Biological Assessment

for Terrestrial Wildlife Species

DIVIDE TRAVEL PLAN

Helena Ranger District

Helena National Forest

Prepared by:

Brent Costain Wildlife Biologist, Helena National Forest

July 2015

Contents SUMMARY ...... 1 The Travel Plan ...... 1 Determination of Effects ...... 1 Grizzly Bear ...... 2 Canada Lynx ...... 3 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 Purpose and Authority ...... 5 Consultation Requirements ...... 5 Need for Re-Assessment Based on Changed Conditions ...... 5 Species included in the Assessment ...... 5 Methodology and Sources of Information ...... 7 Field Data ...... 7 Grizzly Bear ...... 7 Lynx ...... 8 THE AREA AND THE PLAN ...... 10 The Divide Landscape and Travel Plan Area ...... 10 The Landscape ...... 10 The Travel Plan Area ...... 14 The Nature of the Road System ...... 14 The Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak: Implications for the Transportation System ...... 18 The Divide Travel Plan ...... 20 Action Areas ...... 24 SPECIES ASSESSMENT ...... 25 Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) ...... 25 Habitats, Populations, and Human Influences ...... 25 Management Guidance...... 28 Grizzly Bear Status in the Divide Landscape and Travel Plan Area ...... 31 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 37 Cumulative Effects ...... 46

Grizzly Bear: Summary and Determination of Effects...... 47 Recommendations for Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating for Adverse Effects ...... 49 Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) ...... 50 Habitats, Populations, and and Human Influences ...... 50 Lynx Management...... 53 Local Status ...... 59 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 63 Cumulative Effects ...... 73 Lynx: Summary and Determination of Effects ...... 73 REFERENCES ...... 76 APPENDIX A ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 ACTION AREA ...... 1 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ENTERPRISES THAT HAVE SHAPED THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT ...... 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: HISTORIC ACTIVITIES (PRIOR TO 1950) ...... 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: TIMBER PROJECTS SINCE 1950...... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: ONGOING ACTIVITIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ACTION AREA ...... 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: SPECIFIC DECISIONS AND PROJECTS SINCE 2000...... 12 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIVITIES ...... 17 CONCLUSIONS ...... 18 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...... 19

SUMMARY

The Travel Plan The Divide Landscape covers 233,088 acres astride the Continental Divide on the Helena Ranger District (RD) of the Helena National Forest (NF) between the Lincoln Ranger District boundary to the north and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest boundary to the south. The Divide Travel Plan addresses travel management for motor vehicles on 177,713 of those acres within National Forest administrative boundaries. The Travel Plan Area excludes the Clancy-Unionville area in the southeastern part of the landscape and most of the upper Little Prickly Pear watershed at it the northern tip. These 2 areas have been covered by earlier travel planning efforts (Clancy-Unionville Vegetation Manipulation and Travel Management Project, 2003; Sound Wood Salvage Project, 1998).

Currently, the Travel Plan Area supports 340 miles of Forest, County, and State roads open to public use via wheeled motor vehicles during all or part of the year; 35 miles of trails open to off-highway vehicles (OHVs); and 418 miles of groomed or regularly-used snowmobile trails. The Plan Area also includes 75 miles of active roads on private lands. Since 2003, State/Federal OHV regulations have barred wheeled motor vehicles from riding outside the road corridors and from pioneering new routes on public land. In addition, the Helena NF has closed approximately 34,755 acres to off-trail riding by snowmobiles.

The new Travel Plan would reduce open Forest System roads by 156 miles, leaving a total of 184 miles of open Forest, County, and State roads in the Plan Area. Motor trails would increase from 35 to 62 miles (most of the increment coming from converted roads). Fall road and trail closures designed to provide big game security during the hunting season would now begin on September 1 rather than October 15 as at present. Snowmobile trails would decrease slightly to 403 miles and the current muddle of use designations would be clarified. The area off-limits to cross-country snowmobile riding would increase to 70,520 acres. An array of dispersed off-road camping sites would be specifically designated. Aside from these, off-route driving for camping would be allowed up to 70 feet on either side of open roads with the exception of sensitive areas (most often, the areas in and around wetland and riparian sites). Off-road driving for other purposes (firewood gathering, picnicking) would be limited to 35 feet off the road.

The Travel Plan does not specify at this point how the 156 miles of road closures would be achieved (gates, intermittent obstructions, recontouring, etc.). Decisions as to closure methods will come as a series of separate decisions in the future as the Plan is implemented.

Determination of Effects This Biological Assessment addresses the potential effects of the Divide Travel Plan on 2 threatened species—the Canada Lynx and the grizzly bear. Lynx critical habitat is also at issue since approximately 37% of the Travel Plan Area (the region north of U.S. Highway 12) falls within lynx “critical habitat” as Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 2 identified in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (2007) and the USFWS’s 2014 Revised Designation of Critical Habitat… (USFWS 2014b). Management guidance related to the “Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone” [the area outside the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Recovery Zone where grizzly bears can reasonably be expected to occur] is taken into account since the Plan Area lies entirely within that zone. This zone, which originally (beginning in 2002) covered only the area north of Mullan Pass, was expanded in 2013 to encompass all of Divide landscape.

Grizzly Bear In the case of the Grizzly Bear: The Assessment notes that the Divide Landscape and the Divide Travel Plan Area, which accounts for 76% of the Landscape, occupy the Helena Ranger District (RD) portion of the “Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone”—the region on the Helena NF south of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone that wildlife management agencies have determined to be inhabited by grizzlies. It also notes that grizzly bears have been observed to be consistently present in the Landscape and the Plan Area in recent years and that credible reports have been increasing in the southern half of the area (south of Highway 12) over the last 10-15 years.

Reports of grizzly bears received by the Helena National Forest (NF) and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) indicate the regular presence of multiple bears in the region south of Highway 12 and suggest that some of them are resident animals. Occasionally, juvenile grizzlieshave been reported, suggesting that the bears are reproducing in the southern reaches of the Plan Area and the adjacent Boulder River watershed on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF. In the last 3 years, sows with cubs have been reported in the Spotted Dog Creek drainage and in the vicinity of Baldy Ridge on the western edge of the National Forest. The Assessment also notes that the Divide landscape is part of a linkage zone connecting grizzly bear habitat in the NCDE and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE).

On the other hand, the Assessment notes that grizzly bear population density in the Plan Area is low. Productive foraging habitat is fragmented, consisting primarily of riparian bottoms, a variety of wet meadows, drainage-head wet sites, dry/mesic grassland parks, occasional avalanche chutes, and widely scattered, deteriorating whitebark pine stands. Availability is further limited by human developments. While open road density and the distribution of large unroaded habitat patches are appropriate for low- level occupancy and linkage zone function for grizzlies, these characteristics are less than optimal when compared to wildland environments most favorable to the bears [as in the NCDE Recovery Zone].

The Divide Travel Plan, by closing 156 miles of open roads, would allow large unroaded habitat patches (≥2,500 ac, ≥ 0.3 mi from open roads) to increase from 24% to 37% of the Plan Area (from 42,745 acres to 64,980 acres). The percentage of the Plan Area open to motorized human intrusion, though measurably reduced, would remain moderately high relative to NCDE Recovery Zone conditions. Road closures would lower open road density in the Divide Landscape from 1.68 mi/mi² to 1.32 mi/mi². Density of all roads, open and closed, would remain at 2.39 mi/mi². The probability of negative human- grizzly encounters would remain low, however, because of the small number of grizzlies in the Landscape.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 3

The lower density and more restricted distribution pattern of motor routes proposed by the Travel Plan are in line with Distribution Zone management direction to (1) reduce the potential for human-bear conflicts and (2) maintain sufficient suitable habitat for grizzlies to disperse through the landscape and to inhabit it over the long term in low numbers (Draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, 2013].

When open route density is measured within smaller subunits within the landscape (in this case, habitat blocks based on elk herd units—areas roughly the size of an average female grizzly home range—the result within National Forest administrative boundaries is a mosaic of areas with high, moderate, and low road/motor trail densities. When adjacent roaded areas within 1.5 miles of the Forest boundary are included, densities are considerably higher (most >2 mi/mi²). Thus, while areas with low road density conducive to grizzly habitation would increase under the Travel Plan, a number of areas with road densities high enough to discourage normal use by grizzlies would remain. That is, in spite of substantial improvement generated by the Travel Plan, portions of the Divide Landscape would continue to impact grizzly bears in negative ways.

Conclusion: Implementation of the Divide Travel Plan may affect and is likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear. This conclusion follows from the analysis in the Biological Assessment for Grizzly Bears on the Westside of the Helena National Forest (USFS 2013, p. 34) and the subsequent Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Helena National Forest Plan on Grizzly Bear (USFWS 2014a).

Canada Lynx In the case of the Lynx: The Assessment notes that the Divide Travel Plan Area is situated in that part of the HNF that has been classified as occupied lynx habitat by the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (2007)—with the northern segment (north of U.S. Highway 12) designated as primary occupied habitat—and also as critical habitat—and the southern segment as secondary occupied habitat. Habitat types with the potential to support lynx habitat occupy 41% of the landscape. The Assessment recognizes that lynx have been identified at a number of locations within the Travel Plan Area, both north and south of Highway 12, over the last 20 years; and, based on DNA identification of individuals present in multiple years, it is likely that some of these animals are residents in the area rather than transients in a linkage zone.

On the other hand, habitat capable of supporting snowshoe hares (the primary lynx prey) year-round is not abundant and is often fragmented; open roads and snowmobile routes are widely-distributed throughout much of the Plan Area, with an overall packed winter trail density of 1.50 mi/mi²; and the lynx population is sparse and elusive. In addition, the widespread demise of forest overstories and consequent accumulation of dead-tree habitat as a result of mountain pine beetle infestation is rapidly altering habitat suitability patterns throughout the landscape.

The proposed Travel Plan would retain most of the current snowmobile trail system—reducing it by 10 miles overall. But it would more than double the area where off-trail snowmobile riding is prohibited— to 70,520 acres. The Plan would also lower current open road density and increase the acreage of unroaded refuges available to lynx. The potential for human-generated impacts on lynx would decline but would remain well above what is typical of a wildland environment.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 4

The proposal is in compliance with all standards and guidelines of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USFS 2007). As well, it complies with the USFWS Final Rule designating critical habitat for lynx in the contiguous U.S. (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, Feb. 25, 2009) in that it would not adversely modify any of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical lynx habitat.

Conclusion: Implementation of the Travel Plan may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 5

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Authority The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to review the effects of the Divide Travel Plan on listed and proposed threatened and endangered terrestrial wildlife species and on habitat important to them. The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (PL 93-205, amended) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (PL 94-588) provide the authority for managing threatened and endangered species. Among other things, the ESA directs Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of species listed under the Act and to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or performed by the agency is not likely to (1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat, (2) jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species, or (3) adversely affect proposed critical habitat (16 USC 1536).

Consultation Requirements In accordance with the ESA, its implementation regulations, and Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2671.4, the Helena NF is required to request written concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with regard to determinations of effects of this action (as made by Helena NF biologists) on species listed as threatened or endangered, on species proposed for listing, and on designated critical habitat for those species: In this case, the grizzly bear, the Canada lynx, and critical habitat for the lynx.

Need for Re-Assessment Based on Changed Conditions The findings of this Assessment are based on the best current data and available scientific information. A revised Assessment will be prepared if (1) new information reveals effects that may impact threatened or endangered species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Assessment; (2) the proposed action is modified in a way that generates effects not considered in this Assessment; or (3) a new species is listed or habitat identified that may be affected by the proposed action.

Species included in the Assessment This Assessment analyzes potential effects of the proposed Federal action on listed and proposed terrestrial wildlife species known or suspected to occur in the Divide Tavel Plan Area and in surrounding areas that may be influenced by implementation of the Plan. It also accounts for critical habitat that may be influenced by the project. The list of such species and habitats that may occur in the area comes from the USFWS Montana Ecological Services Field Office website, which is current as of March 2015: www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species/Forests/ Helena_sp_list.pdf.

For this project, 2 species are at issue: the Canada lynx and the grizzly bear. The northern half of the Travel Plan Area—the area north of U.S. Highway 12—lies within lynx “critical habitat” on the Helena NF. Consequently, the Assessment provides an analysis of impacts to “primary constituent elements” (PCEs) of lynx habitat, which need to be considered in detail in the critical habitat zone.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 6

While the USFWS has not designated any part of the Divide Landscape as “critical habitat” for the grizzly bear, a collaborative group of biologists and grizzly bear experts (USFS, USFWS, MFWP, IGBC) in 2002 delineated an area outside the NCDE Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone where grizzlies could reasonably be expected to occur (USFWS 2014, p. 1). This initial “Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone” extended southward from the NCDE on the Lincoln Ranger District to the Mullan Pass area of the Helena Ranger District— covering the northern 40% of the Divide Landscape. Given the accumulation of credible grizzly bear reports in the southern part of the landscape over the last decade, the Helena NF decided (in December 2013) to expand the Distribution Zone southward to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF/ Helena NF boundary [USFS 2013]. Management direction that applies to areas known to be inhabited by grizzly bears is thus appropriate throughout the entire Divide Landscape.

The USFWS has issued a Biological Opinion (USFWS 2014) that concurs with the Forest Service’s determination (USFS 2013) that continued implementation of the Helena Forest Plan in the Expanded Distribution Zone is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly bear. The Helena NF is thus able to go forward with actions under the Forest Plan as long as they comply with the “incidental take statement” in the Biological Opinion, which, in this case, applies conditions to the construction of new roads, creation of new sheep allotments, and implementation of grazing permits—as well as specifying a number of reporting and consultation requirements. The “incidental take statement” and the terms, conditions, and conservation recommendations associated with it are discussed in more detail toward the end of the Species Assessment for the Grizzly Bear.

TABLE 1. Listed threatened/endangered terrestrial wildlife species known to occur in the Divide Travel Plan Area.

Species Habitat Use Area Occurrence

Grizzly bears are opportunists and habitat The Divide Travel Plan Area lies within the generalists that range through a variety of “Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone” south of the environments. Grizzlies are territorial, but in Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) fully occupied habitat, their home ranges, Recovery Zone. This is an area that the which are extensive, usually overlap. Within USFWS has determined is “occupied” by their ranges, the bears focus their foraging on grizzlies, based on consistent reports over the productive sites such as riparian areas, wet last 2 decades. Grizzlies have been noted meadows, avalanche chutes, and whitebark throughout the landscape, but their distribution pine stands. While they often forage in open is uneven and numbers are very low. Reports of areas, they make use of densely forested sows with cubs—most recently in the Spotted habitats for concealment and thermal relief in Dog drainage on the west edge of the Forest Grizzly Bear summer. In most circumstances, grizzlies and in the adjacent Cataract Creek drainage on select habitats at some distance from open the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF—indicate that (threatened) roads and regular human activity, and the grizzlies are reproducing in the area south of pattern and density of open roads is a key U.S. Highway 12. With its checkerboard land indicator of the suitability of a given area for ownership, fragmented pattern of unroaded grizzly bear habitation. Recent studies habitat blocks, relatively dense road network indicate that where populations are dense, (much of it in place since the 1800s), and some bears regularly range into settled areas consistent human activity, the Divide in search of food—although they continue to Landscape will continue to function as a linkage depend on nearby wildland areas for refuge. zone and as a habitat base for a small number Threats to grizzlies include loss of key habitat of grizzlies; but it will not be able to support components, open roads, and encroachment population on the order of the NCDE Recovery of other human development and activity into Zone. grizzly habitat.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 7

Species Habitat Use Area Occurrence The Northern Rockies Lynx Management The Canada lynx is an obligate forest Direction classifies lynx habitat in the Divide carnivore, frequenting conifer forests ranging Landscape as “occupied”, but only the area from early seral sapling stands to old-growth. north of U.S. Highway 12 is deemed to be In these stands, local forest structure and the “critical” and “primary” occupied habitat. Lynx availability of prey are key determinants of have been reported throughout much of the habitat suitability. The Helena NF defines lynx Landscape over the last 25 years. Before 2000, habitat in the Divide Landscape as moist observations were rare and confined to the conifer forest above 5,500 ft—habitat types upper Little Prickly Pear drainage in the north with the potential to sustain resident lynx and the Little Blackfoot River corridor, upper once appropriate habitat structure is attained. Telegraph Creek, and the area around Jericho The key habitat component is dense young Mtn in the south. Since then, reports have been Canada Lynx conifer growth capable of supporting more frequent, particularly along the snowshoe hares—the main lynx prey. Young Continental Divide around MacDonald Pass. In (threatened) conifer thickets provide suitable habitat either 2002, a young female lynx was killed on as early seral stands or as understory Highway 12 west of the Pass. Between 2005 components in mature forest. Areas of heavy and 2011, systematic winter tracking surveys, understory growth and coarse woody debris backed by DNA analysis, identified 4 individual are important for denning. Lynx generally do lynx in the upper Little Blackfoot watershed. At not avoid Forest roads, but routes that serve least 2 of these individuals were present for up as packed snowmobile trails in winter may to 4 years, suggesting that they were provide access into lynx habitat for competing permanent residents rather than transients carnivores and trappers that would otherwise working their way through a linkage zone. No be thwarted by deep snow. Primary threats DNA samples have been collected since 2011, to lynx are habitat destruction, competition but tracking surveys continue to identify lynx in from other carnivores, and trapping. the upper Little Blackfoot and its tributaries, as well as in the area north of Highway 12.

Methodology and Sources of Information Field Data Key field information on threatened species in the Divide Landscape has come from biologists at Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (Gayle Joslin, Ray Vinkey, Jamie Jonkel, Carolyn Sime, Brian Giddings, Jenny Sika) over several years. I have also made use of observations from field-going Forest Service employees, local residents, and other Forest users; and I’ve drawn on data in the Helena NF wildlife files dating back to the 1980’s. Since 2005, species-specific survey work has included systematic tracking surveys for lynx and rub-tree hair snare stations for grizzly bears—both survey efforts supplemented by DNA analysis at the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in Missoula. My own fieldwork in these areas since 1992 has provided much of the context for understanding how these observations relate to other wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Divide Travel Plan Area.

Grizzly Bear For this assessment, I have made use of guidelines for areas where grizzly bears may be present outside the bounds of recovery zones. These are provided by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC 1986, 1998), the Helena Forest Plan (HFP 1986), and the Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana (Dood et al. 2006). This latter document, along with the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) and a number of research studies were used to judge the worth of local habitat features in and around the project area as key habitat components for grizzlies. I have also looked to the recent

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 8

Biological Assessment for Grizzly Bears on the West Side of the Helena National Forest (USFS 2013). The long-awaited NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy has been available in draft form since 2013 and its management direction is currently being incorporated into an amendment for grizzly bear management in the Helena Forest Plan (and other Northern Region Forest Plans). Since neither of these documents is in final form, I have not cited them in this assessment, but I have made use of some of the information in the Conservation Strategy.

Observations of grizzly bears in the Divide Landscape have come primarily from the Helena NF wildlife observation database (dating back to 1991) and from data provided by Gayle Joslin and Jenny Sika at the MFWP Helena Area Resource Office. The tally includes observations by agency biologists and other field workers as well as by members of the public. Additional data and insight as to area-wide patterns of grizzly bear occupancy and movement were provided by MFWP Grizzly Bear Management Specialist, Jamie Jonkel. Since 2009, the network of hair snare stations set up at bear rub trees has been expanded southward to cover areas on the Helena NF south of U.S. Highway 12 to cover the entire Divide Landscape. These sampling stations have been established and monitored by biologists from several agencies, Helena NF seasonal crews, and a number of volunteers. DNA identification of hair samples has come from the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in Missoula.

In addition to these efforts, a sampling point on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF just south of Electric Peak, equipped (by that Forest) with a motion sensitive camera, has provided particularly useful information on grizzly bear presence. Most recently, Wild Things Unlimited (of Bozeman) has established a series of 14 camera stations in the border region between the Helena and Lincoln Ranger Districts (in the northern Divide and southern Blackfoot Landscapes). In the summer and fall of 2014, these cameras picked up grizzlies on several occasions (Gehman et al. 2015).

Data for the analysis of road densities has been provided by the Helena NF GIS shop and includes the entire Divide Landscape. Mileage numbers have inevitably shifted over time as new information becomes available. The identification of unroaded habitat enclaves for bears and estimates as to their acreage has come from the more basic technique of applying dot grid and engineers’ compass to USGS 1:24000 maps. These estimates apply only to the Divide Travel Plan Area, not the whole landscape.

Lynx Key field data on lynx has come from systematic winter tracking surveys by Wild Things Unlimited of Bozeman, begun in 2005 and continuing into 2013 (Gehman and others 2006-2013). Their survey work along the Continental Divide and in the upper Little Blackfoot and Tenmile watersheds, particularly in the period 2005-2009, has been instrumental in allowing us to sort out the status of the small local lynx population and its pattern of habitat use in this area. Fieldwork has been supplemented by DNA analysis of hair and scat samples at the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in Missoula (Pilgrim 2009-2013; Pilgrim and Schwartz 2007-2008). Since 2011, this fieldwork has subsided to only a day or two of surveying each year, but the Helena NF continues to send out its own field personnel as winter trackers whenever they are available. Long-term winter survey routes run by MFWP biologist Brian Giddings along the Continental Divide between Boulder River on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF and

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 9

Bullion Parks 4 miles west of Red Mountain have also yielded useful information. In addition, Helena NF fieldworkers, members of the public, and former MFWP biologist Gayle Joslin have provided field observations and photos that have verified lynx presence in various parts of the Divide Landscape over the past 25 years.

The Helena NF initially mapped lynx habitat across the Forest in 1999-2000. Since then, Forest wildlife biologists and GIS specialists have applied new methodologies to update maps of (1) “potential” lynx habitat (habitat types capable of supporting snowshoe hares and lynx once suitable habitat structure is achieved) and (2) suitable snowshoe hare habitat (the subset of potential habitat that has actually achieved the suitable structure). The basis for mapping potential lynx habitat continues to be the habitat types described by Pfister et al. (1977). As a result, the amount and distribution of this more general measure of lynx habitat has remained fairly consistent on all maps produced since 2000— although some adjustments have been made based on increased accuracy of detecting vegetation life forms. Some stands that were originally classified as forested have since been identified as grass or shrub life forms according to R1-VMAP, which represents the most up-to-date information available.

Accurate identification of viable snowshoe hare habitat within the “potential lynx habitat” matrix has proved more elusive. Formerly based on the Timber Stand Record Management System (TSMRS), hare habitat is now described according to the Region 1 Vegetation Mapping Project (R1 VMAP) attributes. Habitat models are derived from Criteria for Wildlife Models Helena National Forest Version June 2009 (USFS 2009). Lynx habitat calculations are based on the R1 VMAP model that runs Version 12/2009. Field checks throughout the Landscape indicate that this version of the model is reasonably accurate— more so than previous versions—but that it is still a bit uneven in its ability to classify some hare habitat configurations. Habitat maps are adjusted progressively as field data percolates in over the course of successive field seasons. Precise identification of these habitat components is of less concern to the current version of the Travel Plan, which does not alter vegetation, than it is to vegetation manipulation projects. Further description of methodologies and assumptions associated with these data are described in R1 Vegetation Council Classification Algorithms (updated USFS 2006) and the R1 Multi-level Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis System (USFS 2007e).

We have also made an attempt to quantify snowshoe hare habitat on the numerous inclusions of non- Forest lands within Helena NF administrative boundaries. Although we do not have habitat type coverage for these lands, we estimated potential lynx habitat based on the classification of adjacent/surrounding Forest lands. We then estimated the acreage of mature multi-storied hare habitat based on the percent acreage of that habitat on neighboring Forest areas. We derived acreage of stand initiation habitats from Helena NF Special Use permit records involving private land timber harvest and from data provided by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) as to timber harvest on State lands.

In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for Canada lynx in the Federal Register (Vol. 74, No. 36, Feb. 25, 2009), spelling out the primary constituent elements of lynx habitat that need to be provided in the areas designated as critical habitat. This instruction, along with information in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (USFS 2007b, 2007), the

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 10

Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (CLCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000), Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (the “Lynx Science Report”) (Ruggiero et al. 1999), and The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores (Ruggiero et al. 1994), were used to determine the general status of various segments of the Travel Plan Area as suitable lynx habitat (aside from what was required by NRLMD standards and guidelines) and the manner in which lynx might use it. The USFWS has since modified its delineation of lynx critical habitat (USFWS 2014b), but none of the changes have affected the Divide Landscape.

THE AREA AND THE PLAN

The Divide Landscape and Travel Plan Area The Landscape In the early 1990s, as part of ecosystem management efforts, Helena National Forest (NF) resource managers delineated 4 primary “landscapes” on the Forest. These large, geographically unified areas continue to serve as broad-scale analysis units that provide context for understanding how individual management actions fit into the overall scheme of things on the Forest. The landscapes—the arrangement of which is shown on the map in Figure 1—were delineated as follows:

 the Blackfoot landscape lies west of the Continental Divide in the Big Blackfoot River drainage and is synonymous with the Lincoln Ranger District (RD);  the Big Belts landscape lies east of the Missouri River and encompasses most of the Big Belt Mountain Range on the Helena and Townsend Ranger Districts;  the Elkhorns landscape covers the bulk of the Elkhorn Mountain Range on the Helena and Townsend RDs; and  the Divide Landscape straddles the Continental Divide on the Helena RD west of Helena, extending roughly 37 miles between the Lincoln RD to the north and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF to the south.

The Divide Landscape covers 233,088 acres (364 mi²) of public and private land within Helena NF administrative boundaries (amounting to about 24% of the Forest). National Forest lands account for 192,666 acres of the total, with numerous blocks and patches of private and occasional State holdings interspersed throughout the Federal land matrix. The northern half of the landscape (north of U.S. Highway 12) is linear in form—22 miles north to south and typically 5-7 miles wide—with the upper Little Blackfoot River Valley to the west and the Helena Valley to the east. At a couple points— MacDonald and Mullan Passess—the National Forest is only 1½ miles wide, a conformation that complicates life for a number of wildlife species in this part of the landscape. South of Highway 12, the breadth of National Forest land expands considerably to occupy an irregular block of terrain up to 25 miles wide between the 2 valleys [see Figures 1-3].

The Continental Divide complex on the Helena RD is a mass of mountainous terrain, tailing off to foothills and broad valleys on the margins. Montane topography in this area is more modest and rolling than in other parts of the Continental Divide complex to the south and north where high ragged peaks

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 11 are dominant landforms, making passage over the main ridges difficult for many wildlife species. Elevations in the Divide Landscape range from around 4,300 feet near Helena to 8,300-8,600 feet at high points on the Continental Divide (Black Mountain, Electric Peak, Thunderbolt Mountain). The landscape is predominantly forested and, in the absence of large fires since the early 20th century, is dominated by mature conifer forest. The mature forest continuum is interlaced with inclusions of early-successional forest (created primarily by timber harvest), extensive montane grassland, sporadic shrubland, numerous local riparian/wetland sites, scattered aspen stands, and talus and rock outcroppings.

Photo 1. Terrain and vegetation patterns in the vicinity of Greenhorn Mountain along the Divide in the northern half of the Landscape. This matrix of mature forest and grassland is characteristic of many parts of the Plan Area—especially north of U.S. Highway 12 where montane grasslands are extensive. A view of the more unbroken forest continuum typical of other areas is seen in Photo 2.

A substantial portion of the mature pine forest in the Landscape has been impacted by a major mountain pine beetle infestation (2006-2012). Lodgepole pine stands have been hit particularly hard, with most trees larger than about 5 inches in trunk diameter (dbh) now dead. The effect has been more mixed in ponderosa pine stands. Non-pine species (Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce), as well as smaller diameter pine trees, have been unaffected by the beetles. Resulting overstory patterns thus vary considerably depending on the species mix and size of the pine trees. In some stands, only a few dead trees are scattered through otherwise green forest; in others, nearly all overstory trees are dead, sometimes across entire drainages [Photo 2]. As dead trees fall, forest environments across the landscape are beginning to experience significant structural transformation [Photo 3].

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 12

Photo 2. The now prevalent pattern of dead and living trees in mature conifer forest at mid to high elevation in the Divide Landscape. This 2014 view of the upper Tenmile Creek watershed shows the interspersion of gray standing dead lodgepole pine with green non-pine species.

Photo 3. Beetle-killed lodgepole pine beginning to fall en masse near Chessman Reservoir in the upper Tenmile watershed, April 2015. Surviving green trees in this view are Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and young lodgepole pine. The new “open” environment presents local wildlife with a very different array of habitat opportunities than has been available in the past.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 13

Figure 1. The Divide Travel Plan Area and its relationship to the rest of the Helena National Forest. The Travel Plan Area occupies 76% of the Divide Landscape, which is situated astride the Continental Divide west of Helena. The Blackfoot Landscape is to the north on the Lincoln Ranger District; the Big Belts and Elkhorns Landscapes to the east are split between the Helena and Townsend Districts.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 14

The Travel Plan Area The Divide Travel Plan Area [Figure 1] covers 177,713 acres (278 mi²) within Helena NF administrative boundaries in the center of the Divide Landscape (accounting for 76% of it). The Plan Area excludes the Clancy-Unionville region in the southeastern part of the landscape and most of the upper Little Prickly Pear watershed at it the northern tip. These 2 areas have been covered by earlier travel planning efforts (Clancy-Unionville Vegetation Manipulation and Travel Management, 2003; Sound Wood Salvage, 1998).

Currently, the Travel Plan Area supports 340 miles of Forest, County, and State roads open to public use via wheeled motor vehicles during all or part of the year, 35 miles of trails open to off-road vehicles (motor bikes and ATVs), and 418 miles of groomed or regularly-used snowmobile trails. The Plan Area also includes 75 miles of roads on private lands generally not open to the public [Tables 1 and 2]. Since 2003, State/Federal OHV (off-highway vehicle) regulations have barred wheeled motor vehicles from riding outside the road corridors and from pioneering new routes on public land. In addition, the Helena NF has closed approximately 35,570 acres to off-trail riding by snowmobiles.

The Nature of the Road System Roads in the Travel Plan Area vary widely in width and surface quality, maintenance level, traffic volume, and the in nature of the enviroments they traverse. From a wildlife standpoint, the problem with most of these roads is not so much that they physically “fragment” habitat in ways that block movement or otherwise limit wildlife use, but rather that they facilitate human access throughout the landscape. Most roads are local dirt/gravel routes that see few vehicles much of the year [Photos 4, 5, 6, 9, 10].

Photo 4. Forest Road #1852 along Hope Creek in the northern Plan Area—a typical low-use road that funnels human activity into wildlife habitat but does little to physically “fagment” it.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 15

Photo 5. Forest Road #571 along Dog Creek in the north half of the Plan Area—a road that allows human intrusion into wildlife habitat but is physically unimposing to wildlife on the move.

Photo 6. Forest Road #1859 in upper Telegraph Creek in the south half of the Plan Area—an engineered capital investment road built for timber harvest in the 1980s. Such roads usually carry more vehicle traffic than the more primitive routes shown in the previous photos and may prove more of a deterrent to some wildlife in the area. But, because human activity is sporadic and infrequent, some species use the route as a travelway and cross it frequently.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 16

Of the higher traffic roads passing through the Forest, U.S. Highway 12, which bisects the Plan Area through MacDonald Pass, is currently the only wide, paved thoroughfare. With 4 lanes and an often high volume of fast-moving traffic, it has proven to be a real barrier to many animals in terms of their ability to get across alive. Bobcats, lynx, wolves, badgers, foxes, coyotes, deer, elk, owls, hawks, grouse, rabbits, squirrels, and others have been struck and killed on the relatively narrow Helena NF portion of the highway in the last decade. In addition, the level of human activity associated with the highway has greatly impaired the suitability of a broad swath of neighboring habitat for species sensitive to regular human presence.

Photo 7. U.S. Highway 12 on the east side of MacDonald Pass. Although the highway crosses National Forest land for only about 4 miles (in the MacDonald Pass area), it serves as a high-risk zone for many wildlife species moving between the northern and southern segments of the Divide Landscape across private and State land for about 20 miles.

The only other paved road that currently crosses the National Forest in the Divide Landscape is the Orofino Gulch Road (County Road #454) immediately south of Helena and just east of the Travel Plan Area. While much narrower than Highway 12, it does allow greater speed and supports a higher volume of traffic than other Forest roads. In addition to this paved roadway, 7 miles of the Rimini Road (Powell County Road #495) along upper Tenmile Creek are scheduled for paving (and designation as a Scenic Byway) in the near future. This will elevate the impact of that already much-used road.

A number of primary graded gravel roads in or adjacent to the Plan Area allow speeds of 30-50 mph along many stretches and support fairly regular traffic flow (though much less than Highway 12). As such, they displace animals from the vicinity and interfere with movement, though they seldom block it

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 17 entirely. In addition to the Rimini Road, these routes include (1) the Little Blackfoot River Road (Forest Road #227), (2) the Mullan Pass–Austin Creek Road (Forest Road #1805), (3) the Sweeney Creek–Priest Pass Road (Forest Road #335), (4) the Lump Gulch/Corral Gulch Road (Forest Road #4009), and (5) the Grizzly Gulch Road (County Road #723) [Photo 8].

Photo 8. County Road #723 (the Grizzly Gulch Road) at the Forest boundary south of Helena— an example of a graded, high-traffic road on the Forest. While higher up, the road is narrow and winding, much of the route is broad, hard-packed, and well-drained, and it carries a regular flow of traffic that often moves at a brisk clip. A roadway such as this is problematic for many species due to its physical structure, traffic volume, roadside barriers, and surrounding environment.

Table 2 shows current open road density in the Travel Plan Area tallied in 4 ways. Unweighted open road density across all ownerships, public and private, is relatively high (1.5 mi/mi²) and suggests that the Divide Landscape is an inhospitable environment for wildland species attempting to inhabit and move through the area. Density is substantially higher if closed roads are included (2.1 mi/mi²). On the other hand, weighted open road density1, which factors in the level of vehicle use that various roads typically receive, suggests a more benign scenario (0.8 mi/mi²). These densities are for the Travel Plan Area only: However, densities for the Divide Landscape as a whole (as used for grizzly bear analysis later in this report) are nearly identical.

1 Roads are weighted as follows: primary and collector roads are calculated at 100% of length; local roads with little traffic are calculated at 25% of length; and closed roads and private roads not open to the public are not included.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 18

TABLE 2. Four measures of current road density in the Travel Plan Area

Routes Weighting Ownership Density (mi/mi²) All Roads (open and closed) unweighted Public & Private 2.1 Open Roads unweighted Public & Private 1.5 Open Roads unweighted Public only 1.2 Open Roads weighted Public & Private 0.8

Overall, road density and dispersion in the Travel Plan Area do not preclude any wildland species from occupying the landscape at current levels of motorized use. The presence of grizzly bears, wolverines, lynx, and robust elk populations attest to this conclusion. The road system, however, is a complication that these species would not have to deal with in a wildland environment: It raises the level of risk from human encounters and it substantially reduces habitat options compared with those available prior to development of the transportation system. Problems with roads in the Divide Landscape are due as much to the location of certain roads in sensitive wildlife habitat sites, such as wet meadows, riparian areas, and other productive habitats, as they are to overall road density.

The Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak: Implications for the Transportation System Those parts of the Forest road and trail system most obviously impacted by the mountain pine beetle outbreak are those that pass through mature lodgepole pine forests. Prior to the coming of the beetles, most of these stands had been relatively dense and closed-canopied, providing hiding cover and summer thermal cover for larger animals (elk, deer, bears) and key habitat for a variety of species adapted to interior forest habitat (red squirrels, red-backed voles, marten, goshawks, brown creepers, white-breasted nuthatches, great gray owls, and so on). Although upright dead trees in many stands continue to provide hiding cover, the loss of green foliage has eliminated them as viable habitat for many dependent species. With the ongoing downfall of canopy trees transforming standing snags to coarse woody debris [Photo 3], habitat structure and function continue to evolve. Even in stands where up to 50% of the overstory is still alive [Photo 9], many surviving green trees may not be windfirm enough to remain standing once the beetle-killed trees have fallen and opened up the forest.

In many roadside areas, the natural transition from standing snags to deadfall has been pre-empted by the Forest-wide Hazardous Tree Removal Project (mostly completed as of July 2015). In a majority of pine dominated road corridors, the project has removed all dead trees and living trees likely to be unstable in the future. The treated corridors may be up to 1½ tree lengths wide on each side of the road (in the range of 70-100 feet) [Photo 10]. The change has been most dramatic in areas dominated by lodgepole pine, since most mature and pole-sized trees have been dead or infirm [Photo 10]. It has not been as drastic in areas with ponderosa pine, as beetle-induced mortality has been less pervasive in those stands and more green trees remain in the treated corridors. Ultimately, the difference between treated and untreated areas in beetle-impacted road corridors will be in the amount of accumulated woody debris that remains [compare Photos 3 and 10]. There will be no hiding cover in either case.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 19

Photo 9. Beetle-impacted lodgepole pine forest along Forest Road #495-D1 in upper Ontario Creek, 2012. About 50% of the overstory trees are dead. This rough, low-traffic route has not been targeted by the Hazard Tree Removal Project, but the roadside environment will be changing significantly over the next few years as dead trees and infirm green trees topple.

Photo 10. Roadside environment generated by the Hazardous Tree Removal Project—upper Tenmile watershed, 2013. Some slash piles remain intact for the benefit of firewood gatherers. Eventually, they will be burned, but the scattered woody debris seen here will be left in place. This will contrast with untreated road corridors that accumulate coarse woody debris [Photo 3].

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 20

The Divide Travel Plan The Divide Travel Plan, as it now stands, is a modified version of Alternative 5 in the Divide Travel Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USFS 2015a). The modifications to Alternative 5 and a discussion of the rationale for incorporationg them into the current version of the Travel Plan are presented in the Divide Travel Plan Draft Record of Decision (ROD) (USFS 2015b).

The Travel Plan intends to reduce the network of Forest System open roads by 156 miles, leaving a total of 259 miles of Forest, County, State, and private roads open to public wheeled vehicles in the Travel Plan Area [Table 3]. Motor trails, on the other hand, will increase from 35 to 62 miles, with most of the increment coming from the conversion of roads to trails. Fall road and motor trail closures designed to provide big game security during the hunting season will now begin on September 1 rather than on October 15 as in the past.

TABLE 3. Miles of roads and trails open to public wheeled vehicle use in the Travel Plan Area, under current conditions and as proposed in the Travel Plan.

Current Travel Plan Open Route Classification Route Miles Route Miles Helena NF Roads Open Yearlong 286 158 Helena NF Roads Open Seasonally 31 3 County roads within HNF Boundaries 19 19 Private Roads within HNF Boundaries 75 75 U.S. Highway 12 within HNF Boundaries 4 4 Helena NF Authorized Motor Trails 19 62 Non-System Motor Trails/ 4wd Tracks 16 0 Total Open Roads 415 259 Total Open Motor Trails 35 62 Total Open Motor Routes 450 321

Currently, off-route vehicle use on the Helena NF is governed by the USFS/BLM Off-Highway Vehicle Travel Management Decision for Montana and the Dakotas (USFS and BLM 2001). These regulations allow driving directly to a campsite within 300 feet of an open road or motor trail once a site has been located on foot. The Divide Travel Plan modifies this guidance so that off-route driving for camping is allowed up to 70 feet on either side of open routes—with the exception of sensitive areas (most often, in the vicinity of wetland and riparian sites). In addition, a number of long-established dispersed camping sites have been identified and will be specifically designated for camping. Dispersed sites determined to be problematic, generally because of their location in riparian or other sensitive areas, have been put off-limits to camping. Off-road driving for other purposes (firewood gathering, picnicking, parking) would be limited to 35 feet off the road.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 21

The Travel Plan does not specify at this point how the 156 miles of road closures would be achieved (gates, intermittent obstructions, recontouring, etc.). Decisions as to closure methods will come as a series of separate decisions in the future as the Plan is implemented.

Snowmobile trails will decrease slightly under the new Plan from 418 miles to 403 miles, and the current muddle of use designations will be clarified [Table 4]. In particular, an array of regularly-used snowmobile routes that the old Travel Plan has classified as closed to all motor vehicles year-round will be redesignated as legitimate snowmobile trails—wherever this use has been determined not to be causing resource problems (wildlife displacement, conflicts with non-motorized recreation, etc). The old classification has been especially confusing since the off-road areas through which these routes pass have been classified as “open” to snowmobiles, while the roadways themselves have technically been closed to such use. The original rationale for this curious design is unknown. The new Travel Plan will also increase the extent of areas closed to cross-country snowmobile riding from around 34,755 acres to 70,520 acres.

TABLE 4. Miles of public snowmobile routes in the Travel Plan Area, under current conditions and as proposed in the Travel Plan.

Current Travel Plan Snowmobile Route Categorization Route Miles Route Miles Helena NF Roads Specifically Designated for Snowmobile 69 170 Use by the current and proposed Travel Plans

Helena NF Motor Trails Specifically Designated for 12 14 snowmobile Use in current and proposed Travel Plans

Other Helena NF and County roads on which Snowmobiles 239 214 are Allowed by current and proposed Travel Plans

User-made Routes on which Snowmobiles are Allowed 21 5

Total Snowmobile Routes that are Regularly Used and 341 403 Approved under current and proposed Travel Plans

Regularly-Used Snowmobile Routes on (or adjacent to) Roads that the Travel Plans identify as “Closed to 77 0 Motorized Vehicles Yearlong”

Grand Total of Roads and Trails Regularly Serving as 418 403 Snowmobile Routes

The maps in Figures 2 and 3, following, illustrate proposed changes between the current condition and the new Travel Plan. Figure 2 is excerpted from the Divide Travel Plan Final EIS and shows the existing road and motor trail network (Alternative 1 in that analysis). Figure 3, which shows the system under the proposed Travel Plan, is taken from the Divide Travel Plan Draft ROD, April 2015 (USFS 2015b).

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 22

Figure 2. Current distribution of open and closed travel routes in the Divide Travel Plan Area. Those in black are open to wheeled vehicles year-round; those in blue are open seasonally. Routes in yellow and red are closed to wheeled vehicles year-round but open to snowmobiles.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 23

Figure 3. Open roads and trails under the proposed Travel Plan

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 24

Action Areas Areas directly affected by proposed changes to the existing road and trail network in the Divide Landscape are encompassed by the Divide Travel Plan Area [Figures, 1, 2, 3]. These shifts in motorized access can, to varying degrees, alter patterns of displacement, habitat opportunity, and mortality risk for threatened species within the Plan Area. The bulk of the change will derive from closure of open roads and motor trails and from area closures to off-trail snowmobile use. Lesser effects will result from conversion of several roads to motor trails, creation of new sections of motor trail, closure of a few snowmobile routes, reduction in the width of off-road driving corridors, and closure of a number of long-standing dispersed camping sites.

The action area refers to all areas directly or indirectly affected by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). Action areas for the federally listed species are based upon known past and present occurrences, potential future occurrences, home range sizes, the ability of the species to move across the landscape, prey availability, seasonal use, recovery objectives and guidelines, and other management considerations.

Given this direction, we define the action areas for grizzly bear and Canada lynx slightly differently. For the lynx, the action area is the Divide Landscape. This includes the Travel Plan Area plus the headwaters of the upper Little Prickly Pear watershed to the north and the Clancy-Unionville area to the southeast. The area encompasses 233,088 acres (364 mi²) within Helena NF administrative boundaries between the Lincoln Ranger District boundary to the north and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF boundary to the south. The action area, thus defined, encompasses all of the “occupied lynx habitat” on the Helena Ranger District, including all of the “critical habitat”. It covers 6 lynx analysis units (LAUs), each of which approximates the home range of an adult female lynx.

The bulk of the grizzly bear action area is also defined by the Divide Landscape—which is synonymous with the Helena RD portion of the “Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone”. However, the grizzly action area also includes a 1.5 mile extension out onto non-Forest land beyond Forest Service administrative boundaries. This comes from using elk herd units as the basis for the 6 grizzly bear subunits in the Landscape. The herd units were extended off-Forest to cover the areas likely to be used by Forest- dwelling elk on winter range, and it seems possible that grizzly bears could range out into these mostly rural areas off the Forest as well. The herd units/bear subunits approximate the average home range of female grizzly bears in Montana [roughly 45,000 acres (Schwartz et al. 2003)]. Assuming some range overlap, the action area could potentially support 7-9 adult female adult grizzly bears under favorable conditions.

Field observation indicates that some grizzlies inhabiting the Divide Landscape range beyond the Divide Landscape to the north and south into the southern end of the Lincoln Ranger District and into the northern reaches of the Boulder River watershed. However, since the direct and indirect effects of the Travel Plan will not extend into these areas and since the Divide Landscape and its immediate environs provide a logical analysis unit encompassing most of the ranges of resident animals, it will serve as the basis for an appropriate action area.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 25

SPECIES ASSESSMENT

Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Habitats, Populations, and Human Influences

Habitat Use, Behavior, Movements The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is the largest carnivore in the northern Rockies and one of the only animals formidable enough to consistently alter the way in which humans function in wildland settings. Grizzlies are imposing, intelligent animals with both genetic and learned abilities to take advantage of the resources in their local environments, to adapt to new ranges, and to deal with environmental change, including human intrusion and habitat alteration (Jonkel 1978, p. 227).

Grizzly bears are individualistic in their habitat use and behavior. Adult males are normally solitary wanderers within extensive home ranges, which they come to know in detail (McLellan 1985). Likewise, adult females, in spite of the need to tend cubs, are relentlessly on the move scouting out the resources needed for survival. The home ranges of adult male grizzlies are generally two to five times larger than those of adult females: average range estimated from 4 Montana populations was 71 mi² for females and 319 mi² for males (Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 566). Home ranges of adult bears overlap to an extent, and they vary in size and location depending on food availability, weather conditions, and interactions with other bears (USFWS 1993). The densities of established populations vary considerably, but they are inevitably low—an average of 102 bears/1000 mi² for 5 Montana populations (with a range of 18 – 207 bears/1000 mi²) (Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 573-574). These estimates are for core populations: densities are appreciably lower in more marginal habitats and linkage zones –such as the Divide Landscape.

Grizzlies, while formidably equipped as carnivores, behave as omnivores. A majority of their food intake consists of vegetation (green plants, roots, seeds), which they consume in huge quantities (Foresman 2012, p. 347). Items with high crude protein content are particularly important. Whitebark pine seeds are a key late summer food source, but if they become scarce—as they have lately in many areas due to white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetles—the bears switch to other foods (Mace and Jonkel 1986). As opportunistic feeders, grizzlies prey on or scavenge any animal food source that becomes available, including insect larvae, rodents, elk and moose calves, incapacitated or unwary adult ungulates, domestic livestock, and carrion of all sorts. Winter-killed ungulates and other carrion are a key energy source in spring when green vegetation is less available (Craighead et al. 1995, p. 235-237).

While grizzly bears make extensive use of forest cover, they generally prefer to operate in a landscape with a variety of habitat formations ranging from dense interior forest to open meadowlands (Dood et al. 2006, p. 18). The bears use forested habitats for resting, general concealment, thermal relief in summer, and foraging and hunting (USFWS 1993, p. 7-8). They spend considerable time feeding on vegetation in more open habitats or in brushy areas along streams. They are drawn to areas with an abundance of deciduous shrubs in both forested and unforested habitats. In mountainous terrain, avalanche chutes often serve as foraging areas (USFWS 1993, p. 7). The search for food is a primary

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 26 influence on grizzly movements, and the bears will adapt to local conditions and go wherever they need to in order to meet their food requirements (USFWS 1993).

Influence of Roads and Human Activity Historically, grizzly bears occupied a variety of habitats across much of central and western North America, but by mid 20th century, human domination of the landscape had reduced their range in the lower 48 states to pockets of well-forested montane habitat in the northern Rockies (Foresman 2012, p. 346). Five areas in this region, representing less than 2% of the grizzly’s historic range, now support grizzly bear populations (USFWS 1993)—these being the areas in which Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones have been esablished. Of the 5 areas, two straddle the Continental Divide in Montana: The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE). The Divide Travel Plan Area is located along the Divide partway between these large wildland ecosystems and thus is in a position to intercept any exchange between the two. To date, all movement documented through the Divide Landscape has been out of the NCDE toward the GYE, north to south.

Field studies in the northern Rockies—Montana, British Columbia, Alberta—have lent support to the presumption that grizzly bear persistence in any given area is determined by (1) habitat quality, (2) the number of humans within that habitat, and (3) the behavior of those humans (Apps et al. 2004). To that end, ‘effective’ habitat in and around designated Recovery Zones is described in terms of “core areas”— blocks of suitable habitat devoid of motor vehicles during the non-denning period (IGBC 1998).

Research has shown that grizzly bears, in order to avoid interactions with humans, underutilize habitat near roads (Apps et al. 2004; Mace and Waller 1998; McLellan and Shackleton 1989). Mace and Manley (1993) determined that adult bears used habitat with open road densities exceeding 1.0 mi/mi2 less than expected. All bears used habitat with total road densities above 2.0 mi/mi2 less than expected. Grizzlies generally adjust to disturbance associated with roads by avoiding the areas around regularly-traveled routes—which diminishes the amount of habitat available to them. New roads facilitate human intrusion into once remote areas, increasing the frequency of human-bear confrontations, elevating mortality, reducing habitat availability, and ultimately suppressing grizzly populations.

Field studies have also shown that grizzlies tend to avoid trails used by ATVs and motor bikes. One study in the Badger-Two Medicine area of the Rocky Mountain Front found that a majority of radio-collared bears selected against areas out to 820-2,950 feet from active ATV trails and out to 1,475-1,970 feet from active motor bike trails (Graves 2002). There was considerable variation among individual bears within the sample, however, and some of them regularly used habitats much closer to motor trails. Bears appeared to be less wary of trails with lower levels of recreational use. Mace and Waller (1996) determined that grizzlies also underuse areas within 650-1,640 feet of heavily used foot trails (based on trails that carry around 90 hikers per day). The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (1998) thus recommends that grizzly bear core areas exclude trail corridors with “high intensity non-motorized use”.

Be that as it may, ongoing research in the NCDE suggests that, in spite of the grizzly’s aversion to contact with humans, a substantial number of bears are now spending time outside of mountainous wilderness areas, focusing instead on the agricultural lands of the intermountain valleys and the prairies east of the

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 27

Rocky Mountain Front [Mace 2014; Mace and Roberts 2012, 2013]. This research, based on tens of thousands of telemetry points, emphasizes the importance of areas with diverse and abundant food sources—be they roaded or unroaded—and the propensity of grizzlies to opportunistically move from one place to another in search of different foods, regardless of the season. Blocks of roadless habitat remain important, however, as areas where bears can avoid human activity and where the probablity of life-threatening interactions is low. This evolving trend in habitat use is likely a consequence of increasing grizzly bear population density and competiton for resources in the core NCDE back-country.

With or without roads, regular human presence in occupied grizzly range increases the likelihood of negative interactions. While many such encounters between grizzlies and backcountry recreationists are a matter of chance, others are created by slipshod sanitation and food storage that can draw bears into camps. Gut-piles and other parts of downed animals left unattended by hunters are an additional attractant that may bring bears and humans into close contact. Trash, bird feeders, gardens, fruit trees, and other outdoor food sources may also attract grizzlies to rural residences that they would otherwise avoid. In some areas, the presence of free-ranging livestock on both public and private lands provides a relatively easy prey source for grizzlies, leading to ranchers calling for predator control.

Considering the gamut of human activity in grizzly country, the USFWS identifies 3 primary management elements that adversely affect grizzly bears in and around the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem: (1) human access management (roads and trails), (2) sanitation (food sources), and (3) livestock grazing. While other land management activities influence grizzlies, these are the 3 human generated components that produce most of the adverse effects (USFS 2013). Of the 3 elements, “human access management”, which encompasses both roaded and unroaded means of access, is directly relevant to Divide Travel Plan proposals.

An additional consideration related to recreation and travel planning is the potential for snowmobiling to disturb hibernating bears and cause them to abandon their dens. No field studies have specifically addressed this issue in depth, but indirect evidence from other kinds of disturbance indicates that intense human activity involving vehicle use around den sites is capable of driving hibernating brown bears out of their dens (Swenson et al. 1997). To date, there have been no reports of snowmobile- induced den abandonment in the northern Rockies (see Hegg et al. 2010).

Population Dynamics

General Parameters Grizzly bears are long-lived, and many individuals survive more than 20 years in the wild. However, they have one of the lowest reproductive rates among terrestrial mammals, which precludes rapid population increase. Age of first reproduction and litter size varies and appears often to be related to nutritional state. In areas where suitable resources are less plentiful or compromised by human development and activity, the ability of local populations to multiply is limited (USFWS 1993).

Sources of natural mortality have proven difficult to quantify, but old-age, conflicts with other bears, starvation, and accidents (avalanches, den collapse) are known to be factors. Disease and parasites

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 28 appear not to be major sources of mortality (Dood et al. 2006, p. 21; Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 571). Most mortality in dependent young (cubs and yearlings) is natural, but the exact causes are often unknown because so few are radio collared. The bulk of adult mortality is human-caused: Bears are hit on railways and highways, shot by hunters (accidentally, maliciously, in self-defense), killed by residents protecting themselves or their property, or removed for management purposes (usually for killing livestock or threatening humans). Mortality in northern Rocky Mountain grizzly populations has varied dramatically over past decades, but in recent years, death rates in the 2 large Recovery Zones [NCDE and GYE] have been regularly exceeded by rates of production (and survival of young)—resulting in slow but consistent population increase (USFWS 2014a, p. 12-23). Population parameters in “Distribution Zones” and other more marginal areas beyond the Recovery Zones are unknown.

Population Status in the NCDE Analysis by Mace and others (2011), based on 6 years of demographic data derived from a variety of field research, indicates that by 2009 the NCDE and adjacent areas were supporting a growing population of more than 1,000 grizzly bears. The analysis estimated annual population growth rate at about 3%. Annual monitoring since 2009 (Mace and Roberts 2012a, 2012b, 2013) shows that the rates of reproduction and mortality that have been producing the 3% growth rate are continuing. Survival rates of adult and subadult females over the 10-year period from 2004 through 2013 ranged from 93.5% to 96.1%, averaging 95.5% (Mace and Roberts 2013, p. 12). Population numbers through 2013 (≈1,125 grizzlies) are significantly greater than the estimate of 440-680 bears believed to have inhabited the ecosystem in 1975 when the grizzly was listed as a threatened species.

Also, work by Kendall and others (2009) has shown that this population is characterized by high genetic diversity and is expanding its distribution beyond the NCDE in all cardinal directions. This expansion, documented by targeted survey work and many fortuitous observations in the field, led USFWS, USFS, MFWP, and IGBC biologists in 2002 to designate the northern half of the Divide Landscape on the Helena RD as part of a “Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone”—an area outside the Recovery Zone that was in the process of being occupied by grizzlies. In 2013, given the number of credible grizzly reports in the southern portion of the Divide Landscape after 2002, the Helena NF extended the Distribution Zone southward to encompass the entire landscape down to the Helena/Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF boundary [USFS 2013]. In sum: research and monitoring over the last decade clearly point to a continuing “positive trajectory in population trend” in the NCDE grizzly bear population (Mace et al. 2011).

Management Guidance

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan The grizzly bear has been listed as a threatened species in the lower 48 states since 1975. For the past 3 decades, the umbrella management document has been the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, first approved in 1982 and revised in 1993 (USFWS 1993). The 1993 version remains in effect today, although as bear distribution and management needs have shifted, the Recovery Plan has been supplemented and clarified by more recent documents such as the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines (IGBC 1986), the Biological Assessment for Grizzly Bears Inside the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 29 the Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone (USFS 2005), the Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana (Dood et al. 2006), and, soon to come, the NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (USFWS, draft 2013). The 1993 Recovery Plan identified seven grizzly bear ecosystems around which the primary recovery zones were to be centered. The intent of the Recovery Plan has been to generate viable grizzly populations sufficient to remove the bear from the Endangered Species List in each of the 7 ecosystems. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) felt that this goal had been achieved in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in 2007, and delisted the species at that time. This action was reversed by a court ruling in 2009 (due primarily to concerns over the decline of whitebark pine as a food source) and, as a result, grizzlies remain listed as threatened in all 7 ecosystems.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines The 1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines (IGBC 1986, p. 3-5) outline five “Management Situations” (MS’s), three of which (MS 1, 2, and 3) apply to areas in and around recovery zones and two of which (MS 4 and 5) apply to areas further afield. The Helena Forest Plan (HFP) has mapped the areas where MS 1 and MS 2 apply (namely, in the NCDE Recovery Zone) but it has not done so for Management Situations 3, 4, and 5 (since their introduction post-dates the release of the HFP). The status of these latter three management situations in any given area is often in a state of flux due to shifts in human settlement, roading, recreational activity, vegetation conditions, bear distribution, and so on. As a result, their site-specific delineation has been left to biologists at project level as needed.

Given the small number and low density of grizzlies in the Divide Landscape, the management situation that most often applies (irrespective of the area’s status as a Distribution Zone), is MS 5. Although the description of MS 5 in the Guidelines is an imperfect fit for much of the Divide Landscape, it comes the closest of the 5 management situations. Population and habitat conditions for MS 5 are described as follows: “Grizzlies do not occur, or occur only rarely in the area. Habitat may be unsuitable, unavailable, or suitable and available but unoccupied. The area lacks survival and recovery values for the species or said values are unknown…..” (IGBC 1986). A primary element that reduces suitability of grizzly bear habitat in the Divide Landscape is the density of roads and motor trails. Management direction for MS 5 is that grizzlies are to be given deference up to a point but are subject to “control” in cases of conflicts with humans. Maintenance of habitat for grizzlies is an “option” but “is not directed”.

Travel management aspects of the 1986 guidelines were clarified by the IGBC Taskforce Report, IGBC Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Guidelines, in 1994 (revised 1998). This report provides definitions and methodologies designed to provide consistency in analyzing the effects of motorized access in occupied grizzly habitat. The guidelines focus on calculating motorized route density and defining core habitat areas in grizzly bear recovery areas. While NCDE Recovery Zone requirements in this regard are more stringent than what can be expected of the Divide Landscape Distribution Zone, the procedures outlined in this report provide a basis for comparing conditions in the 2 areas.

NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy A draft version of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy was released in 2013 and is serving as the basis for amendments to Northern Region Forest Plans that

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 30 will bring grizzly bear management on these Forests up to date with the current status and expected progress of grizzly bear populations in the northern Rockies (USFWS 2013). The Conservation Strategy defines a Primary Conservation Area—essentially the current NCDE Recovery Zone—and 3 adjacent Management Zones, each defined by its ability to support grizzlies. The Divide Landscape is located in Management Zone 2, which extends from the Lincoln Ranger District boundary on the north southward to Butte and Bozeman on Interstate Highway 90. Zone 2 would be managed to allow grizzlies to move between the NCDE and other large wildland areas (the Greater Yellowstone and Bitterroot ecosystems). Management would emphasize minimizing conflict between bears and humans. It is possible that some of the details of this management direction will change once the Final Conservation Strategy is issued, but most of the structure presented in the draft version is expected to remain intact.

Helena Forest Plan The Helena Forest Plan (HFP) (1986) addresses grizzly bear management via the following Forest-wide standards and guidelines:

 HFP Appendix D—Guidelines for Management of Grizzly Bear Habitat: These guidelines provide direction based on the 1982 version of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. “Grizzly bear habitat” (as of 1986) is identified and population/habitat conditions and management direction are specified for 2 “management situations” that occur in areas occupied by grizzlies. All grizzly bear habitat identified in the Forest Plan is on the Lincoln Ranger District: management situation 1 lands are mostly in the Scapegoat Wilderness Area; management situation 2 lands are between that area and Lincoln to the south.

 HFP Appendix E—Grizzly Bear Management Outside of Recovery Areas: These guidelines specify steps to be taken in identifying and inventorying potential grizzly habitat, documenting grizzly “biological activity centers” (BACs), protecting areas used by grizzlies, and determining if management direction for the areas should be changed to emphasize grizzly bear needs. The guidelines apply to the Divide, Big Belt, and Elkhorn landscapes on the Helena and Townsend Ranger Districts, as well as the Lincoln District generally south of Montana Highway 200.

 Indicator Species (HFP, p. II/17): The grizzly bear is to be monitored as a management indicator for the threatened and endangered species group—the objective being to determine whether or not viable populations are being maintained.

 Biological Evaluations (HFP, p. II/19): A biological evaluation must be written for all projects that have potential to impact grizzly bears, and appropriate mitigations developed if adverse impacts are likely [this, in consultation with the USFWS, if necessary].

 Field Studies (HFP, p. II/19): Field studies should be conducted in areas not yet designated as occupied grizzly habitat but where grizzlies are known to be present. The areas should be managed according to guidelines in HFP Appendix E.

 Open Road Density (HFP, p. II/19): In occupied grizzly habitat, so as to minimize human-caused mortality, open road density should not exceed 0.55 mi/mi² [“occupied grizzly habitat” being defined as the area in and around the NCDE Recovery Zone (HFP Appendix D)].

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 31

Linkage Zone Considerations An objective of the 1993 Recovery Plan has been to develop management tactics designed to temper limiting factors retarding population recovery. One such factor involves the presence of unsuitable habitat and barriers to movement (such as open roads) in linkage areas between recovery zones (USFWS 1993). The Divide Landscape is not identified as a primary linkage zone in the Recovery Plan or in more recent modeling efforts (Servheen et al. 2003; Walker and Craighead 1997), mostly because of “intense roading in the Helena National Forest” (Walker and Craighead 1998). But increasing observations of bears in the Divide Landscape since the 1990s suggests that it may in fact be functioning in this way (J. Jonkel, personal communication 2007; Servheen 2005). Limited DNA sampling has found that grizzlies as far south as Elk Park just north of Butte and the Anaconda Range have come from the NCDE—possibly having come through the Divide Landscape to get there (J. Jonkel, personal communication 2007, 2012).

Once in place, the new Forest Plan amendment for grizzly bear management—based on the NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (Draft 2013)—will assign the Divide Landscape to Management Zone 2, where the emphasis is on reducing grizzly bear-human conflicts and allowing NCDE bears to move through to other recovery areas. This management guidance will formally recognize the role of the Landscape as a linkage zone for grizzly bears.

Management in the NCDE Recovery Zone vs the Distribution Zone The Helena NF portion of the NCDE Recovery Zone occupies the northern half of the Lincoln RD, mostly north of State Highway 200 in the Blackfoot Landscape. Much of the management guidance for the Recovery Zone does not apply to the Distribution Zone in the Divide and southern Blackfoot Landscapes. In particular, Helena Forest Plan requirements for Management Situations 1 and 2 and the requirement for maintaining a minimum open road density of 0.55 mi/mi² in occupied grizzly habitat do not apply to the Distribution Zone (HFP, p. II/19; Appendices D and E). Likewise, guidelines for maintaining a certain percentage of defined management areas in unroaded grizzly bear “core areas” apply only to bear management units (BMUs) in the Recovery Zone. While we have used these core area guidelines as a means of gauging the quality of grizzly bear habitat in the Distribution Zone, they do not apply to that area as a management requirement (see IGBC 1994,1998; USFS 2005, p. 7, 32; USFWS 2006, p. 22).

The new NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (USFWS 2013) clarifies management objectives for the 2 areas, identifying the Recovery Zone as the Primary Conservation Area for grizzlies and assigning the Divide Landscape to Management Zone 2, which is to be managed to facilitate linkage between the NCDE and other wildland ecosystems and to minimize conflict between bears and humans (while maintaining existing resource management and recreation opportunities).

Grizzly Bear Status in the Divide Landscape and Travel Plan Area

Non-Motorized Habitat and Road Densities

Non-Motorized Habitat Blocks Effective grizzly bear range requires a reasonable distribution of core areas that can provide the bears with basic habitat components (food and cover) in an environment free from motorized disturbance and

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 32 other forms of “high-intensity” human use (as along popular hiking trails) during the period when bears are active (April–November) (IGBC Motorized Access Management guidelines 1998). For the NCDE Recovery Zone (Management Situations 1 and 2), the Helena NF delineates grizzly bear “core areas” as blocks of suitable habitat larger than 2,500 acres with all boundaries 0.3 miles from motorized routes open during the non-denning period (see IGBC 1998; USFS 2005, p. 7, 32; USFWS 2006, p. 22). These core area parameters are not intended to be applied outside the Recovery Zone, but I have calculated them for the Divide Landscape as a means of comparing conditions in the Distribution Zone with those in primary grizzly bear range in the NCDE.

The Divide Landscape currently supports 4 areas that would qualify as “core areas” in the Recovery Zone [see Table 6]. These non-motorized areas (based on open road and motor trail patterns during the non- denning period—generally, April through October) represent about 29% of the landscape south of Highway 12 and about 15% of the area north of the highway (24% of the landscape overall). Compare this with core area percentages of 67% to 75% in Bear Management Subunits within the NCDE Recovery Zone on the Lincoln District (USFWS 2006, p. 21-22). These percentages relect the difference in grizzly bear habitat potential between wildland areas in and around the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex and lands in the Divide Landscape, which have been roaded, settled, mined, grazed, logged, and otherwise meddled with since the mid 1800s.

The effectiveness of the 4 non-motorized areas as grizzly bear habitat—in terms of their size, abundance of key habitat components, and proximity to other such core areas—is variable. Grizzly bears have been reported in two of the areas [Black Mountain–Deadman Creek and Electric Peak Roadless Area]. But observations have also come in from smaller non-motorized habitat patches (<2,500 acres) both north and south of Highway 12. The Divide Landscape, while not a region with enough secure habitat to provide for a core grizzly bear population, does provide habitat enclaves for bears moving through and, apparently, for a small resident population.

Road Density Another key to determining habitat suitability for grizzly bears is the overall density of roads and motor trails. Mace and Manley’s (1993) research in northwest Montana suggests open road densities above 1.0 mi/mi2 and total road densities above 2.0 mi/mi2 are likely to suppress local habitat use by grizzly bears. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee’s Motorized Access guidelines (IGBC 1998) thus recommend that, in addition to defining non-motorized core areas, resource managers should account for the density of open routes (roads + motor trails) and the density of total roads (open roads + motor trails + restricted roads) in any given grizzly bear range. The IGBC guidelines categorize roads as follows:

 Open roads: Roads without restriction on motorized use any time of the year.  Restricted roads: Roads with physical barriers to limit motorized use yearlong or seasonally.  Closed roads: Intact roadbeds that are off-limits to all human use, including foot traffic.  Reclaimed/obliterated roads: Former motorized routes that have been physically reconformed to local terrain so that they no longer function as roads or trails.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 33

For purposes of calculating road density and defining large non-motorized areas in the Divide Landscape and Travel Plan Area, I have divided roads into 2 categories:

 Open roads: Functional roads that are open to public vehicles at any time of the year when grizzly bears are active (March through November).  Roads closed to motorized use (or closed roads): Roads that are physically closed to public vehicles during seasons when grizzlies are active. This includes IGBC“reclaimed/obliterated roads” and any IGBC “restricted roads” that are closed to motor vehicles when grizzlies are active (regardless of whether or not they carry non-motorized use).

I have also separated trails into 2 categories:

 Motor trails: Routes that are closed to full-sized wheeled vehicles but open to ATVs and motor bikes at any time of year when grizzlies are active.  Non-motorized trails: Trails that are designated for hiking, mountain biking, or horseback riding but are off-limits to motor bikes and ATVs yearlong.

Although “closed” routes, as defined here, exclude motor vehicles when grizzlies are active (except for occasional administrative use), they still provide travelways for hikers, equestrians, bicycle riders, and hunters afoot. If these uses occur at high levels, the ability of an area to hold grizzly bears may be compromised much as it would be by open roads and motor trails (Mace and Manly 1993). Currently, there are no roads or trails in the Divide Landscape that are closed to non-motorized human entry.

Tables 8 and 9 [in the “Effects” section] show non-denning season open route densities in the Divide Landscape as a whole and in the northern and southern halves of the Landscape. Densities include both public and private roads as well as motor trails within Helena NF administrative boundaries2. Open route density is notably higher north of U.S. Highway 12 (2.28 mi/mi²) than south of the highway (1.36 mi/mi²). Overall density of 1.68 mi/mi² is 4 to 12 times higher than densities in Bear Management Subunits of the NCDE Recovery Zone on the Lincoln Ranger District. Those units, which are managed specifically to enhance grizzly bear recovery, show densities in the range of 0.14 to 0.47 mi/mi² [a maximum of 0.55 mi/mi² is the Forest Plan standard for Recovery Zone Management Situations].

Table 10 [“Effects” section] shows open route densities calculated for a series of smaller areas within the Landscape—in this case, 6 units roughly the size of average female grizzly home ranges (about 45,000 acres in Montana). These analysis areas are based on elk herd units. They include all land within Helena NF administrative boundaries plus a 1.5 mile extension out onto non-Forest land beyond the boundaries Exceptions to the 1.5 mile extension are the east side of the Greenhorn subunit, where the boundaries have been defined by elk radio-telemetry, and the northern edge of the Black Mountain-Brooklyn Bridge subunit, which has been modified to exclude the City of Helena (which is not considered elk range) [Figure 4].

2 The Helena NF administrative boundary appears on Forest maps as a solid external boundary, typically following section lines and enclosing all National Forest lands as well as a variety of private holdings along the boundary.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 34

Figure 4. Subunits used to calculate road densities within the Helena RD portion of the Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone. Subunits are based on Elk Herd Units, which extend 1½ miles beyond the Forest boundary (excepting the Greenhorn subunit with boundaries delineated via elk radio- telemetry and the area immediately south of Helena delineated so as to avoid the city itself).

As seen in Table 10, open route densities in all subunits are well above Mace and Manley’s (1993) recommended minimum of 1.0 mi/mi² for suitable grizzly occupancy when the off-Forest extensions are included in the calculation: open route densities range from 1.68 to 2.94 mi/mi², with most greater than

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 35

2.0 mi/mi². Densities are substantially lower when only lands within National Forest administrative boundaries are considered. In that case, 2 subunits south of Highway 12 (Quartz and Black Mountain Brooklyn Bridge) are only slightly above the 1.0 mi/mi² threshold, while other densities—particularly those in the 2 subunits north of Highway 12—are well above this level.

The fact that grizzlies continue to move through and occupy parts of the Divide Landscape in spite of road densities that exceed levels recommended by Mace and Manley (1993) may reflect the rough, primitive condition of many Forest and private roads and the low levels of vehicle use they receive in summer—to the point that oftentimes, bears may not associate them with human activity [Photos 4, 5, 6, 9, 10]. The presence of a few large unroaded enclaves the size of Recovery Zone core areas also ameliorates the impact of surrounding road networks [Tables 6, 7].

Grizzly Bear Area Use

The Divide Landscape in General Grizzly bears have been observed across the Divide Landscape with increasing frequency over the past 30 years [Helena NF wildlife observation data base; MFWP records (Helena Area Resource Office)]. In the 1980s and 1990s a majority of observations were in the northern half of the landscape toward the NCDE Recovery Zone. Some of these animals have been recognized from one year to the next and are assumed to be bears that den and center much of their activity in the Blackfoot landscape on the Lincoln Ranger District but that range southward during part of the year. In recent years, more activity has been reported south of Highway 12 in the Spotted Dog country and around Blackfoot Meadows, but also in upper Telegraph Creek and in the vicinity of Kading campgroundon the upper Little Blackfoot (J. Jonkel, personal communication 2015). Observations have also come in from contiguous country in the upper Boulder River watershed on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF to the south. The number of credible grizzly bear reports has been increasing in recent years as the population in the NCDE expands to the point that more bears are exploring new territory further to the south (J. Jonkel, personal communication, 2007- 2015). Since 2010, the Helena NF has participated in monitoring efforts designed to identify individual grizzlies through DNA analysis of hair samples collected from rub trees. So far, no bears have been identified by this method south of Highway 12—a reflection of their relative scarcity in this area.

The tally in Table 5 is incomplete, but it includes most credible observations made by or reported to Helena NF and Helena-area MFWP biologists from 1991 to 2012. Most of the reports are from the Helena NF, but 7 observations are from south of the Forest boundary on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF: One of these consists of a series of close-up photos from a camera station on the Continental Divide south of Electric Peak in 2012; another is a MFWP report of a grizzly shot in the Boulder River Drainage further to the south; and the most recent, a verified identification of sow and cub tracks in Cataract Meadows about 1 mile south of the Helena NF boundary. I eliminated reports that were vague or otherwise dubious (of which there are many), and retained those deemed credible by professional wildlife specialists or that seemed reliable for other reasons. The actual number of grizzlies that have ranged into the Divide Landscape since 1991 is considerably less than these totals might suggest since some of the bears have been observed and tallied multiple times over 20 years.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 36

TABLE 5. Credible observations of grizzly bears in the Divide Landscape reported 1991-2012

Observations from Additional Observations Total Observations Area HNF Records from MFWP Records 1991-2012 North of U.S. Highway 12 22 22 44 South of U.S. Highway 12 12 23 35 Divide Landscape Total 34 45 89

Additional reports have come in since 2012 but at this point, I do not have complete data from MFWP for those years. Most recently, they report verified tracks of a grizzly sow and cub in Cataract Meadows on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF about 1 mile south of the Helena NF boundary. Observations in the Helena NF database, 2013-2015, include credible sightings south of Elliston and in Conners Gulch in the upper Little Blackfoot drainage; observation of a grizzly sow and cub in Spotted Dog Creek; a good set of tracks on Bison Mountain; and a mass of grizzly-sized scat in Little Corral Gulch in the southeast part of the landscape (for which we are awaiting DNA analysis).

North Divide The northern half of the Divide Landscape lies adjacent to the Blackfoot Landscape where a viable resident grizzly population has been in place for decades. But, it appears that only its northernmost reaches—the Little Prickly Pear watershed (outside the Divide Travel Plan Area)—may accommodate resident bears. These are animals that den in the upper drainages or spend much of their active spring- summer-fall season there. Bear activity in other areas north of the highway appears fluid, associated with long-distance dispersal or with wide-ranging seasonal forays out of home ranges centered further north. The number of bears currently present in the northern Divide Landscape is unknown; but, two decades of fortuitous observations and occasional targeted field checks suggest the following:

 With the possible exception of the upper Little Prickly Pear Creek watershed at the northern extremity of the Divide Landscape, there is currently no evidence of a bona fide “resident” grizzly population in the Landscape north of Highway 12. This area appears to be serving primarily as a conduit for bears moving to more habitable environs south of the highway.

 Bears observed in most of this area appear to be either transient animals moving south through a linkage zone or those with ranges centered further north (the Lincoln Ranger District) that sometimes range southward.

 Neither denning nor reproduction has been documented in the Divide Landscape between the Dog Creek/Little Prickly Pear divide in the north Highway 12 to the south.

 The north Divide Landscape is thus not currently part of a Biological Activity Center for grizzlies [which requires that females with cubs be observed 5 out of 10 years (HFP, Appendix E)].

South Divide Grizzly bears that occupy or move through the Distribution Zone in the southern Divide Landscape also range into drainages flowing southward into Boulder River on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF. Although

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 37 rural residences, open roads, motor trails, developed recreational facilities, livestock grazing, mining operations, and other human activities are spread through this block of territory, ample parts of it are unroaded or lightly roaded [Photos 7, 17, 19; Figure 2]. While the area is not sufficiently untrammeled to serve as a Recovery Zone, the fact that grizzlies seem to have persisted here for at least two decades (albeit in very low numbers) suggests that it has a role to play in the recovery process—potentially providing local habitation opportunities and linkage between bonafide Recovery Zones.

As with the area north of Highway 12, the southern half of the Divide Landscape is still very much in transition with regard to its role in grizzly bear recovery. At this time, the number of grizzlies operating in this area is unknown and their status uncertain. All that can be said, based on field observations to this point, is the following:

 Population density is very low (only 5 verified occurrences in the general area 2004-2012— although several additional observations are highly credible).

 Reproduction is uncommon (5 reports of a sow with cubs since 1991).

 The stability and persistence of the current population may be tenuous (since the presence of grizzlies may be indicative of a linkage zone with transient individuals rather than an incipient Biological Activity Center) (HFP, Appendix E).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Issues and Evaluation Criteria Of the 3 management elements identified by the USFWS as generating the bulk of the adverse effects on grizzly bear populations in the NCDE Recovery Zone and the Distribution Zone, human access management is the primary issue linked to and addressed by the Divide Travel Plan. Most of the habitat management guidelines in the MFWP Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana (Dood et al. 2006, p. 48-49), as well as those in previous management guidance dating back to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (1982), are focused on roads. Roads distribute human activity across the National Forest in ways that are known to diminish the utility of otherwise suitable grizzly bear habitat. Travel management obviously has a key role to play in determining occupancy patterns for grizzly bears on the landscape and in controlling the degree to which humans are able intrude into suitable habitat.

Two other key management elements identified by the USFWS—sanitation and livestock grazing—are only tangentially connected to the road system and travel planning in the Divide Landscape. Likewise, habitat alteration arising from Travel Plan implementation will be insubstantial (recountouring of some roadbeds; allowing other newly closed roads to return to forest) and will not be examined in any detail.

Grizzlies are scarce in the the Divide Landscape, but they continue to range southward out of solid populations in the NCDE Recovery Zone. In this analysis, the status of the Divide Landscape and Travel Plan Area and likely effects of the Travel Plan are gauged in terms of (1) the size of large non-motorized habitat blocks, (2) road density (open and closed), (3) trail density, and (4) motorized access to key habitat areas. These measures should allow an assessment as to how the Travel Plan will affect (1) the

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 38 amount, distribution, and quality of habitat available to grizzly bears; (2) the ability of the bears to move through and within the Divide Landscape; and (3) the potential for negative encounters with humans.

Large Non-Motorized Habitat Blocks

Non-Motorized “Core Areas” with 0.3-mile Road Buffers Effective grizzly bear habitat requires large core areas free from motorized use during the period when bears are active (generally, April – November) (IGBC 1998). Table 6 summarizes the availability of blocks of non-motorized habitat at least 2,500 acres in size with all borders 0.3 miles (roughly 1,600 feet) from open motor routes [USFS 2005, p. 7]. This delineation is based on parameters used to define “core areas” in and around the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in the NCDE. Recovery Zone parameters are based on recommendations of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC 1998) and have been used in a number of recent analyses in that area (see USFS 2005; Servheen et al. 2001). Core areas of this size provide habitat that is little impacted by human activity most of the year and where grizzly bears are at relatively low risk of displacement and human-caused mortality (Servheen et al. 2001, p. 167).

TABLE 6. Acres of “core area equivalents”—non-motorized refuges for grizzly bears ≥ 2,500 acres with borders 0.3 miles from open roads/motor trails in the Divide Travel Plan Area— based on spring/summer/fall open road patterns [areas are rounded to the nearest 5 acres].

Area Identification / Location Current Acres Travel Plan Acres

North of Highway 12 Black Mountain – Deadman Creek 10,010 18,875 Austin Creek – Sweeney Creek less than 2,500 ac 5,110 South of Highway 12 Electric Peak Roadless Area 21,345 25,635 Treasure Mountain less than 2,500 ac 3,405 Jericho Mountain Roadless Area 4,485 4,805 Lazyman Gulch Roadless Area 6,905 7,150 Total Acres North of Highway 12 10,010 23,985 Total Acres South of Highway 12 32,735 40,995 Total Acres in Plan Area 42,745 64,980 % of Plan Area in Non-motorized Blocks 24% 37% ≥ 2,500 acres, 0.3 mi from Open Roads

As seen in Table 6, when the NCDE Recovery Zone standards are applied to a roaded environment such as the Divide Landscape, they produce only a modest array of core area-sized refuges for grizzly bears. At present, four of these large non-motorized blocks are available in the Travel Plan Area—one north of U.S. Highway 12 and three south of it. Two of the core area-sized blocks connect with large roadless areas outside Plan Area boundaries. North of Highway 12, the Black Mountain–Deadman Creek area abuts the large Nevada Mountain Roadless Area to the north and provides the Travel Plan Area with an

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 39 effective linkage to established grizzly populations in the Blackfoot Landscape on the Lincoln Ranger District. Reports of grizzly bears have been consistent in this country for several years. South of the highway, the Electric Peak Roadless area at the south end of the Plan Area is contiguous with roadless country in the Boulder River watershed on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF. This large, lightly roaded area is where many of the grizzly observations south of Highway 12 have occurred over the past 20 years.

Under the new Travel Plan, the Black Mountain–Deadman Creek refuge area would increase by 8,865 acres and the Electric Peak roadless block would increase by 4,290 acres. The Plan would also produce a second “core area” (of 5,110 acres) north of Highway 12 in the area between Sweeney and Austin Creeks and a fourth area (of 3,405 acres) south of the highway around Treasure Mountain between Ontario and Telegraph Creeks. All existing “core areas” would expand to one degree or another, so that altogether, a total of 22,235 acres of new non-motorized refuge habitat would be created [Table 6].

In sum: Road closures proposed in the Divide Travel Plan would raise the total of core area-sized blocks from four to six and increase overall acreage of such areas from 24% to 37% of the Plan Area [Table 6]. Given the need for the Helena NF to maintain primary travel and connector roads [Figure 3], as well as basic recreational and forest management opportunity in the Landscape, it is unlikely that this percentage can be increased substantially in the future by further road and motor trail closures. This basic circumstance underlies the current and future direction to manage the Divide Landscape as a “Distribution Zone” contributing to grizzly bear restoration (mainly by serving as a linkage area) and not as a “Recovery Zone” on which population recruitment is centered.

Non-Motorized Blocks with 300-foot Road Buffers In delineating habitat blocks based on the Recovery Zone core area standards, I found that several large blocks of unroaded habitat—some known to be used by grizzlies—dropped below the 2,500 acre threshold when the 0.3 mile buffer was applied. If the non-motorized patches are measured from the edge of 300-foot wide road and motor trail corridors (a 0.06 mile buffer, rather than a 0.3 mile buffer), the number of 2,500-acre potential habitat refuges increases appreciably. The Travel Plan Area currently supports 17 such areas, ranging in size from 2,690 acres to 29,730 acres—and totalling 106,135 acres.

Non-motorized patches with boundaries drawn this close to open roads do not provide as much isolated habitat as the larger “core area” blocks shown in Table 6, but they do allow bears considerable room to go about much of their daily routines with little chance of encountering a human or being displaced by nearby motor vehicles. In a broadly-roaded landscape such as the Divide, bears apparently find these areas sufficient, if not ideal, for carrying on with normal activity.

As seen in Table 7, the Divide Travel Plan would drop the total number of these modified non-motorized blocks from seventeen to fifteen due to consolidation of neighboring blocks. However, the average size of the blocks would increase from 6,243 acres to 8,475 acres and total acreage would grow from 106,135 acres to 127,125 acres—from 60% to 72% of the Travel Plan Area. It should be noted as well that under the Travel Plan, the area of allowable off-road driving for setting up campsites would contract from 300 feet to 35 feet.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 40

TABLE 7. Summary of large non-motorized habitat patches (≥2,500 acres) in the Travel Plan Area as measured from the edge of open road/ motor trail corridors. The Corridors extend 300 ft on either side of the road or trail (0.06 mile buffer).

Travel Plan Area Identification / Location Current Condition Proposed Acres Area North of U.S. Hwy 12 Number of Patches 7 6 Average Patch Size (acres) 3,816 6,951 % of North Plan Area in Non-Motorized 41% 64% Blocks ≥2,500 ac, 300 ft from Open Roads Area South of U.S. Hwy 12 Number of Patches 10 9 Average Patch Size (acres) 7,942 9,491 % of South Plan Area in Non-Motorized 71% 76% Blocks ≥2,500 ac, 300 ft from Open Roads Total Plan Area Number of Patches 17 15 Average Patch Size (acres) 6,243 8,475 Total Acreage in Plan Area in Large Non- 106,135 127,125 Motorized Patches % of Plan Area in Non-motorized Blocks 60% 72% ≥ 2,500 acres, 300 ft from Open Roads

These acreages are substantial and help explain why grizzly bears, even under current circumstances, are able to persist in the Divide Landscape in spite of open road densities that would seem to preclude their regular presence [see following section]. On the other hand, the often extensive network of closed roads and fragmented dispersion of the non-motorized patches serve as constraints on the potential size of the local bear population. The pattern of the proposed non-motorized mosaic can be seen on the map in Figure 3, while the extent of the closed road network is shown in Figure 2.

Road and Trail Densities

Area-wide Road and Trail Density While the distribution of motor routes is important in revealing the pattern of non-motorized refuge areas, the overall density of roads—public and private, open and closed—is frequently used to guage habitat quality for grizzly bears [see, for example, Apps 2004; Mace and Waller 1998; Mace and Manley 1993; McClellan and Shackleton 1989]. Recent studies have factored in motor trails as well [Graves 2002]. Table 8 shows the open road and motor trail densities that grizzly bears currently have to deal with in the Divide Landscape and the magnitude of change that would ensue with the new Travel Plan.

The volume and type of traffic that open routes carry, and the resulting impact they have on grizzlies, varies widely; but, in keeping with most other analyses of road density in grizzly bear habitat, I have not attempted to apply any weighting factors to the road mileages in Table 8. Field studies also indicate that “closed” or “restricted” roads, while having less impact, can diminish habitat availability for grizzly bears in that (1) some routes allow low levels of vehicle use for management or research purposes, (2)

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 41 most roads closed to vehicles provide easy travelways for hunters and other recreationists on foot, on horseback, and on mountain bikes, and (3) some bears appear to associate even completely closed roads with vehicles and tend to avoid them even though they no longer carry motor traffic (Wielgus et al. 2002). On the other hand, bears have not been shown to avoid low-volume non-motorized hiking trails. With only rare exceptions, designated hiking trails in the Divide Landscape all fall into the “low intensity use” category, and thus are not included in Table 8 [although they are summarized in Table 9].

TABLE 8. Unweighted miles and density (mi/mi²) of roads and designated motor trails in the Divide Landscape*. “Open routes” are all roads and trails open to wheeled motor vehicles April 1 – November 30. Also shown are the totals of all roads, open and closed. Non-motorized trails are not included.

Routes Open to Public Vehicles All Roads Route Category Current Travel Plan Open & Closed System Proposal North of Highway 12 Miles of Forest, County, State Roads 202 84 273 Miles of Private Roads 66 66 105 Miles of Helena NF Motor Trails 21 46 - Total Route Miles 289 196 378 Total Route Density (mi/mi²) 2.28 1.54 2.98 South of Highway 12 Miles of Forest, County, State Roads 205 130 350 Miles of Private Roads 88 88 141 Miles of Helena NF Motor Trails 29 66 - Total Route Miles 322 284 491 Total Route Density (mi/mi²) 1.36 1.20 2.07 Total Divide Landscape Miles of Forest, State, County Roads 407 214 623 Miles of Private Roads 154 154 246 Miles of Helena NF Motor Trails 50 112 - Total Route Miles 611 480 869 Total Route Density (mi/mi²) 1.68 1.32 2.39

* Road data in Table 8 are for the entire Divide Landscape within Helena NF administrative boundaries (364 mi²), not just the Travel Plan Area (278 mi²) as in Tables 6 and 7 and as displayed in Table 3.

Under the Divide Travel Plan, total road density (open and closed) would remain unchanged for the time being. Eventually, density may decline if some closed roads are reclaimed/obliterated during Travel Plan implementation (a matter for future decisions). Currently, total road density in the landscape as a whole is 2.39 mi/mi² [Table 8]. Total density is lower in the southern half of the Distribution Zone (2.07 mi/mi²) than in the northern half (2.98 mi/mi²), in large part because of the extensive Inventoried Roadless Areas south of Highway 12 (Electric Peak, Lazyman Gulch, Jericho Mountain). Route densities

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 42 in the northern zone are well in excess of Mace and Manley’s (1993) 2.0 mi/mi² total road benchmark; densities in the southern zone are just above the threshold.

Open route densities, on the other hand, would decrease palpably under the Travel Plan [Table 8]. Mileages and densities in Table 8 include all roads and motor trails within the Divide Landscape open to wheeled vehicles during at least part of the year: Helena NF roads, designated motor trails, County roads, State highways, and roads on private land (whether open to the public or not). This categorization includes a number of roads classified as “restricted” by the IGBC motorized access guidelines (IGBC 1998). North of Highway 12, open route density would decrease from 2.28 mi/mi² to 1.54 mi/mi² under the Travel Plan—still well above Mace and Manley’s (1993) recommended maximum of 1.0 mi/mi², but much lower than at present. South of the highway, density would decrease to a lesser extent, from 1.36 mi/mi² to 1.20 mi/mi²—also still above the threshold. Overall open route density would decline from the current 1.68 mi/mi² to 1.32 mi/mi² under the Travel Plan. This remains within the range that Mace and Manley’s research suggests is likely to discourage grizzly bear use, but it is a notable improvement—particularly north of Highway 12 toward the Recovery Zone.

The fact that grizzlies continue to move through and occupy parts of the Travel Plan Area may reflect the primitive condition of many Forest and private roads and the low levels of vehicle use they receive in summer—to the point that much of the time bears may not react to them as functioning roads. Grizzlies have been documented as being less averse to spending time near low-use roads and motor trails than those with regular traffic volume [see review in Graves 2002]. Be that as it may, current road densities and those that would be achieved under the new Travel Plan exceed levels recommended for and achieved by Bear Management Subunits in the NCDE Recovery Zone on the Lincoln District to the north—areas in which the bears thrive [see USFS 2005].

Hiking trails were not included in Table 8, in part, to make density figures consistent with other analyses in the northern Rockies, which have not quantified non-motorized trails. The contribution of motorized and non-motorized trails to the human access system in the Divide Landscape is shown in Table 9. Also included here are unauthorized motor trails and 4wd tracks—which are not included in Table 8.

Table 9. Miles and densities (mi/mi²) of trails in the Divide Travel Plan Area: (1) trails open to motor bikes and ATVs during the period when grizzly bears are active and (2) designated (maintained) non-motorized trails open to foot, mountain bike, and horseback traffic. Motor trails under existing conditions include both designated trails and unauthorized motor trails/4wd tracks. There would be no unauthorized routes under the Travel Plan.

Motor Trails Non-Motorzied Trails Total: All Trails existing Travel Plan existing Travel Plan existing Travel Plan Trails Open to ATVs & Motor Bikes condition proposal condition proposal condition proposal Miles of Trail North of Highway 12 24 18 12 22 36 40 Miles of Trail South of Highway 12 11 44 35 39 46 83 Total Trail Miles in the Landscape 35 62 47 61 82 123 Total Trail Density (mi/mi²) 0.12 0.22 0.17 0.22 0.30 0.44

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 43

The Travel Plan would eliminate 16 miles of unauthorized motor trails and increase the miles of designated motor trail in the Travel Plan Area from 19 to 62 miles. Most new motor trails would be created by making currently open roads available only to vehicles less than 50 inches wide (ATVs and motor bikes). Likewise, most increases in hiking trails would result from conversion of peviously open roads to non-motorized trails—although there would be some new foot trail construction along the Continental Divide. Non-motorized trails cataloged in Table 9 are part of the Helena NF designated (maintained) trail system: The total miles of all non-motorized trails is actually higher, given the number of user-made and other non-designated foot trails scattered across the Landscape.

The IGBC Taskforce Report on Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management (1998) identifies “non- motorized, high intensity use” trails as problematic in grizzly bear core habitat. With rare periodic exceptions, none of the non-motorized trails in the Divide Landscape receives enough foot, horse, and mountain bike traffic to qualify as a “high intensity use” trail of the sort that would add to open road/motor trail density or compromise the functioning of large non-motorized habitat blocks. Nor are any of the new foot trails proposed in the Travel Plan expected to see high inensity use.

In Table 9, the trail densities that could measurably affect grizzly bears are those of motor trails, and these would increase from 0.05 mil/mi² under current conditons to 0.18 mi/mi² under the Travel Plan. These figures are thus added into the open road miles in Table 8. Motor trails are also treated the same as open roads in delineating grizzly bear non-motorized habitat blocks in Tables 6 and 7.

Road Densities Within Individual Management Areas Although the decline in linear road density across the Divide Landscape and within the Travel Plan Area as a whole would be favorable to grizzly bears inhabiting and moving through the area, the distribution of roads and their impacts would continue to be unevenly dispersed. Areas with higher road density typically occur where timber management has been a priority and where past projects have generated a plethora of local roads, many of which remain open. Areas with other management priorities—wildlife management, non-motorized recreation, watershed protection, livestock grazing—or that have been too rugged, remote, or unproductive to actively manage retain lower open road densities more in line with what grizzly bears may tolerate. Also generating impacts are primary roads that provide access to the Forest remain open as part of the basic resource management and recreation infrastructure.

For this analysis, we have use elk herd units as subunits for deciphering open road density on a finer scale within the Divide Landscape [Table 10]. The Landscape is divided into 6 herd units, ranging in size from around 35,350 to around 87,020 acres (average = 50,022 acres). Herd units that abut the National Forest boundary extend 1.5 miles beyond the boundary onto non-Forest land (excluding obvious non- habitat zones such as the City of Helena). If only the area within Helena NF administrative boundaries is considered, the units range from around 21,690 to around 63,560 acres (average = 33,263 acres).

Table 10 shows road densities partitioned into subunits under current conditions and under the proposed Travel Plan. Open road densities within subunits should be compared to the 1.0 mi/mi² threshold above which Mace and Manley (1993) suggest grizzly bear use is likely to be reduced.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 44

Table 10. Open route density in 6 subunits of the Divide Landscape during grizzly bear non-denning season. Subunits are based on elk herd units and extend 1.5 miles onto non-Forest land beyond the Forest boundary. Also shown are densities for the portions of the subunits within Helena NF administrative boundaries. Densities above the 1.0 mi/mi² threshold are likely to discourage grizzly bear use.

acres total open routes (mi/mi²) open routes (mi/mi²) Subunits within NF subunit within HNF boundaries entire subunits (Elk Herd Units) boundary acres Current Proposed Current Proposed Little Prickly Pear–Ophir Crk 59,311 87,022 2.25 1.72 2.58 2.22 Greenhorn Mountain 21,693 56,314 2.32 1.06 2.94 2.45 Spotted Dog–Little Blackfoot 63,561 82,314 1.37 1.14 2.18 2.00 Jericho Mountain 29,364 35,345 1.91 1.67 2.33 2.13 Black Mtn–Brooklyn Bridge 35,874 53,840 1.03 1.02 1.68 1.67 Quartz Creek 23,036 36,733 1.13 1.04 2.13 2.07

Motorized Intrusion into Key Habitat Sites Open roads and motor trails that penetrate key grizzly bear habitats may have an impact well beyond what is suggested by enumeration of road density and roadless patch size (IGBC 1998, p. 5). Productive grizzly foraging sites are typically localized and fragmented, and they are often a limiting resource in any landscape. Accordingly, motor routes that compromise the functioning of these sites are of particular concern (see USFWS 2006, p. 9, 18-19, 35-38; USFWS 1993, p. 146). Table 11 catalogs areas in the Travel Plan Area where road/motor trail patterns will change under the Travel Plan and where (1) grizzlies have been reported over the last 2 decades or (2) an array of habitats is present that is likely to attract the bears (and has probably done so on occasion).

Table 11. Key Areas that would be affected by changes in motor routes proposed in the Divide Travel Plan. These are prominent productive habitats likely to attract grizzlies, strategic travelways, or large non-motorized blocks that would be created by, enlarged by, or compromised by the Travel Plan.

Grizzlies Overall Area Nature of Change under the New Travel Plan reported in Effect the area? North of Highway 12 Closure of roads & user-made motor trails and conversion Upper Sweeney Creek – of an open road to a non-motorized trail would create a yes positive Priest Pass much larger non-motorized block that includes the Continental Divide. Closure of roads and user-made motor trails would nearly triple the size of the non-motorized block. Productive Greenhorn Mountain yes positive foraging sites are small but numerous, and grizzlies are known to move through this area occasionally.

Effective closure of several peripheral motor routes, one intrusive internal road, & an extensive user-made motor Black Mountain trail system would enlarge & protect the integrity of a large yes positive wildland area that serves as a key connector for grizzlies moving between the Blackfoot and Divide Landscapes.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 45

Grizzlies Overall Area Nature of Change under the New Travel Plan reported in Effect the area? South of Highway 12 Closure of several roads, 4wd tracks, & motor trails over Baldy Ridge – Upper Baldy Ridge & at the head of Spotted Dog Creek lowers yes positive Spotted Dog Creek open route density & creates a new non-motorized area adjacent to the Electric Peak Roadless Area. Newly sanctioned summer motor trails near isolated wet meadows at Slate Lake & currently unroaded headwaters more in Elliston Creek would impact productive potential habitat Upper Elliston Creek – negative for grizzlies. At the same time, motorized intrusion would yes Slate Lake than be reduced on the adjacent ridge from yearlong full-sized positive vehicle use to summer ATV/motor bike use—in an area where grizzlies have been reported. A newly designated motor trail connector on a currently Upper Ontario Creek – closed road systems would split an otherwise non- yes negative Bison Creek motorized area in productive headwaters habitat. The trail would be open summer only. Closing of several peripheral roads and a user made trail Treasure Mountain no positive would create a new core area-sized refuge. Closure of roads in an area of productive habitat at the Telegraph Creek – headwaters of 2 drainages adjacent to the Electric Peak yes positive Ontario Creek headwaters Roadless Area. The Roadless Area—which provides the best block of grizzly habitat south of Highway 12—would not be directly affected by the Travel Plan. But contiguous non-motorized Electric Peak Roadless positive/ habitat would expand east and west, while unroaded yes Area negative habitat to the north would be cut off by a motor trail in summer. The shape of the non-motorized habitat block would shift but acreage would remain about the same. Closure of 4wd roads removes motorized use from a Jericho Creek productive drainage & allows its merger with the adjacent no positive Jericho Mtn Roadless Area. This block of rugged alpine habitat would see moderate Red Mountain expansion from road closures on its periphery and no positive conversion of an open road to a non-motorized trail.

The 11 areas displayed in Table 11 are relatively large and encompass an array of focal habitat sites. These are areas that have been associated with past grizzly activity or that have potential to draw grizzlies in. Numerous small pockets of habitat that the bears might make use of (and in some cases, have been observed making use of) and that will be influenced by the Travel Plan are scattered individually across the Travel Plan Area. Those noted in Table 11, however, support enough suitable habitat and are large enough to hold grizzly bears for a length of time.

Most of the effects generated by the Travel Plan in these areas will be positive. Negative impacts would come almost entirely from the insertion of seasonal motor trails into sites that, for the most part, are currently non-motorized (although there is a certain amount of illicit motor bike and ATV riding in some of them). Most of the newly sanctioned trails would follow old road beds, but one of them, in upper Elliston Creek, would involve new trail construction across an unroaded site [Figure 2]. Because

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 46 motorized use of these new trails is expected to be relatively light and sporadic (based on observation of current motor trails) and because they would be closed prior to the hunting season (September 1), the potential for negative encounters btween grizzlies and armed humans on these routes would be low.

Snowmobile Impacts Until recently, snowmobiling had not been a concern in grizzly bear management since it takes place almost entirely during the period when the bears are inactive in hibernating dens. Indirect evidence suggests, however, that regular snowmobile presence—along with any other kind of intense human activity—around hibernating sites can cause some bears to abandon dens (Swenson et al. 1997). On the other hand, monitoring of a single grizzly den on a heavily-used snowmobiling slope in Wyoming found that a hibernating sow and cub remained denned throughout the winter, even with snowmobiles running directly over the den (Hegg et al. 2010). No data was obtained as to increased heart rate, wakefulness, and other potential drains on energy reserves.

Grizzly bear denning has not been documented in the Divide Landscape, although anecdotal evidence suggests that it may be occurring in the headwaters regions of the Little Blackfoot River at the south end of the Landscape and the Little Prickly Pear Creek watershed at the north end. Of these two areas, only the upper Little Blackfoot is located within the Travel Plan Area, and its suspected denning region lies inside the Electric Peak Inventoried Roadless Area, which is off-limits to all snowmobiling.

The Travel Plan would double the area closed to off-trail snowmobile riding (from around 34,755 acres to 70,520 acres). Much of the new closure area is in mid-high elevation habitat devoid of motor routes that could provide suitable denning opportunity for grizzly bears (the Black Mountain area, Bison Creek, the Jericho Mountain Roadless Area). Under the new Travel Plan, total miles of snowmobile trail would decrease slightly and some shifts in use would occur (some trails closed, new routes designated). None of these changes would affect areas likely to serve as grizzly den sites in the future. Any grizzly bear hibernating dens identified going forward would be monitored if they are in areas where snowmobiling is allowed and appropriate restrictions would then be applied if necessary (as per Hegg et al. 2010).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined more narrowly under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act than under NEPA, referring to “effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area…” Cumulative effects emanating from activities on Federal lands are displayed as part of the “Environmental Baseline” in Appendix A.

Within this restricted scope of State and private activity, future effects could occur in numerous blocks of private inholdings within Helena NF boundaries in the action area. Larger projects include the Rimini Road (County Road #695) improvement project along Tenmile Creek. This is primarily a Federal project (Federal Highway Administration), but with private partnership and part of the projected improvement occurring on private holdings within the HNF administrative boundary. Another ongoing program involves long-term maintenance of a 200 ft-wide non-forest/open-forest corridor along the Red

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 47

Mountain Flume, portions of which are on private land, others on the National Forest. The lead agency in this endeavor is the City of Helena.

No large-scale activities—mining operations, subdivisions, recreational developments—are currently proposed for private or state lands in or adjacent to the action area. But it is certain, that the gradual, ongoing development of these lands will continue, including the addition of dwellings, access roads, and the human activity associated with them. While the sites available for such development within Forest boundaries are mostly small and fragmented, they may produce effects out of proportion to their size because of their strategic positioning amidst otherwise suitable grizzly bear habitat and their consequent potential for complicating linkage zone movement.

In recent decades, many of the private lands within and adjacent to the National Forest have been heavily logged and roaded. Forest regeneration has been erratic and often anemic, and these habitat changes have significantly altered potential habitat opportunities for grizzlies. Because so much of the available holdings have already been harvested, prospects for future activity are relatively minor, although on some inholdings, harvest of beetle-killed trees remains a possibility.

Likewise, surrounding private ranchlands have been grazed or maintained as hayfields for over a century. Most major adjustments in stocking levels and grazing patterns that are likely to be made have already occurred. So, it is unlikely that new effects relevant to grizzly bears will be generated from this source in recent years.

Grizzly Bear: Summary and Determination of Effects

 The Divide Travel Plan Area occupies 76% of the Divide Landscape—all of which lies within the Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone on the Helena NF. Grizzlies are present throughout this part of the Distribution Zone in low numbers, having dispersed in from a growing core population in the NCDE Recovery Zone to the north. The current distribution and overall density of open roads, motor trails, and closed roads in the Divide Landscape is problematic for establishment of a stable, resident grizzly bear population on the order of what is estimated to have been present prior to human settlement. The current acreage of non-motorized “core areas” is substantially lower than what is available in the NCDE Recovery Zone, and the overall density of motor routes is notably higher than the minima determined to be suitable for a Recovery Zone. In addition, an appreciable number of these routes pass through key habitats that would be a focus of grizzly activity were the bears not deterred by the regular presence of humans, as facilitated by roads and trails.

 The Divide Travel Plan, while measurably reducing the number of motor routes across the landscape, would not lower the potential for human access to a point that a robust nuclear population of grizzly bears would be able to occupy the Travel Plan Area over the long term. That is, the Travel Plan would not be able to create an environment comparable to that in and around the NCDE Recovery Zone. Open route densities would remain too high and the acreage of non-motorized core areas would remain too low to meet Recovery Zone thresholds. The

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 48

prospects for grizzlies being able to inhabit and disperse through the area would improve with the Travel Plan, but numbers would inevitably remain low.

 Be that as it may, the Travel Plan, by substantially reducing the reach of the existing open road system, would lower the potential for negative grizzly bear/human interactions, make it easier for transient bears to move through the landscape, and improve the opportunity for resident bears to find suitable habitat free from human intrusion.

 Non-motorized habitat blocks equivalent to Recovery Zone core areas (≥2,500 acres, 0.3 mi from open motor routes) would increase in number from four to six and in total acreage from 42,745 to 64,980 acres—that is, from 24% to 37% of the Travel Plan Area.

 The total acreage of large non-motorized habitat blocks (≥2,500 acres) measured from the edge of open road corridors (300 ft from the road) would increase from 106,135 acres to 127,125 acres—from 60% to 72% of the Travel Plan Area.

 The Travel Plan would affect 11 areas that support concentrations of key habitat likely to attract grizzly bears: on balance, the effects would be negative or mixed in three of the areas and positive in eight. Negative effects would arise from designation of new summer motor trails; positive effects would come primarily from closure of System roads that are currently open yearlong and also from elimination of user-made motor trails and 4wd tracks.

 The overall density of roads and motor trails that are open to vehicles in the Divide Landscape (within Helena NF administrative boundaries) during the period that grizzly bears are active would decrease from 1.68 mi/mi² to 1.32 mi/mi².

 Within 6 Landscape subunits on the National Forest (based on elk herd units), open route density would decline to near 1.0 mi/mi² in 3 subunits but would remain higher in 3 others— indicating areas of habitat unfavorable to grizzlies across the Landscape. When adjacent non- Forest lands are added to density calculations, most subunit densities are above 2.0 mi/mi².

 Given the proposed reduction in the road and trail system, the Divide Travel Plan would comply with NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy direction to manage National Forest lands in the Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone (Management Zone 2) to lessen the potential for grizzly/human conflicts and to provide opportunity for grizzly bears to disperse through the landscape between the NCDE and other wildland areas while maintaining existing resource management and recreation opportunity. However, the resulting diminution of effects on grizzly bears would be unevenly distributed across the landscape, leaving some areas that would continue to generate negative impacts.

Consequently, it is the determination of this Biological Assessment that the proposed Divide Travel Plan may affect and is likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 49

Recommendations for Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating for Adverse Effects

USFWS Terms and Conditions In its Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Helena National Forest Plan on Grizzly Bears (USFWS 2014), the USFWS has concluded that that continued implementation of the Helena Forest Plan in the Expanded Distribution Zone is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly bear. The Helena NF is thus able to go forward with adjustments to the road and trail system in the Divide lanscape as long as they comply with the “incidental take statement” in the Biological Opinion. Included in the statement are a number of non-discretionary “terms and conditions” with which the Forest must comply in order to “[r]educe the potential for mortality and displacement of grizzly bears on the Forest, both inside and outside the NCDE” (USFWS 2014, p. 62-63).

The first two terms address issues of human access that are applicable to travel planning in general: (1) The Helena NF will consult with the USFWS if a net increase in permanent roads in the Divide Landscape exceeds 5 linear miles over the next 10 years (with decommissioning of roads being taken into account) and (2) consultation will also be required for a net increase of more than 30 miles of temporary roads in the landscape over the next 10 years. The remaining 3 terms deal with management of grazing allotments and do not apply to travel planning.

The Divide Travel Plan would shift the function of a number of existing roads (closing some, converting others to motor trails) but it would not authorize construction of any new permanent roads. The Plan would allow for construction of approximately 1 mile of new motor trail and rerouting of a couple other short sections. Overall, the motor trail system in the Travel Plan Area would increase by 45 miles, from 20 miles to 65 miles. Roads open to full-sized vehicles, however, would decrease by 156 miles, from 415 miles to 259 miles. The result would be a net decrease of 129 miles in motor routes open to vehicle use during the grizzly bear non-denning period.

The USFWS has also included 4 “reporting requirements”, which involve the Helena NF maintaining records and reporting to the USFWS with regard to (1) road construction and decommissioning, (2) management actions and grizzly bear conflicts in the Distribution Zone, (3) sheep grazing, and (4) livestock depredation involving grizzly bears. The Helena NF will comply with these requirements.

USFWS Conservation Recommendations In addition to these “terms and conditions” the USFWS has also included four “conservation recommendations” in its Biological Opinion. These involve (1) identifying and managing linkage habitat between ecosystems, (2) lowering road densities, (3) expanding food storage orders across the Forest (for back-country provisions, garbage, livestock feed, etc.), and (4) minimizing human activity in areas where grizzly bears concentrate seasonally.

As documented above, the Travel Plan would appreciably lower open road density in the Plan Area— which occupies ¾ of the Divide Landscape. It would increase motorized recreation access to 3 areas that may focus grizzly bear activity and decrease motorized access to 8 other such areas. While these areas support habitat components with potential to attract grizzly bears, none of them has been documented

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 50 as an area in which grizzlies concentrate seasonally. The population in the Divide Landscape is so low that it would be difficult to produce anything resembling a “concentration” of grizzly bears at pesent.

With regard to linkage, the overall decrease in open road density and the expansion of large non- motorized habitat blocks throughout the landscape will make it easier for transient bears to make their way through the Divide linkage zone and avoid humans. Bears do not confine themselves to narrow corridors when moving across the landscape: they range widely, seeking out pockets of key habitat and making use of whatever forage, cover, and unimpeded travelways they encounter on the way. The broadly dispersed road closures proposed under the Travel Plan, including a number in key grizzly bear habitat areas, will improve prospects for linkage in the Landscape.

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Habitats, Populations, and and Human Influences

Habitat Use and Preator/Prey Relationships The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is confined to regions of North America with cold, snowy winters. Core populations are centered in Canada and persistent peripheral populations occur across the northern tier of the lower 48 states and in a patchy southward extension along the Rockies. Lynx inhabit coniferous forests that support snowshoe hares as a prey base: In North America, the distribution of lynx is nearly coincident with that of snowshoe hares (Ruediger et al. 2000). In the northern Rockies, most lynx occurrence is associated with conifer forests dominated by lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce in the 4900-6550 foot elevation zone. Secondary interspersed vegetation includes Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch, western hemlock, western redcedar, and aspen. Dry forest types, such as ponderosa pine and dry Douglas-fir seldom provide suitable lynx habitat (Aubry et al. 1999).

Females establish maternal denning sites in a variety of forest structures ranging from mature and old- growth coniferous forest to young regenerating stands (USFS 2007a, p. 16). The key component of den sites appears to be the abundance of coarse woody debris, not the age of the forest (Mowat et al. 2000). Middle-aged conifer stands (40-120 years) with open understories and sparse deadfall do not provide good denning or foraging environments but often serve as travel habitat (Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Lynx usually avoid large unforested areas and prefer to move between primary habitat sites under cover of mature forest, dense early-seral forest, or tall shrubs, typically following ridges or riparian zones, and moving through saddles. Based on fieldwork in north-central Washington, Koehler (1990) surmised that openings created by regeneration harvest, where the distance to cover was more than about 325 feet (100 meters), might restrict local lynx movement and habitat use until forest cover had regrown. On the other hand, research has documented many instances of lynx crossing unforested openings (Roe et al. 2000, cited in USFS 2007a, p. 10). Lynx will move across extensive non-forested areas as needed during

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 51 dispersal or other long-range excursions (Koehler and Aubry 1994, p. 88; Ruediger et al. 2000, p. 1-12; Aubry et al. 1999, p. 379), although they prefer to travel through forested habitats or along forest edges (Squires et al. 2013; Ruediger et al. 2000, ch.1 p.4; Mowat et al. 1999). Lynx seldom forage in open habitats, most likely because preferred prey species are uncommon there (Maletzke et al. 2007).

Snowshoe hares are the primary prey, making up anywhere from 35% to 97% of lynx diet. Koehler (1990) reports that snowshoe hare densities are correlated with densities of small trees and shrubs having diameters of less that than 1.0 inch. Preferred lynx foraging habitat consists of dense young conifer growth—either in early seral stands or in mature forest understories—that provides cover and browse for hares (Koehler 1990). Koehler and Brittell (1990) recommend that seedling/sapling stands in the lodgepole/subalpine fir zone be well dispersed to provide optimal lynx foraging. Squires (2010) found that in the Seeley Lake region of western Montana, lynx hunted for hares primarily in mature, multi-storied spruce-fir forest in winter and in dense early-seral stands in summer. He cautioned, however, that in southern lynx populations [in southern Canada and the northern U.S.], regional and local habitat differences were likely to generate variations in lynx foraging patterns: a number of southern populations depend primarily on early successional forests year-round, and some inhabit primarily lodgepole pine rather than spruce-fir forests (McKelvey et al. 1999; Aubry et al. 1999, p. 8). These differences are a function of the local availability of key forest types and the distribution of snowshoe hares among them (Maletzke et al., p. 1473; Squires et al. 2010, p. 1656).

In the mountains of Montana and further south, lynx prey on a wider diversity of species than northern populations because of lower hare densities and the presence of different small mammal communities. Potential alternate prey includes red squirrels, jackrabbits, cottontails, woodrats, marten, marmots, ground squirrels, chipmunks, mice, voles, and grouse (Buskirk et al. 1999b, p. 408-409; Aubry et al. 1999, p. 375-378). Of these, red squirrels are, in most locales, the most important (Ruediger et al. 2000, ch.1 p.8-10; Buskirk et al. 1999b, p. 408-409). Field research indicates that while lynx will opportunistically take advantage of the full array of potential prey species in summer, they focus almost entirely on snowshoe hares in winter whenever they are abundant (Aubry et al. 1999, p. 378).

Population Dynamics, Movements, and Distribution Lynx are highly susceptible to declines in the prey numbers. When hare populations are low, many lynx are unable to raise litters successfully, and in some cases, adults are unable to sustain themselves. As a result, local populations decline (Koehler and Aubry 1994). The other principal natural cause of mortality is conflict with larger carnivores, most notably, mountain lions [Squires (unpublished data, 2009); Buskirk et al. 1999a, p. 89-95]. Among human caused mortality factors, trapping has historically been primary. Heavy trapping throughout the 19th and 20th centuries extirpated lynx from many areas of the Rocky Mountains where they had once been consistently present. Montana set restricted trapping seasons for lynx from 1991-1998 and then suspended trapping after the 1998-1999 season (Ruediger et al. 2000). Lynx are still taken incidentally in traps set for wolves, coyotes, bobcats, and other large/mid-sized carnivores. Lesser mortality factors in recent decades have included disease, shooting, and roadkill (USFS 2007b, p. 2; Squires and Laurion 1999, p. 10).

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 52

Despite this plethora of mortality factors, lynx population numbers in western Montana do not appear to have declined appreciably in recent years—increasing slightly in some areas, decreasing in others. Based on monitoring of 129 lynx over a 10 year period (1998-2007), Squires (unpublished data, 2010) concluded that the lynx population in the Seeley Lake region of west-central Montana has been inching downward while the population in the Purcell Mountains in the northwest corner of the state has been increasing slightly. These are preliminary conclusions, and population data on lynx in the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. and southern Canada remains sparse and inconclusive. It can be said, however, that these southern populations are substantially smaller than those of the boreal forests of northern Canada and Alaska (because snowshoe hare populations are smaller and more fragmented). On the other hand, southern lynx populations appear to be more stable (Aubry et al. 1999, p. 15-18).

As solitary, wide-ranging predators, lynx in both northern and southern ranges maintain low population densities relative to most other North American carnivores. Home range size varies primarily with the dispersion pattern of suitable habitat, the abundance of prey, lynx population density, and the intensity of trapping (Koehler and Aubry 1994, p. 89-91). In Montana, Brainerd (1985, cited in Koehler and Aubry 1994) has reported home range sizes of about 17 mi2 for females and 122 mi2 for males. Nellis (1989) concludes that most home ranges fall between 5-20 mi2. In northern populations where hares are more abundant, home ranges are typically smaller (Squires and Laurion 1999, p. 347).

Lynx have been documented throughout the mountains of western Montana from the Canadian border into the Yellowstone area. Current distribution is disjunct, and a number of areas that support extensive blocks of suitable habitat are unoccupied. On the other hand, some localities that appear to have little classic lynx habitat may be supporting small local populations or serving as linkage zones through which lynx move. On the Helena NF, the best lynx habitat and the most robust population is in the Blackfoot Landscape of the Lincoln Ranger District. The Divide Landscape supports a sparse but apparently persistent population. While some of these animals are probably transients, tracking surveys backed by DNA analysis of scat and hair over the past 5 years indicates that others are long-term residents (Gehman 2006; Gehman et al. 2007-2010; Pilgrim 2009-2010; Pilgrim and Schwartz 2007-2008).

Influence of Roads Koehler and Aubry (1994) identified road management as an important aspect of managing lynx habitat. Construction of Forest roads destroys local habitat for some lynx prey species (mature forest for red squirrels) and creates new opportunities for others (edge and, eventually, dense young conifer habitat for snowshoe hares). Lynx are not averse to hunting along the roads and using them for travel—a behavior that can make them more vulnerable to human-caused mortality. Rarely, lynx may be shot from roads or killed by vehicles on some of the primary gravel roads that allow higher speeds (typically County roads on the Helena NF).

Occasionally, lynx are caught in traps along roads that serve as conduits for trappers on snowmobiles. Even though lynx can no longer be targeted for trapping, they continue to fall victim to traps set for other species. Lynx are curious and opportunistic carnivores and they are likely to check out any baited trap along one of their travel routes. In addition, roads that allow vehicle access to lynx habitat in winter—plowed routes or snowmobile trails—may serve as travelways for carnivores that compete with

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 53 lynx (especially, bobcats and coyotes; also mountain lions and red foxes) and that would otherwise be unable to probe into lynx foraging areas in winter (Ruediger et al. 2000; USFS 2007b). The significance of such competition is still open to debate, but it may not be as severe as initially hypothesized (see USFS 2007b, p. 22-25; Kolbe et al. 2005).

Most research suggests that the types of roads managed by the Forest Service seldom adversely affect lynx directly (USFWS 2007). Vehicle strikes are unlikely because of the relatively low speeds most vehicles are forced to travel and the meager traffic volume. Ruggiero et al. (2000) concluded that the evidence accumulated to date suggests that lynx do not avoid roads. In fact, the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USFS 2007b, p. 27) concluded that one of the primary efforts of Forest road management should be to eliminate shrub growth, young conifer thickets, and other habitat features that might support hares and thus attract lynx to the road corridors. Studies also show that Forest road density does not appear to affect lynx habitat selection in the same way that it influences habitat use by grizzly bears and elk (McKelvey et al. 2000; Ruediger et al. 2000).

Lynx Management

Management Direction The Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species in 2000 and is now managed via the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (USFS 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d), which has been amended into forest plans in the northern Rockies. Attachment 1 in the Record of Decision for the Management Direction (2007b) displays 13 objectives, 7 standards, and 24 guidelines designed to achieve the goal of conserving the Canada lynx. These are divided among 5 categories: All management practices and activities (ALL), vegetation management (VEG), livestock management (GRAZ), human use projects (HU), and linkage areas (LINK).

Six of the 12 guidelines that address human use projects are potentially relevant to travel management: Guidelines HU G6 and HU G8 deal with upgrading and maintenance of existing Forest roads; guidelines HU G7 and HU G9 address the placement, design, reclamation, and closure of new Forest roads; guideline HU G11 restricts expansion of over-snow routes (mostly snowmobile trails) in lynx habitat; and guideline HU G12 limits winter access for non-recreation special uses and for mineral and energy projects to designated routes in lynx habitat.

Two other directives of potential relevance are in sections addressing linkage areas and “all” management practices and activities. These are (1) Standard LINK S1, which mandates identification of potential lynx highway crossings when highway construction or reconstruction is being contemplated in identified linkage areas; and (2) Guideline ALL G1, which advocates pursuing methods to minimize effects on lynx from construction or reconstruction of highways.

The Divide Travel Plan proposes no new road construction or other activity that would manipulate forest vegetation or adjust current patterns of livestock grazing; and as a result, none of the standards and guidelines that address vegetation and livestock management (VEG, GRAZ) are pertinent in this case.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 54

Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) The basic units for analyzing effects of management actions on lynx are lynx analysis units (LAUs)—areas about the size of individual female lynx home ranges. The rationale for defining units on this scale is discussed in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (CLCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000, p. 7- 2). Based on this guidance, biologists delineated LAUs for the Helena NF in 2000 as part of the process by which the lynx was listed as a threatened species. Some of the units have been adjusted since that time, leaving a current total of 29 LAUs on the Forest, six of which are situated in the Divide Landscape [see Figure 8]. Divide LAUs are designated di-01 through di-06 and average about 34,920 acres in size. The 6 Divide Landscape LAUs are mapped in Figures 5 and 6. Basic logistics of the LAUs—total acres, acres of lynx habitat, and percent of each LAU in the Travel Plan Area—are shown in Table 12.

Figure 5. Lynx analysis units di-01 and di-02 in the northern half of the Divide landscape.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 55

Figure 6. Lynx analysis units di-03, di-04, di-05, di-06 in the southern half of the Divide landscape.

Table 12. Lynx analysis units (LAUs) in the Divide landscape

LAU Total Lynx Habitat % of LAU in LAU LAU Location Acres Acres in LAU Travel Plan Area di-01 Little Prickly Pear Creek – Ophir Creek 37,260 18,669 46 % di-02 Dog Creek – Greenhorn Mountain 41,855 10,618 100 % di-03 Spotted Dog Creek – Blackfoot Meadows 46,105 24,644 100 % di-04 Telegraph Creek – Ontario Creek 28,280 20,154 100 % di-05 Tenmile Creek 36,530 16,632 100 % di-06 South Helena – Quartz Creek 46,485 12,512 17 % Total Divide Landscape 236,515 103,229 75 %

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 56

Delineating Lynx Habitat Most objectives, standards, and guidelines in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction apply only to designated lynx habitat within LAUs on National Forest System lands (or other Federal lands) (NRLMD, Attachment 1, p. 1-6). The Helena NF delineates lynx habitat based on information in the timber stand database and satellite imagery (the Region 1 VMAP database). In the Divide landscape, lynx habitat (sometimes refered to as “potential lynx habitat”) consists of cool, moist coniferous forest habitat types—in any stage of development—on Helena NF land above 5,500 ft. These are environments that we feel are likely to support habitat components suitable for lynx denning and foraging or that can be expected to develop such characteristics over time. In most Divide landscape LAUs, only a small percentage of this “potential” habitat currently supports vegetation structure that provides for effective lynx denning and foraging.

Within potential lynx habitat, the Helena NF identifies winter snowshoe hare habitat as the key component: dense stands of young conifers that provide hiding cover and enough overhead structure to create under-snow shelter and feeding enclaves. These conditions occur in young sapling conifer stands (stand initiation structural stages) and in the understories of mature forests (multistoried structural stages). The focus on snowshoe hare habitat is based on direction in the NRLMD (2007).

Delineating Occupied Habitat The Lynx Management Direction applies to National Forest lands “occupied” by the lynx. On the Helena NF, the Blackfoot and Divide landscapes are considered to be “occupied”. The Big Belts and Elkhorns landscapes are not currently occupied by resident lynx, although transient animals have been documented in the Big Belts [Lynx Management Direction ROD (USFS 2007b, Attachment 1)]. The arrangement of these landscapes can be seen on the map in Figure 8.

In the Divide landscape, areas north of U.S. Highway 12 are categorized as “core” occupied habitat and those south of the highway as “secondary” occupied habitat [Northern Rockies Lynx Planning Area Map (USFS 2007a)]. Preliminary objectives for “secondary” habitat areas are somewhat different than those for “core” areas (USFS 2007c, p. 3-4), but we apply Management Direction standards and guidelines for core habitat to secondary habitat as well.

Critical Lynx Habitat “Critical habitat”, as defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA), identifies specific geographic areas that contain habitat features considered essential to the conservation of a particular threatened or endangered species. These are areas of Federal land that may require special management protection to ensure that activities do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

The USFWS Final Rule (50 CFR Part 17) designating critical habitat for lynx in the contiguous U.S. (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, Feb. 25, 2009) has been in effect since March 2009. It expands upon previous mapping efforts and designates approximately 101,000 acres of critical lynx habitat in the contiguous 48 states, 26,200 acres of which are in the northern Rockies. The critical habitat designation is based on field research and professional opinion. On the Helena NF it takes in the entire Blackfoot landscape

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 57

(Lincoln Ranger District) and the northern part of the Divide landscape (north of U.S. Highway 12) [Figure 7]. Critical habitat includes all National Forest land: (1) the previously designated area of “occupied core lynx habitat” and (2) all of the surrounding and intervening non-lynx habitat—“matrix habitat” that may provide linkage.

Figure 7. Critical lynx habitat in the northern Rockies. The contribution of the Divide Landscape to this mass of habitat occurs in the narrow peninsula in the southeast tip of the designated habitat block just north of Helena.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 58

The extent of critical lynx habitat in the northern Rockies is shown on the map in Figure 7 (above). Critical habitat in the Divide Landscape occurs in the far southeastern tip of this larger habitat block— that is, on the margins of what has been determined to be citical habitat for lynx. A closer view of how critical habitat is distributed on the on the Helena NF is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Lynx analysis units (LAUs) and critical lynx habitat on the Helena NF. The critical habitat zone covers the entire Blackfoot landscape on the Lincoln Ranger District and the northern part of the Divide landscape on the Helena Ranger District (LAUs di-01,di-02, and the northern tip of di-05).

Besides designating critical habitat, the Final Rule identifies “physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation” of lynx: that is, “primary constituent elements” (PCEs). The overarching PCE for lynx critical habitat is summarized as “boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages”. These landscapes contain (a) snowshoe hares and their “preferred habitat conditions, which include dense understories of young trees, shrubs, or overhanging boughs that protrude above the snow, and mature multi-storied stands with conifer boughs touching the snow surface”; (b) “winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time”; (c) “sites for denning that have abundant coarse woody debris, such as downed trees and root wads”; and (d) matrix habitat (not supporting hares) “that occurs between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition (at the scale of a lynx home range) such that lynx are likely to travel though such habitat while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range” (Fed. Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, p. 8638).

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 59

The Rule indicates that “lands within critical habitat will require some level of management to address the current and future threats to the lynx and to maintain and protect the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species” (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, p. 8638). That is, management actions need to maintain the PCEs. The USFWS is to decide whether a proposed Federal action amounts to “adverse modification” of lynx habitat based on whether it allows “the affected critical habitat to remain functional…to serve the intended conservation role for the species” (Federal Register, Vol.74, No. 36, p. 8644).

At this point, the Helena NF, knowing that lynx are in fact resident in the “non-critical” habitat zone south of Highway 12, applies the standards and guidelines of the NRLMD to all areas of the Divide landscape. While the PCE guidance does not now apply to the region south of Highway 12, the Helena NF takes it into account as a general measure of habitat condition when planning projects in that area.

Local Status

Lynx Survey Work and Field Observations The Helena NF wildlife data base shows 13 observations (or groups of observations) of lynx or lynx tracks in the 6 Divide landscape LAUs since 1999 that have been verified or are considered highly credible (by MFWP and/or Helena NF biologists). These include an adult lynx photographed in a tree in Hahn Creek in 2006 and a juvenile female killed on Highway 12 west of MacDonald Pass in 2003. Other reports have come from these areas, but their credibility is unclear (HRD/ Helena NF wildlife observation files).

In addition to these fortuitous observations, data is available from MFWP annual tracking surveys along the Continental Divide between Boulder River on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF and Bullion Parks on the Helena NF [B. Giddings, personal communication; HNF/ HRD observation files]. Most lynx tracks encountered in these surveys over the past 15 years have been in the Boulder River watershed a few miles south and east of the Helena NF boundary. But some, are from the Continental Divide trail where it runs along the common border between the 2 Forests from Thunderbolt Mountain to Bison Mountain.

Since 2006, Wild Things Unlimited of Bozeman has run winter track surveys over a wide area north and south of MacDonald Pass. Surveys have identified several carnivores, but the primary targets have been wolverines and lynx. Much of the fieldwork has been done in the upper Little Blackfoot and Telegraph Creek drainages south of the pass, but other areas have been surveyed on occasion: the Continental Divide north of Highway 12, the upper Little Prickly Pear Creek watershed, Ontario Creek, and parts of the upper Tenmile watershed. Surveys involve systematic back-tracking and collection of hair, scat, and urine samples, which are then sent to the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in Missoula for DNA analysis [see Gehman 2006, 2015; Gehman et al. 2007-2010; Pilgrim 2009-2010; Pilgrim and Schwartz 2007-2008]. DNA analysis allows identification of species and individual animals. Most of the initial survey transects follow Forest roads that serve as snowmobile routes in winter.

In the winter of 2007-2008, Wild Things Unlimited tracked lynx through the greater Telegraph Creek drainage (Telegraph Creek, Hahn Creek, Flume Gulch, Mike Renig Gulch) [LAU DI-04] and cataloged resting sites and prey kill sites (Gehman et al. 2008) [Photos 18, 19]. The Rocky Mountain Research

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 60

Station confirmed that a majority of the tracks were of a single adult male (Pilgrim and Schwartz 2008). Several samples could not be tagged to an individual, but their pattern suggested the presence of a second lynx. This data supports earlier reports by longtime local residents that lynx have been present in the area for some time (Helena NF wildlife observation files). The Mike Renig/Flume Gulch data are also in line with photos of an adult lynx in that area from 2006 (Helena NF and MFWP wildlife files).

In the winter of 2008-2010, Wild Things Unlimited tracked lynx through accessible reaches of the Little Blackfoot and Telegraph drainages [LAUs DI-03, DI-04], and also followed animals into Ontario Creek and the upper Minnehaha Creek in the Tenmile drainage [LAU DI-05] (Gehman et al. 2009). DNA labwork on samples from these surveys identified the same male that had been present in 2007-2008, in addition to an adult female. More limited survey work around Greenhorn Mountain north of Highway 12 yielded no definitive results for lynx [although wolverines were found]. Fieldwork in the winter of 2009-2010 again found numerous signs of adult lynx in the Telegraph Creek drainage. DNA analysis verified the presence of the same adult male that had been in the area the previous 2 years (Pilgrim 2010). Lynx tracks were also followed in the Mullan Pass area north of U.S. Highway 12, but no DNA samples were taken (Gehman et al. 2010). Behavior patterns deciphered during 4 seasons of tracking, coupled with the fact that at least one lynx has been present for 3 years, is a strong indication that some of these animals are local residents rather than transients lingering in the area as they make their way through a linkage zone. More recently (early 2015), tracking efforts have identified lynx in the upper Little Prickly Pear watershed at the northern end of the Divide Landscape (Gehman 2015).

Photo 11. A typical lynx foraging area in a 30 year-old clearcut in Ontario Creek. Dispersion of sapling conifers is irregular, but there are enough dense patches throughout the stand to support snowshoe hares in winter.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 61

Photo 12. A subirrigated meadow with colonizing conifers and deciduous shrubs in Little Flume Gulch. Conifer and shrub density is irregular and often fairly open. Nonetheless, lynx have been documented foraging for snowshoe hares here in winter.

Photo 13. Beetle-impacted lodgepole pine forest in upper Telegraph Creek with a developing understory sufficient to support snowshoe hares yearlong. Mature multilayered stands such as this that are capable of supporting hares in winter are not abundant in much of the Landscape.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 62

Photos 12, 13, and 14 (above) illustrate the kinds of habitats where lynx have frequently been located south of Highway 12 in winter and in which they have been able to successfully forage for snowshoe hares. These habitats, while marginal by standards applied to moist westside and more northerly Forests, have been sufficient to support snowshoe hares in winter as well as a small group of lynx in the Divide landscape. Over the past several years, lynx have spent much of the winter in the areas such as those depicted in Photos 11-13. All of the areas depicted in the photos are adjacent to roads that are unavailable to wheeled vehicles in winter but are frequently used by snowmobiles.

Snowmobile Trails in Lynx Habitat Of the 418 miles of regularly-used snowmobile routes in the Travel Plan Area, approximately 341 miles are specifically identified for snowmobile use under the current Travel Plan (Table 4). Another 77 miles, although shown on the Forest Visitor Map as closed to motorized use year-round, have been regularly used by snowmobiles for the past 30 years. In the absence of any evidence of habitat damage or conflict with other resources, the Helena NF has not challenged this use. [More discussion of how snowmobile routes are classified follows in the “Effects” section. See also the map of Snowmobile Routes on the Helena National Forest for 2003 and the Plan Area existing condition map (Figure 2)].

Snowmobile trail mileage is a relevant parameter as it figures into NRLMD Guideline HU G11 (expansion of designated over-the-snow routes). Table 13 compares the mileage of regularly used snowmobile routes in potential lynx habitat in the “core occupied habitat” region north of U.S. Highway 12 (essentially, LAUs di-01 and di-02) and the “secondary occupied habitat” region south of the highway (LAUs di-03, di-04, di-06, and most of di-05). These data are for the Divide Travel Plan Area only and do not include those portions of LAUs di-01 and di-06 that fall outside the Plan Area. An estimated 165 miles of active snowmobile trails currently pass through potential lynx habitat, resulting in a trail density of approximately 1.4 mi/mi² in these areas. This trail system has been relatively stable over the last 2 decades.

TABLE 13. Estimates of regularly used snowmobile routes in potential lynx habitat in the Travel Plan Area—the area north of U.S. Highway 12 is considered core habitat and the area south of the highway secondary habitat.

Area of Potential Miles of Snowmobile Snowmobile Trail Occupied Lynx Habitat Lynx Habitat Trail in Lynx Habitat Density in Lynx Habitat North of Highway 12 32 mi² 70 mi 2.2 mi/mi² South of Highway 12 81 mi² 95 mi 1.2 mi/mi² Total Travel Plan Area 114 mi² 165 mi 1.4 mi/mi²

Open Roads Road miles and road densities within LAUs are not addressed by standards or guidelines in the NRLMD. So, I have not broken those figures out specifically for lynx habitat. The grizzly bear analysis earlier in this assessment provides open road data for the Divide Landscape in general north and south of Highway 12 [Table 8]. The core habitat region north of Highway 12 currently supports 252 miles of open

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 63 roads during the period when these routes are accessible to wheeled vehicles (density = 1.99 mi/mi²). The secondary habitat region south of the highway supports 291 open road miles (density = 1.22 mi/mi²). Open road density for the Landscape as a whole is 1.03 mi/mi².

It is unlikely that the distribution and density of Forest roads in spring, summer, and fall have more than a modest influence on how lynx use habitat or move through the Divide Landscape. A few of the busier routes—mostly County roads and U.S. Highway 12 [Photos 7, 8]—may serve to modify lynx behavior and alter movement patterns in linkage areas. But, the primary impact of roads occurs in winter when they serve as recreational snowmobile trails and provide access for trappers on snowmobiles.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Evaluation Criteria I have assessed effects of travel management on lynx via standards and guidelines in the Record of Decision for the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD ROD) (2007b, Attachment 1)— now incorporated into the Helena Forest Plan. I’ve focused on standards and guidelines that address impacts associated with road and trail systems. Of the 7 standards and 24 guidelines presented in the ROD, I found only 1 standard and 8 guidelines directly pertinent to travel planning. They deal with highway planning, Forest road construction and maintenance, Forest road closures, snowmobiling, winter access for special uses, access to ski trails, and habitat linkage. All fall within the groupings categorized as “all management practices and activities” (ALL), “human use projects” (HU), and “linkage areas” (LINK). I have not included any of the standards and guidelines that deal with “vegetation management” (VEG) or “livestock management” (GRAZ).

The 2007 NRLMD ROD does not offer any standards or guidelines that directly address lynx critical habitat. Potential effects of the Travel Plan on this habitat (the area north of U.S. Highway 12) are thus evaluated according to USFWS criteria presented in the 2009 documentation designating critical habitat for lynx (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, p. 8638). This guidance is focused on minimizing impacts to the “primary constituent elements” (PCEs) of habitats capable of supporting lynx.

Overview of the Effects of Travel Management and of the Divide Travel Plan

General Effects of Open Roads Rigorous research as to the effects of roads and trails on lynx and their prey is meager (Apps 2000; McKelvey et al. 2000). Much of it is anecdotal, and studies that have specifically targeted road impacts have not produced definitive conclusions.

Construction of new roads sometimes removes linear swaths of suitable lynx habitat, which may have a local impact if that habitat is limiting or regularly used sites are affected. The Divide Travel Plan does not propose any new road construction or specific road improvements, and thus, it would not directly affect vegetation structure. The Plan does propose construction of about one mile of new designated motor trail, but the routes would simply improve upon existing user-made tracks and would not alter

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 64 suitable lynx habitat. Consequently, no direct effects on lynx/snowshoe hare habitat would result from road construction or improvement in this phase of travel management.

Some researchers have noted that adult female lynx may move kittens to new den sites in order to avoid nearby vehicle traffic that escalates as summer comes on (Ruggiero et al. 1999). In some cases, lynx may alter normal travel and hunting patterns to avoid open roads, but they are also likely to travel along roadways less than 50 feet wide with good cover along both edges (Koehler and Brittell 1990). Field research and observation have shown that in normal circumstances lynx do not avoid habitat near roads except for those with high traffic volume (Aubry et al. 1999; Ruggiero et al. 1999). The new Travel Plan would significantly reduce the reach of the open road system, from 415 to 259 miles (Table 3). However, most of the road segments subtracted from the system would be low-use travelways with corridors less than 40 feet wide—routes unlikely to have been proving intimidating to lynx. And as a result, we would expect little change in lynx habitat use and movement patterns.

Lynx are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by trapping (Bailey et al. 1986). Although they can no longer be targeted by trappers in Montana, lynx are at risk from traps set for any mid-sized furbearer and therefore are affected by roads and snowmobile trails that provide access for trappers in winter. Research has shown that lynx are more vulnerable to trapping near open roads (Koehler and Aubry 1994; Bailey et al. 1986). Although the Travel Plan would substantially reduce roads open to wheeled vehicles in lynx habitat, routes open to snowmobiles would decline only slightly (Table 4).

Denning habitat is usually not a limiting factor for lynx in the northern Rockies (USFS 2007c, p. 173), and the Lynx Management Direction does not present a standard that specifies how much denning habitat needs to be retained in a given LAU (USFS 2007b, p. 14-17). However, Guideline VEG G11 states that substantial pockets of large woody debris should be distributed throughout each LAU and that if denning habitat appears to be deficient, projects should be designed to retain coarse woody debris (USFS 2007b, Attachment 1, p. 5). Following the mountain pine beetle outbreak, such debris is becoming abundant over wide areas. Travel management can reduce local concentrations of woody debris directly via new road construction and indirectly by allowing firewood cutters access to new sources of snags (potential woody debris) in the road corridors. Since the Travel Plan involves no new road construction, the direct effect of this activity is not at issue here. The new Plan would, however, reduce opportunities for firewood cutting by closing roads and substantially shrinking the allowable off-road driving corrdor from 300 feet to a maximum of 70 feet. Normally, areas close to open roads are unlikely denning sites, but they could serve the purpose in certain circumstances, such as where understory regeneration is thick, downfall is abundant, traffic is infrequent, and opportunities are limited elsewhere.

Refuge and Connectivity While conclusions as to the effects of roads on lynx are mixed, some research suggests that non- motorized refuges can be important for successful lynx reproduction and for ecological fitness (Ruediger et al. 2000, p. 2-19 to 2-20). Refuges need to provide an adequate distribution of high quality habitat that is relatively secure from human exploitation, habitat degradation, and disruptive winter access. Landscape connectivity is also an important component of lynx conservation. Analysis earlier in this assessment of large non-motorized habitat blocks available for grizzly bears gives a sense of the size and

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 65 distribution of habitat blocks that lynx may find useful as sanctuaries from regular human presence. The summary shown in Table 7 is probably the most appropriate to lynx. The analysis shows that under the new Travel Plan, the acreage of large motorized habitat blocks (measured to within 300 feet of open roads and motor trails) would increase from 106,135 acres to 127,125 acres. The average size of these habitat patches would increase from 6,243 acres to 8,475 acres.

Areas of high human use can interrupt habitat connectivity and further fragment lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000, p. 2-18). The density and distribution of roads open to wheeled vehicles can have some influence on the ability of lynx to disperse through an area or move about freely within a home range. This would be true of areas with high-standard roads, concentrations of several routes, roads carrying high traffic volume, or an abundance of roadside development or other human activity.

In the Divide Travel Plan Area, these characteristics are usually associated with County Roads or with U.S. Highway 12, and they often occur on non-Forest land. Most of these roads and their associated developments are part of the basic transportation system that has been in place for over a century and over which the Helena NF has limited control. Closure of these routes to accommodate lynx is not feasible. The numerous roads proposed for closure in the Divide Travel Plan are mostly narrow, lower quality routes that typically carry a modest amount of traffic and that are of little consequence to habitat linkage for lynx. Nonetheless, their closure should concentrate human activity along fewer travel routes and reduce human presence in certain habitat sites useful to lynx.

Snow Compaction Roads and trails provide unobstructed routes for snowmobiles, cross-country skiing, and other winter uses that create snow compaction. Compacted routes facilitate winter access for carnivores that would otherwise be unable to negotiate the deep snow characteristic of lynx winter habitat. Lynx have evolved a competitive advantage in deep, non-compacted snow that tends to exclude most other predators during winter, a time when prey is most limiting (Buskirk et al. 1999; Ruediger et al. 2000). Competing carnivores that might be able to take advantage of solid over-the-snow routes include coyotes, bobcats, red foxes, mountain lions, wolves, and wolverines (although wolverines are also willing to move through deep loose snow on a regular basis). Although coyotes and bobcats are most often cited as the primary competing carnivores taking advantage of compacted snow routes, systematic tracking surveys in the Divide landscape (Wild Things Unlimited, 2007-2010) found that the most frequently encountered winter competitors, aside from coyotes, were red foxes [see Gehman et al. 2008, 2009].

Research on this issue is new and, so far, conclusions have been limited. One study of the effect of snow compaction on coyotes and lynx in western Montana (Kolbe et al. 2005) found that while coyotes did use packed snowmobile and ski trails in lynx habitat, most of their travel was off-trail, often in areas where snow was shallow or naturally compacted. As well, coyotes acted primarily as scavengers in winter and did not compete significantly with lynx for live prey.

Another recent study in northern Utah (Bunnel 2006, cited in USFS 2007c) found that coyotes stayed relatively close to snowmobile trails (within 350 meters) when snow was deep and prey was common in the trail corridor. The sum of recently completed and ongoing research suggests that lynx and coyote

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 66 populations often coexist on winter range but that there is no good evidence that lynx populations are suffering as a result (USFS 2007b, p. 24). A number of studies have observed also that lynx normally tolerate at least moderate levels of snowmobile traffic through their winter habitats and that they readily use packed snowmobile routes as travelways (Aubry et al. 1999).

The current network of snowmobile trails in the Travel Plan Area (418 miles) is slightly less than what was calculated as part of the “baseline condition” for the CLCAS in 1999-2000 (425 miles). The new Travel Plan would reduce this system of active trails from 418 miles to 403 miles (a decline of 15 miles overall, 6 miles in lynx habitat). Under the current Travel Plan, snowmobiling is a “designated” or an “allowed” use on 341 miles of trail, with another 77 miles of regularly-used trails technically labeled as non-motor routes. Under the new Travel Plan, all snowmobile trails available for use would be specifically designated as such (403 miles). The result in lynx habitat would be an increase of 44 miles of “designated” routes, but an actual decline of 6 miles of trails available for use.

No snowmobile play areas would be designated and no expansion of existing (though non-designated) play areas is foreseen (F. Bailey, personal communication, 2011). The area closed to off-route snowmobiling would be 70,520 acres—more than twice the current condition.

In sum: The Travel Plan would more than double the area off-limits to cross-country snowmobile riding (much of it in lynx habitat), but it would reduce the miles of active snowmobile trails in lynx habitat only to a modest degree. Overall, snowmobile trail patterns would remain much as they are now.

Compliance with NRLMD (Forest Plan) Guidance Attachment 1 in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction ROD (2007b) displays the objectives, standards, and guidelines designed to promote lynx conservation. Objectives are descriptions of desired resource conditions for lynx. Standards are management requirements designed to meet objectives. Guidelines are management actions that, while not required, are normally taken to meet objectives (USFS 2007b, p. 7). Standards and guidelines that deal with the potential effects of travel management on lynx can be found in NRLMD sections addressing “human use projects” (HU), “linkage areas” (LINK), and management applicable to all actions in LAUs (ALL).

Divide Travel Plan compliance with these standards and guidelines is summarized in Table 15. Guidelines HU G6 and HU G8 deal with road upgrading and maintenance: They will apply to future road projects emanating from the Divide Travel Plan but not to this phase of the planning effort. Each of these future projects will be covered by its own analyses prior to implementation. Guidelines HU G7, HU G9, and HU G10 address the placement, design, closure, and reclamation of new roads. Since the Travel Plan does not propose any new road construction, this guidance does not apply—although it may be useful in assessing the effects of closing existing roads. The NRLMD does not provide standards or guidelines that address the density of open roads, motor trails, foot trails, or closed roads [see discussion in NRLMD ROD, p. 26-27].

Standard LINK S1 requires identification of potential lynx highway crossings when planning highway construction or reconstruction in known linkage areas. Likewise, Guideline ALL G1 directs using methods

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 67 that avoid or reduce effects on lynx when constructing or reconstructing highways. Since the Travel Plan does not propose any highway construction or reconstruction, this direction does not apply. The problems that two these standards/guidelines address, however, are relevant in that (1) highway crossings are a problem on U.S. Highway 12, particularly around MacDonald Pass, and (2) one project (by another agency) that may qualify as “highway reconstruction” (the Rimini road project) lies within the Plan Area. These circumstances do not influence the Divide Travel Plan’s compliance with the NRLMD, but they are part of the environmental baseline that needs to be accounted for.

This leaves Guidelines HU G11 and HU G12, which deal with over-the-snow routes and the potential for winter access into lynx habitat by competing carnivores. These guidelines are as follows:

 HU G11. Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This may be calculated on an LAU basis or for a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs.

 HU G12. Winter access for non-recreation special uses and mineral and energy exploration and development should be limited to designated routes or designated over-the-snow routes.

A breakdown of snowmobile routes in the Divide Travel Plan Area is shown in Table 4. Currently, the Plan Area supports 81 miles of roads and trails that have been specifically designated for snowmobile use under the existing Travel Plan [see HNF Visitor Map, 2006; Divide Travel Plan Existing Condition map]. The Travel Plan also allows snowmobile use on any Forest or County road open to highway-legal vehicles, whether or not it is specifically designated as a snowmobile route, as long as the road is (1) unplowed and (2) not within an area closed to snowmobiles. Snowmobilers currently make use of 239 miles of these “allowed” routes—most of which have been in use for decades [Helena NF Recreation files; Helena Snowdrifters Snowmobile Club meetings]. Roughly 45% of the non-specified routes (109 miles) are shown on the map of Snowmobile Routes on the Helena National Forest (Helena Snowdrifters 2003). The new Travel Plan would specifically designate most of these traditional routes as “snowmobile trails”. This represents a shift in status from an allowed use to a specifically designated use. It does not, however, represent an actual increase in the network of packed over-snow routes identified in the 1999-2000 baseline.

In addition to this system of routes on which snowmobile use is specified or allowed by the Travel Plan, a number of roads that technically are “closed to motorized vehicles yearlong” also have been serving as snowmobile trails for the past 2-3 decades. The reasons for the original route restrictions for snowmobiles [which date from the 1970s and 1980s] are unclear, particularly since the areas through which the roads travel are open to cross-country snowmobiling—which means that, in practice, snowmobilers have been permitted to ride next to or between the roads, but are technically forbidden to ride on the roads. In some cases, snowmobilers have established trails adjacent to the roadbeds, but in other cases they have been using the roads themselves.

For the most part, the Helena NF has allowed the unauthorized on-road use to continue in areas where no problems for wildlife or other recreational activity (notably, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing)

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 68 have been evident. Where problems have arisen in the past, the roads and areas around them have been spcifically closed to snowmobiling by means of Special Orders. The new Travel Plan would now legitimize the longstanding snowmobile use on a number of these restricted road systems—and allow the next-to-the-road and cross-country use to move onto the roads. The road systems to be thus designated have been chosen based on historic snowmobile use patterns and the absence of observed resource problems [supporting data coming from longtime field observations by Helena NF recreation and wildlife personnel and discussions with the Helena Snowdrifters Snowmobile Club]. Wheeled vehicles would continue to be excluded year-round.

Changes in designation would result in a reduction of 15 miles of open snowmobile routes in the Travel Plan Area—split about equally between areas north and south of U.S. Highway 12. Within lynx habitat, snowmobiles would be allowed access to 4.7 miles of new trail (in LAUs di-04 and di-06) and would be denied access to 14.3 miles of currently open routes (in LAUs di-01, di-02,di- 04, di-05, and di-06). The net result (Table 14) would be to reduce snowmobile routes in potential lynx habitat by 9.6 miles—the bulk of it in the critical habitat area north of Highway 12 [Maps of snowmobile routes are in Figures 2 and 3].

Table 14. Net change in miles of active snowmobile routes in lynx habitat in the Divide Travel Plan Area—the Plan Area as a whole and in lynx habitat. Changes are relative to current route miles, which are slightly lower than those in the CLCAS “baseline condition” of 1999-2000. The area north of Highway 12 is lynx critical habitat; the area south of the highway is secondary occupied habitat.

Net Change from 1999-2000 Baseline Condition in Miles of Active Lynx Analysis Units Snowmobile Routes in Lynx Habitat in the Plan Area (LAUs) Current Proposed Proposed Net Proposed Net Snowmobile Snowmobile Change in Change in Route Miles Route Miles Plan Area Lynx Habitat North of U.S. Highway 12 LAUs: di-01, di-02, & 202.8 195.5 -7.3 -6.5 di-05 north South of U.S. Highway 12 LAUs: di-03, di-04, di-06, 215.0 207.3 -7.7 -3.1 & di-05 south Total Travel Plan Area 6 LAUs 417.8 402.8 -15.0 -9.6

The new Travel Plan would not produce an on-ground increase in established over-the-snow routes as per NRLMD Guideline HU G11 [right-hand column in Table 13]. The area of snow compaction in lynx habitat would not increase and would not be greater than the baseline level of snow compaction documented for the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (CLCAS) in 1999-2000. At that time, baseline snowmobile route mileage in the Travel Plan Area was calculated at 425 miles. Since then, overall mileage of available routes has decreased slightly to 418 miles—of which roughly 165 miles are in lynx habitat. Under the new Travel Plan, snowmobile route miles in lynx habitat would decrease to about 156 miles. Table 14 shows the changes in LAU groupings, both in core occupied lynx habitat north of U.S. Highway 12 and in secondary occupied habitat south of the highway. Snowmobile route

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 69 miles are only for those portions of the LAUs that fall within Travel Plan Area boundaries. There would obviously be no change in route miles in LAU segments outside those boundaries

The Helena NF has not designated off-route “play areas” for snowmobiles in the Divide landscape; but unless such riding is prohibited by specific area closures, it is allowed—and there is a general understanding as to where these traditional play areas are located. While in most cases, off-trail riding involves play areas near sanctioned trails, there is potential for unauthorized pioneering of routes off into new areas—which could extend the reach of carnivores that compete with lynx. In the Divide landscape, most of this activity is confined to higher elevation meadows, parks, and other breaks in forest cover where snowmobiles have room to maneuver. As a result, almost none of it is in mapped lynx habitat (which is forested). The new Travel Plan does not designate specific play areas or make changes to existing snowmobile routes that would encourage more off-route riding. To the contrary, the Travel Plan proposes to expand the number and size of areas where off-route snowmobile riding is prohibited. As a result, the Plan Area would remain in compliance with the “play area” aspect of Guideline HU G11.

Table 15 summarizes acreages within each LAU closed to off-trail snowmobile riding at present and as proposed in the new Travel Plan [see figures 2 and 3]. Acres in Table 15 have been estimated from Divide Travel Plan maps and rounded to the nearest 5 acres. The snowmobile closure in the MacDonald Pass cross-country ski area (820 acres) in di-05 has not been included since it contains numerous packed over-the-snow routes generated by trail grooming.

TABLE 15. Areas closed to off-route snowmobile riding within lynx analysis units (LAUs) in the Divide Travel Plan Area [acreages rounded to the nearest 5 acres].

Snowmobile Closure Acres within Lynx Analysis Units di-01 di-02 di-03 di-04 di-05 di-06 total Existing Condition 0 0 18,555 1,200 6,580 8,420 34,755 Divide Travel Plan 7,585 8,175 18,555 9,765 18,020 8,420 70,520

Currently, snowmobile area closures cover about 34,755 acres of the Travel Plan Area, of which roughly 70% are estimated to be in potential lynx habitat. The new Travel Plan would more than double the acreage to 70,520 acres, approximately 78% of which would be in lynx habitat. Under the Divide Travel Plan, more than 75% of the area closures would be south of U.S. Highway 12. This is the part of the Divide landscape that the NRLMD classifies as “secondary” occupied lynx habitat—but it is the part of the landscape where most of the verified lynx observations have been made in the last 8 years. So, the proposed increase in the area off-limits to over-snow riding should be of real benefit to animals on the ground.

As to Guideline HU G12, the Travel Plan does not address access for special uses or mineral/ energy exploration and development. The Helena NF deals with proposals for these activities via a special use permitting process. So, this guideline does not apply to Travel Plan proposals.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 70

Table 15 [following pages] summarizes the rationale for Divide Travel Plan compliance with potentially relevant standards and guidelines of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA 2007b, Attachment 1, p. 1-9)—and thus, compliance with the Helena Forest Plan. As discussed above, the Travel Plan complies with all pertinent guidance in the NRLMD.

Table 16. Compliance of the proposed Divide Travel Plan with applicable standards of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. With this management direction having been amended into the Helena Forest Plan, the results summarized here also serve as Forest Plan compliance.

NRLMD Standard or Standard / Guideline Requirement Does Travel Plan Meet the Standard/Guideline? Guideline

The standard is met: The Divide Travel Plan does not propose upgrading any currently paved Forest Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx roads, nor does it propose paving any existing should be used in lynx habitat when gravel roads. upgrading paved roads to maintenance County Road #695 (the Rimini Road)—a much- used gravel thoroughfare within HNF administrative HU G6 levels 4 or 5, if the result would be boundaries in the Tenmile Creek drainage—is increased traffic speeds and volumes, or a currently being upgraded and paved. This project foreseeable contribution to increases in has been developed by the Federal Highway human activity or development. Administration and is not part of the Divide Travel Plan. But it does contribute to environmental baseline impacts within LAU di-05.

The standard is met: The Divide Travel Plan does not propose to construct any new roads, temporary New permanent roads should not be built or permanent. On the contrary, it proposes closing on ridge-tops and saddles or in areas 156 miles of existing open roads. identified as important for lynx habitat The Plan does propose establishing approximately HU G7 1 mile of new authorized motor trail, split between 2 connectivity. New permanent roads and locations. Both trail segments would follow existing trails should be situated away from road beds or user-made trails and would not forested stringers. traverse saddles, ridgetops, forested stringers, or other sites identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity.

The standard is met: The Travel Plan does not Cutting brush along low-speed, low traffic- include proposals for brush cutting or other road maintenance activities. It only indicates which HU G8 volume roads should be done to minimum roads and motor trails will be open to motorized level necessary to provide for public safety. use, what type of vehicles will be allowed on those routes, and when they will be open.

On new roads built for projects, public motorized use should be restricted. Effective closures should be provided in The standard is met: The Divide Travel Plan adjusts motorized use restrictions on existing HU G9 road designs. When the project is over, roads, but it does not propose construction of any these roads should be reclaimed or new roads. decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 71

NRLMD Standard or Standard / Guideline Requirement Does Travel Plan Meet the Standard/Guideline? Guideline

The standard is met: The Divide Travel Plan Area contains one developed cross-country ski area—at When developing or expanding ski areas MacDonald Pass. The Travel Plan, however, does and trails, consider locating access roads not propose any changes to the trail system or its HU G10 and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx access route. security habitat, if it has been identified as The Great Divide Ski Area—a major downhill ski a need. development—is located about 2 miles north of the Travel Plan Area boundary, but it has no connection to the Divide Travel Plan.

Designated over-the-snow routes or designated play areas should not expand The standard is met: Under the Travel Plan, the net mileage of over-the-snow routes would decline outside baseline areas of consistent snow slightly in LAUs both north and south of U.S. compaction, unless designation serves to Highway 12 (the decline totaling about 10 miles). In consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. 2 LAUs south of Highway 12 (di-04, di06) This may be calculated on an LAU basis, snowmobiling would be allowed along previously undesignated roadbeds, totaling about 4 ½ miles. HU G11 or on a combination of immediately Both of these trail expansions would fall within the adjacent LAUs. orbit of the current snowmobile trail system in those This does not apply inside permitted ski areas. Route closures elsewhere in these LAUs area boundaries, to winter logging, to would lower net trail reach by about 3 miles. rerouting trails for public safety, to Area snowmobile closures (both on- and off-trail) throughout the Travel Plan Area would increase accessing private inholdings, or to access from around 35,000 acres to over 70,000 acres. regulated by Guideline HU G12.

Winter access for non-recreation special The standard is met: Winter access for non- uses and mineral and energy exploration recreational special uses and energy exploration is HU G12 and development should be limited to handled by the HNF special use permitting designated routes or designated over-the- process. The Divide Travel Plan does not deal with snow routes. special use permits.

Standard is met as it fits within The standard is met: The Divide Travel Plan the exceptions listed for VEG When highway or forest highway does not propose any highway or Forest road S6. Multi-story habitat will be construction or reconstruction is proposed construction or reconstruction. LINK S1 impacted within 200 feet of The Plan does propose reducing the existing in linkage areas, identify potential highway administrative sites and open road system by 156 miles: some of these crossings. recreation sites. Along roads to be closed traverse linkage areas. roadsides, salvage of dead and

The guideline is met: The Divide Travel Plan does Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx not propose constructing or reconstructing any should be used when constructing or highways or Federal highways on HNF land. reconstructing highways or forest highways The only highway within the Travel Plan Area that ALL G1 would benefit from wildlife crossing enhancement is across federal land. Methods could include U.S. Highway 12. Projects to deal with linkage in fencing, underpasses, or overpasses. this area have been discussed, but would need to be undertaken in the future separately from the Divide Travel Plan.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 72

Compliance with Critical Habitat Requirements Effects on critical habitat are assessed in terms of the impact that each alternative has on the 4 primary constituent elements (PCEs) associated with “boreal forest landscapes” that are capable of supporting lynx (Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, p. 8638). PCEs apply both to suitable (mapped) lynx habitat in the area north of U.S. Highway 12 and to “matrix habitat” that surrounds and connects areas of suitable habitat in that area. Characteristics of PCEs and potential effects of the Travel Plan are as follows:

 PCE (a). “Preferred habitat conditions, which include dense understories of young trees, shrubs or, overhanging boughs that protrude above the snow, and mature multistoried stands with conifer boughs touching the snow surface”.

Effects: The Travel Plan would have no effect on this PCE since it does not propose to alter forest vegetation. Any indirect effects—such as might come from firewood cutting in open road corridors—would have no measurable effect on dense understory vegetation.

 PCE (b). “Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods”.

Effects: The Travel Plan would influence this element by allowing snow-compacting activity— primarily snowmobiling—in occupied winter lynx habitat. The Plan would reduce sanctioned net snowmobile use in critical lynx habitat by approximately 10 miles, but most of the current snowmobile route system would remain intact. No new snowmobile play areas would be designated. Areas closed to all snowmobile use (on- and off-trail) would increase from around 35,000 acres to over 70,000 acres.

 PCE (c). “Sites for denning that have abundant coarse woody debris, such as downed trees and root wads”.

Effects: Travel management affects this element indirectly by maintaining open roads in potential lynx habitat that allow firewood cutters to remove snags and woody debris that might, in special circumstances, contribute to lynx denning. The Travel Plan would reduce open road mileage in critical lynx habitat by roughly 21%.

 PCE (d). “Matrix habitat (not supporting hares) that occurs between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition such that lynx are likely to travel though such habitat while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range”.

Effects: The Travel Plan would not directly affect matrix habitat because it does not propose to alter vegetation or other habitat components. There would be no new road construction. The Plan would reduce road density in matrix habitat in LAUs that support critical lynx habitat (LAUs di-01, di-02, and the northern portion of di-05).

The effects generated by the Divide Travel Plan would not result in “adverse modification” of critical lynx habitat. It would allow “the affected critical habitat to remain functional…to serve the intended conservation role for the species” (Federal Register, Vol.74, No. 36, p. 8644).

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 73

Cumulative Effects As with grizzly bears, cumulative effects for lynx are those generated by “future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area…” Cumulative effects associated with activities on Federal lands are displayed as part of the “Environmental Baseline” in Appendix A.

Within this restricted scope of State and private activity, future effects could occur in numerous blocks of private inholdings within HNF boundaries, in the Action Area—most of them likely to be relatively small individually (salvage logging, local mining, access roads, house construction, and so on).

Among larger projects, the Rimini Road (County Road #695) improvement project along Tenmile Creek, is a hybrid enterprise overseen by the Federal Highway Administration, partly on private land, partly on the National Forest. The initial stages of the project are already underway, with primary disruptive activity to follow over the next 2 years—involving road widening, paving, and bridge construction. None of this activity would impact habitat useful to lynx. Also in the Tenmile drainage, is a long-term program to maintain a 200 ft-wide non-forest/open-forest corridor along the Red Mountain Flume, portions of which are on private land, others on the National Forest. Most of these sites are in potential lynx habitat, but will be maintained in a condition that is unlikely to support snowshoe hares in winter.

No large-scale activities—mining operations, subdivisions, recreational developments—are currently proposed for private or state lands in or adjacent to the action area. But it is certain, that the gradual, ongoing development of these lands will continue, including the addition of dwellings, access roads, and all manner of human activity associated with them. While locally disruptive, these developments will remain too fragmented in their distribution within the continuum of forested lands to serve as a barrier to lynx dispersing through or establishing home ranges in this part of the landscape.

In recent decades, many of the private lands within and adjacent to the National Forest have been heavily logged and roaded. Forest regeneration has been erratic and often anemic, and these habitat changes have thus reduced potential habitat opportunities for lynx in terms of diminished denning habitat, foraging habitat (winter snowshoe hare habitat), and forested travel lanes. Because so much of the available holdings have already been harvested, prospects for future activity are relatively minor, although on some inholdings, removal of beetle-killed trees remains a possibility.

Lynx: Summary and Determination of Effects  The Divide Travel Plan Area occupies 76% of the 233,088-acre Divide Landscape on the Helena Ranger District. The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) has identified the Divide Landscape as “occupied” lynx habitat: the northern portion of the Landscape—north of U.S.Highway 12—is classified as “core” occupied habitat and the southern portion as “secondary” occupied habitat. The northern Landscape is also identified as “critical” lynx habitat. Approximately 41% of the Travel Plan Area supports habitat with the potential for long- term lynx occupancy (potential lynx habitat). Over the past 20 years, lynx have been observed in all 6 LAUs of the Divide Landscape. Over the past decade, systematic tracking surveys have

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 74

consistently found lynx in LAUs di-02, di-04, and di-05 along the Divide, and DNA analysis has indicated that some of these animals have been present over multiple years. Because of its strategic location astride the Continental Divide, the Landscape also serves as a north-south conduit for transient animals. The current population of resident and transient lynx is small, but persistent.

 The Divide Travel Plan Area currently supports 415 miles of open roads and 35 miles of motor trails (open route density = 1.6 mi/mi²). While the NRLMD does not have a standard or guideline addressing open road density as a limiting factor for lynx, an open road system of this magnitude limits the amount of habitat free from human disturbance available to lynx (compared to what would be available in a wildland setting). Some open roads in the Plan Area run along ridges, pass through saddles, and traverse other key terrain that provide habitat linkage for lynx. In winter, the Plan Area supports 418 miles of active snowmobile routes that the NRLMD indicates may serve as compacted pathways into snowbound lynx habitat for competing carnivores. The existing transportation system in the Divide Travel Plan Area is thus having an effect on lynx in terms of how they are able to occupy the landscape.

 The Divide Travel Plan proposes no new construction, improvement, or maintenance of any roads on the National Forest. It does propose construction of 2 sections of motor trail, totalling about 1 mile. These routes would follow existing user-made tracks and would not involve alteration of vegetation useful to lynx.

 The Divide Travel Plan would reduce the potential for human interference into serveral parts of the Landscape by decreasing the reach of the open road system by 156 miles—from 415 miles to 260 miles. This would allow large non-motorized habitat blocks in the Plan Area to expand from a total of 106,135 acres to 127,125 acres. It would also reduce the presence of open roads in linkage habitat—both regionally through Divide linkage zone and locally between blocks of suitable habitat.

 With regard to NRLMD direction to not increase over-the-snow routes or snowmobile play areas outside baaseline areas of consistent snow compaction, the Travel Plan would slightly decrease the net mileage of active snowmobile trails both north and south of Highway 12 (by about 10 miles total). In 2 areas south of the highway where snowmobile access would expand slightly, the new routes would remain within the sphere of the existing open trail system. These new opportunities would be offset by route closures elsewhere south of the highway. Also, the area off-limits to all snowmobile riding would expand from around 34,750 acres to more than 70,500 acres. The Travel Plan thus complies with the snow compaction guidance of the NRLMD.

 Implementation of the Travel Plan would involve no direct alteration of vegetation in lynx habitat or in surrounding matrix habitat, and thus would comply with all standards and guidelines for vegetation management in the NRLMD.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 75

 Effects generated by the Travel Plan would not result in “adverse modification” of critical lynx habitat: It would allow all “affected critical habitat to remain functional…to serve the intended conservation role for the species”. That is, it would preserve the integrity of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical lynx habitat.

 Implementation of the Plan would not allow expansion of existing patterns of livestock use, and thus would comply with grazing guidelines of the NRLMD. The Plan would comply with with all standards and guidelines of the NRLMD that relate to road and trail construction, improvement, and maintenance; management of linkage areas; and snow compaction by snowmobiling and other winter recreation or management activities.

Consequently, it is the determination of this Biological Assessment that the proposed Divide Travel Plan may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx.

Recommendations for Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating for Adverse Effects No measures for dealing with potential adverse effects on lynx are needed beyond those already included in project design.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 76

REFERENCES Apps, C.D., B.N. McLellan, J.G. Woods, and M.F. Proctor. 2004. Estimating Grizzly Bear Distribution and Abundance Relative to Habitat and Human Influence. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1): 138-152.

Aubry, K.B., G.M. Koehler, and J.R. Squires. 1999. Ecology of Canada Lynx in Southern Boreal Forests. Pages 373-396 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (editors). Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrsgtr030.htmL

Brainerd, S.M. 1985. Reproductive Ecology of Bobcats and Lynx in Western Montana. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.

Buskirk, S.W., L.F. Ruggiero, and C.J. Krebs. 1999a. Habitat Fragmentation and Interspecific Competition: Implications for Lynx Conservation. Pages 83-100 (Chapter 4) in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (Technical Editors). Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrsgtr030.pdf

Buskirk, S.W., L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, D.E. Pearson, J.R. Squires, and K.S. McKelvey. 1999b. Comparative Ecology of Lynx in North America. Pages 397-418 (Chapter 14) in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (Technical Editors). Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrsgtr030.pdf

Craighead, J.C., J.S. Sumner, and J.A. Mitchell. 1995. The Grizzly Bears of Yellowstone: Their Ecology in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1959-1992. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Dood, A.R., S.J. Atkinson, and V.J. Boccardori. 2006. Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 2006-2016. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena MT. www.fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/grizzlyBear/managementPlan.html

Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana, 2nd Edition. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, MT.

Gehman, S. 2006. Wildlife Surveys in the MacDonald Pass Area Conducted during Winter 2005-2006 by Wild Things Unlimited: Summary of Efforts and Findings. Report to the Helena NF. Wild Things Unlimited, Bozeman, MT.

Gehman, S. 2015. Winter Wildlife Surveys in the Little Prickly Pear Creek Area of the Helena National Forest. Report to the Helena NF. Wild Things Unlimited, Bozeman, MT.

Gehman, S. and A. Jakes. 2007. Winter Wildlife Tracking Surveys in the MacDonald Pass Area, January – March 2007. Report to the Helena NF. Wild Things Unlimited, Bozeman, MT.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 77

Gehman, S., A. Jakes, and B. Robinson. 2008. Winter Wildlife Tracking Surveys in the MacDonald Pass Area, Year Three, Dec. 2007–Mar. 2008. Report to the Helena NF. Wild Things Unlimited, Bozeman, MT.

Gehman, S., B. Robinson, and M. Porco. 2009. Winter Wildlife Surveys in the MacDonald Pass Area, Year Four, December 2008 – Mar. 2009. Report to the Helena NF. Wild Things Unlimited, Bozeman, MT.

Gehman, S., B. Robinson, and M. Porco. 2010. Snow-Tracking Surveys on the Helena National Forest December 2010 – April 2011. Report to the Helena NF. Wild Things Unlimited, Bozeman, MT.

Gehman, S., B. Robinson, G. Treinish, and K. Baughan. 2011. Snow-Tracking Surveys on the Helena National Forest, Dec. 2009–Mar. 2010. Report to the Helena NF. Wild Things Unlimited, Bozeman, MT.

Gehman, S., K. Baughan, and B. Robinson. 2015. Rare carnivore surveys on the Helena National Forest, summer and fall 2014. Report to the Helena NF, March 2015. Wild Things Unlimited, Bozeman, MT.

Hegg, S.J., K. Murphy, and Dan Bjornlie. 2010. Grizzly Bears and Snowmobile Use: A Summary of Monitoring a Grizzly Den on Togwotee Pass. Yellowstone Science 18 (2): 23-28.

IGBC (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee). 1986. Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines. U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Washington Game Department. www.igbconline.org/IGBC Guidelines.pdf

IGBC (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee). 1998. Taskforce Report: Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management. Approved 1994, revised 1998. USDA, Forest Service. Missoula, MT.

Jonkel, C. 1978. Black, Brown (Grizzly), and Polar Bears. Pages 227-248 in J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert (compilers and editors). Big Game of North America (revised 1980). Stackpole Books, Hassisburg, PA.

Jonkel, J. 2007-2015. Personal communication. Phone conversations with and E-mail reports from Jamie Jonkel, Grizzly Bear Management Specialist. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Missoula, MT.

Kendall, K.C., J.B. Stetz, J. Boulanger, A.C. McLeod, D. Paetkau, and G.C. White. 2009. Demography and Genetic Structure of a Recovering Grizzly Bear Population. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 3-16.

Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and Habitat Characteristics of Lynx and Snowshoe Hares in North Central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 845-851.

Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing Spruce-Fir Habitat for Lynx and Snowshoe Hares. Journal of Forestry. 10: 10-14.

Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Pages 74-98 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski (tech. editors). The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores—American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine—in the Western United States. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Report RM-254. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr254/rm_gtr254_074_098.pdf

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 78

Kolbe, J.A., J.R. Squires, D.L. Pletscher, and L.F. Ruggiero 2005. The effect of snowmobile trails on coyote movements within lynx home ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 71 (5): 1409-1418.

Kosterman, M.K. 2014. Correlates of Canada Lynx Reproductive Success in Northwestern Montana. MS Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. http://scholarworks.umt.edu/edt/4363/

Mace, R.D. 2014. Findings from ongoing grizzly bear research in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. A presentation to Forest Service biologists and resource managers of unpublished research data. February 21, 2014. Flathead National Forest Supervisors Office, Kalispell, MT.

Mace, R.D. and C.J. Jonkel. 1986. Local Food Habits of the Grizzly Bear in Montana. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 76: 119-128.

Mace, R.D. and T.L. Manley. 1993. South Fork Flathead River Grizzly Bear Project: Progress Report for 1992.

Mace, R.D. and J.S. Waller. 1998. Demography and Population Trend of Grizzly Bears in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Conservation Biology 12 (5): 1005-1016.

Mace, R.D., D.W. Carney, T. Chilton-Radandt, S.A. Courville, M.A. Haroldson, R.B. Harris, J. Jonkel, B. McClellan, M. Madel, T.L. Manley, C.C. Schwartz, C. Servheen, G. Stenhouse, J.R. Waller, and E. Wenum. 2011. Grizzly Bear Population Vital Rates and Trend in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 9999: 1-10.

Mace, R.D. and L.L. Roberts. 2012a. Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Monitoring Team Annual Report, 2011. Unpublished data. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Kalispell, MT. http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/grizzlyBear/monitoring.html

Mace, R.D. and L.L. Roberts. 2012b. Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Monitoring Team Annual Report, 2013. Unpublished data. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Kalispell, MT. http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/grizzlyBear/monitoring.html

Mace, R.D. and L.L. Roberts. 2013. Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Monitoring Team Annual Report, 2011. Unpublished data. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Kalispell, MT. http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/grizzlyBear/monitoring.html

Maletzke, B.T., G.M. Koehler, R.B. Wielgus, K.B. Aubry, and M.A. Evans. 2007. Habitat Conditions Associated with Lynx Hunting Behavior during Winter in Northern Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (7): 1473-1478.

McClellan, B.N. and R.D. Mace. 1985. Behavior of Grizzly Bears in Response to Roads, Seismic Activity, and People. Preliminary Report, Canadian Border Grizzly Project, Cranbrook, BC.

McClellan, B.N. and D.M. Shackleton. 1989. Immediate Reactions of Grizzly Bears to Human Activities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 269-274.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 79

McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, J.K. Agee, S.W. Buskirk, L.F. Ruggiero, and G.M. Koehler. 1999. Lynx Conservation in an Ecosystem Management Context. Pages 419-441 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. (technical editors). Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO.

Mowat, G., K.G. Poole, and M. O’Donoghue. 1999. Ecology of Lynx in the Northern Cascades and Alaska. Pages 265-306 (Chapter 9) in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (Technical Editors). Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR- 30WWW. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrsgtr030.pdf

Nellis, C.H. 1989. Lynx. Pages 123-124 in Rare, Sensitive, and Threatened Species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage Program, the Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services.

Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest Habitat Types of Montana. USDA, Forest Service General Technical Report INT-34. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT.

Pilgrim, K. 2009. DNA Analysis: Helena National Forest Carnivore Surveys Conducted by Wild Things Unlimited—Winter 2008-2009. Unpublished report. USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mtn. Research Station. Missoula, MT.

Pilgrim, K. 2010. DNA Analysis: Helena National Forest and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Carnivore Surveys Conducted by Wild Things Unlimited—Winter 2009-2010. Unpublished report. USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mtn. Research Station. Missoula, MT.

Pilgrim, K. and M. Schwartz. 2007. DNA Analysis: Snow Track Surveys by Wild Things Unlimited, Helena National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Stn. Missoula, MT.

Pilgrim, K. and M. Schwartz. 2008. DNA Analysis: Helena National Forest 2008 Lynx (Lynx canadensis) and Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Snow Track Survey Results. Unpublished report. USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. Missoula, MT.

Ruediger, R., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, R. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wegner, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. www.fs.fed.us./r1/planning/lynx.html

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski (technical editors). 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Report RM-254. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr254/rm_gtr254_007_037.pdf

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 80

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (editors). 1999. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR- 30WWW. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrsgtr030.html

Schwartz, C.C., S.D. Miller, and M.A. Haroldson. 2003. Grizzly Bear. Pages 556-586 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (editors). Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. 2nd edition. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.

Servheen, C., J.S. Waller, and P. Sandstrom. 2003. Identification and Management of Linkage Zones for Wildlife between the Large Blocks of Public Lands in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Updated July 8, 2003. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. www.cfc.umt.edu/research/MFCES/programs/GrizzlyBearRecovery/Linkages_Report_2003.pdf

Squires, J.R. 2010. Population viability analysis of 2 lynx populations in western Montana. Unpublished draft report. On file. Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

Squires, J.R., N.J. DeCesare, J.A. Kolbe, and L.F. Ruggiero. 2010. Seasonal Resource Selection of Canada Lynx in Managed Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (8): 1648-1660.

Squires, J.R. and T. Laurion. 1999. Lynx Home Range and Movements in Montana and Wyoming: Preliminary Results . Pages 337-350 (Chapter 11) in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (Technical Editors). Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrsgtr030.pdf

Squires, J.R., N.J. DeCesare, L.E. Olson, M. Hebblewhite, and S.A. Parks. 2013. Combining Resource Selection and Movement Behavior to Predict Corridors for Canada Lynx at their Southern Range Periphery. Biological Conservation 157: 187-195.

Swenson, J.E., F. Sandegren, S. Brunberg, and P. Wabakken. 1997. Winter Den Abandonment by Brown Bears, Ursus arctos: Causes and Consequences. Wildlife Biology 3: 35-38.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1986. Helena Forest Plan. Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Biological Assessment for Grizzly Bears inside the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and in the Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone. Unpublished agency document, on file. Helena National Forest. Helena, MT.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2006. R1 Vegetation Council Classification Algorithms (updated 2006). Unpublished agency document, on file. Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 81

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2007a. Map: Northern Rockies Lynx Planning Area, Occupied and Unoccupied Lynx Habitat. February 2007. Forest Service Region 1, Missoula, MT. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/reports/feisfinal/lynxhab21x27feb07occupied linkages.pdf

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2007b. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Record of Decision. March 2007. Forest Service Region 1, Missoula, MT. www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/documents.html

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2007c. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Final Environmental Impact Statement—volume 1. March 2007. Forest Service Region 1, Missoula, MT. www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/documents.html

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2007d. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Summary. March 2007. Forest Service Region 1, Missoula, MT. www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/reports/feisfinal/02_summary.pdf

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2007e. R1 Multi-level Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis System. USDA, Forest Service, Region 1, Forest and Range Management, Missoula, MT.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2009. Criteria for Wildlife Habitat Models, Helena National Forest Version, June 2009. Unpublished agency document, on file. Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2013. Biological Assessment for Grizzly Bears on the West Side of the Helena National Forest. Unpublished agency document, on file. Helena National Forest. Helena, MT.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2015a. Divide Travel Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. April 23, 2015. Helena Ranger District, Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2015b. Divide Travel Plan Draft Record of Decision. April 23, 2015. Helena Ranger District, Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2001. Off-highway Vehicle Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and portions of South Dakota. On file, Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Denver, CO.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Helena National Forest Plan on Grizzly Bears. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. June 6, 2008. USFWS Montana Field Office, Helena, MT.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Draft Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. Draft document available online. www.fws.gov/endangered/species/recovery-plans.html

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 82

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014a. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Helena National Forest Plan on Grizzly Bears. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. February 19, 2014. USFWS Montana Field Office, Helena, MT.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014b. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary, Final Rule. Federal Register, Sept. 12, 2014. vol. 79, no. 177: 54782- 54846.

Walker, R. and L. Craighead. 1997. Analyzing Wildlife Movement Corridors in Montana Using GIS. Report No. 11, American Wildlands. http://www.wildlands.org

Walker, R. and L. Craighead. 1998. Corridors: Key to Wildlife from Yellowstone to Yukon. Pages 113- 121 in L. Wilcox, B. Robinson, A. Harvey (editors). A Sense of Place: An Atlas of Issues, Attitudes, and Resources in the Yellowstone to Yukon Ecoregion. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. Cranmore, Alberta.

Wielgus, R.B., P.R. Vernier, and T. Schivatcheva. 2002. Grizzly Bear Use of Open, Closed, and Restricted Forestry Roads. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1597-1606.

/s/ Brenton Costain

Brent Costain Wildlife Biologist, Helena National Forest

July 30, 2015

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 83

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

(although, because of this statement, it isn’t really blank anymore)

APPENDIX A Environmental Baseline:

An Accounting of Past and Ongoing Human-Generated Actions and Circumstances that May Affect Threatened Species in the Action Area

INTRODUCTION As defined under 50 CFR 402.02, the environmental baseline includes (1) the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and human activities in the “action area”, (2) the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and (3) the impacts of State and private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation process.

The basic elements of the natural environment that make up the environmental baseline have been described in previous sections dealing with habitat and population status for both the lynx and grizzly bear. This section catalogues human activities that have modified or are in the process of modifying that basic environment.

ACTION AREA The overall action area for the project includes all areas directly or indirectly affected by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). Action areas for the federally listed species are selected based upon known past and present occurrences, potential future occurrences, home range sizes, the ability of the species to move across the landscape, prey availability, seasonal use, recovery objectives and guidelines, and other applicable management considerations.

The action areas defined earlier in this report will also be used to assess the environmental baseline. The areas are slightly different for lynx and grizzly bears. The action area for lynx is the entire Divide Landscape from the Lincoln Ranger District boundary in the north to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF boundary in the south—an area of 233,088 acres within Helena NF administrative boundaries. This area encompasses 6 lynx analysis units (LAUs)—di-01 through di-06 [Figures 5 and 6]. This area also defines the Helena RD portion of the Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone. The grizzly bear action area, however, also adds the 1.5 mile extension out onto private and other non-forest land beyond the administrative boundary shown in Figure 4.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 2

In assessing the influence of the baseline, I also included some activities on neighboring lands outside the core action areas if they seemed to hold particular potential to affect lynx or grizzly bears on the National Forest.

SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ENTERPRISES THAT HAVE SHAPED THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT Prior to the arrival of eastern explorers and settlers, local Indian tribes modified wildlife environments along the Continental Divide and in adjacent foothills and valleys by setting fires, establishing seasonal encampments, grazing horses (beginning in the early 1700s), and through a variety of small-scale undertakings (cutting trees and shrubs, mining trees for pitch, harvesting herbaceous vegetation, diverting stream flow). Most of these habitat alterations produced impacts that, for wildlife, were localized or of low intensity. However, the fires that they set with some frequency—primarily in dry low-elevation forests and grasslands—were important in shaping the character of wildlife habitats (Barret and Arno 1999, page 62; Knight 1989, pages 68-71, 90). In addition, it has been theorized that in many areas, Indian hunters acted as keystone predators, shaping the size and distribution of big game populations to a significant degree (Kay 2001, page 236; Kay 1998, pages 485-487).

The first consequential change in the wildlife resource produced by the intrusion of Euro-American influences was the trapping out of the beaver. Beavers were prolific on both sides of the Continental Divide in the early 1800s (Knight 1989, page 90). But by the 1840s, beaver populations were in sharp decline, and gradually, the riparian habitats over which they had exerted such profound influence became smaller, less productive, and less diverse. By the 1930s, beaver populations in the Little Blackfoot and Dog Creek drainages had recovered partially, but poaching was a problem (Harris 1935, page 4). Beavers are present today at various sites throughout the greater Little Blackfoot watershed west of the Divide and in scattered streams east of the Divide; but their influence on wildlife habitats in these drainages remains far less than in the 19th century.

Broad-scale deviation from historic “natural” patterns began in the 1870s as mining activity and settlement radiated out from Helena and over the Divide. Several mining centers developed east of the Divide, including Helena itself, Unionville, Clancy, and Rimini. West of the Divide, the center of activity was the town of Elliston. The primary enterprises that have reshaped wildlife habitats and wildlife populations in the southern Divide landscape and in the adjacent valleys include the following:

 Road construction (for mining, logging, and general access) and subsequent road maintenance— resulting in modification of streams, usurpation of terrestrial wildlife habitat, and ready human access to otherwise effective wildlife habitat;  Construction and periodic upgrading of major connecting highways, most notably, U.S. Highway 12 over MacDonald Pass;  Local railroad line construction in the late 1800s for logging and mine hauling;  Construction (in 1883) and maintenance of the mainline route of the Northern Pacific Railway (now, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe) over Mullan Pass;

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 3

 Irrigation and small impoundments, often over-simplifying once diverse riparian and aquatic habitats;  Mining operations—beginning in the 1860’s east of the Divide and the 1870s west of the Divide, with some continuing into recent decades (major operations around Marysville, Helena, Unionville, Wickes, Rimini on the east side; Charter Oak, Ontario, Negros, Monarch, Carbonate King, Sure Thing, Orphan Boy, Julia, Golden Anchor, and Kimball mines, among others on the west side; numerous small, defunct diggings and placer workings widespread at all elevations);  New mining operations—most of them small, ephemeral enterprises initiated by individuals under the 1872 Mining Act, but one notably large industrial mining complex at the Montana Tunnels open pit mine (1986) east of the action areas on Clancy Creek;  Domestic livestock grazing on public land (initially sheep and horses, then cattle)—extensive and unregulated from the late 1800s up through the mid-1900s, tapering off significantly since the 1950s;  Timber harvest—initially, drainage-wide clearcutting in a majority of the watersheds on both sides of the Divide; more limited cutting after 1905; and then, periodic commercial harvest (mostly clearcutting) from the 1960s to the present;  Large fires in the late 19th century, most notably in the Little Blackfoot drainage where more than 60% of the forest in the upper watershed burned [see Little Blackfoot Watershed Analysis 2002, figure 2-6] ;  Fire suppression (particularly effective since 1910), resulting in significant shifts in the structure and distribution of forest and grassland habitats from typical pre-settlement conditions in the Divide landscape (the only one of the 4 Helena NF landscapes to have escaped large wildfires over the last 25 years) [see, for example, Little Blackfoot Watershed Analysis 2002, figure 4-1];  Trapping, hunting, and general killing of wildlife—resulting in sharp reduction or extirpation of key species and radical shifts in population structure, behavior, and habitat use patterns of others (beaver, wolves, grizzly bears, bighorn sheep, bison, elk, and mule deer, among others);  Widespread dispersed recreation, including hiking, camping, fishing, wildlife viewing, cross- country skiing, mountain biking, snowmobiling, OHV riding—resulting in varying degrees of disturbance to local wildlife and, in some cases, undesirable modification of wildlife habitats;

 Development of a few recreation sites that concentrate human activity (Moose Creek campground, Cromwell Dixon campground, MacDonald Pass cross-country ski trails, the Mt Helena National Recreation Trail, groomed snowmobile routes), resulting in local disruption of wildlife but in somewhat predictable patterns;  Dispersed settlement, initially associated with scattered homesteads and mining claims, now resurrected as rural homes and ranches on Forest inholdings and along the Forest boundary (most notably along the Little Blackfoot, lower Ontario Creek, upper Telegraph Creek, Tenmile Creek, Buffalo/Travis Creeks, and the gulches and foothills southwest of Helena). It should be noted that this latter-day pattern of isolated residences is much less impactive than the circumstances of the late 19th and early 20th century when mining operations were booming and settlement and industrial activity was widespread throughout what is now National Forest on both sides of the Divide.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 4

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: HISTORIC ACTIVITIES (PRIOR TO 1950)

Description of the Human Activity Historic Activities Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature

Logging in the 19th & early 20th centuries Stands of this age are the most extensive (to provide fuel & building material for the source of mature forest cover for lynx and railroads, mines, local businesses & grizzly bears. A majority, however, exhibit homes) removed most large trees from relatively “clean” understories, with little large Historic Timber tens of thousands of acres. Today, most of woody debris, understory regeneration, or Harvest these sites are occupied by 90-130 year- productive ground vegetation. Mtn pine beetles old conifer stands. Most are moderately are now opening up many of these stands (any dense mature stands, although some in the with a pine component) & generating abundant upper Little Blackfoot are very dense, downfall—which, with more understory stagnant sapling-pole stands. vegetation, will diversify these forest habitats.

Roads built for early settlement, mining, & access to resources have provided the Establishment of the road network has been a foundation for an extensive road network primary factor limiting the effectiveness of today. Some are abandoned, but many otherwise suitable habitat for grizzly bears in Past Road remain—facilitating widespread motorized the Divide landscape. Lynx are less Construction access to public & private lands. Some, predisposed to avoid open roads, but they too such as the Rimini, Mullan Pass, Priest prefer unroaded enclaves. In addition, roads Pass, Lump Gulch, Grizzly Gulch, & have provided trappers with manageable routes Telegraph Roads are well-used through- into lynx habitat in winter. routes or conduits onto the National Forest.

th Historically, protection of overly abundant Until mid 20 century, most ranges were livestock on public lands was a primary overstocked with cattle, sheep, & horses, incentive for removing grizzly bears from the creating severe competition for native ecosystem. Substantially lower stocking Historic Livestock grazers. Vegetative diversity & biomass in numbers and more modest distribution make Grazing grass/forb communities declined. In recent cattle-bear conflicts much less likely today. decades lower stocking, rest/rotation Impacts on lynx stemmed from livestock grazing, & more effective oversight have degradation of riparian vegetation—much of reversed these trends on most sites. which has been or is being been remedied.

In the late 1800’s & early 1900’s, populations of most game animals, Grizzly bears and lynx were essentially furbearers, and predators were decimated extirpated from the Divide landscape by the Extirpation & by subsistence hunting & trapping or by early 20th century. While historic population Recovery of Game shooting to protect livestock. Today, most distribution & densities of these species in the Animals and have returned via reintroduction or natural local landscape is unknown, it is certain that Furbearers recovery. Species still at sub-optimal they remain below what they were in the 19th levels include: grizzly bear, wolf, wolverine, century & below what current habitats are lynx, fisher, marten, beaver, & bighorn capable of supporting. sheep.

Pervasive past mining has altered local Historic mining operations displaced grizzlies & topography & stream-flow, generated lynx from otherwise suitable habitat because of erosion, & left toxic waste. Historic mining their size, abundance, & the degree to which districts in the action area include the upper they used up local resources—in particular, Historic Mining Telegraph-Ontario, Tenmile, Unionville, timber. Some abandoned operations continue Operations and Marysville complexes (parts of Tenmile to exert a certain degree of local impact and Marysville still being active). Remains because of toxic wastes filtering into riparian of small surface mines & exploration are areas. Large impactive mining operations are scattered across the landscape. uncommon in the landscape today.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 5

Description of the Human Activity Historic Activities Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature

Primary water impoundments in the action area are associated with municipal water supply & irrigation storage in the Tenmile & Lump Gulch drainages. In particular, Park Water impoundments, though uncommon, have Water Lake & Chessman Reservoir have usurped productive high elevation riparian/ Impoundments & transformed basin-head wetlands into small wetland habitat useful to both species. The Irrigation Projects lakes. Irrigation ditches have altered effect remains localized & is not widespread. stream-flow patterns to some degree in most major drainages, channeling flow & restricting the influence of riparian zones.

In the late 19th & early 20th centuries, As with roads & mining operations, human human activity associated with mining & settlement across the Divide landscape & general settlement was widespread. adjacent areas was a key factor in displacing Local Settlement, Current human presence: heavy lynx and grizzly bears from preferred habitats, Road Construction, settlement in the Helena & lower Tenmile promoting negative encounters, & leading to & Other Human Valleys; local population centers at their eventual extirpation from the area. Activities Marysville, Elliston, & Rimini; rural Settlement patterns today tend to displace settlement in the wildland/urban interface animals from the margins of the landscape to (WUI), & increasing dispersed recreation. the sparsely settled regions in its core.

Effective fire prevention & suppression For lynx, effective fire suppression has (esp. since the 1930s) has allowed mature produced more mature forest (potential forest to expand & forest structure to denning, multi-storied foraging) habitat & less Fire Suppression become more complex. Open habitats early seral foraging habitat than would have have declined as conifers have encroached occurred under a natural fire regime. For upon them. Risk of intense stand-replacing grizzly bears, the result has been more forest fire is amplified. cover, but less early seral foraging opportunity.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: TIMBER PROJECTS SINCE 1950.

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities or Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

Harvest units from this period are now full of During this period, more than 500 acres large sapling & pole-sized conifers. Trees are were clearcut in 2 documented timber sales self-pruned well above ground level and no in the action area: the upper Tenmile & State & Federal longer provide habitat for snowshoe hares in Treasure Mtn sales, both in the upper Little Timber Projects winter—though they may serve as summer Blackfoot watershed. These sites now 1951-1970 habitat. They are of value to lynx and grizzly thickly regenerated: Other sales, for which bears as hiding & screening cover, but are too records are no longer available, probably young to provide deep shade for bears in occurred during this period as well. summer or multi-layered understory for hares.

The one major documented timber sale in the action area was the Mike Renig These stands are dominated by large sapling southwest of MacDonald Pass. The project conifers with some patches of viable winter State & Federal produced sizeable clearcuts covering hare habitat remaining—so there are some Timber Projects several hundred acres. Conifer opportunities for lynx to forage in winter as well 1971-1980 regeneration has been variable, depending as summer. Units provide hiding & screening on site conditions, planting history, & cover for lynx & grizzly bears. seedtree status.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 6

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities or Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

Harvest units from this period are primary Several thousand acres of timber were providers of stand-initiation snowshoe hare harvested (mostly by clearcutting) in half a habitat. Units are dominated by sapling dozen major timber sales. South of Hwy 12: conifers with green foliage low enough to State & Federal Negro Mountain, Ontario Creek, Bison potentially provide for hares in winter. Where Timber Projects Mountain, Hahn Creek, & Flume Gulch. tree density exceeds 1,200 t/a the units may 1981-1990 North of Hwy 12: Little Porcupine Creek. be occupied by hares year-round; where Conifer regeneration, dominated by density is lower & dispersion patchy, hares are saplings, is variable depending on site often present in summer, but seldom in winter. condition, planting history, and seed-tree Many units provide potential hiding and status. screening cover for both lynx and grizzly bears.

Regeneration in these cutting units is variable, Other Helena NF timber sales include depending on time since harvest, site Treasure Mtn (1989-92), Lava Mtn (1993- conditions, seed sources, and planting effort. 95), Mullan Pass (1993-95), and Porky State and Federal Some are dominated by conifer seedlings, Roundwood (1995). Salvage projects Timber Projects others by seedling-sapling mixes. Older units include upper Telegraph (1991-92), Hurd since 1990 from this time period may provide some winter Crk (1992), & Mike Renig (1992). Thinning hare habitat. Lynx are most likely to forage in projects include Sweeny Crk (2002) & these units in summer. Tucker-Dry (2005). Altogether projects total Hiding/ screening cover is variable, depending more than 2,500 acres. on tree size and density.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: ONGOING ACTIVITIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ACTION AREA

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities & Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

The target range is a localized, periodic center The target range is located on the east slope of human activity that adds to the cumulative Prickly Pear of the Divide about 3 miles below (northeast total of human influences in the MacDonald Sportsmen’s of) MacDonald Pass. It currently operates on Pass area. Activity at the site is likely to Association Target a 20-year special use permit (from 2000). displace any lynx or grizzly bears seeking Range The facility includes an access road, parking habitat in the area and cause animals on the lot, perimeter fence, & 3 shooting ranges. move to detour.

Only 2 groups of long-term recreation Both groups of residences are situated in residences are present in the Divide mostly forested areas. The modest, scattered landscape: Forest Heights & Moose Creek. dwellings themselves do not prevent wildlife The Forest Heights tract is located just east from using the areas or dispersing through. Recreational of MacDonald Pass off Highway 12. It Human activity associated with the residences Residence Tracts: contains 6 residences on 20-year permits— is a more palpable deterrent—but it is periodic Forest Heights & each residence on an acre or less of ground and highly localized. Thus the impact is fairly Moose Creek & used seasonally. The access road for the low. The residences do not, by themselves, residences runs north off Highway 12 for a bit represent a serious disruptive influence or a over ½ mile. A tract of similar scale (5 barrier to movement. But they do contribute to residences) is located at Moose Creek in the the sum of human influences clustered along Tenmile drainage. Highway 12 & the Rimini Road.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 7

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities & Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

Currently, only 8 isolated cabins remain, widely dispersed, in the Divide landscape (in Impacts of these cabins on the landscape has addition to the Lion’s Sunshine camp, which been very localized & low-key. Their technically falls into this category). With the cumulative contribution to displacing lynx, & exception of the latter, all of these old Isolated Cabins grizzly bears from suitable habitat and residences have either been abandoned or interfering with movement has been are in the process of being vacated. The minimal—& will cease to exist in the future as cabins represent the last instances of what they are abandoned or removed. was, in the past, a more common phenomenon on the National Forest.

Both of these sites are in dry, open Two electronic sites, authorized by special grassland—neither of them habitat areas likely use permit, are located north & south of to attract lynx or grizzly bears. They may MacDonald Pass. The north site is the influence movement patterns to a minor largest, with 7 structures on 40 acres at the MacDonald Pass degree. The access road to the north site is edge of open grassland. Maintenance Microwave about 2 miles long & traverses a number of personnel access the site by a broad gravel Electronic Sites wet habitat stringers that could focus activity road about 2 miles in length. The south site by both species. Use of the road by is in open grassland near the Vista Point just maintenance personnel is minimal, however, off Highway 12 & supports a single beacon & the chance of negative encounters with tower. either species is low.

Highway 12 is the most significant artificial barrier to north-south wildlife movement in this area. It partitions much wildlife activity into 2 U.S. Highway 12 is a 4-lane thoroughfare that separate zones—north & south of the crosses the Helena NF at MacDonald Pass. highway. Wildlife species that easily move The constant procession of high-speed traffic, through the scattered array of Forest roads along with regular highway maintenance & along the Divide run a significant risk in Regular Use, improvement, complicates wildlife movement attempting to cross Highway 12, & may be Maintenance, & through this part of the Forest. The highway deterred by it. Resident lynx use habitat on Improvement of maintenance shop on the east slope just both sides of the highway & cross it at times. U.S. Highway 12 below MacDonald Pass is an associated A young lynx was killed on the road just west facility. The most recent special projects of the pass in 2003. Grizzly bears have been have been upgrading of guard rails & removal observed just north of the road—though of roadside trees killed by mountain pine rarely—and those in the upper Little Blackfoot beetle. to the south would have needed to cross it at some point (although once there, they seem to stay there).

This day-use area, located in a patch of Occasional day-use of the area by organized mature forest at MacDonald Pass, is gated to groups use has only a fleeting & highly local regular public use but available for group Maintenance of the impact. The surrounding jack-leg fence is not events under special permit from the Helena Quigley Group a barrier to wildlife movement. Its influence on NF. It is not often used. The area consists of Day-Use Area the ability of lynx and grizzly bears to move an access loop, several picnic sites, & through the MacDonald Pass area is bathrooms. Maintenance of the area by the insubstantial. Helena NF is infrequent.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 8

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities & Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

Most of these sites have been in place for Several developed sites lie within the Travel decades & most are relatively localized Plan Area: Quigley day-use area, Cromwell centers of disturbance with human activity Dixon campground, cross-country ski trails, & concentrated at certain times of year. vista point near MacDonald Pass; Moose Exceptions, in terms of magnitude, is the Creek campground & group-use site, Tenmile MacDonald Pass ski cross-country ski area, picnic area, Moose Creek nature trail, & which covers several hundred acres & at Moose Creek cabin on the Rimini Road; Developed times may require a substantial detour by Kading campground/ rental cabin, & Lions’ Recreation Sites animals moving through those parts of the sunshine camp on the Little Blackfoot road. landscape. Because most activity at both sites Others are in adjacent areas: Park Lake is in winter, they are unlikely to have much campground at the headwaters of Lump impact on grizzlies. Lynx, however, could Gulch, the YMCA camp on the Little certainly be affected. The Great Divide Ski Blackfoot, and, of particular import, the Great Area just north of the Divide Landscape is a Divide Ski Area north of the Forest near major deterrent to lynx movement in winter— Marysville. at least during the daytime.

Roads tend to focus & channelize much of the human activity on National Forest lands. A number of local Helena NF gravel & dirt Cattle use the roads to trail from one area to Routine Use & roads throughout the action area require another. Lynx and grizzly bears may also use Maintenance of periodic maintenance (most typically, roads as travelways, mostly at night or during Local Forest Roads grading)—some annually, others as needed. other periods of low human activity. But aside from this minor benefit, maintenance & use of the roads represents a negative influence.

Primary maintained trails in the action area include the Continental Divide National Maintenance & use of foot trails represent Scenic Trail (CDNST), Black Hall Meadows dispersed, occasional, low-key activity that Trails, Mt Helena trail system, upper Little may lead to rare encounters between humans Blackfoot trail system, & South Hills complex. and grizzlies/ lynx. The activity is unlikely to Routine Use & These trails are maintained in summer. In displace the animals from an area for any Maintenance of addition, the MacDonald Pass cross-country length of time & will not divert movement Forest Trails ski trails are groomed in winter. through the landscape. Motor trails, act more Unmaintained, but frequently used motor like roads, where activity is episodic but more trails are spread throughout the landscape intense & more likely to displace animals from (except in designated roadless and other the vicinity. non-motorized areas).

Several utility corridors of varying magnitude pass through the Action Area. All involve The presence of the utility corridors has little linear swaths of cleared vegetation— impact aside from long linear edge effects that Power & Phone noticeable mostly in forest habitats. Some are of little concern to lynx or grizzly bears. Utility Lines are accompanied by roads or trails. The Maintenance crews represent an occasional corridors & lines require periodic attention & disruptive influence. general maintenance.

Buried pipelines & fiber optic cables also As with utility corridors, effects on both Buried Gas Line pass through the action area & present the species are insubstantial—primarily limited to and Fiber Optic same level of habitat modification & human the low probability of negative encounters with Cable disturbance as utility corridors. maintenance crews.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 9

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities & Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

Local military organizations have used the region in the vicinity of MacDonald, Mullan, & These exercises are periodic and, with the Priest Passes as a training area for exception of occasional drop-off & pick-up by backcountry maneuvers for several years — helicopters, generate impacts similar to those National Guard & mostly in winter, but in other seasons as well. that might be expected from dispersed Army Special Exercises are permitted individually by the recreation. Forces Training Helena NF & involve military personnel No encounters with lynx or grizzly bears have operating individually or in small groups. been reported, but there is always some Firearms use has not been involved. In some potential for temporary displacement or other cases, helicopters pick up & drop off negative contact, no matter how small. participants at designated locations.

Helena NF crews spray for noxious weeds along selected roads & trails & in known off- Lynx and grizzly bears are highly unlikely to route weed concentrations on National Forest suffer ill effects from the herbicides sprayed at lands throughout the Divide landscape. noxious weed sites. They are not applied in Standard mixtures of herbicides—usually areas likely to attract either of these species, Tordon or 24D—are sprayed from trucks, & the chemicals break down quickly. The Noxious Weed ATV’s, & backpack sprayers. With the plants eliminated are not useful to either Treatment exception of the hills south of Helena, most species. As with all Helena NF crews out in weed concentrations are located along roads the field each year, there is some probability & trails: So, this is where most activity takes of encounters with grizzlies and lynx & of place. The spray program is aggressive in temporary displacement from work areas. terms of the number of workers out in the Probabilities of both outcomes are very low. field each summer & the persistence with which problem areas are treated.

Post & pole sales are small-scale logging These are not habitats likely to focus activity operations (usually 1-10 acres) near open by lynx or grizzly bears. While they usually roads. They are designed to provide an provide a modicum of hiding/screening cover inexpensive source of fencing material for because of stem density, the trees are self- Forest Service individuals. Dense pole stands (mostly pruned and understories are generally Post & Pole Sales lodgepole pine) are thus transformed into depauperate. Also, the sites are always next open forest or small clearings. Primary sites to open roads. Their transformation to open in recent years have been in lodgepole pine habitats makes them potentially more useful stands along the Tree Farmer road south of as ground vegetation increases and Elliston. regenerating conifers develop.

The Helena NF allows cutting up to 10 cords of firewood for personal use in any given year. Activity tends to be concentrated in the As with post and pole sales, firewood fall. In the past, virtually all large dead trees gathering is focused almost entirely within visible from Forest roads were likely to be open road corridors. It involves removal of taken by firewood cutters. Now, with the individual dead trees—which, while Personal Firewood proliferation of beetle-generated mortality, the problematic for snag-dependent species, has Gathering cutters have been unable to keep up with the little negative impact on lynx or grizzly bears. expanding supply in many parts of the action The removal of potentially coarse woody area. Eventually, however, all of these snags debris could reduce denning components for can be expected to disappear. The upshot lynx, but the probability of lynx choosing to for wildlife is that, over the long term, there is denin the road corridor is extremely low. an inevitable scarcity of dead tree habitat within 100-300 ft of open roads.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 10

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities & Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

As on public lands, private Logging has Considerable timber harvest has taken place transformed usually dense, mature forest on private lands throughout the Divide habitat into early seral forest or landscape over the past 25 years. Most has grass/forb/shrub habitat. The implications of been by clearcutting or aggressive thinning this activity for lynx & grizzly bears are similar that has produced early-seral habitat with to those associated with timber harvest on remnant overstory. The wildlife species mix Logging on Private Helena NF lands. The impacts on lynx are & wildlife use patterns have shifted Lands generally less because many of the private accordingly. With a paucity of seed trees & lands are at lower elevation in non-lynx no follow-up planting, regeneration is often habitat. Grizzlies, which are more likely to scarce or very patchy. Much of the activity venture down into ranchlands and other has been north of Hwy 12 where large blocks private holdings in the foothills and valleys, of private land are intertwined with Helena NF are more affected—although none of these land. private lands represent core grizzly habitat.

Most large subdivisions are in the Helena Permanent or seasonal human occupancy has Valley, some edging into the eastern fringe of begun to subtract local sites from the suitable the action area. Smaller local population wildlife habitat base for some species. Most centers are at Rimini & Marysville. Less of these areas are outside the normal range of dense dispersed settlement is occurring on lynx and grizzly bears but some occur on Rural Settlement private inholdings & lands near the Forest Forest inholdings within suitable habitat areas on Private Lands boundaries. South of Highway 12, this for both species. The presence of increasing includes the Tenmile, Ontario, Telegraph, & numbers of humans in formerly unoccupied Walker Creek drainages. North of the areas increases the risk for negative highway, most is concentrated in the encounters and complicates habitat use for Marysville area, with occasional development both species. in upper Dog, Austin, & Ophir Creeks.

The Forest Service is required to allow The Helena NF permitting process prevents owners of private inholdings reasonable most of these private roads from impinging access to their property across the National upon key use areas for lynx, grizzly bears, Forest. A majority of access routes are short, grizzlies, and other wildlife. But the routes but some are long and require the Helena NF contribute to overall open road density on the Maintenance of to keep open Forest roads that it would Forest—usurping potential habitat opportunity Private Access otherwise prefer to close for resource & elevating the potential for negative human- Routes protection. All such roads require some level wildlife encounters. Some new routes that are of maintenance, & some are plowed in winter. plowed in winter allow access for wildlife The Helena NF receives several applications species (bobcats, coyotes) that normally for permits to construct new access roads & wouldn’t venture into deep-snow areas to renew existing permits each year. important to lynx..

Open roads have created corridors avoided by Several hundred miles of Forest, County,& wildlife species wary of human activity— private road are open to vehicles in summer including grizzly bears and, to a lesser extent, Forest & County throughout the action area. Primary Forest & lynx. While lynx are less likely to avoid the Road Use & County roads are bladed or otherwise roads, in some cases they represent a Maintenance maintained from spring through fall. Some usurpation of otherwise suitable habitat. Also, are plowed in winter (primary County roads & the roads may provide conduits for trappers in roads to private land). winter.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 11

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities & Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

Trails pioneered by ATVs & motor bikes have been proliferating on the landscape for over 2 decades. These user-made routes are Motor trails have created disturbance generally not sanctioned by the Forest Proliferation of corridors, making favorable habitat much less Service, but any such route pioneered prior to ATV/bike trails suitable for some species—lynx and grizzly the 2002 Statewide OHV Decision, is bears among them. technically legal as long as it is an area with no specific off-road restrictions. These routes are a primary source of wildlife disturbance.

Most snowmobiles stick to designated trails & traditional off-trail riding areas. There appears to be little far-flung exploration of new areas. The action area supports an extensive Because the only areas where grizzlies system of groomed snowmobile trails & appear to be denning in the Divide landscape ungroomed-but-regularly-used trails (often on are in unroaded areas off-limits to unplowed roads). There are no designated snowmobiles, the probability of snowmobiles Snowmobile Use “play areas” in the Divide landscape, but disturbing denning grizzly bears is very low. some open areas at higher elevation (mostly Snowmobile routes provide disturbance grassland parks) regularly see some off-trail corridors, allow competing carnivores to use. access winter lynx habitat, and provide routes for trappers (who may incidentally catch lynx). Lynx may also use snowmobile trails as winter travel routes.

Proximity of the action area to the large While less impactive than motorized population center of the Helena Valley recreation and vehicle use of the road system, generates considerable hiking, picnicking, dispersed non-motorized recreation does mountain bike riding, horseback riding, cross- generate disturbance that may constrain Non-Motorized country skiing, dispersed camping, fishing, habitat use patterns by grizzlies and, to a Dispersed hunting, wildlife viewing, & so on. Non- lesser extent, lynx. Because this type of Recreation motorized activity throughout much of the recreation tends to reach further into areas of area is concentrated in summer & fall. existing suitable habitat and because much of Disturbance to wildlife is low-key but it is basically “quiet” activity, the potential for widespread. negative human-bear encounters is elevated.

Areas of concentrated recreational activity are uncommon in most of the action area. For the most part, wildland species such as Notable sites include the Great Divide ski wolverines, lynx, and grizzly bears have long area near Marysville, the array of sites since adapted to the presence of these Developed around Moose Creek in the Tenmile established centers of human activity. Recreation Sites drainage, Kading cabin & campground in the However, in some circumstances, they may upper Little Blackfoot, Park Lake in upper attract grizzlies and lead to negative Lump Gulch, and the complex of facilities encounters with humans. around MacDonald Pass.

Large blocks of unroaded habitat designated mostly in the 1980s (some more recently) allow natural processes to operate & provide These are core habitat areas for both lynx and Designation & refugia for wildlife wary of humans. Three of grizzly bears, and their maintenance is a Maintenance of these unroaded areas lie within the action primary factor in allowing both species to Roadless Areas area: Lazyman Gulch, Jericho Mountain, & inhabit the action area. Electric Peak. The Nevada Mountain roadless Area lies just to the north.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 12

Action Area Description of Human Activity Activities & Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears or Landscape Feature Features

Livestock grazing on ranchland near the Heavily grazed private ranges behoove the Helena NF & on inholdings within the Forest Helena NF to manage National Forest usually results in heavier impacts to these rangeland in a manner that provides lands than is the norm for equivalent habitat considerably more forage—and structural on the Helena NF. Private grazing lands Livestock Grazing biomass—to native wildlife species. In some often encompass productive valley habitats, on Private Lands cases, efforts to spread out livestock grazing & their heavy use by cattle substantially over broader areas (to lessen local impacts) lowers their suitability for wildlife. As a result, have some potential to bring livestock into many species are forced to rely more heavily areas where they may come into contact with on the less impacted grazing lands on the grizzlies. National Forest.

Increasingly, thinning & other fuel reduction projects, including salvage of dead trees generated by the mountain pine beetle, are Impacts of these projects are similar to those going forward on private inholdings & on generated by fuels reduction projects on lands near external Forest boundaries. National Forest lands—although wholesale Resulting vegetation structure (and effects on Fuel Reduction on removal of mature tees is more the rule on local wildlife) has varied widely, but inevitably, Private Lands private lands. Effects are generally more the conversion is from closed forest to open (2003-present) negative for lynx than grizzly bears because of forest, savannah, or grassland structure. In the ways in which lynx are able to make use of the case of beetle-kill, the long-term impact is the potential coarse woody debris removed by via removal of potential coarse woody debris. these projects. These projects, which often require cooperation with the Helena NF, will continue into the foreseeable future.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: SPECIFIC DECISIONS AND PROJECTS SINCE 2000.

Action Area Description of Human Activity Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears Activities or Landscape Feature

Since 2001 all motor vehicles on National Forest & BLM lands have been required to stay on existing roads and motor trails: Pioneering of new vehicle routes and off-route cross-country vehicle travel is prohibited. travel have been a primary source of habitat Statewide OHV Exceptions are in designated play areas & degradation and wildlife disturbance that has Decision a 300-ft strip on either side of the road for accelerated in recent decades. The restriction of (2001) dispersed camping. This is beginning to this activity reduces potential for disturbance and lower initiation of disturbance in currently negative encounters with both lynx & grizzlies. unroaded wildlife habitat in some areas— depending on local enforcement.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 13

Action Area Description of Human Activity Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears Activities or Landscape Feature

Success of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (1982, 1983) has allowed grizzly populations to expand beyond the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Recovery Zone. In 2002 the USFWS & USFS identified Federal lands outside the Even with the more critical assessment required Delineation of the Recovery Zone where grizzlies could be by management guidance for the Distribution NCDE Grizzly Bear expected in most years (the “Distribution Zone, the Divide Travel Plan, in the context of Distribution Zone Zone”). The Zone was expanded further the environmental baseline, is unlikely to (2002) southward in 2013 and now covers the adversely affect grizzly bears. entire Divide Landscape. Management guidance is to reduce potential for negative human-grizzly encounters and to provide for effective linkage between the NCDE and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) to the south.

The Weed management EIS outlines a comprehensive program for treating noxious weeds Forest-wide. Overall, the program benefits wildlife by gradually reducing the influence of noxious weeds & This decision has no real direct effects on lynx, Weed Management enhancing native vegetation that provides although it could improve habitat conditions for EIS forage and cover. A variety of approaches some prey species. Reduction of weeds in some (2002) are employed throughout the action areas: key foraging areas could be of benefit to grizzly herbicide application from vehicles & bears. backpack units, release of weed-eating insects, & potentially, grazing by sheep & goats. No spraying from aircraft has been proposed in the Divide landscape.

This project involved construction of 2.2 miles of new trail along the spine of the Continental Divide north of Jericho Mtn. Movement of the trail from downslope roads that The new trail runs almost entirely through run through mostly open habitats to the ridgetop Jericho Mtn mature/pole forest, traversing 2 saddles location in dense forest slightly elevates the Continental Divide that serve as primary cross-over routes for potential for encountering human-wary species Trail Reroute big game animals & other species moving such as lynx & grizzly bears. However, foot (2003) between the Tenmile & Little Blackfoot traffic on the trail is sparse, & chances of such watersheds. The new trail replaces an old encounters are very low. route that ran along closed Helena NF roads downslope in Mike Renig Gulch. The new route is not open to motorized use.

A new trailhead for the Continental Divide The physical presence of the trailhead facility Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) was has no meaningful impact on wildlife. While Trailhead constructed next to the Quigley group day- more convenient for hikers than the old trailhead, Construction & Trail use area at MacDonald Pass. The project it has not yet attracted measurably more of them. Relocation involved construction of ½ mile of gravel The impact on the ability of lynx & grizzly bears (2006) access road, a parking area, & ½ mile of to move through the MacDonald Pass area is new trail. insubstantial.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 14

Action Area Description of Human Activity Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears Activities or Landscape Feature

The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment & Strategy (CLCAS 2000) provided guidance for managing lynx as a threatened species for 7 years. In 2007, its standards & guidelines were superceded The need to meet standards and guidelines of Initiation of the by those of the Northern Rockies Lynx the NRLMD directly affects management of lynx Northern Rockies Management Direction (NRLMD). The in the Travel Plan Area. Likewise it will be Lynx Management general thrust of the 2 documents is pertinent to the design of any project in the Direction similar, but many details vary. Background action area that has potential to affect lynx. (2007) information and scientific rationale presented in the CLCAS still apply. NRLMD standards for travel management focus on road construction, habitat linkage, & snow compaction in winter lynx habitat.

By 2008, the ongoing mountain pine beetle infestation had killed hundreds of mature The status of forest canopies & other vegetation lodgepole pine trees in and around the in local developed recreation sites has Quigley group day-use area, the CDNST essentially no additional effect on the ability of MacDonald Pass trailhead, & the Cromwell Dixon lynx & grizzly bears to occupy the landscape Recreation Sites campground. The hazard to public safety beyond that already generated by the presence Hazard Tree forced closing the campground & day-use of the areas. The activity of tree removal crews Removal area in the summer of 2008. All dead, for this and other projects in developed (2008) dying, & unstable trees were then cut & recreation sites is part of the continuum of removed from the sites in the latter half of human activity in areas that lynx & grizzlies have 2008. The result is a much more open- usually avoided. In essence, this is not a new or grown forest environment in all 3 sites—but additional effect. one that again permits public use.

Extensive mountain pine beetle infestation of lodgepole pine around MacDonald Pass led to an initial application of the insecticide No measurable impacts to local wildlife were MacDonald Pass Carbaryl (Sevin) at the Cromwell Dixon anticipated or noted. The potential for impacting Recreation Sites campground, CDNST trailhead, & Quigley lynx or grizzly bears at these developed Carbaryl Treatment day-use area in 2008. The advanced stage recreation sites is very low. (2008-2009) of the epidemic, however, required removal

of all infested trees later that year. A second round of Carbaryl was applied in 2009 in order to protect the surviving trees.

The new trail is located almost entirely in dense Some 6 miles of the Continental Divide interior forest habitat (only small sections of National Scenic Trail (CDNST) at the which qualify as suitable snowshoe hare habitat). southern end of the action area has been The trail corridor modifies only minimal strips of Continental Divide relocated from the Helena NF road system forest vegetation. Its primary effect is to transfer Trail in the upper Ontario & Bison Creek human activity to a new swath of wildland Re-route drainages to an unroaded region atop the habitat. Nonetheless, the potential for such (2008-2009) Divide proper. The new trail, which is non- predictable, low-key activity to displace lynx or motorized, reroutes foot traffic (hikers, grizzly bears is slight. The old trail location hunters) to a new area that has seen little traversed productive basin-head habitats more human use in the past. likely to draw grizzlies & lynx than the rather sterile forest environment of the new route.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 15

Action Area Description of Human Activity Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears Activities or Landscape Feature

The EPA has identified 150 mine sites in the Tenmile watershed, 70 of which have Activity involved in cleanup around the mine sites been prioritized for clean-up. At some is highly localized; hauling is confined to the sites, clean-up—which involves removing Tenmile road system. These activities have Upper Tenmile contaminated soil to a permanent potential to displace lynx &, particularly, grizzly Mining Area Clean- repository & recontouring surface bears from the area around a given work site or up features—is ongoing. The primary waste along the road corridor. The impact in terms of (2008—Present) repository is the Luttrell Pit atop the the animals’ ability to occupy the Tenmile Continental Divide in the southeast corner drainage is not meaningful. The disturbance is of the action areas. The Rimini Road in the temporary, & no suitable habitat is eliminated. bottom of the Tenmile drainage is part of the haul route for most sites.

The USFWS designation of “critical lynx habitat” was published as a Final Rule in the Federal Register in Feb. 2009. It has been in effect since March of that year. On As discussed in the main body of the the Helena NF, the critical habitat zone Assessment, the any project going forward on includes all habitat in the Blackfoot Federal land north of Highway 12 will need to landscape (Lincoln Ranger District) & the Designation of maintain and protect the “primary constituent northern half of the Divide landscape Critical Lynx Habitat elements” for critical lynx habitat discussed in the (Helena Ranger District north of Highway (2009) Final Rule (Federal Register Vol.74, No.36). 12). Critical lynx habitat on the Helena NF By protecting these habitat elements, projects is thus identical to “occupied core lynx would also maintain certain habitat components habitat” identified in the NRLMD (2007). useful to grizzly bears as well. Within this habitat zone, all Federal actions must comply with direction for maintaining the integrity of primary constituent elements (PCEs) of critical lynx habitat.

The Helena NF is in the process of removing dead, dying, & otherwise defective trees—most generated by the mountain pine beetle epidemic—from Implications for lynx and grizzly bears are minor. approx. 490 miles of regularly traveled The project has extended over a period of 3 National Forest roads. The tree removal years—with some work left to be done. During corridor is generally about 1½ tree lengths this time, tree-removal operations have Forest Roadside (100-125 ft) on either side of the road. generated higher-than-normal levels of human Hazard Tree Healthy, firm trees of all sizes are left in activity at numerous local sites. Removal place. For the time being, slash piles are Removal of potential large woody debris reduces (ongoing) being left in place some areas to allow future habitat opportunity for lynx prey & for opportunities for private firewood cutting. A grizzly bear foraging. But the proximity of all number of administrative sites sites to open roads greatly lowers their suitability (campgrounds, trailheads, etc.) have also as foraging habitat for both species. been treated. The primary purpose of the project is to remove an imminent hazard to public safety.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 16

Action Area Description of Human Activity Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears Activities or Landscape Feature

Lynx & grizzly bears may occasionally pass through & forage in the area traversed by the ski The Helena NF removed cut down dead, trails—grizzly bears from spring through fall and MacDonald Pass dying, & otherwise unstable trees—most an lynx year-round. No use has been documented Cross-Country Ski outcome of the recent mountain pine beetle to date. The trails follow old roadbeds, which Trails Hazardous epidemic—adjacent to the network of make good travel corridors, & as well, they cross Tree Removal cross-country ski trails at MacDonald Pass. a number of productive wet sites that could draw (2012) The logs and slash have been left in place the attention of both species. or piled in windrows along the trails. There is some potential—low though it may be— for displacement of both species from local habitats while tree removal proceeds.

The Helena NF undertook improvements in and around Kading Campground on the These activities in a long-established developed upper Little Blackfoot River. These include recreation site are unlikely to have any Kading replacement of a major culvert with a implications for lynx & grizzly bears. Both Campground bridge, removal of hazard trees, species tend to avoid such centers of human Improvements lengthening & widening of camping spurs, presence throughout the summer. And as well, (2010) installation of new tables and fire rings, the improvements would do nothing to add to the improvement of pathways, occasional possibility of bears being attracted to site in addition of curbs, & construction of 2 search of human food. information kiosks.

The Environmental Protection Agency This operation at Rimini townsite & along the (EPA) is in the process of removing Tenmile road is highly unlikely to displace grizzly Removal of 40,000-50,000 cubic yards of contaminated bears or lynx from suitable habitats in the Contaminated Soil soil from a road, a residence, & the Old Tenmile drainage or otherwise disrupt their from Rimini Basin Creek Mine at the town of Rimini. normal activity. These are normal areas where Town site. The sites will be recontoured & human activity has been concentrated for over a revegetated. century. This ongoing project proposes to remove primarily dead lodgepole pine trees from approximately 490 acres along the Red The project would create local openings in the Mountain Flume and around Chessman Beaver Creek drainage in the upper Tenmile Reservoir in the upper Tenmile Creek watershed. Eventially these aras would grow watershed. The project is designed to back to open-grown forest, but ladder fuels and moderate the effects of wildfire around the undergrowth would be kept to a minimum by reservoir and flume, which are a key part of future treatments. The difference between the Helena city water supply. Treatment treated and untreated areas is the absence of Red Mountain units extend up to 300 feet on either side of coarse woody debris and of low-level cover in Flume Chessman the 5-mile long flume and to several the treatment units. The open environment Reservoir Project hundred feet more around the reservoir. In would not be hospitable to lynx, although they a majority of the sites, the result would would easily cross it while traveling between resemble clearcuts—particularly around the more favorable habitats. Untreated areas would reservoir and at higher elevation sites provide opportunity for denning. Grizzly bears where lodgepole pine is present in nearly would find foraging opportunities in the more pure stands. Lower down, the results productive open habitats, but would not have resemble thinning. Roughly half of the benefit for cover. lands along the flume are in private holdings and have already been treated by the City of Helena.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 17

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE: REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIVITIES

Foreseeable Activities in the Description of Proposed Action Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears Planning Area

The Helena NF has recently re-issued a long-term permit to the City of Helena to Effects would be similar to those generated by manage fuel density in a 100 ft right-of-way the Helena NF portion of the flume project as on each side of the Red Mountain Flume. described in detail earlier in this assessment. The new permit modifies an existing permit Maintenance would be confined to the 200 ft that provides for a 7 ft wide right-of-way on City of Helena right-of-way and would not necessarily cover each side of the flume. Future maintenance Special Use Permit the entire width of the area from which the covers the private land segment of the flume to maintain the Red Helena NF proposes to remove dead trees. recently logged by the City (some of which Mountain Flume Regenerating conifers would be maintained at is still in progress) plus the portion of the Corridor densities of roughly 150 trees/acre—an open- flume that the Helena NF is treating on grown forest. Effects for wildlife would be National Forest land. Forest cover is to local, confined to the central core of the remain relatively open and without ladder relatively narrow flume corridor. Implications fuels—conifers allowed to regenerate to for grizzly bears & lynx wil be minimal. about 150 trees/acre. The program will continued on into the future indefinitely.

The Federal Hwy Administration (FHA) is in the beginning phases of widening, paving, realigning, & otherwise improving the Because of relatively high traffic levels & the nothernmost 6 miles of the Rimini road presence of developed recreation sites & along Tenmile Creek. In addition to residences (including the town of Rimini) along disturbance generated by roadwork (at least the road, use of the road corridor by human- 2 years), resulting higher vehicle speeds & averse wildlife is low. Any lynx or grizzly bears Tenmile Road increased traffic volume are likely to elevate moving through the area could use the road as (Rimini Road) risk for wildlife species that are drawn to the a travelway (esp. at night) & may need to cross Improvement Project creek & use the drainage bottom as a the road to get to the creek—although such travelway. Potential for collisions damaging instances are likely to be rare. Disturbance both to animals & vehicles is probably generated by roadwork would have no greatest with white-tailed deer. meaningful effect on these species. Higher The project has already undergone speeds generated by the road upgrade would consultation with the USFWS, but the be a problem for animals on the road at night. timetable for implementation remains elusive at this point.

This project would have 2 basic This is an area where lynx are known to be components: (1) removal of beetle-killed resident. Lynx habitat will be affected in 2 pines from mature forest stands & (2) basic ways: (1) thinning will negate the precommercial thinning of clearcut units suitability of some early seral stands as winter dominated by sapling conifers. Over 6,000 hare habitat & (2) removal of dead trees will Telegraph Creek acres—mostly in the greater Telegraph eliminate the potential of some areas to Mountain Pine Creek drainage—have been proposed for provide future denning habitat. Beetle Salvage & treatment. Grizzly bears probably range through the area, Precommercial Because the pine beetle-generated mortality though numbers are very low. The project will Thinning has been so high, mature stands in the not impact key habitat components, but it will treatment area would be dramatically reduce potential hiding cover by thinning young opened up, with Douglas-fir, Engelmann conifer stands and removing potential large spruce, & subalpine fir providing most of the woody debris (which will also provide potential residual forest. Slash will be treated via a foraging substrate). variety of burning methods.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 18

Foreseeable Activities in the Description of Proposed Action Implications for Lynx and Grizzly Bears Planning Area

The project is designed to reduce the volatility of forest fuels build-up in 2 areas The project would have wide-ranging effects east of the continental Divide (1) the for many wildlife species, partly because of the Tenmile Creek drainage in order to preserve nature of the structural changes proposed for the integrity of the Helena municipal the forest ecosystems and partly because of its watershed and (2) on Helena NF lands scope (>17,000 acres). For grizzly bears, the southwest of Helena to lower the potential of issue would be removal of low-level cover wildfie moving into the city. An extensive provided by coarse woody debris. The new area would be treated: the acreage would “clean” treatment units would provide better depend on the alternative chosen, but at foraging opprotunities and would regenerate to present, the number of units ranges from future cover more rapidly than untreated areas. Tenmile South 177 to 278 and acres within units (only part But in the meantime, cover would be Helena Fuels of which would be treated) ranges from substantially reduced over broad areas. For Management Project 17,000 to 23,300 acres. Treatments would lynx, the issue would be loss of cover involve both mechanical removal of trees (provided primarily by downed trees) and and prescribed burning. The bulk of the potential denning sites. Treated areas, material to be removed consists of dead however, would be quicker to regenerate to lodgepole and ponderosa pine killed by the stand-initiation hare habitat. mountain pine beetle outbreak. In those The project does not involve permanent open areas—particularly where the beetles have road construction, so vehicle access is not an killed entire stands—virtually all trees would issue; but the removal dead & potentially down be removed. In others, a substantial green timber would make non-motorized off-road tree component would be left intact. The access easier for hunters and other project is now in the analysis phase, with a recreationists. draft EIS expected later in 2015.

The American Restoration and Recovery Act covers 14 separate projects designed to These projects, while widespread across the repair & improve problem sites on Forest landscape, are unlikely to have any effect on roads across the Divide landscape. Project lynx, wolverines, or grizzly bears. Individual American work includes reconstructing & resurfacing projects will be highly localized along open Restoration & roads, upgrading culverts, replacing culverts roads during daylight hours: encounters with Recovery Act: Road & fords with bridges, constructing drainage or displacement of lynx or grizzly bears will be Repair & Upgrade dips, & repairing cattle guards. Most of extremely unlikely. The resulting changes in these improvements are designed to cure road structure will be of no consequence to problems with roadbed erosion, stream either of these species. sedimentation, & fish passage.

CONCLUSIONS Reduction of route network open to wheeled motorized vehicles in the Travel Plan Area by approximately 29% (from 450 miles to 321 miles) would measurably lower impacts to lynx and grizzly bears generated by the accumulation of human-caused effects across the landscape. The slight reduction in snowmobile routes would also reduce impacts, although only slightly. Implementation of the Travel Plan, when added to the total of other past, current, and imminent human actions in the Divide landscape is not likely to result in a cumulative effect that would produce measurable increases in local populations of threatened species. It would move the trajectory of effects in a positive direction for both species, although in the case of the grizzly bear, remaining open road densities in local areas would continue to generate negative effects.

Divide Travel Plan: Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife 19

SOURCES OF INFORMATION Barret, S.W. and S.F. Arno. 1999. Indian fires in the northern Rockies, Ethnohistory and ecology. Pages 50-64 in R. Boyd (editor). Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Federal Register. 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx; final rule; 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 36, February 25, 2009. pp. 8616-8702.

Harris, S.F. 1935. Winter game study, Elliston Ranger District, 1934-1935. Typed Report with Maps and Photos. Helena National Forest, Helena, MT.

Kay, C.E. 1998. Are ecosystems structured from the top-down or bottom-up: a new look at an old debate. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26 (3): 484-498.

Kay, C.E. 2001. Long-term aspen exclosures in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Pages 225-240 in W.D. Shepperd, D. Binkley, D.L. Bartos, T.J. Stohlgren, and L.G. Eskew (compilers). Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings, 13-15 June 2000, Grand Junction, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO, USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Research Station. 460 pp.

Knight, G.C. 1989. Overview: ecological and cultural prehistory of the Helena and Deerlodge National Forests, Montana. USDA, Forest Service. Helena National Forest, Helena, MT and Deerlodge National Forest, Butte, MT. 304 pp.

Maxim Technologies. 2002. Watershed analysis for the Little Blackfoot River. Prepared for USDA, Forest Service, Helena, National Forest. Helena, MT

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2007d. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Record of Decision. March 2007. Forest Service Region 1, Missoula, MT. 67 pp.http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/reports/rod/ROD_pdf

Vandehey, A. 2008. Comments at the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Workshop, Feb. 20-21, 2008, Missoula, MT: Anne Vandehey, Montana Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT.