Caribou-Targhee National Ashton-Island Ranger District

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT lynx (Lynx canadensis) Wolverine (Gulogulo) Grizzly bear (Ursusarctos) Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzusamericanus)

Yale Creek Fuels Reduction Project.

April 2017

Summary of Effects No May Affect, May Affect, Beneficial Not Likely to Species Effect Not Likely to Likely to Effect Jeopardize the Adversely Adversely Continued Affect (NLAA) Affect (LAA) Existence

Canada lynx (T) X

Grizzly bear (T) X

Wolverine (PT) X

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (T) X

Prepared by: __/s/_D. Ovard______Date: _6/30/2017__ ___ David Ovard, Wildlife Biologist

Proposed Action

Unit 1 (Note: Adjacent to the Yale Creek Subdivision) The proposed treatment for this unit is prescribed as a commercial thin1 from below2 combined with coppice with reserve3 where quaking aspens are present. In this project, coppice with reserve would be implemented where all conifers within a distance of two and one half aspen heights of all quaking aspens greater than four feet tall would be removed to enhance aspen regeneration. A commercial thin would reduce stand density to approximately 54 per acre and 80 square feet of basal area. This treatment would reduce the hazard of Douglas-fir beetle, and create a stand structure

1 Commercial : “any type of thinning producing merchantable material at least equal to the value of the direct cost of harvesting.” (The Dictionary of by the Society of American [Helms 1998]). 2 Thin from below: “the removal of trees from the lower crown classes to favor those in the upper crown classes.” (The Dictionary of Forestry by the Society of American Foresters [Helms 1998]). 3 Coppice with reserves: “a regeneration method using a cutting procedure by which a new age class is created. Coppice methods achieve the majority of regeneration from stump sprouts or root suckers. Reserve trees are retained to attain goals other than regeneration.” (The Dictionary of Forestry by the Society of American Foresters [Helms 1998]). much less conducive to western spruce budworm infestations. Thinning would raise canopy base height, thus increasing torching index and reducing the potential for crown-fire initiation. Canopy bulk density would be reduced thus reducing the chance of a sustained crown fire (Helmbrecht et al. 2016). Quaking aspen, as a deterrent to fire, would be regenerated and enhanced where possible. Aspen would function as a less volatile fuel reducing both surface and crown fire potential. The following implementation mechanisms would be: Trees would be removed with mechanized equipment for fiber use and other purposes. Trees removed would be small diameter, primarily less than 10 inches in diameter, mainly lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and small-diameter Douglas-fir. The focus for tree removal would be from the lower and mid canopy to decrease ladder fuels. All subalpine fir trees would be removed. Approximately 4 miles of temporary roads would be opened or constructed to facilitate of this unit. A portion of this temporary road would be located on a road prism that was previously reclaimed and obliterated. Once all treatments within this unit are complete, the temporary roads would be effectively closed to motorized use. At a minimum, large-diameter downed trees and rocks would be strategically placed along the closed road so these prisms could not be used by off-highway vehicles. Whole trees would be removed to a landing to limit down woody material left in the treatment unit. Tops and limbs would be chipped and removed or piled and burned at the landing. Slash remaining in the unit would either be masticated within the unit or burned with a low-intensity, understory burn. The understory burn would be patchy across the treated areas and burned in the fall season. The objective of the understory burn is to remove some of the finer fuels such as needles, litter, and leaves. Results of implementation would achieve the following: Overstory canopy cover within Goshawk post-fledging areas would not be less than 70 percent within any treated areas. Implementation would leave 40 to 80 square feet of basal area across the entire treatment area. The goal is to retain mature trees in the upper canopy with a crown separation of 15 feet or greater. The remaining trees would be larger-diameter Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and whitebark pine. All remaining trees within 350 feet of Yale Creek Subdivision boundary and within aquatic influence zones would have limbs pruned up to 6 feet from the ground. Implementation would leave less than 5 tons per acre of surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter. Implementation would leave 5 to 10 tons per acre of greater than 3 inches in diameter. Unit 2 (Note: Along the Blue Creek and West Blue Creek Roads) The proposed treatment for this unit is prescribed as a commercial thin from below. Where aspen are present, all conifers within two-and-one-half aspen-tree heights of all aspen greater than 4-feet tall would be removed to enhance aspen regeneration. The following implementation mechanisms would be: Trees would be cut and removed with mechanized equipment. Trees slated for removal would be designated. Trees removed would be small diameter, primarily less than 10 inches in diameter, mainly lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and small-diameter Douglas-fir. Tree removal would be from the lower and mid canopy to decrease ladder fuels. Remove all subalpine fir. Within the treatment unit west of Blue Creek Road, limbs would be pruned up to 6 to 8 feet from the ground and subalpine fir less than 7 inches in diameter would be cut. Large wood would be placed in Blue Creek stream channel to retain sediment and restore stream function and stability to a down-cut unstable channel. Large woody debris would be anchored in the channel every 100 feet with small and large wood scattered throughout the rest of the channel. Surface fuels (slash) west of Blue Creek Road would be hand piled and burned to meet the desired condition for fuels . This would occur outside the area within 100 feet of Blue Creek so as not to have slash burned immediately adjacent to the creek. Surface fuels (slash) east of Blue Creek would be chipped or masticated or hand piled and burned outside the aquatic influence zone to meet the desired condition for fuels management. West Blue Creek Road 018 would be temporarily opened to allow for the purchase of forest products (green firewood, post, and pole material) to be removed by the public (refer to design features limitations of firewood removal in this area). Once treatments are complete West Blue Creek Road would be effectively closed. Results of implementation would achieve the following: Within treatment areas east of Blue Creek Road, 40 to 80 square feet of basal area would be left. The goal is to retain trees with a crown separation of 15 feet or greater. The remaining trees would be larger diameter Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and whitebark pine. Surface fuels remaining on site would be less than 5 tons per acre for woody debris less than 3 inches in diameter, and 5 to 10 tons per acre of large woody debris greater than 3 inches in diameter. Unit 3 (Note: South of the Yale Kilgore Road and east of the Old West Ranches Subdivision) The proposed treatment for this unit is prescribed as a commercial thin from below combined with coppice with reserve where quaking aspens are present followed by prescribed burn4 to enhance quaking aspen regeneration. Remove all conifers within two-and-one-half aspen tree heights of all aspen greater than 4-feet tall to enhance aspen regeneration. The following implementation mechanisms would be: Leave mature Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine free of insects and disease with an average spacing between crowns of 15 feet or greater. The focus for tree removal would be from the lower and mid canopy to decrease ladder fuels. Remove all subalpine fir. A temporary road of 300 feet would be newly constructed to facilitate mechanical removal of trees. Once treatments are complete the temporary road would be obliterated to restore hydrologic function and productivity and restrict motorized vehicle use.

4 Prescribed burn: “to deliberately burn wildland fuels in either their natural or their modified state and under specified environmental conditions, which allows the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and produces the fireline intensity and rate of spread required to attain planed resource management objectives.” (The Dictionary of Forestry by the Society of American Foresters [Helms 1998]). All remaining trees within 350 feet of Old West Ranch Subdivision boundary and along both sides of Yale Kilgore Road would have limbs pruned up to 6 to 8 feet from the ground. Surface fuels (slash) remaining in the unit would be masticated or burned with a low-intensity, understory prescribed burn within the unit. The understory burn would be patchy across the treated areas and burned in the fall. The objective of the understory burn is to remove some of the finer fuels such as needles, litter, and leaves. Results of implementation would achieve the following: Surface fuels remaining on site would be less than 5 tons per acre for woody debris less than 3 inches in diameter and 5 to 10 tons per acre of large woody debris greater than 3 inches in diameter.

Unit 4 (Note: North of the Yale Kilgore Road and north of the Old West Ranches Subdivision) The prescribed treatment for this unit is prescribed as a commercial thin from below combined with coppice with reserve where quaking aspens are present. The following implementation mechanisms would be: Trees would be removed with mechanized equipment for wood fiber use and other forest product purposes. Remove small-diameter trees, primarily less than 10 inches in diameter, mainly lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and small-diameter Douglas-fir. The focus for tree removal would be from the lower and mid canopy to decrease ladder fuels. Coppice with reserves consists of removing all conifers within two-and-one-half aspen tree heights of all aspen greater than 4 feet tall to enhance aspen regeneration; except leave all Douglas-fir within the aspen areas greater than 20 inches in diameter. Remove all subalpine fir. One mile of temporary road would be newly constructed to facilitate forest product removal. Following treatments, this temporary road would be obliterated to restore hydrologic function and productivity and restrict motorized vehicle use. Whole trees would be removed to a landing to limit down woody material left in the treatment unit. Tops and limbs would be chipped and removed or piled and burned at the landing. Slash remaining in the unit would be mechanically piled and burned within the unit or burned with a low-intensity, understory burn. The understory burn would be patchy across the treated areas and burned in the fall. The objective of the understory burn is to remove some of the finer fuels such as needles, litter, and leaves. All remaining trees within 350 feet either side of Yale Kilgore Road would be pruned 6 to 8 feet from the ground. The treatment area along Yale Kilgore Road may be available to the public for forest product (firewood, post, poles) removal. Results of implementation would achieve the following: Leave 40 to 80 square feet of basal area in coniferous areas. The goal is to retain trees with a crown separation of 15 feet or greater. The remaining trees would be larger-diameter Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and whitebark pine. Surface fuels remaining on site would be less than 5 tons per acre for woody debris less than 3 inches in diameter and 5 to 10 tons per acre of large woody debris greater than 3 inches in diameter. Unit 5 (Note: Area within Mt. Jefferson Idaho Roadless Area designated as Backcountry/Restoration (313 acres) and General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland (322 acres)) The prescribed treatment for this unit is prescribed as a thin from below. Thinning from below would reduce stand density in the lower canopy, decrease ladder fuels, and raise canopy base height; thus increasing torching index and reducing the potential for crown-fire initiation. No temporary or permanent roads would be constructed in Unit 5. The following implementation mechanisms would be: Cut all trees less than 6 inches in diameter with chainsaws. Surface fuels, also known as slash, would be hand piled and burned to meet the desired condition for fuels management. All remaining trees would have limbs pruned up to 6 feet from the ground. Standing dead trees (snags) would be removed where there is an overriding safety concern. Results of implementation would achieve the following: Surface fuels remaining on site would be less than 5 tons per acre for woody debris less than 3 inches in diameter and 5 to 10 tons per acre of large woody debris greater than 3 inches in diameter. Treatment Systems The type of mechanical equipment used for thinning operations on slopes less than 40 percent would depend on vegetation removal needs, operational feasibility, and cost efficiency. They could include whole-tree yarding using mechanical harvesters and whole-tree skidding. For noncommercial-sized trees and brush, masticators and/or chippers could be used, or the material could be removed as or be piled and burned. For those hand treatment units with roads adjacent to or within the units, mechanical equipment could be used, providing the equipment remains on the roads, landings, and turnouts. Treatment systems on slopes greater than 40 percent and within sensitive areas would also depend on vegetation removal needs, operational feasibility, and cost efficiency. Mechanized equipment would not be allowed in these areas. Treatment Definitions Commercial Thinning from Below: Process of removing merchantable trees from the lower crown to favor over story/upper crown trees. Jackpot burning: A modified form of an underburn or broadcast burn where the target fuels to be ignited are the concentrations (or jackpots) of vegetative fuel. The result is a mosaic burn pattern. This technique works well when surface fuel loading is very high following vegetation treatments. Masticate: Mastication helps to moderate fire behavior by reducing fuel bed depth. To accomplish this, a tracked or rubber-tired machine chops, shreds, and/or grinds small trees, limbs, shrubs, and dead woody debris into chips. Mastication would be contingent on access and slope. Pile and Burn: Cut trees, shrubs, pruned limbs, and dead and down woody material would be piled by hand or machine and burned. Piles would be located away from residual trees and shrub patches to minimize scorch to the canopies and trunks of trees. Prescribed Burning: Burning would be accomplished by applying low- to moderate-intensity fire using hand, mechanical, or aerial firing methods. Burning is used to minimize the potential for unwanted by reducing surface and ladder fuels and breaking up contiguous vegetation. Trees: Tree branches/limbs would be cut using hand tools and chainsaws. Trees would be pruned approximately 6 feet above ground level. Removal: Cut trees and shrubs, pruned limbs and dead and down woody debris would be removed by hand or machine to an off-site location for utilization or burning. Thin by Hand: This method of thinning trees and shrubs would involve the use of hand tools or chainsaws to create a prescribed spacing. Trees selected for thinning would be 10 inches DBH or less in units 1 through 4 and 6 inches DBH or less in Unit 5. Connected Actions Road Construction, Road Maintenance, and Temporary Improvements Thinning treatment of some units would require road maintenance, or temporary road construction to obtain access and remove material. Unauthorized routes within the project area, specifically in the vicinity of Hotel Creek and Yale Creek, would be obliterated if deemed necessary. Forest Service Road 462, near the Forest boundary, and spurs originating from this road, would also be obliterated following implementation. Forest Service Road 018 would be temporarily opened for administrative use for implementation of the treatments, but following implementation the road would be closed again, at which time the two culverts would be replaced with a drivable ford and if necessary, the gate would be moved to the east end of Blue Creek (Error! Reference source not found.). Similarly, Forest Service Road 048 would be used for project implementation, and following completion of all treatments, the culvert would be replaced with a drivable ford and the gate moved to the west side of the creek. Obliteration techniques and methods would be site-specific for each route segment, but would occur with the intention of restoring the land to a stable and productive base no longer suitable for motorized travel (Error! Reference source not found.). Existing landings would be used where available; otherwise, new landings would be constructed. New landings may average 0.25 to 0.5 acre to safely facilitate the handling and removal of material. When operations have been completed, rehabilitation of landings would also be completed.

Grizzly bear (Ursusarctos) Life History: Grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) emerge from dens in early February through early May, with males emerging before females (Haroldson et al. 2002). Upon emergence, grizzly bears seek out low elevation meadows, riparian areas, south-facing avalanche chutes, and ungulate winter range. During summer, bears use higher elevation habitats. In the fall, habitat use is more variable and occurs in both low and high elevation areas (USFWS 1993). Overall, grizzly bears are opportunistic omnivores and utilize many different habitat types. However, grizzly bear habitat is also defined by human activities.

Dens are located on steep slopes, at high elevations (ICST 2007) and are occupied by late September to early December. Duration of denning is greater for females than males (Haroldson et al. 2002). On the Ashton-Island Park District, grizzly bears den primarily in the Centennial and Henrys Lake Mountains (Landenburger et al. 2015).

Foods eaten include carrion, small mammals, ungulates, insects, grass, bulbs, berries, nuts (USFWS 1993), fish, and fungi (ICST 2007). In the GYE, important food sources may include army cutworm moths, spawning cutthroat trout, whitebark pine seeds, and ungulates. The percentage of meat in the diet of grizzly bears in the GYE is relatively high; it may be 45 percent of the diet for females and 79 percent of the diet for males. Graminoids and forbs may be the primary components of the summer diet (Schwartz et al. 2006).

The mean age of first female reproduction is 5.8 years, the mean litter size is 2.0, and the reproductive rate is 0.318 female cubs per female per year (Schwartz et al. 2006). Mean annual survival for females is 0.9. Survival is positively related with good whitebark pine cone production and residence in Yellowstone , while survival is negatively related with autumn and areas outside of the Recovery Zone. Survival is negatively correlated with autumn because of elk hunter-grizzly bear conflicts. The amount of secure habitat (habitat greater than 500 meters from a motorized route) within a grizzly bear’s home range is likely the most important determinant of grizzly bear survival (Schwartz et al. 2010). Most known grizzly bear mortalities are human-caused (85 percent) (Schwartz et al. 2006).

Affected Environment and Existing Condition: The project area is within the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) or Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (GBRZ). The GBRZ pertains to a listed grizzly bear, while the PCA pertains to a de-listed grizzly bear. Specifically, the project area is in the Plateau 1 Bear Management Unit (BMU). This unit it on the east side of the district and includes Yellowstone National Park.

Approximately 10 percent of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear population is radio- collared. IGBST mapping of radio-collar locations on the Ashton-Island Park District demonstrates less radio-collar locations in or near the project area, relative to other areas of the district. However, not all bear movements and activity areas are known.

The lifetime activity radius is the average estimated range that a grizzly bear uses over a lifetime of monitoring. It is based on the 80th percentile of distances from all VHF telemetry locations for each bear to their center of activity. The percentile is calculated for all bears and then averaged for all females and all males. The lifetime activity radii for females and males are 13 kilometers and 24 kilometers, respectively. Seven individual female grizzly bears and 17 individual male grizzly bears have been documented within the lifetime activity radii of the project area from 2005 to 2014 (ten-year period). There have not been any grizzly bear mortalities or conflicts in or adjacent to the project area. However, there are two known den sites near the project area; one is to the north of the project and the other is to the south of the project area (Landenburger et al. 2015).

From 1983 to 2001, the estimated growth rate of the GYE grizzly bear population was four to seven percent annually (Haroldson 2012. However, from 2002 to 2011, demographic characteristics of the GYE population had changed. Since 2002, the population is stable to slightly increasing (van Manen et al. 2015).

Regulatory Framework:The grizzly bear was designated as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in the conterminous on July 28, 1975. In 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service de-listed the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of grizzly bears because the population had met all recovery plan goals. However, in 2009, the Federal District Court in Missoula re-listed the Yellowstone grizzly bear by court order because the decline of whitebark pine stands may be a threat to the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Management direction for grizzly bears on the Targhee National Forest (TNF) is derived from three sources. The 1997 Revised Forest Plan for the Targhee National Forest provides management direction for grizzly bears and was based on the current knowledge of grizzly bear conservation in 1997. In addition, the TNF has a special order for food storage to protect public safety and grizzly bears (Special Order Number 14-15-117) that applies to all of the Ashton-Island Park District. All project personnel associated with this project must abide by the food storage order.

There is direction for the grizzly bear in the forest plan, Forest amendment, and in the 2016 IGBST Conservation strategy.

Table 2: Responses to Management Direction from the 2016 Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (ICST 2016). STANDARDS, GUIDELINES & MONITORING EXPLANATION & DISCUSSION ITEMS Population Standards and Monitoring Population distribution, size, and Maintaining a recovered grizzly bear population in the mortality are summarized in the annual GYE requires an adequate number of bears (at least 500) report of the IGBST. In 2015, the that are well-distributed (16 of 18 BMUs occupied by a estimated population size was 717 grizzly female with young) and not subject to excessive bears using the updated method mortality (independent female mortality rate not to (Haroldson et al. 2015), 17 of the 18 exceed 9 percent of total number of independent BMUs were occupied by females with females). These standards and monitoring apply to areas young. The Bechler/Teton BMU did not inside and outside the PCA in biologically suitable and have a confirmed detection. This project socially acceptable habitats. will not prevent maintenance of a recovered grizzly bear population in the GYE. Secure Habitat (Motorized Access Route Density) This project does include a decrease in Standard security below the 1998 level and will use Inside the PCA, the percent of secure habitat within each the application rule for this process. See BMU must be maintained at or above levels in 1998. Grizzly Bear Amendment signed in April Temporary or permanent changes are allowed under 2006. See table and map below. application rules. Developed Site Standard This project does not involve developed Inside the PCA, the number and capacity of developed sites. sites will be maintained at or below 1998 levels. Any proposed increase, expansion, or change of use of developed sites from the 1998 baseline in the PCA will be analyzed and documented through biological evaluation or assessment. Mitigation is achieved with application rules. Livestock Allotment Standard This project does not involve livestock Inside the PCA, no new active commercial livestock grazing. grazing allotments will be created and no increases in permitted sheep animal months will occur, relative to the 1998 baseline. Application rules address use of vacant cattle allotments. Habitat Connectivity This project does not involve road Federal land management agencies will evaluate habitat reconstruction. connectivity during the NEPA analysis process for new road construction or reconstruction.

Tables 2: Responses to the 1997 Targhee Revised Forest Plan Management Direction for Grizzly Bears.

QUESTION/STANDARDS & GUIDELINES EXPLANATION & DISCUSSION 1. Is the project within the grizzly bear recovery 1. The project areas are within the Henry’s Lake line? If yes, which Bear Management Unit 1 BMU. (BMU) and Subunit is it within? 2. What is the existing OROMTRD and TMARD 2. The Forest plan standard for TMARD and on the Targhee NF portion of the BMU and OROMTRD for both subunits of the Henry’s Subunit? (see Forest-wide standard #3 on bottom Lake BMU is 1.0 and 0.6 mile per square miles, of page III-24 in the Revised Plan). Will respectively. The TMARD and OROMTRD OROMTRD and TMARD be maintained with the standard for the Henry’s Lake 1 BMU analysis project area(s)? excludes Management Situation 3 habitat (USDA 1997). The current TMARD and OROMTRD for the Henry’s Lake 1 subunit are 0.77 and 0.56 miles per square mile, respectively (USDA 1999). This project involves construction of temporary roads that would temporarily increase the TMARD to 0.826 for this BMU. Temporarily, until those roads are obliterated, the Forest plan road density standards will increase in this subunit but never exceed the allowable standard. 3. Which Management Prescription Area(s) is the 3. The project areas are in management project within? Discuss in detail how the project prescription areas 5.3.5 (Grizzly Bear Habitat). relates to applicable standards and guidelines in Responses to the S&Gs are listed below: the Management Prescription(s).

Relevant S&Gs are listed below: Effects of proposals will be analyzed at multiple Security areas were created along district, scales. Analysis areas will follow ecological watershed, topographic, and ecological unit boundaries, watersheds, and topographic breaks. boundaries. The Targhee National Forest Cumulative effects will be analyzed on no less portions of the Henry’s Lake 1 subunit will be than a BMU subunit scale (G). used for the cumulative effects analysis for this project. Insects and disease are allowed to play their Insects and disease have played a natural role in natural role in ecosystem development, unless this project area. Fuel treatments may lower the risk conflicts with the maintenance of grizzly bear of infestation. habitat (G). Cumulative effects will be analyzed on no less The Targhee National Forest portions of the than a BMU subunit scale (G). Henry’s Lake 1 BMU subunit will be used for the cumulative effects analysis for this project. Long-term activities (those activities which may Activities associated with this project are last more than 1 field season, such as timber considered long term activities. The total acres sales), must be concentrated in activity areas on of activity would be 3161 acres so do not exceed an annual basis between April 1 and September 7000 acres in size. Thus, activities will be 15. Each activity area shall not exceed 7000 acres concentrated in activity areas less than 7000 in size (S). acres in size between April 1 and September 15. Long-term activities should be concentrated in The small project area size ensures activities are space and be of as short a duration as is practical concentrated in space and time. However, project (G). activities may occur over 1 year in each project area because of mitigation or project limitations. Long-term activity areas should generally follow The project areas are too small to follow ecological boundaries, watersheds, and watershed boundaries, but large enough to topographic breaks. Activity areas should be follow topographic breaks or ecological unit distributed such that no less than 7000 acres lie boundaries. However, the purpose of the project between them (G). is to reduce fuels at the public-private land interface within a buffer. Management activities may take place during Currently, winter logging is not planned for any winter (December 15 to April 1) and shall be of the activity areas. addressed on a case-by-case basis. The primary concern during the winter will be the changes the activity may have on habitat quality and quantity (G). Emergency cessation or modification of activities All contracts associated with the proposed will occur when those activities are in conflict project will contain wording that emergency with grizzly bear management objectives. cessation or modification of activities will occur Scheduled activities will not occur during the to resolve conflicts with grizzly bears. There are season of bear use in areas where foraging no known important foraging opportunities for opportunities are limited in their availability, in grizzly bears within the project areas. area, or time (S). There will be no vegetation manipulation in The project areas are not within the whitebark riparian areas in the spring or in whitebark pine pine ecotype. Project activities will not be areas in the fall (except in years of poor cone occurring in habitats that are important for crops) (G). grizzly bear foraging. Also, project activities will not be occurring in habitats that are secure. And, riparian Best Management Practices will be employed during project activities. Scarification is limited to 15% or less of an area There is no scarification associated with this where soil disturbance impedes the re- project. establishment of grizzly bear foods (S). Maintain greater than 70% of the forested acres in Mature and older forest stands provide security each analysis area (an analysis area will be at cover. The watershed is 84.1% forested and almost least 7000 acres in size) in vegetation that all of the harvested acres are regenerated to the point provides security cover (forested acres of all tree of providing cover. This will meet, and exceed, the species which have not been managed or burned cover requirement where at least 70% of the forested in the last 20 years, and managed or burned habitat should provide cover. forested areas within the last 20 years which meet the following criteria on page III-151) for the grizzly bear. Where security cover is below 70%, no treatments are allowed which would further reduce the number of acres meeting security cover (S). Maintain greater than 20 % thermal cover (forest Late-seral and old-growth forest stands provide stands with over 80 square feet of basal area per thermal cover. The analysis areas will be the acre [live or dead trees] greater than 45% canopy Henry’s Lake BMU subunit 1 on the Targhee closure, and trees over 40 feet tall) in each National Forest. Within subunit 1, there are analysis area. Where thermal cover is below 20%, 43,022 acres within Rx 5.3.5. Of those 43,022 no treatments are allowed which would further acres, 25,005 acres or 58 percent qualify as reduce the number of acres meeting thermal cover thermal cover. Thus, this standard is met in both criteria (S). subunits. For created openings (a clearcut and seedtree cut This project does not involve clearcut or seedtree result in created openings), maximum distance to cuts. Trees will be retained in all units, providing security cover should be 300 feet (G). a forested appearance. Created openings will be located at least 1,500 This project does not involve creation of large feet from open roads (S). openings associated with treatments. No new created openings are allowed adjacent to This project will not create large openings existing openings (including meadows and associated with clearcut and seedtree cuts. created openings). Maintenance of natural openings is allowed (S). Leave strips between openings will be the larger This project does not create clearcut or seedtree of 600 feet or 3 times the sight distance (the cut openings; therefore, leave strips will not be distance needed to hide 90% of a grizzly bear) needed. (S).

If available, leave at least 2 pieces per acre over At least 2 pieces per acre of downed wood 12 inches in diameter. Woody material should be over 12 inches in diameter will be retained in in various stages of decay if possible. If a all units. treatment area is below forestwide standards, use the treatment to increase down woody material to recommended amounts. Note: This requirement accrues toward the requirements in the forestwide standards and guidelines; it is not cumulative to them (G). Maintain a minimum 7000 acre security area The Henry’s Lake 1 BMU subunit is 46.1% in adjacent to each timber sale area (S). Security secure habitat or 55,527 acres. The largest block areas must provide the following conditions: of secure habitat is adjacent to the project area, 1. Within the security area, TMARD and providing an area that is over 7000 acres. The OROMTRD must be less than or equal to the area has a road and motorized trail density at, or density established for the BMU. less than, the density developed for the BMU of 2. Within the security area, security cover must be 0.6 miles per square mile. This would be the greater than or equal to the amount established for only project in the subunit that would impact this management prescription. security. No timber harvesting or similar type 3. No timber harvesting activity or similar type of of disturbance activity will occur within the disturbance activity can occur within the security security areas during the time the security areas during the time it is designated as a security areas are designated. area (S).

Responses to Management Direction from the 2006 Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National (USDA 2006b). STANDARDS, GUIDELINES & MONITORING EXPLANATION & DISCUSSION ITEMS Goal The project area is within the PCA. Manage grizzly bear habitat within the PCA to sustain the Project activities will not detract from recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Outside maintenance of a recovered Yellowstone the PCA in areas identified in state management plans as grizzly bear population because all forest biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly plan, forest plan amendment, and bear occupancy, accommodate grizzly bear populations conservation strategy standards and with other land use activities, if feasible, but not to the guidelines will be met. extent of the exclusion of other uses. Standard 1 – Secure Habitat This project would change secure habitat Inside the PCA, maintain secure habitat in BMU subunits and will follow the Application Rules. at or above 1998 levels. Secure habitat is defined as the This project would not make area greater than 500 meters from an open or gated permanent changes to secure habitat. motorized access route, greater than or equal to 10 acres in The changes would be temporary and size, and free of motorized access. Activities that do not would follow all of the direction in require road construction, reconstruction, opening a the application rule. permanently restricted road, or recurring helicopter flight This would be the only project in the lines at low elevation do not detract from secure habitat. subunit that would impact secure Temporary and permanent changes are allowed under habitat. specific conditions. The total acreage of this active project would not exceed 1% of the

acreage of the largest subunit within Temporary reductions in secure habitat can occur to allow the BMU. The largest subunit is projects, if all of the following conditions are met: Henry’s Lake 1 which allows 1227 acres of secure habitat to be temporarily lost. The Grizzly Bear a. Only one project is active per grizzly bear subunit at any GIS Database Coordinator for the one time. Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Lis Landenburger, determined that the proposed temporary roads required to complete this project would b. Total acreage of active projects within a given BMU reduce secure habitat by 1012 acres will not exceed 1% of the acreage in the largest subunit which is below the 1227 acres within that BMU. The acreage of a project that counts allowed. against the 1% limit is the acreage associated with the 500-meter buffer around any motorized access route that This project would be completed extends into secure habitat. within the three year limit for projects temporarily reducing secure habitat and the temporary roads effecting secure habitat would be c. Secure habitat is restored within one year after effectively closed with one year completion of the project. following the project. All of the application rules will be met, so temporary reductions in secure habitat are allowed with this project. See table and map below. Standard 2 – Developed Sites This project does not involve developed Inside the PCA, maintain the number and capacity of sites. developed sites at or below 1998 levels, with the following exception: any proposed increase, expansion, or change of use of developed sites from the 1998 baseline in the PCA (as described in Appendix D) is analyzed and potential detrimental and positive impacts on grizzly bears are documented through biological evaluation or assessment. Mitigation of detrimental impacts and other exceptions must follow application rules (Appendix B). Standard 3 – Livestock Grazing This project does not involve livestock Inside the PCA, do not create new active commercial grazing. Consequently, Guideline 2, livestock grazing allotments, do not increase permitted related to livestock grazing, is not sheep AMs from the identified 1998 baseline, and phase addressed here. out existing sheep allotments as opportunities arise with willing permittees (see Application Rules for livestock grazing standard in Appendix B). Standard 5 - Nuisance Bears If a human/grizzly bear conflict occurs, Coordinate with state wildlife management agencies to Conservation Strategy nuisance bear apply Conservation Strategy nuisance bear standards standards will be applied. (Appendix C). Standard 6 – Food Storage The food storage order is enforced on the Inside the PCA, minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts Targhee National Forest. Project using food storage, information and , and other personnel will comply with the food management tools. storage order. Guideline 1 – Winter Motorized Recreation Project activities do not involve winter Inside the PCA, localized area restrictions would be used recreation conflicts with grizzly bear to address conflicts with winter use activities, where denning or spring habitats. conflicts occur during denning or after bear emergence in the spring. Guideline 4 – Food Sources The 4 key food sources are whitebark Inside the PCA and outside the PCA, in areas identified in pine seeds, army cutworm moths, state management plans as biologically suitable and ungulates, and spawning cutthroat trout. socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, maintain This project is not within the whitebark the productivity, to the extent feasible, of the 4 key grizzly pine ecotype. This project area has one of bear food sources as identified in the Conservation the four food sources identified in the Strategy. Emphasize maintaining and restoring whitebark Conservation Strategy. It is whitebark pine stands inside and outside the PCA. pine trees. This project would not remove any whitebark pine. This project area does not include insect aggregation areas, trout spawning streams, or areas of winter killed ungulates

Yale Creek Project, Secure Habitat Analysis

Caribou-Targhee National Forest 2/22/2017

Area of Secure Habitat (excluding Lakes) Units of Subunit Name Area 1998 Current Project Change in Secure 1% change Secure Secure Secure from baseline allowed* Square 86.76 88.19 85.18 -1.58 1.92 Miles Henrys Lake Acres 55527 56440 54515 -1012 1227 #1

Percentage 45.4 46.1 44.6 NA NA This table indicates that this project would reduce secure habitat by 1,012 acres of the 1227 allowed.

Map indicating the location of the areas of secure habitat that would be temporarily lost while this project is implemented. The standards and guidelines applicable to this project in the Conservation Strategy are met by following the direction in the Targhee RFP and the Amendment. Direct and Indirect Effects:

Project activities, which involve temporary road development, timber harvest with large vehicles, sawing, fuelwood collection, and passenger vehicle use; have the potential to disturb or displace grizzly bears. These impacts will be partially mitigated. Grizzly bears will have alternate areas to occupy, if necessary, because the Targhee National Forest forest plan requires a 7000-acre security area adjacent to all vegetation management projects where no other vegetation management projects can occur. While there will be a decrease in secure area, this project would follow the application rule found in the Amendment. The Targhee National Forest forest plan requires that project activities be confined in space and time, to the extent possible. This would be achieved by following the Application Rule which limits projects to three years and requires that all temporary roads be decommissioned within one year following the end of the treatment. There is a lack of project activity at the onset and outset of hibernation period. Project activities, which involve timber harvest and thinning vegetation, will alter potential habitat for grizzly bears. However, this alteration is expected to be insignificant for the following reasons: First, although thinning reduces cover, cover will remain. And, decreases in cover have not been determined to be detrimental for grizzly bears (ICST 2007). Second, only temporary roads would be constructed for this project and efforts will be made to prevent illegal OHV user-created routes in the project area. The amount of secure habitat within a grizzly bear’s home range is likely the most important determinant of grizzly bear survival (Schwartz et al. 2010). This project would not permanently decrease secure habitat for grizzly bears. Project activities, which involve thinning vegetation, will alter habitat for grizzly bears with respect to forage. Grasses are the primary food of grizzly bears in May and June (Mattson et al. 1991). Thinning activities tend to produce more understory vegetation, including grasses and potentially berry- producing shrubs. Cumulative Effects: Grizzly bear-livestock conflicts may occur with cattle, but are more likely with sheep (ICST 2007). Relocation or removal of grizzly bears is possible when livestock conflicts occur. However, there are no open livestock allotments in or adjacent to the project area.

Human-grizzly bear conflicts are an important conservation issue, and human recreation, private developments, and human populations are increasing in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Hansen et al. 2002). In Idaho, most grizzly bear-human conflicts are associated with food rewards at private residences (Aber 2015). There are residences adjacent to the project area but the project wouldnot increase the likelihood that food rewards to bears would increase.

Determination: Project activities are expected to have insignificant effects to grizzly bears: Disturbance or displacement of grizzly bears is not expected because the project area is in an area where there are much less radio locations of grizzly bears relative to other areas of the district. And there is ample adjacent alternative habitat available to grizzly bears on the district. Degradation of grizzly bear habitat is not expected because thinning activities and canopy opening maintain cover and secure habitat would not be permanently decreased. Further, reduction of the overstory from thinning is expected to increase understory vegetation such as grasses and berry-producing shrubs which are grizzly bear food. Thus, it is my determination that project activities may affect, but not likely to adverselyaffect grizzly bears.

Canada Lynx The Ashton-Island Park Ranger District is in a secondary lynx area. Secondary lynx areas are defined by sporadic current and historic records of lynx, overall low relative abundance, and no documentation of reproduction. Secondary lynx areas are hypothesized to be important for dispersal of lynx or provide habitat until the animal(s) return to core areas. The lynx recovery outline objective for secondary lynx areas is to maintain habitat for occupancy by lynx (USFWS 2005). It is not believed that secondary areas will support lynx reproduction or home ranges (ILBT 2013). There is no evidence that lynx occupy the Ashton-Island Park District. The Targhee National Forest is presently re-designating lynx analysis units (LAUs) and lynx linkage habitat and completing an associated environmental impact statement (EIS). On June 6, 2012, the federal judge of the District Court of Idaho ruled that an EIS needed to be completed for the 2005 LAU map. The previous LAU map of 2001 no longer represents the best available science because it is based upon outdated vegetation layers. Thus, lynx habitat, as described here, is determined using the definition in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (USDA 2007). The Caribou Targhee National Forest was following the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) unit 2007, when The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) was released. The NRLMD includes Guidelines that apply to all National Forest System lands that are known to be occupied by Canada Lynx at the time of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Amendment. These guidelines should be followed with the established LAUs and linkage areas in most cases, although there may be site-specific conditions where there may be reason to not follow a guideline. The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) provides objectives and guidelines for all projects on the CTNF. The NRLMD applies to all National Forest System lands that were known to be occupied by Canada lynx at the time of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Amendment, 2007 (USDA 2007). The lynx habitat has been updated using the TNF Lynx Habitat Mapping Process (12/17/2013) (USDA 2013). It is the latest information on lynx habitat for the TNF. Lynx habitat is comprised of primary and secondary vegetation. Primary lynx vegetation is defined as subalpine fir habitat types, even if the dominant cover is of Douglas-fir or lodgepole pine (USDA 2007). However, there are subalpine fir habitat types which are not considered primary lynx vegetation because the result is a lodgepole pine climax seral stage; these are subalpine fir with a grouse whortleberry or a pine grass understory. Secondary lynx vegetation includes other cool, moist habitat types of Douglas fir, when intermingled with and immediately adjacent to primary vegetation. Dry forest habitat types of Douglas fir or lodgepole pine do not appear to be associated with lynx and so are not included as lynx habitat (USDA 2007). The Principal Watershed 9A includes portions of two LAUs. They are LAU 3 Sheridan Creek with a total of 32,932 acres and LAU 4 Coffeepot with a total of 23,693 acres. There are 18,536 acres of mapped lynx habitat in LAU 3 and 13,507 acres of mapped lynx acres in LAU 4 (see mapping process above). There is a small portion of the project area within LAU 3 but there is no mapped or identified habitat in LAU 3 from this project. All impacts from treatment will be in LAU 4. Further GIS based analysis refined the mapped acres for LAU 3 and LAU 4 (Robertson 2017). This process identified and additional 3052 acres of lynx habitat in LAU 3 for a total of 21,588 acres, and an additional 2406 acres in LAU 4 for a total of 15,913 acres of lynk habitat. To determine if stands within the treatment units is lynx habitat, stand exams (where available), lynx habitat mapping, and cover board data were used. The acres of habitat in the treatment area determined to be suitable for lynx was 1,496 acres. There is very limited treatment options in lynx habitat. This would curtail most effective fuels reduction efforts. Because of this, lynx habitat within identified Wildland Urban Interface areas are exempt from this restriction. The treatment units in this project are all within the WUI. Standard Veg S6 from the NRLMD states that management activities that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional forests may only occur in very limited exceptions or within the WUI (NRLMD). This project would reduce the multi-story nature of the project area by thinning overstory trees, removing understory trees, and to six feet of some remaining overstory trees. The WOI exception includes restrictions. Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). The standard that applies to this project is Standard VEG 6 which restricts thinning that removes snowshoe hare habitat except within the WUI. On the Caribou-Targhee 6% of lynx habitat would be 63,000 acres (Lynx Annual Report 2017). This report indicated that there were a total of 2,250 acres of lynx habitat treated inside of the WUI where the 6% rule applies. Adding the existing 2,250 acres and the 1,496 acres from this project the total would be 3,746 acres or 6% of the limit. The total acres treated within the WUI where the 6% rule applies would remain well below the 63,000 acres limit. During 1999-2003, portions of the district (Centennial Mountains, Yellowstone Plateau, and west side of the Tetons) were surveyed as part of the national lynx detection survey. There was 1 lynx detection during the survey on the west side of the Tetons on the Teton Basin Ranger District. Between 1874 and present, there have been approximately 5 reliable or confirmed lynx sightings on the Ashton-Island Park Ranger District. Most of these sightings are in the northern portion of the district. All sightings were of trapped, shot, or harvested lynx between 1968 and 1987. These detections may be related to lynx irruptions from Canada (ILBT 2013). The propensity of lynx to undergo long-distance exploratory movements has been well-documented from movements of radio-collared lynx from the Colorado lynx project. Lynx from the Colorado project have traveled to Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (Shenk 2009). Two individuals from the Colorado project crossed the northeastern portion of the district in 2007 and, within 10 kilometers of the project area. In addition, a former resident male of the Wyoming Range made 2 summer exploratory treks through the district in 2000 and 2001 (Squires and Oakleaf 2005), also within 10 kilometers of the project area.

Project activities are expected to have very limited effects to Canada lynx: There are no resident lynx in the project area. Traveling lynx are possible within or near the project area. All management direction in the 2007 NRLMD will be met. The NRLMD addresses the inadequate regulatory mechanisms which were the primary reason for the listing of lynx. The land management plan amendments for lynx have substantially reduced the influence of anthropogenic impacts to lynx (ILBT 2013).Thus, it is my determination that project activities “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx.

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines From the Record of Decision, Attachment 1 All Management Practices and Activities Explanation and Discussion (ALL) Objective ALL O1-Maintain or restore lynx This project would not create barriers to lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs, and movement. The project would remove in linkage areas. understory vegetation in the project but maintain some overstory trees. The project is in the southern portion of the lynx habitat and would maintain the secure timber to the north, allowing uninterrupted travel.

Standard ALL S1-New or expanded permanent Not Applicable (NA). No permanent development and vegetation management developments would be constructed with this projects must maintain habitat connectivity in project. Areas following treatment would an LAU and/or linkage area. maintain a forested condition as overstory trees would be present as well as understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs and shrubs.

Guideline ALL G1-Methods to avoid or reduce NA. No highways would be constructed or effects on lynx should be used when reconstructed constructing or reconstructing highways or forest highways across federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses, or overpasses.

Standard LAU S1-Changes in LAU boundaries This project would not include changing LAU shall be based on site-specific habitat boundaries. information and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office.

Vegetation Management Activities and Explanation and Discussion Practices (VEG) Objective VEG O1-Manage vegetation to This project is in the WUI and would not mimic or approximate natural succession and mimic natural succession or disturbance disturbance processes while maintaining processes. Removal of understory trees and habitat components necessary for the some of the overstory trees would mimic a conservation of lynx. surface fire or moderate intensity fire that is a common disturbance in Douglas-fir forests. This type of project is allowed under Standard VEG S6. Objective VEG O2-Provide a mosaic of habitat This project is in the WUI and would not conditions through time that support dense provide a mosaic or promote dense horizontal horizontal cover, and high densities of cover. This type of project is allowed under snowshoe hare habitat in both the stand Standard VEG S6. initiation structural stage and in mature, multi- story conifer vegetation.

Objective VEG O3-Conduct fire use activities NA. This project does not involve managing to restore ecological processes and maintain or fire for resource benefit improve lynx habitat.

Objective VEG O4-Focus vegetation This project is in the WUI and would not management in areas that have potential to improve snowshoe hare habitat. The objective improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but of this project is to modify fire behavior presently have poorly developed understories through removal of surface, ladder and crown that lack dense horizontal cover. fuels. This type of project is allowed under Standard VEG S6.

Standard VEG S1-Where and to what this This project does not include regeneration, so applies: Standard VEG S1 applies to all this standard is met. vegetation management projects that regenerate forests, except for fuel treatment projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). In addition, fuel treatment projects may not result in more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10 The standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages limit disturbance in each LAU as follows: If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects. Standard VEG S2-Where and to what this This project does not involve regeneration so applies: Standard VEG S2 applies to all timber this standard is met. management projects that regenerate forests, Additional, this project area has not included except for fuel treatment projects within the regeneration treatments is more than ten years. wildland urban interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: This project does not involve regeneration and is located in WUI; this standard is met. Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2 VEG S5, Additional, this project area has not included and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 regeneration treatments in more than ten years. percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). On the Caribou-Targhee 6% of lynx habitat would be 63,000 acres (Lynx Annual Report For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see 2017). This report indicated that there were a guideline VEG G10. total of 2,250 acres of lynx habitat treated inside of the WUI where the 6% rule applies. The Standard: Timber management projects Adding the existing 2,250 acres and the 1,496 shall not regenerate more than 15 percent of acres from this project the total would be 3,746 lynx habitat on NFS lands within an LAU in a acres or 6% of the limit or 0.1% of the lynx ten year period. habitat in the unit. The total acres treated within the WUI where the 6% rule applies would remain well below the 63,000 acres limit.

Standard VEG S5-Where and to what this This project does not include precommercial applies: Standard VEG S5 applies to all thinning. It would remove the understory, limb precommercial thinning projects, except for some overstory trees to 6 feet and remove some fuel treatment projects that use precommercial overstory (commercial) trees. thinning as a tool within the wildland urban On the Caribou-Targhee 6% of lynx habitat interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject would be 63,000 acres (Lynx Annual Report to the following limitations: 2017). This report indicated that there were a Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do total of 2,250 acres of lynx habitat treated not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 inside of the WUI where the 6% rule applies. and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 Adding the existing 2,250 acres and the 1,496 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each acres from this project the total would be 3,746 administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). acres or 6% of the limit or 0.1% of the lynx habitat in the unit. The total acres treated For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see within the WUI where the 6% rule applies guideline VEG G10. would remain well below the 63,000 acres The Standard:Precommercial thinning limit. projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat may occur from the stand initiation structural stage until the stands no longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat only: 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved stock; or 3. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional level of the Forest Service, and state level FWS, where a written determination states: a. that a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or b. that a project is likely to have a short tern adverse effect on lynx or its habitat, but would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat; or 4. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning around individual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline; or 5. For daylight thinning of planted rust- resistant white bark pine where 80%of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is retained; or 6. To restore white bark pine. Exceptions 2 through 6 shall only be utilized in LAUs where Standard VEG S1 is met.

Standard VEG S6-Where and to what this This project would reduce snowshoe hare applies: Standard VEG S6 applies to all habitat in multi-story mature or late vegetation management projects except for fuel successional forests but is exempt because it is treatment projects within the wildland urban in the WUI. interface (WUI) as defined by HFRA, subject The standard that applies to this project is to the following limitations: Standard VEG 6 which restricts thinning that Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do removes snowshoe hare habitat except within not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 the WUI. On the Caribou-Targhee 6% of lynx and VEG S6 shall occur on no more than 6 habitat would be 63,000 acres (Lynx Annual percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each Report 2017). This report indicated that there administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). were a total of 2,250 acres of lynx habitat treated inside of the WUI where the 6% rule For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see applies. Adding the existing 2,250 acres and guideline VEG G10. the 1,496 acres from this project the total The Standard: Vegetation management would be 3,746 acres or 6% of the limit or projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in 0.1% of the lynx habitat in the unit. The total multi-story mature or late successional forests acres treated within the WUI where the 6% rule may occur only: applies would remain well below the 63,000 acres limit. 1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, and special use permit improvements, including infrastructure within permitted ski area boundaries; or 2. For research studies or genetic tree tests evaluating genetically improved reforestation stock; or 3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest (e.g. removal due to location of skid trails). Exceptions 2 and 3 shall only be utilized in LAUs where Standard VEG S1 is met. (NOTE: Timber harvest is allowed in areas that have potential to improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed understories that lack dense horizontal cover [e.g. uneven age management systems could be used to create openings where there is little understory so that new forage can grow]).

Guideline VEG G1-Vegetation management This project is a fuels reduction project within projects should be planned to recruit a high the WUI and it will reduce density of conifer. density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs This activity is allowed within the WUI (See where such habitat is scarce or not available. Standard VEG S6). Priority for treatment should be given to stem- exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage stands to enhance habitat conditions for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole stands). Winter snowshoe hare habitat should be near denning habitat.

Guideline VEG G4-Prescribed fire activities If broadcast burning is used to reduce slash should not create permanent travel routes that following treatment no new trails or fire lines facilitate snow compaction. Constructing that would facilitate snow compaction. No permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles permanent fire breaks would be constructed should be avoided. on ridges or saddles. Guideline VEG G5-Habitat for alternate prey The forested habitat in this watershed is 79% species, primarily red squirrel, should be mature and old, providing habitat for red provided in each LAU. squirrel.

Guideline VEG G10 - Fuel treatment projects The treatment areas will remain forested after within the WUI as defined by HFRA should be treatment though with lower densities. The designed considering Standards VEG S1, S2, increased sunlight reaching the ground will S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation. promote herbaceous vegetation, increasing diversity of prey species available to the lynx. Guideline VEG G11 - Denning habitat should The forested habitat in this watershed is 79% be distributed in each LAU in the form of mature and old, providing habitat for lynx pockets of large amounts of large woody denning. Down woody material that would debris, either down logs or root wads, or large provide denning habitat is not present in the piles of small wind thrown trees (“jack- treatment units in jack-strawed piles nor will strawed” piles). If denning habitat appears to that structure remain following treatments as be lacking in the LAU, then projects should be that condition would not meet the fuels designed to retain some , reduction objective of this project. piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future.

LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT (GRAZ): Explanation and Discussion This project would not change or impact NA grazing.

HUMAN USE PROJETS (HU): Explanation and Discussion Objective HU O1-Maintain the lynx’s natural The thinning on the decommissioned road in competitive advantage over other predators in Unit 2 would not be accessible by ATVs or deep snow, by discouraging the expansion of motorcycles but the area may increase the snow-compacting activities in lynx habitat. ability of snowmobiles to travel on the route.

Guideline HU G9-On new roads built for All temporary roads would be decommissioned projects, public motorized use should be within 1 year of the completion of the project. restricted. Effective closures should be provided in road designs. When the project is over, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives.

LINKAGE AREAS (LINK): Explanation and Discussion This project is not in linkage habitat NA

Direct and Indirect Effects Project activities are expected to have very limited effects to Canada lynx: There are no resident lynx in the project area. Traveling lynx are possible within or near the project area. All management direction in the 2007 NRLMD will be met. The NRLMD addresses the inadequate regulatory mechanisms which were the primary reason for the listing of lynx. The land management plan amendments for lynx have substantially reduced the influence of anthropogenic impacts to lynx (ILBT 2013).Thus, it is my determination that project activities “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx. Project Design Features and Mitigation Measure Minimize public use on temporary roads No permanent fire breaks would be constructed on ridges or saddles.

Wolverine In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, wolverines occupy areas at or above tree-line in summer and areas below, but centered at tree-line, in the winter (Inman et al. 2012b). Wolverines appear to avoid grass and shrub habitats (Copeland et al. 2007). Wolverine reproductive dens were in alpine habitat at 8200 to 9500 feet on northerly aspects (Inman et al. 2007). Overall, approximately 90 percent of wolverine locations in winter and summer are in areas of persistent spring snow cover (Copeland et al. 2010). Scat analysis in central Idaho revealed that almost 50 percent of the diet in both summer and winter was ungulate carrion. Small mammals (rodents and lagomorphs) were the second most common prey item in scat (Copeland 1996). Parturition occurs in February and March, cubs travel with their mother by July, and juveniles commonly disperse the following winter and spring. Specifically, wolverine juveniles disperse at 10 to 15 months of age and movements may last several years, but the primary dispersal period is February and March (Inman et al. 2012a). In the GYE, female and male home range size averaged 163 and 418 square miles, respectively, resulting in a conservative distribution of 1 wolverine per 100 square miles (Inman et al. 2012b). Dispersal distances are commonly greater than 100 miles (Copeland 1996, Inman et al. 2012b).

Affected Environment/Existing Condition: Wolverine denning habitat may be the most important habitat type for wolverine persistence. Using wolverine denning habitat information from the Greater Yellowstone Wolverine study (aspect, elevation, habitat type) (Inman et al. 2007), we mapped wolverine denning habitat on the Targhee National Forest (USFS, unpublished data). There is no potential wolverine denning habitat within or adjacent to the project area. A wolverine habitat analysis, based on snow depth, road density, elevation, terrain ruggedness, forest edge, and conifer cover; identified no wolverine habitat in the project area (Brock et al. 2007).

During winters 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, aerial surveys were conducted on the Targhee National Forest (TNF) and tracks were detected in the Centennial and Henry’s Lake Mountains (Heinemeyer and Copeland 1999, Heinemeyer et al. 2001). Then, research by the Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program demonstrated use of these areas and the Teton Range by both male and female wolverines from 2003 to 2006 (Inman et al. 2012b). A radio-collared wolverine may have dispersed through a portion of the Targhee National Forest to reach the eastern Centennial Mountains within the last decade (Inman et al. 2012b). Verified wolverine detections on the district are 30 or more kilometers from the project area.

Regulatory Framework: On December 13, 2010, the wolverine became a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. On February 1, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to list the wolverine as a threatened species. Climate change was identified as the primary threat to wolverines. On August 14, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew that proposal. However, on April 4, 2016, the district court vacated and remanded that decision; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must reconsider the science and issue a new decision. Thus, the wolverine is again proposed threatened. The 1997 Revised Forest Plan for the Targhee National Forest does not contain specific management direction for wolverines. Effects and Determination: The wolverine was not a listed species at the time of the streamlining meeting with the USFWS in 2015. Because of this, it is recommended to include this species in any request for concurrence on the determination of affects. Project activities are not expected to have any effects to wolverines. Paramount wolverine conservation issues are secure denning habitat and maintenance of dispersal ability (Ruggiero et al. 2007). There is no denning habitat within or near the project area. Further, no project activities would occur during the primary dispersal period of wolverines (February and March) (Inman et al. 2012a). And, if a wolverine did disperse through the project area during project activities, there is no reason to believe that project activities would prevent successful dispersal because wolverines have dispersed across highways and interstates. Thus, the project activities will have no effect to wolverines.