna Boccadori Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Wildlife Biologist (personal communication August 1, 2016).

26

Black Bear Black bears can survive in practically any habitat that offers sufficient food and cover. In Montana, black bears are most common in dense forests, and riparian areas at moderate elevations. Black bears are retiring and secretive animals for the most part, typically staying close to rough topography or dense vegetation that provides escape cover. The LaMarche Forest Health project area is located in Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Region 3 hunting district 316, within which black bear populations are stable (MFWP, 2015). The project area is in summer and fall concentration areas for black bear.

Pine Marten Pine martens are a boreal animal found in dense, old forest with a complex structure of understory and downed wood. They prefer spruce/fir forest, but are also found in multi-story lodgepole pine. Especially critical is the presence of many large limbs and fallen trees in the understory, known as coarse woody debris. These forests provide prey, protection, and den sites for the marten. Martens are expected to occur at higher elevations where spruce/fir forest dominates and is adjacent to, or is commonly intermixed with aspen. They may also occur within Douglas-fir/mixed conifer habitats, which are less common in the project area.

Raptors The following raptor species are expected to occur regularly in the project area: golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicencis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). The following species rarely occur because of the small amount of suitable habitat within the project areas: northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Golden eagles are common in the region and nest in suitable habitats, primarily cliffs and rock outcroppings; no suitable nesting habitats are known within the project area. Prairie falcons are widespread in the region, and use cliff and rock habitats. Red-tailed hawks are the most common broad-winged hawk in the region, and are expected to occur at all elevations and in most habitat types. The forest hawks, Cooper’s hawk, goshawk, and sharp- shinned hawk, occur in smaller numbers but may be found in forested landscapes. Kestrels can be found, and are more common, at the lower elevations. Northern goshawks are known to nest in lodgepole pine in the adjacent Beaverhead County where nests commonly occur in Lodgepole Pine stands with an average tree diameter of only 13 cm, although the birds usually place their nests in larger trees within these stands (Kirkley, 1996). They prefer closed canopy forests of larger diameter trees with relatively open understory.

Pileated Woodpecker Large dead trees provide nesting habitat for raptors, owls, woodpeckers (such as the Pileated woodpecker), and other avian species that need large trees for stick nests or cavities. Cavities provide for nesting, rearing young, roosting, feeding, storing food, escaping predators and hibernating. The Pileated woodpecker prefers late successional stages of conifers or deciduous forest, but they also use younger forests that have scattered, large dead trees (Bull and Jackson, 1995). Roughly 85 percent of bird species in North America use tree cavities for nesting with 34 of these species found in the West (USDA, 1985).

27

Impacts of No Action No habitat for any species described above would be directly removed. There would be no direct effects to any species of interest (including elk, mule deer, moose, black bear, pine marten, raptors, and pileated woodpecker). Indirect effects, with no active timber management, would lead to natural forest succession, decomposition and heavier loadings of forest material on the ground. Continuous fuel loading leaves these areas susceptible to wildfire with the potential to burn at intense temperatures closer to the ground. Moderate-to-severe fires can result in a large flux of nutrients leaving the ecosystem through volatilization and rapid mineralization of nutrients and increased microbiological processes (e.g. increased decomposition, nitrification and denitrification rates) (Neary et al., 2005). Adverse changes in soil hydrologic functioning, degradation of soil physical properties, and losses or decreases in microbial populations and associated processes can occur following moderate-to-severe fires (Neary et al., 1999). This would have detrimental effects to soil fertility and structure, and could negatively affect wildlife habitat.

Overstory and understory vegetation would be maintained and would not have an immediate impact on hiding habitat or thermal cover for elk, mule deer, and moose in the project area. There would be no short-term effects to hiding and thermal. There could be long-term effects due to the mortality of additional sizes of trees from the mountain pine beetle. Ultimately, this could result in a loss of hiding and thermal habitat for big game species. Calving areas used by elk could experience a decline in quantity and quality, as conifers continue to invade grassland and sagebrush meadows.

Because black bear depend on a variety of habitat types to fulfill their needs throughout the seasons, the change in forest type due to mountain pine beetle could be beneficial. A more dense forest would also be maintained for a longer period of time and provide more security cover from the road and open meadows. The pine marten requires forest with high overstory density and structural complexity at ground level. Even though forest conditions could remain denser, trees could be in poor condition and there would likely be a loss of many trees with desired structure, such as large, old trees. A more dense forest would be maintained for a longer period of time without disturbance. However, more mortality of large size lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir may occur, a preferred habitat component of the pine marten, which could lead to the loss of much of the overstory.

As more mortality occurs from mountain pine beetle, more foraging and nesting habitat is created for the pileated woodpecker. However, in the long-term (>100 years), the loss of mid to large size trees would prevent recruitment of suitable habitat for the pileated woodpecker.

Habitat for numerous wildlife species from big game and small mammals to avian species would continue to be limited along the riparian areas and aspen stands and would not be restored.

The continued loss of aspen and sagebrush due to conifer encroachment in the project area could impact numerous wildlife and avian species.

28

Impacts of Proposed Action Species may respond to landscape patterns and changes in these patterns in different ways, depending on their habitat needs. Natural processes, such as fire, forest insect/ disease outbreaks (such as the mountain pine beetle epidemic associated with this project), and wind, all contribute to changing landscape patterns and vegetation mosaics. These mosaics create habitat heterogeneity, or discontinuity, across a landscape, which is important for maintaining animal diversity (Smith, 2000). Management actions that manipulate land cover, including timber harvest, may have variable effects on different wildlife species because habitat improvements for some species may lead to a decrease in habitat quality for others (Smith, 2000).

Species that are habitat generalists may be the least affected, while those that are habitat specialists may be the most affected. As noted above, the mountain pine beetle outbreak is a natural disturbance event currently influencing the landscape in the project area. Effects from treatments would include temporary disturbance that could lead to displacement for some species, reductions in habitat quality in potential treatment areas for some species (particularly species using snags and requiring overstory forest canopy), and habitat improvements for others (particularly species that use edge habitat and openings). The project design standards described in Section 2.2.2 would minimize or eliminate effects to raptors, big game, pine marten, and other terrestrial wildlife, and would encourage snag and coarse-woody debris retention, important habitat components for many species of terrestrial wildlife.

Big Game The North American ungulates found in the project area which include elk, mule deer, and moose require temporally and spatially diverse habitat components such as food and cover associated with forested habitats. They are generally associated with a mosaic of open areas used for foraging and forested areas used for cover. Elk, mule deer and moose use densely vegetated areas of shrubs and trees as thermal cover and as cover to hide from predators. They also use these areas for daybeds and for fawning. All big game species are associated with areas of abundant forage (grasses, forbs and shrubs) and forested habitats, with the proximity of these habitats being very important.

There would be an expected increase in forage for big game species. The increase of both the forage quantity and quality would be the result of the partial removal of the overstory and thinning of dead and dying trees. This would also result in the potential reduction of thermal and hiding cover.

Approximately 65 acres of mature forest habitats could be thinned. Of the 300 acres of lodgepole proposed for restoration, 117 acres (39%) would be retained for hiding and thermal cover and for movement corridors within treatment units. This would help off-set the impacts of hiding and thermal cover loss.

Temporary roads would be created for ground-based thinning activities. Temporary roads would not be open to the public and would be reclaimed/rehabilitated when the project is complete. There could be short-term disturbance to big game and other species during project implementation from the use of roads and trails.

29

The Butte RMP states that; “the BLM will maintain functional blocks of security habitat for big game species across BLM lands.” The plan continues with “where security habitat is limited or fragmented across the landscape, the BLM will emphasize improving habitat through vegetation treatments and road closures (including seasonal closures) to increase security habitat for big game species.” Although there is hiding cover found with the project area, there are no blocks of hiding cover (which is defined as >250 acres and further than ½ mile from a road) to be considered as security areas, so the proposed action would not affect big game habitat security blocks.

The timing and number of cattle would remain the same under both Alternatives. The effects from livestock grazing on big game habitat would be the same for both Alternatives.

Improving the quantity and quality of riparian vegetation through the removal of conifer encroachment in aspen colonies would benefit big game by improving movement corridors as well as forage and browse species (in the long-term).

Black Bear An increase in forage availability and hunting potential would occur for the black bear. Subsequently, there would also be a reduction in hiding, and travel habitat. The loss of or decrease in escape cover could result from the removal and thinning of forest stands, which may be the most critical component of black bear habitat.

Pine Marten Pine marten prefer older-aged forested stands with high overstory density and structural complexity. Changing closed canopy forest stands to open woodlands on 300 acres within the project area would potentially convert 66% percent of the current potentially suitable habitat in the project area to unsuitable for the pine marten.

Removing the overstory and thinning lodgepole pine forest would result in a change of canopy cover from closed forest to open woodlands. Although canopy cover would be retained at suitable levels for the pine marten in leave areas and in some thinned areas, the quality of habitat in some forest stands would be reduced.

Raptors Overstory removal and thinning in the project area would result in some habitat loss for raptors. Temporary displacement may occur during implementation, but with the retention of larger snags and all Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and aspen there would not be any expected long term loss of raptors or owls in the project area.

Surveys were conducted to identify raptor and owl nests prior to implementation. Following the Butte RMP, in forested habitat types, a minimum of 0.25 mile buffer of suitable habitat around unoccupied nests will be maintained for 5 years. Displacement will also be avoided through timing stipulations to avoid disturbance during nesting activities.

30

Pileated Woodpecker Although habitat in the project area could be altered with the loss of all size classes of lodgepole as well as the removal of numerous snags, habitat for the pileated woodpecker would be retained in leave areas protecting existing and future nesting trees for this species. The loss of insect- infested trees could reduce the amount of foraging habitat for pileated and other woodpecker species. All Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and aspen would be retained in the project area, as well as 5-10 snags per acre and all snags >15”. This would reduce the overall disturbance to the pileated woodpecker by leaving an array of nesting/ foraging trees throughout the project area.

3.2.11 Special Status Animals Affected Environment The BLM verified the USFWS list of threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed (TECP) wildlife species that may occur within the project area. Upon closer inspection of potentially affected species, it was determined that Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) may occur in the project areas. Other species, including the Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa), Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horriblis), were eliminated from analysis because their habitat was not in or near the project area, or they were not reasonably expected to be affected by the project. A Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Opinion were prepared for threatened, endangered, and proposed species (Appendix A and Appendix B respectively).

The special status species list (issued by the BLM State Director in the 6840 Manual), Natural Heritage database information, and other information was used to determine which sites or habitats of special status species were known to occur or could occur in the project area. Of the BLM sensitive species identified by the State Director (BLM, 2009), the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus), Brewers sparrow (Spizella breweri), Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles), Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa), Boreal Toad (Anaxyrus boreas) and the Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) were identified as potentially occurring within the project areas. Table 3-2 lists the special status species that were analyzed in detail, and provides brief descriptions of their habitat and potential to be affected by the project.

Wildlife in the LaMarche project area is typical of southwestern Montana assemblages. Basic life history and habitat requirement information on all species mentioned in this document can be found in the Montana Field Guide (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/), and numerous other sources. Species location information is largely obtained from Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks GIS layers and Montana Natural Heritage Program information provided to BLM.

Effects to wildlife species are analyzed by looking at changes in habitats, as well as considering disturbance associated with activities. Vegetation management activities may affect stand age, structure, or species composition, thereby affecting habitat. Actions with potential for direct effects on habitat include thinning in lodgepole pine habitats, and thinning in sagebrush meadows, and removing conifers from aspen/riparian area. These actions can make wildlife more susceptible to human disturbance; cause individuals to avoid areas; make wildlife more vulnerable to mortality from hunting or predation; and increase the risk of mortality from harsh winter conditions. Indirect effects after project implementation include changes in vegetation structure over time.

31

Special status species may respond to landscape patterns in different ways, depending on their habitat needs. Converting closed forests to open woodlands or opening up sagebrush meadows can affect those species that depend on dense forest structure by reducing overhead cover, hunting habitat, and nesting and denning sites. Natural processes, such as fire, forest insect/ disease outbreaks (such as the mountain pine beetle epidemic associated with this project), and wind, all contribute to changing landscape patterns and vegetation mosaics. These mosaics create habitat heterogeneity, or discontinuity, across a landscape, which is important for maintaining animal diversity (Smith, 2000). Although some discontinuity is generally positive, at some level (which is different for each species) heterogeneity becomes habitat fragmentation (Smith, 2000). Management actions that manipulate land cover, including timber harvest, may have variable effects on different wildlife species because habitat improvements for some species may lead to a decrease in habitat quality for others (Smith, 2000).

Table 3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species

Potential to be Affected Species Status Description/Habitat by Project Activities Dense spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, early seral Possible. Low lodgepole pine, and mature lodgepole pine quality but forests with an understory of spruce-fir potentially suitable Federally and aspen in the subalpine life zone up to habitat is present in Canada Lynx Threatened timberline. Uses caves, rock crevices, the project areas. banks, and coarse woody debris for denning. Closely associated with snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). Exhibits no particular habitat preference Unlikely. Suitable except for the presence of native ungulates foraging habitat BLM Gray Wolf within its territory on a year-round basis. occurs within the Sensitive Usually occur in areas with few roads and project areas. human disturbance. Limited to alpine tundra, and boreal and Unlikely. Suitable mountain forests (primarily coniferous) in foraging habitat western mountains, especially large occurs within the wilderness areas. However, dispersing project areas. North American BLM individuals have been found far outside of Preferred habitat is Wolverine Sensitive usual habitats. They are usually in areas large, mountainous, with snow on the ground in winter. and essentially Riparian areas may be important winter roadless areas. habitat.

32

Table 3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species

Potential to be Affected Species Status Description/Habitat by Project Activities Typically breeds in shrub-steppe habitats Possible. Suitable dominated by sagebrush. Densities of habitat is present in Brewer’s Sparrow correlated with some project areas. No Brewers BLM aspect of total shrub cover. In sagebrush nest sites were sparrow Sensitive areas in central Montana, Brewer’s identified during Sparrows nested in sagebrush averaging wildlife surveys. 16 inches high. Sagebrush is the preferred habitat. They Unlikely. Suitable use 6-18 inch high sagebrush covered foraging habitat benches in June to July then move to occurs within the Greater sage- BLM lower areas when forbs on benches dry project areas. Only grouse Sensitive out; and move back to sagebrush in late 2% of the project is August to early September. within general GSG habitat. Mature-to-late seral coniferous, Possible. Suitable deciduous, and mixed forests; nests in habitat is present in Northern BLM large forked trees near riparian areas and project areas. No Goshawk Sensitive aspen at less than 11,500 feet in elevation. nest sites were identified during wildlife surveys. Known to use lodgepole pine/ Douglas-fir Possible. Suitable in Montana. Habitat is dense coniferous habitat is present in BLM and hardwood forest, especially pine, project areas. No Great Gray Owl Sensitive spruce, and second growth, especially near nest sites were water. They forage in coniferous forests identified during and meadows in mountainous areas. wildlife surveys. Know to utilize a wide variety of habitats, Possible. Suitable including springs, streams, meadows, and habitat is present in BLM woodlands. Normally they remain fairly project areas. Boreal Toad Sensitive close to ponds, reservoirs, and slow- moving rivers and streams during the day, but may range widely at night.

33

Table 3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species

Potential to be Affected Species Status Description/Habitat by Project Activities Unlikely. Water The fluvial (river-dwelling) Arctic quality within Grayling population which was once LaMarche Creek is widespread has declined significantly in not expected to be range and abundance. The remaining degraded due to a confirmed, viable population resides in the temporary increase BLM Arctic Grayling Big Hole River, Montana. Highest in sediment loading Sensitive densities and majority of spawning occur as a result of in the vicinity of Wisdom. Fluvial Arctic increased use of Grayling are reared in the vicinity of Sundance Road and where they hatch; thus, the Wisdom area commercial thinning provides the majority of rearing habitat as within LaMarche well. Creek SMZ.

Impacts of No Action No habitat for any species of interest would be directly removed. There would be no direct effects to any special status species of interest (including Lynx, Gray Wolf, Wolverine, Brewers sparrow, Greater sage-grouse, northern goshawk, Great Gray Owl, Boreal Toad, and the Arctic Grayling). Indirect effects, with no active timber management, would lead to natural forest succession and decomposition and heavier loadings of forest material on the ground. Continuous fuel loading leaves these areas susceptible to wildfire with the potential to burn at intense temperatures closer to the ground. This would have detrimental effects to soil fertility and structure, and could negatively affect wildlife habitat. All BLM special status species would have a “No Impact” determination for this alternative.

Canada Lynx The mountain pine beetle would continue to cause mortality to surviving trees in the project area which would create more potential habitat for both snowshoe hares and lynx. The current quality and quantity habitat for the lynx or its prey would not be reduced, but eventually without an older age class to take the place of the current dead and fallen mature forest the lynx and its prey could lose the horizontal cover needed for cover and security.

Gray Wolf Habitat and prey for the grey wolf would not be reduced. Human development, proximity to the road, disturbance, and control efforts could likely continue to prevent wolves from denning in this area.

North America Wolverine Habitat and prey for the North American Wolverine would not be reduced. Banci (1986) reported "habitat requirements appear to be large, isolated tracts of wilderness supporting a diverse prey base, rather than specific plant associations or topography." The current quality and

34

quantity of habitat for the Wolverine would not change under this alternative, but with no older age class of trees to take the place of the fallen dead, security cover for travel and foraging would eventually deteriorate.

Sagebrush Species Conifer encroachment would not be removed from the sagebrush which could result in a loss of habitat and impact sagebrush obligate and near obligate species that depend on sagebrush for all or part of their lifecycle.

Northern Goshawk There would be no immediate direct effects to the goshawk or goshawk habitats. Over the next 1 to 10 years, the mountain pine beetle could cause significant mortality of the potential nesting habitat (450 acres) currently available in the project area. Areas that experience greater than 50 percent mortality may no longer provide suitable goshawk nesting habitat (Reynolds et al., 1992). In a similar beetle-killed nest stand in Oregon, goshawks returned to nest for two to three years until the needles fell from killed trees and the trees no longer provided sufficient canopy closure for nesting thermal cover (USDA, 2004). Beetle-killed areas would continue to provide habitat for goshawk prey including snowshoe hare, red squirrel and grouse species; however, once trees fall to the ground (20-100 years out), the high density of down material could actually impede the ability of goshawks to hunt and capture prey.

Great Gray Owl There would be no immediate direct effects to the great gray owl or its habitat. Great gray owls nest primarily in old raptor nests or broken-topped trees and snags. These nesting trees occur most commonly in mature forests. Nesting habitat would increase for the great gray owl as tree mortality increases and snags are created. However, as snags begin to fall to the forest floor (20- 100 years out) there could be long-term loss of nesting habitat for this species.

Boreal Toad No Boreal Toad habitat would be removed. As a habitat generalist it has been noted in open- canopy ponderosa pine woodlands and closed-canopy dry conifer forest in Sanders County (Boundy, 2001), willow wetland thickets and aspen stands bordering Engelmann spruce stands in Beaverhead County (Jean et al., 2002), and mixed ponderosa pine/cottonwood/willow sites or Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine forest in Ravalli and Missoula counties. As trees continue to die and add to the fuel loading the area will become more susceptible to a high intensity wildfire that would put more heat to the ground, which would have detrimental effects to its habitat.

Arctic Grayling There would be no immediate direct effects to the Arctic Grayling or its habitat. Indirect effects include an increase in fuels over time that may increase the risk of severe wildfire compared to the existing conditions. A severe wildfire, if one were to occur, could lead to substantially higher (and earlier) peak flows and sediment yields, potentially affecting downstream species such as the Arctic Grayling. Peak flows would also likely increase somewhat, as more lodgepole pine trees die, because of decreased evapotranspiration and changes in snow pack distribution; however, the pattern of lodgepole pine mortality and any subsequent changes in peak flow is difficult to predict.

35

Impacts of Proposed Action Species that are habitat generalists may be the least affected, while those that are habitat specialists may be the most affected. As noted above, the mountain pine beetle outbreak is a natural disturbance event currently influencing the landscape in the project area. Project activities would add to the effects of the mountain pine beetle outbreak. Effects would include temporary disturbance that could lead to displacement for some species, possible direct mortality of some individuals, reductions in habitat quality in potential treatment areas for some species (particularly species using snags and requiring overstory forest canopy), and habitat improvements for others (particularly species that use edge habitat and openings). The project design standards described in Section 2.2.2 would eliminate or minimize effects to Lynx, Gray Wolf, North America Wolverine, Brewers sparrow, Greater sage grouse, Northern Goshawk, Great Gray Owl, Boreal Toad, and other terrestrial wildlife, and would encourage snag and coarse-woody debris retention, important habitat components for many species of terrestrial wildlife.

Canada Lynx Noise and human activity from salvage operations may reduce lynx use of the potential treatment areas and habitat adjacent to haul routes. It is reasonable to assume lynx would be displaced from the potential treatment areas during operation. Habitats outside of the active treatment areas and haul routes would be available for use by displaced lynx. Displacement of lynx is expected to be short-term, if any lynx actually use the area, with resumed use of the area once operations are completed. Salvage harvest and associated activities could occur for a period up to 2 years. There is a possibility that individual lynx could be displaced over the life of the action.

In addition to vegetation changes, there is also the chance, although unlikely due to a lack of recent sightings, that if a transient lynx was moving through the project area during implementation it could be affected by action activities. This potential disturbance is not expected to result in effects to transient lynx or reduce an individual’s ability to move through the area. There would be no long-lasting negative effects to lynx from this short term displacement.

Salvage operations would affect the quality and quantity of lynx habitat in the analysis area through the removal of dead trees. Conservation measures would be implemented to maintain snags, logs, and coarse woody debris; however, the potential for large accumulations of coarse woody debris to develop would be reduced in the long-term because of the removal of most of the mature lodgepole. Outside of the potential treatment areas, dead lodgepole would remain and are expected to provide future habitat structure for denning. The loss of potential future denning habitat is considered insignificant because the proposed action is not expected to limit the availability of denning sites at a larger scale.

The extent and density of understory vegetation and horizontal cover in the potential treatment areas would be reduced. Conservation measures would be implemented to retain advanced regeneration, understory vegetation, and dense horizontal cover; however, salvage operations would incidentally remove some of these habitat components. Temporary roads, skid trails, and landings would be needed to remove the harvested overstory. These action features would

36

damage or remove some advanced regeneration and understory vegetation, as well as breaking up horizontal cover. The loss of horizontal cover is the primary reason the treated stands would be converted to the Stand Initiation Structural Stage (SISS) and become temporarily unsuitable for lynx.

The incidental loss of understory vegetation would reduce the quality and quantity of habitat for snowshoe hares, reducing their use of the potential treatment areas and displacing them to adjacent untreated areas that provide better habitat. The reduction in hare habitat is expected to reduce the density of hares that are available as prey for lynx. Foraging opportunities for lynx would be reduced in proportion to the reduction in habitat for snowshoe hares. The reduction in foraging opportunities may increase the foraging range for lynx, leading to greater energy expenditure and increasing their exposure to predation or other mortality factors. As noted above, understory vegetation and horizontal cover are expected to recover and provide suitable habitat for snowshoe hares within 20 to 30 years following completion of the action.

A biological assessment was written to address the potential issues associated with the proposed action on the Canada Lynx (Appendix A). Gray Wolf No measureable effect is expected for the gray wolf. This species is not migratory, but may move seasonally following migratory ungulates within its territory.

Summer home ranges are smaller than winter ranges; the annual range may be up to a hundred square miles. Average territory size for the gray wolf in northwestern Montana was 85 square miles but was highly variable (USFWS et al., 2002). The project area would only encompass less than 1 percent of an average territory size and would have minimal effect on the species.

Gray Wolves establishing new packs in Montana have demonstrated greater tolerance of human presence and disturbance than previously thought characteristic of this species. They have established territories where prey are more abundant at lower elevations than expected, especially in winter (MTFWP, 2003). Although there is suitable foraging habitat within the project area there would only be short term displacement associated with the project treatment that would occur over a two year period.

North American Wolverine Minimal to no effects are expected for the North American Wolverine. They are generally solitary and wide-ranging. The mean annual home range of males was 163 square miles in Montana. Female home ranges were 41 square miles in Montana (Hornocker and Hash, 1981). The project area encompasses only 700 acres which is less than three percent of the 26,240 acres of a female home range.

In Montana, Hornocker and Hash (1981) found most wolverine use in medium to scattered timber, while areas of dense, young timber were used least. Wolverines avoided clearcuts and burns, crossing them rapidly and directly when they were entered at all. Wolverines may have short term dispersal or avoidance during implementation and potential avoidance until regeneration reached an appropriate height to offer hiding cover.

37

Brewers Sparrow Roughly 250 acres of sagebrush would be maintained or restored using mechanical or hand thinning activities. Removing conifer colonization in sagebrush through mechanical treatments or hand cutting would maintain or increase the amount of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow.

Sage Grouse The potential for the project area to be used by nesting sage grouse is considered low. The closest sage grouse lek is 18 mile from the project area. In Montana, the majority of nesting occurs within 2 miles of a lek. Although nesting can occur further than 2 miles from a lek, the potential of nesting beyond 6.5 miles begins to significantly diminish.

Although nesting habitat is suspected to be unlikely, there are only 17 acres of general sage grouse habitat within the project area totaling only two percent of the total project area. No priority habitat for sage grouse occurs within the project area.

Roughly 250 acres of sagebrush would be maintained or restored using mechanical or hand thinning activities. Removing conifer colonization in sagebrush through mechanical treatments or hand cutting would maintain or increase the amount of suitable sage grouse habitat.

Northern Goshawk Goshawks are limited by prey and habitat availability. Goshawks are rare on BLM lands but habitat exists for the species in the project areas. Large snags, down woody material and mature, old live trees in clumps or stringers with interlocking crowns should also be maintained or promoted as a desired condition in goshawk habitat (Reynolds et al., 1992). High quality goshawk habitat consists of a mosaic of vegetation structure stages interspersed throughout the post fledging area.

Active nest sites would be protected during the nesting season from disturbance, and habitat surrounding any nest sites (active or inactive) would remain in a suitable habitat condition after treatment. The project design features should ensure adequate protection of nesting goshawks during critical incubation, nesting and post fledgling periods and to maintain suitable habitat surrounding nest sites.

Due to the recent epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle, the amount of snag habitat available for nesting goshawk has substantially increased in the project area. The quality of habitat around these potential future nest trees, however, could be altered through forest thinning activities.

Up to 235 acres of overstory in beetle killed infected lodgepole pine could be removed in the project area. This could have the potential to convert up to 52 percent of the currently suitable (although moving towards unsuitable) habitat in the project area to marginal or unsuitable habitat for the northern goshawk. The project could also thin up to 65 acres of dead and dying beetle killed infected lodgepole pine forest. It is expected that maintaining 30-50 percent canopy cover in thinned areas of the project would maintain suitable goshawk habitat. Maintaining 30-50 percent canopy cover and promoting a diversity of age classes and understory vegetation species

38

would be expected to maintain or improve habitat in up to 14 percent of the project area for the northern goshawk.

Great Gray Owl Known great gray owl habitat is found throughout the project area according to data from the Montana Natural Heritage Program. Forest restoration activities can effect nesting great gray owl habitat by reducing the density of trees adjacent to nest sites.

Active nest sites would be protected during the nesting season from disturbance, and habitat surrounding any nest sites (active or inactive) would remain in suitable condition after treatment. Project designs put into place prior to treatment should ensure adequate protection of great gray owls during critical incubation, nesting and post fledgling periods and to maintain suitable habitat surrounding nest sites.

Returning overstocked lodgepole pine stands to more open habitats could increase the amount and quality of hunting habitat for the great gray owl. Up to 27 percent of the total number of forest acres treated would be retained for habitat diversity. This would allow for patches of dense forest between treatment units and protect future nest sites and roosting habitat adjacent to hunting areas.

Thinning roughly 65 acres of lodgepole pine forest would result in a reduction of canopy cover. No Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, or aspen would be removed in the project area. No currently suitable nest trees would be removed with this project and patches of suitable nesting habitat would be retained across the landscape. The retention of suitable nest trees would be expected to maintain suitable habitat for the owl in this area. In addition, the project is designed to promote the development of trees with old-growth characteristics to replace many old growth trees lost due to the mountain pine beetle. Promoting long-term development of structure preferred for nesting great grey owls would benefit the owl.

Individuals or habitats could be impacted (due to disturbance during implementation), this alternative would not result in a trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for great gray owl populations.

Boreal Toad Upland habitat use by forest amphibians largely depends on the availability of moist duff and litter and rotting down wood. Toads, however, may be less affected by changes in environmental conditions associated with project area overstory removal and thinning because of their tendency to travel at night and during rain events.

Habitat for the boreal toad would not be directly impacted by this project, but dispersing individuals could be killed by equipment during project implementation. Thinning could have a beneficial effect to boreal toads after project implementation. Riparian restoration would benefit the boreal toad. The removal of conifer encroachment in aspen stands could add additional water availability to the riparian area and could lead to beneficial effects to boreal toad habitat.

39

Individual boreal toads or its habitat could be impacted, but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability to the population or species.

Arctic Grayling Mechanisms that can affect aquatic wildlife and their habitats include increased sedimentation, increased turbidity, and loss or reduction of streamside vegetation cover. The LaMarche creek travels 0.5 miles through the project area with 0.4 miles having treatments near the eastern side of the creek. Increased sedimentation and turbidity can affect Arctic Grayling and other aquatic wildlife and their habitat by reducing dissolved oxygen, raising stream temperature, covering spawning and rearing areas, filling pool habitats, and making foraging more difficult. Loss or reduction of streamside vegetation cover can affect nutrient inputs, water temperature, light levels, macroinvertebrate production, and stream velocities.

The direct and indirect effects of the proposed action may include increased peak flows, though they would not be measurable. Since these very small changes in peak flows would not be measureable the aquatic wildlife and habitat would not be affected.

Negligible increases in sediment yield or turbidity are expected due to the proposed action. No new permanent roads would be constructed as part of the proposed action. However, increased use of existing roads by logging trucks and other heavy equipment generates concern that there could be increased soil erosion and sediment yield. With the full implementation of the project design standards, the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on sediment yield would be a potential slight increase in the short term (less than five years) and a potential decrease in the long term (greater than five years) because of the reduction in risk of a severe wildfire. The slight short-term increase in sediment yield is not expected to adversely affect aquatic wildlife or habitat.

Some dead and dying lodgepole pine would be removed near LaMarche Creek, and would result in loss of some vegetation or ground cover in the short term, but would have an increase in riparian vegetation in the long term (due to increased light and decreased competition once lodgepole is removed) which would have an overall benefit to aquatic wildlife and their habitat.

No increase in sediment, reduction of oxygen, rising temperatures, covering of spawning/rearing areas, filling of pool habitats, or reduction of foraging opportunities are expected to occur within the LaMarche Creek or the Big Hole River, which it feeds into.

40

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This section of the document discloses the incremental impacts that the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives are likely to have when considered in the context of impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have occurred, or are likely to occur in the area. The LaMarche Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (CIAA) (Figure 2, page 42), for the purposes of this analysis, was developed from the home range of a female lynx. This assessment area based on the female lynx was used due to its importance as a BLM special status species, and US Fish and Wildlife threatened species that has the potential to inhabit the area. The project area is in habitat classified as both unoccupied and secondary/peripheral lynx habitat that has value for dispersing or transient individuals. The existing BLM secondary habitat found in the project area is not large enough to support a viable lynx analysis unit (LAU), which is intended to facilitate analyses and monitoring of the effects of management actions on lynx habitat. The Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest Service incorporates adjacent Forest Service land, private property, and the BLM project area in LAU’s 188,166, and 155. The home range of a female lynx is 10 square miles, which was superimposed over each unit of the project area and combined to establish the analysis area. The LaMarche CIAA contains approximately 15,130 total acres within Deer Lodge County. Surface ownership within the CIAA is summarized in Table 4.1:

Table 4.1 LaMarche CIAA Ownership Ownership Acres Percent of CIAA BLM 1,315 9% Private 7,980 53% State 1,055 7% Forest Service 4,780 31% 15,130 100%

The vegetation communities found throughout the LaMarche CIAA are described below in Table 4.2:

Table 4.2 Vegetation in LaMarche CIAA Vegetation Type Analysis Area Acres BLM Acres BLM Project Area Acres Aspen 153 6 5 Cool/Moist Forest 4017 347 200 Dry Forest 2568 370 187 Grassland 3940 386 175 Mountain Sage 1467 72 38 Wyoming Sage 1369 16 10 Deciduous Shrubland 1269 93 64 Mahogany 111 20 6 Riparian 138 2 2 Other 98 3 2 SUM 15130 1315 689

41

Figure 2: LaMarche Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (CIAA)

42

Past and Present Actions The project area has had a variety of activities over the past century, including historic mining activity, logging, and development of roads, development and management of private lands, motorized and non-motorized use and livestock grazing.

Wildlife and wildlife habitat has been lost or degraded due to, historic timber harvest, weed infestations and recreation. Primary recreation activities include motorized OHV uses (ATV, motorcycle) and non-motorized uses (hiking, hunting, camping, fishing etc.). Due to design features, vegetative treatments on BLM lands would have minor effects to wildlife habitat in the project and analysis areas.

In the late 1890’s and early 1900s, wolves and other large predators in the western United States were hunted, trapped, and poisoned nearly to extinction. Ripple and Beschta (2005) indicate that the presence of top trophic level predators significantly affects herbivores and that this interaction alters or influences vegetation (aspen, willow, cottonwood). The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and subsequent increase in wolf numbers in southwest Montana may have an effect on reversing these impacts.

Severe over-trapping of beavers and unregulated livestock use during the late 1800s and early 1900s changed the character (hydrologically and vegetatively) of most mountain streams in the Intermountain West (Elmore and Beschta, 1987). Currently, there is very little beaver active in the LaMarche analysis area.

Watershed-wide, under management on all land ownerships, there has been and continues to be a decline in aspen and sagebrush vigor and extent. This is a west wide phenomenon that can be attributed primarily to a combination of successional processes including reduction (or elimination) of fire, loss of predator influence on herbivores, and long-term overuse by ungulates (Beschta, 2003) and drought. The lack of fire has also allowed an increase in conifers which have out-competed aspen and sagebrush by dominating sites through shading, and absorption of water and nutrients. This affects wildlife through the loss of forage production capability and habitat loss.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks manage big game species within the project area to obtain population objectives. Deer densities fell well below FWP’s minimum population objectives in 2008 for hunting district 319 in Region 3, but have since met and are now slightly above objective of the 22 year average in 2015. Elk populations in southwest Montana have increased over the past 20-25 years, and numbers have been managed to fall within population objectives in Region 3 as of 2014. Moose numbers are down throughout MFWP Region 3, with parasites as a primary concern.

The proposed timber harvest and roadwork would temporarily increase soil compaction and topsoil displacement at specific sites within the project area. Some of the soil recovering from past disturbances would be re-disturbed, increasing the recovery period. However, the overall loss of soil productivity would not be detectable on a local or watershed scale because direct effects would not be measurable at these scales.

43

The proposed project is unlikely to have any measurable direct or indirect effect on water quality within the cumulative impacts analysis boundary. There may be a temporary increase in sediment and turbidity within LaMarche Creek when activities occur adjacent to the creek, however, this will not be detectable within the larger watershed.

The cumulative impacts associated with a stand replacing wildfire and/or insect and disease outbreak could be devastating. The loss of vegetation would most likely result in excessive soil erosion, soil sterilization, intrusion of non-native plant species, increased decline in Forest Health and displacement of wildlife due to loss of habitat. In addition the threat of wildlife habitat loss on private property due to uncontrolled wildfire and/or loss of forest habitat immediately adjacent to the project area would be probable. Implementing the proposed action could elevate these negative results by reducing fuel loading.

Within the last decade, a variety of commercial timber harvest treatments have occurred on all ownerships of land within the LaMarche CIAA. Treatments were conducted in both the Cool/Moist Forest and Dry Forest Vegetation Types. Approximations of commercial timber harvest acres were developed through geospatial analysis and are as follows: 240 acres BLM, 60 acres State, 50 acres Forest Service, and 860 acres private. This equates to approximately 18% of the total acres within the Forest Vegetation Types. The proposed timber harvest would contribute an additional 300 acres of commercial timber harvest, or approximately 4.5% of the total acres within the Forest Vegetation Types. Additional treatments on Forest Service, private, and state lands are possible, although, no new treatment proposals on state or private are known. The Forest Service is proposing treatments through two separate projects, Pintler Face and roadside hazard tree removal. All proposals for these projects are preliminary and timelines for project implementation have not been specifically defined. The most recent project proposals identify approximately 925 acres, or approximately 14% of the total acres of the Forest Vegetation Types (including: commercial harvest in lodgepole pine, precommercial thin in lodgepole pine, conifer removal in aspen). If all treatments currently proposed, both Forest Service and BLM, are implemented the total disturbance of the Forest Vegetation Types within the LaMarche CIAA would be approximately 2,435 acres (36.5%). (Table 4.3 Disturbance in Forest Vegetation Types Within the LaMarche CIAA)

Table 4.3 Disturbance in Forest Vegetation Types Within the LaMarche CIAA

Past BLM for LaMarche Forest Service Total All Ownerships Project Proposed Projects

~ Acres 1210 300 925 2435

~ Percentage 18 4.5 14 36.5

As stated above, the Forest Service proposed projects are preliminary and treatment types, acres, and effects may change greatly during project development. Therefore, disturbance acres are only an estimate. Past treatments and proposed BLM treatments are not likely to affect lynx as it is secondary/periphery and unoccupied habitat.

44

CHAPTER 5 PERSONS, GROUPS, AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

5.1 Public Involvement

The LaMarche Forest Health Project appeared on the BLM’s EPlanning website (https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/lup/lup_register.do) on June 1, 2016.

A scoping letter was mailed to 13 individuals, organizations, and tribes. BLM received 1 response providing comments on the project.

Comments were addressed by modifying and refining project design features, incorporating the comments into analysis, or explaining why the comment did not warrant further agency response. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed the public comments receiving during scoping and used the comments to develop and refine the action alternative.

5.2 Consultation/Coordination Vanna Boccadori Wildlife Biologist, MT FWP Butte Jodi Bush US Fish and Wildlife Service John and Elizabeth Mahn Private Landowners Twin Beaver Cattle Co. Private Landowner John Reinhardt Private Landowner Jessica Bush Montana Historical Society Forest Service Butte Ranger District Chippewa-Cree Tribe Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Blackfeet Nation Blackfeet Tribal Business Council Blackfeet Tribal Historic Preservation Office

5.3 Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Members Michael O’Brien IDT Lead - Forestry Jason Brooks Wildlife Roger Olsen Range Brandy Janzen Soil, Water, Air Greg Campbell Fuels/Fire Lacy Decker Weeds & Special Status Plants Carolyn Kiely Cultural Resources

45

CHAPTER 6 Literature Cited

Amman, G. D., and W. E. Cole. 1983. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. Part II: population dynamics. USDA For. Servo GTR-INT-145

Banci, V. 1986. The wolverine in the Yukon: myths and management. Discovery 15:134-137

Bartos, D.L., 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests. In: Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings; 13–15 June 2000. Grand Junction, CO: USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18: 5–14 p.

Baumgarner [ed.], Proceeding, Symposium: Management of Lodgepole Pine Ecosystems. Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA

Beschta, R.L., 2003. Cottonwoods, elk, and wolves in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park. Ecol. Appl. 13, 1295–1309.

Boundy, J. 2001. Herpetofaunal surveys in the Clark Fork Valley region, Montana. Herpetological Natural History 8: 15-26

Brown, J. K. 1975. Fire cycles and community dynamics in lodgepole pine forests, pp. 430-456. In D. M.

Brown, D.G., Aspinall, R., Bennett, D.A., 2006. Landscape models and explanation in landscape ecology: a space for generative landscapescience? Prog. Geogr. 58, 369–382.

Bull, E.L. and J.A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Number 148. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and The American Ornithologist's Union, Washington, D.C.

Collins, B.J., C.C. Rhoades, M.A. Battaglia, and R.M. Hubbard 2012. The effects of bark beetle outbreaks on forest development, fuel load and potential fire behavior in salvage logged and untreated lodgepole pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 284 (2012) 260-268.

Elmore, W., and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands 9(6):260- 265.

Everett, R.L., Schelllhaas, R., Keenum, D., Spurbeck, D., Ohlson, P. 2000. Fire history in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests on the east slope of the Washington Cascades. In: Forest Ecology and Management 129 (2000) pp. 207-225.

Furniss, M. M. 1997. American forest entomology comes on stage. Am. Entomol. 43: 40-47.

Gannon, Amy “Pine beetle infestation not over yet.” Interview by Baumann, Lisa. Assoicated Press Washington Times July 28, 2014

Hacker, Jan. 2005. Effects of Logging Residue Removal on Forest Sites. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. October 2005.

46

Hann,W.J. and D.L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:389-403.

Hann, W., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. Hamilton, J. Jones, and M. Levesque. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy fire regime condition class website .USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management. www.frcc.gov.

Hillis, M.J., M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, and D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining Elk Security: the Hillis Paradigm. Pages 38-43. In A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon and T.N. Lonner, comps., Proc. Elk Vulnerability Symp., Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 330 pp.

Hornocker, M. G. and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59(7):1286-1301.

Ice, George G., Daniel G. Neary, and Paul W. Adams. "Effects of wildfire on soils and watershed processes." Journal of Forestry 102.6 (2004): 16-20.

Jean, C., P. Hendricks, M. Jones, S. Cooper, and J. Carlson. 2002. Ecological communities on the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge: inventory and review of aspen and wetland systems. Report to Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

Kirkley, Jack. 1996. Northern goshawk monitoring, Beaverhead, Deerlodge National Forest, Dillon District, Wisdom District and Wise River District. Summer 1996.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2003. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Unpublished report. 275 pp.

Logan, J. and Powell, J. (2001). Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera : Scolytidae). American Entomologist, 47(3): 160-173.

Lotan, J. E., J. K. Brown, and L. F. Neuenschwander. 1985. Role of fire in lodgepole pine forests, pp. 133- 152. In D. M Baumgartner, R. G. Krebill, J. T. Arnott, and G. F. Weetman [eds.], Proceedings, Symposium. Mitchell, R.G. and H.K. Preisler. 1998. Fall rate of lodgepole pine killed by the mountain pine beetle in central Oregon. West J. Appl. For. 13: 23-26.

Mitchell, SR, ME Harmon, and KEB O’Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long- term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 19(3): 643- 655.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. Debano, L.F., editors. 2005 (revised 2008). Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Neary, D.G., C.C. Klopatek, L.F. DeBano, P.F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management. 122 (1-2): 51-71.

47

Noss and LaRoe, 1995 Noss, R.F., LaRoe, E.T., III, Scott, J.M., 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. National Biological Service Biological Report 28, Washington, DC.

Peterson, D.L., Agee, J.K., Aplet, G.H., Dykstra, D.P., Graham, R.T., Lehmkuhl, J.F., Pilliod, D.S., Potts, D.F., Powers, R.F., Stuart, J.D., 2009. Effects of Timber Harvest Following Wildfire in Western North America. 2009. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Pfister, R. D., B. L. Kovalchik, S. F. Arno, and R. C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34. Ogden, UT. 174pp.

Raffa, K. F., and A. A. Berryman. 1987. Interacting selective pressures in conifer-bark beetle systems: a basis for reciprocal adaptation? Am. Nat. 129: 234-262

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the southwestern United States. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Report RM-217. 90 p.

Ripple, W.J., and R.L. Beschta. 2005. Linking Wolves and Plants: Aldo Leopold on Trophic Cascades. Bioscience. 55(7):613-621.

Sanders, Darrell. Devil’s Elbow Land Exchange. 1998. Bureau of Land Management, Butte , MT

Schmidt, W. C. 1988. Lodgepole pine: an ecological opportunist, pp. 14-20. In G. D. Amman [compiler], Proceedings, Symposium: The Management of Lodgepole Pine to Minimize the Losses to the Mountain Pine Beetle, 12-14 July 1988, Kalispell, MT. USDA For. Serv. GTR-INT-262

Schroeder M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, S.J. Stiver 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America Condor, 106 (2004), pp. 363–376

Shrimpton, D. M. 1978. Resistance of lodgepole pine to mountain pine beetle infestation, pp. 64-76. In A. A. Berryman, G. D. Amman, and R. W. Stark [eds.], Proceedings, Symposium: Theory and Practice of Mountain Pine Beetle Management in Lodgepole Pine Forests, 25-27 April 1978, Moscow, ID. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow.

Smith, J.K., 2000. Wildland fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42, Vol. 1. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Spoelma, Timothy P.; Morgan, Todd A.; Dillon, Thale; Chase, Alfred L.; Keegan, Charles E., III; DeBlander, Larry T. 2008. Montana’s forest products industry and timber harvest, 2004. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-8. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 36 p.

Tausch R.J., N.E. West, A.A. Nabi Tree age and dominance patterns in Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodlands J. Range Manage., 34 (1981), pp. 259–264

48

The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. 2007. University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE. http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=1806-07 06.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl

Traylor, Diane, Lyndi Hubbell, Nancy Wolf and Barbara Fiedler. The La Mesa Fire: Impact on Cultural Resources. 1983. USDAPark Service, Bandolier National Monument, NM.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, and USDA Wildlife Services. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2002 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.

USDA. 1985 Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-119. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station.

USDA Forest Service 2000. Northern Region Snag Management Protocol. Unpublished Report prepared by the Snag Protocol Team for the USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

USDA. 2004. Basin Creek Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project. Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Survey Area Version Date: 09/28/2015. Deer Lodge County, Montana. Survey Area Version 14.

USDI-BLM. 1989. Bureau of Land Management Fencing Handbook, H-1741-1.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2009. BLM Montana State Director’s Sensitive Species List. Updated April 23, 2009. Billings, Montana

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Butte Field Office Weed Management Plan Revision. Butte, Montana.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Colorado Bark Beetle Strategic Plan. Lakewood, CO: Bureau of Land Management.

Wulder, M.A., C.C. Dymond, J.C. White, D.G. Leckie, A.L. Carroll. 2006. Surveying Mountain pine beetle damage of forests: A review of remote sensing opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management (2006) 221: 27-41

49

APPENDICES

Biological Assessment LaMarche Bark Beetle Salvage Environmental Assessment

Bureau of Land Management Butte Field Office

Prepared By:

___Jason Brooks______5/17/2016______

Jason Brooks Date Wildlife Biologist Bureau of Land Management Butte Field Office

Appendix A – Biological Assessment

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Determination of Effects 1 3.0 Location, Proposed Action, and Management Direction, Background 1 3.1 Location 1 3.1.1 Timber Salvage 2 3.1.2 Conifer Encroachment 2 3.2 Background 4 3.2.1 Lodgepole pine 4 3.2.2 Aspen 5 3.2.3 Sagebrush 5 4.0 Purpose of and Need for Action 5 5.0 Proposed Action 6 6.0 Action Area and Methods 8 7.0 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Critical Habitat Considered and Analyzed 8 8.0 Consultation to Date 10 9.0 Species Evaluated in Detail 10 9.1 Canada Lynx 10 9.1.1 Life History 10 9.1.2 Home Range 10 9.1.2 Food Habits 11 9.1.3 Canada Lynx habitat 11 9.1.4 Critical Habitat 12 10.0 Environmental Baseline 12 10.1 Existing Condition 14 10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 15 10.2.1 Direct Effects 15 10.2.2 Indirect Effects 15 10.2.3 Cumulative Effects 17 11.0 Determination of Effects 18 12.0 Recommendations for Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects 18 13.0 Literature Cited 19 14.0 Appendix A 24 15.0 Acronym Table 27

i

Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is evaluating the effects of the proposed LaMarche Pine Bark Beetle Salvage Project (here after referred to as “action”) on lands managed by the BLM’s Butte Field Office (BFO) through an Environmental Assessment (EA). This action would involve two aspects of timber removal. The first would involve a salvage harvest and hazard-tree removal (through a paid contractor) of dead, dying and high-risk lodgepole pine trees infested with mountain pine beetle (Dendroctnous pondrosae). The second would entail the removal of conifer encroachment in aspen stands and sagebrush-steppe habitat. The purpose of this document is to present the analysis and determination of effects of the proposed action on federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and proposed), as well as proposed and designated critical habitat.

This biological assessment (BA) conforms to legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 United States Code [USC] 1536 ©, 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 402.12(f) and 402.14), as amended. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires that federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

Determination of Effects

This Biological Assessment determines that implementation of the proposed Federal action “May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the threatened Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis). Implementation of the proposed Federal action would have “No Affect” on designated Critical Habitat for Canada lynx as the Federal action is not within designated Critical Habitat.

Implementation of the proposed Federal action would have “No Effect” to the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis).

Location, Background, Proposed Action, and Management Direction

Location

This proposed action would occur on three geographically separate blocks of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) totaling approximately 700 acres (all areas stated as approximated were calculated using GIS ArcMap 1031), of which up to 550 acres are proposed to be treated. The action location is within the BFO’s Upper Big Hole West (UBHW) Planning Area (PA) located in Deer Lodge County, Montana, north and west of the town of Wise River (Appendix A, Figure 1). The legal description is T 2N, R 13W Sec. 20, 22, and 24. On lands managed by the BFO, mountain pine beetle infestations are spreading rapidly, infesting stands of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). The mountain pine beetle is the primary insect agent affecting

1

the lodgepole pine forest ecosystem, and, in association with fire, largely determines the successional dynamics in these forests (Cole and Amman 1980). One specific area in the southwest corner of the BFO has been identified as being heavily infected by the mountain pine beetle with a significant amount conifer encroachment in the sagebrush community, and is suitable for management actions to address these issues. Timber Salvage

Elevation Range: 6,000 to 6,700 feet Aspect: Predominantly South and Southeast Acres: 300 Forest Type: Lodgepole Pine

The timber salvage action area is located in and around the LaMarche Creek drainage (Appendix A, Figure 2) in the Big Hole watershed (Deer Lodge County). LaMarche Creek is one of many drainages that flow into the Big Hole River. The elevation throughout the area ranges from 6,000 to 6,700 feet with varying aspects. These lower elevation areas are near the valley floor and are generally accessible from June until November, depending on snow conditions; however, with plowing they could be accessed year around. One of the salvage areas would be accessible by a well-constructed public road, while access to the other two would be accessed through temporarily built roads through private land. Identified stands are predominantly lodgepole pine, with intermingled Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Engleman spruce (Picea englemannii), and aspen (Populus tremuloides). Timber harvest last occurred here in the 1920’s to the 1930’s. Recent fieldwork has identified heavy lodgepole pine mortality throughout the action area due to mountain pine beetle activity.

Mountain Pine Beetle kill, in Unit 3

2

Conifer encroachment

Elevation Range: 6,000 to 6,500 feet Aspect: Predominantly South and Southeast Acres: 250 Forest/Shrub Type: Aspen/ big sagebrush The conifer encroachment treatment area within the sagebrush steppe is found in the LaMarche creek drainage in the Big Hole water shed, and is dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Colonization by conifers, primarily Douglas-fir and juniper, has increased in the area largely due to change in the fire disturbance regime. The fires that are usually associated with the grassland/shrubland type habitats that are found in the action area historically prevented the encroachment of woody species. Due to the lack of these frequent disturbances, which is due to human influence, the habitat is undergoing habitat type changes towards woodland. Relict juniper woodlands were primarily confined to rocky surfaces or ridges with sparse vegetation (West 1984, Miller and Rose 1995, Miller et al. 1999b). However, current expansion has occurred on the more productive sagebrush sites with deep, well drained soils (Miller Rose 1999). Fire is believed to have been important in shaping these sagebrush steppe communities in the Intermountain West before Eurasian settlement (Wright and Baily 1982). The decline of fire has been attributed primarily to suppression of wildfire beginning in 1910-1930 (Agree 1993).

Aspen groves found in the action area are encompassed by lodgepole pine stands, and are being outcompeted by encroaching conifers. Conifer colonization has also replaced aspen stands found throughout their historic range (Stam et al. 2008). In the absence of disturbances such as fire, and with an available seed source, coniferous species frequently establish, outcompeting the aspen, and, in time, dominate the site (Stam et al. 2008). Treatments would focus on restoring the grassland/shrubland and riparian habitats found in the action area, by reducing conifer expansion into these areas.

Within the sagebrush/grasslands the primary goal would be to kill/remove 60% or more of conifers less than 12” diameter at breast height (DBH). Aspen treatments would focus on removing 95% of all conifers within two tree lengths of any live or dead aspen. Within the treatment areas, thinning would take place on approximately 240 acres of grassland/shrubland, and approximately 10 acres of aspen habitat. The conifers (Douglas-fir and juniper) would be removed through a combination of cutting (lop and scatter), mastication, and/or commercial harvest. Reserve patches of older mature trees would be left for habitat diversity and big game hiding and thermal cover.

3

Conifer encroachment, Unit 3

Background

Lodgepole Pine Insect and disease activity is occurring in Montana forests at levels unprecedented in recorded history. Periodic insect and disease infestations are natural elements of the landscape, but past management decisions and changing forest conditions have elevated them to epidemic levels. The main insect agents are the mountain pine beetle, Ips beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, and the western balsam bark beetle. The mountain pine beetle is the most prevalent insect pest in the action area, and is a significant ecological force at the landscape level. The majority of its life cycle is spent as larvae feeding in the phloem tissue (inner bark) of host pine trees (Logan and Powell 2001). This feeding activity eventually girdles and kills successfully attacked trees (Amman and Cole 1983, Furniss 1997). The mountain pine beetle epidemic started in the 1990’s and peaked in the action area around 2006-2008. The epidemic has spread across more than 6 million acres, or 23 percent of the state’s 25.6 million acres of forest on private, state and federal lands (Gannon 2014). Years of fire suppression, less active forest management, drought, and increasing temperatures have altered the natural historic range of variability for disturbance and made forests susceptible to unprecedented insect and disease outbreaks (USDI BLM 2012).

Most western pines are suitable hosts for this insect, but ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa ponderosa) and lodgepole pine are currently the most important host species (Logan and Powell 2001). The mountain pine beetle is a native insect, having co-evolved as an important ecological component of western pine forests. The inter-relationship between beetle-caused mortality and subsequent fire has resulted in a basic ecological cycle for many western forests (Schmidt 1988). Some pines species, such as lodgepole pine, are maintained by periodic disturbances. The lodgepole pine forest-type typically is an essential monoculture of even-aged trees that were initiated by a catastrophic, stand-replacing fire. Without the influence of fire, lodgepole pine would be lost over much of its native range (Brown 1975, Lotan et al. 1985). Fire serves to 4

prepare the seedbed, releases seeds from the serotinous cones (triggered to release seeds by heat of a fire), and eliminates more shade-tolerant species such as spruce or fir that would eventually out-compete and replace the early seral lodgepole pine.

The mountain pine beetle plays an important regulatory role in the fire ecology of lodgepole pine, attacking old and weakened trees, and speeding development of a younger forest. In the last few years, unusually hot, dry summers and mild winters throughout the region, along with forests filled with mature lodgepole pine, have led to an unprecedented epidemic. In the first few years after an outbreak, the dead needles provide a highly combustible source of fine fuels. Later, the standing dead trees provide "fire ladders" that serve to conduct ground fires into the canopy, resulting in the stand-replacing crown fires that favor lodgepole pine reproduction. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks are an important component in the disturbance ecology of lodgepole pine forests (Logan and Powell 2001). Another important component, synchrony, arises from the fact that the mountain pine beetle differs from most phytophagous insects in that it must kill its host to reproduce successfully. Pine tree hosts are far from passive victims; they have evolved significant defensive chemistry that serves to protect them from beetle attack (Shrimpton 1978, Raffa and Berryman 1987). The mountain pine beetle, in turn, has evolved a mass-attack strategy that overwhelms tree defenses through sheer number of attacking beetles. Success of this strategy is contingent upon large numbers of beetles being simultaneously available for attack (Raffa and Berryman 1987).

Aspen Conifers have replaced aspen over much of aspen’s historic range in the western United States. Aspen stands now occupy only about 40 percent of their estimated historic range due to various factors and have now been replaced by coniferous species (Bartos 2001). A major reduction in fire intervals and increased effectiveness in wildfire management since European settlement are thought to be major contributors to the changes in the forest cover. Aspen are locally infrequent in the action area, and existing groups of aspen are becoming decadent with limited to no regeneration under the current conditions. These shrinking areas of riparian are small but important components of the ecosystem on public land that provide important wildlife habitat. They are highly desirable for visual diversity and enhance the value of the watershed as a whole. Aspen stands, though not common, are found in isolated populations scattered throughout the PA. The action area would occur within elk calving areas and would not only benefit large ungulates, but also numerous other wildlife dependent on the diversity of riparian areas. Aspen is an important winter food source for many species of wildlife, and also serves as a natural fire break in the event of a wildfire. Because of missed fire return intervals leading to conifer expansion, aspen habitats are declining across the landscape. These habitats are ecologically very important for the wildlife habitat needs and ecological niches that they fulfill. Treatments of these stands are designed to increase size, growth, and vigor of aspen as well as the overall biodiversity of the planning area.

Sagebrush Conifer encroachment is also prevalent in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem found in the action area. The area occupied by sagebrush is declining and becoming progressively fragmented due to conifer encroachment. This encroachment is causing landscape scale declines of sagebrush dependent fauna and flora. The sagebrush ecosystem is one of the most imperiled in the United

5

States (Noss et al. 1995). Despite the large geographical distribution of the sagebrush it only occupies about 56 percent of its historic range and is highly fragmented (Schroeder et al. 2004). Juniper woodlands occupy approximately 19 million ha in the Intermountain West. As much as 90 percent of the current area of these woodlands was sagebrush plant communities prior to the European American settlement (Tausch et al. 1981). These increases in conifer cover in sagebrush communities continue to eliminate sagebrush and its herbaceous cover. This detrimental encroachment in the sagebrush steppe ecosystem increases the continued loss of sagebrush and its sagebrush obligate and facultative species that depend on it.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this action is to 1) promote forest health and stand regeneration by salvaging insect and disease damaged timber, 2) remove hazard trees and help secure the evacuation route along the LaMarche Creek Road, 3) provide for resilient forests and diverse wildlife habitats, 4) recover economic value of dead and dying timber, 5) reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires and subsequent erosion and watershed damage, 6) remove competition and increase size, growth, and vigor of aspen, and 7) increase sagebrush habitat. Removing and using many of the dead trees, while minimizing adverse effects to other resources, can accomplish this purpose. The need for the action is driven by the epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle infestation in the analysis area.

The need for the action is that mature lodgepole pine stands within the UBHW PA, specifically the LaMarche action area, are experiencing high levels of mortality from the mountain pine beetle. Due to the high levels of mortality, forest health is declining, the evacuation route along the LaMarche Creek Road is compromised, and fuel loadings have increased to the point where the timber stands are at risk of catastrophic wildfire. In addition, throughout the action area, younger age classes of conifers, which are less susceptible to mountain pine beetle, are encroaching upon aspen stands and sagebrush parks. This encroachment is outcompeting and shading out both aspen and sagebrush, causing mortality and a reduction in natural regeneration/reproduction. Therefore, conifer treatment is necessary to improve the health of the aspen stands and sagebrush parks.

Proposed Action

The BFO proposes a commercial timber harvest to salvage approximately 300 acres of dead, dying, and high-risk lodgepole pine in portions of the action areas infested with the mountain pine beetle. Included within these acres are up to 235 acres of salvage, and 65 acres of commercial thinning. The expected harvest volume for the sale would be approximately 2.5 million board feet (MMBF). The action would also have a non-commercial timber component, which would not be analyzed, where 250 acres of conifer encroachment in aspen stands and sagebrush communities would be removed. Treatments are expected to begin in the Fall/Winter of 2016 and continue for no longer than two years (two year contract). Treatments could be completed in a much shorter time depending on the hired contractor and their crew size, and other unpredictable factors such as weather. There would also be a timing restriction put into place for elk calving season (April 1st – June 30th) which would affect spring start up times.

6

Dead or beetle-infested lodgepole would be removed in potential treatment areas to the extent feasible. Other tree species in the treatment area such as Douglas-fir, spruce, and aspen would be retained, except where individual trees impede treatment operations or pose a hazard. Advanced regeneration of lodgepole pine that is not dead or infected with mountain pine beetle would be retained to the extent feasible. Post-harvest, the treated stands would resemble land treated with a regeneration harvest method, such as overstory removal, because the targeted stands are dominated by lodgepole pine and as much as 50-75 percent of mature lodgepole have been killed by the mountain pine beetle.

The proposed action would also involve removing some green standing timber in the early stages of beetle infestation. An advantage of this action is that some of the trees removed would contain the next generation of mountain pine beetle and, by removing these trees, the spread of the beetle would be slowed. Early treatment of beetle-infested trees would also accelerate lodgepole regeneration by allowing more available resources to be accessed by the new regeneration.

Areas of timber less affected by insect infestation would be left in the treatment area to provide a future seed source, maintain vertical diversity, maintain age-class diversity, provide protection for regeneration, and provide future genetic variability. These sections would either be treated as “leave areas” where no trees would be cut, or “thinning areas” where only uninfected trees would be left. These sections would be designed to blend into the landscape as much as possible and would vary in size and shape depending on site condition. Incidental harvest of green, uninfected trees may occur to facilitate treatment activities or reduce risk to public health and safety; however, some of these trees could be damaged or killed by treatment activities.

The proposed action would also involve conifer removal in aspen stands and sage-steppe habitat found in the treatment areas. The removal of conifers would assist in restoring and enhancing viable aspen stands that have been or are currently declining due to conifer expansion. Conifers would be removed up two tree lengths away in aspen stands. Removing conifer colonization from the sagebrush-steppe habitat would allow for increases in grasses, forbs and shrubs that are currently being replaced by conifers. Declines in these habitats would reduce food, cover, and nesting sites for wildlife species dependent on sagebrush and grasslands. Much of the shrubland habitat type in the action area has been undergoing conversion to woodland/coniferous habitat due to fire intervals that have lengthened considerably since European settlement. In sagebrush and savannah treatments, as stated in BFO’s Resource Management Plan (RMP), all trees with “old growth” characteristics (large, open grown branches, rough limbs, broken tops, etc.) would be retained. This would generally include all snags >10” DBH. The RMP also states that the BLM would manage for adequate numbers of snags (5-10 snags per acre) following the “Northern Region Snag Management Protocol” (USDA-FS 2000). Douglas-fir species in the sagebrush-steppe habitat would be targeted as well as some of the younger juniper age class. Some dense, mature juniper stands would be conserved for big game thermal cover and security. All snags with nest cavities would also be retained.

The proposed action is expected to reduce future fuel loading in the treated areas. Slash that is not piled or windrowed in approved areas shall be lopped and scattered to within 18” of the

7

ground at all points, retaining no more than 15 tons of course woody material per acre. The slash that is left would assist in soil-moisture retention, seedling microsites, soil nutrients, and used for erosion control. Trees may be limbed before skidding or whole-tree yarded. The type of ground based tractors used would be up to the contractor, with rubber tired skidders and tracked cutting machines being the most common. There would be no restrictions placed on machinery used. Natural regeneration of treated areas is anticipated; therefore, seeding or planting treated sites is not expected to be necessary. If regeneration is determined to be inadequate, as determined by regeneration monitoring, the sites may be artificially regenerated through seeding or planting. All existing spruce and Douglas-fir in lodgepole treatments would be retained; however, some of these trees could be damaged or killed by treatment activities.

In order to facilitate the treatments identified, some temporary road building needs to occur. No new permanent roads would be constructed. This action proposes to construct a maximum of 3.5 miles of temporary road built to facilitate treatments, which would be completely obliterated and recontoured once the action has been implemented. Skid trails would be slashed and seeded as well. Roads would blend into the landscape after deconstruction. Temporary roads would be constructed immediately before access is needed for a particular treatment area and then closed and obliterated as soon as possible after treatment is complete. Public use of these roads would be prohibited. All wooded operations are limited to dry, frozen or snow packed conditions. The administrative official (AO) may temporarily curtail logging and hauling operations due to excessive soil moisture conditions which cause ruts 4” in depth or greater within the action area. Shutdowns would be by written notice and be in effect no later than 24 hours after purchaser receives said notice.

Table 1 Treatment by Salvage Unit (Appendix A, Map 2), Associated Acres, and Purpose and Need Salvage Unit Acres Treatment Purpose & Need Objective 1 75 Overstory Removal 1, 3, 4, 5 1 15 Thinning 1, 3, 4, 5 2 90 Overstory Removal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2 30 Thinning 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Conifer removal from 2 10 Aspen 6 Conifer Removal from 2 190 Sage 7 3 70 Overstory Removal 1, 3, 4, 5 3 20 Thinning 1, 3, 4, 5 Conifer Removal From 3 50 Sage 7 Total Acres 550

8

Action Area and Methods

Project methods have been developed for resource protection and to enable a meaningful analysis of the potential effects of the proposed action. The sagebrush-steppe habitat within the action area does not provide, and is not considered potential lynx habitat, and will not be analyzed in this BA. The analysis of effects assumes that these measures would be implemented, as applicable, and that they would be effective. Those methods applicable to the species analyzed in this BA are reproduced here.

1. Surveys would be conducted to identify occurrences of special status animal and plant species. Any identified locations of special status species would be protected. Protection would be accomplished by avoidance during action layout and implementation, and through project-implementation monitoring (in coordination with the BFO Wildlife Biologist and Forester), if necessary.

2. Maintain screening cover consisting of live trees, snags, and coarse woody debris for lynx and other wildlife on strategically located portions of the landscape (where feasible) between potential treatment areas, roads, and meadows. This screening cover should be comprised of tree-retention strips a minimum of 200 feet in width, unless topographic breaks occur between potential treatment areas, roads, or meadow openings.

3. If any previously unknown special status animal or plant species are found during implementation, action activities would stop and the BFO Wildlife Biologist or Forester would be contacted immediately. The BFO Wildlife Biologist or Forester would evaluate the occurrence and determine the need for additional actions.

4. Potential treatments would maintain 5 to 10 snags per acre following our Resource Management Plan, which states that the BLM will follow the “Northern Region Snag Management Protocol”. Snags would be maintained in locations away from structures, roads, and trails so that they do not create safety hazards to the public. Where possible, snags would be retained in groups, associated with residual green trees where available, to reduce the risk of wind-throw.

5. Treatments would retain a maximum of 15 tons per acre of coarse woody debris within harvest treatment areas. Where possible with regeneration operations, treatments would create piles of logs, stumps, or other woody debris to minimize the effects of larger openings.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Critical Habitat Considered and Analyzed

On April 11th, 2016, a list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species that may be present in the analysis area was obtained from the USFWS’s IPaC Planning tool, which streamlines the FWS environmental review process. This list identifies both potentially affected designated

9

critical habitat and threatened, endangered, and proposed species located within Deer Lodge County and downstream of the action. A pre-field review was conducted for available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance was needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information included BLM records and files, the Montana Natural Heritage Program database, National Forest information, state wildlife agency information (Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks), and published research. No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur within the analysis area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. Table 2 documents the rationale for excluding a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then an additional survey is needed; alternatively, presence can be assumed and potential effects evaluated. The BFO verified the USFWS list of threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species that may occur within the analysis area (USFWS 2016). Upon closer inspection of potentially affected species, it was determined that lynx may occur in the action areas. Other species, including the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) were eliminated from analysis because their habitat was not in or near the action areas, or they were not reasonably expected to be affected by the action (Table 2).

Table 2 Federally Listed or Proposed Species in Deer Lodge County, Montana Critical Habitat Known or Suitable Present or Common Scientific Suspected Habitat Could be Rationale If Not Carried Forward Name Name Status Presence? Present? Affected? for Analysis Lynx Not applicable- carried forward Canada Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes No No for analysis Action area is not large enough to support any home range size, Ursus arctos and habitat is not suitable in the Grizzly Bear horribilus Threatened No No No action area. Calidris Species and suitable habitat do Red Knot canutus rufa Threatened No No No not occur in the action area. Salvelinus Species and suitable habitat do Bull Trout confluentus Threatned No No No not occur in the action area.

Consultation to Date On February 18th, first contact was made to Katrina Dixon, consultation biologist with the USFWS. The purpose of this contact was to inform the USFWS of the BLMs intent to write a biological assessment for the LaMarche bark beetle timber salvage sale. On March 2nd, 2016, a list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species that may be present in the county and analysis area was obtained from the USFWS IPaC website.

Species Evaluated in Detail

10

The Canada Lynx is the only species evaluated in detail in this BA.

Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) – Threatened Life History

Home Range Lynx occur in mesic coniferous forests that have cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of snowshoe hare (Ruggiero et al. 2000b). Both snow conditions and vegetation type are important factors to consider in defining lynx habitat. Lynx occur in boreal, sub-boreal, and western montane forests (Quinn and Parker 1987). The home range of a snowshoe hair 5-10 ha (12-25 ac); estimates vary depending on the sampling method (e.g., live-trapping vs. radio telemetry) (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013). Although hares are non-migratory and generally occupy the same area throughout the year, short-distance seasonal movements between winter and summer foraging areas have been documented (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013). Montana Canada lynx ecology is subsequently different than those populations further north with average home ranges nearly twice the size of those found in the north (Aubrey et al. 2000). Home range sizes in North America are large, varying from 10 to 243 square kilometers with typical home ranges between 16 to 20 square kilometers (McCord and Cardoza 1982). Home range sizes vary with sex, age, population density, prey density, and method of survey and calculation (McCord and Cardoza 1982). Based on previous studies, the mean home range sizes of females in southern boreal forests are more than twice as large as female home ranges in the taiga, regardless of hare densities (Aubry et al. 2000). Lynx densities vary across the southern periphery of its range and may be linked to snowshoe hare density and abundance (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013). Generally, home ranges in the western United States are larger than those reported from the eastern United States or from northern Canada during peaks in snowshoe hare abundance (Ruediger et al. 2000)

Food Habits In North America, the distribution of lynx is nearly coincident with that of snowshoe hares (McCord and Cardoza 1982, Bittner and Rongstad 1982). Snowshoe hares are the primary prey of lynx, comprising 35-97 percent of the diet (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Other prey species include red squirrel, grouse, flying squirrel, and ground squirrels, among others. Southern populations of lynx may prey on a wider diversity of species than northern populations because of lower average hare densities and differences in small mammal communities. In areas characterized by patchy distribution of lynx habitat, lynx may prey opportunistically on other species that occur in adjacent habitats, potentially including white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanichus phasianellus) (Quinn and Parker 1987, Lewis and Wenger 1998). Studies of lynx in the northern taiga forests have provided further evidence that lynx populations are inextricably linked to the cyclic abundance of snowshoe hares. Lynx density, home range size, dispersal patterns, reproductive parameters, and survival rates are strongly correlated to snowshoe hare abundance (Nellis et al. 1972, Brand and Keith 1979, Ward and Krebs 1985, 11

Breitenmoser and Slough 1993, Poole 1994). Like many cats, they would also eat carrion when it is available.

Canada Lynx Habitat Primary vegetation that contributes to lynx habitat is lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce (Ruediger et al., 2000). In extreme northern Idaho, northeastern Washington, and northwestern Montana, cedar-hemlock habitat types may also be considered primary vegetation. Secondary vegetation, when interspersed within subalpine forests that may also contribute to lynx habitat includes cool, moist Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch and aspen forests. Dry forest types (e.g., ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir or lodgepole pine with a grass-like understory) do not provide lynx habitat (Squires et. al., 2010). Lynx habitat quality is believed to be lower in the southern periphery of its range, because landscapes are more heterogeneous in terms of topography, climate, and vegetation (Buskirk et al. 2000b) Lynx inhabit conifer and conifer-hardwood habitats that support their main prey species, snowshoe hares. Disturbance processes that create early successional stages exploited by snowshoe hares include fire, insect infestations, catastrophic wind events, and disease outbreaks (Kilgore and Heinselman 1990, Veblen et al. 1998, Agee 2000). Both timber harvest and natural disturbance processes can provide foraging habitat for lynx when resulting understory stem densities and structure meet the forage and cover needs of snowshoe hare (Keith and Surrendi 1971, Conroy et al. 1979). These requirement needs of the snowshoe hare include a dense, multi-layered understory that maximizes cover and browse at both the ground level and at fluctuating snow depths throughout the winter in order to provide them cover and food. Within about 10 to 30 years following disturbance (length of time varies, depending on site productivity, forest type and intensity of disturbance), lynx begin to forage for hares in vegetation that provides a high density of young conifer stems and/or branches that protrude above the snow (Sullivan and Sullivan 1988, Koehler 1990). Landscapes with various age classes, primarily mid to advanced successional stages resulting from burns or clear cuts that support dense understory vegetation, may be more likely to support high snowshoe hare populations (Poole et al. 1996). Based on the examination of historical and recent evidence, the 2005 Canada lynx recovery outline categorized lynx habitat and occurrence within the contiguous United States as either core areas, secondary areas, or peripheral areas (USDI FWS 2005). These “core areas” are defined as having the strongest long-term evidence of the persistence of lynx populations within the contiguous United States. Both persistent verified records of lynx occurrence over time and recent evidence of reproduction are required to be considered core areas. The role of non-core areas (secondary and peripheral) in sustaining lynx populations in Montana is still uncertain at this time. The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS 2013) document combines secondary areas and peripheral areas (which were also identified in the recovery outline) into one category, due to the fact that they have similar characteristics and management recommendations. The ability of lynx to disperse long distances and their fluctuating population dynamics have led to numerous individual occurrence records outside of core areas, without supplemental evidence of historic or current presence of lynx populations. Areas classified as “secondary areas” are those with historical records of lynx presence with no record of reproduction; or areas with historical records and no recent surveys to document the presence of lynx and/or reproduction (USDI FWS 2005). These “peripheral areas” are the result of periods following cyclic lynx

12

population highs that allow transient individuals to disperse short term into new areas. The lack of evidence showing long-term presence or reproduction indicates that these areas are not showing sustained use or being colonized by lynx. Nevertheless, some sections considered peripheral areas may allow the successful dispersal of lynx from one population or subpopulation to the next.

Critical Habitat Critical habitat has been designated for the lynx; however, the action area does not contain any critical habitat and is over 70 miles south from Unit 3- Northern Rockies, and over 140 miles east of Unit 5- Greater Yellowstone Area.

Environmental Baseline for Lynx

The environmental baseline includes the effects of all past and present federal, state, and private landowner actions, other human activities within the analysis area, the anticipated effects of proposed federal action in the analysis area that have already undergone Section 7 consultation, and the effects of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with this consultation (50 CRF 402.02).

The lynx is listed as Threatened throughout the contiguous Unites States. No critical or occupied habitat has been identified on BLM lands in the action area or on the adjacent Beaverhead-Deer Lodge National Forest (BDNF) lands. In July of 2013, the BDNF was identified as unoccupied, secondary lynx habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013). The Montana National Heritage Program website (2015) reports historic lynx track observations from the 1990’s, but cannot be confirmed. Much of the optimum habitat on the adjoining BDNF has been surveyed multiple times using track surveys and hair snares between the years 1999-2014 and no lynx have been detected. Most recently, the BDNF implemented a 3 year survey effort from 2012-2014 in the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness that is believed to be the most suitable lynx habitat on the forest. This area is adjacent to the action and is where the historic track observations were reported in the early 1990’s. The DNA results from these surveys were negative for lynx and documented only black bears and bobcats, also the remote trail cameras used only detected non-target species (pers. com. Amie Shovlain 2016). In 2013, 26 more lynx survey transects following the National Lynx Detection Protocol (McKelvey et al. 1999) were placed in and near the Anaconda-Pintler wilderness (Pilgrim and Schwartz, 2014). Four hair samples were collected and through DNA testing by the Rocky Mountain Research Center were determined to be black bear (Pilgrim and Schwartz, 2014). In 2014, additional lynx survey transects following the same protocol was placed in and near the Anaconda-Pintler wilderness, Mt Emerine and in the Skalkaho Pass area. Seven hair samples were collected and sent to the Rocky Mountain Research Center for DNA testing. The results showed that two of the samples were bobcat, four were black bear, and one was characterized as “poor DNA” (Pilgrim and Schwartz, 2015).

Timber treatments in the form of logging have taken place on adjacent private lands within the last 40 years. Most recently, within 3-5 years, forests on private lands to the south and east of the action area, approximately 875 acres, had the overstory removed while leaving small pockets of reserve trees. Other areas near the western portion of the action area, approximately 81 acres, were treated 30-40 years ago and now have abundant lodgepole pine regeneration occurring.

13

Private land more centrally located between action areas were logged 10-15 years ago, approximately 900 acres, and also show ample regeneration of lodgepole pine. It is expected that the private lands would see additional logging of approximately 125 acres in the next 2-4 years.

Historic timber harvest occurred throughout much of the area in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s to supply timber for mining, railroads, and housing. The BDNF to the north of the action area has had multiple treatment areas consisting of mixed sized polygons of clear-cuts and commercial thinning within the last 30-40 years. An action has been proposed across the BDNF outside of designated Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas to increase the aspen component within lodgepole pine and other vegetation types by removing encroaching conifers. This action would take place on 1-3 project sites per year for undisclosed amount of time. Additional timber harvest projects are also planned to occur on USFS within the next 5 years. The state land that boarders the northeast boundary has also had an, approximately 95 acre, thinning treatment occur within the last 30-40 years. Other BLM projects have occurred in the UBHW PA in the recent past. A BLM timber salvage sale, in the Seymour Creek drainage, consisting of 111 acres occurred on adjacent BLM lands in 2014-2016. The private lands around the Seymour salvage sale were also logged in 2006 through 2012. The Deep Creek Pine Beetle Project on nearby BLM land was completed in the years 2008-2009, with a prescription of variable retention harvest and thinning totaling 350 acres. Other past and ongoing federal actions on BLM- managed lands include permit administration and renewals for cattle allotments. Non-federal actions include management of adjacent state wildlife area by the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, private land residential use, and general public use of BLM lands (primarily recreation activities).

The revised LCAS indicates that the focus of management in secondary areas is on “providing a mosaic of forest structure to support snowshoe hare prey resources for individual lynx that infrequently may move through or reside temporarily in the area” and that landscape connectivity should be maintained to allow for movement and dispersal. Young stands typically contain high stem densities and horizontal cover which provide summer habitat and eventually grows into essential mid-to-later seral winter foraging habitat for lynx. In the short term these clear cuts would decrease snowshoe hare habitat, but as emerging lodgepole pine stands regenerate they produce low-hanging branches that provide winter food for snowshoe hares. Landscapes containing a mix of forest age classes are more likely to provide transient lynx foraging habitat throughout the year.

The LCAS stratifies the objectives and conservation measures by core areas and secondary/peripheral areas to help managers prioritize their conservation efforts. The conservation strategy in the LCAS states it is “not necessary to delineate Lynx Analysis Units in secondary or peripheral areas”. The strategy suggests that secondary or peripheral areas might contribute to lynx persistence by supporting successful dispersal or exploratory movements and habitat in these areas appears to be inherently more patchy and less productive (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013). It also looked at the amount and quality of habitat required to support an independent adult or subadult disperser and speculated that secondary/peripheral areas would not be able to support reproduction and sustain a local population. The LCAS suggests that the focus of management should be on providing a mosaic of forest structure to

14

support snowshoe hare resources for individual lynx that could potentially move through or reside temporarily in the area. Landscape connectivity is stressed so that individual lynx movement can be maintained and allow for dispersal.

Existing Condition

Vegetation within the action area is mostly lodgepole pine forest interspersed with Douglas-fir, spruce, and aspen. This lower elevation dry forest type is considered to be lower quality habitat for lynx. Lynx found on the more optimal adjoining BDNF or on the less desired BLM action area are considered transitory. Individuals occurring in the action area are considered transient or short-term residents. These lynx generally do not establish home ranges and do not attempt or are unsuccessful at reproduction. Because of this, the habitat requirements are not as stringent as in areas where reproduction occurs. Conservation measures for vegetation management in secondary areas, outlined in the LCAS, provide a mosaic of forest structure that includes dense, early-successional coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous stands, along with a component of mature multi-story conifer stands to produce the desired snowshoe hare density (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013). Another LCAS conservation measure is designing vegetation management to include young-densely-stocked regenerating stands for snowshoe hare production areas.

Effects Analysis

This section analyzes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action on lynx. No occupancy surveys have been conducted in the action area, but this analysis assumes that lynx may temporarily be present at any time. Mountain pine beetles have killed a substantial portion of the lodgepole pine overstory in some stands and, over the next few years, are expected to continue to kill lodgepole pine throughout the action area. “It is generally acknowledged that in the Northern Rocky Mountains, fire suppression has altered historic vegetative patterns. This effect has been most pronounced within vegetation communities that have fire regimes that are of low intensity or of mixed severity. Many of these are drier community types and are not considered lynx habitat” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007).

Direct Effects

Direct effects are caused by the proposed action and occur contemporaneously. Potential direct effects include temporary disturbance caused by salvage harvest and possible, but unlikely, mortality of individual lynx. Harvest of dead trees could cause mortality to lynx from felling trees, but this is extremely unlikely because of the noise and human activity that would likely cause lynx to be displaced from the area at the onset of harvest. Mortality could also occur from collisions with logging trucks or other project vehicles. However, neither the level of traffic nor the speed of traffic would reach a level where the probability of a vehicle-lynx collision significantly increases.

15

Potential mortality of lynx, including kittens, from the proposed action is considered discountable because it is extremely unlikely to occur. Noise and human activity from salvage operations may reduce lynx use of the potential treatment areas and habitat adjacent to haul routes. Few studies have examined how lynx react to human presence. Some level of recreation may be compatible, but lynx may avoid areas of concentrated use in developed ski areas (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013). Active timber harvest operations tend to have a high level of noise and human activity, not unlike concentrated use in ski areas; therefore, it is reasonable to assume lynx would be displaced from the potential treatment areas during operation. Habitats outside of the active treatment areas and haul routes would be available for use by displaced lynx. Displacement of lynx is expected to be short-term, if any lynx actually use the area, with resumed use of the area once operations are completed. Salvage harvest and associated activities could occur for a period up to 2 years. There is a possibility that individual lynx could be displaced over the life of the action. In addition to vegetation changes, there is also the chance, although unlikely due to a lack of recent sightings, that if a transient lynx was moving through the action area during implementation it could be affected by action activities. This potential disturbance is not expected to result in significant effects to transient lynx or reduce an individual’s ability to move through the area. There would be no long-lasting negative effects to lynx from this short term displacement.

Indirect Effects Indirect effects are caused by the proposed action and may be contemporaneous or occur later in time, but are reasonably certain to occur. Potential indirect effects include changes to habitat for lynx, snowshoe hares, and red squirrels, as well as a temporary increase in snow compaction. The proposed action includes salvage harvest and related activities on up to 300 acres of secondary lynx habitat and 250 acres of unsuitable lynx habitat (Table 3, and Figure 3). For this analysis, it was assumed that harvest activities would convert all currently secondary lynx habitats in the potential treatment areas to the Stand Initiation Structural Stage (SISS). Changes in habitat in each of the three units analyzed are shown in Tables 3.

Table 3 Lynx Habitat Change in the LaMarche Bark Beetle Salvage sale

Total Post-Treatment Lynx Baseline Treated Net Change Post-Treatment Habitat in Action Area Habitat Type (acres) (acres) (acres) Habitat (acres) (percent) Secondary 415 300 -300 115 28 Non-Habitat 285 250 250 0 Not applicable Action Area Total 700 550 0 150 Not applicable

Salvage operations would affect the quality and quantity of lynx habitat in the analysis area through the removal of dead trees. Conservation measures would be implemented to maintain snags, logs, and coarse woody debris; however, the potential for large accumulations of coarse woody to develop would be reduced in the long-term because of the removal of most of the mature lodgepole. Outside of the potential treatment areas, dead lodgepole would remain and are expected to provide future habitat structure for denning. The loss of potential future denning

16

habitat is considered insignificant because the proposed action is not expected to limit the availability of denning sites at a larger scale.

The proposed action would reduce the extent and density of understory vegetation and horizontal cover in the potential treatment areas. Conservation measures would be implemented to maintain advanced regeneration, understory vegetation, and dense horizontal cover; however, salvage operations would incidentally remove some of these habitat components. Temporary roads, skid trails, and landings would be needed to remove the harvested overstory. These action features would damage or remove some advanced regeneration and understory vegetation, as well as breaking up horizontal cover. The loss of horizontal cover is the primary reason the treated stands would be converted to the SISS and become temporarily unsuitable for lynx. In the long-term (two to three decades), treated stands are expected to regenerate to lodgepole pine, producing dense horizontal cover, and once again becoming potential habitat for lynx. The development of mature lodgepole that could provide down logs and coarse woody debris would require a century or more. Outside of the potential treatment areas, understory vegetation and horizontal cover would not be affected by the proposed action and may increase once the overstory is dead because suppressed trees would be released and more light, nutrients, and water would be available for growth. The vegetation that would remain is expected to be sufficient to provide cover for lynx moving through, or foraging in, the action areas.

The incidental loss of understory vegetation would reduce the quality and quantity of habitat for snowshoe hares, reducing their use of the potential treatment areas and displacing them to adjacent untreated areas that provide better habitat. The reduction in hare habitat is expected to reduce the density of hares that are available as prey for lynx. Foraging opportunities for lynx would be reduced in proportion to the reduction in habitat for snowshoe hares. The reduction in foraging opportunities may increase the foraging range for lynx, leading to greater energy expenditure and increasing their exposure to predation or other mortality factors. As noted above, understory vegetation and horizontal cover are expected to recover and provide suitable habitat for snowshoe hares within 20 to 30 years following completion of the action.

The proposed action is not expected to have any measurable effect on red squirrels in the analysis area. As described in the Environmental Baseline, the ongoing spruce beetle infestation is expected to cause the red squirrel population to decline. The proposed action would not exacerbate this decline because the lodgepole that are removed would be dead or dying and would no longer be providing a food source for red squirrels. Potential changes to the red squirrel population caused by the proposed action are considered discountable.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the effects of past, present, and future state, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area including: recreation (summer and winter), hunting, firewood cutting, livestock grazing, and associated activities, vegetation projects, road building, and mining and associated activities. These cumulative effects can be caused by individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (50 CFR 1508.7). Future federal actions are not included because they are subject to their own consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). No foreseeable activities are known to be planned on non-federal lands within the action area.

17

The action area is fairly remote and other than hikers, hunters, and campers the area does not see much extensive use. Although unlikely due to the lack of recent sightings in the action area, if a transient lynx passes through the project area during implementation the additional disturbance effects should be minimal.

It is important to remember the role of secondary/ peripheral habitat, which is found in the action area and surrounding BDNF. According to the revised LCAS, “The intent is to place more emphasis on protection of the core areas, which supports persistent lynx populations that show evidence of recent reproduction, and less stringent protection and greater flexibility in secondary/peripheral areas, which only support lynx intermittently. Lynx habitat in secondary/peripheral areas appears to be inherently more patchy and less productive than in core areas”. It also acknowledged that “The contribution of lynx occurring outside of core areas to population dynamics and persistence within core areas is unclear. It has been suggested that secondary and peripheral areas might contribute to lynx persistence by supporting successful dispersal or exploratory movements”. Finally, “The focus of management is on providing a mosaic of forest structure to support snowshoe hare prey resources for individual lynx that infrequently may move through or reside temporarily in the area. Landscape connectivity should be maintained to allow for lynx movement and dispersal” (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013).

Past projects implemented in the Upper Big Hole West Planning area have removed forest overstory and thinned mountain pine beetle affected stands. These BLM treatments accompanied with private land, BDNF, and Montana Fish and Wildlife forest treatments have an impact on lynx habitat by removing present and future horizontal cover and in doing so set the forest stands into temporarily unusable SISS. Implementation of the LaMarche Bark Beetle Salvage project would add slightly to the disturbance effects, but would still provide snowshoe hare dispersal and habitat for transient lynx that may travel through the area.

Determination of Effects

This Biological Assessment determines that implementation of the proposed Federal action “May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the Threatened Canada lynx. Guidance provided in the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1998, page 3- 12) indicates that this is the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed species are expected to be discountable, or insignificant, or completely beneficial. Discountable effects are those that are extremely unlikely to occur. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs. Beneficial effects are positive effects without adverse effects to the species. There is a “No Effect” to the lynx Critical Habitat because there is none present. My Determination is based on the following rationale:  The lynx habitat present in the action area is classified as both unoccupied and secondary/ peripheral lynx habitat indicating it has minimal value for lynx other than for dispersing or transient individuals  Lynx have not been verified in the action area in over 20 years and are not likely to be found in the action area during the action activities

18

 If lynx enter the action area during action activities they would be transient lynx  Although disturbance is possible, the transient nature of lynx in the mountain range and the fact that no lynx have been found in over 20 years in the action area indicate the likelihood of this effect to be unlikely (discountable effect)  The action maintains a mosaic of forest structures and successional stages, which is the conservation measure described in the revised LCAS for vegetation management in secondary areas (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013, page 91). The scale of habitat changes is very small (insignificant effect)  Over time (15 to 40 years) the amount of snowshoe hare habitat would increase in the action area over existing conditions as the 300 acres proposed for harvest currently do not provide habitat for snowshoe hare (beneficial effect)  The action affects minimal amounts of both snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat, and prey levels would be adequate for transient lynx should they occur in the action area (insignificant effect) This determination is a conservative estimate of the action’s potential to affect the Threatened Canada lynx as no critical or occupied habitat has been identified on BLM lands or on the adjacent Beaverhead-Deer Lodge National Forest lands. The action area is considered unoccupied for lynx, but transient lynx may potentially move through the area, and the effects, as shown above, are beneficial, discountable, or insignificant.

Recommendations for Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects

No adverse effects are anticipated

19

Literature Cited

Agree, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Agee, J. K. 2000. Disturbance ecology of North American boreal forests and associated northern mixed/ subalpine forests. Pages 39-82 In Ruggiero, L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp.

Amman, G. D., and W. E. Cole. 1983. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. Part II: population dynamics. USDA For. Servo GTR-INT-145

Aubry, K.B., G.M. Koehler, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx in southern boreal forests. Pages 373-396 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, and S.W. Buskirk, technical editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

B.R. Stam, J.C. Malechek, D.L. Bartos, J.E. Bowns and E.B. Godfrey. Effect of Conifer Encroachment into Aspen Stand on Understory Biomass. Rangeland Ecology & Management Vol. 61, No.1 (Jan., 2008), pp 93-97

Bartos, D.L., 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests. In: Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings; 13–15 June 2000. Grand Junction, CO: USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-18: 5–14 p.

Bittner, S. L. and O. J. Rongstad. 1982. Snowhoe hare and allies. Pages 146-163 In J.A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Brand, C. J. and L. B. Keith. 1979. Lynx demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(4):827-849.

Brietenmoser, U. and B. G. Slough. 1993. Predators of cyclic prey: is the Canada lynx victim or profiteer of the snowshoe hare cycle? Oikos 66:551-554.

Brown, J. K. 1975. Fire cycles and community dynamics in lodgepole pine forests, pp. 430-456. In D. M. Baumgarner [ed.], Proceeding, Symposium: Management of Lodgepole Pine Ecosystems. Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA

Buskirk, S. W., L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, D. E. Pearson, J. R. Squires, and K. S. McKelvey. 2000b. Comparative ecology of lynx in North America. Chapter 14 In Ruggiero, L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp

Cole, W.E., and G.D. Amman. 1980. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. United States Forest Service General Technical Report INT-89.

20

Conroy, M. J., L. W. Gysel, and G. R. Dudderar. 1979. Habitat components of clear-cut areas for snowshoe hares in Michigan. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(3):680-690.

Furniss, M. M. 1997. American forest entomology comes on stage. Am. Entomol. 43: 40-47.

Gannon, Amy “Pine beetle infestation not over yet.” Interview by Baumann, Lisa. Associated Press Washington Times Jul 28, 2014

Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-13-19, Missoula, Montana. 128 pp.

Keith, L. B. and D. C. Surrendi. 1971. Effects of fire on a snowshoe hare population. J. Wild. Manage. 35:16-26.

Kilgore, B. M. and M. L. Heinselman. 1990. Fire in wilderness ecosystems. Pages 297-335 In Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas (eds.). Wilderness management. 2nd Ed. North American Press, Golden, CO. 546 pp

Koehler, G. M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 845-851.

Koehler, G. M. and K. B. Aubry. 1994. Pages 74-98 In Ruggiero and others 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-254. 184 pp.

Lewis, L. and C. R. Wenger. 1998. Idaho's Canada lynx: pieces of the puzzle. Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Technical Bulletin No. 98-11. 21 pp.

Lodgepole Pine: The Species and Its Management. May 1984, Spokane, WA, and Vancouver, BC. Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA.

Logan, J. and Powell, J. (2001). Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera : Scolytidae). American Entomologist, 47(3): 160-173.

Lotan, J. E., J. K. Brown, and L. F. Neuenschwander. 1985. Role of fire in lodgepole pine forests, pp. 133- 152. In D. M Baumgartner, R. G. Krebill, J. T. Arnott, and G. F. Weetman [eds.], Proceedings, Symposium:

McCord, C. M. and J. E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and lynx. Pages 728-766 In J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer (eds.). Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

21

McKelvey, K.S., J.J. Claar, G.W. McDaniel, and G. Hanvey. 1999. National lynx detection protocol. United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT.

Miller, R.F., R. Tausch, and W. Waichler 1999b. Old-growth juniper and pinyon woodlands. Pp. 375-384 In: Monsen, S.B., S. Richards, R.J. Tausch, R.F. Miller, C. Goodrich, (comp.): Proc.- Ecology and Management of Pinyon-Juniper Communities Within the Interior West. USDA For. Ser., RMRS-P9.

Miller, R.F. and Jeffrey A. Rose. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon Great Basin Nat. 55:37-45.

Miller, R.F. and Jeffrey A. Rose. 1999. Fire history and Western juniper encroachment in sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management Vol. 52, No. 6 (Nov., 1999), pp. 550-559

Nellis, C. H., S. P. Wetmore, and L. B. Keith. 1972. Lynx-prey interactions in central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(2):320-329.

Neary, D.G., C.C. Klopatek, L. F. DeBano, P.F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management Volume 122, Issues 1-2, September 1999, Pages 51-71

Noss and LaRoe, 1995 Noss, R.F., LaRoe, E.T., III, Scott, J.M., 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. National Biological Service Biological Report 28, Washington, DC.

Pilgrim, K and M. Schwartz. 2014. Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Survey Samples 2013. USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station. Missoula, MT. Unpuiblished Report.

Pilgrim, K and M. Schwartz. 2015. Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Survey Samples 2014. USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station. Missoula, MT. Unpublished Report.

Poole, K. G. 1994. Characteristics of an unharvested lynx population during a snowshoe hare decline. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:608-618.

Poole, K. G., L. A. Wakelyn, and P. N. Nicklen. 1996. Habitat selection by lynx in the Northwest Territories. Can. J. Zool. 74:845-850.

Quinn, N. W. S. and G. Parker. 1987. Lynx. Pages 683-694 In Novak, N. and M. Obbard (eds.). Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario

Raffa, K. F., and A. A. Berryman. 1987. Interacting selective pressures in conifer-bark beetle systems: a basis for reciprocal adaptation? Am. Nat. 129: 234-262

22

Ruediger, B., Claar, J., Gniadek, S., Holt, B., Lewis, L., Mighton, S., Williamson, A. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. Second edition. U.S. Fores. US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Managment, and US National Park Service. Missoula, Montana: US Forest Service.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. Koehler, C. Krebs, K. McKelvey, and J. Squires. 2000b. The scientific basis of lynx conservation: qualified insights. Chapter 15 In

Ruggiero, L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp.

Schmidt, W. C. 1988. Lodgepole pine: an ecological opportunist, pp. 14-20. In G. D. Amman [compiler], Proceedings, Symposium: The Management of Lodgepole Pine to Minimize the Losses to the Mountain Pine Beetle, 12-14 July 1988, Kalispell, MT. USDA For. Serv. GTR- INT-262

Schroeder M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, S.J. Stiver 2004 Distribution of sage-grouse in North America Condor, 106 (2004), pp. 363–376

Shovlain A. 2016. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist USFS. Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest

Shrimpton, D. M. 1978. Resistance of lodgepole pine to mountain pine beetle infestation, pp. 64- 76. In A. A. Berryman, G. D. Amman, and R. W. Stark [eds.], Proceedings, Symposium: Theory and Practice of Mountain Pine Beetle Management in Lodgepole Pine Forests, 25-27 April 1978, Moscow, ID. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow.

Stam, B.R., Malechek, J.C., Bartos, D.L., Bowns, J.E., Godfrey, E.B., 2008. Effect of conifer encroachment into aspen stands on understory biomass. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 61, 93–97 Sullivan, T. P. and D. S. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of stand thinning on snowshoe hare population dynamics and feeding damage in lodgepole pine forest. J. Applied Ecol. 25:791-805.

Squires, J. R., N. J. Decesare, J. A. Kolbe, and L. F. Ruggiero. 2010. Seasonal resource selection of Canada lynx in managed forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74:1648–1660.

Tausch R.J., N.E. West, A.A. Nabi Tree age and dominance patterns in Great Basin pinyon- juniper woodlands J. Range Manage., 34 (1981), pp. 259–264

USDA Forest Service 2000. Northern Region Snag Management Protocol. Unpublished Report prepared by the Snag Protocol Team for the USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

23

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Record of Decision and Approved Butte Resource Management Plan. April 2009. Butte Field Office, Butte, MT. http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/butte_field_office/rmp/rod.html

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Colorado Bark Beetle Strategic Plan. Lakewood, CO: Bureau of Land Management.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Outline Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. Montana Field Office, Helena Montana. September, 2005.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion on the effects of the Northern Rocky Mountains Lynx Amendment on the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)(1ynx) in the contiguous United States. Helena: US Fish and Wildlife Service.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Supplement to the Biological Opinion (2010) on the Effects of the 2009 Revision of the Beaverhead‐Deerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan on Grizzly Bears - Beaverhead‐Deerlodge National Forest. 5/28/2013. Helena, MT.

US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March

Veblen, T. T, K. S. Hadley, E. M. Nel, T. Kitzberger, M. Reed, and R. Villalba. 1998. Disturbance regimes and disturbance interactions in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest. Journal of Ecology 82:125-135

Ward, R. P. M. and C. J. Krebs. 1985. Behavioral responses of lynx to declining snowshoe hare abundance. Can. J. Zool. 63:2817-2824.

West, N.E. 1984. Successional patterns and productivity potentials of pinyon-juniper ecosystems. P1301-1332 In: Developing Stratigies for Rangeland Management. Nat. Res. Council/Nat. Acad. Of sci. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.

Wright , H.A. and A.W. Baily. 1982. Fire ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York N.Y.

24

Appendix B – Biological Opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service

United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services Montana Field Office 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1 Helena, Montana 59601-6287 Phone: (406) 449-5225, Fax (406) 449-5339

In reply refer to: File: M02 BLM (I) 06E11000-2016-I-0339 LaMarche Bark Beetle Salvage

June 10, 2016

Memorandum To: Corey Meier, Acting Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Butte Field Office, Butte, Montana

From: Jodi L. Bush, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, Montana

Subject: LaMarche Bark Beetle Salvage Project Concurrence

This memo is in response to your May 17, 2016 request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) review and consultation on the LaMarche Bark Beetle Salvage Project. Effects of the project were analyzed for federally listed threatened and endangered species. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Butte Field Office, has determined that the proposed LaMarche Bark Beetle Salvage Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). The proposed action is located on three geographically separate blocks of land north and west of the town of Wise River in Deer Lodge County, Montana.

The proposed action would consist of up to 550 acres of treatment that includes 300 acres of timber salvage and 250 acres of conifer encroachment treatment. The BLM would commercially salvage dead, dying, and high-risk lodgepole pine in portions of the action area infested with the mountain pine beetle. This includes up to 235 acres of salvage and 65 acres of commercial thinning. The conifer encroachment treatments would occur within the sagebrush steppe and aspen groves. Treatments would focus on restoring the grassland/shrubland and riparian habitats by reducing conifer expansion into these areas. Treatments are expected to be completed within two years or less. The biological assessment (BLM, May 17, 2016) has further details on the proposed action.

1

The proposed action is located within unoccupied, secondary Canada lynx habitat or a ‘secondary area’ as defined in the Canada Lynx Recovery Outline (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005) and Revised Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013). Secondary areas only support lynx intermittently any lynx use of the action area would be considered transient. Recent verified observations of lynx within the action area have not occurred and lynx are not likely to be found in the action area during proposed activities. Therefore, the likelihood of disturbance to transient lynx is discountable. If transient lynx were to be in the project area during implementation, the potential for disturbance is not expected to result in significant effects or reduce an individual’s ability to move through the area. Effects to lynx habitat would be minimal and would not significantly affect how transient lynx would use the habitat. The action would maintain a mosaic of forest structures and successional stages, a conservation measure described in the 2013 LCAS. Minimal amounts of lynx foraging habitat would be affected and prey levels would be adequate for transient lynx should they occur in the action area. Consequently, effects to lynx and lynx habitat would be discountable and/or insignificant.

Upon review of the biological assessment, the Service concurs with the BLM’s determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the threatened Canada lynx. The Service bases its concurrence on the information and analysis in the biological assessment (May 17, 2016) prepared by Jason Brooks, Wildlife Biologist, and information in our files.

This concludes informal consultation pursuant to the regulations implementing section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, 50 C.F.R. 402.13. This Project should be re-analyzed if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation; if the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to a listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat that was not considered in this consultation; and/or, if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this Project.

We appreciate your efforts to ensure the conservation of threatened and endangered species as part of your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, as amended. If you have questions or comments related to this consultation, please contact Katrina Dixon at 406-449-5225, extension 222.

References Cited:

Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. DRAFT rd 3 edition, June 13, 2013. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-13-XX, Missoula, Montana. 116 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Outline: Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of Canada Lynx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Montana. 21 pages.

U.S. Forest Service. 2016. Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife Species for the Whetstone Non-motorized Trail Reroute Project. Pintler Ranger District, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Philipsburg, Montana. 31 pp.

2