Biological Assessment and Evaluation of the Effects of

**Cabin Creek Reconnect**

on Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Sawtooth National Recreation Area

Sawtooth National Forest

Ketchum, Idaho

+------------+---------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| Prepared   | /s/ Robin Garwood               |   | 7/18/2006          |
| by         |                                 |   |                    |
+------------+---------------------------------+---+--------------------+
|            | Robin Garwood                   |   | Date               |
|            |                                 |   |                    |
|            | Wildlife Biologist              |   |                    |
+------------+---------------------------------+---+--------------------+

**Table of Contents**

I. Summary 3

II\. Introduction 5

III\. Current Management Direction 5

IV\. Description of the Proposed Action 7

V. Existing Condition in the Project Areas 10

VI\. Effects of Proposed Action on Listed Species 11

A. Endangered Species Act Listed and Delisted Species 11

B. Region Four Sensitive Species 13

VII\. Cumulative Effects 19

VIII\. Determinations and Rationales 19

A. Endangered Species Act Listed Species 19

B. Region Four Sensitive Species 20

IX\. Literature Cited 20

Appendix A - Lynx Habitat Mapping Criteria 25

Appendix B -- Canada Lynx Effects Matrix 26

Hell Roaring-Alturas Effects Matrix 27

I.  **SUMMARY**

Summary of determinations and rationale.

+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| >      |              |                  |                          |
| **Enda |              |                  |                          |
| ngered |              |                  |                          |
| > S    |              |                  |                          |
| pecies |              |                  |                          |
| > Act- |              |                  |                          |
| Listed |              |                  |                          |
| > Spe  |              |                  |                          |
| cies** |              |                  |                          |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| >      |              | > *              | > **Rationale**          |
|  **Spe |              | *Determination** |                          |
| cies** |              |                  |                          |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| > Gray |              | > No Effect      | > No increased risk in   |
| > Wolf |              |                  | > mortality. No change   |
|        |              |                  | > in availability or     |
|        |              |                  | > numbers of prey        |
|        |              |                  | > populations.           |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| >      |              | > No Effect      | > No change in lynx      |
| Canada |              |                  | > occurrence,            |
| > Lynx |              |                  | > availability or        |
|        |              |                  | > numbers of prey        |
|        |              |                  | > populations, or        |
|        |              |                  | > habitat.               |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| > Bald |              | > No Effect      | > No change in human     |
| >      |              |                  | > disturbance or         |
|  Eagle |              |                  | > habitat.               |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| >      |              |                  |                          |
| **USFS |              |                  |                          |
| > R4   |              |                  |                          |
| > Sen  |              |                  |                          |
| sitive |              |                  |                          |
| > Spe  |              |                  |                          |
| cies** |              |                  |                          |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| >      |              | > *              | > **Rationale**          |
|  **Spe |              | *Determination** |                          |
| cies** |              |                  |                          |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| > M    | > Spotted    | > Beneficial     | > Improvement to         |
| ammals | > Bat        | > Impact         | > foraging habitat       |
|        |              |                  | > through wetland and    |
|        |              |                  | > riparian improvement.  |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | >            | > Beneficial     | > Improvement to         |
|        |  Townsend\'s | > Impact         | > foraging habitat       |
|        | > Big-eared  |                  | > through wetland and    |
|        | > Bat        |                  | > riparian improvement.  |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Pygmy      | > No Impact      | > Project area does not  |
|        | > Rabbit     |                  | > contain habitat.       |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Wolverine  | > No Impact      | > No disturbance during  |
|        |              |                  | > reproductive period,   |
|        |              |                  | > no change in access,   |
|        |              |                  | > no measurable change   |
|        |              |                  | > in habitat.            |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Fisher     | > No Impact      | > No disturbance during  |
|        |              |                  | > reproductive period,   |
|        |              |                  | > no change in access,   |
|        |              |                  | > no measurable change   |
|        |              |                  | > in habitat.            |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
| >      | > Common     | > No Impact      | > Project area does not  |
|  Birds | > Loon       |                  | > contain habitat.       |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Greater    | > Beneficial     | > Improvement to brood   |
|        | >            | > Impact         | > rearing habitat        |
|        |  Sage-grouse |                  | > through wetland and    |
|        |              |                  | > riparian improvement.  |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Mountain   | > No Impact      | > Project area does not  |
|        | > Quail      |                  | > contain habitat.       |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Northern   | > No Impact      | > No disturbance during  |
|        | > Goshawk    |                  | > reproductive period,   |
|        |              |                  | > and no measurable      |
|        |              |                  | > change in habitat.     |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Peregrine  | > Beneficial     | > Improvement to         |
|        | > Falcon     | > Impact         | > foraging habitat       |
|        |              |                  | > through wetland and    |
|        |              |                  | > riparian improvement.  |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Boreal Owl | > No Impact      | > No disturbance during  |
|        |              |                  | > reproductive period,   |
|        |              |                  | > and no measurable      |
|        |              |                  | > change in habitat.     |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | >            | > No Impact      | > No disturbance during  |
|        |  Flammulated |                  | > reproductive period,   |
|        | > Owl        |                  | > and no measurable      |
|        |              |                  | > change in habitat.     |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+
|        | > Great gray | > Beneficial     | > Improvement to         |
|        | > Owl        | > impact         | > foraging habitat       |
|        |              |                  | > through wetland and    |
|        |              |                  | > riparian improvement.  |
+--------+--------------+------------------+--------------------------+

+--------+--------------+-----------------+----------------------------+
| >      |              |                 |                            |
| **USFS |              |                 |                            |
| > Sen  |              |                 |                            |
| sitive |              |                 |                            |
| > Spe  |              |                 |                            |
| cies** |              |                 |                            |
+--------+--------------+-----------------+----------------------------+
| >      |              | > **            | > **Rationale**            |
|  **Spe |              | Determination** |                            |
| cies** |              |                 |                            |
+--------+--------------+-----------------+----------------------------+
|        | > Three-toed | > No Impact     | > No disturbance during    |
|        | > Woodpecker |                 | > reproductive period, and |
|        |              |                 | > no measurable change in  |
|        |              |                 | > habitat.                 |
+--------+--------------+-----------------+----------------------------+
|        | >            | > No Impact     | > Project area does not    |
|        | White-headed |                 | > contain habitat.         |
|        | > Woodpecker |                 |                            |
+--------+--------------+-----------------+----------------------------+
| Amph   | > Spotted    | > May impact    | > Potential direct         |
| ibians | > Frog       | > individuals   | > mortality from project   |
|        |              | > (temporary)   | > implementation. Short    |
|        |              |                 | > and long term beneficial |
|        |              |                 | > impact to habitat from   |
|        |              |                 | > wetland and riparian     |
|        |              |                 | > improvement.             |
+--------+--------------+-----------------+----------------------------+

**II. INTRODUCTION**

This biological assessment and evaluation addresses the effects of the
proposal by the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (NRA) to resolve
several persistent resource problems occurring along the lower reaches
of Cabin Creek on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. The
primary need is to return natural flow conditions and healthy and
passable channel conditions for fish to Cabin Creek, a tributary of
Alturas Lake. The project area is located in Blaine County, Idaho
(Figure 1) in T7N, R14E, sections 17 and 20.

As confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list 2006-SL-0542 in
a letter dated June 1, 2006, the Sawtooth NRA provides habitat for three
federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species listed
below.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Species**                      | > **Status**                    |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > 1\. Gray Wolf (*Canis lupus*)    | > Threatened (nonessential      |
|                                    | > experimental)a                |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > 2\. Canada Lynx (*Lynx           | > Threatened                    |
| > canadensis*)                     |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > 3\. Bald Eagle (*Haliaeetus      | > Threatened                    |
| > leucocephalus*)                  |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

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.

> The Sawtooth NRA provides habitat for 16 animal species on the
> Regional Forester\'s sensitive species list. These species are listed
> below.
>
> 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 gentiles*)
>
> 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*)

**III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS**

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."

Subsequent to the listing of Canada lynx, the Canada Lynx Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; Ruediger et al. 2000) was developed,
which provides direction for management of lynx habitat on federal
lands. The Forest Service agreed to follow this direction (U.S Forest
Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service 2000) and the LCAS has been
incorporated in to the revised Sawtooth Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (FLRMP). 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 and predicted foraging and denning habitat within each Lynx
Analysis Units have been developed as directed by the LCAS. Lynx
Analysis Units were derived by aggregating 6^th^ level Hydrologic Units,
and lynx habitat was derived using vegetation layers from satellite
imagery and GIS mapping techniques (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.

The revised Sawtooth 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. 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 Sawtooth FLRMP defines timeframe of effects as temporary (less than
3 years), short-term (3-15 years), and long-term (greater than 15 years)
(US Forest Service 2003, III-4). These definitions are used to quantify
timeframe of effects for the species addressed in this document.

This proposal responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the
Sawtooth FLRMP. The project is located within Management Area 2 -- Upper
Salmon River Valley, within a Management Prescription Class 3.2 --
Active Restoration and Maintenance of Aquatic, Terrestrial and
Hydrologic Resources. The project is also located within an active
restoration prescription of the Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy,
with a high priority. Since Cabin Creek naturally connects directly to
habitats in both Alturas Lake and Perkins Lake, it also proposes
restoration within the Alturas Lake priority Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (ACS) watershed.

The primary objective of the proposed project directly supports the
emphasis of this MPC, that is, active restoration of damaged landscapes,
and would also contribute towards the FLRMP ACS through the reconnection
of Cabin Creek and associated aquatic and wetland habitats. Design
features described above are intended to add protection to aquatic
habitats during the implementation phase as well. Specific FLRMP
Objectives would be addressed or advanced by the Project:

Table 1. FLRMP direction associated with the proposed Cabin Creek
Reconnect project.

+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| **M         | **          | **Management Direction Description**    |
| PC/Resource | Direction** |                                         |
| Area**      |             |                                         |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Soil,       | Management  | Remove human-caused migration barriers  |
| Water,      | Area 2      | and resolve instream flow and habitat   |
| Riparian,   | Objective   | quality conflicts, primarily related to |
| and Aquatic | 0243        | the numerous irrigation diversions to   |
| Resources   |             | assist in the restoration of depressed  |
|             |             | populations and degraded fish habitat   |
|             |             | for listed species.                     |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Soil,       | Management  | Maintain and restore the important      |
| Water,      | Area 2      | inlet habitat in the Alturas Lake       |
| Riparian,   |             | subwatershed for bull trout, sockeye,   |
| and Aquatic | Objective   | and Chinook salmon.                     |
| Resources   | 0244        |                                         |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Soil,       | Management  | Modify localized portions of roads and  |
| Water,      | Area 2      | trails within Salmon River headwaters,  |
| Riparian,   | Objective   | Frenchman Creek, Pole Creek, Fisher     |
| and Aquatic | 0249        | Creek, Alturas Lake Creek, Boundary     |
| Resources   |             | Creek, Nip and Tuck Creek, Iron Creek,  |
|             |             | and Fourth of July Creek drainages to   |
|             |             | reduce accelerated contributions to     |
|             |             | instream sediment, eliminate            |
|             |             | impairments to proper floodplain        |
|             |             | function, and restore water quality and |
|             |             | geomorphic integrity.                   |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Soil,       | Management  | Within the Sawtooth Valley              |
| Water,      | Area 2      | sub-populations, maintain the strong    |
| Riparian,   | Objective   | local populations of bull trout within  |
| and Aquatic | 0255        | Alturas Lake Creek, Yellowbelly Lake    |
| Resources   |             | Creek, and Fishhook Creek.              |
+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------+

The project would also be consistent with the other applicable
Forest-wide and MA2 direction, including: TEGO01, TEGO03, TEGO04,
TEGO05, TEGO06, TEOB09, SWGO01, SWGO02, SWGO03, SWGO04, SWGO05, SWGO10,
SWOB12, SWOB13, SWOB16, SWOB18, SWST04, VEGO04, VEGO05, BTGO06, BTGU03,
NPST04, NPST09, NPST10, SNGO01, SNOB02, 0201, 0228, and 0254.

**IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION**

The proposed action would resolve various longstanding resource
conflicts occurring along the lower reaches of Cabin Creek. Several
small fundamental treatments would be implemented. Four principle
situations would be addressed:

## Figure 1: Cabin Creek vicinity and project area maps

  --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image1.png){width="3.157638888888889in"   ![](media/image2.png){width="3.1354166666666665in"
  height="3.6944444444444446in"}                      height="3.6909722222222223in"}

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

***Situation 1***: An abandoned diversion channel continues to capture
the majority of late season flows from Cabin Creek. Water continues to
be inadvertently diverted only to pass down remnants of the former
ditches where it disappears into the coarse alluvial soils. As a
consequence, in the absence of this water, the natural channel of Cabin
Creek typically dries downstream by mid-summer.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.504166666666666in"
height="1.7861111111111112in"}

*Proposed treatment*: The diversion channel would be plugged at its head
and dominate flows returned the natural channel. This work could be
completed with a hand crew or small excavator, which could access the
site over existing terrain. A small pipe intake serving the Cabin Creek
Organization Camp would be subsequently relocated slightly upstream (\<
30 feet) from its current location. The plug would be formed with
natural materials available on site, including the natural deposition
that has accumulated at the head of the natural channel. The plug would
be revegetated, and protected in the near-term with tree revetment. This
method has proved effective in several recent projects including two
within the Alturas drainage.

During implantation of *Situation 1*, flows in Cabin Creek would be
directed (e.g. with gravel bags) to avoid activities in direct current.
In order to protect cutthroat, flow into the former diversion ditch
would be mostly curtailed several days prior to the project
implementation to provide an incentive and opportunity for them to move
out and into Cabin Creek. If necessary, those remaining could be removed
by electrofishing. In order to maintain favorable working conditions
elsewhere, this situation would be the last implemented. This situation
can likely be addressed in less than two days.

***Situation 2***: A former informal vehicle route, serving as a rear
entrance to the Luther Heights Organizational Camp, has captured Cabin
Creek in a short segment causing severe scour and resource damage. This
situation continues to deteriorate annually.

  ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image4.png){width="3.2284722222222224in"   ![](media/image5.png){width="3.2416666666666667in"
  height="2.3826388888888888in"}                       height="2.3722222222222222in"}

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

*Proposed treatment*: Channels would be restored where currently
captured by the road. To do so, the informal track would be removed and
rehabilitated (0.2 miles), the depositional plugs removed from natural
channels, and the natural channels reestablished. Standard methods,
routinely applied with similar projects in recent years, would be used.
These methods utilize natural materials to reestablish natural
processes. The channel is expected to be dry, or nearly so, during the
brief period of restoration. This situation can also likely be addressed
in less than two days with the use of an excavator.

![](media/image6.png){width="4.540972222222222in"
height="3.6020833333333333in"}***Situation 3***: A ¼ mile drainage ditch
bisects the broad meadow east of Road 207. The ditch was constructed in
1964 as a result of the realignment of the Alturas Lake Road (Rd 205).
The ditch intercepts and gathers flow originating from Cabin Creek and
delivers it to Alturas Lake. This situation alters the soil moisture in
those portions of the meadow lying below the ditch.

*Proposed treatment*: That portion of the ditch that constitutes the
current channel of Cabin Creek will remain as a necessity of the 1964
road realignment. However, the northeast end of the ditch (approximately
200 m) would be rehabilitated where high water flows once spread towards
Perkins Lake. The natural topography severed by the ditch would be
reestablished to the extent possible. Using an excavator, the ditch
would be filled with sidecast from the initial excavation. This method
has proved successful where implemented in several similar projects in
recent years. The ditch and meadow are expected to be dry, or nearly so,
during the brief period of restoration. This situation can be addressed
in less than two days.

***Situation 4***: A small masonry wall spans the bed of Cabin Creek at
its confluence with the Alturas Lake. The wall was likely constructed as
a sill in Cabin Creek when the channel was relocated in 1964 as
necessitated by the realignment of the Alturas Lake Road. This wall
presents an unnecessary encumbrance for upstream fish migration.

*Proposed treatment*: The existing wall would be removed or modified to
facilitate fish passage. The modifications would be made by a hand crew
with the possible use of hand power tools in less than a days time. The
channel is expected to be dry, or nearly so, during the treatment.

# Design Features and Monitoring

Measures would be implemented to minimize the immediate and near-term
risks of undesirable sediments and other effects:

-   Treatments would be implemented during the period when site and
    channel conditions are most favorable (late August through October).

-   Where activities must briefly occur within flowing channels (such as
    at *Situation 1*), strategies would be utilized to direct flow
    around active areas. Given our current knowledge on fish
    distribution in Cabin Creek, as well as the nature of the habitats
    and the current passage conditions, the likelihood of ESA protected
    fish being present is considered remote (negligible) in these areas.

-   Only cutthroat and non-native brook trout were observed in extensive
    sampling of the ditch in 2006. Water Cutthroat

-   All heavy equipment aspects of the project are planned for
    implementation by the Sawtooth NF Construction and Maintenance Crew,
    who have considerable experience doing these types of projects in
    the area with great success.

-   In addition, equipment staging, including refueling, would occur in
    uplands well away from riparian and aquatic habitats.

-   Monitoring and oversight would occur by the project leader
    throughout project implementation. Photopoints would document
    pre-project conditions, and follow-up monitoring (typically in years
    1 and 5) would assess the success of the project in achieving the
    purpose and need.

-   Where possible, live trees used for revetments and road obliteration
    will be lodgepole pine between 7 and 12 inches dbh. Standing trees
    with cavities or with raptor or raven nests will not be used for
    revetment or road obliteration treatments.

V.  **EXISTING CONDITION WITHIN THE PROJECT AREAS**

Naturally Cabin Creek historically emerged from the Sawtooth Mountains
and spilled onto a broad alluvial fan that sits above Perkins Lake and
the lower end of Alturas Lake. Multiple natural distributary channels
seasonally spread water across this fan -- some reaching Alturas Lake
and some Perkins Lake. With the spread of this water, a broad and
productive meadow formed adjacent to the lakes, at the base of the fan.
As recently as the 1950s the primary thread of Cabin Creek lead to a
confluence with Alturas Lake just northwest of its outlet, while
highwater channels extended southeast to Perkins Lake. However, several
changes occurred during the 1900s period that substantially altered the
natural conditions and capabilities of the aquatic habitats within Cabin
Creek, including flow and migratory conditions for fish.

In 1912 Cabin Creek was tapped for water to irrigate newly established
homesteads on the flats adjacent to Perkins Lake. Roughly 6 cfs of water
was pulled from Cabin Creek during the irrigation season, from a point
of diversion at the very head of the fan where Cabin Creek emerged from
its confined mountain reach. In the 1930s an improved road was built
into Alturas Lake and a lodge established on the shoreline immediately
adjacent to the confluence with Cabin Creek. In the 1950s church
organization camps were established in the area, including Luther
Heights, sitting just west of Cabin Creek, and Cabin Creek Camp sitting
at the head of the fan, at the base of the mountains. In 1964 the
transportation system in the Alturas complex was again substantially
"improved" in order "to meet the increasing recreational demands in the
vicinity". Fundamental changes occurred near the lodge, where Cabin
Creek joined Alturas Lake. Congestion dictated that the road be
relocated further from the lake shore. As a consequence, the natural
confluence of Cabin Creek was plugged with the new road alignment fill,
and replaced with a new channel excavated just west. Topographic and
engineering considerations required that the connection for the new
channel be made well within the meadow to the north. Moreover, for
unknown reasons this new ditch/channel was also extended much further (a
total of ¼ mile) into the meadow, where it also gathered and diverted
all the channels from Cabin Creek, including those previously flowing
towards Perkins Lake. In order to prevent grade adjustment within this
newly excavated channel, it appears a masonry sill was also constructed
in the bed of the new channel where it joined Alturas Lake. It also
appears likely that Road 207, which bisects the Cabin Creek fan and
meadow, was also constructed during this same period.

In 1968 and 1969 all the private lands in the vicinity were acquired by
the United States and incorporated into the National Forest System.
Deliberate irrigation of the former homesteads was discontinued, but the
diversion works were never plugged or rehabilitated. As a consequence,
water continued annually to flow down the diversion channels. The lodge
and associated developments were eventually removed from the lakeshore,
to be replaced with a picnic area. Use at the organization camps
continued where use of an informal rear entrance track at the Luther
Heights camp eventually captured Cabin Creek within it. Elsewhere, below
the new ditch/channel of Cabin Creek, the meadow habitats changed as a
result of the new reduced water regime.

In total, these changes have resulted in diminished habitats and
capabilities for Cabin Creek and present continued risk of further
damage to aquatic and wetland habitats. The proposed action would
address and reverse some of the fundamental changes that have occurred.

**VI. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON ESA-LISTED SPECIES**

**[A. Endangered Species Act Listed Species]{.underline}**

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

[Habitat and Life History Factors]{.underline}

Wolf habitat has been defined as any place with an adequate, year-round
supply of ungulate prey and freedom from excessive human persecution
(Fritts et al. 1993, Mech 1970). The size of a pack\'s home range
depends mainly on pack size, weather, and prey abundance and
distribution. 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. In most documented cases, wolf packs require large home ranges.
Territories of 80 square miles have been reported in Minnesota to over
660 square miles in Alberta (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

####### 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 NRA. 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 June of 2003 a new pack, called Castle
Peak, was observed within the Lower East Fork Salmon River area. In May
of 2003 a new pack called Galena, was located within the Sawtooth NRA
and has been using areas in Sawtooth Valley and the west side of the
White Clouds since its formation. This pack successfully denned in
Sawtooth Valley in spring 2004, 2005, and 2006. Additionally three other
packs are known to use portions of the Sawtooth NRA. These packs
correspond to a population increase within the Sawtooth NRA since 1995,
when no packs were known to occur. Habitat for wolves exists within the
proposed project area. Large ungulates including mule deer and elk occur
in the project area spring through fall. The Galena pack's range
includes the project area.

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

No increased risk of mortality to wolves would result from the project.
No new access into wolf habitat would be created because no new roads
would be built. The treatments to reconnect Cabin Creek would not result
in change in deer and elk populations.

**Bald Eagle** (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*)

####### Habitat and Life History 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. Bald eagles require freedom from human disturbances year-round
(Stalmaster 1987).

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

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA.
Bald eagles frequently use the morainal lakes during spring and fall
including Alturas Lake. During the summer of 2003 and 2004 adult bald
eagles were frequently observed in the upper Sawtooth Valley along the
Salmon River. A successful breeding pair of bald eagles was confirmed on
private land adjacent to the Sawtooth NRA during the summer of 2006,
located in northern Sawtooth Valley. The project area is adjacent to
Alturas Lake which provides spring and fall habitat during migration and
potential nesting habitat.

[Direct and Indirect Effects]{.underline}

No increase in human disturbance to bald eagles during winter or
breeding season would occur because no change in access would occur. No
change in bald eagle habitat would occur as a result of the project.

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

####### Habitat and Life History Factors

Canada lynx are found in boreal forests and are closely associated with
the snowshoe hare, their primary prey. In southern boreal forests, lynx
are found in subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine
forests. Lynx diets are dominated by snowshoe hare, however, in southern
boreal forests alternate prey, especially red squirrels, as well as
other small mammals and grouse, are important to lynx diets (Aubrey et
al. 2000). Snowshoe hare prefer diverse, early successional forests with
stands of conifers for cover and shrubby understories (Monthey 1986;
Koehler and Aubry 1994). Lynx usually concentrate their foraging in
areas where hare numbers are high, but they also require late
successional forests with downed logs and windfalls to provide cover for
denning sites, escape, and protection from severe weather (McCord and
Cardoza 1982). Mating generally occurs in March and April and kittens
are born late May to early June.

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

No lynx populations have been documented recently within the Sawtooth
NRA. From 1999 -- 2001 the National Lynx Detection Protocol was
conducted within the Sawtooth NRA in the Sawtooth Valley and Stanley
Basin. All hair samples collected from this survey were determined to be
negative for lynx hair. The most recent confirmed sightings of lynx
tracks in the Sawtooth NRA occurred during the winter of 1997 near the
Fishhook Creek drainage and in the Alturas Lake Creek drainage. Trapping
records from the 1960\'s and 1970\'s show that lynx occurred throughout
the Salmon River watershed on the Sawtooth NRA.

The project area is located in the Hell Roaring-Alturas Lynx Analysis
Units (LAU) within the Sawtooth Valley Biological Assessment area.
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. The baseline matrix describing existing
conditions of lynx habitat within the LAU, can be found in the
Biological Assessment of Effects of Ongoing Federal Actions for Sawtooth
Valley, which is on file at the Sawtooth NRA headquarters office and at
the Boise Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[Direct and Indirect Effects]{.underline}

Effects of this project are evaluated in relation to the baseline
conditions using an effects matrix. The effects matrix is located in
Appendix C.

**[B. Region Four Sensitive Species]{.underline}**

**Spotted Bat** (*Euderma maculatum*) - Spotted bats forage nocturnally
in open forests (especially in ponderosa pine stands), marshy areas,
open pastures, and upland sagebrush and juniper stands. 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, Rodhouse et al. 2005). Spotted bats hibernate during the winter
and emerge in spring, generally March or April depending on daytime
temperatures during those months.

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA.
There are no documented sightings of the spotted bat and no surveys have
been conducted within the 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.

The treatments to reconnect Cabin Creek would not cause direct
disturbance to spotted bats. Foraging habitat would improve in the short
and long terms because the reconnection would result in the improvement
of wetland and riparian conditions.

**Townsend\'s Big-eared Bat** (*Corynorhinus townsendii*) - Townsend\'s
big-eared bats are nocturnal insectivores feeding primarily on moths
along forest edges, roads, or open areas within the forest. They roost
in crevices of rocky outcrops, caves, old mines or buildings (Kunz and
Martin 1982, Christy and West 1993). 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.

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA.
There are no documented sightings of Townsend\'s big-eared bats within
the project area, though habitat is present. Townsend\'s big-eared bats
have been found in the Warm Springs drainage on the Ketchum Ranger
District.

The treatments to reconnect Cabin Creek would not cause direct
disturbance to Townsend's big-eared bats. As with the spotted bat,
foraging habitat would improve in the short and long terms because the
reconnection would result in the improvement of wetland and riparian
conditions.

**Pygmy Rabbit** (*Brachylagus idahoensis)* - Pygmy rabbits are
considered a sagebrush obligate species and tend to use areas with
taller and denser sagebrush cover than the surrounding area. They
excavate and use extensive burrow systems. Due to this unique feature
among rabbits, certain soil properties, including depth and texture that
allow ease of excavation, are required (Weiss and Verts 1984). Pygmy
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 rangewide in the
1900's due to loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat for this
species (Rachlow and Svancara 2003). Population trend for this species
is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA. 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). In winter 2005 Idaho
Department of Fish and Game personnel detected active pygmy rabbit
burrows within ¼ mile of the Sawtooth NRA in the East Fork Salmon River
watershed (Waterbury pers. comm. 2005). Potential habitat for the
species occurs on the Sawtooth NRA although none occurs directly within
the project area due to the lack of sagebrush density. Pygmy rabbit
habitat would not be affected by the proposed project.

**Wolverine** (*Gulo gulo*) -- 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. A study conducted in
central Idaho found two natal den sites located in subalpine cirque
areas on north-facing slopes suggesting that this type of habitat is
critical to wolverines in central Idaho (Copeland 1996). 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).

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).

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA. 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. No locations were recorded within the
project area though there was a location within approximately 1.5 miles.
The project area contains wolverine habitat but not reproductive denning
characteristics.

No disturbance to female wolverines during the denning period would
occur during project implementation nor would change in access into
habitat occur. Wetland and riparian improvement would not have a
measurable effect on wolverine habitat based on the scale of the habitat
change in relation to a wolverine home range.

**Fisher** (*Martes pennanti*) - Home range size of fisher in Idaho,
based on a study in northern Idaho, was calculated to be 19,251 acres
for males and 7,907 acres for females (Powell and Zielinski 1994).
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).

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA. No
sightings of fisher have been reported within the proposed project
areas, though habitat exists. There are trapping records of fisher from
the early 1980\'s west of the project areas 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 2004 sighting
approximately seven miles northwest of Stanley, Idaho. Merriam (1890)
reported a member of his party trapping a fisher at Alturas Lake.
Potential habitat exists within the proposed project area.

No disturbance would occur during the reproductive period of the fisher
during project implementation nor would change in access into habitat
occur. Wetland and riparian improvement would not have a measurable
effect on fisher habitat based on the scale of the habitat change in
relation to a fisher home range.

**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).

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA. 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 project area does not contain loon habitat.

**Northern Goshawk** (*Accipter 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 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 prey on a wide variety of
forest-dwelling birds and mammals such as grouse, woodpeckers,
squirrels, and rabbits. 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.

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA.
Based on surveys conducted on the north end of the Sawtooth National
Forest over the past 10 years, the number of goshawk fledglings observed
is on an increasing trend. There is a known goshawk territory near the
project area.

No disturbance to breeding birds would occur because treatments would be
implemented outside of the nesting season. The treatments would not
affect any known nest sites. Foraging habitat would not be affected.
Tree removal for revetments and road obliteration could remove a
potential nest tree. Goshawks on the Sawtooth NRA do not appear to be
limited by availability of suitable nest trees however.

**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. Peregrine falcons breed in a variety
of habitats from coastal, to desert, to temperate forest (Johnsgard
1990).

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA,
however, the discovery of three nesting territories within the past 12
years indicates an increasing trend within the Sawtooth NRA. The three
territories known to occur on the Sawtooth NRA are all within the
Sawtooth Wilderness. The closest known eyrie is approximately 4 miles
from the closest project area. The project areas all contain potential
foraging habitat.

No disturbance related to project implementation would occur during the
nesting or brood rearing period.

The treatments would result in a benefit to peregrine falcon foraging
habitat by improving wetland and riparian conditions.

**Greater Sage-grouse** (*Centrocercus urophasianus*) -- Sage-grouse
depend on sagebrush for both successful nesting (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). Sage
grouse require insects during their first summer of life in order to
obtain sufficient protein to grow rapidly. 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. 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
are 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, and wind turbines. (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, though the sample size for this species is small
in Idaho (Sauer et al. 2005).

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA. A
small, remnant population of greater sage-grouse is present within the
upper part Sawtooth Valley. The status of this population is unknown,
but thought to be stable to declining. Habitat for greater sage-grouse
occurs in two of the project areas including Headwaters and Rainbow
Creek.

No disturbance related to project implementation would occur during the
nesting or brood rearing period. Brood rearing habitat would improve in
the short and long terms because the reconnection would result in the
improvement of wetland and riparian conditions.

**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 availability (Brennan et al.
1987). 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. This species eats a variety of seeds and mast
with insects important in the diet of chicks (Johnsgard 1975).

There are no known populations of mountain quail on the Sawtooth
National Forest, though no surveys for this species have been conducted.
An individual was observed on the Boise Forest approximately 50 miles
from the Sawtooth NRA. The proposed project area does not provide
habitat for mountain quail.

**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, shrews, and flying squirrels (Johnsgard 1988,
Hayward et al. 1993). Males arrive at potential breeding territories in
late winter (mid-February) and begin calling to attract females by late
February or early March.

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA.
Owls have been detected within ½ mile of the project area. Owls likely
do not use the meadow to forage because it is too open. Potential nest
trees could occur near Situation 1 and 2.

No disturbance to breeding birds would occur because treatments would be
implemented outside of the nesting season. Tree removal for revetments
and road obliteration could remove a potential nest tree, though
adequate nest trees would remain in the project area and no trees with
existing cavities would be used.

**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.

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA.
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 has not been surveyed for flammulated owls. Owls likely do
not use the meadow to forage because it is too open. Potential nest
trees could occur near Situation 1 and 2.

No disturbance to breeding birds would occur because treatments would be
implemented outside of the nesting season. Tree removal for revetments
and road obliteration could remove a potential nest tree, though
adequate nest trees would remain in the project area and no trees with
existing cavities would be used.

**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).

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA.
Surveys for great gray owls have been conducted on the Sawtooth NRA in
Stanley Basin and active nests have been observed within Stanley Basin
in lodgepole pine adjacent to wet meadows. Four sightings on the
Sawtooth NRA outside of Stanley Basin have been reported during the
summer, but no breeding has been confirmed in these locations. Three
occurred in Sawtooth Valley and one occurred in the headwaters of French
Creek on the east side of the Sawtooth NRA. Surveys for great gray owls
have not been conducted within the project area. The project area
contains potential foraging habitat for great gray owls.

No disturbance related to project implementation would occur during the
nesting period. Foraging habitat would improve in the short and long
terms because the reconnection would result in the improvement of
wetland and riparian conditions. Tree removal for revetments and road
obliteration could remove a potential nest tree, though adequate nest
trees would remain in the project area and no trees with existing raptor
or raven nests would be used.

**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 is
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.

The increased abundance of mountain pine beetle within and around the
project areas over the past eight years has resulted in a corresponding
increase in three-toed woodpecker numbers and nesting attempts in these
areas. Habitat exists within the project area near Situations 1 and 2.

No disturbance to breeding birds would occur because treatments would be
implemented outside of the nesting season. Some potential nest trees may
be removed for revetments and road obliteration work. Currently
three-toed woodpeckers are not limited by nest site availability or food
availability on the Sawtooth NRA however.

**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. No confirmed
breeding of this species has been documented on the Sawtooth Forest. The
project area does not contain habitat for the white-headed woodpecker.

**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 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 breed from late
February to early July. They hibernate during winter and emerge when
open water becomes available, generally during spring thaw. 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.

Population trend for this species is unknown within the Sawtooth NRA. No
surveys have been conducted within the project area, though habitat is
present.

Implementation of the project may cause temporary disturbance to spotted
frogs and their habitat, mainly from activities associated with
situations 1-3. However spotted frog habitat would improve in the short
and long terms because the reconnection would result in the improvement
of wetland and riparian conditions.

**VII. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

The Endangered Species Act defines cumulative effects (50 CFR 402.2) as
the additive effects of state and private activities that are reasonably
certain to occur in the watershed where the Federal Action occurs. The
Sawtooth NRA is considered the cumulative effects boundary for bald
eagle, spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, fisher, greater
sage-grouse, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, boreal owl, flammulated
owl, great gray owl, three-toed woodpecker, and Columbia spotted frog.
The north end of the Sawtooth National Forest is considered the
cumulative effects boundary for gray wolf, Canada lynx, and wolverine.

No state or private land occurs within the project area. Approximately
38,144 acres of private land and 9,574 acres of state land occur within
the north end of the Sawtooth Forest. State and private activities that
occur throughout the north end of the Sawtooth Forest are:

1\) activities associated with the Idaho Department of Transportation
including operation of material sources for road construction and
maintenance, road construction and maintenance

2\) mining operations

3\) livestock grazing operations

4\) residential and commercial developments

5\) private land fuels reduction projects

6\) diversions and the associated irrigation

Because the proposed project is not expected to cause any negative
effects to gray wolf, bald eagle, Canada lynx, spotted bat, Townsend's
big-eared bat, wolverine, fisher, pygmy rabbit, common loon, northern
goshawk, peregrine falcon, greater sage-grouse, mountain quail, boreal
owl, flammulated owl, great gray owl, three-toed woodpecker, or
white-headed woodpecker, it would not contribute cumulative effects to
these species.

The proposed project would contribute to negative cumulative effects to
spotted frogs in a temporary timeframe (during project implementation)
in conjunction with mining, livestock operations, and diversions and
irrigation. These effects would not lead to federal listing of this
species.

**VIII. DETERMINATIONS** **AND RATIONALES**

**[A. Endangered Species Act Listed Species]{.underline}**

Implementation of the proposed project will have **no effect** on the
gray wolf, bald eagle, or Canada lynx. These determinations are based on
the conclusion that there would be no change in prey abundance or
availability, no measurable change in habitat, and no change in
potential for human-caused mortality for these species.

**[B. Region Four Sensitive Species]{.underline}**

Implementation of the proposed project will have **no impact** on the
pygmy rabbit, common loon, mountain quail, or white-headed woodpecker.
These determinations are based on the conclusion that there is no
habitat for these species in the project areas. Implementation of the
proposed project will have **no impact** on wolverine, fisher, or
northern goshawk. These determinations are based on the conclusion that
while habitat modification will take place, the nature and scale of
change would not result in negative change in reproduction or survival.

Implementation of the proposed project will have a **beneficial impact**
on spotted bat, Townsend\'s big-eared bat, peregrine falcon, greater
sage-grouse, and great gray owl. These determinations are based on the
conclusion that the reconnection of Cabin Creek would result in improved
foraging habitat for these species.

Implementation of the proposed project **may impact** individual spotted
frogs, but will have a **beneficial impact** on habitat in the short and
long terms. The project will not lead to a trend toward federal listing.
This determination is based on the conclusion that the while there is
the potential for mortality to spotted frogs during project
implementation, the wetland and riparian improvements that result will
benefit spotted frog habitat.

**IX. LITERATURE CITED**

Aubry, K.B., G. Koehler, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx
in southern boreal forests. Pages 373-396 In Ruggiero, L.F., 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. 1998. Sage grouse declines in Western North America: what
are the problems? Proc. Western Assoc. State Fish and Wild. Agencies
78:000-000.

Braun, C.E., T. Britt, and R.O. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for
maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 5:99-106.

Brennan, L.A., W.M. Block, and R.J Gutierrez. 1987. Habitat use by
mountain quail in northern California. The Condor 89:66-74.

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.

Dunn, P.O. and C.E. Braun. 1986. Summer habitat use by adult female and
juvenile sage grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:228-235.

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.

Hayward, G.D., P.H. Hayward, and E.O. Garton. 1993. Ecology of boreal
owls in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Wildlife Monographs No. 123.
59 pp.

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.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1975. North American Game Birds. Univ. of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln and London. 183 pp.

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.

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.

Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1982. *Plecotus townsendii*. Mammalian
Species No. 175. American Society of Mammalogists. 6 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.

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.

Merriam, C.H. 1890. Journal of a trip in Idaho, Aug. 15-Oct. 24, 1890
papers (in part). Library of Congress manuscript Division, Washington,
D.C.

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.

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.

Powell, R.A., and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Chaper 3 *in* The scientific
basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx,
wolverine in the western Unite States. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W.
Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, W.J. Zielinski, tech eds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254.
Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 184 pp.

Quinn, N.W.S. and G. Parker. 1987. Lynx. Pages 683-694 [in]{.underline}
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.

Rachlow J. and L. Svancara. 2003. Pygmy rabbit habitat in Idaho. Project
Completion Report. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 29 pp.

Remington, T.E., and C.E. Braun. 1985. Sage grouse food selection in
winter, North Park, Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:1055-1061.

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.

Rodhouse, T.J., M.F. McCaffrey, and R.G. Wright. 2005. Distribution,
foraging behavior, and capture results of the spotted bat (*Euderma
maculatum*) in central Oregon. Western North Am. Naturalist 65:215-222.

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.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. *The North American
Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005.2.
[USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center](http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/),
Laurel, MD.*

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.

U.S. Forest Service. 2003. Land and Resource Management Plan, Sawtooth
National Forest, Intermountain Region.

U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Canada
Lynx Conservation Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013.

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.

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.
>
> Waterbury, Beth. 2005. Personal communication. March 17, 2005 email.

Watkins, L.C. 1977. *Euderma maculatum*. Mammalian Species No. 77.
American Society of Mammalogists. 4 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. 41 pp.

Weiss, N.T. and B.J. Verts. 1984. Habitat and distribution of pygmy
rabbits in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 44: 563-571.

Welch, B.L., F.J. Wagstaff, and J.A. Roberson. 1991. Preference of
wintering sage grouse for big sagebrush. J. Range Manage. 44:462-465.

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 Criteria**

Elevation [\>]{.underline} 5,000 feet

Potential Vegetation Groups (PVG) of Cool Moist Douglas-fir, Warm Dry
Subalpine Fir, Hydric 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, Warm Dry
Subalpine Fir, Hydric 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

###### 

Canada Lynx Effects Matrix for Cabin Creek Reconnect

###### 

## 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) [170602011105, 170602011301,
70602011302]{.underline} [170602011303,170602011304]{.underline}

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

Lynx Analysis Unit(s): [Hell Roaring-Alturas]{.underline}

Baseline Assessment Year: [2002]{.underline}

Project Name: [Cabin Creek Reconnect]{.underline}

Type of Action (s): [Habitat Improvement]{.underline}

+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
|               | *  |                                                |
|               | *E |                                                |
|               | ff |                                                |
|               | ec |                                                |
|               | ts |                                                |
|               | of |                                                |
|               | t  |                                                |
|               | he |                                                |
|               | A  |                                                |
|               | ct |                                                |
|               | io |                                                |
|               | n( |                                                |
|               | s) |                                                |
|               | ** |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| # Pathways^a^ | ** | **Discussion of Effects**                      |
|               | Ef |                                                |
| ##            | fe |                                                |
| ## Indicators | ct |                                                |
|               | s^ |                                                |
|               | b^ |                                                |
|               | ** |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| **LAU         |    |                                                |
| Population    |    |                                                |
| Ch            |    |                                                |
| aracteristics |    |                                                |
| for Lynx and  |    |                                                |
| Prey**        |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Lynx        | M  | There are three Idaho CDC records for this LAU |
| > Occurrence  |    | with the most recent from the 1970's and       |
|               |    | confirmed track sightings in 1998 in Eureka    |
|               |    | Gulch near Alturas Lake. Lynx may be expected  |
|               |    | to avoid the project area during project       |
|               |    | implementation but would likely not avoid it   |
|               |    | afterward.                                     |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| >             | M  | Snowshoe hare abundance would not be affected. |
|  Availability |    | Some lodgepole pine trees may be used as       |
| > and         |    | revetment but not at the magnitude that would  |
| >             |    | measurably alter snowshoe hare distribution.   |
|  Distribution |    |                                                |
| > of Primary  |    |                                                |
| > Prey --     |    |                                                |
| > Snowshoe    |    |                                                |
| > Hare        |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| >             | M  | Habitat for red squirrels would not be         |
|  Availability |    | affected. A few coniferous trees would be used |
| > and         |    | for revetment work but this would be           |
| >             |    | negligible. Brood rearing habitat for grouse   |
|  Distribution |    | would benefit as the wetland and riparian      |
| > of          |    | habitat within the project area improves as a  |
| > Alternate   |    | result of the reconnection.                    |
| > Prey -- Red |    |                                                |
| > Squirrel,   |    |                                                |
| > Grouse      |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### H         |    | ###                                            |
| abitat Access |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Migrat      | >  | No barriers to movement or dispersal would     |
| ory/Dispersal |  M | result from implementation of this project.    |
| > Barriers    |    | Tree removal associated with revetments would  |
|               |    | not result in large openings that might be a   |
|               |    | barrier to movement.                           |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Road        | >  | No new roads would be built for this project.  |
| > Density     |  I | Approximately 0.2 miles of nonsystem road      |
|               |    | would be obliterated.                          |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| >             | >  | Connectivity to adjacent habitat would be      |
|  Connectivity |  M | retained. Tree removal would be limited so     |
| > with Lynx   |    | that no fragmentation would result.            |
| > Habitat in  |    |                                                |
| > Adjacent    |    |                                                |
| > LAUs        |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### Hab       |    |                                                |
| itat Elements |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Condition   | >  | The project would occur within predicted lynx  |
| > of Foraging |  M | habitat. However habitat for prey species,     |
| > Habitat     |    | including snowshoe hare, red squirrel, and     |
|               |    | grouse would not be measurably affected. Tree  |
|               |    | removal for revetments and road obliteration   |
|               |    | would not measurably affect foraging habitat   |
|               |    | because no trees under 6" dbh would be         |
|               |    | removed.                                       |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Condition   | >  | The project area is not within predicted       |
| > of Denning  |  N | denning habitat.                               |
| > Habitat     |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Habitat     | >  | This project would not result in conversion of |
| > Unsuitable  |  M | any suitable lynx habitat to unsuitable        |
|               |    | habitat. The project would not result in       |
|               |    | greater than 30% of predicted lynx habitat in  |
|               |    | unsuitable condition within this LAU (Sawtooth |
|               |    | FLRMP TEST15). This action would not           |
|               |    | significantly alter any habitat parameters.    |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### Distu     |    |                                                |
| rbance Regime |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Disturbance | >  | The action would occur during the summer       |
|               |  M | and/or fall of 2005. This project would not    |
|               |    | result in a change of more than 15 percent of  |
|               |    | lynx habitat within the LAU over a ten-year    |
|               |    | period.                                        |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Winter      | >  | This project would not result in a change in   |
| > Recreation  |  N | winter travel management in the area.          |
| > Use         |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Summer      | >  | This project would not result in a change in   |
| > Recreation  |  M | summer travel management in the area with the  |
| > Use         |    | exception of the elimination of 0.2 miles of   |
|               |    | road into Luther Heights Organization Camp.    |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| ####          |    |                                                |
| ## Integratio |    |                                                |
| n of Pathways |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Integration | >  | The reconnection of Cabin Creek and associated |
| > of          |  M | actions would not affect lynx movements, prey, |
| > population, |    | or habitat.                                    |
| > habitat,    |    |                                                |
| > and         |    |                                                |
| > disturbance |    |                                                |
| > indicators  |    |                                                |
+---------------+----+------------------------------------------------+

> 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 objectives and standards
identified within the Sawtooth Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
and the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy? 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, temporary (0-3
years) or short term (3-15 years) in nature, in other words not likely
to degrade habitat in the long term (\>15 years)? Yes, No

> If "Yes", the determination results in "Not Likely to Adversely
> Affect". If "No", consider mitigation to reduce or remove probable
> adverse effects or explain rationale for NLAA, otherwise LAA.
>
> List mitigation (if applicable) and describe effect of mitigation on
> indicators (rationale describing how mitigation would make the
> determination move from LAA to NLAA or NLAA to No Effect). Note:
> include measures that would change the determination from LAA to NLAA
> or from NLAA to No Effect. 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 Effect     Not Likely to         Likely to Adversely
                              Adversely Affect      Affect

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

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

  Robin Garwood, Wildlife Biologist            Date
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------