Bureau of Land Management Marysville Landscape Restoration

Home , Grizzly bear

ESA Section 7 Biological Assessment for Marysville Landscape Restoration Environmental Assessment Bureau of Land Management Butte Field Office 106 N. Parkmont Butte, MT 59701

Prepared by: Scot Franklin, Wildlife Biologist, BLM Butte Field Office. May 11, 2017.

Land ownership, topography, proposed action polygons

Table of Contents

SUMMARY……………………………………………….………………….….4

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….4

MARYSVILLE EA PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION……………………...5

PROPOSED ACTION…………………………………………………….……12 Purpose and Need………………………………………………….……12 Proposed Action Description…..…………………………………..……13 Design Features……………………………………………………...….18

SPECIES EVALUATIONS

Canada Lynx and Critical Habitat………….……………………………….…..23 General Species Information………………………….…………….…..23 Lynx Action Area Description…………………………………….……23 Critical Habitat Action Area Description……………………………….25 Status in the Proposed Action Area………..……………………………26 Effects Analysis……………………….………………………….……..27 Lynx Effects Determination…………………………………………….33 Critical Habitat Effects Determination………………………………….34

Grizzly Bear……………………………………………………………….…….34 General Species Information…………………………………………….34 Status in the Proposed Action Area………..……………………...……..34 Effects Analysis………………………………………………………….36 Effects Determination……………………………………………..……..38

Wolverine…………………….………………………………………………….39 General Species Information…………………………………………….39 Status in the Proposed Action Area………..…………………………….39 Effects Analysis………………………………………………………….40 Effects Determination……………………………………………………41

Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………..42

Appendix 1. LCAS Conservation Measures for Core Areas…………………….45

Appendix 2. BFO Management Plan Direction Relevant to Grizzly Bears……..48

Appendix 3. List of Acronyms…………………………………………………..51

List of Maps and Figures

Map 1. Marysville Planning Area General Setting……...……………...... 6 Map 2. General Setting – North BLM Parcels………………………………………...…..7 Map 3. General Setting – South BLM Parcels………………………………………..…...8 Map 4. Vegetation Treatment Units………………………………………………….…..16 Map 5. Proposed Action Roads……………………………………………………….….17 Map 6. LAU Overview……………………………………………………………….…..24 Map 7. Lynx Critical Habitat in Relation to Actions…………………………….……….25 Map 8. LAU BL-14……………………………………………………...... ………..28 Map 9. LAU DI-01………………………………………………………………………..29 Map 10. LAU DI-02…………………………………………….………………………...30 Figure 1. BL-14 detailed harvest unit plan…………………………………………..……32 Figure 2. Grizzly status in the PA…………………………………………………………35 Map 11. Proposed Temporary Roads……………………………………………….……..37 Figure 3. Wolverine documented occurrences in the PA……………………………….…38

List of Tables

Table 1. Road miles and density in Marysville PA and on BLM DA land………….…..….9 Table 2. Existing Vegetation Conditions Compared to Historic Reference Conditions…...10 Table 3. LAU Ownership acres………………………………………………………….…23 Table 4. LAU acres of Critical Habitat…………………………………………….….……24 Table 5. Documented occurrences of lynx in the action area……………………….….…..26 Table 6. Treatment types proposed by LAU……………………………………………..…27 Table 7. Pre-treatment lynx habitat in affected LAUs…………………………………..…..31 Table 8. Post-treatment lynx habitat in affected LAUs……………………………….…….32 Table 10. Acres of Proposed Actions by Grizzly Management Zone………………….…..36

SUMMARY

Proposed Action

Based on current vegetative conditions, the Bureau of Land Management, Butte Field Office (BFO) proposes to conduct approximately 3670 acres of timber treatments, 495 acres of Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) treatments, 466 acres of sagebrush treatments, 34 acres of upland willow treatments, and 16 acres of riparian treatments on BFO-administered land in the vicinity of Marysville, MT. BFO manages 14,170 total acres in this planning area.

Determination of Effects

Implementation of the proposed federal action may affect, but would not likely adversely affect the threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), and may affect, but would not likely adversely affect Canada lynx Critical Habitat. The action may affect, but would not likely adversely affect the threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). The proposed action would be not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed species, wolverine (Gulo gulo).

Consultation Requirements

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementation regulations, the BFO is required to request written concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with respect to determinations of potential effects on Canada lynx, Canada lynx Critical Habitat, grizzly bear, and wolverine.

Need For Re-Assessment Based On Changed Conditions

The Biological Assessment (BA) findings are based on the best current data and scientific information available. A revised BA must be prepared if: (1) new information reveals effects which may impact threatened, endangered, and proposed species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this assessment; (2) the proposed action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect, which was not considered in this assessment; or (3) a new species is listed or habitat identified, which may be affected by the action.

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, an interdisciplinary team (IDT) assessed BLM Butte Field Office administered lands in the Marysville Planning Area (PA) for the five Standards of Rangeland Health. The Standards assessed were: Upland Health, Riparian Health, Water Quality, Air Quality, and Providing for Biodiversity (USDI-BLM 1997). Additional field visits occurred through 2016, looking in more detail at the vegetative conditions of the BLM administered lands within the Marysville PA. Actions proposed are a result of the findings, which are described in the next section. This BA evaluates the effects of those proposed actions on species listed under the ESA.

On April 6, 2017, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website was checked for species in the area to evaluate. The results showed whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulus) (Candidate), Canada lynx (Threatened), Canada lynx Critical Habitat, grizzly bear (Threatened), and wolverine (Proposed) as being present in the action area. Whitebark pine does not occur on BLM lands within the PA so there would be no effects to this species; whitebark pine will therefore not be evaluated in this BA.

MARYSVILLE EA PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION

The BFO manages 386,720 acres of public land dispersed across eight counties in western Montana. This land has been divided into ‘Planning Areas’ (PA) for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and management purposes, with BLM land in those Planning Areas considered to be the ‘Decision Areas’ (DA). The Marysville PA contains 155,740 acres. The boundaries of the PA were determined by watershed boundaries and Highway 279 to include cumulative effects under NEPA. The Marysville DA contains 14,170 acres of BLM public land within the 155,740-acre PA, or 9.1% of the PA. BLM parcels within the PA can basically be divided into north and south. BLM parcels in the south area of the PA comprise 12,114 acres and are much more interspersed with private land, roads, and development than the 2056 acres comprising the north parcels. Six miles separate the north and south parcels. (See maps 1-3.)

Map 1. General Setting

Map 2. North Parcels

Map 3. South Parcels

Elevations on BLM lands within the PA range from approximately 4,500’ to 7,300’. Average annual precipitation for BLM lands within the PA ranges from approximately 14 to 28 inches.

The 14,170-acre DA includes 14 grazing allotments comprising 13,613 acres, 893 acres leased to the Great Divide Ski Area, and is interspersed with swaths of private land. Beginning in the late 1800s there has been a large amount of timber harvest and mining. Currently the area is popular for recreation, with uses including downhill skiing, hunting, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, hiking, horseback riding, snowmobiling, and mountain bike riding.

Roads

Travel planning for BLM land in the PA was completed in the Butte Resource Management Plan (RMP) (2009). Road types are within the PA are highways, access routes, BLM open, BLM seasonally open (closed 12/2-5/15) or non-BLM routes. Roads existing on the ground that have been designated as closed are not included here. Highway 279 is the only highway in the PA. Access routes generally receive more use, maintenance, and higher speed travel than BLM or non-BLM routes, cross ownerships, and are operated by the state or county. Table 1 shows the breakdown of road types and miles per square mile of road:

Table 1. Road miles and density in Marysville PA and on BLM DA land Road type Planning Planning Area BLM land only BLM land only Road Area road Road Density road miles Density miles (Miles per sq. (Miles per sq. mi.) mi.) Highways 23 0.09 0 0 Access routes 103 0.42 9.5 0.43 BLM roads open 13 0.05 13 0.59 BLM roads seasonally 10 0.04 10 0.45 open (closed 12/2-5/15) Non-BLM roads 496.6 2.04 0 0 Total 645.6 2.65 32.5 1.47

Vegetation

The Marysville Assessment Report (released 5/27/16) describes the condition/function of resources within the assessment area. The purpose of the Standards and Guidelines (USDI-BLM 1997) followed in conducting land health assessments is to facilitate the achievement and maintenance of healthy, properly functioning ecosystems within the historic and natural range of variability for long-term sustainable use. The Marysville Assessment Report is available to the public on the BLM ePlanning website at: http://1.usa.gov/1t28HMN. The following summarizes the existing vegetation and fuel conditions on BLM administered lands within the Marysville PA as identified in the Marysville Assessment Report:

 Conifer encroachment: Upland, aspen, and riparian vegetation communities in the Marysville PA are trending away from desired reference conditions. Portions of grassland/shrublands and riparian habitats have been colonized or encroached upon by conifers due to the interruption of the natural fire disturbance regime. These conifers compete with aspen and understory vegetation for resources, such as light and water, which effect stream function and wildlife dependent on this habitat.  Declining forest health: Many of the timber stands are experiencing mortality from insects and disease, along with other forest health issues such as high density and loss of stand diversity. Dense stands of Douglas-fir are susceptible to western spruce budworm activity. Trees are stressed by increased competition for limited light and water resources and have declined in vigor. Lodgepole and ponderosa pine stands have been impacted by infestations of the mountain pine beetle.  High concentration of fuels: Insect infestation, disease and areas with declining forest health have resulted in blow down, increasing the concentration and abundancy of fuel loads across the Marysville PA. Higher fuel loads have increased the hazard associated with wildland fires thus making it harder to provide for public and firefighter safety.  Altered Wildlife Habitat: The conifer encroachment, declining forest health, and fuels concentrations listed above have resulted in a habitat for wildlife that has been altered from natural conditions.  Fire danger to the public: The town of Marysville is considered to be within the Wildland-Urban Interface. The Tri-County Fire Working Group identified a four-mile buffer around the town as being high hazard and at risk of wildland fire based on the finding in the Regional Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Tri-county FireSafe Working Group 2015).

In the Marysville Assessment Report, analysis was done using LANDFIRE FRCC Software Application 3.0 on existing condition compared to expected historic reference conditions as determined by the LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model (USGS 2007). The following table shows the results for BLM lands in the PA:

Table 2. Existing Vegetation Conditions Compared to Historic Reference Conditions Historic Departure Biophysical Existing Reference (Acres) Settings (BpS) Seral Stage Condition Condition -shortage (Acres) (Acres) + abundance Early 10 247.1 - 237.9 Dry-Mesic Mid Open 157 370.6 -213.6 Montane Mixed Mid Closed 53.5 741.2 -687.7 Conifer Forest Late Open 41.4 864.7 -8223.3 Late Closed 712.4 247.1 +464.9 Uncharacteristic 66.5 0 +66.5 Total 1040.7 2497.5 -1356.8 Early 1259.4 119.3 +1140.1 10

Subalpine Mixed Mid Open 924.0 357.9 +566.1 Conifer Mid Closed 530.4 119.3 +410.7 Late Open 397.7 -397.7 Late Closed 5062.2 159.1 +4903.1 Uncharacteristic 0 0 0 Total 7775.9 795.3 +6980.6 Sagebrush Low Cover 62 149.5 -87.5 Mod. Cover 192.7 112.2 +80.2 High Cover .1 486 -485.9 Uncharacteristic 0 0 0 Total 254.8 747.7 -492.9 Early 0 48.7 -48.7 Grassland Mid 0 243.4 -243.4 Late 2906.4 681.5 +2224.9 Uncharacteristic 89.5 0 +89.5 Total 2995.9 973.6 +2022.3 Lodgepole Early 66.5 2.2 +64.3 Mid Open 5.4 3.7 +1.7 Mid. Closed 0 2.2 -2.2 Late Closed 13.9 6.6 +7.3 Uncharacteristic 0 0 0 Total 85.8 14.7 +71.1 Riparian Systems Early Development 17.6 162.9 -145.3 Mid Development 85.1 271.5 -186.4 Late Development 2.5 108.5 -106.1 Uncharacteristic 0 0 0 Total 105.2 542.9 -437.7 Low Cover 0 44.6 -44.6 Mod. Cover 0 401.4 -401.4 Shrub High Cover 17.2 446 -428.8 Uncharacteristic 12.5 0 +12.5 Total 17.2 892 -874.8 Early 25.9 1536.8 -1510.9 Mid Open 564.4 1152.6 -588.2 Savannah/Xeric Mid Closed 0 2305.1 -2305.2 Douglas fir Late Open 764.8 1536.8 -772 Late Closed 484.5 1152.6 -668.1 Uncharacteristic 0 0 0 Total 1839.7 7683.9 -5844.2 Other (barren, 53.4 21.3 +32.1 water, urban)

PROPOSED ACTION

Purpose and Need

Action is needed in the Marysville PA to address the previously described conifer encroachment, declining forest health, and the high fuels concentrations and associated wildland fire danger to the public and to firefighter safety. Forest, woodland, riparian, and sagebrush/grasslands communities have departed from desired conditions in terms of ecosystem process and function, composition, structure and density, and providing native wildlife habitats. In addition, there is a need to meet goals and objectives outlined in the Approved Butte Resource Management Plan (2009). Actions are needed to:

 Restore and/or maintain density, structure, and species composition of forest, woodland, and riparian habitats within the natural/historic range of variability.  Improve forest health by reducing the risk of insect-related mortality, increasing the vigor and health of stands, protecting old-growth trees, and increasing the diversity of understory vegetation.  Restore the distribution and vigor of sagebrush/grassland habitats consistent with their appropriate fire regimes.  Restore, to the extent possible, habitat for wildlife that would be present in the absence of post-settlement human alteration.  Provide for public and firefighter safety by reducing the hazard associated with wildland fire in the WUI and in other areas where standing dead or down wood creates a high fuel loading hazard.  Provide for commercial utilization of forest resources in a manner that facilitates the needed vegetation treatments, thereby reducing treatment costs to the public, and satisfying in part the local economic demand for wood products.

The proposed actions support the following RMP goals:

 Goal GS1 Manage upland vegetation communities to move toward or remain in proper functioning condition, including a full range of herbaceous and shrub species.  Goal FW1 Restore and/or maintain the health and productivity of public forests, to provide a balance of forest and woodland resource benefits, as well as wildlife and watershed needs to present and future generations.  Goal FW2 Manage forestry resources to provide a sustained flow of local social and economic benefits and protect non-marked economic values.  Goal FW3 Maintain and/or improve sustainability and diversity of woodland communities to meet ecological site potential.  Goal FW-4 Manage dry forest types to contain healthy, relatively open stands with reproducing site-appropriate desired vegetation species.  Goal FW5 Manage moist forest types to contain Healthy stands that combine in a diversity of age classes, densities and structure.

 Goal FW6 Manage old forest structure in a sustainable manner.  Goal RV1 Manage riparian and wetland communities to move toward or remain in proper functioning condition (appropriate vegetative species composition, density, and age structure for their specific area).  Goal FM1 Provide an appropriate management response to all wildland fire, emphasizing firefighter and public safety.  Goal FM2 Move toward restoring and maintaining desired ecological conditions consistent with appropriate fire regimes.  Goal FM3 Minimize the adverse effects of fire and fire suppression activities on resources, resource uses, and WUI. Goal FM4 Promote seamless fire management planning across jurisdictions within the boundaries of the Butte Field Office.  Goal FM5 Protect life and property by treating hazardous fuels on BLM lands.  Goal NW1 Minimize infestations of invasive plants and noxious weeds.  Goal FW1 Mange to provide a variety of well-distributed plant communities to support a diversity of habitats.  Goal FW5 With all management activities or authorizations: conserve, or enhance sensitive and priority species and habitats; or minimize adverse effects to habitat of BLM sensitive plants and animal species to prevent the federal listing of these species.  Goal FW6 collaborate and cooperate with non-BLM entities to conserve special status species and habitats.

Proposed Action Description

Actions are proposed to meet the purpose and need, addressing forest health, hazardous fuels concerns, and conifer encroachment in shrublands, aspen stands, and riparian habitats. Map 4 displays the areas where these actions would occur. Design features have been developed to address issues and mitigate impacts, and are included as part of Alternative B Proposed Action. Forest Health To address declining forest health, mortality, stand density, and loss of diversity conditions in forested habitats, the following actions are proposed: 1. In forested stands (up to 3700 acres), conifers would be thinned from dense savannah habitat, forests, and mixed conifer and aspen stands (up to 250 acres) using commercial harvest and non-commercial thinning. Prescribed fire would be used after thinning to reduce residual slash and promote increased nutrient cycling. Specific treatment prescriptions are as follows:  In Douglas-fir dominated areas, treatments would remove up to 70% of live trees between 7”to 22” diameter at breast height (DBH). All trees over 22” DBH and

legacy trees (trees that were well established and mature prior to settlement) and the largest trees with old, structural characteristics or potential to develop old, structural characteristics would be retained. Leave trees would be the healthiest trees with the best live crown ratio. Legacy trees would have the smaller trees removed from around and under there crowns.  In lodgepole pine dominant areas, clear cut or shelter wood cut (a progression of forest cutting leading to the establishment of a new generation of seedlings of a particular species without planting) would occur, but not exceed 40 acres in patch size. Salvage of all merchantable dead timber on the stump and recently fallen material would take place.  In mixed conifer stands, a combination of clear cuts in pine dominated areas and uneven aged management cut from below would take place as described above.  In upland aspen stands, remove all conifers less than 20” DBH from within the aspen stand and within 100 feet of the aspen stand boundary. Conduct prescribed burning, fencing, and scarifying the surface, to remove encroaching conifers and promote sprouting of aspen. Fuels and Fire Danger To address the high concentration of fuels and fire danger, the following actions are proposed in the Wildland-Urban Interface. 1. In mixed conifer stands (up to 390 acres), mechanical commercial timber harvest, biomass removal, thinning, and chipping/mastication and/or lop and scatter with materials left on site would all be used to minimize the adverse effects of wildland fire. Treatment would reduce the basal area in the 8-inch and greater (DBH) trees to below 80 ft2/ acre and thin with a spacing of 20 to 40 feet for trees with less than 8-inch DBH; Reduce the basal area in the 8-inch and greater diameter breast height (DBH) trees and thin with a spacing of 20 to 40 feet for trees with less than 8-inch DBH. Prescribed burning pile and or broadcast burning could be used to reduce residual slash on site. Fuels treatments would focus on creating target densities that result in a low fire hazard, as described in “A Strategic Assessment of Fire Hazard in Montana” (Fielder, 2001) 2. In lodgepole pine stands (up to 75 acres), a mechanical salvage treatment would be used to reduce fuel loading to decrease the hazard associated with wildland fire. Most lodgepole pine would be cut and removed and all other live conifers left in the unit would meet the basal area and thinning prescription described for mixed conifers stands. Conifer Encroachment To address conditions where grassland/shrublands, aspen stands, and riparian habitats have been colonized or encroached upon by conifers, the following actions are proposed: 1. In the Scouler’s willow stand (up to 34 acres), up to 80% of the pole- and sapling-sized conifer trees would be removed using mastication or chainsaws. In portions of the unit, equipment would be used to scarify strips of the top 1-2” of the soil surface along

contours to aid in establishment of new plants from seed. Cattle grazing use would be deterred in the willow unit for up to four years by installing temporary fence and/or annually resting the pasture per current permit terms and conditions. 2. In the Sawmill Gulch aspen stand (up to 20 acres), conifers would be cut by hand to eliminate competition and promote new growth. The cut conifers would be used as a barrier to livestock and wildlife to prevent browsing. The woody debris would be incorporated into Sawmill Gulch to create small dams to raise the water level and enhance riparian deciduous vegetation, including a sizeable aspen stand. 3. Near seeps and springs (up to 10 acres), conifers would be cut by hand to eliminate competition and promote new growth. The cut conifers would be used as a barrier to livestock and wildlife to prevent browsing. 4. In scattered live sagebrush areas and conifer stands with dead woody sagebrush in the understory (up to 460 acres), hand thinning of the conifer colonization, followed by a prescribed fire treatment, would be used to remove the residual fuel loading. The thinning treatments would focus on enhancing the vigor, compositional distribution and the structural component of sagebrush. Associated Actions 1. To access thinning areas, designated existing roads would be temporarily improved to meet minimum specification for safe utilization. Where no designated roads exist, up to 30 miles of temporary roads would be constructed over the life of the proposed treatments (see Map 5 for general temporary road locations). Temporary roads would be returned to pre-project specifications upon completion of the individual project area treatment and rehabilitated in accordance with the Marysville Travel Management Plan. Travel for administrative purposes on seasonally restricted or closed roads would occur during implementation where necessary. 2. Follow-up treatment for blow down may occur in all units if determined to be needed.

Map 4. Vegetation Treatment Units

Map 5. Proposed Action Roads

Proposed Action Design Features

This section describes the project design features that are part of the Proposed Action.

Conifer encroachment, forest health and fuels treatments:  State of Montana Best Management Practices (BMPs), the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) laws, and Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) (Butte RMP 2009, pages 21 and 22) would be followed for all treatments or road activities in or near riparian areas. Guidelines as described in the Montana SMZ Law (available at http://dnrc.mt.gov/public- interest/publications would be the minimum standard design features unless alternative practices authorizations are obtained.  All road construction, maintenance, and use of heavy equipment that involves or supports forest treatment activities or harvesting would adhere to the Montana Best Management Practices for Forestry (http://dnrc.mt.gov/public-interest/publications).  Existing open roads or trails would remain in the same or better condition after forest restoration activities are completed.  Traffic control measures that emphasize and promote public safety would be implemented along main haul routes open to the public (e.g. Long Gulch Road, Prickly Pear Rd, etc.)  The Montana/Idaho Airshed Group Operating Guide would be followed including utilization of the Best Smoke Management Practices and Best Available Control Technology for any prescribed burning.  Pheromones and or/bait traps could be utilized in areas where conifers are at risk from insect infestations, such as stands of old forest structure where healthy stands are at risk of infestation, or where stands may be stressed and are recovering from recent management related disturbance.  Mechanical equipment used for project implementation would include conventional ground based harvesting equipment (rubber tired or tracked harvester, grappler, skidder forwarder delimber, processor, masticator, etc.). Other ground based techniques include hand thinning, horse logging, and cable yarding where appropriate.  Where commercial treatment units are implemented through a timber sale, standard timber sale contract provisions, which provide protection from erosion, sedimentation, and soil compaction would be adhered to. The timber sale contract would be made available to the general public upon advertisement of the sale.  Skid trails would be designed and implemented in such a manner as to reduce or minimize soil erosion and compaction. Skid trails would avoid wet areas, ponds, and saturations zones. They would be located preferentially over deep soils rather than shallow, loose, rocky, unstable areas.  Mechanical operations would only be allowed under dry or frozen conditions.

 If market conditions permit, biomass material may be removed from within commercial treatment units. Sufficient residual biomass material would be left on site to maintain nutrient recycling and desirable micro-site conditions.  Non-merchantable trees and slash would be piled and burned, chipped, masticated, and/or left in such a manner as to not promote fuel loading (e.g., slash within one foot of the ground, masticated pieces less than 3’ in size). Slash and logging debris could be made available for firewood collection prior to burning operations.  Landing piles would be reduced by burning, chipping, or other means as feasible. Landings would be rehabilitated, treated for weeds, and reseeded with native grasses/forbs within a reasonable period after treatment activities.  Timber harvest would be conducted in a mosaic fashion. In the Virginia Creek unit a small area of multi-story structure lynx habitat would be flagged and excluded from cutting.  Treatment units would be monitored for noxious weeds and cheatgrass, and treated to prevent the expansion of noxious weeds.  Treatment units would be surveyed for raptors and sensitive bird species prior to implementation. If a nest of one of these species is found in a treatment unit, timing and/or buffer stipulations would be enforced to avoid disturbing nesting activity and protecting fledglings (refer to wildlife design features below). Trees and snags containing raptor nests (active or inactive) would not be cut.  Off-road vehicles and equipment would be required to be inspected by a BLM authorized agent prior to moving onto BLM lands to ensure they meet weed free requirements.  Pre-treatment weed inventory/control and post treatment weed control activities would be completed within each unit. These activities would continue out-year as needed.  All temporary roads would be rehabilitated after use to prevent habitat degradation, erosion, motorized access, and weed spread.  Food storage regulations would be in place for all contractors and on-site workers to minimize potential for bear-human interactions.  If treatment implementation or other contributing factors (e.g. blow down, weed bloom, over successful regeneration in a WUI unit) result in failure to meet desired conditions, additional treatment or entries could be conducted. Design features still apply to subsequent entries.  Within vegetation treatments, legacy trees (trees that were well established and mature prior to settlement) and the largest trees with old, structural characteristics or potential to develop old, structural characteristics would be retained.  Aspen within larger treatment unit boundaries would have conifers removed from the periphery of the stand within 1-3 tree lengths. Size restrictions on cutting conifers in the overall treatment unit would be waived within this periphery around aspen or cottonwood stands, except for legacy trees or trees with old growth characteristics.

 In all treatments, 5 needle pine species would be retained (unless they are infected with rust).  Silvicultural prescriptions would be consistent with accepted methods related to site, species, habitat types, and the individual requirements of the forest stand to which they are applied.  Repair all improvements that are damaged during logging operations or road construction back to their pre damaged condition.  While livestock are in the harvest areas, close any gates upon entering/leaving.  Construct fence around aspen, and/or jackstraw conifer slash, and/or hinge cut conifers to deter livestock use; on a case by case basis.  Construct and maintain fence around the Scouler willow treatment area, until the regeneration establishes and grows through the browse zone (achieves a height greater than 6 feet) to deter livestock use.  Prescribed fire areas would be rested from livestock grazing after treatment for more or less than two growing seasons to promote recovery of vegetation, as justified on a case by case basis, in accordance with the 2009 Butte RMP.  Ground based mechanical equipment would generally be limited to operating on slopes averaging 40 percent or less and are outside any designated restriction areas. Cable or areal systems could be utilized to avoid resource damage if sensitive areas/ resources were identified.  Prescribed burning (pile and/or broadcast burning) may occur to reduce the residual slash on site. Burning would occur in compliance with the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (2016).

 Small trees (<7” DBH) and any slash created by forest thinning operations would be lopped and scattered to within 12” of the ground. These materials could also be piled and burned. Residual slash in treatment units would be patchy, not form a uniform, continuous mat. Slash piece size should also be reduced to not greater than three-foot lengths.

Noxious and Invasive Species  Any new noxious weed infestations would be targeted for prompt eradication before they have a chance to become established.  Biological control agents would be released on larger infestations of noxious and invasive species in remote and difficult terrain to reduce the plant’s competitiveness and help control the spread of weeds by reducing seed production.  When a biological control becomes available for houndstongue it would be considered for release on infestations within the PA.  Off-road vehicles and equipment would be required to be inspected by a BLM authorized agent prior to moving onto BLM lands to ensure they meet weed free requirements. All

project maintenance or construction involving ground disturbance would be reseeded with a native seed mix approved by the authorized officer.  Areas where noxious weeds dominate the landscape would be reseeded with a native seed mix approved by the authorized officer.  Weeds would be treated prior to and after project implementation.

Special Status Plant Species  Any newly identified population of Special Status Plants would be documented and forwarded on to the Montana Natural Heritage Program for their tracking system.  All projects would have Special Status Plant clearances done prior to implementation. If the clearance shows that Special Status Plants are present, the project may be redesigned or abandoned to mitigate impacts on the species.

Stream Crossings  All applicable State and Federal Permits would be obtained and all permit conditions would be followed for construction of stream crossings.  The most appropriate stream crossings (e.g., culverts, hardened crossings or temporary bridges), would be selected based on site specific conditions and potential impacts, including: floodplain fill, economics, road safety as well as impacts to stream channel and vegetation.  Temporary and/or permanent culverts would be adequately sized to maintain stream dimensions, patterns and profiles. Fences  All new fences would be configured and maintained to wildlife-friendly specifications in accordance with BLM Handbook H-1741-1 (1989) or A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to Build Fence with Wildlife in Mind (Paige 2012).  High tensile electric fences would be considered in areas where they may provide an effective alternative to traditional barbed wire construction. These would also be constructed in conformance with BLM Fencing Handbook H-1741-1 (1989).

Wildlife  Prescribed burning could only occur between May 1 and August 30 when surveys identify low potential for impacting nesting birds or if mitigation measures could adequately reduce negative impacts.  If raptor nests are discovered during unit surveys or marking, logging, or thinning operations, a 40-acre modified treatment buffer would be established to conserve the nest area. No treatment related disturbance could occur within the nest buffer area from March through late July. The time of implementation could be modified based on the species using the site and the size of the buffer could be larger than 40 acres, depending on species and location of the nest. Although thinning could occur around the nest site, 21

suitable habitat would be retained within 40 acres (or the adequate buffer size determined for the site) surrounding any active or inactive raptor or owl nest sites.  Trees and snags containing raptor nests (active or inactive) would not be cut.  Unless otherwise stated, all snags >22” DBH would be retained, and snag retention would be between 5 and 10 snags per acre above 10” DBH per treatment unit if possible, with the exception of those threatening human safety.  Adequate wildlife cover and travel corridors would be preserved.  Native materials or manufactured fencing would be utilized to create exclosure barriers to wildlife and/or livestock, when necessary, to allow for regeneration of riparian habitats or aspen stands.  For potential lynx or other species denning, pockets and concentrations of down woody material (>13” diameter) would be protected to the extent possible in forest health treatment. Down wood material at 1-3 tons per acre or appropriate concentrations for the site (6-20” diameter) would be left with an emphasis on larger (>10” diameter) size classes.  Forest health and or fuels treatment would be limited to 1/3 of the total planned acres to be treated per year or to the closet unit boundary acres if over the 1/3 total. Visual Resources  Topography and vegetation would be considered to screen new routes. This could include leaving taller vegetation (shrubs, trees, and snags) that extend from below fill slopes to above cut slopes.

 Minimize bare soil where possible. Cut and fill slopes have the ability to create high contrasts with the surrounding landscape that can be seen at longer distances.

 Remove and re-contour all temporary roads or road marked for decommissioning caused by all vegetation treatments (WUI treatments, timber harvest, sagebrush treatment, and riparian treatment). Road reclamation would involve roughing up the road, seeding the road with native vegetation, removal of cut slopes and berms, and placement of large objects, such as downed trees or boulders, to restrict motorized access.

 Where reclaiming roads are near open OHV routes, vegetation may be planted to deter future use.

 Leave trees would not be painted. Marking would be temporary, such as flagging. When treatment takes place, leave trees and feathering of trees along the edges of the treatment are required. This will help reduce abrupt edges of the cutting units. The bare ground effect of treatments can be mitigated by leaving scattered large woody debris, rocks, and other natural surrounding materials to produce a “roughening” of the surface.

 Visual reclamation of cable lines treatment would be done where cable treatment creates vertical linear features that contrast with the surrounding environment, including leaving wood debris, rocks and other natural materials on disturbed ground. Burn piles would be placed outside of the townsite viewshed. Leave piles would be stacked and left in publically accessible locations to allow for firewood collection.

 Principles of good visual design of forest treatments would be utilized to blend as much as possible with the surrounding environment by repeating natural patterns of form, line, color and texture characteristic of natural disturbance regimes and topography.

SPECIES EVALUATIONS

Canada Lynx and Critical Habitat

General Species Information

Ecology and habitat requirements of the Canada lynx will not be discussed in this BA. For basic information on those topics, please refer to the Montana Field Guide at http://fieldguide.mt.gov/, the USFWS species profile at http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A073, or numerous other sources. Sources of more detailed information include the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013) and Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggerio et al. 1999).

Canada Lynx Action Area Description

The Action Area, for purposes of analyzing effects to lynx, is considered to be the three Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) that contain proposed actions. LAUs approximate the size of a female’s home range and contain year-round habitat components (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013). LAUs BL-14, DI-01, and DI-02 were established in 2006 and total 126,808 acres. Land ownership of the LAUs includes BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), state, and private, with USFS being the largest landowner as shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the acres of Critical Habitat in the three LAUs. (See also map 6.)

Table 3. LAU Land Ownership acres LAU LAU total BLM acres (%) USFS acres (%) State acres (%) Private acres (%) acres BL-14 30,590 2041 (6.7%) 23,380 (76.4%) 686 (2.2%) 4483 (14.7%) DI-01 50,693 7920 (15.6%) 36,187 (71.4%) 803 (1.6%) 5783 (11.4%) DI-02 45,525 2278 (5.0%) 33,803 (74.3%) 0 (0%) 9444 (20.7%) Total 126,808 12,239 (9.7%) 93,370 (73.6%) 1489 (1.2%) 19,710 (15.5%)

Table 4. LAU acres of Critical Habitat LAU Total acres Acres of Critical Acres not Critical Habitat (% of LAU) Habitat (% of LAU) BL-14 30,590 26,473 (86.5%) 4117 (13.5%) DI-01 50,693 37,289 (73.7%) 13,404 (26.3%) DI-02 45,525 41,989 (92.2%) 3536 (7.8%) Total 126,808 105,751 (83.4%) 21,057 (16.6%)

Map 6. LAU Overview

Canada Lynx Critical Habitat Action Area Description

For purposes of analyzing effects to lynx Critical Habitat, the action area is considered to be Unit 3, Northern Rockies, as determined in the Federal Register (2014). Unit 3 covers 10,101.6 square miles, or 6,465,024 acres. This unit of Critical Habitat is shown in Map 5. Details of Critical Habitat pertinent to proposed actions are shown in table 4 and map 6.

Map 7. Lynx Critical Habitat Unit 3, Northern Rockies

Lynx Status in the Proposed Action Area

The action area is near the southern edge of the Northwest Montana/Northeast Idaho core area as mapped in the Lynx Recovery Outline (USDI-FWS 2005). A core area is defined as meeting the following conditions:

 Has verified evidence (e.g., McKelvey et al. 2000a; Hoving et al. 2003) of long-term historical and current presence of lynx populations. Lynx occurrences within the core area are persistent over time despite the cyclic or fluctuating nature of lynx and snowshoe hare populations that may periodically result in reduced populations or suspected local extirpation of lynx. This is normal unless populations do not show a positive response when snowshoe hare populations increase.

 Has recent (within the past 20 years) evidence of reproduction. Reproduction or recruitment into the lynx population may not occur every year because of natural cyclic or fluctuating populations that are tied to snowshoe hare population levels.

 Contains boreal forest vegetation types of the quality and quantity to support both lynx and snowshoe hare life needs.

 Snow conditions are generally fluffy and/or deep enough to favor the competitive advantage of lynx.

Despite being in a core area, documented occurrences of lynx in recent years in the action area are few, as shown in Table 5 and Maps 8, 9, 10.

Table 5. Documented occurrences of lynx in the action area LAU Year Section Location Description BL-14 1980s 13N, 7W, S15 MT furbearer harvest data shows 5 individual lynx taken from 14N, 6W, S15 these two locations between 1982 and 1989. The 13N, 7W, S15 location is a little over two miles west of the northernmost proposed WUI unit. The 14N, 6W, S15 location is slightly over four miles north of the northernmost proposed vegetation treatment unit. DI-01 2014-15 12N, 7W, S22 Lynx tracks found by Wild Things Unlimited (WTU) surveys in this section, on USFS land approximately 1.3 miles west of BLM land containing the westernmost forest treatment unit. DI-02 2008 10N, 6W, S4 Lynx hair collected by WTU near the southern border of the PA a little over 5 miles from BLM. DI-02 2015 11N, 6W, S10 One lynx caught on BLM wildlife survey camera near the southern boundary of BLM land in the action area, slightly over 1.5 miles from the nearest proposed vegetation treatment.

Effects Analysis

Detailed acreages of treatment types proposed in the three LAUs are shown in table 6:

Table 6. Treatment types proposed by LAU LAU Total LAU acres Acres proposed for treatment Total acres proposed for types (% of LAU) treatments (% of LAU) BL-14 30,590 123 WUI (0.4%) 349 (1.1%) 226 timber (0.7%) DI-01 50,693 63 WUI (0.1%) 3402 (6.7%) 3339 timber (6.6%) DI-02 45,525 310 WUI (0.7%) 602 (1.3%) 283 sagebrush (0.6%) 9 riparian (0.02%) Total for 126,808 496 WUI (0.4%) 4353 (3.4%) 3 LAUs 3565 timber (2.8%) 283 sagebrush (0.2%) 9 riparian (0.007%)

During 2014-15, BFO personnel conducted on-the-ground habitat surveys throughout BLM land in the action area. Over 60 miles of transects in the three LAUs were conducted to document vegetative conditions. Trail cameras were used across BLM land at various locations, and coverboard points were used to document vegetative cover density. Only in the southwest sections of BLM land was there a significant enough amount of habitat with dense ground vegetation to be considered snowshoe hare and consequently lynx foraging habitat (and, consequently, this was the only location where a trail camera recorded a lynx). No vegetation treatments are proposed to occur in this area.

A GIS layer was obtained from the USFS depicting stand initiation, early stand initiation, multistory, and other lynx habitat types on portions of the LAUs that did not include BLM lands. A vegetation layer for BLM land had previously been created by BFO that included 285 vegetation units. Characteristics of those units included habitat type, successional stage, dominant and subdominant species, size class, canopy percent, and other characteristics. Each of the 285 units was analyzed individually including data from the on-the-ground surveys and assigned a classification of stand initiation, early stand initiation, multistory, and other to align with the USFS designations. The results are shown below in maps 8, 9, 10 (stand initiation, early stand initiation, and multistory are combined in the maps due to scale) and table 7.

Map 8. LAU BL-14

Map 9. LAU DI-01

Map 10. LAU DI-02

Table 7. Pre-treatment lynx habitat in affected LAUs Early Stand Initiation Other4 Stand Initiation Multistory Total Lynx (provides (Stem exclusion; LAU (provides winter (forage) 3 Habitat summer forage multistory non- LAU Total forage) Acres1 (% Acres (% of Acres (% only) feeding) Acres of total lynx total lynx of LAU) Acres 2 (% of Acres (% of total habitat) habitat) total lynx lynx habitat) habitat) 13,427 BL-14 30,590 456 (3.4%) 1126 (8.4%) 3850 (28.7%) 7995 (59.5%) (43.9%) 20,003 DI-01 50,693 1282 (6.4%) 650 (3.2%) 4861 (24.3%) 13,210 (66%) (39.5%) 12,320 DI-02 45,525 709 (5.7%) 618 (5%) 4151 (33.7%) 6842 (55.5%) (27.1%) 1Stand initiation structural stage that currently provides winter snowshoe hare habitat 2Stand initiation structural stage where the trees have not grown tall enough to protrude above the snow in winter. 3Multistory structural stage with many age classes and vegetation layers that provide snowshoe hare habitat. 4Other – Stem Exclusion Structural Stage – closed canopy with understory limited; multistory structural stage with many age classes and vegetation layers that do not provide snowshoe hare habitat.

Of the 6,465,024 acres included in Unit 3 Northern Rockies Critical Habitat, 105,751 acres are in the three LAUs potentially affected by proposed actions. Critical Habitat in the three LAUs comprises 1.6% of the Critical Habitat unit. Primary constituent elements (PCEs) of Critical Habitat are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species’ life history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species. The PCE identified in the Federal Register (2014) specific to lynx in the contiguous U.S. is:

1) Boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages and containing: a. Presence of 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 multistoried 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. d. Matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest, non-forest, or other habitat types that do not support snowshoe 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 through such habitat while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range.

Since no proposed actions or BLM land occur in Critical Habitat, there would be no change to the PCE in Critical Habitat.

Direct Effects, under the ESA, are those effects caused by the action and that occur in the same time and place (USDI-BLM 2008). No areas of stand initiation, early stand initiation, or

31 multistory habitat are proposed for treatments. Initial proposals that included some of these areas were deferred from treatments. (The small area of multistory included in a proposed action polygon in LAU BL-14 would not actually be treated. Please refer to figure 1 below table 7 for detailed harvest plans for that unit.) Thus, no areas for lynx foraging would directly be affected. Areas of other, transitory habitat would be treated. No lynx habitat would be treated in LAU BL-14. In LAU DI-01, 246 acres of ‘other’ habitat would be treated. In LAU DI-02, 330 acres of ‘other’ habitat would be treated. If all acres treated resulted in those acres no longer being classified as ‘other’ habitat following treatments, a worst-case scenario, results are shown in table 8 for comparison to table 7.

Table 8. Post-treatment lynx habitat in affected LAUs Early Stand Initiation Other4 Stand Initiation Multistory Total Lynx (provides (Stem exclusion; LAU (provides winter (forage) 3 Habitat summer forage multistory non- LAU Total forage) Acres1 (% Acres (% of Acres (% only) feeding) Acres of total lynx total lynx of LAU) Acres 2 (% of Acres (% of total habitat) habitat) total lynx lynx habitat) habitat) 13,427 BL-14 30,590 456 (3.4%) 1126 (8.4%) 3850 (28.7%) 7995 (59.5%) (43.9%) 19,757 DI-01 50,693 1282 (6.5%) 650 (3.3%) 4861 (24.6%) 12,964 (65.6%) (38.8%) 11,990 DI-02 45,525 709 (5.9%) 618 (5.1%) 4151 (34.6%) 6512 (54.3%) (26.3%) 1Stand initiation structural stage that currently provides winter snowshoe hare habitat 2Stand initiation structural stage where the trees have not grown tall enough to protrude above the snow in winter. 3Multistory structural stage with many age classes and vegetation layers that provide snowshoe hare habitat. 4Other – Stem Exclusion Structural Stage – closed canopy with understory limited; multistory structural stage with many age classes and vegetation layers that do not provide snowshoe hare habitat.

Figure 1. BL-14 detailed harvest unit plan.

A lynx traveling through or near treatment areas during treatments could be disturbed by activity and avoid the area. However, there is already a significant amount of habitat fragmentation and human activity in the south area of BLM parcels. BLM land is at the eastern side of the three LAUs, and there is no lynx habitat immediately to the east of the LAUs that BLM land could provide connectivity to. Denning habitat is not a limiting factor across the affected LAUs and would not be significantly diminished by proposed activities.

Since no proposals occur in Critical Habitat, there would be no direct effects to Critical Habitat.

Indirect Effects, under the ESA, are those effects caused by the action that are later in time, but reasonably certain to occur (USDI-BLM 2008). Habitat changes in proposed action areas would occur following treatments. In treated areas, early stand initiation developing into stand initiation stages would be expected to occur approximately 10-30 years post-treatment and improve habitat for snowshoe hare, and as a result, lynx.

No indirect effects to Critical Habitat are reasonably certain to occur as a result of proposed actions.

Cumulative effects, as defined for the purposes of the ESA, involve those effects from future non-Federal actions (tribal, State, local, private and other entities) that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area (USDI-BLM 2008). The range of current non-Federal actions such as recreational activities and various uses of private land are expected to continue whether or not proposed actions occur. Timber harvest could occur on state land but this is a very minor portion of the action area with the only lynx habitat occurring on 64 acres in DI-01. There are no other readily foreseeable future actions at this time.

Lynx Effects Determination

The proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx.

Rationale:  There is no anticipated take of lynx.  Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed actions would be discountable.  The proposed actions are expected to improve lynx habitat in the future, and not harm it now.  Proposed actions would occur incrementally over a 10-year period.  Areas currently capable of providing foraging habitat are not proposed for treatment.  There are very few actual lynx occurrence records in the action area.  Proposed actions would comply with applicable conservation measures for vegetation management listed in the 2013 LCAS (see Appendix 1).

Critical Habitat Effects Determination

The proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx critical habitat.

Rationale:  All proposed actions, and all BLM land in the action area, do not occur in Critical Habitat and would not affect the PCE in Critical Habitat.  The LAUs comprising the lynx effects action area include 105,751 acres of Critical Habitat, or only 1.6% of Unit 3.  Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed actions would be nonexistent or discountable.  40% of Unit 3 is in wilderness or a National Park. As a result, only the other 60% is readily available to habitat manipulations that could alter or improve current habitat quality. Proposed treatments are expected to improve habitat quality for lynx adjacent to Unit 3 in the long term.

Grizzly Bear

General Species Information

Ecology and habitat requirements of the grizzly bear will not be discussed in this BA. For basic information on those topics, please refer to the Montana Field Guide at http://fieldguide.mt.gov/, the USFWS species profile at http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A001, or numerous other sources. A good sources of more detailed information includes the draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (USDI-FWS 2013).

Status in the Proposed Action Area

The direct and indirect effects analysis area is BLM land within the PA. The cumulative effects analysis area is considered to be the same as the BLM planning area because the PA was based on watershed boundaries and Highway 279 to encompass cumulative effects. The western boundary of the PA is the continental divide.

The action area spans Management Zones 1 and 2 identified in the draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (2013) but does not extend into the Primary Conservation Area. The Conservation Strategy does not go into effect until the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) grizzly population has been delisted from the ESA; however, it provides more updated guidance on grizzly bear management than previous documents. The Conservation Strategy identifies a Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and Zones 1, 2, and 3 outside of the PCA. (The PCA in the 2013 Conservation Strategy Draft is the same as the NCDE Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in the Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana (Dood et al. 2006)). The PA is not within the PCA/Recovery Zone. The northern, Virginia Creek area BLM ownership area is included in Zone 1. The southern, majority of BLM ownership is in Zone 2. The objective for

Zone 1 is continual occupancy by grizzly bears but at expected lower densities than within the PCA. Habitat protections focus on managing motorized route densities within levels specified in land use plans. Public lands in Zone 2 will be managed to provide the opportunity for grizzlies to disperse between the NCDE and other ecosystems such as the Greater Yellowstone and Bitterroot. There is no ‘secure core habitat’ (defined in the Conservation Strategy draft as those areas more than 500 meters from a motorized access route during the non‐denning period and at least 2,500 acres in size) for grizzlies in the PA.

NCDE grizzly bear distribution, as mapped through 2014 (MT FWP 2017) includes about the northern 2/3 of the PA. As of 2009, the NCDE population was estimated at over 1000 bears with a 3% population growth rate annually (Mace 2012). Grizzlies are not common within the PA, however; any grizzly use of the direct and indirect effects area is likely to be transient individuals or the periphery of a home range. There have been only three documented occurrences of grizzly bear within the PA according to Montana Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data as shown in figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Grizzly status in the PA.

Effects Analysis

Vegetation treatments can result in fewer available insects for bears to consume but increase the plant component of bear diets (Pilliod et al 2006). Overall, habitat changes resulting from proposed actions would likely benefit the grizzly bear in years following implementation by turning back the successional stages that are currently in an unnatural condition partially due to lack of disturbance. Table 10 shows the types of treatments proposed by grizzly Management Zone:

Table 10. Acres of Proposed Actions by Grizzly Management Zone Zone Timber WUI Sage Restoration Riparian Zone 1 226 123 0 0 Zone 2 3442 372 466 16

The primary potential adverse effects to grizzlies would come from disturbance and temporary road construction and use during implementation. Total road density for the PA is 2.65 miles of road per square mile, and BLM road density including non-BLM access routes and BLM open yearlong and seasonally open roads is 1.47 miles per square mile, as shown in table 1. However, the highest concentration of roads and development are in the southern, or Management Zone 2 portion of the PA as shown in maps 2 and 3.

Under the proposed actions, up to 20 miles of existing system roads could be used and up to 30 miles of temporary roads could be constructed for implementation of timber and WUI proposals. Only a maximum of 1/3 of the units and roads would be implemented at any one time, and rehabilitation of temporary roads would occur following implementation. If a maximum of 1/3 of temporary roads were in use at one time, this could increase the road density on BLM land from 1.47 miles per square mile to 1.84 miles per square mile. Over the entire PA, road density would be increased from 2.65 miles per square mile to 2.78 miles per square mile. This increase would be temporary during treatments. Since grizzlies are not common in the PA, proposed vegetation actions would take place in limited locations at any one time over a ten-year span, temporary routes necessary to perform work would be closed and rehabilitated after use, and the action area is already heavily roaded and fragmented by various uses and ownerships, effects of implementation are not likely to have a significant effect on grizzly bears. The locations of proposed temporary roads are shown below in map 11.

Map 11. Proposed Temporary Roads

Currently the BLM Western Montana District (which includes the Butte, Missoula, and Dillon Field Offices) is in the process of developing a uniform food storage order to provide for greater safety of humans and bears. If the order is finalized prior to implementation, that order would be in effect for everyone. If the order is not finalized prior to implementation, the existing Missoula Field Office food storage order would be in effect for any contractors or workers on implementation of proposals.

A detailed summary of Butte RMP management direction relevant to grizzly bears is in Appendix 11 of the draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy. That Appendix is shown in Appendix 2 of this document and all applicable measures would be adhered to for proposed actions.

Direct effects of the proposed actions would be disturbance to any bears that were in the vicinity and avoidance of those areas during implementation. However, due to the limited presence of bears in the action area and proposed actions taking place in isolated areas over a 10-year span, disturbance and avoidance is not expected to be significant.

Indirect effects would be habitat changes following implementation. For a short term (one or two vegetation growing seasons) following implementation of treatment units, food sources for grizzlies could be reduced. Following that, food sources for grizzlies are expected to increase.

Cumulative effects would include current non-Federal actions such as recreational activities and various uses of private land that are expected to continue whether or not proposed actions occur. Timber harvest or habitat manipulations could occur on state land but this is a minor portion of the cumulative effects area. There are no other readily foreseeable future actions at this time.

Effects Determination

The proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect grizzly bear.

Rationale:  There is no anticipated take of grizzly bear.  Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed actions would be discountable.  The proposed actions are expected to improve grizzly habitat in the future.  Proposed actions would occur incrementally over a 10-year period.  No new permanent roads would be constructed; post-treatment open road density would return to pre-treatment density.  There are very few actual grizzly occurrence records in the action area.  Proposed actions would comply with RMP direction summarized in Appendix 2.

Wolverine

General Species Information

Ecology and habitat requirements of the wolverine will not be discussed in depth in this BA. For basic information on those topics, please refer to the Montana Field Guide at http://fieldguide.mt.gov/, the USFWS species profile at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0FA, or numerous other sources.

Status in the Proposed Action Area

Wolverines prefer alpine tundra and coniferous mountain forests. Habitats with rugged, roadless, isolated wilderness conditions are most preferred and the availability of spring snow cover are essential (Foresman 2012). Home ranges of wolverines can be very large and they may disperse across vast areas. Banci (1994) reported home ranges of wolverines in Montana averaging from 39 square miles for females with young to 163 square miles for adult males. In the Yellowstone area, home ranges averaged 117 square miles for adult females and 308 square miles for adult males (Inman 2013). Inman (2013) estimated the current population and carrying capacity for wolverines in the Northern Continental Divide area to be 51 wolverines, with a 95% confidence interval of 41-143 individuals.

Wolverines are not common within the PA. Any wolverine use of the direct and indirect effects area is likely to be transient individuals or the outer periphery of a home range. There have been few documented occurrences of wolverine within the PA according to NHP and WTU data as shown in figure 3 below. The 2014-15 tracks found by WTU were all likely made by the same individual (Gehman 2015). The 2008 tracks found by WTU were also likely to have been made by one wolverine, as they were in close proximity and all found within two days.

Figure 3. Wolverine documented occurrences in the PA.

Effects Analysis

Squires (2007) found that trapping was the leading cause of decreased survival for wolverines in Western Montana. Trapping or harvest of wolverines is no longer allowed in Montana, but wolverines may be unintentionally trapped in pursuit of other species.

Overall, the primary threat to wolverines in North America is from habitat and range loss due to climate warming. Climate changes are predicted to reduce wolverine habitat and range by 23% over the next 30 years and 63% over the next 75 years, rendering remaining wolverine habitat significantly smaller and more fragmented. Other threats include harvest, i.e., trapping; inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect against human recreational disturbance,

40 infrastructure developments, and transportation corridors; and demographic stochasticity and loss of genetic diversity due to small effective population sizes (USFWS 2016).

Direct effects of the proposed actions would be disturbance to any wolverines that were in the vicinity and avoidance of those areas during implementation. However, due to the limited presence of wolverines in the action area, their wide-ranging nature, and proposed actions taking place in isolated areas over a 10-year span, disturbance and avoidance is not expected to be significant. Most of the acres proposed to be treated are in lower elevations than those preferred by wolverine.

Indirect effects would be habitat changes following implementation. Wolverines travel over large distances and their diet includes a variety of prey, carrion, insects, and plants. Habitat changes in the treatment units are not anticipated to have any significant effects on wolverines. Proposed actions would not contribute in any significant way to the greatest threat to wolverines, climate warming.

Effects Determination

The proposed action would be not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the wolverine.

Rationale:  There is no anticipated take of wolverine.  Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed actions would be discountable.  Proposed actions would occur incrementally over a 10-year period.  No new permanent roads would be constructed; post-treatment open road density would return to pre-treatment density.  There are very few actual wolverine occurrence records in the action area.

LITERATURE CITED

Banci, Vivian 1994. Chapter 5: Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 99-127

Baughan, Kalon. 2015. Wolverine Monitoring Report 2014-15. Prepared for Wild Things Unlimited. 42 pp.

Dood, A. R., Atkinson, S. J. and V. J. Boccadori (2006) Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana: final programmatic environmental impact statement 2006‐2016. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. 163 pp.

Federal Register. 2014. Volume 79, Number 177. USDI-FWS. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary. pp. 54781-54845. Sept. 12, 2014.

Foresman, K. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, MT.

Gehman, S. 2015. Winter Wildlife Surveys in the Little Prickly Pear Creek area of the Helena National Forest. Prepared for Wild Things Unlimited. 9 pp.

Hoving, C.L., R.A. Joseph, and W.B. Krohn. 2003. Recent and historical distribution of Canada lynx in Maine and the northeast. Northeastern Naturalist 10:363-382.

Inman, R.M. 2013. Wolverine ecology and conservation in the Western United States. Doctoral Thesis No. 2013:4, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 145 pp.

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

Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations Group, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 2016. Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. Available at: http://www.nifc.gov/policies/pol_intgncy_guides.html

McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, J.K. Agee, S.W. Buskirk, L.F. Ruggiero, and G.M. Koehler. 2000a. Lynx conservation in an ecosystem management context. Pages 419-442 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, et al. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the contiguous United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Mace, R., D.W. Carney, T. Chilton-Radandt, S.A. Courville, M.A. Haroldson, R.B. Harris, J. Jonkel, B. Mclellan, M. Madel, T.L. Manley, C.C. Schwartz, C. Servheen, G. Stenhouse, J.S. Waller, E. Wenum. 2012. Grizzly Bear Population Vital Rates and Trend in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Montana. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 76(1):119–128

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2017. GIS data. Available at: http://data- mtfwp.opendata.arcgis.com/

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2017. Mapviewer program and species records. http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/. Accessed 1/3/17.

Paige, C. 2012. A landowner’s guide to wildlife friendly fences. Second Edition. Private Land Technical Assistance Program, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MT. 56pp.

Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Koehler, Gary M.; Krebs, Charles J.; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Squires, John R. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. 1999. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr030.html

Tri-County FireSafe Working Group. 2015. Tri-County Regional Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) 2015 Update. Available at: https://www.lccountymt.gov/fileadmin/user_upload/Safety/DES/TriCounty/Documents/2014- 15_CWPP_Update_v6.1__Final_.pdf

USDI-BLM. 1989. Fencing Manual Handbook H-1741-1. Available at: http://web.blm.gov/internal/wo-500/directives/dir-hdbk/hdbk-dir.html

USDI-BLM. 1997. Record of Decision: Standards for rangeland health and guidelines for livestock grazing management for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management for Montana and the Dakotas. http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/grazing.html

USDI-BLM. 2008. Manual 6840 – special status species management.

USDI-BLM. 2009. Record of Decision and Approved Butte Resource Management Plan. April 2009. Butte Field Office, Butte, MT.

USDI-FWS. 2005. Recovery outline - contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx.

USDI-FWS. 2013. NCDE grizzly bear conservation strategy (draft). Available at: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/NCDE_Draft_CS_Apr2013_Final_Version_corrected_headers. pdf

USDI-FWS. Species Profile for Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis). http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A073. Accessed 12/17/16.

USDI-FWS. Species Profile for Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horriblis). http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A001. Accessed 12/28/16.

USDI-FWS. Species Profile for North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus). http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0FA. Accessed 12/7/16.

USGS. 2007. Landfire – Landscape fire and resource management tool. http://www.landfire.gov/

APPENDIX 1.

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 2013 conservation measures for core areas.

Conservation measures for vegetation management:  Provide a mosaic that includes dense early-successional coniferous and mixed- coniferous-deciduous stands, along with a component of mature multi-story coniferous stands to produce the desired snowshoe hare density within each LAU.  Use fire and mechanical vegetation treatments as tools to maintain a mosaic of lynx habitat, in varying successional stages, distributed across the LAU in a landscape pattern that is consistent with historical disturbance processes.  Design vegetation management to develop and retain dense horizontal cover. Focus treatments in areas that have the potential to improve snowshoe hare habitat by developing dense horizontal cover in areas where it is presently lacking. In areas of young, dense conifers resulting from fire, timber harvest or other disturbance, do not reduce stem density through thinning until the stand no longer provides low, live limbs within the reach of hares during winter (e.g., self-pruning processes in the stem exclusion structural stage have eliminated snowshoe hare cover and forage availability during winter conditions with average snowpack). If studies are completed that demonstrate that thinning can be used to extend the duration of time that snowshoe hare habitat is available (e.g., by maintaining low limbs), then earlier thinning could be considered.  Retain mature multi-story conifer stands that have the capability to provide dense horizontal cover (Plate 5.3). If portions of these stands currently lack dense horizontal cover, focus vegetation management practices (such as group selection harvest) in those areas to increase understory density and improve snowshoe hare habitat.  To maintain the amount and distribution of lynx foraging habitat over time, manage so that no more than 30% of the lynx habitat in an LAU is in an early stand initiation structural stage or has been silviculturally treated to remove horizontal cover (i.e., does not provide winter snowshoe hare habitat). Emphasize sustaining snowshoe hare habitat in an LAU. If more than 30% of the lynx habitat in an LAU is in early stand initiation structural stage or has been silviculturally treated to remove horizontal cover (e.g., clear- cuts, seed tree harvest, precommercial thinning, or understory removal), no further increase as a result of vegetation management projects should occur on federal lands.  Recognizing that natural disturbances and forest management of private lands also will occur, management-induced change of lynx habitat on federal lands that creates the early stand initiation structural stage or silviculturally treated to remove horizontal cover should not exceed 15% of lynx habitat on federal lands within a LAU over a 10-year period.  Conduct a landscape evaluation to identify needs or opportunities for adaptation to climate change. Consider potential changes in forest vegetation that could occur as a result of climate change (e.g., Gärtner et al. 2008). Identify reference conditions relative to the landscape’s ecological setting and the range of future climate scenarios. For example, the historical range of variability could be derived from landscape

reconstructions (e.g., Hessburg et al. 1999, Blackwell et al. 2003, Gray and Daniels 2006).  Design harvest units to mimic the pattern and scale of natural disturbances and retain natural connectivity across the landscape.  In aspen stands, maintain native plant species diversity including conifers.  Recruit a high density of stems, generally greater than 4,600/ha (1,862/ac), of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs, including species that are preferred by hares.  Provide for continuing availability of lynx foraging habitat in proximity to denning habitat.  When designing fuels reduction projects, where possible retain patches of untreated areas of dense horizontal cover within treated areas.

Conservation measures for wildland fire management:  Maintain fire as an ecological process in lynx habitat, where small populations are not at risk of extirpation due to habitat loss. Evaluate whether fire suppression, forest type conversions, and other management practices have altered fire regimes and the functioning of ecosystems.  Consider the use of mechanical pre-treatment and management ignitions if needed to restore fire as an ecological process or to maintain specific lynx and/or prey species habitat components.  As federal fire management plans are developed or revised, integrate lynx habitat management objectives into the plans. Prepare plans for areas that are large enough to encompass large historical fire events. Collaborate across management boundaries to develop approaches that are complementary and that simulate natural disturbance patterns where possible.  Design burn prescriptions to promote response by shrub and tree species that are favored by snow-shoe hare.

Conservation measures to minimize habitat fragmentation:  Emphasize land uses that promote or retain conservation of contiguous blocks of lynx habitat.  Maintain a mosaic of vegetation and features such as riparian areas, forest stringers, unburned inclusions or forested ridges to provide habitat connectivity within and between LAUs.  Identify linkage areas where needed to maintain connectivity of lynx populations and habitat. Factors such as topographic and vegetation features and local knowledge of lynx movement patterns should be considered. Retain lynx habitat and linkage areas in public ownership and acquire land to secure linkage areas where needed and possible. On private lands in proximity to federal lands, agencies should strive to work with landowners to develop conservation easements, explore potential for land exchanges or acquisitions, or identify other opportunities to maintain or facilitate lynx movement.  Minimize large-scale developments that would substantially increase habitat fragmentation, reduce snowshoe hare populations, or introduce new sources of mortality.

 Give special attention to the design of highway improvements such as new road alignments, adding traffic lanes, installing Jersey or Texas barriers, or other modifications that increase highway capacity or speed. Upgrading unpaved roads should be avoided in lynx habitat, if the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes or a substantial increase in associated human activity or development. Crossing structures or other techniques could be used to minimize or offset impacts.

Conservation measure for forest/backcountry roads and trails:  Avoid forest/backcountry road reconstruction or upgrades that substantially increase traffic volume and speed. If traffic volume and speed are of concern, incorporate appropriate mitigation such as traffic calming measures in the project design.

APPENDIX 2.

Detailed Summary of Current BLM Management Plan Direction Relevant to Grizzly Bears in the PCA, Management Zone 1, and 2 for the Butte Field Office.

Butte Field Office Resource Management Plan:

The Butte Field Office has 232,000 acres in Zones 1 and 2 (5,000 acres in the PCA). Management of BLM lands here occurs under the Butte Resource Management Plan 2009. The following management guidelines in the plan are relevant to grizzly bears and/or their habitat: − Manage dry forest types to contain healthy, relatively open stands with reproducing site- appropriate, desired vegetation species. − Manage moist forest types to contain healthy stands that combine into a diversity of age classes, densities, and structure (including dead and down material). − Forest and woodland health assessments will be incorporated into Land Health Standards at the activity plan level to determine forest health conditions in project areas. − Vegetation manipulation projects will be designed to minimize impacts to wildlife habitat and improve it when possible. − New permanent and temporary road construction will be kept to a minimum. Temporary roads will be decommissioned (route will be closed and rehabilitated to eliminate resource impacts such as erosion, and rendered no longer useable for public or administrative uses) within one year of project completion. In addition, replacement, maintenance, or decommissioning of existing roads to meet transportation planning and management objectives may also occur as part of forest product removals or stewardship treatment projects. − Firewood cutting will not be allowed within 100 feet of live (yearlong flow) streams or within 50 feet of intermittent streams. − When salvage is proposed in dead and dying forests, contiguous acres of undisturbed standing and down woody material will be retained in adequate amounts for those wildlife species that depend on this type of habitat. − The BLM will strive to maintain and/or restore stands with old forest structure within historic range of variability to maintain and/or enhance habitat for species dependent on this type of habitat. Existing and developing old forests will be retained and protected from uncharacteristically severe natural disturbances such as; stand replacing wildland fire, and insect and disease epidemics. − Manage riparian and wetland communities to move toward or remain in proper functioning condition (appropriate vegetative species composition, density, and age structure for their specific area). Manage these communities to be sustainable and provide physical stability and adequate habitat for a wide range of aquatic and riparian dependent species. − At the Field Office scale, management will maintain, protect, restore and/or improve riparian areas and wetlands. Riparian areas that are functioning at risk will be a high priority for restoration. - Restorative treatments in riparian areas will focus on re-establishing willows, aspen, and cottonwood stands as well as other riparian vegetation, and to move towards pre-fire suppression stem densities in conifer stands.

− Where conifers are outcompeting or precluding regeneration of aspen, or preventing establishment of aspen or cottonwood stands, conifers will be removed (via mechanical methods and/or prescribed burning) to provide suitable habitat for expansion of these species. − Forested riparian habitats will be managed to accelerate the development of mature forest communities to promote shade, bank stability, and down woody material recruitment. Late- successional riparian vegetation will be promoted in amounts and distribution similar to historic conditions. − Grazing practices in riparian areas (accessibility of riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that retard or prevent attainment of riparian goals or proper functioning condition will be modified. − Sufficient forage and cover will be provided for wildlife on seasonal habitat. − BLM will develop and implement appropriate grazing strategies in grizzly bear management zones. − BLM will continue to use a combination of cultural, physical, chemical, and biological treatments for weed control. − BLM will encourage the development of weed management areas where the landowners and users are cooperatively working to manage noxious weeds within designated areas. − BLM will focus prevention of weed spread along roads, trails, waterways, recreation sites, and disturbed sites associated with project implementation. − Weed management prescriptions will be included in all new vegetation treatment projects and incorporated where possible in all existing contracts, agreements, and land use authorizations that would result in ground-disturbing activities. − Weed seed free forage will be used on BLM lands. Forage subject to this rule will include hay, grains, cubes, pelletized feeds, straw, and mulch. − The BLM will maintain an up-to-date record of the grizzly bear conflicts and management actions that occur on lands managed by the Butte Field Office. − The BLM will manage habitat for sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species in a manner consistent with current and future restoration, conservation and recovery plans, and conservation agreements. Management activities will be designed and implemented consistent with adopted conservation strategies, including Montana's Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005), and current, accepted science for special status and priority species. − The BLM will emphasize actions that promote conservation of special status wildlife species and the ecosystems on which they depend. BLM will also emphasize maintaining and supporting healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including big game species such as deer, elk, and bighorn sheep) appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. - The BLM will maintain functional blocks of security habitat for big game species across BLM lands. Where minimum-size blocks of security habitat (250 acres), as defined by Hillis et al. (1991), are located, they will be addressed and retained in a suitable condition throughout project planning and implementation. Protection of larger blocks of security habitat will also be addressed during project or watershed level planning. Where security habitat is limited or fragmented across the landscape, the BLM will emphasize improving habitat through vegetation treatments and road closures (including seasonal closures) to increase security habitat for big game species. − To minimize disturbance to big game and grizzly bears, there will be no net increase in 2 permanent roads built in areas where open road densities are 1 mi/mi or less in big game winter

49 and calving ranges, and within the current distribution of grizzly bear unless this is not possible due to rights-of-way, leases, or permits. All practicable measures will be taken to assure that important habitats with low road densities remain in that condition. Open road densities in big game winter and calving ranges, and within the current distribution of grizzly bear will be 2 reduced where they currently exceed 1 mi/mi .

Grazing: BLM will include a clause in all new and revised grazing permits for the area within the grizzly bear distribution line requiring the permittee to properly treat or dispose of livestock carcasses as deemed necessary on a case-by-case basis by BLM in coordination with USFWS, so as to eliminate any potential attractant for bears. BLM will include guidance to permittees to contact MFWP if they need carcass disposal assistance.

Connectivity: The BLM will participate in ongoing interagency efforts to identify, map and manage linkage habitats essential to grizzly bear movement between ecosystems. The BLM will maintain suitable habitat conditions and minimize fragmentation in linkage corridors among habitats for priority species. The BLM will continue to manage roads on BLM lands to achieve lower road densities in grizzly bear habitat.

Vegetation Management: − Where grizzly bear use is known or likely to occur and where practicable, the BLM will delay disturbing activities during the spring in spring habitats to minimize displacement of grizzly bears. − There will be a focus on biological diversity by restoring vegetation cover types and structural stages that have declined substantially including dry, open forest habitats with low tree densities, meadow habitats, shrub and hardwood dominated riparian systems, as well as open grasslands and shrublands with low tree densities. − As identified through project-level NEPA analyses, seasonal timing restrictions on projects that cause disturbance to wildlife will be applied where needed to minimize the impacts of human activities on important seasonal wildlife habitat including grizzly bear spring and summer range (4/1 to 9/1), and grizzly bear denning habitat (10/1 to 4/30). These dates may be revised when new data become available.

BLM will develop and implement human food storage regulations and guidelines in grizzly bear distribution zones in coordination with MFWP and other agencies.

Human food storage regulations will be developed and implemented for all recreation sites with high potential and/or known encounters between people and bears.

Oil and gas stipulation - Timing Limitation. Activity is prohibited from April 1 to June 30 and from September 15 – October 15 in the Grizzly Bear Distribution Zone.

APPENDIX 3.

List of Acronyms.

BA – Biological Assessment BFO – Butte Field Office BLM – Bureau of Land Management DA – Decision Area DBH – Diameter at breast height ESA – Endangered Species Act GIS – Geographic Information System IDT – Interdisciplinary Team IPaC – Information for Planning and Consultation LAU – Lynx Analysis Unit LCAS – Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act NCDE – Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem NHP – Montana Natural Heritage Program OHV – Off Highway Vehicle PA – Planning Area PCA – Primary Conservation Area PCE – Primary Constituent Element RMP – Resource Management Plan USDI – U.S. Department of Interior USFS – U.S. Forest Service USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WTU – Wild Things Unlimited WUI – Wildland-Urban Interface