United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA April 2018

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment

Bureau of Land Management Coeur d’Alene Field Office 3815 Schreiber Way Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 1

Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Proposal and Background ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance ...... 2 1.4 Relevant Statutes and Authorities ...... 3 1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement ...... 4 2.0 Alternatives ...... 4 2.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action): ...... 4 2.2 Alternative B (No Action) ...... 9 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis: ...... 9 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 10 3.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 10 3.2 Recreation ...... 12 3.3 Forest Vegetation ...... 14 3.4 Vegetation communities, including special status plants...... 17 3.5 Invasive, Non-Native Vegetation ...... 26 3.6 Fuels ...... 29 3.7 Special Status Wildlife ...... 32 4.0 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted ...... 38 5.0 List of Preparers ...... 38 Appendix A: Map 1 Vegetation Treatments – Proposed Action (Alternative A) ...... A-1 Appendix B: Map 2 Fuels Treatments – Proposed Action (Alternative A) ...... B-1 Appendix C: Map 3 Recreation – Proposed Action (Alternative A) ...... C-1 Appendix D: Map 4 - Forest Cover Type ...... D-1 Appendix E: Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... E-1 Appendix F – Wildlife Specialist Report ...... F-1 Appendix G – References Cited ...... G-1

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) i

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Proposal and Background

The Bureau of Land Management proposes to treat hazardous fuels and conduct commercial timber sales within the Gamlin Lake Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). Gamlin Lake SRMA is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the City of Sandpoint on the west side of Pend Oreille Lake (See Appendix C, Map 3). The SRMA contains 392 acres of public land in section 7, T.56 N, R.1E. The SRMA wraps around the southern half of Gamlin Lake and adjoins approximately 630 feet of Livermore Lake shoreline.

The area has received several wind storms which caused a considerable number of trees to blowdown, creating large fuel loads and forest health issues. The forest vegetation in the project area has not been actively managed for several decades.

This SRMA currently has an extensive trail network that consists of approximately five miles of trail with four looped trails. The trails provide for summer and winter non- motorized recreation activities.

The BLM prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), applicable federal regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508), and the BLM’s policy for implementation and compliance with the NEPA (the BLM NEPA Handbook).

1.2 Purpose and Need

The Gamlin Lake SRMA is located within the wildland urban interface (WUI) and is comprised of a gradient of forest types ranging from wetlands to upland forest dominated vegetation. The present forest composition is showing signs of decline in overall health and has become overstocked with small diameter conifers with an increased amount of downfall from recent wind events. Overstocking has increased fuel loadings and ladder fuels, creating hazardous fuels conditions near private property and within a recreation area. Insect and disease agents are also prevalent and continue to kill trees, many of which are located near county roads and along recreation trails. Lack of periodic disturbance and the overstocking of conifer species have led to declining hardwood trees such as aspen, birch, black cottonwood and red alder.

The Coeur d’Alene Resource Management Plan (RMP) states that the BLM will “restore forest vegetation towards historic species composition, structure, and function”, “identify areas where fuels treatments will reduce hazards and emphasize the use of small diameter trees” and “reduce impact from wildland fire to WUI areas, municipal watersheds, and infrastructure”(BLM 2007).

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 1

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to manage for forest health and reduce hazardous fuel within the SRMA. The Proposed Action would reduce stocking levels and promote a historic species composition of ponderosa pine, western white pine, western red cedar and western larch. Stand disturbance activities would also recruit regeneration of hardwood species such as aspen, birch, black cottonwood and red alder. Vegetation treatments would reduce the accumulation of hazardous fuels adjacent to homes near the SRMA, protect developed recreation sites and structures on public lands, and reduce the threat of a large wildfire burning through the SRMA.

1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance

The Proposed Action is in conformance with the Coeur d’Alene RMP approved in 2007 by meeting the following goals:

Goal VF-1 Restore forest vegetation towards historic species composition, structure, and function across the landscape.

Objective VF-1.2: Restore forest stands to historic species composition, structure, and function by conducting vegetation treatments on 8,200 acres.

Action VF-1.2.1: Emphasize the use of natural disturbances, prescribed fire, and appropriate silvicultural methods to restore historic composition within wet/warm vegetation cover types.

Action VF-1.2.2: Emphasize the use of natural disturbances, prescribed fire, and appropriate silvicultural methods to restore historic composition within dry conifer vegetation cover types.

Action VF-1.2.6: Restore forest structure and function by reducing tree density and brush/shrub competition using appropriate silvicultural treatments including, but not limited to, intermediate treatments, release treatments, use of pesticides, and prescribed burning. Aerial spraying control brush/shrub competition will not occur. Prioritize these treatments within FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 areas.

Goal FP-1 Provide forest products to help meet local and national demands while protecting the natural component of the environment.

Action FP-1.1.1: Identify and treat areas to promote forest health and restore forest stands to historic species composition, structure, and function by: • Retaining large diameter trees when consistent with treatment objectives. • Treating areas with excessive forest fuel loading and ingrowth. • Treating areas with insect or disease infestation. • Treating areas where other disturbances have occurred (e.g. fire, ice storm, etc.)

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 2

Goal WF-1 Protect life and property while returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem.

Objective WF-1.5 Improve or protect valuable resources and improve the FRCC through the use of fuels treatment activities within the 8,200 acres where vegetation treatments will occur.

Action WF-1.5.3 Fuels treatments (prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, or biological) will be conducted on identified areas.

Objective WF-1.6 – Reduce impact from wildland fire to WUI areas, municipal watersheds, and infrastructure.

Action WF-1.6.1 – Identify areas where fuels treatments will reduce hazards and emphasize the use of small diameter trees.

Action WF-1.6.3 – Conduct mechanical fuels treatments on identified areas.

Goal RC-1 Provide opportunities for quality outdoor recreation experiences ensuring enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on BLM-managed or partnered lands and waterways.

Objective RC-1.4 Manage Gamlin Lake (Expanded) SRMA for day-use non- motorized trail or water-related activities, for personal relaxation or reflection, exercise or fitness, and personal enrichment or learning through environmental study.

Action RC-1.4.4 Resource management and human action will be limited to protect developed recreation sites and to protect and enhance water, riparian, timber, and wildlife resource values that contribute to the area’s unique setting by: …Managing the timber resource under custodial guidelines.

1.4 Relevant Statutes and Authorities This section is a summary of the relevant statutes/authorities that apply to this project. • Archeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) 1979 • National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 1966 as amended • Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 1976 • Federal Regulations (43 CFR 5003) • Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 3

1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) of BLM resource specialists conducted internal scoping through the project planning process, which included on-site field examinations of the project area, professional observations and judgment, literature review and IDT discussions. During the project development process, the IDT considered environmental issues particular to this project site. The IDT also developed a preliminary Proposed Action and identified preliminary relevant issues used for consideration and presented during the public scoping.

The BLM initiated public scoping on September 18, 2017, by sending over 70 notifications about the proposal to interested parties such as adjacent landowners, the Bonner County Commissioners, interest groups, and to individuals that had previously expressed interest in the management of the area. The public was invited to submit comments and participate in a public meeting to discuss proposed treatments on September 28, 2017 at the Bonner Coutny EMS Station in Sagle, ID. Approximately 16 people attended the meeting. The BLM also published information about the project on the project website and through local newspapers.

During the scoping comment period, which concluded on October 18, 2017, the BLM received 12 comment submissions. The comments were used to refine the Proposed Action (see Section 2.1), consider alternatives, and identify issues for analysis (see Section 3.1.3).

2.0 Alternatives

The BLM analyzed two alternatives in detail: the Proposed Action and a no action alternative.

2.1 Alternative A (Proposed Action):

The BLM is proposing to improve forest stand conditions and reduce hazardous fuel accumulations across the project area by utilizing a combination of vegetative treatment methods including: variable-density thinning (VDT) and hazardous fuels reduction (HFR) work (see Maps 1 and 2: Proposed Action and Table 1).This requires only temporary access roads into the project area and allows for an economical return on the merchantable material.

Fuels reduction consists of machine piling (in conjunction with the ground-based logging) and slashing and hand piling..

Understory vegetation would be slashed (up to 8 inch DBH) with pruning of ladder fuels up to 8 feet in height to create a fuelbreak around the perimeter. Activity and natural fuels would be reduced through a combination of mastication, chipping, hand and machine piling and burning, or hauling off-site. This would create a 200-foot wide shaded fuelbreak along the private property boundary and enhance the fuel reduction effects of the mechanical treatment. Slashing, hand piling and pile burning is proposed

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 4

within the riparian conservation areas (RCAs) that would be designed to enhance physical or biological characteristics of the riparian system. Some treatments overlap; the total of all treated acres (including commercial harvest and non-commercial hazardous fuels treatments) is 368.

All vegetative treatments would favor leaving late seral species and root disease tolerant species such as ponderosa pine, western red cedar, western larch and western white pine where they exist. In the vicinity of healthy, dominant or co-dominant hardwood trees, 25 to 35 quarter-acre openings will be designed to open the canopy and create bare mineral soil in order to stimulate regeneration. Variable density cutting would leave small openings to allow for hardwood recruitment as well as small patches of retention to provide for big game hiding cover. Some areas may be planted with desirable tree species following harvest.

Most of the project would be tractor skidded and whole trees would be yarded to landing sites however some cable logging may occur on steeper slopes. Approximately 2.9 miles of new temporary roads would be constructed to facilitate the removal of merchantable timber and access for hazardous fuels reduction.

One existing undersized culvert will be replaced with an improved stream crossing. All temporary roads would be decommissioned, blocked and re-vegetated after completion of treatments. To the extent feasible, slash material may be chipped and/or hauled off site for disposal. Any slash material left on site will be piled and burned.

The equipment staging area for the timber sale would be constructed off the Camp Bay Road at the beginning of the Yellow Trail, in the southern portion of the SRMA near Livermore Lake. This staging area would be built off the Camp Bay Road to reduce conflicts with traffic and then later converted to a parking area/trailhead. This equipment staging area would be approximately 0.15 acres and provide trail access for the southern portion of the SRMA. The equipment staging area would be graded and built with a road-base gravel type material. After the timber harvest, the graveled area would be delineated with fencing or boulders.

The Blue Trail would have a .05 mile section reclaimed, but then follow the proposed haul route for 0.45 miles to tie in with the Orange Trail. The reclamation area is wet year-around, and the rerouting would allow the Blue Trail to utilize the haul route’s stream crossing feature. The rerouted portion of the Blue Trail would be reclaimed to a singletrack trail once logging operations are complete. The Orange Trail would also have sections reclaimed and rerouted to avoid wetland areas (0.2 miles) and private property borders (0.1miles). (See Map 3 - Recreation)

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 5

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Actions Action Acres/Miles Commercial Harvest 286 acres Fuels Reduction – Machine Pile 240 acres Fuels Reduction – Ladder Fuel Treatment* 64 acres Fuels Reduction – Slash and Hand pile 128 acres Reclaimed Trail 0.26 miles New Trail 0.66 miles Parking Lot Conversion 0.15 acres Temporary Roads 2.9 miles *Treatment lies in same footprint as machine piles – Total fuels treatments is 368 acres

2.1.1 Environmental Design Features

All treatments in the Proposed Action would follow established agency management plans, policies, and procedures, including the Best Management Practices (BMP) identified in the CDA RMP (2007) as well as the rules pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act (Idaho Administrative Code, Title 38, Chapter 13). The following design features would be implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts to resources:

Recreation • Inform the public of areas closed due to operations and direct them to other areas available for recreation via maps, bulletins, word-of-mouth, etc.

• Implement fuels and forestry projects in phases, working in only portions of the SRMA at a time, leaving other portions of the SRMA open for recreational use.

Air Quality • Conduct pile burning in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group Operating Guide (Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 2010) in order to minimize air quality impacts from smoke on local communities and individuals.

Cultural • Coordination with the BLM District Archeologist will occur in order to protect cultural sites. Features will be flagged for buffering and avoidance during logging and fuels reduction operations.

Invasive, Non-native species • Reduce sources of weed seed and/or plant parts and minimize risk of spreading existing infestations by treating pre-existing weed populations prior to project activities.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 6

• Mechanized equipment would need to be cleaned by power washing at an approved location before entering public lands. All equipment would need to be cleaned before leaving the project site if operating in areas infested with weeds. Where mechanized equipment results in a trail wider than desired, the excess width would be rehabilitated with an appropriate seed mix to create desired tread width.

• Reduce impacts of weed populations following project completion. Post- project activities would employ the Coeur d’Alene Field Office’s weed and vegetation management strategy to monitor and treat weed infestations on trails, roads, landings, skid trails, and treatment areas. Future weed treatments may use biological controls, mechanical removal, and/or herbicides after considering the effectiveness of the methods, as described for the Integrated Weed and Vegetation Management program in environmental assessment #ID-410-2008-EA-224 (BLM 2008).

• To reduce the potential for transport of weeds into the area, the BLM will monitor gates or barriers on reclaimed roads to ensure that they are not breached or bypassed by motorized vehicles.

Rare and Special Status Plants • The BLM District Botanist will coordinate with the Project Leads and District fuels staff throughout project implementation to ensure the rare and BLM Special Status Plant occurrences are not negatively impacted.

• Weed treatments will be coordinated with the District Botanist, as specified in the Integrated Weed and Vegetation Management program in environmental assessment #ID-410-2008-EA-224 (BLM 2008), to reduce potential impacts to the rare plant populations. Herbicides that may be used to reduce the weed threats associated with this project should be carefully planned and applied; otherwise, they could have detrimental effects on non-target (especially BLM Sensitive) plant populations.

• The District Botanist will monitor the rare plant occurrences during and after the project is completed. The BLM would monitor site populations and habitat for up to five years, post-project, depending upon available funding.

Soils and Water Resources

• Use carefully laid out, designated skid trails to reduce the yarding area impacted by heavy equipment. Place slash on skid trails where practical.

• Prohibit operation of heavy equipment and trucks when soil moisture exceeds 25 percent.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 7

• Use an excavator or dozer with rippers to de-compact temporary roads upon completion of project.

• Slope log landings to direct runoff away from swales or ephemeral draws.

• Locate and control overland flow from slash piles to insure sediment and ash do not reach water courses or lakes.

• Consult BLM hydrologist for technical assistance with stream crossing design to minimize potential sediment delivery.

• Implement BMPs to reduce erosion, including placement of straw bales and implementing construction for stream crossings when streams are dry or at very low flow.

• Prohibit fueling within 300 feet of water courses and keep a spill response kit with the fueling truck.

Visual Resources • Trees harvested within 100 feet of trail systems will be severed at ground level to reduce the visual impacts of stumps following logging operations.

Noise To reduce noise impacts from harvesting operations (using machinery) to the surrounding area, activities would be limited to daylight hours Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. within 200 feet of private property.

Wildlife • To reduce impacts to migratory birds, vegetation cutting and piling will not occur between April 1 and July 15.

• Snags would be retained for wildlife purposes as shown in Table 2 below for the appropriate cover type. Snags may be left as individuals scattered throughout the harvest unit or left in unharvested patches of varying sizes within units. Silvicultural prescriptions would emphasize the retention of snags ≥14 inches in diameter and 30 feet tall across the harvested units.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 8

Table 2. Snag Retention Guidelines for cover type identified in the Coeur d’Alene Resource Management Plan (2007). Cover Type Tree Species Typically Represented Snags/Acre Western white pine, lodgepole pine, Wet Cold Conifer 8.1 western larch, grand fir, Douglas-fir Ponderosa pine, lodgepole, Douglas-fir, Dry Conifer 3.3 grand fir, western white pine Western redcedar, western hemlock, Wet Warm Conifer 5.4 western white pine

• To provide or improve grouse habitat logs ≥ 14 inches (or largest available) would be maintained for the following cover types specifications:

Table 3. Downed Woody Debris Retention Guidelines for Cover Type Identified in the Coeur d’Alene RMP (2007). Cover Type Logs/Acre Wet Cold Conifer 10.1 Dry Conifer 3.9 Wet Warm Conifer 7.8

2.2 Alternative B (No Action)

To provide a baseline for the effects analysis, the BLM also considered a No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, no forest health treatment or recreational improvements would occur.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis:

The BLM received one comment during the scoping period expressing the preference for broadcast burning after harvest activities. However, the BLM determined that the effects of run-off carrying sediment into the lake after burning could be detrimental to water quality, the risk of spread to private property was too high, and the mortality to remaining trees would be higher than desired.

Another commenter proposed development of a cross-country equine trail connecting the Camp Bay Road with the Glengary Bay Road. This action would not be within the scope of this proposal. As described in the Purpose and Need (Section 1.2) the intention of the Proposed Action is to manage forest health and fuels. While the Proposed Action includes re-routing of trails and development of a trailhead/parking area, these are directly related to reclamation associated with the proposed vegetation treatments.

Commenters also identified an interest in availability of firewood for the public. However, the wood removed from the SRMA in conjunction with harvest is the property of the purchaser contracted through the timber sale. If the purchaser chooses to leave non-

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 9 merchantable wood at the roadside landing, this may be available for public use. However, the BLM does not require this.

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Scope of Analysis

3.1.1 General Setting

Private property surrounds the SRMA, with varying levels of structures. One incorporated subdivision of approximately 20 homes is directly adjacent to the southern boundary. Two county-maintained roads access the SRMA; Camp Bay Road on the south and Glengarry Bay Road to the north.

The primary use of the SRMA is for recreational purposes. Currently a developed trail system exists. A developed trailhead/parking area is located off the Glengary Bay Road, providing access to the eastern portion of the SRMA. The western portion of the SRMA has a small trailhead with no developed parking.

3.1.2 Related Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Past Actions

Human caused and natural events have had varying levels of impacts on the resources and values affected by the proposed vegetation project. The SRMA was a homestead and used for a wide variety of purposes, including livestock grazing and logging. The BLM acquired the land in 1993 and 1994, and wrote a management plan in 1994. Supplemental rules pertaining to SRMA were published in the Federal Register in July, 2000, which prohibit overnight camping, livestock grazing, and use of motorized vehicles off of county roads.

The BLM developed the 5-mile trail system and the Glengary Road trailhead, which includes a vault toilet, picnic tables and a 6-vehicle capacity parking area.

Recently Avista Corporation cleared a powerline right-of-way area adjacent to the Camp Bay Road trailhead that is being used as a parking area by visitors.

Present Actions

Gravel County roads running through and adjacent to the area are used by local residents, recreational users, and for travel to other areas. They are plowed in winter, but the BLM parking area is not, which can cause a low amount of congestion along road.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 10

Residents live along the perimeter of the public lands. Vegetation management on private lands includes commercial timber harvest and hazardous fuels reduction projects.

Gamlin Lake has a low amount of boating, fishing, and other water-related recreation activities.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Vegetation management practices will continue on private land. The U.S. Forest Service will implement hazardous fuels reduction projects approximately 2 miles to the east.

Private development, including new structures, will continue.

County roads use and maintenance will continue as is.

3.1.3 Issues Analyzed in Detail

Federal regulations (40 CFR 1501 and 1502) explain that issues for analysis may be identified through scoping and that only significant issues must be the focus of environmental documents. The BLM identified the issues described below for analysis based on management direction contained in the RMP, preliminary issues identified by the BLM ID team, and information gathered during public scoping. The BLM also considered a number of other issues, but eliminated them from detailed analysis as described in Appendix E.

• Recreation: Activities may affect the natural setting of the Recreation Area and neighborhood. Canopy removal may change the shady nature of the trail system. Portions of the area may be temporarily closed during project implementation. Skid trails have the potential to encourage establishment of undesired trails.

• Forest Vegetation: The Proposed Action may affect forest health, stocking levels, and species composition.

• Special Status Plants (not including federally listed or candidate): Proposed vegetation treatments may impact rare plants and their habitat.

• Invasive, Non-native Species: Disturbance to soils and vegetation through utilization of logging equipment could result in the expansion of noxious weed species.

• Fuels: Treatments will change the species composition, structure, and function of the forest vegetation and will affect the hazardous fuel conditions and potential for wildfire.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 11

• Special Status Wildlife Species (not including federally listed or candidate species – see Appendix F): Changes in habitat may have negative effects on some species. Harvest activities may have negative effects on some species if snags, coarse woody debris, and brush are removed. Additional disturbance to wildlife could result from human presence, equipment noise, and smoke may disrupt or deter wildlife on the site temporarily.

• Air Quality: Smoke impacts to adjacent landowners and the general public: smoke during the pile burning portion of implementation may adversely affect air quality and bother adjacent land owners and the public. Also, the majority of the roads surrounding the project area are not paved and equipment used for the project may generate dust, which may bother adjacent land owners and visitors recreating.

3.1.4 Analytical assumptions

When conducting the effects analysis the BLM assumed that if no vegetation treatment occurs, an intense stand-replacing wildland fire would occur in the future.

3.2 Recreation

3.2.1 Affected Environment:

Gamlin Lake and the surrounding trails are within the Gamlin Lake Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), which means it’s an area managed for recreation in accordance with the field office’s Resource Management Plan (RMP). The trails are primarily used in a way that meets this objective, and the public is able to have trail experiences in a forest setting. However, the area has received two major windstorms in recent years that have left toppled trees near the trails and throughout the SRMA, affecting the forested setting.

The SRMA has two access points (trailheads) with the main developed trailhead beginning at the Orange Trail on the north end of the SRMA. This trailhead is just under 0.2 acres and has been developed with a gravel parking area, restroom, kiosk, trash receptacles, and picnic area. The second trailhead is along the shoulder of the Camp Bay Road where some tree and brush clearing for the power line has occurred. This trailhead ties into the trail system with a spur from the Yellow Trail (see Appendix C Map 3). The SRMA has an extensive trail network that consists of approximately five miles of trail with four looped trails. The trails provide for summer and winter non-motorized recreation activities. The main uses of the trail are for hiking and mountain biking along with providing access for visitors to fish and hunt.

When comparing Gamlin Lake trails with other BLM trails in North Idaho that have paved access, the Gamlin Lake trails have a lower amount of use, but receive a consistently steady use throughout the summer. Trail counters have been placed along the trail, and the trail data illustrates the high use months being July and August with

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 12

roughly 350-450 visitors per month and approximately 2,500 visitors annually. Compared to other trails in the Coeur d’Alene Field Office:the Mineral Ridge Trail ~ 40,000 visitors annually; John C. Pointner Wildlife Memorial Sanctuary trails ~ 8,200 visitors annually; and the Wallace Forest Conservation Area trails ~7,800 visitors annually).

3.2.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action):

The vegetation treatments would require a temporary closure of the area for public safety concerns which would displace recreationalists visiting Gamlin Lake. There is consistent use at the trailhead in the summer, and visitors seeking to recreate in the area during project implementation when portions of the site are closed would be displaced to other similar areas. For these visitors to find similar recreational opportunities they would need to visit other nearby USDA Forest Service or Idaho Department of Lands trails and sites. These potentially displaced visitors would be informed and directed about other trails in the area via maps, bulletins, word-of-mouth, etc. The fuels and forestry projects would be implemented in phases working in only portions of the SRMA, which would leave portions of the SRMA open. Leaving sections of the SRMA open would help minimize visitor displacement to the time and area being treated. Once the sections are treated, and it is safe for recreating, the site would be reopened. Therefore, impacts would not be significant with the consideration of long- term benefits of forest health and infrastructure protection.

The forest setting consists of a thick forest with large trees that provide shade along the majority of the trails throughout most times of the day. The majority of the trails have downed trees that have fallen over and near the trails with the recent wind storms. These trees are noticeable and have an effect on the forest setting. The proposed reclamation project would improve the forest setting by restoring and improving the overall health of the stand.

The trail reroutes and parking are minor improvements, but won’t have a significant effect the overall use of the site. Visitor use would not be affected by the Proposed Action and would return to normal use once complete.

By following the prescription described in the Proposed Action the stand would be more open allowing for more snow to accumulate on the forest floor providing a better snow base on the trails for cross country skiing while also increasing the views of the landscape. The forestry treatments would also provide future opportunities to add environmental education panels on forest health and recovery for visitors.

3.2.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (No Action): Without the fuels reduction across the site the noticable amount of downed trees would continue to effect the forested setting and there is a greater chance of a high intensity fire burning over the site affecting future recreation opportunities.

3.2.4 Cumulative Effects:

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 13

Past projects in the area have included building the trailhead, constructing trails, installing a wildlife viewing platform, and building stream crossing features. The construction of a parking area and a trail network has provided public access to the area and influenced the current visitor use levels.

Current recreation activities occurring in the vicinity of the project area involve a narrow spectrum of non-motorized recreational use. Typical recreation in the region includes a broad spectrum of use e.g., scenic driving, hiking, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, mountain biking, picnicking, and photography. The region also includes other BLM, USFS, and IDL public lands that offer trails, wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting, etc.

The use of the SRMA could see an increase in visitor use in the future due to regional population growth, availability of a non-fee site and public land access. While the recreation use would likely see increases due to a growing population, it is not likely to see an increase due to the vegetation treatment.

3.3 Forest Vegetation

3.3.1 Affected Environment:

Mosaics of almost all of the conifer tree species that occur in northern Idaho are present in the project area. The analysis area has a variety of geography and topography, from heavily forested upland areas to relatively flat prairie land to waterfront. Elevations range from 2070 feet up to 2300 feet.

The Coeur d’Alene Field Office has identified current vegetation cover types for BLM managed lands and has correlated them to Gap Analysis Program which mapped existing natural vegetation to the dominant and co-dominant plant species within the area (BLM 2007). Within the Gamlin Lake SRMA, four principal cover types exist and are represented in a mosaic across the area (see Appendix D: Map 4 Cover Types). The cover types mostly consist of mixed conifer/broadleaf (260 acres), Dry conifer (45 acres), wet/cold conifer (54 acres) and other cover types (9 acres) within the project area. Vegetation cover types are used to describe the composition of forest vegetation thus relating to the condition (structure, composition and function) of the forested ecosystem.

Dry conifer types were historically dominated by open ponderosa pine forests that were maintained by low intensity fires occurring on average every 5 to 25 years. Fires consumed needle litter and killed understory trees. With the absence of fire due to suppression and early timber harvesting, a shift in composition from ponderosa pine dominated forest to denser forests of Douglas-fir and grand fir forest has occurred. Mixed conifer stands or wet/warm conifer types historically consisted of early seral species, western larch and western white pine; however currently this cover type is dominated by western red cedar, Douglas fir, western hemlock and grand fir. Due to high stand densities, root diseases and blister rust this cover type is unhealthy. The wet/cold conifer type historically consisted of western white pine, western larch and

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 14

lodgepole pine in lower elevations; however, due to introduction of the blister rust disease, logging and beetles over 90 percent of the white pine was lost (Neuenshwander et al. 1999). This cover type is now in poor health due to the loss of the white pine component and is being replaced by more disease susceptible species, primarily Douglas-fir and grand fir.

Vegetation within the project area prior to the BLM acquisition had been disturbed by past forest management practices (logging, road construction, landings) and agricultural practices (haying and grazing); since BLM management began, the primary use of the area has been geared towards recreational use (trails, trailheads, etc.).

The present forest composition is showing signs of decline in overall health and has become overstocked with Douglas-fir, grand fir, western red cedar and small diameter western hemlock (Cleaver et al. 2015). The resulting condition is encroachment by small diameter trees into areas that were historically dominated by large diameter, lower density ponderosa pine, western red-cedar, western white pine and western larch stands. Overstocking has increased fuel loadings, ladder fuels, and increased moisture stress in effect creating hazardous fuels conditions within the wildland urban interface. Moisture stress and overstocking have weakened the forest defenses and increased its susceptibility to insect attacks and pathogens (Clark et al. 2016), which continue to kill trees, many of which are located near county roads and along recreation trails.

Hardwood tree species in the project area occur in both upland forest and riparian/wetland communities. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), water birch (Betula occidentalis), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), red alder (Alnus rubra), and introduced maple trees (Acer sp.) are scattered across the uplands where moisture conditions, past disturbances, and/or seed availability have favored their growth. Black cottonwood is prominent along low-gradient streams, the southern shoreline of the lake, and shallow ponds within the coniferous forest communities. A group of red alder grows on the sediment deposited by a low-gradient stream where it enters the lake on its southeast side. These hardwoods are, in general, shade intolerant species that require light and disturbance to reproduce and thrive. Without some disturbance, hardwood stands often deteriorate and die. Deterioration results in a loss of soil organic material and thickness (Howard 1996) which is important for nutrient recycling. Within the Gamlin Lake SMRA the existing hardwood species are showing signs of deterioration because the site has primarily become shaded mature conifers and competing vegetation.

3.3.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action):

The Proposed Action would impact 368 acres of forest vegetation in the existing 392 acres of ownership and would transition the forest closer to its historical species mix, density, and vertical structure, making the area more resilient to insects, disease pathogens, drought stress, and wildfire. Immediately following harvest the residual trees should appear healthy with minimal damage from harvest activities.

Fuels Reduction (FR)

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 15

Currently there are roughly 500 trees per acre in the less than seven (<7) inch size class with the primary species being Douglas fir, grand fir, western hemlock and western red cedar. In the Proposed Action, trees in the less than seven (<7) inch size class would be thinned to a 16’ x16’ foot spacing leaving approximately 170 trees per acre, favoring early seral species (ponderosa pine and western larch). Western red cedar would be favored in the wetter areas. Western white pine would be favored where it occurs. Early seral species would be more resilient to fire and insect and disease pathogens. By thinning when trees are young, diameter growth would be accelerated, a desired species composition would be maintained, and there would be an increase of nutrient availability (Weiskittel 2009).

Variable Density Thinning (VDT)

Currently there are approximately 205 trees per acre greater than seven (>7) inch size class primarily Douglas-fir, grand fir and western red cedar. The current canopy cover is 75 percent across the stand. The Proposed Action would retain approximately 70 trees per acre (25’x25’ spacing) following implementation with the largest healthiest trees remaining in the stand, reducing canopy cover by approximately 50 percent. Tree species favored (western red cedar, ponderosa pine, white pine, western larch and all hardwoods) would be of a historic species mix creating a more fire-resilient landscape. A combination of clumps and scattered individual trees based on prescriptions which would mimic clumped distributions and processes found in pre-settlement stands (Brown et al. 2004) allowing for better structure and function within the remaining stand. In thinned areas, growing space would increase following harvest activities allowing for more available light, water and nutrients to the residual trees (Oliver and Larson 1996) in effect creating a more defensible forest should a wildfire occur. By incorporating small scale skips, standing clumps of dead snags could be retained to provide habitat for wildlife, to become future coarse woody debris which is important for nutrient recycling, and to maintain heterogeneity in the cover types across the area. Partial harvesting can often intensify root diseases therefore; small gaps (openings in the forest) can be beneficial in areas that have experienced extensive root diseases, primarily in the Douglas-fir and grand fir.

Hardwood Release (HR)

The Proposed Action would encourage hardwood recruitment by creating openings (¼ acre) around mature trees.

3.3.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (No Action):

The No Action Alternative represents a continuation of the trend away from desired forest vegetation conditions. No harvesting or temporary road building activities would occur and trees would continue to compete for growing space, tree crowns would decrease in size and growth rates would be slowed. If no activities occur, the species composition would trend toward less fire resilient Douglas-fir and grand fir. Stands would continue to self-thin and snag numbers would increase. Increased numbers of

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 16

snags would add to fire danger incrementally. Understory vegetation would decrease in abundance and species diversity would decline due to the lack of sunlight on the forest floor. The existing hardwood species would continue to deteriorate until there was a fire. Fire would create openings which would promote growth and spread or hardwoods.. The crown fire risk would also increase over time as limbs of the understory trees grow into the crowns of the overstory trees.

3.3.4 Cumulative Effects:

Based on Bonner County records the primary ownerships surrounding the project area consist of rural residential and private forested properties. We can expect continued population growth in the County which will increase the number of residential home sites in the area. Private forest lands will continue to be actively managed including commercial thinning and clear cuts on these properties.

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, our project is unlikely to contribute negatively to cumulative effects to forest vegetation due to the relatively small level of disturbance and its projected timing of implementation when compared to the overall analysis area. The Proposed Action would highly decrease the risk of a stand-replacing wildfire in the project area. Through the No Action Alternative, there would continue to be a high level of wildfire risk to the project area and the neighboring properties.

3.4 Vegetation Communities, including Special Status Plants

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Vegetation Communities A mosaic of plant communities currently grows in the project area, primarily due to differences in plant growth requirements; soil type/geology; hydrology; moisture gradient; slope aspect/steepness; and disturbance history, particularly fire, logging, and small-scale agriculture. Each of these plant communities can be vulnerable to invasion and spread of weeds, which compete with native species for growing space, light, water, nutrients, or pollinators. Section 3.5 describes the existing condition and trend of invasive species in the project area.

Coniferous forest vegetation dominates the upland habitats (see Section 3.3 for a detailed description of the forest vegetation in the project area).

With changes to the natural fire regime in the project area, plant density has increased in coniferous forest types where fire historically burned every decade or so, and cleared out understory vegetation, especially tree ingrowth. Other disturbances that have impacted upland forest vegetation at Gamlin Lake include insect and disease outbreaks; past homesite development; roadbuilding; trail construction; small-scale timber harvest; and two recent (2014, 2015) severe windstorms that broke-off, uprooted, or otherwise damaged many standing trees.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 17

Shrub- and/or herb-dominated wetland/riparian communities are prominent along the lakeshore; in the northeastern portion of the project area; around the smaller, shallow ponds; and in the low-gradient drainages where tree-canopy openings have allowed sunlight to penetrate. Sedges (Carex spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), cattail (Typha latifolia), Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) are common. Two non-native species, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and dog rose (Rosa canina), have invaded these communities. Aquatic plant communities occupy shallow to deep water of the lake; and occur in lesser amounts in the smaller, shallow ponds.

The wetland/riparian communities in the project area have been impacted by various disturbances including roadbuilding; trail and trailhead construction; conversion to a hayfield/pasture; small scale timber harvest; and have been invaded by non-native plant species.

Idaho BLM Special Status Plants

In accordance with national policy (BLM Manual 6840), BLM State Directors are responsible for ensuring that all actions comply with the Endangered Species Act, including compliance with Section 7 consultations and conferences with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service; and for designating “BLM Sensitive Species” within their respective jurisdictions. On BLM-administered lands, all offices are to manage BLM Sensitive Species and their habitats to minimize or eliminate threats affecting the conservation status of the species or to improve the condition of the species habitat, in order to avoid potential future listing under the Endangered Species Act.

The Idaho BLM implements this policy through its Special Status Species (SSS) List, which is maintained to address conservation management needs and to help establish funding and work priorities. For rare plants, the Special Status Plants List has been divided into the following categories:

Type 1--Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat These are species currently protected by the Endangered Species Act, and designated Critical Habitat.

Type 2--Range-wide/Globally Imperiled Species—High Endangerment These are species that have a high likelihood of being listed under the Endangered Species Act in the foreseeable future due to their global rarity and significant endangerment factors. Species also include: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed and Candidate species; Federally-listed threatened or endangered species delisted during the past five years; Endangered Species Act Experimental Non-essential species; and Endangered Species Act Proposed Critical Habitat.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 18

Type 3--Range-wide or State-wide Imperiled---Moderate Endangerment These are species that are globally rare or very rare in Idaho, with moderate endangerment factors. Their global or state rarity and the inherent risks associated with rarity make them imperiled species.

Type 4--Species of Concern These are species generally rare in Idaho with small populations or localized distribution and currently have low threat levels. However, due to the small population and habitat area, certain future land uses in proximity could significantly jeopardize these species.

No Type 1 or Type 2 species would be affected (see Appendix D). The following species list for the project area has been developed through searches of the Idaho Natural Heritage Program database for known occurrences of rare plants in the vicinity of Gamlin Lake; field-based vegetation inventories of the project area; coordination with other local rare plant specialists and the Northern Idaho Rare Plant Working Group; and professional experience and judgment of BLM staff.

• Red alder (Alnus rubra; Type 4) is a tree that grows mainly west of the Cascade Mountains from Alaska to central California. In Idaho, good development of this coastal species requires 30+ inches of precipitation per year and warmer temperatures of lower elevations, ranging from 1400 to 2500 feet. Three main red alder populations grow in Idaho: Around Lake Pend Oreille; on the North Fork Clearwater River; and the lower Lochsa/Selway Rivers. This species requires bare soil and full sunlight for successful regeneration, such as following a fire, logging, or road-building. (Johnson 1995) Red alder is present in several locations within the project area.

• Deerfern (Blechnum spicant; Type 4) is a perennial, evergreen fern, which usually grows in moist, shaded forests. This is a wide-ranging species, occurring in the boreal regions of both western and eastern hemispheres. In North America, deerfern is chiefly found west of the Cascade Mountains of the Pacific Northwest but does extend south into northern California. Disjunct populations are known from scattered locations in northern Idaho (USDA Forest Service 2017). No deerfern individuals or populations occur in the project area, though potential habitat is present in the moist forest stands.

• Mingan moonwort (Botrychium minganense; Type 4) is a small-statured member of the grapefern family that reproduces by spores. While this species has a rather broad North American range compared to other rare plants discussed in this section, local populations may still be very small (USDA Forest Service 2007), as is the case at the Gamlin area from which less than ten individual plants have been documented. The habitat where Mingan moonwort grows in the project area is the understory of the black cottonwood-western red-cedar riparian forest, which overlaps somewhat with the western portion of the Gamlin Lake Orange Trail loop. As background, in the 1990s, the Orange and Blue Trails were built and/or improved. These actions included relocation of the Orange and Blue Trails’ junction out of the stream, and placement of a wooden footbridge to Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 19

decrease site-user impacts to the stream; however, portions of the trail through habitat occupied by Mingan moonwort were not addressed at that time. Since then, use of the Orange Trail by hikers and/or bicyclists has caused the trail width to increase in certain areas, as people seek drier ground in order to avoid wet spots. As the trail widens though, it expands further into the areas where Mingan moonwort plants grow.

• Bristly sedge (Carex comosa; Type 3) is a grass-like plant generally found in marshes, along lakeshores, and in wet meadows. Its flower arrangement is tightly packed on individual drooping stems and is often described as having a “bottle-brush” appearance. (Washington Dept of Natural Resources 2018) At Gamlin Lake, bristly sedge has been found at the north end of the lake, along the outlet stream.

• Bulb-bearing water-hemlock (Cicuta bulbifera; Type 4) is a member of the carrot family and is extremely poisonous. Across its range, this species only occurs in riparian and wetland plant communities. (Washington Dept of Natural Resources 2018) At Gamlin Lake, it has been found in the wetland hummocks and shoreline habitat on the east and northeast side of the lake.

• Short-spored jelly lichen (Collema curtisporum; Type 3) is found in Idaho from the Lochsa River north to Priest Lake. It usually grows on heavily furrowed bark of mature black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) trees and also may occur on adjacent conifers. This lichen is most abundant in frequently inundated floodplain habitat though it is still rare across its range in Idaho. (Hutchinson and McCune 2001) While no occurrences of this species have been found in the project area, there is potential habitat present where large, older cottonwood trees are growing.

• Clustered lady's-slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum; Type 3) is a perennial, terrestrial, wild orchid. In Idaho, this species mainly grows in shaded, moist to dry western red-cedar forests and occasionally in grand fir forests. Populations have even been found in drier seral stands of Douglas-fir, often underneath larger shrubs. This species grows from elevations of 1,700 to 4,600 feet. (Lichthardt 2003; Hammet 2008) No clustered lady’s-slipper plants have been found in the project area; though, potential habitat exists in both dry and moist forest stands.

• Large Canadian St. John’s-wort (Hypericum majus; Type 4) is a perennial, native herbaceous species that grows along ponds, lakesides, riparian habitats, or other low, wet places. Its habitat may be completely submerged during portions of the growing season or periodically inundated by water released by dams. (Washington Dept of Natural Resources 2018) At Gamlin Lake, it has been found in the wetland hummocks and shoreline habitat on the east and northeast side of the lake.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 20

• Pine broomrape (Orobanche pinorum; Type 3) is a plant that lacks chlorophyll and obtains its nutrients by parasitizing other plants. It occurs only in western North America, from northern California to Oregon and north to central Washington and through northern Idaho (Ellis et al. 1999). Pine broomrape is uncommon throughout Idaho, Washington, and British Columbia but is apparently secure in Oregon. In Idaho, it is a root parasite of oceanspray shrubs (Holodiscus discolor). (NatureServe 2018) Two small occurrences of this plant have been found in the project area near the Yellow and Gray Trails.

• Water bulrush (Schoenoplectus subterminalis; Type 4) is an aquatic, grass-like plant that grows in open water and boggy margins of ponds, lakes, and sloughs, in water from a few inches to about six feet deep. This species’ range extends in a spotty distribution from southern Alaska to Oregon and into northern Idaho; and then is disjunct into the northeastern U.S. extending south to Georgia. (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2018) Water bulrush grows in shallow water along the southeastern shoreline of Gamlin Lake.

• Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus; Type 4) is a tall (4-5 feet), perennial, grass-like plant with long bristles developing on mature fruits, giving them a wooly appearance. This species does occur in several areas of the northern U.S. and Canada; in northern Idaho, it grows in marshes and wet meadows (USDA NRCS 2018). At Gamlin Lake, woolgrass occurs in the wetland communities and shoreline habitat on the east and northeast side of the lake.

3.4.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action)

Vegetation Communities

The Proposed Action would change the species’ composition, vertical structure, and vegetation density through variable-density thinning and hazardous fuels reduction.

In areas designated for cable logging, vegetation would be injured or killed where the cable tower system is set up, along the cable corridors themselves, where individual trees are cut, and where trees are stockpiled in landing areas. Logging with ground- based equipment would cause more ground disturbance and injury to plant communities, when compared with cable logging. However, measures such as restricting skid trails and yarding corridors to appropriate spacing intervals, and minimum necessary width, and using designated landings, would concentrate the most intense impacts into certain areas, helping reduce more widespread disturbance to vegetation. Impacts to vegetation also could be reduced if tractor operations occurred on two feet or more of snow; even operating over frozen, snow-free ground probably would not reduce damage to the above ground portions of non-target understory plants.

Harvest, thinning, and slashing of vegetation, combined with site characteristics such as plant community response to disturbance, would contribute to a post-project mosaic of species, structures, and densities. For example, red alder may be able to expand into areas where an open canopy and mineral soils are available; on the other hand, Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 21

common, native herbaceous species that are less tolerant of opening the forest canopy may not be well-represented in the post-treatment plant community, resulting in a change in the composition of site habitats over time. Establishment of new populations or persistence of existing weed infestations could also alter this mosaic. The post- project mosaic would change as ecological succession proceeds or a future vegetation disturbance occurs.

Vegetation and ground disturbance associated with thinning and fuels treatment; creating and using the equipment staging area and landings; as well as periodic maintenance of the 200-foot wide fuel-break, would create sites favorable for weed invasion and would produce conditions that allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor. Therefore, weeds, which currently occupy sites in or adjacent to the units and tend to do extremely well in warmer, drier environmental conditions, may spread or at least maintain their present level of infestation. However, inventory, treatment, and monitoring of the project area and access roads would reduce potential impacts to native vegetation from weeds. Treatment of project-related noxious weed infestations, especially, would assist re-establishment of native vegetation in disturbed areas by reducing competition for sunlight, water, nutrients, and pollinators. (BLM 2007b)

Where fuels are piled and burned, the concentrated intensity of fire would kill plants directly under the piles, and kill or injure live plants adjacent to the piles. Over time, burn-pile sites within the project area would likely be recolonized by surviving seed, especially from western larch, and adjoining, surviving native vegetation. (USDA Forest Service 2017) Replanting or seeding may be necessary to inhibit post-burn weed invasion of some slower-to-recover slash-pile sites. Soil beneath burned piles located at landings may be compacted, which could inhibit plant re-growth, though certain native pioneer species, as well as weeds, may be able to produce a sparse, post-burn vegetative cover.

Opening existing road segments, renovation, use, and maintenance of these roads during the life of the project would disturb any vegetation that may have encroached into the road corridor since maintenance last occurred. Use and maintenance of the existing roads would deter vegetation from re-colonizing and closing-off the corridors.

Construction, use, and, and maintenance of 2.9 miles of temporary roads in order to implement the project would disturb plant communities and soils along the road corridors, increasing the threat of weed invasion and/or expansion. Weeds presently growing in the project area would have newly disturbed areas into which they could expand. Passenger vehicles, equipment, off-highway vehicles, wildlife movement, wind currents, and/or recreation use could transport weed seed or fragments from existing infestations into native vegetation communities within the project area. Weeds may out- compete and displace desirable, native vegetation, altering plant community composition, structure, and function both in the present and future.

However, inventory, treatment and monitoring of project roads would reduce potential impacts to native vegetation from weeds. Treatment of project-connected noxious weed infestations, especially, would assist re-establishment of native vegetation in disturbed

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 22

areas by reducing competition for sunlight, water, nutrients, and pollinators. In addition, road closures implemented at the end of the project would keep motorized vehicles out of recently disturbed areas and help limit weed invasion and spread. Gates or barriers would be monitored to reduce the possibility that they have been breached or bypassed, allowing vehicles to transport weeds into closed areas.

Impacts associated with proposed trail-work, such as building, improving, re-routing, and /or reclamation, would be similar to those discussed for roads; but on a smaller, narrower scale.

Impacts associated with trailhead improvements and establishment of a parking lot near Livermore Lake would overlap with the equipment staging area discussed in the “Vegetation Communities” section above. The site would be made-over into a parking area at the conclusion of vegetation treatment activities; and, therefore, would remain relatively free of vegetation. Weed treatment and monitoring of the parking lot and trailhead would be conducted as described in Section 6.1.1, Design Features.

Idaho BLM Special Status Plant Species

Project Design Features listed in Section 6.1.1 should minimize impacts to potential habitat for water howellia. Treatments that occur within the RCA which overlap with this potential habitat would be designed to conserve habitat features (BLM 2007a).

Opening the canopy and creating bare, mineral soil in the red alder locations would stimulate regeneration and enhance the population growing in the project area.

Re-routing a segment of the Orange Trail would decrease impacts from recreational use to the Mingan moonwort population growing in the low-gradient drainage south of the Orange and Blue Trails’ junction. This action would conform to Idaho BLM Special Status Plant Species’ policy regarding management of small populations of rare plants and certain, proximal land uses that may be detrimental.

Changes in site hydrology could affect any of the species growing in wetland, riparian, or aquatic habitat, especially when considering proper drainage for project roads. The BLM Field Office Botanist would coordinate with the Project Leaders to ensure drainage design minimizes possible impacts to water howellia (potential habitat), Mingan moonwort, bristly sedge, bulb-bearing water hemlock, short-spored jelly lichen (black cottonwood habitat), large Canadian St. John’s-wort, water bulrush, and/or woolgrass.

The Proposed Action would not affect deerfern or clustered lady’s-slipper individuals or populations, though potential habitat for each of these species would be disturbed by thinning or fuels treatments. Effects to potential habitat would vary according to individual species’ ecological requirements. For example, pine broomrape (next paragraph) can tolerate a more open canopy, and could possibly benefit from a project that “opens up” a forest stand and favors its host plant, oceanspray. In contrast, species such as deerfern or clustered lady’s-slipper, which grow in shady habitats, may be more sensitive to canopy removal.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 23

Data describing pine broomrape’s response to disturbance are scarce. Rare species monitoring by the U.S. Forest Service during the first year after a wildfire in north-central Washington included pine broomrape; however, preliminary results concerning this species’ response to disturbance were inconclusive, and the study was not funded in subsequent years (Harrod et al. 1997; Harrod pers.comm. 2009). Its host plant, oceanspray, is described in the Fire Effects Information System database (USDA Forest Service 2017) as being favored by disturbance. The database states that oceanspray prefers open sites; is a "light- demanding, early successional" species; and is promoted by disturbances that open the canopy. Based upon the regenerative abilities of oceanspray, it is possible that the obligate root parasite pine broomrape also exhibits some resiliency similar to that of its host. Field observations have also revealed that individual broomrape plants do not necessarily appear above ground in the same location from year to year, making this species quite challenging to manage. Because of the uncertainty surrounding this species, close coordination would occur between the Field Office botanist and Project Leaders during project implementation, so that effects to the broomrape plants would be minimized.

Regarding the possibility that weeds would invade or expand into habitat for each of the special status plant species discussed in the preceding paragraphs, unfortunately, while timber harvest or fuels treatments can be used as a management tool to promote desirable tree species and to replicate historic fire effects, the disturbance created by these activities can favor invasive species (USDA Forest Service 2009, 2017). See Section 3.5 for more detailed discussion.

In conclusion, each of these species has slightly different habitat requirements and responses to disturbances, which makes management of their diverse needs challenging. However, project design features (see section 6.1.1 Environmental Design Features) would decrease thinning, fuels treatment or recreation-related impacts; while monitoring of rare plant populations and/or habitat both during and after the project would track potential project-level impacts. These efforts would ensure that the BLM does not negatively affect potential habitat for water howellia; nor contribute to the need to list red alder, deerfern, Mingan moonwort, bristly sedge, bulb-bearing water hemlock, short-spored jelly lichen, clustered lady’s-slipper, large Canadian St. John’s-wort, pine broomrape, water bulrush, or woolgrass, as threatened or endangered.

3.4.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (No Action)

Vegetation Communities and Idaho BLM Special Status Plant Species Plant succession would continue toward the potential natural community, where possible, in the absence of disturbance. Over time, sites in the area capable of supporting more dense vegetation would become dominated by shade-tolerant species, until a future disturbance such as logging, wildfire, insect infestation, disease, or weather event creates openings in the forest community. Undesirable numbers of Douglas-fir and grand fir trees vulnerable to insect and disease outbreaks would continue to compete with ponderosa pine, western larch, western white pine, and

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 24

western red-cedar. Insect and disease outbreaks would continue within the project area. Weeds would still remain in and adjacent to the project area and compete with desirable native species.

As succession proceeds, forest habitat for shade-tolerant rare species such as Mingan moonwort, clustered lady’s-slipper or deer fern would persist and possibly expand into more acreage. The proposed trail re-alignment to avoid the Mingan moonwort population would not occur, leaving this species vulnerable to trail-user impacts. No harvest or fuels treatment would occur near the pine broomrape plants; however, as succession proceeds, a reduction would occur in the early successional habitat favored by its host plant, oceanspray, which could, in turn, affect the broomrape plants.

Impacts to common, native plant communities and rare plants from a wildfire may be more severe due to the amount of fuels accumulated in unthinned areas, and possibly spread beyond the boundaries of the Proposed Action. A wildfire has the potential to be stand-replacing but may also create a mosaic of burned and unburned vegetation, depending upon factors such as variation in fire behavior. A wildfire in the project area could affect a greater number of acres than the Proposed Action, putting more acres at risk from weed invasion.

3.4.4 Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for vegetation communities and Idaho BLM Special Status Plant Species is defined as the Gamlin Lake and Livermore Lake drainages, approximately ten square miles.

As summarized in Section 3.1.2, past land use practices and disturbances in the analysis area have influenced the species composition, vertical structure, and density of existing plant communities, including rare plants. Invasive and/or introduced species have established in the analysis area. Currently, various stages of ecological succession are present due to past disturbance or lack of it.

Present human-caused and natural disturbances in the analysis area which affect vegetation include home-site development; road building, use and maintenance; trail use and maintenance; firewood cutting; recreational activities; wind blow-down events; and insect and disease outbreaks.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions and natural disturbances in the analysis area include road building, use and maintenance; trail use and maintenance; firewood cutting; recreational activities; fire activity; wind blow-down events; and insect and disease outbreaks. The fuel break segment proposed for the project area would also need to be thinned periodically to retain its fire-break characteristics.

Ongoing and future vegetation-disturbing activities in the analysis area would continue to promote a mosaic of plant communities in various stages of ecological succession. The variety of successional stages would provide the diverse habitats needed to support rare species such as water howellia, red alder, deerfern, Mingan moonwort,

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 25 bristly sedge, bulb-bearing water hemlock, short-spored jelly lichen, clustered lady’s- slipper, large Canadian St. John’s-wort, pine broomrape, water bulrush, or woolgrass; though habitat condition would be degraded by the presence of weedy species.

Ecological succession would proceed where vegetation is left undisturbed and would influence vegetation species composition, vertical structure, and density. Plant communities that revert to earlier ecological succession stages due to disturbance such as insect infestation or disease would begin the process of maturing all over again and include habitat characteristics favorable for rare species like pine broomrape. Ongoing and proposed activities that impact vegetation would open up sites favorable to weed invasion due to ground disturbance and/or reduction of tree canopy cover. Where left untreated, weeds would continue to threaten native plant communities, including Idaho BLM Special Status Plant Species.

The Proposed Action is unlikely to contribute cumulative effects to common, native plant communities, water howellia, red alder, deerfern, Mingan moonwort, bristly sedge, bulb- bearing water hemlock, short-spored jelly lichen, clustered lady’s-slipper, large Canadian St. John’s-wort, pine broomrape, water bulrush, or woolgrass; due to the relatively small area of disturbance and its staggered timing of implementation, when compared to the overall analysis area.

Under no action, zero acres of vegetation in the project area would be disturbed by forestry and fuels treatments or recreation developments. Vegetation composition and structure on adjacent lands in the analysis area could be altered by a future wildfire. The number of acres burned and severity of fire effects would be dependent upon many variables, including whether or not any treatments have been implemented to lessen the severity of those fire effects. Fires on these lands could also spread to untreated vegetation in the project area. Where left untreated, weeds would continue to threaten native plant communities, including rare plant populations.

3.5 Invasive, Non-Native Vegetation

3.5.1 Affected Environment

Invasive weeds threaten our public lands by outcompeting native vegetation and adversely affecting wildland plant and animal communities, damaging watersheds, and increasing soil erosion (Asher, J. and C. Spurrier 1998). Weeds can negatively alter ecosystem processes and impact forest health, sustainability and productivity (Levine et al. 2003; Moser et al. 2009). Historic activities in the project area (primarily roads, logging, and homesteads) created disturbances allowing the invasion of noxious weeds. The majority of the current weed populations are closely associated with these past activities. Main roads, old logging roads and skid trails are common areas to find noxious weed populations. Scattered populations of noxious weeds are found throughout the project area. Existing weed populations have been treated regularly for the past decade using both herbicide and biological controls under the BLM decision for the 2008 Coeur d’Alene Field Office Programmatic Environmental Analysis for

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 26

Vegetation Treatments. These efforts have resulted in an overall reduction in noxious weeds in the area based on staff observations. Inventories of weed populations for the project area were conducted in 2017. Listed noxious weeds identified in the project area are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Listed noxious weed species found within the project area. Noxious Weed Common Name Scientific Name Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare Meadow hawkweed Hieracium caespitosum Common mullein Verbascum thapsus Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare St Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Orange hawkweed Hieracium auranticum

3.5.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action)

The proposed 286 acres of commercial timber harvest, 240 acres slashing/fuels reduction, shaded fuel break, and new parking area would likely have a direct effect by increasing the localized invasive plant invasion into the project area. Vegetation treatments and related activities including road maintenance, hauling, landing construction including tractor skidding, cable yarding, slash reduction, pre-commercial thinning, fuels reduction and pile burning would increase the risk of weed expansion into forest areas. These activities would remove existing vegetation, disturb soils, and increase light to the forest floor, all factors that favor weeds. These same activities can potentially provide transport of weed seeds and plant parts into these disturbed areas. Weeds may also be transported into the project area from offsite weed populations, potentially introducing weeds species that are new to the project area. Vehicle washing described in the design features will minimize the potential for weed spread from off- road vehicles. The proposed trail reclamation, re-routing and trailhead construction would likely have a direct effect by increasing the localized invasive plant invasion into the immediate area. Trail construction disturbs the soil creating available sites for invasive plant establishment. By using haul route for trail re-routes, disturbances will be reduced. The trailhead construction will likely result in increased invasive species localized to the disturbed construction site. Minor populations of invasive plants exist at the proposed trailhead site. Short-term results would likely be an increase in invasive plants following construction of trails and trailheads. Indirect effects would be caused by possible ongoing ground disturbance and possible introduction of new invasive species into the area. Weed seeds or other reproductive Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 27

plant parts maybe inadvertently carried into new areas by cyclists, hikers, pets and/or wildlife. Monitoring of trails and trailheads will identify areas to be treated. Long-term results due to proposed recreation activities will likely be no net increase or a decrease in invasive species due to competition by native vegetation and continuing treatments conducted through the Integrated Weed Management Program.

3.5.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (No Action)

No action would result in current population of weeds continuing to occur along roads and existing trails. In dry conifer forests weeds can expand from existing populations into forested areas often spread by wildlife and/or human activity such as recreational use. In wet warm conifer areas, assuming little to no disturbance, expansion of weed populations into forested areas is unlikely due to low light levels reaching the forest floor. No action in the project area would result in increased fuel loading and with it increased risk of severe fire. A severe fire would remove competing vegetation and create areas of exposed soils that would leave a burned area primed for noxious weed invasion. Noxious weed populations exist on BLM lands as well as on private lands adjacent to the project area. These populations of noxious weeds would likely provide a weed seed source and increase the likelihood of weed establishment following a fire. The increased fuel loading and untreated weed populations combine to create a potential for weed infestation of burned areas following a fire event.

3.5.4 Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the Gamlin and Livermore Lake watersheds. Noxious weeds are a regional issue and weed infestations occur on adjacent lands. There are many factors in the analysis area that contribute to the spread of noxious weeds including: logging, wildlife, wildland fires, recreation, roads and other uses in the watershed area. It is anticipated that new weeds will continue to invade public lands and other lands from various sources. Existing infestations on BLM lands will continue to be treated aggressively until they are controlled, contained, or eradicated. Past events such as road-building and use; logging; residential activity: and recreational activity have contributed to weed invasion on BLM and non-BLM lands. Where left untreated, these weeds may have persisted and continued to threaten native plant communities; although in areas where plant canopy has provided sufficiently shaded conditions, weeds may have not established or decreased in extent over time. Where effective treatment has occurred, weeds have been either eradicated or their spread into native vegetation was curtailed. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions on non-BLM land which would increase the threat of weed invasion into native plant communities include road-building and use, logging, fire, wildlife, and recreational activity. The short term effects of the Proposed Action may result in increased weed establishment and spread in areas of ground disturbance. Over the long term,

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 28

established trails may provide avenues for weed seed dispersal into the project area. Alternatively, the trails will provide increased access for weed control activities such as monitoring and treatment. The control efforts undertaken by BLM on public lands would reduce noxious weeds in the watershed. None of the alternatives would appreciable accelerate the spread of noxious weeds except in the case of a large fire which would be more likely in the No Action Alternative. Noxious weed control efforts in the project area would be conducted as part of the Selkirk Cooperative Weed Management Area (SWMA). These cooperators have noxious weed control responsibilities and interests on adjacent and co-mingled lands in the area. Uncontrolled weed populations in one jurisdiction greatly affect the ability of other land managers to control weeds on lands they administer. The SWMA promotes an integrated weed management program throughout the area that includes public relations, education and training in the noxious weed arena, along with coordination of weed control efforts and methods, and sharing of resources.

3.6 Fuels

3.6.1 Affected Environment

The analysis area for the Fuels section is the 368 acres of proposed treatments, which includes the majority of the Gamlin Lake SRMA.

Due to a century of fire suppression in this area, surface and ladder fuels have accumulated beyond the historic range leading to the potential for more intense fire behavior, especially in light of the wind events that caused excessive blowdown. In the absence of disturbance, the encroachment of shade-tolerant Douglas-fir and grand fir has led to an overstocked condition with increased ladder fuels. The abundance of young seedling/saplings, as well as the lower limbs retained by these shade-tolerant species, provide a ladder for surface fire to reach the canopy fuels by torching and initiating crown fire behavior. Canopy closure has also increased, increasing the potential for crown fire spread.

The purpose and need states the need to reduce impacts from a large wildfire caused by the increase in hazardous fuels. More specifically, this means mortality to dominant vegetation (trees). Mortality directly relates to crown fire potential. Because the analysis model (discussed below) does not predict crown fire potential across the area but does predict mortality, that measurement is used in this analysis. Crown fire is extremely difficult to suppress and usually suppression efforts are only successful when there is a barrier or change in fuel type where the fire drops to the ground and becomes a surface fire.

There are several variables that contribute to crown fire caused mortality of trees, most relating to flame length. These are dictated by the composition of burnable material: surface fuels (logs, sticks, grass, etc.), ladder fuels (shrubs and small trees that can carry a fire into the crowns of trees), and canopy fuels (the branches and limbs that

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 29

make up the crown of a tree). Fire-caused mortality is based on the expected fire behavior, as well as tree species and size class.

An effective fuel treatment plan would need to include a combination of treatments designed to reduce surface fuels, remove ladder fuels, and thin canopy fuels in addition to leaving larger diameter, fire resistant trees in the residual stand. These factors should keep the fire as a surface fire, which is easier to suppress because of lower flame lengths aiding in firefighter success of protecting infrastructure and minimizing spread.

Analysis Methods:

The Fire and Fuels Extension of the FVS model (FVS-FFE) evaluated the effectiveness of the proposed fuel treatment versus no treatment, by looking at the changes in variables affecting fire behavior. All of these variables determine the mortality that occurs under a given scenario. The FVS-FFE model estimated potential fire behavior and effects under a severe fire weather scenario.

Data for the scenarios was collected in 2015. Plots were aggregated into one large forested stand. Because it represents the average stand, mortality results could be either somewhat higher or lower in any particular part of the treatment area. This is mainly based on whether the predominant tree species was fire resistant (ponderosa pine) or not fire resistant (Western red cedar) or somewhere in between. Also, given the general silvicultural prescription of non-uniform spacing (clumpiness), results would likely be variable within the stand but it is useful to show trends in the indicator variable.

3.6.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action)

Commercial harvest treatments in this alternative would open up canopy fuels, while pre-commercial thinning and understory slashing in the fuel break treatment areas would reduce the ladder fuel component. Machine piling slash and blowdown followed by pile burning would reduce surface fuel loading across the treatment area. The fuel break is an additional step to reducing crown fire risk because the remaining trees would be pruned to a height of approximately 8 feet. This further reduces the ladder fuels in these areas and increases the probability of firefighters suppressing a surface fire around the perimeter of the recreation area adjacent to private homes. These activities would reduce the threat of mortality if a wildfire occurred (see Figure 1).

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 30

Figure 1. Effects of No treatment versus Treatment on mortality over time.

Even with treatment, some mortality would occur if a wildfire occurred. The effects of the treatment should last about twenty years until the regeneration of smaller trees fills in the understory and contributes to the ladder fuel component to allow crown fire to start occurring again.

Since crown fire caused mortality is directly linked to crown fire itself, this shows an increase of surface fire, which is positive because surface fires are more readily suppressed. This improves firefighter efforts to protect structures and minimize spread of fire.

3.6.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (No Action)

Under the No Action Alternative, both surface litter and ladder fuels would continue to accumulate. As overstory tree species continue to convert from the fire resistant ponderosa pine and western larch toward less fire resistant fir species and cedar, increased crown closure and ladder fuels would increase the likelihood of crown fire initiation. Studies have shown that the no treatment option is ineffective in reducing fire severity, which is indicative of tree mortality. (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005). However, after about twenty years, as the stand matures the understory either ‘grows up’ and becomes part of the overstory or is choked out due to limited sunlight. In either case, the ladderstory fuels decline, leading to lower mortality from a crown fire. For the next twenty or so years the area is at a high risk of crown fire, meaning suppression efforts would have limited success in protecting structures and limiting fire spread.

3.6.4 Cumulative Effects

Prior to BLM acquisition, the property was a private holding and there are some indications of past harvest activity. Since the BLM began managing the area, no fuels

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 31

treatments to reduce the risk of a large crown fire (causing high tree mortality) or reducing the threat to infrastructure and/orburning onto private lands has occurred.

The Proposed Action along with other fuel reduction treatments on adjacent private property would cumulatively reduce the intensity and severity of wildfires burning through Gamlin Lake area. These treatments tie in with other projects on adjacent lands and the Proposed Action, and may enhance fire suppression efforts and decrease the overall tree mortality (the proxy for crown fire). While it is difficult to determine planned fuels activities on private property, the U.S. Forest Service has proposed several treatments to the west in the Gold Mountain and Grouse Mountain areas. Any future development near the project area would benefit from reduced fire risk under the action alternative because of the added fire protection the alternative offers. However, there are and may be practices that occur on adjacent lands that increase the probability of a large fire, such as logging without slash treatment afterwards.

The No Action Alternative would have no immediate effect on fuel conditions in the project area.

However, Fuel loadings would continue to accumulate, increased stand density and ladder fuels would continue to increase, and less fire resistant species would eventually dominate most stands. The result would be that the landscape could sustain fires with greater crown fire potential, thus increasing tree mortality and decreasing protection of infrastructure and minimizing fire spread.

3.7 Special Status Wildlife

3.8.1 Affected Environment:

Current Habitat Conditions

In general, the project area is a densely stocked mixed coniferous forest with large amounts of dead and dying trees and coarse woody debris on the forest floor. High canopy cover riparian areas with year-round moist soil provide important thermal cover, and micro habitats, to big game species and other wildlife in both summer and winter. Small ponds, nearby Gamlin Lake, and its adjacent wetlands add to the diversity of species that can be found within the project area. Closed canopy forests and riparian areas are preferred by species such as pacific wren, northern goshawk (nesting habitat), Hammond’s flycatcher, cordilleran flycatcher, and fisher. More open forest stands, where ponderosa pine are the dominant conifer, provide habitat for species like dusky flycatchers, western tanager, calliope hummingbird, and pygmy nuthatch. These more open sites also provide greater amounts of forage for big game species.

Because forest insects and disease are already present on the site, there are many snags available to wildlife that require cavities. There are bats, birds, and other mammal species such as flying squirrels that use snags for a portion of their life-cycle present on the site. Larger diameter trees can also be found throughout the project

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 32

area. These will become valuable future snags. A more detailed discussion of current forest conditions can be found in Section 3.3.1. Moist areas near ponds, as well as riparian areas associated with streams provide valuable habitat for many wildlife species such as salamanders, bats, and possibly more rare species such as black terns and short-eared owls.

Extensive surveys to determine the status and distribution of hardwoods on the site indicate that birch and aspen, as well as alder can be found throughout the project area in relatively small quantities. Historically hardwoods would have been a more well represented element in the forests of north Idaho. Fire suppression has favored shade tolerant species that ultimately fill in understory gaps and close the open canopy preferred by hardwoods.

Non-motorized recreation at Gamlin Lake is facilitated by a system of trails, parking areas, outhouses and other infrastructure. Public use of the area impacts wildlife by disturbing and displacing some species that use habitat near trails, parking areas, and viewing areas. Recreation also facilitates the invasion and spread of weeds which reduce habitat value to wildlife. However, public use of this site is relatively low compared to other BLM managed recreation areas such as Mineral Ridge (see Section 3.2.1).

The “Potential to Inhabit Project Area” column of Table 5 (following Section 3.8.3) summarizes the Special Status Species that may be found in the project area. The BLM encountered none of these species during its survey of the project area.

BLM Type 2 Special Status Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need

As Table 5 indicates, there are a variety of Special Status Species that may use the project area for all or a portion of their life cycle. Please refer to the Wildlife Specialist Report (Appendix F), for a detailed discussion of the life history and habitat requirements for these species as well as an assessment of the portions of the project area where they may be found. There is also a discussion of the site potential to support some of these species based on current and possible future habitat conditions.

3.8.2 Environmental Effects from Alternative A (Proposed Action):

The “Proposed Action” column in Table 5 indicates the medium to long term effects of the project on Special Status Species. For the purposes of this analysis, medium to long term is defined as from 2-30 years after project implementation. Discussion of the medium to long term effects and short term impacts of project implementation are described in more detail below.

Habitat Impacts

In general, those species that prefer a more open forest canopy would benefit from the proposed treatments, while those that prefer a more densely stocked forest with higher canopy cover would be negatively impacted. In total 368 acres would be treated under

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 33 this Alternative, while 23 acres would be kept in reserve and left untreated. Use of the variable density thinning method to harvest timber would result in a mosaic of canopy cover across the site, however the average canopy cover would be reduced from the current 72% to 49%. Some areas where disease is more prevalent or where there are few early seral species (larch, ponderosa pine, etc.) would be more heavily harvested and would likely become forest openings or low canopy cover forest with a vigorous understory of shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Opportunities to stimulate the growth and expansion of hardwoods would diversify the site and support a wider variety of wildlife species. The prescribed ‘skips” in the forest treatment, as well as buffer or reserve areas located near ponds or springs would not be treated and would retain some of their character as more dense forest with a less vigorous understory and high canopy cover. Species that prefer more dense forests would be limited to these pockets of lightly or untreated forest or reserve areas. While species that prefer open canopy would find there is significantly more suitable habitat available for their use.

The impacts of the vegetation treatments proposed in Alternative A on specific species or groups of species are discussed in greater detail in the Wildlife Specialist Report (Appendix F). However, there are some impacts from logging activities that can be universally applied regardless of the species or habitat type in question. Logging activities often result in the introduction of weeds throughout project areas. Weeds can be introduced and spread throughout a project area by boots, tracked equipment, and wheeled vehicles. A more detailed discussion of the proposed alternatives impacts on weed presence in the project area can be found in Section 3.5. Conservation measures to minimize the spread of weeds into the project area would be implemented. Still an increase in weed presence is likely to occur under Alternative A. Weeds replace valuable native vegetation that wildlife depend on, with exotic vegetation that is typically less palatable, is occasionally toxic, and very often decreases habitat suitability. Logging activities also disturb wildlife and can cause temporary displacement (Edge and Marcum 1985).

Special Status Birds

Lewis’ woodpecker, flammulated owl, white-headed woodpecker, and Cassin’s finch would benefit from the proposed vegetation treatment in Alternative A. Removing mid seral, shade tolerant species, and reducing canopy cover would encourage the growth of the primary tree species that these birds prefer, pines. In addition, trees remaining after treatment would grow more quickly and would ultimately provide large diameter snags for cavity nesting birds like the woodpeckers and the flammulated owl. Healthy pines that are resistant to fire would provide a better and more reliable seed source for Cassin’s finch.

Short-eared owl, willow flycatcher, and black tern are primarily limited to use of the wetlands associated with Gamlin Lake. Vegetation treatments will generally avoid these areas, although some treatment may occur within riparian areas if it will help achieve improved condition for riparian habitat. None of the treatment proposed would negatively affect habitat for these species and direct effects to individuals are unlikely. Impacts to bald eagles are likely to be negligible. Forest treatment under Alternative A

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 34 would preserve large diameter trees used by eagles for perching and roosting. The conditions that make Gamlin Lake a food source for bald eagles would not change.

Northern goshawks would be negatively impacted by the proposed vegetation treatment in Alternative A. Current canopy cover conditions provide potential nesting habitat for this species, which prefers canopy cover of 70 percent or greater. Under this Alternative, the project area would change from suitable nesting habitat to foraging habitat for goshawks. The primary cause for decline of this species is thought to be timber removal that reduces habitat suitability (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Recreation developments could impact these species by increasing the likelihood of nest disturbance by trail users. Birds may choose to leave an area they formerly used because of human activity. Nest success may decrease if disturbance is enough to cause adults to flush from the nest frequently, increasing the likelihood of nest predation or parasitism, or failure of young to thrive in the absence of parental care (Miller et al. 1998 and 2001). However, these developments are not expected to substantially increase the number of users, and would affect only a small portion of the project area, so impacts should not be significant.

Please see Appendix E for a discussion of migratory birds.

Special Status Bats

In the short term, bats like the myotis species listed in Table 5 that use dead or dying trees as roosting sites would be negatively affected during implementation of the project. Mortality is likely for those roosting in a harvested tree. Some bats may escape as the tree is falling. Over the medium to long term, enough snags would be retained and sufficient recruitment of new snags resulting from insects and disease would provide roosting habitat needed to support bat populations in the project area. The proposed vegetation prescription in Alternative A would not substantially impact bat foraging habitat. The bat species likely to be found within the project area are generalists when it comes to foraging and the proposed vegetation removal is not likely to significantly impact the availability of insect prey for bats.

Special Status Amphibians

Construction of new roads for temporary use could cause erosion into streams reducing the suitability of aquatic habitats for amphibians. However, low geographic relief and buffers for intermittent and perennial streams and ponds where vegetation would be untreated or very lightly treated, would reduce the likelihood of degradation of aquatic habitat. Negative impacts to the Coeur d’Alene salamander would be avoided by stream and pond buffers and road construction standards. As proposed, the project should have little to no impact on amphibians.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 35

3.8.3 Environmental Effects from Alternative B (No Action):

BLM Type 2 Special Status Species

Mortality to wildlife due to machinery and tree falling, as well as disturbance from human activity would not occur under the No Action alternative.

Under no action, an increase in the number of dead and dying trees is expected. As a result, the likelihood of a stand-replacing fire would also increase. Those wildlife species that require snags, prefer more dense forest stands, and rely on forest insects would be positively affected. For example, pileated woodpeckers would have a higher density of insect infested trees to forage in, as well as numerous available cavities to choose from. However, this benefit would be negated in the long term for many of these species if a stand- replacing fire were to occur that reduced large diameter trees in the project area.

Special Status Species that prefer more open stands with a brush understory or the presence of hardwoods would not benefit from no action. Examples include, flammulated owl, Lewis’ woodpecker, and Cassin’s finch. Some species, such as northern goshawk would be both negatively and positively affected. On the one hand, they prefer more dense forests for nesting,but they also use forest openings and less dense forest for hunting.

The “No Action” column in Table 5 below, illustrates the projected medium to long-term effects on the special status species that would occur if no action is taken. This table does not assume that a stand-replacing fire would eventually occur.

Table 5: Project Area Special Status Species Occurrence and Effects Medium to Long-Term Effects Potential to Inhabit Proposed No Action Species the Project Area Action Bald eagle* Likely None None Northern goshawk* Uncommon – May Negative Positive/ Negative Flammulated owl* Uncommon – May Positive Negative Common nighthawk+ Uncommon – May None None Black tern+ Uncommon – May None None Cassin’s finch* Likely Positive Negative Lewis’ woodpecker* Uncommon – May Positive Negative White-headed woodpecker* Uncommon – May Positive Negative Willow flycatcher* Likely None None Short-eared owl* Uncommon – May None None Little brown bat* Likely None None Townsend’s big-eared bat* Uncommon – May None None

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 36

Medium to Long-Term Effects Potential to Inhabit Proposed No Action Species the Project Area Action Long-eared myotis* Likely None None California myotis* Uncommon – May None None Long-legged myotis* Likely None None Western small-footed myotis* Likely None None Hoary bat* Likely None None Big brown bat* Likely None None Silver-haired bat* Likely None None Yuma myotis* Likely None None Western boreal toad* Likely None None Coeur d’ Alene Salamander* Uncommon – May None None *BLM Type 2 Special Status Species + IDFG Species of Greatest Conservation Need

3.8.4 Cumulative Effects

Lands surrounding the project area represent a highly disturbed and significantly modified landscape. Aggressive logging on adjacent private lands, conversion of forest to agriculture, and development of homes and roads has resulted in significant disturbance to and modification of wildlife habitat. Historic and continuing activities in the action area that have impacted wildlife populations include logging and forest health projects, wildfires, forest pathogens, construction and maintenance of utility corridors, recreation (consumptive and non-consumptive), road and trail building, and rural and suburban development. All of these activities have the potential to negatively affect wildlife species. Some of these actions have positively benefited wildlife species.

In general, the loss of interior forested habitat is a concern for species like the northern goshawk. If a catastrophic fire is avoided because of the reduction of dead and dying fuel, the benefit of the project could outweigh the reduction in nesting habitat. The reduction in cover from the proposed project would be far less than a reduction seen after a wildfire. However, if one assumed that no stand-replacing fire would ever occur, the effects of this project on interior forest species is negative. These species are likely to decrease over time in the analysis area. Species that prefer a more open forest stand are likely to increase in the analysis area because of continued forest projects that reduce the canopy and the eventual loss of trees due to insects and disease.

While it is not known if northern goshawks currently use the project area, the acreage that would be converted represents slightly less than one average nesting territory for this species. How much the activities outside the project area will further reduce goshawk nesting habitat is not known, but at the regional or local level, this project area is not large enough to significantly influence the status of northern goshawks. The small scale of the project, coupled with the already disturbed landscape should have no

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 37 significant effect on other Special Status wildlife populations in or around the project area. In fact some species such as Cassin’s finch and flammulated owl would benefit if Alternative A is implemented.

Under a No Action Alternative, forest conditions on the project area would continue to move towards an increasingly densely stocked stand until insects, disease, or wildfire reduce the canopy and early seral species become more prevalent. Adjacent lands would likely continue to see a net loss in forest cover as suburban and rural development continue and private forest lands are harvested. In the case of an eventual stand replacing fire, which is more likely to occur under the No Action alternative, the resulting habitat would also be unsuitable for those species that prefer early seral forests with large diameter trees. Regardless of which scenario, the project area does not represent a significant portion of the available habitat for any of these species. Therefore, no significant cumulative effects to these Special Status species populations in the area are expected.

4.0 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted

Tribal Consultation Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Individuals, Organizations and Agencies Consulted Idaho State Historic Preservation Office Bonner County Commissioners

5.0 List of Preparers Name Title Resource Doug Graves Fire Use Specialist Project Lead, Fuels, Air Quality LeAnn Abell Botanist Vegetative Communities: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants Jered Bowman Forester Forestry Doug Evans Natural Resource Specialist Invasive, Non-native Plant Species Carrie Hugo Wildlife Biologist Wildlife: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Animals. Migratory Birds Mitch Owens Outdoor Recreation Planner Recreation Scott Pavey Environmental Planner Visuals David Sisson Archaeologist Cultural Mike Physical Scientist Hydrology/Soils Stevenson Cindy Weston Resource Coordinator/Fisheries Fisheries Biologist

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) 38

Appendix A: Map 1 Vegetation Treatments – Proposed Action (Alternative A)

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) A-1

Appendix B: Map 2 Fuels Treatments – Proposed Action (Alternative A)

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) B-1

Appendix C: Map 3 Recreation – Proposed Action (Alternative A)

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) C-1

Appendix D: Map 4 - Forest Cover Type

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) D-1

Appendix E: Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Federal regulations (40 CFR 1502.2(b)) state that “Impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance. There shall be only brief discussion of other than significant issues. As in a finding of no significant impact, there should be only enough discussion to show why more study is not warranted.” In accordance with this guidance, the BLM considered the following issues, but eliminated them from detailed analysis:

• Cultural Resources: Proposed treatments could damage or destroy cultural resources.

A cultural resource inventory resulted in one cultural resource located in the project area. The site is a historic homestead from the early 1900s through the 1960s. The site consisted of multiple historic structures. In 1995, the structures were in poor condition and the site exam in 2016 revealed the structures have all collapsed. The Proposed Action will not affect the site since the burn piles will not be placed on top of features and features will be flagged for avoidance.

• Visual Resources: Proposed treatments and associated disturbance could adversely change the visual quality of the landscape.

The Coeur d’Alene RMP designated the landscape in and around the project area as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II. The objective for this management class is to retain the existing characteristic landscape. The level of change to any of the basic landscape elements due to management activities should be low and not evident. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

While initial thinning and tree removal would change the appearance of the landscape from within and adjacent to the project area, the vegetation would continue to consist of a mixed aged predominately conifer forest. The Proposed Action includes a design feature to sever trees within 100 feet of trails at ground level to reduce the visual impacts of stumps. This would reduce or eliminate the potential for visual effects from the project. The improvement of existing roads and construction of temporary roads would temporarily attract attention, but, within one or two growing seasons, new vegetation would cover the disturbed areas and reduce or eliminate the visual effects. Slash piles and burning would also attract attention of observers, but these would be temporary. Burning would last only a few days, removing piles from the area. In the long term, the area would continue to meet the RMP objective for VRM Class II and there is no potential that the temporary effects would be significant. Therefore, this issue was not carried forward for detailed analysis.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) E-1

• Fish and Special Status Fish Species: Sediment and changes to vegetation from proposed treatments could affect fish, including special status fish species.

Gamlin Lake and Livermore Lake are both adjacent to the proposed project area. According to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) website, Gamlin Lake contains a variety of nonnative game fish, including sunfish (bluegill and pumpkinseed), bullhead catfish, crappie, largemouth bass and yellowperch (www.idfg.idaho.gov). There are no fish species listed by IDFG for Livermore Lake and no stocking records for either lake. No special status fish species or designated critical habitat occur in either lake. Due to the buffers, the flat ground, and closing of any new roads, no direct or indirect effects to fish are expected.

• Threatened and Endangered Plant Species: Proposed treatments could affect plant species that are listed or are candidates for listing under the ESA, or their habitats.

No individuals or populations of listed species have been found in the project area. More specifically, no water howellia (Howellia aquatilis-listed as threatened) or Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii-listed as threatened) individuals or populations have been found in the project area. Small ponds and associated wetlands within the project boundary, as well as shallow depths (up to 5-6 feet) of both Gamlin and Livermore Lakes may represent potential habitat for water howellia (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1996, 2018b). However, no proposed or designated critical habitat for either species exists in northern Idaho (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). No whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis- candidate for listing) individuals, populations, or potential habitat occur in the project area. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017, 2018c).

• Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species: Proposed treatments could affect wildlife species that are listed or are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or their habitats.

There is no known or documented use of the project area by any federally listed species. Gamlin Lake is not within a Grizzly Bear Management Unit or Core Area, and has not been designated as Critical Habitat for Canada lynx or any other listed species. The project site is not suitable, and does not have the potential to be suitable, for woodland caribou. The Wildlife Specialist Report at Appendix F contains a more detailed discussion of the natural history and habitat requirements of federally listed species.

• Migratory Birds: Proposed vegetation treatments and removal could affect nesting habitat for migratory birds.

Migratory birds in the project area use a variety of habitat types for nesting and foraging. These sites include mixed coniferous forests, the shrubby forest understory, and sunny forest openings with grasses and shrubs. These birds

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) E-2

may nest in coniferous trees, from near to ground level up to the highest branches. They may be secondary cavity nesters, or nest on the ground

As specified in the project design feature, vegetation cutting and piling will not occur between April 1 and July 15. This design feature would significantly reduce direct impacts to migratory birds nesting in this portion project area. There would be no loss of nests, eggs, or nestlings during this time period and no disturbance to adults. Even within the area of closure during the main portion of the nesting season, there could be some birds that attempt a second clutch and these birds may have active nests after July 15. However, this would not likely be significant because limiting logging activities during the specified time period would cover the first nest attempt for the many migratory bird species within the project area. No changes to habitat resulting from the proposed vegetation treatments are expected to significantly impact local migratory bird populations of any species.

• Other Wildlife: Proposed treatments could affect wildlife, other than special status species, and their habitats.

The BLM observed signs of elk, moose, deer and black bear throughout the project area. These species are generalists and can be found in a wide array of vegetative communities from brushy clear cuts, to dense forests with little understory. Changes to the forest stands within the project area will generally create forage and remove cover for deer and elk that use the project area. Creating “skips” within the treatment prescription will leave pockets of cover that can be used by big game that are in close proximity to productive forage areas. If recreation increases substantially because of trail and parking area developments, there could be greater disturbance to wildlife which may change their behavior, and/or alter the season or time of use for deer and elk in the project area (Naylor et al. 2009 and Wisdom et al. 2005). During vegetation treatments elk and deer would likely leave the area during periods of high activity and disturbance, possibly returning at night or when implementation is complete (Edge and Marcum 1985).

Other species such as bobcat, bear, or mountain lion are generalist whose presence is largely dependent on prey availability and human disturbance levels. Increased recreation may displace some of these animals, altering the season or time of day that they may use the project area. Habitat impacts to these species would be negligible or beneficial as forest treatments should result in a more productive understory, increasing small mammal and ungulate use.

• Soils: Equipment and road construction could compact or cause run-off of soils within the project area.

By applying the listed design measures, soil impacts from the project are expected to be relatively minimal due to: relatively gentle slopes, inherent high infiltration rate, and substantial ground cover which would reduce overland Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) E-3

transport of sediment. Grasses and shrubs are expected to re-establish in disturbed areas in one to two growing seasons. One exception is the proposed staging area near Livermore Lake Trail Head that would be converted into a gravel parking lot. Though there would be a long-term loss of soil productivity, this would be a relatively small area (0.15 acres).

• Water Quality: Proposed treatments could affect water quality by creating sediment that would enter streams and water bodies. The Proposed Action will result in short-term (one growing season) increases in erosion due to soil disturbance form yarding and road construction. There is one intermittent stream crossing with an existing undersized culvert, which would be replaced with an improved crossing. By minimizing runoff through use of effective design measures, sediment transport to water bodies would be minimal. A BLM hydrologist would be involved in design and installation of the stream crossing to minimize potential sediment input. The no harvest buffer zones around the springs, wet areas, the lake shore as well as swales and drainage channels that act as conduits to Gamlin Lake would greatly reduce sediment (and nutrient) transport. Nutrient loading is a concern in relatively shallow lakes including Gamlin and Livermore, which are phosphorus (P) limited. When lakes such as these receive amounts of P that exceed their background levels excessive growth of algae often occurs. These conditions can be very detrimental to aquatic life and can limit the use recreational use of lakes. Design measures that effectively limit sediment (and ash from burned slash piles) from reaching the lakes will minimize nutrient loading from the Proposed Action. • Recreational Priority: Public comments indicated a concern that commercial timber harvest was being promoted at the sake of recreational values.

The purpose and need clearly state that the timber harvest is needed to promote recreational values by reducing the potential effects of wildfire, which could be more impactive to the area than the harvest. As stated in Section 4.0 above, the RMP limits resource management actions to those that promote recreational values, but does not prohibit action such as this proposal. Therefore this will not be part of the recreation issue that will be carried forward for detailed analysis.

• Noise Pollution: Project activity will generate noise, which may bother adjacent land owners and visitors recreating.

This is not a significant issue because it has been addressed by a design feature limiting activities to daylight hours Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. within 200 feet of private property.

• Roads and Parking: Project machinery and hauling activities may impact road use, including traffic impediment and road damage from. This is not a significant Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) E-4

issue because BLM will expand the parking area off Camp Bay Road at Livermore Lake Trail Head toprevent impediment to local traffic and roads.

• Wildfire Risk: Pile burning could increase risk of wildfires. This is not a significant issue because BLM policy requires of Standard Operating Procedures to minimize risk of fire escape.

• Air Quality: Smoke from pile burning may impact adjacent landowners and the general public. Also, the majority of the roads surrounding the project area are not paved and equipment used for the project may generate dust, which may bother adjacent land owners and visitors recreating.

Smoke and dust impacts would not be significant because, per the applicable project design feature, the BLM would coordinate with the Idaho/Montana Smoke Management Group who works with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to minimize air quality effects.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) E-5

Appendix F – Wildlife Specialist Report

Current Habitat Conditions

In general, the project area is a densely stocked mixed coniferous forest with large amounts of dead and dying trees and coarse woody debris on the forest floor. High canopy cover riparian areas with year-round moist soil provide important thermal cover, and micro habitats, to big game species and other wildlife in both summer and winter. Small ponds, nearby Gamlin Lake, and its adjacent wetlands add to the diversity of species that can be found within the project area. Closed canopy forests and riparian areas are preferred by species such as pacific wren, northern goshawk (nesting habitat), Hammond’s flycatcher, cordilleran flycatcher, and fisher. More open forest stands, where ponderosa pine are the dominant conifer, provide habitat for species like dusky flycatchers, western tanager, calliope hummingbird, and pygmy nuthatch. These more open sites also provide greater amounts of forage for big game species.

Because forest insects and disease are already present on the site, there are many snags available to wildlife that require cavities. There are bats, birds, and other mammal species such as flying squirrels that use snags for a portion of their life-cycle present on the site. Larger diameter trees can also be found throughout the project area. These will become valuable future snags. Moist areas near ponds, as well as riparian areas associated with streams provide valuable habitat for many wildlife species such as salamanders, bats, and possibly more rare species such as black terns and short-eared owls.

Extensive surveys to determine the status and distribution of hardwoods on the site indicate that birch and aspen, as well as alder can be found throughout the project area in relatively small quantities. Historically hardwoods would have been a more well represented element in the forests of north Idaho. Fire suppression has favored shade tolerant species that ultimately fill in understory gaps and close the open canopy preferred by hardwoods.

Non motorized recreation at Gamlin Lake is facilitated by a system of trails, parking areas, outhouses and other infrastructure. Public use of the area impacts wildlife by disturbing and displacing some species that use habitat near trails, parking areas, and viewing areas. However, public use of this site is relatively low compared to other BLM managed recreation areas such as Mineral Ridge.

Threatened and Endangered Species

There are currently three federally protected wildlife species that occur in north Idaho. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). All except the caribou are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The woodland caribou is an Endangered species. No listed species have been documented on the site. There is no documentation of any of the three listed species in the project area or within 50 miles of Gamlin Lake. The project Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) F-1 area does not currently provide suitable habitat for woodland caribou or Canada lynx. There is little to no likelihood that the site will become suitable in the future, thus there will be no further analysis for these two species in the document.

Currently this area is considered to be “unoccupied” by grizzlies (USFWSb). The project area lies between the Selkirk Recovery Zone and the Cabinet Yaak and Bitterroot Ecosystem which have been outlined as areas important to the recovery of grizzlies throughout their historic range (USFWSa 2012). A query to the Idaho Fish and Game Fish and Wildlife Information System observation database did not result in any trusted or verified sightings of grizzly bears within 30 miles of the project area. While grizzly bears are flexible in their habitat requirements and may travel long distances during dispersal, the likelihood of this species being present during implementation of the proposed alternatives is minimal. The project area is not within a Grizzly Bear Management Unit and is not considered Core habitat. Thus, there will be no further analysis for grizzly bears in the document.

Like grizzly bears, wolverines have large home range sizes and the very long dispersal distances. Aside from denning habitat, this species can also utilize a wide variety of habitat types, however they are negatively associated with roads and clear cut forest stands (Hornhocker and Hash, 1981; Hash 1987; Copeland et. al 2007). The high density of existing roads and the consistent use by people for recreation and resource extraction make the habitat in project area and vicinity marginal at best. There is no historical or potential denning habitat in the project area. Wolverine will not be included in any further analysis.

BLM Type 2 Special Status Species

Bald eagles are fairly common in north Idaho now. Declining populations were listed under the ESA until 2007. This raptor hunts fish on the lakes and rivers of North Idaho and will also feed on waterfowl and scavenge dead animals. Pairs mate for life and reuse the same nest year after year. There are no documented nesting pairs within the project area, but they can often be found on the shoreline of Lake Pend Orielle and there are documented observations within 1 mile of Gamlin Lake. Important habitat components for this species include large diameter trees with large horizontal branches for perching and hunting from. Live large diameter trees that can support the large nests that eagles build are also required for breeding success. Healthy and abundant fish populations are also a necessary component for Bald Eagles. Roosting sites for Bald Eagles in ponderosa pine habitat tend to have higher basal area, are east-facing, have a higher density of trees and a higher density of large diameter trees (Joshi 2009). The project area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for bald eagles.

Northern goshawks are forest raptors that nest in relatively dense forest stands with canopy closure greater than 75% (Moser 2007). Goshawk territories can be as large as 420 acres and require a mixture of high canopy cover forest for nesting and more open forest, or small forest openings for hunting. Goshawks prey on smaller bird species and small mammals such as tree squirrels. Goshawks return to their nests as early as March or early April and egg laying can begin shortly after. Pairs maintain 1-8 nests in a

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) F-2

territory and may use alternate nests in sequential years (Rodewald 2015). Research indicates that forest treatments can be conducted in goshawk nesting habitat without negative impacts if at least 39% of the territory maintains the 70% forest cover standard (Squires and Reynolds 1997 and Moser and Garton 2009). Forest Vegetation Inventory (FORVIS) plots conducted in the project area indicate that portions of the project area currently meet or exceed 70%.

Flammulated owls are a small migratory owl that eats insects, mice, shrews, and other small vertebrates. However, their diets are almost entirely insects, especially crickets, moths, and beetles. They hunt at night, gleaning insects off of vegetation. This explains their migratory behavior. This species prefers mature pine forests with a relatively low canopy cover where it nests in cavities created by woodpeckers (Linkhart and McCallum 2013). There are very few portions of the project area that have these characteristics, however there are large diameter pine and forest stands that could become suitable for this species in the future.

Cassin’s finches feed primarily on tree buds and seeds, and they mix with other montane finches such as crossbills and siskins. Cassin’s Finches live in evergreen forests in the mountains up to about 10,000 feet elevation. In winter, they may move to lower elevations. They feed heavily upon seeds of pines and quaking aspen (Hahn 1996). Portions of the project area may provide habitat for this species, particularly outside of the nesting season. There are documented observations of Cassin’s finches within close proximity to the project area.

Lewis’s woodpeckers are unique because they catch insects in the air during the breeding season and store mast (e.g., seeds, acorns, and corn) during the winter. According to the Idaho Draft State Wildlife Action Plan (IDFG 2016), “breeding sites generally occur in burned ponderosa pine forests, cottonwood riparian forests, and aspen groves. This species appears to prefer nesting in large diameter, well-decayed snags in relatively open forests with a well-developed understory. Nests are sited in natural cavities or abandoned nest of primary excavators”. There are no observations of this species within close proximity to the project area, however, it is likely that this area supported this species historically before much of north Idaho’s forest became so densely stocked.

The white-headed woodpecker can be found in pine-dominated forests in the mountainous regions of the West. In its northernmost range, this species typically inhabits dry coniferous forests dominated by ponderosa pine (Garret et al. 1996). Historically this species would have been more common in the Idaho Panhandle but the gradual conversion of mature pine forest into mixed coniferous densely stocked forest has made much of the habitat in north Idaho unsuitable. Preferred forest stands are typically multistoried and open-canopied mature and old-growth ponderosa pine. They will also use recently burned or logged areas where large pines remain. Healthy populations of this species are an indicator of the quality of mature ponderosa pine habitats, which are used for breeding, roosting, and foraging. This species requires an abundance of large-diameter pines, relatively open canopy (50–70%), and availability of snags and stumps (mostly high-cut) for nest cavities (IDFG 2016). Like the Lewis’

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) F-3 woodpecker, it is likely that the project areas provided suitable habitat for this species in the past, but currently the habitat would be considered marginal at best.

Common nighthawks typically nest on the ground in open forests, logged or slash- burned areas of forest, woodland clearings, and rock outcrops. The Common Nighthawk is a crepuscular (dawn and dusk) forager that feeds on flying insects such as moths, beetles, and caddisflies. This species may forage in large groups (IDFG 2016). As a generalist, common nighthawks can be found in many different habitats. There are observations of this species within 5 miles of the project area.

Black terns are a colonially nesting species that can be found in the depressional wetlands of the Idaho Panhandle. While nesting colonies are relatively rare, they have been found in the nearby Hoodoo Valley and Westmond Lake is a fairly reliable nesting area for this species. It is possible that this species could currently be using or may use the project site for foraging or nesting in the future. These aerial insectivores nest in the mergent vegetation of shallow freshwater wetlands and have low reproductive success (IDG 2016).

Willow Flycatchers are closely associated with riparian shrub habitat, as their name implies. This species migrates to north Idaho for the nesting season where it breeds in moist shrubby areas often with standing or running water. Willow flycatchers are aerial insectivores that capture insects in the air or glean them off of plants (Sedgwick 2000). There are no sightings that have been submitted to ebird within 5 miles of the project area but Gamlin Lake does provide suitable habitat for this species.

Coeur d’Alene salamander- This uncommon species is associated with three habitat types; waterfall spray zones, springs and seeps, and stream edges. In wet weather they may be found under leaf litter, logs, and bark (IDFG 2005). Forest sites where they have been documented have at least 25% canopy cover but can be highly variable in cover type; from ponderosa pine to hemlock (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2009). Because they respire through their skin, the most important habitat component for the Coeur d’Alene salamander is moisture and humidity (IDFG 2005). Perpetually moist areas near creeks or ponds may provide habitat for this species though they have never been documented on the site. These salamanders are primarily nocturnal and so are less likely to be encountered by surveyors or the public.

The bat species that may inhabit the project area (see Table 5 following Section 3.3 of the EA) are habitat specialists because they require roosting and hibernating habitats that are very specific in their temperature and airflow requirements (Adams 2003). Species that use snags, loose bark, cavities, or foliage for roosting may also be present on the site. Hoary bats are migratory and roost in the foliage of live trees. Silver-haired bats are also migratory and roost in small colonies in trees. California myotis (myotis is a type of bat) prefer dry conifer sites, and they may use this site for foraging. They may also roost under loose tree bark (Adams 2003). The fringed myotis, which is relatively rare in north Idaho, is most likely to be found in low elevation ponderosa pine. Little is known about its roosting habitat requirements, but snags are one likely source in spring, summer, and early fall (Adams 2003). Townsend’s big eared bat may use this site for

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) F-4

foraging and roosting. Man-made structures may be used during the summer months as well (Adams 2003). The long-legged myotis and long-eared myotis are both forest dwelling bats that use snags, caves, mines, and sometimes structures as roosts (Adams 2003). This site provides both foraging and roosting habitat for these two species.

Migratory Birds

A variety of forest stands on the project site provide foraging and nesting habitat for numerous neo-tropical migrants in spring and summer and resident birds throughout the year. Western tanager, Swainson’s thrush, pine siskin, MacGillivray’s warbler, orange crowned warbler, pacific wren, Hammond’s flycatcher, red-breasted nuthatch, black- capped chickadee, pileated woodpecker, warbling vireo, chipping sparrow, and Townsend’s warbler were among the species documented during one site visit. A comprehensive breeding bird survey would likely reveal use by many more migratory bird species.

Migratory birds in the project area use a variety of habitat types for nesting and foraging. These sites include mixed coniferous forests, the shrubby forest understory, and sunny forest openings with grasses and shrubs. These birds may nest in coniferous trees, from near to ground level up to the highest branches. They may be secondary cavity nesters, or nest on the ground.

Other Wildlife

Sign of elk, moose, deer and black bear were found throughout the project area. These species are generalists and can be found in a wide array of vegetative communities from brushy clear cuts, to dense forests with little understory. Rocky Mountain elk prefer winter habitat that is composed of 60% forage and 40% cover (Thomas 1979). Areas with high canopy cover and little forest understory would not be considered productive foraging areas, but they are valuable as security areas and thermal cover areas during winter months. (Peek et. al 1982). South-facing slopes with vigorous brush fields and nearby escape cover, provide vital winter range for elk, while high elevation brush fields provide equally important transition range providing nutrition that elk need to improve their body condition prior to winter (Innes 2011). Peek et. al (1982) found that elk tend to use forage areas within 1200 feet of cover. The project area currently functions best as cover for deer and elk. High canopy cover, and high amounts of downed woody debris have reduced the amount of forage available to ungulates in much of the project area. Elk in north Idaho are not migratory, thus their home ranges are much smaller than migratory herds in more xeric landscapes (Innis 2011).

This project site provides necessary habitat components for wolves, mountain lion, bear, grouse, wild turkey, bobcat, and numerous small mammal species. All of these species take advantage of many vegetation communities and their presence is largely influenced by the presence of humans. Areas with significant human disturbance are less likely to be used by many wildlife species (Steidl and Powell 2006).

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) F-5

Appendix G – References Cited

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Coeur d’Alene Approved Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Coeur d’Alene, ID. http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning.html

Air Quality

Peterson, J.L. 2001 Regulations for Smoke Management. Pages 61 – 74 in Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire, 2001 Edition. C.C. Hardy, R.D. Ottmar, J.L. Peterson, J.E. Core, and P. Seamon, eds. National Wildfire Coordination Group, PMS-420- 2. Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service. Volumes I-V. Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. 303pp. Sandberg, D.V., R.D. Ottmar, J.L. Peterson, and J. Core. 2002. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42 vol. 5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79p. Wright, C.S., C.S. Balog and J.W. Kelly. 2010. Estimating volume, biomass, and potential emissions of hand-piled fuels. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 23 p. Forest Vegetation Brown, R. T., Agee, J. K. and Franklin, J. F. (2004), Forest Restoration and Fire: Principles in the Context of Place. Conservation Biology, 18: 903–912.

Clark, J.S.; Iverson, L.; Woodall, C.W. and others. 2016. The impacts of increasing drought on forest dynamics, structure, and biodiversity in the United States. Global Change Biology 22: (7) 2329-2352.

Cleaver, C.M.; Zambino, P.Z. 2015. Hazard tree and forest health issues at Gamlin Lake. Report No. CFO-TR-15-014. USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Northern Region, Forest Health Protection; Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 10 p.

Howard, J. L. 1996. Populus tremuloides. Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). March 18 2015.

Neuenschwander, Leon F.; Byler, James W.; Harvey, Alan E.; McDonald, Geral I.; Ortiz, Denise S.; Osborne, Harold L.; Snyder, Gerry C.; Zack, Arthur 1999. White pine in the American West: A vanishing species - can we save it? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-35. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 20 p.

Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson. (1990). Forest Stand Dynamics. McGraw-Hill Inc. New York, NY.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) -1

Weiskittel, A.R., Kenefic, L.S., Seymour, R.S. & Phillips, L.M. 2009. Long-term effects of precommercial thinning on the stem dimensions, form and branch characteristics of red spruce and balsam fir crop trees in Maine, USA. Silva Fennica 43(3): 397–409.

Fuels

Stephens, Scott L. and Jason J. Moghaddas. 2005. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 215 (2005) 21–36. Invasive, Non-Native Species

Asher, J. and C. Spurrier. 1998. The spread of invasive weeds in western wildlands: A state of biological emergency. The Governor’s Idaho Weed Summit. Boise, Idaho. May 1998.

Levine, J. M., M. Vil`a, C. M. D’Antonio, J. S. Dukes, K. Grigulis, and S. Lavorel. 2003. Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270:775–781.

Vegetation communities, including special status plants

BLM. 2007b. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report. BLM, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.

Cooper, S.V., Neiman, K.E., and D.W. Roberts. 1991. Forest habitat types of Northern Idaho: A second approximation. Gen.Tech.Rep INT-236. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah.

Ellis W.M, J.R. Taylor J, and R. J. Harrod. 1999. The reproductive biology and host specificity of Orobanche pinorum Geyer (Orobanchaceae). Madroño 46 (1): 7-12.

Hagle, S.K., Gibson, K.E., and Tunnock, S. 2003. Field guide to diseases and insect pests of northern and central Rocky Mountain conifers. Report No. R1-03-08. USDA Forest Service; State and Private Forestry; Northern Region, Missoula, Montana; Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. 197 p.

Hammet, E. A. 2008. Tumbledown Project—Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Forest Species of Concern (Rare Plants) Report. USDA Forest Service, unpublished report on file at Sandpoint Ranger District Office.

Harrod, R. J., D. E. Knecht, E. E. Kuhlmann, M. W. Ellis, and R. Davenport. 1997. Effects of the Rat and Hatchery Creek fires on four rare plant species, in Greenlee, J. M., Proceedings: First Conference on Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA. p. 311-319.

Hutchinson, J. L.; McCune, B. 2001. Riparian lichens of northern Idaho. Tech. Bull. 01-12. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Idaho Bureau of Land Management. 139 p.

Idaho Department of Lands. 2015. Annosus root disease information pamphlet. Accessed at: http://www.idl.idaho.gov/forestry/forester-forums/id8.pdf; December 2015. Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) -2

Johnson, F.D. 1995. Wild Trees of Idaho. University of Idaho Press. Moscow ID. 212 p.

Lichthardt, J. 2003. Conservation Strategy for Clustered lady’s-Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium fasciculatum) in U.S. Forest Service Region 1. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho. June 2003. 25 p. plus appendices.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2018. Montana Field Guide/Plants. Available at: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/plants (accessed January 2018).

NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at:http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: January 2018)

Smith, J.K. and W.C. Fischer. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of Northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Report INT-GTR-363. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Conservation assessment for 13 species of moonworts. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-vascular-plants.shtml (Accessed January 2018).

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Fire effects information system. Available at: http://www.feis- crs.org/beta/faces/index.xhtml;jsessionid=58EE5EB33003F1A4AB9CE400CFA15B98 (accessed December 2017).

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Woolgrass: Scirpus cyperinus (L.) Kunth plant guide. Available at: https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_sccy.pdf (Accessed January 2018).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Water Howellia (Howellia aquatilis) recovery plan. Helena, Montana. vi. plus 52 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s Catchfly). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xiii + 187 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Evaluating protection for whitebark pine. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/pressrel/2017/01132017_USFishandWildlifeService_EvaluatingProtectionforWhiteBarkPi ne.php (Accessed January 2018).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018a. Assessing the status of the monarch butterfly. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/SSA.html (Accessed January 2018).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018b. Water howellia fact sheet. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/Waterhowellia_factsheet.pdf (Accessed January 2018)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018c. Whitebark pine species profile. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=R00E (Accessed January 2018).

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) -3

Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. 2018. Online rare plant field guide. Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPfieldguide (Accessed: January 2018)

Wildlife

Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. USA. 289pp.

Bird Studies Canada (BSC). 2013. Project NestWatch. Bird Studies Canada / Études d’Oiseaux Canada, URL: http://www.bsc-eoc.org/volunteer/pnw/?lang=en

Copeland, J.P., J.M. Peek, C.R. Groves, W.E. Melquist, K.S. McKelvey, G.W. McDaniel, C.D. Long, and C.E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 71, Issue 7, Pages 2201-2212.

Edge, W. D., and C. L. Marcum. 1985. Movements of elk in relation to logging disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 49 pages 926-930.

Fernández-Juricic, E., Jimenez, M.D. & Lucas, E. 2001. Alert distance as an alternative measure of bird tolerance to human disturbance. Implications for park design. Environmental Conservation, Volume 28, pages 263–269.

Garrett, Kimball L., Martin G. Raphael and Rita D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.252

Hahn, Thomas P. 1996. Cassin's Finch (Haemorhous cassinii), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.240

Hash, H.S. 1987. Wolverine. Pages 574-585 in M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.

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

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2016. DRAFT Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. https://idfg.idaho.gov/swap/2015-revision-draft

Innes, Robin J. 2011. Cervus elaphus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2014, June 3].

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) -4

Joshi, Prabin K. 2009. Night Roosts of Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Wintering in Northern Arizona. Master of Science Thesis. Northern Arizona University.

Larson CL, Reed SE, Merenlender AM, Crooks KR (2016) Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 11(12): e0167259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167259.

Linkhart, Brian D. and D. Archibald McCallum. 2013. Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.93

Littlemore, J. and Barlow, C. 2005. Managing public access for wildlife in woodlands – ecological principles and guidelines for best practice. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 99, 271–286.

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Montana Animal Field Guide [Internet]. Available from: http://fwp.mt.gov/fieldguide/.

Moser, B.W. 2007. Space use and ecology of goshawks in northern Idaho. Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA. Nature Serve. Nature Serve Explorer [Internet]. Available from: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.

Moser B.W and E.O. Garton Source. 2009. Journal of Raptor Research, 43(1):1-10. 2009. Short-Term Effects of Timber Harvest and Weather on Northern Goshawk Reproduction in Northern Idaho.

Peek,J. M., M. D. Scott, L.J. Nelson, D.J. Pierce, and L. L. Irwin. 1982. Role of cover in habitat management for big game in northwestern United States. Transactions of the North American Nature Resource Conference 47:363-373.

Rodewald, P. (Editor). 2015. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Sedgwick, James A. 2000. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.533

Steidl, R.J., Powell, B.F., 2006. Assessing the effects of human activities on wildlife. George Wright Forum 23, 50e58

Squires, John R. and Richard T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.298

Thomas, J.W.; Black, H., Jr.; Scherzinger, R.J.; Pedersen, R.J. 1979. Deer and elk. In: Thomas, J.W., ed. Wildlife habitats in managed forests-the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 104-127.

USFWS. 2016. Environmental Conservation Online System. Species Profile Grizzly Bear (Ursos arctos horribilis). https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A001

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) -5

USFWS 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana.

Gamlin Lake Vegetation Treatment (DOI-BLM-ID-C010-2016-0014-EA) -6