GRAY WOLF (Sensitive) Introduction. Analysis Area. Affected Environment/Existing Condition

Transcription

1 Chapter 3 Gray Wolf GRAY WOLF (Sensitive) Introduction Effective May 5, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) removed gray wolves in a portion of the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS) encompassing Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Gray wolves will remain listed under the ESA in Wyoming, although the Service is working closely with that state to develop a wolf management plan that would allow wolves in Wyoming to be removed from the list in the future. This direct final rule implements legislative language in the recently-enacted Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations bill. The Service and the states will monitor wolf populations in the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS and gather population data for at least five years. The gray wolf will be added to the FNF list of sensitive species and will remain there for 5 years. Analysis Area The cumulative effects analysis area for the gray wolf is the Spotted Bear River project area of approximately 50,000 acres, encompassing all proposed activities (Map 1-1). This is an appropriate cumulative effects analysis area for direct and indirect effects on wolves because it contains a large area of habitat to support wolves and their prey (deer, elk, and moose) and overlaps the known home range of the Spotted Bear wolf pack (Project File, Exhibit M-14). This area is large enough to be representative of the effects of natural and prescribed fire, natural tree mortality, timber harvest, thinning, and road management across the landscape. Past and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may affect gray wolves are identified in Table 3-1. Population Status Affected Environment/Existing Condition The gray wolf recovery plan (USDI FWS 1997) defined a recovered wolf population as 10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of 3 recovery areas for 3 successive years with some level of movement between areas. According to the USFWS, by the end of 2009, the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) recovery area will contain over 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves for the fourth consecutive year ( ), and probably has done so for the last seven years ( ) (Federal Register /Vol. 74, No. 62 /Thursday, April 2, 2009 /Rules and Regulations). At least 525 wolves inhabit Montana according to the 2009 Annual Wolf Conservation and Management Report (MTFWP 2010e, Project File, Exhibit M-15). This report shows Montana's minimum wolf population increased about 4 percent in 2009, compared to an 18 percent increase in Most of the increases in Montana's wolf population occurred in the northwest Wolf Management Unit 1 (including the project area) where the population grew to 308 wolves, in 64 verified packs, and 23 breeding pairs. In the fall of 2009, Montana had a wolf hunt for the first time and hunters harvested 72 wolves, including one wolf believed to be a member of the Spotted Bear Pack (Project File, Exhibit M

2 Chapter 3 Gray Wolf 14). According to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Park s (MTFWP) report, mortality was not high enough to stop or reverse population growth and the population is secure, with population parameters well above recovery levels. A minimum of 166 pups were documented in The USFWS conducted a multi-scale assessment for the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) segment of the gray wolf population, incorporated by reference (Federal Register /Vol. 74, No. 62 /Thursday, April 2, 2009 /Rules and Regulations). This assessment stated: The northwest Montana population segment (NRM DPS) has persisted for nearly 20 years, is robust today, and currently, genetic diversity throughout the NRM DPS is very high. Wolves in northwestern Montana are as genetically diverse as their vast, secure, healthy, contiguous, and connected source populations in Canada; thus, inadequate genetic diversity is not a wolf conservation issue in the NRM at this time. There is more than enough habitat connectivity between occupied wolf habitat in Canada, northwestern Montana, and Idaho to ensure exchange of sufficient numbers of dispersing wolves to maintain demographic and genetic diversity in the NRM wolf metapopulation. We have documented routine movement of radio-collared wolves across the nearly contiguous available suitable habitat between Canada, northwestern Montana, and central Idaho. Wolf dispersal into northwestern Montana from the more stable resident packs in the core protected area (largely the North Fork of the Flathead River along the eastern edge of Glacier National Park and the few large river drainages in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex) and the abundant National Forest Service lands largely used for recreation and timber production rather than livestock production, helps to maintain this segment of the NRM wolf population. The Spotted Bear River project area is used by the Spotted Bear wolf pack. The MTFWP conducts regular monitoring flights of the Spotted Bear pack and reported that this pack had 8 wolves, including one radio-monitored wolf, in 2010 (Project Exhibit M-14). This pack used a den site located within the project area in 2010 and produced 5 pups. Habitat The project area is within the Northwest Montana Gray Wolf Recovery Area and contains key habitat components in sufficient abundance and distribution on an annual basis to sustain a viable wolf population. Key components of wolf habitat (Wolf Recovery Plan 1987) are: 1) a sufficient, year-round prey base of ungulates and alternative prey, 2) suitable and somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites, and 3) sufficient space with minimal exposure to humans. The Spotted Bear Mountain and lower Spotted Bear River areas have been modeled as potential denning habitat and wolf den/rendezvous sites were located in the area in recent years. Boyd- Heger (1997) found that wolves studied in the North Fork Flathead River drainage appeared to select landscapes with relatively low elevation, flatter terrain, closer to water, and closer to roads at both smaller and larger scales in the central Rocky Mountains. Ungulates are the primary prey species for wolves, and wolf distribution is generally related to their density. Ungulates are found in the project area year-round. Ungulates are well-distributed in the project area and populations appear to stable (refer to the Elk/Mule Deer Section of Chapter 3). Implementation of A

3 Chapter 3 Gray Wolf grizzly bear standards has provided sufficient space for wolves with minimal exposure to humans. The Spotted Bear project area provides habitat of good quality and quantity, sufficient to support successful reproduction (in 2010) by the pack that inhabits the project area. Environmental Consequences Site specific indicators used for analysis of effects on gray wolves include: Effects of activities on the prey base Effects of activities on known or potential den and rendezvous sites Effects of human activities on habitat security Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 (No-Action) There would be no logging, burning, or thinning of potential denning habitat or areas within 1 mile of potential denning habitat within the project area (Project File, Exhibit M-16). In the short-term, wolves would continue to have abundant sources of prey in the project area. Habitat security would remain high (see sections on Ungulates and Grizzly Bear). Since there would be no timber harvest or burning, the forage base for prey animals that prefer early successional stages could decline over time. However, if there was a wildfire or extensive infestation by beetles, the forage base would increase, possibly over a widespread area. These events would lead to decreases in cover for wolves and their prey animals, followed by increases in forage for wolf prey animals over a period of years. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Den/rendezvous sites Proposed activities would occur in habitat mapped as potential denning habitat by the Flathead National Forest (Project File, Section M) in the vicinity of a den/rendezvous site used in Logging in the area near the den site would not be allowed until July 15, so the location and timing of logging and related activities (see Design Criteria, Chapter 2; Ungulate Section Chapter 3) would protect den/rendezvous sites under all action alternatives. The 2010 den is not in a proposed treatment unit, but if an active den site is discovered in any proposed treatment unit in the future activities would be modified, if needed, to protect den/stand conditions and maintain reproduction (See Design Criteria, Chapter 2). Prey Base Habitat conditions for the ungulate prey base would be maintained under all alternatives. Tree harvest and low-intensity burning (including timber harvest activity fuels) would promote germination and growth of most native shrub species and would increase forage for ungulate species. The amount of forage would increase most with Alternative 4. All action alternatives would reduce cover in the short-term, but it would increase over time as past harvest stands go through succession. Cover is abundant and well distributed across the project area and meets FNF Plan standards for ungulates (see Ungulate Section of Chapter 3 for more details)

4 Chapter 3 Gray Wolf Habitat Security Year-long road closures would remain in effect with all alternatives, maintaining low open road densities and providing a high level of elk habitat security in transitional habitats as well as winter and summer habitats. A-19 standards for grizzly bear have now been met and would continue to be met following implementation of the Spotted Bear River Project, providing a high level of security for wolves as well. (see Ungulate and Grizzly Bear Sections of Chapter 3 for more details). Activity timing stipulations applicable to all action alternatives would minimize disturbance to wolves and maintain a low level of activity near the den/rendezvous site of the Spotted Bear pack (see Design Criteria under Duration and Timing of Activities, Chapter 2). Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Past fires produced the general forest conditions present in the analysis area and so has fire suppression. Past fire suppression has led to build up of fuels, affecting the size and severity of wildfires. Ongoing and future fire suppression efforts would continue to affect ungulate/wolf habitat. Past and proposed prescribed burning creates and maintains forage openings. Past forest management activities such as timber harvesting, post-fire salvaging, firewood cutting, and recreational activities within the cumulative effects analysis area have been beneficial for the wolf prey base and have not been detrimental to wolf recovery. There is continued occupancy of the cumulative effects analysis area and successful reproduction by the Spotted Bear pack. For more detail on cumulative effects to the wolf prey base, see the section of Chapter 3 on ungulate effects. In terms of wolf habitat security, the trend of the past, when road building and increasing road densities was common, has been reversed. Relatively few humans get to the Spotted Bear River project area during the December to May period of time because all but one short segment of road in the area is closed to all vehicles, including over snow vehicles. The 2010 den site is protected by a road closure, which is subject to a maximum of three administrative trips per week from mid-may until December. In addition, the District Ranger has prohibited motorized use of the particular road closest to the active den site. There would be logging within 1 mile of potential denning habitat as a result of the adjacent Soldier Addition II project, but all units are more than 1 mile from the known denning area. Cumulatively, the net result of the project would be the maintenance of the relatively high level of habitat security for ungulates and wolves because timing restrictions are associated with both projects (see Design Criteria in Chapter 2). Other ongoing and foreseeable management actions (e.g. tree planting, gathering forest products, road maintenance and recreational activities, etc.) in the cumulative effects analysis area are not expected to adversely affect wolves. Ongoing efforts to protect the denning/rendezvous area located in the project area would continue. In the past, hunting of wolves may have been detrimental to recovery, but the wolf population in Montana continued to grow following the limited legal wolf hunt in Regulated hunting of wolves is proposed in the future

5 Chapter 3 Gray Wolf In general, wolf packs in the South Fork sub-watershed, the FNF, and the rest of the recovery area have benefited from the protections provided by the Endangered Species Act as well as FNF Plan standards for management of gray wolf habitat. Regulatory Framework and Consistency The gray wolf has been taken off the Endangered Species list. The wolf is now considered a Sensitive Species on the Flathead National Forest and will remain so for a minimum of 5 years after delisting. All project alternatives comply with the recovery goals and objectives of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1987) and the Flathead National Forest Plan (USDA FS 1986) (Table 3-46 and 3-47). The effects of proposed actions upon the wolf are also based on an additional analysis at the forest scale (Project File Exhibit M-1). The gray wolf population is at a recovered level and proposed project activities will not affect population viability or contribute toward a trend that would lead to federal listing of wolves or their habitat. The FNF Plan Standard states: Logging activities should not be conducted in or near the following areas at certain times of the year: (a) within one mile radius of known or highly suspected wolf whelping dens and initial rendezvous sites 15 March 1 July; (b) ungulate calving/fawning areas 1 May 15 July and (c) crucial ungulate winter ranges 1 December 15 April. The dates and locations given may vary and should be based on the current ongoing wolf research. Data from monthly monitoring flights of the radio-collared Spotted Bear pack member are provided to the Forest Service and are used to coordinate project activities with the activities of the wolf pack. Table Consistency with Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan direction Direction Projects/activities not within 1 mile of den or rendezvous areas and between 4/15 and 6/30. Maintains or enhances ungulate prey base. Livestock grazing levels (maintain or reduce) Maintains grazing where there is a history of livestock depredation or control actions on wolves. Introduces grazing into new areas where depredation is possible. Concern about increased mortality risk? Compliance Yes - timing requirements are included in project design criteria Yes - project would enhance ungulate prey base Yes - there would be no changes in livestock grazing Yes - there is no history of livestock depredation or control actions Yes - grazing would not be introduced No - wolf mortality risk would not increase as a result of this project The project would also comply with NFMA direction that wildlife habitat be managed to maintain diversity of existing native and desired non-native species well distributed across the planning area. At the end of 2009 there were approximately 15 wolf packs located on or near the FNF. Wolf Management Unit 1 in northwest Montana had at least 308 wolves in 64 packs, with 23 breeding pairs (FNF Evaluation and Compliance with NFMA Requirements to Provide for Diversity of Animal Communities, Project File Exhibit M-1)

6 Chapter 3 Gray Wolf While other factors outside of the Forest Service s control (illegal mortality, competing predator populations, global warming, etc.) may affect gray wolf recovery, actions proposed in the SBR Project are compatible with conserving gray wolves to a non-listed status and consistent with maintaining habitat for viable populations of gray wolves at the regional scale. Therefore, while the SBR Project may impact individual wolves or their habitat, effects would be negligible and would not be likely to result in a decline in population viability that would contribute to federal listing of this species or its habitat. Table Consistency with Flathead National Forest Plan Direction Wolf habitat needed to meet recovery goals includes available prey (especially elk, deer, and moose) and security. Stream and river bottoms provide important travel routes and gathering places. Logging activities should not be conducted in or near the following areas at certain times of the year: Within 1 mile radius of known or highly suspected dens and rendezvous sites from 3/15 to 7/1 Ungulate calving/fawning areas from 5/1 to 7/15 Important ungulate winter ranges from 12/1 to 4/15 The dates and locations given may vary and should be based on the current ongoing wolf research. Maintain active communications with research organizations and cooperating agencies. Maintain an active public information and education program addressing wolf recovery and management. Compliance Yes-travel routes are maintained in river and stream bottoms. Security is maintained by meeting A19 motorized access density objectives and additional timing restrictions for logging activities (refer to Design Criteria in Chapter 2). Proposed vegetation treatments meet ungulate habitat objectives. Yes-there would be no logging activities in the Spotted Bear Mountain den/rendezvous area from 3/15 to 7/15; no activities in winter range 12/1-5/15 Yes-active cooperation is ongoing Yes-forest-wide efforts include wolf education 3-192

7 Chapter 3 Fisher FISHER (Sensitive) Introduction The fisher was petitioned for listing as a Threatened or Endangered Species underwent a status review by the USFWS (Federal Register: April 16, 2010; Volume 75, Number 73). In their decision to conduct a status review, the USFWS stated that listing the fisher population in the Northern Rocky Mountains may be warranted due to two factors: 1) over-utilization by trapping, and 2) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed the status review of the fisher in the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains on June 30, 2011 and concluded in their 12-month finding that it does not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed potential factors that may affect the habitat and range of the fisher in the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains including timber harvest and management, climate change, fire, forest disease, furbearer trapping, disease and predator relationships, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and the effects of small population size. The Service concluded that these potential factors do not significantly impact the species. In addition, as stated in the 12- month finding, [w]e conclude that the best scientific and commercial information available indicates that the fisher in the USNRMs is not now, or in the foreseeable future, threatened by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range to the extent that listing under the Act as an endangered or threatened species is warranted at this time (FR pg ). Analysis Area Description The project area boundary of approximately 50,000 acres was used to determine effects of the proposed activities upon fisher. It is large enough to include a few fisher home ranges and is representative of effects of timber harvest, temporary road construction, road management, prescribed and natural fires, natural tree mortality, and other factors across the landscape. It is large enough to evaluate the ability of the habitat to support recovery of this species, but small enough to not obscure effects of the alternatives. All of the actions proposed in the alternatives are contained within this area. Past and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may affect fisher are identified in Table 3-1 of the EA. Population Status Affected Environment/Existing Condition During the late 19 th and early 20 th century, trapping, logging, and the conversion of forested areas to agricultural lands contributed to the fisher being extirpated from much of its range in the United States and eastern Canada. The fisher appeared to be eliminated from Montana at one time, as there were no trapping records in Montana from 1920 to1960. Within Montana and Idaho, over a million acres of mature coniferous forest burned in the early part of the 20 th 3-193

8 Chapter 3 - Fisher century. This may have played a role in the decline of fisher populations. However, recent DNA analysis has confirmed two populations in Idaho/western Montana that contain a genetic halotype of native fisher combined with that of translocated individuals (Schwartz, pers. comm. at USFS R1 Biologists Meeting, December 2010). In western Montana from 1968 to the late 1980s, fishers were known to occur in the Bitterroot Mountains bordering north-central Idaho, and west of the Continental Divide in the Whitefish Range, Flathead, and Swan Mountain Ranges (Vinkey 2003, p. 53) as well as in the Cabinet Mountains (since their re-introduction). There are verified fisher detections in these areas over the past two decades (FR 38512). Based on the limited available survey information, the contemporary distribution of fishers is similar to the historically depicted distribution in Idaho and Montana, despite alterations that have occurred within its range. Fox, bear, mountain lion, Great Horned Owls, and bobcat prey on fishers (FR 38527). Trapping is often the main mortality factor for fisher (FR38525). The fisher has a state ranking of S3: potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. Due to a lack of trapping records from , many biologists believed the fisher had been extirpated. However, recent DNA analysis has confirmed two populations in Idaho/western Montana; the population in the Lochsa River/Bitteroot Mountain area contains a genetic halotype of native fisher combined with that of translocated individuals (Schwartz, pers. comm. at USFS R1 Biologists Meeting, December 2010). In five separate reintroduction efforts, fishers were translocated from Minnesota and British Columbia to the northern Rocky Mountains between 1959 and 1991, but none of these reintroductions occurred in or near the SBR project area. At the project area scale, it is not surprising that fisher have not been recently confirmed. As stated in the revised EA on page 3-194, there is a quota of two fishers for Trapping District One (encompassing all of northwest Montana) and one fisher was trapped in the South Fork subwatershed in Since the Spotted Bear River area is more than 50 miles from the closest town, is now closed to all motorized use from December 1 - May 15 and the fisher trapping season is December 1 February 15, it is not surprising that fisher have not been trapped in the area. While fisher are distributed in northwest and west central Montana as well as northern and northcentral Idaho, they are believed to occur at extremely low densities. In high-quality habitats in British Columbia, fisher densities were low, with between 0.01 and per km 2. Vinkey reviewed historical records as well as carnivore research in Montana and concluded that the fisher is one of the lowest-density carnivores in the State (Federal Register: April 16, 2010; Volume 75, Number 73). As a result, the likelihood of seeing fisher in a specific project area is very low. Even if fisher are present in a project area, they are more difficult to detect than most species of wildlife and non-invasive monitoring results are often inconclusive. Hair snares to collect fisher hair for DNA confirmation have been put out in winter on various portions of the Flathead National Forest from , but fisher presence was not confirmed by hair samples. The likelihood of obtaining fisher hair is low due to the fisher s low population density. In addition, not every sample will yield quality DNA for analysis (pers. comm, K. Pilgrim, Montana DNA Analysis Laboratory). Winter track surveys are often inconclusive as well. The size of fisher 3-194

9 Chapter 3 - Fisher tracks overlaps with the size of marten tracks, so positive identification may be difficult. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks conducts winter track surveys for forest carnivores throughout the Flathead National Forest, which resulted in fisher detections annually across the whole Flathead Forest from , with no apparent trend in the data (Flathead Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report, see Project File U-1). To obtain reliable data about fisher populations in a project area a trapping/telemetry study is necessary and there is no ongoing fisher research on the Flathead National Forest. The SBR project area lies within MTFWP Trapping District One, encompassing most of northwest Montana. This area has a trapping quota of two fisher, and one fisher was harvested in Specifically, in the South Fork of the Flathead sub-watershed, 12 fisher were legally trapped between and 1 fisher was trapped between 1990 and No fisher were trapped in Flathead County from (Flathead Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report, 2010). The Spotted Bear River area is more than 50 miles from the closest town and is closed to all motorized use from December 1 - May 15. Since the fisher trapping season is December 1- February 15, the area is very difficult to access during the trapping season and detecting or trapping fisher is unlikely. Another factor that may affect fisher occupancy of habitat is the influence of other forest carnivores. Fisher may be preyed upon by other forest carnivores or have a difficult time competing with them for food. An ongoing study is looking at this factor (Schwartz, pers. comm. at USFS R1 Biologists Meeting, December 2010). Fisher may not currently occupy all areas of suitable habitat for a variety of reasons. Habitat According to the 12-monty finding, the fisher is a forest-dependent species that evolved in the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains (USNRMs) in a complex landscape mosaic shaped by fire, tree disease, windthrow, and human activities. In the USNRMs, younger forests provide foraging habitat, but abundant mature and old trees that provide extensive canopy cover for resting and possibly denning are also considered important elements to support fishers on the landscape (FR 38523). Fishers do not occur in all forested habitats today, and evidence would indicate they did not occupy all forest types in the past (FR 38508). Much of the SBR project area is relatively dry and provides habitat that is naturally of low quality or unsuitable for fisher. Fishers are known to be solitary and territorial, and require large home ranges where landscapes are less than optimal. This results in low population densities, as the population requires a large amount of quality habitat for survival and proliferation. Fishers also are long-lived, have low reproduction rates, and, though capable of long distance movements, generally have small dispersal distances. Small dispersal distances may be a factor of fishers reluctance to move through areas with no cover. Thus, where habitat is fragmented it is more difficult to locate and occupy distant yet suitable habitat, and fishers may be aggregated into smaller interrelated groups on the landscape (FR 38530) Fisher home range size may vary based upon many factors, but the average home range for a female fisher is expected to be about 15 square miles (Jones 1991). Habitat management at the landscape scale should incorporate a variety of young to midsuccessional stages to promote a diversity of prey species, in conjunction with late-successional 3-195

10 Chapter 3 - Fisher stages to provide key resting and denning habitat. Presence of standing dead and down woody material within habitat areas is also important. Preferred resting patches should be linked by travel corridors of closed canopy forest. Riparian corridors make excellent corridors to connect preferred habitats (Jones and Garton 1994). According to Ruggiero and others (1994) fishers are dependent on mature and old forests within mesic, low-to-mid elevation (<6300 elevation) landscapes. Jones (1991) concluded that young, mature, and old forest stands are used most heavily in the winter, whereas mature and old stands are preferred in the summer. Fishers prefer stands with large logs and standing snags (Ruggiero et al 1994). In the Lochsa region of Idaho, young are born in late March or the first week of April, in cavities of live trees with heart rot, or snags (often in holes drilled by pileated woodpeckers). Young are weaned and move away from the den by mid-june, using resting sites in trees to avoid predators such as wolves, mountain lions, bobcats and owls. Dispersal occurs at the end of January, with males dispersing long distances and females staying closer to their natal den site (Schwartz, pers. comm. at USFS R1 Biologists Meeting, December 2010). Fishers are also strongly associated with riparian zones (Jones 1991, Ruggiero et al 1994). Jones (1991) found that over 80% of his fisher relocations were within 100m of a riparian zone or wet area. Fishers avoid Ponderosa pine habitats and other dry, open areas (Schwartz, pers. comm. at USFS R1 Biologists Meeting, December 2010). Like marten, fisher appear closely associated with interior forest conditions (Ruggiero et al 1994). To exclude fragmented habitats, Hillis and Lockman (2003) in an analysis of fisher habitat in USFS Region 1, excluded forested stands less than 160 acres in size and more than 600 feet from other suitable habitat. In the Northern Rockies, fishers evolved with disturbances such as wildfires that created openings in mature forested habitats. These younger age classes can promote a diversity of prey species and have long-term benefits for fisher populations (Jones 1991). The most important fisher foods reported in the literature include snowshoe hares, porcupines, deer, passerine birds, and a variety of vegetation. Red-backed voles, red squirrels, and short-tailed shrews also have been reported in fisher diets (Witmer et al. 1998). Schwartz (2010) stated that his15 radiocollared fisher fed on squirrels, snowshoe hares, birds, marten and wasp nests. A pulse of large logs on the ground due to fire or insect epidemics can provide denning structures and cover, but are likely to be avoided if the canopy cover is less than 40 percent. Fishers are apparently tolerant of human activity, but the ease of human access into an area correlates with fisher mortality through direct or incidental trapping (Claar et al. 1999). Fishers can travel relatively long distances, and daily movement of 5 to 6 km has been documented repeatedly. Riparian areas often provide movement corridors, while large non-forested openings and highways may create barriers to movement (Witmer et. al.1998). The best available science was used in defining potential fisher habitat for this analysis; mature and older forests less than 6300 elevation within 100 meters of perennial riparian features were considered to provide key habitat for resting and denning. Within 100 meters of water, there are approximately 5,500 acres of mature and old forests in the project analysis area (see the Project File, Exhibit M-17). To evaluate year-round habitat connectivity, areas of moist habitat in a pole/mature/old forest condition, with canopy cover >40%, were considered. Areas of habitat 3-196

11 Chapter 3 - Fisher less than 160 acres in size and more than 600 feet from tree cover were excluded as potential habitat. This potential habitat within the project area allows dispersal of fisher between home ranges in the analysis area and neighboring areas, including the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Connectivity of fisher habitat is good, except for the Dry Park/ Crossover area, which is naturally drier. This area, as well as south-facing slopes in the lower Spotted Bear River drainage, does not provide suitable habitat for fisher (see the Project File, Exhibit M-17). Potential fisher habitat in the Spotted Bear River project area totals 22,156 acres (approximately 44% of the project analysis area) which is within the historic range of variability for fisher habitat on the Flathead National Forest of % (Hillis and Lockman, 2003). As described in the Forest Vegetation section of Chapter 3, forest succession following extensive wildfires that occurred in the early 1900s created stands that are now mature. Hartwell and others (1999) concluded understory climax conifers increased substantially during the last 60 years due to fire suppression. In their assessment of USFS Region 1 fisher habitat, Hillis and Lockman (2003) suggest that mature and old forests at low to mid elevations are now denser, have a higher percentage of climax understory conifers, and more coarse, woody debris. Consequently, Hillis and Lockman concluded that mature/old forests exist at historically normal levels and the availability of microhabitats including coarse, woody debris, understory shrubs, and understory conifers are also likely at historically normal or higher-than-historically-normal levels. Wildlife habitat estimates for the Flathead Forest and Region 1 were updated in 2008 using onthe-ground Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot data. On the Flathead National Forest, mature and old forest habitat that is modeled as being suitable for fisher totals 43.5% (8.6 % for summer habitat and 34.9% for winter habitat; with 90% confidence intervals of 2-3%)(Project File Exhibit M-1, Flathead National Forest Evaluation and Compliance with NFMA Requirements to Provide for Diversity of Animal Communities, Project File Exhibit M-1). This update took into account the large fires that have occurred since 1998, burning at higher-thannormal severities (see FNF FP Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Project File U-1). Sections on Forest Age and Size Classes, Successional Stages, Old Growth Forest, as well as Dead Standing (Snags) and Down Wood Habitat (see Forest Vegetation Section of Chapter 3) further discuss the potential of the SBR project area to provide habitat components for fisher. Environmental Consequences The following effects indicators were used to focus the fisher analysis and disclose relevant environmental effects: Open roads and snag removal as well as habitat security during the trapping season Acres within 100 meters of streams or riparian habitats affected by activities Connectivity of mid to late seral habitat following proposed activities Acres changed from mid or late seral structure to early seral structure 3-197

12 Chapter 3 - Fisher Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative) Roads would continue to be closed from December 1- May 15 and road densities would continue to meet Amendment 19 standards, providing a high level of habitat security for fisher and a low level of trapping access, so the risk of trapping mortality would remain low. Along open roads, large snags would be cut by firewood cutters, but snags would remain abundant in many portions of the cumulative effects analysis area that are not accessible by open roads. Of the approximately 50,000 acres within the project area, 22,156 acres of high quality potential fisher habitat remain available in the short term, providing high levels of connectivity between key habitats occurring within 100 meters of riparian areas. Future availability of habitat is more difficult to predict. The high fuel loading in some stands, as well as continued mortality of trees due to beetle infestation, would create a high risk of large intense fires, increasing the risk for destruction or isolation of fisher habitat within and adjacent to the project area. This effect would last until burned areas regenerated to a pole size class up to 70 years. The Corporal Fire, which burned approximately 16,000 acres in and adjacent to the project area in 2007, is an example of this type of large, intense fire. With an absence of fire or other stand-replacing disturbance, the availability of forested habitats providing fisher habitat would increase over the long-term. Insect and disease would continue to kill trees in the project area, provided snags and down logs used by fisher for denning and resting. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2, 3, and 4 Roads would continue to be closed from December 1- May 15 and road densities would continue to meet Amendment 19 standards, providing a high level of habitat security for fisher and a low level of trapping access, so the risk of trapping mortality would remain low. Along open roads, large snags would be cut by firewood cutters, but snags would remain abundant in many portions of the cumulative effects analysis area that are not accessible by open roads. During implementation of the SBR Project, roads opened for timber harvest would remain closed to the public and temporary roads would be rehabilitated following harvest (see Design Criteria under Access/Roads in Chapter 2) so public access to snags and down woody material would not increase. Acres within 100 meters of streams or riparian land types affected by activities Table 3-48 displays the number of acres proposed by project activities that occur within 100 meters of riparian landtypes. Less than 1% of the area within 100 meters of riparian land types would be treated by proposed units; Harvest Units 43 and 45 (in all action alternatives) are located within 75 meters of a riparian landtype and two existing open roads, so additional effects from tree harvest would be minor. Other riparian areas would retain mid to late seral habitat in strips at least 100 meters wide following proposed project activities, meeting fisher habitat management objectives. Riparian habitats are well distributed throughout the project area and would remain suitable for fisher with all alternatives, so that fisher would not be adversely affected. All treatments would comply with INFISH and RHCA direction for management of riparian areas (see Chapter 2 Design Criteria under Water, Riparian Areas, & Fish )

13 Chapter 3 - Fisher Table Changes in key habitat within 100 meters of mapped riparian landtypes Acres Changed Treatment Type Potential Effects to Fisher 8 acres Alt acres Alts. 2 & 4 Commercial Thin Changed from medium or large tree summer/winter habitat to a more open stand with canopy cover greater than 40%. Forest floor would still provide prey habitat. 40 acres (All Alts.) Precommercial Thin No expected effects. 64 acres (All Alts.) Seedtree/shelterwood Would become forest openings, not used by fisher. 23 acres Alt. 3 Prescribed Burn 99 acres Alt. 4 Connectivity of mid to late seral habitat Understory trees would be killed, but canopy cover is expected to exceed 40%. Stands would still provide fisher summer/winter habitat. Old growth habitat would not be harvested in any alternative (see Forest Vegetation section of Chapter 3). Numerous blocks of interconnected old forest habitat, ranging in size from 160 to 4000 acres, would remain available with all alternatives. One 2,300 and one 4,200-acre block of unfragmented, mature to late successional stage habitat occurs to the north of the Spotted Bear River in the project area. Another 2,800-acre block occurs to the south of the Spotted Bear River, adjacent to the Bob Marshall Wilderness. These large habitat blocks provide suitable habitat for fisher and a variety of other species associated with late successional habitats including species such as the marten, Northern Goshawk, Pileated Woodpecker, Winter Wren, Brown Creeper, and Boreal Owl. All alternatives would result in some changes to of mid to late seral habitat, but connectivity of potential habitat would remain suitable for use by fisher and other species associated with late seral habitats. Proposed harvest and burning would not result in isolation of any potential habitat blocks (see the Project File, Exhibit M-17). There is a total of approximately 22,000 acres of mid to late seral habitat in the Spotted Bear River project Area which is suitable for use by fisher as well as other forest carnivores such as marten. With all alternatives, mid to late seral habitat would remain well distributed across the SBR project area and would remain interconnected to allow for dispersal and interaction of reproductive female fisher. Approximately 10 functional home ranges would continue to be available in the SBR project area, located within the mean dispersal distances for females of 3.7 miles to 10.4 mi. observed in studies (mentioned earlier in this document). Snags would be marked to leave in harvest units in accordance with FNF Plan direction (see Design Criteria in Chapter 2), but are likely to be reduced below current levels in at least some locations. The distribution of mid to late seral habitat across the project area and surrounding wilderness and roadless landscape would maintain a high density of snags and down woody material where it currently exists and would maintain the interconnectedness of fisher habitat so that fisher would not be adversely affected. Early seral stands or habitat patches created by logging or prescribed burning would provide habitat for some fisher prey species, increasing sources of food. Several fisher studies have found that fisher home ranges included or were positively associated with younger successional stages, likely because of prey resources such as snowshoe hares or woodrats that were associated with those environments (Lofroth et al. 2010). Three percent of the mid to late seral habitat in the project area would be changed from a mid or late successional stage to an early successional 3-199

14 Chapter 3 - Fisher stage under all action alternatives, providing habitat for fisher prey species (refer to Table 3-49). Regeneration harvest would decrease the tree canopy to a level less than 40%, so these stands would not be used by fisher for denning, resting, or travel until regenerated stands reached the pole successional stage (anticipated to take about 50 years on the average site). Table Changes in mid-seral to late-seral moist habitat: Effects by alternative No Action Alternative2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Total Potential Habitat 22,156 acres 22,156 acres 22,156 acres 22,156 acres Change from mid or late-seral 705 acres harvested 719 acres harvested acres harvested to early-seral/structure 23 acres burned 99 acre burned Habitat affected as % of current potential habitat 0% 3% 3% 3% Harvest and burning treatments, along with thinning, would make some forested stands more resilient (see Fire and Forest Vegetation sections of Chapter 3) and could reduce the probability of large, intense fires that would reduce canopy cover to the point where it would make habitat unsuitable for use by fisher. Additional acres of prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 4 would not have effects upon fisher because most of it would occur in areas with dry habitat types that do not have high potential as fisher habitat. Cumulative Effects In the past, timber harvesting of mature and old-growth forests at mid to low elevations caused habitat fragmentation and resulted in loss of important habitat features such as large diameter logs and snags (see Forest Vegetation Section of Chapter 3). While proposed regeneration harvest would change a minor amount of fisher habitat, cumulatively, over 21,000 acres of moist, mid to late seral habitat would remain available within the project area and would be wellconnected to adjacent areas under all alternatives. To date, a total of 3,745 acres, or about 7% of the project area, has been harvested using regeneration harvest methods. Approximately half of this harvest occurred in the 1960s, so these stands are now becoming suitable for use by fisher. The remainder of these stands provide good habitat for many of the species fisher prey upon, but are not yet suitable as habitat for fisher denning and breeding. Stands harvested in the past are expected to become suitable for fisher denning and breeding habitat over the next years. Proposed harvest would reduce mature forest fisher habitat by 3%. Schwartz, the primary researcher currently studying populations of fisher in northern Idaho and western Montana, was consulted regarding the impact on fisher of a 3% change in mature forest habitat. He commented that his research could not quantify the effect of such a fine-scale habitat change. (Schwartz, pers. comm. 2011). Stands proposed for regeneration harvest under action Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 would become suitable habitat for fisher denning and breeding in about years. Habitat adjacent to a few intermittent streams has been changed from a mid or late seral stage to an early seral stage due to past harvest activities within the project area, but the majority of this habitat has not been affected by harvest activities (see the Project File, Exhibit M-17). Past wildfire suppression actions have created a large number of acres in mid to late-seral condition, however, in the longer term, fire suppression may contribute to more severe/larger fires on the landscape. This could have the unintended consequence of decreasing the quantity 3-200

15 Chapter 3 - Fisher and quality of fisher habitat in the future, while providing a large pulse of prey habitat. This effect has occurred over approximately 16,000 acres of the Corporal Fire area, in and adjacent to the southern portion of the project area. Past wildfires, such as the Corporal fire of 2007 in the Sargeant Creek drainage, have had some effect on habitat within 100 meters of perennial streams, changing areas from a mid to late seral stage to an early seral stage. Recreational activities within the project area, such as biking, camping, and hunting, do not affect fisher. However, activities such as cutting of large-diameter snags for firewood can reduce fisher denning opportunities. Firewood cutting opportunities in the project area are very limited due to a low density of open roads (see Grizzly Bear portion of the Wildlife Section of Chapter 3) as well as the Dead Standing and Down Woody Material portion of the Forest Vegetation section of Chapter 3). Regulatory Framework and Consistency According to the Flathead Forest Plan Amendment 21 (1999, pg. 9) habitat connectivity for old growth associated species would be provided by adding objectives and standards for retention of large live trees, snags, and coarse woody debris throughout the forest matrix, including timber harvest areas. This would provide habitat for foraging and movement of wildlife species, and may provide refugia for species with small home range size. Project design criteria (under Silvicultural Prescription Components (Snags, Downed Wood, etc.) in Chapter 2) and silvicultural prescriptions applicable to all alternatives, provide for retention of large live trees, snags, and down woody material in harvest areas and are incorporated into timber sale contracts. According to Seglund (1995) and others, riparian areas are important to fishers because they provide important rest site elements, such as broken tops, snags, and coarse woody debris. All treatments would comply with INFISH and RHCA direction (see Design Criteria under Water, Riparian Areas, & Fish in Chapter 2). Additionally, pg of Amendment 21 states A recommended strategy to reduce the adverse effects of fragmentation has been to increase the connectivity between otherwise isolated patches. Connectivity can be achieved by providing linear corridors of natural vegetation between patches. The analysis of habitat connectivity for fisher determined that all alternatives would comply with A21 because there would be over 21,000 acres of untreated mid to late seral moist forest matrix, well distributed and interconnected in the project area (with the exception of the Dry Park area, which is naturally more open and dry, thus not suitable fisher habitat). Field surveys verified that these areas contain large live trees, snags and coarse woody debris. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Forest Service to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B). All alternatives would be consistent with NFMA direction for diversity of plant and animal communities and ecological sustainability (Project File Exhibit M-1) because the amount of late seral forest fisher habitat in the project area would remain within the 75% range of historic range of variability identified for the FNF, and would remain in large blocks unaffected by new edge (see Old Forest portion of the Forest Vegetation of Chapter 3, as well as the Old Forest portion of the Wildlife section of Chapter 3)

16 Chapter 3 - Fisher At the Flathead National Forest scale, forest carnivore management considerations (including the fisher) include an ecosystem approach as well. Reduction of fragmentation of late-successional forest, retention of large down logs and snags needed for denning and feeding throughout the forest matrix, and application of INFISH standards for riparian areas all provide high levels of suitable fisher habitat while decreased year-round open road densities reduce the risk of overharvest, compared to past conditions. An analysis of vegetation composition, structure, and landscape pattern on the FNF (Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report: Fiscal Years , monitoring item #68) reported on changes in vegetation since the time of the A21 analysis in During this time period approximately 0.9% of the Flathead Forest was changed from a mid or late seral condition to an early seral condition due to regeneration harvest and 0.8% of the Forest had undergone fuels treatment. Currently, a landscape level strategy for fisher across the Rocky Mountain region has not been adopted, but there is a conservation strategy in place for fisher in Washington. In the State of Washington Fisher Recovery Plan (Hayes and Lewis 2006), fisher were reported to use forest stands where a majority of the mature timber was removed, but where patches of residual forest and high volumes of large woody debris were retained (R. Weir, pers. comm. in Hayes and Lewis 2006). In southwestern Oregon, fisher occur in intensively managed forest where snags, logs, and cavity trees are relatively abundant (K. Aubry, pers. comm. in Hayes and Lewis 2006). Research is needed to define the quantity and quality of habitat needed to provide adequate structure for fishers across the landscape (Payer and Harrison 2004 in Hayes and Lewis 2006) but both even-aged and uneven-aged management may be consistent with maintenance of fisher populations if harvests provide for retention and recruitment of standing dead and down trees with some mature forest overstory characteristics (Hayes and Lewis 2006). The Spotted Bear River Project is consistent with this conservation strategy because: 1. It maintains untreated areas within 100 meters of streams (key fisher habitat); 2. It maintains all old forest suitable for fisher habitat; 3. It maintains large trees, snags, and down woody material within harvest units; 4. The project area is surrounded by wilderness and contains roadless lands where natural ecosystem processes will prevail; 5. At the FNF scale, potential fisher habitat occurs at levels that are at or above historic levels and this habitat is distributed across the FNF (Project File Exhibit M-1); 6. At the SBR project area scale, 97% of suitable habitat (moist; lower-elevation; pole, mature, and old forest) would remain in large, interconnected patches suitable for interaction of reproductive fisher and for fisher travel; 7. At the USFS R1 scale, Samson (2006) concluded that potential habitat for the fisher was plentiful and had not declined to a critical 20-30% threshold of historic habitat remaining on the landscape (forested ecosystems are more extensive now than in the early 1900 s);and at the SBR project area scale, a 3% reduction of potential denning/resting habitat for fisher is not close to the 20-30% threshold reported by Samson (2006). 8. At the USFS R1 scale, Samson (2006) concluded that fishers (as well as the American Marten, Pileated Woodpecker, Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, and Flammulated Owl) were secure in terms of their persistence throughout their range. Samson calculated the minimum viable population habitat threshold for fisher in USFS 3-202