Biological Assessment and Evaluation of Effects of

###### Stanley Creek Road 653 Realignment and Crossing Rehabilitation

On Terrestrial Wildlife and Plant Species

Sawtooth National Recreation Area

Sawtooth National Forest

Ketchum, Idaho

> Prepared by: [/s/ Bobbi Filbert]{.underline} Date:
> [6/28/2004]{.underline}
>
> Bobbi Filbert
>
> Wildlife Biologist
>
> Reviewed by: Date:
>
> Robin Garwood
>
> North Zone Wildlife Biologist
>
> Prepared by: Date:
>
> Kim Pierson
>
> Botanist
>
> **Table of Contents**
>
> I. Summary.... ii
>
> II\. Introduction 1
>
> III\. Current Management Direction 2
>
> IV\. Description of the Proposed Action 3
>
> V. Existing Condition 4
>
> VI\. Effects of Proposed Action on Listed Species 5
>
> A. Endangered Species Act Listed Species 5
>
> B. Region Four Sensitive Species 8
>
> C. Region Four Proposed Sensitive Species 16
>
> VII\. Cumulative Effects 22
>
> VIII\. Mitigation and Monitoring 22
>
> IX\. Determinations 22
>
> A. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 22
>
> B. Region Four Sensitive Species 23
>
> C. Region Four Proposed Sensitive Species 23
>
> X. Literature Cited 23
>
> Appendix A -- Lynx Habitat Mapping Criteria. 28
>
> Appendix B - Sawtooth National Forest Threatened, Endangered,
> Proposed, Candidate,
>
> and Sensitive (current and proposed) Plant Species 29
>
> Appendix C -- Sawtooth Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
> Vegetation Management
>
> Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines. 31
>
> Appendix D -- Botanical Pre-field Review Form 32
>
> Appendix E -- Lynx Effects Matrix. 33
>
> **I. SUMMARY**

+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > **Species**         | > **Status**        | > **Determination**   |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Gray wolf             | > ESA Threatened    | No Effect             |
|                       | > (nonessential     |                       |
|                       | > experimental)     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Bald eagle          | > ESA Threatened    | No Effect             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Canada lynx         | > ESA Threatened    | No Effect             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Ute ladies'-tresses | > ESA Threatened    | No Effect             |
| > Orchid              |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Slender Moonwort    | > ESA Candidate     | No Effect             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Spotted bat         | > USFS Sensitive    | Beneficial Impact     |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Townsend\'s         | > USFS Sensitive    | Beneficial Impact     |
| > big-eared bat       |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Wolverine           | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Fisher              | > USFS Sensitive    | Beneficial Impact     |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Pygmy rabbit        | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Common loon         | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Peregrine falcon    | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Northern goshawk    | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Greater sage-grouse | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Mountain quail      | > USFS Sensitive    | No impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Great gray owl      | > USFS Sensitive    | Beneficial Impact     |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Flammulated owl     | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Boreal owl          | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > White-headed        | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
| > woodpecker          |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Northern three-toed | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
| > woodpecker          |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| > Columbia spotted    | > USFS Sensitive    | No Impact             |
| > frog                |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| White Cloud Milkvetch | USFS Sensitive      | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Stanley\'s            | USFS Sensitive      | No Impact             |
| Whitlow-grass         |                     |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Guardian Buckwheat    | USFS Sensitive      | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Bugleg Goldenweed     | USFS Sensitive      | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Least Phacelia        | USFS Sensitive      | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Marsh\'s Bluegrass    | USFS Sensitive      | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Stanley Thalspi       | USFS Sensitive      | No Impact             |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Northern Sagewort     | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Challis Milkvetch     | USFS Proposed       | No impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Least Moonwort        | USFS Proposed       | No impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Brewer\'s Sedge       | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Pale Sedge            | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Mt. Shasta Sedge      | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Pointed Draba         | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Spoon-leaved Sundew   | USFS Proposed       | No impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Blandow\'s Helodium   | USFS Proposed       | No impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Kellogg's Bitterroot  | USFS Proposed       | No impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Krukeberg's           | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
| Sword-fern            | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Jones\' Primrose      | USFS Proposed       | No impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Farr\'s Willow        | USFS Proposed       | No impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Wedge-leaf Saxifrage  | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Nodding Saxifrage     | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Petalless Campion     | USFS Proposed       | No Impact             |
|                       | Sensitive           |                       |
+-----------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

> **II. INTRODUCTION**
>
> This is the Biological Assessment and Evaluation for the proposed
> Stanley Road 653 realignment and rehabilitation on the Sawtooth
> National Recreation Area (NRA), Sawtooth National Forest. It addresses
> the effects on three threatened wildlife species, 1 threatened plant
> species, 1 candidate plant species, and 39 species on the terrestrial
> current or proposed sensitive species list of Region 4 of the Forest
> Service. The proposed project area is located in T11N, R13E, S21, in
> Custer County in Idaho.
>
> The Sawtooth NRA provides habitat for four federally listed threatened
> terrestrial species and one candidate species. The U.S. Fish and
> Wildlife Service has confirmed this list, #1-4-04-SP-086, in a
> biannual letter dated December 12, 2003. These species are listed
> below.

+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| > **Species**                        | > **Status**                   |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| > Gray wolf (*Canis lupus*)          | > Threatened (nonessential     |
|                                      | > experimental)^a^             |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| > Bald eagle (*Haliaeetus            | > Threatened                   |
| > leucocephalus*)                    |                                |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| > Canada lynx (*Lynx canadensis*)    | > Threatened                   |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| > Ute ladies'-tresses orchid         | > Threatened                   |
| > (*Spiranthes diluvialis*)          |                                |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| > Slender Moonwort (*Botrychium      | > Candidate^b^                 |
| > lineare*)                          |                                |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

> aThis population is nonessential experimental which means it is
> treated as a proposed species for the purposes of Section 7 of the
> Endangered Species Act.
>
> bOn May 10, 2000, the slender moonwort (*Botrychium lineare*) was
> proposed for listing. In June 2001, the USFWS determined that while
> the species warrants protection under the ESA, it is precluded from
> listing because of other priorities. As such, the slender moonwort is
> considered a candidate species, and has no special protection under
> the ESA. However, the USFWS suggests the effects to the species
> continue to be disclosed in biological assessments and included in
> planning processes.
>
> The Sawtooth NRA provides habitat for 16 wildlife species on the
> Regional Forester\'s sensitive species list. These species are listed
> below. Westslope cutthroat trout are addressed in a separate aquatics
> biological assessment.
>
> 1\. Spotted Bat *Euderma maculatum*
>
> 2\. Townsend\'s Big-eared Bat *Corynorhinus townsendii*
>
> 3\. Wolverine *Gulo gulo*
>
> 4\. Fisher *Martes pennanti*
>
> 5\. Pygmy rabbit *Brachylagus idahoensis*
>
> 6\. Common Loon *Gavia immer*
>
> 7\. Peregrine falcon *Falco peregrinus*
>
> 8\. Northern Goshawk *Accipter gentilis*
>
> 9\. Greater sage-grouse *Centrocercus urophasianus*
>
> 10\. Mountain Quail *Oreortyx pictus*
>
> 11\. Great Gray Owl *Strix nebulosa*
>
> 12\. Flammulated Owl *Otus flammeolus*
>
> 13\. Boreal Owl *Aegolius funereus*
>
> 14\. White-headed Woodpecker *Picoides albolarvatus*
>
> 15\. Northern Three-toed Woodpecker *Picoides tridactylus*
>
> 16\. Columbia Spotted Frog *Rana luteiventris*
>
> The Sawtooth National Forest provides habitat for 12 plant species on
> the Regional Forester\'s sensitive species list (see Appendix D for
> complete list). The SNRA provides habitat for 7 plant species on the
> Regional Forester's sensitive species list. These species are listed
> below.
>
> 1\. White Cloud Milkvetch *Astragalus vexilliflexus var. nubilus*
>
> 2\. Stanley\'s Whitlow-grass *Draba trichocarpa*
>
> 3\. Guardian Buckwheat *Eriogonum meledonum*
>
> 4\. Bugleg Goldenweed *Haplopappus insecticruris*
>
> 5\. Least Phacelia *Phacelia minutissima*
>
> 6\. Marsh\'s Bluegrass *Poa abbreviata ssp. Marshii*
>
> 7\. Stanley Thlaspi *Thlaspi idahoense var. aileeniae*
>
> The Sawtooth National Forest provides habitat for 20 plant species
> that are proposed for listing on the Regional Forester\'s sensitive
> species list (see Appendix B for complete list). The SNRA provides
> habitat for 16 plant species that are proposed for listing of the
> Regional Forester's sensitive species list. These species are listed
> below.
>
> 1\. Northern Sagewort *Artemisia campestris* ssp. *borealis* var*.
> purshi*
>
> 2\. Challis Milkvetch *Astragalus amblytropis*
>
> 3\. Least Moonwort *Botrychium simplex*

4\. Brewer's sedge *Carex breweri* ssp*. paddoensis*

5\. Pale Sedge *Carex livida*

> 6\. Mt. Shasta Sedge *Carex straminiformis*
>
> 7\. Pointed Draba *Draba globosa*
>
> 8\. Spoon-leaved Sundew *Drosera intermedia*
>
> 9\. Blandow\'s Helodium *Helodium blandowii*
>
> 10\. Kellogg's Bitterroot *Lewisia kelloggii*
>
> 11\. Krukeberg's Sword-fern *Polystichum krukebergii*
>
> 12\. Jones\' Primrose *Primula incana*
>
> 13\. Farr\'s Willow *Salix farriae*
>
> 14\. Wedge-leaf Saxifrage *Saxifraga adscendens* ssp. *oregonensis*
>
> 15\. Nodding Saxifrage *Saxifraga cernua*
>
> 16\. Petalless Campion *Silene uralensis* ssp*. montana*
>
> **III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION**
>
> The Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) requires that each federal
> agency shall insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out
> by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
> any endangered species or threatened species or result in the
> destruction or adverse modification of habitat.
>
> The revised Sawtooth Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (FLRMP)
> outlines management direction for the Sawtooth National Forest in
> Chapter III, including direction for Forest-wide desired conditions,
> goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for the management of
> habitat for threatened, endangered, and proposed species (FLRMP III
> 8-15). Standard TEST01 states, "The Forest shall consult with the NMFS
> and Fish and Wildlife Service as needed, and appropriate, to comply
> with consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act and
> Magnuson-Stevens Act." The Forest Service Manual directs the Forest
> Service to avoid all adverse impacts on threatened and endangered
> species and their habitats except when it is possible to compensate
> through alternatives identified in a biological opinion rendered by
> the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FSM 2670.31).
>
> The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (USDA Forest
> Service 2000) was developed subsequent to the listing of Canada lynx.
> This document has provided direction for management of lynx habitat on
> federal lands and the Forest Service agreed to follow this direction
> (U.S Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).
> Programmatic planning within the LCAS has been incorporated in to the
> revised Sawtooth LRMP. The conservation measures discussed in the LCAS
> along with the standards in the FLRMP provide the basis for analysis
> of effects of projects on Canada lynx during consultations. Lynx
> Analysis Units (LAU) and predicted foraging and denning habitat within
> each LAU have been developed as directed by the LCAS. LAUs were
> derived by aggregating 6^th^ level Hydrologic Units, and lynx habitat
> was derived using vegetation layers from satellite imagery and GIS
> mapping techniques. For specific criteria used in developing habitat
> maps see Appendix A.
>
> Forest Service Manual 2670.32 directs the Forest to avoid or minimize
> impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern,
> and therefore listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester. If impacts
> cannot be avoided then the Forest must analyze the significance of the
> potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the
> area of concern and on the species as a whole. Impacts may be allowed
> but the decision must not result in a trend toward federal listing.
>
> **IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION**
>
> The proposed project would resolve persistent annual road and resource
> damage at the Stanley Creek Road 653 crossing of Stanley Creek,
> through realignment of approximately 1,100 feet of road, including the
> replacement of the existing baffled culvert, and treatments to
> accommodate the crossing through active beaver habitat. The proposal
> would correct the road design by assuring that the road approaches the
> crossing from a higher elevation by relocating the western approach
> onto adjacent uplands. In addition, the road elevation through the
> crossing area would also be elevated by 2 to 3 feet to provide
> security to the road while allowing the beaver to prosper in their
> habitat. Adding height to the road also naturally requires added fill
> width. With the reconstruction, a new culvert would also replace the
> existing aging culvert. Finally, the new construction would include
> the installation of a durable, long-term, beaver intake to protect the
> culvert intake and assure flow capacity.
>
> Restoration would also be completed of the former route. Road fill
> from the existing route would be removed to restore the former buried
> wetland habitats, and used in surfacing the new route. An estimated
> 0.3 acres of wetland are expected to be restored. The road fill would
> be removed down to the former soil line and/or topographic state, and
> the former soil conditioned (i.e. break compaction). Once the road
> fill has been removed, a small percentage of adjacent vegetation,
> primarily willows, would borrowed and transplanted within the former
> route. Grass and forb recruitment would be allowed to occur naturally
> from adjacent existing sources. These same methods have been used at
> several recent projects with consistent success.
>
> The culvert was replaced at this same location in 1996. At that time
> the primary concern was the substantially undersized nature of the
> culvert, and the perched condition of the outlet resulting in a fish
> passage barrier. At that time, a much larger, but used, culvert was
> installed for the replacement. To resolve the perched outlet, the
> culvert was installed on a slight slope with baffles added to the
> floor in order to limit water velocity and facility fish passage. The
> new culvert would be slightly longer, to span the wider fill, but
> similar in capacity to the existing culvert. Installation would be
> similar with baffles again added to the culvert floor.

# 

# Implementation Sequence

> The following describes the anticipated reconstruction and restoration
> sequence. Construction would occur after mid August when site
> conditions are the driest. The fisheries and watershed program leader
> would be on site during all construction periods:
>
> Culvert replacement

-   Using a pump, temporarily draw down water levels within the beaver
    impoundments above and below the crossing of Road 653. The pump
    would have a 3/32" screened intake bell.

-   Establish a temporary dam, constructed of gravel bags and plastic,
    in the confined channel upstream of the culvert.

-   During the duration of the culvert replacement activities, pump
    water from above the dam around the construction area. The objective
    would be to create as dry a work environment as possible.

-   Remove the former culvert and install the new culvert.

-   Install the beaver intake on the culvert inlet.

-   Remove the dam and return water to the channel. To minimize effects
    to the beaver colony, as well as for logistical considerations, the
    goal would be to complete the culvert replacement in a single work
    day.

> New alignment construction

-   Install silt fence where natural filtering is insufficient and/or
    the separation between anticipated disturbance and streams is less
    than 30 feet.

-   Remove surface scattered lodgepole pine from within new alignment.
    Stockpile for use in restoration.

-   Salvage topsoil from within new alignment for use in revegetation of
    cut and fill slopes. With an excavator, scrap and pull soil uphill
    to just beyond the margin of the new alignment.

-   Construct the framework of the new alignment.

> Restoration of the former alignment

-   With an excavator, remove fill from the former alignment down to the
    buried soil surface.

-   Utilize road fill from former alignment in establishing final width
    and grade of new alignment.

-   With the teeth of the excavator, condition the uncovered soil within
    the former alignment.

-   During the same pass, borrow willow plugs from adjacent healthy
    willow clumps, and transplant within former alignment. Planting
    density is a function of adjacent sources, but practical experience
    has never exceeded roughly 20 foot centers.

-   Scrap and spread stockpiled topsoil onto cut and fill slopes of new
    alignment.

# 

# Monitoring

> Monitoring and oversight would occur throughout project
> implementation. Photopoints would document pre-project conditions, and
> follow-up monitoring would assess the success of the project in
> achieving the purpose and need.

[]{.mark}

# V. EXISTING CONDITION

> Currently Road 653 approaches the culverted crossing of Stanley Creek
> (T 11 N, R 13 E, Sec 21) from a slightly lower elevation. In the same
> vicinity a productive beaver colony has recently reestablished with a
> series of dams extending above and below the culvert. As a
> consequence, ponded backwater sits on both sides of the culvert
> crossing, and, with no topographic barrier, water diverts yearlong
> along within roadside ditch where it approaches from the west. In some
> seasons, this flow carries for nearly 1,000 feet in the roadside ditch
> before returning through cross-drain culverts. Annual damage occurs to
> the road tread, shoulder, ditch, and cross drains, which delivers
> large quantities of fine sediment directly into Stanley Creek.
> Headcuts have also advanced upstream in most of the channels leading
> away from these relief culverts.
>
> Although the return of beaver to the valley bottom has resulted in the
> backwater areas, their activities have only served to make apparent a
> fundamental road design flaw in the nature of the approach. The
> Stanley Creek watershed has been one of the most altered drainages in
> the upper Salmon River from past intensive mining and livestock
> grazing. The return of beaver to the watershed has greatly accelerated
> ecological recovery and their continued presence is desired.
>
> The primary vegetation communities within and adjacent to the project
> location are willow riparian and lodgepole pine forest, which is
> experiencing mortality due to an advanced mountain pine beetle
> outbreak. Sagebrush is also found on the upland hillsides in the area.

VI. **EFFECTS ON THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES**

####### A. Endangered Species Act Listed 

**Gray Wolf** (*Canis lupus*)

[Habitat Factors]{.underline}

Habitat for the wolf has been defined as any place with an adequate
supply of ungulate prey and freedom from excessive human persecution
(Fritts et al. 1993). Wolves prey mainly on ungulates year-round (Mech
1970). The basis of a wolf population is the pack, which Mech (1970)
defined as a cohesive group of two or more individual wolves traveling,
hunting, and resting together throughout the year. Packs generally
consist of two breeding adults, pups, yearlings, and/or extra adults.
Wolf packs generally require large home ranges. Actual size of a pack\'s
home range depends mainly on pack size, weather, and prey abundance and
distribution. Territories of 80 square miles have been reported in
Minnesota to over 660 square miles in Alberta (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1994). Spring, summer, and fall range for mule deer and year
round range for elk occurs on the Sawtooth NRA. Both elk and deer
provide a food source for wolves.

####### Status of Species and Habitat in the Project Area

In January of 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced 15
wolves into Central Idaho. An additional 20 wolves were released in
January of 1996. Subsequent to the releases, two packs, Stanley and
White Clouds, established with all or part of their territories on the
Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The Stanley pack concentrated their
use in Sawtooth Valley and the White Clouds pack concentrated their use
in the East Fork of the Salmon River. During the spring and summer of
2000, control action was taken on both the Stanley and White Clouds
packs because of livestock depredation, and the integrity of the packs
was destroyed. During the winter and spring of 2001 another pack, the
Whitehawk Pack, moved into and established territory on the Sawtooth
NRA. This pack denned within the Sawtooth Valley. Control action was
taken on this pack during the summer of 2001 and again during winter and
spring of 2002. All members of this pack were killed. In May of 2003 one
new pack (Galena) located within the Sawtooth NRA and has been using
areas in Sawtooth Valley and the west side of the White Clouds. In June
of 2003 a new pack (Castle Peak) was detected within the Lower East Fork
Salmon River. Habitat for wolves exists within the proposed project
site. The project is located within the Landmark pack's range, which is
known to localize in the Cape Horn area of the Challis National Forest
during the denning season. Large ungulates including mule deer and elk
occur in the project area spring through fall, while moose may be
present year round.

######## Direct and Indirect Effects

> This action would not result in any measurable change in habitat
> condition for, or distribution of, prey species of the wolf. The scale
> of the effects to habitat resulting from tree removal relative to the
> range of a wolf pack would be small. Relocating Road 653 to the upland
> and restoring wetland habitat would increase forage and hiding cover
> for ungulates using the area. No increased risk of mortality to wolves
> would result from this project.

**Canada Lynx** (*Lynx canadensis*)

> Watershed biological assessments of the effects of ongoing projects to
> Canada lynx were completed in February 2003. As part of these
> analyses, baseline conditions for each LAU were described and
> evaluated as to their ability to conserve lynx. Effects of this
> project will be evaluated in relation to these baseline conditions
> using an effects matrix. The project is located within the
> Stanley-Park LAU and the baseline matrix describing existing
> conditions of lynx habitat within this LAU can be found in the
> Biological Assessment of Effects of Ongoing Federal Actions (Valley
> Creek), which is on file at the Boise Field Office of the U.S. Fish
> and Wildlife Service. The effects matrix is located in Appendix E.
>
> **Bald Eagle** (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*)

####### Habitat Factors

> Nesting requirements of bald eagles include suitable nest substrate
> (mainly tall, large diameter trees) with access to open water nearby.
> Winter habitat is variable, but generally requires open water for
> foraging or a reliable source of carrion with adequate perch trees
> nearby. Eagles need freedom from human disturbances year-round
> (Stalmaster 1987).

####### Status of Species and Habitat in the Project Area

> Bald eagles frequently use the morainal lakes during spring and fall
> and the Salmon River during the fall, winter, and spring. During the
> summer of 2003 adult bald eagles were frequently observed in the upper
> Sawtooth Valley along the Salmon River. No breeding by bald eagles has
> been confirmed on the Sawtooth NRA. The project area does not contain
> habitat suitable for bald eagles.

[Direct and Indirect Effects]{.underline}

This project would have no direct or indirect effect on bald eagles
because it does not contain habitat suitable for bald eagles.

> **Ute ladies\'-tresses** (*Spiranthes diluvialis*)

####### Habitat Factors

> The Ute ladies\'-tresses orchid was federally listed as threatened on
> January 17, 1992 under the ESA. Ute ladies\'-tresses occurs in
> relatively low-elevation riparian, spring, and lakeside wetland
> meadows in these general areas of the interior western United States:
> near the base of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in southeast
> Wyoming and north-central and central Colorado; in the upper Colorado
> River Basin; along the Wasatch Front and westward in the eastern Great
> Basin, in north-central and western Utah, and extreme eastern Nevada.
> In 1994, the range was expanded north by discoveries in central
> Wyoming and western Montana, and in 1996, Ute ladies\'-tresses was
> discovered in southeast Idaho, along the Snake River.
>
> Ute ladies\'-tresses is a perennial orchid with one or multiple stems
> growing 8- 20 inches tall from thick, tuberous roots. Its narrow
> leaves grow from the base of the stern and reach a length of about 11
> inches. It has 3-15 white or ivory flowers spiralling upward and
> around the stem (spike). Flowers are oriented perpendicular to the
> stem, lateral sepals are gaping from the base of the flower. The oval
> or lance-shaped (lanceolate) lip is exposed in side view and somewhat
> constricted in the middle. The unfused (free) sepals rarely make an
> evident hood (Heidel 1997, adapted from Ute ladies'-tresses Recovery
> Team 1995). The orchid blooms from early August through mid-September.
>
> Reproduction is strictly sexual, with ground- and log-nesting
> bumblebees as the primary pollinators (Pierson and Tepedino 2000).
> Successful conservation of this orchid will require protecting
> suitable habitat and pollinator habitat in and around orchid
> populations.
>
> Ute ladies\'-tresses is endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows
> near springs, lakes, and perennial streams. The elevation range of
> known habitat is 700 to 7000 feet. Most of the occurrences are along
> riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, moist to wet meadows along
> perennial streams and rivers, although some localities are near
> freshwater lakes or springs. Ute ladies\'-tresses appears to be well
> adapted to disturbances caused by water movement through flood plains
> over time. It occurs primarily in areas where the vegetation is
> relatively open and not very dense. It often grows on point bars and
> other recently created riparian habitat. The orchid appears to require
> permanent sub-irrigation, with the water table holding steady
> throughout the growing season and into late summer and early autumn.
> This species is considered a general riparian species (US FWS, 1995).

####### Status of Species and Habitat in the Project Area

> Potential habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses orchid is found on the
> Sawtooth National Forest. However, to date no occupied habitat has
> been discovered. Populations appear to fluctuate dramatically from
> year to year, making it difficult to assess population status and
> distribution. This has held true during studies conducted on the Idaho
> population since its discovery. The genus *Spiranthes* also undergoes
> a dormant period that may last 7-10 years, apparently with no evidence
> of above ground structures. Nothing is known about the
> dormancy-triggering mechanisms. In order to locate this species,
> potential habitat should be surveyed every year before
> ground-disturbing activities take place.

[Direct and Indirect Effects]{.underline}

> Surveys in the immediate area of impact have not been completed.
> However, extensive surveys of the area for previous projects within
> the same area (Taylor 2001) resulted in no occupied habitat while
> potential habitat may exist. Surveys of the proposed road relocation
> and activity area must be completed prior to implementation of this
> project. Forest Botanists will complete surveys and appropriate
> mitigation would be added if a new population was located. Based upon
> the lack of occupied habitat and results of previous surveys within
> the area, implementation of the proposed project would **not effect**
> the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, its habitat or reproductive success.
>
> **Slender Moonwort** (*Botrychium lineare*)

####### Habitat Factors

> In July 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was petitioned to add
> the slender moonwort to the List of Threatened and Endangered Plant
> Species. The Service published the 90-day petition finding and
> initiated a 12-month status review in May 2000. In June 2001, they
> published a finding that supported listing slender moonwort, but was
> precluded by work on higher priority listing actions and placed on the
> candidate species list (*Federal Register June 6, 2001 Vol. 66, number
> 109*).
>
> Slender moonwort is a small perennial fern with a pale green leaf
> (trophophore) 2-7 inches long. Leaf segments are typically linear and
> divided or forded at the ends. The sporophore (spore-bearing
> structure) is 1 to 2 times the length of the trophophore with a single
> main axis.
>
> The habitat for the slender moonwort has been described as "deep grass
> and forbs of meadows, under trees in woods, and on shelves on
> limestone cliffs, mainly at higher elevations" (Wagner and Wagner
> 1994), but they also state that to describe a typical habitat for this
> species would be problematic since the known sites are so different. A
> specific habitat description for the species is problematic because of
> its current and historically disjunct distribution ranging from sea
> level in Quebec to 9,840 feet in Boulder County, Colorado.
> *Botrychium* spores are small and lightweight enough to be carried by
> air currents. This dispersal mechanism may explain the broad and often
> disjunct distribution patterns exhibited by moonworts (Vanderhorst
> 1997).
>
> This species is found in a variety of montane forest or meadow
> habitats. Three of the known Montana slender moonwort populations
> occur on roadsides in early seral habitat (i.e., open habitat
> dominated by low-growing forbs (herbs) rather than shrubs or trees)
> (Spribille, 2000).
>
> Other slender moonwort sites occur in grass- to forb-dominated
> openings in forests characterized by cone‑bearing trees such as pine,
> spruce, and fir species (Brooks, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest,
> 2000).
>
> All *Botrychium* species are believed to be obligately dependent on
> mycorrhizal fungi throughout their life cycle. A fungal associate is
> present within the plant at the earliest stages of development, and
> there are no reports of successful completion of the *Botrychium's*
> life cycle without mycorrhizal fungi. Very little information exists
> regarding the specificity or habitat requirements of the mycorrhizal
> fungi that are associated with moonworts (Vanderhorst 1997). Similar
> to orchids, *Botrychium* species can remain dormant for 1 or more
> years, and cannot be identified with certainty in their immature
> stages.
>
> [Status of Species and Habitat in the Project Area]{.underline}
>
> Slender moonwort is known to occur in Idaho, Oregon, Montana,
> Colorado, and Washington. A population of slender moonwort was found
> on the Sawtooth National Forest in July 2001. This population occurs
> on open, rocky alpine slopes of Railroad ridge at nearly 10,000 feet.
> No additional populations of this species have been located on
> Sawtooth National Forests. Potential habitat does exist on the forest
> however, and efforts to examine potential habitat have been
> undertaken. In 2002, contract botanists laboriously examined many
> acres of potential habitat, although no new populations were located.

[Direct and Indirect Effects]{.underline}

> Although thorough surveys of the proposed project area have not been
> completed, surveys with the adjacent area in previous years indicate
> that this area is not likely habitat for *Botrychium lineare*. Surveys
> will be conducted in 2004 prior to project implementation to verify
> this condition. Based upon the lack of occupied habitat and results of
> previous surveys within the area, implementation of the proposed
> project would **not effect** slender moonwort or potential habitat for
> the species.

######### B. Region Four Sensitive Species

> **Spotted Bat** (*Euderma maculatum*) - Spotted bats forage
> nocturnally in open forests (especially in ponderosa pine stands),
> marshy areas, and open pastures. They forage on large, flying insects,
> especially moths. Roost sites have been observed in rock crevices and
> cliff faces (Watkins 1977, Wai-Ping and Fenton 1989). Spotted bats
> hibernate during the winter and emerge in spring, generally March or
> April depending on daytime temperatures during those months. There are
> no documented sightings of the spotted bat and no surveys have been
> conducted within the proposed project area, though foraging habitat is
> present. Spotted bats have been detected on the Middle Fork of the
> Salmon River, just north of the Sawtooth NRA.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert would not affect spotted bat habitat.
> Restoring the wetland community along the existing road tread would
> likely increase insect abundance in the area and enhance foraging
> habitat. Tree removal associated with realigning Road 653 within the
> adjacent upland would be minimal would have little affect on foraging
> habitat for this species. Roosting habitat would not be affected.
>
> **Townsend\'s Big-eared Bat** (*Corynorhinus townsendii*) -
> Townsend\'s big-eared bats are nocturnal insectivores feeding
> primarily on moths along forest edges. They roost in crevices of rocky
> outcrops, caves, old mines or buildings. Unlike many species that seek
> refuge in crevices, Townsend\'s big-eared bat forms highly visible
> clusters on open surfaces making them extremely vulnerable to
> disturbance (Christy and West 1993). Townsend\'s big-eared bats
> hibernate during the winter and emerge in spring, generally March or
> April depending on daytime temperatures during those months. There are
> no documented sightings of Townsend\'s big-eared bats within proposed
> project site, though foraging habitat is present. Townsend\'s
> big-eared bats have been found in the Warm Springs drainage on the
> Ketchum Ranger District.
>
> Restoring the wetland community along the existing road tread would
> likely increase insect abundance in the area and enhance foraging
> habitat. Tree removal associated with realigning Road 653 within the
> adjacent upland would be minimal would have little effect on foraging
> habitat for this species. Roosting habitat would not be affected.
>
> **Wolverine** (*Gulo gulo*) - Wolverines are primarily scavengers and
> forage on carcasses of ungulates such as elk, deer, mountain goats,
> and bighorn sheep. They also may hunt for snowshoe hares, marmots,
> mice, voles, ground squirrels, and grouse but will also eat fruits,
> berries, and insects when other prey is unavailable (Hash 1987). Home
> range sizes of wolverines are highly influenced by prey remains and
> other food sources. Individual animals generally have very large
> ranges and can cover large distances in very little time. In central
> Idaho, home ranges average 384 square kilometers (148 square miles)
> for females and 1,582 square km (582 square miles) for males and may
> have overlapping ranges. They use several habitats and have been
> located in low-elevation, forested drainage bottoms to high-elevation,
> sparsely-timbered cirque basins. Two natal den sites were located in
> subalpine cirque areas on north-facing slopes suggesting that this
> type of habitat is critical to wolverines in central Idaho (Copeland
> 1996).
>
> Female wolverines are very sensitive to disturbance during
> mid-February through May while they are searching for, establishing,
> and occupying their reproductive dens. Detecting people near an
> existing den was enough disturbance to cause a female wolverine to
> move her kits to a different site. During this time females are
> lactating, and disturbance, which leads to increased energy
> expenditure, can be very detrimental. It is a critical time for
> females because they must maintain energy levels in order to properly
> nourish their kits during a time when food is scarce (Copeland 1996).
>
> A study of wolverines in central Idaho was conducted from 1992-1995 by
> the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The study area contained much
> of the Sawtooth NRA. During this study, wolverines were documented in
> many locations in the Sawtooth NRA and home ranges were identified
> adjacent to the project area. The project area contains foraging and
> travel habitat but is not within predicted wolverine reproductive
> denning habitat.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert would not affect wolverine habitat.
> Tree removal associated with relocating Road 653 would be minimal
> relative to the home range of a wolverine and would have no measurable
> affect on wolverine foraging habitat condition. Restoring the current
> roadbed to its original wetland community would provide increased
> foraging opportunities for wolverine by increasing available habitat
> for voles and other small mammals using the riparian corridor.
> However, this effect would also be small in relation to the home range
> size of a wolverine. No disturbance to female wolverine during the
> denning period would occur.
>
> **Fisher** (*Martes pennanti*) - Fishers are found in mature to
> old-growth forests with high canopy closure and generally avoid large
> openings. They are associated with mesic forest conditions and
> forested riparian areas. They eat small mammals, birds, fish,
> amphibians, insects, carrion, fruits, nuts, and berries (Douglas and
> Strickland 1987).
>
> No sightings of fisher have been reported within the proposed
> treatment sites, though habitat exists. There are trapping records of
> fisher from the early 1980\'s southwest of the project area on the
> west side of the Sawtooth Wilderness in the South Fork Payette and
> North Fork Boise drainages, one record in Stanley Basin, and a recent
> sighting approximately 10 miles north of the Sawtooth NRA. Potential
> foraging and travel habitat exists within the proposed project site.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert would not affect fisher habitat. Tree
> removal associated with relocating Road 653 would be minimal relative
> to the home range of a fisher and would have no measurable affect on
> fisher foraging habitat condition. Restoring the current roadbed to
> its original wetland community would provide increased foraging
> opportunities for fisher by increasing available habitat for voles,
> amphibians, insects and songbirds. This effect would be beneficial,
> although small in relation to the home range size of a fisher.
>
> **Pygmy rabbit** (*Brachylagus idahoensis*) -- Pygmy rabbits are
> considered a sagebrush obligate species. They tend to utilize areas
> with taller and denser sagebrush. They excavate and use extensive
> burrows systems. Due to this unique feature among rabbits, soil
> properties, including depth and texture, that allow ease of excavation
> are required (Weiss and Verts 1984). Pygmay rabbits eat a variety of
> grasses and forbs and switch to almost exclusively sagebrush during
> the winter (Zeveloff and Collett 1988). Populations and distribution
> of pygmy rabbits declined in the 1900's due to loss and fragmentation
> of suitable habitat for this species (Rachlow and Svancara 2003).
>
> No observations of pygmy rabbits have been made on the Sawtooth NRA,
> but surveys have not been conducted. A University of Idaho research
> project was initiated in 2003, conducting surveys for pygmy rabbits in
> areas mapped as having the highest potential using GIS techniques and
> habitat characteristics from known species locations (Rachlow and
> Svancara 2003). Some potential habitat for the species exists on the
> Sawtooth NRA although none directly within the proposed project area.
>
> Neither pygmy rabbit nor their habitat would be affected by the
> proposed project.
>
> **Common Loon** (*Gavia immer*) - Common loons breed on large (usually
> greater than nine acres), clear lakes at elevations of 5,000 to 9,000
> feet. A territory generally contains a secluded shoreline area that
> protects the nest from wave action and an area of shallow water with
> emergent vegetation within a protected cove or bay for chick rearing.
> Loons avoid lakes with high levels of human activity for breeding.
> During migration, loons will forage at staging lakes along their way.
> Fish are the primary prey, but loons will also eat amphibians,
> crustaceans, aquatic insects, and some vegetation (Ritter 1989). No
> confirmed breeding has occurred in the Sawtooth NRA. Loons use the
> morainal lakes within Sawtooth Valley and Stanley Basin during spring
> and fall migrations.
>
> The proposed project site does not contain loon habitat.
>
> **Peregrine Falcon** (*Falco peregrinus*) - Peregrine falcons require
> the presence of tall cliffs, approximately 150 feet in height, with
> adequate ledges for nesting and perching. An adequate prey base
> consisting of small to medium-sized birds within approximately 10
> miles of the nest cliff is also needed (Johnsgard 1990). Two
> territories are known to occur on the Sawtooth NRA, one near Redfish
> Lake and one near Stanley Lake. The proposed project site is within
> approximately 8 miles of the Stanley Lake nest location and is
> considered within foraging range for this territory.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert would not affect peregrine falcon
> habitat. Tree removal associated with relocating Road 653 would be
> minimal relative to the foraging range of a peregrine falcon and would
> have no measurable affect on peregrine falcon foraging habitat
> condition. Restoring the current roadbed to its original wetland
> community would provide increased foraging opportunities for peregrine
> falcons by increasing available habitat for various songbird species.
> However, this effect would also be small in relation to the home range
> of a peregrine.
>
> **Northern Goshawk** (*Accipiter gentilis*) -- Goshawk home ranges in
> mixed conifers forests have been described as 6,000 acres in size and
> comprised of a nest area (approximately 30 acres), a post
> fledging-family area or PFA (approximately 420 acres), and a foraging
> area (approximately 5,400 acres) (Reynolds et al. 1992). Nest areas
> generally have high tree canopy cover (50-60%) and a high density of
> large trees (average 20\" dbh). However, data from nests on the
> Sawtooth NRA show that goshawks will successfully nest in smaller
> trees and lower canopy closure than has been generally reported (11
> inch average dbh of nest tree, 23% average canopy closure of nest tree
> area). The PFA provides cover and prey for the fledglings while
> developing their flying and hunting skills. These areas should have
> canopy cover of greater than 50% with well-developed understories.
> Goshawks prey on a wide variety of forest-dwelling birds and mammals
> such as grouse, woodpeckers, squirrels, and rabbits. Goshawks tend to
> use mature forests (and forest edges) for foraging, but also need
> other habitat elements which provide the necessary requirements for
> their prey such as snags, downed logs, small openings, herbaceous and
> shrubby understories (Reynolds et al. 1992). Goshawks do not
> necessarily migrate long distances, but may move off their breeding
> territories during winter in order to find food. They tend to move to
> lower elevations with less snow cover during the winter, and return to
> breeding territories in March or April.
>
> Documented nesting territories exist throughout the SNRA and the
> project site contains goshawk foraging habitat. It is unknown if the
> proposed project site lies within a goshawk territory and the site
> would be surveyed for goshawks during June of 2004, prior to project
> implementation.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert would not affect goshawk habitat. The
> project would not be implemented until after mid August and nesting
> goshawks would be not be disturbed. Tree removal associated with
> realigning the road would not remove a potential nest tree or effect
> nest site selection. Restoring the existing roadbed to its original
> wetland community would eventually benefit songbird habitat, potential
> prey species for the goshawk.
>
> **Greater sage-grouse** (*Centrocercus urophasianus*) -- Sage-grouse
> depend on sagebrush for both nesting successfully (Klebenow 1969,
> Wakkinen 1990, Connelly et al. 1991, Connelly et al. 2000) and winter
> survival (Braun et al. 1977, Remington and Braun 1985, Welch et al.
> 1991). During the late summer and early fall, females generally move
> to areas where succulent forbs are available (Klebenow 1969, Dunn and
> Braun 1986) in order to obtain sufficient food for brood rearing. Sage
> grouse require insects during their first summer of life in order to
> obtain sufficient protein to grow rapidly. Often this movement is to
> areas of higher elevation or wet meadows (Klebenow 1969, Wakkinen
> 1990. Riparian areas provide critical brood rearing habitat due to
> presence of forbs and insects (Wambolt et al. 2002, Connelly et al.
> 2000). They may also be found in grasslands and agricultural fields
> during this period, but are generally within a mile of sagebrush
> habitat.
>
> Declines in sage grouse populations have been documented range-wide,
> as high as 45-80% since the 1950's (Braun 1998). Reasons for this
> decline is thought to be from cumulative factors, particularly the
> reduction of sagebrush habitat due to wildfire, changes in natural
> fire frequencies related to annual exotic grass invasions,
> agricultural and urban development, and mining. Other factors include
> habitat degradation from overgrazing, hydrological alterations
> affecting brood rearing habitat, fences, powerlines, wind turbines,
> etc. (Wambolt et al. 2002, Connelly et al. 2000, Braun 1998).
> Population trends of this species in the project area and on the
> Sawtooth Forest are unknown, though population data from from IDFG
> show declines in sage-grouse numbers across the state. Additionally,
> Breeding Bird Survey Data for Idaho show a declining trend over the
> past 20 years (-4.5%/year), though the sample size for this species is
> very small in Idaho (Sauer et al. 2001).
>
> Habitat for greater sage-grouse does not occur within the proposed
> project area.
>
> **Mountain Quail** (*Oreortyx pictus*) -- Mountain quail are found in
> dense brush, coniferous forests, and around the edge of mountain
> meadows from 1,500 - 10,000 feet elevation. Important year-round
> habitat needs consist of tall, dense shrubs and water. This species
> eats a variety of seeds and fruits. The mating season begins in April
> and extends into mid-July. Nests are within a few hundred feet of
> water because the chicks need water soon after hatching.
>
> No surveys for mountain quail have been conducted on the Sawtooth NRA.
> There are no known populations on the Sawtooth National Forest. An
> individual was observed on the Boise Forest approximately 20 miles
> from the Sawtooth NRA. The proposed project site offers potential
> mountain quail habitat.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert would not affect mountain quail. Tree
> removal associated with relocating Road 653 would not be occur during
> nesting or be extensive and would not affect mountain quail habitat.
> Restoring the current roadbed to its original wetland community would
> eventually provide increased shrub cover in the area and may enhance
> quail habitat.
>
> **Great Gray Owl** (*Strix nebulosa*) - Great gray owls use mixed
> coniferous and hardwood forests usually bordering small openings or
> meadows. They do not build their own nests and must use existing nests
> built by other species, debris platforms, or tops of broken off snags.
> They forage in openings or meadows (Bull and Henjum 1990). Important
> aspects of foraging habitat include high prey density, perch
> availability, and forests that are open enough to allow the owls to
> move freely (Bull et al. 1988). Great gray owls forage on small
> mammals, particularly voles and pocket gophers. This species does not
> truly migrate but exhibits irregular irruptive behavior moving to
> areas with low snow accumulation and high prey density during winter
> (Johnsgard 1988).
>
> Surveys for great gray owls have been conducted on the Sawtooth NRA in
> Stanley Basin. Breeding owls have been observed within Stanley Basin
> in lodgepole pine adjacent to wet meadows. Nesting habitat is not
> present within the project area, however the project contains great
> gray owl foraging habitat.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert would not affect great gray owls. The
> road corridor would be aligned through the adjacent upland, and the
> associated tree removal would be not be extensive or occur during the
> nesting season. Restoring the existing roadbed to its original wetland
> habitat would eventually enhance vole and shrew habitat, important
> prey species for this owl.
>
> **Flammulated Owl** (*Otus flammeolus*) - Flammulated owls are known
> to occur in mature ponderosa pine and mature Douglas-fir forests with
> an abundance of snags or live trees with cavities for nesting.
> Flammulated owls eat mainly invertebrates such as moths, grasshoppers,
> and spiders. Prey is more abundant and accessible in open forest
> stands with grass and shrub understories (Johnsgard 1988). Roosting
> occurs in coniferous forest stands with dense vegetation (McCallum
> 1994). This species is truly migratory and does not arrive on its
> breeding territories until May in Central Idaho.
>
> Few surveys for flammulated owls have been conducted on the Sawtooth
> NRA. Flammulated owls have been observed on the Ketchum Ranger
> District in Douglas-fir dominated forests within the Baker Creek
> drainage. The project area does not contain habitat for flammulated
> owls.
>
> **Boreal Owl** (*Aegolius funereus*) - Boreal owls are known to occur
> in spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, and mixed conifer forests above 5,000 feet
> elevation. They are cavity-dependent and generally use old woodpecker
> cavities for their nest sites. They feed on forest dwelling small
> mammals such as voles, mice, squirrels, and shrews (Johnsgard 1988).
> Boreal owls depend on woodpecker cavities, which usually occur in dead
> trees for their nest sites. Males arrive at potential breeding
> territories in late winter (mid-February) and begin calling to attract
> females by late February or early March.
>
> Boreal owls surveys have been conducted in many locations on the
> Sawtooth NRA. On the Sawtooth NRA, these owls have been observed in
> open, mature Douglas-fir forest. Surveys for this owl have not been
> conducted within the project area. The project area contains potential
> foraging habitat.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert would not affect boreal owl habitat.
> Tree removal required for the road realignment would be minimal and
> would not affect nesting habitat for the boreal owl. Restoring the
> existing roadbed to its original wetland community would eventually
> enhance vole and shrew habitat, known prey species for this owl.
>
> **White-headed Woodpecker** (*Picoides albolarvatus*) - White-headed
> woodpeckers are found in open, mature mixed conifer forests, mainly
> ponderosa pine and mixed ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forests in Idaho
> (Frederick and Moore 1991). They feed on pine seeds and insects under
> bark and on branches (Ligon 1973). Nests are usually excavated in
> large diameter, dead trees in moderate to advanced decay (Bull et al.
> 1986). White-headed woodpeckers are resident and breeding begins in
> late April in central Idaho.
>
> Habitat for the white-headed woodpecker occurs on the west side of the
> Sawtooth NRA where ponderosa pine stands are present, however no
> surveys have been conducted in the project area. No confirmed breeding
> of this species has been documented on the Sawtooth NRA. The proposed
> project does not contain habitat for this species.
>
> **Northern Three-toed Woodpecker** (*Picoides tridactylus*) -
> Three-toed woodpeckers are found in northern coniferous forests,
> primarily associated with mature forests with outbreaks of bark
> beetles. They forage mainly in dead trees and a large percentage of
> their diet are wood-boring insect larvae. They excavate cavities in
> snags or occasionally live trees (Short 1982). This species may make
> small movements off its breeding territory in the winter to find food,
> but is generally a resident. Breeding begins in May in Central Idaho.
>
> Nesting and foraging habitat for northern three-toed woodpeckers
> occurs in the forested lodgepole community adjacent to the project
> area. The increased abundance of mountain pine beetle has resulted in
> a corresponding increase in three-toed woodpecker numbers and nesting
> attempts throughout the lodgepole community on the Sawtooth NRA.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert and restoring the existing roadbed to
> its original wetland community would not affect the three-toed
> woodpecker. Implementation would occur after mid August and would not
> affect their nesting success. This time period is a less critical time
> of year when woodpeckers are more mobile (not associated with a nest
> cavity) and can travel to other areas where food is more abundant.
> Tree removal required for the road realignment would not occur within
> three-toed woodpecker habitat and would not affect the amount of
> available nesting or foraging habitat in the area.
>
> **Columbia Spotted Frog** (*Rana luteiventris*) - Spotted frogs are
> found in areas where permanent water is present such as marshes,
> ponds, or riparian areas. They have been found to be highly associated
> with presence of willows, which they use for cover, and submerged
> vegetation (Munger et al. 1998). They may move considerable distances
> from water following the breeding season, often frequenting mixed
> conifer and subalpine forests, grasslands, and brushlands of sage and
> rabbit brush if puddles, seeps or other water is available. Adult
> spotted frogs feed on invertebrates, generally within one-half meter
> of shore on dry days. During and after rains, they may move away from
> permanent water to feed in wet vegetation or ephemeral puddles (Licht
> 1986). Spotted frogs hibernate during winter and emerge when open
> water becomes available, generally during spring thaw. Spotted frogs
> breed from late February to early July. A water temperature of 40
> degrees Fahrenheit seems to be the critical temperature for emergence
> from hibernation (Morris and Tanner 1969), which may occur as early as
> the first part of April.
>
> Habitat for spotted frogs occurs within the project area. Frogs have
> been found in Stanley Creek just below and above the project area.
> Surveys would be conducted in late spring of 2004 prior to project
> implementation.
>
> Replacing the existing culvert may result in an initial temporary
> increase in sedimentation to the creek. Mitigation (refer to the
> project description) would be implemented to assist in reducing any
> sediment increase. Restoring the existing roadbed to its original
> wetland community may also result in a temporary increase in sediment
> flow to the creek, however, restoring the wetland here would
> eventually enhance spotted frog habitat in the area. Tree removal
> required for the road realignment would be minimal, woody material
> would remain on site for rehabilitation purposes, and mitigation would
> be implemented to reduce sediment flow to the creek due to road
> building activities. Even though the project site contains an existing
> road that receives moderate traffic, there is additional potential for
> direct mortality to adult frogs due to heavy equipment working within
> spotted frog habitat. It is unlikely that this potential mortality
> would be amplified.
>
> **White Cloud milkvetch** (*Astragalus vexilliflexus* var*. nubilus)*
> **-** White Cloud milkvetch is an endemic species found in the White
> Cloud Mountains on the SNRA. There are eight (maybe nine I don't know
> if Seth sent in a report one he found in 2000) known occurrences.
>
> White Cloud milkvetch is a perennial, low growing cushion plant with
> irregularly shaped pale yellow flowers with purple tinged keels that
> are almost hidden in the silvery foliage. It flowers in July and
> August.
>
> White Cloud milkvetch occurs at high elevations, along ridge crests
> and upper slopes between 8,400 and 9,900 feet. Primary habitat is
> exposed alpine talus slopes with sparse vegetation, underlain with
> volcanic, granitic, and metamorphic rock (Mancuso and Moseley 1990).

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact White Cloud
milkvetch or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
based on the habitat type for White Cloud milkvetch and the lack of
existing habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of
proposed activities. Suitable habitat for White Cloud milkvetch does not
occur within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

> **Stanley whitlow grass** (*Draba trichocarpa*) **--** Stanley whitlow
> grass is an endemic species in the Stanley Basin with 14 element
> occurrences. Nine of the occurrences are within the Sawtooth National
> Recreation Area, four are partially on private and SNRA, and one is
> completely on private land.
>
> Stanley whitlow grass is a perennial forb with a low, dense, cushion
> growth form. It has small bright yellow flowers that bloom from June
> to August. Leaves are about 1/8 inch long and covered with coarse
> glandular hairs. Old leaves are often persistent.
>
> Stanley whitlow grass occurs on granitic soils on exposed rocky slopes
> and rock outcroppings between 6,000 and 7,000 feet elevation (Moseley
> 1998). The southerly facing, moderately steep outcrops have bedrock
> close to the surface and open, low growing vegetation. The outcrops
> are typically surrounded by mountain big sage (*Artemsia tridentate*
> spp. *vaseyana*) habitat.
>
> Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Stanley
> whitlow grass or potential habitat for the species. Although suitable
> habitat does exist in the vicinity (\> 1 ½ mile away) of the proposed
> project it would not be disturbed by implementation. This
> determination is based on the habitat type for Stanley whitlow grass
> and the existing habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas
> of proposed activities. .
>
> **Guardian buckwheat** (*Eriogonum meledonum)* **-** Guardian
> buckwheat is a narrow endemic known from 8 element occurrences in the
> Stanley Basin. Seven of the occurrences are within the Sawtooth
> National Recreation Area, one is partially SNRA and private, and one
> is completely on private land.
>
> Guardian buckwheat is a low growing subshrub that forms densely thick
> mats. Plants produce bright yellow flowers on pom-pom like heads at
> the top of leafless stems. Leaves are basal, small, narrowly elliptic
> to oblong, and covered with grayish fuzzy hair. It flowers from June
> to July.
>
> Guardian buckwheat is found on granitic soils on exposed rocky slopes
> and rock outcroppings between 6,000 and 7,000 feet elevation (Moseley
> 1998). The southerly facing, moderately steep outcrops have bedrock
> close to the surface and open, low growing vegetation. The outcrops
> are typically surrounded by mountain big sage (*Artemsia tridentate*
> spp. *vaseyana*) habitat.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Guardian
Buckwheat or potential habitat for the species. Although suitable
habitat does exist in the vicinity (\> 1 ½ mile away) of the proposed
project it would not be disturbed by implementation. This determination
is based on the habitat type for Stanley whitlow grass and the existing
habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
activities. .

> **Bugleg goldenweed** (*Haplopappus insecticruris)* - Bugleg
> goldenweed is an endemic species to south central Idaho. There are
> several known occurrences within the Sawtooth National Forest on the
> Fairfield Ranger District and SNRA.
>
> Bugleg goldenweed is a perennial sunflower. It has 8 to 24 inches
> woody stems that arise out of a basal rosette of leaves that are
> roughly serrated. It flowers in July and August with several yellow
> flowers per stem and uniformly colored involucral bracts.
>
> Bugleg goldenweed is found on dry ground with sagebrush in vernally
> wet grasslands and meadows underlain by shallow basalt soils between
> and heavy clay often in sites of past and ongoing disturbance. It is
> found between 5,000 and 6,500 feet (Lee 1985).

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Bugleg
goldenweed or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
based on the habitat type for Bugleg goldenweed and the existing
habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
activities. Suitable habitat for Bugleg goldenweed does not occur within
or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

> **Least phacelia** (*Phacelia minutissima) --* Least phacelia is a
> regional endemic. It is known only from the upper Intermountain
> region. There is one historic occurrence of least phacelia on ridge
> extending east-southeast from Smoky Dome in the Soldier Mountains
> within the Fairfield Ranger District. There are several occurrences in
> the Owyhee Mountains near Silver City.
>
> Least phacelia is a dwarf, erect annual. It is .75-4 inches in height
> with simple or sometimes branching stems. The leaves are entire,
> reverse lance-shaped (oblanceolate), and about 1 inch long and 1/2
> inch wide on the lower part of the plant. The plant is hairy and
> glandular. The flower stalk uncoils like a fiddlehead (helicoid cyme)
> and produces lavender/pale blue flowers in late June and July.
>
> Least Phacelia grows on ephemerally moist ground in open places
> between 5,000 and 8,000 feet (Atwood 1995). It occurs in meadow-forb
> complexes associated with aspen stands, sagebrush, and sometimes
> conifer community types.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact least phacelia
or potential habitat for the species. This determination is based on the
habitat type for least phacelia and the existing habitats identified
within and adjacent to the areas of proposed activities. Suitable
habitat for least phacelia does not occur within or adjacent to the
areas of proposed activities.

> **Marsh\'s bluegrass** (*Poa abbreviata marshii) --* There is one know
> occurrence of Marsh's bluegrass located at head of Boulder Creek in
> the Boulder Mountains within the Sawtooth National Forest.
>
> Marsh's bluegrass is a high elevation grass found in alpine meadows
> above timberline.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Marsh's
bluegrass or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
based on the habitat type for Marsh's bluegrass and the existing
habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
activities. Suitable habitat for of Marsh's bluegrass does not occur
within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

> **Stanley thlaspi mustard** (*Thlaspi aileeniae) --* Stanley thlaspi
> mustard is an endemic species to the intermountane valleys of central
> Idaho. There are 18? Known occurrences from upper Marsh Creek south
> through the Stanley Basin and Sawtooth Valley to the upper Big Wood
> Valley near Easley Creek. Eight of theses occurrences are within the
> Sawtooth National Forest.
>
> It is a perennial low growing plant with several stems less than 2
> inches tall arising from a basal rosette of fleshy linear leaves.
> Flowers have 4 white petals and are arranged in clusters at top of
> stem. Flowering from May to June. Fruits are obovate to nearly
> elliptical siliques.
>
> Stanley thlaspi mustard is found on loose bare sandy soil on steep
> slopes among small rocks on sagebrush/fescue flats (both *Artemisia
> arbuscula* ssp. *thermopola* and *Artemisia tridentata* ssp.
> *vaseyana*) and alluvial terraces in the Big Wood drainage. Elevation
> of known populations ranges from 6,000 to 11,000 feet (Moseley 1998).

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Stanley thlaspi
mustard or potential habitat for the species. Although suitable habitat
does exist in the vicinity of the proposed project it would not be
disturbed by implementation. This determination is based on the habitat
type for Stanley whitlow grass and the existing habitats identified
within and adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

> **C. [Region Four Proposed Sensitive Species]{.underline}**
>
> **Northern sagewort** (*Artemisia campestris* ssp. *borealis* var.
> *purshii) -* There is one know populations on the Sawtooth National
> Forest. It is located on Railroad Ridge area in the White Cloud
> Mountains within the SNRA. Northern sagewwort is a widespread,
> circumboreal taxon that extends south in North America to Oregon,
> Arizona, Michigan, and Vermont. It ranges from the high mountains of
> northern Washington to northern Montana and Colorado (Hitchcock and
> Cronquist 1973) but is known in Idaho only from the White Cloud peaks.
>
> Northern sagewort is a mildly scented, non-woody perennial with
> several branching stems arising from a taproot. It produces a basal
> rosette of leaves. Leaves are pinnatifid, bipinnatifid, or dissected
> moderately to scarcely serieous. Inflorescence is dense and spikelike.
> Flowers bloom from July to September.
>
> The population of Northern sagewort in the White Cloud Mountains is
> found in xeric alpine fellfield habitat with SE aspect, 0-15% slope,
> open light, between 4,000 and 12,000 feet elevation (Dittberner,
> Phillip, Olson, Michael 1983). Substrate is gravelly, moderately
> unstable, and granitic glacial till deposits.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Northern
sagewort or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
based on the habitat type for Northern sagewort and the existing
habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
activities. Suitable habitat for of Northern sagewort does not occur
within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

> **Challis milkvetch** (*Astragalus amblytropis) -* Challis milkvetch
> is a locally endemic species to east-central Idaho. It is found along
> the canyon of the Salmon and East Fork Salmon River and their
> tributary creeks between Clayton and Salmon. There are several
> occurrences in the area, two occurrences are within the Sawtooth
> National Recreation Area and five are directly adjacent on BLM and
> private lands.
>
> Challis milkvetch is a small perennial forb that produces branching
> stems from a taproot. The stems are reddish and lie flat on the
> ground. Leaves are pinnately compound. Leaflet surfaces are covered
> with hair. Flowers are pale yellow to cream with lilac veins. Sepals
> are covered with white hairs and form a tube that becomes papery with
> age. Flowers from May to July. Fruits are pods, at first they are pale
> green then turn straw colored and lustrous.
>
> Challis milkvetch appears to be restricted to the arid region formed
> by the rain shadow of the White Cloud and Salmon River mountain ranges
> to the west and north. It is restricted edaphically to the Challis
> volcanics soils (Rittenhoust 1990). Its habitat is steep unstable
> south and west-facing talus slopes and road cuts ranging in elevation
> from 4500-6500 feet. The xerophytic slopes typically have little
> vegetation cover.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Challis
milkvetch or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
based on the habitat type for Challis milkvetch and the existing
habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
activities. Suitable habitat for of Challis milkvetch does not occur
within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

> **Least Moonwort** (*Botrychium simplex) --* Least moonwort is known
> to occur in one location on the SNRA. It was found at the edge of
> Stanley Lake meadow under lodgepole pine.
>
> A tiny somewhat fleshy perennial fern that grows 1-5 inches tall, and
> produces a sterile leaf and a fertile stalk. The sterile leaf is
> highly variable in appearance, it can be simple, but more commonly is
> divided into three main branches (ternate). Each branch can further
> divide into 2-4 pairs of seg­ments (pinnae). These segments are
> fan-shaped, have entire margins, and overlap one another. Generally,
> the sterile leaf attaches to stalk at or below ground level. The
> fertile stalk can range from 1-4 inches long, with yellow spore
> clusters (sporangia).
>
> Least moonwort grows in moist to dry soils in a wide variety of
> habitats ranging from conifer woods and meadows to rocky places
> between 4,000 and 6,000 feet. It typically is found in deep shade and
> duff, making it even more inconspicuous and difficult to find (Lorain
> 1990).

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact least moonwort
or potential habitat for the species. This determination is based on the
habitat type for least moonwort and the existing habitats identified
within and adjacent to the areas of proposed activities. Suitable
habitat for of least moonwort does not occur within or adjacent to the
areas of proposed activities.

> **Brewer's Sedge** (*Carex breweri ssp. paddoensis) --* There are five
> known occurrences of Brewer's sedge within the SNRA.
>
> Brewer's sedge has stems that rise from creeping rhizomes. Its leaves
> are slender, stiff, deeply channeled, and crowed near base of stem.
> The terminal end of the spike is short and inconspicuous. Its
> flowering period is July-August.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Brewer's sedge
or potential habitat for the species. This determination is based on the
habitat type for Brewer's sedge and the existing habitats identified
within and adjacent to the areas of proposed activities. Suitable
habitat for of Brewer's sedge does not occur within or adjacent to the
areas of proposed activities.

> **Pale Sedge** (*Carex livida) --* Pale sedge has ten known element
> occurrences within the SNRA. In Idaho there are 15 populations in four
> widely spread areas.
>
> Pale sedge is a perennial sedge growing 4-20 inches tall from long,
> slender rhizomes. Its stems arise either singly or in sparse clumps,
> and may be surrounded by basal sheaths from previous years. Leaves are
> thin and narrow, pale bluish-gray, have a waxy coating and are mostly
> basal. The terminal spike has only female flowers, and the male
> flowers are separately present in lateral spikes (Moseley et al.
> 1994). Flowering period is May to July.
>
> Pale sedge habitat is calcareous sphagnum peatlands, fens, bogs, and
> swampy-forested riparian types. Elevations are from mid to high
> elevation subalpine type. Elevations range from 2,800 to upper
> subalpine elevations above 6,000+ feet.

Although there is a known population of Pale sedge east of the Iron
Creek Campground near the proposed area of activity, implementation of
the proposed project would not impact Pale sedge or potential habitat
for the species. This determination is based on the habitat type for of
Pale sedge and the existing habitats identified within and adjacent to
the areas of proposed activities. Suitable habitat for Pale sedge does
not occur within or directly adjacent to the areas of proposed
activities.

> **Mt. Shasta sedge** (*Carex straminformis) --* Mt. Shasta sedge is
> know from nine occurrences in south-central Idaho, five of the
> occurrences are within the Sawtooth National Forest.
>
> Mt. Shasta sedge grows in dense tufts up to 16 inches tall. Its leaves
> are short, firm, flat and narrow and crowd near the base and much
> shorter than the yellowish stems (culms). Three to ten flower spikes
> are produced. Male and female flowers are both present. These flowers
> crowd closely to form a short, 1/2-inch compact greenish head (Moseley
> 1993).
>
> Mt. Shasta sedge is found on open slopes, often near persistent snow
> banks at high altitudes, near or above timberline, between
> 9,000-10,300 feet.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Mt. Shasta sedge
or potential habitat for the species. This determination is based on the
habitat type for Mt. Shasta sedge and the existing habitats identified
within and adjacent to the areas of proposed activities. Suitable
habitat for of Mt. Shasta sedge does not occur within or adjacent to the
areas of proposed activities.

> **Pointed draba** (*Draba globosa*) *-* Pointed draba is known from
> three occurrences in the White Cloud Mountains within the SNRA.
>
> Pointed draba is a low growing perennial mustard often forming dense
> cushions. Its flower stem is leafless; flowers are in clusters of 2-5
> small, yellow flowers. Flowering period Is June-August. Its leaves are
> thick with a few stiff hairs on margin, otherwise smooth.
>
> Pointed draba is found on alpine fellfields and northeast facing, dry
> ledges above 10,000 feet on gravelly soil derived from granite
> substrate.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact pointed draba or
potential habitat for the species. This determination is based on the
habitat type for pointed draba and the existing habitats identified
within and adjacent to the areas of proposed activities. Suitable
habitat for of pointed draba does not occur within or adjacent to the
areas of proposed activities.

> **Spoon-leaved sundew** (*Drosera intermedia) --* There are three
> known occurrences of spoon leaved sundew in the state of Idaho. Two of
> the occurrences are within the SNRA.
>
> Spoon-leaved sundew is a small low growing insectivorous perennial
> herb. It produces a basal rosette of 10-30 leaves that are covered
> with long, reddish glandular tipped hairs. The color of the leaves
> varies from yellow-green to dark green to red. The spoon-shaped leaf
> blade is produced at the end of a long leaf stalk (petiole). The plant
> lives by eating insects it ensnares in sticky secretions produced by
> red tipped stalked glands covering the upper side of the leaves. The
> flower stalk originates as a roll in the middle of the rosette, and
> unrolls upward as it grows; it produces 1-10 tiny white flowers on one
> side of the stalk (Moseley et al. 1994).
>
> Spoon-leaved sundew is found on acidic soils, often in peat and
> sphagnum bogs, springs and the edges of lakes between 5,000 and 7,000
> feet elevation.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact spoon-leaved
sundew or potential habitat for the species. This determination is based
on the habitat type for spoon-leaved sundew and the existing habitats
identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.
Suitable habitat for of pointed draba does not occur within or adjacent
to the areas of proposed activities.

> **Blandow's helodium** (*Helodium blandowii) --* There are two known
> occurrences of within the SNRA.
>
> Blandow's helodium is a robust yellow-green moss with erect flattened
> branches that make a feather-like pattern. Stems are cover densely
> with green unbranched filaments (paraphylia). Its reproductive stalk
> and capsule grows from the side of the stem (Christy and Wagner 1996).
>
> Blandow's helodium is known to form mats and hummocks in montane
> peatlands, bogs and fens. It grows under sedges and shrubs in mires or
> along streams between 6,000-7,500 feet elevation.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Blandow's
helodium or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
based on the habitat type for Blandow's helodium and the existing
habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
activities. Suitable habitat for of Blandow's helodium does not occur
within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

> **Kellogg's bitterroot** (*Lewisia kelloggii) -* Kellogg's bitterroot
> has multiple occurrences in Idaho. There are three (possibly four)
> within the SNRA.
>
> It is a small perennial herb with deep fleshy roots. It has thick,
> leathery dark green leaves that are notched at the tip and ar­ranged in
> basal rosettes. Average diameter of rosettes is ap­proximately 2-3
> inches across. It produces a single white flower on short stems in the
> center of the rosette (Steele et al. 1981).
>
> Kellogg's bitterroot is found in at elevations between 5,400 and 9,500
> feet on fractured bedrock, commonly near late snow banks, on upper
> slopes and ridge tops. Sites are relatively sparse but support a
> diverse assemblage of high elevation forbs and can have an overstory
> of several species of conifer (Foster et al. 1997).

Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Kellogg's
bitterroot or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
based on the habitat type for Kellogg's bitterroot and the existing
habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
activities. Suitable habitat for of Kellogg's bitterroot does not occur
within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

> **Kruckeberg's sword-fern** (*Polystichum krukebergii) --* There is
> one historic occurrence of Kruckeberg's swordfern recorded on McGowen
> Peak within the SNRA.
>
> Kruckeberg's sword-fern is an evergreen fern with leaves tufted on a
> short, stout, scaly erect creeping rhizome. Its leaves are 4-16 inches
> long with 20-40 spiny tipped leaflets on each side of the leaf stem.
>
> Kruckeberg's sword-fern is found on cliff crevices and talus slopes at
> middle to upper elevations in the mountains.
>
> Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Kruckeberg's
> sword-fern or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
> based on the habitat type for Kruckeberg's sword-fern and the existing
> habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
> activities. Suitable habitat for of Kruckeberg's sword-fern does not
> occur within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.
>
> **Jone's primrose** (*Primula incana) --* Jones' primrose is known
> from three occurrences in Idaho*.* There are two known Jones' primrose
> occurrences within the SNRA.
>
> Jones' primrose has 3-12 small, white to lilac flowers clustered on a
> 2-16 inch stem above a rosette of basal leaves. Its petal lobes are
> deeply notched and its leaves and stem are grayish-green. It blooms
> May-July.
>
> Jones' primrose is found on streambanks and moist meadows in moist
> alkaline soils of valley bottoms often where hummocky.
>
> Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Jone's
> primrose or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
> based on the habitat type for Jone's primrose and the existing
> habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
> activities. Suitable habitat for of Jone's primrose does not occur
> within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.
>
> **Farr's willow** (*Salix ferriae) --* There is one known element
> occurrence of Farr's willow within the SNRA. Three occurrences in
> Idaho.
>
> Farr's willow is a branching shrub 1 -- 4 feet tall. Young twigs are
> slightly hairy at first then becoming smooth. Its leaves are small,
> slightly hairy at first with whitish undersides and waxy surface.
> Pistillate catkins 1-3 cm long and staminate catkins .8-1.5 cm long on
> leafy flowering branchlets 5-8 mm long, appearing with the leaves.
> Flowering bracts brown or black, occasionally yellowish at base,
> pubescent with long silky hairs or glabrous, persistent in fruit.
> Capsules glabrous, 4-6 mm long on stalks .2-1mm long. It blooms July
> and August.
>
> Habitat for Farr's willow is identified as moist to wet subalpine
> meadows streambanks, and lakeshores, between 8,100-9,600 feet
> elevation. Often found in willow thickets dominated by *Salix
> drummondiana, S. boothii,* and *S. wolfii* on volcanic silts along
> medium sized streams and on hummocks in *Picea engelmanii-Pinus
> contora* swamp forests.
>
> Implementation of the proposed project would not impact Farr's willow
> or potential habitat for the species. This determination is based on
> the habitat type for Farr's willow and the existing habitats
> identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.
> Suitable habitat for of Farr's willow does not occur within or
> adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.
>
> **Wedge-leaf saxifrage** (*Saxifraga adscendens* ssp. *Oregonensis)
> --* There are four wedge leaf saxifrage element occurrences within the
> Sawtooth National Forest and two directly adjacent to the forest on
> the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Ten occurrences are known from
> south-central Idaho.
>
> Wedge-leaf saxifrage is a short-lived perennial forb. It has a 1-4
> inch tall single stem rising above basal rosette of oblong leaves. The
> leaves are attached directly to the stem, or nearly so, with a small
> petiole. The leaf blades may be entire, 3-toothed, or shallowly lobed
> at tip. Both stem and foliage have red glandular hairs. It produces
> white flowers in July and August (Spahr et al. 1991).
>
> Wedge leaf saxifrage is found on northerly-facing slopes on rock
> ledges and crevices that remain wet due to their proximity with creeks
> or alpine rivulets and along streams in subalpine forests and gravelly
> alpine meadows (Moseley 1993).
>
> Implementation of the proposed project would not impact wedge leaf
> saxifrage or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
> based on the habitat type for wedge leaf saxifrage and the existing
> habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
> activities. Suitable habitat for of wedge leaf saxifrage does not
> occur within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.
>
> **Nodding saxifrage** (*Saxifraga cernua) **-- ***There is one known
> element occurrence of nodding saxifrage within the Sawtooth National
> Forest and one adjacent on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. There
> are nine occurrences in south-central and east-central Idaho.
>
> Nodding saxifrage is a short-lived perennial forb. It has a 1-4 inch
> tall single stem rising above basal rosette of reniform and evenly
> lobed leaves (Spahr et al. 1991). It produces white flowers in July
> and August. Bulbils develop in axils of upper stem leaves and replace
> lower flowers in inflorescence.
>
> Nodding saxifrage habitat is high elevation, north-facing slopes that
> are continuously moist it is found on moist ledges and rock crevices
> with moss and along streams in subalpine forests and gravelly alpine
> meadows (Moseley 1993).
>
> Implementation of the proposed project would not impact nodding
> saxifrage or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
> based on the habitat type for nodding saxifrage and the existing
> habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
> activities. Suitable habitat for of nodding saxifrage does not occur
> within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.
>
> **Petalless campion** (*Silene uralensis* ssp. *montana) -* There are
> no know occurrences of petalless campion within the Sawtooth National
> Forest.
>
> Petalless campion is found in alpine habitat above timberline.
>
> Implementation of the proposed project would not impact petalless
> campion or potential habitat for the species. This determination is
> based on the habitat type for petalless campion and the existing
> habitats identified within and adjacent to the areas of proposed
> activities. Suitable habitat for of petalless campion does not occur
> within or adjacent to the areas of proposed activities.

# VII. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

> The Endangered Species Act defines cumulative effects (50 CFR 402.02)
> as the additive effects of future State and private activities that
> are reasonable certain to occur in the watershed where the Federal
> Actions occur. State and private land cumulative effects are further
> described in the Valley Creek Biological Assessment of Effects of
> Ongoing Federal Actions to the threatened Canada lynx (2003) on file
> at the Sawtooth NRA.
>
> Cumulative effects defined in the National Environmental Policy Act
> (40 CFR 1508.7) are the impacts on the environment that result from
> the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past,
> present, or reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency
> or person undertakes these actions, within the analysis area.
>
> Activities that occur within the project area (past, present, and
> foreseeable future) and its surrounding watershed include mining, road
> maintenance and woodcutting. Road 653 is a designated snowmobile trail
> and receives high amounts of snowmobile use in the winter. Summer
> dispersed recreation activities include camping, OHV use, horseback
> riding, and hunting (which increases during the fall). The project
> area lies within the Stanley Basin cattle allotment and livestock
> grazing also occurs on private land down stream of the project.
> Realigning Road 653, replacing the culvert and restoring the current
> road tread to its original wetland community would not contribute to
> negative cumulative effects in or surrounding the project area.
> Implementation of this action would improve the resource condition in
> and downstream of the project area and resolve the annual road damage
> and increased sediment delivery to the stream that occurs from water
> traveling along the current road tread.
>
>  
>
> **VIII. MITIGATION AND MONITORING**

######## A. Wildlife

1.  Prior to project implementation, field surveys will be completed for
    northern goshawk, great gray owl, and Columbia spotted frogs by a
    Forest biologist within the project area.

######## B. Plants

1.  Prior to project implementation, field surveys will be completed for
    Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, Slender Moonwort, Guardian buckwheat,
    Stanley whitlow-grass, and Stanley thlaspi by a Forest botanist
    within the project area.

2.  Weed surveys would be completed in the project area. If weeds were
    identified, topsoil would be treated with a Forest Service approved
    herbicide appropriate for riparian and/or upland conditions. The
    following growing season, the project area would be surveyed for
    weeds and if weeds are identified the populations would be treated
    and monitored until their eradication determined.

3.  To minimize potential for the introduction and/or spread of weeds,
    all equipment, vehicles, and tools used for project implementation
    would be pressure washed prior to entering the forest.

> **IX. DETERMINATIONS**
>
> [A. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species]{.underline}
>
> Implementation of the proposed action would have **no effect** on the
> gray wolf, Canada lynx, and bald eagle. Habitat for prey species would
> not be affected and no increase in the chance of mortality would
> occur.
>
> Implementation of the proposed action would have **no effect** on Ute
> ladies'-tresses orchid or slender moonwort. This determination is
> based on the conclusion that neither individual plants nor potential
> habitat for these species is know to occur within or adjacent to the
> proposed project areas. Surveys will be conducted in 2004 prior to
> implementation to verify this conclusion.
>
> [B. Region Four Sensitive Species]{.underline}
>
> Implementation of the proposed action would have **no impact** on the
> wolverine, pygmy rabbit, common loon, peregrine falcon, northern
> goshawk, greater sage-grouse, mountain quail, boreal owl, flammulated
> owl, white-headed woodpecker or northern three-toed woodpecker. These
> determinations are based on the conclusion that the project either
> does not contain appropriate habitat for these species or would not
> remove or lessen the quality of any habitat components to the degree
> that survival or reproductive success for these species are negatively
> affected. Wolverine and peregrine foraging habitat would be improved,
> however this improvement is relatively small based on their extensive
> home range sizes.
>
> Implementation of the proposed project **may impact individuals** or
> habitat of the Columbia spotted frog but would not likely contribute
> to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to
> these populations or species. This determination is based on the
> conclusion that the project may cause mortality or temporarily impact
> habitat to individual frogs during culvert replacement and road
> realignment and restoration.
>
> Implementation of the proposed project would have a **beneficial
> impact** on the spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, fisher and
> great gray owl. This determination is based on the conclusion that the
> action would eventually enhance prey habitat and foraging
> opportunities for these species in the project area as the wetland
> community is restored.
>
> Implementation of the proposed action would have **no impact** on
> White Cloud milkvetch, Stanley\'s whitlow-grass, guardian buckwheat,
> Stanley thalspi, bugleg goldenweed, least phacelia, or Marsh\'s
> bluegrass. These determinations are based upon the conclusion that no
> individual plants or the respective habitats of aforementioned species
> would be negatively impacted by the proposed project activities.
>
> [C. Region Four Proposed Sensitive Species]{.underline}
>
> Implementation of the proposed Mountain Pine Beetle prevention,
> suppression and restoration treatments would have **no impact** on
> northern sagewort, Challis milkvetch, prairie moonwort, Brewer\'s
> sedge, pale sedge, Mt. Shasta sedge, pointed draba, Blandow\'s
> helodium, Kellogg's bitterroot, Krukeberg's sword-fern, Jones\'
> primrose, Farr\'s willow, wedge-leaf saxifrage, nodding saxifrage,
> least moonwort, spoon-leaved sundew or petalless campion. These
> determinations are based upon the conclusion that no individual plants
> or the respective habitats of aforementioned species would be
> negatively impacted by the proposed project activities.
>
> **X. LITERATURE CITED**
>
> Atwood, D. Ph.D. 1995. Inventory for Least Phacelia (*Phacelia
> minutissima*), A Federal Category 2 Species. Unpublished Challenge
> Cost Share Report for the Idaho of Land Management. On File at:
> Conservation Data Center, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Sawtooth, ID.
> 18 pp. plus appendices.
>
> Aubry, K.B., G. Koehler, and J.R Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx
> in southern boreal forests. Pages 373-396 *in* Ruggiero, L., K.B.
> Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R.
> Squires, Tech Eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United
> States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp.
>
> Braun, C.E., T. Britt, and R.O. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for
> maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 5:99-106.
>
> Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in Western North America: what
> are the problems? Proc. Western Assoc. State Fish and Wild. Agencies
> 78:000-000.
>
> Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J.W. Thomas. 1986. Resource
> partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest
> Service Research Note PNW-444. 19 pp.
>
> Bull, E.L., M.G. Henjum, and R.S. Rohweder. 1988. Nesting and foraging
> habitat of great gray owls. Journal Raptor Research 22: 107-115.
>
> Bull, E.L. and J.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl.
> General Technical Report PNW-GTR-265. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest
> Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39 pp.
>
> Christy, R.E. and S.D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir
> forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-308. Portland, OR: USDA,
> Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 pp.
>
> Connelly, J.W., W.L. Wakkinen, A.D. Apa, and K.P. Reese. 1991. Sage
> grouse use of nest sites in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage.
> 55:521-524.
>
> Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000.
> Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats.
> Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(4): 967-985.
>
> Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S.
> Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 138 pp.
>
> Douglas, C.W. and M.A. Strickland. 1987. Fisher. Pages 511-529 *in*
> Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. M. Novak,
> J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds. Ministry of Natural
> Resources, Ontario.
>
> Frederick, G.P. and T.L. Moore. 1991. Distribution and habitat of
> white-headed woodpeckers in west-central Idaho. Conservation Data
> Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 32 pp.
>
> Fritts, S.H., E.E. Bangs, and J.F. Gore. 1993. The relationship of
> wolf recovery to habitat conservation and biodiversity in the
> northwestern United States. Landscape and urban planning C: 1-11,
> Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam.
>
> Hash, H.S. 1987. Wolverine. Pages 575-585 *in* Wild furbearer
> management and conservation in North America. M. Novak, J.A. Baker,
> M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds. Ministry of Natural Resources,
> Ontario.
>
> Heidel, B.L. 1998. Conservation status of Spiranthes diluvialis
> Sheviak in Montana.Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
> Service. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 55p., plus
> appendices.
>
> Idaho Conservation Data Center. 2002.
> http://www2.state.id.us/fishgame/info/cdc/cdc.htm.
>
> Johnsgard, P.A. 1988. North American owls, biology and natural
> history. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 295 pp.
>
> Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America,
> biology and natural history. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington
> and London. 403 pp.
>
> Jones, R.D., T.M. Steeger, and E. Behl. 2003. Environmental fate and
> ecological risk assessment for the re-registration of carbaryl. U.S.
> EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. 178 pp.
>
> Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho.
> J. Wildl. Manage. 33:649-662.
>
> Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubrey. 1994. Chapter 4: Lynx. Pages 74-98 *in*
> American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United
> States, L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, W.J.
> Zielinski, eds. U.S. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-251.
>
> Lewis, L., and R. Wenger. 1998. Idaho's Canada lynx: pieces of the
> puzzle. Idaho BLM, Tech. Bull. No. 98-11. 21 pp.
>
> Licht, L. 1986. Food and feeding behavior of sympatric red-legged
> frogs, *Rana aurora*, and spotted frogs, *Rana pretiosa*, in
> southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 100: 22-31.
>
> Ligon, J.D. 1973. Foraging behavior of the white-headed woodpecker in
> Idaho. Auk 90: 787-797.
>
> Lorain, C.C. 1990. Field investigations of Botrychium subgenus
> Botrychium (moonworts), on
>
> he Idaho Panhandle National Forest. Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
> Boise, ID. 34 pp. plus appendices.
>
> McCord, C.M. and J.E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and lynx. *in* J.A.
> Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer (eds.). Wild mammals of North America
> biology, management and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press,
> Baltimore, MD.
>
> Mech, D.L. 1970. The wolf, the ecology of an endangered species.
> University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 384 pp.
>
> Monthey, R.W. 1986. Responses of snowshoe hares, *Lepus americanus*,
> to timber harvesting in northern Maine. Can. Field-Nat. 100:568-570.
>
> Morris, R. and W. Tanner. 1969. The ecology of the western spotted
> frog, *Rana pretiosa pretiosa*. Baird and Girard, a life history
> study. Great Basin Naturalist 29: 45-81.
>
> Moseley, R.K. 1993. Alpine flora of the upper Little Wood River,
> Pioneer Mountains, Sawtooth
>
> National Forest. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 27 pp.
>
> Moseley, R.K., R.J. Bursik, F.W. Rabe, L.D. Cazier. 1994. Peatlands of
> the Sawtooth Valley
>
> Custer and Blaine Counties, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
> Boise, ID. 64 pp.
>
> Munger, J.C., M. Gerber, K. Madrid, M. Carroll, W. Petersen, and L.
> Heberger. 1998. U.S. National Wetland Inventory classifications as
> predictors of the occurrence of Columbia spotted frogs (*Rana*
> *luteiventris*) and Pacific treefrogs (*Hyla regilla*). Conservation
> Biology 12:320-330.
>
> Rachlow J. and L. Svancara. 2003. Pygmy rabbit habitat in Idaho.
> Project Completion Report. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 29 pp.
>
> Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Basselt, P.L. Kennedy,
> D.A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992.
> Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the
> southwestern United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
> Station, South-west Region Forest Service. USDA Forest Service,
> General Technical Report GTR-RM-217. 90 pp.
>
> Ritter, S.A. 1989. Nongame species account: common loon. Nongame
> program, Biological Services Section, Wyoming Game and Fish
> Department, Cheyenne, WY. 35 pp.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B.
Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren,
D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment
and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI
Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest
Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

> Short. L.L. 1982. Woodpeckers of the world. Delaware Museum of Natural
> History. 676 pp. Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe
> Books, New York. 227 pp.
>
> Spahr, R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened,
> Endangered, and
>
> Sensitive species of the Intermountain Region. U.S. Forest Service,
> Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT.
>
> Stalmaster, M.V. 1897. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York. 227
> pp.
>
> Steele R., F. Johnson, and S. Brunsfield. 1981. Vascular plant species
> of concern in Idaho.
>
> USDA, Forest Service, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station,
> Moscow, ID. 161 pp.
>
> Taylor, D.J. 2001. Biological assessment and evaluation for the Valley
> Creek Bridge Replacement Project.
>
> SNRA. 20 pp.
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. The reintroduction of gray
> wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho, Final
> Environmental Impact Statement. Helena, Montana.
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Ute ladies-tresses (*Spiranthes
> diluvialis*) recovery plan.
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado, 46 pp.
>
> U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Canada
> Lynx Conservation Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013.
>
> Ute Ladies'-tresses Recovery Team. 1995. Ute Ladies'-tresses
> (Spiranthes diluvialis) agency
>
> review draft recovery plan. Prepared for Region 6, U.S. Fish and
> Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 46 p.
>
> Vanderhorst, J. 1997. Conservation assessment of sensitive moonworts
> (Ophioglossaceae:
>
> *Botrychium* subg. *Botrychium*) on the Kootenai National Forest.
> Prepared by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana, for
> the Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor's Office, Libby, Montana.
> 7pp.
>
> Wagner, W.H. and F.S. Wagner. 1994. Another widely disjunct, rare and
> local North American
>
> moonwort (Ophioglossaceae: Botrychium subg. Botrychium) American Fern
> Journal 84(1):5-10.
>
> Wai-Ping, V. and M.B. Fenton. 1989. Ecology of spotted bat (*Euderma
> maculatum*) roosting and foraging behavior. Journal Mammalogy 70:
> 617-622.
>
> Wakkinen. W.L. 1990. Nest site characteristics and spring-summer
> movements of migratory sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. M.S. Thesis,
> Univ. of Idaho, Moscow. 57 pp.
>
> Wambolt, C.L., A.J. Harp, B.L. Welch, N. Shaw, J.W. Connelly, K.P.
> Reese, C.E. Braun, D.A. Klebenow, E.D. McArtur, J.G. Thompson, L.A.
> Torell, and J.A. Tanaka. 2002. Conservation of greater sage-grouse on
> public lands in the Western U.S.: implications of recovery and
> management policies. Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands
> (PACWPL) Policy Paper SG-02-02. 41pp.
>
> Watkins, L.C. 1977. *Euderma maculatum*. Mammalian Species No. 77.
> American Society of Mammalogists. 4 pp.
>
> Weiss, N.T. and B.J. Verts. 1984. Habitat and distribution of pygmy
> rabbits in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 44: 563-571.
>
> Zeveloff, S.I. and F.R. Collett. 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain
> West. Univ. of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. 365 pp.
>
> **Appendix A**
>
> **Lynx Habitat Mapping Criteria**
>
> Elevation [\>]{.underline} 5,000 feet
>
> Potential Vegetation Groups (PVG) of Cool Moist Douglas-fir, Warm Dry
> Subalpine Fir, Persistent Lodgepole Pine, High Elevation Subalpine Fir
> which correspond to the covertypes of aspen, lodgepole pine, subalpine
> fir, Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir/lodgepole pine, mixed whitebark pine
> forest, mixed subalpine forest-these types were assigned PVG's and
> determined to be lynx habitat where they overlapped with the above
> PVG's, and covertypes of mesic shrub, mixed broadleaf and conifer
> forest, conifer dominated riparian, broadleaf dominated riparian,
> mixed tree riparian, shrub dominated riparian, moderate intensity
> burned forest, high intensity burned forest which had not been
> assigned PVG's.
>
> **Lynx Denning Criteria**
>
> Elevation [\>]{.underline} 5,000 feet
>
> Potential Vegetation Groups (PVG) of Cool Moist Douglas-fir, Cool Dry
> Douglas-fir, Warm Dry Subalpine Fir, Persistent Lodgepole Pine, High
> Elevation Subalpine Fir which correspond to the covertypes of aspen,
> lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir/lodgepole
> pine, mixed whitebark pine forest, mixed subalpine forest-these types
> were assigned PVG's and determined to be lynx denning habitat where
> they overlapped with the above PVG's, and covertypes of mixed
> broadleaf and conifer forest, conifer dominated riparian, broadleaf
> dominated riparian, mixed tree riparian which had not been assigned
> PVG's.
>
> Aspect: flat, north, east, northeast, northwest
>
> Tree dbh size [\>]{.underline} 12"
>
> Canopy cover \> 40%
>
> Covertypes from: Redmond, R.L., T.P. Tady, F.B. Fisher, M. Thornton,
> and J.C. White. 1997. Landsat Vegetation Mapping of the Southwest and
> central Idaho Ecogroups, Final Report, Contract \# 53-0261-6-25.
> Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab, Montana Coop. Wildlife Research Unit,
> Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT.
>
> Potential Vegetation Groups from: Geier-Hayes, K. 1998. Mapping
> forest-land habitat type groups and habitat type group-Landsat
> covertype combinations for the northern portion of the Sawtooth
> National Forest. Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Forest Plan Revision.
>
> Note: Lynx habitat was also determined in areas off the National
> Forest where HUC6 boundaries overlapped National Forest and non
> National Forest. In these areas no PVGs were available, so only
> covertypes were used.

**Appendix B**

**[Sawtooth National Forest Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate,
and Sensitive (current and proposed) Plant Species]{.underline}**

**Table 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species
for the Sawtooth National Forest.**

+----------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+
| #                    | > **Common Name** | > **Status**             |
| #### Scientific Name |                   |                          |
+----------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+
| > *Spiranthes        | > Ute             | > Threatened             |
| > diluvialis*        | > Ladies'-tresses |                          |
|                      | > Orchid          |                          |
+----------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+
| > *Botrychium        | > Slender         | > Candidate              |
| > lineare*           | > Moonwort        |                          |
+----------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+

**Table 2. Region 4 Regional Forester's Current Sensitive Species List
for the Sawtooth National Forest.**

+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| ## Scientific Name   | **Common Name**     | **         | **Glo     |
|                      |                     | District** | bal/state |
|                      |                     |            | Rank\***  |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Astragalus          | ## Goos Go          | Minidoka   | G2, S?    |
| anserinus*           | ose Creek Milkvetch |            |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Astragalus          | ## White Cl Wh      | SNRA       | G4/T2, S1 |
| vexilliflexus var.   | ite Cloud Milkvetch |            |           |
| nubilus*             |                     |            |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Castilleja          | Christ's Indian     | ## Burle B | Candidate |
| christii*            | Paintbrush          | urMinidoka | G1        |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Cymopterus davisii* | Davis\' wavewing    | ## Burle B | G3,S ?    |
|                      |                     | urMinidoka |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Draba trichocarpa*  | Stanley\'s          | SNRA       | G2, S2    |
|                      | whitlow-grass       |            |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Eriogonum           | Desert Buckwheat    | Minidoka   | G4,S1     |
| desertorum*          |                     |            |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Eriogonum           | Guardian Buckwheat  | SNRA       | G1, S?    |
| meledonum*           |                     |            |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Haplopappus         | Bugleg Goldenweed   | Fairfield  | G3, S3?   |
| insecticruris*       |                     |            |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Penstemon           | Idaho Penstemon     | Minidoka   | G1, S?    |
| idahoensis*          |                     |            |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Phacelia            | Least phacelia      | Fairfield, | G3, S3    |
| minutissima*         |                     | SNRA,      |           |
|                      |                     | Ketchum    |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Poa abbreviata ssp. | Marsh\'s Bluegrass  | Fairfield, | G5/T2, S? |
| Marshii*             |                     | SNRA,      |           |
|                      |                     | Ketchum    |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Potentilla cottami* | Cottam cinequefoil  | Minidoka   | G1, S1    |
|                      |                     |            | Utah      |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+
| *Thalspi idahoense   | Stanley thalspi     | SNRA       | G4/T3     |
| var. aileeniae*      |                     |            |           |
+----------------------+---------------------+------------+-----------+

Table 3. Region 4 Regional Forester's Proposed Sensitive Species List
for Sawtooth National Forest.

+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| **Scientific Name**      | **Common Name** | **Dist.**  | **Glo     |
|                          |                 |            | bal/state |
|                          |                 |            | Rank\***  |
+==========================+=================+============+===========+
| ### Arabis falcatoria    | Grouse Creek    | Minidoka   | G1,S1     |
|                          | Rockcress       |            |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Argemone munita*        | Armed           | Minidoka   | G4,S1     |
|                          | Prickly-poppy   |            |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Artemisia campestris    | Northern        | Fairfield, | G5/T5, S1 |
| ssp. borealis var.       | Sagewort        | SNRA,      |           |
| purshi*                  |                 | Ketchum    |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| ####                     | Challis         | Fairfield, | G3, S3    |
| *Astragalus amblytropis* | milkvetch       | SNRA,      |           |
|                          |                 | Ketchum    |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Botrychium simplex*     | Least           | Forestwide | G5, S2    |
|                          | Moo             |            |           |
|                          | nwort/grapefern |            |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Carex breweri ssp.      | Brewer\'s Sedge | SNRA       | G4T4,SS   |
| paddoensis*              |                 |            |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Carex livida*           | Pale Sedge      | SNRA       | G5,SS     |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Carex straminiformis*   | Mt. Shasta      | SNRA       | G4,SS     |
|                          | Sedge           |            |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Cryptantha propria*     | Malheur         | Minidoka   | G4,SR     |
|                          | cryptantha      |            |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Draba globosa*          | Pointed         | Fairfield, | G3G4, S2  |
|                          | draba/rockcress | SNRA,      |           |
|                          | draba           | Ketchum    |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Drosera intermedia*     | Spoon-leaved    | SNRA       | G5, S1    |
|                          | sundew          |            |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Helodium blandowii*     | Blandow\'s      | Forestwide | G5,SS     |
|                          | Helodium        |            |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Lewisia kelloggii*      | Kellogg's       | Fairfield, | G4/T2 S2  |
|                          | bitteroot       | SNRA,      |           |
|                          |                 | Ketchum    |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Polystichum             | Sword Fern      | Fairfield, | G4, SS    |
| krukebergii*             |                 | SNRA,      |           |
|                          |                 | Ketchum    |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Primula incana*         | Silvery/Jones\' | Fairfield, | G4G5, S1  |
|                          | Primrose        | SNRA       |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Salix farriae*          | Farr\'s Wouldow | SNRA       | G4, S2    |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Saxifraga adscendens    | Wedge-leaf      | Fairfield, | G4T4,SMN  |
| ssp. oregonensis*        | Saxifrage       | SNRA,      |           |
|                          |                 | Ketchum    |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Saxifraga cernua*       | Nodding         | Fairfield, | G4,SS     |
|                          | saxifrage       | SNRA,      |           |
|                          |                 | Ketchum    |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+
| *Silene uralensis ssp.   | Petalless       | Fairfield, | G4,S1     |
| montana*                 | campion         | SNRA,      |           |
|                          |                 | Ketchum    |           |
+--------------------------+-----------------+------------+-----------+

*\** **Categories for Idaho Conservation Data Center (CDC)**

**G rank**: Global rank indicator; denotes rank based on range wide
status

**T rank:** Trinomial rank indicator; denotes range wide status of
infraspecific taxa.

**S rank:** State rank indicator; denotes rank based on status within
borders of a State.

**G1, T1,S1:** Critically imperiled due to extreme rarity or factors of
biology that makes a species especially vulnerable to extinction.
Typically 5 or fewer occurrences, or less than 1,000 individuals or very
few remaining acres.

**G2,T2,S2:** Imperiled due to rarity or because other factors
demonstrably make the species very vulnerable to extinction. Typically
6-20 occurrences, 1,000-3,000 individuals and few remaining acres.

**G3,T3,S3:**Rare or uncommon but not imperiled. Typically 21-100
occurrences, 3,000-10,000 individuals. Can be found abundantly in a
restricted range.

**G4,T4,S4:**Not rare and apparently secure, but with cause for
long-term concern. Usually more than 100 occurrences, 10,000+
individuals. May be quite rare in parts of range.

**G5,T5,S5:** Demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure. May be quite
rare in parts of range, especially at the periphery.

> **Appendix C**
>
> **Sawtooth Forest Land and Resource Management Plan vegetation
> management objectives and standards and guidelines applicable to
> terrestrial species conservation with regard to implementation**
>
> **Forestwide**
>
> **Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species**

  -------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
  BTST03   Design and implement projects to meet the Forest Service
           approved portions of Conservation Strategies and Agreements for
           Sensitive species.

  BTGU01   For site/project-scale analysis, suitable habitat should be
           determined for Sensitive species within or near the project
           area. Conduct surveys for those species with suitable habitat
           to determine presence. Document the rationale for not
           conducting surveys for other species in the project record**.**
  -------- ---------------------------------------------------------------

> **Management Area Direction -- Upper Salmon River Valley**

+-------------+------+-----+------------------------------------------+
| **          | O    | 0   | Maintain or restore populations and      |
| Botanical** | bjec | 264 | occupied habitats of TEPCS species,      |
|             | tive |     | including bugleg goldenweed, Stanley     |
| **          |      |     | thlaspi, Blandow's heliodium, least      |
| Resources** |      |     | moonwort/grapefern, pale sedge, guardian |
|             |      |     | buckwheat, Lemhi milkvetch, and          |
|             |      |     | spoon-leaved sundew, to contribute to    |
|             |      |     | their long-term viability of these       |
|             |      |     | species.                                 |
+-------------+------+-----+------------------------------------------+
|             | Stan | 0   | Implement the Forest Service approved    |
|             | dard | 266 | portions of the conservation strategy    |
|             |      |     | for Stanley whitlow-grass and guardian   |
|             |      |     | buckwheat to maintain or restore habitat |
|             |      |     | and populations for these species.       |
+-------------+------+-----+------------------------------------------+
|             | G    | 0   | Coordinate aquatic, terrestrial, and     |
|             | uide | 267 | watershed restoration, riparian          |
|             | line |     | management, prescribed fire, and         |
|             |      |     | non-native plant eradication efforts     |
|             |      |     | with a Forest botanist to minimize       |
|             |      |     | impacts to TEPCS plant species, occupied |
|             |      |     | or potential habitat, and pollinators of |
|             |      |     | these plants.                            |
+-------------+------+-----+------------------------------------------+

**Appendix D**

**Botanical Pre-field Review Form**

**Sawtooth National Forest**

PROJECT NAME: Stanley Creek Road 653

DATE: 4/22/2004

REPORTER: Kim Pierson

JOB TITLE: Botanist

DISTRICT: Sawtooth National Recreation Area

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T11N R13E Section 21

QUAD: Elk Meadow

LOCATION: USFS Road 653 is on the east side of Highway 21 in Custer
County, Idaho.

POTENTIAL LOCATIONS OF FOREST AND STATE OF IDAHO RANKED SPECIES ON OR
NEAR THE PROJECT:

***Spiranthes diluvialis** --*no known sites, potential habitat may be
within the proposed project area.

***Botrychium lineare --*** no known sites, potential habitat may be
within the proposed project area.

***Botrychium simplex --*** no known sites, potential habitat may be
within the proposed project area.

***Draba trichocarpa*** --known populations exist in the area.

***Eriogonum meldonum*** -- know populations exist in the area.

***Thalspi idahoense var. aileeniae*** -- known populations exist in the
area.

***Carex livida*** -- known populations exist several air miles away,
potential habitat may be within the proposed project

area.

MINIMUM LEVEL OF SURVEY: Intuitive. Survey between June and October.

POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE: Moderate

POTENTIAL FOR LAND DISTURBANCES: Moderate

Previous surveys in the area: September 1999 and August 16, 2000 for
*Spiranthes diluvialis*, and June 28, 2000 during a carex workshop.
Species identified during surveys include; *Salix boothii, S.
geyeriana*, *S. lutea,* *Potentilla fruiticosa, Ribes hudsonianum, Rosa
woodsii, Betula glandulosa, Agrostis stolonifera, Bromus inermus,
Festuca idahoensis, Alopercus sp., Deschampsia cespitosa, Phleum
pratensis, Calamagrostis inexpansa, Poa pratensis, Trisetum wolfii,
Carex microptera,C. lenticularis, C. urticulata, C. canescens, C.
scopulorum, c. aquatilis, C. jonesii, C. prionhylla, Carex sp., Juncus
ensifolius, J. balticus, Luzula campestris, Equisetum laevigatum,
Eleocharis palustris, Achille millefolium*, *Epilobium angustifolium,
Fragaria virginiana, Ranunculus sp., Senecio pseudaureus, Viola
sp.,Taraxicum officinale*

SURVEYS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN 2004.

## Appendix E

## 

## Canada Lynx

## Key and Checklist for Documenting Anticipated Effects, 

## and Determination for Federal Actions

Agency/Unit: [Sawtooth National Recreation Area]{.underline} Project
Location (HUC6, Lat/long) [170602011402, 170602011403,
170602011407]{.underline}

Ongoing Projects Lynx Biological Assessment: [Valley Creek]{.underline}

Lynx Analysis Unit(s): [Stanley-Park]{.underline}

Baseline Assessment Year: [2002]{.underline}

Project Name: [Stanley Creek Road 653 Realignment and Crossing
Rehabilitation]{.underline}

Type of Action (s): [Road Realignment and Roadbed
Restoration]{.underline}

+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
|              | **E |                                                |
|              | ffe |                                                |
|              | cts |                                                |
|              | of  |                                                |
|              | the |                                                |
|              | Ac  |                                                |
|              | tio |                                                |
|              | n(s |                                                |
|              | )** |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| #            | **  | **Discussion of Effects**                      |
|  Pathways^a^ | Eff |                                                |
|              | ect |                                                |
| ###          | s^b |                                                |
| # Indicators | ^** |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| **LAU        |     |                                                |
| Population   |     |                                                |
| Cha          |     |                                                |
| racteristics |     |                                                |
| for Lynx and |     |                                                |
| Prey**       |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Lynx       | M   | This action would occur within an existing     |
| > Occurrence |     | road corridor and designated winter snowmobile |
|              |     | route, and would not result in any change to   |
|              |     | the existing travel management on the          |
|              |     | District. The project location consistently    |
|              |     | receives motorized disturbance year round and  |
|              |     | the vegetation does not contain                |
|              |     | characteristics of denning habitat. Lynx may   |
|              |     | use this area for foraging, however this may   |
|              |     | be offset due to the high level of motorized   |
|              |     | disturbance.                                   |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | I   | Snowshoe hare foraging habitat would not be    |
| Availability |     | reduced. Restoration of the existing roadbed   |
| > and        |     | to its original wetland vegetation community   |
| >            |     | would eventually benefit snowshoe hare by      |
| Distribution |     | increasing their available habitat within the  |
| > of Primary |     | area.                                          |
| > Prey --    |     |                                                |
| > Snowshoe   |     |                                                |
| > Hare       |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | M   | This tree removal would be limited to a narrow |
| Availability |     | string of lodgepole that has encroached into   |
| > and        |     | the sage along the toe of the slope and        |
| >            |     | adequate habitat would be retained within the  |
| Distribution |     | LAU. Trees removed for the road realignment    |
| > of         |     | will be retained on site for restoration       |
| > Alternate  |     | purposes and available for cover habitat for   |
| > Prey --    |     | red squirrels. Restoration of 0.3 acres of the |
| > Red        |     | adjacent wetland community may increase        |
| > Squirrel,  |     | seasonal foraging opportunities for grouse     |
| > Grouse     |     | occurring in the area.                         |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### **Habi   |     | ###                                            |
| tat Access** |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Migrato    | > M | No new barriers to movement or dispersal would |
| ry/Dispersal |     | result from implementation of this project.    |
| > Barriers   |     | The amount of road restored would equal the    |
|              |     | amount of the new road alignment.              |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Road       | > M | There would be no increase in road density due |
| > Density    |     | to this project.                               |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | > M | Connectivity to adjacent habitat would be      |
| Connectivity |     | retained and no habitat fragmentation would    |
| > with Lynx  |     | result. Tree removal associated with the road  |
| > Habitat in |     | realignment would be minimal and the woody     |
| > Adjacent   |     | material would remain on site of               |
| > LAUs       |     | rehabilitation purposes. Willow plantings      |
|              |     | would be used to assist with wetland           |
|              |     | restoration of the current road location.      |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### Habi     |     |                                                |
| tat Elements |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Condition  | > I | Project activities would occur on              |
| > of         |     | approximately 5 acres and are associated with  |
| > Foraging   |     | the road corridor. Less than 2 acres of the    |
| > Habitat    |     | project area occur within predicted lynx       |
|              |     | habitat. Snowshoe hare habitat would not be    |
|              |     | reduced and would eventually be enhanced with  |
|              |     | restoration of 0.3 acres of wetland community. |
|              |     | The tree removal associated with realigning    |
|              |     | the road would occur on less than 1 acre of    |
|              |     | the project area and consists thin of a string |
|              |     | of lodgepole that has encroached into the sage |
|              |     | at the toe of the slope, where there is        |
|              |     | evidence that the road was originally located  |
|              |     | in this area. This tree removal would be       |
|              |     | minimal and all woody debris would be retained |
|              |     | on site for restoration purposes and available |
|              |     | for cover habitat for red squirrels and other  |
|              |     | small mammals. Restoration of the existing     |
|              |     | roadbed would reclaim 0.3 acres of the         |
|              |     | adjacent wetland community and may increase    |
|              |     | seasonal foraging opportunities for grouse     |
|              |     | occurring in the area.                         |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Condition  | > N | The project location is not within predicted   |
| > of Denning |     | or suitable lynx denning habitat and denning   |
| > Habitat    |     | habitat will not be altered.                   |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Habitat    | > M | This project would not result in conversion of |
| > Unsuitable |     | any suitable lynx habitat to an unsuitable     |
|              |     | condition. The project would not result in     |
|              |     | this LAU consisting of greater than 30% of the |
|              |     | predicted lynx habitat in unsuitable condition |
|              |     | (Sawtooth FLRMP TEST15). This action would not |
|              |     | significantly alter any habitat parameters.    |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### Distur   |     |                                                |
| bance Regime |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | > M | Implementation of the project would occur      |
|  Disturbance |     | after mid August 2004. Tree removal would be   |
|              |     | limited and would occur within the new         |
|              |     | alignment corridor (approximately 1,100 feet), |
|              |     | with the woody material remaining on site for  |
|              |     | rehabilitation purposes. This project would    |
|              |     | not result in a change of more than 15 percent |
|              |     | of lynx habitat within any LAU over a ten-year |
|              |     | period. Within the Stanley-Park LAU, project   |
|              |     | activities would occur on approximately 5      |
|              |     | acres; less than 2 acres of potential lynx     |
|              |     | habitat would be affected due to the new road  |
|              |     | alignment and construction and approximately   |
|              |     | 0.3 acres of wetland habitat would be restored |
|              |     | as lynx foraging habitat.                      |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Winter     | > N | This project would not contribute to a change  |
| > Recreation |     | in winter recreation activities.               |
| > Use        |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Summer     | > M | This project would not result in a major       |
| > Recreation |     | change in summer recreation activities within  |
| > Use        |     | the LAU. However, during project               |
|              |     | implementation public access along this        |
|              |     | section of Road 653 would be reduced.          |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| ######       |     |                                                |
|  Integration |     |                                                |
|  of Pathways |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | > M | There may be temporary and/or localized        |
|  Integration |     | effects to prey species during project         |
| > of         |     | implementation. However, it is likely that     |
| >            |     | lynx would avoid this area during periods of   |
|  population, |     | high-motorized activity.                       |
| > habitat,   |     |                                                |
| > and        |     | Ultimately, this project would relocate the    |
| >            |     | existing road corridor to the adjacent upland  |
|  disturbance |     | area to avoid further road and resource        |
| > indicators |     | damage. By doing this approximately 0.3 acres  |
|              |     | of wetland community would be restored and     |
|              |     | enhance lynx foraging habitat in the area. The |
|              |     | road would be relocated to the toe of the      |
|              |     | slope. Along this route there is evidence that |
|              |     | the road originally traveled through this      |
|              |     | area. Vegetation along this route consists     |
|              |     | primarily of sagebrush and string of lodgepole |
|              |     | that has encroached into this disturbed area.  |
|              |     | All woody vegetation would remain on site for  |
|              |     | rehabilitation purposes. Removing the road     |
|              |     | from its current riparian location would       |
|              |     | decrease disturbance in the riparian corridor  |
|              |     | and potentially increase the quality of this   |
|              |     | habitat for lynx.                              |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+

> KEY:
>
> ^a^Lynx matrix checklist endorsed by Sawtooth National Forest Level 1
> Team, June, 2001.
>
> ^b^This displays the potential effects of the action on habitats or
> individuals.

I = Improve, M = Maintain, D = Degrade, N = No Influence

1\. Does the project/activity meet the minimum objectives, standards and
guidelines identified within the Sawtooth Forest LRMP and the LCAS? Yes,
No

2\. Does any direct or indirect effect of the action "Improve",
"Maintain", or "Degrade" a population or habitat indicator? Yes, No

> If "No" (all indicators are "No Influence"), document the "No Effect".
> If "Yes", Go to 3.

3\. Would any indicator be "Degraded" as a result of any direct or
indirect effect of the action(s? Yes, No

If "No" (all indicators are combination of "Maintain" and "No
influence") then the determination may be No Effect or NLAA. Biologists
make determination based on professional judgment with rationale
explained under the Integration indicator.

> If "Yes" go to 4.

4\. Are the effects that degrade indicator conditions, inconsequential,
or temporary in nature, or not likely to degrade habitat in the long
term? Yes, No

If "Yes", the determination results in "Not Likely to Adversely Affect".
If "No", consider mitigation to reduce or remove probably adverse
effects(s).

List mitigation and describe effect of mitigation on indicators
(rationale describing how mitigation would make the determination move
from LAA to NLAA).

Note: only include measures that would change the determination from LAA
to NLAA. These will be measures that were not included in the project
description previously.

Determination of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of action, as
described, including mitigation on Canada Lynx and critical habitat (if
designated):

  ------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
                                      [May                  
                                      Affect]{.underline}   

                [No                   [Not Likely to        [Likely to Adversely
                Effect]{.underline}   Adversely             Affect]{.underline}
                                      Affect]{.underline}   

  **Canada      **X**                                       
  Lynx**                                                    
  ------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------

  ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------
                                           

  Bobbi Filbert, Wildlife Biologist        Date
  ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------