East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

2 

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4

Description of the Proposal .................................................................................................... 4

Background ........................................................................................................................ 4

Partnership Proposal ...................................................................................................... 4

Description of Proposed Action: ........................................................................................ 5

Treatment in Timber Units ............................................................................................. 5

Roads for Timber Units.................................................................................................. 5

Treatments in Restoration Units .................................................................................... 6

Additional Resource Improvement and Restoration Activities...................................... 6

Grizzly Bear Design Features ............................................................................................ 7

Species Considered and Species Evaluated ........................................................................... 8

Consultation History ............................................................................................................ 10

Evaluated Species ................................................................................................................ 10

Grizzly Bear ..................................................................................................................... 10

Action Area and Methods ............................................................................................ 10

Life History .................................................................................................................. 10

NCDE Grizzly Bear Population ................................................................................... 12

Grizzly Bear/Human Interactions ................................................................................ 12

Grizzly Bear Secure Habitat ........................................................................................ 13

Environmental Baseline ............................................................................................... 14

Past and Present Federal, State and Private Activities in the Action Area .................. 17

Effects of the Proposed Action on the Grizzly Bear .................................................... 18

Determination of Effect and Rationale ........................................................................ 21

Canada Lynx .................................................................................................................... 21

Action Area and Methods ............................................................................................ 21

Distribution .................................................................................................................. 22

Life History .................................................................................................................. 22

Environmental Baseline ............................................................................................... 25

Effects of the Proposed Action on Canada Lynx ......................................................... 29

Determination of Effect and Rationale ........................................................................ 34

Wolverine......................................................................................................................... 35

Action Area and Methods ............................................................................................ 35

Life History .................................................................................................................. 35

Environmental Baseline ............................................................................................... 37

Past and Present Federal, State and Private Activities in the Action Area .................. 38

Effects of the Proposed Action on Wolverine.............................................................. 38

Determination of Effect and Rationale ........................................................................ 39

References ............................................................................................................................ 40

Appendix A: Proposed Timber Units................................................................................... 44
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

3 

Appendix B: Proposed Restoration Units ............................................................................ 46

Appendix C: Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction ............................................ 47

Appendix D: Summary of Colorado Lynx Movements in Montana (Ivan 2013) ................ 53

Appendix E: Maps ............................................................................................................... 54

List of Tables

Table 1: Timber Treatments .......................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Proposed Road and Trail Work ...................................................................................................... 7

Table 3: Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for BDNF ......................................... 8

Table 4: Secure Habitat in the Action Area ................................................................................................ 16

Table 5: Revised Forest Plan Desired Open Motorized Road and Trail Density ....................................... 16

Table 6: Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Action Area ............................... 17

Table 7: Miles of Temporary Road ............................................................................................................. 19

Table 8: Open Motorized Roads and Trail Densities of Action Area ......................................................... 20

Table 9: Lynx Analysis Units and Condition of Modeled Lynx Habitat and Post Treatment .................... 29

Table 10: Existing Lynx and Snowshoe Hare Habitat Condition: Pre and Post Treatment ........................ 30

Table 11: Acres of potential wolverine habitat based on persistent spring snow ....................................... 38
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

4 

Introduction 

This Biological Assessment was prepared to display the possible effects on all Federally Endangered, 

Threatened, Experimental, or Proposed species known to occur, or that may occur within the East Deer

Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project (EDLV) of the Pintler Ranger District on the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest (BDNF). Endangered, Threatened and Experimental species are managed 

under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (PL 93-205, as amended) and the National 

Forest Management Act (PL 94-588). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs Federal 

departments and agencies to ensure actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of Endangered or Threatened species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of their critical habitats (16 USC 1536, 2009). This need for this assessment is based 

on and the need to analyze effects to Canada lynx that was not included in the original assessment which

was completed in 2012. The Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued an updated species list for the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest on July 2, 2013. The list includes Canada lynx with a range 

description of “transient – secondary/peripheral lynx habitat”.

Description of the Proposal 

Background

The EDLV project area consists of approximately 47,383 acres; with 39,700 acres administered by the 

BDNF. The 39,700 acres is within a perimeter that is defined by the East Deerlodge Management Area. 

The East Deer Lodge Management Area is one of eight Forest Service Management Areas included in the 

larger Clark Fork-Flint Landscape of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The management area is 

located east and southeast of the city of Deer Lodge in southwest Montana and includes portions of both

Deer Lodge and Powell Counties (Appendix E: Vicinity Map). The management area is bounded by 

private and state-owned lands along the Deer Lodge Valley on the west and by the Boulder Mountains 

sloping up to the Continental Divide on the east. 

Partnership Proposal

In early 2006, the Forest Service was approached by what is now known as the “Forest Stewardship 

Partnership (FSP),” a coalition of state and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and 

private industry. The FSP proposed a collaborative effort to identify and plan an integrated forest 

stewardship and watershed restoration project in the East Deer Lodge Management Area. The goal of this 

collaboration was to restore resources and conditions on the landscape through stewardship contracting. 

In January 2007, the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 

following organizations to establish the EDLV FSP: Watershed Restoration Coalition of the Upper Clark 

Fork, Montana Wilderness Association, Headwaters Resource Conservation and Development, Montana 

Trout Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation, Clark Fork Coalition, Sun Mountain Lumber, Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Powell County 

Commissioners. 

In 2007, the FSP contracted development of the East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Assessment, hereafter 

referred to as the “Landscape Assessment”. The Landscape Assessment, combined with direction from
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

5 

the newly revised Forest Plan, site-specific field visits, scoping, public meetings, and FSP members led to 

the development of this proposed action. 

Description of Proposed Action: 

Treatment in Timber Units

This proposed action includes 52 timber units totaling 2,541 acres. Treatments in timber units would 

consist of commercial salvage and/or commercial thinning (Appendix E: Proposed Action Map and 

Appendix A). 

Under this proposed project, the following timber treatments would occur: 

• Commercial salvage of lodgepole pine 4-15 inches dbh in 43 units totaling 2,038 acres. 

• Commercial thinning of Douglas-fir from 4-15 inches dbh and commercial salvage of lodgepole 

pine from 4-15 inches dbh in 6 units totaling 340 acres. 

• Commercial thinning of Douglas-fir from 4-15 inches dbh in 3 units totaling 162 acres.

All timber units exclude areas known to be inoperable, have resource issues, or have old growth 

characteristics. Appendix A includes a description of the size of each unit. The following 17 timber units 

would be harvested in the winter when ground is frozen: 5T, 11T, 17T, 19T, 23T, 25T, 29T, 37T, 41T, 

42T, 45T, 48T, 52T, 53T, 76T, 80T, 82T. 

Table 1: Timber Treatments

Total treatments 2,541 acres, 52 units

Subtotal of Lodgepole Pine salvage treatments 2,038 acres, 43 units

Subtotal of Douglas-Fir thinning treatments 162 acres, 3 units 

Subtotal of Lodgepole Pine and Douglas-Fir thinning treatments 340 acres, 6 units

Roads for Timber Units

This project would require 109.6 miles of haul routes: 67.9 miles would occur on existing roads within 

the project area, including 2.2 miles of temporary roads created from existing non-system routes that 

would be obliterated following harvest; 9.0 miles would occur on newly constructed temporary roads that 

would be obliterated following harvest; and 32.7 miles would occur on existing access routes outside of 

the project area.

Harvest in most units would generally use ground-based methods (e.g., mechanized harvester, grapple 

skidder, de-limber, and forwarder); although a skyline cable system might be used in portions of some 

steeper units (3T, 24T, 25T). Harvested trees would be whole-tree yarded to landings where nonmerchantable trees and slash residues would be piled and later burned, chipped, and/or utilized as biomass 

products. Slash may be made available for firewood prior to burning. Burning of slash piles would be in 

coordination with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group smoke management program. 

Disturbed areas would be re-seeded with a native seed mix as approved by the Forest Service to avoid 

colonization by noxious weeds. In areas where there is significant soil compaction or where fire has 

baked the soil, a harrow may be used to scarify the soil surface. Seed would then be broadcast-spread over 

all disturbed areas in the fall of the year prior to snowfall. Re-seeded areas would be monitored closely to 

ensure successful establishment of desired vegetation. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

6 

Treatments in Restoration Units

This proposed action includes treatments in 19 restoration units totaling 8,768 acres with approximately 

4,106 acres of total treatment. See Appendix B and Proposed Action Map in Appendix E for details. 

Cut Encroaching Conifers: Conifer encroachment treatments would be implemented by hand in all 

restoration units. Within parks or within 11⁄2 tree lengths of parks/meadow edges, conifers up to 12 inches 

dbh would be cut unless they had old growth characteristics or desirable characteristics associated with 

wildlife values (e.g., snags). Cut materials would be left in place until removed or jackpot burned. After 

jackpot burning, areas will be monitored for weeds and treated as needed. The proposed action would 

allow recovery of merchantable trees from restoration units would be allowed within 150 feet of existing 

access roads; construction of new or temporary roads would be prohibited.

Treat Aspen: Along park/conifer boundaries (ecotones) and draws, aspen enhancement treatments would 

be implemented where decadent, declining, or remnant aspen clones occur. In these specific areas 

conifers up to 15 inches dbh growing in or within 11⁄2 tree lengths of aspen clones would be cut and left 

(jack-strawed). For isolated aspen stands within open parks, conifers up to 15 inches dbh growing in or 

within 11⁄2 tree lengths of aspen clones would be cut and left (jack-strawed). Construction of new or 

temporary roads would be prohibited.

Thin Douglas-fir: Conifers less than 7 inches dbh located within 1 tree length of larger Douglas-fir would 

be felled in Douglas-fir dominated stands in all restoration units. Trees slashed would be jackpot burned. 

Merchantable trees from restoration units within 150 feet of existing access roads would be available for 

commercial recovery. Construction of new or temporary roads would be prohibited.

Enhance Riparian Habitat: Construct “worm” fencing in 3 restoration units where practicable using 

nearby, smaller diameter lodgepole pine and fell dead lodgepole pine (“tree felling”) along riparian areas. 

Develop Water Structures: Installation of 7 off-site water structures to reduce riparian impacts from 

livestock. The off-site water structures would include a tank structure with water supplied via pipeline 

from a nearby creek or spring source. A collection device, such as a perforated pipe installed within the 

creek or a head box installed next to the creek or in the spring, would be used to collect water. A valve 

would be placed to control water flow to the tank. Overflow water from the tank would be diverted via 

buried pipeline to an adjacent drainage or back to the creek downstream from the water intake. Water to 

the tanks would be gravity fed. 

Additional Resource Improvement and Restoration Activities

Aquatic/Riparian Habitat Improvements

This proposal also includes the following aquatic/riparian habitat treatments to reduce fish passage 

barriers in the project area and to improve riparian habitat in the Fish Key Watershed. 

• Remove or replace 12 improperly installed culverts in the project area that have the potential to 

prevent upstream fish passage.

• Implement erosion control practices to reduce sediment delivery to North Fork Cottonwood 

Creek (FR 9330 near milepost 0.8) and North Fork Perkins Gulch (FR 5163). 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

7 

• Hand fell available conifers to create barriers and reduce livestock accessibility and riparian and 

stream bank impacts along a 1-mile section of North Fork Cottonwood Creek in the Fred Fish 

Key Watershed. 

• Use dead and dying lodgepole pine to enhance in-stream LWD in 1.9 miles of Baggs Creek 

between river miles 3.1 and 5.0 and along 1.5 miles of Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek between 

the confluence with North Fork Cottonwood Creek and river mile 1.5. 

Restoration Activities Related to Roads and Trails

Under this proposal 1.2 miles of non-system roads would be added to the Forest transportation system and 

25.1 miles of system and non-system routes would be decommissioned and/or closed (Table 2 and 

Appendix E Proposed Action Map). Road additions would occur where existing non-system roads are 

used by the public are not impairing resources. Road closures would occur on roads that are currently not 

drivable (e.g., old grown-in logging roads), where unauthorized access from private land needs to be 

restricted, where closures enhance wildlife secure areas or where other resource concerns exist (e.g., soils, 

hydrology, fisheries). 

This proposal also includes trail work on approximately 6.5 miles of the Baggs Creek Trail (#8139) which 

includes: 3.7 miles would be converted from motorized to non-motorized use and the remaining nonmotorized 2.7 miles would be maintained and reconstructed (within these 2.7 miles, approximately 0.9 

miles will occur at the end of the Baggs Creek Trail to connect up to the ridge at the Airplane Park Trail 

(#8047)). Reconstruction of the first 0.5 miles would occur at a point of access from FR 19744. 

Throughout the 6.5 miles, features would be installed to improve wet area crossings, reduce erosion and 

reestablish a sustainable tread. Additional trail work includes maintenance and reconstruction on the 

entire 2.7 mile length of the Airplane Park Trail (#8047) and conversion of 0.6 miles of trail #8442 from 

motorized to non-motorized through a sign closure. All trail work would be conducted using nonmotorized methods. 

Table 2: Proposed Road and Trail Work

Type of Closure or Conversion Miles

Close Motorized Use on UT Trail 0.2

Decommission System Road - Obliterate 2.7

Decommission System Road - Sign Closed 1.5

Decommission UR Road - Obliterate 5.5

Decommission UR Road - Sign Closed 1.7

Decommission UT Trail - Obliterate 0.4

Convert Motorized System Trail to Non-motorized System Trail 4.3

Close System Road 8.8

Grizzly Bear Design Features

The following design features are incorporated into the design of the proposed action. These design 

features reduce the potential for the proposed action to impact to grizzly bears and grizzly bear habitat.

Additional Design Features not directly benefiting the grizzly bear were omitted from this list. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

8 

• Requirements for Safe Storage, Possession and Handling of Food and Attractants as detailed in Food 

Storage Order 2014-BD/BITT-009 will be followed for all activities associated with this proposed 

action. 

• Travel restrictions identified on the map titled Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest North Map 

2010 and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan Record of Decision II Addendum to Travel Route 

Restrictions would be imposed, except on the following routes as needed to haul during winter 

harvest (when soils are frozen): 705, 1518, 5169, 5170, 5171, 5175, 8518, 9317, 9320, 9455, 19729, 

19731, 19732, 19733, 19735, 19736, 19738, 19869, 78319, 9491A, 9491B, UR8-35, UR8-63, UR8-

66, UR8-120 (Appendix E: Proposed Action Map).

• Temporary roads would be closed to the public during project implementation through a forest order 

and signing. Upon completion of harvest operations, all temporary roads would be obliterated. 

Temporary roads would not remain open for post-harvest treatments including: reforestation exams 

and pile burning. 

• Disturbed areas would be monitored to ensure soil stabilization occurs through natural revegetation 

from the soil seed bank. If additional plant seed is required, a native seed mix approved by the Forest 

Service would be used. All seed and mulch material would be certified noxious weed seed free.

• Design criteria for harvest activities have been developed to provide protection to the whitebark pine 

seedlings and saplings that occur in units 25T and 40T, and are also developed to account for 

whitebark pine regeneration that may occur in other units that field examinations may have missed. 

The design criteria to protect whitebark pine are: (1) designate concentrations/patches of whitebark 

pine regeneration as STAs (special treatment areas); (2) designate skid trails that avoid whitebark 

pine to the extent possible; (3) directionally fell trees to be harvested to avoid damaging whitebark 

regeneration to the extent possible and (4) If whitebark pine is found in restoration units, individuals 

will be protected during implementation activities to the extent possible. This will be done by 

directionally felling trees and concentrating fuels away from whitebark pine and locating jackpot burn 

piles as far as practicable from these trees.

Species Considered and Species Evaluated 

Table 3 displays the current Threatened, Endangered and Candidate species list for the Forest (USDI 

FWS 2014b). 

Table 3: Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for BDNF

Species Status Habitat/Range Status in Action Area

Grizzly bear 

(Ursus arctos horriblis)

Threatened Resident, transient; Alpine/subalpine 

coniferous forest. Known

Canada Lynx

(Lynx Canadensis)

Threatened

Transient – secondary/peripheral lynx 

habitat

Not Suspected, 

however transients 

possible

Yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus) Proposed West of Continental Divide; cottonwood 

riparian areas 

Not Suspected, no 

habitat in action area
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

9 

Species Status Habitat/Range Status in Action Area

Greater sage-grouse

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus) 

Candidate

Eastern, central and southwestern 

Montana in sagebrush, sagebrushgrasslands, and associated agricultural 

lands.

Not Known, outside of 

known distribution

Wolverine

(Gulo gulo luscus) Proposed

High elevation alpine and boreal forests 

that are cold and receive enough winter 

precipitation to reliably maintain deep 

persistent snow late into the warm 

season

Not Suspected, 

transients possible 

The yellow-billed cuckoo uses cottonwood-willow riparian habitats west of the Continental Divide. There 

is no suitable habitat in the action area and they are not expected to be present. Therefore I have 

determined this project will not jeopardize the yellow-billed cuckoo and there will be no further analysis 

for this species. No conferencing or formal consultation is requested.

There are no known Greater sage-grouse leks or habitat in or near the action area and this species will not 

be analyzed further. 

On the BDNF, the grizzly bear is known to occur on the Madison Ranger District on the BDNF in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). However, there have recent reports of grizzly bears expanding 

south out of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) and confirmed observations of a grizzly 

bear east of the project area in the Electric Peak/Thunderbolt Mountain area and Lockhart Meadows 

which are adjacent to the project area. Based on this information, effects to the grizzly bear will be 

analyzed further. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service updated the “Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest” and the Canada Lynx was added to the BDNF list as “Transient; 

secondary/peripheral lynx habitat” (USDI FWS, 2014). This project, as well as the entire BDNF, is 

within secondary/peripheral lynx habitat where evidence of reproduction, recent or historic, does not 

exist. Individuals if found in the project area are considered transient or short-term residents and these 

lynx generally do not establish home ranges and do not attempt or are unsuccessful at reproduction. Based 

on this information, effects to lynx will be analyzed further. 

Wolverines are not documented in the project area however the species has been documented east of the 

project area (action area). On February 4, 2013 the USFWS proposed to protect the North American 

wolverine as a threatened species under the ESA (Proposed Rule) (USDI FWS 2013a). The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service announced on February 4, 2014 that it will extend the deadline for the final decision on 

whether to list the wolverine under the Endangered Species Act. The new deadline for a final rule or 

withdrawal of the proposal will be August 4, 2014 (USDI FWS 2014a). This project was analyzed for 

effects to wolverines based on vegetation changes, movements across the landscape, and disturbance from 

human activities associated with the activity and can be found in the next section. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

10 

Consultation History 

Due to the previously mapped distribution of grizzly bear in NCDE and lack of suspected presence in the 

project area it was previously concluded that the proposed action would have no effect to the grizzly bear

(Hamann 2011). However, on April 6th, 2012, conversations between the local Forest Service biologist 

and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP) biologists Jamie Jonkel and Ray Vinkey (Jonkel and 

Vinkey 2012), determined that grizzly bear presence in the project area was likely (due to confirmed 

reports of grizzly bears in the area to the east, south, north and west of the project area) and consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was appropriate.

On June 4, 2012 a biological assessment for the EDLV on the effects to the threatened grizzly bear was 

submitted to the USFWS for concurrence. Shortly after this time, the BDNF reinitiated consultation on 

the 2009 Forest Plan for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest based on new information received 

from MTFWP of grizzly bear presence in the EDLV project area. Based on this re-initiation, the 

biological assessment for the EDLV project submitted to the USFWS was postponed and concurrence 

was not received. Additionally, the Canada lynx was added to the BDNF’s list of Threatened, Endangered 

and Candidate species and based on conversations with USFWS personnel, an updated biological 

assessment was prepared to include Canada lynx. 

Evaluated Species 

Grizzly Bear

Action Area and Methods

The action area for the environmental baseline and effect analysis for grizzly bear is approximately 

77,000 acres and can be found in Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map. The average size of a female 

grizzly bear’s home range in the NCDE is approximately 242 sq. km. Thus, this action area of 77,000 

acres (310 sq. km) (as shown in Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map) is large enough to include one 

female grizzly bear’s home range and is representative of effects from the proposed action. It is large 

enough to evaluate the ability of the habitat to support grizzly bears, but small enough to not obscure the 

effects of the proposed action. All of the actions are contained within this area. The temporal bounds for 

the effects analysis is based on the time of completion for the treatments. This is 5 years into the future 

for timber units (most likely 1-3 years) and 5-10 years for restoration units and non-commercial timber 

activities. 

Life History

Food Habits 

Bears feed on animal matter or vegetable matter that is highly digestible and high in starch, sugars, 

protein, and stored fat. Grizzly bears must avail themselves of foods rich in protein or carbohydrates in 

excess of maintenance requirements in order to survive denning and post-denning periods. Other plant 

materials are eaten as the plants emerge, when crude protein levels are highest. Grizzly bears are 

opportunistic feeders and will prey or scavenge on almost any available food including ground squirrels, 

ungulates, carrion, and garbage. The search for food has a primary influence on grizzly bear movements. 

Upon emergence from the den, they seek lower elevations, drainage bottoms, avalanche chutes, and 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

11 

ungulate winter ranges where their food requirements can be met. Throughout late spring and early 

summer, they follow plant maturity back to higher elevations. In late summer and fall, there is a transition 

to fruit and nut sources, as well as other plant materials. This is a generalized pattern, as bears are 

individuals trying to survive and will go where they can best meet their food requirements. 

In portions of the NCDE, huckleberries are the major source of late summer food for bears. On the East 

Front Range in Montana, graminoids, roots and corms, and fruit had the highest percent volume and 

highest important values of all bear food categories of analyzed grizzly bear scat. However, mammals, 

sporophytes and pine nuts were seasonally important. Throughout the region, bears also commonly feed 

on gut piles and animals wounded during the fall big game hunting season which can be an important 

source of protein for bears (MTFWP 2006). 

Home Range Size 

Home range sizes of grizzly bears vary in relation to food availability, weather conditions, and 

interactions with other bears. In addition, individual bears may extend their range seasonally or from one 

year to the next (USDI FWS 1993) and the home ranges of adult grizzly bears frequently overlap. The 

annual home range of adult male grizzly bears in the lower 48 States is typically 2-3 times the size of an 

adult female’s annual home range whereas the lifetime home range of an adult male grizzly bear is 

typically 3-5 times that of an adult female. The home ranges of grizzly females appear to be smaller while 

they are with cubs, but ranges expand when the young are yearlings in order to meet increased foraging 

demands. 

Specifically for the NCDE, the average home range size for subadult females was 242 sq. km and 164 sq. 

km for solitary adults (Mace and Roberts 2011). Additionally, female grizzly bear home ranges were 

nearly twice the size outside of Glacier National Park than inside the park. For example, the average 

home range outside the park was 213 sq. km, compared with 108 sq. km within (Mace and Roberts 2011). 

Home ranges of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana overlap extensively on a yearly and lifetime basis. 

However, bears typically utilized the same space at different times. Home range size of grizzly bears in 

southwestern Montana is currently lacking, as these individuals are dispersers from the north, are new this 

this part of the state and therefore, GPS home range information on these individuals is not available. 

Dispersing young males apparently leave their mother’s home ranges and their dispersal may be mediated 

by the avoidance of the home ranges of established adults. Grizzly bear mothers may tolerate female 

offspring and may shift their home ranges to accommodate them (USFWS 1993). Grizzly bears display a 

behavior called natal philopatry in which dispersing young establish home ranges within or overlapping 

their mother’s (Schwartz et al. 2003). This type of movement makes dispersal across landscapes a slow 

process. Females establish home ranges an average of 6.1-8.9 mi away from the center of their mother’s 

home range, whereas males generally disperse further, establishing home ranges roughly 18.6-26.0 mi 

away from the center of their mother’s (McLellan and Hovey 2001; Proctor et al. 2004a). 

Denning Chronology and Habitat 

Western Montana grizzlies generally spend 5-6 months a year in dens. Most dens are excavated but 

natural ones can also be used. Den digging can start as early as September or take place just prior to entry 

in mid-November. Dens are usually dug on steep slopes where wind and topography cause an 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

12 

accumulation of deep snow and where snow is unlikely to melt during warm periods. In Western 

Montana, dens typically occur at elevations between 5,900-6,600 feet and at slopes greater than 50% in 

open and open-timbered areas on western, northern or eastern aspects (MTFWP 2006). Security at den 

sites appears to be an important management consideration, especially if human disturbance occurs near 

the time of den entry. There has been some concern of the possible effects of snowmobiles on denning 

nears which has increased with increasingly powerful snow machines (MTFWP 2006). 

NCDE Grizzly Bear Population

Kendall et al. (2009) used noninvasive sampling methods and capture-mark-recapture models to estimate 

there were 765 grizzly bears in the NCDE in 2004. The NCDE population of grizzly bears is contiguous 

with grizzly bears in Canada (Proctor et al. in press). Kendall et al. (2009) provided an accurate estimate 

of how many animals there were in 2004, the year of sampling, but did not address population trend (i.e., 

is the population increasing, decreasing, or stable). In 2004, the NCDE subcommittee and MFWP 

initiated an ecosystem-wide research project to determine the trend of the NCDE grizzly bear population. 

Data collection occurred from 2004-2009. Since 2004, the team captured and monitored 95 different 

female grizzly bears in the U.S. and Canada for trend monitoring. These individuals were well distributed 

throughout the NCDE and included multiple ages. In 2011, Mace and Roberts (2011) used these data to 

determine the NCDE grizzly bear population was increasing at a rate of 3% per year during this time 

(2004-2009). 

Grizzly bears are well distributed throughout the NCDE recovery zone and someone would expect to 

encounter a grizzly bear there (USDI FWS 2011b). Based on conflicts and mortalities, it is now known 

that NCDE grizzly bear range has expanded outside of the recovery zone boundaries to the east and to a 

lesser degree to the west and south. A male grizzly bear was documented approximately 80 miles east of 

the recovery zone boundary in 2009, and both males and females are becoming increasingly common in 

river bottoms between the recovery zone boundaries and Interstate 15 to the east. There have been several 

different grizzly bears with cubs documented using habitat west of Highway 93 since 2002, including at 

least nine records of female grizzly bears in the Salish Mountains south of Eureka, Montana, and one 

record of a female with offspring in the upper Ninemile drainage west of Missoula, Montana. At the 

southern end of this ecosystem, there have been three male grizzly bears documented south of Interstate 

90 since 2002. The Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana (MTFWP 2006) identifies 

14,463 sq mi of the NCDE as occupied by grizzly bears, including some intervening habitat between the 

NCDE and the CYE. This number is based on a combination of radio-collared females, known mortality 

locations, and expert opinion and includes all lands where someone may possibly encounter a grizzly 

bear. This acreage currently underestimates the lands where someone may possibly encounter a grizzly 

bear the NCDE grizzly bear population has been increasing approximately 3% a year and as a result, 

bears are moving into new areas outside this area. The project area in relation to the NCDE and GYE 

Recovery zones can be found in Appendix E: Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones and EDLV Project area Map. 

Grizzly Bear/Human Interactions

Grizzly bears in Montana, upon emergence from the den, move considerable distances from high, snowcovered elevations to lower elevations to reach emerging vegetation or to feed on winter-killed or 

weakened ungulates on winter ranges. This type of movement often takes bears near areas of human 

habitation and may increase the incidence of human/grizzly bear conflicts. Similar movement patterns 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

13 

often occur in the fall due to ripening of fruit and berries at lower elevations. There are a variety of types 

of human caused mortalities of grizzly bears in the NCDE ranging from mistaken identity during legal 

black bear hunting season, self-defense situations, management removal of food habituated problem 

bears, collision with vehicles and/or trains or killing for malicious purposes (MTFWP 2006) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Known human-caused mortality causes in the NCDE 1999-2004 (MTFWP 2006)

Grizzly Bear Secure Habitat 

In general, grizzly habitat requirements are determined by large spatial needs for foraging, winter 

denning, behavior and security. Large roadless areas are ideal as year round grizzly habitat as roads can 

displace bears depending on tolerance of bears. Furthermore, roads can increase mortality risk if humans 

that hunt bears use the roads. However, grizzly bears can and do survive in roaded areas if tolerance for 

their presence is high. The management of human use levels through access route management has been 

documented as one of the most powerful tools available to balance the needs of grizzly bears with the 

needs and activities of humans. It has been documented in several research projects that unregulated 

human access and development within grizzly bear habitat can contribute to increased bear mortality and 

affect bear use of existing habitat (IGBC 1998). 

Historically, management of motorized use has been primarily accomplished through restriction of certain 

types of motorized use on established access routes, i.e. management of open motorized route densities. 

Recent research has shown that secure habitat (areas that are free of motorized traffic) is an important 

component of grizzly bear habitat (IGBC 1998). 

Habitat security requires minimizing mortality risk and displacement from human activities in a sufficient 

amount of habitat to allow the population to benefit from this secure habitat and respond with increasing 

numbers and distribution. Habitat security allows a population to increase in numbers and distribution as 

lowered mortality results in more reproduction and cub recruitment into the adult population. This results 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

14 

in an increasing population. As the population increases, it begins to expand in range and distribution. 

Secure habitat must also provide the basic seasonal habitat requirements for grizzly bears and should be 

representative of seasonal habitats available to bears in the entire analysis area (IGBC 1998). Calculations 

for secure habitat in the action area are presented in the Environmental Baseline section of this document. 

Environmental Baseline

The environmental baseline for this BA includes the existing grizzly bear habitat conditions and conflict 

situation within the action area and relationship to the threats to the species. It also includes grizzly bear 

management direction in the existing land and resource management plan for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest. The environmental baseline includes past and present impacts of all federal, state or 

private actions and other human activities in the action area, and anticipated effects of all proposed 

federal projects in the action area that have undergone consultation, and state or private actions that are 

contemporaneous with the consultation that may impact grizzly bears. 

Grizzly Bear Management Direction

The Grizzly Bear Amendment for the National Forests of the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) (USDA 

Forest Service 2006) is incorporated into the 2009 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan. The 

Madison Range District is the only District on the Forest known to have resident grizzly bears from the 

GYE and the Lee Metcalf Wilderness area on the Madison District is within the Recovery Zone of this 

population. This project is not within the recovery zone of the Yellowstone DPS. The Grizzly Bear 

Amendment was incorporated as the ‘best available science’ regarding grizzly bear management and 

habitat needs in the Greater Yellowstone Area in light of delisting that Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) from the Endangered Species List. However, with the re-listing of the Yellowstone DPS, the 

Conservation Strategy for the species and the associated Amendment is not in effect, however it is still 

considered the best available science. A food storage order was adopted by this District in 2004 and also 

maintains in effect today with the Forest Wide Food Storage order (2014-BD/BITT-009). This food 

storage order applies to all activities related to the proposed action. 

Currently, the Conservation Strategy for the NCDE is under development and open motorized road and 

trail density (OMRTD) management is managed under each National Forest’s Plan for Forests within the 

NCDE. Forests that are within the NCDE recovery zone manage OMRTD according to Bear Management 

Units (BMUs) and BMU Subunits. The BDNF is not within the recovery zone of the NCDE and does not 

follow this Amendment. The BDNF does manage for specific open motorized road and trail densities 

(OMRTD) to provide for wildlife security, including grizzly bears (USDA Forest Service 2009). This 

density is managed year round by Landscape and the Clark Fork-Flints Landscape (where the project lies) 

is within the OMRTD detailed in the Forest Plan, at 1.5 mi road/sq. mile. Secure habitat for this project 

was calculated following the BDNF Forest Plan definition and using the secure habitat definition 

following the Grizzly Bear Amendment. 

The Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana (MTFWP 2006) contains specific 

recommendations for public lands. The reports states: “Of particular importance on public lands is food 

storage to minimize conflicts with wildlife, maintain visual cover along riparian areas for travel and to not 

increase road densities on the landscape”. These recommendations are incorporated into the project as 

riparian areas are buffered from treatment, unless detailed in a riparian restoration activity for aquatic 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

15 

resource restoration (Appendix B), food storage requirements are incorporated to the design of the project 

and road densities overall will decrease. 

Biological Opinion on the Effects of the BDNF Forest Plan to the Grizzly Bear

In a 2010 biological opinion the USFWS analyzed effects of the Revised Forest Plan for the BDNF in the 

area that had been designated for the Yellowstone grizzly bear distinct population segment (DPS), which 

at that time was considered where grizzly bears may be and were known to be present on the BDNF. 

Since then, new information as mentioned above verified observations of grizzly bears outside of this area 

and the Forest requested reinitiation of consultation on the Revised Forest Plan. The biological opinion 

from the USFWS (USDI FWS 2013) was received on May 28, 2013 and the service concurred that the 

Revised Forest Plan with its incorporated objectives, goals and standards, adequately reduces the potential 

for and minimizes the effect of any incidental take to the grizzly bear that may result. The USFWS 

determined that the level of take anticipated is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species. Terms and 

conditions were not provided, however reporting requirements were included to demonstrate that the 

Revised Forest Plan is adequately reducing the potential for and minimizing the effect of any incidental 

take that may result. 

Reporting requirements include 1) An up-to-date record of location and length of new permanent and 

temporary roads constructed and roads decommissioned on the Forest 2) An up-to-date record of the 

amount of acres of grizzly bear denning habitat open to winter motorized use and the timeframe such 

acres were used and 3) An up-to-date record of grizzly bear-human conflict and/or the management 

removal of a grizzly bear resulting from improper storage of food or attractants or livestock depredation. 

This project proposes building temporary roads and decommissioning roads and this will be detailed at 

the end of the analysis. 

Secure Habitat in the Action Area

Grizzly bear secure habitat is defined in the GYA as areas more than 500 meters from an open or gated 

motorized access route or recurring helicopter flight line, greater than or equal to 10 acres in size (USDA 

Forest Service 2006). Secure habitat for the NCDE National Forests is also defined as areas more than 

500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route (USDA Forest Service 1995). As mentioned 

previously, secure habitat for this project was calculated using the 500m definition and was also 

calculated using the definition from the BDNF Forest Plan which is habitat over 1/3 mile from an open 

motorized road or trail and over 10 acres in size. The measurement 1/3 of a mile is approximately 145 feet 

wider than the 500m grizzly bear buffer and was adopted to accommodate mapping for quiet recreation 

and depicts less secure habitat than would be available under the 500m calculation (USDA Forest Service 

FEIS 2009). 

There are approximately 21,182 acres of secure habitat in the action area following a 500 meter buffer 

distance from open motorized roads and trails (Table 4). This is approximately 27% of the action area and 

mostly occurs in the north end of the action area corresponding to the Electric Peak Inventoried Roadless 

Area (IRA) (Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map). Approximately 19,749 acres of secure habitat is 

mapped in the action area according to the Forest Plan definition for wildlife secure habitat. As mentioned 

previously, the BDNF definition for secure habitat was developed as a more conservative approach to 

wildlife security with recreation managers. Secure habitat in the action area is mapped in multiple blocks
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

16 

of habitat, with the largest block of secure habitat in the north end of the action area that boarders the 

Continental Divide and is within the Electric Peak Roadless Area (Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas 

Map). The Electric Peak roadless expanse includes the Electric Peak IRA and the unroaded areas that are 

contiguous which is approximately 99,926 acres. This area encompasses the northern portion of the 

Pintler Ranger District and extends north and east of the action area into the Jefferson Ranger District and 

the Helena National Forest. This area also corresponds to the area where the photos of the grizzly bear on 

April 5th, 2012 were taken (Electric Peak). 

Based on conversations with Pintler District Recreation Staff (Blake 2012), areas in the southern part of 

the action area are heavily accessed by motorized use however, the northern areas are not. Motorized 

activities occur on the lands adjacent to the Electric Peak Roadless Area, but not within it, though there is 

always a potential for motorized trespass from the north coming from the private property and the Helena 

NF side. Additionally, trails within the Roadless Area are mostly single track and are not conducive to 

motorized use. Based on this information, and the relatively roaded nature of the action area, the majority 

of secure habitat in the lower elevations in the southern end (nearest the private property, Orofino 

Campground and private inholdings) is less secure for grizzly bears than as currently mapped but the 

northern end of the action areas is considered secure as mapped based on known use. 

Table 4: Secure Habitat in the Action Area

Buffer Distance from Open 

Motorized Road or Trail Total Acres Secure Habitat Percent of Action Area

Existing After Proposed Action Existing After Proposed Action

500 Meter Buffer Distance 21,182 23,466 27% 30%

1/3 Mile Buffer Distance 19,749 21,989 26% 29%

Security for wildlife in the Revised Forest Plan is measured at the Landscape level by the density of open, 

motorized roads and trails (OMRTD). This Landscape (Clark Fork-Flints) is below the Revised Forest 

Plan desired OMRTD with an average of 1.7 mi/sq. mi of open motorized roads and trails. The Hunting 

Unit (215) is currently within the Revised Forest Plan desired OMRTD with an average of 1.5 mi/sq. mi 

of open motorized roads and trails. 

Table 5: Revised Forest Plan Desired Open Motorized Road and Trail Density

Unit of Measure Revised Forest Plan Desired Open 

Motorized Road and Trail Density

Landscape Existing Desired

Clark-Fork Flints 1.7 1.9

Hunting Unit

215 1.5 1.5

Denning Habitat in the Action Area 

In Western Montana, dens typically occur at elevations between 5,900-6,600 feet and at slopes greater 

than 50% in open and open-timbered areas on western, northern or eastern aspects (MTFWP 2006). 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

17 

Following these guidelines, there are approximately 180 acres of modeled denning habitat within the East 

Deerlodge Valley project area. The majority of this habitat is located in the north end of the action area, 

near and along Baggs Creek. There are no proposed treatment units within this area of modeled denning 

habitat however smaller areas of potential denning habitat are scattered throughout the entire action area. 

As shown in Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map, a majority of the secure habitat in the action area 

is higher in elevation that 6,600ft (the upper average elevation of western Montana grizzly bear dens); so 

this elevation in the action area was not included in the modeled denning habitat. Grizzly bears are known 

however, to den in multiple elevations depending on the surrounding terrain, so habitat over 6,600ft in 

elevation the action area is likely suitable denning habitat, however was not modeled. This habitat is 

potentially more suitable for bears than the lower elevation denning habitat, as it is more secure because it 

is located near and within the Electric Peak Roadless Area and farther from motorized activity and human 

use.

Grizzly Bear Use of the Action Area

Prior to April of 2012, BDNF biologists did not suspect grizzly bears to be present in the EDLV project

area other than the potential for transient individuals to pass through. The species had been documented 

by the state to the east, south and west of the project area on private and/or state lands. According to 

information from MTFWP, a grizzly bear was photographed in the head of Jake Creek in 2010 and in

Lockhart Meadows in 2011 and grizzly bear mortalities have been documented near Elk Park (near Butte) 

in 2010, near Anaconda in 2005 (Cabbage Gulch) and outside of Deer Lodge in the fall of 2011 (Jonkel 

2012).

However, on April 10th 2012, photos from a MTFWP camera trap captured detailed photos of a grizzly 

bear on April 5th, 2012 in the Boulder and Little Blackfoot/Electric Peak/Thunderbolt 

Mountain/Cottonwood Lake area. Based on the timing of these pictures, it was determined that the bear 

likely denned in the area, which means a high probability the individual’s home range overlaps the EDLV 

project area. Since then, there have been additional sightings of grizzly bears along the Continental 

Divide within the Action Area (Mace and Roberts 2012). 

Past and Present Federal, State and Private Activities in the Action Area

There are a multitude of past, present and future actions in the action area that have the potential to 

adversely affect the grizzly bear. A majority of these effects are from the use of the extensive road 

network in the area and the presence of private inholdings within the action area that have dispersed 

recreation and mining. The following is a table of past, present and future state and private actions, past 

and present federal actions and other human activities in the action area that have the potential to affect 

the grizzly bear and grizzly bear habitat (Table 6). 

Table 6: Past and Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the Action Area

Activity Date Acres Details

Fire - Federal Prescribed 1960-Present 11,871

Fire - Wildfire 1980-1989 80

Federal Timber Harvest 1940-Present 13,105

Harvest on Private Land

and State Land

1990-Present 5,654
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

18 

Activity Date Acres Details

Other Federal Veg. 

Activities

1960-Present 18,301

Piling of Fuels; Plant Trees; Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration; 

Site Preparation for Planting; Site Preparation for Seeding; pre-site 

Prep; Visual Rehabilitation; Wildlife Habitat Non-Structural 

Improvement; Yarding

Hazard Tree Removal at 

Orofino Campground

2008 39

FS Road/Trail Work Past/Ongoing Construction, reconstruction, maintenance

Livestock Grazing and 

Allotment Management 

Settlement (1930s 

permits)/Ongoing

Noxious Weed 

Treatments 

1980s-Present Currently ~200 acres/ year.

Undeveloped and 

Developed Recreation Past/Ongoing Orofino Campground, winter and summer recreation, snowmobile trails/grooming

Mining Past/Ongoing Two small scale exploration operations, both ceased and under ongoing 

remediation.

BPA Colstrip 500 KV 

Power Line Ongoing Power line runs through project area

Wildland Fire 

Management Ongoing Active fire suppression, wildland fire use

Baggs Creek Prescribed 

Burning 

2010 500 500 acres implemented in 2010 

Firewood Gathering Ongoing 6 - 6.6 million board feet / yr, permitted, last few yrs

Insecticide Application in 

Recreation Sites 

2011

Apply carbaryl, verbenone, and MCH to lodgepole pine, ponderosa 

pine, whitebark pine (carbaryl and verbenone), and Douglas-fir (MCH) 

trees in recreation sites to prevent tree mortality from mountain pine and 

Douglas-fir bark beetle attacks (carbaryl spraying in Orofino 

Campground from 2007-2011).

Effects of the Proposed Action on the Grizzly Bear

As mentioned previously, the spatial boundary for the effects analysis is approximately 77,000 acres 

(~310 sq. km) and can be found in Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map. This action area was chosen 

because it is large enough to include one female grizzly bear’s home range and is representative of effects 

from the proposed action. It is large enough to evaluate the ability of the habitat to support grizzly bears 

but small enough to not obscure the effects of the proposed action. All of the actions are contained within 

this area. The temporal bounds for the effects analysis is approximately 5 years into the future for timber 

units and 5-10 years for restoration units and activities. This is based on the probable contract length for 

the salvage units and the estimated time to complete the other activities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to the Grizzly Bear 

All activities in the proposed action would occur in suitable or potentially suitable grizzly bear habitat. 

Timber and restoration treatments have the potential to directly and indirectly impact the species due to 

noise and disturbance from the activities, human presence and a change in the structure and age classes of 

vegetation in each treatment unit. There are approximately 21,182 acres of secure habitat in the action

area following a 500 meter buffer distance from open motorized roads and trails (Table 4). This is 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

19 

approximately 27% of the action area and mostly occurs in the north end of the action area corresponding 

to the Electric Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). No timber units are located within this secure block 

of habitat (Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map). 

Temporary roads would be built in the timbers units. These temporary roads would be similar in 

disturbance effects as the logging operation and would be obliterated completely following harvest. 

Approximately 2.2 miles of temporary roads would be created from existing non-system routes that 

would be obliterated following harvest; 9.0 miles would occur on newly constructed temporary roads that 

would be obliterated following harvest; and 32.7 miles would occur on existing access routes outside of 

the project area. Disturbance impacts from these timber treatments are expected to be short term in nature 

because the material is dead and dying lodgepole that decreases value with time so the units would be 

completed promptly. Expected timeline for this activity (depending on sale of the units) would be up to 5 

years. Each temporary road however, is only expected to be open for the duration of the activity, likely no 

more than one harvest season. 

Human presence would occur in these units, however with food storage requirements; the potential for 

grizzly bears access to unnatural foods would be minimized. Winter logging may occur in this proposed 

action in certain units, however measurable effects to the grizzly bear from an increase in open road 

densities and activity during the denning period are expected to be insignificant because 1) there is a 

minimal amount of denning habitat mapped in the action area and 2) there is a low probability that grizzly 

bears are denning near the area of activity. Additionally all temporary roads used to access these units will 

be closed to the public during the activity and decommissioned after implementation, minimizing traffic. 

Table 7: Miles of Temporary Road

Miles 

New Temporary Road Construction 9

New Temporary Road built on existing closed routes 2.2

Total 11

The restoration treatments and other restoration activities that do not use machinery are expected to have 

less of an impact to the grizzly bear than the timber units because the noise and traffic from the activity 

would be substantially less because it would consist of hand crews of 5-10 people with chainsaws with 

no-off road vehicle access. Human presence would occur in these units and food storage requirements 

would minimize the potential for grizzly bears to access unnatural foods. Additionally, all travel 

restrictions would be followed for these activities.

Whitebark pine is a known food source for grizzly bears in the NCDE and is seasonally important (as 

mentioned previous). Whitebark pine are protected within this project area (refer to design features) so 

impacts to this food source in the project area will be reduced, minimizing the effects to grizzly bear and 

this grizzly bear foraging habitat.

Restoration activities such as road work and culvert and riparian work also have the potential to displace 

grizzly bears as these activities would be completed using machinery. This type of disturbance is expected 

to be short-term in nature and access would be on existing travel routes. This proposal also includes trail 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

20 

work on approximately 6.5 miles of the Baggs Creek Trail (#8139) which 3.7 miles of that trail would be 

converted from motorized to non-motorized use. This would benefit the grizzly bear by adding additional 

acres of secure habitat to an already large secure habitat block (Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map). 

All trail work associated with the proposed action would take place through non-motorized means, also 

reducing the potential impact to disturb bears with these actions. 

There are approximately 1.2 miles of non-system roads that would be added under this action to the 

Forest transportation system. This would occur where an existing non-system road is currently being used 

by the public and there are no negative resource impacts associated with adding the route. Adding this 

amount of road to the system would not substantially increase the road density in this action area because 

the length of the road is small (1.2 miles) when compared to the large road network in the action area and 

would not add additional disturbance from the baseline to bears because the road already exists and 

receives motorized use. Additionally, 21.9 miles of system and non-system routes would be 

decommissioned and/or closed which would have a beneficial impact to grizzly bears by effectively 

closing these roads, enhancing grizzly bear secure habitat in the action area. 

Table 8: Open Motorized Roads and Trail Densities of Action Area

FS Admin Area Total Miles of Motorized Route Motorized Route Density (mi/sq. mi)

Acres Square 

Miles

Existing After Proposed Action Existing After Proposed 

Action

Action Area 77,036 120.4 288.9 263.8 2.4 2.2

Some proposed actions occur in mapped secure areas (Appendix E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map).This 

impact is expected to be short-term and minimal as the most secure habitat is located within the northern 

end of the action area (the Electric Peak IRA). Travel restrictions will be followed for all units except as 

detailed in the units to be winter logged. Impacts to grizzly bears from winter logged units are expected to 

be insignificant as there is minimal amount of denning habitat mapped in the action area near these units 

and bears are not known to den in these lower elevation areas in the action area. 

Cumulative Effects to the Grizzly Bear

The action area contains multiple types of established human activities, including vegetation 

management, road management, private land activities/development and recreational use as well as others 

detailed in the Environmental Baseline that have created the existing condition as displayed in Appendix 

E: Wildlife Secure Areas Map. Additionally the action area is adjacent to Interstate 90 and the town of 

Deer Lodge making the action area a highly used recreation and firewood cutting area. Road construction 

and logging and mining activity have occurred on private lands throughout the action area and are 

expected to continue. High levels of human activity usually have a negative effect on the grizzly bear 

population due to the greatest cause of grizzly bear mortality in the NCDE being from conflicts with 

humans.The effects to grizzly bear and grizzly bear habitat from these actions listed in Table 6 include 

potential disturbance or displacement due to human presence, motorized use and other mechanized 

equipment, presence of livestock (an unnatural food source), and changes in forested condition classes 

(depending on type of timber harvest). All of these activities had or have the potential to impact grizzly 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

21 

bears and/or grizzly bear habitat in the action area. The presence of these activities and the presence of the 

roads may lead grizzly bears to avoid an otherwise suitable habitat.

Cumulative effects to habitat in the action area include past natural events and management actions that 

have shaped the baseline habitat present within the action area today. Such processes include natural 

forest succession, wildfires, wind events, insects, disease, housing and business development, road 

construction, timber harvest and agriculture. Natural events and vegetation management such as timber 

harvest and prescribed burning typically produce habitat changes that are temporary in nature. A majority 

of these activities were analyzed in the Biological Assessment prepared for the Revised Forest Plan. This 

project occurs near private and on public land. We know of no other reasonably foreseeable future 

activity on the private, state or other lands that haven’t already been considered that would lead this 

project to have additional cumulative impacts to grizzly bears that haven’t already been analyzed. 

This proposed action however; will not contribute to significant cumulative effects to the grizzly bear 

because: (1) the amount of grizzly bear use is suspected to be low (2) the majority of these activities are 

associated with currently open motorized roads or trails (3) the proposed action will overall decrease the 

number of open motorized roads and trails in the action area (4) the project is short term (last 5-10 years) 

and (5) is outside the NDCE Recovery Zone where the majority of the grizzly bear population for this 

ecosystem resides (Appendix E: Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones and EDLV Project area Map). 

Determination of Effect and Rationale

The proposed action in combination with the environmental baseline “may affect and is likely to 

adversely affect” the grizzly bear. Even though the project as designed will decrease open motorized 

roads and trails in the action area, will minimize disturbance to grizzly bears by following travel 

restrictions and implementing food storage requirements; due to the current high road density, and high 

level of human use throughout the action area, the current condition of the action area may displace 

grizzly bears from this area that they may have used otherwise. The project is however located entirely 

outside the grizzly bear recovery zone, but within an area where grizzly bears may be present. The 

proposed action meets applicable direction in the Forest Plan, and other guiding documents as guidelines 

and reporting requirements from the associated Forest Plan Biological Opinion. 

If new direction or additional information regarding grizzly bear direction is received; the BDNF will reinitiate consultation (per FSM 2671.4) to ensure the actions in this project does not impact the recovery 

of grizzly bear in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem.

Canada Lynx

Action Area and Methods

In 2000, the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) recommended that Lynx 

Analysis Units (LAUs) be identified for all areas with lynx habitat “to provide analysis units of the 

appropriate scale with which to begin the analysis of potential direct and indirect effects of projects or 

activities on individual lynx, and to monitor habitat changes” (Ruediger and others 2000 page 73). The 

action area for the lynx analysis was carried out at the scale of 5 LAUs, which encompasses a total of 

115,185 acres, including 40,239 acres of Forest Service lands, 7,339acres of State lands, 66,674 acres of 

private lands, 716 acres of National Park Service Lands and 216 acres of County lands (Appendix E, 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

22 

Ownership within LAU’s Map). These LAU’s are the appropriate effects action area for lynx because 

115,185 acres is a sufficient size to consider how effects from the project could, when considered with 

other actions within the LAU, affect the species. It also contains all of the proposed units that fall within 

the mapped, secondary areas and peripheral lynx habitat. 

Lynx habitat within each LAU was classified using the definitions from the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction Record of Decision (USDA FS 2007a) by a combination of Vmap data, site 

specific on-the-ground information and known actions that have occurred such as past fire, harvest and 

current insect and disease information. All treatment units were surveyed on the ground to assess the 

presence of mature, multi-story stands that provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. According to USDA 

Forest Service (2007c, page 99), “horizontal cover is the visual obscurity or cover provided by habitat 

structures that extend to the ground or snow surface primarily provided by tree stems and tree boughs, but 

also includes herbaceous vegetation, snow, and landscape topography.” Horizontal cover provides a 

measure of the stands’ value as snowshoe hare habitat, and are of particular interest in evaluating 

compliance with NRLMD Standard VEGS6 (see Appendix C). Snowshoe hare habitat in multi-storied 

mature or late successional forest is not proposed for treatment. 

Distribution

Lynx (Lynx canadensis) currently are found throughout Alaska and Canada (except arctic islands) south 

through the Rocky Mountains, northern Great Lakes Region, and northern New England. Lynx 

historically occurred in 16 states represented by five ecologically distinct regions: Cascade Range 

(Washington, Oregon), northern Rocky Mountains (northeastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, 

Idaho, Montana, western Wyoming, northern Utah), southern Rocky Mountains (southeastern Wyoming, 

Colorado), northern Great Lakes (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan), and northern New England (Maine, 

New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts). Resident populations currently 

exist only in Maine, Montana, Washington, and possibly Minnesota. 

Life History 

Canada lynx are medium-sized cats generally 30-35 inches long and weighing 18-23 pounds. They have 

large feet adapted to walking on snow, long legs, tufts on ears, and black-tipped tails (Ruediger, et al. 

2000). 

Lynx occur in boreal coniferous forests that have cold, snowy winters and provide a prey base of 

snowshoe hare (USDI FWS 2009). In North America, the distribution of lynx is nearly coincident with 

that of snowshoe hares. Lynx are uncommon or absent from the wet coastal forests of Canada and 

Alaska. Snowshoe hares are the primary prey of lynx, comprising 35-97% of the diet. Other prey species 

include red squirrel, grouse, flying squirrel, and ground squirrels, among others. Squires indicated that 

lynx in western Montana prey almost exclusively on snowshoe hares during the winter (Squires et al. 

2007). Snowshoe hares contributed 96 percent of prey biomass (4-year average, range equals 94 to 99 

percent). Red squirrels were the second most common prey (11 kills), but they only provided 2 percent 

biomass to the winter diet (Squires et al. 2007; USDI FWS 2009). 

Home Range

The home range size of a snowshoe hare is 5–10 ha (12–25 ac); estimates vary depending on the sampling 

method (e.g., live-trapping vs. radio telemetry)( Keith 1990; Hodges 2000a; Murray 2003 in LCAS 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

23 

2013). Although hares are non-migratory and generally occupy the same area throughout the year, shortdistance seasonal movements between winter and summer foraging areas have been documented (Adams 

1959; Bookhout 1965; Wolff 1980; Wolfe et al. 1982 in LCAS 2013, p.8). Lynx densities vary across the 

southern periphery of its range and may be linked to snowshoe hare density and abundance (LCAS 2013, 

p. 19). Generally, home ranges in the western United States are larger than those reported from the 

eastern United States or from northern Canada during peaks in snowshoe hare abundance (Aubry et al. 

2000). 

Lynx Habitat

Both snow conditions and vegetation type are important factors to consider in defining lynx habitat. 

Across the northern boreal forests of Canada, snow depths are relatively uniform and only moderately 

deep (total annual snowfall of 39-50 inches) (Kelsall et al. 1977). Snow conditions are very cold and dry. 

In contrast, in the southern portion of the range of the lynx, snow depths generally increase, with deepest 

snows in the mountains of southern Colorado. Snow in southern lynx habitats may be subjected to more 

freezing and thawing than in the taiga, although this varies depending on elevation, aspect, and local 

weather conditions. Crusting or compaction of snow may reduce the competitive advantage that lynx 

have in soft snow, with their long legs and low-foot loadings. At lower snow depths there is an increase 

in competition for prey and an increase in potential predation on lynx. 

Primary vegetation that contributes to lynx habitat is lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce 

(Aubry et al. 2000). In extreme northern Idaho, northeastern Washington, and northwestern Montana, 

cedar-hemlock habitat types may also be considered primary vegetation. In central Idaho, Douglas-fir on 

moist sites at higher elevations may also be considered primary vegetation. Secondary vegetation, when 

interspersed within subalpine forests that may also contribute to lynx habitat includes cool, moist 

Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch, and aspen forests. Dry forest types (e.g., ponderosa pine, Douglasfir, or lodgepole pine with a grass-like understory) do not provide lynx habitat (Squires 2010). 

Based on examination of historical and recent evidence, the 2005 Canada lynx recovery outline 

categorized lynx habitat and occurrence within the contiguous United States as either core areas, 

secondary areas, or peripheral areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). The areas with the strongest 

long-term evidence of the persistence of lynx populations within the contiguous United States are defined 

as “core areas.” Core areas have both persistent verified records of lynx occurrence over time and recent 

evidence of reproduction. At this time, the role of areas outside of these core areas (secondary and 

peripheral) in sustaining lynx populations in the contiguous United States is unclear. The fluctuating 

nature of lynx population dynamics and the ability of lynx to disperse long distances have resulted in 

many individual occurrence records outside of core areas, without accompanying evidence of historic or 

current presence of lynx populations. Areas classified as “secondary areas” are those with historical 

records of lynx presence with no record of reproduction; or areas with historical records and no recent 

surveys to document the presence of lynx and/or reproduction. If future surveys document presence and 

reproduction in a secondary area, the area could be considered for elevation to core. Secondary areas may 

contribute to lynx persistence by providing habitat to support lynx during dispersal movements or other 

periods, allowing animals to then return to “core areas.” In “peripheral areas” the majority of historical 

lynx records is sporadic and generally corresponds to periods following cyclic lynx population highs in 

Canada. There is no evidence of long-term presence or reproduction that might indicate colonization or 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

24 

sustained use of these areas by lynx. However, some of these peripheral areas may provide habitat 

enabling the successful dispersal of lynx between populations or subpopulations. 

Within the boreal forest, lynx foraging habitat supports lynx primary prey (snowshoe hare) and has the 

vegetation structure suitable for lynx to capture prey. Dense saplings or mature multi-layered stands are 

the conditions that maximize availability of food and cover for snowshoe hares at varying snow depths 

throughout the winter. Natural disturbance processes that create early successional stages exploited by 

snowshoe hares include fire, insect infestations, wind throw, and disease outbreaks. Both timber harvest 

and natural disturbance processes provide foraging habitat for lynx when the resulting stem densities and 

stand structure meet the habitat needs of snowshoe hare (LCAS 2013).

In the western United States, development of a high density >4,500/acre of young conifer stems and 

branches protruding above the snow was found to provide foraging habitat for lynx within about 10–40 

years following disturbance, depending on site productivity, forest type and intensity of disturbance 

(LCAS 2013). This habitat is temporary, as the tree stems and branches eventually grow out of reach of 

snowshoe hares and shade out understory saplings and shrubs. Mature multi-story conifer forests with 

low limbs and containing a substantial understory of young trees and shrubs provide stable lynx foraging 

habitat (Squires et al. 2010). 

Landscapes containing a mix of forest age classes are more likely to provide lynx foraging habitat 

throughout the year (LCAS 2013). Winter habitat may be more limiting for lynx (Squires et al. 2010). In 

winter, lynx do not appear to hunt in openings, where lack of cover limits habitat for snowshoe hares 

(LCAS 2013). Squires (2010) found that when lynx did cross openings, they remained closer to forest 

edges compared to random tracks, with an average distance of 384 feet from the forest edge. Areas with 

recent timber harvest and areas recently burned can contribute herbaceous summer foods for snowshoe 

hares, and woody winter browse will develop on older sites. Multi-story stands may provide a greater 

availability of browse as snow depths vary throughout the winter (LCAS 2013).

Stem density and snowshoe hare density are directly and positively correlated (LCAS 2013). Stands may 

continue to provide suitable snowshoe hare habitat for many years until woody stems in the understory 

become too sparse, as a result of undisturbed forest succession or management (e.g., clearcutting or 

thinning)(USDI 2009 74 FR p. 8637). 

Vegetation management that promotes high stem density and dense horizontal cover can increase 

snowshoe hare densities. Where the objective is to provide snowshoe hare habitat by creating additional 

early successional forest conditions, management considerations include selecting areas that are capable 

of, but not currently providing, dense horizontal cover (e.g., stem exclusion structural stage), designing 

the appropriate size and shape of treatment units, retaining coarse woody debris, and maintaining high 

stem densities in regenerated forests (LCAS 2013).

Denning Habitat

Denning habitat is the environment lynx use when giving birth and rearing kittens until they are mobile. 

The most common component is large amounts of coarse woody debris to provide escape and thermal 

cover for kittens. Den sites typically are situated within older regenerating stands (>20 years since 

disturbance) or in mature conifer or dense regenerating mixed conifer-deciduous (typically spruce/fir or 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

25 

spruce/birch) forests (LCAS 2013). Stand structure appears to be more important than forest cover type 

(Mowat et al. 2000). The availability of den site does not appear to be limiting (LCAS 2013, p. 22). 

Denning habitat must be located within daily travel distance of an adult female lynx (typical distance is 3-

6 mi) to snowshoe hare habitat (LCAS 2013). Squires found that denning habitat is generally abundant 

across the coniferous forested landscape, especially in riparian habitats and in areas where insect or 

disease kills patches of trees. Given the large home ranges and low den site fidelity of lynx, den sites are 

not likely to be limiting (Squires et al. 2008). 

The habitat on the BDNF is considered peripheral lynx habitat where evidence of reproduction, recent or 

historic, does not exist. It is unknown if the apparent lack of reproduction is due to a shortage of habitat 

that supports high densities of snowshoe hares, food supply (snowshoe hare), other lynx or other factors. 

Individuals if found in the project area are considered transient (“passing through or by a place with only 

a brief stay”, Merriam-Webster online dictionary at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transient) or 

short-term residents. These lynx generally do not establish home ranges and do not attempt or are 

unsuccessful at reproduction. Large woody debris or preferred denning habitat is not target for treatment 

or removal. 

Environmental Baseline 

Legal and Management Status

The Canada Lynx is listed as Threatened throughout the contiguous Unites States. In 2007, the Forest 

Service completed the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA Forest Service 2007a). The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is

considered unoccupied, secondary lynx habitat. Occupancy is determined when there are at least two 

verified lynx observations or records since 1999 on national forests, unless they are verified to be 

transient individuals, or when there is evidence of lynx reproduction on the national forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2007b). Secondary areas are those with historic records of lynx presence with no record of 

reproduction, or areas with historical records and no recent surveys (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005 

page 4). The NRLMD ROD further states that in areas of unoccupied, mapped lynx habitat, the National 

Forest “should consider the management direction that is now incorporated into their Forest Plans when 

developing projects, but are not required to follow the management direction until such time as they are 

occupied by Canada lynx.” (USDA Forest Service 2007b, page 29). In 2009 Regional Forester Tom 

Tidwell issued a memo (USDA Forest Service 2009) that directed forests currently considered 

unoccupied, including the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, to “consider the management direction 

found in Attachment 1 of” the 2007 NRLMD ROD. This can be found in Appendix C. 

In February 2009 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a revised Canada Lynx Critical Habitat 

designation (Fed. Reg. V.74, No.36). The Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF is not within Designated Lynx 

Critical Habitat.

The LCAS was revised in 2013. This updated document (ILBT 2013) indicated that “the discussion of 

geographic areas and the development of conservation measures were informed by the Remanded Rule, 

the Recovery Outline, and the revised final critical habitat rule”, as well as other information that has 

become available since 2000. Of particular note for this project is the revised LCAS stratifies the 

objectives and conservation measures by core areas and secondary/peripheral areas to help managers 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

26 

prioritize their conservation efforts. The conservation strategy in the draft revised LCAS (ILBT, 2013) 

states it is “not necessary to delineate LAUs in secondary/peripheral areas.” The strategy indicates that 

secondary or peripheral areas might contribute to lynx persistence by supporting successful dispersal or 

exploratory movements and habitat in these areas appears to be inherently more patchy and less 

productive (ILBT, 2013). They further speculate that “the amount and quality of habitat required to 

support an independent adult or subadult disperser is less than is necessary to support reproduction and 

sustain a local population” (ILBT, 2013). The conservation strategy indicates that the focus of 

management in secondary areas is on “providing a mosaic of forest structure to support snowshoe hare 

prey resources for individual lynx that infrequently may move through or reside temporarily in the area” 

and that landscape connectivity should be maintained to allow for movement and dispersal. 

Local Population Status

In order to determine which National Forests were occupied by lynx or unoccupied lynx surveys were 

done across the Region. In the late 1990s a non-invasive hair snag pad DNA survey was conducted on 

grids across the Region. Lynx detection hair snare surveys were conducted on the BDNF from 1999-

2001; no lynx were detected on these hair snare grids. The eighteen hair samples collected from 9 

transects in 1999 were determined to be bobcat, coyote and black bear. 

Squires et al. (2003) began what was to be a lynx survey in the Pioneer, Anaconda-Pintler and Flint Creek 

mountain ranges in 2001 (to the south, west and north of the project area). Rigorous winter snow track 

surveys were conducted as a first step to determine the presence and distribution of lynx. They only found 

a single lynx track throughout the three mountain ranges. Although data show that lynx were historically 

present in the area, the area did not support a resident population at the time of their survey. Because lynx 

were at such low densities, and they detected numerous wolverines, that study shifted to wolverines. 

In the spring of 2009, two different groups did lynx surveys on the Forest. Nate Berg (Greater 

Yellowstone Lynx Study) identified and surveyed a few areas of lynx habitat using track surveys. Two 

routes were run in the Flint Creek mountain range, two routes in the Sapphire/Anaconda-Pintler, one 

route in the Boulder Mountains, two routes in the Pioneers and one route on Mt Haggin WMA (east of 

Anaconda). One possible set of lynx tracks were found on the West Fork Rock Creek (Sapphire 

Mountains), but it was never confirmed what species made the tracks. Of the other routes, he felt that the 

Pioneers might be capable of supporting lynx, while the other routes were likely incapable of supporting 

resident lynx (Berg 2009), but again, no data were found to confirm the presence of lynx. Another group, 

Wildthings Unlimited; conducted hair snares and remote camera systems in the Flint Creek, Pioneer and 

Boulder mountains. None of the surveys resulted in confirmation of lynx presence (Porco 2009). 

In the summer of 2012, the BDNF conducted lynx surveys as per the terms and conditions in the 

Biological Opinion and ROD for the Lynx Amendment. The surveys followed the National Lynx 

Detection Protocol (McKelvey et al 1999) which utilizes transects comprised of 5 scent stations with hair 

snares placed 100 meters apart. Based on previous monitoring information, the Upper Rock Creek 

landscape contains some of the most likely lynx habitat on the forest, so 26 transects were deployed for 

14 days across the landscape at a density of approximately 1 transect per 2 miles, as per the protocol. One 

station had hair at the end of the second 14-day period. This hair was collected and sent to the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station for identification through DNA analysis. Results from this sampling effort 

were all returned as Black Bear (Pilgrim and Schwartz 2013). 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

27 

Two transects were also deployed in the Boulder landscape in the vicinity of the Saratoga mine (43 miles 

northeast of the project area), for 28 days. No hair was present at any of the scent stations after 14 days. 

The stations were rebaited and collected after a second 14-day period. One station had hair at the end of 

the second 14-day period. This hair was collected and again sent to the Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

This sample was identified as black bear. These survey areas represent some of the most likely lynx 

habitat on the Forest (Fletcher, 2013). 

In 2013, 26 more lynx survey transects following the same protocol were placed in and near the 

Anaconda Pintler wilderness. Four hair samples were collected and they were all identified as black bear 

(Pilgrim and Schwartz 2014). 

Devineau et al. (2010) published a paper with a map showing lynx satellite locations following 

reintroduction of lynx in Colorado (Appendix D). While the map does show numerous locations in 

Montana, including southwest Montana, these locations are from 8 lynx. Based on satellite locations, one 

of these individuals likely moved through the project area (Individual #2, Appendix D). None of these 

lynx stayed in Montana for longer than 217 days (average of 91 days). Six moved into 

Yellowstone/Wyoming, two into Idaho and one was killed on Highway 93 south of Stevensville (Ivan, 

CDOW, 2011). Based on the best available science and data discussed above, there is no reason to 

believe the B-D NF is occupied by Canada lynx. 

Local Habitat Status on the BDNF

In 2000, lynx habitat was mapped across the Forest, based on region wide protocol. In addition to this 

habitat mapping in 2000, The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Rapid Assessment (Ecosystem Research Group. 

2010) was conducted in 2010. This assessment notes that the potential for multi-storied habitat sustaining 

Canada lynx populations on the BDNF is low, largely because the spruce-fir cover type that is strongly 

preferred over lodgepole pine (Ruediger et al. 2000) is uncommon. ERG (2010) found that currently, only 

0.1% of the forested landscape on the BDNF provides multi-storied potential habitat for lynx (spruce-firlodgepole pine stands >5” dbh/2-storied or multi-storied stands). This is due to 1) eastside lodgepole pine 

(BDNFs predominant cover type) seldom has multi-storied stands; 2) mesic spruce/fir stands are a minor 

type on the BDNF. 

Currently only 2% of the forested landscape on the BDNF meets the criteria (sp/fir/lpp 1-5” dbh) for lynx 

stand initiation habitat. This is because there has been very little disturbance in the last 50 years. The 

current small level of potential habitat can be attributed to logging during the 1960s and 1970s because 

re-growth is now larger than 5” dbh. However, insects and disease have become widespread in certain 

areas of the forest (particularly the project area) which has created numerous acres of early stand initiation 

structural stage forests. 

Squires et al. (2010) was published for the specific purpose of documenting lynx habitat use. This paper 

documented the seasonal patterns in resource selection of Canada lynx from 1998 to 2002 based on 

backtracking in winter and radio-telemetry in summer. The paper discloses the two habitat signatures 

(both winter and summer habitat) used by lynx with a key finding being the importance of multistoried 

structure to lynx in winter in Montana. In summary, the study stated: “Regenerating forests used by lynx 

in Montana during winter were old enough to have developed a multistoried structure with high 

horizontal cover that supported hares. During summer, however, lynx broadened their resource use to 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

28 

include early succession forest with high horizontal cover from abundant shrubs, abundant small-diameter 

trees, and dense spruce-fir saplings.” 

Regarding management implications, Squires et al. (2010) conclude: “Lynx in the Northern Rockies 

exhibited a strong selection for spruce-fir forests. Managers should prioritize retention of a habitat mosaic 

of abundant and spatially well-distributed patches of mature, multilayer spruce-fir forests and younger 

forest stands.” Similarly, Squires et al. (2010) also state that, “Given that lynx in Montana exhibit 

seasonal differences in resource selection, we encourage managers to maintain habitat mosaics. Because 

winter habitat may be most limiting for lynx, these mosaics should include abundant multistory, mature 

spruce–fir forests with high horizontal cover that are spatially well-distributed.” This action area has a 

minimal amount of spruce-fir forests and that can be displayed in the following tables describing the 

condition of modeled lynx habitat in the action area.

All new science as summarized in USDA FS 2013 was reviewed and incorporated into this analysis as 

appropriate. 

Snowshoe Hare and Canada Lynx Habitat in the Action Area

Based on the national mapping protocol, there are 5 lynx analysis units within the action area. Table 9

shows the Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), amount of mapped in each LAU and current condition. 

Habitat was categorized using the definitions from the NRLMD ROD (Table 4 and Appendix E, Lynx 

Habitat Classification Existing Condition Map). Habitat in the early stand initiation structural stage 

includes habitat where the vegetation is not yet tall enough to provide winter habitat for snowshoe hare. 

Non-habitat includes natural openings, dry forest types, and other areas that are not now and are not 

expected to ever provide lynx habitat due to their inherent vegetation potential. Approximately 2,398 

acres of snowshoe hare habitat (SSH) is currently mapped in the action area (stand initiation or mature; 

multi-storied, Table 9). 

A majority of the habitat in the action area does not provide adequate cover for wintering snowshoe hares, 

a primary food source for lynx, because it is dry lodgepole/Douglas-fir forested stands, or particularly dry

Douglas-fir types (PSME/ARUV, PSME/CAGE and PSME/CARU as described by Pfister and others 

1977) with very low amounts of cover. These habitats are labeled as non-habitat or ‘Other’ in Table 9.

Other habitat is defined as other structural stages which do not currently provide hare habitat because they 

are lacking in dense understories of young trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude above the snow, or 

mature multistoried stands that lack confer boughs touching the snow surface; but have the potential to 

provide hare habitat based on habitat type. This type of habitat can be targeted for treatment to improve 

snowshoe hare habitat.

Currently, a majority of the habitat in the action area are in a stand initiation structural stage that does not 

yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat (tree height is generally not over snow depth), is not habitat at 

all or is not providing habitat currently but is in a habitat type that could provide habitat in the future 

(Other) (Table 9). This habitat was classified by on the ground knowledge, walk-through information, 

Vmap vegetation data and a combination of known actions that have occurred such as past fire, harvest 

and current insect and disease information. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

29 

The 2007 BO for Forest Service activities and effects on the Canada lynx stated that, “It is generally 

acknowledged that in the Northern Rocky Mountains, fire suppression has altered historic vegetative 

patterns. This effect has been most pronounced within vegetation communities that have fire regimes that 

are of low intensity or of mixed severity. Many of these are drier community types and are not considered 

lynx habitat” Much of this project is within the dry forest type.

Effects of the Proposed Action on Canada Lynx

Direct and Indirect to Canada Lynx 

The proposed action would result in changes to stand structure and species composition on approximately 

4,415 acres of lynx habitat in the action area (2,541 acres in timber units and 1,874 acres in restoration 

units). A majority of the lynx habitat associated with these units is currently either in a stand initiation 

structural stage that does not provide winter snowshoe hare habitat or are dense even-aged stands of 

Douglas-fir that is lacking horizontal cover preferred by snowshoe hares. These stands either contain 

regenerating trees are generally not over average snow depth (early stand initiation) or are stands that are 

even-aged that lack understory growth (other). Refer to table 10 for the acres by treatment of this habitat 

and the post condition of the habitat after treatment. Acres treated in restoration units not included in this 

total (conifer encroachment areas) are not lynx habitat or currently snowshoe hare habitat (based on field 

review). Approximately 38 acres of snowshoe hare habitat is proposed for treatment which is 

approximately 1.58% of the snowshoe hare habitat that is currently available in the action area (Table 10

and Table 9). 

The proposed project across 11,308 acres would:

• Treat 4,377 acres of habitat that does not currently provide snowshoe hare habitat (is single 

storied and/or lacks snowshoe hare preferred understory).

• Treat 195 acres of current stem exclusion habitat that does not provide snowshoe hare habitat, 

• Create 4,415 acres of snowshoe hare habitat 15 to 40 years in the future as the treatment units 

continue to grow, 

• Remove current snowshoe hare habitat on 38 acres for a period of 10 to 40 years (stand initiation 

conifer habitat in aspen units) 

Table 9: Lynx Analysis Units and Condition of Modeled Lynx Habitat and Post Treatment

Existing Condition After Treatment

LAU Forest Structure LAU Acres % of LAU LAU Acres % of LAU

62

Early Stand Initiation 4,072 10% 4,227 10%

Stand Initiation 1,634 4% 1,634 4%

Stem Exclusion 5,437 13% 5,404 13%

Mature; Multi-Storied 1,477 4% 1,477 4%

Other 2,525 6% 2,403 6%

Non Habitat 25,306 63% 25,306 63%

62 Total 40,451 40,451

72

Early Stand Initiation 1,650 8% 2,084 10%

Stand Initiation 546 3% 546 3%

Stem Exclusion 1,529 8% 1,529 8%
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

30 

Mature; Multi-Storied 343 2% 343 2%

Other 494 2% 60 0%

Non Habitat 15,438 77% 15,438 77%

72 Total 20,000 20,000

87

Early Stand Initiation 604 5% 712 6%

Stand Initiation 376 3% 376 3%

Stem Exclusion 900 7% 900 7%

Mature; Multi-Storied 90 1% 90 1%

Other 401 3% 294 2%

Non Habitat 10,509 82% 10,509 82%

87 Total 12,879 12,879

101

Early Stand Initiation 1,812 8% 1,897 8%

Stand Initiation 754 3% 754 3%

Stem Exclusion 2,541 11% 2,541 11%

Mature; Multi-Storied 190 1% 190 1%

Other 386 2% 301 1%

Non Habitat 16,708 75% 16,708 75%

101 Total 22,391 22,391

114

Early Stand Initiation 63 0% 332 2%

Stand Initiation 380 2% 380 2%

Stem Exclusion 583 3% 420 2%

Mature; Multi-Storied 609 3% 609 3%

Other 180 1% 73 0%

Non Habitat 17,649 91% 17,649 91%

114 Total 19,464 19,464

Table 10: Existing Lynx and Snowshoe Hare Habitat Condition: Pre and Post Treatment 

LAU Existing SHH Habitat

Post Treatment SSH 

Habitat

Total Treatment 

Acres

Timber 

Unit Acres

Restoration 

Unit Acres

62 Early Stand Initiation Early Stand Initiation 773 773

62 Other Early Stand Initiation 121 121

62 Stem Exclusion Early Stand Initiation 33 33

62 Other Other 21 21

72 Early Stand Initiation Early Stand Initiation 112 112

72 Other Early Stand Initiation 434 434

72 Other Other 275 275

87 Early Stand Initiation Early Stand Initiation 144 144

87 Other Early Stand Initiation 108 108

87 Other Other 25 25

101 Early Stand Initiation Early Stand Initiation 405 405

101 Stand Initiation Early Stand Initiation 14 14

101 Other Early Stand Initiation 85 85

101 Other Other 928 928

114 Stand Initiation Early Stand Initiation 24 24

114 Other Early Stand Initiation 107 107

114 Other Other 644 57 587
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

31 

LAU Existing SHH Habitat

Post Treatment SSH 

Habitat

Total Treatment 

Acres

Timber 

Unit Acres

Restoration 

Unit Acres

114 Stem Exclusion Other 162 162

Total Acres 4,415 2,541 1,874

Based on site-specific review of all units under this action, none of the acres resemble the multi-storied 

mature habitat that provides snowshoe hare habitat as identified under NRLMD Standard VEG S6. All 

units are dead and dying lodgepole pine salvage and/or Douglas-fir thinning of even aged stands on dry 

sites and would not remove snowshoe hare habitat. There is a potential that some habitat may be impacted 

incidentally due to skid trails required for salvage activities. Subalpine fir and spruce provide the most 

suitable structure and composition to provide habitat for snowshoe hare and this habitat is not targeted for 

treatment. Recent dead and dying lodgepole pine on dry sites do not provide adequate cover for primary 

prey species, have little existing large diameter downed wood for cover and do not intercept snow or 

moderate weather. Additionally, snags and downed wood would be retained in the salvage units 

following direction in the Forest Plan which would maintain these habitat components in the units in the 

future where available. Additionally, salvaged units would promote understory tree development which 

would provide better snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat conditions in the future. 

The restoration treatments and other restoration activities that do not use machinery are expected to have 

minimal impact to transient lynx because the noise and traffic from the activity would be substantially 

less than timber units or existing activity in the action area as it would consist of hand crews of 5-10 

people with chainsaws with no off-road vehicle access. No snowshoe hare habitat is targeted for removal 

in the Douglas-fir thinning or encroachment areas however in the aspen units conifers would be removed 

around existing aspen clones. These encroaching conifers in these areas provide cover for snowshoe 

hares. Appendix B details the restoration units that will treat aspen. There are approximately 38 acres of 

aspen that will have this type of work conducted. As these areas continue to grow, over time snowshoe 

hare habitat would develop in 15 to 40 years depending on site conditions. 

Treatments are proposed in discrete, relatively small areas within a larger area that will remain 

unaffected. Some treatments, such as thinning, would retain the forest canopy while others would 

maintain patches of canopy. Thus some treated areas as well as intervening untreated areas would remain 

available for travel by lynx and provide opportunity for lynx to move among foraging habitat areas and to 

forage for alternate prey species. Connectivity in these LAU’s would not be compromised because the 

units are in lodgepole stands that currently are not providing snowshoe hare habitat or the type of cover 

selected by lynx for movement. The Douglas-fir units remove overstory, opening up the canopy to reduce 

competition to remaining trees and large openings would not be created and connectivity within the LAUs 

would not be impacted. There is a majority of habitat in the LAUs, including the Continental Divide and 

within riparian areas that will not be impacted in this project and will remain available to transient lynx 

(Appendix E: Proposed Action Map and Lynx Habitat Classification Map). 

Temporary roads would be built in the timbers units. These temporary roads would be similar in 

disturbance effects as the logging operation and would be obliterated completely following harvest. 

Disturbance impacts from these timber treatments are expected to be short term in nature because the
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

32 

material is dead and dying lodgepole that decreases value with time so the units would be completed 

promptly. Expected timeline for this activity (depending on sale of the units) would be up to 5 years. Each 

temporary road however, is only expected to be open for the duration of the activity, likely no more than 

one harvest season. Winter logging may occur in this proposed action in certain units however the 

increase in compacted snow is not expected to impact transient lynx foraging as the habitat is not 

snowshoe hare habitat and is open, reducing the likelihood that lynx would travel through these areas. 

Measurable effects to transient lynx from an increase in open road densities are expected to be 

insignificant due to the low probability that lynx will pass through the action area during implementation.

Additionally, all temporary roads and roads opened during the winter to access these units will be closed 

to the public during the activity and temp roads would be decommissioned after implementation which

would minimize traffic and not increase the potential for incidental trapping of lynx. 

Restoration activities such as road work and culvert and riparian work also have the potential to displace 

transient lynx as these activities would be completed using machinery. This type of disturbance is 

expected to be short-term in nature and would be done on existing travel routes (other than the stream 

restoration of large woody debris). This proposal also includes trail work on approximately 6.5 miles of 

the Baggs Creek Trail (#8139) which 3.7 miles of that trail would be converted from motorized to nonmotorized use. This may have minor beneficial effects to lynx as this area would not have noise from 

motorized recreation. All trail work associated with the proposed action would take place through nonmotorized means, also reducing the potential impact to transient lynx. 

There are approximately 1.2 miles of non-system roads that would be added under this action to the 

Forest transportation system. This would occur where an existing non-system road is currently being used 

by the public and there are no negative resource impacts associated with adding the route. Adding this 

amount of road to the system would not substantially increase the road density in this action area because 

the length of the road is small (1.2 miles) when compared to the large road network in the action area and 

would not add additional disturbance from the baseline to lynx because the road already exists and 

receives motorized use. Additionally, 21.9 miles of system and non-system routes would be 

decommissioned and/or closed which would have a beneficial impact to lynx by effectively closing these 

roads, enhancing habitat in the action area and reducing potential barriers to movement. 

A collared lynx from Colorado moved through the action area in 2007 (Ivan 2012). This lynx died in 

Utah in 2008. Prior to that, the most recent lynx observation was a furbearer harvest in1985. Therefore the 

probability of lynx occurring in this area during the project, or being affected by the project is low. 

However unlikely, if transient lynx were to come into the project area during implementation, lynx may

be affected by the noise and activity generated by this project. Because these lynx are traveling and would 

use very large areas for foraging they would be able to move to an undisturbed area of the LAU, project 

area, or portion of the mountain range. For these reasons, this potential disturbance is not expected to 

result in significant effects to transient lynx or reduce an individual’s ability to move through the area. 

Overall the project would maintain, and in the future result in a slight improvement of, a mosaic of young 

to older stands, as recommended in the revised Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS 

2013). Additionally, this project follows the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007a) as detailed in the 

Regional Letter of Direction (Tidwell 2009) and in compliance with the Forest Plan (See Appendix C). 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

33 

Cumulative Effects to Canada Lynx 

There are several past and ongoing activities occurring on the National Forest that cumulatively affect 

lynx and lynx habitat (Table 6). Some of these activities have or will have positive effects and some 

negative. Road decommissioning projects may serve to reduce habitat fragmentation increasing security 

and connectivity and some vegetation treatments are expected to improve snowshoe hare habitat 

benefitting lynx in the longer term. Relocating roads and trails and vegetation management may increase 

fragmentation and reduce connectivity between habitats. 

Past vegetation management activities and current effects of beetle infestations have temporarily removed

and created both snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat in the action area. Overtime the forest will 

continue to regrow and provide early successional forests needed by snowshoe hares where site 

conditions allow. Timber harvest has occurred on State and private lands within the analysis area and 

future harvest activities are anticipated due to insect mortality. Past activity can be seen in the summary 

of existing structural condition in Table 9 and in Appendix E: Lynx Habitat Classification Map. In 

general, state and private lands within the cumulative effects area occur at lower elevations and provide 

little suitable lynx habitat but may serve as lynx matrix habitat. In matrix habitats, activities that change 

vegetation structure or condition do not adversely affect lynx habitat unless they create a barrier or 

impede movement between patches of foraging habitat and between foraging and denning habitat within a 

potential home range. This is not expected. While future harvest activities will further reduce forest cover 

and the abundance of dead trees, the impact from these activities on state and private lands will be 

minimal due to the small proportion of modeled lynx habitat on state and private lands in the action area 

(see Appendix E: LAU Ownership Map). 

The extensive tree mortality, particularly in the lodgepole pine where the greatest insect mortality is 

occurring, is expected to reduce the short term habitat suitability for lynx and snowshoe hares. Over the 

longer term of 15-40 years, natural regeneration is expected to provide increased cover and forage for 

snowshoe hares where site conditions allow. The accumulation of down wood will increase the 

availability of structural components lynx select for denning. The extensive mortality also serves to 

significantly increase the risk of large scale wildfires that could significantly reduce availability of 

suitable lynx habitat. 

Domestic grazing occurs throughout the action area within several authorized livestock allotments. The 

presence of livestock during the summer grazing period would not serve to create barriers or impede the 

movement of lynx within the action area and habitat connectivity would be maintained. Low elevation 

allotment lands that do not provide suitable hare habitat would continue to function as matrix habitat. 

The existing level of development within and near the action area is relatively high due to the proximity 

to Deer Lodge. This development consists primarily of developments in lower elevation habitats 

surrounding the town of Deer Lodge, as well as other scattered homes and parcels within the action area. 

Additional future development is anticipated to continue at a moderate level. However, the degree of 

future development is difficult to predict and is limited by the availability of private land suitable for 

development. Most private lands are at lower elevations and support dry forest types that do not provide 

lynx habitat minimizing the potential to cumulatively affect lynx or habitat. These lands may however, 

function as matrix habitat for lynx and future developments may serve as impediments to lynx 

movements through matrix habitats. In general, the action area has a high degree of human development 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

34 

but the extensive forest cover provided by the large contiguous block of public lands in high elevations 

provides a high degree of connectivity to continue to allow transient lynx to move through the action area. 

The combined effects of summer and winter recreation and additional future development are not 

anticipated to contribute to the degradation of lynx habitat. 

This project, when compared to all past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the action area 

would not add cumulative effects to transient lynx or lynx habitat because 1) the action complies with all 

standards and guidelines in the NRLMD which are designed to minimize impacts to lynx, 2) lynx are not 

known or suspected to occur in the analysis area and if they do would be transient in nature and effects to 

them would be discountable and 3) the activities impact habitat not preferred by this species or its prey. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale

The proposed action in combination with the environmental baseline “may affect and is not likely to 

adversely affect” the Canada lynx. There is no effect to Lynx Critical Habitat because there is none 

present. 

• The lynx habitat present in the action area is classified as both unoccupied and secondary lynx 

habitat indicating it has minimal value for lynx other than for dispersing or transient individuals.

• There are no recent verified observations of lynx within the action area and lynx are not expected 

to occur in the action area during any activity and any project effects would be discountable. 

• Planned treatments have the potential to provide better snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat 

conditions in the future.

• The project maintains a mosaic of forest structures and successional stages, which is the 

conservation measure described in the revised LCAS for vegetation management in secondary 

areas (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013, page 83). 

• The scale of habitat changes (less than 2% percent of the current snowshoe hare habitat in the

action area) is very small (insignificant effect) 

• This project salvages dead trees and tree removal occurs in areas that do not provide food or 

cover for snowshoe hares. A sufficient number of dead trees will be retained to provide potential 

lynx denning habitat. Approximately 43 acres of aspen will be treated by removing competing 

conifers. This habitat is not multi-storied mature however likely provides cover for snowshoe

hares and will regenerate in 15-40 years depending on site conditions. Over time the amount of 

snowshoe hare habitat will be increased in the project area over existing conditions as the 

majority of acres proposed for harvest currently do not provide habitat for snowshoe hare 

(beneficial effect). 

• The project involves temporary forest road construction and road maintenance but would not 

significantly increase the traffic speed or volume on forest roads.

• The project does not involve permanent road construction or new snowmobile access in new 

areas which could lead to an increase in incidental trapping of lynx. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

35 

• The project does not affect potential denning habitat and denning habitat is not limiting within the 

action area.

• The project does not impede lynx movement and does not reduce habitat connectivity in 

identified linkage areas. 

• All treatments are in compliance with the NRLMD vegetative standards and are not expected to 

preclude any future use of the area by transient lynx if they chose to do so. 

Wolverine

Action Area and Methods

The action area includes all lands within the project area boundary for a total of 47,360 acres (see 

Appendix D: Vicinity Map. This action area is appropriate in scale because it is large enough to include 

the home range size of a wolverine (25-130 sq. km, 6,177-32,123 acres) and is representative of effects 

from the proposed action. It is large enough to evaluate the ability of the habitat to support wolverines, 

but small enough to not obscure the effects of the proposed action. All of the actions are contained within 

this area.

Life History

Biological Information for Wolverine

Historically in the lower 48 states, the wolverine once inhabited forests from Maine to Washington and 

south along the Rocky Mountains into Arizona and New Mexico. Trapping in the late 1800s and early 

1900s decreased numbers and distribution. Today, the last remaining stronghold in the lower 48 states is 

in western Montana and parts of Idaho. Wolverines occur at naturally low densities of about 1 wolverine 

per 58 sq mi with a reported range from 1 per 25 to 130 sq. mi (Copeland and Yates 2008 

Wolverine habitat can be characterized by deep, persistent and reliable spring snow cover (April 15 to 

May 14) and is the best overall predictor of wolverine occurrence, combined with elevation, in the 

contiguous US (USDI FWS 2010, pg 78035, Copeland et al 2010). The high elevations provide the 

conditions necessary for the presence and maintenance of late winter reproductive dens (Aubry et al. 

2007, Copeland et al. 2010). Elevation was the key variable for distinguishing wolverine presence. It was 

the strongest and most consistent variable across all logistic regression models. Wolverines preferred 

higher elevations in almost all models in which it was present. Use of high elevation was most notable 

during summer when all elevations >2,400 m were used more than expected and elevations <2,200 m 

used less than expected. During winter, use shifted to the 2,400–2,600-m elevation zone with only the 

lowest elevations used less than expectation (Copeland et al 2007). 

The 12-month finding (USDI FWS 2010) found that wolverine can coexist with some level of human 

disturbance and habitat modification. However, protection of natal denning habitat from human 

disturbance may be important. The proximity of wolverine habitats to areas heavily or moderately used 

for dispersed recreation needs more study, especially where they overlap during the denning season. 

Evidence for the avoidance of low-elevation areas regardless of human presence has been reported for 

western North America and Norway (May et al. 2006, Copeland et al. 2007). Low-elevation, xeric 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

36 

habitats in the western US that provided winter range for ungulates were avoided by radio- marked 

wolverines, even though they contained an abundant food source (Copeland et al. 2007) in Copeland et al 

2010. They also preferred northerly aspects, had no attraction to or avoidance of trails during summer 

and avoided roads (Copeland et al 2007). 

Overall Population and Habitat Status and Distribution

No systematic population census exists over the entire current range of wolverines in the contiguous 

United States, so the current population level and trends remain unknown. However, based on current 

knowledge, the USFWS estimates that the wolverine population in the contiguous US numbers 

approximately 250 to 300 individuals (USDI FWS 2010). 

In Montana, natal dens occur above 7,874 feet and are located on north aspects in avalanche debris, 

typically in alpine habitats near timberline. Dens are typically used through late April or early May and 

after using natal dens, wolverines use rendezvous dens through early July. These sites are characterized 

by natural cavities formed by large boulders, downed logs (avalanche debris) and snow (USDI FWS 

2010, pg 78031). Copeland et al (2010) overlaid known den sites on the spring snow coverage and 97.9% 

of the den sites occurred in pixels that were snow-covered in at least 1 of 7 years and 69% of the dens 

were located in areas with persistent spring snow 6-7 years out of 7 years (Copeland et al, 2010). In the 

southern part of their range (which includes Montana), wolverines move up in elevation is summer to 

avoid high summer temperatures. McKelvey (R1 Regional Biologists Meeting, December 2010) stated 

that wolverines are 20 times more likely to stay in the area of persistent spring snow during dispersal. 

A denning habitat model was developed for the forest during Forest Plan revision based on Heinemeyer et 

al 2001. This model incorporated slope, elevation, cover types and patch size preferred by wolverine. 

Forest-wide there appears to be a fairly good correlation with denning habitat, Copeland et al (2010) 

persistent snow, and elevational needs, as expected. At the Forest-scale, summer and winter nonmotorized areas were established across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2009) and wolverine and 

modeled denning habitat were one of the criteria used to select winter non-motorized areas. The Plan 

restricts winter motorized use on over 70% of the modeled wolverine habitat on the Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2009a). 

Because wolverine habitat in the Rocky Mountains is not contiguous, wolverines need linkage zones to 

move between areas of suitable habitat. Wolverines prefer to travel in habitat that is most similar to 

habitat they use for home range establishment. The level of development in linkage zones that wolverines 

can tolerate is unknown, but it appears that the current landscape does allow for wolverine dispersal 

(USDI FWS 2010). Therefore linkage zones for this species are not thought to be a limiting factor and 

will not be discussed further in the effects analysis for this species.

In 2006, winter wolverine surveys (Ulizio et al 2006) completed 445 km of surveys in the southern 

portion of the BDNF between February 23rd and March 16th and identified 4 putative wolverine tracks 

based on track characteristics. Nineteen (19) genetic samples along the 4 tracks were collected with 3 

tracks verified as wolverine using genetic analysis, 2 of which produced individual genotypes (1 male, 1 

female). Due to the known homerange of wolverines, this corresponds to the appropriate density 

expected for this species.
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

37 

Environmental Baseline 

Management Direction

On February 4, 2013 the USFWS proposed to protect the North American wolverine as a threatened 

species under the ESA (Proposed Rule) (USDI FWS 2013a). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

announced on February 4, 2014 that it will extend the deadline for the final decision on whether to list the 

wolverine under the Endangered Species Act. The new deadline for a final rule or withdrawal of the 

proposal will be August 4, 2014 (USDI FWS 2014a). 

Five factors are utilized to determine if a species should be listed under the ESA. Under Factor A (the 

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range), the USFWS 

recognized 6 categories of impacts to wolverine habitat. This project is under the category ‘Habitat 

Impacts Due to Human Use and Disturbance’: vegetation management. The proposed actions related to 

vegetation management are not a threat to the DPS of the North American wolverine. Specifically, this 

project is within the types of project covered for the wolverine by the R1 Programmatic BA for North 

American Wolverine (USFS 2014). Concurrence was received on this Programmatic in May 20, 2014 

(USDI FWS 2014c). 

Wolverine Habitat and Use of the Analysis Area

Modeled wolverine denning habitat is found between Black Mountain and Leadville, on the north end of 

the project area along the Continental Divide. Persistent spring snow (based on Copeland et al., 2010) and 

modeled denning habitats are shown in and in Appendix E: Wolverine Existing Condition Map. 

As shown in Appendix E: Wolverine Existing Condition Map, the entire south half of the project area 

does not have persistent spring snow, a necessary habitat requirement for the wolverine. Additionally, 

there are no records of wolverines in the Montana Natural Heritage Database in the project area. During 

February 1995, a wolverine was observed east of the Electric Peak Roadless Area in the Boulder River 

drainage, which is adjacent to but not within the analysis area. A wolverine was legally harvested from 

that same area during winter 1998. This location was approx. 1 mile from the action area (project area). 

Modeled denning habitat and secure areas are displayed in Appendix E: Wolverine Existing Condition 

Map. The project area has a generally small quantity of habitat (based on persistent snow) and quality is 

lower due to having almost no areas where there is persistent spring snow 6-7 years out of 7 years. 

The project area is north of the Pioneers and east of the Anaconda-Pintlers, both of which have more 

suitable habitat and where wolverines are known. The analysis area is meeting the OMRTD goals by 

landscape and hunting unit, providing wildlife secure areas to facilitate movements of wildlife across the 

landscapes. Summer and fall secure areas would provide habitat connectivity within the project area. 

Potential wolverine habitat is predicted over 9,504 acres (24%) of the action area. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

38 

Table 11: Acres of potential wolverine habitat based on persistent spring snow

Years out of 7 with 

persistent spring snow* Acres in Action area Percent of Action area

1 3641 9%

2 1939 5%

3 1942 5%

4 1914 5%

5 68 <0.2%

6 0 0

7 0 0 

Total 9,504 24%

*From Copeland et al. 2010

In the Clark Fork-Flints Landscape, 50% of the modeled wolverine denning habitat was put into a winter 

non-motorized use category in the Forest Plan. This habitat is located across the valley in the AnacondaPintlers, (to the west of the project area) because it is the most contiguous and valuable wolverine habitat 

in the landscape. The modeled denning habitat in the action area is in designated roadless area but is not 

in a non-motorized travel management area. This is partly because, as previously mentioned, the more 

desirable and known wolverine habitat is across the valley in the Anaconda-Pintlers and wolverines are 

not known in this part of the landscape. Monitoring of selected winter non-motorized areas in 2009 and 

2010 found that the winter non-motorized use areas appear to be respected (Forest Plan Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report for FY 2009 and pers. comm. A. Rohrbacher Forest Biologist June 2011). The two 

winter non-motorized areas identified in project area correlate to big game winter range and not modeled 

wolverine habitat, due to the small amount of potential habitat present in relation to other areas in the 

Clark Fork-Flints Landscape and throughout the Forest. 

Past and Present Federal, State and Private Activities in the Action Area

There are a multitude of past, present and future actions in the action area that have the potential to affect 

the wolverine in the action area. A majority of these effects are from the use of the extensive road 

network in the area, and other human recreation uses. Table 6 is a table of past, present and future state 

and private actions, past and present federal actions and other human activities in the action area that have 

the potential to affect this species in the action area. This project occurs near private and on public land. 

We know of no other reasonably foreseeable future activity on the private, state or other lands that 

haven’t already been considered that would lead this project to have additional cumulative impacts that 

haven’t already been analyzed. 

Effects of the Proposed Action on Wolverine

Effects to wolverine will be analyzed by potential disturbance impacts in areas with modeled persistent 

spring snow and denning habitat and changes in open motorized roads and trails. These parameters are 

used because protection of natal denning habitat from human disturbance may be important to wolverines 

and trapping is a known threat to the species. Wolverines are not associated with a specific vegetation 

type and land management activities are not considered a threat to the wolverine, so changes in vegetation 

types will not be analyzed in detail. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

39 

Direct and Indirect to Wolverine 

Disturbance effects to wolverine due to increased traffic, human activity, and logging equipment during 

project activities may impact wolverines in commercial units that are within areas of persistent spring 

snow. Timber units 24T, 25T, 40T, 42T, 47T, 48T, 52T, 53T and 80T and roadside hazard tree removal 

have portions that lie in areas where there has been persistent spring snow in at least one out of 7 years. 

Temporary displacement could occur for up to 5 years in these areas, the expected duration of the activity, 

however this displacement is unlikely because wolverines are not known in the project area. The 

probability of this activity displacing wolverines is low because they are not known to be present in the 

project area and these types of activities are not considered a threat to the wolverine (USDA FS 2014). 

There will be no effects to wolverine denning habitat as there are no units within several miles of mapped 

denning habitat. 

The upper end of the Baggs Creek trail accesses areas of persistent spring snow and conversion of this 

trail from motorized to non-motorized in would reduce potential for motorized disturbance to wolverine 

and increase the secure area in the project area by thousands of acres.

Cumulative Effects to Wolverine 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area that may impact wolverine are 

actions that contribute to human presence/disturbance in the area. These actions include recreation, 

human/noise from vegetation treatments and mining (refer to Table 6 for details). The proposed rule 

states: “Little scientific or commercial information exists regarding effects to wolverines from 

development or human disturbances associated with them. What little information does exist suggests that 

wolverines can adjust to moderate habitat modification, infrastructure development, and human 

disturbance. Wolverines are known to successfully disperse long distances between habitats through 

human dominated landscapes and across transportation corridors and this project will not impact the 

ability for wolverines to successfully disperse long distances. “The available scientific and commercial 

information does not indicate that other potential stressors such as land management, recreation, 

infrastructure development, and transportation corridors pose a threat to the DPS.” Because the effects are 

unlikely to this species, no cumulative effects are anticipated. 

Determination of Effect and Rationale

This project was analyzed for effects to wolverines based on vegetation changes, movements across the 

landscape, and disturbance from human activities associated with the activity. I have determined that 

implementation of this project will not jeopardize the wolverine. My determination is based on the above 

rationale, consistent with the findings of the proposed rule and R1 Programmatic Biological Assessment 

for North American Wolverine (USDA FS 2014). This project will not jeopardize wolverine because the

specific activities proposed under this project do not occur at a scale that poses a threat to wolverine 

populations, the activities proposed in the project will not alter or change the large tracts of available 

habitat in remote locations that are protected from development and the project is not within modeled 

wolverine denning habitat. Because this project will not jeopardize the continued existence of the 

wolverine, no conferencing or formal consultation is requested. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

40 

References 

Aubry, K. B, K. S. McKelvey and J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and Broadscale Habitat Relations of 

the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2147–2158; 2007) 

Berg, N. 2009. Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Canada Lynx and Snowshoe Hare Habitat and 

Track Surveys. Greater Yellowstone Lynx Study, Jackson, WY. 22pgs. 

Blake, J. 2012. Personal Communication between Jenna Casey and Jennifer Blake. Recreation use in the 

EDLV project area. Email Transmission. April 2012. 

Blanchard, B.M., and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biological 

Conservation 58:41-67. 

Copeland, J.P. and R. E. Yates. 2008. Wolverine Population Assessment in Glacier National Park. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 

Copeland, J.P., J.M. Peek, C. R. Groves, W. E. Melquist, K. S. McKelvey, G. W. McDaniel, C. D. Long, 

C. E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal Habitat Associations of the Wolverine in Central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71(7):2201–2212; 2007) 

Copeland, J.P., K.S. McKelvey, K.B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R.M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. 

Golden, J.R. Squires, A. Magoun, M.K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C.L. Copeland, R.E. Yates, I. Kojola and R. 

May. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constrains limit its 

geographic distribution? Can. J. Zool. 88: 233-246. 

Ecosystem Research Group. 2010. Beaverhead-Deerlodge Rapid Assessment. On file at the Supervisors 

Office.

Heinemeyer, K.S., B.C. Aber, and D.F. Doak. 2001. Aerial Surveys for Wolverine Presence and Potential 

Winter Recreation Impacts to Predicted Wolverine Denning Habitats in the Southwestern Yellowstone 

Ecosystem. Cooperative project between University of California Santa Cruz; USDA Forest Service, 

Targhee National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, MFWP and Idaho Fish and Game. 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1998. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Taskforce Report: 

Grizzly bear/motorized access management. Missoula, MT, USA

Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI 

National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp

Ivan, J. 2012. Summary of Colorado Lynx Movements in Montana. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 

Report Unpublished. On file in the Madison Ranger District Office. 

Jonkel, J. 2012. Personal Communication between Jenna Casey and Jaime Jonkel. Grizzly bear 

observations in the EDLV Project Area and surrounding lands. Email Transmission. April 2012 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

41 

Jonkel, J., and R. Vinkey. 2012. Personal communication between Jenna Casey and Ray Vinkey and 

Jaime Jonkel (on the phone) at the Pintler Ranger District regarding Grizzly Bear use in the EDLV project 

area. April 6, 2012

Kelsall, J.P., E.S. Telfer, and T.D. Wright. 1977. The effects of fire on the ecology of the boreal forest, 

with particular reference to the Canadian north: a review and selected bibliography. Can. Wildlife 

Service, Occasional Paper No. 32. Ottawa, Canada. 

Kendall, K.C., J.B. Stetz, J. Boulanger, A.C. Macleod, D. Paetkau, and G.C. White. 2009. Demography 

and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:3-17. 

McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, and Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous 

United States. Pages 207-264 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. 

McLellan, B.N., and F.W. Hovey. 2001. Natal dispersal of grizzly bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

79:838-844. 

Mace, R.D., and L. Roberts. 2011. Northern continental divide ecosystem grizzly bear monitoring team 

annual report, 2009-2010. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT, USA.

Mace, R. and L. Roberts. 2012. Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Monitoring Team 

Annual Report, 2012. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 490 N. Meridian Road, Kalispell, MT 59901.

Unpublished data. 

May, R., A. Landa, J. van Dijk, J.D.C. Linnell, and R. Andersen. 2006. Impact of infrastructure on 

habitat selection of wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biology 12:285–295. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2006. Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Western Montana. Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 2006-2016. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. December 

2006. Bozeman, Montana 

Pilgrim, K. 2009. Personal communication, e-mail with DNA analysis results. 

Porco, M. 2009. Canada Lynx Surveys on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, May 2009 – June 

2009. Wild Things Unlimited. 

Proctor, M.F., B.N. McLellan, C. Strobeck, and R.M.R. Barclay. 2004a. Gender-specific dispersal 

distances of grizzly bears estimated by genetic analysis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 1108-1118. 

Ulizio, T J., J R. Squires, D H. Pletcher, M. K. Schwartz, J.J. Claar, and L F. Ruggerio.2006.The Efficacy 

of Obtaining Genetic-Based Identifications from Putative Wolverine Snow Tracks. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 34(5): 1326-1332 

Reudiger, 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 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

42 

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. 

Schwartz, C.C., S.D. Miller, and M.A. Haroldson. 2003. Grizzly/brown bear. Pages 556-586 in G. 

Feldhamer, B. Thompson, and J. Chapman, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, 

management, and conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Squires, J.R, T.J. Ulizio and L.F. Ruggerio. 2003. Carnivore Studies in the Pioneer Mountains and 

Adjacent Mountain Ranges of Southwest Montana. Final Report Dec 31, 2003. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Agreement No. 00-A-17-0031. 

Squires, J. R., and L. F. Ruggiero. 2007. Winter prey selection of Canada lynx in northwestern Montana. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 71:310– 315. 

Squires, J.R., N.J. Decesare, J.A. Kolbe and L.F. Ruggiero. 2010. Seasonal Resource Selection of 

Canada Lynx in Managed Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

74(8): 1648-1660. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest plan amendment #19, allowable sale quantity and objectives and 

standards for grizzly bear habitat management, amended environmental assessment. U. S. Forest Service, 

Flathead National Forest, Kalispell, Montana.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the 

Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement. United States 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2006. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Final Environmental Impact Statement Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction. Volume 1. U.S. Departement of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forests in 

Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. March 2007. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record Of Decision. 

USDA Forest Service, National Forests in Montana, and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. March 

2007. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Biological Assessment (Revised) of the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Amendment on Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Vertebrate and Invertebrate Species (Revision of 

BA dated November 18, 2005). Prepared by Timothy M. Bertram, Wildlife Biologist, U. S. Forest 

Service, Northern Region. Missoula, Montana. January 4, 2007. Page 99. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Appendix B, Biological Evaluation for the FEIS for the BeaverheadDeerlodge Forest Plan. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Occupied and Unoccupied Lynx Habitat. Letter dated June 23, 2009. 

USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, MT. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

43 

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. Unpublished. Region 1 Regional Office. Missoula 

Montana. September 19, 2013 

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Programmatic Biological Assessment for Activities that are Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect Listed Terrestrial Species or Designated Critical Habitat. November 2013.USDA Forest 

Service, Region 1. Missoula, M. Unpublished. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Programmatic Biological Assessment for North American Wolverine. May 

2014.USDA Forest Service, Region 1. Missoula, M. Unpublished. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT USA.181 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx; Final Rule. 

Federal Register Vol. 74 No. 36: 8615-8702.Wednesday, February 25, 2009. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan Outline: Contiguous United States distinct 

population segment of the Canada lynx. Unpublished. Montana Field Office, Helena, Montana. 21 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the North American 

Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register December 14, 2010. Volume 75; Number 239; 

78029-78061. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Grizzly Bear 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office. August 2011. Missoula, MT

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened 

Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the 

Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North 

American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rules. Federal Register 

February 4, 2013. Volume 78; Number 23; 7864-7890. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Letter of Concurrence for Forest Service Region 106E11000-

2014-I-0068 NLAA programmatic effects screens. December 16, 2013. Letter on file in Wisdom District 

Office. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 6-Month 

Extension of Final Determination for the Proposed Listing of the Distinct Population Segment of the 

North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States as a Threatened Species. Federal 

Register February 5, 2014. Volume 79; Number 24; 6874-6875. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. 2/28/2014. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 

Montana Field Office, Helena, MT. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014c. Letter of Concurrence for Forest Service Region 06E11000-

2014-0291 Wolverine Programmatic. May 23, 2014, 2013. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

44 

Appendix A: Proposed Timber Units 

Acres by Prescription

Unit Prescription Harvest System Acres LP DF/LP DF

1T LP Ground 7 7

2T DF/LP Ground 48 48

3T LP Ground 63 63

3T LP Cable 22 22

5T LP Ground 25 25

10T LP Ground 183 183

11T LP Ground 39 39

15T DF/LP Ground 106 106

17T LP Ground 83 83

18T LP Ground 29 29

19T DF/LP Ground 47 47

20T LP Ground 26 26

21T LP Ground 106 106

22T LP Ground 2 2

23T LP Ground 24 24

24T LP Ground 38 38

24T LP Cable 11 11

25T LP Ground 193 193

25T LP Cable 37 37

26T LP Ground 24 24

28T LP Ground 9 9

29T LP Ground 29 29

30T LP Ground 4 4

33T LP Ground 21 21

34T LP Ground 12 12

36T LP Ground 18 18

37T DF/LP Ground 57 57

38T LP Ground 25 25

40T LP Ground 55 55

41T LP Ground 3 3

42T LP Ground 94 94

45T LP Ground 92 92

46T LP Ground 33 33

47T LP Ground 30 30

48T LP Ground 10 10
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

45 

Acres by Prescription

Unit Prescription Harvest System Acres LP DF/LP DF

52T LP Ground 16 16

53T LP Ground 28 28

56T LP Ground 52 52

57T LP Ground 112 112

61T LP Ground 72 72

65T LP Ground 7 7

68T LP Ground 61 61

70T DF/LP Ground 32 32

72T DF Ground 17 17

73T DF Ground 94 94

74T LP Ground 20 20

75T LP Ground 40 40

76T LP Ground 20 20

77T DF Ground 51 51

78T LP Ground 19 19

80T LP Ground 150 150

82T LP Ground 47 47

83T DF/LP Ground 50 50

85T LP Ground 40 40

86T LP Ground 10 10

Total 

Acres 2,541 2,038 340 162

Total 

Count 52 Units 43 6 3
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

46 

Appendix B: Proposed Restoration Units 

Unit Sub-watershed Area 

(acres)

Cut Encroaching 

Conifers (acres) a

Treat Aspen 

(acres) a Thin DF (acres) a Riparian Treatments

1 Dry Cottonwood 120 44 (12 roadside) 0 b 14 None

2 Dry Cottonwood 1,192 257 (34 roadside) 12 102 (3 roadside) Tree felling

3 Dry Cottonwood 173 57 0 b 47 None

4 Dry Cottonwood 351 164 0 b 123 None

6 

Girard Gulch (Rest’n Key) 469

39 (20 roadside) 0 b Dry Cottonwood 136 93 None

Sand Hollow 147

7 Girard Gulch (Rest’n Key) 973 13 (10 roadside) 12 314 Worm fencing;

tree felling

8 Girard Gulch (Rest’n Key) 634 0 b 12 196 None

9 Dry Cottonwood 525 105 (34 roadside) 0 b 175 (5 roadside) None

10

Orofino 11

Dry Cottonwood 1,028 424 (67 roadside) 2 455 (2 roadside) Worm fencing

Sand Hollow 2 

11

Sand Hollow 243

8 0 b 0 b None

Orofino 79

13 Orofino 422 5 0 b 0 b None

14 Orofino 347 206 (2 roadside) 0 b 20 (20 roadside) Tree felling

15

Peterson (TMDL) c 1,118

701 0 b 124 (87 roadside) Worm fencing;

Orofino tree felling 5 

17 Peterson (TMDL) c 371 89 0 b 108 None

18 Peterson (TMDL) c 95 7 0 b 28 None

20

Peterson (TMDL) c 116

54 0 b 17 (9 roadside) None

Fred (Fish Key) 10

27 Fred (Fish Key) 48 14 0 b 0 b None

28 Fred (Fish Key) 52 25 0 b 10 None

33 Fred (Fish Key) 99 20 0 b 10 None

19 Units 8,768 2,232 

(179 roadside) 38 1,836 (126 roadside)

a. Numbers in parentheses associated with the term “roadside” indicate the subset of the displayed treatment acres that are within 

150 feet each side of existing access roads that would be available for commercial recovery. 

b. Opportunities for treatments may exist within this unit. A GIS analysis was conducted to quantify acres available for each 

treatment. The GIS analysis only recognized visible stands using satellite imagery.

c. A “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) has been established for a water body in this subwatershed to control non-point source 

pollutants, per section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

47 

Appendix C: Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

Standards & Guidelines Consistency Evaluation Table for Project Specific Activities* 

*Only Standards and Guidelines applicable to the actions in this proposal are incorporated in the below 

table. All Standards and Guidelines were reviewed for applicability. 

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

Is direction applicable to this project and has it 

been met 

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)? 

ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES

(ALL) 

The following objectives, standards and guidelines 

apply to management projects in lynx habitat in lynx 

analysis units (LAU) and in linkage areas, subject to 

valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire 

suppression, or to wildland fire use

Standard43 ALL S1

New or expanded permanent developments33 and 

vegetation management projects48 must maintain26

habitat connectivity16 in an LAU21 and/or linkage 

area22.

Yes and Met. There are no new permanent 

developments. Vegetation treatments would 

maintain habitat connectivity.

Guideline15 ALL G1

Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be 

used when constructing or reconstructing highways18

or forest highways12 across federal land. Methods 

could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses.

Yes and Met. This project is not constructing 

highways.

Standard LAU S1

Changes in LAU21 boundaries shall be based on sitespecific habitat information and after review by the 

Forest Service Regional Office.

Yes and Met. This project is not changing LAU 

boundaries.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJETS (VEG)

The following objectives, standards and guidelines 

apply to vegetation management projects in lynx 

habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU). With the 

exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically 

concerns wildland fire use, the objectives, standards 

and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression, 

wildland fire use, or removal of vegetation for 

permanent developments like mineral operations, ski 

runs, roads and the like. None of the objectives, 

standards, or guidelines apply to linkage areas.
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

48 

Standard VEG S1 – Stand initiation structural 

stage limits

Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation 

management48 projects that regenerate37 forests, 

except for fuel treatment13 projects within the wildland 

urban interface (WUI) 49 as defined by HFRA, subject 

to the following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not 

meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and 

VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent 

(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative 

unit (a unit is a National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see 

guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Unless a broad scale assessment 

has been completed that substantiates different 

historic levels of stand initiation structural stages44 

limit disturbance in each LAU as follows:

If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU 

is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that 

does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, 

no additional habitat may be regenerated by 

vegetation management projects. 

No, Not Applicable. This project is not a vegetation 

management project that regenerates forests as 

defined below in the glossary. However, currently 

2-22% of each LAU is in a stand initiation structural 

stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe 

hare habitat, so each LAU does not exceed the 

threshold.

Existing Condition

LA

U Forest Structure LAU Acres

Veg 

S1

62

Early Stand Initiation 4,072 22%

Not Early Stand Initiation 14,325

Modeled Lynx Habitat 

Polygons TOTAL 18,397

72

Early Stand Initiation 1,650 26%

Not Early Stand Initiation 4,651

Modeled Lynx Habitat 

Polygons TOTAL 6,301

87

Early Stand Initiation 604 19%

Not Early Stand Initiation 2,540

Modeled Lynx Habitat 

Polygons TOTAL 3,144

10

1 

Early Stand Initiation 1,812 25%

Not Early Stand Initiation 5,307

Modeled Lynx Habitat 

Polygons TOTAL 7,119

11

4 

Early Stand Initiation 63 2%

Not Early Stand Initiation 2,716

Modeled Lynx Habitat 

Polygons TOTAL 2,779
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

49 

Standard VEG S2 – Limits on regeneration from 

timber mgmt. projects

Standard VEG S2 applies to all timber management48

projects that regenerate37 forests, except for fuel 

treatment13 projects within the wildland urban 

interface (WUI)49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the 

following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not 

meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and 

VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent 

(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative 

unit (a unit is a National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see 

guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Timber management projects shall 

not regenerate37 more than 15 percent of lynx habitat 

on NFS lands in an LAU in a ten-year period.

No, Not Applicable. This project is not a vegetation 

management project that regenerates forests as 

defined in the glossary. However, currently 0-1% of 

each LAU has had regeneration activities in the 

last 10 years. This project is not a regeneration 

project but will also not regenerate more than 15% 

of the lynx habitat on NFS lands in a 10 year period

(refer to Table 9 and 10 for calculations of each 

habitat in each structural stage pre and post 

treatment). 

Existing Condition

LAU Activity

LAU 

Acres

Veg 

S2

62

NFS Regen Harvest within 10 Years 0 0%

Not Regen Harvested within 10 

Years 15,201

Modeled NFS Lynx Habitat Polygons 

TOTAL 15,201

72

NFS Regen Harvest within 10 Years 21 1%

Not Regen Harvested within 10 

Years 4,139

Modeled NFS Lynx Habitat Polygons 

TOTAL 4,160

87

NFS Regen Harvest within 10 Years 18 1%

Not Regen Harvested within 10 

Years 1,820

Modeled NFS Lynx Habitat Polygons 

TOTAL 1,838

101

NFS Regen Harvest within 10 Years 21 0%

Not Regen Harvested within 10 

Years 5,430

Modeled NFS Lynx Habitat Polygons 

TOTAL 5,451

114

NFS Regen Harvest within 10 Years 0 0%

Not Regen Harvested within 10 

Years 824

Modeled NFS Lynx Habitat Polygons 

TOTAL 824
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

50 

Standard VEG S5 – Precommercial thinning 

limits

Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial 

thinning35 projects, except for fuel treatment13

projects that use precommercial thinning as a tool 

within the wildland urban interface (WUI)49 as defined 

by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not 

meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and 

VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent 

(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative 

unit (a unit is a National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see 

guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Precommercial thinning projects that 

reduce snowshoe hare habitat, may occur from the 

stand initiation structural stage44 until the stands no 

longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat only:

1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, 

dwellings, or outbuildings; or

2. For research studies38 or genetic tree 

tests evaluating genetically improved 

reforestation stock; or

3. Based on new information that is peer 

reviewed and accepted by the regional

levels of the Forest Service and FWS, 

where a written determination states:

a. that a project is not likely to adversely 

affect lynx; or 

b. that a project is likely to have short term 

adverse effects on lynx or its habitat, but 

would result in long-term benefits to lynx 

and its habitat; or

4. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight 

thinning5 around individual aspen trees, 

where aspen is in decline; or

 5. For daylight thinning of planted rustresistant white pine where 80 % of the winter 

snowshoe hare habitat50 is retained; or

 6. To restore whitebark pine. 

Yes, Met. Precommercial thinning in this project 

(as defined in the glossary) will not take place in 

snowshoe hare habitat except for conifer removal 

in aspen and daylight thinning around aspen trees 

in the action area where aspen is in decline. 

Approximately 38 acres of this habitat will be 

treated around aspen clones. Refer to Appendix B 

for locations and acres of habitat. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

51 

Standard VEG S6 – Multi-storied stands & 

snowshoe hare horizontal cover 

Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation 

management48 projects, except for fuel treatment13

projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI)49

as defined by HFRA, subject to the following 

limitation:

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not 

meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and 

VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent 

(cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative 

unit (a unit is a National Forest).

For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see 

guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Vegetation management projects 

that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story 

mature or late successional forests29 may occur only:

1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, 

dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, and 

special use permit improvements, including 

infrastructure within permitted ski area 

boundaries; or

2. For research studies38 or genetic tree 

tests evaluating genetically improved 

reforestation stock; or

3. For incidental removal during salvage 

harvest41 (e.g. removal due to location of skid 

trails).

(NOTE: Timber harvest is allowed in areas 

that have potential to improve winter 

snowshoe hare habitat but presently have 

poorly developed understories that lack 

dense horizontal cover [e.g. uneven age 

management systems could be used to

create openings where there is little 

understory so that new forage can grow]).

Yes, Met: This project will not remove 

snowshoe hare habitat in multi-storied mature 

or late sucessional forests. Incidental removal 

may occur during salvage harvest in salvage 

units due to location of skid trails and other 

similar harvest activities. Additionally, 

thisproject as designed will improve winter 

snowshoe hare habitat over time.

Guideline VEG G1 – Lynx habitat improvement

Vegetation management48 projects should be 

planned to recruit a high density of conifers, 

hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce 

or not available. Priority should be given to stemexclusion, closed-canopy structural stage44 stands for 

lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole 

stands).

Winter snowshoe hare habitat50 should be near 

denning habitat6.

Yes, Met. This project would recruit a high density 

of conifers (where site conditions allow) as the 

treatment areas regrow over time. Stem exclusion 

and closed canopy structural stages are targeted

for treatment (Table 10). 

Guideline VEG G4 – Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire34 activities should not create 

permanent travel routes that facilitate snow 

compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on 

ridges or saddles should be avoided.

Yes, Met. The prescribed fire activities in the 

proposed action would not create permanent travel 

routes that facilitate snow compaction or construct 

permanent firebreaks. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

52 

Guideline VEG G5 – Habitat for alternate prey 

species

Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red 

squirrel36, should be provided in each LAU.

Yes, Met. Habitat for red squirrels will be available 

depending on presence of live, mature overstory 

trees. This habitat is not targeted for removal in 

salvage units.

Guideline VEG G11 – Denning habitat 

Denning habitat6 should be distributed in each LAU in 

the form of pockets of large amounts of large woody 

debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles 

of small wind thrown trees (“jack-strawed” piles). If 

denning habitat appears to be lacking in the LAU, 

then projects should be designed to retain some 

coarse woody debris4, piles, or residual trees to 

provide denning habitat6 in the future.

Yes, Met. This project will not disturb large

amounts of large woody debris in the LAUs, and 

denning habitat (large woody debris) is not thought 

to be limiting. Residual trees will be left following 

forest plan standards for snags and woody debris.

HUMAN USE PROJETS (HU)

 The following objectives and guidelines apply to 

human use projects, such as special uses (other than 

grazing), recreation management, roads, highways, 

mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat in 

lynx analysis units (LAU), subject to valid existing 

rights. They do not apply to vegetation management 

projects or grazing projects directly. They do not 

apply to linkage areas.

Guideline HU G7 – Roads, locations

New permanent roads should not be built on ridgetops and saddles, or in areas identified as important 

for lynx habitat connectivity16. 

New permanent roads and trails should be situated 

away from forested stringers. 

Yes, met, new proposed road segments are not

along ridge-tops or saddles and are situated away 

from forested stringers where feasible.

Guideline HU G9 – Roads, new

On new roads built for projects, public motorized use 

should be restricted. Effective closures should be 

provided in road designs. When the project is over, 

these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, 

if not needed for other management objectives.

Yes, Met. All new temporary roads built for this 

project will be closed to the public during use and 

decommissioned after project implementation. 
East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Project Biological Assessment 

53 

Appendix D: Summary of Colorado Lynx Movements in Montana 

(Ivan 2013) 
!.

!.

!.

Project

Area

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦90

¬«1

¬«2

UV274

Dry Cotto nwood Creek

Gira rd Gulch

Orofino Creek

Cottonwood Creek

Baggs Creek

Peteson Creek

Boulder River

Clark Fork River

Browns Gulc h

Racetrack Creek

Warm Springs Creek

Silver B o w Creek Butte

Anaconda

Deer

Lodge

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not 

necessarily for actual on the ground

 implementation. The USFS is in no 

way condoning or endorsing the 

application of this data for any given 

purpose. It is the sole responsibility 

of the user to determine whether or 

not the data is suitable for the intended 

purpose. It is also the obligation of the 

user to apply this data in an appropriate 

and conscientious manner. The USFS 

provides no warranty, nor accepts any 

liability occurring from any incomplete 

or misleading use of this data.

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 5/27/11

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

EDLV FEIS

Vicinity Map

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\FeisDocMaps\FEIS_DocMap_Vicinity_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\FEIS_Docmap_Vicinity.mxd

±

0 2 4 6 1

Miles

1:350,000 Beaverhead-Deerlodge

National Forest

Area of Detail
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

E

k

k

k

k

Fisheries Key Watershed

( Fred )

Restoration Key Watershed

( Girard Gulch )

UV1

UV10

UV11

UV13 UV14

UV17

UV2

UV20

UV27

UV28

UV3

UV33

UV4

UV6

UV9

UV46T

UV10T

UV11T

UV14T

UV15T

UV16T

UV UV18T 19T

UV1T

UV20T

UV21T

UV22T

UV23T

UV24T

UV25T

UV26T

UV28T

UV29T

UV2T

UV30T

UV32T

UV33T UV34T

UV36T

UV37T

UV38T

UV3T

UV40T

UV41T

UV42T

UV45T

UV47T

UV48T UV52T

UV53T

UV56T

UV57T

UV5T

UV61T

UV65T

UV68T

UV6T

UV70T

UV72T

UV73T

UV74T

UV75T

UV76T

UV77T

UV78T

UV80T

UV82T

UV83T

UV84T

UV85T

UV86T

UV3T

UV17T

UV17T

UV24T UV24T

UV24T

UV25T

UV25T

UV15

UV36T

UV85T

UV8

UV7

UV18

Legend

Project Boundary

Forest Plan Key Watersheds

Fisheries

Restoration

Alternative 3 Roads / Trails

 Existing Routes

152.1 Miles - Road, Motorized Use Allowed

 17.4 Miles - Road, Motorized Use NOT Allowed

 7.9 Miles - Trail, Motorized Use Allowed

 16.1 Miles - Trail, Motorized Use NOT Allowed

 Proposed Changes

 11.2 Miles - Temporary Road ( obliterate after use )

 21.7 Miles - Road, Close to Motorized Use

 4.9 Miles - Trail, Close to Motorized Use

! ! ! ! ! ! 1.2 Miles - Add UR Route to Road System

 0.2 Miles - Convert Road to Nonmotorized Trail

 Other Routes

Out of Project Area - Access Routes

Alternative 3 Proposed Treatments

 2,705 Acres - Timber Harvest Unit

 8,768 Acres - Restoration Unit

 104 Acres - Riparian Tree Felling

 84 Acres - Riparian LWD Enhancement

 26 Acres - Log Worm Fencing

k Culvert Retrofit / Replacement

E

Culvert Removal

!H Off-stream Water Developments

STT6 Timber Harvest Unit Number

ST6 Restoration Unit Number

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not 

necessarily for actual on the ground

 implementation. The USFS is in no 

way condoning or endorsing the 

application of this data for any given 

purpose. It is the sole responsibility 

of the user to determine whether or 

not the data is suitable for the intended 

purpose. It is also the obligation of the 

user to apply this data in an appropriate 

and conscientious manner. The USFS 

provides no warranty, nor accepts any 

liability occurring from any incomplete 

or misleading use of this data.

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 4/19/2012

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

±

0 1 2 0.5

Miles

1:82,000

EDLV EIS Biological Assessment

Proposed Action

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\WLBA_DocMaps\WL_BA_DocMap_ProposedAction_11x17.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\FEIS_Docmap_Alternatives.mxd
 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 4/19/2012

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\WLBA_DocMaps\WL_BA_DocMap_GrizZones_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\FEIS_Docmap_Wildlife_GrizZones.mxd

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

Beaverhead-Deerlodge

National Forest

EDLV

Project

Area

Cabinet, Yaak

Recovery Zone

Bozeman

Browning

Deer

Lodge

Dillon

Ennis

Kalispell

Missoula

Plains

Anaconda

Butte

Helena

Seeley

Lake

Lincoln

Yellowstone

Recovery Zone

Northern Continental

Divide Ecosystem

( NCDE )

Recovery Zone

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not 

necessarily for actual on the ground

 implementation. The USFS is in no 

way condoning or endorsing the 

application of this data for any given 

purpose. It is the sole responsibility 

of the user to determine whether or 

not the data is suitable for the intended 

purpose. It is also the obligation of the 

user to apply this data in an appropriate 

and conscientious manner. The USFS 

provides no warranty, nor accepts any 

liability occurring from any incomplete 

or misleading use of this data.

±

0 25 50

Miles

1:2,500,000

Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones

and EDLV Project Area

Legend

Montana State Boundary

Forest Boundary

EDLV Project Area

Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan

(USFWS, 1982 and 1993)
UV1

UV10

UV11

UV13

UV14

UV17

UV2

UV20

UV27

UV28

UV3

UV33

UV4

UV6

UV9

UV46T

UV10T

UV11T

UV15T UV16T

UV UV18T 19T

UV1T

UV20T

UV21T

UV22T

UV23T

UV24T

UV25T

UV26T

UV28T

UV29T

UV2T

UV30T

UV32T

UV33T UV34T

UV36T

UV37T

UV38T

UV3T

UV40T

UV41T

UV42T

UV45T

UV47T UV48T UV52T

UV53T

UV56T

UV57T

UV5T

UV61T

UV65T

UV68T

UV70T

UV72T

UV73T

UV74T

UV75T

UV76T

UV77T

UV78T

UV80T

UV82T

UV83T

UV84T

UV85T

UV86T

UV3T

UV17T

UV17T

UV24T UV24T

UV24T

UV25T

UV25T

UV15

UV36T

UV85T

UV8

UV7

UV18

Legend

EDLV Project Area Boundary

Proposed Action Wildlife Secure Areas, General Season

Grizzly Bear Analysis Area Boundary

Proposed Road / Trail Actions

 Existing Routes

Road, Motorized Use Allowed

Road, Motorized Use NOT Allowed

Trail, Motorized Use Allowed

Trail, Motorized Use NOT Allowed

 Proposed Changes

Temporary Road ( obliterate after use )

Road, Close to Motorized Use

Trail, Close to Motorized Use

! ! ! ! ! ! Add UR Route to Road System

Convert Road to Nonmotorized Trail

 Other Routes

Out of Project Area - Access Routes

Proposed Treatments

Timber Harvest Unit

Restoration Unit

Riparian Tree Felling

Riparian LWD Enhancement

Log Worm Fencing

k Culvert Retrofit / Replacement

E

Culvert Removal

!H Off-stream Water Developments

STT6 Timber Harvest Unit Number

ST6 Restoration Unit Number

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not 

necessarily for actual on the ground

 implementation. The USFS is in no 

way condoning or endorsing the 

application of this data for any given 

purpose. It is the sole responsibility 

of the user to determine whether or 

not the data is suitable for the intended 

purpose. It is also the obligation of the 

user to apply this data in an appropriate 

and conscientious manner. The USFS 

provides no warranty, nor accepts any 

liability occurring from any incomplete 

or misleading use of this data.

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 6/1/2012

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

±

0 1 2 0.5

Miles

1:87,000

EDLV

Wildlife Secure Areas

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\WLBA_DocMaps\WL_BA_DocMap_SecureArea_11x17.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\WL_GrizBA_Docmaps.mxd
LAU 72

LAU 87

LAU 114

LAU 62

LAU 101

Legend

Project Area Boundary

Lynx Analysis Units (LAU's)

Ownership

U.S. Forest Service

National Park Service

State of Montana

County / City

Private

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not 

necessarily for actual on the ground

 implementation. The USFS is in no 

way condoning or endorsing the 

application of this data for any given 

purpose. It is the sole responsibility 

of the user to determine whether or 

not the data is suitable for the intended 

purpose. It is also the obligation of the 

user to apply this data in an appropriate 

and conscientious manner. The USFS 

provides no warranty, nor accepts any 

liability occurring from any incomplete 

or misleading use of this data.

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 6/26/2014

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

±

0 1 2 3 0.5

Miles

1:100,000

EDLV FEIS

Ownership Within

Lynx Analysis Units

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\FeisDocMaps\FEIS_DocMap_WL_Owner_11x17.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\FEIS_Docmap_Wildlife_Lynx.mxd
LAU 72

LAU 87

LAU 114

LAU 62

LAU 101

Legend

Project Area Boundary

Lynx Analysis Units (LAU's)

Snowshoe Hare Habitat Classification of Modeled Lynx Habitat Polygons

Early Stand Initiation

Stand Initiation

Stem Exclusion

Mature; Multi-Storied

Other

Non Habitat

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not 

necessarily for actual on the ground

 implementation. The USFS is in no 

way condoning or endorsing the 

application of this data for any given 

purpose. It is the sole responsibility 

of the user to determine whether or 

not the data is suitable for the intended 

purpose. It is also the obligation of the 

user to apply this data in an appropriate 

and conscientious manner. The USFS 

provides no warranty, nor accepts any 

liability occurring from any incomplete 

or misleading use of this data.

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 6/26/2014

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

±

0 1 2 3 0.5

Miles

1:100,000

EDLV FEIS

Lynx Habitat Classification

Existing Condition

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\FeisDocMaps\FEIS_DocMap_WL_LauHareHabExist_11x17.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\FEIS_Docmap_Wildlife_Lynx.mxd
659

9491-A

UR8-111

78070 78260

UT06N08W21-01

UT05N08W22-01

UT06N08W28-03

78167

UT07N08W14-02

9491-B

UT06N08W03-02

UR8-7

UT07N08W11-01

19737

UR8-78

19730

UT06N08W31-01

UR8-68

UR8-34

78239

5158

78244

5182

8634

9332

UR8-127

19732

UR8-40

UR8-78

1516 19725

9411

5182

UR8-124

UR8-43

78256

UR8-125

674

5182

19733

UR8-99

19741

UR8-11

UR8-66

5174

UR8-45

UR8-115

UR8-50

UR8-3

UR8-29

UR8-6

UR8-132

9491-A

19884

78260

78315

19729

78239

Temp UR8-31

9322

UR8-5

UR8-12

19870

UT05N08W07-02

UR8-112

5182

705

5182

Temp

UR8-81

19731

9361

5175

UR8-63

5165

UR8-39

5182

UR8-90

5171

UR8-28

UR8-130

UT07N07W05-01

9491

UT06N08W27-01

Temp UR8-120

19740

78244

Temp UR8-16

5169

UR8-67

19734

19739

19736

UR8-74

9338

9325

78251

9336

19885

78321

78319

19727

8141

Temp

UR8-66

5182

9316

UR8-76

UR8-83

1516 82

UR88- 5

UR8-51

78316

UR8-2

9336

9335

UR8-100

19742

UR8-126

Temp

UR8-35

608

UT05N08W02-01

9363

UR8-44

9318

UR8-102

19869

5172

78254

19738

78309

85

UR8-1

UR8-9

9321

9356

9330

78258

5164

7 8241

9358

UR8-75

UR8-107

78166

UR8-54

1973

9

5

326

UR8-32

5173

5175

UR8-92

5165

UT05N09W12-01

UR8-61

UR8-77

5007

9314

9331

78167

UR8-49

UR8-52

UR8-33

608

9363

78318

19871

19744

UR8-103

8442

UT05N09W27-01

UR8-131

78252

UR8-134

9344

UR8-108

9355

7

UR8-72 8323

19726

78310

9320

78250

19743

608

5163

78306

19728

78320

UT05N08W18-01

674

JOHNSON RD

78307

5170

5182

608

UT06N08W04-02

UR8-17

78255

1516

1516

8130

UR8-118

8518

9411

9455

UT07N07W05-01 8047

8145

705

78256

78308

1516

BURNT HOLLOW RD

UT05N08W14-01

UR8-24

UR8-25

78070

5158

MOREL RD

19745

5163

78311

UR8-97 78253

9328

UR8-63

78168

1504

78322

COTTONWOOD

RAVINE RD

5164

78265

8046

9455

PERKINS

GULCH RD

8047

82

78317

9411

8503

8130

1518

COTTONWOOD

RAVINE RD

8140

JOHNSON RD

85

8315

8139

REESE ANDERSON CR RD

705

85

5157

1504

78242

8139

EMERY RD

5171

BOULDER RIVER ROAD

Legend

Project Boundary

Modeled Wolverine Denning Habitat Heinemeyer et al., 2001

Persistent Spring Snow Cover - Copeland 2009

 Years out of 7 with Spring Snow Cover

1

2

3

4

5

Roads / Trails

 Existing Routes

148.8 Miles - Open System Road

 26.3 Miles - Open UR Road

 5.5 Miles - Closed (ML1) System Road

 14.2 Miles - Closed UR Road

 7.8 Miles - Motorized System Trail

 5.0 Miles - Motorized UT Trail

 16.1 Miles - Closed ( Nonmotorized ) Trail

 Other Routes

Out of Project Area - Access Routes

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not 

necessarily for actual on the ground

 implementation. The USFS is in no 

way condoning or endorsing the 

application of this data for any given 

purpose. It is the sole responsibility 

of the user to determine whether or 

not the data is suitable for the intended 

purpose. It is also the obligation of the 

user to apply this data in an appropriate 

and conscientious manner. The USFS 

provides no warranty, nor accepts any 

liability occurring from any incomplete 

or misleading use of this data.

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 6/27/2014

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

±

0 1 2 0.5

Miles

1:82,000

EDLV FEIS

Wolverine Habitat

Existing Condition

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\FeisDocMaps\WL_BA_DocMap_ExistingConditionWolverineHab_11x17.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\WL_BA_Docmap_Wolverine.mxd