Biological Assessment and Evaluation of Effects of

**Upper Alturas Drainage**

**Stream Restoration and Transportation Improvement**

on Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Sawtooth National Recreation Area

Sawtooth National Forest

Ketchum, Idaho

+------------+---------------------------------+---+--------------------+
| Prepared   | /s/ Robin Garwood               |   | 3/22/2005          |
| by         |                                 |   |                    |
+------------+---------------------------------+---+--------------------+
|            | Robin Garwood                   |   | Date               |
|            |                                 |   |                    |
|            | Wildlife Biologist              |   |                    |
+------------+---------------------------------+---+--------------------+

**Table of Contents**

I. Summary 3

II\. Introduction 4

III\. Current Management Direction 4

IV\. Description of the Proposed Action 6

V. Existing Condition 10

VI\. Effects of Proposed Action on Listed Species 11

A. Endangered Species Act Listed and Delisted Species 11

B. Region Four Sensitive Species 12

VII\. Cumulative Effects 17

VIII\. Determinations and Rationales 18

A. Endangered Species Act Listed Species 18

B. Region Four Sensitive Species 18

IX\. Literature Cited 18

Appendix A - Lynx Habitat Mapping Criteria 22

Appendix B -- Map 1. Upper Alturas Restoration project area in relation
to predicted

lynx habitat ... 23

Appendix C -- Canada Lynx Effects Matrix 24

**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                |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Spotted Bat    | > USFS Sensitive     | > Temporary - May impact   |
|                  |                      | > individuals              |
|                  |                      | >                          |
|                  |                      | > Short and long term --   |
|                  |                      | > Beneficial impact        |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Townsend\'s    | > USFS Sensitive     | > Temporary - May impact   |
| > Big-eared Bat  |                      | > individuals              |
|                  |                      | >                          |
|                  |                      | > Short and long term --   |
|                  |                      | > Beneficial impact        |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Pygmy Rabbit   | > USFS Sensitive     | > No impact                |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Wolverine      | > USFS Sensitive     | > No impact                |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Fisher         | > USFS Sensitive     | > No impact                |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Common Loon    | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Greater        | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
| > Sage-grouse    |                      |                            |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Mountain Quail | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Northern       | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
| > Goshawk        |                      |                            |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Peregrine      | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
| > Falcon         |                      |                            |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Boreal Owl     | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Flammulated    | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
| > Owl            |                      |                            |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Great gray Owl | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Three-toed     | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
| > Woodpecker     |                      |                            |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > White-headed   | > USFS Sensitive     | > No Impact                |
| > Woodpecker     |                      |                            |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| > Spotted Frog   | > USFS Sensitive     | > Temporary - May impact   |
|                  |                      | > individuals              |
|                  |                      | >                          |
|                  |                      | > Short and long term --   |
|                  |                      | > Beneficial impact        |
+------------------+----------------------+----------------------------+

**II. INTRODUCTION**

This biological assessment and evaluation addresses the effects of the
proposal by the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (NRA) to restore a
portion of Alpine Creek above Alturas Lake on three threatened and
endangered wildlife species and 12 wildlife species on the sensitive
species list of Region 4 of the Forest Service. The project area is
located in Blaine County, Idaho (T6N, R13E, Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and
10 and T7N, R13E, Sections 26, 27, 33, 34 and 35).

The Sawtooth NRA provides habitat for three federally listed threatened
and endangered wildlife species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
confirmed this list SP#1-4-05-SP-319 in a letter dated March 8, 2005.
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                    |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

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 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*

**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 Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et
al. 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). 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.

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. 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).

[Desired Condition]{.underline} -- This action responds to the goals and
objectives outlined in the FLRMP. The project area is within Management
Prescription Category (MPC) 3.2, Active Restoration and Maintenance of
Aquatic, Terrestrial and Hydrologic Resources, Alturas and Alpine Creeks
are in Wild and Scenic Corridors (MPC 2.1). According to the FLRMP,
these rivers must be managed to "preserve to the outstanding remarkable
values and free-flowing status, until the rivers undergo a suitability
study and study finds them suitable for designation by Congress or
releases them from further consideration as Wild and Scenic Rivers". The
following direction has been developed specifically for this area,
Management Area 2, Upper Salmon River Valley, Chapter III, pg.111, and
helps move the project area towards the desired conditions described in
that plan by:

+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
| *             | *            | **Management Direction Description** |
| *MPC/Resource | *Direction** |                                      |
| Area**        |              |                                      |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
| MPC 3.2       | Management   | Vegetative restoration or            |
|               | Area 2       | maintenance treatments where they:   |
| Active        |              |                                      |
| Restoration   | Vegetation   | a\) Maintain or restore water        |
| and           | Standard     | quality needed to fully support      |
| Maintenance   |              | beneficial                           |
| of Aquatic,   |              |                                      |
| Terrestrial,  |              | uses and habitat for native and      |
| and           |              | desired non-native fish species; or  |
| Hydrologic    |              |                                      |
| Resources     |              | b\) Maintain or restore habitat for  |
|               |              | native and desired non-native        |
|               |              | wildlife                             |
|               |              |                                      |
|               |              | and plant species; or reduce risk of |
|               |              | impacts from wildland fire to        |
|               |              |                                      |
|               |              | human life, structures, and          |
|               |              | investments.                         |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
|               | Management   | Road construction or reconstruction  |
|               | Area 2       | may only occur when needed:          |
|               |              |                                      |
|               | Road         | a\) To support aquatic, terrestrial, |
|               | Standard     | and watershed restoration            |
|               |              | activities,                          |
|               |              |                                      |
|               |              | or                                   |
|               |              |                                      |
|               |              | b\) To address immediate response    |
|               |              | situations where, if the action is   |
|               |              |                                      |
|               |              | not taken, unacceptable impacts to   |
|               |              | hydrologic, aquatic, riparian or     |
|               |              |                                      |
|               |              | terrestrial resources, or health and |
|               |              | safety, would result.                |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
| Management    | Recreation   | Manage recreation use in key         |
| Area 2        | Resources    | wildlife, fish, and rare plant       |
|               |              | habitats, including TEPC ad MIS      |
|               | Objective    | species habitat to avoid or minimize |
|               | 0370         | recreation use impacts to these      |
|               |              | habitats. Key habitats include, but  |
|               |              | are not limited to, mountain goat    |
|               |              | habitat, wolverine denning habitat,  |
|               |              | big game winter range, White Cloud   |
|               |              | milkvetch habitat, and fish spawning |
|               |              | habitat.                             |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
|               | Recreation   | Restrict or modify winter recreation |
|               | Resources    | activities where conflicts exist     |
|               |              | with mountain goats and/or           |
|               | Standard     | wolverine.                           |
|               | 0375         |                                      |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
| Forestwide    | Threatened,  | During project level planning, field |
|               | Endangered,  | review LAUs that overlay project     |
|               | Proposed,    | areas to determine suitability for   |
|               | and          | denning, foraging, security and      |
|               | Candidate    | connectivity of habitat within the   |
|               | Species      | project area.                        |
|               | TEOB12       |                                      |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
|               | Threatened,  | During fine-scale analyses in areas  |
|               | Endangered,  | where dispersed and developed        |
|               | Proposed,    | recreation practices or facilities   |
|               | and          | are identified as a potential        |
|               | Candidate    | concern or problem contributing to   |
|               | Species TEOB | adverse affects to TEPC species or   |
|               | 27           | degradation of their habitats,       |
|               |              | evaluate and document where the      |
|               |              | problems are and prioritize          |
|               |              | opportunities to mitigate, through   |
|               |              | avoidance or minimization, adverse   |
|               |              | effects to TEPC species.             |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
|               | Threatened,  | Management actions shall be designed |
|               | Endangered,  | to avoid or minimize adverse effects |
|               | Proposed,    | to listed species and their          |
|               | and          | habitats.                            |
|               | Candidate    |                                      |
|               | Species      |                                      |
|               | TEST06       |                                      |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
|               | Wildlife     | Reduce human-caused disturbances     |
|               | Resources    | that cause undesirable effects to    |
|               | WIGO02       | wildlife populations during critical |
|               |              | life stages.                         |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+
|               | Wildlife     | Mitigate human-caused disturbances   |
|               | Resources    | within winter/spring ranges if       |
|               | WIST06       | disturbances cause displacement of   |
|               |              | wildlife while they are occupying    |
|               |              | those ranges.                        |
+---------------+--------------+--------------------------------------+

**IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT**

The Sawtooth NRA proposes to take several actions to improve watershed
conditions in the upper Alturas Lake drainage associated with the
crossing of Alpine Creek and transportation in the general area (See
Appendix B, Map1). The following describes the components of the
proposed action.

The proposed action would replace the existing ford that allowed
full-sized vehicles with a bridge permitting two-wheel motorized, horse,
mountain bike and hiker use. Alpine Creek would be rehabilitated at the
former ford, therefore reducing the risk of breaching its current
channel during a future large flow event.

Streams:

-   Remove and rehabilitate the existing FSR 205 ford crossing of Alpine
    Creek, including the unneeded road approaches on either side. Where
    it exists, road-surfacing material would be removed down to the
    former soil line and the former topography restored. To this would
    be added adjacent forest debris (logs and limbs) and/or material
    salvaged from clearing for new construction elsewhere, to provide
    nutrients and more favorable growing conditions. Grass, forbs, and
    other vegetation would recruit naturally from adjacent sources.

-   The channel of Alpine Creek would be rehabilitated at the ford with
    the use of conifer trees/rootwads (i.e. revetment) and willow
    plantings (i.e. clumps, bundles, and cuttings). The tree revetment
    would be installed to create streambanks and provide short-term
    resilience and habitat, with the willow eventually establishing to
    provide the long-term channel features common in the area.

-   Behind this revetment, where possible, the scoured approaches of the
    former ford would be filled with appropriate soil material
    consistent with the floodplain surface. These objectives would be
    implemented using an excavator and dump truck. Similar stream
    channel restoration objectives have been applied successfully in
    recent years elsewhere in Alturas Lake Creek, as well as in the
    Salmon River, Stanley Creek, Valley Creek, Crooked Creek, Hanna
    Creek and Yellowbelly Lake Creek on the SNRA.

Trailhead(s):

-   Relocate the existing trailhead adjacent to Alpine Creek 1/4^th^
    mile east to an existing large opening occupied by a dispersed
    camping site. This would serve as the new trailhead for the upper
    Alturas Lake Creek trail network: Alpine Creek Trail #094,
    Alturas-Mattingly Trail #034, Eureka Gulch Trail #090 and Jakes
    Gulch Trail \# 093.

-   New trailhead would be constructed to accommodate 15 vehicles and
    two vehicles pulling trailers. Trailhead size would be approximately
    100 feet by 60 feet. A turnaround would be provided of sufficient
    size to accommodate vehicles pulling trailers. Heavy equipment (e.g.
    excavator, dump truck) would be used for construction.

-   Provide amenities such as a single vault restroom, a horse-loading
    ramp and information board.

-   Eliminate and rehabilitate existing trailheads on FSR 205 by Alpine
    Creek ford crossing and at Jakes Gulch #093 by using an excavator to
    break compaction and cover the area with adjacent forest debris
    (logs and limbs) to provide nutrients and more favorable growing
    conditions. Native seed may also be applied if determined necessary.

Roads:

-   Terminate FSR 205 at the new trailhead that would be constructed
    ¼-mile east of the Alpine Creek ford.

-   Close and rehabilitate the FSR 205 crossing the ford of Alpine
    Creek.

-   Eliminate and rehabilitate ¼ mile of FSR 205 west of eliminated ford
    crossing of Alpine Creek using an excavator to loosen compacted soil
    and incorporate adjacent forest debris (logs and limbs) to provide
    nutrients and more favorable growing conditions. Grass, forbs, and
    other vegetation would recruit naturally from adjacent sources.

-   Convert all former roads upstream to single track trails. Water
    drainage would be established, and one of the treads would be
    rehabilitated to productive natural conditions by using an excavator
    to break the compaction and add adjacent forest debris (logs and
    limbs) to provide nutrients and more favorable growing conditions.
    Grass, forb, and other vegetation would recruit naturally from
    adjacent sources.

Connected actions associated with this proposal include:

FSR 205:

-   Convert 1/8^th^ mile of existing FSR 205 to a two-wheel motorized
    trail beginning at the new trailhead, and a 1½-mile section from end
    of new trail construction to its juncture with Jakes Gulch Trail
    #093. These trail segments would become part of the
    Alturas-Mattingly Trail #034.

Unclassified road to Eureka Gulch private land and patented mine:

-   Convert three miles of unclassified road in Eureka Gulch to
    two-wheel motorized and non-motorized trail using methods described
    in "Roads" above. Trail would be named Eureka Gulch Trail #090.

-   Relocate a 300-foot section of trail to a drier location crossing of
    Eureka Gulch using hand labor. The current location also crosses
    Eureka Gulch but is wide, wet, and deteriorating. The existing trail
    would route would be rehabilitated.

Trails:

-   Alpine Creek #094:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Convert a ¼-mile segment of the existing Alpine Creek Trail to
    two-wheel motorized use. This segment would become part of the
    Alturas-Mattingly Trail #034. The remaining 1/8^th^ mile section of
    this former route, that is very steep, would be closed and
    rehabilitated using hand labor.

-   Construct a ½ mile segment, approximately 1/8^th^ mile from the new
    trailhead using hand labor.

-   The full length of this trail would be open to foot traffic only,
    since the Wilderness boundary is so close to the trailhead.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Alturas-Mattingly #034:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The existing ford crossing would be replaced with a trail bridge ¼
    miles upstream over Alpine Creek to accommodate two-wheel motorized
    vehicles, stock and non-motorized uses. The new bridge would be of
    sufficient size to completely span the active channel, allowing
    natural channel features and functions to remain. The bridge would
    blend into the natural environment as much as possible with treated
    timber abutments and stringers and wingwalls and prefabricated
    weathering (rusted) railings. The steel bridge would be transported
    to the new bridge site in one or two sections, crossing the existing
    ford, then following FSR 205 for 1/8-mile before turning north,
    passing through primarily open forest areas to the bridge site.
    Approximately 15 to 20 lodge pine trees would need to be removed in
    this segment to reach the bridge site. An excavator, small
    machinery, and hand labor would be required to construct the bridge.
    There are remains of a wooden bridge that was once used as a
    crossing for sheep in the same general area. The new bridge would
    not be accessible to snowmobiles during the winter, but the area
    would remain open to snowmobiles.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The new bridge would be connected to the existing routes by
    constructing ¼ mile of two-wheel motorized and non-motorized trail
    from existing Alpine Creek Trail #094 to the former FSR 205 (to
    become Alturas-Mattingly Trail #034). This would be done using a
    small trail tractor and by hand labor.

-   At trailhead, add appropriate signing and physical restrictions to
    prevent ATVs from accessing trail system.

-   Improve signing of motorized vehicles openings and closures
    especially on border of the Sawtooth Wilderness.

-   See FSR 205 and Alpine Creek #094 for additional road and trail
    conversions already discussed.

Private Land Access:

-   If the landowners requests access that would require surface
    disturbance on private land same, the same requirements would apply
    as in Alternative 1. Occupancy and use would be available though by
    two-wheel motorized, and non-motorized unless otherwise agreed to by
    special use permit.

These mitigation measures would be applied to the proposed action.

-   Where large areas would be committed to permanent facilities (e.g.
    bridge abutments/approaches, trailhead parking), native plants would
    be salvaged prior to construction for use in rehabilitation efforts.
    Forest Service botanists would be notified prior to ground
    disturbing activities to provide ample time to coordinate personnel
    to identify and collect species for salvage within proposed
    treatment areas.

-   Where large areas would be committed to permanent facilities (e.g.
    bridge abutments/approaches, trailhead parking), in order to
    preserve the native seed bank that currently support native plants,
    the top six inches of soil would be removed prior to construction
    and stock piled for use in rehabilitation efforts.

-   All areas disturbed during project implementation would be restored
    to natural grade. Salvaged soil, as well as live and dead plant
    material would be used when available to provide nutrients and more
    favorable growing conditions. If determined necessary by a Forest
    Service botanist, some areas would be seeded with a Forest Service
    approved and appropriate native seed mix.

-   To reduce the chance of introducing noxious weeds, equipment and
    vehicles that would be traveling off designated roads and trails
    during project implementation would be pressure washed to rove soil,
    seeds, and plant material prior to entering the Forest.

-   New and existing populations of noxious weeds within and adjacent to
    the project areas would be inventoried and treated under the SNRA
    noxious weed program prior to project implementation.

-   No activities associated with project implementation would occur in
    known noxious weed populations. If areas identified for project
    implementation are within known noxious weed sites,
    treatment/eradication efforts must be made prior to ground
    disturbing activities.

-   The proposed project area and adjacent areas would be monitored for
    noxious weeds post project implementation under the SNRA noxious
    weed program for two to three growing seasons post implementation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Maintenance and re-fueling of heavy equipment would occur in
    uplands, well away from streamside areas or drainage ways, and
    follow standard Best Management Practices.

-   New construction would occur when upland conditions are generally
    dry, typically July through October. Streamside construction and
    restoration would occur when streamside conditions are at their
    driest, typically August through October.

-   Where restoration or new construction occurs within 30 feet of
    streams, sediment filters (e.g. fabric or wattles) would be
    installed prior to any disturbance and remain in place at least one
    year.

-   Between August 1 and September 1, when implementing streamside
    activities (e.g. bridge construction, restoration) daily spawning
    surveys would be made in the vicinity of the project for bull trout
    and chinook salmon. If observed, the activity would be delayed until
    spawning is complete.

-   After September 1, redd surveys would be conducted Alpine Creek for
    ¼ mile below the proposed restoration and bridge sites. If chinook
    or bull trout redds are observed, all instream activities would be
    suspended until the following year, or until discussions with the
    Sawtooth Level 1 Team determines the means to proceed.

-   The Sawtooth Forest Construction and Maintenance Crew would
    implement the restoration aspects of the project. They have
    considerable experience doing these types of projects in the area
    with consistent success.

-   Monitoring and oversight would occur 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.

-   A traffic counter would be put at the bridge location once it is
    installed or near the trailhead for the following summer field
    season to measure amount and types of users.

-   A special order would need to be prepared to reflect the following
    travel management changes:

    -   Alpine Creek Trail #094 -- Open to foot traffic only, no stock
        or vehicle use, in order to be consistent with the rest of the
        trail in the Sawtooth Wilderness.

    -   FSR 205 converted to Alturas-Mattingly Trail #034 -- Open to
        two-wheeled motorized and non-motorized use.

    -   Alturas-Mattingly Trail #034 -- Several additions and changes.

    -   Eureka Gulch unclassified road converted to Eureka Gulch Trail
        #090 -- Open to two-wheel motorized and non-motorized use.

        -   A temporary special order closure would be put in effect on
            trails, bridge location, stream restoration site, and
            trailhead site for approximately one month during
            construction.

# V. EXISTING CONDITION

Alpine Creek is the largest tributary in the Alturas Lake Creek
watershed and joins Alturas Lake Creek just downstream of the project
area. The project area consists of mixed coniferous forest which
includes lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir on the drier and upland areas,
and Engelmann spruce within the riparian areas of Alpine and Alturas
Lake creeks. Subalpine fir occurs throughout the project area as well.

The current proposal is Phase II of a two-part project. Phase I was
addressed in 2000. The problem that existed at that time required
immediate resolution when Alturas Lake Creek jumped its banks into Road
205 and hundreds of cubic yards of fine sediments swept down the road. A
ten foot deep gully developed in the road resulting in users pioneering
new routes around the impassible sections.

The Area Ranger for the Sawtooth National Recreation Area has determined
a need to halt deteriorating conditions along Forest Road 205, two miles
beyond Alturas Lake at a ford crossing Alpine Creek and within a quarter
mile west of the ford. When high clearance vehicles cross the ford,
increased sedimentation, loss of vegetation, floodplain alteration and
road widening is gradually occurring. In the event of a high snow year,
floodwaters from Alpine Creek would likely eddy and remove soil from the
lower portion of an existing trailhead adjacent to the ford and cause a
blowout of the stream channel at the ford crossing and downstream by
Alturas Lake Creek. Presently, a quarter-mile section of the road above
the ford is gullied and channeling water. Alturas Lake Creek threatens
to jump its banks into Road 205 like it did in 2000 and sediments could
be swept down this road again.

The existing ford and trailhead are not adequately protecting
threatened, endangered and sensitive fish species and their habitat, nor
is it meeting Sawtooth Land and Resource Management Plan standards.
Alturas Lake inlet is designated critical spawning habitat of endangered
Snake River sockeye salmon, threatened Snake River chinook salmon and
threatened Columbia River bull trout.

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

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

**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).

####### 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 June of 2003 a
new pack (Castle Peak) was observed within the Lower East Fork Salmon
River area. In May of 2003 a new pack (Galena) was located within the
Sawtooth NRA and has been using areas in Sawtooth Valley and the west
side of the White Clouds. This pack successfully denned in Sawtooth
Valley in spring 2004. Habitat for wolves exists within the proposed
project area. Large ungulates including mule deer and elk occur in the
project area spring through fall, while moose are present year round.
The Galena pack's range likely includes the proposed project area.

######## 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 of the action relative to the range of a wolf
pack would be small. No increased risk of mortality to wolves would
result from this project.

**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
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. No breeding by bald eagles has been confirmed on the
Sawtooth NRA. The project area contains marginal bald eagle habitat.

[Direct and Indirect Effects]{.underline}

Actions proposed within the project area would not result in any change
to bald eagle habitat nor contribute to increased human disturbance.

**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 baseline matrix describing existing conditions of lynx
habitat within the Hell Roaring-Alturas LAU, which contains the proposed
project area, can be found in the Biological Assessment of Effects of
Ongoing Federal Actions for Sawtooth Valley, which is on file at the
Boise Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The effects
matrix is located in Appendix C.

There have been confirmed sightings of lynx tracks in the Sawtooth NRA
during the winter of 1997 near the Fishhook Creek drainage and Alturas
Lake Creek drainage with the sighting in Alturas within the project area
in Eureka Gulch. 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 with in the Hell Roaring-Alturas LAU. This LAU
contains 20,087 acres of predicted lynx habitat. Of this habitat, 2,411
acres or 12% are considered denning habitat. The project area contains
mostly predicted foraging with some predicted denning habitat.

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

**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 habitat is present. Spotted bats have
been detected on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, just north of the
Sawtooth NRA.

The project would not cause direct disturbance to spotted bats.
Implementation of the project may cause temporary loss of foraging
habitat with ford restoration, bridge construction, and approximately
one mile of trail construction. However foraging habitat would improve
in the short and long terms as overall floodplain and riparian function
and condition improve through the riparian restoration components of the
project.

**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 area, though habitat is present.
Townsend\'s big-eared bats have been found in the Warm Springs drainage
on the Ketchum Ranger District.

The project would not cause direct disturbance to Townsend's big-eared
bats. Implementation of the project may cause temporary loss of foraging
habitat with ford restoration, bridge construction, and approximately
one mile of trail construction. However foraging habitat would improve
in the short and long terms as overall floodplain and riparian function
and condition improve through the restoration components of the project.

**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, which 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 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. Idaho
Department of Fish and Game biologists have observed pygmy rabbits in
the East Fork of the Salmon River within ½ mile of the Sawtooth Forest
boundary. No pygmy rabbit habitat occurs in the proposed project area.

**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, including within less than 1 mile of the
proposed project area. The project area is not within wolverine
predicted reproductive denning habitat.

Effects to vegetation from the ford restoration and trail construction
would not have a measurable effect on wolverine habitat based on the
scale of the habitat alteration in relation to a wolverine home range.
No disturbance to female wolverine during the denning period would occur
during project implementation. No change in access during the
reproductive 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 project
area, though habitat exists. There are trapping records of fisher from
the early 1980\'s west 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 2004 sighting
approximately 7 miles northwest of Stanley, Idaho. Potential habitat
exists within the proposed project area.

Effects to vegetation from the ford restoration and trail construction
would not have a measurable effect on fisher habitat based on the scale
of the harvest in relation to a fisher home range. No change in access
during the reproductive period would occur.

**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, including Alturas Lake. 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 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.

The project area is likely within the Alturas goshawk territory, with a
known nest within three miles. The project would not affect any known
nest sites, therefore would not cause disturbance to nesting. Vegetation
manipulation including tree removal for ford restoration and bridge
construction could remove a potential nest tree. Goshawks on the
Sawtooth NRA do not appear to be limited by availability of suitable
nest trees however. Long-term effects to foraging habitat would be
beneficial.

**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. The closest known eyrie is
approximately thirteen miles from the project area. The project area is
likely outside of this pair's territory.

The project would not affect habitat for the peregrine falcon or
negatively change human access into breeding habitat.

**Greater Sage-grouse** (*Centrocercus urophasianus*) -- Sage-grouse
depend on sagebrush and other stuff 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). A
small, remnant population of greater sage-grouse is present within the
Sawtooth Valley. The status of this population is unknown, but thought
to be stable to declining. 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 availability (Brennan et al.
1987). This species eats a variety of seeds and mast with insects
important in the diet of chicks (Johnsgard 1975). 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 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 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. Habitat for boreal owls occurs within the proposed project
area and owls have been observed within three miles of the project area.

The project would not affect any known breeding pairs, but would be
located within potential nesting habitat. Tree removal related to ford
restoration and bridge construction could remove a potential nest tree,
though adequate nest trees would remain in the project area. Short and
long-term effects to foraging habitat would be beneficial with
restoration of the ford and road.

**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 has not been surveyed for flammulated owl but habitat is
present.

The project would not affect any known breeding pairs, but would be
located within potential nesting habitat. Tree removal related to ford
restoration and bridge construction could remove a potential nest tree,
though adequate nest trees would remain in the project area. Short and
long-term effects to foraging habitat would be beneficial with
restoration of the ford and road.

**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. Two other recent sightings on
the Sawtooth NRA outside of Stanley Basin were reported during the
summer of 2000 within Sawtooth Valley, but no breeding has been
confirmed in these locations. Surveys for great gray owls have not been
conducted within the project area and habitat there is marginal.

The project would not affect any known breeding pairs, but would be
located within potential nesting habitat. Tree removal related to ford
restoration and bridge construction could remove a potential nest tree,
though adequate nest trees would remain in the project area. Short and
long-term effects to foraging habitat would be beneficial with
restoration of the ford and road.

**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.

No surveys have been conducted in the project area but observations have
been recorded within three miles. Habitat is present within 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 Sawtooth Valley and Stanley Basin.

Some potential nest trees may be removed during ford restoration and
bridge construction. Currently three-toed woodpeckers are not limited by
nest site 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 Forest. The project
area does not contain suitable 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 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.

No observations of spotted frogs have been recorded within the project
area, though no surveys have been conducted. The project area provides
suitable habitat.

Implementation of project may cause temporary disturbance to spotted
frogs and their habitat, mainly from activities associated with the ford
restoration and bridge construction. However spotted frog habitat would
improve in the short and long terms as overall floodplain and riparian
function and condition improve through the riparian restoration
components of the project.

**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. No
state activities occur within project area. Private land occurs near the
project area in the form of a patented mining claim in Eureka Gulch. The
access to the mining claim has had a major negative effect on the
project area. Access to the mine includes Road 205 and a route in Eureka
Gulch. As this access has deteriorated, it as exacerbated the problem
that this proposal addresses.

NEPA defines cumulative effects as all past, present, and foreseeable
future actions within the analysis area. The primary federal activity
that has impacted habitat and wildlife populations in the vicinity of
the project area is road and trail use and livestock grazing. This
project would result in a change in the location of domestic sheep
crossing of Alpine Creek. They currently cross at the existing ford.
After project implementation crossing would most likely occur below the
current ford across Alturas Lake Creek. The new crossing would result in
trampling of vegetation at the new location.

An improvement to riparian habitat and a lessening of the risk of
continued degradation to habitat in the drainage would result from
implementation of the project. This would improve habitat conditions in
the short and long terms for riparian-dependent species, mainly spotted
bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and spotted frog.

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

**[A. Endangered Species Act Listed and Delisted 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 habitat for these species will not be modified, no
change in prey abundance or availability, and no change in human access
will occur as a result of the project.

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

Implementation of the proposed project will have **no impact** on the
wolverine, fisher, pygmy rabbit, common loon, peregrine falcon, northern
goshawk, greater sage-grouse, mountain quail, boreal owl, flammulated
owl, great gray owl, three-toed woodpecker, or white-headed woodpecker.
These determinations are based on the conclusion that no habitat
modification, change in human disturbance or change in prey abundance or
availability will occur that would affect reproduction or survival as a
result of the project. Implementation of the proposed project **may
impact** individual spotted bats, Townsend\'s big-eared bats, and
spotted frogs during a temporary timeframe, but will have a **beneficial
impact** on the these species in the short and long terms. The project
will not lead to a trend toward federal listing. These determinations
are based on the conclusion that riparian habitat will be temporarily
disturbed during restoration activities but will be improved in the
short and long terms as a result of the project.

**IX. LITERATURE CITED**

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.

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.

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.

Mech, D.L. 1970. The wolf, the ecology of an endangered species.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 384 pp.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 41pp.

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, 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.

######   {#section .unnumbered}

###### Appendix C

###### 

Canada Lynx Effects Matrices for Upper Alturas Drainage Stream
Restoration and Transportation Improvement.

###### 

## 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) [170602011302]{.underline}

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

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

Baseline Assessment Year: [2002]{.underline}

Project Name: [Upper Alturas Drainage Stream Restoration and
Transportation Improvement]{.underline}

Type of Action (s): [Developed Recreation/Trails/Travel
Management]{.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   | Construction and restoration actions would     |
| > Occurrence |     | occur in areas that are already developed and  |
|              |     | consistently disturbed by humans from          |
|              |     | recreation activities, mainly during the       |
|              |     | summer.                                        |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | M   | Snowshoe hare foraging habitat would be        |
| Availability |     | temporarily affected during bridge             |
| > and        |     | construction within less than 0.25 acres.      |
| >            |     | Restoration of the ford would improve habitat  |
| Distribution |     | within the forest riparian area for snowshoe   |
| > of Primary |     | hare in the short and long terms.              |
| > Prey --    |     |                                                |
| > Snowshoe   |     |                                                |
| > Hare       |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | M   | Habitat for red squirrels may be affected.     |
| Availability |     | Removal of some trees during ford restoration  |
| > and        |     | and bridge construction would slightly reduce  |
| >            |     | habitat for red squirrels. However, adequate   |
| Distribution |     | habitat would be retained within the LAU.      |
| > of         |     | Habitat for grouse would benefit in the short  |
| > Alternate  |     | and long terms from site restoration.          |
| > Prey --    |     |                                                |
| > Red        |     |                                                |
| > Squirrel,  |     |                                                |
| > Grouse     |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### *Hab     |     | ###                                            |
| itat Access* |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Migrato    | > M | No barriers to movement or dispersal would     |
| ry/Dispersal |     | result from implementation of this project.    |
| > Barriers   |     | Tree removal associated with bridge            |
|              |     | construction and ford restoration would not    |
|              |     | result in large openings that might be a       |
|              |     | barrier to movement.                           |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Road       | > I | No new roads would be built for this project.  |
| > Density    |     | 1/4 mile of road would be obliterated and      |
|              |     | approximately 4.6 miles of road would be       |
|              |     | converted to a 2-wheeled motorized trail.      |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | > M | Connectivity to adjacent habitat would be      |
| Connectivity |     | retained. Tree removal would be limited so     |
| > with Lynx  |     | that no fragmentation would result.            |
| > Habitat in |     |                                                |
| > Adjacent   |     |                                                |
| > LAUs       |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### Habi     |     |                                                |
| tat Elements |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Condition  | > M | The action would occur within predicted lynx   |
| > of         |     | habitat. Snowshoe hare habitat would be        |
| > Foraging   |     | temporarily affected within 0.25 acres during  |
| > Habitat    |     | bridge construction but would be improved in   |
|              |     | the short and long term. Though some red       |
|              |     | squirrel habitat may be affected, adequate     |
|              |     | habitat would be retained. Grouse habitat      |
|              |     | would improve in the short and long terms.     |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Condition  | > N | The project area contains about 25 acres of    |
| > of Denning |     | predicted lynx denning habitat, mainly in      |
| > Habitat    |     | Eureka Gulch. However none will be affected by |
|              |     | the action.                                    |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Habitat    | > M | This project would not result in conversion of |
| > Unsuitable |     | 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.    |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| ### Distur   |     |                                                |
| bance Regime |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | > M | The action would occur during the summer       |
|  Disturbance |     | 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     | > M | No change in winter access is expected.        |
| > Recreation |     |                                                |
| > Use        |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| > Summer     | > I | This project would result in a change in       |
| > Recreation |     | summer travel management in the area.          |
| > Use        |     | Approximately 4.6 miles of road would become   |
|              |     | motorized trail.                               |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| ######       |     |                                                |
|  Integration |     |                                                |
|  of Pathways |     |                                                |
+--------------+-----+------------------------------------------------+
| >            | > M | There may be temporary effects to snowshoe     |
|  Integration |     | hare habitat and long-term effects to red      |
| > of         |     | squirrel habitat with implementation of this   |
| >            |     | project from limited tree removal. The effects |
|  population, |     | would be localized small in magnitude. There   |
| > habitat,   |     | would be short and long term improvement of    |
| > and        |     | snowshoe hare and grouse habitat. No change in |
| >            |     | denning habitat would occur.                   |
|  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, 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
  ------------------------------------------ ---- -----------------------